7
   

Once again on the existance of time...

 
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 05:12 am
@validity,
I understand it is relative but my journey through the black hole to others would appear to be forever . Time in the black hole because of its gravitational pull would virtually stop time in relation to us here on earth. So I would enter and never return for earthlings but to me , if I could survive, would be normal but on my return the earth would then probably not exist. So time has the ability in theory to cease to be of any real significance when expressing the notion of a time without time. This is why in my opinion the BB appears to have a timed start but when you consider the gravitational pull, the observed events we assume to be taking X amount of years becomes X + the increased effect of gravity. 13 billion light years could be just what we assume from our perspective. The universe may never in real terms ever not exist. In a billion years time looking back to this point may only appear to be a million. We have a long way before we can grasp the notion of time.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 04:37 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

But to say that time has "conceptual existence" is only to to say that the concept of time exist, and if you say that time has only conceptual existence (as you probably do) what you are saying is that only the concept of time exists, but that time does not. To say that X has conceptual existence is simply to say that the concept of X exists. It makes no sense to say that existence is conceptual (or physical). It makes sense only to say that either the concept of something exists, or that the thing exists, and if the thing is a physical thing that it exists. I know that there is the concept of time. But whether time itself is a physical thing, or any kind of thing, I have no idea. And to say that only the concept of time exists, is to imply that time (physical or not) does not exist.
This is a good point Ken. I was giving some ground to those who might say something like, "I know that there is the concept of time", and "is" and "exist" might be thought to be the same thing.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 04:53 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Khethil wrote:

de Silentio wrote:

If time is just a concept, how do you explain the relationship between time and space?

I don't know there is one. Besides, we're still at the "does it exist"-phase. Kinda tough to jump over that to the "It exists cuz it has a relationship somewhere", too. Don't ya think?

And yea, nice to bump into you too!

Thanks


Bu that doesn't matter. If there is no time, but only the concept of time, then how could it have a relationship to space.
Thank you. This pretty much exactly explains where I'm going with this.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 05:06 pm
@xris,
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.
Hmm...
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 05:10 pm
@thack45,
Are you familiar with the concept of Hemn space, as described by Neal Stephenson? It may help you understand the concept of the existence of time as part of a much larger factor of perception and reality, defined by observation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 05:36 pm
@thack45,
This confusion about "concepts" separate from "reality" can be solved, but not if you assume "reality" refers to "existence independent of observers". The point I am making is that "reality" is about our day to day relationships with "the world" and not NOT "the world itself" . It follows that "concepts" are mental presentations or re-presentations of such relationships.

Now insofar that our relationships are ordered or sequential then "time" is an aspect of such ordering. It is relationship between relationships and hence a "concept". But time has no existential function other than that.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 05:39 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 universde is moving at different speeds , so whose clock can be said to represent time?
I am very curious as to what is being measured here, and in what ways and with what measuring devices? I don't mean to speak argumentatively or in a matter-of-fact kind of way. But I do have questions about these things...
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 06:15 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

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?

If I measure a duration of about half a day or around 11 hours and 52 minutes, or roughly 42,720 seconds between these posts, should I say that that time exists now?
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 06:21 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:
If I measure a duration of about half a day or around 11 hours and 52 minutes, or roughly 42,720 seconds between these posts, should I say that that time exists now?
Try asking the same question about distance; if the distance is several miles, does that distance exist here? The question doesn't make sense, as far as I can see.
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 06:37 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

thack45 wrote:
If I measure a duration of about half a day or around 11 hours and 52 minutes, or roughly 42,720 seconds between these posts, should I say that that time exists now?
Try asking the same question about distance; if the distance is several miles, does that distance exist here? The question doesn't make sense, as far as I can see.
Distance would not, but the space that we can measure as several miles might exist.
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 06:52 pm
Rather than trying to answer whether or not time exists, shouldn't we investigate the nature of time?

We know that the word 'time' refers to something, as it is not a word like 'goiples'. So there seems to be some meaning behind the word. What is or are these meanings?

To those who will respond: 'We can't investigate the nature before the existence', I answer: Existence is built into the nature of things that exist. Thus, if we can determine that existence is built into time (or rather, built into that which the word 'time' refers to) then we can say that time exists.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 07:41 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:

. Is it necesarry to ask in what term time is meant before pondering its existance?


