Does Time Exist?

[swilow]

^I'm not sure that existence is predicated on our awareness of things...

everything eventually ends.

That be true. And, I think a decent argument for the existence of time. Everything does end- or perhaps everything is constantly changing into something else.

 

[Nixiam]

I'm going to write a book with just your quotes Swilow.

 

[No one]

^I'm not sure that existence is predicated on our awareness of things...

I was saying it exists to us in our little speck of the vastness of the universe. It might not necessarily be a constant throughout the universe, but we experience it. While seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, may be a human construct there is a progression of passing moments.

 

[belligerent drunk]

For something to exist, it has to be demonstrated to exist. There are things that we cannot perceive that exist, such as infra-red, microwaves, dark matter (maybe), magnetism as you said, etc.

We can't directly observe IR radiation, or dark matter, but we can indirectly show that they do exist. I see time as something slightly different. It's more of a tool we use to describe what we see around us - something similar to maths. You can't show that 1 exists, or that 1+1=2, using an experiment, but it's something that we use to reasonably describe reality. I don't know if this makes sense, but that's how I see time.

 

[drug_mentor]

That be true. And, I think a decent argument for the existence of time. Everything does end- or perhaps everything is constantly changing into something else.

It isn't a decent argument at all, its question begging. Few (if any) who deny the existence of time will accept that there is such thing as change. I take it that by things having an "end" you mean a temporal end, as it isn't obvious how objects having spatial end points could be intended to function as evidence for the existence of time. Any argument which assumes the very thing it is trying to prove is a bad argument.

 

[swilow]

It isn't a decent argument at all, its question begging. Few (if any) who deny the existence of time will accept that there is such thing as change. I take it that by things having an "end" you mean a temporal end, as it isn't obvious how objects having spatial end points could be intended to function as evidence for the existence of time. Any argument which assumes the very thing it is trying to prove is a bad argument.

Of course I am not referring to spatial end points, we are discussing the temporal, that would be absurd. The fact that we can see a sequence of events with preceding events leading inevitably to subsequent events suggests that some sort of continuum, some 'order of events' exists. You will not get an effect without a cause. You will not get a cause before its effect. The fact that we have things like entropy and thermodynamic equilibrium suggests that we have time. Terms like 'before' are temporal and it may be tautological, but short of mathematics I've yet to find a suitable metaphor to describe time short of time itself.

It may be a bad argument but I am not entirely fussed if it didn't pass the rigour of your examination.

 

[drug_mentor]

Terms like 'before' are temporal and it may be tautological, but short of mathematics I've yet to find a suitable metaphor to describe time short of time itself.

There is a substantial difference between using temporal terms to describe time and using the existence of time as a premise in your argument for the existence of time. One is a natural way of speaking, the other is a serious logical error.

It may be a bad argument but I am not entirely fussed if it didn't pass the rigour of your examination.

Your argument turned on quite an obvious fallacy. I guess its up to you whether you care if your arguments are well reasoned, but when posting in a philosophy forum you should expect that people are likely to point out when they are not.

 

[Nixiam]

I think the distinctions should be clearer.

You guys are probably familiar with A series and B series philosophical "theories" of time.

Or are we putting out our own ideas? I'd have to buckle up and sit down to come up with a thought theory of time based temporal perception of it, and in that arguing for its existence is quite easy since time is almost always agreed upon as being real (in the scientific community anyway).

On the other hand I don't think that the argument swilow agreed upon is necessarily illogical period, though taken at face value it is seemingly contradicting.

But I found it makes sense. Using something that describes time in a premise to prove time's existence only seems odd because you can't prove something with the thing that you are trying to prove, but in this case using a temporal adjective doesn't necessarily say time, rather it says time measured.

Time measured is just perception, time not measured is not percieved.

It is not formal logic.

 

[swilow]

There is a substantial difference between using temporal terms to describe time and using the existence of time as a premise in your argument for the existence of time. One is a natural way of speaking, the other is a serious logical error.



Your argument turned on quite an obvious fallacy. I guess its up to you whether you care if your arguments are well reasoned, but when posting in a philosophy forum you should expect that people are likely to point out when they are not.

Fair enough. But, when you say 'my argument', you seem to be responding to my comment that the fact that things/change or end is suggestive of the existence of time. I'm not really putting that forward as an argument, it was merely a remark in relation to someone elses comment. I don't think you need to apply philosophical logic to off-the-cuff remarks.

Of course, I have probably used time to define time earlier in the thread. I'm just a person spouting opinions basically.

But, could you claim that the fact that things change suggest there is certain continuum of before/after events? That continuum could be called time.

 

[drug_mentor]

Fair enough. But, when you say 'my argument', you seem to be responding to my comment that the fact that things/change or end is suggestive of the existence of time. I'm not really putting that forward as an argument, it was merely a remark in relation to someone elses comment. I don't think you need to apply philosophical logic to off-the-cuff remarks.

