Time does not exist.

[ken]

I am not sure why you are repeating things to Me regarding the non-existence of time. I agree wholeheartedly "time" in the general concept of time does NOT exist. I said that previously. I just asked the question, Do you think that there could be a possibility that space could also not exist? A simple yes or no would suffice here.

No, space exists.

I just want you to see that if you are not open to the possibility that space does not exist, then that will explain and as such is the reason WHY it is so hard for you to explain to others that time does not exist, in the way you are talking about "time" here, if they believe time does exist. If people are not open to a "new" idea or a new way of looking at (some) things, then just saying and repeating things, even with proof and evidence, will not work on most occasions. What is needed is a new way to express/explain, which by the way if that new way is found or discovered please let me know of it.

That is true. It was very difficult for me too to find out a line of reasoning to show that time does not exist. I don't think if I could do better than that since my argument is very simple and short.

It is also very difficult for me too to find a line of reasoning to show that space does not exist. I do not think if I could do better than that since my argument is very simple and short.

Would you, could you, accept that as a reasonable excuse for the reason as to why I can not yet get you also to see that space actually does not exist?

If not, then you are just the exact same as the "others". In that you continually want to believe in that what you already believe to be true.

You, and some others, have a problem of how do I find the way to get people, who continually want to believe that 'time' does exist, to understand what I am saying?

Other people have the same problem, (but different topic), of how do I find the way to get people, who continually want to believe that 'space' does exist, to understand what I am saying?

I, on the other hand, have the problem of how do I find the way to get ALL people, who continually want to believe that both 'time' and/or 'space' does exist, to understand what I am actually saying?

[bahman]

I am not sure why you are repeating things to Me regarding the non-existence of time. I agree wholeheartedly "time" in the general concept of time does NOT exist. I said that previously. I just asked the question, Do you think that there could be a possibility that space could also not exist? A simple yes or no would suffice here.

No, space exists.

I just want you to see that if you are not open to the possibility that space does not exist, then that will explain and as such is the reason WHY it is so hard for you to explain to others that time does not exist, in the way you are talking about "time" here, if they believe time does exist. If people are not open to a "new" idea or a new way of looking at (some) things, then just saying and repeating things, even with proof and evidence, will not work on most occasions. What is needed is a new way to express/explain, which by the way if that new way is found or discovered please let me know of it.

That is true. It was very difficult for me too to find out a line of reasoning to show that time does not exist. I don't think if I could do better than that since my argument is very simple and short.

It is also very difficult for me too to find a line of reasoning to show that space does not exist. I do not think if I could do better than that since my argument is very simple and short.

Would you, could you, accept that as a reasonable excuse for the reason as to why I can not yet get you also to see that space actually does not exist?

If not, then you are just the exact same as the "others". In that you continually want to believe in that what you already believe to be true.

You, and some others, have a problem of how do I find the way to get people, who continually want to believe that 'time' does exist, to understand what I am saying?

Other people have the same problem, (but different topic), of how do I find the way to get people, who continually want to believe that 'space' does exist, to understand what I am saying?

I, on the other hand, have the problem of how do I find the way to get ALL people, who continually want to believe that both 'time' and/or 'space' does exist, to understand what I am actually saying?

Could you please provide your argument on space?

[Greta]

Space only exists in a relative sense. In truth there is no space - the universe is one loosely connected system. So space is simply a way of describing areas of relative low density through which more dense objects can move. To the perspective of a neutron star, planets and stars are "space"; a neutron star could move as freely through the Sun or the Earth as you could walk through fog.

Time and its directionality appear to be driven by the entropic effects of dark energy.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Time is a concept related to relative motions and not motion. That is the difference.

In what way does "motion" exist, where "time" does not?

We directly experience motion by our senses. We cannot experience time directly since we have no sense for such a experience. Time is only a concept which can be derived from relative motion. We however have psychological motions so we can experience the relative motions which we falsely interpret it as passage of time. We can simply find out that time does not exist using a simple task: Just find a quite place and don't let that your mind scattered by any outside and inside stimuli. You will find that there is no passage of time since there is no relative motion.

Wrong. You do not have to witness motion to feel the passage of time. I experience the passage of time every day. Trying sitting still for a few minutes, or waiting for your doctor's appointment.

What is interesting is that, whilst we can verify the uniform passage of time by a thousand different means our experience of time is far from linear. In the same way our experience of motion is far from linear, and most of the motion that our bodies are exposed to we experience very little of it.

[bahman]

Space only exists in a relative sense. In truth there is no space - the universe is one loosely connected system. So space is simply a way of describing areas of relative low density through which more dense objects can move. To the perspective of a neutron star, planets and stars are "space"; a neutron star could move as freely through the Sun or the Earth as you could walk through fog.

We directly experience forms. Forms are embodied inside space.

Time and its directionality appear to be driven by the entropic effects of dark energy.

We can also experience motions and time is just a concept which can be derived from relative motions.

