17
   

Time simply does not exist

 
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 01:30 am
@xxxx,
Quote:
time is an abstract measurment. Time is not needed in the universe. The natural world is simply movement through space and the coversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Even without time the world would be able to function properly. There is no need for it.


Language simply does not exist.

Language is an abstract function. Language is not needed in the universe. The natural world is simply movement through space and the conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Even without language the world would be able to function properly. There is no need for it.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 02:08 am
@vikorr,
...that is just silly Vik...the natural world works itself as a "language"...language as I see it is just orderly change of information...the distinction we do regarding "our" language as being representative or symbolic only means we have a lower resolution to describe the workings of reality...why on hell do we compartmentalize so much the extended meaning of words ? in it we produce bureaucracy instead of understanding...
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 05:40 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The 'language' you are referring to is quite different to the one I am referring to, which includes the word 'time' (which is what the OP has in question). What do the words and the structures you are using in creating your sentence mean Fil (in the context of a comparison as to whether or not time exists)?

Edit : you did pick up that I just replaced the word 'time' with the word 'language' from the original post, right?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 06:00 pm
@xxxx,
The concept of time has numerous benefits, including :

Efficiency :
- meetings/phone calls etc occurring to a timed schedule allow for efficient use of 'time' (achieving more in a day)
- everyone starting work at the same time

Safety :
- such as on roads - where speed = distance/time
- interception of missiles / jet fighters etc

Food :
- the measurement of time combined with seasonal knowledge allows for the best planting times, as well as measuring plant growth times
- finding the best storage methods (decay/time)
- communicating how long things take to spoil (food safety)

Competition
- which measures lots of things in time

I'm sure that list can go on. So whether or not 'time' exists in actuality is irrelevant to whether or not the concept improves our lives.

This is rather related to the point from my previous post.

Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 06:05 pm
@vikorr,
This is interesting. xxxx, the OP, is, by his own admission, 14 years old. And no matter what his personal feeling about it, his understanding of the concept of time, at least, seems so much more sophisticated than yours, Vikorr. How old are you, btw?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 06:08 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Is sophistication a good thing, if it doesn't comprehend the foundation upon which it is built?

Are we now seeking to compare the value of ideas based on age?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 06:10 pm
@vikorr,
...well is pretty much in your face to not notice...I just think language was not the best choice...and yes I agree time can be used as a function of some sort in a schema...but then that was not the point.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 06:38 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...well is pretty much in your face to not notice...I just think language was not the best choice...and yes I agree time can be used as a function of some sort in a schema...but then that was not the point.

I would disagree. Let me try a few different ways of explaining :

- Concepts exist in our mind - we (as a society) agree to assign words to the concept, that then allows easy communication of the concept, and this allows his use of the word 'time' to be understood by us.

-The word 'time' is part of language. It is simply a concept assigned to a word, upon which most people agree. 'Language' was put there (by me in my original reply in pace of the word 'time') because he is using language (in this case the accepted meaning of the word time) to argue that the concept of time does not exist...but in our minds, concepts exist if we can conceive them...which is the reason that language exists (because we conceive, and associate in order to create words that have meaning)

- the concept in this case, has usefulness. You state 'the usefulness of the concept time' is not the point - but I would daresay that it is exactly the point. If it weren't useful, the concept would never have been assigned the word, nor used so much, and he would not be able to argue that time doesn't exist (as the word wouldn't exist).

A hammer exists because it is useful.

A hammer started as a concept in someone's mind.

And it seems I am easily amused by the lack of usefulness of the argument over whether or not time actually exists.

Quote:
time is an abstract measurment. correct - though it is also a reliable measurement Time is not needed in the universe. correct, though it is very useful to humans The natural world is simply movement through space and the coversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. True enough if you want a very basic view of all interactions Even without time the world would be able to function properly. Also true enough There is no need for it. Probably only humans would argue differently. I daresay if you didn't turn up to work on time, your boss may disagree
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 04:10 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
...well is pretty much in your face to not notice...I just think language was not the best choice...and yes I agree time can be used as a function of some sort in a schema...but then that was not the point.

I would disagree. Let me try a few different ways of explaining :

- Concepts exist in our mind - we (as a society) agree to assign words to the concept, that then allows easy communication of the concept, and this allows his use of the word 'time' to be understood by us.

-The word 'time' is part of language. It is simply a concept assigned to a word, upon which most people agree. 'Language' was put there (by me in my original reply in pace of the word 'time') because he is using language (in this case the accepted meaning of the word time) to argue that the concept of time does not exist...but in our minds, concepts exist if we can conceive them...which is the reason that language exists (because we conceive, and associate in order to create words that have meaning)

- the concept in this case, has usefulness. You state 'the usefulness of the concept time' is not the point - but I would daresay that it is exactly the point. If it weren't useful, the concept would never have been assigned the word, nor used so much, and he would not be able to argue that time doesn't exist (as the word wouldn't exist).

