Does Time Exist?

[BienvenuJDC]

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.

[Paulclem]

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.

[cafolini]

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.

[Sydneysider]

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.

[Paulclem]

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

Agreed.

[Paulclem]

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.

[cacian]

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.

[cacian]

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.

[Ser Nevarc]

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.

[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. =[

[Volya]

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.

[cacian]

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?

[SkyCetacean]

Would you agree that time is a number?

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

[cacian]

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?

[cacian]

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?