Does time exist?

Originally posted by dottewell
You make this mistake all the time. The fact something like a mile is a "human concept" doesn't mean that miles exist only "in the mind". I'll mark you out a mile of land if you don't believe me.

Similarly, the sky really is blue (i.e. blueness is a property of the sky, not a property of some mental object).

I'll mark you out a mile of land if you don't believe me. DOTTEWELL

You said it youself a mile "OF" land . It's the land that exists not the mile. Could you mark out a kilometre of mile for me ? I want a nice kilometre of mile to build my house on. Make sure it is mile though , I don't want any land , just mile please.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I do not hold that time is a force that compels events to happen in a certain sequence...AGERG

In that case you believe that extracting all the time out of the universe would make no difference at all to anything whatsoever. It would be like extracting all the beauty out of the universe. It can't be done because it's not there (except in our minds) ...[text shortened]... od , time doesn't really exist. It belongs firmly in the conceptual world. Agreed?

sorry KM but not agreed!

My wording was not specific enough (I should have highlighted my words *force that compels*). Events happen, they don't happen at the same time. the phenomenon which one could say is the duration between any two events is what seems to be referred to as time. It also seems to be true that the duration between events is not consistent for all observers. whether or not our label is a concept does not detract from the fact that the phenomenon of events taking place at different times is very much reality.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'll mark you out a mile of land if you don't believe me. DOTTEWELL

You said it youself a mile "OF" land . It's the land that exists not the mile. Could you mark out a kilometre of mile for me ? I want a nice kilometre of mile to build my house on. Make sure it is mile though , I don't want any land , just mile please.

Of course the mile doesn't have some strange physical existence separate from the land; that doesn't mean being a mile long isn't a property of the land rather than something that exists only in your brain, which is what you seem to be claiming.

Originally posted by dottewell
Of course the mile doesn't have some strange physical existence separate from the land; that doesn't mean being a mile long isn't a property of the land rather than something that exists only in your brain, which is what you seem to be claiming.

I think KM and Locke would have got on well...

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'll mark you out a mile of land if you don't believe me. DOTTEWELL

You said it youself a mile "OF" land . It's the land that exists not the mile. Could you mark out a kilometre of mile for me ? I want a nice kilometre of mile to build my house on. Make sure it is mile though , I don't want any land , just mile please.

Can I have some land to build my house on, please? Make sure it doesn't come with any length or width, though. I only want land, no mile or some other weird stuff like that.

Originally posted by dottewell
You make this mistake all the time. The fact something like a mile is a "human concept" doesn't mean that miles exist only "in the mind". I'll mark you out a mile of land if you don't believe me.

Similarly, the sky really is blue (i.e. blueness is a property of the sky, not a property of some mental object).

Similarly, the sky really is blue (i.e. blueness is a property of the sky, not a property of some mental object).DOTTEWELL

An outstanding example of a complete context error. The colour blue is associated with wavelengths of light that are either absorbed or not absorbed by molcules/atoms. The blueness is not a property of the sky but belongs to the light . No light no blue. Light is a firmly established scientific phenomenon existing in the real world. If mankind had not existed then light still would , but would a "mile"?. Light has been measured and observed as a phenomenon whereas a mile can only be used as a arbitary unit of another phenomenon (eg land). It's never the mile itself that is being measured.

You think that a mile is a physical property of land? Does land reflect wavelengths of mile that can be measured?

Originally posted by dottewell
Of course the mile doesn't have some strange physical existence separate from the land; that doesn't mean being a mile long isn't a property of the land rather than something that exists only in your brain, which is what you seem to be claiming.

What evidence do you have that it exists ANYWHERE ELSE than in your brain? Can you tell me what colour a mile is (since you think colour is a property of something real) ? How much does a mile weigh? How hot would a mile have to get before it melts? Is a mile radioactive? I could go on.....can you answer ANY of these kind of basic scientific questions?

You say that the mile is a property of the land . Does that mean that if we extracted all the land away we would find the mile left behind?

Originally posted by Starrman
I think KM and Locke would have got on well...

COOL You like Lost too. I love it ! Maybe we could start a lost thread?

Originally posted by Agerg
sorry KM but not agreed!

My wording was not specific enough (I should have highlighted my words *force that compels*). Events happen, they don't happen at the same time. the phenomenon which one could say is the duration between any two events is what seems to be referred to as time. It also seems to be true that the duration between events is not consisten ...[text shortened]... om the fact that the phenomenon of events taking place at different times is very much reality.

whether or not our label is a concept does not detract from the fact that the phenomenon of events taking place at different times is very much reality.AGERG

I agree , events take place within the concept we call "different times" . Whether , this conceptual label we have corresponds to an external reality or "dimension" of time is unproven.

Is it the "time" that compels this to happen? Or are there other reasonable explanations?

Originally posted by Starrman
Just so the rest of the sane ones here don't have to bang their heads trying to get this concept across to the imbeciles, here's a little essay which pretty much sums up the situation.

http://www.sciencepub.net/0101/01-ma.pdf

I suggest that you read it knightmeister, when you have try arguing your points against it as some basic assessment of the epis ...[text shortened]... debate. You might find out how ridiculous your argument really is, though somehow I doubt it.

The first thing I find interesting about this response is that you don't seem willing to make an argument off your own back. I had a quick look and will look again but a lot of what I saw was complex abstract equations and lots of theoretical stuff. Could you point me closer to the part that talks about empirical evidence?

Where is it I'm suposed to look for time . Is it in my watch? I've been arguing this position for some "time" and nobody has yet told me what time does , or how much mass it might have. No scientific evidence has come forward as yet. Nobody has provided anything more convincing than "it's obvious time exists- you can observe it!"

I agree with you that my argument seems ridiculous. It's because I am questioning something you have always taken for granted probably. It's going to seem silly to you. I know I am not alone though --there are so many of us imbeciles out there!!

Originally posted by Starrman
I think KM and Locke would have got on well...

Ok , let's be fair about this whole debate . I'm not particularly hung up about time . Infact I think it would be quite fascinating to have the real existence of time proved to me . I AM interested in why people think it's "ridiculous" to challenge it. It wouldn't necessarily shatter my world view as such. So what am I missing? Is it my definition of the word "exists"? Is it some scientific discovery that I have just missed out on?


Please, pleeeeeaaaase just tell me why time really exists!!! I really am all ears!! If I am an imbecile then help me join the rest of the sane , I am lost ! Waiting to be found!

It's so easy ...just prove it to me step by step.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , let's be fair about this whole debate . I'm not particularly hung up about time . Infact I think it would be quite fascinating to have the real existence of time proved to me . I AM interested in why people think it's "ridiculous" to challenge it. It wouldn't necessarily shatter my world view as such. So what am I missing? Is it my definition of ...[text shortened]... ing to be found!

It's so easy ...just prove it to me step by step.going to go ovber

What's ridiculous is not that you question time; that's fine and dandy, but that the epistemic basis for your argument is so confused. I'm not going to go over what everyone else seems to agree are the clear and justified observation, definition and measurements of time, since it has been done already in this thread. Your analysis of what others have posted is skewed so as to fail to grasp their points, so it seems a futile venture.

Originally posted by knightmeister
An outstanding example of a complete context error.

Do you mean "category mistake"? It isn't, anyway.

Look, it may well be that there is some "association" between the colour blue and certain wavelengths (in fact I'm sure there is). But in almost all contexts, when we use the word "blue", we are not talking about wavelengths. Imagine you work in a factory and your sole job is to sort pieces of cloth into two piles - red and blue. Firstly, you wouldn't use a "wavelength" machine to do this in preference to the evidence of your own eyes. Secondly, we can imagine a case where you did use such a machine, but for some reason it started to give out typical "blue" wavelength readings when probing red cloths, and typical "red" wavelength readings when probing blue cloths. In fact we can imagine every wavelength-measuring instrument producing similar readings. In such a case, we would abandon the machines. We would not start calling blue "red", and vice versa. In fact for the thought-experiment to even make sense requires that by "blue" and "red" we do not mean particular wavelengths, etc. Does that mean "blue" and "red" refer to some private mental impression? Absolutely not. They are properties of objects in the world. As Wittgenstein said, when someone remarks on the blueness of a sky, they are inclined to point at the sky; not at their head.

Look, your basic problems are twofold: you seem to think the only things that can be said to exist in the world itself are those that can be weighed and measured in a certain "scientific" way; and even worse, you can't even accept that the measure of how tall or heavy something is - expressed in our measuring concepts like miles and kilometres - is a property of that thing. The first assumption is manifestly false; if you don't like the example of a mile, then how about a smile? Smiles exist, and are not conceptually identical with mouths. They cannot be reduced to mouths without losing certain distinctive, vital properties. The second assumption is so counter-intuitive it barely warrants a response. And I'm tired.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Can you tell me what colour a mile is (since you think colour is a property of something real)?

You say that the mile is a property of the land . Does that mean that if we extracted all the land away we would find the mile left behind?

Ironically, these are textbook examples of category mistakes.

Look it up.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What evidence do you have that it exists ANYWHERE ELSE than in your brain? Can you tell me what colour a mile is (since you think colour is a property of something real) ? How much does a mile weigh? How hot would a mile have to get before it melts? Is a mile radioactive? I could go on.....can you answer ANY of these kind of basic scientific question ...[text shortened]... and . Does that mean that if we extracted all the land away we would find the mile left behind?

Perhaps you'll see your mistake if you try to answer these questions.

(a) What colour is your Christian god? What colour is God's love? How hot would it have to get before it melts? What colour was Jesus' sacrifice on the cross? How much did it weigh?

If you can't answer these "scientific" questions, does it follow that those things only exist "in your mind"?

(b) You say that omnipotence is a property of your god. Does that mean if we extracted all of your god, we would find the omnipotence left behind?