Thread: An Interesting Thought About Time

Why is it 2015 and not 2012 or 1985

Because culture.

Why am I 26 and not 8?

Because culture. Your existence is more than 26 years old though, I'd also rather celebrate the beginning of my existence if that didn't brought uncomfortable thoughts

Why now?

Actually, you can only perceive the past not the present.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Actually, you can only perceive the past not the present.

Could there be an exception to this? Namely, dreams?

Yes, we must wait a tenth of a second to process waking-life perception, leaving us always a moment in the past. Also, our cognition, intelligence, identity, and general sense of reality are all defined by our memory (by the past, as it were). So we truly do live in and are defined by the past.

But in dreams we are experiencing "reality" the instant it is created by our unconscious for a true "Here & Now" moment; there is no lag, because there is no physical perception going on, so no input for the brain to process. Hell, you can even "see" into the future when you are lucid and go about creating your own dreams.

Even things like cognition and identity in NLD's are "Here & Now" conditions due to the disconnect with memory. There is still the fact that your dreaming engine, the unconscious, is still fueled by memory (the past), but because that fuel does not do much leeching into the dream itself (not in an organized manner, anyway), that fact might not totally mar the "Here & Now" aspect of dreaming.

I think advanced meditation might also hold to this exception as well.

I could be totally wrong, but it is an interesting thing to consider.

(Let us know if we're going off-topic OP)

But in dreams we are experiencing "reality" the instant it is created by our unconscious for a true "Here & Now" moment; there is no lag, because there is no physical perception going on, so no input for the brain to process. Hell, you can even "see" into the future when you are lucid and go about creating your own dreams.

This immediately reminded me of a talk by LaBerge on the subject (which complements your great paragraph on topic):

But in dreams we are experiencing "reality" the instant it is created by our unconscious for a true "Here & Now" moment; there is no lag, because there is no physical perception going on, so no input for the brain to process. Hell, you can even "see" into the future when you are lucid and go about creating your own dreams.

At a basic level I'd agree: there is no (or almost none) sensory input influencing the experience. But even dismissing the technicality of synaptic transmission (the rates naturally vary depending on the myelination) (which I'd feel it would be cherry-picking ^^) we still have to include the integration of so many neural areas in the prodution of the dream experience which would provoke this lag at some degree. There's actually a paper that explores this (even more relevant now that you mentioned meditation):
Reversal of cortical information flow during visual imagery as compared to visual perception The study was also mentioned in another pop-science channel (I'd advise watching the video for reasons I'll mention in a bit):

In short, what the study showed is that we use reverse pathways when processing either sensory input (originated from "reality"), or producing mental imagery. Now, I'd be careful not to generalize day-dreaming to dreaming, but for the sake of practicality I'll do it: so when imagining/dreaming the information flows from a high-order region to a lower one (which is the contrary of what happens when you receive a sensory stimulus).
As a bonus, there's also a mention to the role of the paracingulate sulcus in another study which hinted at why some people have trouble differentiating between imagined events/actions and actually past real events/actions (doesn't this sound familiar with your reverse reality check Sageous? )
Anyway, back to the main topic: there would be then SOME lag, but extremely minimized, so in some sense, we could indeed call dreams and imagination a representation of the present. I guess it would be interesting to see an experiment testing the flash-lag effect inside a lucid dream

Originally Posted by petersonad

An Interesting Thought About Time

I wonder... Why is it 2015 and not 2012 or 1985. Why am I 26 and not 8? Why am I only aware of the current time I'm in now?

Why now?

Does anyone understand my question?

I understand what you mean. I'll sum it up for you although this may actually confuse you further. The question actually needs a much longer explination of how your consciousness functions which I'm not wiling to sit and write out as it would take too long and this could turn into a very long discussion indeed. If you really want to take this further and understand the nuts and bolts of how consciousness works PM me and I'll point you in the right direction. As for your question, my answer is the following:

All time is contained in the now moment. There is no future or past there is only now. The illusion of time is just a byproduct of the way your consciousness functions to give you the experience of physical reality. Your perception is what gives all that is, contained in the now moment, structure and meaning.

