1
   

Is there really such thing as time?

 
 
donohue100
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 04:44 am
time has to be real
time has to be real or everything would happen at once or nothing would ever happen.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 06:23 pm
Yes JL

I think that it is basically the same thing. It all seems to be related to mass and distance somehow, which in turn relates physically to a "speed of time".

I am unable however to imagine a universe without time. (donohues point)


Satt,
I am inclined to think that that problem of existence of our parts in different time is a matter of scale. Perhaps instead of saying "at this point in time" we should say "at this blob in time" Confused

I am inclined to think (for now) that time actually moves a bit faster than light. This tends to raise hob with a lot of our astronomical observations. Sad

Mosheb, I will hunt up the book "Kromo". So far I have not found anybody who has much of an idea of what "time" really is, although there are several theories around. Confused
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 06:30 pm
akaMechsmith..
Quote:
Perhaps instead of saying "at this point in time" we should say "at this blob in time"

The concept of the instance (of time) must be very fuzzy already.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 06:49 pm
akaMechsmith, I too cannot imagine a world without time (for Kant, space and time are innate human mental categories), but that doesn't tell us anything about the nature of time. Time may be simply one of our innate and necessary illusions.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 07:21 pm
Yep Satt,

Perhaps time, like love and charity, works best when not examined too closely Very Happy
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 07:23 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
kaleidosmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 08:08 pm
Ch..ch..ch..changes
mosheb wrote:
Its.
A. Time certainly has a serious connection with space and other conceptions of the universe. so asking about one is asking about the other. What I think interesting in this, is that in string theory now thought of, they are using 11 dimensions, three usual space, 7 folded space, and only one of time. that is, the conception is that you can easily multiply the dimensions of space but not of time. I don't know exactly wy, though of course there are probably good mathematical reasons for this distinction.


time is the common denominator across the other dimensions.

Ch..ch..ch..change(s)
0 Replies
 
mosheb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 01:28 am
"kromo" isn't a book, its a journal
0 Replies
 
mosheb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 01:46 am
I'm not sure that I understood what kalidosmith wrote. But I enjoyed seeing myself quoted
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 05:28 pm
It seems that we are talking about two kinds--or aspects--of time: that which is a correlate of space and that which refers to the fundamental character of everything: change.
0 Replies
 
Sign Related
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 08:11 pm
As long as things age you might as well put some kind of measurement of time to it.
0 Replies
 
sweetascandy122
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 10:47 pm
Maybe I don't understand, but I think the word "time" describes a concept which does exist. whether or not the concept has validity depends on your own definition of what time is. Ask yourself exactly what you are questioning. My own opinion is that time is real. Time is what it is therefore it is.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 01:24:08