do you think time exists?

[70834594219]

i mean, what if there was nothing to like move around for us to perceive as going from point a to point b in a span of time, what if time is just an illusion man, what if

[Scuba_Steve]

time was just a tool invented by man to measure his own decay.

[70834594219]

yeah word **** time

[Kage]

time was just a tool invented by man to measure his own decay.

He doesn't mean time as in human measurement, he means it as a philosophical idea. In other words, not the measurement of the decay but the decay itself.

[Scuba_Steve]

oh in that case then yes.

This thread is out of my league, good day fine sirs.

[stevensonmat2]

I dont think time really exists other than as a tool. I mean if there was nothing, than nothing could transpire, and time would have no meaning.

[Smokey D]

Time is the medium through which the other three dimensions move.

[PsychoTronn]

humans invented time to keep track of how much time we have left

[stevensonmat2]

Time is the medium through which the other three dimensions move.

If there was nothing, no dimensions, would time still be there?

[stevensonmat2]

humans invented time to keep track of how much time we have left

so time was invented to keep track of it self...?

[Smokey D]

If there was nothing, no dimensions, would time still be there?

No, but there is so the point is irrelevent.

[70834594219]

I'm trying to read this but it's too dense and I can't penetrate the lexicon.

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 13 OCTOBER 1999 AT 14:00 ET US
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-dtr101399.html

UK Contact: Claire Bowles
claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk
44-20-7331-2751

US Contact: New Scientist Washington office
newscidc@idt.net
202-452-1178

New Scientist

Does time really exist?

TIME seems to be the most powerful force, an irresistible river
carrying us from birth to death. To most people it is an
inescapable part of life, a fundamental element of the Universe.

But I think that time is an illusion. Physicists struggling to
unify quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of
relativity have found hints that the Universe is timeless. I
believe that this idea should be taken seriously. Paradoxically,
we might be able to explain the mysterious "arrow of time"-the
difference between past and future-by abandoning time. But to
understand how, we need to change radically our ideas of how the
Universe works.

Let's start with Newton's picture of absolute time. He argued that
objects exist in an immense immobile space, stretching like a
block of glass from infinity to infinity. His time is an invisible
river that "flows equably without relation to anything external".
Newton's absolute space and time form a framework that exists at a
deeper level than the objects in it.

To see how it works, imagine a universe containing only three
particles. To describe its history in Newton's terms, you specify
a succession of sets of 10 numbers: one for time and three for the
spatial coordinates of each of the three particles. But this
picture is suspect. As the space-time framework is invisible, how
can you determine all the numbers? As far back as 1872, the
Austrian physicist Ernst Mach argued that the Universe should be
described solely in terms of observable things, the separations
between its objects.

With that in mind, we can use a very different framework for the
three-particle Universe-a strange, abstract realm called Triangle
Land. Think of the three particles as the corners of a triangle.
This triangle is completely defined by the lengths of its three
sides-just three numbers. You can take these three numbers and use
them as coordinates, to mark a point in an abstract "configuration
space" (see Diagram, p 30).

Each possible arrangement of three particles corresponds to a
point in this space. There are geometrical restrictions-no
triangle has one side longer than the other two put together-so it
turns out that all the points lie in or on a pyramid. At the apex
of Triangle Land, where all three coordinates are zero, is a point
that I call Alpha. It represents the triangle that has sides all
of zero length (in other words, all three particles are in the
same place).

In the same way, the configurations of a four-particle universe
form Tetrahedron Land. It has six dimensions, corresponding to the
six separations between pairs of particles-hard to conceive, but
it exists as a mathematical entity. And even for the stupendous
number of particles that make up our own Universe, we can envisage
a vast multidimensional structure representing its configurations.
In collaboration with Bruno Bertotti of Pavia University in Italy,
I have shown that conventional physics still works in this strange
world. As Plato taught that reality exists as perfect forms, I
think of the patterns of particles as Platonic forms, and call
their totality Platonia.

Platonia is an image of eternity. It is all the arrangements of
matter that can be. Looking at it as a whole, there seems to be no
more river of time. But could time be hiding? Perhaps there is
some sort of local time that makes sense to inhabitants of
Platonia.

