• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Time doesn't exist.

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Cesium atoms, that "new type of atomic clock" (what you linked to above), and planets orbiting around stars (Derf's example) are clocks.



This is what I'm talking about when I say you have it backwards.

Frequency is "time." Frequency is the measure of the distance between two events.



Time DOES exist... AS A CONCEPT.

It does not exist ontologically, meaning, it does not exist outside of a thinking mind.

So what's the difference between event A (the first vibration of the atom) and event B (the second vibration) and event N (the Nth vibration of the atom)? Frequency is measuring something. It isn't spatial. The specific atom vibrates at a specific (theoretically fixed) point in space. Vibration A and Vibration B are recognized as distinct. Why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So what's the difference between event A (the first vibration of the atom) and event B (the second vibration) and event N (the Nth vibration of the atom)?

The difference is which happened first, second, third, ... nth, nth+1, nth +2, etc.

Frequency is measuring something.

Correct. Frequency measures how many times something happens within a certain known period.

It isn't spatial.

I never said it was.

A yardstick measures the distance between two points.

Time measures the distance between events.

The specific atom vibrates at a specific (theoretically fixed) point in space.

Correct.

Vibration A and Vibration B are recognized as distinct. Why?

Because one happened before the other, and they did not happen simultaneously.

Let me put it this way: Outside of a thinking mind, there is no frequency, or duration, for its vibration. It's simply "vibrating." When a thinking mind encounters it, he can measure "how much does it vibrate (distance between one 'side' of the vibration and the other)" and "how fast (frequency) does it vibrate."

This might tie into this, but Bob Enyart, shortly before he passed away, had brought up the idea of the wave-particle duality actually being a wave-particle-word triality.

Worth a read, and might help you understand where I'm coming from.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
The difference is which happened first, second, third, ... nth, nth+1, nth +2, etc.



Correct. Frequency measures how many times something happens within a certain known period.



I never said it was.

A yardstick measures the distance between two points.

Time measures the distance between events.



Correct.



Because one happened before the other, and they did not happen simultaneously.

Let me put it this way: Outside of a thinking mind, there is no frequency, or duration, for its vibration. It's simply "vibrating." When a thinking mind encounters it, he can measure "how much does it vibrate (distance between one 'side' of the vibration and the other)" and "how fast (frequency) does it vibrate."

This might tie into this, but Bob Enyart, shortly before he passed away, had brought up the idea of the wave-particle duality actually being a wave-particle-word triality.

Worth a read, and might help you understand where I'm coming from.

What would measurement (and quantification) of non-simultaneity look like if not time?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
What would measurement (and quantification) of non-simultaneity look like if not time?

Measurement does not happen outside a thinking mind, Nikolai.

And the measurement of the distance between two events (time) is just an idea, a concept (which also cannot exist outside of an thinking mind), a convention of language (which, again, also cannot exist outside of a thinking mind).

In other words, the point you're trying to make is consistent with my position.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Measurement does not happen outside a thinking mind, Nikolai.

With this, I can't agree. Attaching names to measurements doesn't happen outside of a thinking mind - but measurement is a reflection of something that is actually real and valid - independent of mind. And trying to attach macro concepts to quantum "reality" is foolish since at the quantum level, a single photon (the smallest unit of light by which measurement can take place) itself can disrupt everything. The impact of a few billion photons on a tree falling in the forest is (merely by virtue of mass) minimal at best.

And the measurement of the distance between two events (time) is just an idea, a concept (which also cannot exist outside of an thinking mind), a convention of language (which, again, also cannot exist outside of a thinking mind).

I think therefore I am....I think....

In other words, the point you're trying to make is consistent with my position.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
With this, I can't agree.

Irrelevant.

Attaching names to measurements doesn't happen outside of a thinking mind - but measurement is a reflection of something that is actually real and valid - independent of mind.

Measurement does not happen without a thinking mind present.

It is the assigning of meaning to a physical space (space, by the way, ALSO doesn't exist, ontologically speaking, and I believe @Clete covered this either here in this thread or perhaps elsewhere...)

And trying to attach macro concepts to quantum "reality" is foolish

According to whom?

Who came up with this idea of a "quantum reality"? Why are they not the fool?

Don't make appeals to the stone.

since at the quantum level, a single photon (the smallest unit of light by which measurement can take place) itself can disrupt everything.

In what way?

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The impact of a few billion photons on a tree falling in the forest is (merely by virtue of mass) minimal at best.

You seem to be going off on a tangent...

What does this have to do with the existence (or non-existence) of time?

I think therefore I am

Exactly.

....I think....

If you're not sure that you exist, then the only solution I have for you is to try disproving it. Just try it. You'll quickly realize that it is, in fact, impossible to prove that you, a thinking mind, do not exist, for the very reason that you just stated, a thinking mind exists, by definition. If it does not exist, then it cannot think.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
@nikolai_42 seems to be trying to NOT understand. This is just not that difficult a concept to grasp.

