Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO, time exists, perhaps only as a perception (Ref. River) . . . . a lot of 'perceptions really exist, albeit some perceptions (e.g., ideas?) are physically intangible mental constructs. For example, travelling at >c does not (as far as we know!) exist, BUT the idea of travelling at >c DOES exist. If something must be physical to "exist" or "be" then we might be better off without the capacity to create ideas. Difficult to apply the Scientific Method here . . . isn't it? . . .when no physicallity (experimentally testable/falsifiable) is present! In such case, the argument may be best rendered by logic, IMO.
 
karenmansker said:
IMO, time exists, perhaps only as a perception (Ref. River) . . . . a lot of 'perceptions really exist, albeit some perceptions (e.g., ideas?) are physically intangible mental constructs. For example, travelling at >c does not (as far as we know!) exist, BUT the idea of travelling at >c DOES exist. If something must be physical to "exist" or "be" then we might be better off without the capacity to create ideas. Difficult to apply the Scientific Method here . . . isn't it? . . .when no physicallity (experimentally testable/falsifiable) is present! In such case, the argument may be best rendered by logic, IMO.
Click to expand...

I guess I am claiming Humpty Dumpty rights here but none the less I feel the view of time not existing is correct

Not only with TIME NOT existing,

within the physicality of the Universe,

but also the concept of time being able to

PRODUCE any physical observable effects

we might be better off without the capacity to create ideas

Don't think so

SiFi ideas are mostly great if frequently a bit over the top and casual with science and Harry Potter books and movies would be very dull

:)
 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said:
I guess I am claiming Humpty Dumpty rights here but none the less I feel the view of time not existing is correct

Not only with TIME NOT existing,

within the physicality of the Universe,

but also the concept of time being able to

PRODUCE any physical observable effects

we might be better off without the capacity to create ideas

Don't think so

SiFi ideas are mostly great if frequently a bit over the top and casual with science and Harry Potter books and movies would be very dull

:)
Click to expand...
So . . . IYO, an idea does NOT exist? The story of Humpty Dumpty does NOT exist? The idea that the author had - of the Humpty Dumpty story . . . did NOT exist?

I disagree . . . . . NONPHYSICAL "things" CAN indeed exist! Is an idea then nonexistent because it is not physical?
 
karenmansker said:
So . . . IYO, an idea does NOT exist? The story of Humpty Dumpty does NOT exist? The idea that the author had - of the Humpty Dumpty story . . . did NOT exist?

I disagree . . . . . NONPHYSICAL "things" CAN indeed exist! Is an idea then nonexistent because it is not physical?
Click to expand...

How does the non-existence of time , threaten your post ?
 
river said:
How does the non-existence of time , threaten your post ?
Click to expand...
Dunno', River . . . you tell me! . . . . IMO time DOES exist - as a perceived change in dimensional position of an observable. Time is the 'duration' (I know . . . begs the issue?) of the observed positional change, IMO, of course . . . . . . maybe like (limited math here!) an equation simultanaeously solved for t = (f dx) (f dy) (f dz)? . . . maybe vector-like . . . as I said . . . . dunno', but thanks for asking!!
 
karenmansker said:
Dunno', River . . . you tell me! . . . . IMO time DOES exist - as a perceived change in dimensional position of an observable. Time is the 'duration' (I know . . . begs the issue?) of the observed positional change, IMO, of course . . . . . . maybe like (limited math here!) an equation simultanaeously solved for t = (f dx) (f dy) (f dz)? . . . maybe vector-like . . . as I said . . . . dunno', but thanks for asking!!
Click to expand...

Time is the measurement of duration .
 
river said:
Time is the measurement of duration .
Click to expand...
I agree . . . in sequential 'ticks' of some device! . . . .the ticks may be arbitrarily set, but, to be meaningful to observers, they must be consistently spaced and convertible/scalable to other bases. IMO. of course!
 
Then you think about the essence of duration , the essence of why duration is , the fundamental of why duration dynamics exists , between things .
 
Last edited:
karenmansker said:
So . . . IYO, an idea does NOT exist? The story of Humpty Dumpty does NOT exist? The idea that the author had - of the Humpty Dumpty story . . . did NOT exist?

I disagree . . . . . NONPHYSICAL "things" CAN indeed exist! Is an idea then nonexistent because it is not physical?
Click to expand...

Hope you contact all the people who are responsible for organising dictionaries and notify them

NONPHYSICAL "things" CAN indeed exist!

They can't and don't

Is an idea then nonexistent because it is not physical?

Correct they are non existent

If you find any which do physically exist I would appreciate 2 kg worth

Lets put it this way

The brain works on electrical and chemical actions

Both can be monitored

However while you can see the electrical flow and

observe the active sections of the brains chemical reactions

you cannot extract from either or in combination WHAT is being thought about

Is it

I'm hungry

I need to go to the toilet

Must pick up milk on the way home

The nurse is cute I wonder if she is married

I have a great idea for a new type of Harry Potter type book. I'm going to be rich

:)
 
DaveC426913 said:
How is it possible to monitor something that allegedly does not exist?
Clearly, it can interact with the real world, else it could not be monitored.


Of course you can. Try this:

"What are you thinking about?"
Click to expand...

Dave it would be appreciated if you would Number # the posts you are quoting from now on . So we can ALL read the context in which these quotes are from , from now on .

Thanks
 
river said:
Dave it would be appreciated if you would Number # the posts you are quoting from now on . So we can ALL read the context in which these quotes are from , from now on .

Thanks
Click to expand...
?
What do you mean "number" them?

In the quote header (where it says "Michael345 said:") the little up arrow is a direct link to the quoted post.

That's the approved way of quoting.
 
DaveC426913 said:
?
What do you mean "number" them?

In the quote header (where it says "Michael345 said:") the little up arrow is a direct link to the quoted post.

That's the approved way of quoting.
Click to expand...

Not good enough .

Take the number of the post so that anybody can go back to that post , easily .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top