In classical physics, something like time can indeed creep back
in. If you were to lay out all the instants of an evolving
Newtonian universe, it would look like a path drawn in Platonia.
As a godlike being, outside Platonia, you could run your finger
along the path, touching points that correspond to each different
arrangement of matter, and see a universe that continuously
changes from one state to another. Any point on this path still
has something that looks like a definite past and future.

Now's the place

But we know that classical physics is wrong. The world is
described by quantum mechanics-and in the arena of Platonia,
quantum mechanics kills time.

In the quantum wave theory created by Schrsdinger, a particle has
no definite position, instead it has a fuzzy probability of being
at each possible position. And for three particles, say, there is
a certain probability of their forming a triangle in a particular
orientation with its centre of mass at some absolute position. The
deepest quantum mysteries arise because of holistic statements of
this kind. The probabilities are for the whole, not the parts.

What probabilities could quantum mechanics specify for the
complete Universe that has Platonia as its arena? There cannot be
probabilities at different times because Platonia itself is
timeless. There can only be once-and-for-all probabilities for
each possible configuration.

In this picture, there are no definite paths. We are not beings
progressing from one instant to another. Rather, there are many
"Nows" in which a version of us exists-not in any past or future,
but scattered in our region of Platonia.

This may sound like the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum
mechanics, published in 1957 by Hugh Everett of Princeton
University. But in that scheme time still exists: history is a
path that branches whenever some quantum decision has to be made.
In my picture there are no paths. Each point of Platonia has a
probability, and that's the end of the story.

A similar position was reached by much more sophisticated
arguments more than 30 years ago. Americans Bryce DeWitt and John
Wheeler combined quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of
general relativity to produce an equation that describes the whole
Universe. Put into the equation a configuration of the Universe,
and out comes a probability for that configuration. There is no
mention of time. Admittedly, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is
controversial and fraught with mathematical difficulties, but if
quantum cosmology is anything like it-if it is about
probabilities-the timeless picture is plausible.

So let's take seriously the idea of a "probability mist" that
covers the timeless Platonic landscape. The density of the mist is
just the relative probability of the corresponding configuration
being realised, or experienced, as an instantaneous state of the
Universe-as a Now. If some Nows in Platonia have much higher
probabilities than others, they are the ones that are actually
experienced. This is like ordinary statistical physics: a glass of
water could boil spontaneously, but the probability is so low that
we never see it happen.

All this seems a far cry from the reality of our lives. Where is
the history we read about? Where are our memories? Where is the
bustling, changing world of our experience? Those configurations
of the Universe for which the probability mist has a high density,
and so are likely to be experienced, must have within them an
appearance of history-a set of mutually consistent records that
suggests we have a past. I call these configurations "time
capsules".

Present past

An arbitrary matter distribution, like dots distributed at random,
will not have any meaning. It will not tell a story. Almost all
imaginable matter distributions are of this kind; only the tiniest
fraction seem to carry meaningful information.

One of the most remarkable facts about our Universe is that it
does have a meaningful structure. All the matter we can observe in
any way is found to contain records of a past.

The first scientists to realise this were geologists. Examining
the structure of rocks and fossils, they constructed a long
history of the Earth. Modern cosmology has extended this to a
history of the Universe right back to the big bang.

[70834594219]

...


What is more, we are somehow directly aware of the passing of
time, and we see motion-a change of position over time. You may
feel these are such powerful sensations that any attempt to deny
them is ridiculous. But imagine yourself frozen in time. You are
simply a static arrangement of matter, yet all your memories and
experience are still there, represented by physical patterns
within your brain-probably as the strengths of the synapse
connections between neurons. Just as the structure of geological
strata and fossils seem to be evidence of a past, our brains
contain physical structures consistent with the appearance of
recent and distant events. These structures could surely lead to
the impression of time passing. Even the direct perception of
motion could arise through the presence in the brain of
information about several different positions of the objects we
see in motion.

And that is the essence of my proposal. There is no history laid
out along a path, there are only records contained within Nows.
This timeless vision may seem perverse. But it turns out to have
one great potential strength: it could explain the arrow of time.

We are so accustomed to history that we forget how peculiar it is.
According to conventional cosmology, our Universe must have
started out in an extraordinarily special state to give rise to
the highly ordered Universe we find around us, with its arrow of
time and records of a past. All matter and energy must have
originated at a single point, and had an almost perfectly uniform
distribution immediately after the big bang.

