Does "time" really exist?

There's a linguistic confusion in all this, because English does not have separate words to describe (a) the phenomenon of time and (b) the passing of time. (And as far as I know, nor has any other language).

The universe only exists for an instant, and we count the vibrations within the duration of that instant and call them 'time passing'. (Meaning 'b')

But they are only an analogue for the real dimension of time, which is an ultra-dimension extending radially from the creation of the universe, along which the physical universe is 'falling', toward what end we do not know - either indefinite extension, or a parabolic arc toward a Big Crunch. (Meaning 'a')

In any case, the fact that this ultra-dimension (i.e., meaning 'a') is not a creation of the mind (i.e., meaning 'b') is illustrated by one fact, which is both undeniable and invisible: Every living thing experiences 'now' at the same moment.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DeadCat
a reply to: dfnj2015

In theory, you could dabble with it, and manipulate definitions,

But in the end we all know that a sound is made by the tree, even if no one is around to hear it. It's physics. It's how reality works.

If human beings did not exist in the Universe, would the Universe really exist if no one was around to experience it? I did not invent this idea. The idea that the tree made a sound only exists in your imagination.

I believe you are looking at it on such a minor scale that the question is irrelevant.

If you want to define "Exist" as being observed. Then of course it does not "exist".

If you want to define "Exist" as merely being, observed or not. Then yes. It would.

If nothing conscious was alive in the universe EVER. Then time would not exist in any sense of the word "Exist" not physically, or mentally.

But change, as an independent. Would still happen. Objects would still move. Nothing would observe the changes, and therefore no time would be needed.

Time is only a requirement for navigation. Not for existence, or change.

originally posted by: DeadCat

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: DeadCat

Sorry for the vagueness. I was (sort of) responding to some assertions that time is exclusively a human construct. The (maybe poor) comparison I was making is that, in my opinion, the sounds made by a falling tree happen whether or not we are around to hear it. Time would be a "thing" whether or not people ever existed.

If you think about it, time is not purely a human creation by any means.

Technically, the perception of time is crucial to the life of any conscious entity in this universe.

If it does not perceive time, it does not perceive any type of unfolding reality.

Perception of time definitely plays a huge role in the development of consciousnesses.

I really like your posts. This is a great conversation.

However, everything you've said is imaginary. You have not proved time exists or shown what time is.

Again, thanks for the good argument.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

Let me try asking it another way. If human beings did not exist in the Universe, would the Universe really exist if no one was around to experience it? I did not invent this idea. The idea that the tree made a sound only exists in your imagination. The very idea of "physics" only exists with the context of human experience. I would say neither interpretation is "right". But without someone to experience the sound the interpretation the forest does not exist is equally valid even if it makes you uncomfortable.

The paradox is all objectivity is subjectively determined. It's really not clear that time is real if it's purely subjectively identified.

Nope nope.

Physics exists with or without man around to give a name to it. Call it snorkel instead if that makes you feel better. But some well established concepts would exist with or without the existence of humans.

You're confusing naming convention with physiological mathematics. If during the course of a revolution of the Earth, 2 apples happened to travel right next to each other and lay there, then 1+1 would still equal 2 no matter what name is given to the enumeration of "2".

Anything that WE create or establish is real...so of course time is "real"...in the same manner, the Tree falling with no one around to hear it scenario...the well established concept that sound itself is merely a set of vibrations would suggest that of course it makes a sound...the falling of the tree would still create a vibration whether or not a receptor capable of converting that vibration to something it recognizes is convenient.


I think what you're asking is even though it's real, is it RELEVANT?.... Time has never been relevant, not in circumspect of the Universe/Multi-Verse/Dimension-du-jour.....

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DeadCat

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: DeadCat

Sorry for the vagueness. I was (sort of) responding to some assertions that time is exclusively a human construct. The (maybe poor) comparison I was making is that, in my opinion, the sounds made by a falling tree happen whether or not we are around to hear it. Time would be a "thing" whether or not people ever existed.

If you think about it, time is not purely a human creation by any means.

Technically, the perception of time is crucial to the life of any conscious entity in this universe.

If it does not perceive time, it does not perceive any type of unfolding reality.

Perception of time definitely plays a huge role in the development of consciousnesses.

I really like your posts. This is a great conversation.

However, everything you've said is imaginary. You have not proved time exists or shown what time is.

Again, thanks for the good argument.

I like talking about time and reality.

My argument is not that time exist. My argument is that things can exist, without time.

Things do not need to be observed in order to exist. Things do not need to be heard in order to make a sound. That is my argument.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DeadCat

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: DeadCat

Sorry for the vagueness. I was (sort of) responding to some assertions that time is exclusively a human construct. The (maybe poor) comparison I was making is that, in my opinion, the sounds made by a falling tree happen whether or not we are around to hear it. Time would be a "thing" whether or not people ever existed.

