Does "time" really exist?

a reply to: greenreflections

phenomenon of 'life' is truly fascinating. It is a system with no loss. Every bit of information it encounters is being added or dismissed but will never be able to destroy it ...

I will correct myself on this..
System, state of energy, where previous state is 'compounded' with each new environmental change. System, which is able only to add, and not 'loose' previous 'compounded' state.

There has to be a mechanism behind this all...loop forming, where the loop is memory carrier? 'Looping' would carry current condition 'comparing' sequence throughout frequency acting as a 'probe' to the flux of environmental changes?


cheers)

a reply to: greenreflections


So, how 'now' can be experienced?
'Now' would mean static frame of reference, frame where I reside.
I look at the rainbow...There are rain drops and sun light at play..Rain is moving, sunlight is moving, but the rainbow is static. It is 'phenomenon'. In a way rainbow associates in me with a a state of 'now', life's sweet spot, phenomenon from where time flow can be sensed (experienced) and time flow is a cause (rain and sun). It is not material but a result of certain conditions met.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: greenreflections


So, how 'now' can be experienced?
'Now' would mean static frame of reference, frame where I reside.
I look at the rainbow...There are rain drops and sun light at play..Rain is moving, sunlight is moving, but the rainbow is static. It is 'phenomenon'. In a way rainbow associates in me with a a state of 'now', life's sweet spot, phenomenon from where time flow can be sensed (experienced) and time flow is a cause (rain and sun). It is not material but a result of certain conditions met.

Time doesn't stop when you take a measurement of it. Time is continuous without any discrete interruptions. Our measurement of time is purely arbitrary and construction of man's mind. Patterns of nature's behaviors may be represented with mathematics but the identification of those patterns is meaningless without a human observer. Nature pays no attention to our way of thinking about it.

originally posted by: SystemResistor
a reply to: dfnj2015

Time could be a kind of result manifesting as experience and not really a cause behind the events in objective reality.

Perhaps the movement of objects create time as some kind of outcome to the mind, at least consequentially "after" their movement.

I guess then without time at all, all things would be motionless.

If a tree falls down in the forest and no one is around to hear it then the forest does not exist. I think the whole point of this thread is what we call "time" is just a word. I don't see "time" like I see an "apple". I don't experience time like I experience an "apple". People claim ALL of existence is evidence for the existence of time. But time is not an object. We create devices for measuring "time". But the read-outs of these devices are not something that exists in reality. A measurement of reality is not the reality it represents. Reality is more than just a single measurement. Reality is everything before, around, and after a measurement is taken.

Language forces our minds to think in discrete steps. Computers force our minds to think of the Universe as a digital representation. Reality and our representation of it are not the same thing. You take away computers, you take away language, you take away all measurement devices, and time ceases to exist. From the beginning of the Universe to the invention of language time doesn't exist unless it is experienced. The moment language exists the mind of the Universe opens its eyes and experiences itself. Until that moment, there is no Universe. The eye is closed.

originally posted by: daniel2sxc
a reply to: dfnj2015

i think time is the mental counterpart of movement a physical thing i think all things physical have their mental counterparts in what they represent like a tool and its uses? they r married

If a human being is not around where does the time counterpart reside? I understand there is information in the state of matter. But how matter got into a particular state is ambiguous as you go back in time. In other words there are lot's of different ways things can happen to arrive at the same state. In our minds we know nature behaves in repeatable patterns. So in our minds we interpolate the patterns were occurring before the point we make our current observation. And it may have all happened the way we've imagine it did. But still, that doesn't answer the question is "time" real. So far all we have is a sequence of ideas that only exist in our imaginations. All we have is our experience of the patterns in nature's behavior. We claim and assume the patterns of nature are universal and eternal. And they may be. I'm not arguing the patterns exist one way or another. I'm just saying what we call "time" only exists in our imaginations.

I wish I had a better way of saying what I am driving at. Let me put it another way. The idea of movement is based on a particular state of reality. Consider the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics:

"The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wave function and denies the actuality of wave function collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In layman's terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite[2]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes."

"Many-worlds, however, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realized."

If every quantum outcome is realized, then maybe if you take every possible dimension and combine them into a single higher dimensional view, then the sum total of every possible configuration added together creates a block of existence where movement and time no longer exists. So in our particular Universe we experience movement with a time function unique to this Universe. So then "time" is a real static property of the Universe in its entirety. In that type of Universe "time" would be impossible to change because it is carved in stone. And you could argue then if a thing is impossible to change then it is not a real thing.

Give some time, I'll give you an answer

originally posted by: fusiondoe
Give some time, I'll give you an answer

Take all the time you need. And when you do, we will then now what time it is.

If a thing is impossible to change then it is not a real thing. Since time cannot be changed, time is not a real thing. Time only exists in our imaginations. Just because you can imagine something can change doesn't make it real.

And even if you could make reality go backwards in time you would never be aware of it happening.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If a thing is impossible to change then it is not a real thing. Since time cannot be changed, time is not a real thing. Time only exists in our imaginations. Just because you can imagine something can change doesn't make it real.

Why is a thing non-real because it cannot be changed? Does space not exist because you cannot change or remove any given volume of it? Of course not! So your conclusion is false because it follows logically from a false premise. Time obviously does not exist only in our imaginations because it is absurd to assert that only humans create it out of their imagination. Do not all non-human beings in other parts of the universe therefore not experience time? Of course they do! So experiencing time has nothing to do with being human.