Hitherto, the only explanation that science has provided is the
anthropic argument: we experience configurations of the Universe
that seem to have a history because only these configurations have
the characteristics to produce beings who can experience anything.
I believe that timeless quantum cosmology provides a far more
satisfying explanation.

In Platonia, there are no initial conditions. Only two factors
determine where the probability mist is dense: the form of some
equation (like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation) and the shape of
Platonia. And by sheer logical necessity, Platonia is profoundly
asymmetric. Like Triangle Land, it is a lopsided continent with a
special point Alpha corresponding to the configuration in which
every particle is at the same place.

From this singular point, the timeless landscape opens out,
flower-like, to points that represent configurations of the
Universe of arbitrary size and complexity. My conjecture is that
the shape of Platonia cannot fail to influence the distribution of
the quantum probability mist. It could funnel the mist onto time
capsules, those meaningful arrangements that seem to contain
records of a past that began at Alpha.

This is, of course, only speculation, but quantum mechanics
supports it. In 1929, the British physicist Nevill Mott and Werner
Heisenberg from Germany explained how alpha particles, emitted by
radioactive nuclei, form straight tracks in cloud chambers. Mott
pointed out that, quantum mechanically, the emitted alpha particle
is a spherical wave which slowly leaks out of the nucleus. It is
difficult to picture how it is that an outgoing spherical wave can
produce a straight line," he argued. We think intuitively that it
should ionise atoms at random throughout space.

Mott noted that we think this way because we imagine that quantum
processes take place in ordinary three-dimensional space. In fact,
the possible configurations of the alpha particle and the
particles in the detecting chamber must be regarded as the points
of a hugely multidimensional configuration space, a miniature
Platonia, with the position of the radioactive nucleus playing the
role of Alpha.

Ageless creation

When Mott viewed the chamber from this perspective, his equations
predicted the existence of the tracks. The basic fact that quantum
mechanics treats configurations as whole entities leads to track
formation. And a track is just a point in configuration space-but
one that creates the appearance of a past, just like our own
memories.

There is one more reason to embrace the timeless view. Many
theoretical physicists now recognise that the usual notions of
time and space must break down near the big bang. They find
themselves forced to seek a timeless description of the
"beginning" of the Universe, even though they use time elsewhere.
It seems more consistent and economical to use an entirely
timeless description. But for these ideas to be more than
speculation, they should have concrete, measurable results.
Fortunately, Stephen Hawking and other theorists have shown that
the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can lead to verifiable predictions.
For example, established physical theories cannot predict a value
for the cosmological constant, which measures the gravitational
repulsion of empty space. But calculations based on the
Wheeler-DeWitt equation suggest that it should have a very small
value. It should soon be possible to measure the cosmological
constant, either by taking the brightness of far-off supernovae
and using that to track the expansion of the Universe, or by
analysing the shape of humps and bumps in the cosmic microwave
background. And a definitive equation of quantum cosmology should
give us a precise prediction for the value of the constant. It is
a distant prospect, but the nonexistence of time could be
confirmed by experiment.

The notion of time as an invisible framework that contains and
constrains the Universe is not unlike the crystal spheres invented
centuries ago to carry the planets. After the spheres had been
shattered by Tycho Brahe's observations, Kepler said: "We must
philosophise about these things differently." Much of modern
physics stems from this insight. We need a new notion of time.

###

PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF
PUBLISHING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO :
http://www.newscientist.com

The author of this article, Julian Barbour is an independent
theoretical physicist who lives near Oxford, UK.

Further reading: Julian Barbour's The End of Time is published by
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, £20

[Amit]

this thread reeks of hippy bullshit and fanciful pseudo-intellectual thinking

oh what a surprise look who the threadstarter is

[70834594219]

Yeah whatever Amit you're ghey how you gonna act.

[Devil's Reject]

Cut and dry,Time is just a tool man made to measure the distance from one moment to the other and keep track of it.Simple enough?

[Kayetan]

I like to span time.

[Devil's Reject]

Oddly enough we are all time travelers when you look at it.LOL

[70834594219]

Or not.

[The_Passenger]

Time is the medium through which the other three dimensions move.

I came into the thread to say something along these lines.

