That's not time.
Time didn't exist until sundials were built?
There was a "before" and an "after" - that's time.
Any evidence?
A million years go by... that's time, neh?
A Justification of Time
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
There was a "before" and an "after" - that's time.
because of cause and effect, why is an actual force called time needed for things to not happen at once?
explain how time makes things happen in seperate events then. because to me it seems pretty simple logic that things happen because other things make them happen.
where does time even come into it apart from as an abstract measuring tool to explain things?
peace
Effect FOLLOWS cause.
Time is needed.
Otherwise effect and cause would be simultaneous and you couldn't separate cause from effect.
Yup, things make other things happen AFTER the first thing happened.
Because if time doesn't exist there's nothing to separate cause and effect temporally.
Waddaya mean "why".
Effect comes AFTER cause, therefore time exists.
If there was no time then how could the effect come AFTER the cause?
What separates them?
why do we need something to seperate them. why cant something happen after something else without time.
we use time to explain the before now and after of the cause and effect of events, but time doesent have to exist just because things happen.
there is no shame in changing your universal views of existence. im sure many people think time has to exist because it has been a part of our thought process for ages,
why cant cause and effect happen without time? why does time have to exist to seperate the events. cant the events just happen one after the other?
explain the mechanics of time to me then,
peace.
Something happening after something else IS time.
That's the definition.
Of course it does - because things happen BEFORE or AFTER other things.
Shame?
There would be in dumping a concept that has proved so useful in a lot of fields without coming up with with a substitute that explains things at least as well.
Because the separation between them IS what time is.
Shit happening sequentially, rather than simultaneously.
In a measurable fashion.
yes thats the abstract tool we use to describe it, but where is the evidence of time actualy playing a role in anything?
yes they do but why does time have to be a real force?
the concept of time as a measuring device is very handy indeed. so are numbers. we shouldent scrap either but numbers are not a real force and niether is time.
but that seperation of events is not an event by itself is it,
why would things happen simultaneously? what does time actualy do to seperate events?
peace.
??
Because things don't all happen at the same time.
Where do you get the idea that anyone claims it's a force?
Is length a force?
Again, you have a false perception of time - it is not a force, it's a dimension.
Nope, but I didn't say it was.
Distance isn't an event - it's a dimension.
By the same reasoning that length is the dimension that stops the front end of your car being in exactly the same place as the rear end.
If you take that infinitely small duration event [ NOW ], which is all there is how can it be said that events happen sequentially except to say that an event is in the past and no longer exists as an event and that an event in the future is a mere fantasy yet to happen.
So to say that events happen sequentially is not quite correct as all events must happen simultaneously if and when they happen. Other wise they are temporal [ a memory or an expectation]
So to say that events happen sequentially is not quite correct as all events must happen simultaneously if and when they happen. Other wise they are temporal [ a memory or an expectation]
So your reading of my post, your response to it and my reading of your reply all happened simultaneously?
The time stamps say different...
no but this post is a mere memory and no longer real except in the simultaneous now that it is being read in.