The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rushy on October 11, 2014, 07:54:13 PM
-
Time is entirely a human construct and does not exist outside of the mind. Prove me wrong.
-
Time dilation has been observed via atomic clocks in space compared to atomic clocks on Earth. The passage of time was different for both clocks, causing small disparities between the two times. The theory of relativity also supports time dilation, and since we have successfully tested it we know it is a thing. If time was an entirely human construct this would not be the case. Time exists as the 4th dimension and waits for no man, but is obviously affected by mass and approaching the speed of light.
-
Time dilation has been observed via atomic clocks in space compared to atomic clocks on Earth. The passage of time was different for both clocks, causing small disparities between the two times. The theory of relativity also supports time dilation, and since we have successfully tested it we know it is a thing. If time was an entirely human construct this would not be the case. Time exists as the 4th dimension and waits for no man.
Except that has nothing to do with time. That is a rate of energetic change between matter. Time consists of the past, the present, and the future. Two of those things don't actually exist, meaning time does not exist.
-
Except that has nothing to do with time.
Uhhh, yes it does. It shows that mass obviously alters our perception of time, which means time is moving faster/slower depending on where you are. Of course it wouldn't feel that way for the observer. This would be a non-issue if time was an entirely human construct. Regardless, it has everything to do with time.
The concepts of past & future are bogus and unsupportable. Like you said, the only time is the present (and of course party time).
-
I can already tell that this thread is going to be all about disagreement over the definition of "time"
-
Rushy's point is right in that one can not measure time without being there.
What I'd argue is that time does not require an observer to alter things. We know this because we can observe an object at one period of time, have no observation for a while, then observe again and see change. This indicates that an object does not require an observer to undergo change. And since change requires time, time must exist.
What does not have to exist is the past or future.
-
Nothing can be proven to exist outside of the human mind, due to the fact that all observations must pass into the mind before we are aware of their existence. Case closed.
-
Time What is Time
-
If time doesn't exist how come external forces can change the flow of time?
I can already tell that this thread is going to be all about disagreement over the definition of "time"
You're describing every thread on this forum.
-
Time has a known interaction with space, which predicts the speed of light. No definition of time can adequately separate it from this fact- therefore, time exists.
-
If time doesn't exist how come external forces can change the flow of time?
Changing the flow of time implies time is a physical construct. Please quantify the flow of time in a way that doesn't involve the past or future (which are abstract inventions of the mind). (e.g. seconds define time using the past as a starting point, which doesn't exist.)
Time has a known interaction with space, which predicts the speed of light. No definition of time can adequately separate it from this fact- therefore, time exists.
Except it doesn't. You are perceiving a past that never existed, because the past exists only in your mind. Basic thermodynamics proves you can't reverse a process, so how do you know the process was something that existed as something else? You don't.
Uhhh, yes it does. It shows that mass obviously alters our perception of time, which means time is moving faster/slower depending on where you are. Of course it wouldn't feel that way for the observer. This would be a non-issue if time was an entirely human construct. Regardless, it has everything to do with time.
The concepts of past & future are bogus and unsupportable. Like you said, the only time is the present (and of course party time).
Mass alters energy, not time. Time has no carrier wave or particle (that has been proven) therefore it doesn't exist. I'm not surprised that any of you can comprehend this since you all have abysmal science backgrounds.
The standard model doesn't have time in it. This is because time is an abstract idea, it doesn't exist.
-
plz define time as something that isn't time
No.
-
I'm not surprised that any of you can comprehend this since you all have abysmal science backgrounds.
Well said.
-
Mass alters energy, not time.
Yes, but it also alters time. Explain time dilation without time, please.
Unless you're now claiming that time is energy?
-
No.
The definition of time is that it is an abstract concept. These dolts think it isn't, so yeah, they have to find a way to define time that isn't time. I was pointing out how nonsensical their argument is.
Yes, but it also alters time. Explain time time dilation without time, please. Unless you're now claiming that time is energy?
What?
-
Fix'd. now please answer the question.
-
No.
The definition of time is that it is an abstract concept.
