How are we involved with time?

57 posts

Flag Post

A simple question, is there an answer?

Do we…

move through time..

get pushed through time..

are pulled through time..

or are we part of time?

This question came to me as I was sitting watching my clock on the wall for an hour. I do this weekly to unwind from my life. I asked myself this time, as I watch the clock, am I going along with it, or is time separate from me?

Then my thoughts moved on to distance and time. Does time count down in the same exact way on the other side of our galaxy, and in say a galaxy on the other side of the universe? For example, say that we had a clock on Earth and on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy set to the same time. If you play along and ignore the time dilation rules and we had a wormhole that could show us both clocks in real time in each location would time count down the same?

I suggest to all of you here that you take an hour out of your week to sit down and watch a clock tick down for an hour. It really opens the mind, and organizes your thought.

Some on this forum need it.. more than others. lol.

 
Flag Post

your thinking about it too much

 
Flag Post

technically speaking there is no such thing as time. however as you approach light speed the concept of time starts to slow down effectively putting you farther ahead in time(future).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by darkninja210:

technically speaking there is no such thing as time. however as you approach light speed the concept of time starts to slow down effectively putting you farther ahead in time(future).

There is such thing as time.. that’s why we’re talking about it.

Anyway, There is no way to know, Vanguarde, no matter how many thought experiments you do, there isn’t a way to know for sure.

 
Flag Post

technically speaking there is no such thing as time. however as you approach light speed the concept of time starts to slow down effectively putting you farther ahead in time(future).

What is faster than the speed of light? – A change of mind

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Aneslayer:

technically speaking there is no such thing as time. however as you approach light speed the concept of time starts to slow down effectively putting you farther ahead in time(future).

What is faster than the speed of light? – A change of mind

299,792,459 metres per second.

 
Flag Post

Taken from the thread about nothing. Seriously, about nothing.

They are not the only issues.

Leaving aside the word “time”, we are still talking about the issue of time as if it’s something. If it was nothing, we wouldn’t be able to state anything about it. But since you already said those you mentioned aren’t the only ones, time should be considered as an issue as well.

No one is stopping you. Go ahead.

This is a discussion. If nobody is interested or everyone understands, I don’t think it is very profitable to explain everything again.

Not quite. You need to alter time to prove your claim as in: “Clearly, time passes, something happens, so it can’t be nothing.” and “Time cannot, but I believe all these effects can only take place on a timeline. Without a timeline, nothing is possible to happen.”

I cannot prove it. I can only logically think about it. We aren’t going to shove it aside, because we can’t prove/disprove it. Otherwise, there would be no discussions about religion.

I claim time is a human concept.

And how are you yourself going to support that claim?

Yes we can. Honestly.

Okay, you’re just being there too, I can ignore you as if you’re nothing. Doesn’t mean you can’t have an effect on me. Or are you just implying that “yes, we can!”, because it’s a possible feature our human brains allow us to do? If so, let me restate. We can ignore it as if it’s nothing, but that doesn’t make it nothing.

A pure human concept like no other.

Again, how to prove that time has no effect on us or, basically, how to prove it is indeed nothing?

This is hard….. A standard indication of “when” on earth humans.

I think I get where you are going. Seconds, minutes, hours, they are all “invented” by humans. That’s not entirely true. They are based on how long it takes for the Earth to rotate. Some claim time to be the fourth dimension, and that we are moving in the fourth dimension at a constant rate. The Earth rotates purely in time and, with this theory, it wouldn’t rotate if there was no time.

Your definition of time doesn’t include the timeline. While we both can’t prove our points, I think it’s good to discuss about it nonetheless.

 
Flag Post

Leaving aside the word “time”, we are still talking about the issue of time as if it’s something. If it was nothing, we wouldn’t be able to state anything about it. But since you already said those you mentioned aren’t the only ones, time should be considered as an issue as well.

That “something” is a human concept . We talk about ideas and concepts all the time. Of course its an issue as we are so used to living with so many indication of it. Our discussion is brought from another thread named "What does “nothing” looks like. Time falls under that category of “nothing”.

I’ll elaborate if this is still too hard to understand. – darkruler

No one is stopping you. Go ahead. – aneslayer

This is a discussion. If nobody is interested or everyone understands, I don’t think it is very profitable to explain everything again. – darkruler

Its my other way of saying its redundant. Humoring you to do what you wanna imply.

I cannot prove it. I can only logically think about it. We aren’t going to shove it aside, because we can’t prove/disprove it. Otherwise, there would be no discussions about religion.

Yes no one can because 1) its a pure human concept 2) Current technology cannot remove time.
Whats religion gotta do with it?

And how are you yourself going to support that claim?

Simple. Its a concept found by man, refined by man and used by man.

