Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I added a bit on the end of my last post, and what you've said here indicates I was right. Semantic differences. What you're calling time is what the rest of us refer to as an abstract human concept of time - the measuring of it.

Proof: "Most creatures actually get through their lives without any concept of time at all, yet movement exists in their worlds."

If time doesn't exist until it's conceptualized by intelligent beings, then how could humanity have evolved in order to do that conceptualizing? The 'time' you're talking about obviously didn't exist until we dreamed it up, therefore it's only a conceptualization.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere!

Yes indeedy, I've been saying from the get-go that time is a human invention meant to lend order to what would otherwise be a chaotic universe. And that order wasn't necessary until some caveman looked around and said, "I am." Before that we were like any other critters, living in a timeless here & now, with no memory of yesterday or dreams about tomorrow. The amazing complexity of knowing there was a past and will be a tomorrow led us to need time, among a bunch of other new concepts, like religion and hope.

It's clear that these are only semantic differences. In order for us all to have a meaningful discussion and understand each other, a little on-the-fly translation is necessary. Sageous, when you see one of us use the word time, you should substitute "movement". When you use the word time, we should substitute "the abstract measurement of movement, entirely independent of movement itself". In that way I think we'd all be talking about the same thing.

Semantics is the wrong word, if you'll pardon the pun. You're saying that movement is really the same as time? Does everyone here think that? Is that what they're teaching in school now? I am deeply confused. I had always thought that movement was the result of force acting on an object, period. Where exactly does time step in to make an object move? Forgive my shortness here, but this is a bit disturbing, and "movement = time" is something I honestly had never heard before. It certainly explains my oddness, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Sageous

You're saying that movement is really the same as time?

Well, not exactly the same as... that's a bit of an oversimplification so I could express it in one word. To define it better for the sake of clarity, I'd say that time is necessary in order for motion to be possible. Using only the 3 spacial dimensions you can define only a static universe. For a universe with motion, you must include the 4th dimension - time. This is what I was getting at by bringing up the whole 4th dimension thing.

I completely agree that the human conceptualization of time marked a gigantic step foward for us from animals who can't consciously think about it in the abstract and so can't plan for the future or make sense of the past but can only react in the moment prompted by memory and instinct. The human concept of time is a tremendous milestone in our development. But, like language, it's only a symbolic conceptualization.

I don't really know a better way to define time itself. But think about what would happen if you could freeze time, or speed it up or run it backwards. I know, totally theoretical situations, if any such thing would really happen we'd be frozen or sped up or whatever right along with everything else so we wouldn't be aware of anything happening, but imagine standing outside of time. If you freeze time nothing can move - there can be no life. Without duration, there can't be thought, since thought requires movement of electrons. Maybe duration is a better term than movement. But honestly I think movement gets more to the heart of the phenomenon of time. The terms aren't completely identical, but movement is utterly dependent on time.

But I'm using too many words again. Guess I need to stop.