The existence of time has nothing to do with imagination - whether human or not. Rather, it is a precondition for sensory awareness generated by electro-chemical processes that are subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which define the direction of flow of time in terms of ever-increasing entropy. Forms of awareness that are non-physical, such as altered states of consciousness of higher planes of existence, mystical states, etc, are characterised by a sense of timelessness because time does not exist in superphysical worlds where the laws of thermodynamics do not operate. There are six kinds of such worlds, each further divided into seven levels.

Einstein spatialised the variable of time in his Theory of Relativity, thereby creating the problem of its inconsistency with quantum mechanics that has persisted to this day. What for one observer is a time interval between two events occurring at the same point in space is for another observer two events happening simultanously at two different points. Time is not an illusion. Rather, its measurement is purely relative and observer-dependent. This does not mean it is unreal.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If a thing is impossible to change then it is not a real thing. Since time cannot be changed, time is not a real thing. Time only exists in our imaginations. Just because you can imagine something can change doesn't make it real.

Why is a thing non-real because it cannot be changed? Does space not exist because you cannot change or remove any given volume of it? Of course not! So your conclusion is false because it follows logically from a false premise. Time obviously does not exist only in our imaginations because it is absurd to assert that only humans create it out of their imagination.

Apples are real. I can hold it in my hand. Where does time exist? Yes, time only exists in our imaginations because the identification of it is made up by our imaginations.

Yes, things exist in space. Space does not exist in itself. Space only exists in relation to the things that are in it and their movements.

Saying "it is absurd to assert" is not objective. You are making a subjective judgement or giving an opinion. That's kind of the point of the thread. Saying time is real is not an objective judgement.

originally posted by: micpsi
Do not all non-human beings in other parts of the universe therefore not experience time? Of course they do! So experiencing time has nothing to do with being human.

You are using your imagination in claiming "Of course they do".

originally posted by: micpsi
The existence of time has nothing to do with imagination

Basically you are saying you are right and I am wrong. But you have no evidence to support your claim other than thoughts in your head. Is you are asserting something is real you have to provide evidence that it exists. Saying all of existence is the evidence is not evidence.

originally posted by: micpsi
- whether human or not. Rather, it is a precondition for sensory awareness generated by electro-chemical processes that are subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which define the direction of flow of time in terms of ever-increasing entropy. Forms of awareness that are non-physical, such as altered states of consciousness of higher planes of existence, mystical states, etc, are characterised by a sense of timelessness because time does not exist in superphysical worlds where the laws of thermodynamics do not operate. There are six kinds of such worlds, each further divided into seven levels.

I have no comment about the seven levels you have identified. I don't see them around me.

originally posted by: micpsi
Einstein spatialised the variable of time in his Theory of Relativity, thereby creating the problem of its inconsistency with quantum mechanics that has persisted to this day. What for one observer is a time interval between two events occurring at the same point in space is for another observer two events happening simultanously at two different points. Time is not an illusion. Rather, its measurement is purely relative and observer-dependent. This does not mean it is unreal.

Again, the point of the thread is the measurement of time is purely arbitrary, and therefore, a human construct that has nothing to do with reality. A measurement of reality is not the reality it represents. Reality is more than just a single measurement. Reality is everything before, around, and after a measurement is taken.

You seem like thoughtful person. And I'm sure you have meaningful things to say. But as far as I can tell from your post it boils down to you have no real evidence time exists and you are just claiming you are right and I am wrong. The thing is, and I've heard this often, when you assert a truth about reality, the burden of proof is not on the person claiming the assertion is false.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Time doesn't stop when you take a measurement of it. Time is continuous without any discrete interruptions.

I agree. There is no 'minimum' value of time. 'Moment' is best description, seems like.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: dfnj2015

Time doesn't stop when you take a measurement of it. Time is continuous without any discrete interruptions.

I agree. There is no 'minimum' value of time. 'Moment' is best description, seems like.

In fact "moment" does not have scale measurement value..it is not something that has a value. It is, in my opinion, the edge of time flow. It's an optimal temporal state from where all events can be observed and measured, and duration happens from perspective of 'now'.

There is future, the past and now. Past event is captured and stored in memory as event in a guide line, a snap shot of something, a play back I can rely on if I encounter same event again, something I can expect same outcome.

Future can only be anticipated based on previous 'pasts' and subject to variations. Future, after all, is undetermined but can be anticipated with ever fine tuned precision as the past is studied in more detail. Some macro events based on that have 100% anticipation score accuracy. Some, like events in QM can never be precise (Heisenberg principle) which tells me that no matter how well was studied the 'past' that I have at my disposal, the future can never be known down to that 100%. There is a limit to what can be known about certain system state 'now' and 'past' to make definitive prediction, which leaves 'future' being unpredictable as reliable source.

Prove that tomorrow exists, and prove that
yesterday exists for time to be real.

In truth, what we have is a moment of hope.


~ ~ ~

How would time be measured? From where would you measure it?
All measurements are done now but where is the other end for you to measure it to?
This is the beginning and the end - this is all there is but mind/thought makes believe that there is other. Between this that is and the imagined other - there is an illusory space in which you can appear to have a life separate to everything else.

1 can see where some perceptions could see it that way-
Although said perception doesn't have to equate to objective truth...

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
Can you define what 'objective truth' is please?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
Can you define what 'objective truth' is please?

Truth free of all doubt...

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
Can you define what 'objective truth' is please?

Truth free of all doubt...

Can you say that you are not?
Can you say that you are?
To be or not to be? That is the question.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
Can you define what 'objective truth' is please?

Truth free of all doubt...

Can you say that you are not?
Can you say that you are?
To be or not to be? That is the question.

I doubt everything at first and take it from there.