Thread: Time?

Maybe in the real, real world time doesn't exist like something came out of nothing but it didn't it just was. what if time is just something that we've evolved to feel because that's what information our brain has. like maybe a singularity is the single most powerful thing in everything. maybe it has it genetics spewed out over our known universe to the secret of everything? like singularity is a living being but time doesn't exist and it just spews information that created complex brains and living things the secret of everything Because we only have a tiny tiny fraction of that DNA/information we can only comprehend what that information has, which is a insignificant number.also maybe if your wondering what nothing looks like you can't. it's literally nothing you can't see or smell or touch it

If time doesn't exist how can it spew out anything?
What makes you think a singularity is "the single most powerful thing in everything"?
What makes you think a singularity has anything to do with genetics?
What makes you think a singularity is a living thing?

also maybe if your wondering what nothing looks like you can't. it's literally nothing you can't see or smell or touch it

Which doesn't prevent us wondering.

Try again, and this time please try to remain coherent.

Originally Posted by Diill

like maybe a singularity................... maybe it has it genetics spewed out over our known universe

Did my imagination strike a chord? I'm flattered if it did.

I'm not advocating that omniscient creator god blew himself up, a divine Big Bang singularity of sorts. But if it did then that's what the universe is composed of, god matter.

Diill says....

if your wondering what nothing looks like you can't. it's literally nothing you can't see or smell or touch it

Dyw:

Which doesn't prevent us wondering.

I'll ask Diill: How did you arrive at that conclusion? or what am I doing by asking?

The OP is a bit difficult to read for me. In all honesty, I could shout out more coherent statements while simultaneously vomiting.

Originally Posted by shlunka

The OP is a bit difficult to read for me. In all honesty, I could shout out more coherent statements while simultaneously vomiting.

A topic for another thread methinks.......I think we have to go easy on the newbies. Some are more sensitive than the others. Some struggle with English, grammar, spelling, etc. but everybody has a POV. Especially in the Philosophy subforum where the imagination is more apt to appear. I don't think criticism levelled at forum veterans is as intimidating as it is for rookies so personally I try not to be too standoffish. Still....I'm human.

Maybe I'll "make him a man". I agree though, I was superfluously harsh. I blame the government.

Talking about singularities......

The one thing anyone can do, because we don't know what happened in the first few nanoseconds, is insert anything into that time slot and not have to prove it. In another post I placed an exploding omniscient god in that very position. The resultant debris field formed a universe. I was just trying to give theists some hope that god was alive or existed for a moment at least.

Now I want to help the Intelligent Design people share that same glimmer of hope. I may have mentioned this earlier but I know I blabbed it on the other forum. The singularity was a weapon of mass destruction and the universe is merely shrapnel from some unimaginably destructive piece of military ordnance. What was there before it I have no idea but someone made the bomb.

Anyone else I can help?

Most possible both of following seems truee

1) Time exists physically Or Time does not exist physically

If time exists physically :

2) Time is effect of matter like gravity or Time is cause behind changing position/form of matter

Time exists, but the true question is is it subjected to prospective realities? What do I mean by this? Allow me to explain. On earth we age each year: 356.25 days. On Mercury (arguing that we could actually live on the planet) would we age at the same rate? We would live for 80 earth years on Mercury? or would we age quicker on the planet? as its year is roughly 90 earth days. We've never managed to get a man father than the moon so I ague it is hard to judge. While the Astronauts from the Apollo Missions came back within a few weeks time, they did show some signs of aging in tests conducted on their health after their return.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What makes you think time passes more quickly on Mercury just because it travels around the sun faster? A "year" is just an arbitrary man made timestamp and has nothing to do with the rate of ageing or time passing.

It is just a theory. How do we know it does not? How do we know Mercury as a planet is not aging quicker then Earth? We predict Earth's tectonic plates will stop moving in some 50,000,000 + years which will cause the planet to decay. How do we know that Mercury is not a dry rock because it's tectonic plates have already stopped moving and not simply because it is closer to the sun?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

How do we know it doesn't?

