An unanswerable question

[Wouter828]

According to the rules of filosofy which my teacher explained to me, you're bound to be more succesful in looking to prove that something exists than to prove that something doesn't exist. Therefore I'm gonna go with yeah, time exists.

[dragoonson]

According to the rules of filosofy which my teacher explained to me, you're bound to be more succesful in looking to prove that something exists than to prove that something doesn't exist. Therefore I'm gonna go with yeah, time exists.

 

 

 

If that's all he taught you,then 1-he's a lazy bastard, 2-you've wasted monies.

 

 

 

For example,I can say magic exists,but so far all evidence points to it doesn't exist,because two thousand years of random discovery,about four hundred of searching (applied) discovery show no evidence towards evidence.

 

 

 

On the other hand,existence is harder to prove because its all perception,see.Psychics mostly say ghosts exist because they see them,but we do not,so many of us doubt their existence.How can you prove those that see them aren't perceiving other objects as ghosts?Or,how do you prove those that aren't are unable to perceive ghosts at all?

 

 

 

See?

[Wouter828]

According to the rules of filosofy which my teacher explained to me, you're bound to be more succesful in looking to prove that something exists than to prove that something doesn't exist. Therefore I'm gonna go with yeah, time exists.

 

 

 

If that's all he taught you,then 1-he's a lazy bastard, 2-you've wasted monies.

 

 

 

For example,I can say magic exists,but so far all evidence points to it doesn't exist,because two thousand years of random discovery,about four hundred of searching (applied) discovery show no evidence towards evidence.

 

 

 

On the other hand,existence is harder to prove because its all perception,see.Psychics mostly say ghosts exist because they see them,but we do not,so many of us doubt their existence.How can you prove those that see them aren't perceiving other objects as ghosts?Or,how do you prove those that aren't are unable to perceive ghosts at all?

 

 

 

See?

 

no

[dragoonson]

tl;dr-its subjective.Either side can be harder or easier depending on how a person thinks.Your philosophy teacher is lazy,and magic lacks evidence suggesting it exists.

 

 

 

Come on,that was a short post people.Learn reading before philosophy.

[Wouter828]

tl;dr-its subjective.Either side can be harder or easier depending on how a person thinks.Your philosophy teacher is lazy,and magic lacks evidence suggesting it exists.

 

 

 

Come on,that was a short post people.Learn reading before philosophy.

 

I wasn't talking about it being harder or not, I was talking about being successful in your search or not. Someone who wants to prove something exists is searching for 'something' and by his believes will eventually find something, making his search successful. Whereas someone trying to prove something doesn't exist can search the whole universe looking for 'nothing' and still not prove it 'isn't there'.

 

The model my teacher used were clouds and God. A Monotheist looking for God searches cloud after cloud and can actually find God eventually (according to his beliefs), while an atheist can only prove that it he's not under that cloud. He'd have to search each and every cloud and still wouldn't be certain that God doesn't exist since he's only proven that God doesn't exist under that cloud.

[Shinjula]

Wouter828 is right, but not i think because of the reason he states, its easy to prove something exists because all you need is a single example of it to show it exists, but to show something doesnt exist you have to prove that it cant exist for every possible situtation.

 

 

 

It would be easy to prove magic exists (assuming that it does), by simply having someone do it.

 

To prove magic doesnt exist you have to prove that for the entire universe it doesnt exist.

[Big_Stingman]

Where is it? Does it occupy a single space in the universe at anyone time? Can we test it? How did it begin? Has it always existed.

 

 

 

I think there's more to this question than first percived...

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I thought time was reletive?

 

 

 

Relative to what?

[Shinjula]

Where is it? Does it occupy a single space in the universe at anyone time? Can we test it? How did it begin? Has it always existed.

 

 

 

I think there's more to this question than first percived...

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I thought time was reletive?

 

 

 

Relative to what?

 

Relative to reference frame (how fast you are moving relative to someone else)

 

It is relative, as to where it is, it permeates everything.

