What are your thoughts on time?

[Duty]

Time is such a small word for a grand concept.

I believe time is not present in actuality. In fact, I think it is a singularity that is merely an attribute that has implemented due to human lifestyles. Like mentioned above, it's a tool to separate then from now and now to then.
Surely there is day and night which is cyclic but nevertheless definite, because according to science the big star of ours will die down (the sun).

Because of time, we are apart of a world of stress!

Why do you believe this? Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support this line of thought? It seems rather counter-intuitive to say that time is non-existent as a property of reality, but if there's something you know and I don't, I really would like to learn from you.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Why do you believe this? Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support this line of thought? It seems rather counter-intuitive to say that time is non-existent as a property of reality, but if there's something you know and I don't, I really would like to learn from you.

I don't think she needs ones. Something as abstract as time doesn't really require "evidence" for one to have a personal explination of how it works. One reason may work for one person, and not for the other. So long as you have your own explination for it so you can understand this nosocommensense world, then that is more then enough.

what she is saying actually does make alot of sense to me, but I can't really explain how, and I assume the same case is true for her. It is diffucalt to imagine what it is like (I know I sure can't picture it), so that is why it seems counter-intuititive.

 

[Pristinegirl]

Indigo what you are saying is completely correct as humans are subjective. Absolute objectivity is impossible however we have devices of objectivety such as e.g. math although if a person does not understand math it is nevertheless NOT true to them.

Why do you believe this? Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support this line of thought? It seems rather counter-intuitive to say that time is non-existent as a property of reality, but if there's something you know and I don't, I really would like to learn from you.

It is hard to explain as Indigo said because it is complex and abstract and à cannot give you tangible proof for my reasoning either.
I sensed myself around imaginary floating around in space, total black observing with no responsibilities to get things done. I would merely just be.
I would not experience 'time', instead I would see the cyclic nature of earth and the other planets rotating the sun, on and on and on. Then comes a predicted day in the future where science indicates that the sun will die. And as the cyclic pattern of the solar system is broken, the planets die with it.

That term Time is in fact a misconception made by us humans, as we made it up to measure and revolve our lives around. We associate time with an ending as in when 'the sun rises, now it's a new day'.

 

[Duty]

It is hard to explain as Indigo said because it is complex and abstract and à cannot give you tangible proof for my reasoning either.

If there is no proof, evidence or reason to believe what you do, then how could you know it to be true? Could you be justified in your belief while having no evidence?

I sensed myself around imaginary floating around in space, total black observing with no responsibilities to get things done. I would merely just be.
I would not experience 'time', instead I would see the cyclic nature of earth and the other planets rotating the sun, on and on and on.

Can I not imagine myself floating on the moon, dancing with Caesar? If I can imagine this, does that make it so reality is that I'm not really sitting here at my computer? Once again, it seems counter-intuitive to me to be able to imagine something, and then say reality does not conform to X because I can imagine it to be not X. Perhaps I'm am not seeing this clearly.

Then comes a predicted day in the future where science indicates that the sun will die. And as the cyclic pattern of the solar system is broken, the planets die with it.

The sun won't just fade from existence by my understanding of astronomy. It will just swell to the size of a red giant, incinerating and engulfing all the inner planets (including Earth). Then it will explode in a nova to collapse into a white dwarf, where it may collapse further, or eventually burn out its fuel. There will still be the 4 outer planets, and the dwarf planets lying beyond Neptune. It will remain in this state for a long time.

And even when the day comes that our solar system just doesn't exist...there are roughly 300,000,000,000 more stars in the galaxy, with roughly 150,000,000,000 galaxies in the known universe. Taking our galaxy as the average (it's probably slightly larger then average, but lets just go with this for a rough estimate), that means 45,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe.

Further, the material used to build our solar system will be reused given a long enough span of time. Gravity will work itself eventually and make new use for the matter that already exists here.

So, with all this material in the universe, and all of it being reused over and over, it doesn't seem likely that anytime soon we will be in a blank space of nothingness and nonexistence. Perhaps this is not what you meant though, and my ignorance is blinding me. I would be priveleged to have this explained to me. (I'm trying really hard to not come off as if I'm mocking you, I honestly want to learn these things...I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt so as to keep the dialog open).

That term Time is in fact a misconception made by us humans, as we made it up to measure and revolve our lives around. We associate time with an ending as in when 'the sun rises, now it's a new day'.

Is it necessary for our conception of time to have an end? Physicists seem to really take time seriously...and describe us as living in 4 dimensions (yes, more then that in quantum mechanics and else ware, but 4 is the basic, Newtonian number). Epistemologists and metaphysicists take time differently, with one point of view I expressed above.

As a seeker of wisdom, I am interested to know how you know time to be subjective. I have a deep interest in philosophy and really want to learn here. Perhaps I'm not seeing your point of view very clearly, and for that I apologize.

