I believe that the concept of time, and time itself do not exist outside of the human mind. Any questions?118 responses total.
Well, a concept is by definition something that requires a mind to house it, so the first part of your assertion is a special case of the self- evident proposition that *no* concept exists outside of mind (although the restriction to *human* mind is probably too narrow). As to time itself not existing outside of mind -- I guess I'd ask you to expand on your reasons for this belief.
Observe all other animate and inanimate objects in the world (this may be extrapolated to the universe, but the universe is so vast I'll keep my discussion bounded to the earth and it's atmosphere) Nothing else living seems to "know" the past or the future. They only "know" NOW, that is, whatever is happening presently. You may say that a bat knows that it's night, and will fly - but the bat doesn't know HOW LONG it's been night. A lion may be battling a zebra, but it doesn't know it was battling that zebra a moment ago, or that it will be in the next moment. Similarly, you may be able to track a mountain's movement over time - but the mountain will always move, with or without time.
What about squirrels burying nuts and acorns to dig up later?
My wife brought up that point earlier today. I truly don't believe that squirrels have any sence of the future, they simply bury food because it's in their genetic program. You may be aware that squirrels and similar rodents don't even remember where their food is buried. They probably don't remember that they buried it at all, they simply dig around for food in their own territory when none can be found above ground or snow, etc.
And a genetic program of forecasting precludes the fact of time outside the human mind necessity.
How do you know that lions and squirrels aren't aware of time? I'm not going to believe it just because some human says so. And I've observed plenty of behavior that implies an awareness of the passage of time in various animals. A bluejay won't eat a Monarch butterfly after it's sampled the first one, which implies knowledge of past experiences. In any case, the fact that a bluejay can fly from point A to point B without the assistance or presence of any human indicates that bluejays exist in time, whether they're aware of it or not. Secondly, couldn't it be that time exists but humans are the only ones capable of perceiving it? Thirdly, could it be that time exists but that the language we use to describe its passage (there I go - what "passage"?) is flawed?
eh...could be! I believe however that a change in any scalar (other than time) is independent of time, and therfore will occur without time. It is my opinion that memory is not dependent on a concept of "the past" "forcasting" is not a genetic program, "bury nuts" is. I don't want anyone to believe in this, "just because I told you." You'll have to determine my theory's credibility for yourself.
Considering how my cats behave, I seriously doubt your assertion that animals don't know a past or a future. My younger cat evidently plans for the short term future--waiting in the dining room for me to leave, then leaping upon the leftovers with wild abandon! My elder cat definitley knows a past--she has a periodic toileting problem. If I go near a place she has fouled, she makes track for parts unknown so quickly that I *know* to start hunting!
young cat: "I know food is present -NOW-, I will watch" -master finishes eating- young cat: "Food is attainable -NOW-, I will eat" old cat: "My master will fight for my territory -NOW-, I will run" This assumes that cats have a sense of "I" simply for the sake of argument.
gunge is right. You could program a computer to do what a cat does. Doesn't prove a thing about time, though, one way or the other.
Apparently, Bryan, nothing anyone says is going to sway you, but I'll give it one more try. Longer days is one of the clues animals use to begin migration and mating and stuff like that. Being able to measure the length of daylight to me says that they have some conception of time. Maybe not a human one, but a real one, nonetheless.
