CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Time is not a property of the universe. Time is basically an illusion, it does not really exist, if there weren't that which enable change there would be no such thing as "time".
Structurally our universe is made of matter and energies which react and affect each other, which causes them to change their location, their consistency, etc. There's no "time" anywhere. Time is simply how long one change happened in relation to another, and then, keeping in mind the first, how long it took for one thing to relocate, or how many of the first duration has passed.
I'd say time is change, of everything. But then why call it "time"? Also then time would not apply to only our universe, as not only here happens change (assuming there's more than just this universe).
You basically say in your argument that time exists: "Time is simply how long one change happened in relation to another, and then, keeping in mind the first, how long it took for one thing to relocate, or how many of the first duration has passed." I have no problem with that definition, and it says time (not the word but the "process") exists without humans. So humans did not create it.
Then you misunderstood completely. With that I did not say that time exists. With that all I said was how we see "time", how we interpret it. In reality it does not exist as a part of our universe, as some "force". It is simply the effect of the structure of our universe. Without the things making the effect possible there would be no such thing.
I guess it comes down to "intellectual semantics". Sure time is not a force but to me that does not mean "what is happening" does not exist. If you think of time as "order" (in other words the big bang happened "before" the earth formed) than I think time as a concept exists. Obviously without humans around to put the label on it "time" does not exist. So, maybe it's just the semantics.
Wrong. Both are very different. One comes directly from high mass, the other comes from the change between things. First enables change, second is the first's cause.
Gravity comes directly from mass. Basically, gravity is a changing influence directed toward anything.
Perhaps not fully. Time exists objectively in the sense of, things happened before other things. This is somewhat evident in the special relativity theory.
But the nitty gritty of time; organising it, travelling through it, whatever. These are distinctly human concepts. Nothing organises time but us, nothing dreams of time travel but us. I contend that time is more than things happened before other things, that time is a philosophy over a mere coincidence.
And as philosophy is distinctly human, it follows that time is distinctly human.
PS: I would call things happened before other things something else, perhaps "universal sequencing" or something.
Yes, I think man created the concept of time. It was always there, but then, nobody would know about it if man had not thought about it in the first place. Man wrote calendars, and made clocks, which are symbols for time, so there. I think man made it.
time is a mere illusion, a product of the organized, rational mind (or irrational) and a necessary adaptation in a society where obligations and duties require us to be here at this time. It is a controlling factor in most human beings lives. But it is a mere human concept. and many human concepts have been, currently are, and will be for a while, off the mark.
We didn't invent "time" any more than we invented "space". Sure, one can argue that we invented the second, or the day, or the year; just like we invented the yard and the mile...but these divisions were meant to keep order and help us measure things. The fact that certain process happen naturally within select periods of time is proof of the passage of time, and that was happening long before (before being another measurement of time) we came along.
More importantly, if something can be manipulated, it is real. If some selected process happened with the exact same passage of time everywhere in the universe, we could potentially argue that time was purely invented. But both mass and speed of movement can change the flow of time for an object or in a region of space. If a second moves more slowly near a major gravity field (and we now know for a fact that it does), then we know a second has actual substance and isn't just an arbitrary concept. Plus, there is a strong possibility that time may flow backwards in certain conditions, something that wouldn't happen if it was imaginary.
You talk of these things as if it's absolute but you fail to take in consideration how you can only go by you're mere senses when talking about something. They're all you have. Some things, are beyond human senses and for most, understanding. You will continue to talk about the passing of "moments" as being time flowing but again this is simply how your mind has grasped a phenomena. Not the absolute reality.
but you fail to take in consideration how you can only go by you're mere senses when talking about something.
We can also go by Einstein's special theory of relativity, the mathematical equations that support it and other equations valid to the subject. We can go all of the NUMEROUS lines of evidence that show the passage of time before humans came along. We can take two hyper-sophisticated timers, perfectly synchronize them and predict how quickly and much they will go out of synch if you keep one stationary and put the other in a shuttle. Each of these can be repeated and independent of any one person's particular observations.
Some things, are beyond human senses and for most, understanding.
Like the electron. Nobody has ever seen one, and we can never know for certain where one is at any given time, yet we can know how many there are involved in molecule, we know all kinds of effects they can have. There are well beyond our human senses, but not entirely beyond our understanding.
You will continue to talk about the passing of "moments" as being time flowing but again this is simply how your mind has grasped a phenomena. Not the absolute reality.
I have an idea where you are going with this, but I don't wish to put words in your mouth. Please explain more so I can properly respond.
Time is the essence of existence. For something to 'exist' it must be there in a continued state, that is it must operate in time. Without time everything would have happened instantly with no duration at all. If humans created time then that means that before we invented it there was no time; no ability for anything to exist, including humans. This cannot be though for the simple fact that humans wouldn't have existed beforehand to invent time.
