does time exist?

A great scientist said "times exists to prvent everything from hapening all at once". I forget who said it.

0 Replies

Space, time and matter/energy. All three only have meaning relative to the others. That is, if there was no matter/energy then then space and time would be meaningless. Similarly if there was no time then space and matter/energy would be meaningless.

Basically I think it is a false distinction to speak of time and space and matter/energy as separate entities. They are all one in the same.

0 Replies

'A Purposeful Life Is A Journey' Metaphor

0 Replies

Quote:

Basically I think it is a false distinction to speak of time and space and matter/energy as separate entities. They are all one in the same.

I think so too. Time is the counterpart fo space. The terms give eachother meaning. Matter/energy is the third "ingredient". They are all expressions of some force that manifests to us in as this three-way interplay. It is how we see it, and it has more to do with us than this force. Maybe the decision of wether or not time is real is a matter of how we define "real", more than how we define "time". Or as cob says; time is an abstract idea.

0 Replies

See, that's the trouble with the whole universe. It's just one thing after another...!! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

0 Replies

LOL, yeah but it's the repeats which annoy me the most.

0 Replies

pswfps wrote:

Space, time and matter/energy. All three only have meaning relative to the others. That is, if there was no matter/energy then then space and time would be meaningless. Similarly if there was no time then space and matter/energy would be meaningless.

Basically I think it is a false distinction to speak of time and space and matter/energy as separate entities. They are all one in the same.

If you actually read any books on quantum physics or relativity you'll find that we do NOT refer to space and time as separate entities. Most all physicists will refer to "space-time" because they are connected at the hip.

As for matter and energy, space can exist without matter. It's called a vacuum. The fact that our terms to describe them are opposing in nature and require one so that the other (the negation) can exist, does not have any bearing on the real world and its ability to exist. This is tantamount to saying that anything we cannot explain or accurately describe does not exist or occur, which is obviously crazy.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you actually read any books on quantum physics or relativity you'll find that we do NOT refer to space and time as separate entities. Most all physicists will refer to "space-time" because they are connected at the hip.

Yes, I know. I think you've mistaken my meaning here.

Quote:

As for matter and energy, space can exist without matter. It's called a vacuum.

Again I think you've mistaken my meaning. "Matter" is nothing but a localised and highly twisted/energised region of space-time. Therefore matter and vaccum are simply different states of the same thing, namely space-time. Neither matter/energy, space or time exist independantly of space-time. That is what I meant, so until you've taken the time to properly understand what is being said I'd suggest you dispense with the supercilious tone.

0 Replies

pswfps wrote:

Quote:
If you actually read any books on quantum physics or relativity you'll find that we do NOT refer to space and time as separate entities. Most all physicists will refer to "space-time" because they are connected at the hip.

Yes, I know. I think you've mistaken my meaning here.

Quote:
As for matter and energy, space can exist without matter. It's called a vacuum.

Again I think you've mistaken my meaning. "Matter" is nothing but a localised and highly twisted/energised region of space-time. Therefore matter and vaccum are simply different states of the same thing, namely space-time. Neither matter/energy, space or time exist independantly of space-time. That is what I meant, so until you've taken the time to properly understand what is being said I'd suggest you dispense with the supercilious tone.

Supercilious... that's a good word.

Anyway, matter and a vacuum are no more differet states of the same thing than are teddybears and icecream. The only way they are "different staes" is if you define an "empty" state and a "non-empty" state. But then, you could define that arbitrary relationship to nearly anything with any number of states. It's completely meaningless.

And by the way, the fact that these things are intertwined is somewhat trivial and in no way is relevant to the initial questions posted. :-)

0 Replies

Quote:

The only way they are "different staes" is if you define an "empty" state and a "non-empty" state.

That's just a non-sequitur. It is perfectly logical to define a state in relation to another without having to have "nothing" as a frame of reference.

Quote:

Supercilious... that's a good word.

Yes, I liked it too. Hey, why not add it to your vocab too?

0 Replies

pswfps wrote:

Quote:
The only way they are "different staes" is if you define an "empty" state and a "non-empty" state.

That's just a non-sequitur. It is perfectly logical to define a state in relation to another without having to have "nothing" as a frame of reference.

Not when you're defining a vacuum, which is the lack of energy/matter in a volume of space.

Quote:

Supercilious... that's a good word.

Yes, I liked it too. Hey, why not add it to your vocab too?

No thanks. It's somewhat supersfluous.

0 Replies

Quote:

And by the way, the fact that these things are intertwined is somewhat trivial and in no way is relevant to the initial questions posted.

I think it is very relevant. You see, if one artificially abstracts "time" without consideration to it's integral nature of all existence then one's view of "time" is nothing but a psychological convenience, ie, fictional.

Then again, all knowledge is ultimately a convenient abstraction.

0 Replies

Quote:

Not when you're defining a vacuum, which is the lack of energy/matter in a volume of space.

I define vacuum thus: a region of space-time of relatively low energy. There is no such thing as "nothing" and space-time pervades all existence.

0 Replies

There is such a thing as nothing. There's just not way to observe nothing. Damn that uncertainty principle!

Anyway, I understand what you mean about making something "abstract." I have seen people that take that approach to say that such-and-such isn't real. Which is just silly because everything we experience can be defined as relative to something else. And after a while you can say that we don't exist either. That's just silly.

0 Replies

All "existence" is about "relationship". Nobody casn deny that the concept of "time" has "existence" in relationship to the "order of normal everyday events". Problems arise when those events are "not normal" as in those concerning velocities close to the speed of light which Einstein showed lead to "time" being "observer dependent". At this point we can say the lay view of "time" loses its utility.
So there is no absolute entity called "time" which exists/doesnt exist. (Actually there is no absolute anything !) There are merely limits to the utility of concepts of which "time" is a particularly paradoxical example.

0 Replies

Quote:

There is such a thing as nothing.

"Nothing" is impossible to conceptualise so such a statement is absurd. Space-time is clearly not "nothing" since we can conceptualise it. Matter/energy, space and time are abstract human perceptions of a singular existence; the universe of space-time.

Quote:

Anyway, I understand what you mean about making something "abstract." I have seen people that take that approach to say that such-and-such isn't real. Which is just silly because everything we experience can be defined as relative to something else. And after a while you can say that we don't exist either. That's just silly.

For a sentient being, I'm afraid the only thing that is "real" is perception, however, we should not confuse the "map" with the "terrain." That is the hallmark of absolutism and extremism.

0 Replies

Quote:

All "existence" is about "relationship".

Agreed and the relationships exist between perceptions of the mind rather than "real" things outside of the mind. The mind simply is not a reality outside of itself.

0 Replies

Quote:

particularly paradoxical

I try to say that out loud, but with my accent it gets really weird. Smile

But on the topic, I think I agree with the posters Smile

0 Replies

does time exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know