CreateDebate


Debate Info

42
37
I already told you...YES I'll tell you again...NO
Debate Score:79
Arguments:90
Total Votes:80
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I already told you...YES (24)
 
 I'll tell you again...NO (28)

Debate Creator

Amarel(5556) pic



Does Time exist? How?/How not?

I already told you...YES

Side Score: 42
VS.

I'll tell you again...NO

Side Score: 37
3 points

There are the 3 dimensions of Space and the 4th dimension of time which compose this universe. Space and time are inseparable from each other which is why you'll hear scientists refer to Space/Time. When matter is introduced to the equation it causes a disruption in Space/Time. This disruption is observable as Gravity. Therefore, time can be sensed indirectly as gravity.

Time can be observed directly as causation. The procession of cause and effect takes place on a plane of space and has a duration (time). The duration of cause and effect can be measured. Often this measurement is referred to as time, though it's implicit that what is measured is time, time isn't the measurement itself.

Just as we can observe the quality of length, width, or height, (space) we can observe the quality of duration (time).

Side: I already told you...YES
Mattmars(12) Disputed
2 points

CreateDebaters,

“Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, A question critical to both sides,

I like the standard of careful thought on this debate on “time”. But I think there is a fundamental problem in the method.

The question given is “Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, (and I am confident I have a very good argument for “how not” ). But, the problem is we are not given a definition for “Time”.

Therefore, anyone arguing against “time” is unfairly and illogically handicapped, because, any of those defending “time” probably each has a significantly different variant of the idea. ( especially if it transpires “time” does not exist).

Thus, as you can see for the arguments “for” time, anyone questioning the idea of “time”, is forced to question an intangible, invisible, ill defined “thing”, that (as clearly seen in the posts), seems to be different things to different people... which is not (imo) a valid logical or scientific starting point.

No one can argue against anything if no clear definition of what that thing is, is agreed, if they try the conversation will be chaotic, circular and inconclusive.

So, would those defending “time” please give a working definition of precisely what it is, extra to just matter(/energy) and motion, that they think exists, so we are all clear what we are questioning the existence of.

i.e. are you saying you all agree it is, Quote...

Oxford English Dictionary, Time:

“The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole:”?

Matthew Marsden

(abh timelessness)

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
HarvardGrad(174) Clarified
1 point

So does a clock measure time? .

Side: I already told you...YES
Amarel(5556) Clarified
1 point

At this speed yes. Though loosely. . .

Side: I already told you...YES
Mattmars(12) Disputed
1 point

HI Amarel,

I’m interested in actually playing the “CreateDebate” game. I think its a great site and a great idea, so I’d like to see if through logic and reason I can actually sway the “argument ratio”.

So I'm asking you (and others) to actually change their vote etc if anything I say makes you reconsider some point. (i.e. I'm hoping this is not just like a cheap trash talk site where people just and only endlessly defend a cherished point of view , without doing any extra thinking etc)

Anyway, I just replied to you re videos on the “no” side, but ill add a few “disputes” to the yes side to show what I think are the weaknesses of the “yes time” position”.

Please note I'm not being rude here, but I have thought this thing through, and it may just be the case that I'm actually basically right. You can see a list of common arguments for time, and how they may be wrong here...

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/basic-timelessness/table-of-timeless-vtime-distinctions

And here...

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/advanced-timelessness/common-assumed-proofs-of-time

E.g. Re (your opening post)

1- There are the 3 dimensions of Space and the 4th dimension of time which compose this universe.

2- Space and time are inseparable from each other which is why you'll hear scientists refer to Space/Time.

3- When matter is introduced to the equation it causes a disruption in Space/Time.

4- This disruption is observable as Gravity. Therefore, time can be sensed indirectly as gravity.

5- Time can be observed directly as causation. The procession of cause and effect takes place on a plane of space and has a duration (time).

6- Just as we can observe the quality of length, width, or height, (space) we can observe the quality of duration (time).

