Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Does Time Exist?

 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 12:21:44 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...As a measurement of the relation of change, I would say yes. As an independent entity in its own right, I don't know how we'd prove it.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 12:30:23 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 12:21:44 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...As a measurement of the relation of change, I would say yes. As an independent entity in its own right, I don't know how we'd prove it.Time is required for change. After all, if we are working with exactly 0 seconds then there would be 0 time for anything to happen and thus no change will occur.. So, if you believe in change, then you seem to believe in "time" in the context I mean.
 Posts: 597 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 12:47:34 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 12:30:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 6/28/2015 12:21:44 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...As a measurement of the relation of change, I would say yes. As an independent entity in its own right, I don't know how we'd prove it.Time is required for change. After all, if we are working with exactly 0 seconds then there would be 0 time for anything to happen and thus no change will occur.. So, if you believe in change, then you seem to believe in "time" in the context I mean.There is one component necessary for time to exist... perceptionEveryone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
 Posts: 6,925 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 1:16:56 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...Define "time". I don't think the arrow of time "exists" objectively, but time could even be a spatial dimension, i.e. four-dimensionalist positions are possible.Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real. http://gotejas.com...
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 3:34:11 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...As time is a function of change, what you're really asking is: does reality exist in multiple states, and are we only perceiving one?The second question is trivial to answer. The first is impossible.Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 4:52:42 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...Not as an entity but as a direction energy can move in. The more something moves in time the less spatial direction it moves. Which is why I find the idea of expanding space slowing time down so pluasible.I'm not sure why three spatial dimensions equal one opposite temporal deminsion, though.
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 6:17:03 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 12:30:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 6/28/2015 12:21:44 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...As a measurement of the relation of change, I would say yes. As an independent entity in its own right, I don't know how we'd prove it.Time is required for change. After all, if we are working with exactly 0 seconds then there would be 0 time for anything to happen and thus no change will occur.. So, if you believe in change, then you seem to believe in "time" in the context I mean.All things are transient.The past and the future do not exist. They are memories or expectations.Now exists.Time is a reference point for what are or could have been memories, or what are expectations.Do latitude and longitude exist? Well, of course, sort of.Time is an arc of a circle. Do circles exist? I can draw one for you to show you they do, just give me some time.Time is the distance between two events.In physics we are told that time and space are actually spacetime. A mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. With this understanding, space cannot exist without time, nor time without space.So if we say that Time has a beginning, we are saying there was a point where there was no Time.If there was no time, there was no space, according to this physics.When we say Time has a beginning, we are, by implication, saying at some point there was no space, and no time. No dimensions we know today, no distance, no arc of a circle, no length, width, height, or time.So, what was there?It might be that time has no beginning.it might be that Time and space are not a single interwoven continuum.It might be that there is no Time.The past and future are not real.Time is the distance between these two imaginary events.I hadn't given it much thought until recently.I suppose I might change my mind. That sometimes happens.
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AMPosted: 2 years agoThe answer comes down to what is meant by "exist"."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 6:33:31 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".We will be waiting..................
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 6:37:57 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 6:33:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".We will be waiting..................For what?"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 6:43:02 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 6:37:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:33:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".We will be waiting..................For what?For you to show how with one meaning of exist 'Time" does, but with another 'Time' does not.
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 7:03:41 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 6:43:02 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:37:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:33:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".We will be waiting..................For what?For you to show how with one meaning of exist 'Time" does, but with another 'Time' does not.You want me to dumb it down for you?OK, time is a concept with no physical referent, if a person thinks the word "exist" means "exists physically", then the word time isn't referential to anything they would put into the set of things that exist, another person might think that there is something we are talking about when we use the word time or we couldn't be talking about it, and if it is something, it exists.It's a matter of whether or not you grant existence to abstractions, a ton of the debates on these boards are just about that, whenever you see the phrase "just an illusion" it's almost always somebody tied to "physical" existence."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 7:23:44 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 7:03:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:43:02 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:37:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:33:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".We will be waiting..................For what?For you to show how with one meaning of exist 'Time" does, but with another 'Time' does not.You want me to dumb it down for you?OK, time is a concept with no physical referent, if a person thinks the word "exist" means "exists physically", then the word time isn't referential to anything they would put into the set of things that exist, another person might think that there is something we are talking about when we use the word time or we couldn't be talking about it, and if it is something, it exists.It's a matter of whether or not you grant existence to abstractions, a ton of the debates on these boards are just about that, whenever you see the phrase "just an illusion" it's almost always somebody tied to "physical" existence.So, someone might say, 'I can't hold time in my hands, so it does not exist.'?Seriously?Well, no need for discussion on that, is there.By that usage it does not exist, who would disagree?Are there people on this board who think that someone else might actually believe Time can be held in the hands?You seem to have a very low regard for forum posters.