Okay, you’re just being there too, I can ignore you as if you’re nothing. Doesn’t mean you can’t have an effect on me. Or are you just implying that “yes, we can!”, because it’s a possible feature our human brains allow us to do? If so, let me restate. We can ignore it as if it’s nothing, but that doesn’t make it nothing.

and

Again, how to prove that time has no effect on us or, basically, how to prove it is indeed nothing?

I stated “Just because it happens along with the events happening doesn’t mean it got an effect” as a reply to:

You seem to be implying everything we think, say, feel, see and whatever we conceptually define is true and right, and nothing else can come above that. Again, why should our view of time be right? (Or rather, yours.) Clearly, time passes, something happens, so it can’t be nothing.

I wanna to keep it purely conceptual and you made the above claim. I challenge your arguement with a statement, and you ask me to prove my claim. My only claim: Time is nothing (as in the context of the topic). Time is a pure concept.

I think I get where you are going. Seconds, minutes, hours, they are all “invented” by humans. That’s not entirely true. They are based on how long it takes for the Earth to rotate. Some claim time to be the fourth dimension, and that we are moving in the fourth dimension at a constant rate. The Earth rotates purely in time and, with this theory, it wouldn’t rotate if there was no time.

Its true its true its really true. Any other manmade names still refer to time, used by humans as a indicator of “when”.

Your definition of time doesn’t include the timeline. While we both can’t prove our points, I think it’s good to discuss about it nonetheless.

I did not attempt to define time or its characteristics. My original plea for correction was to confirm the deliberating the “start” of time as whence the big bang is to establish a start point on the time line.
Did not expect it to turn to such….

 
Flag Post

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I see it time is merely the rate of change within a system. The concept of time as we commonly use it is based on an implied “stable” rate of change (originally based on the movement speed of planets and now on atomic resonance frequency).

 
Flag Post

That “something” is a human concept . We talk about ideas and concepts all the time. Of course its an issue as we are so used to living with so many indication of it. Our discussion is brought from another thread named "What does “nothing” looks like. Time falls under that category of “nothing”.

Your argument is that because it “doesn’t look like”, it’s nothing? And isn’t a concept something?

Its my other way of saying its redundant. Humoring you to do what you wanna imply.

You seem to have a lot of issues with redundancy.

Yes no one can because 1) its a pure human concept 2) Current technology cannot remove time.

1. Is a claim.
2. Is true, but we cannot destroy the Sun either. That’s why we either use logic or evidence from other sources to be able to make statements.

Whats religion gotta do with it?

For one, there are things in religion that cannot be proven/disproven. The discussion about religion is not shoven aside either, though.

And two, “religion” is as abstract as time. It’s a concept. Itself doesn’t do anything.

Simple. Its a concept found by man, refined by man and used by man.

Your link talks about circulations. We have given the issue of, for example, Earth taking “time” to circulate around the Sun a name (time). It is a concept, but what it describes still happens. Are you arguing now there is actually no time? Or better said, that we made up the concept of time and that there is no past or future?

I wanna to keep it purely conceptual and you made the above claim. I challenge your arguement with a statement, and you ask me to prove my claim. My only claim: Time is nothing (as in the context of the topic). Time is a pure concept.

So, again, if time is nothing, what time as concept explains doesn’t actually exist, right?

Its true its true its really true. Any other manmade names still refer to time, used by humans as a indicator of “when”.

What you are saying is that we use the concept of time to describe certain happenings, but time isn’t actually anything, so we didn’t describe anything at all?

I did not attempt to define time or its characteristics. My original plea for correction was to confirm the deliberating the “start” of time as whence the big bang is to establish a start point on the time line. Did not expect it to turn to such….

Yes, it started as whether or not there has always been time, or if time started the moment the big bang occurred. However, you are claiming time has never been there in the first place, since it is “nothing”. Nothing has no effect and doesn’t do anything at all. If it does, it is not nothing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Aneslayer:

technically speaking there is no such thing as time. however as you approach light speed the concept of time starts to slow down effectively putting you farther ahead in time(future).

What is faster than the speed of light? – A change of mind

I’d like you to explain how exactly a change of mind literally moves. Where does it move from? Some part of the brain? Where does it go? How many miles can it travel in a year?

 
Flag Post

I’d like you to explain how exactly a change of mind literally moves. Where does it move from? Some part of the brain? Where does it go? How many miles can it travel in a year?

Time and speed, and a change of decision/ perception is a concept of inside mind. (Max distance travelled: left to right ear. Min distance: as minimial as the mind can conjure. Destination: anywhere real or fancy. Miles covered: Dependent on individual mind)
Contestants: Light and my thoughts. Start point: Where I am. End point: Somewhere the light from where I am can never reach.
You be the judge. Which will reach there 1st?

