Does "time" really exist?

a reply to: InTheLight
You have to be 'present' to see or hear or smell. And the thing you smell or see or hear has to be 'present' too.
The seer and seen happen at the same time.

Time exists everywhere that requires a serial process.
Using a mathematical example, expressions need to be evaluated in serial fashion for example the algebraic representation (X-1). The parenthesis are used to mmmark an area that has an order of solution.

In reality there are parallel processing techniques that can solve these puzzles while they are in superposition instantly.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: InTheLight
You have to be 'present' to see or hear or smell. And the thing you smell or see or hear has to be 'present' too.
The seer and seen happen at the same time.

So anything observed (or felt, in any way), whether in the past or future, is happening in the present. Is that your message?

a reply to: InTheLight

Where ever you are it is now.
So......... no one has ever experienced another time but now. The mind makes images now of other times.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: InTheLight

Where ever you are it is now.
So......... no one has ever experienced another time but now. The mind makes images now of other times.

Are you saying the spirit can not time travel?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: InTheLight

Where ever you are it is now.
So......... no one has ever experienced another time but now. The mind makes images now of other times.

Are you saying the spirit can not time travel?

There is no time - 'spirit' manifests as what is appearing presently.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: InTheLight

Where ever you are it is now.
So......... no one has ever experienced another time but now. The mind makes images now of other times.

Are you saying the spirit can not time travel?

There is no time - 'spirit' manifests what is appearing presently.

Therein lies the eternal question - time.

we only have regulated time so not everything happens at once

Your God analogy is misleading. A better analogy would be gravity. Time, like gravity, exists as a means to explain certain natural phenomena.

originally posted by: Wang Tang
Your God analogy is misleading. A better analogy would be gravity. Time, like gravity, exists as a means to explain certain natural phenomena.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...it would still be a reality (natural phenomena).

originally posted by: Wang Tang
Your God analogy is misleading. A better analogy would be gravity. Time, like gravity, exists as a means to explain certain natural phenomena.

Actually I would say that is a poor analogy. I didn't catch the God analogy though so I can't comment on that one. I would not compare Time to Gravity at all.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I can't see time. I can't hold time. I have no evidence that time exists other than indirectly from experience. This is not much different than the way people account for evidence for God. People worship time like they worship God. To suggest time does not exist is a blasphemy against their fanaticism.

I can't see gravity. I can't hold gravity. I have no evidence that time exists other than indirectly from experience.

I can't see English. I can't hold English. I have no evidence that English exists other than indirectly from experience.

If we conclude that time does not exist, then we will logically have to conclude that there are a great many other things that also do not exist.

Really, we are not debating time anymore. We are debating on what is the nature of existence.

a reply to: Wang Tang

Logically you can not conclude that.

However, yes you are correct. The real debate is not about the existence of time but about Reality itself.

originally posted by: DeadCat
If you want to define "Exist" as being observed. Then of course it does not "exist".

If you want to define "Exist" as merely being, observed or not. Then yes. It would.

If nothing conscious was alive in the universe EVER. Then time would not exist in any sense of the word "Exist" not physically, or mentally.

But change, as an independent. Would still happen. Objects would still move. Nothing would observe the changes, and therefore no time would be needed.

Time is only a requirement for navigation. Not for existence, or change.

Here is an earlier post that should help in defining existence. This also relates to my point about physical reality and absolute reality. Physical reality is what we have the capability of observing. Absolute reality encompasses all that exists, including those trees that fell in the forest that no one was around to hear.

a reply to: Wang Tang

Are you just replying to everyone or someone in particular?

If it is to anyone, I would personally disagree. Not for reasons that you could find in a book or class though. Trying to discuss time while ignoring the nature of reality is a fruitless task in my opinion. I won't bother restating what has already been said, and I have jumped into the conversation pretty late and appear to be trying to elbow my way in so unless I am asked I will apologize for intruding and go back to watching.

Just figured as the last comment before that I would at least say something first.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Well it was for everyone but mostly for you since you have been the only one replying. I've read through the whole thread and my impression you seem to have a pretty unique view on this discussion. However, most of your posts have been disagreeing with other views, so I'd appreciate if you could expand on your views.

a reply to: Wang Tang

Ok cool. First let me preface by saying that while my perspective is far from the popular opinion there are others in this thread that I believe share it. Having said that if you discount it as ridiculous and me as an bloviating idiot you won't hurt my feelings. I hadn't intended for my comments to be disagreements but rather attempting to join the conversation, and share my perspective. Being the unpopular opinion usually results in it being in disagreement with the popular though.

I do disagree that there is an innate or absolute reality independent of observation. In my experience all of reality is dependent on observation in the sense that if there were no observers, there would be no point to any reality anyway. In other words reality is only created by us for us, and we were only created in order to create as well (short version). I understand that most of that really is cheap philosophical drivel without further explanation of my perspective, but that explanation is far outside the boundaries of being on topic for this thread.