 Posts: 10,078 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 8:40:43 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...Stop keeping track of the hours you work as an experiment to see if time exists.Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner. And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling. When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 10:52:55 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 7:23:44 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 7:03:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:43:02 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:37:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:33:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".We will be waiting..................For what?For you to show how with one meaning of exist 'Time" does, but with another 'Time' does not.You want me to dumb it down for you?OK, time is a concept with no physical referent, if a person thinks the word "exist" means "exists physically", then the word time isn't referential to anything they would put into the set of things that exist, another person might think that there is something we are talking about when we use the word time or we couldn't be talking about it, and if it is something, it exists.It's a matter of whether or not you grant existence to abstractions, a ton of the debates on these boards are just about that, whenever you see the phrase "just an illusion" it's almost always somebody tied to "physical" existence.So, someone might say, 'I can't hold time in my hands, so it does not exist.'?Someone might say that if they are an idiot.Seriously?Seriously.Well, no need for discussion on that, is there.By that usage it does not exist, who would disagree?People who aren't idiots would disagree.Are there people on this board who think that someone else might actually believe Time can be held in the hands?Nope, I don't think there's anyone else on these boards who thinks Physicalism is a matter of whether or not you can hold something in your hands...it's just you.You seem to have a very low regard for forum posters.Well, I do have a low regard for stupid posts."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 12:19:53 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 10:52:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 7:23:44 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 7:03:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:43:02 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:37:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:33:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".We will be waiting..................For what?For you to show how with one meaning of exist 'Time" does, but with another 'Time' does not.You want me to dumb it down for you?OK, time is a concept with no physical referent, if a person thinks the word "exist" means "exists physically", then the word time isn't referential to anything they would put into the set of things that exist, another person might think that there is something we are talking about when we use the word time or we couldn't be talking about it, and if it is something, it exists.It's a matter of whether or not you grant existence to abstractions, a ton of the debates on these boards are just about that, whenever you see the phrase "just an illusion" it's almost always somebody tied to "physical" existence.So, someone might say, 'I can't hold time in my hands, so it does not exist.'?Someone might say that if they are an idiot.Seriously?Seriously.Well, no need for discussion on that, is there.By that usage it does not exist, who would disagree?People who aren't idiots would disagree.Are there people on this board who think that someone else might actually believe Time can be held in the hands?Nope, I don't think there's anyone else on these boards who thinks Physicalism is a matter of whether or not you can hold something in your hands...it's just you.Physicalism?Why would a physicalist say Time does not exist?Don't all Physicalists accept the beliefs of Physics?That is my understanding.If not, can you substantiate?Don't all physicists agree that time exists? They see Time as very real.That is my understanding.If not, can you substantiate?You seem to have a very low regard for forum posters.Well, I do have a low regard for stupid posts.
 Posts: 4,393 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 12:39:51 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...As a 3-Dimensional being, time is simply the continuence of existence. Time binds the universe, time is a property and exists.Evidence is that with higher concentration of gravity, time slows down, since it is a property and can be affected by other properties as such. Of course you can escape time; not be bound by it, but it still exists.
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 6:03:14 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 12:19:53 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 10:52:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 7:23:44 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 7:03:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:43:02 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:37:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:33:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".We will be waiting..................For what?For you to show how with one meaning of exist 'Time" does, but with another 'Time' does not.You want me to dumb it down for you?OK, time is a concept with no physical referent, if a person thinks the word "exist" means "exists physically", then the word time isn't referential to anything they would put into the set of things that exist, another person might think that there is something we are talking about when we use the word time or we couldn't be talking about it, and if it is something, it exists.It's a matter of whether or not you grant existence to abstractions, a ton of the debates on these boards are just about that, whenever you see the phrase "just an illusion" it's almost always somebody tied to "physical" existence.So, someone might say, 'I can't hold time in my hands, so it does not exist.'?Someone might say that if they are an idiot.Seriously?Seriously.Well, no need for discussion on that, is there.By that usage it does not exist, who would disagree?People who aren't idiots would disagree.Are there people on this board who think that someone else might actually believe Time can be held in the hands?Nope, I don't think there's anyone else on these boards who thinks Physicalism is a matter of whether or not you can hold something in your hands...it's just you.Physicalism?Yes, Physicalism, it's what I was referring to when I said "if a person thinks the word "exist" means "exists physically", then the word time isn't referential to anything they would put into the set of things that exist"Why would a physicalist say Time does not exist?Physicalists only grant existence to things with physical properties, because time is a concept with no physical referent, a physicalist would be inclined to say time doesn't exist.Don't all Physicalists accept the beliefs of Physics?That is my understanding.If not, can you substantiate?I'm not sure what you mean by "beliefs of Physics", there"s a lot of controversy in the world of physics and physicists hold a wide range of beliefs, some are physicalists, others aren't, there's not a single set of beliefs associated with physics.Don't all physicists agree that time exists? They see Time as very real.That is my understanding.If not, can you substantiate?Julian Barbour is a physicist who doesn't believe time exists and there are plenty of others. I doubt that there's anything that "all physicists" agree on, certainly not the existence of time, as I said at the beginning, it comes down to what is meant by "exist", and there is no consensus within physics on that."