Perhaps there is no such thing as time at all... I forgot to mention that earlier.

Time is a word invented by people. It's misleading word that could leads someone to think it actually exists in nature. There is no such thing as time, there is just movement of everything. Man invented mathematics, which also doesn't exist in the nature. It works, because our brains are made to see systematical patterns. So after invention of mathematics or similar pattern concepts it can be applied to movement and voila there is time!

I don't think it's accurate to say I understand your question, petersonad, but I think I might understand what's motivating it. It does seem like a question.

However... I think it's the kind of question that it's not within our cognitive bounds to answer. Or, considering that said cognitive creatures are the ones asking the question, a little more critically: it's a question that doesn't actually mean anything.

By way of explanation, think of a bunch of valid "why" questions and their answers. Maybe you'll be able to think of a counterexample to what follows, in which case I'd be fascinated to hear. But I think you'll find that your "why" questions never truly provoke an "a priori" understanding of the phenomenon in question. Rather, they simply describe or reduce it in terms of some other phenomena. For instance, "why does the wind blow" is a valid "why" question, and an acceptable answer is something like "differences in air pressure". But of course, this just translates the existence of wind to some other phenomenon, which we could also ask "why" of. Never will we reach a self-contained explanation which relies on nothing else. The question you ask, however, isn't amenable to that kind of response; there's no prior phenomenon we can rely on to construct an answer, or any means of explanation to reduce the question such a phenomenon. So the question is not actually a question.

"MU"

Originally Posted by Zoth

Because culture.

Either this is a really strange response, or you misunderstand the original poster -- unless I am the one misunderstanding them. I think you're explaining why we signify the current time by the number 2015. The reason for this is indeed culture -- we use an arbitrary calendar. But I don't think that's what they were asking about. I think they were asking why the current time is the actual objective time signified by the number 2015. In other words: why is the current time the year where the Dawn probe arrived at Ceres and Vanuatu experienced a cyclone? Why not a different time, like the year that Clinton was elected? Or Vesuvius erupted?

Originally Posted by Sageous

Perhaps there is no such thing as time at all... I forgot to mention that earlier.

For any sensible definitions of "time" and "exist", one will grant that the statement "time exists", insofar as it has any meaning, is true. The statement will translate to something roughly like "change is observed", which is indubitable.

Originally Posted by Nfri

Time is a word invented by people. It's misleading word that could leads someone to think it actually exists in nature. There is no such thing as time, there is just movement of everything. Man invented mathematics, which also doesn't exist in the nature. It works, because our brains are made to see systematical patterns. So after invention of mathematics or similar pattern concepts it can be applied to movement and voila there is time!

Something being a word doesn't mean it's "invented" in the sense of fabricated. "Movement" is also "a word invented by people", but you don't seem to have any scruples about asserting the reality of movement. What's the difference? As far as I can tell, the existence of "movement" and "time" are fairly synonymous. They are both essential to giving useful descriptions of observations, which is the only sensible criterion for knowledge of existence.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Something being a word doesn't mean it's "invented" in the sense of fabricated. "Movement" is also "a word invented by people", but you don't seem to have any scruples about asserting the reality of movement. What's the difference? As far as I can tell, the existence of "movement" and "time" are fairly synonymous. They are both essential to giving useful descriptions of observations, which is the only sensible criterion for knowledge of existence.

I mean if there is no human, there is no time. If there is no human, there is still movement.

Why?

^^ Since time is a tool for humans to measure movement and change, if there were no humans, then there would be no need for the tool. Movement, however, would continue with or without us.

I think we might be using different definitions. I think by "time" you perhaps mean something like "9.30am"; the signifier, not the signified; an arbitrary product of culture, in much the same way as Zoth. I'm talking about that which is signified by "9.30 am".

