Does Time Exist?

[cacian]

What the eye can see and feel, hence the five senses, the eye comprehends and therefore it exists.
the quote
''I think therefore I am'' is rather ambigeous to me because thinking is part of being and not as an establishement of it otherwise I can I say that ''I move talk therefore I am''.

So if seeing and feeling establishes existence then does something like TIME really exist?

Discuss.

[Charles Darnay]

Cogito ergo sum - or I think therefore I am - is often taken out of context and thereby creates the ambiguity. Descartes' conclusion came as a result of theory that to determine anything, you must doubt everything. But the one thing you cannot doubt is your ability to doubt, or your ability to think. Therefore, the only thing you can be sure of that exists is your ability to think and therefore you yourself.

As for the overly empiricist view of "only what you can perceive with your 5 senses is real" is a bit faulty: energy cannot be perceived, but it exists.

Time is an interesting factor. The answer is yes it exists, but in an arbitrary symbolic form created by people in order to function in a society. St. Augustine spends a book of Confessions riddling with Time and comes to the conclusion that only God can sort it out. But God did not create time. Actually, if you go by the Bible, it seems that Time exists before God (he created things on certain days, but did not create the days).

The reality is that a group of people observed the patterns of the sun, and decided to subdivide their reality to make life convenient: and this caught on.

During the French Revolution, Robespierre completely rearranged both the calendar and the number of hours in a day: it can be done, it just has to be agreed upon by a majority or else it is useless.

[cacian]

Cogito ergo sum - or I think therefore I am - is often taken out of context and thereby creates the ambiguity. Descartes' conclusion came as a result of theory that to determine anything, you must doubt everything. But the one thing you cannot doubt is your ability to doubt, or your ability to think. Therefore, the only thing you can be sure of that exists is your ability to think and therefore you yourself.

Hi Charles I thank you for posting this I myself did not know it was Descartes.
I don't know why I have always quote this with ''to be or not to be'' it was almost inevitable in my mind that somehow they did link. It is perhaps the constant questioning of when one is and whether one is or is not.

Going back to Descartes I have to say that I do not quite get the idea of doubting( against this reminds me of Doubting of Thomas it is biblical!!) with the idea of determination.
To doubt is to question things that already are. One can doubt god but religion is .
In order to determine one must start with something concrete. In order to determine the number 2 I must start with a number and that is one.
I see no link between doubts and determining something.
Maybe you could give me concrete example of what Descartes means.
Thinking as an internal process that is linked to language and communication.
To think is to want and therefore it stems from the need to want to establish something or somebody.
It is forward process and not a digressive one.
Thinking is a positive main stream and has everything to do with the ability to establish meanings ideas and feelings.
It is is different from doubts and certainty.

The whole approach of Descartes is very unclear to me.
I think because I want to establish something that already exist or is about to exist.
One thinks when one wants to talk and so words and language are as a result of thinking.

So doubting is negating something that already exists and thus is linked to thinking via existence.
Doubting is rejection or rebute of already established ideas or facts.

So to go back to the saying I think I would say that ''I think because I need to achieve something new''
Or ''I thin because I can and I can because I am''

The process of being is a positive approach because the more we produce the more we are.
Doubting is negating something and therefore cannot reinfore my existence as it takes away rather then add.

As for the overly empiricist view of "only what you can perceive with your 5 senses is real" is a bit faulty: energy cannot be perceived, but it exists.

Time is an interesting factor. The answer is yes it exists, but in an arbitrary symbolic form created by people in order to function in a society. St. Augustine spends a book of Confessions riddling with Time and comes to the conclusion that only God can sort it out. But God did not create time. Actually, if you go by the Bible, it seems that Time exists before God (he created things on certain days, but did not create the days).

The reality is that a group of people observed the patterns of the sun, and decided to subdivide their reality to make life convenient: and this caught on.

Time is to me is artificial and only is because one wants to establish something over and over again.
For a wheel to turn it needs constant movements and movements are constant stages of time.
Time is fitional tool that sustains a continous monotonic effect.
A bit like a machine it needs rewiding and winding and without a number it won't be.
The age of digital is one. Take the numbers out and there is no digital.
Time dictates evertyhing work money life people.
Time is about reproduction it is a sytem to control and therefore a power program.
Speed is as a consequence of time which can be harrowing and exhausting.
A bit like a race or a marathon which only configures one winner amongst the thousands of runners.
Not a very nice feeling of you are amongst those late runners.

During the French Revolution, Robespierre completely rearranged both the calendar and the number of hours in a day: it can be done, it just has to be agreed upon by a majority or else it is useless.

Well they do say time is money and they mean just that.

Does it exist? only according to speed.
Can we live without time ? Tricky technology is time.
Can we live with it and ensure it does not run us down? I would say that would be a great challenge because it is worth it if we could control it and not the other way around.

