Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sophie · 07-23-2003, 06:03 AM

paul30 : There is in fact no time.

However there is a phenomena which causes us to rationalise a time. This is an invisible non-material phenomena. In other words time is invisible and is known only through reason.

When you claim there is no time, what you are doing is throwing reason through the window. Your perogative of course. (9:01 am).

thestickman · 07-23-2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

A useful analogy may be the Ether.

In the 19th century it was learned that light behaves like a wave.

Since other waves people knew about were always waves in a Medium (like water or air), it was thought that light must be waves in a Medium, too; and this supposed medium was the ether.

But numerous experiments showed there was in fact no ether.

Ditto time.

There is in fact no time.

[No that really isn't a useful analogy]

What kind of reasoning did you use to make you jump from, ether doesn't exist to time doesn't exist? As well your ideas about things existing seem to change each post.
1. Just because ether doesn't exist, time doesn't neccessarily not-exist.
2. That is one instance where humans have theorised something and been wrong, but you ignore times when we have been right. Eg, it was theorised that a neutron star should be produced if certain condition are met. Funnily enough we soon found neutron stars that obeyed this. Therefore by your logic I have just proved time exists (although I understand I haven't).

Quote:

We measure events, but the measurements are also simply events. "Time" is our way of ordering these events, but is entirely a mental construct.

We don't seem to be getting anywhere do we?

Seeing as you are so unforthcoming in providing a definition to real, I will. From www.dictionary.com:
real - "6 Philosophy. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. "
exist - "To have actual being; be real. "

When you said 'there is no time' that is akin to saying time doesn't exist.

Guess what? That's unprovable.

Time is real to us. To me, I always experience time. To take another definition "1c - Of or founded on practical matters and concerns."

Since in practice we experience time...guess what? Therefore time is real.

Quote:

However there is a phenomena which causes us to rationalise a time. This is an invisible non-material phenomena. In other words time is invisible and is known only through reason.

I beg to differ here though. Time is based on empirical observation. It is also, to our best of knowledge, material. When around massive objects time to go slower.

-tsm
PS: We seem to have got just a little off topic, sorry

sophie · 07-24-2003, 06:40 AM

thestickman : Time is based on empirical observation. It is also, to our best of knowledge, material.
ME : Pass me a slice of time then, I want to eat it, or am I misrepresenting materialism.

thestickman : When around massive objects time to go slower.
Me : does this mean time contracts and becomes smaller?

xorbie · 07-24-2003, 11:36 PM

Actually, time is very real. Saying it is not is like saying that distance is only a mental construct that allows us to order objects... uhuh. Just because humans don't have the ability to "see" time, does not mean it does not actually exist. Time is just as much a dimension as distance is, and is therefore just as real.

If time was just a way for us to organize events, I don't see how the Theory of Relativity would be valid at all (which it is), because time could not get shorter or longer if it was just a mental construct, unless gravity somehow affects our minds. If time WAS just a mental construct, why would it pass slower for someone going faster?

thestickman · 07-24-2003, 11:59 PM

Let's go with another definition:
"Materialism - Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena."
[www.dictionary.com, again]

So yes sophie, I feel you are bisrepresenting the case. This is because, according to your logic, thought mustn't exist because you can't bite it. And no materialism definition I have ever read says thought doesn't exist. Matter is a cause of thought, as matter is a cause of time. Any disagreements?

-tsm

sophie · 07-25-2003, 02:29 PM

thestickman : This is because, according to your logic, thought mustn't exist because you can't bite it.
ME : you are sort of stretching things a bit.

thestickman : Matter is a cause of thought, as matter is a cause of time.
ME : no need to unravel this bit of logic.

sophie · 07-25-2003, 02:37 PM

xorbie : If time WAS just a mental construct, why would it pass slower for someone going faster?
ME : You sure have me beat on that one.

xorbie : Time is just as much a dimension as distance is, and is therefore just as real.
ME : I think the dimension you are talking about is existence.

xorbie : Just because humans don't have the ability to "see" time, does not mean it does not actually exist.
ME : I cannot say I can see your point very well.

xorbie : Actually, time is very real. Saying it is not is like saying that distance is only a mental construct that allows us to order objects... uhuh.
ME : Sure it is real, but probably not in the manner in which YOU see it. Furthermore I think objects are ordered by their simultaneous-proximity and the yardstick is only a 'neat' way of viewing this phenomena.

thestickman · 07-25-2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Me: This is because, according to your logic, thought mustn't exist because you can't bite it.
Sophie: you are sort of stretching things a bit."

Why is your argument not stretching it? I believe you are seriously misrepresenting the case.

Quote:

thestickman : Matter is a cause of thought, as matter is a cause of time.
Sophie : no need to unravel this bit of logic.

Does that mean you argree or disagree?

-tsm

Apathist · 07-26-2003, 12:05 AM

When we measure time, we actually measure the cyclic movement of matter in space.

Mass, and velocity, affect our measurment of time, because mass and velocity affect matter in space.

