Does Time Exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I introduced it as a more earthly analogy to the original question - did not expect it to derail the whole matter.

---

I don't think you derail anything, Charles. Have fun.:nopity:

cacian, it is perfectly possible to see and hear things at the same time... (unless you mean can you see a sound/hear a sight, which you cannot)

Very interesting read. Thanks everyone.

I would like to answer this time question very simply as a musician who deals with time every day.

Without time there could be no music. Music exists.

Quote:

---

QUOTE=BienvenuJDC;1169187]If a book is in a library, and no one is there to read it...is it still literature?

---

I would say yes because it is called a book. The title 'book' gives it the literary meaning.

Quote:

---

The "fallen tree" question is really an exercise to show how educated (and presumably intelligent) people can discuss the ridiculous.

---

I am not sure I follow.
What do you mean by 'the ridiculous'?
The fact that someone is trying to advance in ensuring that all corners/possibilities of a fallen tree/something that has occured are covered or the fact that one settles for what one sees and hears.

Quote:

---

If the same tree is in the woods in the bright sunshine, is it visible?

---

It depends I think.
One need a reason to want to know about visibility.

If I am trying to find out about something then I shall bring an example as a mean to compare and deduct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

cacian, it is perfectly possible to see and hear things at the same time... (unless you mean can you see a sound/hear a sight, which you cannot)

---

Agreed.
The next question is which is faster the seeing or the hearing of the tree?
Sorry about the tree again.
Another of what I mean.
When a phone rings
Does one think 'phone' or does one think 'ringing' ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I would say yes because it is called a book. The title 'book' gives it the literary meaning.



I am not sure I follow.
What do you mean by 'the ridiculous'?
The fact that someone is trying to advance in ensuring that all corners/possinilities of a fallen tree/something that has occured are covered or the fact that one settles for what one sees and hears.



It depends I think.
One need a reason to want to know about visibility.

Unless it is for a reason that no one cares.
If I am trying to find out about something then I shall bring an example as a mean to compare and deduct.

---

Some good answers, but the last one spoils it. What matters reason? It is a resident of both the sober and the drunkard, the mentally healthy and the insane.

"Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world." ~ R.D. Laing

Seeing the tree is faster because light travels faster than sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Some good answers, but the last one spoils it. What matters reason? It is a resident of both the sober and the drunkard, the mentally healthy and the insane.

"Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world." ~ R.D. Laing

---

A reason is what drives somebody to do or think something or not.
A motivator.

Quote:

---

"Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world." ~ R.D. Laing

---

I could not agree with this because it is hard to match an existing condition.
It is also up to me to decide whether something is insane or not.
Once I have made up my mind I shall act accordingly to counteract it disperse it or become it.
In other words
I might as well consider taking ballet dancing because ballet dancing is what makes one popular or famous.
I neither take for ballet nor I believe it will make me happy.
I will take up what I feel is right for me.

Secondly insanity by insanity leads to destruction and is totally pointless thinking in my views.
The reason is this:
My actions should be dependent on my judgement first and not because others tell me to.
'when in rome do like the romans'
well I would rather
'when in rome I do like me first then will see'.

Closed case. It took you quite a while to respond. It did not help you nor any listener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

If a book is in a library, and no one is there to read it...is it still literature? But I'm sure many of you would argue about that...and have...

The "fallen tree" question is really an exercise to show how educated (and presumably intelligent) people can discuss the ridiculous.

If the same tree is in the woods in the bright sunshine, is it visible?

---

It's not ridiculous, but perfectly sensible. It rests upon the definition of sound being sond waves interpreted by an ear. If there is no ear to interpret the sound, then there is no sound, just vibrations that dissipate without affecting an ear.

The book analogy doesn't work because the book has already been put there and designated already by someone. Whether it is literature is a matter of opinion not phenomenon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sydneysider

Very interesting read. Thanks everyone.

I would like to answer this time question very simply as a musician who deals with time every day.

Without time there could be no music. Music exists.

---

I think it depends how you look at it. If you are saying that it exists of itself, then I would disagree. It cannot exist without other factors such as atmosphere, instruments or voice, ears or vibratory organs, (never mind the trees), and a player. Music, for its existence, depends upon other things, therefore cannot exist of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

It's not ridiculous, but perfectly sensible. It rests upon the definition of sound being sond waves interpreted by an ear. If there is no ear to interpret the sound, then there is no sound, just vibrations that dissipate without affecting an ear.

The book analogy doesn't work because the book has already been put there and designated already by someone. Whether it is literature is a matter of opinion not phenomenon.

---

But if one believes in an Omniscient God, then nothing is uninterpreted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

But if one believes in an Omniscient God, then nothing is uninterpreted.

