Nothing ever exists... ? - Page 4

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Time makes motion possible.

How so?

It exists. Matter exists. We are able to measure these things, implying there is something to measure.

Not necessarily, even though I agree that we are measuring something.

If I drive to my workplace from home and on one occasion it takes me 1 hour to cover 20 miles of road, all it means is that I measured speed on one specific occasion in terms of units of my choice, which in this case is 20 mph. The units could as easily have been meters per second or some other third thing like knots if I took a ferry instead of driving in a car. What exactly exists in this scenario is questionable. The distance? Question then arises, by land or by water? Also, just because I choose to take the shortest route everyday doesn't mean that it's the only route possible. I could choose to "lengthen" the distance at will by taking a really long route. What's stopping me from going from NY to Boston via San Francisco?

But yes, we are measuring something in terms of something.

Time is what prevents everything happening at once, just like space prevents everything happening at a point.

Is this philosophy or science? If science, how are time or space "preventing" simultaneity?

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Time makes motion possible.

How so?

Because you can't measure change without time. If you go from point A to point B, there is a time when you are at A, and a time when you are at point B. If there is no change in time, no t=0 or t=1 for example, it implies you are at point A as well as point B, which is absurd. This example relates time to a change in distance, but the same can be extended to changes in other dimensions.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

It exists. Matter exists. We are able to measure these things, implying there is something to measure.

Not necessarily, even though I agree that we are measuring something.

If I drive to my workplace from home and on one occasion it takes me 1 hour to cover 20 miles of road, all it means is that I measured speed on one specific occasion in terms of units of my choice, which in this case is 20 mph. The units could as easily have been meters per second or some other third thing like knots if I took a ferry instead of driving in a car. What exactly exists in this scenario is questionable. The distance? Question then arises, by land or by water? Also, just because I choose to take the shortest route everyday doesn't mean that it's the only route possible. I could choose to "lengthen" the distance at will by taking a really long route. What's stopping me from going from NY to Boston via San Francisco?

But yes, we are measuring something in terms of something.

Changing units doesn't change the fact that you're measuring something. Yes, distance exists. And so does time. No matter what unit you assign to it, call it 100 abra per dabra. No matter what route you take. You cover some distance within some time. Speed itself is distance/time, implying that time is there.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Time is what prevents everything happening at once, just like space prevents everything happening at a point.

Is this philosophy or science? If science, how are time or space "preventing" simultaneity?

If there is no time, then there is no before and no after. Time is what separates events. And space separates out "things" so that everything isn't at a "point".

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Because you can't measure change without time. If you go from point A to point B, there is a time when you are at A, and a time when you are at point B. If there is no change in time, no t=0 or t=1 for example, it implies you are at point A as well as point B, which is absurd. This example relates time to a change in distance, but the same can be extended to changes in other dimensions

huh?

You said time makes motion possible..I asked you how is time making motion possible. Just because you measure a change in position over time, doesn't mean time is making it POSSIBLE. Unless acted upon by a net force, objects at rest tend to stay at rest and objects in motion tend to stay in motion. That's the very first law of motion. Time is not making motion possible, whatever that means.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Changing units doesn't change the fact that you're measuring something. Yes, distance exists. And so does time. No matter what unit you assign to it, call it 100 abra per dabra. No matter what route you take. You cover some distance within some time. Speed itself is distance/time, implying that time is there.

Yeah, I can see time there in the equation(s). Question is, is it there for real.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

huh?

You said time makes motion possible..I asked you how is time making motion possible. Just because you measure a change in position over time, doesn't mean time is making it POSSIBLE. Unless acted upon by a net force, objects at rest tend to stay at rest and objects in motion tend to stay in motion. That's the very first law of motion. Time is not making motion possible, whatever that means.

Saying time makes motion possible doesn't mean that it is the cause, only that it is a requirement for it to happen. Requiremenet =/= cause. Force is the cause of motion, but without time it is not possible. Because motion itself implies an object at some place at particular time, and at another place at some other time.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Yeah, I can see time there in the equation(s). Question is, is it there for real.

Well, I am replying to your roughly after 9 hours you posted, so that's pretty real for me. We can debate about the nature of time all we want, but I guess it's pretty clear that it is there.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

FT! Ft! FT!

There is no such requirement for motion. You are making it up.

We are the ones keeping time using different devices It could be a mechanical device that relies on a repetitive oscillatory process or an electronic device that relies on a vibrating tuning fork or a quartz device that relies on a vibrating/oscillating quartz crystal or an atomic device that relies on vibration of electrons in a Cesium atom. No matter what device we use, we are the ones that made up the device and we are the ones keeping time. We are doing it to track events so events make sense to us, that's all. Without us, time is useless to the universe.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

FT! Ft! FT!

