Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does Time Exist?

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:21:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:30:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.
ironslippers
Posts: 513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:47:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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... perception
Everyone 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
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 1:16:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 3:34:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 4:52:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 6:17:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The 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
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 6:33:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 6:29:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
The answer comes down to what is meant by "exist".

We will be waiting..................
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 6:37:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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?
"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
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 6:43:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 7:03:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.
"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
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 7:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.'?
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.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:40:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 10:52:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.

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
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:19:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
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?
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.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:39:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 6:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
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"

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
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 6:51:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 3:04:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 7:26:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 6:51:00 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:03:14 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

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.

Yeah, I think it's inane to try to define things that exist physically as things that can be held in the hand, that doesn't even apply to states of matter, and then there's energy, gravity, all kinds of physical existence that the "held in hand" definition doesn't apply to.

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.

You think that everything is "black and white" or "us and them", but that just isn't the way the world is. In this thread alone you've gone from thinking everyone in the world defines "existence" in the same way, to arguing that all physicists think exactly alike, to arguing that all physicalists are the same. That just isn't the case, there are over seven billion people and every one of them is an individual, that"s over seven billion ways of thinking.

Don"t bother to insist that I "substantiate" this, it's just a fact, you"ll just have to accept it if you want to join the rest of us over here in the real world.

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.

OMG, what a terrible example, there is a huge amount of controversy over the nature of gravity; it's on the leading edge of disagreement over the reconciliation of Relativity and Quantum Theory, get informed.

Pick any of them, and they have universal agreement in physics.

Nonsense, get informed.

A common belief there is no supernatural, that there is nothing more to a human being than the physical.

Nonsense, get informed...this is another incredibly bad example btw, you have turned nonsense into a science.

Many more that are single sets of beliefs that apply to all of physics.

Nonsense, get informed

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.

You need to get new sources then, Google "time is an illusion", read something about the Wheeler Dewitt equation, hell, just familiarize yourself with the multitude of attempts to reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Physics, you'll find a tremendous amount of controversy about time...and gravity for that matter.

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...

Nonsense, you really need to become informed about the subject, here are just a few of the hundreds of Youtube videos you could watch, just Google it and you'll find thousands of articles you could read.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.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.

No they don't, Einstein didn"t, the issue is as I said at the very beginning, dependent on what a person means 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
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 7:47:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 12:47:34 AM, ironslippers wrote:
At 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... perception

I think specifically you mean memory. If you had zero memory, you would not have a perception of time.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 7:49:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.

Well said. I like your practical nature sadolite.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 8:02:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 7:26:05 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:51:00 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:03:14 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

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.

Yeah, I think it's inane to try to define things that exist physically as things that can be held in the hand, that doesn't even apply to states of matter, and then there's energy, gravity, all kinds of physical existence that the "held in hand" definition doesn't apply to.

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 enertgy, 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.

You think that everything is "black and white" or "us and them", but that just isn't the way the world is. In this thread alone you've gone from thinking everyone in the world defines "existence" in the same way, to arguing that all physicists think exactly alike, to arguing that all physicalists are the same. That just isn't the case, there are over seven billion people and every one of them is an individual, that"s over seven billion ways of thinking.

I certainly never said I think everyone defines existence the same way.
You said Time does or does not exist, based on how one defines 'exist'. So I asked you to show two ways to define 'exist' so that one excluded Time. You have not done that.

I never argued that all physicists think exactly the same way.
I argue there are core beliefs in physics, you seem to think this is not true.

Don"t bother to insist that I "substantiate" this, it's just a fact, you"ll just have to accept it if you want to join the rest of us over here in the real world.

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.

OMG, what a terrible example, there is a huge amount of controversy over the nature of gravity; it's on the leading edge of disagreement over the reconciliation of Relativity and Quantum Theory, get informed.

So, some physicists argue that physics does not support the theory of gravity?
In science there will always be disagreement about the detail, just as in evolution. That does not mean science does not support the theory of evolution.

Pick any of them, and they have universal agreement in physics.

Nonsense, get informed.

A common belief there is no supernatural, that there is nothing more to a human being than the physical.

Nonsense, get informed...this is another incredibly bad example btw, you have turned nonsense into a science.

Many more that are single sets of beliefs that apply to all of physics.

Nonsense, get informed

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.

You need to get new sources then, Google "time is an illusion", read something about the Wheeler Dewitt equation, hell, just familiarize yourself with the multitude of attempts to reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Physics, you'll find a tremendous amount of controversy about time...and gravity for that matter.

Controversy and denial are not the same issue.
I provide substantiation from credible sources, you deny it with your general opinions.

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...

Nonsense, you really need to become informed about the subject, here are just a few of the hundreds of Youtube videos you could watch, just Google it and you'll find thousands of articles you could read.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.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.

No they don't, Einstein didn"t, the issue is as I said at the very beginning, dependent on what a person means by "exist".

Einstein did not argue that Time does not exist.
He argued that it is relative.
You seem to not understand the difference.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 7:22:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 7:49:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 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.

Well said. I like your practical nature sadolite.

Life and the world isn't really that complicated. Creating it was.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
VietTurtle
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 9:47:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 11:34:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

I dont live in a sense of time. Time is relative to me . i could care less what time it is i treat every day the same. I dont worry about what time it is or what day it is . I just live Life Even when i would go to work i would just go to work. If u ask me what day or the time i wouldn't know i dont keep track when i need to know the date or time ill glance at my phone for a sec and forget later . Only due to the fact the rest of the world still runs on time like schedules
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 2:22:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hold on, I have a better answer. Time is just the rate at which events occur. Since the rate can be zero, as long as we agree that reality exists, we agree that there is a rate for occurrence, even if it is zero. Hence, time exists.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
ironslippers
Posts: 513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 1:18:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 7:47:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 12:47:34 AM, ironslippers wrote:
At 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... perception

I think specifically you mean memory. If you had zero memory, you would not have a perception of time.

OK
New statement:
There is one component necessary for time to exist... Observation
Like:
"If a tree falls in the woods, does it hurt"
Everyone 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