Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DaveC426913 said:
OK, so Michael 345 has asserted that neither time, nor gravity nor mass exists.

I guess all we have left is solopsism.
Click to expand...

Looks very close at incorrect post above

Nope not a property of TIME

Takes Lap of Honour after Victory Lap

:)
 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said:
Give a TIME property to discuss
Click to expand...
We could play that game with any defined quantity in physics.

What are the "properties" of distance, momentum, or mass, or electric current, or luminosity, or temperature, or any other physical quantity you might care to name? None of these things is different from time, in terms of having "properties". Yet all of these things are useful physical concepts, just like time.

If you're going to make the silly argument that time doesn't exist because it doesn't have any "properties", then you'll quickly find yourself obliged to deny the existence of every useful physical quantity.
 
Michael 345 said:
oooooo with gravity and mass being detectable
Click to expand...
Explain to me how gravity and mass, in and of themselves, are detectable.

Like every physical quantity, we can only use these concepts to explain experimental or other observations of the natural world.

You can't point to a rock and say "There's mass! I have detected mass." Mass is just a number that you associate with the rock. It's a useful measure that tells you something about how the rock will behave if you do certain experiments on it. But it's not something that is innate to the rock. (Nor does it have any "properties", in the same sense you demand for "time".)

"Gravity" is even more abstract than "mass" in this regard.

It is a basic fact of existence (an observation that everybody makes every moment of their day) that events can occur in the same place and yet be distinguishable. Thus, it follows that there must be something that separates those events that cannot be position in space. We call the required thing "time". To deny its existence, or the need for it, is obtuse.
 
To the extent post 2104/4 contain concepts which are undetectable or have no physicality THOSE concepts DO NOT EXIST

Follow the bouncing ball from the link and extract below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

a concept is a name or label that regards or treats an abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence, such as a person, a place, or a thing. It may represent a natural object that exists in the real world like a tree, an animal, a stone, etc. It may also name an artificial (man-made) object like a chair, computer, house, etc. Abstract ideas and knowledge domains such as freedom, equality, science, happiness, etc., are also symbolized by concepts. It is important to realize that a concept is merely a symbol, a representation of the abstraction. The word is not to be mistaken for the thing

*****
ex·ist
/iɡˈzist/
Learn to pronounce
verb
  1. 1.
    have objective reality or being.
Google exist

*****

My bolds

:)
 
So we are now in agreement, I take it.

That is, we agree that time is a concept, and that it signifies a thing that has objective reality or being.
 
James R said:
So we are now in agreement, I take it.

That is, we agree that time is a concept, and that it signifies a thing that has objective reality or being.
Click to expand...

So we are now in agreement, I take it.

No cannot take it

That is, we agree that time is a concept, and that it signifies a thing that has objective reality or being

Concept ✓

objective reality or being - no no a thousand times NO

Where are the properties of this so called objective reality or being of TIME?

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Evidence of either produced?
Click to expand...
Yes. There is plenty of evidence that time is a property of our universe. Everything not happening at once is that evidence.

Whatever that thing is - and we can certainly debate what at great length - it is experienced in everything we do and see.

We call that time. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't experienced.

It is fact. And you can't deny it, since you utilize it - and are subject to it - every moment yourself, otherwise, not only would all your posts be posted simultaneously, but every letter in that post would be overlapping, since you would have typed them all simultaneously. And let's don't even start on how you can think with all your neurons firing simultaneously.


Now, instead of just being argumentative - because, frankly you don't really have a well-formed argument to make - do you want to have a useful discussion about what time might be? Because this 'it doesn't exist' nonsense is boring enough that you're about to go on the Iggy list until you return to reality.
 
DaveC426913 said:
do you want to have a useful discussion about what time might be?
Click to expand...
I guess that's another thread. The title of this one is "Does time exist?" and I think by now we have established that it does beyond reasonable doubt. Since we're at the repetition stage of the thread, it seems to me it's probably approaching the appropriate time to close it.
 
Michael 345 said:
But do we actually experience the flow of time? We certainly experience something that looks like it. But if we introspect carefully into this experience, is what we find accurately describable as “flow”?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-we-actually-experience-the-flow-of-time/

:)
Click to expand...
Flow is another question entirely. The fact that everything does not happen at once is evidence of a separation of events. We call this separation a duration of time.

Just as we have points at different spatial locations, separated by what we call distance or length.

If you contend time does not exist, logically you also contend length does not exist.

Is that what you would maintain?

"Flow", by contrast, would be a presumed continuous evolution, from the instance of occurrence of one event to the instance of occurrence of another. That is a lot more contentious and many physcists would say it is a false concept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top