Does "Time" exist?

[pilferk]

I believe time exists.  The measurement of it may be arbitrary, and man made, but, then again, so are MANY measurements...yet we don't argue that matter exists.

The single best supporting argument that time exists is "The Big Bang" (mentioned earlier in this thread).  The universe is expanding outward, due to the force exerted on it billions of years ago, and, when the energy of that "explosion" has been used, the universe will begin to contract.  Without time, there could be no expansion, or contraction. Everything would be static.

The exertion of force on something results in the generation of energy, and the expulsion of that energy begins and ends.  The period between the begining of the application of force, the begining of the generation of energy, and the point at which all the energy generated has been expulsed, is time.

Now, does time exist outside of the world of matter (and thus, outside the world of force and energy)?  That's an unquatifiable philosophical question, much like "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound".  Since there is no observer to the stated situation, the answer is impossible to find.

[MCT]

The universe is expanding outward, due to the force exerted on it billions of years ago, and, when the energy of that "explosion" has been used, **the universe will begin to contract.**

**It doesnt hurt to use the word "theoretically" in statements like that.......

Besides........the THEORETICAL 'contraction' really has nothing to do so much with the energy from the THEORETICAL Big Bang being "used", as it does with the force of gravity pulling things back together.....THEORETICALLY that is..........

[Prometheus]

then again, so are MANY measurements...yet we don't argue that matter exists.

we know matter exists.... im typing on matter not time

The single best supporting argument that time exists is "The Big Bang" (mentioned earlier in this thread).  The universe is expanding outward, due to the force exerted on it billions of years ago, and, when the energy of that "explosion" has been used, the universe will begin to contract.  Without time, there could be no expansion, or contraction. Everything would be static.

**It doesnt hurt to use the word "theoretically" in statements like that.......

Besides........the THEORETICAL 'contraction' really has nothing to do so much with the energy from the THEORETICAL Big Bang being "used", as it does with the force of gravity pulling things back together.....THEORETICALLY that is..........

OK to pick holes.. MCT covered that it is not fact it is theory, we cannot prove or disprove teh big bang, its just a theory.  The statement that the "when the energy of that "explosion" has been used, the universe will begin to contract." is flawed as if the engery could be used it it would contradict physics, making it seem that engery can be destroyed, as we all know "engery can not be created or destroyed, it can only be treanformed" (Law of consveration of engery). If teh Big Bang was a true and absolute statement, and the universe will expand til such time that gravity from the entire mass of the universe began the "big crunch" another big bang would occur as all teh mass would "crush itself to critical mass adn "boom" it starts all over again. Now you say without time there could be no big bang, I say BS, once critical mass was reached, and the enivitabilty of a contraction has been established this process could go on forever unchanged.

all teh lack of time would do is make events irrivalent, teh fact that we could see a Supernova does not matterand teh only thing that matters is the cycle.

and then due to randimaiztion, as no isntace in teh cycle would teh outcome after teh big bang be exactly the same, then the fact that life occured on earth in this cycle does not meant that life would exist here again in the next... for that matter... the mere existance of life on earth could be deemed a miricale, by relgion, fluke by science, and whatever by the cycle. So at that case it would be fair to assume (knowing that it makes an ass outta you and me) that God must exist....



THEORETICALLY of course

[MCT]

(Law of consveration of engery).

What the fuck is that?!?!?!? ...................EMU.......!!!!!

Conservation or Conversion.....................

Moving on.................

..............anyone smell that?...........smells like someone got burned...........

NO NO NO..........I'm not talking about Prom you idiots......I'm talking about pilferk..............

[pilferk]

The universe is expanding outward, due to the force exerted on it billions of years ago, and, when the energy of that "explosion" has been used, **the universe will begin to contract.**

**It doesnt hurt to use the word "theoretically" in statements like that.......

Besides........the THEORETICAL 'contraction' really has nothing to do so much with the energy from the THEORETICAL Big Bang being "used", as it does with the force of gravity pulling things back together.....THEORETICALLY that is..........

Fine, theoretically, based on demonstrable physics, assuming "The Big Bang" is, in fact, the correct theory about the creation of the universe.  The theory itself is irrelavent...it's the observation of the phenomena that occurs during energy transference/expenditure that is important.  There is a definitive point where energy begins transferrence and ends transferrence to the surrounding environment.

Take a Tuning fork, bang it against your desk (exert force).  It will begin vibrating (transferring energy into the environment around it), and it will end vibrating (once all energy is transferred).  Same situation.  There was a period between those two events.  That's demonstrable time.

