Does time really exist?

If you see the rings of a tree, do you see time or the product of time. Time is a result of an event, without an event we have no time. What really surprises me is that we cant imagine an existence without experiencing time.

If time is relevant to other forces why should time be dependent on us experiencing it. If other forces change and change time, why is our ability to alter time, so difficult.

Hi Xris,

I posted you a rather long post yesterday, guess what? (page cannot be displayed)! When I look at the rings of a tree, I see a material process of expansion. It is not time or the product of, but it is measurable by.
Time is not the result of an event, but a human concept that regulates order in events, so we can assosciate with them in a sentient fashion.
Time originated in the human mind Xris, like all measurements. We don't experience it - We apply it, it is ours, and ours alone. It is not relevant to other forces, it is only used to recognise and measure those other forces.
We can't alter time, or events.

Remember Xris, this is only my opinion, so don't let it frustrate you. You see time as a thing, and I see it as an idea. That is the only conflict of interest.

Thank you Xris, great to interact with you again! Prosper magnificently, sir.

Mark...

what the hell is a "hypothetical world"? There are possible worlds, and there is a technical meaning associated with it. Our world fits the bill of a possible world. What i am doing here is engaging in counterfactual reasoning. If we are in a different possible worlds( not this world), what would it be like, and in all cases, it would be the same as if we are not.

No turing...Our world is a real world, and fantasy worlds are fictions... These imaginary worlds teach us nothing about the world in fact, and they teach us nothing about our morality... We live and die in this world, and though we may all have a different subjective version of this single reality in our consciousness, it is a pointless exercise to think that by creating a fictive world that we can make it produce some objective fact... Reason on the world you have, and not on the world you have not...Trust me please: reason is all based upon physical reality... Once a world is created out of imagination, it no longer is a physical world, but a moral world following moral logic which compared to physical logic is not logic at all...

we observes its movement by watching events, thats time. thanks xris...

This is a really pathetic piece of reasoning. You tell me to "trust you". Why the hell would i do that? "Possibles worlds" has a technical meaning. It means all logically possible worlds. Our world is obviously logically possible, since we exist, and so our world is one of many possible worlds. Now, most, if not all modern philosophers deals with in one way or another with possible worlds, because it is a nice tool used in modern philosophy. Don` t doubt it, because it is just a fact. You can verified it by reading academic papers. Some minority of people actual think that all logically possible worlds exist, and this is known as modal realism. I happen to believe that. Next time, don ` t tell me what i can, or cannot think. It is insulting to me, and the spirit of philosophical debate.

I tell you to trust me because your reasoning on the basis of some possible world is faulty and untrustworthy... But other than that: have a nice day...In your real world and not impossible world... keep all that techical meaning... It is nonsense and you should know it, because if we cannot understand the most basic elements of the real world we cannot begin to define the elements of a possible world... Logic is based upon a certain reality, and it is in gross... cause and effect this event leading to that does not take into acount all the causes that do not threashold an event, every event that does not become a cause... And in the microscopic and atomic level we can speak with no certainty, which does not disallow cause and effect in the least, but forces everyone on their guard... And you want to talk about possible world following some other logic when you cannot speak to the logic of this world... It is bad enough when people apply physical logic to the moral world, and push their logic to far from the known into the unknown, but you are doing something far beyond that...So trust me...

time is not constant, im afraid.

I say this before, and i am going to say it again. "possible worlds" means "logically possible worlds". Anything that is not logically contradictory is logically possible.One does not have to commit to the actual existence of these worlds. You can see it as a tool. I don` t.

Logic tell what happens and suggests what is likely as well as possible... It is a chain that can hold a great deal, but it cannot be pushed anywhere...And you want to push logic into a whole other fantasy world... You are not doing philosophy...You are engaged is pointless speculation...

Whatever i am doing, the whole of modern analytic philosophy is behind me, and not you. It is not entirely "fantasy" if you consider "logically possibility" a fantasy.

You cannot begin to tell the logic behind a fraction of the events on this earth, and you think with your logic to construct a logically possible world from what you know...I would not try to bake a cake with as little knowledge as you actually have and it is upon knowledge that people reason, but be my guest in your own fantasy castle...But don't leave out a single element necessary for your fantasy survival, or too late you might find your world falling into your navel...

I suppose English is not your first language. To read you takes me a bit of decoding. I plead no knowledge of what other "worlds" might be, but whatever they are, they are surely logically possible. This is true, because whatever they are, they cannot be logically contradictory.

..Logic in one sense is what nature teaches to us, but in another sense is what we subject nature to in the form of laws... Well, without a cop there is no law, and we are all the cops of logic...

What is your answer to the question that arises out of Kant's transendental Idealism: "By what right can physical laws be presupposed a'priori if they are not given to us empiracally???"

Nature teaches us the laws which govern the behavior of matter...Are you projecting people into your imaginary worlds to experience reality empiracally to learn there what is logical??? It is not real, so it is not a physical reality but a moral reality, not real at all, only meaning without being...

Thanks for pointing that out. I shall explain which 'time' is constant.

Nevertheless, i am glad on my presumption to know that you probably agree with the rest.

Now, on which 'time' is constant. 'Time' the concept which we bear in our minds - in its various form (a few variation can be seen in this thread itself), also needs to be seen in two approaches. The confusion among all, lies in the fact that time has two realms. The aspects of mental phenomenon, and that of physical phenomenon. When you say 'time' is not constant, you are actually saying two things.
a) the interpretation of the concept of 'time' is in variance.
b) the measure or measurability of physical time varies.

In both cases, it is demonstrated by experiments that 'time' does vary in relative sense. But please consider, at least theoretically there is an absolute sense of time too. All calculations, mathematics, and dynamics works on the axiom that time is constant.

There can't be any worthwhile predictions or sum ups which can take place without the a priori principle of 'time' being constant.

This theoretical assumption makes 'time' an absolute. It works in cases within our human paradigm, and our knowledge systems

I don` t you think you know what "logically possible" mean. Can you tell me what it is?

Time is relative but it is not constant. When you consider time at the centre of the earth is slower than at the surface how would you calculate anything with any certainty. This gives us questions about our relationship to time and our experience of it. If time can alter relative to other time frames could we consider a condition where it is not relevant.

We look at layers in rocks and imagine millions of years of its creation. Can we be sure that the time was the same then as it is now? We look at historic events and time appears twisted in a bizarre sense, as if it never actually happened but just recorded for us to observe. Last week to us is as far as the Trojan wars , past is past and never to return.