Does Time really exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ilostthesheriff

Est. Contributor
Messages
726
Role
Diaper Lover
Does 'Time' really exist?

I will not link any specifics on the topic or question as there are many ideas on the subject out there. They are all easily researchable.

My purpose lies in the personal views on the subject whether they be based upon deciphering existing literature or personal connotation.

My perception:

As we live in a cyclical world, time is a contrived measurement based on the principle of a metronome . I believe this perception impedes our true understanding of existence. Such measurements support only our revolving perception of lapsed experiences. Time cannot be prognosticated or set reliable outcome. Time is not navigatable in space (away from visible known solar systems). Time does not set a destination nor define a path to any. Time is not a continuum nor the lack of.

Time is only relevent in the attempt to adapt an entity or idea to circadian rhythm. Time cannot be measured in the same way as decibels, temperature, or mass. Time has escaped our five senses. Even though we have sight and can see the effects of aging and guage decay, we have no inner sense of increment even though we can be sure of some lapse between before then and now.

If time did exist then what would prevent it from moving faster or slower than our perception?

Your thoughts, no matter how trivial, scientific, or humorous, are welcomed.
 

Axiom

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,162
Role
Babyfur
I would be interested in your explanation.
What do you mean, "explanation?"

This question has about as much merit as "does space exist" or "do electrons exist." You know the answer to arbitrary certainty; if you really think otherwise, why not drive a car at full speed into a wall? After all, if time doesn't exist, neither does velocity.
 

DLGrif

Est. Contributor
Messages
529
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur
If you compare two similar universe-states, with the only difference being that all the atoms in the second universe have slightly different positions, and this change in position is predictable using physics, then we can say that the second universe-state occurs "after" the first. But if you were an omniscient and omnipotent god, and you rearranged all of the atoms and electrical charges etc., so that it precisely resembled the universe as it was 200 years ago, there is absolutely no observable difference between this meddled-with universe and the 200-years-ago universe.

In other words, time is a human perception, but unlike other "perceptions" in that attaining enlightenment doesn't stop you from getting hungry after a few hours. If any bit of you is material, you'll be subject to the passage of time-as-experienced.
 

ilostthesheriff

Est. Contributor
Messages
726
Role
Diaper Lover
What do you mean, "explanation?"

This question has about as much merit as "does space exist" or "do electrons exist." You know the answer to arbitrary certainty; if you really think otherwise, why not drive a car at full speed into a wall? After all, if time doesn't exist, neither does velocity.
I am not disputing the scientific measure of time. It is integral to punctuation calculation of the perceived world around us. It however does not stand alone. Time is merely a contrived calculation based on other measurable factors which are also contrived in increment. I am questioning the reality or perception of the concept of time, not the measurement.

Relativity is wholesome when attempting to understand space and time. Quantum computing is handy in measuring abstract or overly-complex scenarios.

To better state the question: Can time exist outside of scientific measurement? Is our perception of it real? Can an unknown alter-realm exist in it's place? Is it possible that we have become stuck on the measurement of time in calculation?

- - - Updated - - -

Take less drugs.
Dangit! You're right. The Salvia is starting to wear off.

Where have I been?

- - - Updated - - -

Theoretically, the speed of light through space is a constant in any frame of reference therefore time is not constant.
If you mean that light can bend or be be subject to gravitational pull then I cannot dispute this as it would take longer for light to travel a parabolic curve than be linearly directed.
 

Axiom

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,162
Role
Babyfur
I am not disputing the scientific measure of time. It is integral to punctuation calculation of the perceived world around us. It however does not stand alone. Time is merely a contrived calculation based on other measurable factors which are also contrived in increment. I am questioning the reality or perception of the concept of time, not the measurement.
This is ill-posed.

What do I expect to be different if I believe that "time does not exist" as opposed to the contrary?
 

AEsahaettr

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,474
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Carer, Other
Theoretically, the speed of light through space is a constant in any frame of reference therefore time is not constant.
It's a constant depending on what medium it's in. The value c is only accurate for a true vacuum. In some media light slows down enough that you could beat it in a footrace.
 

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
2,765
Role
Private
If you mean that light can bend or be be subject to gravitational pull then I cannot dispute this as it would take longer for light to travel a parabolic curve than be linearly directed.
That's not quite what I meant. The example of the curved path vs straight path is just basic physics that doesn't involve changing the rate of time.

If I understand the issue correctly, the speed of any photon traveling through space is always exactly the speed of light. This velocity is always the same relative to anything else in the universe regardless of the velocity and/or direction of whatever other thing we are comparing it to. In order to make the math work when dealing with the speed of light relative to moving objects, if we assume the velocity is constant, which we do, we then assume time is a variable. This is why the claim is made that if people, or clocks, are moving, time slows down for them relative to other people and things that remain stationary. Supposedly this time shift has been verified experimentally. If we are talking about objects approaching the speed of light then this theoretical time shift is significant, which is why some people believe space travel near the speed of light will allow people to survive much longer while not noticing the difference in how time progresses.
 