That isn't a definition. Also, "abstract concept" is not interchangeable with "something that doesn't exist".
-
Yes, but it also alters time. Explain time dilation without time, please.
Unless you're now claiming that time is energy?
It only alters time as humans perceive it. There is no concrete time that is being modified by another particle. There isn't a time field being warped by an interaction. Time is an idea. An observation.
That isn't a definition. Also, "abstract concept" is not interchangeable with "something that doesn't exist".
Yes, it is. In fact, the literal definition of abstract means something that doesn't actually exist outside the mind.
-
It only alters time as humans perceive it. There is no concrete time that is being modified by another particle. There isn't a time field being warped by an interaction. Time is an idea. An observation.
An idea/concept/observation that is altered by gravity and mass. Makes a lot of sense.
If time doesn't exist how come everything isn't happening at once?
Black holes, for example, suck. They suck so hard that theoretically, if someone were to observe something crossing the event horizon of a black hole it would appear as if time had stopped for that object, yet the object itself is probably long gone. Gravity obviously alters spacetime, which can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.
-
Yes, it is. In fact, the literal definition of abstract means something that doesn't actually exist outside the mind.
I think you'll be surprised if you actually look the word up.
-
An idea/concept/observation that is altered by gravity and mass. Makes a lot of sense.
Your perception is altered. Nothing in the universe is actually altered. Time dilation is a product of observation (similar to wave-particle duality) not a product of some universal truth.
If time doesn't exist how come everything isn't happening at once?
Because you can only perceive three dimensions. Supposedly everything does happen all it once, you simply view it one at a time in a slide show format.
I think you'll be surprised if you actually look the word up.
How about you do that and post what you come up with. Thanks.
-
Black holes, for example, suck. They suck so hard that theoretically, if someone were to observe something crossing the event horizon of a black hole it would appear as if time had stopped for that object, yet the object itself is probably long gone. Gravity obviously alters spacetime, which can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.
This wouldn't be possible if time didn't exist in some fashion.
And yes, you're right. We can only perceive 3 dimensions... and the 4th dimension is... you guessed it... time.
-
This wouldn't be possible if time didn't exist in some fashion.
You mean it wouldn't be possible for you to think it happens if you don't exist.
And yes, you're right. We can only perceive 3 dimensions... and the 4th dimension is... you guessed it... time.
Which is an unproven abstract idea. Do you even know what the argument is or are you just posting random garbage?
-
Do you even know what your argument is? "Time" as an abstract idea is such a cliched idea and it's right on some levels, but wrong according to general relativity.
Please go tell your clock that it's an abstract idea. You might as well dig up Einstein and kick him in the balls, too.
This wouldn't be possible if time didn't exist in some fashion.
You mean it wouldn't be possible for you to think it happens if you don't exist.
Nope.
-
Do you even know what your argument is? "Time" as an abstract idea is such a cliched idea and it's right on some levels, but wrong according to general relativity.
Please go tell your clock that it's an abstract idea.
You don't understand even the basics about general relativity. Honestly, have you even been to an introductory physics course? This is just embarrassing.
-
Do you even know what your argument is? "Time" as an abstract idea is such a cliched idea and it's right on some levels, but wrong according to general relativity.
Please go tell your clock that it's an abstract idea.
You don't understand even the basics about general relativity. Honestly, have you even been to an introductory physics course? This is just embarrassing.
Nope.
-
How about you do that and post what you come up with. Thanks.
When somebody posits an argument, I assume that they're using all of their words correctly. If not, it's their responsibility to correct their mistake, not mine.
-
That's as much work as I'm willing to do for you. When somebody posits an argument, I assume that they're using all of their words correctly. If not, it's their responsibility to correct their mistake, not mine.
I am using the words correctly. That you seem to think otherwise (and won't bring evidence forward to prove so) means you're just wasting thread space.
-
Well, we've reached a thrilling impasse then.
Because you can only perceive three dimensions. Supposedly everything does happen all it once, you simply view it one at a time in a slide show format.
So we perceive time passing, but it isn't actually, because of something that "supposedly" happens. Seems like a rather un-zetetic conclusion.
