Why Time does not Exist

Quote from: divito the truthist on February 16, 2008, 06:39:37 PM

Quote from: Smarmikus on February 16, 2008, 03:45:37 PM

How can something that does not exist be measured? 

Are you kidding me?

Taking a philosophical view on everything and calling it accurate is bullshit.

Word. 

Quote from: Smarmikus on February 16, 2008, 03:45:37 PM

How can something that does not exist be measured? 

Are you kidding me?

Expound.

Taking a philosophical view on everything and calling it accurate is bullshit.

Right, and there is no empirical aspects whatsoever.

Quote from: Saint Raist on February 16, 2008, 09:59:54 PM

Taking a philosophical view on everything and calling it accurate is bullshit.

Right, and there is no empirical aspects whatsoever.

So much for being an English fanatic.

Quote from: Saint Raist on February 16, 2008, 09:59:54 PM

Taking a philosophical view on everything and calling it accurate is bullshit.

Right, and there is no empirical aspects whatsoever.

Verisimilitude.  That should be your name.  You are a worthless debater.  I'm completely done even considering that anything you have to say is true. 

Would anyone else like to say anything about how something that does not exist can be measured?

So much for being an English fanatic.

Lol, I originally wrote that "there isn't any empirical aspects, right," But my edit clearly turned out horrid.

Verisimilitude.  That should be your name.  You are a worthless debater.  I'm completely done even considering that anything you have to say is true.

Ignorance is bliss.

Plus, it's not a debate since you seem to be genuinely asking a question of a view that quite a few people on this forum hold.

A system of measurement can be developed for any definition if one so chooses. The sequential and succession of events was termed time, to which measurements were conceptualized and set in place. I think you may be look too hard into the "it does not exist" part.

Plus, it's not a debate since you seem to be genuinely asking a question of a view that quite a few people on this forum hold.

That sounds like a debate. 

A system of measurement can be developed for any definition if one so chooses. The sequential and succession of events was termed time, to which measurements were conceptualized and set in place. I think you may be look too hard into the "it does not exist" part.

All measurements are conceptualized.  All measurements only exist in relation to other measurements.  Time exists in relation to space.  You have to also conclude that space does not exist if you conclude that time does not exist. 

Perhaps I am looking too hard into the extant of time, but the same seems to be true of those denying its existence.  By the logic used to say time does not exist one can also conclude that everything does not exist.  It is a self-defeating argument. 

Quote from: Althalus on February 17, 2008, 06:08:01 AM

So much for being an English fanatic.

Lol, I originally wrote that "there isn't any empirical aspects, right," But my edit clearly turned out horrid.

Quote from: Smarmikus on February 17, 2008, 07:03:23 AM

Verisimilitude.  That should be your name.  You are a worthless debater.  I'm completely done even considering that anything you have to say is true.

Ignorance is bliss.

Plus, it's not a debate since you seem to be genuinely asking a question of a view that quite a few people on this forum hold.

A system of measurement can be developed for any definition if one so chooses. The sequential and succession of events was termed time, to which measurements were conceptualized and set in place. I think you may be look too hard into the "it does not exist" part.

Change your argument to hours/minutes/seconds don't exist and you are correct. Otherwise you have failed.

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

The meter is defined as 1⁄299,792,458 of a the distance light travels in an absolute vacuum in one second.

Time exists. Space exists.

Accept it.

I'm actually ontologistic. The whole premise was that time (other than ontologically), does not exist.

The thing is though, time does exist. It is a universal constant. We developed the second to record its passing. The second is an artificial concept, time is not.

All measurements are conceptualized.  All measurements only exist in relation to other measurements.  Time exists in relation to space.  You have to also conclude that space does not exist if you conclude that time does not exist. 

Perhaps I am looking too hard into the extant of time, but the same seems to be true of those denying its existence.  By the logic used to say time does not exist one can also conclude that everything does not exist.  It is a self-defeating argument.

You lied. Fail.

The thing is though, time does exist. It is a universal constant. We developed the second to record its passing. The second is an artificial concept, time is not.

