R
rick shaw
If you enjoy Sci-fi channel try Ray Bradbury "Illustrated Man" and "Martian Chronicles".His stories are quick to read,and you can probably find his work in used book stores.
diiz, the second that you start to talk about perception, you have already given up on absolute reality as perceptions are always merely an innacurate representation of reality. But yes I would agree that every particle in existence has a past present and future providing it isnt at the very start of its existence or the very end. Again lets consider time in the same way we consider place, as it is just another physical position, as we travel down the road, we know where we set off from, and we know where we are going, but if we say we are now at point M along the journey, by the time we say that we have passed point M, but that doesnt stop the journey. So saying "now" and the fact that point in time has already passed, doesnt prevent there ever having been a now.
sac beh
Member
This is a purely theoretical problem and shouldn't be taken as evidence that time doesn't exist. Notice that the problem disappears or becomes greater depending on the unit of time you use. Sure, you could use infinitely small units of time and thus create for yourself an infinitely perplexing problem of pinpointing the present... but why? Because you want to create the problem. Because life seems too simple and meaningless without introducing such speculative labyrinths that reaffirm your desire to look for truth in something non-real, like eternity, timelessness, God, non-historical humanity.
You wouldn't be able to use these units of measure if the thing we're measuring didn't exist, or didn't exhibit itself, or if we couldn't really experience it.
If you're wanting to take the non-realist view, or the view that the things we see and experience don't necessarily have an existence apart from our perception or that they are different, you can. But trying to prove the characteristics of something independent of our perception of it is about as fruitful as trying to prove the existence of God. Time is either real (which common sense, empirical experience tells us), OR you can't know. Knowing that time doesn't exist isn't an option as it can't be proven or demonstrated in anyway because it is in fact an essential characteristic of our existence.
GMT' hey eye dont mean to sound like eyem tryin to argue eyem just thinking bro
Some days seem like they go by faster than others' some folx say life has went by in a flash' some say they feel like they been here forever' if tha clock and calender werent made only life could be measured by onez life of experience in which some cases seem longer or shorter than others but with no measurement of it the word time would have many different lengths due to tha different livez people live'
They numb' us with numb'ers set tha clock and gave us a time to live
Minus tha numbers and life would have been as long as we made it
Time=Life
Some days seem like they go by faster than others' some folx say life has went by in a flash' some say they feel like they been here forever' if tha clock and calender werent made only life could be measured by onez life of experience in which some cases seem longer or shorter than others but with no measurement of it the word time would have many different lengths due to tha different livez people live'
They numb' us with numb'ers set tha clock and gave us a time to live
Minus tha numbers and life would have been as long as we made it
Time=Life
Time is time. The past is gone, the present is now, and the future is unknown.
When you relate time to numbers it does look kind of odd. However when your hands collide it is a clearly defined moment in time. Whether the time was 4:20.543905430953094759438758975985875 or 4:20.1555.
Edit: I'm not saying whether time exists or not. But the way you go about explaining time isn't very good. No disrespect. Keep exploring your mind though
. It's fun and healthy.
When you relate time to numbers it does look kind of odd. However when your hands collide it is a clearly defined moment in time. Whether the time was 4:20.543905430953094759438758975985875 or 4:20.1555.
Edit: I'm not saying whether time exists or not. But the way you go about explaining time isn't very good. No disrespect. Keep exploring your mind though
. It's fun and healthy.
R
rocky5
sun comes up sun goes down,big boss man split
the day into hours,mins,sec to squeeze every drop of labour out of me.
the day into hours,mins,sec to squeeze every drop of labour out of me.
I do see what you're saying brain, but what you are discussing is the perception of time, rather than the passage of time. Yes if our mind is occupied, we dont dwell on time, and so we experience our perception of it less than when doing something we dislike, where we think of the passage of time often, therefore experience that perception more often, and so given a set amount of actual time, have experienced the perception of time to a greater extent. However the actual passage of time has remained constant throughout both activities.
sorry for jumping in the chat.....
D
DiiZZii3
Time is time. The past is gone, the present is now, and the future is unknown.
When you relate time to numbers it does look kind of odd. However when your hands collide it is a clearly defined moment in time. Whether the time was 4:20.543905430953094759438758975985875 or 4:20.1555.