there isn't really a question of whether there _is_ time, it's just a question of what it is. in the most popular scientific conception right now (based on basic principles of relativity), time is a fourth dimension. in the basic example of the person on the train with a beam of light and two mirrors, we can establish that time can be distorted in three di- mensions, i.e.-- a person is sitting on a train which is still reflecting a beam of light between two mirrors at a fixed distance. the beam of light gets from surface a to surface b of the mirrors in time x. the speed of light and the distance are both constants. now, suppose the train begins to move... the beam of light still takes the same amount of time to get from surface a to surface b...problem is that the distance is now greater because the beam is travelling at a diagonal to the horizontal plane of the train instead of a perpendicular. since the speed of light is constant and the result time is the same, the fact that the beam is covering a greater distance can only be explained in the hypothesis that time was actually distorted in the relative field of travel for the beam of light--that is, time slowed down. did i get that correct? i'm only an english student, after all. anyway, hypothesize with me now a two-dimensional plane where there are existent creatures. these creatures observe the passage of a looped, solid object as it rotates on its center constantly through their plane--but what they see is a series of infinitely thin slices, because, strictly speaking, the three dimensional solid object does not exist _on_ their plane, just _through_ it. they have no possible way of visualizing its true nature, let alone conceiving of it. but they do notice something. the ringed object is not uniform in its size...sometimes it seems bigger, sometimes smaller. it is also multihued. they begin to measure their actions against the progress of this loop, calling it "time." because, again, strictly speaking, it doesn't exist on their plane, they don't really know what it is--but it has a tangible effect on that plane, and once they've noticed it, there's always a lingering feeling of its actions. and that feeling can only be tangible in a lingering sense, just outside their intelligence because it doesn't exist in a way that they, with two-dimensional senses and sensibilities, can comprehend. somewhere on the fourth dimension, somebody right now is arguing hypothet- ically that there is a third dimension where we erroneously perceive some unknown quantity as "time." and that being is also relating how a fictitious little three-dimensional being with woefully inadequate sense perceptions entered a very lengthy item explaining his silly theory about this quantity in a forum held with other threebies. apologies for having made an example of myself.
Try to imagine having no memory of the past, and no thought of the future. I'll share a thought on the subject of time by the french writer Simone De Beauvoir: And indeed it is old age, rather than death, that is to be contratsed with life. Old age is lifes' parody, wereas death transforms life into a destiny. In a way, death preserves life by giving it the absolute dimension- "As unto himself eternity changes him at last." Death does away with time.
Linguistic research with gorillas shows them to have a sense of
time. 'Course, you _could_ argue that having a sense of time just
makes them human.
BTW, you really need to define 'sense of time' more clearly. If
something has genetic programming to detect and take advantage of the
passage of time or certain cyclic events, it could be said to have
a sense of time under certain definitions. You used the word
'know' (about the past): what does it mean to 'know' something?
Does genetic programming count as knowing? Why not? How do we
(as observers) distinguish between 'genuine' (human) kinds of
knowing and other kinds ('genetic programming'), other than
by proclaiming our species bias?. If it can be shown that
animals learn some sense of time from others of their species, does
that count?
How can a beast have no sense of time when it can learn? Isnt learning an extension of what you remember from the past? The stove is hot, it hurts to touch it because I have touched it in t the past and it hurt me then, so it will hurt me now. THat is an application of time. Animals know this. Take a dog for instance, dog chews up shoes, master hits dog with newspaper. Dog comes upon a shoe the next day, does not chew on the shoe because it remembers what happend the last time (in the past) it chewed on one. This is all a semblence of time. Animals see time just as we do. I know for a fact that animals have a sense of future, they have to in order to do anything at all. They know that if they approach the door and whine, that they will be let out to do what they need to do, this is an obvious sense of future and what it holds. Can you not see this?
Time exists, all right. Entropy detemines its arrow.
time flies like an arrow-- Fruit flies like a banana!
seen at the Hatcher Library
Banana fries are good to eat.
Some scientists argue that animals have no sense of time, in that they cannot anticipate and plan for future events. This is a different thing than the association of certain actions with pain or reward. I'm not arguing their side, which I do not agree with, but presenting it as a commonly held viewpoint, which it is.
Consider another planet. If you lived at the core of a planet made mostly of dense gases, and you had no indication of the planet's orbit or rotation, would you exist in time? What if you never witnessed a regular event? What if you were a photon?
?1, yes ?2, undefined variable, unanswerable as such ?3, so what?
My...how thought provoking. Use a little imagination TS! A few explanatory statements wouldn't hurt either.
My terse switch was on. And right now my verbose mode is taking a nap. How would you answer #20's questions?
To expand (some): Yes, because you've already tied my existence to the planet, assumed to exist in time. #2: Yes, you could still exist in time. Witnessing events (conscious perception) only matters to the existentialist. It seems to me the question was posed assuming there is such a thing as "existing in time." This gets right down to a matter of axiom, so you could easily decide to disagree wiht me. #3: Yes, see above.
