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 … 
Lev, cause and effect does not imply time it implies change.
“Both Galileo and Newton and most people up until the 20th century thought that time was the same for everyone everywhere. This is the basis for timelines, where time is a parameter. Our modern conception of time is based on Einstein’s theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently depending on relative motion, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline. Thus time is part of a coordinate”
Lev, coordinates do not exist; they are mathematical models.
Time is merely the measure of the changing.
And even though Newton didn’t have it quite right, neither did Einstein.
Agreed, and there is no time out there in reality.
The measurement does not exist other than as a model in our minds.
The thing being measured exists.
with love,
sanjay
Does the difference between a 1 meter rod and a two meter rod exist?
If not, does the difference between a 1 meter rod and no rod exist?
The measure that we call time exists in that same way. Whether it “exists” is merely an issue of our chosen ontological terminology. There is difference in the speed of changing from place to place, thus there is time.
The thing being measured exists but the measurement does not exist.
There is no meter out there that grids the universe.
The meter is a measure of separation. Time is a measure of change.
If you changed your initial statement to:
The second is a measure of time… then time could exists.
But then time is a parameter and NOT a measure of change.
So which is the parameter being measured. Time or Change?
What you call a “thing” is merely what you [subconsciously] choose to be significant to you.
If the difference is what is important to you, then the difference/measure is what “exists”.
Yes, I understand that all measurements are relative… this is a given.
This does not resolve the conflict of time as a parameter or time as a measure.
The universe is not scattered with an all encompassing 3D matrix of metre length rods.
If time is a measure of change then the universe is not scattered with time.
If time is a parameter, which is measured in seconds, then it is plausible that time is part of the underlying fabric of the universe (it exists outside of a mathematical model).
Well, that’s good, but on the other hand, how to distinguish a “parameter” from a “measure”?
I can’t say that I fully understood what you intended to say, but you have the choice to decide for yourself what is or is not an “entity”, or what exists or doesn’t exist in your chosen ontology (understanding of … the universe).
It is entirely up to the individual as to whether the thing called “time” exists or doesn’t. The individual can make it as complicated as they like. Reality doesn’t care what you call any part of it. And you have no choice but to label which parts that you think are relevant.
You can say that time itself doesn’t exist at all and be 100% accurate depending on the rest of your chosen understanding of reality, your ontology. There is not, and has never been, a single ontological understanding that is reality. There can never be such a thing. In that sense, there can never be an actual “truth” concerning anything at all. Everyone must choose an ontology and hold to it until they discover that it doesn’t actually conform to experience. And such is the make of all debates.
I would never have formed the phrase, “outside of time”. But I can understand what was meant by it. One must consider what language or ontology a person is using when they make claims concerning reality. But first one must understand that no language expresses the one and only Truth. Truth is merely a single chosen way to express reality, and is often, but not always, incorrect. But is to be respected as a possibility until logic truly dictates otherwise.