-
I think Rushy needs to create his own pedantry guide for us newbies.
-
So we perceive time passing, but it isn't actually, because of something that "supposedly" happens. Seems like a rather un-zetetic conclusion.
What? How did you come to that conclusion?
-
Time is the movement of the universe from a lower level of entropy to a greater level of entropy.
-
Time is the movement of the universe from a lower level of entropy to a greater level of entropy.
How do you intend to prove that a lower level of entropy exists? If it moved from lower to higher, you'd be able to prove the lower level by decreasing the universe's entropy, hmm?
-
Toasting in this quality bread.
-
I notice you are all ignoring my argument that renders the OP both correct and superfluous. Is that because my case is too compelling for you to counter?
-
I notice you are all ignoring my argument that renders the OP both correct and superfluous. Is that because my case is too compelling for you to counter?
Bizarrely and masochistically, I find single posts that end conversations to be terribly boring.
-
Time is the movement of the universe from a lower level of entropy to a greater level of entropy.
How do you intend to prove that a lower level of entropy exists? If it moved from lower to higher, you'd be able to prove the lower level by decreasing the universe's entropy, hmm?
It is somewhat like proving a negative in that the effects we look for to disprove the arrow of time never occur. We never see an effect precede a cause. Once I experience this without the use of potent and enjoyable hallucinogens, and I am given a clean bill of neurological health, I will begin to contemplate your outrageous claims.
Not before!
-
I notice you are all ignoring my argument that renders the OP both correct and superfluous. Is that because my case is too compelling for you to counter?
I don't know if you've noticed, but this entire forum is crawling with people who like to argue. It doesn't matter what it is, what it is about, or what the correct answer actually is. Its like a debate team with no subject, no time limit, and no judge. It is terrible and it exists because it has to. If I couldn't come here to argue for pages and pages about how time doesn't exist or that Oblivion/Morrowind/Skyrim being generic games, then I'd argue with real people in real places face to face. No one likes people who argue with everyone about everything in real life. They're obnoxious.
Thus we come to this forum to get it all out. It doesn't matter who you argue with here. You can be an obnoxious punk to anyone here and the most they can do is post some whiny text about it. The Internet is the greatest thing ever.
It is somewhat like proving a negative in that the effects we look for to disprove the arrow of time never occur. We never see an effect precede a cause. Once I experience this without the use of potent and enjoyable hallucinogens, and I am given a clean bill of neurological health, I will begin to contemplate your outrageous claims.
How is it proving a negative? You claimed that the universe goes from a lower level of entropy to a higher one. I'm just asking you to prove the lower level existed, since you made a positive claim that it did at some point exist.
-
If a tree falls in a forest and it lands on your dick, will your dick hurt like a motherbastard?
-
I notice you are all ignoring my argument that renders the OP both correct and superfluous. Is that because my case is too compelling for you to counter?
I don't know if you've noticed, but this entire forum is crawling with people who like to argue. It doesn't matter what it is, what it is about, or what the correct answer actually is.
That's not true, not everyone here likes to argue.
If a tree falls in a forest and it lands on your dick, will your dick hurt like a motherbastard?
nice meme
-
That's not true, not everyone here likes to argue.
I didn't make the claim that everyone here likes to argue, so I'm not sure what you're claiming as false in my post.
-
That's not true, not everyone here likes to argue.
Well then its a good thing I didn't say everyone here likes to argue, isn't it?
You said the entire forum is crawling with people who like to argue, so you weren't specific. It's pretty obvious that everyone here does like to argue.
-
The singularity before the Big Bang had zero entropy, since there can be no disorder in a singularity. Ergo entropy has a net increase since the Big Bang.
-
The singularity before the Big Bang had zero entropy, since there can be no disorder in a singularity. Ergo entropy has a net increase since the Big Bang.
Oh my god, are you telling me you have definitive proof of the big bang? Quick, give it to me so I can murder you and win a Nobel prize.