---

I might believe that there was a sound in the forest, but I can hardly convince someone else that this is the case. They have to find a reason to believe it themselves.

I can hear and prove a sound in the forest - by recording it. I can then convince someone who stated the opposite.

The two positions are irreconcileable except through belief or non belief, which is not what the discussion was about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think it depends how you look at it. If you are saying that it exists of itself, then I would disagree. It cannot exist without other factors such as atmosphere, instruments or voice, ears or vibratory organs, (never mind the trees), and a player. Music, for its existence, depends upon other things, therefore cannot exist of itself.

---

There is not a single thing that exists of itself, Paul. :yawnb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think it depends how you look at it. If you are saying that it exists of itself, then I would disagree. It cannot exist without other factors such as atmosphere, instruments or voice, ears or vibratory organs, (never mind the trees), and a player. Music, for its existence, depends upon other things, therefore cannot exist of itself.

---

Hi there.
I did not mean music exists in and of itself. Simply that music is measured time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

There is not a single thing that exists of itself, Paul. :yawnb:

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sydneysider

Hi there.
I did not mean music exists in and of itself. Simply that music is measured time.

---

No worries.

I've heard mathematicians claim that numbers exist of themselves, though I would reject this too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Closed case. It took you quite a while to respond. It did not help you nor any listener.

---

Help is not what it is needed.
Listening may be understanding is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I might believe that there was a sound in the forest, but I can hardly convince someone else that this is the case. They have to find a reason to believe it themselves.

I can hear and prove a sound in the forest - by recording it. I can then convince someone who stated the opposite.

The two positions are irreconcileable except through belief or non belief, which is not what the discussion was about.

---

Here is a thought that came up as I watched someone trying to jump off a plane to travel faster then sound.

a) what could ever travel/react faster then sound?I am not sure travelling is the right word here.
and
b) why would be the reason why would one want to beat the sound record?
Bearing in mind sound is ephemere and fast is a number that is long lasting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Here is a thought that came up as I watched someone trying to jump off a plane to travel faster then sound.

a) what could ever travel/react faster then sound?I am not sure travelling is the right word here.

---

A bullet; a jet, hence the BOOMs.

There is no consensus on whether time exists outside of human perception; whether it is "fundumantal," as it were. A lot of the posts in this thread are highly speculative and while not incorrect per se (We can't judge that yet) lack a foundation in known fact.

Now I personally am inclined to believe that time does and has always existed for as long as there has been a universe because it's a simpler hypothesis and wins over "time exists purely in human perception," in an Occam's Razor test, but really, as I've said, nobody really knows.

Wow, I sound kinda condescending there... I hope I didn't offend anyone. =[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Here is a thought that came up as I watched someone trying to jump off a plane to travel faster then sound.

a) what could ever travel/react faster then sound?I am not sure travelling is the right word here.
and
b) why would be the reason why would one want to beat the sound record?
Bearing in mind sound is ephemere and fast is a number that is long lasting.

---

a) Many things. Light. Anything that's 'supersonic'. Have you ever noticed that you see the flash of lightning before the thunder?

b) Why do we want to beat any records? To prove we can, and to show we're better than anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyCetacean

There is no consensus on whether time exists outside of human perception; whether it is "fundumantal," as it were. A lot of the posts in this thread are highly speculative and while not incorrect per se (We can't judge that yet) lack a foundation in known fact.

Now I personally am inclined to believe that time does and has always existed for as long as there has been a universe because it's a simpler hypothesis and wins over "time exists purely in human perception," in an Occam's Razor test, but really, as I've said, nobody really knows.

Wow, I sound kinda condescending there... I hope I didn't offend anyone. =[

---

Would you agree that time is a number?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Would you agree that time is a number?

---

Um... No. It can be measured in numbers, but time itself isn't a number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyCetacean

Um... No. It can be measured in numbers, but time itself isn't a number.

---

Then what is time in terms of a figure or a measurement?
In other words how does one measure time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

a) Many things. Light. Anything that's 'supersonic'. Have you ever noticed that you see the flash of lightning before the thunder?

b) Why do we want to beat any records? To prove we can, and to show we're better than anyone else.

---

Ok.
I am thinking now how does one measure speed of light?

Minutes, seconds, the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

It's not ridiculous, but perfectly sensible. It rests upon the definition of sound being sond waves interpreted by an ear. If there is no ear to interpret the sound, then there is no sound, just vibrations that dissipate without affecting an ear.

The book analogy doesn't work because the book has already been put there and designated already by someone. Whether it is literature is a matter of opinion not phenomenon.

---

I disagree: sound is a series of vibrating waves that CAN BE perceived by the ear. Just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it didn't happen or doesn't exist. Did the planets in other galaxies not exist because there was no human sense to perceive them before high-powered telescopes exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyCetacean

Minutes, seconds, the like.

