It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Challenge: Prove Time Exist

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:51 PM
I'd like to challange people to prove time exist.

Time, may be an illusion that only exist in the human brain. I'd only ask that arguments for or against the existence of time have some sort of evidence or logic behind them and not just "because i sense it" arguments.

If any arguments include time based statements, i asked that they be explained as well. Words like "before" and "now" have no meaning outside of the illusion of time.

Looking forward to people's responces.

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:05 PM
time is a very diffuse concept, but it's real enough that it still governs our lives.

things age, causality traipses around making events occur in sequence, and we sit there in mind-numbing boredom waiting for the clock to move. 'time' is just a system of reckoning by which we can make meaningful objective measurements of these things.

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:54 PM
This is an interesting challenge. In physics it is assumed that in order for an oject to exist at any point in space it must exist at the same point in time. And Minkowski's theory of four dimensional space proves that, and is essential to things like the theory of relativity. Minkowski's theory says that an object can be located at certain physical coordinates described as x, y, z. The object also exists in a fourth dimension, the time factor or t. So his theory makes the four dimensional coordinates of an object x1,y1,z1,t1.

Beyond quoting scientific works or theories of famous physics professors I'm not sure time can be truly "argued". An argument can be made that human measurements are fictional and is perfectly logical. However one would have to be convinced that such a dimension as time does exist, it would have to in order for the universe to exist. Einstein proved that beyond the speed of light time ceases to exist and so far as has been discovered nothing in the universe travels faster than light. So the only thing I can say is it makes sense to me that because I exist at any point in space I must exist at a corresponding point in time.

My point is that the human measurement of time may very well be flawed, but the existance of such a thing as time is certain.

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:02 PM
Time is only something that we use to classify the duration of events, but its existence is something that we cant exactlly say.

How do we know there is a past and future, and perhaps only a present?

Is time a dimension?

I cannot prove anything to you about the subject except that my post will be earlier than your reply.

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:11 PM

Originally posted by looking4truth
This is an interesting challenge. In physics it is assumed that in order for an oject to exist at any point in space it must exist at the same point in time. And Minkowski's theory of four dimensional space proves that, and is essential to things like the theory of relativity. Minkowski's theory says that an object can be located at certain physical coordinates described as x, y, z. The object also exists in a fourth dimension, the time factor or t. So his theory makes the four dimensional coordinates of an object x1,y1,z1,t1.

Beyond quoting scientific works or theories of famous physics professors I'm not sure time can be truly "argued". An argument can be made that human measurements are fictional and is perfectly logical. However one would have to be convinced that such a dimension as time does exist, it would have to in order for the universe to exist. Einstein proved that beyond the speed of light time ceases to exist and so far as has been discovered nothing in the universe travels faster than light. So the only thing I can say is it makes sense to me that because I exist at any point in space I must exist at a corresponding point in time.

My point is that the human measurement of time may very well be flawed, but the existance of such a thing as time is certain.

The 4 coordinate system makes one big assuption. You have records of the same object being at physical coordinates x1, y1, and z1. However, that object is at x2, y2, z2 when you measure it. Its current state is its current state, its "past state" relies on the fact that you believe in time. Circular argument/proof.

The object is NOT at x1, y1, z1.... and you only think it was based on the current state of your "past" data. You remember that "past" event, but that past event IS NOT THERE to be tested or measured. Every action you took in to come up with this evidence is completely unverrifiable.

You say the existance of time is certain. Yet, you offer no proof of past states in comparison to now.... only unverifiable data.

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:15 PM
Your challenge is fundamentally flawed. Time is a construct of science that was created to measure the temporal spacing between events. An hour is only an hour because we say it is.

As for "proving" that time exists, you're stretching if you think that the answer is any more complicated than noting that not all events in history occured simultaneously. Since they did not and events are spaced out so as not to all occur simultaneously, we can safely assume that there is something in this universe that we call "time".... which is merely what we have defined to be the spacing of events from our perceived reality.