Clocks are tools. Time isn't a tool. A clock is only useful as a tool because it measures an actual aspect of reality, just as speedometers are only useful as tools because they measure movement.

Consider a planet orbiting a star on the other side of the galaxy, which we're not observing or interacting with at all. If time did not exist and were not passing for that planet, it would be frozen in space. I don't think anyone really believes that.

Another thing: what about space? Is space also just a "tool" which stops existing when there are no humans? I find it very difficult to understand what somebody could possibly mean if they assert that space doesn't really exist. However, in light of special relativity, it is known that space and time aren't actually separate entities at all, but are entwined aspects of a single structure. It's both or nothing. If you think space exists, you're compelled by relativity to accept that time exists.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Since time is a tool for humans to measure movement and change, if there were no humans, then there would be no need for the tool. Movement, however, would continue with or without us.

Exactly.

and there is more these fabricated human tools of which original purpose is transformed into wrong understanding. I mean they are usually really great and usefull, but I think it is important to know that these are just human tools or inventions, not the real nature.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

I think we might be using different definitions. I think by "time" you perhaps mean something like "9.30am"; the signifier, not the signified; an arbitrary product of culture, in much the same way as Zoth. I'm talking about that which is signified by "9.30 am".

No. It doesn't matter about 9:30 or a culture. What does matter is that your brain can recognize some equally long intervals. You can create mankind calendar by observing your regular pooping cycle.

Clocks are tools. Time isn't a tool. A clock is only useful as a tool because it measures an actual aspect of reality, just as speedometers are only useful as tools because they measure movement.

Clock is human's physical tool, time is human's intellectual tool, movement is nature's tool.

Consider a planet orbiting a star on the other side of the galaxy, which we're not observing or interacting with at all. If time did not exist and were not passing for that planet, it would be frozen in space. I don't think anyone really believes that.

If time did not exist the planet wouldn't be frozen in space. Contrary if there wouldn't be movement, the planet would be frozen, but that's nonsense because you need a lot of movement so form a planet in the first place. And while there is already a movement, it cannot be suddenly stopped.

Another thing: what about space? Is space also just a "tool" which stops existing when there are no humans? I find it very difficult to understand what somebody could possibly mean if they assert that space doesn't really exist. However, in light of special relativity, it is known that space and time aren't actually separate entities at all, but are entwined aspects of a single structure. It's both or nothing. If you think space exists, you're compelled by relativity to accept that time exists.

Space is not a tool and it is not dependent on humankind.

and about light in special theory relativity? I don't understand it at all.

Originally Posted by Nfri

No. It doesn't matter about 9:30 or a culture. What does matter is that your brain can recognize some equally long intervals. You can create mankind calendar by observing your regular pooping cycle.




Clock is human's physical tool, time is human's intellectual tool, movement is nature's tool.



If time did not exist the planet wouldn't be frozen in space. Contrary if there wouldn't be movement, the planet would be frozen, but that's nonsense because you need a lot of movement so form a planet in the first place. And while there is already a movement, it cannot be suddenly stopped.



Space is not a tool and it is not dependent on humankind.

and about light in special theory relativity? I don't understand it at all.

You are using a different definition of time, as Denziloe already said. This isn't debatable, the context in which you are using "time" yourself and in your explanations of everything, you are using the word time as meaning something related specifically to humans. I understand that this is your point, but what you are calling "movement" and alluding to as not being time because time cannot exist without humans is in fact the "time" Denziloe and personally myself are using when regarding the subject of the thread. I.e., time as a general concept that exists without humans, the ability for things to move and occur. There is not reason to arbitrarily use the definition you say that we have to use when it makes it 10x more difficult to discuss the topic and there is no good reason why we should use yours.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Could there be an exception to this? Namely, dreams?

Yes, we must wait a tenth of a second to process waking-life perception, leaving us always a moment in the past. Also, our cognition, intelligence, identity, and general sense of reality are all defined by our memory (by the past, as it were). So we truly do live in and are defined by the past.

