Does Time Actually Exist?

[marcel_leonard]

In this sense you are literally making the creator the universe; I have no problem w/ the fact that I come from noble gases and cosmic compounds, the problem I have is where does the intelligent purpose come from? <br /><br />This is probably the main reason we fight over fossil fuels and kill thirty three people whose only crime was they wanted to become engineers/scientist. Without a purpose life become meaningless to some. For the sake of those thirty three people over at VT I hope the rent of time is something they will never have to worry paying about ever again… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

The intelligent purpose comes from a need within the minds of humans. I see no evidence of any intelligent purpose in the Universe. I just see an awesome, wondrous and beautiful system working, which we are an almost infinitesimally small part of.<br /><br />Of course, I ask myself what caused us to be here. I usually find my answer is that we have the extreme good luck to be an organism that evolved intelligence in this magnificent universe which allowed us to be able to experience it's wonder and to ponder what we should be doing with it. And that's coming from an atheist! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[brellis]

speedy! it seems like it's been a long time since I noticed your illuminating presence here. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">The intelligent purpose comes from a need within the minds of humans. I see no evidence of any intelligent purpose in the Universe. I just see an awesome, wondrous and beautiful system working, which we are an almost infinitesimally small part of. </font><br /><br />In my own pursuit of cosmic understanding, I've come to appreciate the ability to simply leave some questions unanswered, like "if God made the animal kingdom, and the garden of eden, why'd he bother to make vicious parasites?"<br /><br />Years ago - way too many to admit - I got into an hours-long cosmic discussion with a Jesuit Priest who had no trouble talking with a non-believer about the universe. He was a bit like our former SDC member Newtonian, but he never drifted into biblical quotes in an attempt to justify his own beliefs. <br /><br />I raised the subject of the diminishing "reality" of the hereafter: the heavens are pretty solidly identified now, so where do the angels and God live? That sort of topic. <br /><br />Father Andy was as well-informed as any scientist, and perfectly content to pursue knowledge of the universe without feeling the "need" to find "intelligent purpose" in the cosmos. I wish more religious people had the intellect of the Jesuits.<br /><br />[/end of ramble] sorry - no time, gotta go bak 2 werk! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br /> I see no evidence of any intelligent purpose in the Universe. <br />Of course, I ask myself what caused us to be here. I usually find my answer is that we have the extreme good luck to be an organism that evolved intelligence <br />And that's coming from an atheist! <br /></font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> And I suppose ALL the life on earth EVOLVED from a green slime, that came from the organic molecules from comets hitting the earth, billions of years ago.<br /><br />Well Speedy, if you believe that crap, I've got 2 bridges for sale, one in Booklyn, and the other in San Francisco, that I would sell to you real cheap. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> You could charge each car a toll, and make lots of money. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hi brellis! I have been lurking a bit recently, posting now and again when a thread comes up that I think I may have something positive to contribute to. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I feel responsible for helping to divert this thread towards the anthropic principle (but in answer to others posts) so to get back on topic:<br /><br />Another way of looking at time, or the question of whether time actually exists.<br /><br />Does space actually exist? What actually is it? What is it made of?<br /><br />We can only measure the passage of time using chronometers calibrated in our own arbitrary way, in the same way we can only measure a distance of space using rulers calibrated in our own arbitrary way.<br /><br />When it comes to space we cannot say that the space itself exists as an actual thing, we can only attribute <i> distance </i> to it. This is exactly the same as time, where we cannot say it exists as a thing, but we attribute <i> duration </i> to it.<br /><br />Space itself (in the purest sense, let's ignore the things that may or may not exist within space) is emptiness, void, nothing. So does space actually exist? I would say, in this context, that no, space does not actually exist. We just see evidence of space by the dimensions it presents to us. Just as we only see evidence of time by the durations it presents to us.<br /><br />Just as time can dilate when travelling at a relativistic speed, so can length contract. Both time and space are dimensions that are intrinsically linked and one exists as much as the other does. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<i> And I suppose ALL the life on earth EVOLVED from a green slime, that came from the organic molecules from comets hitting the earth, billions of years ago. </i><br /><br />Hi there Kyle! Well, it seems like the best answer we have so far, and seems to fit with our best observations, so I will go with it for now, until a better model comes along - which may happen with <i> time! </i><br /><br />I never go as far as to say I believe, for facts do not require belief, but I would say I find that crap the most logically plausible crap out of all the crap. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Darn!, and I thought you were going to take me up on that great offer! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[ianke]