Well, that is something that might occur to one. I would expect someone who asked me whether neutrinos exist to have some idea of what he was asking.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 07:46 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:

Rather than trying to answer whether or not time exists, shouldn't we investigate the nature of time?

We know that the word 'time' refers to something, as it is not a word like 'goiples'. So there seems to be some meaning behind the word. What is or are these meanings?

To those who will respond: 'We can't investigate the nature before the existence', I answer: Existence is built into the nature of things that exist. Thus, if we can determine that existence is built into time (or rather, built into that which the word 'time' refers to) then we can say that time exists.


The term "unicorn" is not a term like 'goiples' either. But there are no unicorns. So just because a term has meaning, it does not follow that there is something it names. Another interesting (but different case) is the word, "if". Now "if" has meaning, but what do you think "if" refers to?

Existence is built into the nature of things that exist.

If it were in the nature of something to exist, it would be impossible for it not to exist. But it is not impossible for what exists not to exist. Therefore, it is not in the nature of something to exist. To make this clearer, if something did not have three sides, it could not be a triangle, therefore, it is in the nature of a triangle to have three sides. But, that is not true of anything that exists, for it need not exist. So existence is not to something that exists as having three sides is to something that is a triangle. Having three sides is essential to being a triangle, but existence is not essential to anything.
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 08:24 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

thack45 wrote:

. Is it necesarry to ask in what term time is meant before pondering its existance?


Well, that is something that might occur to one. I would expect someone who asked me whether neutrinos exist to have some idea of what he was asking.
And how should we arrive at "some idea"? What must happen before I am sufficiently qualified to ask you whether neutrinos exist?

*EDIT* Go ahead, I can take it.
0 Replies
 
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 02:53 am
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
thack45 wrote:
should I say that that time exists now?
does that distance exist here?
Distance would not, but the space that we can measure as several miles might exist.
It wouldn't exist "here", because here is a spatial location, just as "now" is a temporal location.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 05:13 am
@thack45,
Its a difficult subject to get your head around in my opinion. Lets imagine a giant planet three times the size of earth. If you had a clock ticking away it would not appear any differently to a clock here on Earth but if you could actually see the clock here on Earth and compare it to yours it would be going slower. Slower because increases in gravitational field, slows time.

If you now exaggerate that effect and lump all the mass of the universe in one point , would time actually be objectively observed to be moving and or would it actually be moving for you, if you had the misfortune to be part of the mass? Time is relative to you but in theory relative to where you are, it can be non existent or racing away with unbelievable speed.

If you then consider on the biggest star you can imagine, time maybe extremely slow but on the smallest of moons it will be going so much faster. So when we look at the universe we see time moving at different rates depending on what we look at. Now understanding that,we now look back in time as the light from distant galaxies reach us. We assume by observation that as time appears to be relative to light, we calculate the time of the BB. Now my claim ,not sciences, I cant find anyone making this claim, we are misjudging time because we don't take the increase of mass of the universe into account at the very beginning of the universe...Or may I say when we propose it started. So the age of the universe could be incalculable .

With all that in mind, time is illusive, its existence is only dependant on your point of view, your relationship to it. In theory it could be non existent relative to ours ...I do hope I made sense of my musing.
0 Replies
 
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 08:27 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

The term "unicorn" is not a term like 'goiples' either. But there are no unicorns. So just because a term has meaning, it does not follow that there is something it names. Another interesting (but different case) is the word, "if". Now "if" has meaning, but what do you think "if" refers to?

Funny that you mention unicorns, because that is exactly the example I had in mind. If I examine what I mean when I say: "The unicorn is flying", I am talking about a being who's nature is such that it does not exist in the real world, as "unicorns" are fantastical creatures. However, if I say "the cat in front of me is licking it's paw". Cat's are beings that exists and their nature is such that existence can be predicated to them. Thus, the nature of a cat and a unicorn differ in the respect that I can predicate existence into their being or their nature.

When I talk about cats and unicorns, I am talking about words with meanings such that it is *possible* to predicate existence to. Time, in my opinion, is such a word that certain meanings of the word can have existence as a predicate. "If", on the other hand, is not a word like cats, unicorns, or time. it is in a different category all together (perhaps there are some grammitcal rules that apply here?)