Well then if its such a stupid question then why respond to my debate then? Also I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old I believe its millions of years old.
If time isn't a tool invented and created by man to understand the universe, then who or what kept track of time before humans resumed time tracting or is there some giant clock in space that I am unaware.
Please reread my previous post. The one you downvoted again, it clearly states that space existed before mankind's perception of time, which would include stars. Time is not a body of mass. Stars merely exist in space.
Time is perceived as linear, but space is not, it overlaps itself, therefore, time i fictional to organize life on Earth and understand space.
The nature of the existence of time has been, and still is debated within philosophical and scientific circles. This is a question with no right or wrong answer, an answer that would require knowledge of the one true epistemological position. Unless you have that (in which case what are you doing on here, go get your Nobel Prize), your answer is no more valid than anyone else's, thus your tone is too officious for one who doesn't actually know the answer.
Nobel Prize? Which one? Literature?.... Existence of time? Yes time exists, it's used in most of mechanics equations if it would be just just a random value equations wouldn't work. Time is a property same as gravity, length...etc. Just because you cannot pour it into a cup it does not mean that it doesn't exist.
I don't dispute that time exists. But you must prove that time exists objectively, not just subjectively. But beforehand, I'd like to ask what your definition of "time" is.
The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
Dumbed down it means how things follow each other.
If C comes after B, it comes in future to B, same as this line of text came in future in relevance to first line. Time can slow down or speed up, everything is it just about reference frame.
This change/time happens independently on humans, so humans couldn't invent it.
Same as stars were on the sky before people start calling them stars.
But C didn't exist in any metaphysical state until you made C exist, which puts it into the past immediately. You don't have any kind of future there, you just have a more recent past compared to B. The Dinosaurs died out after the Earth was created, it doesn't make the extinction of dinosaurs the future.
Now if you wish to make the future contingent on a point of reference (IE, the dinosaur extinction is the future in reference to the Earth's creation), how is that not making it a subjective fact? While the event still happens in the same order if no-one categorises it, it takes us to observe and reference the event to categorise it, making it subjective by default. Stars would be in the sky if we weren't here (well, not necessarily, but an axiom for this debate), but they wouldn't be "future" stars or whatever unless we categorise them; they would just be different points of the past.
I also disagree on a syntactic level. Saying "The dinosaur's extinction was the future in reference to the Earth's creation" makes no logical sense to me. It's not the downfall of the argument, but something I find a little absurd.
I don't follow. I say that the past exists, but the future doesn't, because the future is uncertain. How do we know there will be a tomorrow? The point is that there isn't a tomorrow today, because the universe is reactionary. The entire universe could collapse in on itself in 30 seconds, and tomorrow would never happen, making the future never existent.
The future is merely a set of possibilities as opposed to an existent part of the space time continuum.
Time is an illusion that is in the human mind. Eternity and Infinity are the truth realities.
Time and space are sort of the fabric of the 3 dimensional universe. Yet there are other dimensions in the universe. Ones that don't use time.
The universe is expanding at a rate that can be measured, and the time it takes to cross a distance can also be measured.
According some Near Death Experience stories, when a person dies, they can move from one place to another with a thought. It seems that even though time might not exist in the realms of higher consciousness, space still does. However, at some levels of reality, even space is an illusion.
The universe has a size, and a shape, and it is expanding. But expanding into WHAT is a question of the day? Some sort of void, that lacks both space and time?
We did not create time, but it isn't exactly the full reality either.
This 3 dimensional universe is also an illusion, of sorts.
Absolute truth is pure mathematical reality. It exists in nothingness. There is not time or space in the void outside of the universe. The universe is created of matter. But in order to do this, it had to be separated from Anti-matter. If you put them together, they consume each other.
There is an universe out there somewhere, that is made of the anti-matter that is the "evil twin" so speak of this universe. In the universe is also "anti-time."
In a sense, matter is space. There is space between the bits of matter and it takes time to get from one bit to the next bit.
The human mind did not invent time and space. But time and space are part of the human illusion. There are layers of reality that are not 3 dimensional.
For example: According to Einstein (I think) time is the 4th dimension. 3 dimensions is HxWxD. Add to that "time" you have to consider where each objects and what shape it is in in the past or the future. Some people say that the universe is a still frame picture show that products new frames at the rate of about 200 billion frames per second. Most scientists just say it's an illusion.
Time is a relative element to consciousness. For example: Humans can see about 16 frames per second. Our consciousness really cannot see anything faster then that. A house fly can perceive hundreds of frames per second, which is what make them so hard to get. Flies could time their flight through a slow moving fan blade, which would whack us every time.
If the consciousness could speed up it's ability to perceive objects, so to speak, time would slow down. Time is largely relative to the consciousness perceiving it.
Time existed upon the start of existence. Man was only recently created, therefore it is irrational to say that man created time since man has had predecessors and the like.