[/dev/null]

The underlying logic behind "'I think therefore I am" is "I exist and I think, therefore I exist". This was alredy obvious to Nietzcshe and Kierkegaard.

Time is an interesting factor. The answer is yes it exists, but in an arbitrary symbolic form created by people in order to function in a society.

So, if life on Earth ends tomorrow, the universe will just stop because it would run out of symbolic human form through which to move.

[cacian]

The underlying logic behind "'I think therefore I am" is "I exist and I think, therefore I exist". This was alredy obvious to Nietzcshe and Kierkegaard.



So, if life on Earth ends tomorrow, the universe will just stop because it would run out of symbolic human form through which to move.

I feel that would be impossible for a universe to just stop because so long as human fauna and flora are about then life will always be.

[Charles Darnay]

So, if life on Earth ends tomorrow, the universe will just stop because it would run out of symbolic human form through which to move.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Without thinking beings to perceive time there is no time. There is still entity, but entity without life is timeless.

My point about it being a symbolic human creation is to show that Time was not created by a "higher being" or by natural process - it is a human creation. You cannot speak about Time without referring to some arbitrary division established by humans (whether that is eras, years, seasons, hours &c.)

[Lokasenna]

Whilst I like the cogito ergo sum approach to time, it is a little bit subjective. What about an objective view of time? My layman's understanding is that time is defined as the movement from one moment to the next, a theory that presupposes the existence of motion within the universe (as indeed it does - everything in the universe is in motion). My understanding, therefore, is that time would cease to exist at the exact point when all motion ceased in the universe.

[Calidore]

Whilst I like the cogito ergo sum approach to time, it is a little bit subjective. What about an objective view of time? My layman's understanding is that time is defined as the movement from one moment to the next, a theory that presupposes the existence of motion within the universe (as indeed it does - everything in the universe is in motion). My understanding, therefore, is that time would cease to exist at the exact point when all motion ceased in the universe.

I thought time was considered a fourth dimension. Is there a school of thought that has it caused by three-dimensional physical motion rather than enabling it by, as somebody once defined time, keeping everything from happening at once?

I can maybe answer my own question: There's a school of thought somewhere for everything. I think of time as a big four-dimensional space where everything happens, rather than an impetus itself.

On an unrelated note, Lokasenna, the last part of your sig, about defeating gravity through laughter, made me think of the "I Love to Laugh" bit from Mary Poppins, where laughter makes everyone rise to the ceiling. I'm now wondering if Nietzsche inspired a Mary Poppins song, and what he would make of that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

How can time not exist?

[cacian]

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Sound as we know it and so yes it should make a noise.
What is the point of this question?

Without thinking beings to perceive time there is no time. There is still entity, but entity without life is timeless.

My point about it being a symbolic human creation is to show that Time was not created by a "higher being" or by natural process - it is a human creation. You cannot speak about Time without referring to some arbitrary division established by humans (whether that is eras, years, seasons, hours &c.)

I think time is far as light goes meaning night and day alternating.
In this sense yes there is a lapse of lights from darkness to sun and so on.
The question here is
Can man live without the clock?

[cacian]

How can time not exist?

I don't know I just thought about numbers and clock and wondered about time. Just because we see does not mean it exists.

[Charles Darnay]

Sound as we know it and so yes it should make a noise.
What is the point of this question?

The point is that the answer is "no." Sound cannot exist without a receiver. Sound waves only become sound when there is something to receive the sound that is capable of perceiving sound: a living being. Time works the same way.

I think time is far as light goes meaning night and day alternating.
In this sense yes there is a lapse of lights from darkness to sun and so on.
The question here is
Can man live without the clock?

This is movement (space). The earth is spinning, causing the alternation of night and day.

[Charles Darnay]

How can time not exist?

It is not an objective force that can sustain itself or be explored by irrefutable facts and figures. Therefore it can be doubted. Therefore it can not exist.

[Tim Aeus]

So what you're driving at is that time, as we have regulated it, is a system designed for achieving maximum efficiency from the components of society.

I think that this makes sense. But ultimately, I don't think this regulating is a practice that started with man. Animals do certain things during certain times of the day. Most animals spend their nights resting. They also migrate during the same time of the year. There is a trend of repetition in all life. It is just the way it is.

[Volya]

Time is a concept. And since concept are really just things humanity creates in our heads. The rest of the world does not keep track of time (as far as I am aware. Yeah squirrels hoard nuts and things, but I believe that is instinct not thought, right?). Now you could use that to argue that since time is only in the mind, then it does not exist. However, if we use that original principle of 'cogito ergo sum', which says that because we think, we are real, then really that would mean that yes, time is real, because we are real.

Thoughts?