Does time exist?

Because in all the thousands of years of claims of their existence no-one (that's no one ever) has shown solid evidence that they do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

time

Maybe that's cause there not very solid?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ho ho.
Correct. So unsolid, in fact, as to be totally non-existent. You can't get much less solid than "doesn't exist at all".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

#1 Thanks!

 

Longest run-on sentence EVER

First of all, Congratulations. I do believe that's the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen. And secondly, yes, time exists. We mark it, measure it, live in it. We live in four dimensions. Three of space and one of time. Everything that happens in space happens at a point in time.
When someone says
"meet me at the café"
you say "When?"
When you say "Meet me at 3:00 pm"
Your friend says "where?"

They exist together. A "Space-time continuum."

 

Time again

Time is not a something at all.
Like height, weight, length, when.
It is a measure of when.
It is measure against many things.
But it is those things existence that is being measured.
The day i came to play, the day the earth stood still,
when the moon reaches the horizon, Saturday March 15 2010.
(measure against a calendar). A point in time. When.
We can only call a point in time because we have a calendar.
Which is in case a measuring instrument like a ruler or a yard stick.
What are we measuring? Nothing really. If I lay out a measure tape stretching to infinity, I could mark on it my height, your height, the height of my house, the height from my house to Jupiter, from Jupiter to the next galaxy, etc, etc.
But it is the object I am measuring not height itself.
Same with time. Our calendar marks the days, weeks, years; but time is not itself a something.

 

But what, exactly, are you measuring?
The extent of the object in space, in a specified direction.
As you yourself stated:

So you think we can assign a definite (and independently-verifiable) numerical value to a nothing? To something that doesn't actually exist?

 

Universe is timeless, see my post BLOCK UNIVERSE

 

Referencing a crank post to support an otherwise untenable position is NOT the way to go about making your point.
Just a little pointer for future reference.

 

Time

OK there are numbers on a yardstick.
Just as there are dates on a calendar.
I guess what I'm trying to say is -
"if a tree falls in the woods and know one is there to hear it,
does it make a sound?"
Similarly- "if there was nothing, would there be time?"
Time has no value without something.
Time is nothing without something.
If nothing existed nor would time.
Time is individual to each event.
As height, weight, when.
Wouldn't it be nice to just be?
With no beginning, no end.
I just am.
Do you suppose God is a circle?

 

Dywyddyr------YES.
A yard stick itself has numerical values on it but is not measuring anything till you put something next to it to measure.
Just like a calendar. only different.
It is when and not length.

 

Huh?

Nor would length, width or height. What's your point?

No.
But then again I don't suppose god exists.
On the other hand I've seen a lot of circular arguments trying to "prove" he exists. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

Yes what?

Really?
It doesn't tell you how long the measuring stick itself is?
Do you suppose (at all, take a wild guess) that something has length whether it's measured or not? Or do you think a car (for example) has no length until someone puts a tape measure to it?

Exactly. And just like a carrot. Only different. Or maybe it's more like a donkey. But different. :shrug:

Well if it were length then it wouldn't be time, would it?

 

Time...the great abstraction. What is time to eternity? All we have is now...the eternal now.

 

Time might not exist in any sense as we think it does. Our perspective that 'things change' and that if we track these changes we are measuring time, may be false. It may be that the universe is 'already' complete in time, but our limited consciousness 'travels' through this already complete four dimensional 'thing' and think of this as time and that it is experiencing changes. But these are not changes, we are simply getting to see other portions.

Or it could be that there are simply nows already made - including ones with 'memories'. And no change, no time.

 

I've come across that before but the thing that struck me... if that is so and our consciousness "simply" moves from one frame to another does that not require time anyway?
Consciousness is here, now and later it's there...

But there is change: if not of the physical world then it's of our perception switching from one "now" to "another".

 

Our thoughts may move but it moves from the reality of the now into the abstract illusion called time.(Past/future)

 

And?
It still implies that at one "moment" our thoughts are "here" and then they're there.
It still requires time - for the simple reason that we aren't aware of all of these "realities" at once.

 

Only in our thinking can we contruct time, it is not physical,only an illusion. We physically stay in the present moment.

 

Evidence?
Time happens.
How "physical" do you want it?

Yet we age...

 

Can not argue against circular logic.