Does time actually exist or is it just a human invention?

Page 2 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

peterd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,353

07 Jun 2009, 1:50 am

Time is an illusion - it seems that actions affect the future because of it.



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

07 Jun 2009, 8:23 am

Quote:
it seems that actions affect the future because of it.


Or that they can affect a future because of it



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

07 Jun 2009, 11:02 pm

claire333 wrote:
Keith wrote:
Time is just a measurement...
How does one measure what does not exist?

Keith wrote:
It's just another measurement like inches, centimetres.
These measure space. Are you saying space also does not exist?

Time and Space are the construct which everything occurs.

That's usually how time would be mostly considered, time being a measuring system as space is, we have units to measure a certain amount of time (that of which we relate to motion and change), as well as units to measure a certain amount of space, but, what is space? if time doesn't exist, how can we say that space does exist? I mean, if time is just a mere concept, why not say that space is an abstract concept as well and that it doesn't really exist, and both concepts being human abstractions in order to understand the experienced world around us.

Nevertheless, time as something fundamental works well in physics and what it is applicable for, to make predictions of astronomical events at an exact point in time, and Einstein's relativism, as examples.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

07 Jun 2009, 11:14 pm

peterd wrote:
Time is an illusion - it seems that actions affect the future because of it.

well, the thing is that we get into the issue of causality here, and causality seems to require the progression of change and motion, if X causes Y, the progression in which Y takes place after X is something that seems fundamental for causality to exist as we understand it, if I'm correct.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


scorpileo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: cornwall uk

08 Jun 2009, 5:06 am

timeisdead wrote:
Time is the 4th dimension. Without time, no action would have an impact on the future.

true.. time is aparant trough observation... things change all the time (heh heh) time is the name for the cause of change.. but the measure of time is subjective.


_________________
existence is your only oblitgation
Quietly fighting for the greater good.


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

08 Jun 2009, 12:41 pm

greenblue wrote:
That's usually how time would be mostly considered, time being a measuring system as space is, we have units to measure a certain amount of time (that of which we relate to motion and change), as well as units to measure a certain amount of space, but, what is space? if time doesn't exist, how can we say that space does exist? I mean, if time is just a mere concept, why not say that space is an abstract concept as well and that it doesn't really exist, and both concepts being human abstractions in order to understand the experienced world around us.

Time is not a measuring system any more than mass is. Seconds measure a thing - time, as do meters measure space and kilograms measure mass. The idea of calling time and space constructs echoes the Greek fallacy that geometric reasoning revealed properties of them a priori; it does not, any more than any other kind of mathematical reasoning reveals any properties of external things a priori.

This question was answered nearly a century ago. It is perhaps unsurprising to see thousands of years of momentum still keeping this question going, but I do not consider it as particularly meaningful anymore.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Jun 2009, 2:03 pm

Measuring time is counting the cycles of a harmonic oscillator.

ruveyn



philosopher
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 103

08 Jun 2009, 3:29 pm

There is only the present moment which is eternal.Time exists just on your wrists.



Oggleleus
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 349

08 Jun 2009, 3:37 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Measuring time is counting the cycles of a harmonic oscillator.

ruveyn


That sounds so...time-consuming.



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

08 Jun 2009, 4:57 pm

twoshots wrote:
The idea of calling time and space constructs echoes the Greek fallacy that geometric reasoning revealed properties of them a priori; it does not, any more than any other kind of mathematical reasoning reveals any properties of external things a priori.
Thank you for pointing out my error in the use of the term construct.. I did not mean to imply I believe it to be conceptual. Still trying to think of the right term...



vibratetogether
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: WA, USA

08 Jun 2009, 5:55 pm

I'd say the best answer is "I have no idea". "Time" is a word used to describe our perception, so in that sense, it is a human invention, the word, not necessarily what the word is meant to articulate. It would seem readily apparent, but being an intangible, there's really no way to know for sure, and there's definitely no way to understand it outside of our perception.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Jun 2009, 6:26 pm

Time is not a thing, it is a relation. It is the relation between periodic processes (such as a harmonic oscillator) and other events. The periodic processes are real. The events are real. But is the relationship between the two a mental construct, or is it real. In a cosmos devoid of intelligent, sentient conscious life, would time exist?

ruveyn



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

08 Jun 2009, 6:30 pm

ruveyn wrote:
In a cosmos devoid of intelligent, sentient conscious life, would time exist?
Yes. It would all continue to spin and tick right on without us.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Jun 2009, 6:32 pm

claire333 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
In a cosmos devoid of intelligent, sentient conscious life, would time exist?
Yes. It would all continue to spin and tick right on without us.


The oscillators would oscillate (they are real) but what of the relationship between oscillator cycles and other events. Are relations real, or are they mental constructs? I think that is the key to the question.

ruveyn



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

08 Jun 2009, 6:39 pm

ruveyn wrote:
The oscillators would oscillate (they are real) but what of the relationship between oscillator cycles and other events. Are relations real, or are they mental constructs? I think that is the key to the question.
Ah, I see. The old...Does anything exist without the observer question?



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

08 Jun 2009, 6:41 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Time is not a thing, it is a relation.

The same could be said of space. Is the spacetime manifold not a thing? Perhaps you don't like the word "thing", but while I can see arguing that some aspect of human perception of time may be constructed, this is not in my opinion the same as saying that time is constructed by consciousness.
Quote:
It is the relation between periodic processes (such as a harmonic oscillator) and other events. The periodic processes are real. The events are real. But is the relationship between the two a mental construct, or is it real.

What does it mean to be "real", and why does this give preferential status to events?


_________________
* here for the nachos.