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2015 6:51:00 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 6:03:14 PM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 12:19:53 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 10:52:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 7:23:44 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 7:03:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:43:02 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:37:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:33:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:At 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".We will be waiting..................For what?For you to show how with one meaning of exist 'Time" does, but with another 'Time' does not.You want me to dumb it down for you?OK, time is a concept with no physical referent, if a person thinks the word "exist" means "exists physically", then the word time isn't referential to anything they would put into the set of things that exist, another person might think that there is something we are talking about when we use the word time or we couldn't be talking about it, and if it is something, it exists.It's a matter of whether or not you grant existence to abstractions, a ton of the debates on these boards are just about that, whenever you see the phrase "just an illusion" it's almost always somebody tied to "physical" existence.So, someone might say, 'I can't hold time in my hands, so it does not exist.'?Someone might say that if they are an idiot.Seriously?Seriously.Well, no need for discussion on that, is there.By that usage it does not exist, who would disagree?People who aren't idiots would disagree.Are there people on this board who think that someone else might actually believe Time can be held in the hands?Nope, I don't think there's anyone else on these boards who thinks Physicalism is a matter of whether or not you can hold something in your hands...it's just you.Physicalism?Yes, Physicalism, it's what I was referring to when I said "if a person thinks the word "exist" means "exists physically", then the word time isn't referential to anything they would put into the set of things that exist"I suggested that you meant some posters say that if Time could not be held in the hand, it did not exist, and you denied this, said that is not what you meant.And now this. Very confusing. See below.Why would a physicalist say Time does not exist?Physicalists only grant existence to things with physical properties, because time is a concept with no physical referent, a physicalist would be inclined to say time doesn't exist.Hogwash."The point of this extension is that physicalists usually suppose the existence of various abstract concepts which are non-physical in the ordinary sense of the word; so physicalism cannot be defined in way that denies the existence of these abstractions."https://en.wikipedia.org...One such abstraction is Time.See also:"Physicalism is the proposition that all that exists does so within the limitations of the physical universe and that there are no other kinds of things other than the physical and things derived from the physical realm whether they be forms of energy, motion, or thought. Therefore, physicalism denies the supernatural. However, physicalists do recognize the reality of concepts since they consider them to be properties of the physical brain the way gravity would be a property of matter.There is no real difference between materialism and physicalism since both posit that the universe is all that there is and that everything in it, gravity, light, thoughts, beauty, etc., are dependent upon the physical realm".https://carm.org..."Beauty" and "thoughts" exist, as they are dependent on the physical, as is Time.Don't all Physicalists accept the beliefs of Physics?That is my understanding.If not, can you substantiate?I'm not sure what you mean by "beliefs of Physics", there"s a lot of controversy in the world of physics and physicists hold a wide range of beliefs, some are physicalists, others aren't, there's not a single set of beliefs associated with physics.Sure there is controversy, there is also near universal agreement about many things, having to do with the theories of physics, like gravity. Pick any of them, and they have universal agreement in physics.A common belief there is no supernatural, that there is nothing more to a human being than the physical. Many more that are single sets of beliefs that apply to all of physics.Don't all physicists agree that time exists? They see Time as very real.That is my understanding.If not, can you substantiate?Julian Barbour is a physicist who doesn't believe time exists and there are plenty of others. I doubt that there's anything that "all physicists" agree on, certainly not the existence of time, as I said at the beginning, it comes down to what is meant by "exist", and there is no consensus within physics on that.Well, nothing is 100%.As for 'plenty of others', that is not what my sources say.Time is certainly a very complex topic in physics, but there is no real doubt among physicists that time does really, truly exist ... they're just divided a bit on what causes existence.http://www.andersoninstitute.com...Contemporary physicists generally agree with Newton that future time is potentially infinite, but it is an open question whether past time is finite or infinite.http://www.iep.utm.edu...If you have evidence to the contrary, show it.The vast majority of Physicists and physicalists accept the existence of Time.
 Posts: 4,199 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/29/2015 3:04:17 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/28/2015 8:40:43 AM, sadolite wrote:At 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Discuss...Stop keeping track of the hours you work as an experiment to see if time exists.This reminds me of this great clip: http://youtube.com...Anyone with any inkling of common sense knows that, yes, time exists. It's such a nonissue that I don't know why people discuss it. Time is just a relationship between events and is directly experienced.: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote: : Bossy: You are Regina. :Inferno wrote: :You sound rather gay. -- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. "I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer, because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "