an arguement I had with my friend

[Convenient_Label]

If your gonna call me an idiot for not believing in the simple concept of time you're just as stupid. You still haven't proved that time exist, whither it be by Multidimensional Universes, or The measurement of distances or motion for that matter. Some people even refer to time as the 4th dimension but for some odd reason humans aren't able to detect or sense its presence. It's kind of like religion, people tend to believe in things we cant see. Am I supposed to base the existence of time on faith?....

Nobody's called you an idiot yet, have they? (Unless you're actually the OPs friend that made him ask this question on the forums, in which case they didn't know it was you they were calling an idiot). You're entirely correct, in fact, that nobody has proved that time exists. That's not exactly suprising since philosophers, neurobiologists, physicists and psychologists have spent so much time trying to explain why we perceive time as existing despite there being no proof of it.
However, you clearly do perceive a flow of time, since you are able to perform time-dependant actions such as catching a falling leaf. You must, inarguably, believe in the human perception of time since the alternative is really very strange (there are three people living on the planet, that I am aware of, that appear not to perceive time as a linear progression, they all require 24 hour dedicated care from medical professionals).

If you had no length - you would cease to exist.

Time is just another one of those dimensions. We perceive time differently than those other dimensions, so our brains try to tell us it is different.

A simple distance between two points in a dimension of reality.

If I were to hazard a guess, dead beat's opposition is not to the idea that people don't perceive time as passing but that time as a measurable physical quantity is inperceptible and thus impossible to prove. However, if one were to accept 'time' as a real dimensional quantity then the same goes for any other measurement of the extensibility of a spacetime event (like 'height'). The distance between two points can only be measured within a frame of reference outside those two points. In order for me to say "Point A (which has no extension) is closer to me than Point B (ditto)" I require a third event, Object 1, with an extension that encompasses myself as well as points A and B and that is continuously or linear-discretely variable over its extension.
Thus, a measurement of interval (which many people mistake for a measurement of time) is only possible with reference to an event which has extension over that interval and that is continuously or linear-discretely variable over its extension (in terms of normal language, that means we need something that continues to exist before either event and continues to exist after both events and that is different by a predictable amount at each point along its extension).
The problem is that your position in the above quote is not true. We perceive time identically to the other dimensions, we just don't appear to have any control over our position in it. If you were stored in a sealed box with a perspex window and breathing holes and put on a conveyor belt you'd probably end up combining the idea of your position in time and your position on the conveyor belt, since the two would be essentially the same.

I understood that for something to move backwards in time it would have to pass the speed of light, at which point its direction through time would be opposite to ours relative to its speed?

Actually, the whole 'speed of light is special' theory has recently gone out of the window, too. Light happens to go at the top speed that mathematics allows for a universe that looks like ours. Nothing can be made to go faster than light and still interact with a universe that looks like ours. However, in roughly the same way that the magnetic field around a moving current extends into the space around it it also appears to extend into the time around it, such that it initiates events before it reaches them, the only reasonable explanation for this at the moment is that the information present in the field is extending backwards in time from the event.

 

[Ionami]

I'm interested to hear his explanation of WHY time would simply... stop, if the sun disappeared.

The idea of time passing, which is something we created in a sense, does not hinge on the sun. What about other solar systems and galaxies? Do they also hinge on our sun?

The sun is just a convenient way to measure it is all. In fact the earths speed of rotation is lowing down (due to the moon and tides). Way back in the earths very early history a full day here took only 8 hours. These measurements are also complicated by the fact that the faster you go, the slower time actually travels due to the curvature of space-time. If you read Einsteins work on General Relativity it explains this.

That's all good and fluffy, but what I was asking for was his friends reasons in particular. I'd like to see how he explains it.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I understood that for something to move backwards in time it would have to pass the speed of light, at which point its direction through time would be opposite to ours relative to its speed?

Actually, the whole 'speed of light is special' theory has recently gone out of the window, too. Light happens to go at the top speed that mathematics allows for a universe that looks like ours. Nothing can be made to go faster than light and still interact with a universe that looks like ours. However, in roughly the same way that the magnetic field around a moving current extends into the space around it it also appears to extend into the time around it, such that it initiates events before it reaches them, the only reasonable explanation for this at the moment is that the information present in the field is extending backwards in time from the event.

Surely not?!