[PerpetualBurn]

this thread reeks of hippy bullshit and fanciful pseudo-intellectual thinking

oh what a surprise look who the threadstarter is

Or perhaps the bullshit exists as nothing more than our self perception?

Think about it.

[Nadinus]

I don't think time exists. If you look at it that way, it is much easier to answer questions as to the begininning/end of it.

[Akira]

this thread reeks of hippy bullshit and fanciful pseudo-intellectual thinking

Big 123.

[Surtr]

No, because you don't exist.

I win.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't think time exists. If you look at it that way, it is much easier to answer questions as to the begininning/end of it.

"Time doesn't exist because I'm not smart enough". Nice.

[Nadinus]

"Time doesn't exist because I'm not smart enough". Nice.

Um yeah because that was a mature response.

The point I was making, was that if you take time to exist, then you have to assume it has a beginning and an end. But how can you have a beginning of time, but the nature of time would suggest that there would have to be something before that. And how can time have an end?
It makes so much more sense to say that it doesn't exist at all.

[PerpetualBurn]

The nature of time suggests there's no time until the Universe begins existence.

As for the maturity of my responses, I aim to match it to the intellect of the post I'm responding to.

You're still saying "Time is confusing me therefore it doesn't exist". And that's approaching the realms of mental retardation.

[Nadinus]

The nature of time suggests there's no time until the Universe begins existence

Yes but then you have to explain what happened before the universe began. And surely that would imply there was a time leading up to the beginning?

[PerpetualBurn]

There's nothing before the universe began, muppet.

[RockAndRoll]

I dont think time really exists other than as a tool.
Why would you think that?
I mean if there was nothing, than nothing could transpire, and time would have no meaning.
Yes, if there was nothing time would not exist... but that's entirely irrelevant.

Cut and dry,Time is just a tool man made to measure the distance from one moment to the other and keep track of it.Simple enough?
But moments refer to time, that doesn't make any sense.

this thread reeks of hippy bullshit and fanciful pseudo-intellectual thinking
pretty much.

[Nadinus]

There's nothing before the universe began, muppet.

So then explain the difference between nothingness with time, and nothingness without time.

[RockAndRoll]

So then explain the difference between nothingness with time, and nothingness without time.

What? There's no such thing as before time.

[lunchforthesky]

As usual Smokey pretty much nailed it.

[Amit]

nadine plz take some physics and astronomy classes

[70834594219]

time totally doesnt exist man like I cant see it so there!

[Petros]

This thread is retarded.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It's just another direction i guess. another dimension, just interpretted differently than the others.

[myfingersareonfire]

The existence of Time depends on the existence of space, and space seems to exists, so....

[PerpetualBurn]

So then explain the difference between nothingness with time, and nothingness without time.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

So then explain the difference between nothingness with time, and nothingness without time.

If there's nothing there's nothing to measure time by and so no time

[Elmo McCheese]

I don't really like arguing about things like this, seems like a waste of time (if it exists!)

That being said I'm comfortable with the explanation that time is a fourth plane that we can't control our movement through, we only see one point of it at a time. That might not make sense but whatever.

[666Ozzfan]

Time is the period in which a particle moves from point A to point B. This period is measureable. Before the universe, there are no particles to move, therefore, no time. You cannot measure the period it takes for nothing to move nowhere

Does that work?

[CrossTheBreeze]

Seems simple enough.

[MattSharpIsCool]

*looks at the clock*

It's 10:37 in the P.M.

Yes time exists.

[Jim]

The notion of time as an invisible framework that contains and
constrains the Universe is not unlike the crystal spheres invented
centuries ago to carry the planets. After the spheres had been
shattered by Tycho Brahe's observations, Kepler said: "We must
philosophise about these things differently." Much of modern
physics stems from this insight. We need a new notion of time.
Why?? Are we in some sort of danger if "a new notion of time" isn't brought into consideration immediately??? Is the world seriously going to end if we continue to instill the belief that "time is the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future"?

No. All you're going to do is waste your time and give yourself a headache until you die, so the next generation can come along and fail to pinpoint it's explanation also.

Why aren't these so called "scientists" finding the cure for cancer or something? Rubbish like this has no productive value whatsoever.

Let's just live and get on with it. :chug:

[gaslight]

People tend to confuse time not fitting into experimental theorems with time not actually existing.

