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

Originally Posted by Sageous

Uh oh, you're starting to channel Hume...

Who - me? (sorry - little play on wordage there)

Originally Posted by Sageous

Yes, though the words width, height, etc, are just words and have no reality in and of themselves, in their case they tend to represent actual objects that by every definition exist

I call foul! You're applying different standards to the physical dimensions than to time. Width (for instance) does not represent an actual object, only a particular characteristic of that object. In exactly the same way movement represents a characteristic of it.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Interesting video; but you do realize that it is specifically about various philosophical methods for perceiving time, and seems to ignore, avoid, or forget any mention of time as real, right? Sort of makes my point for me, I think... or else I misunderstood

Hahaha no, you're right! I haven't been able yet to find anything referencing 'real' time, I meant that video just as part of the research into modern thought about time - I was hoping to discover something else, but it ain't in that vid. Maybe I need to go back and re-read my book about the special and general theories of relativity.

But I'm starting to feel pretty stupid - like we're wrestling with some pretty basic concepts that seem really difficult to us just because we haven't studied the relevant science, and some of the people on the board are facepalming pretty hard at us.


** Edit
I googled Reality of Time and have been running into some pretty interesting pages. Some of them are pretty bizarre and patently absurd, but this one so far seems like it might get to the heart of 'real time' as we've been discussing: http://www.idiocentrism.com/time3.htm

Click from there to part 1 of the article - that page seems to be the only place where I can find links to all 3 parts together. I've only read partway through part 1 so far, but it seems promising. One intriguing idea - he says that in physics time is believed to be an illusion because it breaks down at the subatomic scale and in extreme relativistic conditions. So it seems he's leading up to something similar to our subject. At the very least it should give us language and ideas to become more conversant.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I call foul! You're applying different standards to the physical dimensions than to time. Width (for instance) does not represent an actual object, only a particular characteristic of that object. In exactly the same way movement represents a characteristic of it.

No foul at all, I think, as the measurement of width does indeed represent an aspect of an actual, existing object. As I said, width is not an object unto itself, but what it represents, or measures, is part of an existing, touchable, part of reality object. Not so with time.

And yes, as I mentioned (finally) above, if you're just laying out a set of dimensions in space, measuring nothing but themselves, then no, they do not exist. In that case they're just like time.

More later, I hope...I want to see your link, but no time now.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I googled Reality of Time and have been running into some pretty interesting pages. Some of them are pretty bizarre and patently absurd, but this one so far seems like it might get to the heart of 'real time' as we've been discussing: The Reality of Time: III

Click from there to part 1 of the article - that page seems to be the only place where I can find links to all 3 parts together. I've only read partway through part 1 so far, but it seems promising. One intriguing idea - he says that in physics time is believed to be an illusion because it breaks down at the subatomic scale and in extreme relativistic conditions. So it seems he's leading up to something similar to our subject. At the very least it should give us language and ideas to become more conversant.

So I read -- okay, skimmed, for lack of time (there it goes existing again!) -- the articles you linked to, and I must say the author seems to be upholding what I've been trying to say... Only his words make much more sense than mine, I'm afraid. Thanks for sharing -- I think it means a lot.

Khh & Xei: You might check out this link and read the articles, as they seem to support -- or explain on both sides, my suggestion that time does not exist. Then, if you still disagree, then argue with that guy and not me, because I'm done.