Much of our spacial and physical geometry theories that deal with how we understand the universe are based on the concept that the speed of light is sacrosanct. If something hits the speed of light time ceases to be for that something, if it exceeds that speed it may travel backwards through time.

I am no expert, but could it not be the case that the magnetic lines of force are traveling faster than light? That would mean they actually "appear" to exist before the light from the triggering object hit whatever it was that was feeling the effects (much like seeing the lightning before the you hear the thunder).

 

[dead_beat_slacker]

I liked it better when it was about the hypercube.

I think you're going about it all wrong; if you're going to argue with someone who is going to reiterate the same point over and over again, the question really becomes:

What would it take to prove this hypothesis to you?

See, you're all working blind, thinking that this can be rationally explained. Time, like weight, height, depth--these are all human terms (concepts) applied to the Universe to help us explain it. The difference is that we can see weight/height/depth-but they are still merely concepts that we have applied to things to help us understand them.

So it is with time; it is a quality of thing (the state at which their atoms move) usually demonstrated by movement, but at the subatomic level, can be 'seen' (and by this I mean mathematically measured) as a state of activity (or not, or very, very slow activity). I'm not trying to say that when everything reaches 0 degrees Kelvin time will stop, because the atomic activity does, but it is true that as the Universe decays, we lose heat. (However, any further and I'm afraid I'd be going way off the rails-and as it stands I may only be on shaky ground; apologies if I'm incorrect.)

Time does exist-because things move (all things, at the atomic level). However, it is merely the measuring stick we use to chart and explain the movement. That measuring stick can change, depending on the math that we're using (as with things faster-than-light) but it is still a measurable concept that can be logically evaluated. To say that it doesn't exist is like trying to insist weight doesn't exist, or the air doesn't exist. They are things you cannot see, but you can measure them, and then use those measurements to make some pretty accurate statements about the Universe.

Of course, like all things they are only proven until something comes along and disproves them. However, if all someone has is 'prove it to me' versus 'this disproves that', then they're really just arguing for intelligent design, and should be understood as such.

I like your explanation. Its actually the best explanation I've read. I still stand by what I said. Just like you said "However, it is merely the measuring stick we use to chart and explain the movement. Weight or height or other forms of measurement also man made. Air well I can feel air and its always been there so I'm pretty sure it exist. See my argument from the beginning was that time was a man made invention and it truly doesn't exist it only exist cause man created it since we can't really see time for what it truly is then its not real. It was first only used to measure the distance of how long it took the sun to set. I'm pretty sure when they invented the sun dial they weren't discussing atomic energy. I'm just trying to show you that there's another side to time that no one really talks about. People are so depended on it and stand by it as if it were a religion.

 

[Convenient_Label]

Surely not?!

Much of our spacial and physical geometry theories that deal with how we understand the universe are based on the concept that the speed of light is sacrosanct. If something hits the speed of light time ceases to be for that something, if it exceeds that speed it may travel backwards through time.

Afraid so. The speed at which light travels is not special because it's light doing it, it's because mathematics demands it. We based a lot of our theories on the idea that it was light that was special, rather than the speed which was special. Nothing can actually be accelerated to the speed at which light travels, because the mathematics simply don't permit it. Before we realised this we had to introduce all sorts of strange ideas to explain this. Doing away with light as being special has solved quite a few problems.
The idea of things moving 'backwards in time' would still hold, but as I mentioned earlier, it not only is presumed to be impossible, but if it were possible the article in question couldn't interact with a universe that behaves like ours.

I am no expert, but could it not be the case that the magnetic lines of force are traveling faster than light? That would mean they actually "appear" to exist before the light from the triggering object hit whatever it was that was feeling the effects (much like seeing the lightning before the you hear the thunder).

Nope, magnetic fields are mediated by photons, which move at the speed limit imposed by the nature of the universe. Magnetic field lines don't actually exist, it's all mediated by photons being thrown backwards and forwards. Have a look at Feynman Diagrams.

It was first only used to measure the distance of how long it took the sun to set.

As I tried to explain above, you're talking about interval there, not about time. Interval is a distance between two points measured relative to an ongoing spacetime event (a sundial, for example).

