Does time exist?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That must be the first herbal remedy for the time problem...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time and movement are not the same thing.
Edit: if they are why can't we reduce the equations of motion to eliminate the time element?
If time is simply motion then those equations should be expressible in terms of length only.

Funny guy. Since we are locked into a 4D universe, with the concomitant limitations on our mental abilities how could I do that?

Wrong.

Arrant nonsense.

Also wrong.

This is pure speculation. How did we get here if there were no dimensions until we started to observe them?

Also incorrect. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

And learn how many senses we actually do have. AT last count it was around 22 IIRC.

If it was static then how could it change? How could life come along?

Insupportable rubbish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are talking in time as if the universe had a beginning or end, or as if without life to measure the beginning or end of something that "change" would exist at all. Frankly you don't understand what I'm talking about and if you want me to translate for you, the birth of the universe is something that only exists in the minds of the living.

 

Time measures change, which results in and requires constant movement. If nothing moved then nothing could change and there would be no way to count the changes. Measurement requires counting which is a unique feature of consciousness.

Time is a result of conscious observation.

Evidence=

Prove it, you've been challenged. If you can prove time exists independent of an observer to measure it I'll believe you.

Do we even know where "here" is? I speculate that "here" only exists in the minds of the living and that there is no "here" and "now" and "beginning" and "end" except in the minds of living conscious observers capable of experiencing this dimension. "We" living animate objects are the only objects in the universe capable of experiencing the 4th dimension (time). We may or may not be the only conscious observers as there might be consciousness in some form which exists in any or all dimensions, but life as we know it IS the only thing or collection of things capable of experiencing the 4th dimension. Dead inanimate objects do not experience "time" or the 4th dimension at all. The fact that only living animate objects can experience time should prove that time does not exist outside of these living animate objects.

A rock does not experience time. A particle does not experience time. These building blocks are merely information which exist in a static timeless state until consciousness interprets and gives meaning to it and by giving it meaning now it exists in 4 dimensions as a result of our senses creating the 4th dimension through measurement of the 3 dimensions.

To try to prove time exists outside of our senses is like trying to prove heaven exists. There is no scientific evidence backing the existence of heaven, but there is evidence which shows that information/energy is never created or destroyed. This means all the information that ever will be here already is here and it's up to "us" to organize and bring meaning to it. The inanimate non living universe is pure information no different from the binary in your computer. It has no meaning, it's garbage until our minds give meaning to it. This means without minds theres literally nothing.

If you want to understand death, death is a return to the state where there is no time, no beginning, no end, no change, no distance, no separate, no here and no now. Life is the only way to experience the 4th dimension and the 4th dimension only exists for the living. If you cannot understand something this basic or self evident I don't know how better to explain it.

Time would not be here if we did not exist. To believe something can exist without being perceived by any living thing is to believe in heaven and hell. I mean if time exists independently of us, then shouldn't there be a heaven or a hell? I mean technically this would be perfectly reasonable if we take your logic to it's extreme conclusion. Otherwise you have to accept that time only exists in the minds of the living and wouldn't exist if there weren't any living beings with the ability to perceive the 4th dimension because there would be nothing to measure with, and no interpreters.

If you ask how could life come along, there is the possibility that life existed prior to the 4th dimension. There is the possibility that life is the 4th dimension. There is the possibility that consciousness does not exist at all and that life isn't anything special. There are many possibilities but that has nothing to do with answering the question of what time is and whether or not it exists independently of consciousness/life.

The 22 senses is interesting, do you mind telling me what they are? Either way without senses you don't have time.

 

So, is your position that nothing existed prior to Human measurement?

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear..."

 

Nothing existed prior to consciousness because consciousness IS the 4th dimension. Whatever consciousness is, and whatever life is, that is what created the 4th dimension through measurement.