I call time “ the elephant in the room wearing the emperor’s new robe”, because

- time seems to be an amazingly unique area of science, where virtually everyone ignores the fact there are no scientific experiments to back up their “TIME IS...” statements, and

- we are expected to just accept the existence of completely un observed phenomena

( e/g/ a “past” and/or “future”, durations, times arrow etc),

So, with respect, re your first post, I dispute it politely but comprehensibly....

1- There are the 3 dimensions of Space and the 4th dimension of time which compose this universe.

3 dimensions of space agreed, but to claim there is a dimension of time you need to provide a clear definition of what the thing you are proposing exists “is”, and describe a scientific experiment , as per the scientific method, that supports your theory...

Amazingly if you search the web you may only find more and more “time is...” statements, but no experiments,

So Amarel, for your argument to be valid, you need to please post a very clear and precise definition of what you mean by “time” – (and not a circular definition), and some evidence ( ie not just statements about what time is, “if” it exists ).

2- Space and time are inseparable from each other which is why you'll hear scientists refer to Space/Time.

-

This is only true if time is shown to exist...and Relativity does not prove time exists, it only assumes time exists.

More to the point, and this is extremely important) you seem to assume Relativity proves “Space and time are inseparable”, but I can tell you have not checked "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" yourself.

(so, you may be just duplicating an “opinion” that you think others have checked... but which in fact they are just duplicating... because they think others have checked it)

-ie, to be sure of things one should always check for oneself...

--------- Very specifically, re Relativity... "ELECTRODYNAMICS"

At the heart of Relativity is of course the "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") Einstein’s first SR paper.

(https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies)

Many people are intrinsically referring to this paper where they make statements about Relativity, and in particular “Time” or “time dilation”, but few people seem to check and analyse the paper for themselves

In section 1 of the paper..."Kinematics" , the (translated) words are...

"If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time.

Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” "

But the paper continues...

If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,” I mean something like this:

“The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”

So, it is stated.... “If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. “

But in fact, the paper only describes the motion of one material “point”, (a train), to the motion of another “material point”, the motion of the tip of a motorised hand rotating on a numbered dial.

In other words,while many people assume relativity proves time exists... section 1 of the seminal paper on Relativity itself only “assumes” that there is a thing called “time”, thus implying its existence, and “passing” are valid terms, and that a rotating hand on a numbered dial, in some way shows, or proves this. But from the outset the paper provides no logic or proof of the existence or function of “time”.

and, just "calling" the movement of a rotating hand "time", and from that suggesting there "is a thing called time that is needed for things to be able to move" - is imo, the most horrendously weak reasoning.

However, relativity does show how moving things "are" "changing" more slowly, but it does not prove there is a future or a past, or a thing called time that is "passing" more slowly... though many people seem to assume otherwise.

.: relativity does not prove “time” exists, and Minkowski is wrong to suggest space is merged with a thing called “time” - when in fact, all that is show is that things moving fast in 3d space, are, changing more slowly...ie no 4th “dimension”.

3- When matter is introduced to the equation it causes a disruption in Space/Time.

-

4- This disruption is observable as Gravity. Therefore, time can be sensed indirectly as gravity.

-

Agreed matter tell space how to warp, and warped space tells matter how to move, (general relativity)

But the idea gravity is to do with warped space-time, and not just warped space, comes from Minkowski’s interpretation of "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"... where he seems to have also assumed that a hand rotating on a dial proves more than just that things exist and can be moving at steady speeds.

...“Therefore, time can be sensed indirectly as gravity”

I disagree, an object is either supported at a height, or is falling... no where does this prove there is a “past” and/or a “future”, or a thing called “time”, that must exist and “pass” for things to be able to fall.

If I'm wrong please post a dispute explaining why.

5- Time can be observed directly as causation. The procession of cause and effect takes place on a plane of space and has a duration (time).

This is what I mean by the complete lack of experimental testing....

Ameral, (please actually!) try this simple experiment.