But in dreams we are experiencing "reality" the instant it is created by our unconscious for a true "Here & Now" moment; there is no lag, because there is no physical perception going on, so no input for the brain to process. Hell, you can even "see" into the future when you are lucid and go about creating your own dreams.

Even things like cognition and identity in NLD's are "Here & Now" conditions due to the disconnect with memory. There is still the fact that your dreaming engine, the unconscious, is still fueled by memory (the past), but because that fuel does not do much leeching into the dream itself (not in an organized manner, anyway), that fact might not totally mar the "Here & Now" aspect of dreaming.

I think advanced meditation might also hold to this exception as well.

I could be totally wrong, but it is an interesting thing to consider.

Dreams couldn't be an exception because your brain still has to come up with meaning for everything you are experiencing and keep track of what order things happen in, etc. There is too much for it to be "instantaneous" and for it to have any kind of meaning whatsoever. I doubt a being bound by the physical laws could ever experience things real-time.

There is too much for it to be "instantaneous" and for it to have any kind of meaning whatsoever. I doubt a being bound by the physical laws could ever experience things real-time.

Sageous was being somewhat "poetical" in here: of course there is no such thing as instantaneous perception, everyone here knows that even light takes time to reach it's destination. But in the sense of dismissing the need for sensorial input, you could joke about dreaming being a reality of the "present".

On another note, this discussion about time is way too complex for me (I only have very basic knowledge of physics), but extremely interesting ^^

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Another thing: what about space? Is space also just a "tool" which stops existing when there are no humans? I find it very difficult to understand what somebody could possibly mean if they assert that space doesn't really exist. However, in light of special relativity, it is known that space and time aren't actually separate entities at all, but are entwined aspects of a single structure. It's both or nothing. If you think space exists, you're compelled by relativity to accept that time exists.

Funny you should ask. Space, literally, does not exist: by definition, space is nothing at all. Like it or not, there is no such thing as space: it has no mass, no energy, no physical presence at all; just like time. We do indeed use space as a tool to grasp our physical universe. As such a tool it is extremely important (like time), but aside from being a way to measure and attempt to make sense of the distance between objects (from electrons to galaxies), there really is no thing that could specifically called space.

And when considering relativity, if you really think about it, it is not the interaction of time and space that we are observing, but the effects of relativistic changes in motion, light, and gravity, as perceived and measured by we humanly observers, using time and distance as our yardsticks.

So: Yes, just as there is no "thing," that is time, there is no "thing" that is space. Neither exist.

On that same note: Snoop,

time as a general concept that exists without humans, the ability for things to move and occur. There is not reason to arbitrarily use the definition you say that we have to use when it makes it 10x more difficult to discuss the topic and there is no good reason why we should use yours.

How does a general concept exist when there is no one there to conceive it?

You are sort of making our point for us, I think, by indicating that time is just a concept. I also believe that time has nothing to do with the "ability of objects to move and occur," they do all that just fine on their own. Also, I'm not sure why you feel this makes the topic more difficult to discuss; this description of time (and space) that we offer is actually quite simple... seems like a good reason to use it right there.

Originally Posted by Nfri

No. It doesn't matter about 9:30 or a culture. What does matter is that your brain can recognize some equally long intervals. You can create mankind calendar by observing your regular pooping cycle.

Why do you mention that your brain can recognise it? The brain can recognise movement, too, but you don't rule out movement as existing.

If time did not exist the planet wouldn't be frozen in space. Contrary if there wouldn't be movement, the planet would be frozen, but that's nonsense because you need a lot of movement so form a planet in the first place. And while there is already a movement, it cannot be suddenly stopped.

Again, arguing that movement exists isn't "contrary" to time existing: it doesn't establish anything. They both exist. You haven't explained why the planet wouldn't be frozen in space if there was no time.

Space is not a tool and it is not dependent on humankind.

and about light in special theory relativity? I don't understand it at all.

