The meaning of Time: Philosophy Forums

Forums Articles Gallery Links

Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The meaning of Time » The meaning of Time

The meaning of Time

Print

Print

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The meaning of Time

Colin Tosper
Thoughtful

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 16, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 06/18/08 - 01:09 AM:	#31
The problem with each argument that has been made (and quite possibly the one I am about to make as well) is the inclusion of the human mind's perception of both time AND space. As NewDealTN stated: "Is this not rather how you see time too? as a rate of change?". But isn't a position in space also determined by that point's relation to other points as characterized by human perception? We require a point of origin in order to perceive any dimension. With this need for perception excluded, EVERY point becomes an origin, with no relation to the points surrounding it whatsoever. With this in mind (how ironic, a lack of human perception, "in mind") we find then that time is the same. With our need for perception we utilize dates in order to recognize where we are in time. "These events are not currently occurring; therefore, I am not at that point in time, and these OTHER events have yet to occur whatsoever to my PERSONAL knowledge.". Each intelligent being has it's own PERSONAL perception of its position within the expanse of time. In and of the same, each intelligent being uses the EXACT SAME logic in order to conclude that it exists in this point in space and not that point. In terms of our perception, time IS a dimension, as well as space. Without our perception no dimensions exist, because each and every point is COMPLETELY independent from one another. Rather than being a case of it being flat out a dimension or not, this question is actually one of human perception...though truthfully for the sake of argument the only thing that matters is human perception since its unlikely we'll attain something above it within our lifetimes. Edited by Colin Tosper on 06/18/08 - 06:48 PM
-The Mental Dialogues: http://arscogito.blogspot.com/ My blog (a work in progress): http://colintosper.blogspot.com/

yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310

Posted 09/02/08 - 08:45 AM:	#32
Kwalish Kid wrote: Just like you have really no chance of changing the effect of -14 degree weather by changing your scale, so too do you have no chance of effecting the very real process of time by changing your system of measurement. Everything that we do depends upon time. To say that it isn't real is to be skeptical to the point of idiocy. I mean honestly, I have yet to see someone put together a claim that time doesn't really exist that made any sense. Clocks don't measure time. A clock is just a moving instrument. One second is one tick of the "second" hand of the clock and it takes 60 ticks to move through 360 degrees. And that equals to one minute, which is the movement of the "minute" hand of the clock. Sixty minutes, which makes one hour, is the movement of the "minute" hand through 360 degrees. It doesn't take time to tick. The clock just go tick, tock, tick, tock...creating the illusion that it is measuring time when all it is doing is just moving. Time is an idea. Once you are infected with the idea - be it time or God - no claim that the idea is illusory will make any sense to you. The Buddha saw the truth that the self is an illusion. It doesn't exist. To this day, no one infected with the idea of being a person can put together a claim that the self doesn't really exist that made any sense.

ughaibu
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 272

Posted 09/02/08 - 09:12 AM:	#33
Comprehensible be to time in ordered correctly be to have contention that does why illusion an is time if?

yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310

Posted 09/03/08 - 02:50 AM:	#34
ughaibu wrote: Comprehensible be to time in ordered correctly be to have contention that does why illusion an is time if? Order with do to got time has what?

ughaibu
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 272

Posted 09/03/08 - 03:34 AM:	#35
Traggatcm.

yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310

Posted 09/03/08 - 06:52 AM:	#36
ughaibu wrote: Traggatcm. Traggartcm E. J.? Unreal is time that contended too he, me like.

ughaibu
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 272

Posted 09/03/08 - 07:04 AM:	#37
And his argument was based on orderings, which made his conclusion unconvincing, as his article is nonsense if read backwards.

yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310

Posted 09/03/08 - 07:51 AM:	#38
ughaibu wrote: And his argument was based on orderings, which made his conclusion unconvincing, as his article is nonsense if read backwards. The reason why McTaggart is unconvincing is because his conclusion is wrong. That doesn't mean that the Buddha was wrong also when he pointed out that time is an illusion. Time doesn't exist just as God doesn't exist. Only a fool would base an argument on the form of the illusion to conclude that it is formless.

ughaibu
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 272

Posted 09/03/08 - 07:57 AM:	#39
yiming wrote: Time doesn't exist just as God doesn't exist. Only a fool would base an argument on the form of the illusion to conclude that it is formless. What is your argument for the non-existence of time?

yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310

Posted 09/05/08 - 08:13 AM:	#40
ughaibu wrote: What is your argument for the non-existence of time? I have no such argument. If something is unreal, it just is because it doesn't exist. I can only inquire into it and refute the argument for the existence of time. For example, if you were to say, "Clocks measure time", I would point out that clocks measure movements. Mctaggart said: "A universe in which nothing whatever changed (including the thoughts of the conscious beings in it) would be a timeless universe." I would rather say that in such a universe where nothing moves, the illusion of time cannot exist.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.