Different people, races, species, etc. may have different perceptions of time, but since our plane of existence you can wait between events means that time must exist.

Also, try going down to the department of motor vehicles on the last day of the month sometime and getting your registration renewed. If you want to come back after that and pose this question again, feel free. I'm guessin you won't.

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:19 PM
If time didn't exsist then how could we tell time?

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:44 PM
I am not going to argue that “time” exists in a physical sense. To the contrary, I think it’s a convenient tool invented by Humans to sequence, or place an order to, events as they occur. It’s a concept (a “cheat”, if you will …) that provides a foundation for much of the physics we’ve invented to try and model Nature. In a deeper sense, though, I’m not at all convinced that it truly exists in reality as a physical entity or dimension.

A young man named Peter Lynds has recently done some work on the nature of time that has thrown many long-held beliefs in the world of physics out the window. It’s causing many of the world’s top physicists to step back and rethink things. His basic premise is that there is no such thing as an “instant in time” or a “determined relative position” of an object in motion. He even throws Stephen Hawking’s ideas about “Imaginary Time” in the trash can. The thing is, Peter Lynds is not a nut or a kook. He’s actually managed to impress many of the world’s leading theoretical physicists, and is considered by some as a possible predecessor to the thrown of Albert Einstein. His ideas might necessitate a major rewrite of many well established branches of physics.

Here’s a link to an article about Peter Lynds, some of his concepts and his solutions to a few long held paradoxes in the world of physics and philosophy. It may soon be time for a paradigm shift.

I hope the article provides some food for thought. It’s a deep subject …

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Quest
The 4 coordinate system makes one big assuption. You have records of the same object being at physical coordinates x1, y1, and z1. However, that object is at x2, y2, z2 when you measure it. Its current state is its current state, its "past state" relies on the fact that you believe in time. Circular argument/proof.

The object is NOT at x1, y1, z1.... and you only think it was based on the current state of your "past" data. You remember that "past" event, but that past event IS NOT THERE to be tested or measured. Every action you took in to come up with this evidence is completely unverrifiable.

You say the existance of time is certain. Yet, you offer no proof of past states in comparison to now.... only unverifiable data.

I think you are creating a false argument just for the fun of it. You say there is no "proof" of something we call time and further state that it can't be verified. There are loads of scientific works going back a long, long, long way to establish the presense of a force or dimension we lable "time" yet you claim I cannot provide evidence.

Well Mr. smarty-pants.........YOU provide scientific data to back up your argument against it!!!!!! I have no problem providing links to great works by noble prize winners, what do you offer as evidence to counter those famous minds?

I think that if you step back and look at this as an outside observer you would realize that as the Theory of Relativity tells us, space/time are one and can be measured thus they exist, even if it is outside our frame of reference as humans. As I said before the best that can be argued is that "the measurement of time can be flawed by man, but time still exists".

Centrist hit it right on, your arguement that time does not exist is flawed because not all events happen simultaneously. But like I said if you believe all the science that tells us of the existance of time is wrong, well then back it up.

some links on relativity and space/time
www.bartleby.com...
www.thebigview.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 04:22 PM
Give me a minute to prove this.

QED

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 04:37 PM

Is Time Real Or Invented
Denying The Existance of Time

In the beginning there was darkness… and there was no time. Time becomes immaterial in empty space, and demonstrates clearly that without objects-in-motion - mass and energy - there is nothing to measure the relative passing of time. So how God knew what day it was in the beginning is anyone’s guess. But we digress. Time is relative to mass and energy, there is no ideal universal clock. As a concept, time cannot precede mass and energy, simply because the idea of time is reliant on the relative motions of celestial bodies. As Lynds says: “if there is no mass-energy, there is no space-time;” both are fixed and enmeshed. Because of this, time also has no direction or flow, as we conceive it subjectively; “it is the relative order of events that is important.” This is what led Lynds to claim that there is “no precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process.”

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:43 AM

Originally posted by junglejake
Give me a minute to prove this.