Then you should look up some introductory material; the theory is quite simple. In particular you should look up Lorentz transformations. Essentially they show that time and space are not separate dimensions: they objectively commingle. A good analogy is with the three space dimensions. It makes absolutely no sense to say that the x-dimension exists but the y-dimension doesn't, because they're just two aspects of the same thing (three dimensional space). If you rotate clockwise by 45 degrees, your new and equally valid x and y axes will become a mixture of the two previous axes. It goes just the same with spacial dimensions and time. It simply makes no sense to say the spacial dimensions exist but the time dimension doesn't.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Funny you should ask. Space, literally, does not exist.

Then, curiously, it appears you actually have a diametrically opposed position to Nfri.

by definition, space is nothing at all.

By what definition? I've never heard space defined like that. If space is a synonym for the word "nothing", how is it that there are several mutually inconsistent models of space -- flat, spherical, and so on? There's only one type of nothing. How is it that space warps in general relativity? You can't bend "nothing". When I ask my friend "what's colder than absolute zero" and my friend replies "nothing", are they telling me that space is colder than absolute zero? Certainly not. It appears to me that the definition you provide is clearly not correct.

While we're on the subject of definitions, can you give me a few examples of things which you do consider to exist? My tentative guess would be solid objects, atoms, and so on. If so I'm curious as to why these things differ from space in their entitlement to "existing" status. How are you defining "exists"?

Like it or not, there is no such thing as space: it has no mass, no energy, no physical presence at all

It has extension and volume. These can be measured in metres. Energy presupposes the existence of space for its definition, and has a unit of Newton*metre.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Then, curiously, it appears you actually have a diametrically opposed position to Nfri.

So? I guess I didn't read Nfri's post closely enough, and we certainly didn't plan our respective responses in advance. I'm honestly not sure why that matters, actually.

You're gonna love this:

By what definition? I've never heard space defined like that. If space is a synonym for the word "nothing", how is it that there are several mutually inconsistent models of space -- flat, spherical, and so on? There's only one type of nothing. How is it that space warps in general relativity? You can't bend "nothing". When I ask my friend "what's colder than absolute zero" and my friend replies "nothing", are they telling me that space is colder than absolute zero? Certainly not. It appears to me that the definition you provide is clearly not correct.

As far as I know, there is only one overall definition for space: nothing. Aside from their not being definitions at all, those mutually inconsistent models you list are not about space at all: they are models of the observed (either physically or mathematically) interactions of matter and energy occupying space (yes, you can occupy nothing). It isn't space/time that is warping, but observed light and gravity; it isn't that space is spherical or flat, but that the objects in it have arranged themselves in patterns that cumulatively assume those shapes, with space simply being the measure we use to describe that arrangement. Space remains the same -- nothing -- since you cannot warp, round, or flatten nothing.

Though your interpretation of your friend's response about absolute zero is curious (the context of "nothing" in that case was not about space, but your friend's assertion that absolute zero is the lower limit for temperature, and playing a semantics game with his use of the word doesn't change much), I would agree that the temperature in space that is devoid of any energy or matter would indeed be absolute zero. There may be only one type of "nothing," but that fact does not preclude us from using the word in ways that depart from base meaning of "space." So my definition still feels reasonably correct.

How about a definition from you? You assert that space and time are real things; so what are they, then? Can either be held or measured? And no, volume is not a tangible thing; it is as much a tool for observation as are hours and minutes; that you can establish a measured distance between two objects does not mean that that distance is a tangible, touchable, "thing." Regardless of the volume you measure, the space filling that volume has no mass, no energy, nothing physical at all (except of course for any physical objects that might occupy that volume). So, given that it isn't space that is warping, and that volume has literally nothing in it, how would you define space as a physical entity? Is it energy? Is it matter? Are there space particles, or time waves?

While we're on the subject of definitions, can you give me a few examples of things which you do consider to exist? My tentative guess would be solid objects, atoms, and so on. If so I'm curious as to why these things differ from space in their entitlement to "existing" status. How are you defining "exists"?

