ForumsWEPRTime's Fabrication, or the Argument Burrito Supreme

50 25030
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

I was watching Lucy the other day, and through the disappointment at the movie, came something surprising. At one point, Lucy said "Time is the only true unit of measure, it gives proof to the existence of matter, without time, we donât exist."
For an attempted cerebral movie, I found this to be shockingly ignorant and Van Voorhis-esque. Before you flip your table in outrage, let me outline the facts. Please understand I am making a case against probably everything you believe in this thread. Bear with me here.

Throughout mankind's history, we have saught to understand, or at least account for what we cannot explain. Some of the best examples are magic, and in a somewhat directed format, religion. Since we're talking about time's validity, let's start from the beginning.
Artifacts from the Paleolithic suggest that the moon was used to reckon time as early as 6,000 years ago. This information was generally used to track crop cycles to know when to plant seeds. Basic survival stuff. But as villages formed, so did society diversify. There was more free time to sit around and think, "What in the actual **** is going on?" So came about leaders, philosophers, laws, mathematics, and measurements of time. We'll come back to this in a bit.

There are many measures of time, from a jiffy to a million years, the terms all vary. But what IS time? Most people agree that time is the flow of events, from past to present, stems from the beginning of time and disappears to the end. Here is where it gets sticky. We all know know time is going somewhere, but according to what some guy said, it all has to be recycled. That leads us to one of two conclusions:

Time is on a loop like a round treadmill, with a wall somewhere in the middle (wait, in the middle of a circular track? But where does it start and end?) That light you see at the end of the tunnel? That's the big bang. All matter and energy start to pile up, then finally pop through the wall, rearrange their ruffled feathers, and continue the cycle. Think fast, evolution.

Or:

Time is as much an illusion as color. Just another label for a reflection of something we barely understand. The thing we call "time" is simply a measure of points of events. Everything we invented to tell "time" is just based off of cycle reading. There is no time in a cycle. A cell does not know what hour or day it is. It splits on a cycle based on how many nutrients are available. The moon's cycle is based on an orbit induced by gravitational pull. We based our months off of the moon's cycle. We based our days off of the months, the weeks and hours off of days, the minutes off the hours, the seconds off the minutes, and so on. A cycle continues regardless of "time", and is only stopped by wear and tear or an outside influence. This means that "time" is neither linear nor circular, it is vast emptiness of nonexistence, and the great dates and deadlines we set are little more than buoys in the bay of reality. Once we escape the illusion of age and lack of time, we become free to be who we truly are. But doesn't that mean certain religions are...? No. In fact, I have a cute little tie-in argument.

Take a trip in imagination with me; it's 38,000 BCE, and we see a rudimentary ancestor of modern humans carving away at a little statue of a half-man half-lion. Is it a deity, or has our friendly whittler been making fire with the wrong plants?
Fast forward about 8000 years. the San peoples in northwestern Botswana are painting pictures on the walls of Tsodilo hills, believing that it was the sight of creation, and that disturbances or death near the hills would stir up some bad juju spirits.
By 9130 BC, early peoples had constructed Göbekli Tepe as a permanent place of worship over an ancestral holy site. Many archealogists believe the actual structure could actually be from as far back as 11,000 BCE, which predates the so-called Neolithic revolution. Go figure.
Now after all this history, at around 3750 BCE, proto-semitic peoples appeared in the Arabian people and moved around.

So, by the time abrahamic christianity showed up, religion had been around for something like twenty thousand years. These old pre-civilization deities predate modern religion by a bunch. So how do people still believe their religion is true?

Well, as I went from going back and forth in the earth, and from walking up and down in it, I came upon two Christians discussing with each-other what it means to be a Christian, or some such. I barged in, quite uninvited, and asked them about the concept of "faith". Well, being but followers, not actually knowing anything, they stumbled around verbally, preaching to me and condescendingly quoting bible verses about doubt and temptation to each-other. The conversation went on until I explained to them this:

Religion is a social construct. Way back in history, some leader of a tribe of cavemen (don't take that too literal) got wise and realized with a large group of people, you can't just let everyone do whatever they want. So he thought to himself, "Hey, if I tell people if they hurt or steal or are disrespectful to deities, when they die they're go to place full of dead people and fire. Dead people and fire are scary." And so the afterlife was born. If you notice, most religions have a guideline of being a better person to other people and just in general. Ceremonies were the earliest form of organization and rules. And that's where religion comes from, and what it does.

