What proof do we have that TIME exists?

[Homesick345]

well, if you don't understand the quote, or say that you do not, then why would you use it in an argument?

And anyways, he called what you *did* disgusting, not *you*.

I don't understand the quote fully, sure, I'm not a scientist of the caliber of Einstein to pretend the contrary...But it sounds awfully close to what Chalnoth was describing, math to explain reality, to which Einstein seem to oppose a different approach...Now go ahead and tell in what sense is this a LIE, or what is DISGUSTING about it?...This is a classic case of bullying and mudslinging, without the beginning of a provocation from my part...there is something to be said about this behavior, and not being able to take a quote that seems to contradict you...and you are even defending that. ...

 

[Chalnoth]

mmm ...I wasn't lying, not even trying to put anything out of context (don't even know what is the right context, & I don't even understand Einstein quote fully, except that it deals with math application to reality, which was what you mentionned)- however a violent reaction of this sort, (that includes name-calling) is deeply disturbing. Why are you so angry?

I'm angry because you misrepresented a good scientist, making him appear to say something he almost certainly never intended to say. This action of your was the height of dishonesty.

 

[Homesick345]

I'm angry because you misrepresented a good scientist, making him appear to say something he almost certainly never intended to say. This action of your was the height of dishonesty.[/

What in the world are you talking about? What dishonesty and what quote? THIS QUOTE BYBEINSTEIN ALWAYS PUZZLED ME...ALL I WANTED was what would be your comment about it...since it addressed seemingly a dichotomy math/reality...where do you see bad intentions from my part? And what makes you assume I'm I'll intended? Man, this is getting weird!

 

[Chronos]

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

I agree with Chalnoth that you have misrepresented what Einstein was saying. Einstein never asserted 'reality' does not exist, his claim was that mathematics is a hammer used to attempt to forge perception to agree with observation. Translation - do not trust math to supercede logical reasoning. Math is a coded form of reason. Our inability to derive a perfectly coded form of reason does not invalidate logic.

 

[Some Slacker]

I think the previous few comments are for another time... wait time don't exist, so I guess now is the time...

 

[Homesick345]

I agree with Chalnoth that you have misrepresented what Einstein was saying. Einstein never asserted 'reality' does not exist, his claim was that mathematics is a hammer used to attempt to forge perception to agree with observation. Translation - do not trust math to supercede logical reasoning. Math is a coded form of reason. Our inability to derive a perfectly coded form of reason does not invalidate logic.

Guys, your problem is obviously Einstein quotation, not me. Have a grip, I did not post any misinterpretation of Einstein quote. It seemed appropriate since it dealt with math & reality. You are the one interpreting.

 

[Homesick345]

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

 

[Chronos]

The boat is leaving the dock, and you missed it.

 

[Homesick345]

The boat is leaving the dock, and you missed it.

Good riddance. Have your hate party without me

 

[Chronos]

Hate is emotional, science is objective. You seem to struggle with this distinction.

 

[Homesick345]

Hate is emotional, science is objective. You seem to struggle with this distinction.

I am not being emotional - you are. A simple Einstein quote triggered some kind of a hysterical (chain) reaction. Untill you come to grip with it, good luck, & stop driving personal attacks towards me. You don't know me, & I don't know you. Stop being superficial, & pretend analyzing me. You call this Science? A scientific attitude? << insult removed by Moderator >>

 

[Homesick345]

REMINDER

A - Here is what Chalnoth said: "The only way to understand reality at a deep level is through mathematics."

B - This is my reply, without any comment from my part - a simple quote: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

C - That is Chalnoth reply: "Taking a famous scientist out of context is quote mining. It's not only lying, it's putting the lie in somebody else's mouth. It's disgusting."

You be the judge..

 

[Homesick345]

...and I'm outta here, for good. Thanks all - including Chalnoth - who posted super interesting replies to my original post.

 

[Chronos]

I still agree with Chalnoth. Einstein said a lot of things, he was a 'rock star' of his time. Cherry picking a quote that parallels your world view is misleading in the context of this discussion.

 

[Chalnoth]

I agree with Chalnoth that you have misrepresented what Einstein was saying. Einstein never asserted 'reality' does not exist, his claim was that mathematics is a hammer used to attempt to forge perception to agree with observation. Translation - do not trust math to supercede logical reasoning. Math is a coded form of reason. Our inability to derive a perfectly coded form of reason does not invalidate logic.

I don't think that's quite it, especially since logic is just another form of math. Rather, that we shouldn't trust that we know the correct mathematics at all times: just because we can write an equation doesn't mean it's the right equation. Too often people trust something much more just because somebody wrote some math down near it. I don't think this is much of a problem in physics today, but perhaps it was in Einstein's time (I kind of doubt it, since at that time massive strides forward were being made in our mathematical understanding of the universe). It is, however, a big problem in many areas disconnected from physics. Economics is a good example.

 

[aunty matter]

none. seems to me that we are each on our own slice of time. like we all stuck on our own slice of glass and the glass is like a one way mirrror, and all you can see is the past. every conscious being is on its own slice and so has a different view. everything we see is in the past already and the future doesn't exist yet so where actually are we? now has already gone. so the universe doesn't exist at all, just the view of the past. 2 dimensional consciousness with a 4 dimensional view.

 

[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?

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[Darken-Sol]

Define what you call "time" and "times", otherwise I cannot answer this.

sorry. i was thinking past present future.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[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 can't even prove they existed a minute ago. all i have is some paper with data on it which exists only while i observe it.

 

[claytonh4]

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

 

[Drakkith]

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 can't 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.

 

[Max™]

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.

 

[Chalnoth]

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

That's completely and utterly wrong. Experiments have been done where they've collapsed wave functions without actually doing any observations.

 

[claytonh4]

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.

yeah that's the hard part and maybe i need to qualify what i said. our view of time, i think is observer dependent, but like you said, the role it plays, or rather played before observers, is exceedingly difficult to comprehend being that we can't step outside and reconsider its implications, thus making its limitations to our reality observer dependent

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Closed pending moderation

 

[ZapperZ]

This topic has ALWAYS produced a thread that eventually gets shut down. This thread has provided more evidence why the topic on "time exists or not" should be included as one of our banned topics.

Congratulations!

Zz.