Time

[DarkDude]

Time. What is time? Time is something that exists only in our minds. You can not look at anything in nature and actually see time. Time is man-made. There is no time in nature. Want to debate with me on that? Look outside of our minds. What time is it? It's the present. It's always the present. The past does not exist in any physical space and the future does not exist in any physical space. Disagree with me? Where is it then? So time doesn't really pass, because it's always the present. Time is a way for us to refer to events that have already happened or events that will happen. But outside of our minds, time is not real.

Time is a form a measurement. You make something tick over and over again and you say that one tick to the next is a second, the basis of time. You could say milliseconds is the basis of time, but seconds existed first, so I would say seconds are the basis of time, especially considering the fact that milliseconds are based off of seconds.

The time, as in what time it is, is actually a religion. For one, you have to believe in it. It's not really 3PM unless you believe it's 3PM. And it is used as a way to control people. You need to be at a certain place at a certain time (e.g. work, the store, school, bed, etc.). We're all controlled by time. It's the most successful religion ever.

Finally, I'd like to touch on time travel. I do not believe in time travel. It should make sense that I don't believe in time travel based on what I've said already. If the past and the future do not actually exist anywhere then how would you go there? You can't go somewhere that doesn't exist. Plus, if Time Travel were real, we would've seen somebody come from the future. Simple as that really. Oh, what's that? Every person in the future to travel back in time did so quietly without ever letting anyone know about it? While that's not literally impossible, it's so improbable that I would consider it to be impossible.

What do you guys think?

[demonbaby]

Actually, in a way, you CAN see time. One of the only reasons we use time, is because we want to know how to dark or light it is outside, so we can do certain things in the outdoors. So yes, we can see time pass, by how it looks outside. Whether it be by the seasons, or just by how dark it is, it doesn't matter, we can still predict how it will look in the future, and we know how it looked in the past.

[tendoboy1984]

If time isn't real, then how do you explain aging?

[DarkDude]

That's not time. It's nature that you're looking at. Nature is never the same twice. It can look similar enough that to the human brain it can appear to be the same, but it's not really.
Time isn't passing, either, because like I said, it's always the present. As we all know, day and night is just a result of the earth rotating. We use time to say that it takes so long for something to happen, but a minute is just as real as an inch. They are real in our minds. They are concepts. They are not tangible. They are not real. They are imaginary. Does that make sense?
You can tell when it's going to be light or dark by looking at the sky and not being a moron. If the sun is coming up, it's going to stay lit for awhile. If it's going down, it's going to get dark. We don't need time to tell us that. Like other religions, time is a part of the dumbing down of humanity. We no longer need to think about things like that. Just look at a clock and you don't have to figure a damn thing out for yourself. It's a convenience. That doesn't make it real.

---

Your body ages over time, not because of time. You age because of what you're body is doing, either developing or decaying. With the way the idea of time works, you can say that your body ages over time.

Okay, I just thought of an analogy. Imagine being in space. Is there time in space? You have nothing to go off of, other than ticks. There is no day/night or seasons. You still age, though, of course. I'm not asking anyone for an answer to if there's time in space, I want you to ask yourself that and think about it.

[Garfitor]

This kind of thinking seems entirely pointless to me. You're saying that I can do something, say, throw a ball, and I can physically experience it and others can witness it, but our combined memories of the event aren't proof that it actually happened? So the past isn't real, the future isn't real, our memories aren't real...what do you propose IS real? You're suggesting that anything that can be measured isn't real, such as distance, mass, force, etc.? So our entire physical world is in our imaginations. So what are we? Is this...the Matrix?

Meh. Unless you've found some way to exist outside the physical plane that you can prove to me, I think I'm content experiencing reality.

[AndyTheZombie]

Wow my head hurts thinking about this.

[VoodooThursday]

I need to go eat a pringles sandwich fellas, this is too much for my grey matter to contemplate.

[DarkDude]

This kind of thinking seems entirely pointless to me. You're saying that I can do something, say, throw a ball, and I can physically experience it and others can witness it, but our combined memories of the event aren't proof that it actually happened? So the past isn't real, the future isn't real, our memories aren't real...what do you propose IS real? You're suggesting that anything that can be measured isn't real, such as distance, mass, force, etc.? So our entire physical world is in our imaginations. So what are we? Is this...the Matrix?

