1.  Well, I am definitely more business minded and like history, while physics and science (which I think time could be categorized under?) are never things I boast of knowing a lot about or enjoying. After reading through the posts, and being thoroughly confused, a neat little paradox I heard a while back came to mind, and I figure that sharing it might help with the discussion, and a lot of you may have already read it, but it's Zeno's paradox. Here is a quote from wikipedia. "In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.[13] It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible."

2.  itt: Newtonians and Kantians disagree. I will make a serious contribution later

4.  Originally Posted by Nfri But moving things don't require an observer. Imagine you are last living man and then you die. Things don't stop moving or existing. They will happily continue to move. If alien race find your body year after your death and ressurect you, there would be evidence of year movement of things all over the place ) Also if you would be last man on the earth and you would die, the concept of time in your head would ended, therefore no more time. What would left is just movement of things. But time doesn't require an observer. Imagine you are last living man and then you die. Time doesn't stop progressing or existing. It will happily continue to progress. If an alien race finds your body a year after your death and resurrects you, there would be evidence of a year's movement of things all over the place ) Also if you were the last man on the earth and you died, the concept of movement in your head would end, therefore no more movement. What would be left is just time.

6.  I'll try not to get in the middle of yours and Sageous' despute here, denziloe, but if you are still interested in this discussion, I'd like to bring my perspective to the table because I think I may be able to reach a middle ground between your opposing viewpoints. So first off, do you believe it to be possible to conceptualise of space and time abstracted from all human experience? Secondly, you assert that the human cognitive faculty defines things as red or solid, but do these properties inhere in object themselves or are they only as those objects appear to us? You may point to the wavelength of light that determines the band of the colour spectrum red, but this has little meaning to the colour blind or the blind since birth other than as an object of the intellect. We do not experience time and space intellectually, but as the structure of our perceptions. I do not consider spacetime theory to contradict this proposition, on the contrary, relativity and the observer effect would seem to suggest a gap between things as experienced and in themselves. When I die movmment and entropy as physical laws may continue (to state otherwise would be solipsism) but time will have lost all meaning. Any time spent unconscious may as well be a second as a century, subjectively. The reason why you and Sageous have clashed is because you are speaking of time in itself whereas Sageous is speaking of time as we know it. No wonder there are misunderstandings in the thread when I'm not sure you are even disagreeing with each other on a structural level.

8.  Ctharlie, I'll address everything that was an explicit question in case it helps you to follow up before next time. Too tired to engage beyond that now, I'll catch you tomorrow. Originally Posted by Ctharlhie So first off, do you believe it to be possible to conceptualise of space and time abstracted from all human experience? Can you clarify this question a bit? Secondly, you assert that the human cognitive faculty defines things as red or solid, but do these properties i here in object themselves or are they only as those objects appear to us? I don't believe that "objects themselves" is meaningful. That's not to say I deny their existence; I have no position on the statements "objects themselves exist" or "objects themselves do not exist" because I don't know what they mean and can't see any means of answering them. All I can say about red is that some objects I see I perceive as similar in some way (examples include strawberries and stop lights). By definition these objects appear red. Solidity can be defined in the same way (examples include this sofa, this laptop, but not air), but I could also take a different approach and break it down into simpler concepts, like rigidity and non-intersection. Many things I observe act according to this model.

11.  ^^ I called the questions rhetorical to save you the trouble of answering. If you'd like to do so, then go ahead. It is absolutely amazing, BTW, that you feel you are the one being massively misrepresented...are you not reading what I wrote at all? Okay, High ground for real now....

12.  Originally Posted by Sageous ^^ Yes, all those things will happen whether we are there to see them or not, but that correlation and predictability you discuss are not present unless sentient beings are observing the activity. This is only stating the obvious, which is why I don't get why there is really a debate (about this, at least) here at all. Obviously if there are no beings to do the predicting or correlating, the predicting and correlating cannot occur. What does not go away is what those beings were predicting and making correlations about. So again, "time" as the human concept of time does not exist without human beings, but "time" as in the observable and measurable process the concept is derived from still does. There isn't a point in even mentioning that time without humans doesn't exist during the course of the discussion of the original topic because it does nothing to add to the conversation that the topic was meant to discuss. That has been my point the entire time. If this rather odd technicality is preventing us from discussing anything meaningful (which it is), then why are we even bringing it up? We all know what we mean when we are saying "time" as its own functional process rather than our concept of time and ignoring the less useful meaning of the word helps with coming to a better collective understanding of one another. That's what we do when there are several meanings for a word, we pick the one most relevant and useful for the discussion because otherwise it's impossible to decipher what everybody is saying. Why is there so much friction here? It's got me completely baffled, I really am genuinely confused right now.

