Is Time Just an Idea?

[LuckyR]

Honestly I don't care if anyone believes me - but I speak the truth about infinite time and space - if the day comes that you can comprehend what that really means you will know that im right.

Of course you don't. Otherwise you'd be in a heap of trouble.

You have an opinion (like everyone else), it happens to be an unpopular one. The fact it happens to be unpopular doesn't describe it very much other than to say you're kind of on your own, but not everyone seeks consensus.

[Sy Borg]

If we rejected unmeasurable notions we could not live.

However, in matters of science, I am more inclined to believe scientists who deal with the issues and observe what we speak about every day than lay philosophers who imagine how reality might be with far less relevant information at their disposal.

The latter might sometimes be right but, on the whole, scientists are very much more reliable.

Greta, I am really disappointed in your response to my post. I raised some valid issues about what kind of unmeasurable objects could be accepted if there were supportive theories to attest to their reality. Instead of arguing my points with counter claims you argue by diminishing the person who argues. You diminish gater by saying he is just spouting "popular science" and you have diminished my arguments by saying "I have a blockbuster science fiction story" and also comparing me to a "lay philosopher" who does not deal with the issues and observe what we speak about every day like scientists do.

I guess your measure of truth is not in arguing the issues but in rating the merits of the arguers.

Yet are angry because I trust Einstein and experienced theoretical and experimental physicists over you in these matters? Really??

BTW, the first thing I did was agree with your point about unmeasurable things, but you were too busy being offended by an innocent comment to notice.

[RJG]

Is Time Just an Idea?

Without "time", there could be no "idea of time". Therefore "time" is undeniably real. If we equate "time" with "change" then time certainly exists. For without change, there could be no events; no happenings; no ideas; nor any "idea of time".

If "ideas" exist, then so must "time".

[gater]

Honestly I don't care if anyone believes me - but I speak the truth about infinite time and space - if the day comes that you can comprehend what that really means you will know that im right.

Of course you don't. Otherwise you'd be in a heap of trouble.

You have an opinion (like everyone else), it happens to be an unpopular one. The fact it happens to be unpopular doesn't describe it very much other than to say you're kind of on your own, but not everyone seeks consensus.

The truth is not popular because most have not be exposed to the truth.

[BigBango]

Yet are angry because I trust Einstein and experienced theoretical and experimental physicists over you in these matters? Really??

First of all Geta, I was not angry then nor am I now angry. I was rather disappointed that someone whose grasp of contemporary ideas, especially in biology and cosmology, is as wide and deep as your knowledge and a moderator of this forum to boot would play the credentials card rather than entertain some new ideas. Secondly, you do not know much about me. My background, before I retired, was in cognitive science, the computer recognition of handwritten cursive characters, artificial intelligence and the computer simulation of neural networks. I have advanced degrees in mathematics and had a minor in philosophy. After retirement, I threw myself fully into the study of philosophy but I won't bore you with a rundown of all the philosophers I studied in depth.

You should also realize that most significant revolutions in science and philosophy have come from "outsiders", like Einstein, whom you would most likely have rejected in his early years having come from a background as a postal clerk.

BTW, the first thing I did was agree with your point about unmeasurable things, but you were too busy being offended by an innocent comment to notice.

I did notice your opening statement " If we rejected unmeasurable notions we could not live". Of course I agree with that. The reason I kind of ignored that conciliatory opening was that it was so general that it might just be referring simply to the fact that we all pursue meaningful lives with huge assumptions about the meaning of life, while very few of us try to reconcile the rightness of our choices by deducing their veracity from either a scientific or philosophical analysis.

What I was and still am looking for is a more focused statement that would formalize the "Theoretical" support needed to accept currently unmeasurable objects as legitimate candidates for scientific and philosophical contemplation.

What I am not looking for is a discussion about who has the best credentials in science and/or philosophy so that we can then know whose ideas to "Trust".

[Consul]

Is time an illusion? Listen to Tim Maudlin, an eminent philosopher of physics:

>>6:45

[RJG]

The Universe is simple - time and space are infinite"

Bingo! And don't forget about 'matter'. Simple logic tells us that the universe (time/space/matter) cannot be "caused", or "happened" into existence. So if they (time/space/matter) exist, then they have always; infinitely; never not existed. For X<X is a logical impossibility.

• “Nothing caused the universe to exist because there was nothing to cause it.” -- Consul

Not only was there "NOTHING to cause it", but "causation" itself was not possible in the absence of a universe. Without something/happening/somewhere (matter/time/space!), there can be no causation to cause anything!

...the Big Bang was the start of our galaxy and surrounding galaxies. The Universe was already infinitely old when this happened, there was no beginning of time - and physically space can not end. Space does not expand - matter moves through space giving the illusion of expansion. The early Greek Philosophers had a much greater understanding of the Universe by using Logic than todays scientists that use telescopes.