---

Speed of light is faster then seconds and minutes or so I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Speed of light is faster then seconds and minutes or so I know.

---

I meant that's the units used to measures time. D:

You cannot separate time from space, as Minkowksi noted in 1908, deriving this from special relativity. So what we get is spacetime. Each event in spacetime has four coordinates: three of space, and one of time. They are called spacetime events. The distance between them is known as the spacetime interval. This implies that just as all locations in space exist, so too do all events in time. The past, present and future all exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

You cannot separate time from space, as Minkowksi noted in 1908, deriving this from special relativity. So what we get is spacetime. Each event in spacetime has four coordinates: three of space, and one of time. They are called spacetime events. The distance between them is known as the spacetime interval. This implies that just as all locations in space exist, so too do all events in time. The past, present and future all exist.

---

This makes me think.
What is the evenest line on earth if there is such a thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

This makes me think.
What is the evenest line on earth if there is such a thing?

---

Maybe the straight lines in the word IBM? IBM researchers put down the letters atom by atom at the nanoscale, getting atoms lined up is pretty straight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlcox

I disagree: sound is a series of vibrating waves that CAN BE perceived by the ear. Just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it didn't happen or doesn't exist. Did the planets in other galaxies not exist because there was no human sense to perceive them before high-powered telescopes exist?

---

I don't dispute what you say - vibrations exist whether they are heard or not. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of sound. I'm taking sound as defined as vibrations perceived in an ear and thus interpreted by the brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I don't dispute what you say - vibrations exist whether they are heard or not. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of sound. I'm taking sound as defined as vibrations perceived in an ear and thus interpreted by the brain.

---

What about tinnitus - that's a sound, but not perceived in an ear. Or the memory of a sound? And given that you can't hear everything this precise moment, then doesn't sound almost always involve memory? And what about auditory hallucinations? Or the Buddha speaking to you from the God Realm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

What about tinnitus - that's a sound, but not perceived in an ear. Or the memory of a sound? And given that you can't hear everything this precise moment, then doesn't sound almost always involve memory? And what about auditory hallucinations? Or the Buddha speaking to you from the God Realm?

---

What we were referring to was the definition of sound and whether there is sound if no-one hears it - you know the tree falling in the forest idea when no-one is around. The point I was making is that there can't be a sound unless it is perceived by an ear to interpret it.

Your points take us outside of that definition. Tinnitus - I can't comment because i don't kow what causes it, but as it is an abnormal medical condition is it a fair point?

The memory of a sound is still previously interpreted, so I don't see there's a problem with that. As for the memory of sound, presumably this is he gap between the sensory organs picking up the sound and the brain interpreting it. That seems consistent with what we've been saying that sound is perceived and modified by the brain; that it is not inherently existing of itself.

Presumably auditory hallucinations are produced by the chemical interaction of the sensory organs, brain and memory. More than that I can really say, but it seems consistent with the theory.

The Buddha speaking rom the God realms is an intersting idea. I think that ability is developed/ karmically present - not bestowed. Again I know nothing of how that would work, but idon't think it contradicts the theory.

Timing existence is an impossible task.
Exitentialism goes beyond time even further then it.
If we are unable to time existence then time only exists in relation to one. Meaning timing is one to one.

So if time is not palpable then it is only half met.
Everything else that is is certain to be because we not only see it but we feel it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Tinnitus - I can't comment because i don't kow what causes it...

---

The cause is uncertain - but why do you need to know the cause? It's a ringing sound, I can vouch for that through experience!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

The cause is uncertain - but why do you need to know the cause? It's a ringing sound, I can vouch for that through experience!

---

Just because we are talking about cause and effect - vibrations to sound interpreted by the ear. Tinnitus is the effect, but is the cause a physical problem or something else.? Anyway, I didn't feel I could usefully comment. An unpleasant condition I'm told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Just because we are talking about cause and effect - vibrations to sound interpreted by the ear. Tinnitus is the effect, but is the cause a physical problem or something else.? Anyway, I didn't feel I could usefully comment. An unpleasant condition I'm told.

---

Unpleasant, but not impossible. Mindfulness meditation helps me live happily with the condition. In fact, tinnitus makes it plain that mindfulness meditation is not new age nonsense. For Buddhists, tinnitus may be a great positive!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

You cannot separate time from space, as Minkowksi noted in 1908, deriving this from special relativity. So what we get is spacetime. Each event in spacetime has four coordinates: three of space, and one of time. They are called spacetime events. The distance between them is known as the spacetime interval. This implies that just as all locations in space exist, so too do all events in time. The past, present and future all exist.

---

How do you mean
''You cannot separate time from space'' ?
Are you saying that space equals time and vice versa?