If you think about it, time is not purely a human creation by any means.

Technically, the perception of time is crucial to the life of any conscious entity in this universe.

If it does not perceive time, it does not perceive any type of unfolding reality.

Perception of time definitely plays a huge role in the development of consciousnesses.

I really like your posts. This is a great conversation.

However, everything you've said is imaginary. You have not proved time exists or shown what time is.

Again, thanks for the good argument.

This whole conversation is wonderful. I'll let Deadcat speak for him/her self but it seems a bit as if you are asking for someone to make time a tangible thing for you to hold in your hand (like an apple) when "it" is of such a different nature.

originally posted by: NthOther
Carlin is over-quoted and excessively invoked, but sometimes no one says it better:

Pure genius!

a reply to: dfnj2015

I would say that experience is what makes time exist. When we have a good night sleep it seems that time doesn't pass. Ask any coma patient.

It's like asking if Math exists and is inherent in the universe and physics.

originally posted by: Kromlech
Time is simply the measurement of perpetuation.

Time is the force in the Universe that prevents everything from happening all at once.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Kromlech
Time is simply the measurement of perpetuation.

Time is the force in the Universe that prevents everything from happening all at once.

I would say the force in the Universe that prevents everything from happening all at once is gravity.

Gravity is what really dictates the velocities and trajectory of everything that is moving, which when viewed, we call distance over time.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Kromlech
Time is simply the measurement of perpetuation.

Time is the force in the Universe that prevents everything from happening all at once.

i'm sorry that is simply inaccurate. The span of events occurring didn't all come together at once long before anyone could place a name on the construct of "time". And it is NOwhere near a "force"

Change provides the illusion of time the same way the ground beneath my feet provides the illusion of gravity. Let's just go ahead and say everything is an illusion, including us. We are all an elaborate magic trick. Good game, everyone.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'll never understand their mindset when they say that consciousness is an illusion.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Change provides the illusion of time the same way the ground beneath my feet provides the illusion of gravity. Let's just go ahead and say everything is an illusion, including us. We are all an elaborate magic trick. Good game, everyone.

"Illusion of gravity"? What? lol

Large object attracts smaller object...gravity 101....whats the illusion?

a reply to: alphabetaone

The illusion is that gravity does not exist, it is the masses affect on the space-time fabric that creates this illusion of gravity.. x.x

In reality, the object moving toward the bigger object, is merely the object rolling down the space-time fabric that is being manipulated by the mass.

We call this gravity.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Basically if awareness is an illusion then we are not aware of ourselves.

a reply to: DeadCat

Whats your thoughts on historical people who've defied gravity, such as St. Joseph of Copertino, explored recently in the book "the man who could levitate" by Michael Grosso?

If this is a real and true phenomenon, then gravity can be overcome; which must mean that the objective mass of the Human body no longer affected by space-time? Is this is how you would interpret it?

a reply to: Astrocyte

We would need an experiment then.

originally posted by: eluryh22

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DeadCat

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: DeadCat

Sorry for the vagueness. I was (sort of) responding to some assertions that time is exclusively a human construct. The (maybe poor) comparison I was making is that, in my opinion, the sounds made by a falling tree happen whether or not we are around to hear it. Time would be a "thing" whether or not people ever existed.

If you think about it, time is not purely a human creation by any means.

Technically, the perception of time is crucial to the life of any conscious entity in this universe.

If it does not perceive time, it does not perceive any type of unfolding reality.

Perception of time definitely plays a huge role in the development of consciousnesses.

I really like your posts. This is a great conversation.

However, everything you've said is imaginary. You have not proved time exists or shown what time is.

Again, thanks for the good argument.

This whole conversation is wonderful. I'll let Deadcat speak for him/her self but it seems a bit as if you are asking for someone to make time a tangible thing for you to hold in your hand (like an apple) when "it" is of such a different nature.

I'm not trying to make it real. I'm not really committed to any particular point of view on the subject. I just found this statement very haunting:

"If you try to get your hands on time, it's always slipping through your fingers," says Barbour. "People are sure time is there, but they can't get hold of it. My feeling is that they can't get hold of it because it isn't there at all."

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: DeadCat

Whats your thoughts on historical people who've defied gravity, such as St. Joseph of Copertino, explored recently in the book "the man who could levitate" by Michael Grosso?

If this is a real and true phenomenon, then gravity can be overcome; which must mean that the objective mass of the Human body no longer affected by space-time? Is this is how you would interpret it?

From a realistic point of view, I would claim it a hoax.

From a scientific theory point of view. I would argue that perhaps one could harness energy, and utilize said energy in a way that would, not necessarily defy the laws of gravity, but work with them to allow for levitation.