Time (and existence)

[Lamoc]

Re: Time (and existence)

I got bored with the first post of reading and i'm just going to give my input on time.

Time isn't real. Sure we look at time and see its 11:00PM or so, but that's something we created. If we said no and the clock will never move from 11:00PM, the world will still rotate and the sun will still burn. Time was made by man to keep an accurate location in where they are perceiving to the day. We aren't moving in time. Time is moving around us, like the sundial.

Going into more basic things; if the sundial/watch/clock was never created, we would still go about our average day and be stationary. Plants wouldn't stop growing and the sun wouldn't stop burning.

[devonin]

Re: Time (and existence)

Time was made by man to keep an accurate location in where they are perceiving to the day.

While we certainly invented the system of measurement (determining the length of a second, a minute, an hour etc) what is it measuring?

We invented the system for describing the length of objects, and arbitrarily created what a foot is, a meter, an inch, a mile, but you can't deny that length IS A THING THAT EXISTS even if we subjectively decided how to describe it.

Isn't the same thing occuring just as clearly with time? We devised, on our own, what the system of measurement is and how it works, but what is it measuring?

[Reach]

Re: Time (and existence)

While we certainly invented the system of measurement (determining the length of a second, a minute, an hour etc) what is it measuring?

We invented the system for describing the length of objects, and arbitrarily created what a foot is, a meter, an inch, a mile, but you can't deny that length IS A THING THAT EXISTS even if we subjectively decided how to describe it.

Isn't the same thing occuring just as clearly with time? We devised, on our own, what the system of measurement is and how it works, but what is it measuring?

Excellent points. I keep hearing this lately - that time doesn't exist - but nobody is ever willing to provide me with a framework of a universe that could possibly function without some variable time to account for the differentiation we see between one event that occurs, and another. People just think of time as what is measured by a clock, but you're absolutely right, that's not really what it is.

We just assume that this is the natural state of the universe by consequence of the fact that we are here, but we could take away time and see quite easily that the universe wouldn't exist...likewise the same with length, width etc.

Lamoc, if you'd care and still believe that time isn't real, describe how the universe could function in the absence of any physical way of differentiating between one quantum event and another - in layman's terms every event that can occur does occur, all simultaneously. This is essentially what happens to space and time right before the Big Bang...as space collapses into something resembling a singularity, time is also broken down (Because time is a component of space, as I described to Rich earlier), and as such events at that point cannot be differentiated. They occur on the quantum level without reason simultaneously.

This is part of the reason why physicists have no idea what happened prior to the big bang - none of our equations are capable of describing what happens at this point. Einsteins equations give non real answers, and other equations simply don't work at all because the components of space and time, normally present, disappear entirely.

You'll see you cannot describe the universe without time. It won't make any sense at all. Likewise you wouldn't be able to describe a universe where objects had no measurable size. It's a ridiculous proposition. Things obviously have measurable size, and this is a consequence of space. The same thing applies to time. All things have measurable time. If you want to argue otherwise, well, you're going against the grain in physics and any scientist would suggest you provide some research to back up your ideas :P

[richy:]

Re: Time (and existence)

but you can't deny that length IS A THING THAT EXISTS

Okay, let me begin this by saying that I completely disagree with this statement. Length is not a "thing" at all. It is a measurement of a "thing."

Like I said somewhere in one of these threads, a mile doesn't "exist" without land to measure and an ounce doesn't "exist" without matter to measure. If you think of time like that, time doesn't "exist" either without something to measure. To me it seems like just a way to tell a change from one configuration of all the matter in the universe at a given point in "time" from previous and future states.

Excellent points. I keep hearing this lately - that time doesn't exist - but nobody is ever willing to provide me with a framework of a universe that could possibly function without some variable time to account for the differentiation we see between one event that occurs, and another. People just think of time as what is measured by a clock, but you're absolutely right, that's not really what it is.

We just assume that this is the natural state of the universe by consequence of the fact that we are here, but we could take away time and see quite easily that the universe wouldn't exist...likewise the same with length, width etc.

Lamoc, if you'd care and still believe that time isn't real, describe how the universe could function in the absence of any physical way of differentiating between one quantum event and another - in layman's terms every event that can occur does occur, all simultaneously. This is essentially what happens to space and time right before the Big Bang...as space collapses into something resembling a singularity, time is also broken down (Because time is a component of space, as I described to Rich earlier), and as such events at that point cannot be differentiated. They occur on the quantum level without reason simultaneously.

This is part of the reason why physicists have no idea what happened prior to the big bang - none of our equations are capable of describing what happens at this point. Einsteins equations give non real answers, and other equations simply don't work at all because the components of space and time, normally present, disappear entirely.

