Time doesn't exist.

[JudgeRightly]

Couldn't find the thread I wanted to put this one in, so I'm starting a new one.

We Open theists have said a few things about time, but the most important being that time, as an entity, doesn't really exist, it's simply how we describe sequence of events in relation to each other.

Bob Enyart said a few times that theologians and philosophers often arrive at conclusions long before the scientists do (if someone has the exact quote, let me know, that's just a rough approximation of what he said based on my memory).

Well, it seems like that's at least almost true here as well, as Phys.org just posted this article.

Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers, but that's okay

Does time exist? The answer to this question may seem obvious: of course it does! Just look at a calendar or a clock.

phys.org

 

[Hoping]

Couldn't find the thread I wanted to put this one in, so I'm starting a new one.

We Open theists have said a few things about time, but the most important being that time, as an entity, doesn't really exist, it's simply how we describe sequence of events in relation to each other.

Bob Enyart said a few times that theologians and philosophers often arrive at conclusions long before the scientists do (if someone has the exact quote, let me know, that's just a rough approximation of what he said based on my memory).

Well, it seems like that's at least almost true here as well, as Phys.org just posted this article.

Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers, but that's okay

Does time exist? The answer to this question may seem obvious: of course it does! Just look at a calendar or a clock.

phys.org

I may check it out later, when I have the time.

 

[Stripe]

Time is an intangible noun.

 

[ok doser]

Time is an intangible noun.

Time used to be an enjoyable news magazine. Along with Newsweek. I stopped reading both about 20 years ago, about the same time I threw away my television.

 

[Tambora]

Couldn't find the thread I wanted to put this one in, so I'm starting a new one.

We Open theists have said a few things about time, but the most important being that time, as an entity, doesn't really exist, it's simply how we describe sequence of events in relation to each other.

Bob Enyart said a few times that theologians and philosophers often arrive at conclusions long before the scientists do (if someone has the exact quote, let me know, that's just a rough approximation of what he said based on my memory).

Well, it seems like that's at least almost true here as well, as Phys.org just posted this article.

Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers, but that's okay

Does time exist? The answer to this question may seem obvious: of course it does! Just look at a calendar or a clock.

phys.org

I like those that say "time" is a descriptive measurement like "inch" and "ounce".
"Time" being the descriptive measurement between events.
Thus, neither time or inch or ounce were created entities or forces.

 

[User Name]

This is correct. Time is a measurement, and the measurement of time is warped by gravity. This is why time is relative. Space is also warped by gravity, which means that space is also relative.

 

[Idolater]

This is correct. Time is a measurement, and the measurement of time is warped by gravity.

OK but it doesn't mean that 1200 years ago wasn't 1200 years ago.

This is why time is relative. Space is also warped by gravity, which means that space is also relative.

My understanding is that gravity is the warping, that mass warps space and that that warping is called gravity.

 

[User Name]

OK but it doesn't mean that 1200 years ago wasn't 1200 years ago.

Well...erm...no, I don't think anyone said that. Certainly not me. 1200 years ago is a measurement of recorded history.

 

[Stripe]

OK but it doesn't mean that 1200 years ago wasn't 1200 years ago.

With that Muppet, anything can mean anything.

My understanding is that gravity is the warping, that mass warps space and that that warping is called gravity.

Does space have mass?

 

[Idolater]

With that Muppet, anything can mean anything.


Does space have mass?

In my understanding it does not, but I do not know, what say you?

 

[Stripe]

In my understanding it does not, but I do not know, what say you?

I say that gravity "warping space" is a description no better than "magic."

 

[User Name]

I say that gravity "warping space" is a description no better than "magic."

Your Nobel Prize awaits you, Sir!

Actually, no, it doesn't. Because you got nuthin'.

 

[Idolater]

I say that gravity "warping space" is a description no better than "magic."

The weight of everything near every high tide (iow right under the moon) is reduced by a tiny but non-zero proportion. Precision pressure meters or transducers (measuring downward pressure, iow scales) can detect this. This pressure variation is gravitation and space warping due to the mass of the moon. I submit.

 

[Stripe]

The weight of everything near every high tide (iow right under the moon) is reduced by a tiny but non-zero proportion. Precision pressure meters or transducers (measuring downward pressure, iow scales) can detect this. This pressure variation is gravitation and space warping due to the mass of the moon.

And how do you know that the change in the gravity environment is not affecting your instruments?

 

[Idolater]

And how do you know that the change in the gravity environment is not affecting your instruments?

If a pressure reduction is detected then it is because the omnidirectional force (pressure is a scalar quantity) is different. What is your idea? That a difference in gravitation is causing the meter to malfunction, but that pressure is still actually the same?

 

[musterion]

Do days exist without calendars? Does time pass when there are no human hands left to wind the clocks?​

H. G. Wells, War of the Worlds

Time is perception, nothing more.

 

[Stripe]

If a pressure reduction is detected then it is because the omnidirectional force (pressure is a scalar quantity) is different. What is your idea? That a difference in gravitation is causing the meter to malfunction, but that pressure is still actually the same?

Apologies. I didn't read your example carefully.

That's just an example of gravity in action.

Allow me to alter my initial response.

Why is the explanation "space is warped" justified over "magic"?

 

[Idolater]

Apologies. I didn't read your example carefully.

That's just an example of gravity in action.

Allow me to alter my initial response.

Why is the explanation "space is warped" justified over "magic"?

I can plot pressure measurements. If I have a sensitive pressure transducer logging its measurements with timestamps I can see the slight perturbations on the chart, and I can see that they're periodic, and I can correlate the moon's position with the pressure measurements and actually derive a formula, a differential equation to describe the perturbations according to the moon's position. That doesn't prove anything, because correlation doesn't prove causation, but when you have a correlation that isn't cause-and-effect, then you still should ask what common cause there is that explains both highly correlated phenomena.

But I can't do any of that with magic.

 

[Stripe]

I can plot pressure measurements. If I have a sensitive pressure transducer logging its measurements with timestamps I can see the slight perturbations on the chart, and I can see that they're periodic, and I can correlate the moon's position with the pressure measurements and actually derive a formula, a differential equation to describe the perturbations according to the moon's position. That doesn't prove anything, because correlation doesn't prove causation, but when you have a correlation that isn't cause-and-effect, then you still should ask what common cause there is that explains both highly correlated phenomena.

But I can't do any of that with magic.

But you can do it by warping space.

The observations are explained by gravity. You assert that gravity works by warping space. I say gravity works by magic.

What makes your assertion better than mine?

 

[Idolater]

But you can do it by warping space.

The observations are explained by gravity. You assert that gravity works by warping space. I say gravity works by magic.

What makes your assertion better than mine?

I didn't say that I said mass warps space and that warping is called gravity. And again if I could measure magic and plot it and correlate it strongly to other metrics then I'm not calling that magic anymore.