7
   

Once again on the existance of time...

 
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 08:20 am
A little more clarification in the hopes that what I'm saying and asking will make more sense. Here's a loose comparison...

Electricity isn't an idea, its a measurable phenomena - its presence measurable by observable reaction, a myriad of instruments (that actually don't produce electricity or by a good old-fashioned jolt). We can't say that Time is in the same way measurable: Because anything that measures time is actually measuring something else, like the spring tension in the workings of a old watch, or perhaps the electrical buildup in the diodes in an electronic time peace. In both of these things, what we're using to "measure" is actually measuring something else that represents predicable intervals - i.e., its measuring something else whether it be by these examples, atomic isotope decay, trickling of sands or anything else.

Hoping this helps. Thanks guys
0 Replies
 
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 08:21 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
In this case, we can recognize "time" as being what I crudely defined earlier - a series of intervals between events, etc. But then we're simply taking one thing (intervals, in this crude example), lableling it something else and saying "Therefore it exists".
No, we're saying it exists because we are aware of it as part of our world. That we label it as "time" seems no more relevant, to me, than that Japanese label cats as "neko".
Khethil wrote:
What in this concept exists (meaning has some energetic or material substance)? We can take pretty much anything, label it with a term and say it exists in some way.
Sure, but if we want to meaningfully say anything, we have to present our speech in an order which depends on time. If you read this thread by selecting letters at random, it won't make any sense. So, we're not just making stuff up, and then claiming that it exists. If the problem is meant to be that there exist things which aren't physical, I think it's a non-problem. For example, we can talk about something non-physical, therefore, whatever it is that we're talking about has no physical existence, yet it has mental existence for us in this discourse. Therefore there exist non-physical things.
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 08:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Post: # 4,291,244
Perhaps a link?
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 08:23 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:
Therefore there exist non-physical things.


I think I gotcha: In the way you're explaining and how you're defining existence, yes! Absolutely
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 08:26 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Post: # 4,291,244
Perhaps a link?


"The fact, for example, that there is no time on the Sun (what time is it on the Sun is not a meaningful question) would lead us to believe that "time" is but the name of a concept, because if it were not, there would be an answer to the question, what time is it now on the Sun, even if we did not know the answer."
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 08:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
"The fact, for example, that there is no time on the Sun (what time is it on the Sun is not a meaningful question) would lead us to believe that "time" is but the name of a concept, because if it were not, there would be an answer to the question, what time is it now on the Sun, even if we did not know the answer."
The problem with this is that the notion of time on the sun is exactly as meaningful as the notion of time on Earth. There needs to be a regularity observable by a being on the sun, a clock would do.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 10:16 am
Whats more interesting is the idea, what is no time? or is it possible? We have tried debated it before without any real success.
validity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 06:18 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:
No, we're saying it exists because we are aware of it as part of our world. That we label it as "time" seems no more relevant, to me, than that Japanese label cats as "neko".
I find it interesting to read others idea of what existence is. When you say "we label it as "time"" do you mean when we conceptualise it as time?

I prefer to think that concepts exist but are not real.

So that,

Time exists but time is not real and
Change exists and change is real.

But as long as the definitions are set prior to discussion I am not going to argue that.

xris wrote:
Whats more interesting is the idea, what is no time? or is it possible? We have tried debated it before without any real success.
I prefer the idea that time is not measured by clocks, we define time by clocks.

If we restrict the definition of 'exist' to exclude concepts i.e. the concept of time, then for time not to exist, a clock will still function as it has previously i.e. change exists.

So when we say time does not exist, or analyse the idea of no time, the absence of time does nothing fantastically drastic to the functioning universe prior to or after our conception of time or from the idea of no time.
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 09:31 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
No, we're saying it exists because we are aware of it as part of our world. That we label it as "time" seems no more relevant, to me, than that Japanese label cats as "neko".
When you say "we label it as "time"" do you mean when we conceptualise it as time?
I prefer to think that concepts exist but are not real.
So that,
Time exists but time is not real and
Change exists and change is real.
No, I'm not referring to a concept, I'm referring to time. This post is a response to and includes a quote from your earlier post, and "earlier" is a relation in time. How could I be writing this post if time doesn't exist?
validity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 10:10 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:
No, I'm not referring to a concept, I'm referring to time.
Okay Cool From this I can see that any future discussions I will need to remind myself that you define time differently to me.
ughaibu wrote:
This post is a response to and includes a quote from your earlier post, and "earlier" is a relation in time. How could I be writing this post if time doesn't exist?
Could you point out where I have given an inkling of time does not exist? If it was in the response to xris, please note that the response to xris intentionally altered my preferred way of thinking of time (that was described initially in my response towards your post) so that I could make the point of “so what if time does not exist, the universe can still change”. However if my use of words did not convey this, please let me know where specifically so as I can address this inconsistency.

wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 12:50 am
To say that time is a concept may be misleading.
To say that we have a concept of time may be more clear.
It is true that we have at least one concept of time.
A) Time is a quantity of measure.
B) We measure the quantity of time by using a standard of measure.

