Thread: No such thing as time

I'm an agnostic on this one but McTaggert is generally considered to be the man to go to for this class of arguments. There are other people that have made this argument and I am planning on getting a book on the philosophy of time soon so one of them may convince me.

I dismiss McTaggert's argument by saying that the A-properties (defined in the link) are not intrinsic attributes of an individual time but merely relative locators. So I would be called an "A Theorist".

That being said, I'm open to a good argument that time does not in fact exist. The main obstacle that needs to be overcome, in my judgement, is that if we deny the existence of the past, then we necessarily(?) have something that does not exist affecting that which does, i.e. the present.

I believe in time because I am aware of myself passing through it.

Thanks for the link, PhiSto--interesting reading

I don't have a lot of time right now for a response to the OP, but for me a boundless present encompassing both past and future, as well as all possibilities, follows naturally from the recognition that all boundaries originate in perception, and the objects and events we carve out of our field of awareness with these boundaries have no fixed quality of existing on their own. That's a headful, I know, but for a simpler approach, answer this question:

When is now?

Is the beginning of this sentence in the past while the end is in the future until now?

I agree with Taosaur. There is no time because it is but a perception.

There is no real movement or "passing through", which is just illusory. In the infinite Reality, nothing is "going" anywhere as it is already everywhere present by its own nature. Ultimately, there is only Absolute Stillness. Perception hides it because it focuses on specifics and appearances and ignores the greater context in which it even exists.

See time-line below (everything in red is an arbitrary projection onto Reality):

Past<<<<-----<<Previous<<-----Now/Eternity--->>Next>>-------->>>>>Future

Same deal with space, really. The space in which anything can be known has no locality at all. If you point to an "over-there", from where are you viewing it? Void. Perception would steal the origin and claim that you are sitting in front of a computer, but after the fact that the computer is deemed "out there." That's just imaginary, like time. Of course, it is convincing at first, but there is still room for questions and inconsistencies.


Void/Omnipresence/Non-locality]--->>Locality/Point/Position

I think time is a construct of the mind. Your standpoint (perspective) determines your relationship to time. Time is relative to the observer. So in principle, and in my belief - time is happening all at once, it is the moment. Think about a computer, to the computer .000000000000001 0f a second is enough time to make a calculation, but that is relative to the speed of the information within. Time is really just a way to measure matter (imaterial as well, such as thoughts) over a distance.

I do not believe in time. The past is only memory, and the future is only prediction. Neither is tangible, only the present.

now....is time linear or cyclical?

Uhh... Linear. We perceive 'time' as a ray. A 'monomension' that we move across.

the faster you travel the slower times moves, this is a science fact.
so the question becomes what is the measurement used that we call time?

is it something that all atoms contain or is it a governing factor like gravity?

i believe in the latter.

I think this thread is about the fact that there is no time

True, but hasn't that already been answered.

i used to not believe in time and the reason i believed it didn't exist was because time is a concept based on the rate of decay, some things however do not decay and therefore time does not inherently exist.

but now i believe it exists for the reason i've already said.

Originally Posted by Avatarus

the faster you travel the slower times moves, this is a science fact.
so the question becomes what is the measurement used that we call time?

is it something that all atoms contain or is it a governing factor like gravity?

i believe in the latter.

The more mass you have, the slower you move through space. Same thing. The more possible outcomes, the higher your probability.

What exactly are you asking/implying?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

The more mass you have, the slower you move through space. Same thing. The more possible outcomes, the higher your probability.

What exactly are you asking/implying?

i was implying.


i was simply saying that time exists, which is fact, and then i gave my reason for why i once believed it didnt but also highlighting where the confusion for many was coming from.

people can understand that time exists but they, of course not meaning us, sometimes dont realise that time is a governing factor like gravity, its not something thats born in matter.

for example a rock can be heavier or lighter without 'changing' its structure. much like perceived time can move faster or slower without 'changing' the observer.

?

You say the faster you move the slower time moves, but how does that prove time exists? Why is it not just that the faster you move the slower you decay? It doesn't prove time

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

You say the faster you move the slower time moves, but how does that prove time exists? Why is it not just that the faster you move the slower you decay? It doesn't prove time

What does decay have to do with time?

Well my conclusion is that humans have constructed time in our minds, because we can perceive decay.

So a ball being tossed through the air has nothing to do with it? It would seem that motion is far more fundamental.

Yeah, but can you prove that the ball was tossed through the air after it hits the ground? Assuming it leaves no evidence.

can you prove that an object was in a non-decayed state before you see it in a decayed state?

What about clouds moving through the sky?

That's the point. You cant prove time, so i will not believe it.

But you can experience it.

No, i'm not experiencing it. I am simply being. I never was, and i never will be. I am.

Weren't you just making arguments about world war II in the past few days?

Yeah. I'm not rejecting time as a measuring instrument, its very convenient and user-friendly. I just reject the fact that there is a tangible substance called time.