13.  I agree and that's why I've been insistent on definitions for terms, although I'm not sure the disagreement can be resolved in exactly that fashion. The only form of the statement I've recieved from Sageous is "time does not exist" or "space does not exist". But if that's referring to the human concept -- which as you say, ceases to exist where humans do -- the fact is that humans obviously do exist, for aĺl of us. So surely the concept does, too? So whence the negation? There's a second problem of consistency. Sageous also insists that some things are totally distinct from time in that they do exist, such as energy. If it's just a matter of the concept vs. the thing it's derived from, how come energy -- also a concept and a thing -- gets treated differently from space and time?

14.  Originally Posted by Ctharlhie Your argument hinges on the presupposition that the sciences grant us to things as they are in themselves, the empirical viewpoint. On the other hand, I and Sageous, would argue that we only know things as we know them, or as Heisenberg so memorably put it: "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." . Again, you are stating the obvious. I am not disagreeing with you, nor do I think Denziloe is. What you aren't getting is that this knowledge does absolutely nothing for us when discussing the OP. What you are stating, essentially, is that we should not be having this topic open for discussion in the first place because we can't know that time does not exist as we observe it if we aren't actively observing it. Again, this is actually true (the latter bit, no the part about not being able to discuss it)! HOWEVER, in the spirit of actually discussing what this thread was created for in the first place, we have to assume that it works as we observe it, without us observing it. To paint the picture better here, I will provide two different concepts for you to understand better: 1) Ever watch South Park? There is an episode where Cartman and Kenny get sent off by child services to live with agnostic parents who constantly reiterate that nobody could ever know whether a god exists or not, so debating his existence is pointless and forbidden. You guys are acting like the agnostic parents in this example. 2)In this very thread, 4 people are agreeing with each other, but for whatever reason arguing. Two of them recognize that they technically agree with each other, but the other two see it as a disagreement and are saying that, because we aren't recognizing the disagreement (which isn't actually occurring and even if it were, it would be pointless to discuss in regards to the OP), no further discussion of the original topic can take place.

15.  Edit: this was a reply to Ctharlie, whose post has vanished at the moment, I guess because of a bug. My argument didn't actually hinge on that, and unfortunately I never really got to lay out my personal approach (I was just trying to probe what Sageous thought). As you rightly went on to say, I'm definitely not tryring to make a statement about things in themselves, as I don't think that language has meaning. Definitely not a Platonist, though; what did you think was Platonic? My guess would be that you thought I might be trying to invoke the Form of the red, but the Form of the red is a pretty hefty metaphysical assertion, whereas I made a very sparse -- tautologous, even -- claim; namely that we percieve a similarity between certain objects. This intentionally invokes nothing.

16.  Originally Posted by Sageous (that our use of time as tool has turned into a perception of time, which has turned into an irrefutable assumption that time is real, even though it has no physical properties) Denziloe, I would like to hear your clear statement written in simple english for not native english speaker about this above. snoop So again, "time" as the human concept of time does not exist without human beings, but "time" as inthe observable and measurable process the concept is derived from still does. How can you say in one sentence that time does not exist without human beings, but time as observable and measurable process the concept is derived from still does? As far I know only human can observe and measure time, so without human there is no concept. What would left I think is just movement of things. Denziloe Also if you were the last man on the earth and you died, the concept of movement in your head would end, therefore no more movement. What would be left is just time. I think we have just the opposite understanding of words. For you is my movement = time and for me is your definition of movement = time.

17.  Okay this is my statement: There is ''everything". Evolution made our brains filter view of "something" from "everything". Let's now accept that ''something'' is only think that matters in our debates. (by this I mean our viewing of everything) Now: If you die, what will left? In the previous human view there would remain the same something including not existing concepts such as time etc. But if you don't include your previous human view, there couldn't left anything, because something is only think that we know. This trouble me a lot, because in this conlusion if it actually exists or not doesn't matter. My common sense tells me that only real existing things such as physics and movement and energy and these evident things would left and nothing else. Now when I think about it deeply, I'm not sure even about this ground.

18.  Originally Posted by Nfri our use of time as tool has turned into a perception of time, which has turned into an irrefutable assumption that time is real, even though it has no physical properties Denziloe, I would like to hear your clear statement written in simple english for not native english speaker about this above. Sure thing. I think exactly the same statement applies to other things which you acknowledge to exist. I gave an extensive elaboration of this point in my discussion of energy at the end of the big reply to Sageous. Sageous was unwilling to consider the actual point that was being made there and pretended I was just trying to be a pedant about physics, but I hope that you can see what I was actually saying; energy itself is irrelevant, it's just being used as an example, to explore what it means to say that something exists. In case you don't personally believe that energy exists, just pick another example (like movement, for instance). These things are all noticed, then used as conceptual tools, and we say they exist. As to "physical properties", you haven't defined it so I can't answer to that. But if they're all the same in this respect then it's inconsistent to say some exist and some don't. We could either say they all don't exist, or they all do exist. That second approach is the one I'd take because it seems the most useful and common use of language, but it's really a matter of semantics at that point; we could take the opposite approach, but that wouldn't have any substantive consequences, it would just mean we were using words differently. I think we have just the opposite understanding of words. For you is my movement = time and for me is your definition of movement = time. I didn't actually believe what I wrote there -- I would say they both exist. My point was that you can swap the words and the argument isn't changed. Therefore the argument lacks substance; we don't quite have the opposite understanding of words, but the disagreement is an issue of definitions, and that was my point.

