Time, existence, and reality

So I just join this forum mainly for my entertainment but also to see what other people thought about an idea I had. So basically I was looking at different ideas and theories that involved time and space and came across a puzzling thought. By definition time is the progress of existence, and existence is the fact or state of living or having objective reality, and reality is the state of things as they actually exist, so does that mean it is possible for existence not to progress? inturn having a reality with timeless existence? Technically Immortality right??? I don't know if what I wrote actually makes any sense at all nor if it has some sort of concluding answer to found but it made my head hurt and i figured someone here could help me straighten my rant out.

Also if timeless existence was possible, how could/would you relate timelines to said "immortal"... Now that I think about it this sounds very similar to the idea of a god.

Well time is what you perseive. To perseive time you must ecxist. If there was nothing to persieve time in a sence time wouldnt exist.

Its all paradoxial but why wouldnt it be as everything is part of everything.

But does persepetion have to be present for the passage of time to occur? How is the human element relevant to time? Physics says time is, so your saying that if the human or any self aware entity was not around to bring about that notion, time would not exist?

Science states that time and space are relative manifestations of the same thing. It is simply the fabric upon which the universe exists. I have no reason to think otherwise. The only alternative is void.

"Time" as in the way you perceive time is a creation of your perception.
All Time happened in an instant its just your perception of time that makes it appear lineal.

"The measurement problem" is key to this theory
Atoms vibrate in and out of existence unless it is being perceive.
Meaning it impossible to measure the wavelengths of the atom.


Time like science are just tools we use to put understanding to our reality.

Theory, though I find your description of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle faulty, I cannot disagree with your conclusion that measurement is arbitrary and a perception. Certainly it is, but that is irrelevant.

Though a yardstick is an arbitrary definition, if one were placed across a three foot wide table, we would both perceive that the yardstick and the table were the same length. The next day you could argue that while we were sleeping, the entire universe, including the yardstick and the table, expanded to twice its size. This could not be refuted, but also would be meaningless. There would be no perceptual difference. Now if the entire universe expanded, except the yardstick, we would both perceive the difference. You might hold that the universe, except the yardstick expanded. I might hold that the yardstick shrunk. But the perception of the difference would be exactly the same. The argument would be pointless semantics.

It is only by measured differences that anything can be comprehended. Cold only as verse to heat, slow as verse to fast, light as verse to dark, big as verse to small. These differences comprise the totality of our perception. Our perception the totality of our existence. If we perceived no change whatsoever, not in time space, or any of our senses, we would have no cognizance. It would be irrelevant to argue, from our standpoint, if we even existed. Only an external cognizance that could perceive a difference between 'us' and 'not us' would state that we existed.

Your inputs are very interesting. I may just be a poor reader but the way some of your post are worded it seems to me that what you guys are trying to say is that without beings capable of any level of thought nothing would technically exist. Much like the question, if a tree falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it does it make a sound? The way I see it is that of course it makes a sound the fact that no being was around to acknowledge it is completely irrelevant if you ask me.

dazedNconfused1, very good response, and very close.

Allow me to hone the question a bit further: If you could not determine any difference between two things whatsoever, would you consider them to be the same thing? If I gave you two objects that felt the same, were the same temperature, had the same shape, same density, mass, color – same anything you might think of, though you might not say one was the other, without any discernible difference would you not say that they are the same?

Then, if there were no discernible difference between existence and non existence, which would it be?

I agree, the tree does cause the air to vibrate when it falls regardless of cognitive presence. Sound requires hearing.

You are very perceptive.

Personally I never assume anything nor do i simply accept what im told as true, but I understand your notion. What I realized in this conversation is that trying to take something you see, hear, feel, and/or think and attempt to put it in words that can be universlly understood without doubt is nearly impossible. It's like trying to explain the color of water. And that it's hard to think about things being without conjuring the "human element". Im lead to ask, is time dependent or independent of existence?

dazedNconfused1,
I will attempt to answer your question as concisely and accurately as I am able. First, though, I want to thank you for your lucid replies. Exchanges such as this are not only something that I enjoy, but beneficial, as they cause me to examine the validity of my own thought.

The short answer is: Time is not only dependent on existence; it is the product of existence.

I base this upon the scientific understanding of time, the bulk of which was established by the Special Theory of Relativity hypothesized by Einstein. This theory is accepted by every physicist that I know or have read. It has been validated by empirical data from multiple independent objective experiments.

It had a beginning. It began the very instant that the big bang began. It is a component of and intrinsic to spacetime. Space being that area that you would know as the three dimensions you perceive.

If you have not done so already, I would suggest that you read the book A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking.

I found this YouTube link to an audio of the book, in case that would be your preference. And being YouTube, it is free; unlike the book which is not, unless your local library has it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGpfu-KpuLw

I really should not just babble on, but your question got me to search for a better explanation. Not all of these were even from scientists. My favorite came from an author, H. G. Wells:

"Any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and Duration."

Of course, Wells assumed that this was the limit of the number of dimensions. This is not so. But that is a whole new thread. I still think this is one of the best explanations to your question.

If you really want me to be concise [but very obtuse]. Here is an equation for time:

I think you misinterpreted my interpretation of time.

I understand that time does not require a entity to sustain itself. Whether time is being perceived or not. Time was is and always will be.

Its the perception of time that gives it structure to the perceiver.


Let me try to expand on this.
If there were a consciousness on the exterior of our reality viewing the cause and effect of time inside a reality the time would pass instantaneously. Instead of being billions of years slowly passing as it would through your perception.

My belief system clings to the logic that all time has already been. Its just your perception of time that's slowed it down.

Hope that makes a little sense

I don't know about you guys but I think I have a bigger headache then the one I started off with. Ive looked at a couple of things including Albert Einstein's theories, which I find difficult to understand mainly because I am not very knowledgable when it comes to physics and my limited vocabulary really isn't up to the task of trying to decode it, but for some reason if feel compelled to thinking that existence progresses because of some sort of force. The line "it began the very instant the Big Bang began" makes me think that motion could possibly be this force that I seek, because everything has motion even if it is at the most minuscule levels, or at least from what I understand. But then that would lead to to ask why the sudden introduction of motion? but that may be completely different idea that may have already been introduced. again I am by no means a physicist so these words may just be the ramblings on of a young overly skeptical insomniac but if these questions have already been asked and possibly answered i would find it very interesting to see the conclusions to said questions.