Quote:
If it were in the nature of something to exist, it would be impossible for it not to exist. But it is not impossible for what exists not to exist. Therefore, it is not in the nature of something to exist. To make this clearer, if something did not have three sides, it could not be a triangle, therefore, it is in the nature of a triangle to have three sides. But, that is not true of anything that exists, for it need not exist. So existence is not to something that exists as having three sides is to something that is a triangle. Having three sides is essential to being a triangle, but existence is not essential to anything.


I did not say that existence is equivalent with time's essence or that "it is in time's essence to exist", as you seem to be. I am talking about natures, not essences. It is in my wife's nature to exist, if it wasn't then she would not exist (and I would be a lonely man!). It is not in her *essence* to exist. If it was, then, as you say, she could not but exist (like God), but we are using existence and essence as Aristotilians/Thomists would, and not like Existentialist would (as a side point, the Exisitentialist/Phenomenologist would agree that it is in her *essence* to exsit, I think).

Now, do you think my talking about "natures" is equivalent to "essences"? Because I think there is a difference.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 08:42 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

The term "unicorn" is not a term like 'goiples' either. But there are no unicorns. So just because a term has meaning, it does not follow that there is something it names. Another interesting (but different case) is the word, "if". Now "if" has meaning, but what do you think "if" refers to?

Funny that you mention unicorns, because that is exactly the example I had in mind. If I examine what I mean when I say: "The unicorn is flying", I am talking about a being who's nature is such that it does not exist in the real world, as "unicorns" are fantastical creatures. However, if I say "the cat in front of me is licking it's paw". Cat's are beings that exists and their nature is such that existence can be predicated to them. Thus, the nature of a cat and a unicorn differ in the respect that I can predicate existence into their being or their nature.

When I talk about cats and unicorns, I am talking words with meanings such that it is *possible* to predicate existence to. Time, in my opinion, is such a word that certain meanings of the word can have existence as a predicate. "If", on the other hand, is in a different category.

Quote:
If it were in the nature of something to exist, it would be impossible for it not to exist. But it is not impossible for what exists not to exist. Therefore, it is not in the nature of something to exist. To make this clearer, if something did not have three sides, it could not be a triangle, therefore, it is in the nature of a triangle to have three sides. But, that is not true of anything that exists, for it need not exist. So existence is not to something that exists as having three sides is to something that is a triangle. Having three sides is essential to being a triangle, but existence is not essential to anything.


I did not say that existence is equivalent with time essence, as you seem to be. I am talking about natures, not essences. It is in my wife's nature to exist, if it wasn't then she would not exist (and I would be a lonely man!). It is not in ther *essence* to exist. If it was, then, as you say, she could but not exist (like God), but we are using existence and essence as Aristotilians/Thomists would, and not like Existentialist would (as a side point).

Now, do you think my talking about "natures" is equivalent to "essences"? Becaus I think there is a difference.


According to you, if anything exists, it is "in the nature of that thing" to exist. All that comes to is that for it to be true of something that it is in its nature to exist is that it exists. I certainly agree that if something exists then it exists. How could I not? That is pretty uninteresting, wouldn't you say? On the other hand what would be interesting would be to hold that it is in the nature of something to exist that it could not fail to exist. But to hold that is (as you recognize) is to hold that it is the essence of that thing to exist. Now the only thing I have ever heard of, of which it was believed that it is its essence to exist is God. But, as you seem to recognize, it cannot be of the essence of something to exist, for that would imply that existence was a property, and it is certainly not that.

My conclusion is that you are confronted with a dilemma when you say that it is in the nature of your wife (or anything) to exist. Either that is to say that if that thing exists then it exist, which is true, but nothing to get excited about, since it is a tautology, or else, it means something very interesting, namely that it is of the essence of the object in question to exist. But, as I have just argued, that proposition is just as false as it is interesting. Therefore it follows that either what it means to say of something that it is in its nature to exist, is either a truth but trivial, or a falsity, but interesting. And it is your choice whether you would prefer to assert a trivial truth, or an interesting falsity.

So in answer to your question, the answer is, yes. I think you are talking about essence when you talk about nature, and that is what I think Aristotle meant too. By, for example, "it is in the nature of a triangle to have three angles" simply means that it is an essential property for a triangle to have three angles.







de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 07:42 pm
@kennethamy,
Silly me... existence cannot be predicated onto anything, it can only be experienced.

I was trying to run with a thought, and utterly failed. Thanks for keeping me in line, kennethamy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 07:44 pm
@thack45,
They are both physical and conceptual.
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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 04:32:31