Meh. Unless you've found some way to exist outside the physical plane that you can prove to me, I think I'm content experiencing reality.

I'm not saying that our memories aren't real, those things did happen. Those things happened in the past, which means that while it was real before, it's not real anymore.
I'm suggesting that things that are measured aren't real, as in tangible, and that they exist only as concepts to help us as humans to understand the world around us.
I propose the present is real. Your memories aren't necessarily real, either, though. Ever remember something wrong?
Our entire physical world is real, but how you see it depends ons your perception.
It may be useless to think this way, but it's the way I think.
One point I was trying to make was why time travel wouldn't be possible.

[Facepalm]

There is an easy way to explain what this thread is all about. The human brain evolved to incorporate imagination into problem solving for this very reason. To better understand complex concepts using simplistic, efficient systems.
Time does not exist because it is merely a system in which we understand the progression of the present. It's in the same vein as the concept of God to understand the laws of existence and Love to understand certain bonds between people.

If you can separate the things that have actual, physical meaning (like nature, death, societies) and things that only function as ways to help interpret things (like time), it's a lot easier.

[What What]

You’re confusing a few things here. Time isn’t a measurement. The clock is a tool to measure time. It would be the same thing as saying space doesn’t exist because the units to measure the dimensions mm, cm, meter, etc. are artificial. We are always in the present because we move along a time line at the same speed as time itself. But it’s possible to have your time going slower relative to other people (Time travel into the future). All you need is a vehicle that’s able to travel at 99.9% of the light-speed and some room to maneuver that thing around.

Actually when you look at the sun, you don’t see the sun where it is now you see the sun where it was 7 minutes ago. The same goes for looking at the center of the universe, the closer you get to the center the further you look back into time.

If time is a believe like religion how do you explain the following?
In Test of Relativity Theory, Superaccurate Atomic Clocks Prove Your Head Ages Nanoseconds Faster than Your Feet

[DarkDude]

You’re confusing a few things here. Time isn’t a measurement. The clock is a tool to measure time. It would be the same thing as saying space doesn’t exist because the units to measure the dimensions mm, cm, meter, etc. are artificial. We are always in the present because we move along a time line at the same speed as time itself. But it’s possible to have your time going slower relative to other people (Time travel into the future). All you need is a vehicle that’s able to travel at 99.9% of the light-speed and some room to maneuver that thing around.

Time isn't measurement? And I'm confused? A clock is a tool used to READ the time. A clock isn't a measuring device because it's possible for the clock to be wrong. Is it possible for a ruler to be wrong? No, because it's a fact than an inch is an inch. It's NOT a fact that it's 12:25 PM. It's a belief, it's an idea. If it were a fact, why is it not true if you travel far enough east/west? That doesn't happen with inches, does it? No matter where you go, an inch is still an inch, because it's a FACT.
What YOU'RE saying is that we're always in the present because we're always moving. Does that mean if I constantly walk east I'm always in the same spot? No, because we're dealing with REALITY and not IMAGINATION. I've yet to see any proof that "time" can change speed, and considering what my belief of time is, it would be really hard to prove to me that you're really making time go faster and you're not just saying time is going faster.

Actually when you look at the sun, you don’t see the sun where it is now you see the sun where it was 7 minutes ago. The same goes for looking at the center of the universe, the closer you get to the center the further you look back into time.

lol. Looking at the center of the universe is going back in time? I guess travelling east is going back in time, too, huh?
When you look at something in front of you, you're actually seeing what was there 0.0001 seconds ago: TIME TRAVEL!
Seriously, how was that paragraph relevant at all?

If time is a believe like religion how do you explain the following?
In Test of Relativity Theory, Superaccurate Atomic Clocks Prove Your Head Ages Nanoseconds Faster than Your Feet

Well, I'd have to believe in all that mumbo jumbo to be able explain it so... why don't you explain why Unicorns don't like water?

