All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points

# Time is but a measurement

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3

Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who used the most reliable sources?
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 4/7/2009 Category: Science Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period Viewed: 5,830 times Debate No: 7730
Debate Rounds (4)

 Con There really should be a philosophy category, but there isn't and so science fits this best. Many people say that time is just a measurement. In other words, time is simply minutes, seconds, hours, years, etc. This is not true. In order to prove my point, I will take examples of confirmed measurements and confirmed non-measurements, and compare them to time. I don't want to go too far into it before it is even confirmed, so I await a response, and I will address that, and get into the actual debate!Report this Argument Pro Blast it! Wrong window >.at the same time<. Now, since the distance the beam travels is the same from both of our perspectives, yet the speed is different (and time of arrival) this means that time is relative. (Being good at math, you surely understand the speed/time/distance relationship, yes?) Again, how can a thing pass through a given dimension to different degrees depending on perspective? While there may be dimension through which we travel, 'time' as we understand it is not the dimension, but a subjective measurement of either change in the physical state of universe or (it can also be thought of) of the as-yet unnamed 'dimension' it could be imagined to travel through. (Of course, said 'dimension' still leaves us w/ the same problem- how it is that a thing can travel through it at different rates, subjective to the observer- so we merely push the problem back and do not resolve it. While it shows the concept of 'time' as we know it to be a measurement of change, and not a dimension, we are still left with a new dimension, in theory, that we are yet unable to explain or understand at this time) Con:: 'Time was there before we named it.' There were differences between orange and blue before we named them, as well. Similarly, there were decay and growth. Still, these terms are merely descriptions of differences and changes in the state of the physical universe, respectively. Thus, it is seen that 'time' and 'growth' are the same- measurements of change. Con:: I think the central point of this argument comes down to whether changes in matter dictate time, or whether time dictates changes in matter Neither dictates the other. One ('time') simply measures changes in the other to provide a reference for comparison. Con:: Because there are so many things that change the way that they do, it only makes sense that time has always been there to tell it when to, so to speak, just as distance and weight have always been there. Inches have not always been there. Seconds have not always been there. Time has. 'Time' does not dictate change any more than 'width' dictates the state of matter or the realms or dimensions into which it extends. Both merely describe the material universe. 'Width' is merely a description of a dimension- it does not determine itself. Again, the difference is that 'width', 'height', and 'depth' are all objective, as we understand dimensions to be. 'Time' is subjective. Only descriptions and measurements can be subjective, for a true dimension- and the extent to or manner in which mater travels through it- must be objective by nature. Con:: But, I don't think that any of the big words or fancy physics are really necessary for me to prove my point. Unfortunately, the nature of the subject makes words, sciences, and mathematics to discuss in any meaningful way. Without such things, one cannot address the question you have raised. Even to examine the question on a philosophical level, one must have at least some understanding of what science has revealed regarding our understanding and concept of 'time'. On cannot discuss 'time' without referring to relativity any more than one can address art without reference to shape or the physical dimensions.Report this Argument
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fisher 8 years ago
I can't even argue about a dimension not being a measurement. All it is is a measurement. In mathematics all you do is pick one point and add another and another and another to create more dimensions. Right? I'm not a mathematician, Nor claim to be right. That's how I have always understood it tho. Please correct me if I am wrong, I came on this site because its interesting, and to learn not to debate. All definitions I find back me up. Or I am understanding it wrong I guess.
Posted by fisher 8 years ago
"According to Einstein, time is a dimension." You said it yourself. Time is not a constant, it can be measured. Thus its measurable, Thus its a measurement.
Posted by abard124 8 years ago
Eh...
the comment section lost me a long time ago...
It seems that they all know more about physics than I do...
Oh well...
Posted by JBeukema 8 years ago
So much for not being ale to measure a measurement, eh, abard? :D
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Dimensions are orthogonal properties of physical existence. String theory postulates about 11 dimensions, last I heard. We can only experience four directly: L, W, H and time. The other dimensions, if they exist, can only be known by what they imply in terms of observable events.

The dimensions of an on object are L, W, H. Those are measurements of three orthogonal properties. That's a different meaning than reference to the orthogonal properties themselves. The higher dimensions postulated by String Theory are described by weird analogies to our physical world, like a dimension corresponding to a small coil wound around a thread. I don't understand it, I'm just repeating what's said.
Posted by JBeukema 8 years ago
length, width, and thickness are dimensions
Posted by fisher 8 years ago
they're both measurements. one measures length, width and thickness, the other measures space, time, and matter.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
fisher, That's two different meanings of the word "dimension."
Posted by fisher 8 years ago
dimensions are a measurement. your arguing if time is a measurement or a dimension but a dimension is a measurement. makes no sense.
Posted by abard124 8 years ago
Ooh...
I love ties...
means we both argued really well...