• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Does Time Exist?

Snard

Snard

Greenlighter
Joined
May 29, 2016
Messages
3
Is time an idea, a construct with origins in humanity, or do entropy/change prove time's existence?
 
I also used to believe that time is merely a construct or concept, but then I learned about how time is measurably altered by speed (see special relativity), I am not so sure anymore.

it's true that in a universe in thermal equilibrium / maximum entropy there would be no "arrow of time" (a way to tell the difference between before and after) but I don't think it would mean that time ceased to exist. after all it seems to be a fundamental feature of this universe (spacetime).
 
Bagseed said:
it's true that in a universe in thermal equilibrium / maximum entropy there would be no "arrow of time" (a way to tell the difference between before and after)
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. Thermodynamic equilibrium is still dynamic, which means that the system would change between individual configurations, and said changes could be expressed as a function of time.

Other than that, I think I agree with Bagseed in that time seems to be a fundamental feature of our universe - spacetime.
 
Wow. Upon analyzaing the lyrics of all songs from the last 100 years or so, iirc 'time' is the second most common word or theme, the first one being 'love'.
The discussion is tired to me, it has been measured, philosophized and theorized since time immemorial.
Of course 'time' doesn't exist. Time is the word we use to describe change...'Time' is relative by most arguments i.e. by Einstein's theory of relativity. Whether it's in a sand-based timepiece and the time is measured by the amount of sand that has fallen, or in an atomic clock and time is measured by the amount of radioactive decay of a certain isotope of a cesium atom (or something like that, I forget the specifics) we are just talking about change...planets orbit stars, electrons orbit atoms all at insanely different scales....
I don't know if I had a point or where it is going, but I don't have time for this thread right now.
edit: oh yeah, about the relative/subjective thing, try taking some DiPT. Perception of sound will decrease by an octave. Other psychedelics have other perceptual effects on time.
 
I think time exists but perhaps a better question is what is time and an even better one is is it emergent or fundamental. I dont think anyone knows for sure but look up Lee Smolin. He talks and writes about it a lot.
 
Time is linked to consciousness. The two are inseparable.

How can a person traveling near the speed of light experience "now" and the stationery object it departed from experience "now" yet there is a disparity in the lengths of their experiences? It's all perceptual.

Which means within the universe, there are many different levels of temporal experiences going on. The universe itself may be timeless and ageless.

In theoretical physics, there are dimensions beyond the 4th where time is irrelevant.

My primitive understanding is that time is likely closely linked to the physical, linear experience. On other levels it's flexible or irrelevant. Either way humans are not perceiving or experiencing the full picture due to the scope of our existence.
 
There's temporal distance and mathematical time.

I believe the two to be separate entities.

Whether or not we see time as irrelevant is a psychological component of time.

But time in physics is a scalar, with no particular distance. In relativity, time is not transferable like the dimensional vectors.

Time seems to have existed before consciousness developed.
 
Yes, Without time there is no space,without space there is no time..I think that makes sense:|
 
Foreigner said:
Time is linked to consciousness. The two are inseparable.

How can a person traveling near the speed of light experience "now" and the stationery object it departed from experience "now" yet there is a disparity in the lengths of their experiences? It's all perceptual.

Which means within the universe, there are many different levels of temporal experiences going on. The universe itself may be timeless and ageless.

In theoretical physics, there are dimensions beyond the 4th where time is irrelevant.

My primitive understanding is that time is likely closely linked to the physical, linear experience. On other levels it's flexible or irrelevant. Either way humans are not perceiving or experiencing the full picture due to the scope of our existence.
Click to expand...

Why do you think time does not matter to them if higher dimensions exist?
 
belligerent drunk said:
I don't think that's true. Thermodynamic equilibrium is still dynamic, which means that the system would change between individual configurations, and said changes could be expressed as a function of time.

Other than that, I think I agree with Bagseed in that time seems to be a fundamental feature of our universe - spacetime.
Click to expand...
yeah of course, fluctuations and such. but then again, a fluctuation causes a localized patch to loose that equilibrium. as far as I know this is talked about in some inflationary cosmology models. you just cannot have an eternal universe where there are places not in thermodynamical equilibrium without fluctuations. and if your model is not eternal, you have the problem of "before the big bang"..

