does time exist?/(addition)light speed

time is not necessary to experience events..."it is [a] concept of[...]order of [a] sequence of events."

one could make a different order, and sequence the events differently, in a way that still makes sense, that still illustrates cause/effect. its as simple as seeing it from different point of view...but is not limited to this.

Uhm, time is the concept of the order of the sequence of events which is necessary for experience. Time does not describe one specific type of order which we have framed in our mind, it's the order which is present in order for us to experience the events.

In fact, the theory of relativity shows us that indeed the order is not constant. In other frames of references the order of two events could be opposite to what you percieve. I believe I have explained this thoroughly in the beginning of this thread.

wanabe you did say that it is one of many realities.

Aside from that though I can not stress the importance of the thermodynamic arrow of time and how we can not affect the past.

Jare10:
Citing the theory of relativity here is irrelevant, because relativity depends on gravitational constants(that are not constant in reality) and assumes that time exists (which it does not, we made it up) so its irrelevant to cite relativity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Haller:
I did say this is one of many realities, or something to the effect, I wasn't talking about time, I was talking about our particular conglomerate of existence, sorry if that wasn't clear....no, we cant effect the past, it wold make an alternate tangent of events we if did some how.

Jare10:
Citing the theory of relativity here is irrelevant, because relativity depends on gravitational constants(that are not constant in reality) and assumes that time exists (which it does not, we made it up) so its irrelevant to cite relativity.

It was indeed intended as a side note, but I might add that it is very relevant to my reply (which I miss a reply to). It is important to realise that science\(empirical investigation) does teach us something important about the world. It is indeed the only way to gather a posteriori knowledge.

If you feel you have not been addressed please re post/re state, because I'm not to sure which post you are talking about . Maybe a “post date” would help to single this out.

Science is a wonderful tool (I plan to gain many phd in all avenues of science) , but is it not the only way to gather knowledge, simply the only way to gain scientific knowledge(posteriori) which is obvious, implied by the name....if you put one knowledge set above another in a hierarchical system, people tend to only use the “best” one...but now were walking our well beaten path of hierarchy, that we have been on in the past jarle10, I still disagree. ~~~~~~~Superiority is an illusion.~~~~~~(ill add that to my sig)~~~~

I havn't said that some sort of knowledge is superior to anyone else (and it seems that you havn't understood what superior really means).

There is only two ways of gather knowledge, by experience (a posteriori), and independent of experience (a priori) which we are discussing here.

Anyway, it does seem futile to go on like this, as you in the last bit of the discussion said this "time is not necessary to experience events" when I haven explicitly said that part of the definition of time is that it is the necessary medium to experience events. The reason for this is explained several times in my posts which you seem to have ignored...

I havn't said that some sort of knowledge is superior to anyone else (and it seems that you havn't understood what superior really means). Hierachic structures is not something that is intriniscally in nature, it is purely a human concept with specific definitions. Saying that it doesn't exist is meaningless, as it does not possess the property of existence in the same way as objects does. It is equally meaningless to say that any other abstract concept does not exist.

There is only two ways of gather knowledge, by experience (a posteriori), and independent of experience (a priori) which we are discussing here.

Anyway, it does seem futile to go on like this, as you in the last bit of the discussion said this "time is not necessary to experience events" when I haven explicitly said that part of the definition of time is that it is the necessary medium to experience events. The reason for this is explained several times in my posts which you seem to have ignored...

I plan to gain many phd in all avenues of science

That must be a joke. If not, I can only say that it is physically impossible.

No one understands what anything truly means (superior), you are simply more confident in the established definition than I am.

There are infinite was to gather knowledge and those are two labels for two ways of gathering knowledge.

Again the definition of time you are talking about is but a* definition for a* word for a* idea. I'm glad you keep track of established definitions it is important. I think you limit yourself greatly by having such rigid definitions. And the reverse could be said for me, so ill say it for you. you limit your self by having flexible definitions... the problem is: there are no limits, we make them for our selves. so jarle10 decide how you want to live, sadly I don't think your mind can be changed...i haven't been ignoring your assertions my rebuttal was:

time is not necessary to experience events..."it is [a] concept of[...]order of [a] sequence of events."......a in the singular form, meaning one.

