Does Time Exist?

[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.

[Volya]

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.

Another thing that occured to me upon reading your reply.
Is, the question of whether or not time exists, dependent on whether we view time as space within which we move, rather than being one linear line (doctor who explains this best - a ball of 'wibbley wobbley timey wimey' stuff), or if we view it as the progression and change of the things around us.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

Oh, come on, this metaphysical stuff gets a bit ridiculous. If time doesn't exist, what is there? How is one moment in continuity different from another if time doesn't exist?

And don't we measure time in irrefutable figures--minutes, seconds, etc.

[Volya]

Oh, come on, this metaphysical stuff gets a bit ridiculous. If time doesn't exist, what is there? How is one moment in continuity different from another if time doesn't exist?

And don't we measure time in irrefutable figures--minutes, seconds, etc.

Progress comes about by discussing possibilities and thinking about matters in a different way. It could be that by discussing and thinking about time, the human race develops more understanding about the matter that we know so little about.

[Tim Aeus]

And don't we measure time in irrefutable figures--minutes, seconds, etc.

We choose to. I believe this to be Cacian's struggle with time. However, the deregulation of time doesn't imply the end of time.

[Charles Darnay]

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.

[/QUOTE]

You are right; animals are included, and probably beat us to the whole time thing.

Oh, come on, this metaphysical stuff gets a bit ridiculous. If time doesn't exist, what is there? How is one moment in continuity different from another if time doesn't exist?

And don't we measure time in irrefutable figures--minutes, seconds, etc.

It's not that time doesn't exist; it doesn't exist outside of human perception.

[zoolane]

My thoughts are time does exist, how we tell time clock, by sun also by moon and many years ago not sure how many for sure but human or animal told time of year by weather. Also reality is at time has exist but only up to point of clock be invent at we took notice.

[OrphanPip]

It's not that time doesn't exist; it doesn't exist outside of human perception.

That would depend on what definition of time you're using. You're using it as the sense of an abstract concept (or rather as a structure generated by thought). Although, contemporary science thinks of time as a dimension in which things move, and fundamentally linked to matter and energy.

[Charles Darnay]

You're right, it does depend on the definition. Time is not an exact science, and moreover is it not a perceivable one. There are a growing number of valid holes being poked in Einstein's theory.

In everything, there is growth and decay. These changes have been used to objectify time. Time is the energy that causes growth and decay. In this way, time exists. This is the counter to my argument.

Human (and to an extend animal) perception of time goes beyond growth and decay. We have utilized this concept in so many functions, that can only be measured through man-made symbols Thus, my definition of Time is symbolic.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't have time to answer such questions.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's not that time doesn't exist; it doesn't exist outside of human perception.

I would agree that the perception of time wouldn't exist without humans (and possibly some animals), but I can't see how if humans did not exist, time would somehow not exist--the universe would go on, moving from one moment to the next just as it does now, with or without us. It's like the "if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound" question. Of course it does--just because people aren't there doesn't mean it won't make the same vibrations that travel through the air.

I get arguments about how our perception of time may be different--it may not be linear and all that stuff, sort of like the aliens from Slaughter-House 5--but claiming it doesn't exist at all without human perception just seems egocentric and completely unrealistic.

[cacian]

We choose to. I believe this to be Cacian's struggle with time. However, the deregulation of time doesn't imply the end of time.

I believe this is a misconception.
I struggle not with time I thinkabout it.
Time is ephemeral but it is not something you can touch with your hands.
Just because you see something a clock it does not mean it actually exists.
That is not a struggle it is an observation worth making because if someone else has not I will.
PLus as Volya you never what might come out of this observation.

Which brings me to my next thouhgts:
Just because one sees something does not mean it exists.

[cafolini]

I would agree that the perception of time wouldn't exist without humans (and possibly some animals), but I can't see how if humans did not exist, time would somehow not exist--the universe would go on, moving from one moment to the next just as it does now, with or without us. It's like the "if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound" question. Of course it does--just because people aren't there doesn't mean it won't make the same vibrations that travel through the air.

I get arguments about how our perception of time may be different--it may not be linear and all that stuff, sort of like the aliens from Slaughter-House 5--but claiming it doesn't exist at all without human perception just seems egocentric and completely unrealistic.

I would have to agree to that objectivity. But as always, it would look for trouble. Who cares, though?

[cacian]

The configuration of the universe is made up of livings innate as in natural nature,amd not, ie living, 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.

[cacian]

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.

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.

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