-place an object on a table, say a cup

-push the cup from left to right and check what you observe.

You suggest “Time can be observed directly as causation.”... but that’s not what you observe.

The pressure on the left causes the cup to move to the right.

If this is “time” related, and “the past “ affects “the future”, as “time passes”, then you should be able to observe some of this, because apparently your finder should be “in the past”, and the moving cup “in the future” – but of course all you see is that everything just exists, and if one thing is pushing another it “causes” it to move, not over “time”, but “in the direction it is being pushed”.

As you push the cup left to right, you may place a rotating hand on a numbered dial nearby, and look at it as you push the cup. But all this proves is that you can be pushing a cup, and a hand can be rotating – none of which proves there is also a thing called “time”, “durations” of which “pass”, or must “pass” for things to be able to move.

The point about the above, is that much of the apparent conversation about “time”, may in fact just be intense “confirmation bias”.. all we see is stuff moving “now” but we conclude a whole lot of other invisible stuff exists and is going on.

Re “confirmation bias”, Amarel (and anyone else reading this), logically you are probably in one of two places,

-either you are interested in seeing whether or not time exists.... or

-you are certain time exists, and only want to hear and believe support for that idea.

Either way, check out this video, by https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

6- Just as we can observe the quality of length, width, or height, (space) we can observe the quality of duration (time).

Again, I disagree... yes we can observe distances... we can also make a machine to rotate a hand on a dial.

But that machine only “displays motion”, you can only claim we are measuring a thing called “duration” if you have some proof that everything in the universe is not just existing and moving....

i.e. you need to “prove” a thing called time exists and passes.

Ultimately you need to consider –two- possibilities... and realise that if you believe the theory of time, you almost certainly haven’t even thought of , let alone considered , possibility 2 ( so you cannot at this stage actually be sure 1, is right and 2 is wrong :)...consider

1-things exist move and change as a thing called time “passes”, and

2-things “just” exist move and change, not heading into a “future”, nor leaving a “past” behind.

Now, actually look at the world around you , and ask yourself...

“if things exist move and change as a thing called time “passes” “, how would the world look ?

The answer is “just as it does”, but now ask yourself...

“IF things “just” exist move and change, not heading into a “future”, nor leaving a “past” behind them”, how would the world look ?

You may realise that the world would also look exactly as it actually does...

(and as per occams razor, thus p2 should be considered very seriously)

The point being, if you believe in a whole load of invisible, un disprovable things (past, future, “time passing”, “durations” etc), you may never even think to consider how they may not exist, and how the world may actually be just as it appears to be... everything all just here, changing.

Matthew Marsden

A Brief History of Timelessness (r2): Why it's always now, everywhere.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-History-Timelessness-r2-everywhere-ebook/dp/B00I09XHMQ/

more general aspects of 'time'

Timelessness, Downstairs at the Kings Head London (rt)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSJ8A-w78xM

Timelessness, Downstairs at the Kings Head London (LEGO intro)
Side: I'll tell you again...NO

'Time' is a manmade word that describes an observable phenomenon. The actual properties of that phenomenon may be completely different from what we believe them to be, and time could even itself be an emergent property of something else entirely. What we perceive as time could even just be an effect of another process entirely.

This doesn't change the fact that it is an observable and measurable phenomenon. What we call time does in fact exist, even if its nature isn't fully understood. Compare lightning; our understanding of it today is completely different from our original understanding of it (electrical phenomenon vs. weapon of the gods). The poor understanding we had of it before did not render the phenomenon nonexistent. In the same way, even if our understanding of the phenomenon we refer to as 'time' is incorrect, that phenomenon still exists.

Side: I already told you...YES
1 point

Yes. Although time is a man-made concept, it still exists. Just because it is a man-made concept, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Does mathematics (a man-made concept or multiple of concepts) exist? Therefore, time exists.