I never said it had anything to do with humans because obviously we aren't the only life in the universe or even on earth. But outside of life there literally is nothing, there isn't even space. If you cannot grasp the concept of nothing, it's no beginning, no end, no distance, no here, no now, basically death is timeless. All that is dead exists for all eternity in a fixed static state.

It could be one long string of numbers that never change but it's definitely a constant. This is why nothing comes back from that state. The state of life is temporary, and because we all have a birth and death, beginning and end, we apply these concepts to everything we observe and THIS creates "time", because we count objects and assign numbers to them and give meaning to the static, we bring order and organize the universe via language and labels.

But lets face it, without consciousness to measure and organize there wouldn't be any 4th dimension. There would only be one thing in the universe, and we'd all be that thing and there would be no way to perceive anything because that thing might not even be self aware.

And if it is or was self aware on some lower dimension then life would have become the logical result of consciousness. I do believe the 4th dimension is a result of the senses/consciousness, but I don't know what consciousness is so I cannot tell you why life is finite and death goes on for eternity and I cannot explain if there are other forms of existence via super-consciousness or what other dimensions might exist which experience life/time.


"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear..."

This is a trick question because you'd have no such label as a "tree" if there were no consciousness. There would be no such thing as "motion" so there would be no falling. There would be no "sound" because nothing is there to measure the change or the motion. So it's basic if there literally is no one, there would be no trees. If there are trees then there is someone.

 

And the evidence for that is...?

Proof? Or even support?

And you know this how?

What evidence?

Oops, wrong. You're the one that made the claim that time requires consciousness. You prove it.

Emphasis on the word "speculate".

It depends what you mean by "experience". Everything is subject to time, so in a way everything "experiences" it.

Hmm, you claim a fact supports your contention yet your "fact" isn't actually a fact - it's another speculation of yours.

See previous reply about "experience".

You make lots of assertions but don't give any evidence. I wonder why that is.

Oops wrong again. Like I said if there were no time then we couldn't have arisen in the first place.

Oh fail. Information can be destroyed.

Well you're certainly giving a new meaning to "garbage".

And yet more speculation based on something YOU claim is self-evident. I have news for you: it's not self-evident at all.

So, once again, how did we get here if time didn't exist until we did?

So on the one hand you claim (as earlier) that only the living can experience time, and now you're saying we can't?

So you still don't have any actual supporting evidence and you're sticking to repetition?

So now life existed before time but time is a concomitant of life? Methinks you're getting even more confused.

Is there any possibility you could start making sense?

Google, or an education, is your friend.

Well you're an excellent illustration of the first part...

 

Nope, that's a supposition.

As is that.

Obviously? This is more speculation, of course.

 

Huh?
And how do you support this claim?

Nonsense. Measurement is nothing more than measurement.

If a tree falls down in a forest and it marks the length between where its roots were and where its limbs are, it measured that distance. Unintentionally...

How is this obvious?

That one is obvious, true...

How do you support this claim?
Where did life come from if nothing existed prior to it?

Sounds cool. Peaceful. No telemarketers...

There can't be any constants without life there to measure it, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All of which has nothing to do with their existence. Rather, we catalogue what exists.
By your claim, I should be able to create a dragon simply by measuring one.
Or chocolate flavored cheez whiz by tasting it.

This silly claim is posted as an axiom with no support whatsoever. It requires support before you can expand your speculations upon it.

No, that's the Matrix.

Do you have any idea what a dimension is?

So we were created by the Measuring God?

I believe Santa Clause climbs up and down chimneys.

You can't? Earlier you were claiming it was the 4th dimension. Make up your mind.

LOL.

You're funny. Tell another one.

 

The concept of beginning and end come from the concepts of birth and death. The universe has no beginning and end because energy is never created or destroyed. Nothing begins or ends in this universe except us.

Fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

If you want to test it, try to actually destroy a non living object. The only thing that happens to it is it forever changes form from one to another. You burn something it might turn to ash, eventually dust, but there is no way to destroy the actual mass/energy. If you can discover some way to literally destroy / end anything in the physical universe let me know.