Messages
267
Role
Diaper Lover
Okay, to all the nay-sayers out there, those big-brained college dudes do say that time is just a perception, and there is no difference between past, present and future. If you think about it, time slips through your fingers like sand. It might exist, as a perception. Other than that, why would it be a silly question? If there be doubt, there shall be question! :D
 
M

Marka

Guest
Does 'Time' really exist?"..."..."

If time did exist then what would prevent it from moving faster or slower than our perception?

Your thoughts, no matter how trivial, scientific, or humorous, are welcomed.
Prepare yourselves for the high probability that I'll essentially be issuing non-sequitur ...

Is the perception of time, not a true measurement of it? And if so, relative to our perception... the speed would thus vary, though we wouldn't necessarily change the quantity of time. I can assess both quite accurately, and very poorly, blocks of time gone by... and, this variance of appreciation of time does not seem reliably connected to my activities, though preoccupation does seem to alter my appreciation of what quantity, and rate of time is measured. So, it seems to me that either innately, or by conditioning; I have an internal means of pace...

I'm not sure that time can exist outside of our perception... though aging seems to...

Relativity seems to suggest that space and time are either 'one', or inseparable...

I have no idea...

:confused:
-Marka
 

egor

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,630
Role
Diaper Lover
I think I see were the OP is coming from, and several of the responses are correct.

If I have a precognitive vision is the time the same or is there a difference?

The speed of light is a constant and the interaction of mass and energy are the variables, so time is relative to the observer perception.

Time is relative to the observers perception even in a parallel universe and/or a time phase shift.

So If I am understanding this correctly time is a descriptive measure, but the outcome is the relative effect from a applied cause. No matter what universe you are in, as long as you follow only one outcome.

(so I will use this discussion for the reason of not getting the laundry done because I lost the "time". )
 

ilostthesheriff

Est. Contributor
Messages
726
Role
Diaper Lover
Alot of good reads here so far. I wasn't sure what to expect when posting.

A few months ago I was discussing the possibilities of 'time travel' with a friend who described a scenario where time could be 'rippled' in a way that each apex in the looping wave sequence could theoretically touch allowing matter to pass through. The result was described to me as the possibility of time travel.

As this idea has never made sense to me but is intriquing nontheless, I have been left contemplating how could such time be measured? How would we possibly go about 'designating' a destination in time whether forward or backward?

The idea of time travel however wasn't the main cause for such contemplation, rather, a question of what are we missing?

- - - Updated - - -

If you compare two similar universe-states, with the only difference being that all the atoms in the second universe have slightly different positions, and this change in position is predictable using physics, then we can say that the second universe-state occurs "after" the first. But if you were an omniscient and omnipotent god, and you rearranged all of the atoms and electrical charges etc., so that it precisely resembled the universe as it was 200 years ago, there is absolutely no observable difference between this meddled-with universe and the 200-years-ago universe.

In other words, time is a human perception, but unlike other "perceptions" in that attaining enlightenment doesn't stop you from getting hungry after a few hours. If any bit of you is material, you'll be subject to the passage of time-as-experienced.
Fascinating!

As my brain was awash earlier, I had to revisit this post to grasp it in it's entirety. More food for thought.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a constant depending on what medium it's in. The value c is only accurate for a true vacuum. In some media light slows down enough that you could beat it in a footrace.
Cool! I actually had a mental image of out-running a beam of light. Probably not how it works though as it's probably just a photon and not a beam.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, to all the nay-sayers out there, those big-brained college dudes do say that time is just a perception, and there is no difference between past, present and future. If you think about it, time slips through your fingers like sand. It might exist, as a perception. Other than that, why would it be a silly question? If there be doubt, there shall be question! :D
Thanks for explaining it this way.

- - - Updated - - -

Prepare yourselves for the high probability that I'll essentially be issuing non-sequitur ...

Is the perception of time, not a true measurement of it? And if so, relative to our perception... the speed would thus vary, though we wouldn't necessarily change the quantity of time. I can assess both quite accurately, and very poorly, blocks of time gone by... and, this variance of appreciation of time does not seem reliably connected to my activities, though preoccupation does seem to alter my appreciation of what quantity, and rate of time is measured. So, it seems to me that either innately, or by conditioning; I have an internal means of pace...

I'm not sure that time can exist outside of our perception... though aging seems to...

Relativity seems to suggest that space and time are either 'one', or inseparable...

I have no idea...

:confused:
-Marka
I don't believe perception is a true measurement of anything. Cognition is adherent to every invariable imagined. And..... I am grateful for that!

- - - Updated - - -

I think I see were the OP is coming from, and several of the responses are correct.

If I have a precognitive vision is the time the same or is there a difference?

The speed of light is a constant and the interaction of mass and energy are the variables, so time is relative to the observer perception.

Time is relative to the observers perception even in a parallel universe and/or a time phase shift.

So If I am understanding this correctly time is a descriptive measure, but the outcome is the relative effect from a applied cause. No matter what universe you are in, as long as you follow only one outcome.

(so I will use this discussion for the reason of not getting the laundry done because I lost the "time". )
(I bolded the three descriptive points)

These questions and points are certainly on topic and lend much to contemplate.
 

