Time simply does not exist

@cicerone imposter,

1 - I suppose by the same token "billions of stars" still refers to "our environment"...

2 - That time results from the experience we have on living in this environment claims nothing on the nature of time except that it is experiential...whether it is experiential because we create such experience or because such experience results of its action is the actual matter at hand !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Get on with the show; we live by only one sun which creates "time" for humans.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

By "deep" subjectivity, do you mean "shared subjectivity"? The objectivity of science seems to me to be imitation of objectivity, achieved by focusing on aspects of human subjectivity that are common to all humans.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Otherwise, time doesn't exist.

I think there's more to it than just our sun, but I agree with what seems to be the underlying point here.
Historically, we see that the world changes as our understanding of it does. "Time" doesn't mean the same today as it did in Newton's days, for instance. Today we have many different approaches to the phenomenon, and some people operate with phrases like "universal time" and "psychological time". To me, those concepts seem problematic, since I think of the universe as a psychological phenomenon.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

By "deep" subjectivity I usually refer to the way one engages reality with his entire (conscious and unconscious) mind. This is what I try to do in painting. And I do consider objectivity to be a matter of shared (inter-) subjectivity--that which appears to be objective to us. Who said (Rorty?) that the hardness of a fact is really the hardness with which society agrees to it.
I guess Science's "objectivity" does rest largely on the cultural "hardness" of its "facts".

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

However, it seems to this observer that objectivity, once realized scientifically, realistically, and repeatedly, cannot be denied.

a. The earth rotates
b. The earth's rotation creates "human" time for our universe
c. Humans are able to invent many "conveniences"
d. Technology grows exponentially
e. Humans are able to record "history"

I believe you get the idea; they are objective truths. There is nothing to deny those "facts."

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I'm not denying their "objectivity"; I'm just offering a definition of it.
Do you consider historiography to be very objectivity? There is always the factor of perspective and the interpretations it feeds.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

You wrote,

Quote:

Do you consider historiography to be very objectivity? There is always the factor of perspective and the interpretations it feeds.

Perception and reality has everything to do with any individual's experience.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...No, you have been arguing for actual movement within the 3 dimensions saying time is the fourth as movement, sounds like you don't understand it at all beyond what it resembles...when in fact time as a fourth dimension of space through a sequence of discrete cubic blocks of space (spacing of space) re arranges information in several positions such that movement is not required...it is an "effect" an illusion of the spacing of the 3 dimensional space with matter in different positions very much like a film works in each photography...so there is nothing in your argument explaining what time is at a fundamental level beyond the common description...True movement would require true time, a future which is not yet decided, while a timeless conception is an argument against movement and against minds as deciders on the direction of such movement...more, it is an argument against the very idea of building anything new...no innovation exists ! Equally there is nothing outside it...all reality past present and future co exist along this extended space...

continue

what we havn't done is explore the ESSENCE of time

so lets do so

the essence of time is about the movement of an object and/or objects from on place to another , either physically , atomically , or sub-atomic

from a car moving along a road , the cesium clock or the speed of light something is motion

all move in the first place because there is something in their nature which causes the movement in the first place , its not a mystery

the car moves at a certain speed because of the engine and gas , combustion of the gas

the cesium clock is what it is because of the electrons from one position to another in a consistant way

the light speed is because the energy within a thing releases releases energy in the light spectrum , the sun

hence time is NOT the progenitor of movement but rather the mathematical concept , a tool , in which we try to understand the consequence of the nature of the object only

so time ONLY exists as a mathematical concept . for instance if you were to change time in any equation t=? whatever , the only way the change in the equation has any meaning is if the change manifests its self in reality or in what is being studied

time has no real physical meaning , time does not and cannot change the movement , in any way , of what is being studied

therefore time does not exist , physically

2 Replies

@north,

Good post. Time is a human concept that doesn't exist outside of our realm.

Anything moving beyond our sphere of "light" never has time.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Perhaps in the quote above, i've dipped my finger in the wrong end of the distinction between representation as imitation and representation as analogy.