How does this tie in? Well, here goes!

So, if time never ends, there is no religion, what's the point of all of it?
Short answer: Reproduction. Making sticky. Doing wang chung.
Long answer: The point of life is whatever you make it about. With modern technology you don't have to worry too much about starvation, or dying of a small cut on our hand. You can make babies, or be an artist, or make art and paint babies. Hell, you could pretend to be crazy, or kill someone and be fed and taken care of for the rest of your life. It's up to you.

What SHOULD you do with your life?
You realize we live on the most biologically challenging planet in the known universe? We beat the Neanderthals out, even though they were smarter, faster, stronger, and grew faster than us. The Denisovans probably got smart enough to realize out they were screwed anyways and just sat there waiting to die. (Romeo, it's just that the time was wrong. Tear, tear.) We lived through floods, starvation, the host of venomous critters, ravenous beasts, our local apex predators. We conquered everything. All with under 10% of our brain's functioning capacity. For a long period worshiped deities that controlled the crops, fertility, the sun, the moon, sickness and health. We worshiped the gods of war and their ability to sunder armies. For our entire history, we have worshiped power. We have always had the idea that there is some powerful thing behind our success.

The human race has become like a race of demigods. We control the whole world. There is nothing we can't change, if we put our minds to it. We are the ultimate beings on this planet. I think everyone should try to further their own perfection. We may not become perfect in one or two generations, but in a few hundred years, we will be close.

Around the world, people are being discriminated against because of their color, their beliefs, their social status. And it will always be that way until we realize that we are the highest power. We are all equally capable of becoming perfect, through genetic research. Our grandchildren could have twice our lifespan, due to recent discoveries. I'm not saying immortality will be pretty, but I know the humans have already written their destinies across the stars. With understanding and discipline, we could spread across the universe infinitely.

In conclusion, mankind is bound by chains of dogma and imagined limits. Our weakness is ignorance, the fear of the unknown, insecurity in what is new. Our strength is in numbers, in our resilience, in our intellect, in our capacity for discovery.

I don't expect any more than to be ridiculed by some, and thought of as crazy by the rest. But there's always the low probability that someone will put the pieces together, and that's why I decided to post this. I will try to be timely in my responses, so give me your best shot, lurkers and skeptics alike. I apologize in advance for any errors in grammar or verbiage.

  • 50 Replies
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

If time moves forward, it must either have an end point (which makes no sense) or it must come back around, because either it doesn't exist or it's going somewhere.


That is an illogical conclusion. There is no requirement that time, or any other system of measurement, is finite.

I will make this extremely clear. All of the points I engaged were of things that are actually man-made: Time, God, and Mortality.


Mortality predates the human species by at least 900 000 000 years.

Currently, the most common hypothesis to explain aging is that, in order to give the members of a population the best chance of surviving to reproductive age, certain genes need to be selected that also cause bodies to break down later in life and, ultimately, die off.


Which is why it conflicts with survival, the ideal form of which being immortality.


[quote]I don't need to


Argument by dismissal[/quote]

Burden of Proof

The point wasn't his status, the point is that he does what he WANTS because of his status.


Which has no relation to perfection whatsoever.

[Quotation irrelvant to the subject]

Take it or leave it.


Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. -Groucho Marx


Your turn.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

I assumed you understood that "biologically challenging" meant it had more challenges that were alive. (bio=life) But as my old sgt. would say, when you assume, you make an *** of u and me. Mea culpa.

See, I thought it meant more challenging for living beings. Now I think it's cleared up.

Why wouldn't we exist if there was no such thing as time?

Because without time, or without a chain of events, no processes are possible, no evolution, no life.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

Time is not an illusion, because it does not exist. The only thing that effectively "exists" is the assortment of timekeeping devices that we have, based on man-made points in time that have no set value globally.


Again, I'm confused. An illusion is something that we take as real that really isn't. So a mirage is a kind of illusion in this sense. But let's put this aside as there is a bigger worry.

I'm trying to construct your argument here for the conclusion that time doesn't exist. This is the best I can come up with.

1) The only time-related things that exist are tangible objects (e.g. watches, sundials, etc.).
2) Time itself is not a tangible object.
3) Therefore, time does not exist.

This is a valid argument, but is unsound - premise 1 is either a) plainly false, or b) question-begging. Let me address (b) first.

