Does Time Exist?

It's too mighty a long ways before it gets philosophical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Aeus

I don't agree about that bit about time being in the mind. Just because something doesn't have the capacity to observe time, doesn't mean it isn't affected by time. Water boils over time. Sure, you add heat into the equation, but time is still necessary. Plants grow over time. Again, with the help of sunlight and water, but no amount of sunlight and water in a single instant would cause a redwood to grow 100 feet tall. Time is more than just something we think about. Just because we have the capacity to think doesn't make us an all important being that determines the fabric of our universe. Time exists. It is measurable. There is just some debate on the unit of measurement we should use. This seems most accurate to me, at least.

---

Actually, units of measurement are arbitrary. The important thing is not the unit but that the units be the same for all measurements. Have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

The configuration of the universe is made up of livings inate amd none planets and atmosphere.
It is a threed animated configuration which imitates time but is not it.
The existence of time is entirely dependable on this configuration.
It is limitless as long as this configuration is and not vice versa.
In other words one cannot truly measure time because the configuartion itself an impossible measurement.

A closer realistic comparison with time is perhaps a feeling such as love and it is abit like saying:
I love myself as long as you love me.
This is a possibility but not rationality and so one should ask:
Is love dependable fractioned or long lasting?
That would apply to time also.

---

So Mutatis was right after all....bravo.

"The configuration of the universe is made up of livings inate amd none planets and atmosphere." - What does this even mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Isn't the sound in the act of falling iself? There was sound as it was falling and then there was quiteness as it lay fallen.
In other word the act itself is sound and when one sees a fallen tree one sees/hears a silent sound?
A sound wave is a movement and movement is sound.
What moves makes sound and vice versa.

---

Locke divides qualities into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are independent in of themselves. Gravity is such a quality. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, it still falls - gravity pulls it down. The motion (motion is another primary quality) still acts on it: we can see this is we go to said woods later.

Sound is a secondary quality. It relies on an receptor (in this case, a living thing to hear it).

Colour is also a secondary quality. There are no red objects, but objects that give off more or less light to allow a receptor (an eye) to perceive colour.

Quote:

---

Nigh and day is a shift of lights and light is a type of sound only in colours.
What I am trying to say is that sound is not always heard but can also be seen.

---

I suggest you watch Bill Nye the science guy, because your understanding of physics is as bad as your understanding of biology.

Night and day is not caused by a shift of lights. The sun (sorry to bust your geocentric universe) does not move. Night and day is caused by the movement of the earth.

And light is not sound in colours. That's like saying fruits are eggs on trees.

They who would argue with Charles should do it at their own risk. LMAO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

So Mutatis was right after all....bravo.

"The configuration of the universe is made up of livings inate amd none planets and atmosphere." - What does this even mean?

---

I meant innate ,as in natural/nature, and not, as in living beings, planets and atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Locke divides qualities into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are independent in of themselves. Gravity is such a quality. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, it still falls - gravity pulls it down. The motion (motion is another primary quality) still acts on it: we can see this is we go to said woods later.

---

What do YOU think.
A sound occurs regardless of one hearing or not. The receiver bit does not make sense.
Whether we like it or not sounds occur listening to it or not.
Sound does not rely on a receptor,
Sound occurs and the receptor is only confirming it heard it it does not help it occur.

Quote:

---

Sound is a secondary quality. It relies on an receptor (in this case, a living thing to hear it). Sound waves so not make a sound: you cannot hear waves.

---

Wave is a circular movement hence the word wave. I am going with the word here.
One must explain why and how sound occurs in the atmosphere. Reaction action theory.
In other words why does sound occur.
The same with echo not the defininition but how and why it occurs.
Echo is to do with movement and sound.

Quote:

---

Colour is also a secondary quality. There are no red objects, but objects that give off more or less light to allow a receptor (an eye) to perceive colour.



I suggest you watch Bill Nye the science guy, because your understanding of physics is as bad as your understanding of biology.

---

My understanding of anything and everything is relative. Is Bill Nye god?

Quote:

---

Night and day is not caused by a shift of lights. The sun (sorry to bust your geocentric universe) does not move. Night and day is caused by the movement of the earth.

And light is not sound in colours. That's like saying fruits are eggs on trees.

---

Night as in dark and day as in light sun.
These are colours as we know them it is dark it is light.
A shift IS a movement.

Lights and sound are related fruits and eggs aren't.

