Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Time is just a concept

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 9:20:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

I recently received a comment on one of my old debates, back when I was actually passionate about debate quality and giving it my all.

Despite trying my hardest, I conceded this match to the late Brittwaller because I was convinced by his arguments. However, with age comes enlightenment and I do believe I came to a realization not 30 seconds into re-reading this debate that decides it in my favor: Time is not an intrinsic and necessary measure to the universe. Time is an intrinsic and necessary measure to our understanding of the universe.

As it is regretfully no longer an option to challenge Brittwaller to a rematch, I bring it to the forum for discussion. Is Time just a concept?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 9:34:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i've not read your debate.. but i'll get round to it.. i've been looking for debates on here on the subject for a while and haven't found any..

personally, from what i've come to be enlightened to, i'm an a theorist.. b theory just seems like another crazy idea to me, posited for no reason whatsoever.. to show that we can't be certain of anything... big whoop.. like that's something i didn't know already..

i think that if something seems to be happening in whatever way, that it probably is.. no need to be thinking that it might be happening in a completely different (unsubstantiated?) way...
signature
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 12:10:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Can you expand on what made you stick with your original position? I read through the debate... though I have an extremely limited knowledge of physics (so I'm probably not the best person to talk about the subject with) I agree with Brittwaller. Forgive me if I missed it, but what was your rebuttal to his example of the tree in the woods?
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 12:13:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 12:10:41 AM, nonentity wrote:
Can you expound on what made you stick with your original position? I read through the debate... though I have an extremely limited knowledge of physics (so I'm probably not the best person to talk about the subject with) I agree with Brittwaller. Forgive me if I missed it, but what was your rebuttal to his example of the tree in the woods?

fixed
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 12:38:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't have time to read the entire debate right now, but I agree with you mostly. I believe that time exists only in relation the physical objects. It is a mechanism by which we describe events in relation to one another. If there were no objects or if all objects were unchanging, would time exist? I suspect not.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:08:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 9:20:54 PM, Kleptin wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I recently received a comment on one of my old debates, back when I was actually passionate about debate quality and giving it my all.

Despite trying my hardest, I conceded this match to the late Brittwaller because I was convinced by his arguments. However, with age comes enlightenment and I do believe I came to a realization not 30 seconds into re-reading this debate that decides it in my favor: Time is not an intrinsic and necessary measure to the universe. Time is an intrinsic and necessary measure to our understanding of the universe.

As it is regretfully no longer an option to challenge Brittwaller to a rematch, I bring it to the forum for discussion. Is Time just a concept?

How long did it take you to write that?
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 10:02:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
right, i read it. interesting debate!

i kinda agree.. time is just a concept.. it does not exist independently of motion/change..

it is not the basis for motion/change..

time is just a part of how we perceive change and how it occurs..

time is just us seeing things happening in the sequential order that they do happen in.. time is not a driving force of these happenings.. but the sequential order..

but.. i suppose.. without the sequential order.. with no order.. what would there be? nothing?

...so it's as much a part of reality as anything else? :)

all i know is that b theorists are donkeys!
signature
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 10:15:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is Time just a concept?:

No, time is a property of the universe. The only conceptual part about it is our delineations of it. We created increments of time for our benefit. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc are contrivances of the human mind. That much is true. BUT time is as much a property of the universe as space is.

In fact, time and space are homologous. You literally can't have on without the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 4:41:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 10:15:17 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Is Time just a concept?:

No, time is a property of the universe. The only conceptual part about it is our delineations of it. We created increments of time for our benefit. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc are contrivances of the human mind. That much is true. BUT time is as much a property of the universe as space is.

In fact, time and space are homologous. You literally can't have on without the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I agree. Our measurements are human reactions to reality and a need to control and understand it. But of the actual nature of Time, that is quite another matter. In fact the ancient Chinese believed that time was one of the sacred Elements - the measured use of motion in circulation.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 2:14:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 4:41:51 PM, Ogan wrote::

But of the actual nature of Time, that is quite another matter.

For those who assert time is an abstract concept :

1) time is the forth dimension in general relativity which is the part that curves o produce gravity
2) time is a paired uncertainty variable in quantum theory
3) time is quantized (plankt unit) and thus there is a smallest objective unit of time
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 3:37:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 2:14:21 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 2/26/2011 4:41:51 PM, Ogan wrote::


But of the actual nature of Time, that is quite another matter.

For those who assert time is an abstract concept :

1) time is the forth dimension in general relativity which is the part that curves o produce gravity
2) time is a paired uncertainty variable in quantum theory
3) time is quantized (plankt unit) and thus there is a smallest objective unit of time

The ACTUAL nature of time is NOT a concept - IT IS - whether you can conceive or not!!!
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:30:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 9:20:54 PM, Kleptin wrote:

As it is regretfully no longer an option to challenge Brittwaller to a rematch, I bring it to the forum for discussion. Is Time just a concept?

Let me answer your question with another question... are "kilometer" and "mile" just concepts?

If we accept that measurements are concepts, then I am hard pressed to find a conceptualization of time that is not a measurement. I think you hit it right on the head.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 10:37:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
... i thought time was the 4th dimension? is space just a concept too? certainly our measurements of space and time are concepts... but what about the thing we are measuring?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 11:49:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 3:37:39 PM, Ogan wrote:
At 2/27/2011 2:14:21 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 2/26/2011 4:41:51 PM, Ogan wrote::


But of the actual nature of Time, that is quite another matter.

