Does time exist?

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 45
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
I will try to debate Intelligence_06
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Time exists. Show me it doesn't.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Benjamin
Time exists. Show me it doesn't.
Just as a heads up, if you affirm a proposition, it falls on you to substantiate your affirmation; it's no one's onus to "show you that it doesn't." With that said, I'll spare you since I don't intend to counterargue your statement. But I ask that you consider this: I currently live in the east coast of the United States; I have a friend who lives in the West Coast. Is this friend of mine living three hours in the past? Am I living three hours in his future?

Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Athias
Einstein's theory of relativity would say that since you move at the same speed you move equally fast through time. Therefore, any "change" in time would be way to minimal to even notice with the most precise of measurements.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Benjamin
Einstein's theory of relativity would say that since you move at the same speed you move equally fast through time. Therefore, any "change" in time would be way to minimal to even notice with the most precise of measurements.
Minimal, but nevertheless there, correct? My point is: how contingent is the concept of Time on the adopted metrics?

Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Athias
Time exists. That is the thing Intelligence does not believe in.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Benjamin
Time exists. That is the thing Intelligence does not believe in.
I offer no contention to the statement, "Time exists." I only challenge the arbitrary nature of metrics which presume to "measure" time.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
We do not measure "time", we measure space and time and speed together and then calculating the results.
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Benjamin
Time exists, but we never know the truly accurate time. Clocks were programmed by humans that didn't exactly know the exact time. When phones were made, the developers looked at a clock to develop time. Time is never 100% accurate.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Benjamin
We do not measure "time", we measure space and time and speed together and then calculating the results.
Space is a function of time; speed is a function of time; and time is a function of time. How would you then "measure" time?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Space is a function of time; speed is a function of time; and time is a function of time. How would you then "measure" time?
Relatively.

Originally, town clocks were set to "noon" when the sun was at its highest point of each day.

Everyone in the town would set their clocks (if they could afford one) by the town clock.

It was the railways that "standardized" time.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Benjamin
Time exists as a measurement of events unfolding but time is an illusion to the backdrop of reality (which is unchanging, static or fixed). The universe, or that which exists within the universe is nothing more than a moving picture play of energy with the birth and death of matter through form on top of a timeless fabric as we observe it as a measurement of "time" (passing).
Preceding the appearance of energy as kinetic energy is the static eternal presence of consciousness, what we call God (without beginning or ending)....the conscious awareness of God out of which all things originate. In this preceding state of existence there is no infinite past or future in terms of how we measure time, because it is independent of the movement of events within the universe. It is indeed the backdrop behind the birth and death scale of material existence.
This of course deals with the infinite regression paradox because there is no infinite past in terms of the measurement of time, God does not exist on a linear scale of time only matter does (or the appearance of matter). God exists as an eternal fixed state of awareness.
So while we experience time and can observe time it is simply an illusion in relation to an eternal Reality. Does it exist? sure, but it's a temporal succession of events which appear out of a fixed, static timeless state of existence.


Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
Interesting theory.

But it has a fatal flaw: without time "succession" has no meaning.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Benjamin
But it has a fatal flaw: without time "succession" has no meaning.

Right, because time is a succession of events within the universe. A "succession" is only relative to time, that is, time passing which is measured by the scale of things that exist. Things that exist (appear and dissipate) are contingent upon the time scale that matter resides in. God is not contingent upon the scale of time that matter is subjected to, those events appear within a static, eternal reality (backdrop) where a succession of events have no relevance. In other words God observes from a state of existence where God is not affected by the appearance of form within creation.
There is no flaw, perhaps you didn't fully absorb what I wrote, read it again. I clearly made the distinction between a fixed state of existence and a succession of events within that Reality.

It has more significance than people would perceive at first glance because they're already too accustomed to the way they understand time. But it is simple really, God does not exist in a time frame of an infinite past and future, if you think about it that makes no sense and is impossible. What is an infinite past? if God has no beginning and no ending there is no linear scale, if anything more of a cyclical reality if fixed is too difficult to swallow. An infinite past is not possible, time is an illusion because it is a created event within a timeless Reality. 



EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Benjamin
To elaborate a bit, awareness does not need or depend on time to exist, it is simply there, it exists whether or not an event passes. To observe an event however, awareness (consciousness) would then depend upon something taking place and something taking place would then depend upon what we perceive as movement or a succession of events unfolding (time).