Side: I already told you...YES
HarvardGrad(174) Disputed
1 point

In reality, no. Math does not exist. It too cannot be perceived then physically described. Light rays, gravity, and radiation are perceived then described physically. Math is perceived (albeit very ingeniously) then applied . Yes, the concept of math is very useful in describing almost everything in the universe but it is not existent in reality.

Just because it is a man-made concept, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Name a Homo-Saipan conception that can be described physiologically.

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
Amarel(5556) Disputed
1 point

Even if man never existed, two things next to two other things would still be four things. Does causation exist?

Side: I already told you...YES

Time exists as an idea. But in a sense ideas can only exist in consciousness. We have to consider the role of consciousness in existence. We can travel time with consciousness. I can visit the past in my mind. I can change the influence of the past by changing how I feel about the past. But all things exist now. Things of the past exist in now moments. The past has evolved and is what it is now. If you hate something of the past that event based upon how people think about it. You cannot visit the past because all the energy is here and now. Anything in the future again exists only in consciousness. There isn't any actual energy in the future.

But since existence is strongly based on awareness then time is real as an idea but not in a technical sense.

Side: I already told you...YES
1 point

CreateDebaters,

“Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, To both sides,

Just to clarify, my position re the “how could time not exist”, is

P1-we may be wrong to assume form the outset that there is any such thing as time.

P2-because, all we seem to actually observe is that matter(objects etc) exists, and is just moving changing and interacting in all directions.

P3-we don’t seem to observe anything actually leaving a ”temporal past” behind it, or heading into a “temporal future”.

P4-If all we seem to actually observe is matter moving and changing, and we do not see any proof of a “past” or “future” actually existing, then we may be wrong to conclude there actually “is” a past, or a thing called “time” that is “passing”.

Therefore, re “how could time not exist”.

We may be wrong to assume from the outset a thing called time exists, because we be wrong to think we can extrapolate from the observable facts that there is a “past”, or thus “time”.

MM

Side: I already told you...YES
5 points

Time is an interval that we perceive between changes of state. Time exists only as we percieve it. Were there no changes of state in our perceived universe, time would cease to have any meaning to us. The fact that our arbitrary measure of time is effected by our speed in orbit versus our relative speed on the ground, supports the conclusion that time is a perception and a concept based on the circumstance of an observation.

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
1 point

It can't be perceived by any of the senses.

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
Amarel(5556) Disputed
2 points

Nothing could be perceived in the early universe. Did the universe exist then?

Side: I already told you...YES
Amarel(5556) Clarified
2 points

Atoms, dark matter, radio waves,...causation itself. Is subjective perception required for a thing to objectively exist?

Side: I already told you...YES
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
2 points

The creepiest of all skeptical hypotheses is that the world was created 5 minutes ago with evidence suggesting it has existed for longer.

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
ProLogos(2794) Disputed
1 point

Just because the universe wasn't being perceived at the moment , doesn't mean it couldn't be perceived at all.

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
HarvardGrad(174) Clarified
1 point

You should have said "felt" .

Side: I already told you...YES
Amarel(5556) Clarified
1 point

The explanation eludes this debate. ..

Side: I already told you...YES
ProLogos(2794) Clarified
1 point

Why? That narrows it down to only a few of the senses...*

Side: I already told you...YES

Time does not exist in reality. But a potato does. Why? Because I see it, touch it, eat it. Time? Uhh... I can think it! What else? I can uhh......

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
Amarel(5556) Disputed
2 points

I might ask the same of space. What can you do with it? You can't see distance, only things at a distance.

Since time is part of the fabric of reality, it is part of your potato example. What can you do with time? Anything, but nothing without it. When you touch the potato, you only feel it with duration, this is the same for all of your senses. They require duration. This is time, and all senses are senses of time.

Side: I already told you...YES

Does it "Exist" Kind of, but not really. Its just a man made measuring tool. That's like saying do numbers exist? They didn't until humans made them up.

So while it does exist, its not really real

Kind of like what this company is trying to create www.magicleap.com

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
1 point

Does time exist?