 

 

 

Incidentally its also worth saying that one of the things einstien showed was that time itself doesnt exist and neither does space, what exists is space-time, which cannot be separated into separate components and must be considered as a whole (at least if you want to gt the right answers to any questions you ask). At least thats what einsteins work showed.

[Lenticular_J]

I hate thinking like this, because now I have stupid thoughts in my head.

 

 

 

There is no present. There is only past. It takes a miniscule time to hear or see things, but it still takes some time. That's [bleep]ing stupid. AAAAAAAAAUGH. Even thoughts are not instant. Dammit.

 

 

 

So, if light is not instant, just very fast, does that not mean there can be something faster than light? Something that light can't even reflect off of. So, maybe, invisibility would make you superfast.

 

 

 

Ahh rambling.

[NorthernHero]

NorthernHero - I get what your saying, but why do you state it with such certainty? Sure the case is that we cannot know whether or not it exists, why assert with such certainty what is not known?

 

Yeah, it is not known. But I can still take a stance on it. Just seems more plausible to me I quess. Can't really know that christianity (religion, always such a good example :lol: ) is real or not either but I can still take a stance, which option seems more plausible to me. I quess you could call this my religion.

 

 

 

The idea that the past doesnt exist, only our memories of it do, is also no different to the idea that a chair doesnt exist only our perceptions of it do. Yet we still sit on the chair and we still remember the past, and in the case of time its quite easy to use our memories to construct stuff like newtons laws of motion and other physical laws which then allow us to extrapolate and formulate and eventually come up with things like the computer you are sat at.

 

If you assume that because we cannot go back to the past it doesnt exist you can't do any of that and it drives us into a world of no innovation.

 

I don't think thinking like this drives us to world of no innovation at all. I get lots of innovation out of the fact that I am Leonardo Da Vinci, King Henry, Queen Kleopatra, etc. Those persons are not just some fiqurines in the past, they are me. This kind of thinking also relates to a 'fact' that I can't die. Because there is no time, I will always exist, and always had. And that leads to thing that everything is actually meaningless. Theres can be pretty much inspiration in meaninglesness. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

There is no present. There is only past. It takes a miniscule time to hear or see things, but it still takes some time. That's [bleep] stupid. AAAAAAAAAUGH. Even thoughts are not instant. Dammit.

 

But the moment you hear or see is the moment that hearing/seeing experiense is happening in your brain. Yeah it takes some time to travel the information in your brain but it is always present when you hear/see the thing you do.

[Plugpoint]

Time itself exists, as do days and years (earth spinning blah blah)

 

Minutes, hours and seconds are just the way we chose to divide up a day

[Jimmyw3000]

Does time exist?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Prove it doesnt.

[assassin_696]

Does time exist?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Prove it doesnt.

 

 

 

Fallacy, the burden of proof is on you if you claim it's existence.

[purfishx]

Honestly, this thread is too smart for me.

 

 

 

I hardly understand anything you people said and I've been trailing this thread from page 1!! #-o

[dragoonson]

Time is relative,right?Relative to what?

 

 

 

Relative to the order in which things happen.Thats why only Space/Time exists,because the way time is counted is based on when things in space occur.Par example,lets take Singapore gaining independence on 9th August 1965 (Sorry,its the only date I can remember for sure),and the Kraftwerk concert I'm going to is on 3rd December 2008,therefore time elapsed between the two is (I dunno,do the math.).

 

 

 

Therefore its logical that time moves at a different pace in other planes of space.

[Zierro]

I think if time did not exist, then music would not exist either. The first sentence in Wiki for the article about "Music" is: an art form whose medium is sound organized in time.

[Zonorhc]

Time is a constant, but our measurement of it is subjective.

 

 

 

Time isn't a constant. There is no universal time.

 

In saying that, you implicitly accept that the existence of time itself is a constant.

[i_love_burritos]

43 > 42 8-)

:o

 

 

 

Well 44>43 ;)

 

 

 

Time, was before is now and forever will be.