[cortjezter]

i think what what's post was very relevant, and the above post is actually just kind of a sarcastic insult to his ideas, some of which i have also seen on various learning programming as well as read in scientific articles. the thing to remember about topics we don't 100% understand is that we are probably completely or mostly wrong about it; what we claim to know now as 'facts' are actually very flexible and subject to change as we understand more about it.

anyway, i think if i were to explain what what's post slightly differently, since some people either couldn't or didn't want to grasp the ideas:

we are in the present because while we are moving, time is also moving around us. think of it more like walking UP a DOWN escalator. it's merely passing by at the same speed we are moving against it, so our position is relatively stationary. if time for us is relative to the speed of light, the faster or slower we travel compared to light speed is like walking faster or slower along that escalator.. we can theoretically change our postion compared to someone else who is going their normal speed.

as the OP said time is a human contrivance, existing only in our minds, that makes the idea that it is relative to each person's perception of it extremely flexible and plausible that in fact it can happen at different speeds for each person depending on a number of criteria.

and time is not a measurement, it's a thing or concept, just like water isn't a measurement; it's something that can be measured. you use minutes, hours, days, etc for time and might use a clock as the instrument of measurement, just like you'd use gallons, litres, cm3, etc to measure water with graduated vessels or other empirical linear devices.

the only difference is that as an intangible object that is flexible based on the perception of the individual, the increments used are only really meaningful to the person measuring. for an interesting read, check out a wiki entry on time dilation.

[What What]

1. yes a ruler can and will be wrong if you measuring at the wrong point. We use the metric system. Through time people used different methods to measure thing, e.g., el, thumbs, foot. Use anyone of those units and your outcome will be different. Same goes with time we don’t have to use the 24 hour system. As a matter of fact Swatch a few years ago tried to introduce 'beats' or internet time where a day was made up of a 1000 beats. Like a ruler is a tool to understand dimensions, a clock is a tool to make sense of time.

2. Light does take time to travel. The light of the sun takes 7 minutes to reach earth thus we see sun where it was 7 minutes ago. If this holds true for a relative close object as the sun. I think you can easily understand that this effect only increases when people start to look further away. Aim the Hubble at the center on the universe and you're looking practically at the beginning of the universe.

3. Start here: http://www.west.net/~ke6jqp/spacetime/spacetime.html Maybe you should start with reading Flatland though.

…unicorns

That said, there people who believe time isn’t real who make a more compelling case then you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKsNraFxPwk

[DarkDude]

The main, underlying point of this topic was to explain why time travel wasn't possible, by explaining that time is not a road that you can simply travel down. You're arguing over perception of time, it seems. The way I see it the past and the future do not exist, only the present. So, if it is always the present, then time isn't really passing.
I understand the escalator metaphor, but the difference here is that with an escalator, it exists in front of you before you get there and it still exists behind you where you just came from. With time, it's not like that. You can "look" into the past, but you can't really go there. With the escalator, though, you could.

[cortjezter]

The main, underlying point of this topic was to explain why time travel wasn't possible

if that's true, you might have just talked yourself into a warning, because we already have a thread on that subject

anyway, to provide some meaningful thought, i would argue against the OP that future and past time does exist in physical space, simply from the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed, meaning it has always been and always will be there...

[Clowns8me]

My official stance on all this: a semi-troll thread, and time does in fact exist, or i have yet to logically be proven otherwise.
however, this is reminding me of Vonnegut's "Tralfamadorians, [who] have the ability to experience reality in four dimensions; meaning, roughly, that they have total access to past, present, and future; they are able to perceive any point in time at will. Able to see along the timeline of the universe, they know the exact time and place of its accidental annihilation as the result of a Tralfamadorian experiment, but are powerless to prevent it. Because they believe that when a being dies, it continues to live in other times and places, their response to death is, "So it goes.""
Not entirely related, but i always thought that concept interesting.

[DarkDude]

The main, underlying point of this topic was to explain why time travel wasn't possible

if that's true, you might have just talked yourself into a warning, because we already have a thread on that subject

anyway, to provide some meaningful thought, i would argue against the OP that future and past time does exist in physical space, simply from the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed, meaning it has always been and always will be there...

I agree that there is no creating or destroying and that everything that exists now always has and always will exist, but I don't see how that proves that the past and future exist in physical space.

Go ahead and warn me. Odd that I had to talk you into it, though. You didn't notice that I talked about time travel in the first post? Besides, that other thread is 3, almost 4 years old. I'd much rather start my own discussion instead of trying to join in on a 4 year old one.