To answer this we should first ask "what is time", and be aware that the answer may be " the question is invalid", if it happened to be the case that there is no such thing as time...

Re: "What IS time"

Let's be clear and logical here. Whether it is In fact valid or not,"What IS time" is a leading question.

It implies "time" is something that is proven to exist (as more than just a useful idea), and that therefore "it" "is" something.

If this assumption is incorrect, and this is not noticed from the outset, then all subsequent attempts to answer the false assumption will be vague, conflicting, self referential, speculation or conjecture,(this can be confirmed or not for oneself, by cross checking countless other posts on this topic).

If the assumption is correct, and time "is" something that has been proven to exist, then we should find out who has the proof and ask them "what is time?". But, because the question is being asked openly and randomly, this indicates that the question may be based on an assumption whose foundation is just assumed.

Therefore, I suggest a better, less leading question might be

'What do we actually observe?'

to this i would say we seem to observe

1- That matter exists, and,

2- that matter is moving and interacting.

From there, I think a sensible question to ask what I call "the key question of time", I.e...

"If matter JUST exists, moves, changes and interacts... Would this be enough to mislead us into "wrongly assuming", that there is a 'past', 'future' and thing called 'time' "?

if this is the case, logically, we are left with precisely what we actually see..

a universe full of constantly changing matter giving us the misunderstanding there may be a thing called time.

so, imo - (having written a very detailed book on the subject) -

'A Brief History of TIMELESSNESS'

'time' IS a useful "idea", and system of understanding and comparing examples of motion, (similar to "money" being a useful idea and system), but ,IMO, not something that actually IS a genuine phenomena.

Relativity does suggest, and it is confirmed, that any moving oscillator will be oscillating more slowly than expected, but this observation does not prove in any way that there is also an existing phenomena called "time", that exists, and is dilated, where objects are moving.

Logically, and scientifically, unless anyone can experimentally show otherwise, it thus seems that matter just exists and is moving and changing, not heading in to a "future", not leaving a "past record of all events" behind it, and therefore the answer to the question...

"What is time?"

'May' be ,

"Time, IS a useful idea and system for understanding and comparing examples of motion, but probably NOT also something that exists. Although most people seem to assume otherwise because they assume without any proof that there 'is' a 'past' and possibly a 'future', and assume without actually checking, that Einstein's Special Relativity, proves the existence of 'time', as opposed to just showing how relatively moving things are changing more slowly than expected".

Anyone interested in understanding the "theory of time" in more detail, please take a look at one of my powerpoint talks...

Matt Marsden

(auth 'A Brief History of Timelessness')

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I09XHMQ

Timelessness.co.uk

A couple of Videos...

YouTube: Timeless answers to Brian Cox's Science of Dr WHO.

http://youtu.be/ii3gxxn2reA

" Time travel cant happen without 'the PAST' "

(complete with LEGO intro :)

http://youtu.be/pSJ8A-w78xM

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
4 points

Welcome to CreateDebate!

It is the perception of patterns of events upon which we build our concepts of time, space, motion, life, etc. They are special kinds of concepts because they affect our perception of reality more heavily than most other concepts. There isn't much call to prove the existence of that which is almost universally regarded as self-evident. A few of us enjoy questioning our most primary assumptions, and asking questions like "Does time really exist?" "Do I really exist?" etc..

To begin a discussion about whether or not something really exists we have to explain what it is in a way that we can process within our current psychological framework We have to start with certain assumptions.

You don't want to assume the existence of time so you start with what you DO regard as self evidently true.

Basically that: Interacting matter exists. No one needed to convince you of this because to you it is utterly self evident.

I could say on the other hand (as a fellow extreme skeptic) that I am not willing to assume that our notions of "matter" are immaculately conceived. I AM willing to admit that there are differing and relatively distinguishable "aspects of reality" that we more or less adequately attempt to conceptualize with the aid of terms like matter, time, space, object, world, being, government, authority, religion, god, life, health, death, and so on.

