I'm really in the mood for some Star Trek now.
Printable View
I'm really in the mood for some Star Trek now.
IrishCanadian
Come on... of course time can be expressed as a noun. Time can be used as the subject of a verb (real time, recorded time, horrible time, good times) and it can be interpreted as singular or plural (“How much time do you have?” Or How many times do I...”) and it can refer to an action, a concept, an entity, a state, or quality. Time can also be expressed as a verb (to time an event or occasion) and an adjective (time deposits, time bomb).
As for the second part of your post, I would agree that objects, that is physical objects, whether animate or inanimate, whether stationary or not, need only three measures to exist. These are height, width and length. However, to locate them or to observe their existence, you must also know the time of their existence. As I said before, time is independent of the other three spatial measures... except in a space-time continuum.
Virgil
Interesting idea... unfortunately, if time did not exist, how would you know you would be at all, or that you have ever been, or that you would ever be? The absence of time would not necessarily permit an infinite existence. How could you be if you have never been? And if you never were, could you ever really be?
Curiously, In February of 1848, Edgar Allan Poe delivered a lecture entitled “The Universe” at the Society Library located at the corner of Leonard Street and Broadway in New York City. This lecture was later re-titled and printed as “Eureka – A Prose Poem” by George P. Putnam of Wiley & Putnam in New York.
It is the instinctive and intuitive expression of Poe’s thoughts dealing with the material and spiritual birth, expansion, collapse and ultimate demise of the universe. It also provides the first known recognition of and explication for darkness and has been noted as eerily close to current modern theories of the ‘Big Bang’.
Starrwriter
Respectfully, time is an absolute. It is the singular immeasurable interval between the beginning and eternity. One may call it linear, if they like, but this suggests a straight line progression. I don’t know that this is the case, but whether curved or straight, time will not be denied, changed or altered, its duration was predetermined. As an agnostic, I would not know who or what to credit for this predetermined interval.
Only the observable incremental measures between these two points, (minutes, hours, days, years, etc) are impacted by these forces. Cyclic or repeating events infers an observable precision of recurring occasions. That is to say that if this is possible in our current space-time continuum, each repetition of any observable event must occur at the same observable place at the same observable time. Consequently, the observer would likely perceive this as a singular event.
Time definitely CAN be described as a noun. But that is irrelivant to its being a noun or not. We have grown up with the idea of time being a noun our whole lives because of the sort of statments that you give us here. However, each of these is relative to a corporeal being. If you agree with my take on time's "single moment" existance, that I have mentioned a few times in this thread (St. Augustine), it would be clear that it is impossible for it to be difined my an event, action, object ... or any other terrestrial being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tis
If time is indeed a noun --where is it? As a noun it requiresd space ... I'm not saying that I have to see to believe, I just find the possibility of a space for time to exist in quite incredible.
If time's being (as a noun) is not terrestrial, than how would it effect us so much that we would even bother having such a fun debate about it? On the other hand, keeping in mind that it is independant of the objects that seem to be affected by it (as seen in arguments above and before), how can it be experienced here?
Cheers!
Old joke: God invented time so everything doesn't happen at once.
IrishCanadian
Time, my friend, is never irrelevant, especially to the intellect and the heart. It is only to the soul that time becomes unnecessary. And only then, if you count yourself among the faithful.
A noun does not demand tangibility, substance, solidity or mass. Music is a noun, it does exist. Love is a noun and while to a breaking heart, it may weigh heavily upon the one who grieves, it has no more substance than time or music.
Time is not terrestrial, it is intellectual. Remove intellect and you remove the need for time. Remove all else but intellect and time becomes everything. Remove time and all else becomes irrelevant.
You're quite right however, it does provide for good discourse. I wrote this for my daughter after a lengthy discussion of this subject... ;)
“Good day, sir, and how are you?”
“Quite well,” said I, “...and are you too?”
“Weren’t you round here yesterday?”
“Nay!” Said I “...I have never come this way,
And if I did, I cannot recall,
Ever having seen you at all.”
“Then, tell me sir, how can it be,
That I know you... and you know me?”
“Because, good sir, by Heaven’s grace,
We seem to share a common face.”
“But that’s not true, you’ve eyes of blue.”
I laughed and said, “Well, yours are too.”
“But your stature, sir, is straight and tall.”
And I pointed to him, “As are we all.”
“But your voice, good sir, its clear... profound.”
Said I, “My friend, you’ve equal sound!”
“Then...” said I, “...could it not be...
That I am you and you are me!”
“The paths we walk, they each oppose,
Yet we’re the same!, You don’t suppose!?”
In awe he wondered, “If you are me,
And I am you, how can this be?”
“Because within this place, sublime,
We’ve found a common space and time.
And I think, old friend, I see at last
That my future lies within your past.
And yours, within my past will be.
Until we reach eternity.”
I like the poem. Cute and profound at the same time.