Hi speedfreek,<br /><br />I'm glad you decided to help out here. You place things in a concise manner. Enjoyed you imput.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Ianke <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Ianke, you have been hanging out in this thread for too long. I suggest you start a new thread on time, I do have some new thoughts about time. This thread is jumping from topics to topics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I can’t see how you can ask the question “how did life begin on this planet”; yet you don’t seem to question the origins of your own intelligence? You say you don’t see any intelligence at work in the universe, just some beautiful machinery at work. Well sir when I see a broken watch lying on the beach w/ no one in sight as its owner; this still implies a watch manufacturer… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

I said I don't see any intelligent <i> purpose </i> at work.<br /><br />I questioned the origins of my own (or humans own) intelligence and found the most plausible solution to be that it is an evolutionary solution to problem solving (very simply put, and a discussion for another thread).<br /><br />As for the "machinery", well that's your word. I used <i> system </i> as it is a little less controversial. And again you go back to the same basic statement - that the fact that the universe exists implies a creator. But I do not agree.<br /><br />I say the existence of a creator implies a creator of the creator, and that as soon as you use the line of debate that says the creator needs no creator, I can do the same with the universe itself - the universe needs no creator. There is no way to separate our views, except that mine is simpler and more elegant! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Anyway, I thought this thread was about whether <b> time </b> exists? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />I say the existence of a creator implies a creator of the creator<br />Anyway, I thought this thread was about whether time exists?</font><br /><br />Hi Lol, how are you? I just wanted to say that you're right! The creator had a son! And he's one of three parts of this creator. But I'll talk about that, a little later.<br /><br />Einstein is right. You can't seperate time from space when talking about anything in our universe. So, the creator must be timeless (out side our universe) if he chooses not to show himself in our universe. My personal belief is that he showed himself once (the son). And when he died, his (holy spirit, our spirits aren't holy) went back to a timeless dimension to be with (the father) forever (eternally). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hi there Kyle, I'm fine, thanks for asking. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The creator may have had a son, and even a father, but where did the father come from? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />You say the creator must be timeless (outside our universe) and chooses not to show himself in our universe, but I say the eternal universe that is outside ours, and from which ours formed, is also timeless, and the laws of physics there do not allow it to show itself in our universe.<br /><br />But this debate cannot be resolved, and neither of us can either prove the other wrong, or convince the other to change their mind.<br /><br />It is not a matter of either of us having a closed mind, as we both understand the others point of view. As long as we think about these concepts and as long as humans continue to question their existence, mankind will continue to discover more about itself and the universe we live in. There is nothing worse than stagnation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />I say the eternal universe that is outside ours, and from which ours formed, is also timeless, and the laws of physics there do not allow it to show itself in our universe. </font><br /><br />Well, at least we agree on that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> And I'll add, that the timeless dimension (according to physicists) likely exists within our universe at the quantum level, beneath the planck time of 10^-45 sec. The explanation is, that planck time is the time it takes light to travel the planck length of 10^-33cm. And at the speed of light, moments in time stop. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

The biggest problem w/ the Planck time and the speed of light is that at the quantum level we can see it yet it is all theoretical; which as it turns out doesn’t prove one why or the other the existence of time. Like I’ve said many times what we call time is nothing more than our own mortality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />The biggest problem w/ the Planck time and the speed of light is that at the quantum level we can see it yet it is all theoretical</font><br /><br />I would interpret the planck time as the briefest moment possible. It can't be any smaller, because the speed of light sets 2 limits (a speed limit (movement) and a time limit). These limits are physical barriers that can not be broken. I would use the word fundamental, rather than theoretical, because it is based on 2 constants of nature: the speed of light and the gravitational constant, which are both universal. <br /><font color="yellow"><br />Like I’ve said many times what we call time is nothing more than our own mortality. </font><br /><br />That would be another (personal) interpretation of time, seperate from the planck unit interpretation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

Really like everything you've said in this post speed. Look forwrd to reading more of your insight.

 

[serak_the_preparer]

<i>For me, I see the "beginning" as a clash of multiple "dimensions" which reacted together in such a way as to form our current Universe.</i><br /><br />More on those dimensions:<br /><br />Mathematician suggests extra dimensions are time-like by Lisa Zyga (PhysOrg)<br /><br />April 17, 2007<br /><br /><i>In a recent study, mathematician George Sparling of the University of Pittsburgh examines a fundamental question pondered since the time of Pythagoras, and still vexing scientists today: what is the nature of space and time? After analyzing different perspectives, Sparling offers an alternative idea: space-time may have six dimensions, with the extra two being time-like.<br /><br />Sparling’s paper, which was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, lays the groundwork for his theory. He explains how spatial dimensions contain positive signs (e.g., Pythagoras’ 3D space is expressed as the sum of the squares of the intervals in three directions, x, y, and z). Minkowski’s time-like dimension, on the other hand, combines these three dimensions with the square of time displacement, which contains an overall negative sign....</i><br /><br />Whether this study ultimately holds up or not, it does offer up some interesting notions about time.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Thanks. I remember seeing that article not too long ago. Very interesting stuff. Strange how everything seems to come in threes. I agree, it does present time in an interesting way. <br /><br />Ever since I came across ekpyrotic theory, I've been interested in possible external forces that could have lead to the creation of the universe. Ekpyrotic theory may not be right, but it is very interesting to think about.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[ianke]

