The Instigator
SM2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
skipsaweirdo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Time exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 574 times Debate No: 82801
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

SM2

Pro

Introduction:

This debate is about whether Time exists. The definition of Time is as follows:

Time
"a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them."
- Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The burden of proof for this debate is shared.

Minor grammatical errors are tolerable, but "sloppy" spelling/grammar is not. Debaters have a responsibility to ensure that their arguments are legible. If their argument is mostly or completely illegible, then they forfeit that round due to lack of effort.

All accusations of fallacy must be elaborated on, with the accuser providing a clear and detailed explanation of how their opponent's argument is fallacious. Failure to elaborate will be considered a case of misconduct.

Con will not respond to Round 1 with "I accept" and nothing else. Con will instead launch straight into his/her argument.

Con agrees to the above terms upon accepting the debate challenge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opening argument is:

Premise 1: We observe that the present is different from the past; things have change from the past to the present.

Premise 2: The concept of "change" makes no sense without Time.

Premise 3: When testing Relativity, we observe that the tested clocks differ according to Relativity's predictions regarding Time, and that the clocks are not faulty.

Conclusion: Time exists.

I also make the assertion that, in accordance with General Relativity, Time is a 4th dimension, and is no different than Height, Width, or Length.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is now Con's turn to argue.
skipsaweirdo

Con

Premise 1 is self evident.
Premise 2: The concept of "change" makes no sense without Time

Premise 2 rebuttals
I age as a natural process therefore the fact that I change would occur even if time didn't exist. It's a biological aspect of reality. Therefore change doesn't need to be conceptualized using time. It can actually be applied to observing something. Time is in no way needed to see me aging.
The Earth rotates and therefore we have night and day. Time doesn't need to exist for the Earth to rotate and change from day to night. We can observe the change from day to night because time doesn't define day or night, light and darkness do. Day and night are not dependent on time existing, only light and darkness.
I could go on with thousands of examples of things changing that can be observed even if the word or concept of time were never injected into humanity. But the fact is clear that Premise 2 is a non sequitur. I have just made sense of change without time. Therefore, We do not make sense of change because of time, we make sense of it by actually seeing things change.

Premise 3: When testing Relativity, we observe that the tested clocks differ according to Relativity's predictions regarding Time, and that the clocks are not faulty.

Premise 3....rebuttals
"clocks are not faulty" implies humans can make perfect clocks, they cannot. Relativity was in regards to time, not clocks, please provide scientific proof that a mechanical device made by humans, clocks, are directly affected by time and vice versa.
Name one clock whose movement is caused by time. My clocks move because of electric current and springs that are wound up. There are also clocks whose movements are caused by counter weights, as in a grandfather clock. Until you show me physical evidence that time is connected to clocks directly and are dependent upon each other, saying that clocks were affected therefore time was is a non sequitur.. Clocks were affected, not time....jumping to time is a leap of faith at best and completely illogical at worst.
You have no concrete evidence that proves time can be observed, has an affect on anything, can be grasped, or even testable.
Words such as year (one revolution of the Earth around the sun), day (1 revolution of the Earth on its axis) are ways we define events. Events are measured in regards to the movement of the Earth, not the movement of time.
Seconds, minutes, hours are all determined by agreed upon increments that are represented mechanically in the design of clocks. One hour is a way of defining that mechanically designed movement, not time.

I also make the assertion that, in accordance with General Relativity, Time is a 4th dimension, and is no different than Height, Width, or Length.

"IS NO DIFFERENT"...
Width, height, and length are all observable and can be seen by merely pointing them out to other people.
"See the HEIGHT of that building?"..... of course you do if you're not blind.
"See the WIDTH of the street" ....of course you do if you aren't blind.
"See the TIME that the building exists in?", no, but I can look at a clock if you want.
I cannot point out to you the time that the building exists in because it would be 24 different "time" answers depending on what time zone the person you are talking to is currently in.
I'm in Texas, I'm talking to a friend in the Philippines, the time that we are both talking about the building is different to both of us. However, the height of the building is the same to my friend in the Philippines as it is to me. I would have to send them a picture to see the building of course , but I could at least take a picture of its height and the answer would only be 1 value not numerous values or even close to 24 different values as it would be if answering what time. Can you take a picture of time?. Calling time a dimension and saying it's no different than height, width, and length isn't even close to being accurate.

My premise...you haven't defined anything remotely accurate to the claim. Premise 2 and 3 are nonsensical, inaccurate, and ambiguous. I will not engage in any more rebuttals. You haven't even represented an argument, you've merely set up a train of thoughts and definitions that are demonstrably false.
Debate Round No. 1
SM2

Pro

Let us revisit the definition of "Time", since Con seems to not understand it:

Time
"a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them."
- Wikipedia

Premise 2:

Since Time is the measuring and ordering of events, I don't see how we could have separate events without some concept of Time with which to sort them. It's simply nonsensical, and Con has not shown how we are to talk about the past, present, and future without referring to Time.