Just for fun lets use an analogy here so you may have something to conceptualize. Pretend that you are in a room as you probably are, and in that room there is nothing but you and a TV. Let's pretend that you as the observer in that room exist within an environment where there is no passing of events, it is simply timeless, a fixed state of existence where you are just aware of nothing but yourself...and there is no movement of events, birth and death or a clock ticking away.
Now lets pretend that the TV in that room represents events, and every time you turn on that TV there begins a moving picture play of activity and things that you can observe taking place. And once you turn on that TV time begins to exist because events (movies) begin to unfold. So basically once you begin to watch TV you now have a measure of "time" because you have an event that appears and has a time frame where that event ends but as soon as the movie ends time stops again, because there is no measure of something beginning and ending.
Creation represent that TV, and you represent God or an eternal fixed state of awareness that exists independent of that TV (time), or at least what takes place within that TV. When there is no TV playing, there is no passing of events, or measurement of "time".

So while time can be experienced, it's only experienced as events that take place within that TV and to anyone playing those roles within that TV, otherwise there is no time frame because there is no real measurement without observing what it is you're watching through that TV. Time then is only an illusion and only relative to those who experience it and even experiencing it doesn't make it exist eternally but rather temporally. Time is only a temporal event only within a created reality. However, reality exists independent of time. So no matter if time passes or not reality still resides.

This is kind of a strange analogy just trying to make it easy to conceptualize so that it makes some sense.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
A "succession" is only relative to time, that is, time passing which is measured by the scale of things that exist.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Now lets pretend that the TV in that room represents events, and every time you turn on that TV there begins a moving picture play of activity and things that you can observe taking place. And once you turn on that TV time begins to exist because events (movies) begin to unfold.
Plato's Parable of the MMORPG,

Once upon a time there were a number of people who lived in complete darkness and the only thing they could see was their computer screens.

What they saw on their screens was their reality.

The only other people they knew were people in-game with magnificent costumes and weapons.

Sure they had to fumble in the darkness in order to microwave a quick meal, or find their bed when they were exhausted, but those were merely incidental inconveniences.

Only the game was real. Only the game was shared experience. Only in-game places and people and items were quantifiable, able to be observed and verified and shared with other players (quanta).

Sometimes an individual would try to explain what kind of food they ate or describe their room (private/personal/unshared knowledge, gnosis) but since none of this information was directly relevant in-game and was fundamentally unverifiable, it was dismissed out-of-hand as unintelligible nonsense. In fact, even the language they had developed had evolved exclusively for in-game interactions, so there really weren't any proper words for "food" or "room" that were not specifically in-game references, and even more than that, since there was no taste, touch, or smell in-game, there were also no words to properly describe those sensations as well.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Go to work and don't keep track of the "time" you work. Then ask the person who calculates the amount of "time" you worked  and writes your paycheck if "time" exists. Weather you believe it exists or doesn't is irrelevant. Every single person on earth that ever lived since the beginning of "time" did live and continues to live and bow to its existence. If you don't believe "time" exists, then quit living like it does. Your arguments that "time" doesn't exist mean nothing if you don't live like "time" doesn't exist, You don't believe your own arguments that "time" doesn't exist.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
What is time and how does one define existence?

Time is the possibility, that allows events to have duration....As such it does not exist.

Nonetheless our awareness of time is real enough, therefore time is an existent factor in our thinking.

21 days later

fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
without time "succession" has no meaning.
Of course it does. First, I have to align with the side on which time does not exist but by human imposition. Apologists for time will introduce such terms as "relativity," but that is, after all, just an attempt to justify the concept in the first place.

Why is "succession" time-based? Because we say so. What if "succession" is not time-based, but accomplishment-based? I accomplished a thing. Based on that accomplishment, I accomplish another thing. Based on that, I will accomplish still a third thing. But my commentary of past, present, future,  and even numbering the accomplishments is still rooted in the idea of a time-basis. I could, assuming a god-like perspective, use a similar description as given to Moses by God when Moses asked him who he should say to the Israelites was sending him, God replied, "I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." The simple fact of God's existence was sufficient for the proof of him. So, if asked when and how I did something, I could reply, "I accomplished this," and "I accomplished that," and the timing of accomplishments is merely secondary to the facts of accomplishment, and accomplishment is the appropriate measure, regardless of a truly non-extant feature of the universe.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
What is time and how does one define existence?
1] Metaphyiscal-1 time ex cosmically absolute Pi-Time 66.4 and, or local labeling of time of minutes, vs hours vs days

2} Observed Time or as labeled in the utube presented by 3ru, Brian Greenes 'experience of time' at 1:37 aka flow-of-time

Arrow-of-Time >>>>Past >>>>> In >>>>>> ( * ) i ( * ) >>>> Out >>>>>> Future

Flow-of-Time <<<< Past <<<< Out <<<< ( * ) i ( * ) <<< In <<<< Future

Both exist. One is occupied space events { Observed Time { experienced } and the other is conceptual { Metaphyscial-1 { spirit-1 }.