We cannot move about freely in time, as we do in the spatial dimensions - the past and the future do not exist. And we can't put time in a bottle.

Time is a relationship between events.

phil · 07-29-2003, 11:48 AM

Time is one of the most difficult subjects to study. Chasing after a complete understanding of time is like chasing down a rainbow. No matter how fast, hard, and long you run, it is still just ahead of you.

I have spent years studying time with only bits and pieces of progress. However, I did have a thought as to the nature of time, and Apathist did touch on it.

If there was no such thing as periodic motion would there be time? Events would certainly happen, and in a certain order, but no one could tell of their duration.

Without any cyclical motion of matter or energy, duration becomes totally irrelavent.

I do not know all the answers, but this is what I've gathered so far. Time is not a tangible thing like a rock, but more of an intangible thing like distance. It is real, but only in the ideological sense.

To those of you who are interested in time travel, do not despair

This view of time actually is more kind to the idea of time travel than the 'tangible' view of time. But that subject is beyond the scope of this thread.

-phil

07-23-2003, 06:03 AM	#31
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	no time but paul30 : There is in fact no time. However there is a phenomena which causes us to rationalise a time. This is an invisible non-material phenomena. In other words time is invisible and is known only through reason. When you claim there is no time, what you are doing is throwing reason through the window. Your perogative of course. (9:01 am).

07-24-2003, 06:40 AM	#33
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	time is... thestickman : Time is based on empirical observation. It is also, to our best of knowledge, material. ME : Pass me a slice of time then, I want to eat it, or am I misrepresenting materialism. thestickman : When around massive objects time to go slower. Me : does this mean time contracts and becomes smaller?

07-25-2003, 02:37 PM	#37
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	you have me beat xorbie : If time WAS just a mental construct, why would it pass slower for someone going faster? ME : You sure have me beat on that one. xorbie : Time is just as much a dimension as distance is, and is therefore just as real. ME : I think the dimension you are talking about is existence. xorbie : Just because humans don't have the ability to "see" time, does not mean it does not actually exist. ME : I cannot say I can see your point very well. xorbie : Actually, time is very real. Saying it is not is like saying that distance is only a mental construct that allows us to order objects... uhuh. ME : Sure it is real, but probably not in the manner in which YOU see it. Furthermore I think objects are ordered by their simultaneous-proximity and the yardstick is only a 'neat' way of viewing this phenomena.

07-29-2003, 11:48 AM	#40
phil Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 170	defining time Time is one of the most difficult subjects to study. Chasing after a complete understanding of time is like chasing down a rainbow. No matter how fast, hard, and long you run, it is still just ahead of you. I have spent years studying time with only bits and pieces of progress. However, I did have a thought as to the nature of time, and Apathist did touch on it. If there was no such thing as periodic motion would there be time? Events would certainly happen, and in a certain order, but no one could tell of their duration. Without any cyclical motion of matter or energy, duration becomes totally irrelavent. I do not know all the answers, but this is what I've gathered so far. Time is not a tangible thing like a rock, but more of an intangible thing like distance. It is real, but only in the ideological sense. To those of you who are interested in time travel, do not despair This view of time actually is more kind to the idea of time travel than the 'tangible' view of time. But that subject is beyond the scope of this thread. -phil

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2003, 11:36 PM	#34
xorbie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Champaign, IL or Boston, MA Posts: 6,360	Actually, time is very real. Saying it is not is like saying that distance is only a mental construct that allows us to order objects... uhuh. Just because humans don't have the ability to "see" time, does not mean it does not actually exist. Time is just as much a dimension as distance is, and is therefore just as real. If time was just a way for us to organize events, I don't see how the Theory of Relativity would be valid at all (which it is), because time could not get shorter or longer if it was just a mental construct, unless gravity somehow affects our minds. If time WAS just a mental construct, why would it pass slower for someone going faster?

07-24-2003, 11:59 PM	#35
thestickman Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Down Under Posts: 18	Let's go with another definition: "Materialism - Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." [www.dictionary.com, again] So yes sophie, I feel you are bisrepresenting the case. This is because, according to your logic, thought mustn't exist because you can't bite it. And no materialism definition I have ever read says thought doesn't exist. Matter is a cause of thought, as matter is a cause of time. Any disagreements? -tsm

07-25-2003, 02:29 PM	#36
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	thestickman : This is because, according to your logic, thought mustn't exist because you can't bite it. ME : you are sort of stretching things a bit. thestickman : Matter is a cause of thought, as matter is a cause of time. ME : no need to unravel this bit of logic.

07-26-2003, 12:05 AM	#39
Apathist Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Rocky Mountains Posts: 17	When we measure time, we actually measure the cyclic movement of matter in space. Mass, and velocity, affect our measurment of time, because mass and velocity affect matter in space. We cannot move about freely in time, as we do in the spatial dimensions - the past and the future do not exist. And we can't put time in a bottle. Time is a relationship between events.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.