Does time exist?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Asexperia, Sep 28, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    yes
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    Huh! All these rocks sitting around not moving - just up 'n vanished!!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    why would they vanish ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    Because they have zero duration.

    You said "duration is the movement of an object". So, no movement = no duration. Poof.
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    no time as well
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    So ... all these rocks really aren't here....
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    if you throw a rock at a brick does it chip the brick ?
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    You're positing a moving rock.

    Where would I get this rock? Since it was unmoving on the ground, it has, by your whimsical definition, zero duration. It is there for zero time.
    There is no rock for me to pick up.

    You really need to think these things through before posting.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    in your post #1066 you asked if the rocks are really there , I answered .
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    Right. You say they're really there. And I agree.
    Which directly contradicts your assertion that they have zero duration if they have zero movement.

    Duration is not movement.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    disagree

    what then is duration to you ?
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    You're welcome to. But it holds no water unless you can defend it.
    I showed the assertion to be contradictory.

    Duration is the measure between between two points in time.

    You know, you don't have to guess. These terms have well-defined meanings.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    On what is the duration measure based ?
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    What do you man 'based'?
    If you define two points of interest in time - say, the start of a puddle of water, and its eventual evaporation - you subtract one from the other to get its duration.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    based on time .

    no measure involved , does the evaporation dynamic still occur ?
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    Well, I explicitly said it is time events that we referred to.
    So, if you want to say that time is based on time, then ... sure.

    It does. Puddles formed and evaporated before there was life to measure it.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    therefore duration is a dynamic between atoms and molecules , to your last statement . measure of this duration is irrelevant to the dynamics taking place here .
     
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Not at all - the passage of time is utterly uncaring of whether or not there is someone around to measure it.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    if this true , what is the nature of time ? What is the property of time physically ?

    what is physical time , in and of itself .?
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    The question is actually, is time fundamental?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page