Can something exist outside of time?

What evidence is there that time doesn’t move in any direction other than forward?

Well, as long as you believe in historical facts, that would be correct. The past can never change.

Time doesn’t pass for the equation “1+1=2”. It passed for everyone else.

Boethius" argument–God, being atemporal, had to intersect man’s linear history at a point in time. The vertical intersection with the horizontal is the sign of the cross.

Does time pass while the equation 1+1=2 remains true?

Please provide me with your best example of something that doesn’t exist outside of time.

Does time pass while the equation 1+1=2 remains true?

Please provide an example of how it could be observed that 1+1=2 is true without time passing?

Please provide me with your best example of something that doesn’t exist outside of time.

Do you know the difference between the real being (existence) and the ideal being (essence)? The real being is spatiotemporal, the ideal being (essence) lacks temporality. According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being (essence) is the true, the actual real being, while the so-called “real” being is merely the appearance, the illusoriness.

If our definitions merely accepted spatiotemporality as the property of being, then being without temporality would not be possible by defintion. If our definitions accepted that temporality is not required for being, then we being without temporality would be possible by definition.

What about the essence? Does essence also have affect? Do both the real being and the ideal being have affect? Don’t forget: According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being is the true, the actual real being.

Some physicists (seriously) say “1+1=1.9…~” because of the so-called “mass defect” (cp. E=MC²).

Seems like kind of a silly question. Wasn’t it true yesterday?

Nothing can be observed except by those changing in time. Observation requires time. Without time passing, there is no change. Thus if it was ever true, without change, it must always be true.

Everything you see around you. All mass and energy are changing at all times, some merely much slower than others, just as various trees.

“Essence” is the concept of a thing, and idealism, thus not physical. The concepts have their realm of existence and the physical has its realm of existence. We have been through this before.

That is an example of them playing with the definitions. It is untrue that 0.99999… = 1.0, but that doesn’t stop them from believing it and stating it as true on Wiki.

“We have been through this before” probably means “no one else than you and I have been through this before”.

And that is a bad sign, at least then, if it is not explained that it has not very much to do with mathematics. It has very much to do with confusing the people, so that it becomes easier to reconvert science to religion.

I think some scientists understand the philosophy of economics very well. Put something about “no longer any need for god” in the title or more recently it seems something about “a universe created from nothing” in the title and you can sell alot of books. Preach to the choir and they will put their money in your collection plate. One’s theory doesn’t need to make any predictions that would allow it to be falsified like any real scientific theory requires, as long as it sounds good and sells books, it’s all good.

Is the ideal being real? Does the ideal being exist?

Back to one of my original questions - if something does exist outside of time, how would we know it exists outside of time? In order for us to know something exists, such existent item must be observed in some capacity. And if observation requires time, then we could only observe such existent item within time. Therefore, we wouldn’t know if such existent item exists outside of time.

How do you know trees don’t exist outside of time? Have you ever been outside of time and examined every last corner such that you didn’t observe any trees?

By observing its change or potential for change.

You have that a bit backwards. If we were outside of time, we would not be able to observe changes. We would have no means to measure time. But since we are “in time”, we can observe changes, observe time passing. And when we observe something that is not changing and have reason to believe that it will never change, we say that whatever that was, is “outside of time” or “eternal”.

I know that trees are not outside of time because they change. I don’t have to go outside of time and “look around”. If I somehow went outside of time, I couldn’t look around or observe anything changing or not. Observation requires being in time.

Mutcer,
Again I must say I like your inquiring question/posts and especially your civilized manner of discussing.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross wrote:

“If time’s beginnings are concurrent with the beginnings of the Universe, as the space/theorem says, then the cause of the Universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of a pre/existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what He is not. It tells us that God is not the Universe itself, nor is God contained within the Universe.”

I would ponder that God must be a being that could dwell outside of the universe and time.

I want to reply to your other post. If you go to another forum could you send me a PM, private message?
Regards,
ct101

Will do.

Theories about quantum gravity include more dimensions than space-time.

That’s because they have to include magic in order to make their theories work.

Time does not exist … so this is an absurd question.
If you mean… Do permanent objects exist outside of impermanent objects? Then even this is an absurd question.

I am guessing that you are asking the question… Does permanence exist? Or… Do uncaused things exist?

They are only models. When the thread is about “existence”, we have to include only things empirically valid.

It is not absurd because time does not exist. It is absurd because everything that does exist implies when it existed; things that shall exist imply a when to their existence, and “exist” now implies a temporal reality every bit as importance as a place to exist: when to exist.

And as it is true that my text follows yours, demonstrates succession of events, which cannot have meaning without the idea of time.
Thus as we know that your text existed before mine, it refutes your suggestion that time does not exist.

Gyahd … :icon-rolleyes: