Ted Hoffman

Frankly I don't see what the argument is all about: Barbour admits that time means change and without change there is no time.
The universe is in eternal flux even at a subatomic level, so time cannot be an illusion UNLESS one can argue that change is an illusion.

Answerer

Well, that depends on your definition of time, you see if you define time as our awareness of changes, certainly time exists, However, if you wish to think of time as an actual dimension frame like space, you will have to prove it. Unfortunately, other than time travel, I see no other alternatives of determining the physical existence of time frame through experimental means.

Ted Hoffman

The two (time as a dimension and time as change-based) are not mutually exclusive.
I have a problem with the "dimension" perspective because it always ends up implying our actions are deterministic.

atrahasis

When i started this thread i pointed it out clearly that i'm keeping an open mind in this.
So far, im still not convinced that time exists.

Look here!

1.)
According to our sacred Big Bang theory, there was an instance T=0. Right!

2.)
Thus there was a change prior T=0 that triggered time itself to start existing.

3.)
In accordance to the notion of cause and effect, everything must happen in Time, Right!. Then the change prior T=0 must have also happened in time! which time? Time had not 'started'. This effect/change prior T=0 was the one to 'launch' time.

The above implies that the Big Bang happened in time! We come up with this idea of T=0 because we did not know how much of the infinite time had passed until the big bang took place.

If the Big Bang happened in time, then there is no T=0.

and

Time is infinite. at least up to when we can figure it out what existed before the Big bang and what happened prior the big bang?

As for me, i can't even start to embrasse the idea of infinity.

Thats why i can simply say TIME DOES NOT EXIST.

UNLESS and i said UNLESS.

1.)The Big Bang is wrong.
2.)We handling this problem from the wrong side! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

--------------------------------------------------
Think about this guys

Because physicists can't study the big bang directly, they wind back the clock with equations and thought experiments-imagining what might happen, for example, if time really reversed.

The results are disturbing: As the universe gets smaller and smaller, the warping of space-time gets stronger and quantum uncertainaties get progressively larger.Finally, the uncertainity becomes larger than any time interval that could possibly be measured.Measurement becomes meaningless. Time at the first moment dissolves into nonsense. Why?
--------------------------------------------------

The superstring theory might, according to 'string' expects do away with the illusion of space time.
<a href="http://www.superstringthoery.com" target="_blank">here</a>
---------------------------------------------------
Lets first at least, come to grisp with the superstring theory up to this point, and see why we might not need time at all. That is of course if the Superstring theory is right.

---Thanks----

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

Jonesy

To find out, look at your watch.(sorry, this was just a joke)

For the creator: it is still the "present", IF there is a creator. ( i think there is, with reasonable intellectual (and not yet physical) proof being presented over the years)

But for us, given our current state of development, we can only understand time from
the point of view of the 'physical 3d world'

Maybe in millions of years we will reach a state
of perception where we just feel like we
are in the 'present' - but then, concepts such as
'something coming to an end' will not exist (unless it's 'everything' coming to an end, ofcourse)

But unless we become able to perceive another state than the 3d world, I'm afraid that imagining that there is no time could be impossible

Tristan Scott

Maybe time exists and doesn't exist, depending on the circumstances of the observer.

Kharakov

Umm-

The present has no duration (but appears to be eternal). Is it possible to have an effect upon the present if the effect is not instantaneous?

Aren't all thoughts, concepts, and sensations in and of the past?

Isn't any attempt to modify the future an attempt to modify the past?

Are memories nothing more than echos in the past brought about by all that is part of the past including our attempt to modify and understand the past?

Does anybody get the feeling that the universe is filled with contradictions and chaos that permeate every system within it (systems include the mind and physical systems)?

-k

sir drinks-a-lot

Sure, time exists. Don't believe me? Try making a post above this one.

tronvillain

IntenSity:
Actually, it does not always end up implying that our actions are deterministic. Oh, it can imply that our actions are set, but the principle of sufficient reason might not always hold. Of course, that is unlikely to comfort any proponents of "free will", but frankly I am unaware of any form of free will worth wanting that is not compatible with determinism.

Devilnaut

You mean you wouldn't want to go around performing actions at random?



Frankly I don't quite understand the distinction between time as a dimension and time as an 'awareness of change'. It seems to me that conceiving of time as a dimension is not entirely accurate, because it is clearly something quite different from what the first three dimensions represent, but i'm not sure what the latter conception lends to our understanding either..