[pilferk]

then again, so are MANY measurements...yet we don't argue that matter exists.

we know matter exists.... im typing on matter not time

The single best supporting argument that time exists is "The Big Bang" (mentioned earlier in this thread).  The universe is expanding outward, due to the force exerted on it billions of years ago, and, when the energy of that "explosion" has been used, the universe will begin to contract.  Without time, there could be no expansion, or contraction. Everything would be static.

**It doesnt hurt to use the word "theoretically" in statements like that.......

Besides........the THEORETICAL 'contraction' really has nothing to do so much with the energy from the THEORETICAL Big Bang being "used", as it does with the force of gravity pulling things back together.....THEORETICALLY that is..........

OK to pick holes.. MCT covered that it is not fact it is theory, we cannot prove or disprove teh big bang, its just a theory.  The statement that the "when the energy of that "explosion" has been used, the universe will begin to contract." is flawed as if the engery could be used it it would contradict physics, making it seem that engery can be destroyed, as we all know "engery can not be created or destroyed, it can only be treanformed" (Law of consveration of engery). If teh Big Bang was a true and absolute statement, and the universe will expand til such time that gravity from the entire mass of the universe began the "big crunch" another big bang would occur as all teh mass would "crush itself to critical mass adn "boom" it starts all over again. Now you say without time there could be no big bang, I say BS, once critical mass was reached, and the enivitabilty of a contraction has been established this process could go on forever unchanged.

all teh lack of time would do is make events irrivalent, teh fact that we could see a Supernova does not matterand teh only thing that matters is the cycle.

and then due to randimaiztion, as no isntace in teh cycle would teh outcome after teh big bang be exactly the same, then the fact that life occured on earth in this cycle does not meant that life would exist here again in the next... for that matter... the mere existance of life on earth could be deemed a miricale, by relgion, fluke by science, and whatever by the cycle. So at that case it would be fair to assume (knowing that it makes an ass outta you and me) that God must exist....



THEORETICALLY of course

1) It's the most widely held scientific theory about the creation of the universe.  I didn't think I needed to preface my point with that....since the validity of the theory, itself, is irrelevant.  You can demonstrate the same points using a tuning fork and your desk.

2) "The statement that the "when the energy of that "explosion" has been used, the universe will begin to contract." is flawed as if the engery could be used it it would contradict physics, making it seem that engery can be destroyed, as we all know "engery can not be created or destroyed, it can only be treanformed" (Law of consveration of engery)."

Correct, I have having a "senior moment' when I  used the word "used".  I was hunting for a better word, had it on the tip of my "finger", so to speak, but couldn't come up with it.  The proper word should be "expended"..and yes, then it would be gravity performing the contraction.

3) You misunderstand.  I'm not saying that time is the cause of "The Big Bang" (that would be mass, energy, inertia, etc).  Rather, the Big Bang is a good demonstration of the fact that time exists.  From the begining of the "process", to the end of the "process" demonstrates the existance of time. If "time" didn't exist, there could be no begining, and no ending, to that process...or any process of energy transference/expenditure.

4) I'll completely leave the "god" conclusion alone.

[Dizzy]

Time only exists to mere mortals such as ourselves, who have but a finite lifespan.  Time does not exist to the universe.  It's been here forever, it extends forever, and it shall exist forever, hence, there is no time.  We are but mere specks of dust underneath the boots of the universe, we mean nothing in the big picture.

[Prometheus]

3) You misunderstand.  I'm not saying that time is the cause of "The Big Bang" (that would be mass, energy, inertia, etc).  Rather, the Big Bang is a good demonstration of the fact that time exists.  From the begining of the "process", to the end of the "process" demonstrates the existance of time. If "time" didn't exist, there could be no begining, and no ending, to that process...or any process of energy transference/expenditure.

 but u just confirmed my point, however you came to a different conclusion.  If the cycle goes on....... then there is no "start" or "finish", its just a continuing cycle.. like the "water" cycle you can observe from any point after seeing it once to know the end result....... there fore "if" you can use teh theory to predict the ending of it then you already know what the begining would.."will" be and time is irrlivant.. that being said it would translate to time does not exist if the cycle can be predicted..... so if "big bang" is corect and "big crunch" is correct then time doesnot exist.

in theory of course

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Now, does time exist outside of the world of matter (and thus, outside the world of force and energy)?  That's an unquatifiable philosophical question, much like "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound".  Since there is no observer to the stated situation, the answer is impossible to find.

Sounds good to me.  Our concept of time is just a measure of relative duration between events of the physical world (like the tuning fork).   Without physical events, it is very difficult to formulate some notion of 'time'.  The question of whether one is the cause of the other is also equally difficult to answer.

Your point about the big bang though... I just want to say that it may be a widely accepted theory, but it is still just a theory.  I am pretty sure that in all college courses covering relativity, one of the first things you learn is how the widely accepted theory of the existence of 'ether' was proven to be false!  