-
The singularity before the Big Bang had zero entropy, since there can be no disorder in a singularity. Ergo entropy has a net increase since the Big Bang.
wat
-
tfw rushy only picks arguments where nobody agrees with him
-
The singularity before the Big Bang had zero entropy, since there can be no disorder in a singularity. Ergo entropy has a net increase since the Big Bang.
Oh my god, are you telling me you have definitive proof of the big bang? Quick, give it to me so I can murder you and win a Nobel prize.
there is plenty of proof for the Big Bang. Time to get out from behind the 4K monitor.
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid
-
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.
-
I haven't got time to get into this silly debate. Time being a precious commodity of which I have little and would like more, thereby means it must exist.
-
No matter how busy I am, I'm never too busy to stop and tell you just how busy I am.
-
I don't know if you've noticed, but this entire forum is crawling with people who like to argue. It doesn't matter what it is, what it is about, or what the correct answer actually is. Its like a debate team with no subject, no time limit, and no judge. It is terrible and it exists because it has to. If I couldn't come here to argue for pages and pages about how time doesn't exist or that Oblivion/Morrowind/Skyrim being generic games, then I'd argue with real people in real places face to face. No one likes people who argue with everyone about everything in real life. They're obnoxious.
Now that you've openly admitted that you don't care if you're right or wrong, what reason do any of us have to pay attention to anything you say?
-
Now that you've openly admitted that you don't care if you're right or wrong, what reason do any of us have to pay attention to anything you say?
You don't, but you're going to, I can tell you that much.
-
Rushy transcends time and can predict the future.
-
Now that you've openly admitted that you don't care if you're right or wrong, what reason do any of us have to pay attention to anything you say?
You don't, but you're going to, I can tell you that much.
Mind.
Blowned.
Also, it is possible to be very argumentative in person and still be liked. I'm not much different in real life than I am here. You just have to be charming enough to trick people into thinking they're having an enjoyable and light-hearted conversation while you're actually explaining to them why they're idiots for thinking that tigers are native to Africa.
-
Mind.
Blowned.
Also, it is possible to be very argumentative in person and still be liked. I'm not much different in real life than I am here. You just have to be charming enough to trick people into thinking they're having an enjoyable and light-hearted conversation while you're actually explaining to them why they're idiots for thinking that tigers are native to Africa.
I meant people who argue about everything. Literally everything. EVERYTHING. Can't emphasize that enough. Like imagine the pedant word definition garbage that goes on here and now imagine a person does it in face to face conversations. A person in my office at work does it (not me) and the result is that nobody initiates conversation with him unless they have to tell him something work related. If people like you, you're either not that guy, or you have a really disastrous definition of what "like" is.
-
Never met anyone that autistic.
-
Mind.
Blowned.
Also, it is possible to be very argumentative in person and still be liked. I'm not much different in real life than I am here. You just have to be charming enough to trick people into thinking they're having an enjoyable and light-hearted conversation while you're actually explaining to them why they're idiots for thinking that tigers are native to Africa.
I meant people who argue about everything. Literally everything. EVERYTHING. Can't emphasize that enough. Like imagine the pedant word definition garbage that goes on here and now imagine a person does it in face to face conversations. A person in my office at work does it (not me) and the result is that nobody initiates conversation with him unless they have to tell him something work related. If people like you, you're either not that guy, or you have a really disastrous definition of what "like" is.
No, I'm not that guy. Are you saying that's the level of autism you would achieve if you didn't have FES to vent your argumentative feelings?
-
I just give mean looks to people at work. Makes me look busy. What kind of guy does that make me?
-
No, I'm not that guy. Are you saying that's the level of autism you would achieve if you didn't have FES to vent your argumentative feelings?
Probably not. I could always use Reddit to argue about pointless shit.
-
If time doesn't exist, then why do I feel like I've wasted so much of it participating in this retarted thread? Checkmate, squid pro quo, ggnore.
-
If time doesn't exist, then why do I feel like I've wasted so much of it participating in this retarted thread? Checkmate, squid pro quo, ggnore.
That is just your neurons interacting with various chemical signals forcing you to believe that some sort of "past" exists and that you could have done something other than what you did.