Earlier I pointed out that all of our physical laws can and have been reformulated to be time independant and still provide useful answers. They do this by using relative states of objects as a metric. At the most fundamental level they discuss how the waveforms of particles look relative to one another. Asking 'through what means do they change relative to one another' (which most people would assume to be 'through evolving in time') becomes an irrelevant question; the model essentially presupposes that all those possible states have a concrete physical existance.
Whether time exists or not is actually irrelevant to the more pressing problem of why humans appear to perceive it as existing, rather than any of the other equally valid ways of perceiving reality that we don't appear to be capable of on an experiential level.

 

[Anarchemitis]

All quantifications fit in two categories that are primal to all of existence that we have acknowledged; space and time.
Space is everything that can be. A Cube if you will, encompasses space, measured in thre dimensions, length, width and height with Physics and Matter therein. Time is the theoretical 4th dimension, which space travels along. Time is used as a reference between occurences and the detection of motion.
it's just as nonexistent as "One Meter" or "0 Degrees Celcius".

Actually, the fourth dimension can also be a spacial dimension. A 4-dimensional object is an object made up of 3-dimensional objects, in the same way that a 3-dimensional object is made of 2-dimensional objects layered on top of each other, and a 2-dimensional object is made of 1-dimensional objects placed next to each other. For example, a hypercube:

Spoiler: Big Picture of a Hypercube

or, a tesseract, as you mentioned, is an object that consists of 8 3-dimensional cubes combined. It can be interpreted as time, as you stated, but it is not necessarily time.

Well, it makes more sense inside my brain that the 4th dimension is linear, not spatial.

 

[xitel]

All quantifications fit in two categories that are primal to all of existence that we have acknowledged; space and time.
Space is everything that can be. A Cube if you will, encompasses space, measured in thre dimensions, length, width and height with Physics and Matter therein. Time is the theoretical 4th dimension, which space travels along. Time is used as a reference between occurences and the detection of motion.
it's just as nonexistent as "One Meter" or "0 Degrees Celcius".

Actually, the fourth dimension can also be a spacial dimension. A 4-dimensional object is an object made up of 3-dimensional objects, in the same way that a 3-dimensional object is made of 2-dimensional objects layered on top of each other, and a 2-dimensional object is made of 1-dimensional objects placed next to each other. For example, a hypercube:

Spoiler: Big Picture of a Hypercube

or, a tesseract, as you mentioned, is an object that consists of 8 3-dimensional cubes combined. It can be interpreted as time, as you stated, but it is not necessarily time.

Well, it makes more sense inside my brain that the 4th dimension is linear, not spatial.

It's worse if you think about the fact that it's both, and that time is spatial.

 

[USSR]

Time was something created for organization. It's not a real thing that you could reverse and forward it. Back when the wise just asked the question, why. They wondered why the sky was clear, then suddenly turned dark. So the created a form of measurement that would tell them when the sky would turn dark, to prepare.

Of course this is just my theory. Nobody truly knows how.

And to the reference about the sun, I don't think anything would exist without it. Time would still be in existence. Probably not upon hours of the day, but you can still count seconds, which is a measurement of time. But then again, if there is no sun, there are no people to count the seconds.

So that question will always lead you to an impasse of yet another theory of time.

 

[Smokescreen]

[
I like your explanation. Its actually the best explanation I've read. I still stand by what I said. Just like you said "However, it is merely the measuring stick we use to chart and explain the movement. Weight or height or other forms of measurement also man made.

This doesn't remove it's existence. Rather, it proves it by making it something measurable.

Air well I can feel air and its always been there so I'm pretty sure it exist.

Really? When can you feel air? Does something have to be moving for that to happen? If so, then you have been using time.

See my argument from the beginning was that time was a man made invention and it truly doesn't exist it only exist cause man created it since we can't really see time for what it truly is then its not real.

And that argument is wrong. It is mistaking the measurement of a thing for the existence of a thing. Since we like naming things, we call this particular thing 'time'.

I'm pretty sure when they invented the sun dial they weren't discussing atomic energy.

Doesn't take away from my points in the slightest; I was merely demonstrating that movement happens in everything, even 'still' things (rock, air, you when you sit) that you can't 'see'.

I'm just trying to show you that there's another side to time that no one really talks about.

What, exactly, is that side? What I see you insisting is that 'time' is the word that humans have made up to describe a natural phenomena, like 'weight' or 'color'. This is true. But it doesn't mean that any of those things don't exist, it just means that the word was created. So what?

People are so depended on it and stand by it as if it were a religion.