I realise that you weren't explicitly advancing the argument, the reason I commented is because you made a positive value judgement about the argument and I thought it was worthwhile pointing out that it is a fallacy. I wasn't having a go or trying to make you look silly, I just feel there is some benefit in correcting these errors. If/when the shoe was on the other foot I genuinely hope that someone would point it out to me.

But, could you claim that the fact that things change suggest there is certain continuum of before/after events? That continuum could be called time.

I don't see any immediate problems with that argument (although I am fairly busy right now and don't have the time to put much thought into it). A question which I think might be raised in response is whether you could regard such a continuum as an ontological entity or just a convenient way of keeping track of and/or referring to a certain kind of relation? On the latter interpretation someone could potentially accept the argument and still deny that time exists.

I should clarify that I am not posing the question, I am just pointing out a potential avenue of response. I have a pretty hectic week and won't have the time to make any worthwhile contribution to such a difficult topic.

 

[Nixiam]

^That last bit to me is a prime example of beautiful discussion.

 

[JK25]

Is time an idea, a construct with origins in humanity, or do entropy/change prove time's existence?

No, time itself doesn't exist, it isn't actually a "thing". It is a man made concept to serve as a stable reference point where it can be used to make some sense as to how we experience this multidimensional continuum.

Entropy is not involved here, although it is what academics believe makes time a solid, it is not.

 

[Bagseed]

entropy and the second law of thermodynamics give you the "direction" in which the time dimension goes, to word it badly, but experiments proving time dilation show that time has a physical reality to it.

the way we experience time is pretty abstract and conceptual though, but clocks are indeed a way to measure time objectively.

 

[turkalurk]

Humans sure do love to chase our tails around, don't we? My experience is all the proof I need to believe in Time's existence. I can't really picture anything without forming them as constructs of my mind so that part of the question is irrelevant. I like to think that time is cyclic. Eventually the past will become the future. The universe will end in a "big crunch" and when it can't crunch itself anymore together it will explode into another universe with slightly different results. maybe after trillions of these universes playing out in different ways we will have another one just like this one.

then, we can have this same conversation again as we always do. Because we're human beings that just love to chase our tails.

 

[Bagseed]

^ actually no, the universe will not crunch again, as far as we can tell. the expansion is actually accelerating, not slowing down.

 

[Erikmen]

I'm not sure that existence is predicated on our awareness of things...

I agree totally with you!

It doesn't have to do with our awareness, it's just something we use as a mark. To make things easier and practical.
In its essence it's as abstract as the wind imho.

 

[Phee]

Time exists. Moments pass, the rest is measurement. Who or what created time is fascinating.

 

[turkalurk]

^ actually no, the universe will not crunch again, as far as we can tell. the expansion is actually accelerating, not slowing down.

Forces might reverse in polarity once certain maxims/thresholds are met. Still a valid theory as far as I know.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/big-crunch-back-possible-end-universe/

Notice I said believe. Nobody knows anything about what the universe wiil do in the future. Anyone who thinks they know what will happen based on any evidence we can gain from our immensely limited viewpoint is full of it any way.

You have a choice to believe in what makes sense to you. Its all about perspective. To me, its more about what effect those beliefs will have in your life. The point is that i choose to believe in an infinite existence. Doesn't matter how it happens it all means the same thing to me.

Maybe black holes create a pocket of spacetime. Maybe the universe decipates into nothingness. Where did it come from? Nowhere, No time, Nothingness? Whose to say the big bang only bangs only this one time in all of Existence? How do you know there aren't an infinite amount of these existences that are occuring always. We merely only have access to the information in this one. So many possibilities to choose from and nobody has the answer, not even Stephen Hawkins. Why choose an unhappy ending to the most beautiful story?

 

[Xorkoth]

Humans sure do love to chase our tails around, don't we? My experience is all the proof I need to believe in Time's existence. I can't really picture anything without forming them as constructs of my mind so that part of the question is irrelevant. I like to think that time is cyclic. Eventually the past will become the future. The universe will end in a "big crunch" and when it can't crunch itself anymore together it will explode into another universe with slightly different results. maybe after trillions of these universes playing out in different ways we will have another one just like this one.

then, we can have this same conversation again as we always do. Because we're human beings that just love to chase our tails.

Hey, nice to see you again, nice post.

I agree that none of us can possibly know what the universe will do, or what it is, or how it started. I mean we have made observations and come up with compelling conclusions but to say we even know for sure anything about the universe beyond the solar system is a bit pre-emptive. Certainly the big bang explanation makes sense but how can we know that our interpretation of reading the data of the background microwave radiation at the edge of measurable existence is accurate?

 

[turkalurk]

Hey, nice to see you again, nice post.

I agree that none of us can possibly know what the universe will do, or what it is, or how it started. I mean we have made observations and come up with compelling conclusions but to say we even know for sure anything about the universe beyond the solar system is a bit pre-emptive. Certainly the big bang explanation makes sense but how can we know that our interpretation of reading the data of the background microwave radiation at the edge of measurable existence is accurate?

Thanks Xork. I also the like the same idea filtered through the age of computers. We are just simulations being ran by something like a quantum computer. Our future descendents will build it in attempt to understand their past.