There is no such requirement for motion. You are making it up.

We are the ones keeping time using different devices It could be a mechanical device that relies on a repetitive oscillatory process or an electronic device that relies on a vibrating tuning fork or a quartz device that relies on a vibrating/oscillating quartz crystal or an atomic device that relies on vibration of electrons in a Cesium atom. No matter what device we use, we are the ones that made up the device and we are the ones keeping time. We are doing it to track events so events make sense to us, that's all. Without us, time is useless to the universe.

I am not making it up. Without time, how do you propose motion will take place? You wanna move from a point to another, without any elapse in time? How is that even possible?

Again, we aren't creating time. I am not talking about measuring devices or units here. They are our conventions, but they are for measuring something. And that something is real. It's like saying space doesn't exist, we just use rulers to track distance but it's all in our head. No. We measure something real.

We are recent beings in this Universe. So are our time tracking devices and measuring units. But time flew happily before we came along, didn't it? For billions of years.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112
[

Without time, how do you propose motion will take place?

Motion itself is just a change in location or position. You have to study mechanics to understand the relationship between motion and forces and energy. How much did the object move and how much time it took to move is just curiosity. That curiosity is not what is making the object move. That curiosity is only explaining certain mechanics behind the motion.

You wanna move from a point to another, without any elapse in time? How is that even possible?

Precisely why we "invented" time. We need a way to sequence events, find the duration of an event, find the interval between events to make sense of things all around us.

It's not as though motions of objects (or better yet events) are happening due to time, it is that we need to invent a concept to understand the events that are happening.

Again, we aren't creating time. I am not talking about measuring devices or units here. They are our conventions, but they are for measuring something. And that something is real. It's like saying space doesn't exist, we just use rulers to track distance but it's all in our head. No. We measure something real.

Space is tougher to crack, than time. But we will get to it in a bit. For now, let's go with "we invented time but we haven't yet understood space fully".

We are recent beings in this Universe. So are our time tracking devices and measuring units. But time flew happily before we came along, didn't it? For billions of years.

Two words: math and telescopes and probes. OK, that's three words.

What they did was observe cosmic background radiation and calculate the cooling time of the universe. Also, they took into account the expansion of the universe and calculated the age of the universe extrapolating time backwards. Later they merged different theories. That gave them an approximate timeline, give or take a few million years.

And then they hit singularity, so they said, what time, what space, fk off!

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Motion itself is just a change in location or position. You have to study mechanics to understand the relationship between motion and forces and energy. How much did the object move and how much time it took to move is just curiosity. That curiosity is not what is making the object move. That curiosity is only explaining certain mechanics behind the motion.

I do understand enough of kinematics to understand the basics of motion. The force that you talk about has time embedded in it. You can't have motion without time. Motion without time is like having a thing in two places at the same instant, it's just absurd.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Precisely why we "invented" time. We need a way to sequence events, find the duration of an event, find the interval between events to make sense of things all around us.

It's not as though motions of objects (or better yet events) are happening due to time, it is that we need to invent a concept to understand the events that are happening.

No, you do require time for change to occur. Not just motion. Take decay of particles for example. Again, a function of time. It's not an invention. Changes have to have a duration. Time is not just in our minds. It is real.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Space is tougher to crack, than time. But we will get to it in a bit. For now, let's go with "we invented time but we haven't yet understood space fully".

Nobody is going with "we invented time". Not the scientific community, at least. I will go with "we don't understand time fully yet".

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Two words: math and telescopes and probes. OK, that's three words.

What they did was observe cosmic background radiation and calculate the cooling time of the universe. Also, they took into account the expansion of the universe and calculated the age of the universe extrapolating time backwards. Later they merged different theories. That gave them an approximate timeline, give or take a few million years.

And then they hit singularity, so they said, what time, what space, fk off!

Yes, and those things took time to happen, and happened without us here "inventing time". Time elapsed, universe expanded, changes happened. We moved from low entropy to high entropy. The light you are observing from stars far away tells that they existed that long ago because we are receiving their light now. They existed long before we were here. Long back in "time".

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

"Motion without time is like having a thing in two places at the same instant, it's just absurd."

The word Instant itself is defined as a precise moment in time.

You are pretty much saying "motion without time is like having a thing in two places at the same time", which is saying the same thing twice in different words. That's a tautology!

Entropy is related to the "direction" of time and not time itself.

Why do you think they say that the laws of physics are time invariant? Because the laws themselves hold up just fine even if you reverse time. The only reason the physical processes are not reversible to you (or me or others) is because they don't make sense when viewed or perceived in reverse. That's all.

At the risk of repetition, it's all about making sense to the human mind. Hence the concept of time which "moves" forward.

Quote

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8