[bahman]

In what way does "motion" exist, where "time" does not?

We directly experience motion by our senses. We cannot experience time directly since we have no sense for such a experience. Time is only a concept which can be derived from relative motion. We however have psychological motions so we can experience the relative motions which we falsely interpret it as passage of time. We can simply find out that time does not exist using a simple task: Just find a quite place and don't let that your mind scattered by any outside and inside stimuli. You will find that there is no passage of time since there is no relative motion.

Wrong. You do not have to witness motion to feel the passage of time. I experience the passage of time every day. Trying sitting still for a few minutes, or waiting for your doctor's appointment.

What is interesting is that, whilst we can verify the uniform passage of time by a thousand different means our experience of time is far from linear. In the same way our experience of motion is far from linear, and most of the motion that our bodies are exposed to we experience very little of it.

So you believe that time exist even if everything freezes?

[Terrapin Station]

Why would we say that it's not motion?

Because we can observe/experience motions directly so it is easy to measure relative motion which is related to concept of time.

Are you really paying attention to what you're saying, Bahman?

You just said that the reason that we would say that time is not motion is that we can observe/experience motions directly.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We directly experience motion by our senses. We cannot experience time directly since we have no sense for such a experience. Time is only a concept which can be derived from relative motion. We however have psychological motions so we can experience the relative motions which we falsely interpret it as passage of time. We can simply find out that time does not exist using a simple task: Just find a quite place and don't let that your mind scattered by any outside and inside stimuli. You will find that there is no passage of time since there is no relative motion.

Wrong. You do not have to witness motion to feel the passage of time. I experience the passage of time every day. Trying sitting still for a few minutes, or waiting for your doctor's appointment.

What is interesting is that, whilst we can verify the uniform passage of time by a thousand different means our experience of time is far from linear. In the same way our experience of motion is far from linear, and most of the motion that our bodies are exposed to we experience very little of it.

So you believe that time exist even if everything freezes?

It takes time to 'freeze", but eventually the spring comes., because the earth continues its passage through space.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why would we say that it's not motion?

Because we can observe/experience motions directly so it is easy to measure relative motion which is related to concept of time.

Are you really paying attention to what you're saying, Bahman?

You just said that the reason that we would say that time is not motion is that we can observe/experience motions directly.

I'm told that the earth is racing through the galaxy, circling the sun and rotating. None of these things are part of my experience, though my body is undergoing those motions.

[Terrapin Station]

It takes time to 'freeze", but eventually the spring comes., because the earth continues its passage through space.

He means freeze in the Sydney Shoemaker sense.

See http://erraticwisdom.com/files/time_without_change.pdf

[Terrapin Station]

Because we can observe/experience motions directly so it is easy to measure relative motion which is related to concept of time.

Are you really paying attention to what you're saying, Bahman?

You just said that the reason that we would say that time is not motion is that we can observe/experience motions directly.

I'm told that the earth is racing through the galaxy, circling the sun and rotating. None of these things are part of my experience, though my body is undergoing those motions.

In other words, I asked him for the justification of not simply saying that time is motion/processual change. He said that the justification for that is that we can observe/experience motion directly.

So in other words he's saying that just in case one can observe/experience x directly, then that's a justification for not considering F to be x. Which is a bizarre thing to say. Why would the ability to observe or experience something directly be a justification for not considering some term to be the thing that we can observe or experience directly?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Are you really paying attention to what you're saying, Bahman?

You just said that the reason that we would say that time is not motion is that we can observe/experience motions directly.

I'm told that the earth is racing through the galaxy, circling the sun and rotating. None of these things are part of my experience, though my body is undergoing those motions.

In other words, I asked him for the justification of not simply saying that time is motion/processual change. He said that the justification for that is that we can observe/experience motion directly.

So in other words he's saying that just in case one can observe/experience x directly, then that's a justification for not considering F to be x. Which is a bizarre thing to say. Why would the ability to observe or experience something directly be a justification for not considering some term to be the thing that we can observe or experience directly?

There are obviously several levels of irony that he seems to have missed here.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It takes time to 'freeze", but eventually the spring comes., because the earth continues its passage through space.

He means freeze in the Sydney Shoemaker sense.

See http://erraticwisdom.com/files/time_without_change.pdf

I was having a laff.

[bahman]

Why would we say that it's not motion?

Because we can observe/experience motions directly so it is easy to measure relative motion which is related to concept of time.

Are you really paying attention to what you're saying, Bahman?

You just said that the reason that we would say that time is not motion is that we can observe/experience motions directly.

Yes, I am aware of what I am saying: Time is an concept we invented to measure relative motion.

[Terrapin Station]

It takes time to 'freeze", but eventually the spring comes., because the earth continues its passage through space.

He means freeze in the Sydney Shoemaker sense.

See http://erraticwisdom.com/files/time_without_change.pdf

I was having a laff.

You need to use a smiley face with that stuff or something.