I do not. But then again neither do you. time is a principle that keeps things in motion. Although how do we know that time works the same at point B opposed to point A? Perhaps Mercury is too close for us to carry out such an experiment. Perhaps if we had the ability to do such a study from a distant star then our perspective on reality and the relationship of time might change.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

utter rubbish.

Well then, enlighten me as to why such a theory is rubbish? It was once thought that a round earth was rubbish; or that our little rock was not the center of the solar system. Perhaps what I have hypothesized is rubbish in your mind because it has yet to be put to the test?

Originally Posted by Beyondthought

It is just a theory.

You abuse the term. It's not a theory, it's an unsubstantiated speculation.
There is no reason to think so, and no evidence to support it.

How do we know it does not?

How do we know Mercury isn't pushed around in its orbit by camera-shy pink unicorns?
Is there ANY reason to suppose that simply because we don't know that it isn't?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Those unicorns certainly get around, not long ago they were in theorists magnet theory...

These are taller, and have 7 legs.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

How do we know Mercury isn't pushed around in its orbit by camera-shy pink unicorns?
Is there ANY reason to suppose that simply because we don't know that it isn't?

Now there is very little reason to go to such an extreme. We all know those unicorns died out over a million years ago.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

These are taller, and have 7 legs.

I thought that was a hermaphroditic deer...

hmpf, time acts the same at A and B if you subtract C(to Z).

Alright, I can see a flaw in my thought process here which as led to confusion. I was not aiming to argue that if we were on Mercury or wrist watches would spin faster, or if we were on Pluto they would stop moving. However, I ponder my idea and truly realized that I was ultimately inferring that very fact: if we moved further from the sun time would just stop; and I know this is not true.

However this has lead me to a new question: how does time and our relation to the sun effect us biologically? The sun is without a doubt a major influence on how life works on Earth. Would the size of the sun change this in any way? (beyond the obvious conclusions of: smaller sun - cold ball of ice, larger sun - backing desert). Does the sun and the amount of gravitational pull on our planet effect our biological clocks? ... and would moving closer or further from the sun have a similar effect?

if we were closer, i.e. switched places with mercury our days would be shorter, making all our printed calendars a big waste of paper. same if we were further away, but days would be longer instead.

Originally Posted by curious mind

if we were closer, i.e. switched places with mercury our days would be shorter, making all our printed calendars a big waste of paper. same if we were further away, but days would be longer instead.

Some mistake here.
Calendars have nothing to do with the length of the day.

but with a year.

Originally Posted by Diill

Maybe in the real, real world time doesn't exist like something came out of nothing but it didn't it just was. what if time is just something that we've evolved to feel because that's what information our brain has. like maybe a singularity is the single most powerful thing in everything. maybe it has it genetics spewed out over our known universe to the secret of everything? like singularity is a living being but time doesn't exist and it just spews information that created complex brains and living things the secret of everything Because we only have a tiny tiny fraction of that DNA/information we can only comprehend what that information has, which is a insignificant number.also maybe if your wondering what nothing looks like you can't. it's literally nothing you can't see or smell or touch it

As Kant noted, space and time are modes with which we think; time is cognition while space is sensation.

Time doesn't exist, it's a unit, just like kilograms and metres. You really can't make a second, 2 kilograms or 1 metre exist. Though a kilogram and a metre can be used to describe an already-existing object, I can't really say we can associate time with an existing object as the other two.

So no, as far as I know, time doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Hassnhadi

Time doesn't exist, it's a unit, just like kilograms and metres.

Oops no.
If you're comparing metres and kilogrammes then you should talk about seconds and hours.

You really can't make a second, 2 kilograms or 1 metre exist.

Now you're correct.

So no, as far as I know, time doesn't exist.

Time exists as does distance and mass.

Time doesn't exist, it's a unit, just like kilograms and metres. You really can't make a second, 2 kilograms or 1 metre exist. Though a kilogram and a metre can be used to describe an already-existing object, I can't really say we can associate time with an existing object as the other two.

