Time: Does it exist or not?

[Roseeurekacross]

Don’t you remember those two extensively debated threads you authored on the old CAF. I do…

We made a few decisions about time then.

 

[STT]

Don’t you remember those two extensively debated threads you authored on the old CAF. I do…

We made a few decisions about time then.

You mean the thread “Time cannot be created”? I made an argument there that we need time for change. I find it relevant to discuss that argument in here and show that time exists once one agree with my argument otherwise it is unreal, as it was show by McTaggart.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

…Time is real only if real change occurs…

I don’t agree. Time exists whether there is a change or not. In fact that is time which allows a change.

A thing is real if it exists. You assume that time exists, so it is not an argument about the existence of time.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Actually one can show that time cannot be created. That I discuss it in another thread: Time cannot be created.

I know that thread!: it is one in which you are showing your inability to prove that “All change involves time”, which was your fundamental premise to argue that time cannot be created.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Now is the present moment, but we also cheat a bit and use memory.
For example: now is such a micro moment that we add to it our memory of what has become past. As I sit and write now, the moment I wrote that, it was gon into the past. But I still consider it part of a more practical “now”. I am still in that same now for practical purposes unless I want to narrow it. When I wrote that last sentence it took an infinite number of nows. “Now” for us is the composite of experience we are able to capture in our awareness as a unique experience.

How short a now can you experience? Brain science can probabaly give us an answer. We cannot detect microseconds,

 

[STT]

A thing is real if it exists. You assume that time exists, so it is not an argument about the existence of time.

No, I claim that change exist therefore time exist.

 

[STT]

I know that thread!: it is one in which you are showing your inability to prove that “All change involves time”, which was your fundamental premise to argue that time cannot be created.

Yes, we can discuss this in another thread.

 

[STT]

Now is the present moment, but we also cheat a bit and use memory.

For example: now is such a micro moment that we add to it our memory of what has become past. As I sit and write now, the moment I wrote that, it was gon into the past. But I still consider it part of a more practical “now”. I am still in that same now for practical purposes unless I want to narrow it. When I wrote that last sentence it took an infinite number of nows. “Now” for us is the composite of experience we are able to capture in our awareness as a unique experience.

How short a now can you experience? Brain science can probabaly give us an answer. We cannot detect microseconds,

Have you watch the second video and have any response to his argument?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

ctually one can show that time cannot be created. That I discuss it in another thread: Time cannot be created.

My friend, your thread fails to show that time cannot be created. Just because you state things as factual does not mean that they are so.

Actually I can define time: Time is an entity which allows a change to occur. We have memory of changes that belong to past, we experience now and we are waiting for or manipulate future

Did you actually read the rest of what Augustine has to say? The quote is merely an opening statement of the things he address in the rest of that section on time.

Take 10-15 minutes to read it so you see where he was going with those statements.

 

[Shakuhachi]

It is a tedious rehash of Zeno’s paradoxes “to support Parmenides’ doctrine that contrary to the evidence of one’s senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken.”

Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I find this sort of philosophy to be a waste of time.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

A thing is real if it exists. You assume that time exists, so it is not an argument about the existence of time.

No, I claim that change exist therefore time exist.

You wrote that time exists therefore change: “I don’t agree. Time exists whether there is a change or not. In fact that is time which allows a change.”

 

[HCTC]

Years ago I heard somewhere the saying that time is the phenomenon that keeps everything from happening at once. However, in my life there have been occasions when it seemed as if everything was happening at once, and I would think that the time phenomenon must be getting wrinkles.

Misattributed

• Time is nature’s way to keep everything from happening all at once.
  • John Archibald Wheeler quoted this saying in Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (1990), p. 10, with a footnote attributing it to “graffiti in the men’s room of the Pecan Street Cafe, Austin, Texas”. Later publications, such as Paul Davies’ 1995 book About Time (p. 236), credited Wheeler with variations of this saying, but the quip is actually much older. The earliest known source is Ray Cummings’ 1922 science fiction novel The Girl in the Golden Atom, Ch. V: " ‘Time,’ he said, ‘is what keeps everything from happening at once.’ " It also appears in his 1929 novel The Man Who Mastered Time. The earliest known occurrence other than Cummings is from 1962 in Film Facts: Volume 5, p. 48.

 

[Kei]

If the Universe is eternal, it means there’s an infinite amount of time before I exist, which means you never get to me. It’s absurd.
Or, the universe is not eternal but finite (in terms of existing in time), and Someone or Thing outside of time created time.

 

[STT]

My friend, your thread fails to show that time cannot be created. Just because you state things as factual does not mean that they are so.

I am afraid that you cannot simply proceed this way and say the I fail without providing any argument. I would be happy to see your argument in another thread.

Did you actually read the rest of what Augustine has to say? The quote is merely an opening statement of the things he address in the rest of that section on time.

Take 10-15 minutes to read it so you see where he was going with those statements.

That takes more than 10 minutes and I am afraid that I don’t have time to read that. It would be nice of you to convey your understanding in a couple of simple phrase that everybody could understand. Therefore we can discuss things further. I am not a philosopher and it is not easy for me to understand his language and approach.

 

[STT]

It is a tedious rehash of Zeno’s paradoxes “to support Parmenides’ doctrine that contrary to the evidence of one’s senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken.”

I find this sort of philosophy to be a waste of time.

It is not a waste of time. One has to be wrong and we need to find the truth. Time has a beginning so his argument does not follow. That is true because there is a reference point in time that we could measure other point in time respect to that point.

 

[STT]

You wrote that time exists therefore change: “I don’t agree. Time exists whether there is a change or not. In fact that is time which allows a change.”

Well, it is better to write that we can deduce the existence of time through existence of changes.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I am afraid that you cannot simply proceed this way and say the I fail without providing any argument. I would be happy to see your argument in another thread.

My friend, the burden of proving your argument wrong is non-existent, for you failed to prove your own argument.

That takes more than 10 minutes and I am afraid that I don’t have time to read that. It would be nice of you to convey your understanding in a couple of simple phrase that everybody could understand. Therefore we can discuss things further. I am not a philosopher and it is not easy for me to understand his language and approach.

The section about time really shouldn’t take too long to read. If you are unwilling to take the time to read it and seek to understand, then I’m afraid any soundbite will also bear no fruit for you.

As you state yourself, you are not a philosopher and don’t understand the language and approach used by great philosophers, nor are you willing to put in the time to read their works. For this reason, perhaps it would be prudent that you avoid the Philosophy section of these forums, lest you bring further confusion upon yourself.

If you truly want to know and understand God, perhaps spend less time trying to convince yourself He does not or cannot exist as He does, and spend more time praying for understanding and consolation.

Build your relationship with Him first, and then perhaps your endeavors to understand Him will be more fruitful and serve to deepen your relationship with Him instead of distance yourself from Him.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Of what practical value is the “truth” about time? What difference does it make in your life? It is nothing other then mental gymnastics.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

You wrote that time exists therefore change: “I don’t agree. Time exists whether there is a change or not. In fact that is time which allows a change.”

Well, it is better to write that we can deduce the existence of time through existence of changes.

So, back to McTaggart then that time is unreal. Time is real (exists) only if real change occurs.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Of what practical value is the “truth” about time? What difference does it make in your life? It is nothing other then mental gymnastics.

There is beautiful mental gymnastics and there is horrendous mental gymnastics. And this one is of the second sort. If at least STT knew elementary mathematics and physics… it would be possible to discuss with him.