I do not exist in the "past" or the "future", I exist.
this item linked as agora 31, our "link of the month." please check out reality for more discussions of the temporal, transcendental, and totally tubular (well, okay, skip that last...)
We could easily test #0. I could drop a bowling ball from a building, aiming at the head of 0's author. Since he would be unaware of this, & thus not include his perception of time at the gravitational pull excerted upon the bowling ball as it plummets towards his cabbage, the bowling ball would theoretically never hit him. Or, perhaps *my* perception (since I would be including him in my perception of the space-time continuum) would show the bowling ball converging with his head & then him writhing in agony (or just omentum of the bowling ball are). uation never took place. Very intersting, but I don't have a bowling ball!
I refrain.
re #27: My statements all support movement through space irrespective of time. Your bowling ball would indeed hit its mark (if aimed properly). As for agony - it does not exist for the dead. Since a well placed ball would definitely kill me instantly (considering a starting point atop a multilevel structure), I would not fall prey to this or any other emotion. I don't understand your hostility Hoolie. I haven't made any offensive remarks during my commentary. If you choose to disagree with my concepts, I respect your decision. I be more inclined to respond favorably to your thoughts on the issue if they were presented in a peaceful manner. your friend, -Gunge
After reading all these wonderful and thought provoking replies, I have
to admit that I too believe that time, that's "time" is man made. "Time"
didnt exist until man made devices to monitor his new idea. Therefor, it
is true I believe, that "time", in and of itself, does not exist.
HOWEVER...
It is also true that learning by both man and animal is an extension of
what has been taught in the past, and the past is a measure of time.
To say one doesn't exist in the past is conceptually wrong, in that if
one existed yesterday, then I indeed existed in the past. With any luck
I will be here tomorrow, therefor I will exist in the future. Past,
present, future....today, tomorrow, yesterday. All are relative to our
existing right at this very moment. For those who can fully grasp and
understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity (I cannot...), it is known
that time is relative...but to what is where I get lost...last I knew. :)
(I say "it is known" not to imply it to be a fact, just that it is
understood within the theory).
I find this topic interesting, because I have often pondered it, as well
as the Theory of Relativity, and I have tried to get others to understand
the concept of it all - not necessarily to believe in it, but just to
understand it.
As always, please excuse any grammatical errors and typos. I am a
graduate of Huron High, and thats the only excuse I have to offer. :)
Gunge, I wasn't attempting to be mean. I didn't pay attention to who authored item 0, as it was irrelevent.
Apologies are unnecessary Hoolie - I'm not seriously offended. Getting back to the relativity of time and one of my earlier questions: What if you were a photon (a "particle" of light), would time exist? My feeling is that your universe would be one dimentional and that time would not exist.
Insufficient data ... ;)
i don't know if i can even think about one dimension...i mean, one dimen- sion being (in theory) an infinitely small point, how could there be movement, let alone time? but how about in two dimensions? could there be time in two dimensions, or is there some other illusion associated with the infringement of three dimensions upon those two?
I thought one dimension was a line. Are we talking a different metric?
Maybe this was covered earlier, but could someone give a quick definition of "time"?
If I remember correctly, we humans have various conceptions of time. The Hopi, for instance, are said to have a quite different one than the usual Western conception with which we are familiar. Also, the Western conception of time has changed over the centuries. S.J. Gould's _Times' Arrow, Time's Cycle_ tells part of that story (along with that of the birth of geology).
Any more details on The Hopi's?
An adequate response in this conference: Purple Trees. (I hate philisophical discussions)
purple trees use grexisynthesis to process nutrients. there is nothing photo about them. Did you read all thirty-eight of our philisophical comments before adding your piece? Are you a glutton for punishment? More on the relativity of time: no two of us has the same perception of a given unit of time. Try this at home: after hiding all the time indicators, pick a starting point with your friends and everyone yell "NOW" after a minute passed since the start. Will any two yell together. How much difference will be between each guess? This assumes that everyone is making an honest attempt to precisely determine a minute and that no one is being influenced by the others to rush or delay their approximation.