So no, as far as I know, time doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Hassnhadi

Time doesn't exist, it's a unit, just like kilograms and metres. You really can't make a second, 2 kilograms or 1 metre exist. Though a kilogram and a metre can be used to describe an already-existing object, I can't really say we can associate time with an existing object as the other two.

So no, as far as I know, time doesn't exist.

Um, already shown to be wrong.
Time isn't the unit, that's hours, minutes, seconds etc.

Please, what existing "object" can we associate with a metre (any more than we can associate an hour with something)?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Hassnhadi

Time doesn't exist, it's a unit, just like kilograms and metres.

Oops no.
If you're comparing metres and kilogrammes then you should talk about seconds and hours.

You really can't make a second, 2 kilograms or 1 metre exist.

Now you're correct.

So no, as far as I know, time doesn't exist.

Time exists as does distance and mass.

How so? Can you elaborate? Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future.. The term past/future/now doesn't exist as matter..

Originally Posted by Hassnhadi

How so? Can you elaborate? Time is a dimension

Exactly.
Seconds, hours etc are units of measure of that dimension.

The term past/future/now doesn't exist as matter..

What?
What does metre, etc have to do with matter?
A metre is a unit of measure of (spatial) separation.
A second is a unit of measure of (temporal) separation.

[QUOTE=Dywyddyr;409553]

Originally Posted by Hassnhadi

Time doesn't exist, it's a unit, just like kilograms and metres.

Oops no.
If you're comparing metres and kilogrammes then you should talk about seconds and hours.

Huehuehue, time is seconds and hours, just being a little less specific.

You really can't make a second, 2 kilograms or 1 metre exist.

Now you're correct.

So no, as far as I know, time doesn't exist.

Time exists as does distance and mass.

Well mass is a particle's interaction with a Higg's field, how does time and distance exist?

Mass and length "exist" (as much as anything does) so I would say time does as well. But metres, kg and seconds are just conventional ways of measuring those "real" things.

[QUOTE=Hassnhadi;409565]

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Time exists as does distance and mass.
Well mass is a particle's interaction with a Higg's field, how does time and distance exist?

What I meant is that you can't show anyone a "kilogramme" or a "metre" any more than you can hold a second in your hand.

the change in nature i.e. seasons, change in position, change in looks (growing/aging) how would all that happen without time? time is just the term we use to describe a change of state in a way that fits observations.

Originally Posted by curious mind

time is just the term we use to describe a change of state in a way that fits observations.

Nope.
Time is the dimension in which the "change of state" occurs.

that's what i said.

Originally Posted by curious mind

that's what i said.

Then you worded it VERY badly.
Time is not the change of state itself (which is what you actually wrote), it's the dimension in which that change occurs.
Much as space (length) isn't movement, it's the dimension in which movement happens.

no i said time is the term we use to describe that change.

Originally Posted by curious mind

no i said time is the term we use to describe that change.

And, as pointed out, that is not the same thing.

Originally Posted by curious mind

no i said time is the term we use to describe that change.

Funnily enough change is actually the term we use to describe change.
And then we get more specific about how it's changed (wrinklier, taller, dryer... etc).

Stupider...

i pick up an x,y,z object and move it through 'time' <---- term we use, to change its position.

Originally Posted by curious mind

i pick up an x,y,z object and move it through 'time' <---- term we use, to change its position.

No.
We used "moved" to indicate a change in position (in space).
We don't "move things through time", that happens anyway.

you just like to argue for the hell of it.

i was talking of the term of 'time'. there was a time where ppl meassured occurancies in moon phases, or temperature, or the shadow of the sun. time is just the term we use for it. it's just a word. i could call it shlogawooka, it would still be the same.

It would still be a real thing, a dimension on an equal footing with spatial dimensions.

Originally Posted by curious mind

you just like to argue for the hell of it.

Wrong. I "argue" because you're incorrect.

i was talking of the term of 'time'. there was a time where ppl meassured occurancies in moon phases, or temperature, or the shadow of the sun. time is just the term we use for it. it's just a word. i could call it shlogawooka, it would still be the same.

Wrong again.

wrong how?

