Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
birch said:
The past exists just like the present and future. It is one continuous timeline, it depends on what point you are on that timeline. In order to affect the future depends on what you do today, if you can.

You can use info from yesterday to ascertain today and plan for tomorrow, albeit with unknown variables. So it all exists simultaneously. The point of observer just differs.
Click to expand...

If the past EXIST (it doesn't but you claim it does)
why is it nobody goes there for a visit? or go to the future to see what you will be doing?

Only NOW exist and NOW is the only moment any observer is capable of experiencing

:)
 
birch said:
You can use info from yesterday to ascertain today and plan for tomorrow,
Click to expand...
Well, here is where I think Michael has it more right than wrong.

birch said:
The point of observer just differs.
Click to expand...

We cannot observe the past (nor the future, but the past in particular). Unless recorded, either in our memories or some other medium, the past is gone. All we can do is observe the present recording of the past. But it is not actually the past being observed.

There are a number of tests we could do to prove that we only have access to a (necessarily incomplete) recording of the past, and that we do not actually observe the past itself.
 
Michael 345 said:
If the past EXIST (it doesn't but you claim it does)
why is it nobody goes there for a visit? or go to the future to see what you will be doing?
Click to expand...
The SMBH at the Milky Way's centre exists too, but no one goes there for a visit.
That is not a test of existing.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The SMBH at the Milky Way's centre exists too, but no one goes there for a visit.
That is not a test of existing.
Click to expand...

The centre of the Milky Way does not get visited because it just happens to be to far away

The past and or the future do not get visited because they don't exist

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
The centre of the Milky Way does not get visited because it just happens to be to far away
The past and or the future do not get visited because they don't exist
:)
Click to expand...
Your argument that: if the past existed, we should be able to visit it. The implication being that, since we cannot visit it, that proves it doesn't exist.
That is a faulty argument - a non sequitur.

So you are back to the original opinion (pre-post 921), simply, that "time doesn't exist". But that hasn't been substantiated in post 921 or after.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Your argument that: if the past existed, we should be able to visit it. The implication being that, since we cannot visit it, that proves it doesn't exist.
That is a faulty argument - a non sequitur.

So you are back to the original opinion (pre-post 921), simply, that "time doesn't exist". But that hasn't been substantiated in post 921 or after.
Click to expand...

a non sequitur

True enough

However I will stand by why have we not visited the past and or the future when it would be soooo cool to do so

I could add another couple of non sequitur there are no Scientist working on time travel machines, no Scientist working on a past/future viewing machine

That does not stop a Doc Brown working on one in his garage

I will consult with a few more souls who know more on the subject than Huey Dewey and Louie

:)
 
THE MAGNITIVE

The magnitive is the property of beings that can be measured, but It is imperceptible. The magnitive is objective, but not concrete; for example in Physics: force, gravity and time. We feel weight, but not gravity.

Magnitive (created by Asexperia) is a modification of the word magnitude.
 
Last edited:
Asexperia said:
THE MAGNITIVE
The magnitive is the property of beings that can be measured, but It is imperceptible. The magnitive is objective, but not concrete; for example in Physics: force, gravity and time. We feel the weight, but not gravity.
Magnitive (created by Asexperia) is a modification of the word magnitude.
Click to expand...
An interesting solution: name the ineffable quality.
I do wonder if there is an existing word though.
 
Asexperia said:
THE MAGNITIVE

The magnitive is the property of beings that can be measured, but It is imperceptible. The magnitive is objective, but not concrete; for example in Physics: force, gravity and time. We feel weight, but not gravity.

Magnitive (created by Asexperia) is a modification of the word magnitude.
Click to expand...

And time is .....
 
DaveC426913 said:
The ineffable "magnitive" that causes clocks to tick. :)
Click to expand...

This magnative????

Magnitive is a uniquely stackable board game designed to help dyslexic children learn to read, write and spell. Focusing on visual and tacit cues, the game allows children to make learning an adventure while ‘building-up’ language skills. Complete with several decks of phonetic learning cards, players can win new terrain pieces that forge a different adventure every time. The powerful magnetics embedded in each piece make playing and configuring pieces memorizing, addictive, magnetic and interactive... Magnitive!

https://www.connect.ecuad.ca/people/work/125530

I always thought it was a coiled spring under tension or a quartz type crystal

:)
 
Asexperia said:
THE MAGNITIVE

The magnitive is the property of beings that can be measured, but It is imperceptible. The magnitive is objective, but not concrete; for example in Physics: force, gravity and time. We feel weight, but not gravity.

Magnitive (created by Asexperia) is a modification of the word magnitude.
Click to expand...

I always called it Cowpat

If there is a large amount Woo Woo Cowpat

:)
 
river said:
Then why the " label " ?
Click to expand...
To identify them as a group that has a property in-common. He points out, in post #927, some things with similar properties. Time and gravity are both examples of phenomena we see the effects of, but cannot observe, or even measure, directly.

Time is what allows clocks to move. But no one has ever seen time, only its effects on other things.
Gravity is what causes things to draw together. But no one has ever seen gravity, only its effects on other things.

All he is doing is acknowledging the similar property among different things, and giving the set of like-things a label.

I'm not defending it, or backing it, simply finding it to be food for thought.
 
DaveC426913 said:
To identify them as a group that has a property in-common. He points out, in post #927, some things with similar properties. Time and gravity are both examples of phenomena we see the effects of, but cannot observe, or even measure, directly.

Time is what allows clocks to move. But no one has ever seen time, only its effects on other things.
Gravity is what causes things to draw together. But no one has ever seen gravity, only its effects on other things.

All he is doing is acknowledging the similar property among different things, and giving the set of like-things a label.

I'm not defending it, or backing it, simply finding it to be food for thought.
Click to expand...

time has nothing to do with anything moving . Clocks or otherwise .

time is the measurement of duration .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top