Re:32 I didn't apologize...
Actually, I did annoy a friend of mine like that once. We were at Cedar Point, and I had forgotten to bring my watch, so I kept asking her what time it was. Finally, she started saying, "Guess what time it is." So I did. I was never more than two minutes off. Annoyed her to no end..
IIn order for there to be a concept such as "time," there has to be an ability to distinguish "change." That implies a capacity for recognizing difference(s). In order to recognize differences however, there needs to be a mechanism whereby comparison is activated. To preclude a sudden collison of all events, a separati must exist. That separation is time. Therefore, if I lived at the core of a planet made mostly of dense gases without an indication of orbit or rotation I would exist time *provided* (presumed because the example in #20 used a human) my sensory input devices functioned well enough to detect separate events (gasses passing differently over my left arm than my right, then swirling from the back, then bottom). Therefore time exists no matter whether I identify it as such or not. The regular event problem is a bit more severe. I presume that to mean a repeated event. To preceive a regular event demands the ability to compare and also retain information. The simple idea of a regular event in and of itself commands that there be some sort of "before" and "after" coupled with compare and retain. Our improvements in weather predicting/forcasting place us inside this gasous example, btw. As far as the photon goes, time is an irrelevancy until we can prove a history. There is some sort of experiment (maybe a variant of the double-slit) in which it was shown that a photon is aware of it's opposite with regard to spin - no matter what the difference in distance. In order for the speed of light to remain constant, simultaneous with an awareness of the opposite spin over distance, after separation, there must be a mechanism bywhich the photon "compares" something to something else. Comparison is the ability which follows from having a separation of events as well as means of detection. Perhaps gunge wants to put forth the idea that from this tiny root, and the mega-zillion collection of photons (exchanged from waves to particles and back) which collected into a sentient being, that since the photon has the most primitive concept of time, that we must have the ability to recognize time. I shouldn't have tossed of with "so what" this idea - if that is the idea being promoted. However with my terse switch on and my verbose mode taking a nap, "so what" fit.
This response has been erased.
<<big dish, or small Clem?>>
so what about time as a physical dimension of which we have only incomplete sense and understanding. that's a pretty standard theory.
as well, why do we suppose animals are perceiving time rather than associ- ating stimuli?
Read _Flat Lands_ I forget the author.
re: #12: Just read the note, sorry it wasn't sooner. For your information,
there is a fictional account of a 2-dimensional world. It is fanciful, not
meant to be taken seriously, and was written by a mathematician to explain
problems of perception to youngsters(?), I really forget the story. I have
a copy if you'd like to read it, its 102 small pgs. with big print. The
book is:
Flatland
Edwin A. Abbot
Dover Edition
SBN 486-200001-9
Library of Congress: 54-1523
I don't know if its still in print.
Your example (in #12) is not correct. Observable relativistic phenomena are
seen by people in different intertial frames. In your gedanken experiment,
all activity was performed within the same intertial frame, i.e., everything
was on the same train - you've got to get one mirror off of the train for
there to be any externally observable 'happening'. As a footnote, time is
here discussed as a metaphysical issue. The non-existence of 'time' would,
I think, translate into an extremely egocentric viewpoint (I think, therefore
you exist), have some interesting cosmological statements (if there were no
being to observe time, would it exist - take, e.g., the 'time' when the
universe was being created during the big bang - what preceded this time?),
or be downright confusing. There was another notion of time back in the
sixties. When some sub-nuclear particles were plotted against time, it
appeared that they went backwards through time. An interesting thought.
there also is a mention of "flatland" in Cosmos by Carl Sagan. He used it to illustrate the fourth dimension.
re #49: i'm not certain that's correct. when the train isn't moving, the distance is defined as the perpendicular to the ground between the parallel mirrors. when the train is moving, the path the light travels is a _diagonal_ between position a of the bottom mirror and position b of the top, then back down.