Energy is timeless as it is never created or destroyed.It changes form but the only thing capable of measuring change is consciousness. This is a fact of nature because only consciousness responds in a way which we associate with free will. Sure it's possible that all things are pre-determined and that there is no free will and if you want to take that stance then you can counter everything I've argued by saying there is no such thing as free will and no such thing as consciousness or minds and that all living animate objects are the result of some predetermined domino type effect. This is known as eliminative materialism so you can look it up for a counter argument.

Energy is not subject to time. I just showed you that the same amount of energy that existed at the big bang is the amount of energy that exists right now. Energy is timeless, the energy is never created or destroyed. So to believe time exists when the laws of physics prove without a doubt that it does not exist on the quantum level is to go against the current theories of mainstream physics. Unless you can prove that the laws of physics follow the rules of time you cannot prove that time has anything to do with the the physical universe. I'm asking you to show me some evidence that time influences the amount of energy in the universe since the big bang or that time has any influence at all outside of consciousness.

Conservation of energy is a fact. Now it's your turn to provide a fact to support your side of the debate.

What if consciousness was always here and simply didn't exist in the 4th dimension? Arisen from what is the question. Since energy and physics do not obey the laws of time on the quantum level there is no reason for me to believe time exists. Particles can quantum entangle and this is another fact which shows the timelessness of the universe and it shows the universe is actually information rather than a solid object. It's literally static information which we interpret but which does not exist outside of interpretation.

How can information be destroyed? That could win you the nobel prize. Destroy some information or just show me an article of formula for how information can be destroyed.

You assume the "here" is not temporary. What if the "here" only exists because of consciousness and life and when consciousness and life cease to exist so does the "here" and "now"?




Resorting to insults will not help your argument. You can debate quantum metaphysics, you can debate elimintative materialism, you can debate quantum philosophy and the philosophy of time, but if you must resort to insults it means you concede. I suggest you look up some information on the nature of the physical universe and explain to me how information can be destroyed, i've never heard any serious physicist make a statement like that before. Entropy does not destroy information, it changes the form of it and this form changes forever and we call that time because our consciousness can count and measure the changes of form, but the energy is never created or destroyed.

 

Energy changing state does not support your claim. It refutes it.

 

Without consciousness there are no languages from which to label therefore nothing can be measured.

Without language there is no way to have concepts like length. Without life there are no trees. Once again you are destroying your own argument here.

Where did energy come from? That kind of question is up for debate. It might have always existed in one form or another or it might have come about, this question still has nothing to do with time.

There can't be anything in the 4th dimension. Who knows if consciousness exists on any of the other dimensions but in order for time to exist/the 4th dimension, we need life/consciousness.

You are assuming something can exist without being perceived by any living thing. Thats no different than believing in the Christ God or 5th dimensional aliens.

If you perceive a dragon or something dragonlike then you can create the concept of a dragon. But to believe the dragon exists independent of perception is like believing in 5 dimensional aliens. I've never seen a dragon so I don't believe in dragons, and I don't believe time exists after death because death appears to be eternal.

Reality IS a matrix. Everything on the reality matrix can be mapped via numbers and labels, and our minds give meaning to the matrix. The universe is information.

A dimension is a result of the limits of perception. It's an article of perception. It's a result of measurement. Whether or not dimensions could exist without consciousness is up for debate because I don't think they would, but since nobody has determined the nature of consciousness or whether consciousness is real it's still up for debate.

Maybe we are the measuring god. Or would you rather worship dirt and call that the measuring God?

 

Only life can measure and interpret the change of states. Show me otherwise.

 

Evidence?

So you dispute the Big Bang?

Yeah, so what? That's nothing to do with your comment "If nothing moved then nothing could change", which is what I asked about.

And again you avoid the question: your statement "Time is a result of conscious observation" was what I asked about, and now you're waffling off on another topic.