In order to avoid the charge of question-begging, you would have to show what is special about time-related things that only tangible objects actually exist. Things like waves, magnetic fields, and gravity exist yet they are intangible. What makes time special?

But there is a deeper worry with respect to (a). You're trying to get from the fact that the way we measure time isn't universally applicable to the conclusion that time doesn't exist. But there does seem to be a sense in which it is the same time throughout the universe. By whatever measure we would like to use, there is some true statement "The universe is x units old." There would be an infinite number of true propositions of this form since there would be an infinite number of ways to measure time. But this in no way gets us the result that time doesn't exist.

The only other support I see for your conclusion is that time must have start and end points and this seems unintuitive. But this goes back to your much more interesting question of 'what is time?'. If our answer to this question is something like 'a measurement of the interval of (and between) events' then your start/end worry loses its force. If there is no universe, then there are no events, thus no intervals and thus no time.

All that being said, there are anti-realists about time in philosophy. Probably most famous amongst these was Immanuel Kant. And I'm pretty sure most neo-Kantians are also anti-realists regarding time (it is, after all, a pretty major commitment on Kant's view).

In general we don't want to posit the existence of things that are unnecessary - this is just Occam's Razor. But positing the existence of time brings huge benefits without much ontological cost. So there's pretty strong motivation for accepting the realist position.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Fish: "Burden of proof" (referenced, meaning whatever has not yet been proved false is not necessarily true).


Not exactly. Although the burden of proof does relate to that, I am invoking it here on the grounds that he is making a claim (that Dr. Cytowick has actually stated what is here attributed to him) and demanding evidence when I challenge it. The evidence I'm waiting for is that which validates his evidence as actual evidence.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Why should he present evidence that "validates his evidence?"


Because neurologists have an awful tendency to author numerous papers, and I have been provided with no information regarding the origin of this indirect quotation.

You are free to argue against my statement that, if Dr. Cytowick made such a claim, he is in error, but no one has done this yet (unless you count an appeal to authority, and I don't).
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

That is an illogical conclusion. There is no requirement that time, or any other system of measurement, is finite.


If it is not finite, than it is infinite. And if "time" is infinite it stretches in all directions, and thus there is no such thing as a timeline. It would be a timeplane.

Mortality predates the human species by at least 900 000 000 years.


Something old, something borrowed.

Which is why it conflicts with survival, the ideal form of which being immortality.


It is in our nature to die, it is against our nature to be immortal. So why not challenge our nature?

Which has no relation to perfection whatsoever.


Perfection is what you make of it. Some standards are lower and higher than others. Many would argue perfection is happiness or contentment, and if he is happy spitting on people and getting slapped around by Mr. Bloom, than he is far closer to his own personal goals than you or I.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. -Groucho Marx


Goat's are like mushrooms, If you shoot a duck, I'm scared of toasters. -- Peder Toru

without a chain of events


This, not the thing before it. The statement before it was false.

This is a valid argument, but is unsound - premise 1 is either a) plainly false, or b) question-begging. Let me address (b) first.

In order to avoid the charge of question-begging, you would have to show what is special about time-related things that only tangible objects actually exist. Things like waves, magnetic fields, and gravity exist yet they are intangible. What makes time special?

But there is a deeper worry with respect to (a). You're trying to get from the fact that the way we measure time isn't universally applicable to the conclusion that time doesn't exist. But there does seem to be a sense in which it is the same time throughout the universe. By whatever measure we would like to use, there is some true statement "The universe is x units old." There would be an infinite number of true propositions of this form since there would be an infinite number of ways to measure time. But this in no way gets us the result that time doesn't exist.

The only other support I see for your conclusion is that time must have start and end points and this seems unintuitive. But this goes back to your much more interesting question of 'what is time?'. If our answer to this question is something like 'a measurement of the interval of (and between) events' then your start/end worry loses its force. If there is no universe, then there are no events, thus no intervals and thus no time.

All that being said, there are anti-realists about time in philosophy. Probably most famous amongst these was Immanuel Kant. And I'm pretty sure most neo-Kantians are also anti-realists regarding time (it is, after all, a pretty major commitment on Kant's view).

In general we don't want to posit the existence of things that are unnecessary - this is just Occam's Razor. But positing the existence of time brings huge benefits without much ontological cost. So there's pretty strong motivation for accepting the realist position.


