ok... but what if there is a time machine that could bring an individual to the past or the future, then what would he call that time as it is present to him as well as we are experiencing present? And so when he travel back through time travel would he say that he had experienced the past as well as present??
This is my input, and I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong.
There's this general opinion that time is only a continuum of minutes, of days, of light graduating to darkness, etc. IMO, the general image of what time is, isn't conveyed accurately-- time only exists, it doesn't progress. The universe is sitting in a stillness, time does not shift. Yet, what causes progression? The earth rotates, sun and moon give us day and night-- we know how it goes-- yet it is only our progression and not time. We move, we make these clocks electrically-generated, or battery-powered, or whatever, for the hands to tick away the so-called progression of time. It is the universe, and the masses that occupy it, that live, that cause progression. We're all born, we live till our phase is over, then we die and end our progression. In the same way, natural progressions of the universe cause "time" to exist as we imagine it. As time just exists as a stillness, the earth rotates, facing the sun, giving us day and night, and, hence, the illusion that "time" is somehow continuing. The progressions of nature cause leap years, cause natural disasters, etc, but it is not the progression of time as we think of it.
In this way, if time does not actually progress-- it just exists as a stillness, and we are the beings who actually progress, causing the illusion of a continuum of time, then how can time travel be possible?
Anyways, the question wasn't time travel.. If that^^ is true, then a "history" of time does not actually exist since time does not have any progression-- therefore, the theory that the past is but a memory, or something kept in the mind, is correct.
Obviously, the past exists-- we can't deny what happened before we were born-- but it existed in the same stillness that we live in today. Someone was contradicting something close to this that BGK said earlier, and I want to make my point clear-- of course all the events of time could not have possibly occurred simultaneously-- but, they all occurred in an unmoving, uncontinuing (<is that a word lol?) that holds the universe. By the progressions of the universe, there is the general illusion that many years have passed, and even that there exists an alter-universe of the past-- but there is only one universe with a progression of events and generations.
Basically, the past does exist, of course, but not as a "history of time" or even an "alter-universe" but as a sequence of events that occured before we came into existence, and as a memory, as you guys said earlier^^
time is like a road you walk on. the further you go on the road the more things move on and progress. You can remember events on the road but you can't go back because the road only moves forward. All the events that happened are recorded in your mind but the actual physical substance of that place and time do not exist.
i think that time is actually just an infinite sets of realities all conected and existing parallel to each other but having definite margins between each universe, and every universe in the chain is just an infinitely strong portion of time in front of the one behind it, n the matter and forces differ only that much as they SMALLEST amount of time would let them be different from the last reality, meaning that an infinte number of identical masses and forces exist in each reality but they only differe from each other by the smallest fraction of time possible, this can be looked at as when u draw different simple figures on the end of a notebook each slightly different from each other n then when u just quickly flip all the pages, the images moves{like in tv},
There is no time dimension, only motion. Past, present and future is all one dimension - the passing of time is merely a sensation of movement.
Since you debate this widely accepted scientific definition........let me pose you a question.
If there is no dimension "time".............what keeps two people from standing on the same exact point in space time, overlapping their matter, destroying them both?
The fabric of space has 3 physical dimensions........x,y and z........just as any 3D plane does.
I can stand at:
x-22
y-22
z-22
and you can stand at:
x-22
y-22
z-22
look we're in the exact same spot in our physical universe...........what in the world is keeping our matter from overlapping? Why didn't the two of us meld into one being with 4 arms, 4 legs and 2 heads? Although we were both in the exact same spot.........we were there at different times, time being the 4th dimension of space.
you're coordinates were:
x-22
y-22
z-22
time-3
my coordinates were:
x-22
y-22
z--
time-6
while there is constant forward motion in the universe.........it is merely an action, a verb, not an adjective to label a dimension of space.
there are no real mathmatical coordinates for our universe.........I used imaginary numbers, there is no right or wrong.
To plot a 3-D graph for the universe you would need to know atleast one of the boundries, preferably two..........and could start assigning numerical coordinates from there. Since we know no boundries.........'tis impossible. The best we could do today would be to create a map of space not of our universe but of our solar system or galaxy using designated points of reference.
sorry...............can't joke around too much on here. We have some people running around this forum claiming that:
- forward motion does not exist...everything in our universe happened at the same time and our brain is just interpreting each event as happening seperately and in sequence. (nevermind the fact that each of us humans has a different brain yet still somehow interpret the exact same events happening in the exact same sequence)..........
sorry man.........can't risk a joke around this Matrix crowd.
Define Time: Evil Dead and leonheartmm employ Time as an unsubstantiated maxim in their ontology of this concept. The concept of Time has never been properly defined in any field of scientific study or philosophical enquiry, it's merely referred to as an extra or 4th dimension in addition to the so-called 3 space-dimensions. Space-Time is a postulation extended onto the infinite flux of infinity or continuity of Being by human cognition. Their is no 'absolute proof' of Space or Time as an existential condition proper. It is a construct of the intellect at most. Evil Dead talks about Space coordinates or physical positions - there are no definite positions or coordinates in space, so two objects, humans in this case, cannot possibly occupy a common position in space. In fact, Quantum theory explains by virtue of its "uncertainty principle" the indefinite, imprecise and unpredictable condition of position and other properties of particles. But that's besides the point - in philosophical enquiry, all scientific notions are meaningless if they cannot be absolutely defined. One cannot ultimately talk about 'Time' or 'Space' as existent if they are ontologically undefinable. We should ask the question: "What do we mean by Time and Space?" First of all, define Time and define Space - one cannot argue over their existence if no tangible definition exists. One simply cannot just cast Time into an empty shell of "an extra/fourth dimension". Dimension, for that matter is another undefined intellectual construct - what do we mean by 'Dimension(s)' ? We can only on one condition talk further about these concepts after their true and substantial definitions has been established.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COME UP WITH A REAL, SUBSTANTIAL DEFINITION AND ONTOLOGY OF THESE CONCEPTS OF 'SPACE AND TIME/SPACE-TIME'. WHAT ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY MEAN IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE? FOR THE MOMENT THEY WILL REMAIN AS MERE CLOUDS OF THOUGHT, HANGING IN THIN AIR, UNSUPPORTED BY ACTUALITY.
I don't think anyone can give a defination of space yet... since nobody is FAMILIAR with it yet...(have to capitalise key points)
But as for time.. I think humans have live long enough to be familiar with time to give time a defination.... As I know... people first discovered time when people actually grow and die at certain "age"(they can't know this unless they know time).... curiousity brought them into giving out a possibility that there is time... my question is: How did they keep up with it?.... I mean they can't start it out of the blue... right?... but I think they did... and as long as they do this..
Time itself is still an imaginary concept... that is my theory...
in my opinion, there can be no proof that there really is a past... or there really isnt... but thinking about it if there wasnt a past, then nothing would really change in life, there has to be a past in order to move on. if this makes no sence or im getting severely confused with something else then please tell me 😕 🙂