Time: Yea or nay?

Is time…

  • …an intrinsic quality of the universe?
  • …a human invention?
0 voters

I’m curious to see the spread.

C. a swiss conspiracy to sell watches

-Imp

:laughing:

…a man-made construct of what was already there, but labeled and packaged in the confines of ‘time’: as only man can ever do so well :imp:

Man seems to have this inherent need to label things in the world around him: in-order to feel in control of it :astonished:

^^ So which way did you vote?

is this an attempt to ‘prove’ time exists by tallying up the number of people who think it does?

No, like I said I’m curious to see the spread. Actually, I’d expect more people to say it’s a human invention. I’m not going to get into whether or not time exists here, there are other threads already devoted to that.

It is possible that he’s trying to see what others views are so that he might question how they intend to validate them. Lots of critical stuff happening here… You can join in any time.

It is possible I am trying to see what his views are so that I might question how he intends to validate them. Lots of critical stuff happening here… you can assume anything about me any time.

But you’re not playing nice in the thread. He’s the one asking questions. And trust me, I’ll be assuming plenty.

Stop creating a fight, it’s just a poll.

I’m interested in statistics.

I know right!!

Sorry, I thought it was clear: I voted ‘a human invention’ - time: as we define it, has been constructed by man, but the true nature of what we have defined as time is the inherent quality of the space we in habit.

To say otherwise: is to say we invented the universe, and all that is in it :confused:

That’s what I thought you voted, but it confuses me that you would. If time is both an intrinsic quality and a human definition of that quality, that doesn’t mean we invented it. It’s like…sound has always been around us, and we came up with Decibels to measure it, but we didn’t invent sound.

Or am I still confused by what you mean?

Perhaps I worded the poll badly…maybe I should have stuck with like what the title says:

Is time an intrinsic quality of the universe?

Yea!

Nay!

I think that what we class as time is just an inherent quality of all things existing: ‘time’ is a label / ‘existence’ is the essence of being - the need to label all things = the need for power and control: which are undesirable qualities in the scheme of the whole.

Don’t get me wrong: I love watches and modern time-pieces - hell, I rely on the alarm on my mobile phone to get me up for work in the mornings, and to alert me to important appointments and such, but that’s all constructed by man.

Sound can be verified: by the mere fact we hear / time cannot be verified? but I am open to correction: if you can?

This is how I think of it…pretty base but it gets the idea across:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 34#1928934

And also time dilation experiments. If you want me to try and explain better ask me in one of the time threads, this is just for statistic’s sake.

Thanks for the input :smiley:

It’s both. But as usual, the controversy isn’t over whether we subjectively experience the sensation; it’s the question of whether it objectively exists.

Yes it objectively exists.

Sorry for the delay…

In the sense of objectivity. It may be confusing due to what I see as a convoluting of the terms subjective and objective.

So I think we all agree that we experience the sensation of time passing, and there is no controversy about it.

The disagreement may come from those saying that time is an illusion and that subjective reality is wrong, or, nothing can ever be proved to exist in objective reality so it is a “meaningless” question and should even be asked, let alone answered, etc.

I think those arguments are incorrect.

However I can imagine a definition of time that I can agree with time not existing: that would be if time was considered to be an infinite moment. There, I can argue that time doesn’t exist since the definition extends into infinitity.

But then you have the same counter-arguments: “infinity” is an illusion and that subjective reality is wrong, or, “infinity” can ever be proved to exist in objective reality so it is a “meaningless” question and should even be asked, let alone answered, etc. etc. etc. etc…

the impression i get is eternity is real, knowing the nowness
but time keeping by clocks is man made.

Ah, but the distance an inch represents exists, just as the ‘distance’ in time a minute represents exists. At least that’s how I voted.

Again, I don’t think there is any controversy over whether the measurement of time exists. I think the controversy is over whether time exists outside of our measurement of it.

I said yes.

As to your comparison between “inches” and time, I think the correct comparison would be:

An inch is a subjective measurement of distance.
Inches do not objectively exist.
They are a relative and arbitrary subjective tool.
But distance objectively exists.

A minute is a subjective measurement of time.
Minutes do not objectively exist.
They are a relative and arbitrary subjective tool.
But time objectively exists.

It is the objective versus subjective contexts that needed to be sorted out to avoid confusion.