 

[Pristinegirl]

No I apologize for not having an absolute objectiveness that fits you..
Haha werent mocking eh, because that is exactly how I interpreted it xD Pardon me for my hypersensitivity.
Apparently you are desperate to find truth on time or? Well you see, it was an observation attempting to distance myself from the bias we face ON earth as I don't have a spaceship and wouldn't wanna go there either for that matter.

I am aware that the sun will not just die down in a snap, I acknowledge the stages of death and in the end she will be a Black dwarf, No gravity, which is when the whole solar system colapses. Each planet. You say I don't have proof what about yourself?

You see there is no such thing as Objective absolute truth, because we are always affected by emotion/thought and bias what so ever. We have devices such as math, allowing us to see glimpses of the actuality, however even that requires one to believe in it. It can be a theory that is likely, makes sense and is believed in but that doesnt mean it is true in reality.

Furthermore it is not a fly high imagination, it is actually reasonable. I look upon the actual reality as beeing external truth, unbiased. However human nature of feelings and language does not allow us to be apart of it.

Think about it; a child is born and raised without weekdays and time, then they won't feel the effect of it. We are victims of a disease created by words: thought. Our thoughts are made up of words, that are divided into fragmented bits and pieces whereas justified reality is undivided.

I'm a human just like you and am biased by Time, as it is inevitable. However in justified reality, I hypothesize that there is no time as in 'the sun rises, it's a new day'.

 

[Duty]

No I apologize for not having an absolute objectiveness that fits you.

Oh, there is no need for apology. I only seek wisdom and wish to see if what you say here is true.

You say I don't have proof what about yourself?

I have expressed very little in the form of opinion here, and have only raised doubts and objections to the views of others, including what I would see as the "common sense" or most common view (expressed by my two long posts explaining Hume). Because I have only doubted, I would say I have no burden of proof as I have not attempted to prove any position (well, except one of skepticism). I've asked you for proof as you have expressed an opinion on time, one that I admittedly don't yet fully understand. If you feel you do not need proof or a justification for having a belief like this, then I apologize and would like to know why you believe that you don't, so that I may use this information and enhance my own understanding through knowing which beliefs of my own I do not need to justify (such knowledge would be HUGE to know in philosophy).

You see there is no such thing as Objective absolute truth, because we are always affected by emotion/thought and bias what so ever. We have devices such as math, allowing us to see glimpses of the actuality, however even that requires one to believe in it. It can be a theory that is likely, makes sense and is believed in but that doesnt mean it is true in reality.

Is it possible then, that there is an actual objective truth, but we are just incapable of knowing it, or just fallible and so capable of getting it wrong? Can it be that the truth exists and it is only our bias that CLOUDS it, but not makes it impossible to be actually there?

And if there is no such thing as objective, absolute truth, then is the actual statement, "There is no such thing as objective, absolute truth," a subjective, fallible view in itself?

Furthermore it is not a fly high imagination, it is actually reasonable. I look upon the actual reality as beeing external truth, unbiased. However human nature of feelings and language does not allow us to be apart of it.

Think about it; a child is born and raised without weekdays and time, then they won't feel the effect of it. We are victims of a disease created by words: thought. Our thoughts are made up of words, that are divided into fragmented bits and pieces whereas justified reality is undivided.

I'm a human just like you and am biased by Time, as it is inevitable. However in justified reality, I hypothesize that there is no time as in 'the sun rises, it's a new day'.

Bolded/italicized is mine and what I mostly refer to:
I understand this entire quote, and would suspect it agrees with me, until I reach the bold/italicized part, and am confused by your meaning. Before you stated you believe time does not exist, and now seem to be taking a different position...one of only conjecture and hypothesis, which is fine (no value judgment here), but very different from what we seemed to be discussing previously.

When I use the phrase "I believe that X is the case," with 'X' being anything that I posit to be true and knowable, I suspect I mean something quite different from when you use the same word. This could be the source of my confusion. I will explain to you what I mean when I use such a word, and then you could explain the same thing, and we can work toward coming with a common usage for this word, as it seems important.

What I mean when I use the phrase, "I believe that X is the case," I mean it as in "I am positing this to be true and that I have reason to hold this proposition to be a property of reality, or at least a necessity to function." As suggested, when you use this phrase, perhaps you mean to express something different.

 

[Pristinegirl]

"Is it possible then, that there is an actual objective truth, but we are just incapable of knowing it?
And if there is no such thing as objective, absolute truth, then is the actual statement, "There is no such thing as objective, absolute truth," a subjective, fallible view in itself?"

An absolute twist I haven't thought about it that way before, thank you
In order to have anything more to write I'm going to believe that there is an absolute truth 'the way things really are'.