(i'll have to run and look that up if i'm missing something...this certainly isn't my field, and i culled my example elsewhere a long time ago and pre- sented it here as i remembered it. sorry if there are any embarrassing gaffes...)
re: #51 & #51: See, e.g., the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Lorentz-
Fitzgerald Attraction. In the Michelson-Morley experiment an attempt was
made to measure the speed of light at different parts of the Earths orbit.
At issue was the conjecture that there existed an Aether in space (which
acted as a medium of transfer). The experiment was conducted when light
would have traveled to the Earth at perpendicular points to the measuring
apparatus. Surprise, no difference in speed. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald
Attraction explained this by hypothesizing that the measuring instrument
was contracted in the direction of motion (acceleration(?)) in such a way
as to hold the measurement of the speed of light constant. Einstein
explained the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Attraction.
Texts on elementary classical physics or elementary modern physics should
have a description of the experiments, conjectures, and hypothoses. If
you would like to purchase a dense collection of articles and can ignore
the math (or more appriately, if at strange moments suffer from insomniac
delusions) the following (of course) Dover book contains all the above and
more:
The Principles of Relativity
(Einstein and Others)
Dover S81
At issue is that in an inertial frame the speed of light (and other
phenomena) are constant. In the case of light, measurement in the direction
of ACCELERATION causes a contraction of length whose result is to produce
a constant measurement of the speed of light. It is important to qualify
the discussion by including acceleration, an essential component in
the definition of an 'inertial frame'.
With respect to your example, since all measurement and devices are
contained within the same reference, the relativistic measurements, only
with respect to the example, are not observable from within the train.
Furthur, an observer outside the train will be provided with a uniform
view of objects within the train because, although in another frame of
reference, the observation is of objects wholly contained within an
inertial frame.
Of course, could be wrong. Won't be the first me this week, or today.
It's been a long time since I understood this stuf
FYI: Since physics is the science of expments, then within
experimental measurements it is possible to provide theories which are
competitors to Einstein's Relativity. So (ooo), it is still possible to
make both (your) experiment and its conclusions moot, viz., we may all
be wrong - and if we weren't, where would Science Fiction be?
I think it is correct. The traveler does not notice any difference in dimen- sions nor time, but the standing observer does (at least time).
i agree that the frame of reference outside the train is different than that onboard the train.
Whoops. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Attraction is really a Contraction.
Tho' the difference is moot,
I'd be a galoot
If I didn't mention it!
Apparently, Lorentz never attracted Fitzgerald, and its opposite is also
accurate.
Oh, bye the bye, the use of 'dimensions' in discussions of time and relativity
is a physical event. The use of 'dimension' refers to the number of dependant
variables necessary to describe some event. In the case of a (simple) causal
univers, we can identify 4 - space and time. In actuality that number varies
with the event being described. To describe a space ships motion actually takes
6 independant variables (a 6 dimensional space). Some theories attempting to
unify all forces have as many as 20 dimensions (string theory). So in one sense
the issue of dimension is simpler than before to describe, in another, more
complex. You get to choose.
Lest you become beguiled by the beauty of the above we still have some conun-
drums to solve. Whereas before we thought of relativity as a solution to
otherwise ponderous and unanswered questions, now it becomes a springboard into
uncharted domains. In seeking a better truth it is not necessary to think of
our current state of knowledge as definitive or correct. It is merely a guess
as to the inner workings of those great mysteries all about us. This guess is
no better than previous ones, and as subject as they were to modification, and
modification in ways unthought of at the present. Suppose, just for supposing,
that time is symmetrical, working its wonders forwards as well as backwards.
And given this supposition, suppose that it is possible to intercept a time-
event, that is, to see accurately the past and perhaps the future. What would
happen? And, of course for the skeptical, why not?
If we continue, suppose that within our ability to measure experiments, time
(cross out time) light is invariant in speed. But if we refine our experiments,
light becomes variant, and perhaps even varies by location. What then?
Are these guesses or merely casual utterances of the mystically inclined? I
thi(think) them valid. Our understanding of our universe is imperfect. Each
generation changes this understanding. Whereas before flight was impossible,
now its merely overpriced.
But then again, I'm new at these conferences and things. I could be wrong.