DLGrif

Est. Contributor
Messages
529
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur
Time travel? Seriously? Look, at near-light speeds you can do nifty things with time dilation, and with the right lasers you can mess with local space, and with particle accelerators you can make strange particles come into existence via the Higgs field. But there is no reason to believe that you can go backwards in time. Maybe in the far future, when a more fundamental theory of physics comes around (as Einstein replaced Newton, who replaced Aristotle). Currently the only conceivable method to experience the past would be to simulate the universe again and hope you got the initial conditions just right.
 

ilostthesheriff

Est. Contributor
Messages
726
Role
Diaper Lover
That's not quite what I meant. The example of the curved path vs straight path is just basic physics that doesn't involve changing the rate of time.

If I understand the issue correctly, the speed of any photon traveling through space is always exactly the speed of light. This velocity is always the same relative to anything else in the universe regardless of the velocity and/or direction of whatever other thing we are comparing it to. In order to make the math work when dealing with the speed of light relative to moving objects, if we assume the velocity is constant, which we do, we then assume time is a variable. This is why the claim is made that if people, or clocks, are moving, time slows down for them relative to other people and things that remain stationary. Supposedly this time shift has been verified experimentally. If we are talking about objects approaching the speed of light then this theoretical time shift is significant, which is why some people believe space travel near the speed of light will allow people to survive much longer while not noticing the difference in how time progresses.
You mentioned in a previous post that time is not constant. If time is not constant then what other variable do we have to measure it accurately? If it is not constant then we have no reliable way to guage it. Time is not visible or measurable outside of ancient definition.


This is why the claim is made that if people, or clocks, are moving, time slows down for them relative to other people and things that remain stationary.
I have read something somewhere about this time-shift and it only made sense to me in small incremental lapses. With this theory one could slow or excelerate time by traveling around the planet at a greater speed than the planet itself is rotating. What doesn't hold merit with me is that it would reverse or forward the traveler in time resulting in projecting them into the past or future with an altered reality. As this event would be unfolding in time it would also be unfolding in real time negating any altered reality.

So if time is constant, it is just that. A continuum reliant on nothing else to define it other than perception.

- - - Updated - - -

Time travel? Seriously? Look, at near-light speeds you can do nifty things with time dilation, and with the right lasers you can mess with local space, and with particle accelerators you can make strange particles come into existence via the Higgs field. But there is no reason to believe that you can go backwards in time. Maybe in the far future, when a more fundamental theory of physics comes around (as Einstein replaced Newton, who replaced Aristotle). Currently the only conceivable method to experience the past would be to simulate the universe again and hope you got the initial conditions just right.
I have no reason to conceive that 'time travel' is possible but enjoy hearing others' opinion and views on it.

As you stated, the growing exploration of science and free-thinkers have certainly benefitted science, technology, and human advancement. I certainly don't support the end-of-the-road scenario. There is much to be discovered and learned.
 

AEsahaettr

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,474
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Carer, Other
Cool! I actually had a mental image of out-running a beam of light. Probably not how it works though as it's probably just a photon and not a beam.
Kinda sorta. The speed of light in a vacuum c is basically the true speed of light. Light slows down in any kind of a medium because as it passes through the medium, it gets absorbed by an atom and then re-emitted. It does travel at c between one atom and the next, however. Imagine light in a medium being akin to being stuck in stop and go traffic where the speed limit is 40 but you keep hitting stoplights, versus an open road where the speed limit is 40 and there aren't any stops or other cars to worry about.

A beam simply means a row of particles.
 

ilostthesheriff

Est. Contributor
Messages
726
Role
Diaper Lover
Kinda sorta. The speed of light in a vacuum c is basically the true speed of light. Light slows down in any kind of a medium because as it passes through the medium, it gets absorbed by an atom and then re-emitted. It does travel at c between one atom and the next, however. Imagine light in a medium being akin to being stuck in stop and go traffic where the speed limit is 40 but you keep hitting stoplights, versus an open road where the speed limit is 40 and there aren't any stops or other cars to worry about.

A beam simply means a row of particles.
Ah, you have a knack at Layman's terms! Thanks for iterating. This type of experiment is new to me.
 

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
2,765
Role
Private
You mentioned in a previous post that time is not constant. If time is not constant then what other variable do we have to measure it accurately? If it is not constant then we have no reliable way to guage it. Time is not visible or measurable outside of ancient definition.
Lol. The theory that time isn't constant seems to be pretty well accepted among physicists but I didn't mean to imply I understand what this means. I know it started with problems trying to reconcile mathematics with what was known about physics. The math doesn't add up if we assume time is constant so Einstein comes along and simply proclaims time isn't constant. End of problem, right? Except it was, and still is, a mind boggling conclusion. Aside from the quirks in our perception we experience time as a constant. Constant, unidirectional time and three dimensional space are the foundations of our reality. Now even science is questioning this reality.

As far as what we have to measure time and/or reality with, the only thing I can think of is that the mind must be the measure of all things. Maybe in some way the mind is the constant we are looking for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top