I am not defining "exist," but yes, matter and energy certainly exist, because they have definite physical properties. I'm pretty sure I never said matter and energy do not exist. And, since "solid objects, atoms, and so on" are made of matter and energy, they certainly exist. I'm not quite sure how you expected me to answer that question, since I have been implying as much throughout my posts; indeed, if I thought matter and energy did not exist, what I was saying would make no sense at all.

It has extension and volume. These can be measured in metres. Energy presupposes the existence of space for its definition, and has a unit of Newton*metre.

As I already said, volume and length (extension) are tools for measurement, and not physical entities unto themselves. Also, energy certainly does not presuppose space because one of our tools for measuring it is a newton-meter. That is like saying paved asphalt exists only because our tool for measuring it is a kilometer.

I know you're not buying any of this, Denziloe, and that's just fine; my wife and I have been having this argument for a decade now, and she still assures me that time is very much a real thing... I'm quite used to be an outlier on this subject.

So, if a certain radioactive substance releases energy at a very exact rate, and it has an exact mass, then at a predictable point 1/2 of the mass will have become lighter molecules and energy. A very predictable point, as in exactly at a certain predictable "moment." Now if we also know that the planet rotates a certain amount in the interval between energy release from that substance, it can be concluded that when the substance reaches 50% mass the moon above it will be in an exact phase and a certain exact place on the surface of the planet will have the sun directly above it. Given the truth of these highly predictable rates of movement, and how the predictable events WILL occur at an exact "time" how does the presence of sentient minds matter at all? Is this not time as we know it? Would the correlations in movement not still be the same if we did not exist? How does time cease to have the same properties just because no one thinks about it. Sounds silly to me. The correlations of rate are still there so why define it depending on whether I will get bored waiting for it?

^^ 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. And yes, this is indeed "time as we know it," but if we weren't here it would no longer be as we know it, I think:

There is no force called "time" that causes that atom to release energy at a steady rate; to imagine an atom working from a strict a time schedule seems a bit silly on its face, I think. Instead, the atom is simply changing its state and releasing energy in the process; that that process appears to us to be occurring on a precise schedule is a result of us attaching the yardstick of time to it, and not one of the atom following a precise time-ordained schedule. By the same token, the earth's spin and the moon's orbit are not regulated by time, but by their relative movement and inherent energy involved (i.e., inertia and gravity); nothing they are doing is influenced by a thing or force called time. Time is not behind these things at all, but it is necessary for us to use time in order to make sense of the changes, and perhaps help organize our world by discovering a "precision" in the changes.

These things only appear to be happening at precise, predictable rates because we are here to say "Hey, these things are happening at a precise and predictable rates." If we were not here to say that, they would still happen anyway, with things like rates, precision, and time having no meaning (mostly because there would be no meaning to have, what with "meaning" being another sentient invention). And yes, because the energies released by decaying atoms and the movement of celestial bodies tend to be extremely uniform phenomena, we can actually use them as a foundation for calibrating the tool that is time.

As an interesting aside, I read a book recently called How the Shaman Stole the Moon, which describes how ancient peoples originally noticed that the sun and moon moved in precise manners, and from that they learned to make predictions about moon phases, seasonal changes, and even eclipses, all of which both helped their tribes (i.e., knowing better when to plant crops) and empowered the shaman predicting the changes because it seemed downright magical. It wasn't magical at all, though; just a primitive application of time as tool.

Although I am sure this conversation requires playing at looking at definitions from different perspectives, it feels to me that according to the view that time and space doesn't exist, the following would also be true: Evolution doesn't exist. There is merely matter, energy, and a dynamic interaction between the two, the rest is just human description and therefore doesn't exist without humans. This to me doesn't sound right. It's not because we need humans to describe time in minutes that it removes time, it only removes minutes. Also, science relies on time and space being real. For example, the movement of an object is defined as its location in space through time. Space can just be the description that two dots can be at two different locations as the same time and that there is a distance between the two. A little bit like a magnetic field doesn't "exist" but it does have a real effect. What the word "magnetic field" refers to must exist, because it is observed.