Well I admit your right. As long as a noun is more than a "person, place, or thing" then your right. I guess in such fun debates like these we have to be seeing eye to eye on the rhetoric. I still think that a noun is a person, place, thing-- but I guess thats a different debate. Haha.
By the way, I do consider myself a member of the "faithful." I don't consider love or music to be nouns either. Art, thoughts, romance, Charity (in the ancient sence of the word), have absolutely profound effects on us all. I do not think that a noun (as I define "noun") is capable of being so emotionally powerful.
Sure these which we attach to nouns can be (ie. romace as an attachement to a person). But what would anyone else call them besides a noun? Why do you, Tis, see them as a noun? It makes no sence to me.
... Perhaps that question belongs in a different thread.
time is just a term used to describe space. there is no definite explanation for time. it can be used in many different contexts. there are just too many concepts of time which people have. to me, it's just a word man came up with to explain his world.
IrishCanadian
I am appreciative of your comments regarding the poem, however, I’m not so sure it would qualify as profound. The poem was merely intended to amuse my daughter and to challenge her capacity for reasoning. Allow me to assure you that my comments, all of them, were not intended to prove you wrong or even change your mind about anything, especially in terms of your faith. Frankly, I’m not sure you are wrong. Simply put... we, you and I, do not share the same perspectives.
As one of the faithful, you possess a perspective that would likely differ significantly from my own as an agnostic. While our views would likely diverge in most subjective discussions, I am confident that we would likely share parallel views on a broad range of subject matter. For example, while you and I may be at odds in terms of faith, my lack of faith has much less to do with refusing to acknowledge the existence of God. Rather, it does have much to do with a refusal (or at least a reluctance) to commit my destiny to the unknowable or the intangible. Yet, I would submit to you that we both share a similar, if not an almost identical, respect for morality, those fundamental principles of human behavior. That is to say, the fundamental laws of God and man. In effect, while we do not necessarily share a common perspective, we could easily share common moral values. After all... ‘An agnostic does not a heathen make.’ ;)
There is an old remark by Alexander Pope that I have always found applicable to any person I have ever met. I apply it equitably to myself as well. He said...
“Reflection and remembrance, how allied.
What thin partitions, thought from sense divide.”
What he meant by this is that what each of us think or feel is merely the product of our experiences. How we express ourselves as individuals may vary in the expression, but may share a common purpose or intent.
Neither you or I, nor the next fellow, share a common perspective. At least, a perspective with which we may find any discernable precision of commonality. However, many, or at times, all of us, depending on the prevailing issue, might easily share a common interest. How we serve that common interest may be substantially different from person to person. But it will not alter the common objective.
As I said before, from my perspective, time is simply that immeasurable portion of temporal existence between the beginning and the end or, metaphorically speaking, universal life and death. We may partition time however we choose, we may even alter these partitions, flex them, twist and turn them, but we will not alter time. As Edgar Allan Poe said in Eureka – A Prose Poem... “In the Original Unity of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation.”
Best Regards,
[QUOTE=Tis]IrishCanadian
As one of the faithful, you possess a perspective that would likely differ significantly from my own as an agnostic. QUOTE]
Don't get me wrong. Agnosticism is only a philosophical school that teaches that as humans we are incapable of knowing everyhting. I too am agnostic. Perhaps atheist is the word you were looking for?
Anyway, I think its fare to say that the argument regaurding time is over (for me anyway).
It has been fun.
you know, you bring a good topic to voice, and no time does not exhist, times only purpose is to keep us on time. and in order. and in line. i didnt read noones posts but first 2 so hear me now, you tell me how you gunna measure time? trully when you didnt make da universe? and you trully dont know all of the universe? you know them say we in the year 2005, and its like them actually just started counting one day?
I generally think of time as just another dimension of life. It was inevitable that it would be created so it is pointless to question the significance.
Okay, let's figure this out.
Does the past exist? No, not any longer.
Does the future exist? No, not yet.
The present, it would appear, is a boundary between the past and the future.
But you cannot have a boundary between two non-existent things.
Therefore, time does not exist.
Cheers.
I think this particular thread is the most fun I'v had on these forums. YEEHAAW
The present doesn't exist either. By the time the present registers in your mind, it's already happened. Just figured I'd add that in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Boogaloo
It's too bad there isn't a hot shot physicist here.
If Einstein is right, (literally millions of tests on the theory of relativity have been carried out, and thousands of different kinds of tests, and so far, it's the master theory of science), then the only thing that isn't relative in this universe is the speed of light in a total vacuum. Time is relative just like everything else but the speed of light.
It's another dimension, like length.
However, I am aware that with the addition of quantum mechanics, (but I have only two quarters of calculus so I can't follow it very far mathematically), the very existance of time has come under question. I think we have so spend of this doubtful stuff called time and wait for a better answer.
Rats.