Fun Stuff > CHATTER
How "normal" do you think you are?
MadassAlex:
--- Quote from: est on 05 Jul 2008, 01:50 ---That argument is fallacious. Objects within the universe would still show the effects of time, whether there was anyone there to see them or not.
--- End quote ---
Time would be meaningless without an observer or measurement, however. It wouldn't be the concept of time, just altered states of existence in sequence.
--- Quote from: est on 05 Jul 2008, 01:50 ---And anyway, that universe doesn't exist. While it's great "fun" to come up with bullshit what-ifs we live in a universe where life exists, therefore there are witnesses to time passing.
--- End quote ---
The "what-if" was just to set up the concept. The past no longer exists and the future doesn't exist. The only period of time that really exists is, well, Right Now, really.
Which is exactly why time does exist. The passage of time itself, I feel, is less relevant than the fact that we exist right now. Since Right Now is a part of our definition of time, time exists even if the past and future are unreality.
Devil's advocate = over.
McTaggart:
--- Quote from: MadassAlex on 05 Jul 2008, 02:32 ---Time would be meaningless without an observer or measurement, however. It wouldn't be the concept of time, just altered states of existence in sequence.
--- End quote ---
This really just isn't how time works. It's not really something that you can separate from space at all. It doesn't really happen strictly in a sequence, sort of.
The whole anything being meaningless without an observer isn't an argument that can lead to anything terribly constructive.
est:
--- Quote from: MadassAlex on 05 Jul 2008, 02:32 ---Time would be meaningless without an observer or measurement, however. It wouldn't be the concept of time, just altered states of existence in sequence.
--- End quote ---
I disagree. An apple grows on a tree. It becomes ripe and falls off the tree. I don't know what happens to it, maybe it decomposes, maybe it falls into a creek. Point is that no-one's there to observe it or measure its juicy deliciousness by biting into it. Was it any less an apple for not being seen or eaten?
Take it one step further. Humanity is wiped out somehow. Maybe we all go crazy and shoot each other after one too many armchair philosophy debates or something, who knows. Point is we're all dead and gone. A hundred years later an apple grows on a tree. Is it any less an apple due to no-one being around to call it such?
The underlying thing is completely separate to our interpretation/naming of it. A square does not stop having 4 equal sides because there is no-one around to observe it and name it thus.
jhocking:
I was about to contribute another thought to this time debate but then it occurred to me, y'know this is waaaay off-topic.
dennis:
--- Quote from: MadassAlex on 05 Jul 2008, 02:32 ---Time would be meaningless without an observer or measurement, however. It wouldn't be the concept of time, just altered states of existence in sequence.
--- End quote ---
Time's Arrow. Entropy.
Aside from that, the physics of the universe do not hold together without the dimension of time. Time is woven into everything.
I suppose it is possible that there is another universe that has no time, but it would not resemble this one in any way.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version