[cortjezter]

well if matter exists in the present, and it must always exist, it means there has always been a physical space in the past, there is in the present, and there will be in the future. so time does exist in physical space at all three points. i personally just view time as the measurement of how much matter changes during some increment of it.

also, it doesn't matter how old a thread is. if a discussion exists. use it. the reason this one was permitted was because it was about time in general. if you're saying that's not true and the main underlying idea is the feasibility of time travel, then it should have gone into the older one. we don't get to pick and choose which rules to follow whenever we want.

[DarkDude]

So are you saying that the physical space from the past and the future exist at the same time as the physical space in the present? Because if so, I'd like to know where it is.

The MAIN subject of this thread is TIME. I don't see why an underlying point takes precedence over the main point. And don't worry, I doubt I'll be starting any new threads here, considering how much negative feedback I get from members and from staff.

[LordTyroxx]

If you didn't want to hear another side to the argument, why did you start a debate thread to begin with? (though i'm not sure what side i'm really on) You sound like me when i used to have a bunch of musical elitism in me. I believe time is real... that is what the debate is about right? Perfect pitch is when a person can tell what a note is without any reference other than the note itself. Would it be possible to tell the pitch if the past was instantly a memory? I don't know about you, but my memory isn't that good in general. The way people can internalize what a note is from the frequency is pretty awesome- almost like they have internalized a unit of measurement... Is this possible with any other sense? I'm curious. Can someone tell what the BPM of a song is? Can someone tell how long driving though a tunnel was without counting? If there is a person out there that is a walking measuring cup, then time is more real than we thought it was. It wouldn't be an abstract concept leading the pulse to our daily lives. Maybe someone that is better at time management has a better grasp at what time is and how it's measured than people with poor time management. food for thought.

Sorry if i'm not making much sense. I've been indulging a little tonight Post-exam party and whatnot. lol

[DarkDude]

When I was talking about negative feedback, I wasn't talking about people who are debating time with me. That's fine, as I expected that when I started the thread. When I was talking about negative feedback, I meant on this site in general.
People often get the notion that I'm condescending. I don't know, maybe I do come off that way. But I don't actually believe that I'm better than anyone else here. I'm a person just like everyone else with my own personal thoughts, opinions, beliefs, etc.
I had a little bit of a hard time following you there, but I think I got the gist of it. I think music is a good example, because it shows the best way that time can be used: as a form of measurement. I'm not saying that time as a measurement isn't real, because just like I said in my first post, time is just the ticking of something, therefore allowing us to "measure" time, even though time only exists abstractly in our minds. My argument is that time is not real in a sense that the past and the future do not coexist with the present and that only the present is real. It's always been the present and it will always be the present. Which would also mean that time travel cannot be possible because you cannot go somewhere that doesn't currently exist.

[tendoboy1984]

When I was talking about negative feedback, I wasn't talking about people who are debating time with me. That's fine, as I expected that when I started the thread. When I was talking about negative feedback, I meant on this site in general.
People often get the notion that I'm condescending. I don't know, maybe I do come off that way. But I don't actually believe that I'm better than anyone else here. I'm a person just like everyone else with my own personal thoughts, opinions, beliefs, etc.
I had a little bit of a hard time following you there, but I think I got the gist of it. I think music is a good example, because it shows the best way that time can be used: as a form of measurement. I'm not saying that time as a measurement isn't real, because just like I said in my first post, time is just the ticking of something, therefore allowing us to "measure" time, even though time only exists abstractly in our minds. My argument is that time is not real in a sense that the past and the future do not coexist with the present and that only the present is real. It's always been the present and it will always be the present. Which would also mean that time travel cannot be possible because you cannot go somewhere that doesn't currently exist.

Past = Things that happened before the present.
Future = What hasn't happened yet.

Memory is a recollection of past events. If only the present is real, then how do you explain memory?