I'm also willing to assume that of the root assumptions that we make about reality, some are more logically defensible than others. Some will withstand sustained intelligent scrutiny, and others will fall apart upon examination. Time is one of the concepts that hold up pretty well.

Time is the science of the measurement of the relative speed of motion of various objects and/or waves through space. You want to say that we don't have an unchanging constant to go by, for measuring time, I will agree, but I don't think that this prevents us from measuring in a manner adequate for certain purposes.

Let's check an assumption that you make and see how well it holds up to scrutiny. You make the assumption that matter "moves" which rests on the assumption that there are locations. How do you logically support your belief that there are locations? Isn't the concept of locality resting on logically unsupported assumptions just like time?

If you want to do extreme skepticism, let's do extreme skepticism :)

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
Amarel(5556) Disputed
3 points

We have to start with certain assumptions.

Sure. Axiomatic or self-evident premises are required for logical thought.

How do you logically support your belief that there are locations?

How do you support that rules of logic are true? Put another way, how can you question all axioms (a rule of logic) while demanding logical support?

Axioms are the starting point of logic, if you throw them out (by not assuming the self-evident) then what you have is not logic. Which is fine since we can also question other rules like non-contradiction as well.

I'm not sure why your post is on this side. Either way, well argued.

Side: I already told you...YES
Amarel(5556) Disputed
2 points

I expect the contradiction in your book's title was clever marketing.

The observation that matter is moving requires duration or continuity of space, this IS time.

There is a very real problem with your key question of time. It can be directly reversed. Ie.

If matter JUST exists, moves, changes and interacts... Would this be enough to lead us into "correctly assuming", that there is a 'past', 'future' and thing called 'time' ?

Matter does JUST exist. It's interaction is CAUSAL. Causal continuity is time observed.

It's easy to understand why time is a slippery concept. It's axiomatic. It is part of the self-evident framework in which things are proved. The framework itself won't be proved, it will only be proved axiomatic. This is the case with space, reality, and knowledge. They must be used in their own refutation. For this reason, you can't prove there is knowledge. Just as your book on timelessness exists now because you wrote it then, and it still exists...now. Similarly, this current post describes matter moving and interacting. If you also recognize the causal nature of that interaction, then you are recognizing time while refuting it's existence (existence is another one, you can't prove to me that you exist).

Side: I already told you...YES
HarvardGrad(174) Clarified
1 point

There is a substantial difference in arguing the existence of time to reality even if they are axiomatic. Stick with space. And even space is something we empirically dispute about.

Side: I already told you...YES
1 point

To clarify re the you-tubes,

Re the more technical aspects of how we may be wrong to assume a thing called time exists,

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
1 point

To clarify re the you-tubes (2)

The reasons for suggesting the theory of time may be like "an elephant in the room, wearing the emperors new robe".

The elephant in the room,

Why do we assume (and where is the scientific proof, as per the scientific method), that watching something in smooth regular motion (eg the spinning Earth, or a motorised hand on a numbered dial ), in some way proves or suggests that, for movement to be possible, there is also some other 'invisible' thing called 'time' that 'must' exist for things to be able to move?

(Believing or not, in) the emperors new robe.

And, why is the existence of an invisible, poorly defined 'thing', apparently 'flowing' between an invisible 'future', and invisible 'past', assumed when in fact, all we actually seem to observe is a singular collection of matter just existing, moving and changing ?

(None of it actually seeming to be 'heading into a 'future' ', or 'leaving an invisible 'temporal past' behind' it).

These questions are addressed in,

Supporting Evidence: Time travel cant happen without 'the PAST' (youtu.be)
Side: I'll tell you again...NO
Amarel(5556) Disputed
1 point

I can't view the youtube vids...

a singular collection of matter just existing, moving and changing

Not simply changing, but changing is a causal manner. This is a key aspect to the progression of time and accounts for our temporal experience of reality.

Also, matter changes at "different rates". I know that "rate" relies on "time", but that's the nature of axioms.