Originally Posted by Strange

It would still be a real thing, a dimension on an equal footing with spatial dimensions.

that's what i mean.

Originally Posted by curious mind

that's what i mean.

You have a funny way of showing it.

You might have been better just quoting Saussure. But the arbitrariness of signs really has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

the topic is 'time?'

ok, even if time came out of nothing it would still be there, because it came.

Originally Posted by curious mind

the topic is 'time?'

Really? I thought it was shlogawooka.

ok, even if time came out of nothing it would still be there, because it came.

As my old dad used to say, if you don't have anything intelligible to say just keep your mouth shut.

yeah ok, so what happened at shlogawooka=0?

i could question everything with that and say we're stuck at planck due to comfortable agreement. time is time, and it passes as i type.

Originally Posted by Hassnhadi

Time doesn't exist, it's a unit, just like kilograms and metres. You really can't make a second, 2 kilograms or 1 metre exist. Though a kilogram and a metre can be used to describe an already-existing object, I can't really say we can associate time with an existing object as the other two.

So no, as far as I know, time doesn't exist.

Time is not a unit; neither is mass or distance. A second, kilogram, and meter are units, and they clearly exist. A unit is just a specific measurement of a physical entity like time, mass an distance. For example, a meter is the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 seconds.

Originally Posted by Beyondthought

Originally Posted by PhDemon

How do we know it doesn't?

I do not. But then again neither do you. time is a principle that keeps things in motion. Although how do we know that time works the same at point B opposed to point A? Perhaps Mercury is too close for us to carry out such an experiment. Perhaps if we had the ability to do such a study from a distant star then our perspective on reality and the relationship of time might change.

A circadian rhythm (pron.: /sɜrˈkeɪdiən/) is any biological process that displays an endogenous, entrainable oscillation of about 24 hours. These rhythms are driven by a circadian clock, and rhythms have been widely observed in plants, animals, fungi and cyanobacteria. The term circadian comes from the Latin circa, meaning "around" (or "approximately"), and diem or dies, meaning "day". The formal study of biological temporal rhythms, such as daily, tidal, weekly, seasonal, and annual rhythms, is called chronobiology. Although circadian rhythms are endogenous ("built-in", self-sustained), they are adjusted (entrained) to the local environment by external cues called zeitgebers, commonly the most important of which is daylight.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...SW2LDQyr8_IlvA

I'm still in support of the hermaphroditic bovine creatures that revolve Mercury.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Unicorns aren't bovine, they're equine...

Ah, sort of.
There's a certain amount of bovine excrement involved in unicorns.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Unicorns aren't bovine, they're equine...

Was referring to NF's post about hermaphroditic deer, I think deer are considered bovines?

Originally Posted by shlunka

Was referring to NF's post about hermaphroditic deer, I think deer are considered bovines?

Nope, deer are cervine.

why are there so many hipster poets here?

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by Beyondthought

Originally Posted by PhDemon

How do we know it doesn't?

I do not. But then again neither do you. time is a principle that keeps things in motion. Although how do we know that time works the same at point B opposed to point A? Perhaps Mercury is too close for us to carry out such an experiment. Perhaps if we had the ability to do such a study from a distant star then our perspective on reality and the relationship of time might change.

A circadian rhythm (pron.: /sɜrˈkeɪdiən/) is any biological process that displays an endogenous, entrainable oscillation of about 24 hours. These rhythms are driven by a circadian clock, and rhythms have been widely observed in plants, animals, fungi and cyanobacteria. The term circadian comes from the Latin circa, meaning "around" (or "approximately"), and diem or dies, meaning "day". The formal study of biological temporal rhythms, such as daily, tidal, weekly, seasonal, and annual rhythms, is called chronobiology. Although circadian rhythms are endogenous ("built-in", self-sustained), they are adjusted (entrained) to the local environment by external cues called zeitgebers, commonly the most important of which is daylight.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...SW2LDQyr8_IlvA

So then, if our natural environment were to change, and we were no longer effected by our natural 24 hour zeitgebers, would our biological clock change?