Edit: I'm not saying whether time exists or not. But the way you go about explaining time isn't very good. No disrespect. Keep exploring your mind though
Wrong... its not clearly a defined moment in time. The time your hands collide cannot be defined by a number. cuz the number is unending, as i said you can get closer and closer to pinpointing the time your hands collide but it will never be pinpointed. im relating the present to the time your hands collide, saying that the present cannot be defined by a number. So if we cant define the present as a number than we cant define the future, or past as a number. This completly defeats the theory of "time"... time cannot be related to numbers.. such as minutes, seconds, or hours. This is a deception, and a very good one. cuz right now im thinking of what i will be doing in 5 min
sac beh
Member
The deception is yours, for expecting to be able to apply infinitely small units to something and declaring that the thing doesn't exist when your infinitely small units produce an infinite calculation. You're just demonstrating again what GMT has been saying, that showing perceptions or units of measurement as fallible doesn't in any way go to disprove the existence of the thing we're measuring.
D
DiiZZii3
Yea i get what ur sayin i just feel like if u cant define the present as a time, then whats really the present, it means that it is mathematicly imposible to define the present as one number, the present is actually a span of time?? What would u define the present as Sac beh?
Also im not just arguing to argue. im just tryin to get people to think about the question and come to there own conclusion. fuck mabey im wrong and your right, mabey the other way around, annd mabey where both right. we'll nevr kno. but if the question gets you thinkin then shit myswell ask.
Personally i come to the conclusion that time doesnt exist, then a few minutes later i'll come to the conclusion how could it not exist??? huh
Also im not just arguing to argue. im just tryin to get people to think about the question and come to there own conclusion. fuck mabey im wrong and your right, mabey the other way around, annd mabey where both right. we'll nevr kno. but if the question gets you thinkin then shit myswell ask.
Personally i come to the conclusion that time doesnt exist, then a few minutes later i'll come to the conclusion how could it not exist??? huh
D
DiiZZii3
dagnabit, wow cant believe someone didnt state this earlier that makes perfect sense.... so the past was... -0.1, the present is 0.0, and the future will be 0.1
My argument is flawed
My argument is flawed
EdddieVHalen
Member
I had to read this three times to get the meaning. Are we from the same country? I asked myself.
History and time are not related. Time is a tool that man has created to account for history. Time does not exist outside of realm of human consciousness. Animals and trees do not care about time. They eat when they can, pee when they can, and mate when they can. Most of their behaviors are instinct. Domesticated animals and plants can be trained to synchronize with the human concept of time, but it is much like a parrot mimicking speech.
Many philosophers have proposed that passage of time is an illusion suggesting that only present is real. Philosopher John Ellis
McTaggart (1908)
Mudita
Member
are you confusing 'time, the phenomenon' (travel through space and time) with 'time, the temporal measurement' (The time is 4:20)?
It seems that animals must experience before and after, in addition to now, since they exhibit memory, learning, and planning behavior.
EdddieVHalen
Member
What I am saying is that the concept of time, or marking time was started by man. It was used to assist in survival, planting crops etc and it's use become more abstract as it evolved.
Time is not a substance. Time only exist in the human mind. You cannot start or end time. It is just steps that follow each other and continue on. Time does not exist, it is an illusion. History has substance, but time does not. The clock tics to mark time, but it is man made and when man dies off of the planet the clocks will die as well.
When a car, or light or falling rock go a certain speed it is relative to time.. a time that man has created to understand it.
Time is not a substance. Time only exist in the human mind. You cannot start or end time. It is just steps that follow each other and continue on. Time does not exist, it is an illusion. History has substance, but time does not. The clock tics to mark time, but it is man made and when man dies off of the planet the clocks will die as well.
When a car, or light or falling rock go a certain speed it is relative to time.. a time that man has created to understand it.
Mudita
Member
in my estimation, the concept of marking time, and the concept of time as in space/time, are two different things. One a construct of our mind, the other of substance beyond our understanding.
Also relevant may be the concept that a thing need not be named to exist, and remains fundamentally unchanged by being named. Time exists, regardless of whether or not we subdivide and name it.
audioaddict
Active member
History and time are related, and it is true to say that time is a word that man invented to describe a phenomena that he can perceive, the phenomena itself is not created by man.
Watches, clocks, calendars are created by man to measure time as it is perceived from our viewpoint of reality, and are relevant to only us in our position in space... but they still measure something that occurs.
What will disappear with the death of mankind would just be our unique perception of time, the way we measure our existence using mathematics.
And I think the conclusion drawn earlier in this thread is possibly that our ability to use mathematics, or even mathematics itself, is too flawed to measure such fundamental aspects of our universe as time.
D
DiiZZii3
i still am not convinced it exists outside the human mind, for something to exist it has to have a physical force. Time is something we have created to add structure to our daily life. but it isnt actually a physical thing, just imagination.
GMT would you refute this statment?
GMT would you refute this statment?