No one understands what anything truly means (superior), you are simply more confident in the established definition than I am.

No one can know entirely what every perspective put in a concept, that is true - it doesn't change the general meaning of the concept though.

There are infinite was to gather knowledge and those are two labels for two ways of gathering knowledge.

No, the way I worded it should make you understand. Of course a thing and it's negation makes up the whole. There are indeed two ways: Dependent on experience, and independent of experience. These are complementary terms.

I think you limit yourself greatly by having such rigid definitions.

First of, time does not have a rigid definition. But by searching properties and subdefinitions we can achieve a higher understanding of what is put into the concept. It's called investigation and what's gained is analytic knowledge. It does on the contrary to limit myself indeed rescue the discussion from being ambigous where no argument can properly be rebutted.

And the reverse could be said for me, so ill say it for you. you limit your self by having flexible definitions...

Of course my definitions only are guidelines to what I put in the term 'time'. I don't claim to have the speicific definition of time which everyone agrees to. I am using what I put into the term in the argument. Still, I do believe I express a fairly general opinion.

the problem is: there are no limits, we make them for our selves. so jarle10 decide how you want to live, sadly I don't think your mind can be changed...

Sadly for you, I guess. There are no limits to what one wishes to put in a term, but as long as we are discussing the same thing, then I will continue.

time is not necessary to experience events..."it is [a] concept of[...]order of [a] sequence of events."......a in the singular form, meaning one.

But that is an answer to a reply which specifically argues against this! Time is necessary for experience because it it lies within the understanding/definition of the concept.

Anyway, that was posted before my reply...

This is what I said:

Time is the concept of the order of the sequence of events which is necessary for experience. Time does not describe one specific type of order which we have framed in our mind, it's the order which is present in order for us to experience the events.

As for hierarchy and superiority:
Wiki, for example, defines a hierarchy this way:

A hierarchy is an arrangement of items

Google has a more specific definition related to human organisation:

the organization of people at different ranks in an administrative body

That's a term pretty much open to what you want to put in it. Of course, an arrangement is a subjective order which you are free to define. In the term superiority lies this form of order. If an 'item' is higher ranked, then it is superior. That does not necessarily mean 'independent' or 'unoverthrowable' or anything else you would relate to the term 'superior'.

I am starting to feel as jarle10 is.

Ultimately, what do you call the streaming of events that always seem to go in the same direction? Events are events. Time, and the rules there-of tell them in which way they would travel. Were we to not have these rules, events would affect other events no matter if they were in past present or future. It would be chaos.

Jare10, your entire argument for time, to sum it up, is: time=time, there for time exists...

independence doesn't exist, you wouldn't be here if the big bang didn't happen, I mean the one out in space, and the one your mom and dad did to make you. To say one is independent, is like looking at what is right in front of you, and nothing else...there are simply infinite ways to gain dependent knowledge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Haller: “streaming of events that always [*seem* ]to go in the same direction?”=time...nothing is as it seems...events do effect other events, past events effect the “future” and “present”, and events that are happening, also effect the “future” events just grow on top of one another and become part of each-other....it is not chaos, it is grand probability, too large for us to conceive as a whole...so we whittle it down to time, to make out selves feel better, as if we can understand the whole thing by taking note of the one part we see.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
I don't see this going any where, I have tried and failed, you may just be stuck in “time”.

But as I have said countless times, the past can not be determined by the present or the future, and so events do not 'seem' to go in one direction, they do.

yes, only one set of events ends up occuring...

if we undo the "present", say abolish all technology, and language and go live in the trees, in about "2000 years" we wouldn't know the difference.

we forget "time", and poof you see the truth....we are then free to rewrite "time" and the "future" however we see fit...thanks haller, couldn't have done it with out you.

But this still doesn't negate the past and its property of nothing affects it.