You really raise many good references and make a well put-together argument.

But, ye gods, I am not a beef-witted popinjay.

By whatever measure we would like to use, there is some true statement "The universe is x units old."


You never gave any proof that this statement has been/is/ever will be true.
Understand I am not an anti-realist. I am 92% sure reality is real, but I've got to keep an open mind. My arguments time as an actual thing (other than what we define it as with clocks and calenders and dates.

1. "time" is not affected by anything. "time" does not affect anything.
2. We quantify "time".
3. We cannot perceive the passage of "time"**

**We can perceive cycles, such as aging, the phases of the moon, seasons, etc.
You are free to argue against my statement that, if Dr. Cytowick made such a claim, he is in error, but no one has done this yet (unless you count an appeal to authority, and I don't)


In video form too. I can also offer a link to the paper too if you want to read through it.
Cytowick On 10% of the brain myth

Do try to keep it friendly, will you, Fish?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

This, not the thing before it. The statement before it was false.

It's the same thing. What I define as chain of events, we call time. It's a name.

1. "time" is not affected by anything. "time" does not affect anything.

Time is affected by gravity. Time affects everything.
3. We cannot perceive the passage of "time"**

Not even when we get bored?
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

If it is not finite, than it is infinite. And if "time" is infinite it stretches in all directions, and thus there is no such thing as a timeline. It would be a timeplane.


Time is a unidimensional measurement. Planes are bidimensional.

Something old, something borrowed.


And... what? Plagiarised? Clearly humans are not the authors of mortality.

It is in our nature to die, it is against our nature to be immortal. So why not challenge our nature?


The nature of something is so for a reason. That reason is net optimal efficiency. Challenging it only means going several steps away from your unattainable goal.

Perfection is what you make of it. Some standards are lower and higher than others.


No. Perfection is not open to interpretation. All standards must be at their highest.

In video form too. I can also offer a link to the paper too if you want to read through it.
Cytowick On 10% of the brain myth


@MattEmAngel
See? With the right encouragement, the opponent discredits himself.

Resting â  Unused
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

It's the same thing. What I define as chain of events, we call time. It's a name.


This is exactly what I am saying. "Time" is just a name for a perceived direction of a series of events that we have placed in order. It doesn't necessarily mean time exists, it means we attempted to measure it, and have mile marks set up at intervals.

Time is affected by gravity. Time affects everything.


You're forcing me to repeat myself more times than I would care to. But for the sake of intelligent discussion, here goes:
"time" is not affected by gravity, only our perception of the passage of such.

Time is a unidimensional measurement. Planes are bidimensional.


Perhaps you are right, perhaps "time" is like an infinite ocean of oblivion, with no surface or bottom, with no shores or shallows.

Not even when we get bored?


Especially not then. Boredom is a relatively new-age thing. At one point, only nobles could afford to be bored. When we our bored it means our mind is inactive, and is effectively looking for some stimulating action. This free mindspace makes us aware of the passage of the minutes and hours, as opposed to when we are busy or having fun, when our mind is too engaged to worry about such things.

And... what? Plagiarised? Clearly humans are not the authors of mortality.


So why not write our own destinies? (Forgive me for taking poetic license, there)

The nature of something is so for a reason. That reason is net optimal efficiency. Challenging it only means going several steps away from your unattainable goal.


No. They are unhealthy regardless of circumstances. Each is, in fact, an extreme excess of what would otherwise promote survival. Therefore, a substantial reduction is called for. It will never occur, however, because humanity as a whole is incapable of changing itself. That is the point.


You're slipping, my piscan compatriot.

See? With the right encouragement, the opponent discredits himself.


So if I adjust my facts because I found that one of my statements is false, and I want to improve my position's integrity, I discredit myself?

humanity as a whole is incapable of changing itself


You as a hole are incapable of changing your ways. The only reason I continue feeding you is that it would be unsportsmanlike conduct to leave a fellow human hungry for knowledge and salvation from the ****ation of ignorance.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

This is exactly what I am saying. "Time" is just a name for a perceived direction of a series of events that we have placed in order. It doesn't necessarily mean time exists, it means we attempted to measure it, and have mile marks set up at intervals.


But he's saying that this is the meaning of the term. You may as well argue that space and matter are not real, because they are names applied to things.

So why not write our own destinies? (Forgive me for taking poetic license, there)


Because it's impossible. Destiny is already set. Determinism does not have cyclic dependence upon itself.

