Recognitions:
Gold Member

## What proof do we have that TIME exists?

soo.... yes or no. do we have proof time exists? or existed? will exist? if i take a picture of a tree then look at it ten years from now, would the picture prove time exists. its all fine to say it does, but does it really prove anything?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Darken-Sol soo.... yes or no. do we have proof time exists? or existed? will exist? if i take a picture of a tree then look at it ten years from now, would the picture prove time exists. its all fine to say it does, but does it really prove anything?
There is no answer because, as this thread shows, no one can agree on what "time" means. If we agree that time is simply a way of measuring something like change, just like we can measure distance, then yes, time actually exists just as much as distance exists.
 Recognitions: Gold Member we can only experience one "time" at a time. so how do we compare it to any other "times"? every tool you use will only mean something now.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Darken-Sol we can only experience one "time" at a time. so how do we compare it to any other "times"? every tool you use will only mean something now.
Define what you call "time" and "times", otherwise I cannot answer this.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Drakkith Define what you call "time" and "times", otherwise I cannot answer this.
sorry. i was thinking past present future.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Darken-Sol sorry. i was thinking past present future.
Here's my view. I can plot any dimension on a graph as a straight line. The position of a point on this line represents the position of an event or object within this particular dimension. Time is simply a line I draw and put points on. It is no different from a dimension in space in this context. I can plot things at any point along the line, including negative points to represent the past if I want. Just like measuring distance, I can measure time and define a unit to represent a certain "distance" on the axis that I want to use. Let's call it the second and define it 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."

So, now that I have my unit of measurement, I can set my graph up and plot things based on this unit and my measurement devices. (clocks) Similarly, the meter is the unit of measurement of distance and is defined a specific way and has a measurement device. So having a way to measure and plot both distance and time allows me to describe the universe.

If you have the urge to go "but what is time really?!", then I cannot help you. I could ask the same thing about distance.
 Recognitions: Gold Member what i am getting at is : you could make a graph an hour. then wait one hour. upon examination it would seem to mark the passing of time. i could make the same the same graphs every two hours. when we compare these graphs they would appear the same. showing the same data. how would i prove they were different by the identical graphs? i cant even prove they existed a minute ago. all i have is some paper with data on it which exists only while i observe it.

 Quote by Chalnoth Consciousness has zero effect on the behavior of reality (except the obvious bits like building houses, computers, etc.).
I'd disagree, many theories show that the presence of an observer is absolutely necessary for the construct of what we consider tangible reality. Schrodinger's Cat is a perfect example, that observation is required for the wave probability to collapse into a fixed state. I believe that the universe would exist without an observer, but at the same time, I think certain parts of "reality" are observer dependent, for example, the subject matter of this thread: time

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Darken-Sol what i am getting at is : you could make a graph an hour. then wait one hour. upon examination it would seem to mark the passing of time. i could make the same the same graphs every two hours. when we compare these graphs they would appear the same. showing the same data. how would i prove they were different by the identical graphs? i cant even prove they existed a minute ago. all i have is some paper with data on it which exists only while i observe it.
They wouldn't be very good graphs if we didn't label them properly would they? As to whether or not something existed prior to your current point in time, I don't think there is anything that can "prove" that it does without relying on certain assumptions, one of which is that objects exist at all points in time, not just when we are observing them. Otherwise my definition of time has no meaning.

 Quote by claytonh4 I'd disagree, many theories show that the presence of an observer is absolutely necessary for the construct of what we consider tangible reality. Schrodinger's Cat is a perfect example, that observation is required for the wave probability to collapse into a fixed state. I believe that the universe would exist without an observer, but at the same time, I think certain parts of "reality" are observer dependent, for example, the subject matter of this thread: time
Would this not imply that time didn't exist without observers?

How did everything get into the state it was in which produced the first observer?

Did things simply appear in exactly the state to produce an observer, and at that point time began?

Perhaps the problem is due to our being unable to view time from the outside, and indeed having difficulty thinking in a fashion which doesn't assume the presence of time as a given.

We can do this mathematically though.

Recognitions: