Weather Forecast / Current Conditions

I’m pretty new to this whole scene, so I’ve no idea if this topic has popped up before, but I’m genuinely curious to hear what you guys think.

So, my buddies and I were just hanging out yesterday, talking about time. Like, does time actually exist? Or is it just some concept humans cooked up just so we could make sense of days, months, or years?

Dr@xus said:I'm still pretty new to this group, so I'm not sure if we've tackled this specific topic before, but I'd honestly love to hear what you all think.

Yesterday, some friends and I were just sitting around, chatting about the nature of time itself. Does time actually exist as a physical thing? Or is it just a concept humans cooked up so we could make sense of days, months, and years?

Check out my old post on the "experience of time" over on page four of this subforum—it might give you some food for thought!🙂

Look, dimension is just as relative as anything else in this life... And once you're dead, you won't have any use for it anyway. 😛

Time certainly exists, given that it is a fundamental characteristic of the space-time continuum we inhabit (what people commonly call space).

The past and the future don't exist as actual realities, but rather just as mental constructs within our minds.

Martin said:Obviously time exists. It’s a fundamental part of the space-time continuum we live in (what most people just call space). But the way we feel time actually flowing? That's just our brains trying to make sense of life.

The past and the future aren't real things—they're just mental constructs.

I'm with him on this. Time is infinite, but our perception just can't wrap itself around it. Honestly, looking up at space, everything we see—like those stars—is basically the past. Because they're so far from Earth, that light took millions of years just to reach us. So, what we're seeing is ancient history. That star we're staring at right now might not even exist anymore.

Time & Tide is a river.👍 👋 👋 👋

Maybe try something like this: "Time itself is just a concept that exists through its own empirical reality."👋 👋 👋

So, here’s the deal. I link time directly to entropy. And honestly, how do I even put this? Once the universe reaches maximum entropy, time essentially ceases to exist. It all just collapses into a single, massive nothingness spike.

What actually is time? It's change. It's delta. When there is no delta, time doesn't exist. Some might argue that change *is* time, but it’s more like time is the manifestation of change. Something along those lines.

That’s basically where we left off in that old discussion we had—the one diving deep into the Big Bang, singularities, entropy, time, information, and all that good stuff.

Yeah, exactly. Without delta (difference), you have no information, which means you have no time. You have nothing.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. Anyone want to jump in on this? This whole concept is still pretty fresh in my mind. 🙂.

Time & Tide.😁

Time is a strange plant... growing only on the fertile, three-dimensional fields of the mind... creating an illusion of motion where none actually exists.
Space lacks dimensions, and thus lacks time—both spatial and temporal dimensions are merely perceptions... the mind constructs this four-dimensional fabric solely for its own convenience.
If anyone doubts me... feel free to test it... try to grab a "slice" of time within a "slice" of space... then we'll see.😎

Dr. Doom said:I am relatively new to this community—so I am unsure if this topic has been broached before—but I truly value your perspectives.

Yesterday, my friends and I found ourselves debating the nature of time. Does time actually exist as a fundamental reality, or is it merely a construct—an invention of the human mind—designed to help us navigate days, months, or years?

Time is simply a category within our own minds!😎 It is something we calculate, something we measure... but what, really?🙄

Someone once told me that time is the ultimate measure of change, and they were absolutely right!

Perhaps four-dimensional space-time exists as a single entity. Our limited perception forces us to see only three dimensions, while we merely "feel" the fourth as time. If time is truly just another spatial dimension, then we aren't seeing the full picture—we are only seeing a cross-section. Following that logic, our "body" isn't just what we see now; it would be the entire collection of every state and position we’ve occupied from birth to death, existing as one singular whole. A sort of spatio-temporal body. There you go. Try to wrap your heads around that...🙄 as if I'm not already breaking a sweat...😎 😕 though God knows if I have a clue...

Let’s look at this more simply: if you ran an experiment tracking an object moving along a straight line, it wouldn't even realize another dimension exists because, from its perspective, it would just be gliding along at a perfectly steady pace.

It's true, Einstein proved we aren't moving through time at a constant rate, and now there are theories suggesting that even time itself doesn't move at a constant speed—regardless of what direction you're heading. Honestly, my head is spinning just thinking about it. To hell with time.🙄

Matthew Doyle73 said:Let's simplify: if you run an experiment on linear motion, the subject wouldn't even perceive a second dimension. To them, movement would appear static or constant.

True enough. Einstein proved time isn't constant. Now there are theories suggesting even time itself doesn't move at a steady rate, regardless of direction. My head hurts. Damn time.🙄

See? I told you so.😉

Time is an actual dimension, just as real as physical space itself—that’s what Einstein and those who followed his lead proved once and for all. Space and time aren't separate entities; they are inextricably linked, functioning in a state of constant mutual dependence.