Wow! We are back ot the topic of time. And just in time too.<img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Hi Serak_the_Preparer,<br /><br />I just finished the read of Spinor 6 demenshional space. Now that my arms are nearly out of there sockets from trying to understand the relationship between 720deg rotations of plates and spinner particles, can you help put this into perspective as to how this is useful? What does this say concerning time (or three dimensions there of) that is an asnswer to what problem? I guess it has me confused at best. Anyone want to do some plain speak on the subject.<br /><br />Ianke<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

So I've been doing more thinking on the subject and after really thinking and grinding the mindwheel, I'm gonna say time has to exist. <br /> If we were strip away all known measurements of time and I sat in a chair for a undeterminable amount of time. What happens to the world around me? <br /> I'm still aging while I sit in the chair. The cells in my body are still dying & regenerating. My hair is going to keep growing, so are my finger & toe nails. After a long enough amount of time passing, I'll be dead. <br /> Time has to be a dimension that is perceived by everything at even the most basic & simplest level. Particles, atoms, molecules, cells, etc has to perceive the 4th dimension of time in order to exist. Space gives matter an area to exist in, while time gives matter a finite length of existence in space.<br /> We as humans are able to perceive time, but we are also able to create measurements for time. We use these measurements to describe "happenings or motions" of events in our space at more percise levels of time. Unlike humans though, things in the microscopic level are able to perceive time as part of their existence....So the microscopic level just knows when its "time" to do whatever it is they do. Which is why I'm still going to die, even if we never measured time or knew of its existence. The the very very small knows, because to exist in our spacetime everything must have some kind of concept of time, a determined amount of living in the known universe.<br /> So time must exist.....right? <br /><br />

 

[SpeedFreek]

I agree. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />There has to be something that controls or limits the speed at which events occur. It allows events to occur, but doesn't allow them to occur all at once.<br /><br />Whatever that <i> thing </i> is, it seems like a fundamental property of our universe. It is <i> perceived </i> as a dimension, but a temporal dimension rather than a spacial dimension. Relativity shows that both distort in the same way through time-dilation and length contraction.<br /><br />But the use of the word <i> perceived </i> is not meant to imply it is an illusion, manufactured in the mind.<br /><br />The time-dilation is real - the observer moving at relativistic speed <i> actually </i> ages less. And the length contraction is real too - the observer would see the distance to their destination shrink by the same factor. The length contraction is real because they see a shorter distance, and cross it in a shorter <i> time. </i> Both space and time are intrinsically linked, so how can time not exist? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[serak_the_preparer]

<i>Now that my arms are nearly out of there sockets from trying to understand the relationship between 720deg rotations of plates and spinner particles, can you help put this into perspective as to how this is useful? What does this say concerning time (or three dimensions there of) that is an asnswer to what problem?</i><br /><br />Came across it in passing, gave it a quick skim and, quite honestly, didn't spend much 'time' digesting it. Threw it onto this thread to provoke the kind of response you requested - get people talking about it.<br /><br />My own notions about time are, in the world of theoretical physics, doubtlessly quaint and unsophisticated. Why can't time just be another dimension of space, as was proposed such a long time ago - a fourth dimension? As in: step outside the universe, look back on it from the perspective of eternity, and the whole thing becomes an object, time and all. But that's just me, and such a simplistic view is probably not all that useful.<br /><br />For a far more insightful and educational examination of what time is, I recommend the following post (which is incidentally the recipient of the little-known - and sometimes actively avoided - 'Serak Award for Thought-Provoking Posting'):<br /><br />Re: Hawking on mars travel [re: alokmohan]

 

[marcel_leonard]

“I would interpret the planck time as the briefest moment possible. It can't be any smaller, because the speed of light sets 2 limits (a speed limit (movement) and a time limit). These limits are physical barriers that can not be broken. I would use the word fundamental, rather than theoretical, because it is based on 2 constants of nature: the speed of light and the gravitational constant, which are both universal.â€<br /><br />I would agree w/ you that is of course at the cosmic level of measurement; when you start delving into the realm of the quantum particles distance and time lose their meaning. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>