N42, do you believe that numbers actually exist, in the ontological sense? Is the number 42 a real thing in the same sense that a rock is a real thing or it is a concept? I'm not talking about the sounds we use verbally say "for-tee too" or the symbols '4' and '2' that we use to communicate the number in writing. Those things are quite arbitrary and could have been anything. I'm asking you whether numbers have substance, do they exist apart from a thinking mind?
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
@nikolai_42 seems to be trying to NOT understand. This is just not that difficult a concept to grasp.

N42, do you believe that numbers actually exist, in the ontological sense? Is the number 42 a real thing in the same sense that a rock is a real thing or it is a concept? I'm not talking about the sounds we use verbally say "for-tee too" or the symbols '4' and '2' that we use to communicate the number in writing. Those things are quite arbitrary and could have been anything. I'm asking you whether numbers have substance, do they exist apart from a thinking mind?
I believe that the concept of number is a concrete reality. I don't expect to find a "4" lying around somewhere, but that 4 apples lying on the ground is a concrete representation of an abstract concept. An abstract concept that, nonetheless, is external to my thought. I don't have to call it "4" - I can call it whatever I want - but number is a very real concept. Unless you go into monism...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Right Divider

Body part
I believe that the concept of number is a concrete reality.
What does "concrete reality" mean to you?
I don't expect to find a "4" lying around somewhere, but that 4 apples lying on the ground is a concrete representation of an abstract concept.
It's both a "concrete reality" and "an abstract concept"?

I think that you've gone mad.
An abstract concept that, nonetheless, is external to my thought.
What evidence do you have of that?
I don't have to call it "4" - I can call it whatever I want - but number is a very real concept. Unless you go into monism...
Even "very real concepts" don't have a physical nature.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
I believe that the concept of number is a concrete reality. I don't expect to find a "4" lying around somewhere, but that 4 apples lying on the ground is a concrete representation of an abstract concept.
You seem conflicted. The concrete reality is apples. There are four of them (you know because you count them). But the concept of "4" existed before the apples, without being concrete. When the apples first dropped to the ground is NOT when "4" was created. You knew about "4" long before that. That's all this thread is saying. "Time" existed as a concept before anything was created. A clock, like Cs atoms, made time a concrete reality, in your terms, but time doesn't cease to exist even if your Cs all settles to lower energy levels and can't produce the right frequency. Or even if all Cs atoms were somehow destroyed, along with the earth, the sun, and all cuckoo clocks.
An abstract concept that, nonetheless, is external to my thought. I don't have to call it "4" - I can call it whatever I want - but number is a very real concept.
Yes, correct. Your mind didn't invent the concept of 4. It preceded both you and all physical creation...as a concept. Time, too, except the concept was concreted (exhibited really) by God's sequential actions even before creation.

Unless you go into monism...
That makes all the apples non-concrete, which nobody is pushing for (I like apples.)
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I believe that the concept of number is a concrete reality.
Why do people who know they've been cornered feel like double speak is a way out? I will never understand just who it is they're trying to convince!

The concept is a reality because concepts exist in a mind but do numbers exist as something other than a concept?

I don't expect to find a "4" lying around somewhere, but that 4 apples lying on the ground is a concrete representation of an abstract concept. An abstract concept that, nonetheless, is external to my thought.
In what way is it external to your thought? The apples are not aware of themselves or that there are other apples around. They are inanimate, unconscious objects. It is you who perceive that there are apples, this perception is connected to your senses but it not your senses. Your perception occurs IN YOUR MIND, as does your awareness of the fact that there are four of them.

And that's as close as you will ever come to connecting numbers to concrete reality. Color is something that does not exist in nature but is merely your brain's interpretation of a stimulus but in the case of color (i.e. seeing - as well as hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling) there is an actual physical thing that it is connected to. Light does exist, the pressure waves that your ears convert into sound do exist, the tiny particles of water that have even smaller particles of food dissolved in them that your nose converts into odors actually do exist. But there is nothing at all physical about numbers. Numbers can be assigned to objects but there isn't anything intrinsic about any object that presupposes numbers, never mind mathematics. Numbers and math exist as concepts and only as concepts.

I don't have to call it "4" - I can call it whatever I want - but number is a very real concept. Unless you go into monism...
It is indeed a real concept but it exists only as a concept with no concrete existence outside a thinking mind. The same is true of both time and distance (i.e. space).

Time is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.
Distance (Space) is likewise a convention of language used to communicate information related to the position of objects relative to other objects.

Neither exists in a material sense. They are concepts, nothing more.
 