 
Flag Post

So, on to answer the topic’s question. We move at a constant rate through time. Nobody or nothing’s pushing or pulling us, but perhaps you can say we are “part of time”. I’m not sure how to describe that, though.

EDIT: Funny that I mentioned nothing. According to the philosphy of time being nothing, I would be hilariously implying that time is pushing or pulling us through itself.

 
Flag Post

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I see it time is merely the rate of change within a system. The concept of time as we commonly use it is based on an implied “stable” rate of change (originally based on the movement speed of planets and now on atomic resonance frequency).

I suppose its everyone game as nobody can be absolutely right on this, except the methods of “measuring” time. Wished Jabor or mxmm would participate.
“rate of change” does imply time is somewhat involved in the change. The “merely” is well put though.
For me its a concept to indicate how long is “past” and “future” from reference “now”.

Your argument is that because it “doesn’t look like”, it’s nothing?

No. In that thread, I mean time is undetectable, thus its nothing.

And isn’t a concept something?

In your context, anything is something.

You seem to have a lot of issues with redundancy.

2 is alot? Or one time too many?

1. Is a claim.

Now you are paraphrasing…..

2. Is true, but we cannot destroy the Sun either.

We can remove the effects of the Sun. Non Destructive Test, duh

That’s why we either use logic or evidence from other sources to be able to make statements.

You can make a claim using logic:

I cannot prove it. I can only logically think about it. We aren’t going to shove it aside, because we can’t prove/disprove it

So can I.

For one, there are things in religion that cannot be proven/disproven. The discussion about religion is not shoven aside either, though.

True. Truly not relevant

And two, “religion” is as abstract as time. It’s a concept. Itself doesn’t do anything.

The comparison is your own subjective view. I don’t have anything to do with it.

Your link talks about circulations. We have given the issue of, for example, Earth taking “time” to circulate around the Sun a name (time). It is a concept, but what it describes still happens.

Either you are missing the point or just diverting? Just skip all and read the table at the end of the page

Are you arguing now there is actually no time?

On contraire…..

Or better said, that we made up the concept of time ……

Yes.

……and that there is no past or future?

No. See my reply to saint.

So, again, if time is nothing, what time as concept explains doesn’t actually exist, right?

No. In this context, time is a concept. It just means it does not effect the events happening.

What you are saying is that we use the concept of time to describe certain happenings, but time isn’t actually anything, so we didn’t describe anything at all?

Something like that. See my reply to saint.

Yes, it started as whether or not there has always been time, or if time started the moment the big bang occurred. However, you are claiming time has never been there in the first place, since it is “nothing”. Nothing has no effect and doesn’t do anything at all. If it does, it is not nothing.

Back in that thread, time is undetectable thus “nothing”. Recall:

It can be accepted that time has always existed, the same can’t be said of the big bang as it happened somewhere along the time line. So time happens before big bang. From the big bang, space, energy and matter is produced. And its reasonable to delibrate time as at the big bang since its existence before it is irrelevant.
Please, please correct me if I’m wrong, Jabor or anyone

I hope my English have improved….

Nothing has no effect and doesn’t do anything at all. If it does, it is not nothing.

Agree.

 
Flag Post

To put this whole discussion in short, two questions;

1. Is a concept nothing? Is a model nothing?
2. Are you suggesting the “time” we’re all talking about doesn’t exist, but there’s actually “another time” that does?

 
Flag Post

Time is another dimension, very similar to the three spatial ones we’re familiar with. We move through this dimension like we move through space – it’s just a bit less flexible (can only go “forwards” instead of around in circles and so forth). The connection between space and time is made explicit by the phenomenon of dimensional stretching – where a moving body appears shorter in the direction it is travelling, and proportionally experiences time at a slower rate (relative to the observer). The object is quite literally rotating a spatial dimension into the temporal one.

 
Flag Post

Leaving aside the word “time”, we are still talking about the issue of time as if it’s something. If it was nothing, we wouldn’t be able to state anything about it. But since you already said those you mentioned aren’t the only ones, time should be considered as an issue as well.

If you have nothing between two objects, they are touching. Can I then say, paradoxically of course, that nothing does not actually exist?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kasha4890:

Leaving aside the word “time”, we are still talking about the issue of time as if it’s something. If it was nothing, we wouldn’t be able to state anything about it. But since you already said those you mentioned aren’t the only ones, time should be considered as an issue as well.

If you have nothing between two objects, they are touching. Can I then say, paradoxically of course, that nothing does not actually exist?

Yes you can, because it doesn’t.

 
Flag Post

If you have nothing between two objects, they are touching.

Not true as touching would require contact, something that cannot be done with nothing.

