Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Maybe. Or time could be a feature of the universe. Despite your conclusion, the rest of your post leaves that possibility open.We need the concept of time .. otherwise nothing makes sense. Our brains need the concept of time, in order for us to function as we do.
The idea that time is a 'thing' which floats around someplace which we then grab and attach it to our models of the universe ... is a pure belief that our minds bring into existence.
With this, the concept of time only happens because of us.
It wouldn't happen without us.
See, the thing is, that its easy to produce objective evidence that its us humans who come up with what 'universe' there, actually means. Its humans (like Einstein) who incorporate(d) time into the concept of a universe having the property of 'spacetime', (as an objectively demonstrable justifiable example leading to that conclusion).Maybe. Or time could be a feature of the universe.
.. a 'possibility' there, which has no objective test(ability) .. or, in other words: a belief!durangodawood said:Despite your conclusion, the rest of your post leaves that possibility open.
It's great mental exercise though. It stretches the mind to reach out to the infinite.See, the thing is, that its easy to produce objective evidence that its us humans who come up with what 'universe' there, actually means. Its humans (like Einstein) who incorporate(d) time into the concept of a universe having the property of 'spacetime', (as an objectively demonstrable justifiable example leading to that conclusion).
There is no objective test which excludes the influence of our minds, which would permit us to conclude that time exists (objectively) independently from us.
My point is, therefore, actually a conclusion formed on objective evidence (with none for the other).
.. a 'possibility' there, which has no objective test(ability) .. or, in other words: a belief!
The problem with unconstrained thinking is that there are too many possibilities to consider.It's great mental exercise though. It stretches the mind to reach out to the infinite.
What objective evidence thats unconditioned by our minds? Are you sure you havent simply built another mind-dependent model there?See, the thing is, that its easy to produce objective evidence that its us humans who come up with what 'universe' there, actually means.....
There is no objective test which excludes the influence of our minds, which would permit us to conclude that time exists (objectively) independently from us.
All my models are mind dependent .. so are yours.What objective evidence thats unconditioned by our minds? Are you sure you havent simply built another mind-dependent model there?
Ok. Then how can you call the evidence for this one objective, but not the evidence for the others?All my models are mind dependent .. so are yours.
Ok .. so how would you propose perceiving a change then?Time is the rate of change in any process. It needs no further definition. We don't need to define a second or a year. Ipso facto, if there is change, then time exists. ... No minds required.
An objective model is one that's testable via the scientific method. One that's not, can be operationally defined as a belief.Ok. Then how can you call this one objective, but not the others?
I don't. But not perceiving change doesn't mean that change isn't ocurring. And if it is, then time exists.Ok .. so how would you propose perceiving a change then?
.. 'change occurring' there would then be a belief! .. Now where did that come from?I don't. But not perceiving change doesn't mean that change isn't ocurring.
There's no need for the 'if' assumptions there .. they have no impact on any objective test capable of concluding that your model of 'change occurring' (and therefore: 'time exists') ... is just a belief!Bradskii said:And if it is, then time exists.
.. 'change occurring' there would then be a belief! .. Now where did that come from?
There's no need for the 'if' assumptions there .. they have no impact on any objective test capable of concluding that your model of 'change occurring' (and therefore: 'time exists') ... is just a belief!
The scientific method does not mention Step#X: 'Start with this assumption ..', (or in other words: 'If ... then ... else').
No .. everything you mention there, is one of science's operational models, (or theory), that was developed by scientific thinkers. It has been tested and even before it was tested, it was still conceived and expressed as a testable hypothesis.There was no-one around when the sun formed. When the solar system was created. When the earth cooled. Etcetera etc. But change was occuring. That's not a belief. So if change was ocurring, time existed. By definition.
The only thing infinite is God.
No .. everything you mention there, is one of science's operational models, (or theory), that was developed by scientific thinkers. It has been tested and even before it was tested, it was still conceived and expressed as a testable hypothesis.
The notion that those objects were around before we were, is basically a thought experiment, which also tests out as being consistent with the model which incorporates time as a dimension of space .. so as to make sense (among us) of our meaning of 'the universe'.
Easier just to tell it like it objectively is, ie: Its @renniks's belief .. (and nothing more than one).If God is eternal then He exists outside of time. If He is infinite, He exists within time. Lets go Option 2.
If He has existed for an infinite amount of time then time itself has, obviously, existed for an infinite amount of time.
Time measures change. It's the definition of time. If nothing existed then time would not exist.
So something has been changing for an infinite amount of time.
So something has always existed.
I'm quite happy with that. But are you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?