No, light is the universal constant with its 3.0 x 10⁸m/s.  Time = not constant.

light is also slowing down.

Apparently.

Quote from: Saint Raist on February 18, 2008, 06:32:22 PM

The thing is though, time does exist. It is a universal constant. We developed the second to record its passing. The second is an artificial concept, time is not.

No, light is the universal constant with its 3.0 x 10⁸m/s.  Time = not constant.

I meant it happens all over the universe and can be recorded acting in the same conditions everywhere. I was not trying to imply it was the universal constant. I misspoke i guess. Sorry.

I'm actually ontologistic. The whole premise was that time (other than ontologically), does not exist.

Are you now saying Time does exist "ontologically"?  I must have missed the distinction "other than" in the original post.  Care to point it out?  It sounds like you are again throwing out your strict adherence to accuracy in favor of making assumptions. 

The original premise was that time does not exist in a physical sense. 

But in all of this where is Time as a physical entity. [sic]

Which is similar to asking where light is when it's dark.  Or, "Why can't Time suck my wang?"  The question does not fit the case.  The premise is flawed. 

Quote from: Smarmikus on February 17, 2008, 09:16:04 AM

All measurements are conceptualized.  All measurements only exist in relation to other measurements.  Time exists in relation to space.  You have to also conclude that space does not exist if you conclude that time does not exist. 

Perhaps I am looking too hard into the extant of time, but the same seems to be true of those denying its existence.  By the logic used to say time does not exist one can also conclude that everything does not exist.  It is a self-defeating argument.

You lied. Fail.

Where did I lie? 

I'm actually ontologistic.

Your being exists metaphysically? 

I lolled. 

Where did I lie?

All measurements are conceptualized.  All measurements only exist in relation to other measurements.  Time exists in relation to space.  You have to also conclude that space does not exist if you conclude that time does not exist.

This is a false assumption based on false pretenses. Thus, you lied.

Why Time does not Exist

From all of these definitions of a “unit” of time, we have been able to artificially divide it. The most basic subdivision is that of a second
which is 1/3600 of one revolution of the Earth, which we have most recently defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium - 133 atom. The smaller the repetitive natural
event that we can measure, the more accurate our measurement of time can be.

HA, A second is 1/3600 of an HOUR it's 1/86400 of a DAY.  THAT IS WRONG!! IT'S ALL WRONG!!!
Sorry, Ireland, all I had the attention span to read was that and the copy/paste part.

P.S. Did you miss me?

P.S. Did you miss me?

I only recognize the avatar.

I'll cry.

Hmmm, I feel like I'm arguing with myself.  Does that mean I exist? 

The premise of the article is flawed:  He is asking for the physical entity of time to be shown in space, which is nonsense.  Of course time does not exist in space, it's a different dimension.  But Time is present in the movement of physical objects, which makes Time by definition "in existence." 

Psh nothing moves.  We just don't know where anything is.

I knew where something was once, then i drank it and forgot.

Are you now saying Time does exist "ontologically"?  I must have missed the distinction "other than" in the original post.  Care to point it out?  It sounds like you are again throwing out your strict adherence to accuracy in favor of making assumptions.

The premise of the OP is non-ontological, thus I replied as such. However ontologically, of course time exists; just as purple-headed bumblebees exist.

Psh nothing moves.  We just don't know where anything is.

I'm pretty thick; I don't get it.  :/

Quote from: Smarmikus on February 23, 2008, 01:22:03 PM

Are you now saying Time does exist "ontologically"?  I must have missed the distinction "other than" in the original post.  Care to point it out?  It sounds like you are again throwing out your strict adherence to accuracy in favor of making assumptions.

The premise of the OP is non-ontological, thus I replied as such. However ontologically, of course time exists; just as purple-headed bumblebees exist.

In other words, you were wrong.

Context goes a long way.

Not on HERE it don't!

this whole thread is based on he fact that the word 'time' can mean just about anything you want it to. its a limitation of language more than a lack of understanding.