QED

...I don't think anyone got this...

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:57 AM
Since time is reality , the answer is obvious. You must deduce reality, using the accepted methods of Science (physics, philosophy, metaphysics), such that other scientists will agree with you by necessity. (It is not our opinion but a fact of Science.)

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:34 AM
...as "Time" doesn't really exist at all. It is merely a relative measure of how physical matter in our dimension interacts within a continuum. Example... Earth "Time" is based on a mathematical formula that is broken down by years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds etcetera. This overall formula is derived from the Earth's interaction within the soloar system continuum. EG... number of days to revolve around the sun, number of hours for the Earth to complete a revolution etc... As a result, "Time" has no absolute except for within the confines of Earth and this dimension. A greater concept and construct of "Time" could be created if we had a more universal relative measure. Example: Many scientists are able to tell how old something is based on carbon dating. This is a scientific method that measures the decay rate of molecular structure which we know to be a constant. The problem with this construct is that we interpret the results relative to our own construct of time. Get it? We could us this known decay rate to create a more universal construct of time however, it would likely not sync with our environment and could perhaps become useless on the confines of Earth. It is for this reason that time is simply a relative concept and not an absolute.

On another note, the same could be said of most of our measurement systems from temperature to distance to mass to volume. These are also all relative and have no universal bearing other than being relative to the human condition.

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:39 AM
There are only two man-defined views: philosophical and scientific

Seems that some are coming at this from a philosophical standpoint, which is that time is only experiential [without consciousness time cannot exist or experience of or based upon existence].

Others are coming at it as time being a measurement of movement or lack thereof: movement and space, be time a byproduct of movement or movement a byproduct time. We define time as we know and apply it. Comprende'?

Our understanding of Time is still in its infancy. Time is relative, as is space. It either exists or it does not. In any case, if time exists, time travel is plausible. If time does not exist, then time travel is fantasy.

Time as we know and define it. Time may have existed long before we were in existence. Proof? All around you according to the material world, yet relative to the universe. The argument of whether time exists or not is simply semantics.

Denying The Existence Of Time
Spacetime
Time Experimentations

seekerof

[edit on 21-6-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:11 PM

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by junglejake
Give me a minute to prove this.

QED

...I don't think anyone got this...

Don't feelt that your efforts were wasted the moment I saw that I was laughing.
Time is just like numbers. Prove to me the number 3 exists..you can't cause really it doesn't its just we all agree that it equals what we consider to be 3. No way to answer this...unless you go into physics and what not but I think that this debate wouln't work philosophically speaking.

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:17 PM
Here's my view on it, for what it's worth. Time is absolutely being-made (in this case, man-made) and is for nothing but a measure of change. If we could freeze all change (movement, decay, energy transfer, etc.) there would be absolutely no way to detect time. Therefore, time is a measure of change.

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:19 PM
posted on 20-6-2005 at 06:51 AM

The last post...
posted on 21-6-2005 at 06:17 AM

Apparently, time isn't only in the human brain, but the server at ATS seems to have caught on to the idea as well...

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:21 PM

time is a measure of change.

I like that way of putting it. With time, like energy, you can, for the most part, set your origin wherever you like it and go forward or back (or positive or negative). If you're not detecting any change, it's that old argument of schrödinger's cat or the tree in the forest.

However, time does exist. We may be confused about it, but it exists. Events happen, things progress, just like things have a length and a width. Time is another dimension - it's no different from our regular three. It just behaves a little more sublime.

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
posted on 20-6-2005 at 06:51 AM

The last post...
posted on 21-6-2005 at 06:17 AM

Apparently, time isn't only in the human brain, but the server at ATS seems to have caught on to the idea as well...

I always knew that ATS had some form of AI
That explains soo much...how can it tell that I live on the West Coast and I have a gmail account!!! Wait....didn't I type that it....as well as the time that was man made was put on to ATS?

[Edit: I'm just that cool]

[edit on 21-6-2005 by The_Final]

new topics

top topics

0