Richard Howard2 said:Time is a reality, just as much as space itself. Einstein and those who followed him proved it. Space and time are inextricably linked, bound together in a single fabric.

Fine... but does that space exist all at once?
If it does, then "time" also exists all at once, "inextricably linked with space," because we can't separate one from the other. We say space exists now, while time "passes" us by, drop by drop...
The question is... why do we perceive time as "passing" if it is merely a dimension or property of space?
It seems obvious. We don't see the whole thing at once. Much like I mentioned regarding cross-sections or snapshots, our perception of these slices creates the illusion of movement or the flow of time—like frames in an animation.
If time doesn't actually flow (just as space doesn't), then the very concept of time carrying the meaning of "passage" is flawed. Doesn't time simply become infinite, or eternity—which is perhaps the only appropriate term for the infinite. Thoughts?

Even if the existence of time is proven, we still know nothing about its actual properties. It remains an unknown dimension within an unknown space.
I am not suggesting we ignore the passage of time when catching a flight or commuting to work; what we "know" suffices for practical purposes. However, one should remain aware that we truly understand nothing about the actual nature of space and time...
....and it appears we aren't particularly interested in knowing... 🙄 😎

Rachel Bishop,

Why on earth are you assuming I said something I didn't actually say?

Let me be perfectly clear: I did NOT claim that time is merely a dimension of space or some inherent property of space itself. Time is its own distinct dimension that operates in correlation with space. That is precisely why we use the term spacetime rather than a single unified noun; they aren't the same thing.

I suppose I should demonstrate how time functions as a dimension in relation to the three spatial dimensions. If you have a point within a coordinate system defined by its x, y, and z axes, that point exists only at a specific temporal coordinate, t —> T(x,y,z,t). Once that time coordinate shifts to t', the object might occupy the same physical location, but it is no longer that same point at that specific position. It becomes a different point entirely: T'(x,y,z,t'). And the logic holds true in reverse as well.

To achieve a complete description of the universe we inhabit, the factor of time must be included. This might seem trivial in my little example, but when dealing with massive cosmic phenomena, it becomes vital. For instance, if one were traveling through space at velocities approaching the speed of light, time would dilate—or, if you prefer to flip the perspective, you could argue that time remains constant while space undergoes contraction. It really just depends on your vantage point: whether you are the traveler or the observer.

Richard Howard2 said:Rachel Bishop,

why on earth are you assuming I said something I didn't actually say?

First off, I DID NOT claim that time is a dimension of space or a property of space itself. Time is its own distinct dimension that operates in correlation with space. That’s precisely why we call it spacetime rather than some singular term—because they aren't the same thing.

Let me prove to you that time is a dimension correlating with the three spatial dimensions: if you have a point in a coordinate system defined by its position on the x, y, and z axes, it still exists within a specific temporal coordinate *t* —> T(x,y,z,t). When that time coordinate shifts to *t'*, the object is still at that location, but it's no longer the same point at that exact position. It becomes a different point, T'(x,y,z,t'). The logic holds both ways.

To fully describe the world we live in, we have to include the factor of time. It might seem trivial in my example, but it becomes obvious when dealing with massive scales. For instance, if we were traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light, time would slow down. Or, if you prefer to look at it from a different angle, you could say time flows at the same rate, but space contracts. It just depends on your perspective: are you the traveler or the observer?

Well... it's a real shame you didn't say what I thought you meant... because if you had... you'd be wrong.
The theory of relativity proved the unity of space and time, which is exactly why it's called the... four-dimensional spacetime continuum. In relativity, time is the fourth dimension of space... and the example you just gave proves exactly what I was saying... (every point in space is also a point in time, and vice versa... and every point represents a single intersection within the four-dimensional spacetime).

Now, let's assume we travel at infinite speed... what happens then?
What happens is that we are simultaneously present at every single point in space, and time has essentially... STOPPED.
Which means that time is a dimension of space...

Obviously, everything we use to describe the world we inhabit is relative and lacks an absolute value... so our "time" and our "space"... how we perceive anything depends entirely on the observer and their, uh... position. Which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time.🙄

Of course, we don't have to agree with him, but we certainly can't afford to ignore him!

Since Kant isn't exactly known for his sense of humor, let's turn to Balog instead:

Does the arrow of time travel in a straight line, or does it curve?
If it moves in a straight line, there is no hope of ever encountering a single moment again as something recognizable—unless, of course, it collapses upon itself, crashing into some absurd, egg-shaped loop of infinity.
But if the arrow of time curves, then according to every rule of math and physics, time would eventually loop back to meet itself, where the beginning meets the end...

Nowadays, we just take linear time for granted, but that’s really just a modern invention, just as arbitrary as any other contemporary myth. 😉