There's not much to argue with him about, time is difficult conceptually. However, I agree that sound and colour are essentially the product of perception, as their is a legitimate reason to think of them as separate from the material reality of sound and light waves. Time is different because it is both a product of perception (i.e. the feeling of past/present and the sense of the passage of time) and a dimension through which matter-energy moves.

I think of the photoreceptors on the skin of cockroaches, what must it be like to feel light through your skin? What is colour like for a cockroach?

Once a roach, always a roach, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

There's not much to argue with him about, time is difficult conceptually. However, I agree that sound and colour are essentially the product of perception, as their is a legitimate reason to think of them as separate from the material reality of sound and light waves. Time is different because it is both a product of perception (i.e. the feeling of past/present and the sense of the passage of time) and a dimension through which matter-energy moves.

I think of the photoreceptors on the skin of cockroaches, what must it be like to feel light through your skin? What is colour like for a cockroach?

---

There was a TED talk recently (here) about someone who hears colours, via the frequencies. I imagine feeling colour is the same sort of sensation: you would feel subtle vibrations and if you are adapted to it, you can feel the variance in vibrations to distinguish colour.

Well. Once a roach, [at least] always a roach. Then there is the Unicornrach. LMAO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I suggest you watch Bill Nye the science guy, because your understanding of physics is as bad as your understanding of biology.

---

Bill Nye the Science Guy! That guys hilarious, we watch him in physics lessons xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

A sound occurs regardless of one hearing or not. The receiver bit does not make sense.
Whether we like it or not sounds occur listening to it or not.
Sound does not rely on a receptor,
Sound occurs and the receptor is only confirming it heard it it does not help it occur.

---

Think of it like this. Sound is created by our eardrums from vibrations/waves that travel through the air like ripples in water. A tree falling in the forest vibrates the air, but with no eardrums to convert those vibrations to sound, there's no sound. Sound itself is created in our heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

Think of it like this. Sound is created by our eardrums from vibrations/waves that travel through the air like ripples in water. A tree falling in the forest vibrates the air, but with no eardrums to convert those vibrations to sound, there's no sound. Sound itself is created in our heads.

---

Or those vibrations in the air can be considered sound, which simply aren't perceived as the sound of a tree falling because they weren't converted to sensory data by a being with ears.

What if a clinically deaf person were walking through the woods? The fact that he or she couldn't perceive the sound doesn't necessarily mean the falling tree made no sound. A hearing person walking through the woods with the deaf person could perceive the sound of the falling tree. Does the tree only make a sound for the person with hearing? Or does the hearing person merely perceive the sound that the deaf person doesn't?

And since we're talking about sensory data, if a tree falls in the forest but no one's around to see it, does it make a sight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anton Hermes

Or those vibrations in the air can be considered sound, which simply aren't perceived as the sound of a tree falling because they weren't converted to sensory data by a being with ears.

What if a clinically deaf person were walking through the woods? The fact that he or she couldn't perceive the sound doesn't necessarily mean the falling tree made no sound. A hearing person walking through the woods with the deaf person could perceive the sound of the falling tree. Does the tree only make a sound for the person with hearing? Or does the hearing person merely perceive the sound that the deaf person doesn't?

And since we're talking about sensory data, if a tree falls in the forest but no one's around to see it, does it make a sight?

---

Is it possible to apply to the whole tree falling scenario, that if it makes no sound, and makes no 'sight', then...
If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody knew about it (ever), then, did it actually fall?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

Is it possible to apply to the whole tree falling scenario, that if it makes no sound, and makes no 'sight', then...
If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody knew about it (ever), then, did it actually fall?

---

When we are there and we hear the sound, we then know that if it falls, it makes a sound. We don't have to be so stupid as to have to be there to hear it again. It's like anything else we know, if we know. You wouldn't cross the street with a big Mac coming at you in order to make sure your ash is no longer. Would you? Berkeley was retarded in posing that question if he actually thought it was questionable. There are stupid questions.

"Life is hard. If you are stupid, it is harder." ~ John Wayne

"Get off your horses and drink your milk for now." ~ John Wayne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

When we are there and we hear the sound, we then know that if it falls, it makes a sound. We don't have to be so stupid as to have to be there to hear it again. It's like anything else we know, if we know. You wouldn't cross the street with a big Mac coming at you in order to make sure your ash is no longer. Would you? Berkeley was retarded in posing that question if he actually thought it was questionable. There are stupid questions.

"Life is hard. If you are stupid, it is harder." ~ John Wayne

"Get off your horses and drink your milk for now." ~ John Wayne

---

Sorry if it wasn't clear, my point was to oppose people who think that it would make no noise.