You're slipping, my piscan compatriot.


In what way? Elaborate.

So if I adjust my facts because I found that one of my statements is false, and I want to improve my position's integrity, I discredit myself?


When the adjustment is equally incorrect and presented with evidence which invalidates it, yes.

You as a hole are incapable of changing your ways. The only reason I continue feeding you is that it would be unsportsmanlike conduct to leave a fellow human hungry for knowledge and salvation from the ****ation of ignorance.


Meaningless filler in place of a proper retort. My statement stands.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

"time" is not affected by gravity, only our perception of the passage of such.


If we have two clock running the same and set at the same time and we place one in space, when we bring that one back and compare the two we will find the time of the two clocks will be different. That's more than just a perception going on there.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

Especially not then. Boredom is a relatively new-age thing. At one point, only nobles could afford to be bored. When we our bored it means our mind is inactive, and is effectively looking for some stimulating action. This free mindspace makes us aware of the passage of the minutes and hours, as opposed to when we are busy or having fun, when our mind is too engaged to worry about such things.

But you said we cannot perceive the passing of time. Now you say we can, when we are not busy; which was sort of my point.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

If we have two clock running the same and set at the same time and we place one in space, when we bring that one back and compare the two we will find the time of the two clocks will be different. That's more than just a perception going on there.


That doesn't entail a change upon time; only on the clock. The same goes for speed-related error. The problem here is that being inert is not sufficient grounds to assume that something does not exist.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

That doesn't entail a change upon time; only on the clock.

A clock reflects time; a change between two previously completely equal clocks, when we can say it was definitely no heat distortion for example, should be sufficient to make a statement about how time is affected. Keep in mind that for me time is the succession of events, and two equal clocks display equal event intervals. If the display is different, something affected the event intervals aka time.
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

But he's saying that this is the meaning of the term. You may as well argue that space and matter are not real, because they are names applied to things.


I'm not arguing against measuring time, I'm saying that the universe has no beginning, nor and end. That time is just little white jots on an infinite black paper, and the jots make a somewhat straight line.

Because it's impossible. Destiny is already set. Determinism does not have cyclic dependence upon itself.


Oh god. I hate to ask.... Are you a theist or something? I am not DESTINED to do anything. I can be moved towards doing something by the combination of my own psyche and environmental factors, but I am not set along a certain path that is unchanging.

In what way? Elaborate.


If I told you that, all my playful banter would go to waste and this would just get so much more challenging. Perhaps I will tell you after this thread is dead and long gone.

When the adjustment is equally incorrect and presented with evidence which invalidates it, yes.


http://www.troll.me/2011/07/01/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-trolling-or-just-very-stupid/

Meaningless filler in place of a proper retort. My statement stands.


That WAS a proper retort. Google is your friend, Bubbles. Dictionaries work too.

If we have two clock running the same and set at the same time and we place one in space, when we bring that one back and compare the two we will find the time of the two clocks will be different. That's more than just a perception going on there.


You understand a clock is a machine, that we engineered to count units of measure that we invented, right?

But you said we cannot perceive the passing of time. Now you say we can, when we are not busy; which was sort of my point.


I won't argue with the fact that we do measure "time" in various ways. I'm not saying it doesn't work. It's socially limiting, but I don't even want to get into that right now. I'm saying the thing we are measuring is nonexistent.

A clock reflects time; a change between two previously completely equal clocks, when we can say it was definitely no heat distortion for example, should be sufficient to make a statement about how time is affected. Keep in mind that for me time is the succession of events, and two equal clocks display equal event intervals. If the display is different, something affected the event intervals aka time.


You understand the pressure differences between here and space, correct? And you understand that machinery tends to slow down when it's cold. And I'm no expert, but the only thing keeping astronauts from frying in direct sunlight is their suits and a spaceship. I'm pretty sure there's heat distortion in space. Not to mention a constant barrage of space dust which is like a tiny, super fast bullet. But don't let me get in the way of you because I heard a couple things off some documentary.

The problem here is that being inert is not sufficient grounds to assume that something does not exist.


So many times, I've said it. Time is not inert, because it does not exist. I can't actually prove beyond the theoretical, so if you're waiting for some breakthrough in quantum physics, you're wasting your time. I already said this, and you responded with something like time flies like a banana. Read the quote very carefully.
Showing 16-30 of 50