19.  Originally Posted by Denziloe Sageous was unwilling to consider the actual point that was being made there and pretended I was just trying to be a pedant about physics, but I hope that you can see what I was actually saying; Nice.

20.  Originally Posted by Denziloe energy itself is irrelevant, it's just being used as an example, to explore what it means to say that something exists. In case you don't personally believe that energy exists, just pick another example (like movement, for instance). These things are all noticed, then used as conceptual tools, and we say they exist. As to "physical properties", you haven't defined it so I can't answer to that. But if they're all the same in this respect then it's inconsistent to say some exist and some don't. We could either say they all don't exist, or they all do exist. That second approach is the one I'd take because it seems the most useful and common use of language, but it's really a matter of semantics at that point; we could take the opposite approach, but that wouldn't have any substantive consequences, it would just mean we were using words differently. What we're just trying to say is that there are 2 main categories of existing things: 1. category of existing things: Tree'll still grow, rock'll still fall, water'll still flow. Energy'll transfer, sun'll shine. These things will continue if there is no man. I call this simply ''movement'' of things 2. category of existing things: Concept of time as it was invented thanks to mathematics and other fabricated non nature existing things. The other example is empty space. Another good example is god. Money is good one.... These things would not be in the world anymore if there is no man, because they are constructed ideas in human's minds, not nature.

21.  I still don't understand the inconsistency. Why don't you list the "concept of energy" in the second category? And why don't you list "time", as opposed to the mere "concept of time", in the first category?

22.  Well I'm finished making my point, if you guys don't want to accept or even try to understand what I'm saying, then whatever. I was never disagreeing with you, but proposing we simply allow the usage of the word "time" even when in a hypothetical situation humans don't exist, therefore "time" doesn't exist. It's like that topic about what would you do if you were the only person on earth, suddenly. I missed the apparent point of the topic and took it literally, whereas it was supposed to be a fun topic that didn't want to deal strictly with reality--which I wound up accepting. My proposition of using the word "time" was simply to make the conversation flow easier since we all know what we mean by time even when we're saying humans don't exist. If time can't be measured because humans don't exist, how can we be certain there is still movement in the universe if no one is there to see it? Yet you still claim there would be, and it's making the exact same point you're using in this argument. However, it's really not this big of a deal, unless you guys are responding to someone else making the argument, please don't respond to this. Enough topic space has been wasted on this stupid argument.

23.  Interesting how this thread carried on for so long. Allow me to present my own "south park agnostic" side to the debate. The concept of time and movement are relative. This means that time and movement can only be measured in so far as comparing them to something else. Our entire existence is built on a reality molded by relativistic assumptions. This however in no way disproves or nullifies the concept that an absolute form of time exists. There may very well be a force that causes time to propogate in a forward motion. Whether it exists in nature is a moot point. Every single concept ever devised by man can be argued to not exists in nature. While I certianly enjoy seeing debate and critical thinking, I think we are putting too much time (pardon the pun) into discussing the merit of a human concept which at this point is but an abstraction of reality. We hardly understand the exact workings of subatomic particles, let alone the substance or (lack thereof) in which they preside. To make a statement such as "time is but a tool for humans, it has no basis in reality" or "time is the cause for all change" is equally erroroneous. All in all I would have much rather seen this discussion head towards the original direction both sageous and zoth had taken.

24.  Originally Posted by dutchraptor All in all I would have much rather seen this discussion head towards the original direction both sageous and zoth had taken. Me too.

25.  Hi ,sorry to intrude on u scientists,sages,philosophers.i liked the start of this debate but for some reasons everyone started showing muscle ,and the time and energie u have deployed run out on u guys,and sageous,u started seeing red and denziloe wanted to prove his knowledge and u deprived him of this pleasure and TIME run out on u guys ,philosophie means that any subject u start discussing with anyone grant them automatically the right to go on and on as they think the debate at hands would take them,but always staying polite,not condescending that would be fruitless and boring,because philosophie is therapeutic the sky is the limit,and sageous i would be more humble if I were u everybody likes ur jibes.good luck.

Page 2 of 3 First 1 2 3 Last