You'll see you cannot describe the universe without time. It won't make any sense at all. Likewise you wouldn't be able to describe a universe where objects had no measurable size. It's a ridiculous proposition. Things obviously have measurable size, and this is a consequence of space. The same thing applies to time. All things have measurable time. If you want to argue otherwise, well, you're going against the grain in physics and any scientist would suggest you provide some research to back up your ideas :P

Reach, you have shown that you know a lot more about physics than I do, but I hate physics. After I finish physics 2 this coming semester I will be done with physics for good and I am really happy about that. Anyway, I know this argument is seemingly one based on physics principles, but the more I have thought about it the more I think it is kind of a ridiculous thread. Either the answer is "we don't know the answer" or a complex theory in physics that may or may not be true, which is a better answer in my opinion because even though it is most likely wrong (in my opinion), it is still definitely more likely to be the answer than "we don't know the answer."

All I know though is that the big bang sure as hell was not the *beginning*, even if things happened simultaneously before the big bang or whatever you were saying (which would sort of make sense if there was only energy and no matter) I think that everything we can see or touch in this universe has *always* existed. If that is true it will *always* exist. There was no beginning. There will be no end. Trying to find out all the details to something of that nature seems foolish. That being said, I know we will always seek the answers, or the "truth," and I am sure we will find out a *lot* more than we know now. I don't know, I think this is the end of the argument for me though.

Good luck finding the answers, if you ever do send me a pm or something.

[devonin]

Re: Time (and existence)

Length is not a "thing" at all. It is a measurement of a "thing."

that exists.

[richy:]

Re: Time (and existence)

that exists.

What is your point?
Time is a measurement of change of something that exists, just like length is a measurement of something that exists. Independently length or time do not exist. That is the way I see it. Take away the existing "things" and suddenly length and time are meaningless. All I am saying is that I do not think that time is something that is independently a malleable thing that exists on its own. It is just a measurement.

[devonin]

Re: Time (and existence)

But it is a measurement OF SOMETHING. That something does exist. So you say "Time" is just the system of measurement we invented to measure ....what? What is the thing called that 'time' measures? Is that not, perhaps, also "time" ?

[StyleKrong]

Re: Time (and existence)

Existence and time go hand in hand... time is basically the river and existence is a leaf being forced constantly down that river. Time is what forces change, and existence is all about things changing.

[VulcanRevenge]

Re: Time (and existence)

I think Richy is just trying to say simply that the measurement of time is something we human beings created, and it is! If we found another sentient species somewhere in the universe they probably define time completely differently. I think that's what Devonin is trying to say, is that even though we define it however we want, it's still something that exists (it's something that other species would have to acknowledge). I completely agree with that because time is a measurement of change, but it can be warped and altered to create a different effect (i.e. effects on objects going the speed of light).

[Cavernio]

Re: Time (and existence)

"Independently length or time do not exist."
Matter doesn't exist without energy, so that independent of energy, matter does not exist. Your logic concludes that matter doesn't exist.

[cooke71892]

Re: Time (and existence)

well, i believe that time is nothing more than our perception of the passage of events as our own consciousness passes over and through them. in truth, time is nothing but the speed of light that each of us personally manifests in our minds. because we all move at the speed of light, and to "time travel" is to get somewhere before your image, so therefore we consider faster than light travel to be time traveling. In truth, though, we have done nothing more than beat our image.

[Reach]

Re: Time (and existence)

Our consciousness passes through events? What does this mean?

How is time the speed of light we manifest in our minds? Explain. Also, how is the speed of light something manifested in our minds when it is a physical, and not a mental phenomenon?

How do we all move at the speed of light? Last time I checked, there are some major physical problems with any object having measurable mass reaching a velocity of c.


Anyway, if you haven't gotten the picture yet, your post doesn't make any sense, so I think you've got some explaining to do.

[ledwix]

Re: Time (and existence)

well, i believe that time is nothing more than our perception of the passage of events as our own consciousness passes over and through them.

Time, however, has well documented physical relations to the world and is part of an even more fundamental physicality. (spacetime) Just as the image of a rabbit isn't the rabbit itself, our perception of passage isn't the passage (time) itself.

in truth, time is nothing but the speed of light that each of us personally manifests in our minds. because we all move at the speed of light,

Time isn't the speed of light; more accurately, but maybe still not very accurately, you could say that we travel through spacetime at the speed of light, and since we don't usually experience relativistic speeds, we normally travel through time at about the speed of light.

to "time travel" is to get somewhere before your image, so therefore we consider faster than light travel to be time traveling. In truth, though, we have done nothing more than beat our image.

Time travel is possible without exceeding the speed of light. We can get to the future without "beating our image." But really, study the theory of relativity; you will learn that you can never beat your image, because no object can be observed to be traveling fast enough to beat its image.

[korny]

Re: Time (and existence)

Care to elaborate on what makes you so certain time travel is possible without it being proven?

[ledwix]

Re: Time (and existence)

Are you referring to my claim on time travel or his, or both?