It's a pretty useful measurement; people who tend to disregard that measurement have a tendency to irritate people by being, as we say 'late'. You may have heard of this term as well.

 

[EvilJester1214]

time would not stop just because the sun would be lost as a reference point.
i think the only thing that would be affected would be Daylight Savings Time.

 

[Limasol]

I thought it was generally accepted nowadays that time did exist and was a fixed constant. When mathematicians are creating models of universes that have two time dimensions, that actually function, and no one was exploding then it seems well extablished.

But of course, people you talk to over xbox-live are much more trustworthy than people who actually care about it for a living....... [/sarc]

 

[Uncompetative]

Can you prove anything exists? What do you mean by existence? Can you prove you exist? I've never been sure that I exist...

I wouldn't be able to imagine some of the things I've heard in this arguement thusly I couldn't have thought of someone to have those arguements, and therefore someone else must exist to believe the things I cannot. I've proved that there are at least two people in existance, is that enough? Please say it is so I don't have to think anymore.

How do you know for sure that neither one of us isn't deluding themselves into believing that they know less than they really do?

What do you mean by Truth?

What is 'Meaning'?

 

[Break]

If your gonna call me an idiot for not believing in the simple concept of time you're just as stupid. You still haven't proved that time exist, whither it be by Multidimensional Universes, or The measurement of distances or motion for that matter. Some people even refer to time as the 4th dimension but for some odd reason humans aren't able to detect or sense its presence. It's kind of like religion, people tend to believe in things we cant see. Am I supposed to base the existence of time on faith?....

How would you explain the fact that it has been recorded that "time" as a measurement moves slower at high speeds, or through areas of dense gravity? Astronauts age slower whilst in orbit, and when measuring the distance of another planet using the same principles as SONAR, it's trajectory appears to spike when it passes behind the gravity well of a star. Such things are generally explained with the theory of timespace, and it's properties. I'm interested in hearing your explanation for such things.

 

[forever saturday]

as far as i think it goes, there isnt actually a force of time, and that, say, WWII is still happening somewhere. the past and the future dont exist outside of peoples minds. all that exists is now.

 

[Railu]

See what you started? Now we're getting into quantum physics and philosophy. I only have my undergraduate in IT, I'm way out of my league here.

 

[xitel]

Can you prove anything exists? What do you mean by existence? Can you prove you exist? I've never been sure that I exist...

Ugh, more nihilism.

 

[Uncompetative]

Can you prove anything exists? What do you mean by existence? Can you prove you exist? I've never been sure that I exist...

Ugh, more nihilism.

You make it sound depressing, when in actual fact it is quite liberating to accept no certainties and have no dogmatic moral responsibilities.

 

[xitel]

Can you prove anything exists? What do you mean by existence? Can you prove you exist? I've never been sure that I exist...

Ugh, more nihilism.

You make it sound depressing, when in actual fact it is quite liberating to accept no certainties and have no dogmatic moral responsibilities.

I don't except any responsibilities, but I do accept certain certainties. For example, if I think, I am thinking, and if I did not exist in some way, then I would be unable to think. Cogito ergo Sum.

 

[Dudemeister]

We move through time as we move through space, we just chose to measure time in a certain way.

 

[Uncompetative]

Can you prove anything exists? What do you mean by existence? Can you prove you exist? I've never been sure that I exist...

Ugh, more nihilism.

You make it sound depressing, when in actual fact it is quite liberating to accept no certainties and have no dogmatic moral responsibilities.

I don't except any responsibilities, but I do accept certain certainties. For example, if I think, I am thinking, and if I did not exist in some way, then I would be unable to think. Cogito ergo Sum.

Sorry to harp on about this but just note the word that is in bold (above).

Descartes doubted everything except... 'Hey, I'm doubting. Therefore I must be thinking... etc.'

However, there is a weak spot in the chain of inference. doubting, yes...thinking, yes... but not necessarily I, for what is meant by the concept?

Is it perhaps that "you" define your 'self' (your I) relativistically around "your" conscious perceptions and memories of same. That this strongly implies a concrete persistent reality which you can corroborate with "others" to your satisfaction, but does not prove it, as if it were all to be taken away (including your memories) you would not have any stimuli to react to and would cease to construct an I.

The difference between us is that it doesn't frighten 'me' that there is no Ghost in my machine. That I have no soul.