Time

[The one]

Perosnally I don't believe that time actually exists, but if it did I typed up a possible theory for it-

y-------------------------------------------------.5-------------------------------------------------x
This line is actually infinitely long, however it still has ends. X being on one end, and y being on the other. In the exact middle of this line is .5. .5 is the present, we our always in .5, we can never move from .5, even if you could travel in time, we would still always remain in .5. However, everything around us moves from x to y, future to past, all the time, and never stops. Everything also always passes through .5, time always moves through us.

Do you know what a time frame is? A time frame is 0.000…….. (it goes on forever, but ends in 1) So it’s basically 0. an unlimited amount of 0s, and then 1 seconds. All this means is that a time frame is basically infinitely fast, and time frames are always passing through us. Of course, if time frames travel at an infinite speed, it means that there are an unlimited amount of time frames, hence the infinite length of the line.

[The Eagle]

hmmm there are some major problems with this.

what would you describe the line between y and x exactly?

just by dropping the word "infinite" in - you eliminate the ends so x and y can't exist.if x and y do exist - then time exists.

by acknowledging that past and future exist - then you acknowledge time exists.

"0.000…….. (it goes on forever, but ends in 1)" - this line here is a misuse of the word "foverever".

[The one]

hmmm there are some major problems with this.

what would you describe the line between y and x exactly?

just by dropping the word "infinite" in - you eliminate the ends so x and y can't exist.if x and y do exist - then time exists.

by acknowledging that past and future exist - then you acknowledge time exists.

"0.000…….. (it goes on forever, but ends in 1)" - this line here is a misuse of the word "foverever".

I said that it still has ends regardless of being infinitley long because I suspected that time makes impossibilities possible. Although I could very well be wrong.

Also, I did not 'acknowledge' that past and future exist, as I said, if time did exist, then I would bring past prestent and future into it. Basically, I was looking at another side of the argument, against my belief, but I always look at both sides.

Could you also explain the underlined?

[The Eagle]

I said that it still has ends regardless of being infinitley long because I suspected that time makes impossibilities possible. Although I could very well be wrong.

If it has ends then it doesn’t go on to infinity – hence the “end” bit of the sentence. It is illogical. If impossible is possible – then it is not impossible.

“Time doesn’t exist – but time makes impossibilities possible..”

what you are saying in the theory is something that doesn’t exist – making something impossible possible.

Do you see what I am saying?

Also, I did not 'acknowledge' that past and future exist, as I said, if time did exist, then I would bring past prestent and future into it. Basically, I was looking at another side of the argument, against my belief, but I always look at both sides.

Your initial post had this line in:

However, everything around us moves from x to y, future to past, all the time, and never stops.

Therefore you have acknowledged the past and the future. The paragraph actually describes past present and future anyway – you have not changed anything. Your .5 is the present – which is not actually linked to a person

Could you also explain the underlined?

Forever – but it ends. Its not forever then if it ends.

It is an illogical application and misuse of the word forever – or indeed the word end.

[The one]

I said that it still has ends regardless of being infinitley long because I suspected that time makes impossibilities possible. Although I could very well be wrong.

If it has ends then it doesn’t go on to infinity – hence the “end” bit of the sentence. It is illogical. If impossible is possible – then it is not impossible.

“Time doesn’t exist – but time makes impossibilities possible..”

what you are saying in the theory is something that doesn’t exist – making something impossible possible.

Do you see what I am saying?

Also, I did not 'acknowledge' that past and future exist, as I said, if time did exist, then I would bring past prestent and future into it. Basically, I was looking at another side of the argument, against my belief, but I always look at both sides.

Your initial post had this line in:

However, everything around us moves from x to y, future to past, all the time, and never stops.

Therefore you have acknowledged the past and the future. The paragraph actually describes past present and future anyway – you have not changed anything. Your .5 is the present – which is not actually linked to a person

Could you also explain the underlined?

Forever – but it ends. Its not forever then if it ends.

It is an illogical application and misuse of the word forever – or indeed the word end.

Okay, I must be wrong on the ends of the line then, mabye the line has no ends?

Also I did not acknowledge it! Let me explain, I was looking at the for side of the argument. The for side is 'time exists'. Becasue I based my lecture on that side, I would say that "everything around us moves from x to y, future to past, all the time, and never stops." So I'm talking as a person who would 'believe' that time exists.

Basically, if I believed time did exist, I would be saying that, but i DO NOT believe it, and I DO NOT believe in past and future.

Either all the above or I don't fully understand the meaning of acknowlege.

About that us being linked to .5 thing, I may be wrong on that to, since (I'm about to talk as if I believed in time now)----------we are in the furture, then go through present, and become past. But no. I am right actually, because we are never in the future ot past, only present, could you explain that in more detail?