But maybe this is a game, like a person saying "Come and sit down upside down right here and then look in that direction. You'll see that what you see is mind-blowing!" So I don't see what's wrong with playing along and be mind blown. Why do I resist?

Originally Posted by Sageous

There is no force called "time" that causes that atom to release energy at a steady rate; to imagine an atom working from a strict a time schedule seems a bit silly on its face, I think. Instead, the atom is simply changing its state and releasing energy in the process; that that process appears to us to be occurring on a precise schedule is a result of us attaching the yardstick of time to it, and not one of the atom following a precise time-ordained schedule. By the same token, the earth's spin and the moon's orbit are not regulated by time, but by their relative movement and inherent energy involved (i.e., inertia and gravity); nothing they are doing is influenced by a thing or force called time. Time is not behind these things at all, but it is necessary for us to use time in order to make sense of the changes, and perhaps help organize our world by discovering a "precision" in the changes.

Yeah, totally agree.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Funny you should ask. Space, literally, does not exist: by definition, space is nothing at all. Like it or not, there is no such thing as space: it has no mass, no energy, no physical presence at all; just like time. We do indeed use space as a tool to grasp our physical universe. As such a tool it is extremely important (like time), but aside from being a way to measure and attempt to make sense of the distance between objects (from electrons to galaxies), there really is no thing that could specifically called space.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Then, curiously, it appears you actually have a diametrically opposed position to Nfri.

If you mean ''empty space'' then I agree as well...

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.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

... it feels to me that according to the view that time and space doesn't exist, the following would also be true: Evolution doesn't exist. There is merely matter, energy, and a dynamic interaction between the two, the rest is just human description and therefore doesn't exist without humans. This to me doesn't sound right.

That's because it isn't right.

Evolution certainly exists, and does so without the assistance of any specific force called time, and without consideration for some requirements set by a thing called time. Evolution is about change, and I never said change does not exist. Whether humans were around to describe it or not, life would still evolve, and the things that are evolving also exist whether we observe them or not, and, of course, those evolving things are a specific collection of matter and energy -- a specific collection, a living whole, that does indeed exist whether or not humans have observed it.

It's not because we need humans to describe time in minutes that it removes time, it only removes minutes.

Okay. Then tell me, what object or force that is time remains after the minutes are removed? I know I've asked this a few times now, and haven't gotten an answer yet: what are the physical properties of time? Before you answer: since change and movement are not the physical properties of time, but rather the observable results of the physical behavior of actual physical objects, I don't think using them to describe time as well quite makes sense.

Also, science relies on time and space being real. For example, the movement of an object is defined as its location in space through time. Space can just be the description that two dots can be at two different locations as the same time and that there is a distance between the two. A little bit like a magnetic field doesn't "exist" but it does have a real effect. What the word "magnetic field" refers to must exist, because it is observed.

Science uses time and space to define its observations and make the equations work: the movement of an object through space is going to happen whether humans are observing or not; that we attach the yardsticks of time and space to define and comprehend that movement should not require us to make time and space physical entities in order to complete the comprehension. Also, I'm not entirely sure that a responsible scientist would tell you that time and space are "real" without adding some sort of qualification.

That there is a distance between two objects does not give space existence; it only says that two objects are not together, and are separated by nothing (aka, space).

A magnetic field certainly exists. It exerts force, can be felt, measured, even seen. In other words, it has physical properties that, as you say, can be observed. I'm not sure I understand why you mentioned it.

But maybe this is a game, like a person saying "Come and sit down upside down right here and then look in that direction. You'll see that what you see is mind-blowing!" So I don't see what's wrong with playing along and be mind blown. Why do I resist?

No, this is not a game. I am just pointing out something about which I have a certain opinion, and felt it worth discussing. I really do not play games or try to mess with people's heads, or other troll-like things, and I am sorry you have that impression.