*Ahem
Note Thomas Aquinas rejected the concept of discrete time for the same reason I did. Damn I'm smart.

For the dichotomy paradox, it makes sense when you think of it as a mathematical series. It's a geometric series where r<1. And when you have that, you break out your handy dandy formula for finding the sum of an infinite geometric series. a₁/(1-r)
a₁= 1/2, so (1/2)/(1/2)=1. So if you wanted to travel one meter, the dichotomy paradox says you will eventually travel one meter. Amazing.

Paraphrased


I think we're on to something here. First, let us determine whether or not time really exists or if it's just a perception of the human (and possible other entity's) mind. Following a similar logic, perhaps we can assert that time is infinite only because there are infinite ways it can be perceived if it really is just a perception and doesn't exist. However, if it is something that really exists beyond the scope of human (or possible other entity's) perception, then I am afraid that it is currently beyond our understanding, (and maybe could be considered infinite by us for now since there are infinite possibilities as what the absolute existence of time really is).

EDIT: Do all being observe time, or only those that 'learn' of it?

There's only one way time can be perceived. There's a past, a present, and a future. All events must lie within those states or they are not events. I think the fact that we do perceive time is evidence that time itself exists.

I don't think that is necessarily true. Sure, there is that one way that we perceive the time, but to say that there aren't alternative ways to view it is just... silly.

EDIT: For example, I look at my cat staring out the window and I find it hard to believe that 'The bird was here in the past, but it's gone presently, and it may or may not be here in the future.' is anything remotely close to what the cat perceives, if it even perceives anything about what we call 'time' to begin with.

Cats are not rational beings and don't think of contemplate the nature of time. So no, you aren't perceiving time in the same way as your cat because your cat can't perceive it. Happy?

Okay, but now prove that a cat cannot have a perception of time. I'd say prove this for every being, but it'd be much easier to request that you prove that humans are the only beings capable of time perception, and then show me how it is impossible even for one human to perceive time differently than another.

If you manage to do that, then yes, I would be inclined to agree that time can only be perceived in one way.

Not exactly. Consider this argument:

What is the past? The past cannot be accessed, it cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. The clock that says 5:00pm now doesn't tell you that a minute has passed since 4:59, it simply exists in the state 5:00 right now. Conventional common sense tells us that a minute has passed since 4:59, but that's because we make assumptions about time, like that its continuous, and passes constantly. So really, the past, if it ever existed, does not exist now, and therefore does not exist. The future is similar. We cannot access the future. Just because we think our clock will say 5:01 in a minute does not mean it will happen, the future may not ever come. The future does not exist, because it never has existed, and even if our clock does say 5:01 at some point, that is now the present, not the future. There are no past or future settings, only the present. And if we consider the present, does that exist? If we check our clock, is it exactly 5:00 right now? Or is it 5:00:01, so that 5:00:00 no longer exists? Or is it 5:00:000001? We can repeat this process to infinity, and we can see that the present does not exist, because it is infinitely small. So there is no past, present or future.

That argument is simply food for thought, though the idea that there is no past or future is not as absurd as it sounds, in my book at least. The idea that time is a form of distance holds some weight, especially when you consider the ideas of special relativity. The distance between me and a fixed point in space will always have some fixed value, and at a fixed speed will always take some fixed time to get there. Instead of saying "I am 10 feet from you" I could just as easily say "I am 3 seconds from you" if I knew my speed, and in that sense there really is no past or future, only the present distance in time. There is no future distance or past distance in the universe, because to consider those is to consider states which do not exist as far as the actual state of the universe is concerned.

Of course, this is all food for thought. I know that if I show up at 7:30am when I was supposed to be at work at 7:00am, the "time doesn't exist" excuse isn't going to work on my boss

NomNomNom... I just ate all that food for thought and did a chronosynclastic infundibulous shit in my time-pooper.

Smelt like almonds..

I complete agree with Vrael. Or, if you go back to the previous page you might argue that Vrael is completely agreeing with me. But besides this trivial matter, I think there exists a causal relationship between time, space and existence. As I stated earlier, Time is the 4th dimension which allows the other 3 dimensions to exist (X, Y, Z - and therefore, the entire universe).

However, as we have already established that both the Past and the Future are completely beyond our a) understanding and b) our ability to manipulate. They are therefore, rendered as abstract. Mere thoughts which have no actual solid standing or existence. Sure, we refer to events which have happened in the past, or we may refer to events which might happen in the future. But ultimately, the past and the future are locked to us.

Time both exists and does not exist. Simultaneously. We have established that every 'moment' of the Present (the only 'section' of time we actually experience) is so infinitely small that we cannot measure it. But even as you begin to think of the 'current moment of time in the Present', it has already passed away into the Past.

So, does Time actually 'exist', or is it only our conception of Time which we analyse?

Forsooth!

Are you asking if time is tangible? Time most certainly exists, although our definition of what time is may be inaccurate.

Images and video hold fragments of the past which may be viewed in the present. They represent what once was.

I wouldn't say the future is beyond our ability to manipulate. If you shatter a window, you know that the window will be broken for at least a while in the future. Therefore, it is our decision whether or not to shatter the window. This conversation goes down the path of asking if we are in control of our actions or if everything is predefined, which is a rather uninteresting concept to me.