[Eternal Novice]

I think time is like an ocean in which the level of the water continually changes, and in which we are always floating on the surface. If the water level is rising, it means that time is moving forward, but since the pool is infinitely deep and infinitely high we can't measure the depth of the water. There is no way to tell where we are at any moment in relation to the next. In fact, even if time were to move backwards we’d have no perception of it, because we’d still be on the surface of the water, only the level would be lowering instead of increasing. This creates the illusion that time is meaningless or doesn't exist. Ideally, however, time is a kind of plane that encompasses physical reality, providing it a medium through which it might exist within the structure of the universe.
I don't know much about quantum physics, but from what I understand time is considered to be the fourth dimension. Because we are three dimensional beings we can only manipulate the third dimension, or the physical world. We cannot affect or control 4th dimensional constructs like time through any known means, although we do have the ability to sense it somewhat. If we were fourth dimensional beings, I expect we would. We would be able to "see" time the same way we see the night sky; or walk into the past or future the same way we walk to the supermarket. We'd be able to sense, but not affect, the very forces that hold the universe together. To put a religious spin on it, many suggest that the spirit transcends physical reality. It’s possible that upon death we become 4th dimensional beings, with the power to feel the forces that created the universe the same way we feel the flow of time.

[The Eagle]

Okay, I must be wrong on the ends of the line then, mabye the line has no ends?

how about you make the line a circle - then it has no ends. lol.

Basically, if I believed time did exist, I would be saying that, but i DO NOT believe it, and I DO NOT believe in past and future.
About that us being linked to .5 thing, I may be wrong on that to, since (I'm about to talk as if I believed in time now)----------we are in the furture, then go through present, and become past. But no. I am right actually, because we are never in the future ot past, only present, could you explain that in more detail?

But the idea or concept of past and future does not imply they “exist” anyway. The past is the present that happened before now. The future is the present that hasn’t happened yet.

Why have you placed yourself in the future? – you are not in the future you are in the present.

You see, a problem arises when you say you don’t believe in time:

The present that hasn’t happened yet – can’t ever happen.

The present that happened before now – never happened.

As you can see with that there are some real illogical things that occur– you were never born. Your parents were never born. Forget about days – it will never get light or dark – but it never has before. And so on….

I agree with you that time isn’t a “thing” that exists – It is a measure of events - and I would say you do believe in “time”. Why do you want to believe “time” doesn’t exist anyway?

[The one]

You said that the present that hadn't happened yet would never happen, and that the present that already went never happened. Even if time didn't exist, that's wrong. If you whack a tree with a hammer, the mark is left there, regardless of time. And the reason I don't believe in time is becasue I don't like the idea of it existing. You also mentioned that you believe time isn't a thing, but a measurement. If you mean like cm and mm, then I agree, but if you mean something like a non-existent bubble that holds everything together, then no, I do not agree.

[The Eagle]

You said that the present that hadn't happened yet would never happen, and that the present that already went never happened. Even if time didn't exist, that's wrong. If you whack a tree with a hammer, the mark is left there, regardless of time.

ok. explain without the concept of time how the tree didnt have a mark then had a mark after you hit it. you have acknowledged the past by saying it didnt have the mark at some point.

And the reason I don't believe in time is becasue I don't like the idea of it existing.

bringing in likes and dislikes to guage if something exists doesnt determine if something exists or not.

You also mentioned that you believe time isn't a thing, but a measurement. If you mean like cm and mm, then I agree, but if you mean something like a non-existent bubble that holds everything together, then no, I do not agree.

who has said time is a non-existent bubble that holds everything together? i am saying the past was, the present is and the future is yet to be. if you have some other concept that can explain why that is not the case i am yet to hear it. and apart from you not liking the idea of time- there isnt any reason for you not to believe in it.

interestingly even the norse gods were bound by the norns - these represented fate - and later past, present and future.

[The one]

I am aware that because I don''t like the idea of time, it doesn't determine whether it exists or not, I stated that becasue you asked why I didn't want to believe in time.

Fine, the hammer and tree could work against me too, but about that non-existant bubble... I didn't mean it literally, I meant that do you believe time as only a measurement, or as an actual strucure?

[The Eagle]

I am aware that because I don''t like the idea of time, it doesn't determine whether it exists or not, I stated that becasue you asked why I didn't want to believe in time.

Fine, the hammer and tree could work against me too, but about that non-existant bubble... I didn't mean it literally, I meant that do you believe time as only a measurement, or as an actual strucure?

so you dont want to believe in time because you dont like it. so why dont you like it? what is to like or dislike about it? the fact that that the past is gone or the future is yet to be?

i believe its a measurement but as soon as you allow the possibility for movement and momentum within the universe then time has to be a factor of our observation. however whilst time itself doesnt have structure - the "rules" we logically apply to time, means it is a structure for other things.

[Nostalgic]

I started reading then got lost.

I beleive time exsists. I use it all the time