A hammer exists because it is useful.

A hammer started as a concept in someone's mind.

And it seems I am easily amused by the lack of usefulness of the argument over whether or not time actually exists.

Quote:
time is an abstract measurment. correct - though it is also a reliable measurement Time is not needed in the universe. correct, though it is very useful to humans The natural world is simply movement through space and the coversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. True enough if you want a very basic view of all interactions Even without time the world would be able to function properly. Also true enough There is no need for it. Probably only humans would argue differently. I daresay if you didn't turn up to work on time, your boss may disagree



eaaasy there...allot of confusion reading what I meant in those words...of course the concept of time exists and its useful...when I said it was not the point I meant to say if such concept can or cannot be replaced in a system of explanation which is more simple and that does not require time to express reality as it works...now concepts are not inventions in the sense that we create them...I always disagreed that we "create" anything, "we" are not the beginning of the world...we edit stuff...concepts are just lower resolution mimics of patterns...the thing is that time is just an axis...is just another dimension of space...space means just axis....often people forget that...they tend to think of space as something concrete the 3 dimensional space...I am even under the impression that one dimension suffices as the other two or more can be described within the first, within one axis...Occam Razor often pushes me to make claims most people wont like...being an "amateur" in philosophy, which in turns means that the process of solution is mine and not borrowed, it requires self commitment, makes it OK...I couldn't care less if people like it or not...for me it is necessary !
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 05:47 am
@xxxx,
Time is a measure of change. One state follows another, and the progression has direction. This process, when experienced by an individual who can remember previous states, gives us time.
Time and space are not prerequisites for the existence of matter and energy. They are consequences of it.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 06:08 am
@Cyracuz,
According to Heidegger, to talk of existence at all implies a Dasein (thinking entity) which experiences its world "in time". Thus time (Zeit) and being (Sein) are inseparable co-extensive concepts. The fact that the "time" of physics is theoretically inseparable from "space", is a secondary analysis concerned with the predictive functioning of science. The point is that without the psychological Zeit of "existence" Einstein's physical and pragmatic construction of space-time would never have occurred. In other words "existence" cannot be separated from "time" on the basis of the models of physics, anymore than "physics" itself could be said to "exist" without cognate observers.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 07:00 am
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 08:06 am
@rosborne979,
I wouldn't be so sure of that...I certainly went to the trouble of coming up with a mind experiment were movement is not needed to describe events...

...imagine a sequence, an axis of sets on which information is gained and loss progressively not by movement but by stacking side by side, these sets on which the next "you" set has almost the same pattern of information then the previous "you" set, but with something more, what you would call acquiring a new event...bare in mind that the whole of sets are already there like a film in a tape...such sets, in human beings, experience time and movement through memory and because their system is self informing and aware, again through memory, which bottom line is just data comparison...a process which itself is a static set, transitioning to another "you" set...thus you have accumulation of data from set to set, and some loss, experiencing "movement" in a systemic way...now ontological reality may just be the side by side arrangement of these sets a string of binary information...simpler sets, or non self informing systems, are even easier to describe...they stack side by side with progressive new data, new events, which gives the impression of causal effect relation...but in reality what you have going on is just an huge static string of a progressive pattern of information unfolding in sets with a given intrinsic a priori order in them...

..now as this matter is extremely complex to explain I am not at all certain if I did convey or clarified the idea sufficiently...but in my mind I can imagine movement as more of an effect then a thing in itself...such place is precisely how I distinguish phenomena, the experiencing, from Being...the unmoved mover...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 08:25 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...any way it is quite charming to assist from the balcony to gratuitous arrogance coming from ignorance...some have said and it is quite true, we have a all new generation of smart donkeys ruling the world of knowledge from a place of self inflated authority... I, in here, have nothing but a proposition open to critique...
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 10:17 am
@fresco,
Theoretical physic's T (or space-time) exists as an intellectual understanding of Nature. Time, as (felt) duration, exists as the phenomenological aspect of Nature. The former is an inter-subjective reality and the latter is a purely subjective one.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 10:51 am
@JLNobody,
...inter subjective instead of relative uh ? that was original...but inter subjective still appeals to a phenomenal understanding of multiple events...now beyond the experiencing, what you usually qualify as the "ineffable" how would you go about it, what would you call it ?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 11:37 am
@JLNobody,
Correct....but only up to the point of considering that if all "experience" involves language then it too may fall under the heading "intersubjectivity". (Note the post 1947 Heidegger adage "Language speaks the Man" !....I interpret this as language being a "social field effect" which is a priori to individual "experience")
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 03:44 pm
@fresco,
I agree. Language, as an interpretive tool , turns immediate (or "raw") sensation into mediated (or "cooked") experience. The (social field) effect is, I suppose, what you mean by the process of culture. This involves "intersubjectivity" insofar as language--and the rules regarding its use--is shared.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2012 12:44 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
eaaasy there...allot of confusion reading what I meant in those words.
One of the wonders of written language Smile
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2012 01:16 am
@xxxx,
xxxx wrote:

