The universe at it's base is a fluctuation of energy and matter. Life and humans especially are a definitive part of the universe because we along with other animals observe and react to these influxes in unique ways depending on each sense and each individual interpretation. As man evolves so does man's view of the universe, take time for example. Time has been around and flowing since...forever, but just until recently in the history of mankind, man has been able to grasp the idea of time. First we created the clock, which divided time into equal intervals, seconds to minutes to hours etc., and since then man has somewhat "tamed" the idea of time because now man can talk and think of time relative to another. Now think of this, did time exist before life, or simply did the idea of time exist before life? This may sound silly but if there was no living creature to observe time, then the idea and phenomenon of time may not exist, there would simply be an infinitely small fraction of time in which everything in the universe is expressed, there would be no time because there would be nothing to observe time. Now think of THIS, if only the idea of time existed before life could experience it, then think of the infinite amounts of theoretical "ideas" or "senses" or "types of experiences" that life (or at least man) has not experienced and cannot comprehend. This all comes together because as the title says, man and consciousness define the type of reality they experience, and as the way we physically experience things and mentally process things change, our literal idea of life and the universe change. just an idea that came to mind one day B) please comment your thoughts and if you agree or disagree and why!!!
true, but what im saying is that was there time to be measured before there was anyone to measure it in the first place??
Wow... so, before man, there were no time, really (the planets didn't revolve beofre cognizant man's emergence)? Time can be measured by man.. that doesn't mean time is dependent on man's measurments for it to be an actuality.
how does your opinion on it differ? yes really. planets revolving do not equal time. time is purely a measurement of action. if nobody is measuring action there is no time. edit: actually i take that back. there was no time before consciousness capable of noticing changing arrangements of matter. doesnt need to be human.
lol so you define 'time' as a meaurment of action, and then go on to say there can be no 'time' without the measurments of man. You do realize that you're really just saying, by your own defintion, that there can be no measurement without a some measuring. That is, if you define 'time' as a measurment of action then of course there can be no 'time' without measurments.. for YOUR personal defintion requires it, but, still, does that mean there was no action before our measuring of action?
Does that mean that there were no changes or alterations in the arragements of matter before a consciousness there was a consciousness capable to measure changes and alterations...?
Yeah, thats exactly what im saying. if there is nobody to measure there is no measurement. its like the tree falling in the woods if you prefer. not whatsoever. however, changes alone do not equate to time. time is only there if thats what is being measured
1.) This self-evident statement in no way proves or demonstrates that time cannot be an actuality before measurement... I don't see how one can argue that there is no time based on such a statement. If I state that 'time' is that which must be measured, then of course there can no 'time', according to my personal defintion, without measurement. But that doesn't really mean that time isn't an actuality without my measurements... it just means my defintion is partial and overly marginlized. 2.) Can there be change without time?
1) im not entirely sure what you mean it cant be argued that way....but either way thats the entirety of my stance. im not trying to prove nor disprove anything so take it for what it is. 2) again, totally. may i ask what your opinion on the issue is?
That there is time beyond man's personal measurments... that time is an apriori condition, i.e., something that presupposes our measurements and is not dependent on them. P.S. You said earlier that change doesn't equate to time... so what is change without time? Also, you said, "there was no time before consciousness capable of noticing changing arrangements of matter. doesnt need to be human" -- What is 'time' without a human's defintion of it (obviously there must be one if you say that there cannot be 'time' before our consciousness, i.e., what is it that cannot exist before man's measurments)?
so essentially you believe time is always present, although without observation is undefined? change without time is just interaction of matter. time without a human definition is totally the same, were just better at measuring it. example, your dog can learn about when the mailman comes daily or when to expect feeding if its done systemically.
1.) More like.. 'time' is a necessary condition for any sort of finite existence. 2.) And these interactions don't occur in time?? Doesn't the term 'interaction' itself necessitate the notion of time? Meaning, can there be an "interaction" outside of time?
2) were just kinda looping here, lets end this for the sake of OPs question. but yes, i feel there can and the only way it happens in time is if the time is measured.
well what I'm saying is that, yes planets and matter move, but matter itself is not aware of this change, Matter is not bound by time, matter is outside of time because matter does not experience time, A rock is only a rock when we see it, but out side of time this rock might have been a rock that got pounded on a beach into tiny particles that got melted back into a rock through volcanic activity, only to be broken up and absorbed by a small flower, in which these minerals in the flower are eaten by a lizard, only for the lizard to die and decompose.... My point is that matter is not bound by time, so outside of time matter is only an infinity small expression representing every action and event to take place
ok no need to get angry here, what we're saying, as I assume he agrees with me, is that time is only a phenomenon to be observed by conscious observation, if there was no animal to experience the sense of sight, would sight exist, or would only the concept of sight exist? Furthermore, not only am I asking now if the idea of sight would exist before there was anything to experience sight, NOW I am saying that sight is simply an interpretation of light waves, sight is not a concrete thing, nor is time