 
Flag Post

If you have nothing between two objects, they are touching. Can I then say, paradoxically of course, that nothing does not actually exist?

That’s not a paradox, because, as Sith has stated, nothing does not exist. Quite simply said.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “having nothing between two objects”. I’d rather say that there isn’t anything in between them for them to be touching. Nothing does not exist, so you cannot say it is in between two somethings.

 
Flag Post

there is no such thing as time, there is no such thing as the present either, only the immediate future or recent past.

 
Flag Post

1. Is a concept nothing? Is a model nothing?

Your context , no.
What model are we talking about that benefit this discussion?

2. Are you suggesting the “time” we’re all talking about doesn’t exist, but there’s actually “another time” that does?
???? Pardon my lack of understanding of your English.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “having nothing between two objects”. I’d rather say that there isn’t anything in between them for them to be touching. Nothing does not exist, so you cannot say it is in between two somethings.

Assuming two objects (touching each other or not) have nothing between them. 5 years have passed and they remained unchanged. They still have nothing between them.

 
Flag Post

there is no such thing as time, there is no such thing as the present either, only the immediate future or recent past.

You know, that doesn’t make much sense. Either there is a future and a past, or there isn’t.

Your context , no.

I think this link only improves my stance.

What model are we talking about that benefit this discussion?

I’m comparing, trying to form your own definition of “nothing”. If you say a concept is nothing, surely a model would be nothing to you too?

???? Pardon my lack of understanding of your English.

How do you call it that we’re at an ever-constant rate from the present to the future, and that we’ve been going at an ever-constant rate from the past to the present?

Your definition of time is very limited (the one you gave me before). You’re reducing it to a concept on basically nothing, but then leave out all that can be called “time” too.

Assuming two objects (touching each other or not) have nothing between them. 5 years have passed and they remained unchanged. They still have nothing between them.

I call redundancy this time. Don’t see what this explains.

 
Flag Post

You know, that doesn’t make much sense. Either there is a future and a past, or there isn’t.

In pmr’s anarchist context, it does

I think this link only improves my stance.

It encompass everything. What is not a thing then? No I don’t think it would improve your posture or attitude . And definitely not helping your position in accordance to the previous thread’s context.

I’m comparing, trying to form your own definition of “nothing”. If you say a concept is nothing, surely a model would be nothing to you too?

concept =/= model. It helps if you elaborate. I ask again: What model are we talking about?

How do you call it that we’re at an ever-constant rate from the present to the future, and that we’ve been going at an ever-constant rate from the past to the present?

Its “deemed” constant. As Saint described it: “implied” stable rate of change. No “ever”….

Your definition of time is very limited (the one you gave me before).

That’s why I said: I did not attempt to define time…..

You’re reducing it to a concept on basically nothing, but then leave out all that can be called “time” too.

I just wanna point out that time does not effect change. Its only an indicator of how “long”

Assuming two objects (touching each other or not) have nothing between them. 5 years have passed and they remained unchanged. They still have nothing between them.

I call redundancy this time. Don’t see what this explains. – Dark

It can be read in 2 ways
1) With a time line, the “nothing” is something because it exists
2) Without a start time, who knows how many years it has been before 5 years have passed

 
Flag Post

In pmr’s anarchist context, it does

Anything anyone says makes sense to himself. If not, you wouldn’t be saying it.

It encompass everything. What is not a thing then?

You hit it spot on. A thing can be everything. What falls out is nothing. What is not a thing? Nothing. Do you understand the concept of nothing?

And definitely not helping your position in accordance to the previous thread’s context.

Why not? It supports my statements, not yours.

concept =/= model. It helps if you elaborate. I ask again: What model are we talking about?

I thought elaboration was redundancy to you?

I wasn’t talking about a specific model. Again, I’m comparing. A concept is an idea (or so to say). A model only describes reality, and can therefore be described as an idea. It would be a thing from my point of view, but seeing as you describe a concept as being nothing, a model would be too?

Its “deemed” constant. As Saint described it: “implied” stable rate of change. No “ever”….

You’re assuming it can change? How will that not have any effect to allow it to be called nothing from your point of view?

That’s why I said: I did not attempt to define time…..

It would be handy if we had a standard definition of time, but since we apparently don’t, it would be good to hear each’s view on it.

I just wanna point out that time does not effect change. Its only an indicator of how “long”

I’m understanding your view on “nothing” right now, but it does collide with mine.

Yet again, I still think you are already attempting to define time here.

It can be read in 2 ways
1) With a time line, the “nothing” is something because it exists
2) Without a start time, who knows how many years it has been before 5 years have passed

1. Nothing can’t be something. It either exists or it doesn’t. I don’t know why you bring in the timeline.
2. I’m not sure what this point is meant to illustrate.