Don't misinterpret, what I mean is what I refered to in the first post as an attribute that has implemented due to human lifestyles. I meant that I can't hide nor dissregard time as I'm 1. raised with it and 2. have deadlines, school etc. Again emphasising that our lifestyles implement it.


I believe the term time is wrongly associated with life span of things.

• I think the term that is confusing is 'time' which needs to be clarified.

When I talk about time I refer to a measurment device to seperate then from now that humans made up. Time would indicate that when the sun rises it is a new day, that yesterday is passed (by humans that is) right?

Although as I argued on the cycle of 'earth orbiting the sun', it is in fact NOT a new day, it should be 'the same as before and before never was so = no time' as the earth circles over and over till the sun reaches it's time span and the solar system is definite. When earth dies with it, will there be time, no. Pattern occurence, yes. Therefore I dare say Time is subjective and does not exist apart from our subjective lifes on earth!

PLEASE say that you understand it a little clearer now right with that said above?

In my case "I believe X to be the case" (notice that you used subjectivity 'believe') I mean it as in "I am positing this to be true and that I have reason to hold this proposition to be a property of reality"

- This is the same for me although based on my theory, I can not provide you with tangible proof, or verifiable data as I haven't tried to derive and test it yet.

 

[Ender612]

I think it's wicked how time slows down when you approach the speed of light. I tried to reprove it to myself on a plane ride...I was almost there. And then I fell asleep.

I also time is something that I can't think about too hard for too long, because then everything gets crazy, and smoke starts coming out of my ears...then I start foaming at the mouth

 

[Zero Angel]

If time slows as one approaches the speed of light. Then time must be tied to the speed of light somehow -- in that time is a force parallel yet inverse to the speed of light -- as in the measurement of distance in that which is NOT the speed of light. Or that time represents the staticness of the universe whereas light represents the dynamic -- and vice-versa. I wonder if the opposite would apply, if you were to bend light you straighten time, and if you straighten light then time is bent.

I wonder how this works with a prism.

Anyways I have been thinking, if time were a static, spatial entity -- would all random meetings in the universe be equivalent to a single comprehensible motion? Like a ball being thrown in space and drifting off into a straight line? Call it fate, or destiny -- but all things tie into a larger pattern -- like a line of dominoes which we cannot percieve because our vision is fragmented. Time is unreal in this aspect in that it can only be used to compare one state to another.

 

[Ender612]

If time slows as one approaches the speed of light. Then time must be tied to the speed of light somehow -- in that time is a force parallel yet inverse to the speed of light -- as in the measurement of distance in that which is NOT the speed of light. Or that time represents the staticness of the universe whereas light represents the dynamic -- and vice-versa. I wonder if the opposite would apply, if you were to bend light you straighten time, and if you straighten light then time is bent.

I wonder how this works with a prism.

Anyways I have been thinking, if time were a static, spatial entity -- would all random meetings in the universe be equivalent to a single comprehensible motion? Like a ball being thrown in space and drifting off into a straight line? Call it fate, or destiny -- but all things tie into a larger pattern -- like a line of dominoes which we cannot percieve because our vision is fragmented. Time is unreal in this aspect in that it can only be used to compare one state to another.

I think that the big problem is that the speed of light is a constant. Which makes my mind explode. And since speed is distance divided by time (s = d/t), then you can also define time as distance/speed. Anyway, going further down that road makes my head hurt.

But if you imagine a clock that is two mirrors with one photon of light bouncing back and forth. Then a unit of time is demarcated by the interval of photon bouncing. (Think like a game of pong kind of...tick...tock...tick tock). But then, if you start moving the mirrors at close to the speed of light, the path that the ball (photon) travels instead of being a straight line up and down ends up being a diagonal line (because the mirrors are moving really fast). But then, since the time is measured by the ping-ponging of the photon, and it's now traveling a longer distance (This longer distance is miniscule unless you're moving at near-light speeds)...and since the speed of light is a constant (which is the part that really blows my mind), then the photon can't move any faster, but it is forced to move a longer distance to mark the time, so units of time get stretched out and take longer to happen.

I'm not sure any of that made any sense. I think my brain is broken...

 

[Eeyore]

Time..... consists of past, present and future, according to how we see it. We are all bound by time and space. Because of that, it's impossible to understand the universe. A pastor once said God is not bound by time or space. So in that sense, physical death is bound by time and space but the spirit is not.

 

[Zero Angel]

Time..... consists of past, present and future, according to how we see it. We are all bound by time and space. Because of that, it's impossible to understand the universe. A pastor once said God is not bound by time or space. So in that sense, physical death is bound by time and space but the spirit is not.

