The Instigator
jonnyh7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,349 times Debate No: 17914
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

jonnyh7

Pro

time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist as we describe it in the world as we know it.. time travel is impossible as time is differently perceived to parties. if i was to turn time back 50 years with a time machine, as i turned the magical device it would and could not change the physical world at all as it is obviously not a force at all but relative . i believe what we measure is merely the waves on the sea caused by an invisible ship .
no i don't read books and you can probably tell. i know absolutely nothing about anything but still have the will to start a debate on such a well informed argument, challenging einstein.. i should probably give up now but cannot keep my fingers shut... this will infuriate some 'clever' (able to regurgitate information) people, yet hopefully tickle an open minded individual into shedding some hard hitting argument to my opinion.. please dont use big words..
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the topic johnny!

My opponent's argument seems to be simply a misrepresentation of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Einstein demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. The faster you are travelling, the slower time is moving for you. However, unless you are travelling close to light speed, the differences in time will be nearly imperceptible. This does not mean that time does not exist, just that time is relative.

It is my opponent's burden to show how movement can instead be used to describe time.

==========
Time travel
==========

The fact that the Arrow of Time is always pointing forwards is still a mystery in physics, since all of the equations work equally well if time also travelled backwards. Perhaps this is explained better by philosophy, since an effect cannot precede its cause. However, just because time travel is not possible does not mean time does not exist.
Debate Round No. 1
jonnyh7

Pro

Very well put sir thank-you. Yet I still have an argument. Imagine if there were no moving things like the sun etc and no us.. what would time apply to?.. when Einstein says time is relative . He is pointing out a contradiction of time. I think we invented the experience as time and this only exists in our minds . We move and so does everything around us.. giving us the impression that everything is linear and needis to be measured. I have a theory that everything is
happening at once yet we are riding physical molecules that move so therefore feel bound by time. Without physical matter and movement I really dont think time exists
bluesteel

Con

Thanks johnny.

==Rebuttal==

R1) Movement

If we were somehow caught in a stasis field and nothing was allowed to move, it would be significantly harder to measure time, since we measure time using the Earth's rotation (24 hours is one rotation) and its orbit around the sun (years). However, it would not be impossible to measure time using radioactivity and half-lives, even if the Sun didn't exist.

R2) We don't exist

This has more to do with ancient philosophy, which posited asked whether objects exist if no one is there to perceive them. However, redshifted light that we can perceive now from the early stages immediately after the Big Bang proves that the Universe did exist prior to our existence, so it is not necessary for us to perceive something for it to exist. Time obviously existed before humans evolved.

R3) "Everything happens at once"

My opponent says, "I have a theory that everything is happening at once yet we are riding physical molecules that move so therefore feel bound by time." My opponent needs to explain how it's possible for a cause and effect to occur at the same time. How are we even alive then? Our lives and deaths should be occurring at the same time.

We could do a simple experiment to test my opponent's theory. Put someone in the vacuum of space, outside the Earth's orbit, and see if that person ages. I think the reason we haven't tried this is that it is so obvious that the person will continue to age.
Debate Round No. 2
jonnyh7

Pro

radioactivity is in motion or a product of none the less.. . . besides it is matter that has been subjected to conditions..
if we did not exist we would not be able to measure time . stasis field or no stasis field.. don't get me wrong. Im not saying something doesn't exist if there isn't anyone there to see it.. thats total nonsense.. i mean time only exists to the living or none living matter that is effected by movement.

re- My opponent needs to explain how it's possible for a cause and effect to occur at the same time. How are we even alive then? Our lives and deaths should be occurring at the same time.

i am sorry. i wrote this in a rush on the way to work.. i meant existing at once in a spiritual world/reality/realm .. not "happening" now in our physical world. yet still being side by side.. one under the illusion of time in a moving material world.

imagine no matter. (no hard stuff)
imagine all the energy's in the universe as one energy without matter of any sort.. one big energy . an energy that is everything all at once.(before earth experience) (nothing to do with our world) just existing .not even planets.. possible yes.? there is no time or measurement as there is no need to create a path of change.. now if we brought matter into the equation we then instantly have movement.. which applies to time in any relative way we look at it. this theory would explain a good few things like ghosts. premonitions. dee ja vu . think about it.. that funny feeling you have done this before.. or when you knew something was about to happen and it did.. gobsmacked by it.. only due to the illusion of time
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the debate johnny.

Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...

============
Spiritual Realm
============


My opponent says: i meant existing at once in a spiritual world/reality/realm .. not "happening" now in our physical world.

However, we're only debating whether time exists in our actual physical world, not some imaginary spiritual realm. The fact that my opponent draws this distinction actually proves that he doesn't believe his own theory is true in the real world.

============
World with no matter
============


My opponent tells you to imagine a world with no matter and only energy. First problem, such a world can't exist. E = mc^2. Energy doesn't exist without mass/matter. Secondly, the problem is, the only way such a world could exist is if the Big Bang never happened. However, the Big Bang created both matter and time. According to Stephen Hawking, "time itself began at the moment of the big bang." [1] Essentially, my opponent is asking you to consider an imaginary world where both matter and time don't exist; however, this world will remain imaginary. My opponent thus fails to prove that it is possible for time to NOT EXIST in real life.

Lastly, remember the resolution says that time is the onlookers perception of movement. You can't have movement without matter. My opponent fails to ever explain how this resolution is true. It is simply a misunderstanding of Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity. Different observers perceive time differently, just like different men perceive the same woman differently. Bluesteel may think Girl A is extremely overweight and unattractive. Bluesteel's friend, Sam, may be very drunk and believe that Girl A is very attractive. Just because our perceptions of Girl A differ does not mean Girl A does not exist. Although the next morning Sam may wish that Girl A had never existed.

Vote Con.

[1] http://www.christianpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by curious18 5 years ago
curious18
jonnyh7bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I couldn't really get into Pro's arguments, Con did a much better job. And he used better sources in the process.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
jonnyh7bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a moving banner. What?
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
jonnyh7bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro began with a difficult burden and did not come close to satisfying it. After having his arguments refuted he tries to completely change the topic of the debate costing him conduct. Pro also had many grammar mistakes such as failure to capitalize and use upper case letters.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
jonnyh7bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had some interesting ideas, but he used speculation rather than facts to back them up. Con refuted pro's points effectively, so he gets argument points. he also used a source and pro did not.