Does Time Truly Exist or Is It Merely a Human Construct?

[Gir]

Who is suggesting this straw horse: "on top of each other"? Only someone who is only able to conceive of a chain of events, one causing another, as something that requires time be real would suggest such a thing. Certainly not Billy T.

One thought can lead to another, one event can lead to another, Time has nothing to do with this. Part of the purpose of my prior post was, as you correctly guessed, to show that even "the arrow of time" (entropy increasing points to the future) is just statistically likely, not necesarily true. If you can not even be sure which way is future and which was past, how can you think time real?) Calling demonstrations such as my marble box demo a "ton of scepticism" is not much a reasoned argument. It is border line name calling, and not your first either (see below.)

Time is not required for complete discription of the universe, thoughts included if you are a physicalist, not an idealist, or one of their ilk who assumes thoughts are given to you by some "spirit."

That is, I have demonstrated mathematically that every equation describing physical events, including their changing characteristics, can be written without any reference to time. I.e. the conection from event to event is direct, without using time as an intermediary. This is possible and demonstrated. QED in post 1.

Only a person firmly holding a limited view ("time must exist") and incapable of understanding other alternatives would persist in thinking "events must be on top of each other" if not "displaced in time" (Ergo time is real.), rather than understanding the obvious: "Events cause events" (not time) - The mantra I have been chanting in more than a dozen posts.

This counter proof: "time must be real because if it were not, then events would be on top of each other and since they are not, time must be real." Is circular reasoning, question begging or whatever you want to call it, and not the first time you have so violated the only really universally accepted rule of your beloved metaphysics.

I challenge you to show time is real, without first assuming it is as part of your "proof." That is give me a proof, even a metaphysical one, but a math proof would be much stronger, that time does exist, which does not effectively begin by the assumption that it does. Your above counter proof: "Since events are not on top of each other (but distributed in time - only alternative you recognize as possible) then yes they are distributed in time and consequently time must exits" is more clearly seen as circular if expanded to fully expose your "logic" as I have just done.

You concluded an earlier post by stating that I do bad metaphysics (and or Math - I forget which, but will dig it out if you like and cite other examples of your circular reasoning also if requested.) Although I don't put much weight in metaphysical arguments, I would at least avoid circular ones.

okay, you're looking at the universe as a machanical device, machanical devices require time passing in order to get these prosesses going. enforcing the idea that time is real. moving of an object takes time, I am not saying motion IS time, only a reference to a point in time. a visable clue that things are not the same as they once were.

if time does not exist then how would anything ever happen? you seem to be missing the fundimental flaw in your idea, if time doesn't exist, then either nothing would happen at all, or all things would happen in less than an instant. we observe the passage of time as things around us move. your little math solution only works if you don't need to know how fast your marble is moving. you're confusing the issue I am afraid. saying that things happen as a series of events in itself implies that time exists. if there is no time there can be no movement.

 

[Redfox]

Time doesn't etist.

if time does not exist then how would anything ever happen? you seem to be missing the fundimental flaw in your idea, if time doesn't exist, then either nothing would happen at all, or all things would happen in less than an instant. we observe the passage of time as things around us move. your little math solution only works if you don't need to know how fast your marble is moving. you're confusing the issue I am afraid. saying that things happen as a series of events in itself implies that time exists. if there is no time there can be no movement.

Any movement is triggered by anything but time itself.

On one hand time truly has no meaning or point to exist, but yes, it is questionable.

We are forgetting one moment. All definitions currently used in physics are separated into definitions themselves to HELP our mind to cope with understanding of physical reality of any sort. Example: If we look at anything out there, it can be interpreted in either terms of mass, velocity, temperature etc., or otherwise in terms used to define the activity of moving particles within object.

Mass can be "adjusted" as a property to a particular object or particle.
Relative velocity can be a property of any object.
Quantity of particles can be a property of an object.
Activity and degree of freedom of particles can be a property of an object (otherwise known as temperature).

Time is one of primary terms used in physics to set a virtual axis, from where other calculations or assessments can be made. Classical physics only presumes that time exists. It means that it is set as a term or definition in the first place, i.e. there is no possible proof that it can exist by itself, without judging the change.

There is no set quantity of time, no seen start of time, no seen end of time. It is only "measured" in terms of periodical change occurring in the "time measuring machine" (i.e. sand clock or atomic clock).

Once again as any primary definition (such as temperature) it is set to assist our brain to process information about reality, otherwise we would not be able to judge events.

Our consciousness it trapped within its own setup and the setup of our brain, in other words our brains are made in such way that we only see one "moment of time", now, and can clearly define it as reality. We can remember the past, not witness it and we can foresee the future, not witness it.

There are speculations that reality we experience can be virtually "casted from somewhere else", i.e. stipulated by something that we do not see or witness clearly now, because some of us claim they may foresee. It may also imply that the past exists because it is "casted to somewhere else", because we may remember or see something from the very deep past i.e. claim to have "past life experiences". Again this is only one of the ways to think about it.

However it does not mean that time, as such, is an issue. It is only a primary definition used in classical physics, and there are other alternative ways to enterpret reality and the thread of events.

Classical physics is a pure realistic approach in understanding something that in fact has a dual nature, both organised and chaotic, and is not entirely understood yet. It is based on definitions, such as time, mass, relative velocity, formulas and equations.

It is set this way because it suits human brain best. Using this rationalistic approach, the more we discover, the more definitions we need to introduce, because quite often we come across something that does not fit into the given set of definitions. Yes, there are many areas where we "stumble" in understanding, but on contrary this approach has worked best for us so far.

Classical physics hopes that one day we would not need to seach for any more definitions, i.e. we will clearly understand reality. It would mean that human knowledge would have achieved utmost understanding.