Time as a concept

[Robert L. Vaessen]

Pat -

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 
color blue'

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:

Concept:
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or 
occurrences.
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 
around you?

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

- Robert




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,
> Pat