If you honestly believe time doesn't exist, what is your take on things happening before and after eachother, or watching a clock tick? Just wondering.

[Jim]

I'm of the belief that time is merely a theory created to explain what you've just described. It exists because we say it does.

It's obvious the theory of "time" exists in some form, but it seems to be somewhat co-dependent with the existence of the universe itself, rather than a physical rule within it (such as gravity, etc).

This is exactly why I didn't want to get drawn into it! I'm getting a headache :(

[gaslight]

Whether time is fixed, cyclical or fluid is unproven sure, but the fact that it can be measured is a rather firm indication that it exists.

If there was nothing at all acting as "time", then wouldn't every possible configuration of matter in the universe happen at the same instance?

[Jim]

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, or maybe I'm wording it wrong =/

I do believe "time" exists (obviously or I wouldn't be here!), but not as a "rule" or "formula" created by whoever put us here. Rather, it seems almost like a "bi-product" or (again) co-dependent along with actual existence. Without time, we wouldn't exist. And without existence, time is meaningless (theoretically).

It sounds strange, but I don't believe it's a rule than can ever be defined, but simply an undefined entity which is vital to existence.

OK, I will admit. I do find this conversation interesting :upset:

[gaslight]

Oh I wasn't trying to argue specifically with you, I pretty much agree with you then.

I wouldn't say time is created by anyone/thing either, and whether science can agree on an official rule that governs it or not, I don't think anyone could possibly argue with a straight face that it doesn't exist in any way, shape or form. Though I would be greatly (if temporarily) entertained by them.

[Jim]

Exactly. All this talk on the matter just seems so irrelevent. In the end, it's not a major concern at all. There are some things man will never know and they should keep it at that!

I don't think it'll ever be fully understood. Shows my lack of faith in future generations :lol:

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Why?? Are we in some sort of danger if "a new notion of time" isn't brought into consideration immediately??? Is the world seriously going to end if we continue to instill the belief that "time is the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future"?

No. All you're going to do is waste your time and give yourself a headache until you die, so the next generation can come along and fail to pinpoint it's explanation also.

Why aren't these so called "scientists" finding the cure for cancer or something? Rubbish like this has no productive value whatsoever.

Let's just live and get on with it. :chug:

yeah i'll tell those physicists to get right one that

[Jim]

Who knows? A physicist could be helpful in such a cause.

probably =/

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Who knows? A physicist could be helpful in such a cause.

probably =/

Well, the way science works is this:


Scientists find/hypothesise new phenonoma

Scienctists test for and find this new phenonoma

scientists try o understand new phenonoma, and when they do

scientists work out how we can use new phenonoma


now if you stick a bunch of scientists in a room and tell them to "find a cure for cancer" they'll probbaly just stand around looking awkward

IN SCIENCE, CURE FOR CANCER FINDS YOU

[Amit]

Why aren't these so called "scientists" finding the cure for cancer or something? Rubbish like this has no productive value whatsoever.

plenty of scientists are working on the cure for cancer and many other diseases

plenty more scientists are working on improving public health and healthcare around the world

however, due to the tedious and cautious nature of putting new treatments, drugs, and healthcare systems onto the market, you won't be seeing direct application and improvement of health right away

in any case, progressing our understanding of the universe does not conflict and impede with the research and progress being done by the two aforementioned groups

[Linkinbassist]

Time does exist. How would we be able to operate in time signatures otherwise? The idea of time is spread over many things, and this can mean one of two things:

1)Time exists

2)time doesn't exist, but the notion of time does.

I believe the former.

[gaslight]

Only 1) is plausible.

Saying time doesn't exist is about as correct as saying gravity doesn't exist.

[CarnageFairy]

You can't say that time exists only as a construct of man.

We developed a system of seconds, minutes, hours, etc.. to measure time.

You wouldn't say that the concept of mass doesn't exist because grams were invented by humans, would you?

[:amaze:]

i agree ... to say that time doesn't exist because it is only an invention of humans is like saying "language doesn't exist because its only a tool of communication developed by humans."




:amaze:

[spitfirejunky]

It's as much a question as, "Does matter exist?"

[666Ozzfan]

Does it matter?

Time exists. Stuff exists.