Last edited:

Avajs

Active member
Space and time exist outside of humans. If there were no thinking minds in the universe, the earth, for example, would exist, separated, let's say, by the distance between it and--pick something--the moon, the sun, the Andromeda Galaxy---that is space. And separated by the time difference it takes for gravity or light to go between the earth, the moon, the sun and Andromeda
 

Right Divider

Body part
Space and time exist outside of humans. If there were no thinking minds in the universe, the earth, for example, would exist, separated, let's say, by the distance between it and--pick something--the moon, the sun, the Andromeda Galaxy---that is space. And separated by the time difference it takes for gravity or light to go between the earth, the moon, the sun and Andromeda
In what way do "space and time" exist?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Space and time exist outside of humans. If there were no thinking minds in the universe, the earth, for example, would exist, separated, let's say, by the distance between it and--pick something--the moon, the sun, the Andromeda Galaxy---that is space. And separated by the time difference it takes for gravity or light to go between the earth, the moon, the sun and Andromeda
Events occur and objects exist but that isn't what time is nor does it require time for those things to happen, except in terms of the CONCEPT of time. Time is not what allows things to happen, existence is what allows things to happen but the duration and sequence of events and the location of the objects involved are all relative concepts. Meaning that there is no way to express the duration of an event except by referencing other events nor is there any way to express an object's location except in relation to other objects. If you don't believe me go ahead and try it. Relating one event or one object to another is something only a thinking mind can do.

So, yes, events would happen and things would change their location but if there were no one to witness it, no one to know that a sequence of events had occurred to how long it took to happen or where they happened at, then time would have no meaning. Time is a convention of language and this cannot exist in a mindless universe.

Your first sentence is correct, though! No humans required, God will do nicely.
Actually, come to think of it, God has been a human now for about 2000 years, soooo...
 
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.

I have always said long before I learned what science is now beginning to say -time does not exist - God created time for the benefit of man to measure his existence by. The end of days signifies the end of time.

Read their studies, I believe it was Albert Einstein who said everything is energy. I believe that God is like living energy. And according to the law of conservation energy cannot be created nor can energy be destroyed. Only to recently learn humans too or energy which makes them living energy. Which supports the non-existence of time or to me it seems like it should I'm no scientist.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I have always said long before I learned what science is now beginning to say -time does not exist - God created time for the benefit of man to measure his existence by. The end of days signifies the end of time.

Read their studies, I believe it was Albert Einstein who said everything is energy. I believe that God is like living energy. And according to the law of thermodynamics energy cannot be created nor can energy be destroyed. Only to recently learn humans too or energy which makes them living energy. Which supports the non-existence of time or to me it seems like it should I'm no scientist.

Wut?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I have always said long before I learned what science is now beginning to say -time does not exist - God created time for the benefit of man to measure his existence by. The end of days signifies the end of time.
Nonsense from the beginning to end. Science isn't beginning to say that time doesn't exist! The whole of modern cosmology is predicated on the idea that time does exist and that space and time are the same thing.

Read their studies, I believe it was Albert Einstein who said everything is energy.
Yeah, the first half of my life was spent thinking about Einstein's theories. He DID NOT say that everything is energy. You sound like you've watched one too many episodes of Ancient Aliens.

I believe that God is like living energy.
Believe what you want, I suppose. Got anything to back up this belief of yours?

And according to the law of thermodynamics energy cannot be created nor can energy be destroyed.
Which has nothing to do with the physical universe's CREATOR!

Only to recently learn humans too or energy which makes them living energy. Which supports the non-existence of time or to me it seems like it should I'm no scientist.
Time exists as an idea. It does not exist in the way that a rock exists or that you and I exist or that God exists. It's a concept, an abstraction. It exists in a thinking mind and nowhere else.
 

Avajs

Active member
I have always said long before I learned what science is now beginning to say -time does not exist - God created time for the benefit of man to measure his existence by. The end of days signifies the end of time.

Read their studies, I believe it was Albert Einstein who said everything is energy. I believe that God is like living energy. And according to the law of thermodynamics energy cannot be created nor can energy be destroyed. Only to recently learn humans too or energy which makes them living energy. Which supports the non-existence of time or to me it seems like it should I'm no scientist.
I think you've read too much Deepak Chopra
 
Nonsense from the beginning to end. Science isn't beginning to say that time doesn't exist! The whole of modern cosmology is predicated on the idea that time does exist and that space and time are the same thing.


Yeah, the first half of my life was spent thinking about Einstein's theories. He DID NOT say that everything is energy. You sound like you've watched one too many episodes of Ancient Aliens.


Believe what you want, I suppose. Got anything to back up this belief of yours?


Which has nothing to do with the physical universe's CREATOR!


Time exists as an idea. It does not exist in the way that a rock exists or that you and I exist or that God exists. It's a concept, an abstraction. It exists in a thinking mind and nowhere else.
Thank you for your response I disagree with you on most of the things you said.
And I am good at telling another they can believe what they choose as can I, so even if it wasn't said by you under consideration I still thank you for saying it. Goodbye !

judgerightly -- duh
 
Top