time is an abstract measurment. Time is not needed in the universe. The natural world is simply movement through space and the coversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Even without time the world would be able to function properly. There is no need for it.


"Time is an abstract measurement"...yes. "Time is not needed in the universe"...yes. "The natural world is simply movement through space and the conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy...wait doesn't the word "through" imply a temporal measurement --how otherwise to mark the entrance and exit? Hmmm...

farmerman wrote:

time and space are conjoined

farmerman wrote:

time is that thing that keeps all other things from happening at once


Eh, cliches...if time and space are synonymous, then what prevents everything from happening all at once; if time merely prevents this, why does anything happen at all?

fresco wrote:

The issue lies with the definition of "existence", not "time" per se. If "existence" is taken as relative to an observer then the issue dissolves. (Note that some cultures have no linguistic tokens for "past" and "future"....only "now" and "not now". Don't be mesmerized by "western scientific chauvinism".)


Who mentioned "existence"? The word at issue is "is". Pedantic? Yes.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Movement cannot take place without two other things: space and time. It's the physicist's Holy Trinity -- space, time and motion. None of the three can exist without presence of the other two.


Doesn't motion include time and motion? Time and space certainly seem necessary concepts for the measurement of motion. But how does motion "need" space and time. "Holy Trinity" indeed...motion needs space and time in exactly the same way that the "omnipotent, omniscient Creator" needs "the Son" and "the Holy Ghost"...

vikorr wrote:

Language simply does not exist.

Language is an abstract function. Language is not needed in the universe. The natural world is simply movement through space and the conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Even without language the world would be able to function properly. There is no need for it.


True dat

Cyracuz wrote:

Time is a measure of change. One state follows another, and the progression has direction. This process, when experienced by an individual who can remember previous states, gives us time.
Time and space are not prerequisites for the existence of matter and energy. They are consequences of it.


Yesh ...(although i disagree that there are, in fact, "states", and that their "progression" is in any way dependent on third-party individual observers...not that i believe in progress Smile ), but still largely yes --in context.

JLNobody wrote:

Theoretical physic's T (or space-time) exists as an intellectual understanding of Nature. Time, as (felt) duration, exists as the phenomenological aspect of Nature. The former is an inter-subjective reality and the latter is a purely subjective one.


Is there anything, intellectually or existentially, aside from the usual reservations of Einsteinian relativism, that prevents the two from coexisting...? A conceptual framework that takes both positions into account?

fresco wrote:

According to Heidegger, to talk of existence at all implies a Dasein (thinking entity) which experiences its world "in time". Thus time (Zeit) and being (Sein) are inseparable co-extensive concepts. The fact that the "time" of physics is theoretically inseparable from "space", is a secondary analysis concerned with the predictive functioning of science. The point is that without the psychological Zeit of "existence" Einstein's physical and pragmatic construction of space-time would never have occurred. In other words "existence" cannot be separated from "time" on the basis of the models of physics, anymore than "physics" itself could be said to "exist" without cognate observers.


Well, not that we've had that much interaction lately, but i have to tell you that i'm still pretty annoyed by people that paraphrase Heidegger without having read him (which i'm assuming you still haven't...)

Granted, "to speak" of "existence, at all" might require an observer, as well as an observer who was a language user -- one would assume that they were the same thing, yes? Otherwise, how would you know?

And while Zeit may be constitutive of Dasein, what assures you that Sein requires a Zeit or a Dasein? Aside from Dasein, who couldn't know...

fresco wrote:

...if all "experience" involves language then it too may fall under the heading "intersubjectivity". (Note the post 1947 Heidegger adage "Language speaks the Man" !....I interpret this as language being a "social field effect" which is a priori to individual "experience")


Ugh...like Heidegger, you seem to conflate experience with process, and assume that the second requires the former to "is" properly. Many processes occur outside the horizon of Dasein's ability to experience them-- why should they be subject to a linguistic origin? Might their existence be a posteriori to a social network of associations?

Man, i'm sticking my hand into the hornets' nest in this thread...
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/16/2022 at 04:22:32