The infamous Michelson-Morley experiment showed that there was no ether, thus leading to Lorentz and a dude named Einstein formulating a new theory: there is no absolute reference frame.  The relative time between two events depends on the observer's reference frame.  

Time is such a fluid, slippery concept.  I dont know about you, but that leaves me feeling giddy!

[Prometheus]

iN SHORT JARMO IM GOING TO BLOW UP THE BOARD!!!!!!!!!

IT ATE ANOTHER HUGE POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Miz]

Wow..you all talk a lot of crap.  I mean...you seem to believe your own bullshit about "time is a concept" and "we pass through it so it doesn't exist" and ...seriously...what the fuck are you talking about?

I just wrote this post.  Yesterday, I hadn't written it.  It's really quite simple.

My birth and my first birthday didn't happen at the same point.  They happened at different points.  Some other stuff happened in the middle.  Time went by.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Wow... we seem to have run the gamut in responses to this thread.  On one end we have:

that's exactly right.
time does not exist.

No proof, no supporting argument.  Apparently AxlRocks_MyWorld has the word of God...

And then we've got Miz telling us how crappy everyone is:

you seem to believe your own bullshit about "time is a concept"

Actually, I was making the case for its existence, not against....    All of my posts have attempted to do that from different angles.  

My birth and my first birthday didn't happen at the same point.  They happened at different points.  Some other stuff happened in the middle.  Time went by.

But look at what he did.  He defined time in terms of physical events, in other words, change.  Sound familiar?    Almost everyone here has done that.  It is the most natural definition of time.  

Did you try to quantify how much time went by between your birth and the present day?   That's where it becomes a fluid concept.  If you dont believe in prevailing scientific theories about relativity, then dont worry about it.  

But to one observer you might be 21 years old, to another you might only be 15 years old.  Time is not so cut and dry as you might believe.  

We have tried to prove or disprove its existence using the physical world of matter.  But, as has been said before by myself and others, if you remove all sources of events, does time exist?  

That's where you enter the realm of philosophy which is where I make my exit.  

[MCT]

Don't mind Miz...........back on the 28th he never had his tea and crumpets........ ...........

[privatereserve]

I don't think Axl believes in time.  Go's on late all the time and yet still no album.  

[Miz]

My birth and my first birthday didn't happen at the same point.  They happened at different points.  Some other stuff happened in the middle.  Time went by.

But look at what he did.  He defined time in terms of physical events, in other words, change.  Sound familiar?    Almost everyone here has done that.  It is the most natural definition of time.  

Did you try to quantify how much time went by between your birth and the present day?   That's where it becomes a fluid concept.  If you dont believe in prevailing scientific theories about relativity, then dont worry about it.  

But to one observer you might be 21 years old, to another you might only be 15 years old.  Time is not so cut and dry as you might believe.  

We have tried to prove or disprove its existence using the physical world of matter.  But, as has been said before by myself and others, if you remove all sources of events, does time exist?  

That's where you enter the realm of philosophy which is where I make my exit.  

I didn't say that it appears to everyone and everything the same.  It doesn't.  I said it existed.  Which it does.

[Prometheus]

A person I know was in a motorcycle accident. Was touch in go for 4 weeks, during this time he can remember being awake for about 15 mins from the accident till he pulled through. As far as he was concerned maybe 2 days had gone by. A week at most, yet it was 4 weeks. Without events time has no "mass", without an observer for those events have no "mass", which would mean that time has no mass until there was an observer, therefore without people. There would be no time, as it is a concept of the mind. And the perceptions, by the mind, of time passing can be altered and influenced. Here?s an experiment for you;

Take 3 babies; put them in 3 separate rooms. Room/baby 1 will be called room A; r/b 2 = Room B; and r/b 3 = Room C

Room A is the control baby

Room B will make everything 3 times faster then the control room (sound, sight, feeding, and time passage)

Room C will make things 3 times slower then the control room (sound, sight, feeding, and time passage)


You have the "time" to do the experiment for 30yrs and then record your results.


What would you see? Control would be like us.. same perceptions of time as us, B would have a hard time communicating with us as he would talk faster and do everything based on a shorter time relative to control, though it would still be a 24h day. Subsequently distance measurements would be increased to accommodate the change in the passage of time. And the opposite would be true for Room C.