According to you.

Nope, it's not a fact, it's your contention. Which you have so far failed to support.

Off-topic drivel...

Except that it changes form over time, spreads out...

No, you claimed it, but didn't show it.

Entropy is one way - that's a function of time.

Got it wrong again: you're the one making the assertions, it's up to you to give the evidence.

Wow, your comprehension failure is really showing up: re-read what I quoted - "The fact that only living animate objects can experience time" THAT is what I said isn't a fact.

So now you're back-tracking?
First of all you claim everything was static, with no time passing UNTIL consciousness arose, and now you're saying consciousness was always here...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

WTF has entanglement got to do with timelessness?

FFS what happens to anything that falls into a black hole? Any information on that object is destroyed. It's basic.

Nope, you're making assumptions about my position. Try not to do that.

What if you put together a coherent argument?

Oops, wrong again. I'm simply pointing out that you can't keep your own argument together.

Then you don't much about physics do you? You make claims about what science and physics says and you didn't even know that?
Try Hawking -

, or, on a more mundane note, what happens to the information in a dictionary if the dictionary is burnt?

Information is not energy.

 

Irrelevant. A diamond exists regardless of what you call it. The properties all remain the same, no matter if you know about them, measure them, mismeasure them or think it's a magic crystal that talks to spirits.

You really think so?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If no life, no consciousness exists to measure a rock, does he planet Mercury exist?

It is very different.
ALL evidence suggests that is the case. It is not accepted on Faith or Belief- it is accepted on hard evidence that is quite convincing.

But you cannot create the dragon. Your argument requires that the dragon be physically created.

You don't exist because I have never seen you.
You're a figment of my diseased imagination, like my invisible Unicorn.

Prove me wrong.

Our lables do not change properties.
Properties do not change even if our labels are inaccurate.

This answer is not quite accurate.

No, it is not.

At least then I could see and measure God.

 

Artwork for TT

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What a sad display. Someone with a fragile ego who cannot win a debate and who resorts to name calling, insults and funny pictures.

Hawking's theory is a theory about the nature of black holes. Just like the Higgs Boson has yet to be discovered and is called the God particle that gives all things mass. The problem is you don't have any evidence that the information is destroyed when it becomes radiation, while it might make plenty of sense on paper it's something we'd have to see in a test.

This is about the only argument you have, the rest of what you say makes you seem completely confused. "This is a contentious subject since it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that in principle complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time."

This is plausible.

"Hawking was convinced, however, because of the simple elegance of the resulting equation which "unified" thermodynamics, relativity, gravity, and Hawking's own work on the Big Bang. This annoyed many physicists, notably John Preskill, who in 1997 bet Hawking and Kip Thorne that information was not lost in black holes."

But as you see not every scientist or physicist believes that information can be destroyed. In fact most physicists don't believe this and you've found the one physicist who does to support your argument.

And to refute your argument using your own source the following paragraph: "In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole, which would resolve the information paradox. His argument assumes the unitarity of the AdS/CFT correspondence which implies that an AdS black hole that is dual to a thermal conformal field theory, is unitary. When announcing his result, Hawking also conceded the 1997 bet, paying Preskill with a baseball encyclopedia (ISBN 1-894963-27-X) "from which information can be retrieved at will". However, Thorne remains unconvinced of Hawking's proof and declined to contribute to the award (see Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90520

 

Dywyddyr it makes sense in my head.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have not insulted you nor called you names.

Please keep the accusations until they are actually warranted.

The rest of your post has no relevance on what you're trying to claim.

I may as well say that dragons exist and when pushed, start citing about how scientists research biology.

You have jumped to a conclusion that is Contradicted By Observation and evidence with NO Evidence in favor of your claim.
You cannot somehow think that citing irrelevant examples will give your claim credence.

It has nothing to do with your claim about existence(or NON existence) prior to measurement.