Time is the possibility, that allows events to have duration....As such it does not exist.
Time exists via modulation of Metaphysical-1 angle of viewpointe and occupied space frequency of viewpoints { minimally four }

Nonetheless our awareness of time is real enough, therefore time is an existent factor in our thinking.
Thinking requires both kinds of time ergo a process of durations  ergo modulation of angle and frequency of viewpoints ( * ) i ( * ) aka,

.........................( /*\*/\*/\*/ ) i ( /*\*/*\*/\*/ )....................................

Observed Time is always contained/embraced withing contractive Gravity (  ) and repulsive Dark Energy )(.

i ergo Metaphysical-1 time is always Meta/beyond the container of time and not as Metaphysical-2 non-occupied space.

All occupied space and time are related, just not all of it is Observed { quantised and quantified } by us ex 180 diametric opposites of Gravity (  ) and Dark Energy  )(.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,332
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Time is subjective. Near the event horizon of a black hole, you’d be moving slower compared to someone watching you from Earth.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Time is subjective. Near the event horizon of a black hole, you’d be moving slower compared to someone watching you from Earth.
Yep.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@sadolite
Go to work and don't keep track of the "time" you work. Then ask the person who calculates the amount of "time" you worked  and writes your paycheck if "time" exists. Weather you believe it exists or doesn't is irrelevant. Every single person on earth that ever lived since the beginning of "time" did live and continues to live and bow to its existence. If you don't believe "time" exists, then quit living like it does. Your arguments that "time" doesn't exist mean nothing if you don't live like "time" doesn't exist, You don't believe your own arguments that "time" doesn't exist.
Human perception of time was significantly different before clocks and calendars were invented.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Of course it does. First, I have to align with the side on which time does not exist but by human imposition. Apologists for time will introduce such terms as "relativity," but that is, after all, just an attempt to justify the concept in the first place.

Why is "succession" time-based? Because we say so. What if "succession" is not time-based, but accomplishment-based? I accomplished a thing. Based on that accomplishment, I accomplish another thing. Based on that, I will accomplish still a third thing. But my commentary of past, present, future,  and even numbering the accomplishments is still rooted in the idea of a time-basis. I could, assuming a god-like perspective, use a similar description as given to Moses by God when Moses asked him who he should say to the Israelites was sending him, God replied, "I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." The simple fact of God's existence was sufficient for the proof of him. So, if asked when and how I did something, I could reply, "I accomplished this," and "I accomplished that," and the timing of accomplishments is merely secondary to the facts of accomplishment, and accomplishment is the appropriate measure, regardless of a truly non-extant feature of the universe.
Time is a logical necessity.

An AXIOM of AXIOMS.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Time is the possibility, that allows events to have duration....As such it does not exist.
SPACETIME "exists" as more of a canvas and "exists" less like the paint on a canvas.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Time is a logical necessity.
When is finite more logical than eternity?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Time is a logical necessity.
When is finite more logical than eternity?
The concept of "eternity" is incoherent.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
According to whom? Daffy Duck?
won't take much reading; the first paragraph offers a question about your claim. It cites Boethius, a Roman senator and philosopher, who wrote "The Consolation of Philosophy" in the 6th century CE, in prison awaiting trial for treason, for which he was executed. It was, in essence, and "oh, poor me" exercise, that demonstrates that although being lauded as the last true Roman, and the first scholastic, his "scholarship," expanded in fame due to the cited work, but led to the Dark Ages. Some scholarship.
Eternity appears incoherent because of what contemplates it; a finite mind.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
"Spacetime" is a theoretical corruption of two words, and represents something completely different from the basic understanding of Space and Time.

If Bethany continues to annoy fellow passengers by throwing balls to Daniel. She is able to do so because the possibilities provided by Space and Time allow for the activity to be an event with duration. The ball would travel from B to D because there is Space to do so, and the event would not be instantaneous, because it would be subject to a measurable duration of Time.

B, D nor onlookers would consider an existent canvas like, but unpainted, theoretically existent canvas like thingy.