Premise 3:

"clocks are not faulty [sic]" means that the clocks are working as they're supposed to, and are not malfunctioning due to damage, magnetic interference, or incorrect assembly. It does NOT mean they are absolutely perfect at recording time. They don't have to be perfect, they just have to be good enough for the job.

A clock, by definition, records time.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

If clocks don't measure time, then they are useless. We have many examples of functioning clocks that record time. Since the burden of proof for this debate is shared, Con needs to provide an example of a working clock that does NOT measure time. If he cannot do that, then he has no evidence for his claim that clocks don't keep time.

Assertion:

Con is confusing Time with Time Zones. "Time of day" is the time since midnight; since midnight occurs at different times depending on where you are in the world, the time of day in each time zone is different. However, if you and your friend measured the time since Texan midnight, you would make the same measurement, since you're using the method of keeping track (time), and neither of you is experiencing any significant relativistic effects.

Con's premise:

"My premise...you haven't defined anything remotely accurate to the claim."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I defined Time in Round 1. By accepting the debate challenge, you accepted that definition of "Time", so that is the definition we are debating (and no other).

"I will not engage in any more rebuttals."

Is that a forfeit?

"Premise 2 and 3 are nonsensical, inaccurate, and ambiguous... You haven't even represented an argument, you've merely set up a train of thoughts and definitions that are demonstrably false."

This is not a premise. Con has not put forth an argument for why Time doesn't exist. Con has burden of proof too, and has so far failed to meet it.
skipsaweirdo

Con

Pro is a perfect example of a disingenuous debater. At no time did I ever say a concept of time doesn't exist. He's merely redefining his debate in public because his reasoning was defeated as fallacious in another forum.. However, since he had to change his argument to fit his own opinion so as to seem as if the debate in the other forum was something it wasn't, I will continue a rebuttal.

He says...If clocks don't measure time, then they are useless. We have many examples of functioning clocks that record time. Since the burden of proof for this debate is shared, Con needs to provide an example of a working clock that does NOT measure time. If he cannot do that, then he has no evidence for his claim that clocks don't keep time.

I currently have a clock on my wall with a low battery, it isn't keeping time accurately, althought it is working. There, a clock that is working that isn't keeping time, anything else?. And the "quote" functioning clock is ambiguous , as my clock with a low battery is still functioning.

"If clocks don't measure time they are useless"
So I assume you are claiming that before clocks were invented then sundials , that also "measured" time, (whatever measure is suppose to mean), which are not clocks are useless in determining time. Therefore by your reasoning there was nothing to keep time because a sundial isn't a clock. Sundials had shadows that moved in a circle. The movement of those shadows were eventually expressed with hands on a clock. After all , that's why the hands on a clock move in a circle. Increments were added to define the position of the shadow at any given moment. According to pro, if all the clocks on planet Earth ceased to function properly then the original shadows that were tracked would no longer be a viable way of measuring time. His assertion, if clocks don't measure time then they are useless is preposterous. Clocks aren't necessary to "measure" time. Time was "measured" long before clocks were ever invented.

Pro has also refused to offer any physical evidence whatsoever that clocks are connected to anything other than electricity or springs or gears or weights. The claim that clocks "keep time" is not proven and a fallacy of ambiguity. Exactly how does something "keep time"? Where does it keep it? How can I find time in a clock to see if my clock is keeping it somewhere? And please provide evidence once again that because human beings built mechanical devices that those devices prove there is such a thing as time and these devices "keep track of it"..

The beginning definition of time is known as a fallacy of ambiguity as it doesn't address the conundrum when words like past and future are used in such a vague manner. It is a proven fact that applying "time" to these words create known contradictions.
Example....
It is currently 1pm. In Texas, Nov. 24, 2015 on a Monday. By definition 1am Nov. 25, 2015 Sunday is in the future from Monday. At the exact same moment it is 1am Nov 25, 2015 Tuesday in the Philippines. If i Cali my friend in the Pines and talk to her, by the definition pro presented for time, I would be talking to someone in the future. This is preposterous. Hence the opening definition of time is ambiguous in regards to what constitutes past and future when time is applied to it.
The contention that there is such a thing as confusing time with time zones is another example of an equivocation fallacy. Pro is now trying to change the fact that the clocks in the Philippines and the clocks in Texas aren't "keeping time to give order to events ". They are merely showing a "time" in a time zone. First time is defined as measuring events. Now using dates which are used to define when events occur, as my example above shows, no longer applies and creates a contradiction.

