Time does not exist.

[sthitapragya]

We had a friend here who suggested that space does not exist. Only time does. When you look at distant stars, what you are actually measuring is time and not distance. For instance when you observe a star 5000 light years away, you are not seeing it in the present form. You are watching something that happened 5000 years ago. That star could already have exploded for all you know. So according to him, there is no space. Only time exists. The distance between two objects is actually the time difference between them however infinitesimal the difference might be.

Even if two people are standing a few feet apart, if one observes the other, there is a time lag. So whatever you observe is always the past, never the present.

I think that space does exist. We can perceive/measure it directly. That not the case by time. We cannot perceive it. We use motion in an apparatus, our standard clock, to measure the motion of another thing, subject of our study.

Well, that is his whole argument. You are not measuring space. You are measuring time. Everything is at a certain time distance away from you. When you observe something, what you are observing is something in the past. How can you measure the distance to something in the past? So space does not exist. Time does.

[uwot]

I think that space does exist. We can perceive/measure it directly. That not the case by time. We cannot perceive it. We use motion in an apparatus, our standard clock, to measure the motion of another thing, subject of our study.

The way we perceive and measure time and space are more analogous than you think. Just as all events don't happen simultaneously, and we can count them to record 'time', so all events don't happen in the same location and we can divide their separation into agreed units. We don't perceive any substance called 'space' directly, anymore than we perceive a substance called time.

[bahman]

Like many other philosophical discussion. What is the benefit? You just know more.

So the eight hours I spend at work tomorrow, now I know there is no such thing as time, will feel pretty much like the eight hours I spent there yesterday, when I believed in time? I can't help but question if it was worth the effort.

There is just motion of your watch which you use it as standard clock. That is it.

[bahman]

standard clock? to tell about something that doesn't exist... regularly I believe...

Yes, the standard clock. You just measure motion of everything respect to your standard clock. Then you can say that a specific event took that much of time, amount of motion that your standard clock makes.

newer? more recently in time? but time doesn't exist...

-Imp

That is just order in something which changes. You can define before and after by using a specific event.

[bahman]

Well, that is his whole argument. You are not measuring space. You are measuring time. Everything is at a certain time distance away from you. When you observe something, what you are observing is something in the past. How can you measure the distance to something in the past? So space does not exist. Time does.

You need to experience time in order to measure it, either directly by your senses or indirectly using an apparatus. We cannot experience time directly or indirectly. What we can experience is motions and forms. We can introduce a concept of time by using a standard clock and measuring the change in standard clock compare to motion of anything else. What we do is not more than comparing two motions when it comes to concept of time.

We experience forms directly. The space is noting more than a thing which allows to accommodate forms, without that we couldn't experience forms.

[sthitapragya]

Well, that is his whole argument. You are not measuring space. You are measuring time. Everything is at a certain time distance away from you. When you observe something, what you are observing is something in the past. How can you measure the distance to something in the past? So space does not exist. Time does.

You need to experience time in order to measure it, either directly by your senses or indirectly using an apparatus. We cannot experience time directly or indirectly. What we can experience is motions and forms. We can introduce a concept of time by using a standard clock and measuring the change in standard clock compare to motion of anything else. What we do is not more than comparing two motions when it comes to concept of time.

We experience forms directly. The space is noting more than a thing which allows to accommodate forms, without that we couldn't experience forms.

Not really. If you consider what I said before, when you measure the distance to a star, how do you do it? You measure the time it takes for light to travel to earth. You measure time. Not distance. No one says it is x kms or miles away. They say it is X light years away. That is because they know that the star could very well not exist today.

[bahman]

I think that space does exist. We can perceive/measure it directly. That not the case by time. We cannot perceive it. We use motion in an apparatus, our standard clock, to measure the motion of another thing, subject of our study.

The way we perceive and measure time and space are more analogous than you think. Just as all events don't happen simultaneously, and we can count them to record 'time', so all events don't happen in the same location and we can divide their separation into agreed units. We don't perceive any substance called 'space' directly, anymore than we perceive a substance called time.

Space does exist since it allows us to accommodate forms. We can experience form hence we can measure space. That is not the case for time. We don't experience time. We can only experience the relative motion which we can build the concept of time from it.

In reality there is nothing more than motions and forms.

[bahman]

Not really. If you consider what I said before, when you measure the distance to a star, how do you do it? You measure the time it takes for light to travel to earth. You measure time. Not distance.

No, you cannot measure time. You of course can use a standard clock and define the duration from amount of motion in your standard clock.

We know how much light travel in a unit of time, time as defined in previous paragraph.

No one says it is x kms or miles away. They say it is X light years away. That is because they know that the star could very well not exist today.

You could use x kms or miles away. The problem is that distance between stars are so huge so it is better to use light years instead of kms or miles.

[sthitapragya]

Not really. If you consider what I said before, when you measure the distance to a star, how do you do it? You measure the time it takes for light to travel to earth. You measure time. Not distance.

No, you cannot measure time. You of course can use a standard clock and define the duration from amount of motion in your standard clock.

We know how much light travel in a unit of time, time as defined in previous paragraph.

No one says it is x kms or miles away. They say it is X light years away. That is because they know that the star could very well not exist today.

You could use x kms or miles away. The problem is that distance between stars are so huge so it is better to use light years instead of kms or miles.

But you are ignoring the point that the star is actually 5000 light years in the future from what you are seeing now. If time did not exist, then you would see the star as it is today. Instead you see what it was 5000 years ago. For all you know, it might have exploded now and does not exist. You are measuring what the star was in the past. You are measuring time. Not distance.

Also a standard clock become irrelevant when you measure objects light years away.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






We're living the future so the present is our past.
~ Philosopher, Kanye West ~







.

[Dalek Prime]

.






We're living the future so the present is our past.
~ Philosopher, Kanye West ~







.

What an idiot.

[bahman]

But you are ignoring the point that the star is actually 5000 light years in the future from what you are seeing now.

That is only a measure of distance, 5000 light years.

If time did not exist, then you would see the star as it is today. Instead you see what it was 5000 years ago.

That has nothing to do with the concept of time. Again, what exist and can be experience directly or indirectly, using an apparatus for example, are forms and motions. Forms are embedded in space and we can directly measure the distance between one form and another form. Motions allow us to have relative motions which from this we construct the concept of time.

For all you know, it might have exploded now and does not exist. You are measuring what the star was in the past. You are measuring time. Not distance.

This I understand but that just means that the star exploded sometimes ago, when our standard clock was in specific state.

Also a standard clock become irrelevant when you measure objects light years away.

That is not correct. That is the only thing which we have when it comes to measuring time, relative motions.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




In my mind I'm a blind man doin' time.
~ Philosopher, Tupac Shakur ~






.

[Dalek Prime]

.




In my mind I'm a blind man doin' time.
~ Philosopher, Tupac Shakur ~






.

What the hell does that even mean?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




....................................Um, if you were able to know - you'd know...






.