String theory is 10 dimentional, not 20. (Six closely bound, four loosely.)
Also, you can always add dimensions to express the internal states of objects. I think there is a way of formulating all that into entropie, I never figured out what exactly entropie was. It seemed that it was a sum of every characteristic of a closed system expressed as the amount of internal energy. If you stretch that understanding a little, you might include more abstract dimensions such as the things you have in your memory, your thoughts, etc...
This response has been erased.
The dimunitin of available energy within any system; entropy always increases (the available energy always decreases); it's sometimes properly referred to as the amount of disorder withina system; and in thermo it's the amount of energy that is UNavailabld for doing work; c.f. the book _What Entropy Means To Me_, 1972, Geo. Alec Effinger, Signet 451-Q5504 (which I *just* finished reading two nights ago and have in front of me, as you might guess).
I've always thought of Entropy as "nature abhors order". Loosely, ordered things tend to disorder. Sort of like saying that orderly rooms (or lives) are crimes against nature. So, in your next debate as to "...why can't you keep your...in order...", you can blithely say that its against nature, or if more strongly minded, against Gods law.
I have seen life defined as a local reversal of entropy.
That was one of M. Scott Peck's things in _A Road Less Traveled_; life pushes against entropy.
How elegant that "life is a local reversal of entropy". With luck and a pill foraging I think I'll remember it.
I once heard Jacquilien(sp?) Lichtenburg doing a talk at an SF convention about life being an anti-entropic force. She related how she got into many long arguments with Isaac Asimov on this subject, and how he "just didn't understand" Complete Bullshit. If you understand anything about Physics and Thermodynamics you will find there is nothing anti-entropic about life. Life happens to be a big chemical stew being constantly stired by an enormous energy input source, namely the SUN. Removed the sun and you'll see how fast this system spins down.
Note that I (or whoever I quoted) said that life is a "local reversal of entropy", NOT that it is a *force* for this. The phenomenon certainly requires an external energy source.
<<and on occasion, Considerable Energy, too>> In broad strokes, it appears that energy is the active component of reality and is constantly dissipating into matter or motion, while matter is the passive component, storing expended energy which is re-releasable upon fusion or fission (something isn't correct in my usage of "expended energy," maybe I meant "converted?") I can certainly appreciate shf's comment about "life pushes against entropy," think I'll try to find the book. And part of that particular ideea is incorporated into _What Entropy Means To Me_ (ref prev). "What ..." is an undisguised allegory, btw, and 20 years after its first publication, quite relevant - perhaps more so now than then ...
What Entropy Means to Me, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and love the Sun.
((actually The River ... but who's to quibble ...))
I've always thought about the universe as a chaotic system. As disorder increases, it creates patches of extremely high order. ever magnify parts of a bifurcation diagram? Incredible amounts of disorder after the function gets past a certain point. It describes the action of a chaotic system. At certain points in the plot of the function, the chaos clears out and forms a uniquely stable yet short lived patch of order. Life, I think is a patch of order in chaos.
<<or a "blotch," givent the "state of our order ...">>
(I seem to remember time as being a man-made construction to keep everything from happening at once.) (I'd rather restate gunge's axiom as "time does not exist outside of sentience, as nothing else has a use for it.")
time is a function of the human mind's need to quantify everything. it is a matter of peception, no more. alternatively, it an actual physical dimension, whether the fourth or whatever, and is independant of humans. either way, seconds and whatnot ate human creations.
(one of my fortunes today said that time was Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once. I think someone is passing the buck.) (dang, you suggested that time might be a physical dimension. If I were to agree, and then suggest that any physical dimension could fit the description of time you just gave, would I be incorrect?)
no, you would be correct. all physical dimensions are interchangable, and are arbitrarily named (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.)the only difference with time, and one argument for why is isn't a dimension, is that we can apparently only travel in one direction along it. this could be because it isn't a dimension, or because we don't know how. i favor the last.
(ok. so, by your argument, all dimensions are a matter of perception and nothing more, and that the measurements of such are human creations. why aren't dimensions simple human creations, then?)
because they aren't. they are a part of the actual physical, independant reality that you keep refusing to admit exists. :p
("why isn't there a true reality? because there isn't.")
