does time exist?

fresco,

I see, but if there is a "structural coupling" (presumably an existential co-dependence) between inner and outer, then the two concepts become inseparable and effectively a singular existence. Approaching from the other end of the scale, I would argue that any perceived boundary does not exist for autopoeisis, rather that the boundary exists because of autopoeisis, ie, the self-organisation of the whole universe.

pswfps.

As I see it. there are nested systems within systems. At the level of "human observer" nested in a "physical universe" we have concepts such as "time" and "locality" which characterize the nature of interactions across the interface. However if we "expand a level" say to "social organization" nested in "an ecosystem" concepts like "time" and "locality" may become vacuous. A possible analogy is say the failure of "physical mechanisms" to account for "biological mechanisms". I agree that at the "highest level" there are no boundaries but at that level there is "silence" i.e. "no concepts".

For you to assume that two things must have "something in common" for one to affect the other is silly. There is no law in any of the sciences that says this is so. I don't understand why you insist it is.

Q: What does a magnet have in common with water?

So, it occurred to me that this entire discussion could be pointless. We don't know that space-time is *actually* warped by gravity anyway. This is a theory that lets us easily explain how gravity interacts with objects in its field. It provides us with an easy way to conceptualize these interactions. BUT, just because this explains is doesn't mean it's true.

Silly because it isn't written by Hawking et al? All interactions require the participants to have a common fundamental mode of existence by which they may exchange information. To rebuff this axiom without some sort of reason seems sillier. The magnet and the water are both made of the same fundamantal particles, they both exist within and interact with space-time. They both interact via the common concept of magnetism. If these were not the case, how could they affect one another?

I couldn't agree more. That's where the scientific method comes into play, ie, to keep testing the theory until it breaks. Then you have to revise or abandon. It seems to me that no matter what theory is devised, there is always some sort of assumption underlying the whole thing. They are all imperfect and they all seem to break at some point. Nevertheless, we do seem to need some sort of conceptual grounding so I will continue to think of the matter/energy and space-time relationship as being a singular mode of existence until I have reason not to.

The question for me is "what does everything have in common?" Or rather I should ask "What does every concept have in common?" You can see why psychology comes into the mix? It ulimately underpins everything we understand.

we can only ever experience time in the present-therefore we can never experience time; only the consequences of it.

Acording to Budhism, the past, present and future exist within this present moment. To understand the past, look at the effects as they are manifest at present. To undertsand the future, look at the causes made in the present.

I agree with nickfun. There is only this moment. What we refer to as the past is indeed what came before us, but it came and went in this moment, same as we will. Curious moment, the present. It's both infinitely long and infinitely short.

It seems to me--and this is consistent with Buddhist "theory"--that the present moment is the non-existent future becoming the non-existent past. That means that the present is empty but dynamic and all there is.

time exists in our hearts and minds, kind of like gumby and santa claus.

We've had this discussion before...

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1662700#1662700

Yes, Drewdad, and it was an excellent thread--back in the days when Twyvel was with us.
You asked, if I recall, that if the past no long exists how can it "cause" anything in the present? That is a great challenge to the linear notion of time. It's similar to the question of how can non-physical thoughts "cause" physical events, e.g., how can my mental intention to move my hand actually move my hand? These are, of course, misunderstandings of the nature of the past and the mind.
Moreover, how can the "present" exist as a meaningful/conceptual category without the conceptual categories: "past" and "future"? While the last two no-longer exist as empirical phenomena, at the conceptual level they are essential to the MEANING: "present".
I ask, can the empirical/phenomenal PRESENT exist without the meaningful/conceptual category: "present"?

"time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so"
Douglas Adams

"time is an illusion created by the passage of history"
"history is an illusion created by the passage of time"

"they don't necessarily happen in that order"

i forget exactly? anyway, lots of good fun, and quite true, probably?

adams has always been the jesus christ of atheists in my book yeah, he'd hate that. but he's great.

Sure Time exists - it ended Life on December 8, 1972.