[cortjezter]

moved this to the debate forum. all non-contributing and double posts removed.

as for my last post, no, i wasn't saying past, present and future all exist in the same place at the same time, nor was i saying time is a physical element that exists in physical space. i was pointing out that saying that only the present exists is false, using the persistence of matter as one justification. time exists at any point for all matter, and does not have to be the present to exist.

matter cannot be created or destroyed, and time exists at any point you choose to measure it, so all matter is present at all points of time. if you look at the present, time exists now as the snapshot of physical matter as it exists at this moment. if you choose to look at the past, you view the exact same matter from the present; the matter has simply changed since then. likewise, with the future, the same matter, but it will change from now. so time does exist in physical space in all three tenses since the same matter exists at all three; time as a concept simply demonstrates how it changes between points.

i have heard theories about how past, present and future DO all exist at the same time, but our consciousness is only ever acutely aware of the present, leaving the other two tenses to be postulated through derived human concepts like linear time, history, and prediction. i'm not qualified to talk about that and not sure how i feel about it, but it is interesting to consider.

[DarkDude]

Okay, what what, sorry for the sarcastic response earlier. I'll provide you with a better one.

Actually when you look at the sun, you don’t see the sun where it is now you see the sun where it was 7 minutes ago. The same goes for looking at the center of the universe, the closer you get to the center the further you look back into time.

Looking at light isn't time travel at all. That's called space travel, because the light is travelling through space, not through time. Light, just like everything else in existence, only exists in the present. Yes, they existed in the past, but they do not exist in the past now. The past is not currently existing somewhere out there.

moved this to the debate forum.

Oh, now I used the word debate in a post so my thread goes in the debate section? I didn't want to debate, I expected it. What I wanted to do was explain my theory.

as for my last post, no, i wasn't saying past, present and future all exist in the same place at the same time, nor was i saying time is a physical element that exists in physical space.

I didn't say you said the past and future existed in the same space as the present, I said

So are you saying that the physical space from the past and the future exist at the same time as the physical space in the present?

Now, what I would like to know is where does the physical (real) space from the past and future exist. You can't point to anything and see the past or future. You can see remains of the past, but you see them in the present. If there is no space to associate this past and future with, then it must not be real.

time exists at any point you choose to measure it

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure what you just basically said was

time exists at any point you choose

Things don't exist because you choose for them to exist, or choose to believe that they exist. They only exist if... they're real outside of the human mind. So, where is the past or the future outside of our minds?

so all matter is present at all points of time.

So you are saying that the matter from the past and future coexist with the present? Does this matter not exist in space?

so all matter is present at all points of time.

It's present, huh? All matter is present at all points of time. All points of time are the present. Matter is always in the present, because it's always the present.

if you choose to look at the past

And just how would you do that?

so time does exist in physical space in all three tenses since the same matter exists at all three; time as a concept simply demonstrates how it changes between points.

Wait, wait, what?! Now, you're saying that the physical space from the past, present and future do all coexist?!

no, i wasn't saying past, present and future all exist in the same place at the same time, nor was i saying time is a physical element that exists in physical space.

[cortjezter]

omfg.. seriously? you are just clearly trying to be difficult. this will be my last post to try and illustrate my arguments against your ideas, things that barely require a third grade education to grasp. nobody else seems to have problem understanding what i'm getting at; simply pleading ignorance and nitpicking semantics is not a valid ground to stand on, unless you're a tea partier i suppose.

what i said was that any single atom.. it exists at any point in time you decide to look at. 100 earth years ago? yep.. still there. 100 earth years from now? yep... will still be there. time as a concept exists in that space.. but of course it's relative. from the present, it would appear to be the past to us, but us looking at its state as it was 100 years ago would be relative to ITS present. so there you have it. proof there is more than the present.

and yes, you can very easily see evidence of the past. in fact many sciences focus entirely on evidence from the past. decaying radioactive isotopes (and carbon-14 dating), tree rings, layers of geologic sediment, species evolution, etc. also, sciences exist dealing in the future. some things are mere probability, other things are virtually guaranteed to happen based on observations in the present (and often including those gathered from the past).

just because we can only ever directly be in the present relative to ourselves doesn't mean everything else ceases to exist. that's like saying the universe disappears when you close your eyes and go to sleep. it also implies that the future is impossible, and that we are all essentially dead, since there will not be anything alive to perceive time even 1 second from now.

also, travelling through space is also travelling through time. you cannot move at all without time, since travelling by definition is a measurement of distance covered in some amount of time at whatever speed. if you don't plug in a value of time in the equation (a zero), you get zero distance travelled.