What is the quantity, Time?
A) The quantity, Time is an dependent quantity.
B) The quantity, Time is dependent on the quantities, Distance and Rate.
C) The quantity, Time, is not a physical quantity.

Does the quantity, Time exist independently?
What are the properties of a non-physical quantity?

0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 04:23 am
@validity,
From the idea that time is in direct relation to the amount of mass that influences its passing,then time in theory can cease to move, exist. Time is not constant that can be confirmed by observation only our personal relationship to it. If you look back in time to the BB there comes a point when time did not exist. Time throughout the universde is moving at different speeds , so whose clock can be said to represent time?
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 10:02 am
@validity,
validity wrote:
Could you point out where I have given an inkling of time does not exist?
Rewording my post:
ughaibu wrote:
This post is a response to and includes a quote from your earlier post, and "earlier" is a relation in time. How could I be writing this post if time isn't real?
validity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 05:56 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
From the idea that time is in direct relation to the amount of mass that influences its passing, then time in theory can cease to move, exist. Time is not constant that can be confirmed by observation only our personal relationship to it. If you look back in time to the BB there comes a point when time did not exist. Time throughout the universe is moving at different speeds , so whose clock can be said to represent time?
A clock that you carry, from your perspective of that clock, will not alter in it's function if you were to, say for example, travel from the earth (at relativistic speeds) to a super massive blackhole and hypothetically travel through the event horizon and then back out of that blackhole. Even though you have said time is not constant, for you it always is i.e. your clock will always be unaltered and from this your definition of time will be unaltered as long as you define time by your clock.

Your clock, more specifically the clock in your frame of reference, is the only clock that should be used to represent time, because from your perspective, it is the only clock that behaves consistently (which is a key feature of a clock). This is why it is always other clocks i.e. clocks not in your frame of reference, that run at different rates.

ughaibu wrote:
Rewording my post:
ughaibu wrote:
This post is a response to and includes a quote from your earlier post, and "earlier" is a relation in time. How could I be writing this post if time isn't real?
I am making use of the distinction between the nature of those things which persist in our minds and those things which persist in the common world. An example I often use is a hallucination. When I hallucinate the experience, for me, exists but is not real.

So when I say time is not real, I am not denying that things change, for I have said change is real. Rather I am saying that the concept of time does not persist in the real world.

My concepts may or may not be accurate representations of reality, but I think the best to be mindful that my concepts are representations is to define them as not real, that is until I am able to determine the accuracy of my concepts.

I may alter or discard a concept, but either way this does not effect that phenomena to which I applied the concept. It only effects our understanding of the phenomena. The phenomena is what it is.

I hope this makes sense
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 06:52 pm

Quote:
xris wrote:
Whats more interesting is the idea, what is no time? or is it possible? We have tried debated it before without any real success.
I prefer the idea that time is not measured by clocks, we define time by clocks.


NO time is where the Universe is

Quote:
If we restrict the definition of 'exist' to exclude concepts i.e. the concept of time, then for time not to exist, a clock will still function as it has previously i.e. change exists.


oh ... change exists

Quote:
So when we say time does not exist, or analyse the idea of no time, the absence of time does nothing fantastically drastic to the functioning universe prior to or after our conception of time or from the idea of no time.


absolutely , spot on

north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 07:03 pm

the thing is , is that , relativity is based on our relative position to a certain object , or to an object and its relative position to us

0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 07:15 pm

Quote:

xris wrote:
Whats more interesting is the idea, what is no time? or is it possible? We have tried debated it before without any real success.
I prefer the idea that time is not measured by clocks, we define time by clocks.


Quote:
NO time is where the Universe is


NO-time meaning that everything happens at the same moment
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 08:13 pm
@north,
north wrote:
oh ... change exists
and according to my definitions, it is real also.
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 08:18 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:

north wrote:
oh ... change exists
and according to my definitions, it is real also.


yes

change does not have to measured to know that change happens

to me , change is just common sense
0 Replies
 
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 10:56 pm
Time is a measurement of an event in relation to all other events, in accordance to the structured order of space-time. (X is before Y, and the earth could revolve around the sun two times between X and Y for example.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 06:44:44