[MENTION=251616]vortech[/MENTION] in my opinion, the fact that time is scientifically demonstrated to be relative and that the differences in measurement between reference frames can be calculated makes it more likely that it does exist outside of our minds....

and for the record, humans are pretty bad at keeping track of time. that's why we need watches. two human beings on earth can experience the same amount of time very differently even though scientifically speaking the relativistic effects between them are so small to be neglected...
 
Well, the 'existence' of 'time' is really a matter of semantics. I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, the question is what we define as 'existence' which is a decidedly more complex subject. I think Foreigner has a pretty good perspective based on his contributions to this thread, and everyone has valid points, considering the relative nature of the subject....Yes it may have some absolute nature if you give it a consistent reference point such as nuclear decay (within the context of a person observing it at an unchanging space in time), but if you eliminate the reference point there is an inherent subjectivity. That is what I mean by 'time' not existing, given its lack of objectivity, because it is dependent on so many things, as Foreigner mentioned, it is inseparable from consciousness.
 
We dont know that as fact considering the nature of time and consciousness are not well defined. If consciousness is its own "thing" why could time not be?
 
I would say consciousness is a function of time and space, not the other way around.

Consciousness seems to have evolved, along with the universe, in terms of material, time, and space.

There must have been a point in the past when consciousness did not exist but time did.

So they have to be separable.

What happens if all consciousness on the earth is wiped out by a mass extinction event?

Time and space would still exist independent of the mind and and consciousness.
 
Vagina Lover, all I have to do is invoke the old philosophical thought experiment of 'If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?'

If change occurs (a measure of time) and there is no consciousness to witness it, does time exist?

Do they really have to be separable? I ask you to ponder that a little harder.
 
vortech said:
Do they really have to be separable? I ask you to ponder that a little harder.
Click to expand...
Well I suppose that depends on what idea of duration you have.

Consulting Kant and Bergson, to answer this question, one must reverse habitual modes of thought and place themselves in duration by intuition.

Duration is qualitative, unextended, a multiple yet a unity, mobile, and continuously interpenetrating itself.

But through intuition of duration, we only get an idea of time based on our experience of it.

That is not to say that time does not exist, because it clearly does, independent of thought.
 
Why must an observer be conscious? A camera or a clock can measure or observe changes and they are certainly not conscious.
 
Kittycat5 said:
Why must an observer be conscious? A camera or a clock can measure or observe changes and they are certainly not conscious.
Click to expand...
Fair point, I should have said 'observer' rather than consciousness....but on the other hand what about if it is recorded, but there is no one to ever watch it??? Then perhaps it is no different than had it never been recorded.

This debate is revealing the dual-perspective of the primacy of Universe vs. the primacy of consciousness. On one hand if there is no evidence it exists and/or no sentient being to experience it, it does not exist. The other hand of the argument presumes that the Universe exists regardless of whether or not it exists in the reflection of mind. Both perspectives are equally valid in my opinion, but for sake of argument I go with the first hand.
 
vortech said:
Fair point, I should have said 'observer' rather than consciousness....but on the other hand what about if it is recorded, but there is no one to ever watch it??? Then perhaps it is no different than had it never been recorded.

This debate is revealing the dual-perspective of the primacy of Universe vs. the primacy of consciousness. On one hand if there is no evidence it exists and/or no sentient being to experience it, it does not exist. The other hand of the argument presumes that the Universe exists regardless of whether or not it exists in the reflection of mind. Both perspectives are equally valid in my opinion, but for sake of argument I go with the first hand.
Click to expand...

What is an observer...Well sure, for now, as we are the consciousness end of experience, being aware of the duality of the situation, so just stating this shows a step toward at least being aware of this. That it's said, we are the Universe/Omniverse experiencing itself is another avenue of the paradox. The Tao is helpful, I find looking at this.

The tango of these ideas gets somewhere for me, when I have an experience/idea that matches up with another's, as when these perspectives line up, it shows me something is interestingly similar is going on. This happens so often that I find repeated significance. Everything is taking part in energy & it's presence, we seem to be a different level or manner of it for sure...what this means in the end, is mystery... Sentience is a key item in the equation, if that's the best way to put it.
 
Time as we experience it may just be a tool we use to measure ourselves or to measure the duration of other things. Besides that, maybe time is entirely perceptive and only a consequence to the shape of the universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top