Just the definition changes. Matter used to be just lumps of stuff, now its more ordered by way of atoms and molecules. The actual stuff hasn't changed, only how we understand it.

Time exists, what's changing is the way we understand it...

[spitfirejunky]

Does it matter?

Time exists. Stuff exists.

Just the definition changes. Matter used to be just lumps of stuff, now its more ordered by way of atoms and molecules. The actual stuff hasn't changed, only how we understand it.

Time exists, what's changing is the way we understand it...

Well my point was that matter and time aren't mutually exclusive.

[palepalepeach]

I'll believe that time exists when we can actually travel back and forth in it.

[gaslight]

Are you serious?

[palepalepeach]

We can move forwards and backwards, upwards and downwards, and left and right, from point A to point B and back again, but we can't do the same with time. Therefore I'm doubtful as to whether time exists in the same sense that space does...
...but I don't care strongly one way or the other. Whether or not I believe time exists isn't going to affect whether it does or doesn't.

[moogoogaipan]

Time exists, it's ignorant to think otherwise.

The only part of it that is a construct of man, is the system in which we count it.

Otherwise, nothing would happen, we would be stuck in an instant that never changed. No motion, no anything... we would exist as a universal still-life.

[gaslight]

Why are people trying to equate conditions of matter and space with time? They are different things.

Time exists, end thread.

[CrossTheBreeze]

We can move forwards and backwards, upwards and downwards, and left and right, from point A to point B and back again, but we can't do the same with time. Therefore I'm doubtful as to whether time exists in the same sense that space does...
...but I don't care strongly one way or the other. Whether or not I believe time exists isn't going to affect whether it does or doesn't.
correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't einstein explain all this.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: what in the **** in this

[CrossTheBreeze]

was that directed at me? If so I don't like you.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

no non no btw i responded to the weeds thread

[spitfirejunky]

Why are people trying to equate conditions of matter and space with time? They are different things.

Not really.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

lol good one

[spitfirejunky]

lol good one

I don't know if you were objecting, but conditions of matter and space affect time.

[gaslight]

Affecting eachother doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Time can't be measured in units of mass or distance, nor can mass or space be measured in units of time.

[spitfirejunky]

Affecting eachother doesn't mean they are the same thing.

That's not what was implied. What was implied is that they are within the same category.

Time can't be measured in units of mass or distance, nor can mass or space be measured in units of time.

Once again, not really. We have made functions that can show how the two are directly dependent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

EDIT:

I can see the distinction you're making, but the two shouldn't be treated as if they can't affect each other.

[the_uber_penguin]

I'll believe that time exists when we can actually travel back and forth in it.

We can travel forwards in time. I'm sure of that.

To be able travel backwards in time would cause also sorts of problems with the third law of thermodynamics and entropy. It would also mean that we have no free will whatsoever.

[Smokey D]

There's quite a few people who argue on here that the Universe is fundamentally deterministic and therefore free will is non-existant. Sometimes, people counter with the whole quantum thing.

I'm not sure if that's a sufficient rebuttal. To me, that just relocates the ultimate cause, but doesn't put it within our control.

/random tangent.

[spitfirejunky]

The quantum theory would actually still be physical determinism, only difference being that it yields several realities that are each deterministic.

Or at least I think so.

[gaslight]

Yeah, I know they affect eachother, but my point is that they are different in the sense that you can't have a kilogram of time or stuff like that.

I got the impression that some people were taking the "time can't be seen/touched/weighed/etc so it doesn't exist" approach.

[spitfirejunky]

Yeah, I know they affect eachother, but my point is that they are different in the sense that you can't have a kilogram of time or stuff like that.

I got the impression that some people were taking the "time can't be seen/touched/weighed/etc so it doesn't exist" approach.

Aah OK. The word "equate" threw me off. Guess we were just arguing semantics.

[gaslight]

Well, this is the forum for arguing semantics :).

[the_green_bastard]

Are you high? Of course time exists. This gets discussed too often. Usually by people who are high and trying to be philosophical.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Are you high? Of course time exists. This gets discussed too often. Usually by people who are high and trying to be philosophical.

oh ok thanks for clearing that one up

[the_green_bastard]

oh ok thanks for clearing that one up

Not a problem. I am really smart, after all. :chug:

Ahh... I'm such a dick.