Are You into Time?
 

Back in my drug-induced teenage years, whenever someone would ask me what time it was, I'd reply, "I'm not into time". Who would've thought that this might've been the correct position to take?

From everything I've been reading, it's looking more and more like time might not actually exist. Clocks? They are simply devices that measure movement, not necessarily time. We construe movement as time, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as time. There also seems to be no good reason for time to point towards the future. If it existed at all, it should just as easily point towards the past. So my question is:

If there really is no such thing as time, then does this mean there is no such thing as eternity? Or how about infinity? Also, does this increase or decrease the likelihood of a God? You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

Re: Are You into Time?
 

I'm not too sure what you are trying to explain, prove/disprove here.

Time is a word to describe the consistent changing nature around us that can be measured. It's just a word, and everyone knows that it exists. After 80 or so years of it - they will go into the ground.

You might as well be asking is there such thing as existence? It doesn't seem like a sensible question to me.

Re: Are You into Time?
 

I completely agree. It decreases the likelihood of a God that judges you based on what you do(not that you'd believe in that anyway).
The Buddhists seem to have it right. Enlightenment is when you can let go of time, and merely exist. Everything is one, infinity may just be when we divide existence into more and more pieces.
I understand what you're saying, although it is hard to explain.

Re: Are You into Time?
 

[sarcastic]Oh, now I see how Lestat's point is directly promoting the idea of re-incarnation and the Buddhas great theory about escaping this wheel of suffering.[/sarcastic]

Re: Are You into Time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see in that sentence the difficulties logic starts to have when you make just a small beginning to thinking outside of the box.

PairTheBoard

Re: Are You into Time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
From everything I've been reading, it's looking more and more like time might not actually exist. Clocks? They are simply devices that measure movement, not necessarily time. We construe movement as time, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as time. There also seems to be no good reason for time to point towards the future. If it existed at all, it should just as easily point towards the past. So my question is:


If there really is no such thing as time, then does this mean there is no such thing as eternity? Or how about infinity? Also, does this increase or decrease the likelihood of a God? You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would the Universe still be the way it seems to be if we developed the provable conclusion that time was an emergent property of perception, and science's assumption of it as a physical property essential to the Universe is flawed?

If we came up with time to be able to articulate change, perhaps it is not necessary for time to pass or have physical properties for the Universe, but our perception of it needs time to exist to be able to express what is going on around us?

This view should have zero influence on the probabilities of God's existence though. In effect, nothing would have changed. We would just have a better understanding of the Universe, at minimum. Continuity is essential to the human psyche, and we seem to have made the transition from flat-Earth to heliocentric views to where we are at today. There are other transitions, I'm sure.

I don't know that this is one of them though.

Re: Are You into Time?
 

[ QUOTE ]

From everything I've been reading, it's looking more and more like time might not actually exist. Clocks? They are simply devices that measure movement, not necessarily time. We construe movement as time, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as time. There also seems to be no good reason for time to point towards the future. If it existed at all, it should just as easily point towards the past.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok. I'm just getting out of my drug-induced teenage years, and don't know much about physics, got any handy sources?

[ QUOTE ]

If there really is no such thing as time, then does this mean there is no such thing as eternity? Or how about infinity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it's hard to picture things without time. But if there's no time, and every event is simply a movement in a direction... then there is no eternity? Everything just is, I guess.
But that state of being would appear like an infinite-eternity to us observers...

Also: might entropy be important in these considerations? Could "the end of time" be interpreted as "the loss of all energy?"

[ QUOTE ]

Also, does this increase or decrease the likelihood of a God? You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I guess the "who created God" arguement can be dealt with in this model even if we're still in the dark about why anything exists at all. That might sway individuals' personal assessments but does little in the way of providing proof. Still, if such a discovery were somehow to be made, I would be more inclined to believe in a God than I currently am.

Re: Are You into Time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Back in my drug-induced teenage years, whenever someone would ask me what time it was, I'd reply, "I'm not into time".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read that in some high powered secret societies (remember both pres bushes and john kerry skull and bones) the answer "there is no time" to the question of what time is it marks you as a potential fellow member.

Re: Are You into Time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not too sure what you are trying to explain, prove/disprove here.

Time is a word to describe the consistent changing nature around us that can be measured. It's just a word, and everyone knows that it exists. After 80 or so years of it - they will go into the ground.

You might as well be asking is there such thing as existence? It doesn't seem like a sensible question to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to explain or prove anything, since I'm nowhere near smart enough to fully grasp the concepts of time and space.

Anyway, this stuff isn't so obvious to me. Time, the way most people conceive of it, is kind of like a yardstick where the we keep moving away from a beginning. That's kinda the way I always looked at it. But time doesn't have to be like a one-way yardstick. It can loop back on itself, or might not exist at all. Again, not simple or obvious stuff to most people.

Re: Are You into Time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see in that sentence the difficulties logic starts to have when you make just a small beginning to thinking outside of the box.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see what you're getting at. Thinking outside the box is good, but logic is still important and we ought not abandon it. The difficulties we face are not with logic itself, but in the problem presented. Namely one in which we do not yet know the answer to. Suspending logic so that an any answer can be plugged in, is just not acceptable.