Side: I already told you...YES
Mattmars(12) Clarified
1 point

Hi Amarel, I like your thinking, but I do politely disagree. I have read each of your points, and think I can explain certian oversights or possible incorrect initial assumptions in each one. I'm not being rude, it's just in writing 'timelessness' I just kept going to the point where I had tested for my self every objection to my own idea, that I could think of.

I'm sorry you can't get the videos, so rather than flood this forum with long replies Heres a timelessness site link to give a general outline of how we may be wrong to even initially assume there is a thing called time! and the logical/scientific risks of taking 'time exists' as a starting point (because if in fact there is no such thing as time! then we may never see this possible fact as true if our logic is based on an initial false premise).(IMO)

See https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/basic-timelessness/do-you-believe-that-time-exists

I'll post a link re 'causality' happening 'over time' or just 'now' seperately.

MM

Side: I already told you...YES

I think it's likely, but here's why I'm on the negative position here:

I think there's a good point to be made that there's a scientific theory that all instances of time are happening at once, and in order. Right now, the dinosaurs are being extinct in another time period. So, if this time period is physically measurable, than somehow we should be able to tap into and observe it. Theoretically, although it's a hard concept to get, it's a possible theory of a time machine. I know this is a real theory, although I don't know how much work is going into the time machine part.

If all events are simultaneously occurring, then time is not a practical concept because its only measurable until something switches out of order and taps into the third year of the universe.

And, at that point, I would ask which timeline is the dimension? Is it the person traveling through time's timeline, or the normal timeline.

It's not definite, therefore it's not a measurable dimension as soon as it happens. Dimensions are absolute, and this might not be an absolute. Therefore, it would not a dimension.

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
Amarel(5556) Disputed
1 point

If I am thinking of the same theory, it's similar to viewing the "time line" of all existence from the outside. Like looking at a map that doesn't say "you are here". It doesn't discount time, it is just a different perspective.

Similarly you might say "time doesn't exist because light does exist and at the speed of light time stops, or doesn't exist". You can't neglect the fact that we also exist and we are not moving at the speed of light.

From the perspective of absolute motion (light), or theoretical non-motion (where the universe would come to an instant end), there is no time. But we live between these states, where time exists.

Side: I already told you...YES

As said over and over, time is a idea. Ideas are very powerful and influence consciousness. As an "idea" it even gets to be a noun. As an idea, it influences almost everything we do. It exists in consciousness, as an idea.

However, everything is in a state of "now." Nothing is ever "yesterday" or "tomorrow" it's always right now. Everything is relative to everything else. Everything is in a process and we compare process. Atoms pulses at a certain rate. We used to that was pretty solid and that rate never changed and we used it for carbon dating. But it turns out that atomic decay is influenced by the intensity of solar radiation. We can only use time if we compare rates of one process against comparing it to another.

But what is the foundation? We are created clocks that measure rates at billionths (perhaps way smaller, I forget) of a second. But still, a second only exist because we compare it to process of the earth circling the sun. 1 year, 365.25 days, 8765.81 hours, 31,536,000 seconds, etc. But if the earth speeds up or slows down, than the second changes. But an atom doesn't really pulse to the rate of second for it doesn't care how fast the earth goes around the sun.

There is ALWAYS a process that is shorter than another. Perhaps the electrons in inner co-valences are shorter cycles than the outer ones. You can compare the process to others but there no fundamental speed or rate that you can compare. As the processes get shorter, the processes become closer and closer to eternity.

For example: There are laws of nature that always exist. They don't pulse at rates other anything like that. So the "law" which is a process of sorts that is imposed on matter. The laws that makes atoms work could be slowly speed them up, or slowing them down and we would never because we can only be relative.

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
1 point

CreateDebaters,

“Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, A question critical to both sides,

I like the standard of careful thought on this debate on “time”. But I think there is a fundamental problem in the method.

The question given is “Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, (and I am confident I have a very good argument for “how not” ). But, the problem is we are not given a definition for “Time”.