(great logic, dang. bravo. bravo.)
you, my boy, are hopeless. of i could *PROVE* it, then you wouldn't be arguing with me.
The problem is, Dang, one can prove that there is a true reality; it's just not possible to describe it's nature, therefore, it's existence is functionally irrelevant./
(How does one go about porving it? I believe it, I just can't prove it.)
Descartes proved that an objective reality must exist outside of our perception so that our perception would have something to be grounded in. However, it is impossible to determine how well that objective reality matches our perceptions of it (if at all).
(I'm wondering how Descartes, of all people, "proved" that an objective reality exists.)
Okay, so maybe he didn't prove it. Actually, demons are tricking me into believing that an objective reality exists. Demons are also tricking me into believing Descartes existed.
(you didn't prove that either. do you mean that I should just take your word for it?) ;)
so what we see is real, but we maybe be seeing it as somthing else, other than it is, but what we see it as is readily agreed upon by others as being what we think it is, right?
Or so we think.
(I'll hold comment unti the English translation.)
but carson that was english...... but you may see it totally different and I could never prove it was english......
re 86: MOST people readily agree, but for those who don't, there is probably no way you can prove to them that they ought to agree, unless they believe something due to a logical proof based on the same basic things you believe. (and anyhow, what about the very "real" possibility that these "people" aren't agreeing with you because they are figments of your imagination and are controlled by some part of you anyhow...?)
I believe! I believe! Hallelujah, brothers and sisters, I believe! <brighn slaps himself silly and apologizes for his little outburst>
well maybe even the ones that do agree with you aren't really people but are something different, and you just think that they are agreeing with you.... why do I feel so alone all of the sudden, well I guess you can't answer that seeing as how you only exist the way I think you do... hmmm I think therefor you are?????
re #86: if what you meant to say is that we all agree that there is a
reality that we each see differently, I'll respond with a
resounding "NO", because I haven't agreed to any fallacy of the
sort.
Of course, seeing as it isn't a fallacy, you couldn't agree to any fallacy of the sort. :) Actually, what I think he said was that we (with the exception of carson, of course) were saying that there is an objective reality, but that we have no way of knowing if it is actually like we percieve it, but that most of us agree in the way we percieve it. Am I right, canis?
Gerund's Law- Reality can NOT be proved to be any one thing. Reality is a perception folks. And DIFFERENT people perceive it DIFFERENTLY. Any other arguments MUST be semantic because they MUST define reality as a term representing something outside of perceptions. And, as I said... I don't do semantics.
Yes, but you said it in Synth, which maybe not everyone is a member of. :-) Aren;t you defining reality? Why is your defining of reality (the act, not the definition) any different in character than anyone else's?
"."
I'm defining it... yeah. But not via semantics. I know I know... I'm treading on being meaningless now. If semantics get involved we start saying that reality is all these different things... but only ONE of them can be reality. My point is that a word should have one meaning. If reality can be many different things to many different people we should define reality as a perception, which is one SINGLE idea. THEN we can add the adjectives... say MY reality or YOUR reality.... The way the semantic definitions work your saying just the word Reality when you could mean several different things. All I'm trying to do here is basically the same thing as in synth. Get people to define their terms VERY specifically. THEN maybe we can all agree on their definitions if we are lucky. :)
Oh, I see why I'm confused. You're using a different definition of "semantics" than I am (and I'm using the standard one).
can't everyone just agree with me? ;)
re #99- actually... yeah. I was so much into arguing the point that I missed my own argument. How dumb of me. <blush>
re 100: because we only agree with the truth, and you don't have it. I don't either, but I'm still looking.
Nothing exists independantly of the human mind. If a tree fall in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it...
Uhh ohhh....
LENGTH - 1st dimension
length, WIDTH - 2nd dimension
length, width, HEIGHT - 3rd dimension
length, width, height, **TIME** - 4th dimension
Cheese is the 5th dimension.
Jenny McCarthy is the 6th dimension.
of course...that explains everything.
