[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Time as a concept
- To: Patrick G Konshak
- Subject: Time as a concept
- From: Robert L. Vaessen
- Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 09:10:28 -0700
- Cc: Robert Garrity ,
- In-reply-to: <20020307.110658.-3768993.2.>
Believing something exists as a "concept" doesn't make it real.
The Earth being the center of the Universe used to be a
'concept'. Scientists used this concept in their mathematical
formulas, to explain the motion of the stars and other planets.
Little did they know that this concept was wrong. Many of them
thought it to be an obvious fact of nature.
Using time in a mathematical formula to prove that time exists
is sort of like using a word to describe itself. 'Blue is the
Your example of predicting the moment when two trains will
intersect, does very little to prove the concept of time. If you
remove time completely from your formula, the two trains will
still intersect. You can use geometry to predict that the trains
will intersect. When they intersect is inconsequential, it is
only relevant if you include time in the formula.
If I don't believe in time, then I don't believe you can predict
the future. The future as you so label it, is simply a node
along your probability path. One that you will experience when
you limited consciousness gets around to it.
If we change the definition of time. Your formula will reflect a
new reality. Instead of intersecting in three hours, the trains
will intersect in 128 years, or 128 ganzents. A ganzent being
the amount of time it takes a Trognick to eat a Platitude. The
results will always agree with reality if everyone agrees on the
definition that you use. If you use the ganzent reference, and
everyone else is using seconds, your formula will not accurately
predict the 'future'.
If time is not a force of nature, then it does not exist in
nature. If it doesn't exist in nature, it doesn't exist. I say
there is no such thing as time. Time does not exist. Are you
agreeing with me?
From American Heritage dictionary:
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See
Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a
new restaurant concept" (ADWEEK).
Concepts do not affect or equal reality. They are ways of
describing reality. Not all ideas are accurate or logical.
There is no such thing as a 'proof of time'. We have always
taken it as a standard, and use it in formula which claim to be
proofs. Why do we continue to use an unproven standard in
calculations which we insist are accurate?
You cannot prove time by using time in the proof of time.
A friend at work once said to me that 'Time exists because I can
consciously experience it. I sense it's passing by the changes I
observe around me.' I responded by asking what happens to time
when you're unconscious? Does it stop? You're no longer
consciously aware of it. What if you couldn't see any changes
If you put a person in a pitch black environment, and ask them
to keep track of time, they quickly lose all sense of time.
Sense of time. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/sense/sense.html
Flow of time. http://members.aol.com/rslts/crttime.html
On Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 12:05 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:
Time: I do not consider time to be a force of nature. You
can't manipulate it (slow it down or speed it up. nether travel
forward or backward through it). There is no temporal particle,
or is it a forth dimension. However I do believe time exist as
a "concept". For example I can use time in a mathematical
formula to predict what moment two trains leaving different
stations traveling towards each other at different speeds will
intersect each other (giving nothing perfect, I can predict
better then random chance). If time is not a concept, then how
can I predict the future (where two trains intersect) with
better then random chances?
Just as Economics is not a force of nature. That is: there is
no particle (photon, graviton) that holds the force of
economics, or is it a 4th dimension of matter. But it is a
"concept". You can use an economic model to predict the future
better then random chance.
I forgot to add this part onto my last e-mail,