"We are only a Burdon of our concept of time"

[Miz]

A person I know was in a motorcycle accident. Was touch in go for 4 weeks, during this time he can remember being awake for about 15 mins from the accident till he pulled through. As far as he was concerned maybe 2 days had gone by. A week at most, yet it was 4 weeks. Without events time has no "mass", without an observer for those events have no "mass", which would mean that time has no mass until there was an observer, therefore without people. There would be no time, as it is a concept of the mind. And the perceptions, by the mind, of time passing can be altered and influenced. Here?s an experiment for you;

Take 3 babies; put them in 3 separate rooms. Room/baby 1 will be called room A; r/b 2 = Room B; and r/b 3 = Room C

Room A is the control baby

Room B will make everything 3 times faster then the control room (sound, sight, feeding, and time passage)

Room C will make things 3 times slower then the control room (sound, sight, feeding, and time passage)


You have the "time" to do the experiment for 30yrs and then record your results.


What would you see? Control would be like us.. same perceptions of time as us, B would have a hard time communicating with us as he would talk faster and do everything based on a shorter time relative to control, though it would still be a 24h day. Subsequently distance measurements would be increased to accommodate the change in the passage of time. And the opposite would be true for Room C.

"We are only a Burdon of our concept of time"

Yeah, so each baby would percieve things differently.  But time would still exist.

And for your friend...being unconscious kinda hindered his ability to percieve anything...but time still passed...his wounds healed.

See what you're talking about is how people percieve time...not whether it exists or not, which was you're question.

[Prometheus]

Actualy Miz if you read "everything" you would have noticed that im pretty much on the fence with it, and that i think it was my first post i sad that "Time si a man made concept, which is refering to our understanding and measurement of it." thats the jist of my first post about it .


WEll its not my first post its the 2nd or 3rd but here is an excert

to me it would have to be dynamic, and that linear time is only a human concept to allow us understand existance....and in a little theory of mine.. that would allow for people that have "future" flashes could actualy understanding time for a breif momnet in a dynamic way (can exist everywhere and no where... therefore where you exist is what time actualy is

 that is why preception is such a important aspect to this question, as i said to random;

"this thread is open to what ever way one can articulate their concept of Time.. or the lack there of. "

Time exists, otherwise how would you explain anything?

ill give this one a shot for ya Miz... dont know if you'll follow or not, however i shall try. Take an alien, that lives for ever, has no concept of time as we know it, it simply "is". its mind is so open that it can "exist" at any event in it s past or future all the time. The best explaination of what space and time actually are is given in the Critique of Pure Reason.  Briefly put, space and time are the a priori forms of our intuition.

Intuition, for Kant, is not just a gut feel (e.g. woman's intuition). Rather, it is the way our minds interact with that which is real apart from
us: numenon.  Space and time are a priori in that they come first; they are an inherent part of the human mind.

Numenon is that which exists as itself, apart from us.  To use language from later philosophy, its things-in-themselves.  We do not live in a world of numenon; we live in a world of phenomenon.

Phenomenon is the interface between mind and numenon.  It is defined both by that which exists apart from humans and by the human mind.  For Kant, space and time do not exist apart from us.  One of the great usages of this, at the time, was to better explore causality.  He countered the "uncaused cause" proof of God's existence by defining causality as part of the human mind's ordering.  Apart from our minds, things simply are.  It is us who orders them in space and time, and arranges them with causal links.

What is neat about this worldview, is that it has a better explanation of why we are surprised than does idealism.  After all, if one is an idealist, and phenomenon is simply the shadows of our own mind, then why should we ever be surprised?  But, if phenomenon is also dependant on that which exists apart from human minds, then surprises can be expected.

Indeed, this gives a very good place to stand when trying to understand QM. If electrons don't exist apart from the human mind, then it isn't surprising that their properties don't exist apart from observation.

oh and Random some of this is for u in that "blow up board psot" i made above


BTW there are excerts from another discussion that i had about this with another person this is not all my work

[Miz]

Ok, so you're alien can just pick a point from it's memory and go back there and watch what went by as if it was there?  Is that what you're saying?  Because...people can do that.
This alien must grow from something, and in order to grow time must pass.  It can't just exist...unless you are implying that it predated the big bang, or in fact that the big bang theory is wrong.

I'm not 100% sure what you meant about the alien "existing" at any point, but unless you are suggesting that it can actually alter things that happened then it does nothing to disprove that time exists, it is just a different interpretation of it.

You could however have meant that it's a superior being and can travel through space and time at will...in which case i'm not gonna bother trying to reply because i'm not a quantum physicist and my IQ isn't high enough to get into an in depth discussion about time travel.


The rest of your post didn't seem to have much direction.  It seemed like you're  saying things just appear the way they are, but they're not necessarily like that?
I dunno...

[Prometheus]

ahh Miz you think so 3D, so stuck that only entnies with bodies can be alive. Perhaps this alien is engery based?

As for teh "exist" at any point, that would have to employ that it can not alter jsut simply exist.


as for everythign else im bored.. some school our IQ challenged friend for me