"Clock as working as they are suppose to"... he is referring to time dilation experiments and is simply attempting to claim knowledge of something that hasn't been proven. As stated, prove clocks are connected to time. Show me the physical evidence that a mechanical device determines the movement of time. Show evidence not assertions. In 1971 these experiments showed effects on clocks, not time. It is a known fact that humans cannot build 2 perfect examples of the same device. It is a known fact that numerous places on Earth affect instruments. But this is all pointless as pro has not given one scintilla of evidence that mechanical devices are connected and represent anything that is remotely existent, I.e. time. He merely makes an assertion that "clocks are useless if they don't keep time". Time as a concept exists, but that doesn't mean that clocks are connected to anything other than something that exists in the mind. I.e. it isn't existential.

Pro has no consistent idea of time to present. Pro has no proof that clocks are connected to "keep track" of anything existent. The title says time exists. Then he defines time in an ambiguous way which isn't conducive to logical discourse. Time is merely a mental construct and by definition cannot be changed or slowed down or sped up regardless of what is done. Clocks can be affected by velocity, as other things can also, it doesn't mean relativity proved anything about time. It proved something about clocks.
Debate Round No. 2
SM2

Pro

Paragraph 1:
Con accuses me of fallacy without elaboration, which is a case of misconduct under the rules of this debate (the rules outlined in Round 1, which Con agreed to follow upon accepting the debate). Since the forums are separate from this debate, and cannot be considered part of it, Con's accusation of fallacy cannot be part of it either. Con should consider himself lucky, as he's avoided misconduct on a technicality.

Paragraph 2:
Insufficient power would affect the mechanism of the clock. Thus, a clock with a defective battery cannot be considered fully functional. This should be blatantly obvious.

Paragraph 3:
I never said that clocks were the only method of keeping time, nor that the malfunction of all clocks would affect sundials. Con's argument is thus a strawman fallacy (and I've just explained why).

Paragraph 4:
Con seems to be operating under the impression that Time is a physical entity stored in the clock. I don't know how Con jumped to this conclusion, since it's incompatible with the definition of Time provided in Round 1 (which Con agreed to use upon accepting the debate challenge). The phrase "keeping time" is a figure of speech and is widely understood, so I don't need to explain it (it is Con's responsibility to ensure that he understands English).

Paragraph 5:
If Con had an issue with the definition of Time I provided, he should have queried it before accepting the debate. Since he accepted the debate, and therefore accepted the definition, it is too late to challenge the definition. The problem of Time Zones has already been addressed. The points that Con raises now have been asked and answered.

Paragraph 6:
Con demands that I prove the connection between Time and change (specifically, the change measured by clocks). Since Time is the order and duration of events, and we can observe that events have order and duration, we therefore observe Time. This should be self-evident. I remind Con that the burden of proof must be met by both parties, and that he has yet to disprove a connection between Time and the order/duration of events.

Paragraph 7:
Again, Con needed to query the definition of Time prior to accepting the debate. Con may also be confusing velocity with acceleration: all objects experience inertial resistance when they speed up or slow down, but objects that are stationary or moving at a steady rate do not. In fact, Relativity is based upon the observation that moving objects and stationary objects behave exactly the same, provided they are not speeding up or slowing down. If the difference recorded by clocks was due to anything besides the contraction of time within a steadily moving frame of reference, then that would mean that velocity has an impact upon the mechanism of the clock. This would make Relativity unfounded, since it would be built on an incorrect assumption. Since, to the best of our knowledge, Relativity is indeed correct, we can make the inductive argument that its initial assumption is correct, that clocks are slowed by time contraction, and that Time therefore exists. Con has to prove that this assumption CANNOT be correct, or else that a simpler explanation (that doesn't involve Time) accounts for ALL the observations predicted by Relativity. I doubt that Con has the means to do this.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject. Con has one last chance to prove his case and disprove mine, and then we commence with voting. Thank you to everybody who's followed this debate.
skipsaweirdo

Con

Pro titles debate....Time Exists
Pro then uses definition that doesn't address whether the idea of time is existential.
Pro then claims because mechanical clocks exist, then time does.
Pro then claims that time zones are being confused with time. So, remove all knowledge of time zones from the minds of humans. Now answer this question...What time is it?
The definition he uses claims that time is used to order events. Events are defined by the date they occur on. If something happens on July 4th then it is documented on that date. But by definition it also occurred on July 5th in another part of the world. That doesn't constitute a way of documenting "ordered events", it merely is a vague idea of when the event happened.. And technically, it having 2 different days that are applicable, the ordering of events is meaningless in regards to specific times. The use of past and future within pros posted definition of time is an ambiguity fallacy as the past and future, when time is applied to them, become chaotic ideas of when something should be documented as happening. Pro has offered no evidence that Time Exists as the title "claims" is his assertion. He contradicts the assertion within the first definition. Bait and switch, very typical of deception and an inability to actually have a consistent idea of time,
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.