The statement that time is composed of the past present and future generally means nothing -- since this is a fundamental knowing of the human psyche. -- However, I think that thats all it is. Aside from that I believe we create our own understanding of fragments of time. Each event which transpires is marked by an arbitrary frequency which we delineate as time.

Because of this arbitariness, it IS impossible to understand the universe. Not only that, but our perceptions are confined to three dimensions plus one -- I agree there. As each human is unique in many ways there are fundamental forces and knowings which are common to all of mankind. However this does not stop our thinking from getting in the way.

Abstractions such as the word 'spirit' are difficult to transfer to others in this way since we define the individual abstractions differently. Language is such a crude tool for this -- to catch a glimpse of a feeling or knowing or being can only be done through experience or perhaps art. Because art accesses parts of the human psyche which are not segmented and evaluated, but flow freely. Marking out parts of what we might describe as the soul. This is one of the key areas that the sanguine spirit (SP types) have an advantage over an NJ -- we sacrifice the long term to access the immediate. Spirit exists only in this moment and to consciously evaluate it cheapens the experience.

EDIT: Holy shit. I just defined the extraverted-sensing/introverted-intuition axis!

 

[just me]

"The things which are seen are temporal, while the things which are not seen are eternal." Think that is what was being referenced. Temporal, to my best memory, means "of or having to do with time". I liked the little math equation earlier: s=d/t
Does this mean the speed of something equals the distance something went divided by the time it took is actually equal to its speed? Time becomes somewhat of a mathematical system of measurements we have created to understand things in their proper places. Ex: I traveled 100 yards in 12 seconds, so my speed is 100/12 or .12 ? We still have the need to qualify time into different units of measure, the outcome of which must be speed defined according to those units of measurements. The answer S still has T as part of its answer; making T all encompassing. We cannot define speed S without time T, unless we use light L ? Everything could then be in fractions or multiples of the speed of light SL . Could the speed of light SL be then defined without time as a unit of measurement? Two times the speed of light, 2 x SL = 2SL , half the SL, .12 the SL, etcetera. Math.
I'm going to post this before I cannot without a bit of trouble and keep typing....

 

[just me]

Then the SL (some call the letter C but I want to keep things easily understood) as the speed of light has been said to be the fastest speed and we now know that things can travel faster than the speed of light >SL .
If >SL is indeed possible, what does it say in regards to time? I would like to leave time out of it yet.
Speed S still would be using the fractions or multiples of SL as its answer.
It seems we need something to explain things to us. We may not actually need time, but time became a perfect explanation for our need of understanding the state of being. It helps us to define things which are seen.
In the spirit world of things as we understand them, we have no need of further comprehension in comparison to temporal things. We can then understand spiritual things as being eternal Sp=E. When we try to comprehend the things of the spirit, we do not look for fractions or multiples of anything; we look for understanding.
Quick upload...

 

[just me]

The theory that something traveling at .9 SL toward another object traveling
at .9 SL toward the first object is slower than 1.8 SL is wrong to me. Using percentages and assumptions together is what I disagree with. That theory was based on the assumption nothing could travel > SL . Basic math disproves the theory, as does logic....but who am I to question things? It is the nature of just me. "How can we see beyond the speed of light?" Is not two times something 2x ? We can see that better than we can see the speed of light, can we not? Can we even see the speed of light? We use this to relate to all other things, but it is so fast it would almost be better to keep time out of the equation. My question is simple; what can we then say about light? Do we judge all things in relativity by light? Is light, then, the true unit of measure? I love these kind of questions that help to make my brain work.
Phone call...... op2:

 

[Dreamgirl]

Time is a construct we humans use to validate our existence. Our "being" is linear from birth to death.

Therefore it is hard to grasp the concept that time may not exist at all.

Every philosophy or theory uses time as a reference point, a base line. So every theory is immaterial becuase it is based on the concept of time.

 

[just me]

I would like to add it is improbable for us to see the speed of light. We cannot touch the speed of light. We cannot hear it. We cannot smell it. We cannot taste it. Yet, we think we can measure it with our mathematical units of measure regarding time. They say it takes about eight minutes for light to travel in a vacuum from the sun to the earth, I think. If the sun were to explode; would we see it first, feel its energy first, or feel its heat first? Would we feel the effects of the explosion before we could see the explosion, itself? Time out!

 

[Dreamgirl]

Time is a construct we humans use to validate our existence. Our "being" is linear from birth to death.

Therefore it is hard to grasp the concept that time may not exist at all.

Every philosophy or theory uses time as a reference point, a base line. So every theory is immaterial becuase it is based on the concept of time.

 

[Pristinegirl]

Actually theories should be based on hard rock solid axioms!!!!!!

And time is not one of them!

 

[Duty]

Actually theories should be based on hard rock solid axioms!!!!!!

And time is not one of them!

A theory of time is though.

And theories can branch off from other theories.