Quote:

I don't know if the distinction matters in this context, or perhaps I am missing your point. My starting point is my own experience of reality. I believe that physics and all other empirical sciences and the universal processes they study are fundamentally linked to perception, despite the ideal of objectivity.

and they question what they see , hence objectivity

Quote:

I don't believe 'reality' is something that precedes perception

. its not about " belief " that reality precedes perception its the way it is did you perceive a mountain before you saw it ? and the consequences that it implies towards other ologies ? no

Quote:

I see the two as mutually evocative. They exist as consequences of each other in a grand scale 'chicken or egg situation'. I realize it may look like I'm trying to state facts here. I am not. It's merely an idea, an incoherent philosophy full of contradictions. But then again, so is most of metaphysics. It could almost be said to be a defining attribute...

your ideas are fundamentally wrong

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yes.

0 Replies

@north,

...really no **** ? (keep your basic description of physics in your pocket)
Who said time was the progenitor of movement ?
Time is the MEASUREMENT of movement !
What movement is or is not is yet another matter...

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

...I suppose you know that because you say so...
...whatever goes beyond human sphere may or may not anything !...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...I suppose you know that because you say so...
...whatever goes beyond human sphere may or may not anything !...

Ah, because you say so? Do you understand ad hominems? I doubt it, but thought I'd ask.

If you disagree with my opinion, all you need to do is present your own that challenges what I say. Simple. Attacking the poster is childish.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

???
Where did I attack you Cicerone ? I just reasoned you presented an argument you cannot prove...you do, believe, pick whatever you want...is not much to ask you consider to make more then a plain claim without any shred of substantiated reasoning...as far as I know " stars" do work within human sphere...what the heck would we refer to by the usage of "stars" if not ???

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I knew there was a good reason I had you on Ignore.

You just confirmed it for me.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I suppose you ignorance on basic physics is the reason why you go around with foolish comments...I suggest you go and re check what an argument ad hominem is before you push that card again...when your out of little tricks bring some value to the debate if it is the case you can...

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Who said (Rorty?) that the hardness of a fact is really the hardness with which society agrees to it.

Yes. What is the 'fundamental' truth about gravity, for instance? It is not that large bodies of mass have strong attraction to other mass. That is what gravity is, but it is not why we believe in it.
We believe in it because if anyone of us decides to test that fact, we will all have the same result. It takes no effort to believe in something that convincing, which is why many miss the fact that it is a belief.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I believe you get the idea; they are objective truths. There is nothing to deny those "facts."

There is no one to deny them. Yet.

Remember that humans used to think that the earth was at the center of the universe. Those who knew this 'fact' thought that that's just how reality works. Then it was proven that the earth is just another planet around the sun, and suddenly reality changed.
But what did truly change? Not the sun's or the earth's behavior relative to each other. The only thing that changes was the earth's and sun's behavior relative to what we believe about them.
The perspective changes.

So were those people who lived before Copernicus came along wrong? We would likely say yes, and for a long time that was true. Some might think it still is, but even though the people before Copernicus' time didn't understand, even though their method and their perspective was wrong, their conclusion, the statement, earth is at the center of the universe, is actually true.

Because of how the universe is expanding, the vantage point of any observer who measures this expansion will always be at the center of the expansion. To each one of us, while having the experience of existing, it appears as if we are at the center of the universe. This is another scientific fact.

So statements like the ones from a.-e. are not in themselves fact, but interpretations of facts based on what we believe reality is.

I like to compare facts to pictures in comic books. Imagine that you cut out every single picture in a dozen comic books and put them all in a big pile. Think of all the new stories you could make by arranging the pictures differently.
And think of how hard if would be to reconstruct the dozen original stories if you had never read them before you cut out the pictures.

Facts are like that, only we don't have the whole pile, and we never saw the whole story. We find picture after picture and make stories that make sense to us.

1 Reply

Time simply does not exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know