So leading to time, like others have also stated time is only good as a tool of measurement because there is no past or future there is only ever now. If there is only ever now then there is no intrinsic phenomenon to label as anything other than now which therefore doesn't require an existence of time outside of being a tool for measurement.

Time is very hand though, I for instance always wear a watch. Not because I am measuring anything per say but because the people around me would get angry if I didn't pick the kids up from school.

originally posted by: greenreflections

My take om 'time'.

I think 'time' is being mixed up with 'duration'. Yes, days, hours or seconds, are definitions of 'time', but we really talking of duration. There is only 'now' and duration of how long certain condition lasted.

Another point is that time is not pure human construct: my cat can calculate the trajectory of a thrown in the air toy, it can 'anticipate'.

Recall Zeno, where to satisfy his notion, an observer has to be 'stationary' to event flow.

there is some other ways I think of time.
it is a question I ask myself and it is not my 'theory' in any way. In GR speed of light means time comes to stand still, let's say. At the speed of 300K km/sec (photon) we get two infinite values -- time (zero) and energy to move physical object to such speed is infinity. 'Zero' time, as someone pointed out, would mean physical object is everywhere at once. True 'zero' also infinity...'infinite' tends to get to zero, but never has. True zero is an opposite of infinity and does not exist. Both are best 'starting' reference value against which all other measurements are compared.

But here is a thing. Why for a photon, for example, it is 300K km/sec and not infinite speed? Seems logical, to get time to full stop, an object has to move at infinite speed, which is not the case?
Given relation between space and time, I can conclude that space is being delayed, stretched, expanding...New space volume creation (expansion of the universe) delays light arrival from point a to point b. Otherwise there would be no meaningful action. Hypothetically, there is a volume where everything is happening at once, if you can call it 'happening'. It would be an infinitely small volume of space where the distance photon needs to travel tends to become zero. In reality space volume is growing in size preventing photon to 'be everywhere'. That speed of expansion could be anything different from zero and in our case it is 300K km/sec. That's the only condition to satisfy observed cosmis events.

Second point I wanted to make is to clarify 'duration' meaning.
Say, you stand on the river bank. There is a boat approaching. I take my timer watch device and clock the nose of passing by me boat and then I stop the timer when boat's tail crosses my imaginary line of sight. When I finish with my clocking and knowing the speed of the river flux, I can derive boat's length. Conclusion -- time, speed, space describe same event using different logical tools. It does not make 'time' a human concept, but the concept to anyone who is holding 'stop watch'. My cat has built in stop watch and learns to use it to catch prey.
Stop watch timer is someone on the river bank who holds it and does measurements. It is someone 'stationary' to events flow. The only possible 'someone' must be 'life'. Life can be thought as 'stationary' to 'filter' throught cosmos which exists in a state of 'now'.

One of the ideas I have read on forum board elsewhere some time ago, an interesting logical observation was made. Ask yourself a question -- in physics to move physical object, the force has to be applied to it. Now, I can get up and start walking without any external input!!!! I just get up from my chair and start moving and NO force was applied on me!!

cheers)

I will continue my monologue..))

While seeking for definitions of 'time' I have started to think of apparent unity between 'time' and the phenomenon of life.
Here comes the magic 'now'. What 'now' means? 'Now' means to stand still while everything else moving around. Well, that's the way to look at it.

'Now' is a unique place from where the 'motion' can be objectified.

That would literally mean that the world spins around 'life'. To Zeno arrow paradox Aristotle’s solution were two arguments
--- The argument falsely assumes that time is composed of “nows” (i.e., indivisible instants).
--- There is no such thing as motion (or rest) “in the now” (i.e., at an instant).

To the first one my answer would be that 'time' is really a 'duration'. Zeno was right. To the stationary entity, passage of time would seem like a passing of events. Like an image film would pass in front of the light beam projecting an event to the screen.
Bottom line is that Aristotle confused definition of 'nows' with 'duration' in this one.


Second Aristotle argument comes as continuation of the first one to support his stance. Amazingly, he is right here, there is no motion in 'now'. But he still wrong, because 'now' is an opposite of motion. Motion must be sequence of 'nows'. Only then it's an arrow.

'Now' can accumulate on its surface time-matter flow. Ability to accumulate any information about surroundings would trigger further development (evolution) on 'now' to ultimately become life.





cheers) hope nobody reads this rant.

a reply to: greenreflections

'Now' can accumulate on its surface time-matter flow. Ability to accumulate any information about surroundings would trigger further development (evolution) on 'now' to ultimately become life.

Well, I read your so-called rant and I believe that we (and all things) are not nor have ever been stationary at any point in time after the alleged Big Bang. We are in motion hurtling and spinning through the cosmos within forces beyond our imagination, yet not feeling those forces. Could the feeling of the passage of time (via ageing and duration of action) be the result of this space-time flow when we add motion to the already existing motion, thereby affecting space-time?

www.forbes.com...