For those who assert time is an abstract concept :

1) time is the forth dimension in general relativity which is the part that curves o produce gravity
2) time is a paired uncertainty variable in quantum theory
3) time is quantized (plankt unit) and thus there is a smallest objective unit of time

The ACTUAL nature of time is NOT a concept - IT IS - whether you can conceive or not!!!:

Uh, fella's, it sounds like we're all in agreement here.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 8:09:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let me answer your question with another question... are "kilometer" and "mile" just concepts?

If we accept that measurements are concepts, then I am hard pressed to find a conceptualization of time that is not a measurement. I think you hit it right on the head.

I would say measurements are arbitrary. In that manner they are concepts that attempt to quantitize a real phenomenon just like time. But that doesn't mean what they represent isn't real thing that exists.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 3:21:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Can anyone help me? I have being trying to measure nothing, or something that does not exist, but whatever method I use fails because there is nothing to measure. Is there a way to conceive nothing into something so I can begin my measurements?
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 6:10:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am going to rescind my agreement that "time is just a concept" because that is an over simplification. To avoid a debate about what it means to exist, I am just going to say that I agree with the view of modern physics.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 7:57:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 6:10:42 PM, Grape wrote:
I am going to rescind my agreement that "time is just a concept" because that is an over simplification. To avoid a debate about what it means to exist, I am just going to say that I agree with the view of modern physics.

Scientific theory doesn't just speak for itself. It needs to be interpreted which would explain why there are still huge debates between A and B theorists.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 11:14:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 12:10:41 AM, nonentity wrote:
Can you expand on what made you stick with your original position? I read through the debate... though I have an extremely limited knowledge of physics (so I'm probably not the best person to talk about the subject with) I agree with Brittwaller. Forgive me if I missed it, but what was your rebuttal to his example of the tree in the woods?

I don't think I had one in that debate, but my rebuttal now would be this:

The universe is DESCRIBED as being in motion. In actuality, the universe simply IS. If we had perfect understanding of the universe instead of our human sensory perception, we would see the universe as one thing instead of as many separate things. In addition, we would not have to differentiate volume, mass, and location of an object. Every aspect would be understood simultaneously. To differentiate the location of a moving object would be nonsensical if we know the nature of the object as being in motion.

However, we do not. We need to *calculate* values and predict things using time as a measurement tool because we can only observe certain characteristics of an object at a time.

That being said, my answer is this: It doesn't make a sound. A sound is defined as the interaction between the brain, eardrums, and the vibrations of the air. The tree would vibrate the air, but it wouldn't make a sound.

Similarly, without human perception, things would be, but time would not exist. Time simply exists for humans because it is a necessary reduction of existence in a manner that can be processed and used by humans.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 12:23:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That was a very good debate, but I still do not understand how you separate time from the property of motion as it requires mass and time and distance, correct?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 10:04:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 11:14:45 PM, Kleptin wrote:

Similarly, without human perception, things would be, but time would not exist. Time simply exists for humans because it is a necessary reduction of existence in a manner that can be processed and used by humans.

So without human perception there would be no gravity, there would be no zero point energy of space (no virtual partical interaction), and quantization of time would not exist (which is necessary for relatity and quantum theory unification)?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 10:06:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 12:26:40 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Perhaps it's only the concept that we understand that object at point A travels to point B and time is irrelevant?

No, time is a physical propery just like mass is a physical property, if every person on the earth were dead, the moon would still orbit the earth, it doesn't do this simply because we look at it. The universe exists not beacuse we perceive it, we perceive it because it exists.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 4:21:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 11:14:45 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 2/26/2011 12:10:41 AM, nonentity wrote:
Can you expand on what made you stick with your original position? I read through the debate... though I have an extremely limited knowledge of physics (so I'm probably not the best person to talk about the subject with) I agree with Brittwaller. Forgive me if I missed it, but what was your rebuttal to his example of the tree in the woods?

I don't think I had one in that debate, but my rebuttal now would be this:

The universe is DESCRIBED as being in motion. In actuality, the universe simply IS. If we had perfect understanding of the universe instead of our human sensory perception, we would see the universe as one thing instead of as many separate things. In addition, we would not have to differentiate volume, mass, and location of an object. Every aspect would be understood simultaneously. To differentiate the location of a moving object would be nonsensical if we know the nature of the object as being in motion.

However, we do not. We need to *calculate* values and predict things using time as a measurement tool because we can only observe certain characteristics of an object at a time.

no kleptin.. the motion would continue after we were gone.. motion is time.. what i took from your ponderings was that time is just something of the universe..

though i'm fairly stoned :)

..i just got thinking about blackness again.. it was what happened when i did that god thread lol.. pools of randomnness! time between the random occurences?

...i'm just gonna stop thinking of something before the universe.. it hurts my brain..

the universe is god.. done..

That being said, my answer is this: It doesn't make a sound. A sound is defined as the interaction between the brain, eardrums, and the vibrations of the air. The tree would vibrate the air, but it wouldn't make a sound.

Similarly, without human perception, things would be, but time would not exist. Time simply exists for humans because it is a necessary reduction of existence in a manner that can be processed and used by humans.
signature