If you meant this in the sense of time travel, then the answer is that we simply have not developed the technology, which doesn't mean it is impossible. We know that time is relative, and someday we may learn how to "accelerate" time forward in a maintainable, controlled area.

Please note that I was not using the word "realization" in regards to mental acknowledgment, but rather in regards to a more physical sense of the word; I'm not necessarily stating if time only exists in a conscious state of an entity, because that's just the "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" argument (which, by the way, I always reply with, "Of course it does; it's a fucking tree.").

They aren't fragments of the past though, they're collections of mass from the present state of the universe arranged in a particular manner, to which we typically assign meaning based on the usual conception of time.

The main idea though, is that we consider time as a form of distance though, or a form of change in a singular universe, rather than a universe which progresses uniformly along a continuous measurable line.

Disagree. Big time. I have stated already my belief that the universe is an X, Y, Z (3 dimensional) object. And time is the 4th dimension which allows the other 3 to exist... The advances (scientifically) that we have made in the field of 'Time', since the dawn of time, have been: a) The Sundial and b) Calendars. And everything from these two starting points have been variations on a theme. Nothing new.

To think that we can just 'scientifically advance' ourself into manipulating time is foolhardy at best. I believe that time is inaccessible to us. Since it doesn't 'exist' in our universe (X, Y, Z). The hopefuls pin some merit on the LHC and its failed experiments, or even in mapping black matter. However, I think both of these ventures are fruitless.

Consider the following thought experiment: If a car travels on a circular track, once it has made a single loop around the track, it returns to its original "spatial" position, but has no interaction with its "past" self. Therefore, we must conclude that the two instances of the car at the same spatial location must differ by some other coordinate dimension, which we intuitively know as "time". This does not prove anything about the nature of time, but merely that some extra dimension must exist in order to define a distinct location in spacetime.

A note to people talking about the "past" and "future" - while things happening sufficiently far apart in space and time can be said to occur in an absolute order, simultaneity is relative and therefore the order of events which occur at relatively close times depends on your frame of reference (see Lorentz Transformation).

A interesting thing to ponder - as far as we know, the three dimensions of space are isotropic, i.e. we cannot orient space and define any particular direction as being distinct from any other direction. Time, however, is believed to be nonisotropic - i.e. it has a definitive "forward" and "reverse" direction, as defined by any number of measures, most notably the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Thermodynamic Arrow of Time). What makes time so distinct and special from space?

Why would time be the same?

Fair enough. I'm not arguing that I am either right or wrong.

Whoa. What makes you so certain? Just because you have a belief doesn't mean you have to belittle opposing ideas; that's extremely narrow-minded.

You consider the rotation of the Earth in relation to the sun as the embodiment of time? If the Earth rotated slower, and therefore days were longer, would time be changed at all? I think not.

May I attempt to dissuade you from that rational? Time can be manipulated by mass alone. Alternatively, time can be manipulated by high velocities. It would not be impossible to send someone forward in time. Sending someone to the past, however, is not something I would be inclined to believe.

Time is a dimension, so maybe it starts either when the Big Bang happened or when the singularity that was...uh...there before the Big Bang.
I myself believe in the Everett interpretation, which is to say that there are infinitely many timelines, and things that occur in one timeline differ from another a bit...
About Cecil's theory about the changing of the universe...that energy will not be used up, it'll just be transferred from one particle to another and from one state to another. So I don't think time would end like that.
About the beginning of time...no idea.
@DT: Time has been actually considered a dimension in quantum physics (in fact one theory suggests 11 different dimensions). Also, it has been found that there are ways time flow can be disturbed, like by gravity or Tipler's cylinders.
P/S: Sorry for necroing, this thread was such a great topic to be left undiscovered T_T;

Well entropy isn't about energy being used up, it's about energy ending up in a state of non-usability. For example consider that the universe has no 3D boundaries and goes on in all directions forever. The Sun gives off light. Imagine that our solar system is the only thing in the universe. If the Sun is the main form of energy source the Earth has, what happens when the Sun dries up? All it's light will be traveling away from the solar system at the speed of light and we'll (supposedly) never be able to use it again.

o.o; Er...well...maybe 1) Dark matter bounces it back, 2) Maybe when light leaves the universe it comes back in a Pac Man-esque way or 3) Maybe it goes to a parallel universe, which also means parallel universes also transmit light into ours? :3 Dunno much bout astrology, man <hurr>

Let's not use serious discussion for speculative pseudoscience.

Well the first dimension is a line. There are infinite points in a line.
The second is a plane. There are infinite lines in a plane.
The third is all of space. There are an infinite number of planes in space.
Then, the fourth dimension would be time. There is an infinite ammount of space in time...

...Or maybe the fourth dimension is energy, which exists only if time exists.
Movement (energy) is only observed by relation of time.

A being in the 4th dimension would...
a) not exist.
b) observe the universe as if everything was happening all at once. (sortof like a long exposure photograph)

4th dimension is indeed time. Also nothing can exist in only one dimension.