Therefore, anyone arguing against “time” is unfairly and illogically handicapped, because, any of those defending “time” probably each has a significantly different variant of the idea. ( especially if it transpires “time” does not exist).

Thus, as you can see for the arguments “for” time, anyone questioning the idea of “time”, is forced to question an intangible, invisible, ill defined “thing”, that (as clearly seen in the posts), seems to be different things to different people... which is not (imo) a valid logical or scientific starting point.

No one can argue against anything if no clear definition of what that thing is, is agreed, if they try the conversation will be chaotic, circular and inconclusive.

So, would those defending “time” please give a working definition of precisely what it is, extra to just matter(/energy) and motion, that they think exists, so we are all clear what we are questioning the existence of.

i.e. are you saying you all agree it is, Quote...

Oxford English Dictionary, Time:

“The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole:”?

Matthew Marsden

(brief history of timelessness)

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
Amarel(5556) Disputed
1 point

This post is very clever because it is specifically targeted at those who believe time exists. To quote your previous post:

Let's be clear and logical here. Whether it is In fact valid or not,"What IS time" is a leading question.

I still need to review your link. After that I will consider the definition of time very carefully.

Side: I already told you...YES
Mattmars(12) Clarified
1 point

Hi Amarel,

Thank you, there's a reason for that. I've looked into the problem of time, and discussions about time a lot. And this is why i call it the elephant in the room wearing the emperors new robe, because if you look at this debate, it's asking the question "does time exist?".

now the fact we are still asking this most basic question even apparently after 2000 "years" of civilization should bring up red flags... becasue logically at least the answer is

"we're obviously not certain, hence we're asking the question".

and we dont see countless sensible forums on "does cheese exist, or does the moon exist, or does gravity, or electromagnetism exist".

so, two of the biggest hurdles i recognized was

1- a colossal amount of unscientific confirmation bias towards the idea " a thing called time must kind of exist in some way"

and

2-an amazing acceptance of a concept that is not even clearly "defined" and agreed by a majority.

so, one of the biggest errors in all the debates on time, i have had, is that people rush off asking if some thing exists, and then hope to define "what it is" they are trying to work out exists, as they go along.

no where else in science do we do that, yet in "time" we do , and no one notices , hence the elephant in the room.

therefore, in my opinion, there are 2 debates going on here, the pro time people are trying to say what they think time "is",

and,

why they think it exists.

but if time "is" a legitimate phenomena ( and not just a useful idea), then time is whatever it is, and the definition should be very, very, scientifically clear.

so, those for time, should first agree what it is they are sure exists.... and not just use the "word" "time.

imo, mm

Side: I already told you...YES
1 point

CreateDebaters,

“Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, To both sides,

Just to clarify, my position re the “how could time not exist”, is

P1-we may be wrong to assume form the outset that there is any such thing as time.

P2-because, all we seem to actually observe is that matter(objects etc) exists, and is just moving changing and interacting in all directions.

P3-we don’t seem to observe anything actually leaving a ”temporal past” behind it, or heading into a “temporal future”.

P4-If all we seem to actually observe is matter moving and changing, and we do not see any proof of a “past” or “future” actually existing, then we may be wrong to conclude there actually “is” a past, or a thing called “time” that is “passing”.

Therefore, re “how could time not exist”.

We may be wrong to assume from the outset a thing called time exists, because we be wrong to think we can extrapolate from the observable facts that there is a “past”, or thus “time”.

MM

Side: I'll tell you again...NO
Amarel(5556) Disputed
1 point

Hey, I'm really sorry but the youtube links don't seem to work.

Do you think it is relevant that our experience of the moment is rather wide when compared to an instant? When we say that humans can't see frames faster than X per second, that means multiple frames shown sequentially are observed simultaneously. Does this have any impact on your view of time?

Side: I already told you...YES
1 point

Truly it does not. It is a convention artificially created for the human mind to perceive an incomprehensibly complex reality.

Side: I'll tell you again...NO