 

Time came before god. (Please dont start a Science/Religion flame)

 

Time cannot be defined, we chose to define it ourselves.

 

Only measurable time (which actually isn't time) is the one the atomic clock uses. Revolutions of electron of a Cesium Atom.

 

Time can be divided and multiplied endlessy as it is infinite.

 

There is no absolute time as percived by humans. As there is reaction time, response time and processing time.

 

 

 

Space is interwoven into time, and cannot exist without each other. (hard to explain without a diagram, but ill try to find it and scan it up.)

 

 

 

If anyone says, time doesn't exist, I say it does. You cant prove it doesn't.

 

 

 

I say there is a teapot floating in space in the asteroid belt.

 

(Russell's Teapot)

 

 

 

Time is a constant, but our measurement of it is subjective.

 

 

 

Time isn't a constant. There is no universal time.

 

In saying that, you implicitly accept that the existence of time itself is a constant.

 

 

 

Because there is no unverisal time (well actually there is, if you believe in a time before time, where t=0 and we are t+x)

 

There is absolute time in relation to the original time. Real time.

 

 

 

But by which to measure it against is the question :-k

[Zierro]

I say there is a teapot floating in space in the asteroid belt.

 

 

 

You sir are a man of bravery.

 

 

 

The problem I always had with that analogy is that when you just think of a random object and claim it exists then that tells us we should ask for proof in order to filter out ridiculous claims. Well I think the idea that time doesn't exist is the more ridiculous claim.

[i_love_burritos]

I say there is a teapot floating in space in the asteroid belt.

 

 

 

You sir are a man of bravery.

 

 

 

The problem I always had with that analogy is that when you just think of a random object and claim it exists then that tells us we should ask for proof in order to filter out ridiculous claims. Well I think the idea that time doesn't exist is the more ridiculous claim.

 

 

 

Proof, that is always the question.

 

However If we had been primitive peoples, without the technology to prove or disprove it we would have accpeted it. However Betrand is kind of a [developmentally delayed] as he quotes:

 

 

 

I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

 

 

 

He adds that comment in at the end. Of course you can never prove something if the very methods you have to prove or disprove it are already denied. How clever of him.

 

 

 

Please remeber just because I cited the Teapot, doesn't mean I'm a hard atheist.

[Zierro]

Please remeber just because I cited the Teapot, doesn't mean I'm a hard atheist.

 

 

 

Sorry if I'm going off topic here but, if anything, wouldn't believing the teapot make you a believer in God instead of a non-believer?

[i_love_burritos]

Please remeber just because I cited the Teapot, doesn't mean I'm a hard atheist.

 

 

 

Sorry if I'm going off topic here but, if anything, wouldn't believing the teapot make you a believer in God instead of a non-believer?

 

 

 

Well, when you type into google (remember google is god, look at a few threads down on OT), if you put in Russell's teapot you goet a atheist forums and several atheism websites.

[Zonorhc]

Well, when you type into google (remember google is god, look at a few threads down on OT), if you put in Russell's teapot you goet a atheist forums and several atheism websites.

 

Nobody with two functional braincells would have jumped to the conclusion that you were an atheist just for citing Russell's teapot.

[i_love_burritos]

Well, when you type into google (remember google is god, look at a few threads down on OT), if you put in Russell's teapot you get a atheist forums and several atheism websites.

 

Nobody with two functional braincells would have jumped to the conclusion that you were an atheist just for citing Russell's teapot.

 

 

 

Just making sure, this forum is quite inflammable.

 

(what! inflammable means flammable, what a country!)

[dragoonson]

Well, when you type into google (remember google is god, look at a few threads down on OT), if you put in Russell's teapot you get a atheist forums and several atheism websites.

 

Nobody with two functional braincells would have jumped to the conclusion that you were an atheist just for citing Russell's teapot.

 

 

 

Just making sure, this forum is quite inflammable.

 

(what! inflammable means flammable, what a country!)

 

 

 

Imflammable and flammable are the same!I guess I'm unlightonfireable!

 

 

 

I forget where I got that.