Well said gater! ...and don't forget to also say that "logic always trumps science"!

If today's scientist were better logicians, they would realize that most of them are wasting their time; spinning their wheels, while chasing after non-sensical-ness.

[Sy Borg]

Yet are angry because I trust Einstein and experienced theoretical and experimental physicists over you in these matters? Really??

You should also realize that most significant revolutions in science and philosophy have come from "outsiders", like Einstein, whom you would most likely have rejected in his early years having come from a background as a postal clerk.

No. They were outsiders within their field but not outsiders of the field. Most had performed significant mathematical backgrounding of their discoveries.

I find it's very easy to beat one's chest and proclaim oneself ahead of experts. It is happening all the time these days.

However, if these keyboard warriors tried working in the field they would find that every single "great idea" they had that they imagined scientists had missed was actually old news, notions that scientists had worked through long ago, sometimes centuries ago.

BTW, the first thing I did was agree with your point about unmeasurable things, but you were too busy being offended by an innocent comment to notice.

I did notice your opening statement " If we rejected unmeasurable notions we could not live". Of course I agree with that. The reason I kind of ignored that conciliatory opening was that it was so general that it might just be referring simply to the fact that we all pursue meaningful lives with huge assumptions about the meaning of life, while very few of us try to reconcile the rightness of our choices by deducing their veracity from either a scientific or philosophical analysis.

It was general because I'm not interested in the specifics here, aside from the info already provided by physics experts. If it's a philosophical question I'll ask a philosopher. If it's a physical idea then I'd rather ask a physicist. I do this for reliability.

Yes, of course there's a great deal that is unmeasurable and that lack does not make such things less real, but it does make them less suitable for analysis.

[Sculptor1]

Honestly I don't care if anyone believes me - but I speak the truth about infinite time and space - if the day comes that you can comprehend what that really means you will know that im right.

Infinity is not a possible object of your perception, since it cannot even be experienced.
As for verification of infinity would require infinite experience: since infinite experience is never ending, you can never know that it shall continue to last forever. The only instance where the temporal quantity of time can be known for any event is when that event ends. So whilst it is perfectly possible to know the length of an event due to its termination, infinity can never be known.
So, NO, you simply cannot be "telling the truth" about infinite time and space has the same empirical difficulties.
The "day can NEVER come" when you are able to comprehend either infinite time or space. So no one can ever verify that you are right.

[Sculptor1]

Technically speaking time has to be an idea in order for you to think of it. I believe time is a concept made by man and that without mankind this concept would cease to be.

But all concepts are rooted in experience. Regardless of the existence of humans conceptualising there is an aspect of reality which corespondents, more or less to "time". And when the human race is no longer even a distant memory time abides as the stars move.

[Sy Borg]

Logically, as per Giordano Bruno's insight, there is no physical boundary to reality. You never run into a wall. Then again, the Earth has a boundary but when you travel on it, you never fall off the edge.

As far as I can tell, the stuff of the universe does not go on forever but it's time and not space that limits the scale of the universe, in that that it expands at a certain speed rather than infinitely quickly.

[Sculptor1]

Logically, as per Giordano Bruno's insight, there is no physical boundary to reality. You never run into a wall. Then again, the Earth has a boundary but when you travel on it, you never fall off the edge.

As far as I can tell, the stuff of the universe does not go on forever but it's time and not space that limits the scale of the universe, in that that it expands at a certain speed rather than infinitely quickly.

The universe is limited. As it is expanding, the size is known.
But the question might be - what happens if you stand at the edge of the universe and kick a ball out wards?
The best answer I have heard in response to this question is that the act of kicking the ball outwards, is in effect making the universe bigger, and the rationale is that the size of the universe is a relation of it parts and so distance is in effect what makes the universe what it is.
Thus the universe is not infinite but infinitely expansive.

[Sy Borg]

We are on the same page here, aside from "the size is known".

We are limited in our observations by the speed of light. The universe could, for all we know, be exponentially larger than we imagined.

[LuckyR]

Of course you don't. Otherwise you'd be in a heap of trouble.

You have an opinion (like everyone else), it happens to be an unpopular one. The fact it happens to be unpopular doesn't describe it very much other than to say you're kind of on your own, but not everyone seeks consensus.

The truth is not popular because most have not be exposed to the truth.

You are correct, as pertains your personal "truth".

[Jklint]

Time metaphorically, for me, are the heartbeats of a process which determines its rate of change and as such organic in everything. Without time there is no purpose to space which contracts to an infinitesimal or nothing if no processes are in operation. Time as gestalt, as a singularity is a fugue, a summary of all its separate processes. Time as detached from everything has no meaning if there is nothing to measure by way of a process occurring. The same for space. But time always seems to always exist in the sense of keeping alive the remnants of a previous cycle to begin a new one however that may occur.