...sorry, just got distracted.
I see...
Wasn't the 5th Dimension a singing group in the 60s?
I have recently read of many declassified documents regarding gravity research and the close relationship between gravity and electrostatic fields. It's kind of interesting. Of course on cable and TV, it's proof of extra-terrestrials(never mind the fact that Townsend Brown discovered some of the effects of this realtionship as early as 1928!).
Let's get serious fellas, there has been enough of cheese and macaroni. Time exists only because of the observer but not only to the observer. The first observer creates time and reality. All subsiquent observers modify this reality and a complicated picture emerges out. This picture is then observed by all. Only because of this we can talk about right and wrong. Otherwise it will be each for himself. No it's rather all for one and one for all. Ooh, somebody stop me!
And what's the origin of the first observer before he creates time & reality? A refugee from some other universe? A busybody in another universe with an interuniversiscope, perhaps unaware that he's creating each new universe that he focuses his fancy gadget on? Or does the observer exist only because of time & reality and they create him as he creates them because neither can exist in isolation?
Wow, Walter you are great. What I am saying is nothing existed before the first observer came into being and so there is no question of where he came from or what was there before him. BINGO, and there was the first observer and with him was time and reality. I am not talking about religion or god, but science! This BINGO is a singularity point more complex than the big bang(thats why bingo in capitals and big bang in small letters). I don't know when it happened not even whether it was after or before the big bang. Can any one suggest something.
Initially i think that one has to establish what your understandings of time are. Between the fragments of each day , however you measure them, both organic and man made materials are created , then exist for varying periods before eventually dying. In short, there is normally a difinitive way to map out an average period, depending on the species, or material nature, to a set pattern of events that are it's life span. This can be reasonably assumed as an evaluation natural of "Natural Time Spans ". As to the main crux of your question ,however, as to whether the concept of time exists outside the human mind, then i partially agree. There is no understandable evidence of any other species having ever chosen to create a measurement to evalute the passing or indeed the existence of time. This does not mean , however, that they don't exist, we may just not be socially programmed to recognise them as human beings. Further more it would appear that as the seasons change so do animal behaviors such as migrations for example. Therefore this may be concieved as species other than man(sic) not only being aware of the changes of instances but also that they have ways of defining and measuring them just as we have with our clocks .
I'd like to suggest that what we are actually talking about when we say "time", is "change". We perceive that everything is in a state of perpetual change, and in order to put some kind of order and sense into this constant change around us we came up with a new concept...time. So, in one sense the concept of time is uniquely human. But, what that concept actually represents, a measurement of the amount of change which is always occurring around us, is something that exists totally independent of us. We perceive time to be passing even if we are sitting still and doing nothing because change is still occurring all around us. Not only is the earth spinning, and revolving around the sun, but the sun is revolving around the centre of the galaxy, which is moving with the expanding universe. And even locally, our atoms are vibrating, and cells are aging and dying, and growth is happening. In otherwords, there is constant movement and constant change, and as long as there is, then we will perceive this, and we have come to call this perception, "the passage of time". Consider for a moment what would happen if the temperature of the entire universe suddenly dropped to absolute zero. Under such conditions all movement would stop. Even atoms would cease to vibrate. So there would no longer be any "change" occurring at all anywhere. I suggest that under those circumstances "time" would cease to exist also. If nothing is moving, or growing, or aging, (ie. changing), then the concept of time has no meaning.
okay to the guy that doesn't believe in time do you not believe in causality, can you not see cause and effect all around you, hell movement you see wouldn't be possible without time, it takes time for an object to move, thats how our watches work. Time also is part of the universe, the concept of causality that every cause has an effect and effect has a cause leads us to that our universe is infinite in both past and future. If you want to believe in a beggining perhaps by a creator, i'd like to ask you who created god? if the universe must have had a creator so did god and this leads to infinite causes and infinite gods...well i got off the topic a bit sorry...but anyway i believe time definitely exists and is as kant called 'ding an sich' a thing of itself without need of a human to percieve it. time has always existed long before humans ever evolved and will be here long after we die... you may believe whatever you want however..