Saint Augustine said, "What, then, is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled."

...and is time, by definition, linear?

I have never heard any suggestion that time is demonstrably lacking in uniformity. The Almighty seems to have a steady foot on the accelerator pedal.

Is time linear? I'd have to back up a step and ask if time actually exists. Might it be an articifial construct of our meager minds? I also think we'd be hard pressed to actually find much in nature that is linear.

The notion that time does not exist is one of the hot topics in physics these days. See The End of Time : The Next Revolution in Physics by Julian B. Barbour.

I had started it but laid it aside for other pursuits. I intend to get back to it as time permits.

But if time does not exist, how will you get back to it?

if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled

According to Prof Urban Chronotis, of St Cedd's, Cambridge (UK) time is something that humans invented in order to stop everything happening at the same time.

Was that Prof's mother named Chronometer?

"If you’d like to know, I can tell you that in your universe you move freely in three dimensions that you call space. You move in a straight line in a fourth, which you call time, and stay rooted to one place in a fifth, which is the first fundamental of probability. After that it gets a bit complicated, and there’s all sorts of stuff going on in dimensions thirteen to twenty-two that you wouldn’t want to know about. All you really need to know for the moment is that the universe is a lot more complicated than you might think, even if you start from a position of thinking it’s pretty damn complicated in the first place."


_Mostly Harmless_
Douglas Adams {mhrip)

Time is a reflection of mathematics and a function of perspective (amongst others), so it can be linear.

Musick writes that time can be linear.

I don't dispute this point at all. To assert that something cannot have a certain attribute defies conventional rules of logic and proofs. I don't mean to defy probability by saying that time is not linear. I merely point out that we'd have a heck of a time proving anything about something we aren't sure exists in the first place.

But then again, after rereading a little Rene Descartes, I think perhaps this Internet/internet is just a boogeyman and the great master is tricking me into thinking I'm typing.

the concept of time existing--at least in abstract terms--is as integral to our existence as it is receptary. i'm not sure i understand, though, what time could conceivably be if *not linear? is it ever not quantifiable? and even if we do buy into the many worlds theories, would it not still be a [myriad of] linear function[s]?

btw, being partially of native american descent myself, i once read about an [N.A.] indian culture whose language included absolutely no provisions for the concept of past, present or future... anyone know something about this?

Brandon PM'd me to clarify my previous statement in this thread, and after reviewing my answer, I thought it best to regurgitate it here for ya'll, and I wanted our Bean to know that my intent of "thanking her for making my point" was with tongue firmly planted in cheek (the first time, anyway).


In a recent thread called "Defining the Beatles", Bean offered a number of (pardon the pun) "examples" of how music may be interpreted by mathematics (and I'm not sure why since she was really "proving" my point, not the one she intended), and that music is not an application of mathematics but a reflection.

The idea is about the same... that mathematics reflects that which exists... a way for us to understand... a definition for us to exist in... time is how we understand it. Of course, time actually is defined by the relativity of the planets within our solar system, the relationship of Earth to Moon orbits (with some minor mathematical adjustments every four years) blah, blah...

BTW - as a performer there is little point to reflecting music as mathematics, but as a teacher or student it is invaluable to do so. However, it is always definitive of a humans concept of time.

Time is a context is this case, one of many. There are "times" (all puns intended) when the value of this reflection is stronger, requires more concentration, communicates more intensely... as a performer fighting it or losing it is more obvious (to me) than a wrong note (not that there are any... but that is a whole other thing).

I thought it was possible that I was not clear in the formation of that little word construct, especially the "(amongst others) which was referring to: there are more functions than only perspective that effect its definition, not that the being amongst other (things/peoples) perspectives is part of the function of time (even so much as it actually is).

I love this line of thought and would be happy to hear about it more....

"What time is it?" someone asked Yogi Berra, and he replied, "You mean now?"

And this from legendary baseball pitcher Satchel Paige, who some claimed broke into the Big Leagues from the old Negro Leagues when he was close to 50 and still pitched his way to a Hall-of-Fame career!:

"How old would you be," Paige asked, "if you didn't know how old you was?"

Source: "Living Legends," Sports Illustrated, July 30, 2001 (current issue)

Thanks, Musick, for the public post. I'll respond in kind.

Musick writes that the value of this reflection is stronger, requires more concentration, communicates more intensely....

Maybe this is why it is so difficult to actually discuss. I'm also a devil's advocate who learns more fleshing out arguments by taking opposing views. One could doubt the existence of time because there isn't any empirical proof that it exists. Yes, what we measure as time is tied to the order of celestial bodies, but nature knows no time, really. Think of Heracleitus' idea of the omnipresence of change. Doesn't that only exist in our minds? Isn't it our memory alone that preserves the past and nothing physical?

Once upon a time I had a point worth making...

perhaps it's time to post what is considered by lexicographers to be an excellent definition of the word time, in our sense, from MW10:

a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

how helpful St. Augustine might have found this is left as an exercise for the student.

<<a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future>>

In other words,

"a non-spatial continuum that is measured in terms of a spatial continuum," or "a non-spatial continuum that is measured in terms of a spacial continuum which is itself susceptible to being measured through its existence in time"

*As I remember, with reference to time, Augustine allowed for the measurement of time--of "its" passing. He considered the present moment, in which time *passes, could be measured and time (at least the *concept") of time to be impossible.

On the other hand, Kant rejects time as a concept, a faculty of understanding, and describes it as an intuition, or, rather, as one of intuitions two forms of appearance--the other is space--which form the *subjective possibility of appearance. Time and space are the possibility of objective appearance: of events, both in terms of the object in flux and the flux in the object.

On the other hand, subject/object is itself concept.

Extrapolating from some Neoplatonism, time is not only linear and non-linear, it is a reciprocation of time and not-time.

Time for breakfast

Extrapolating from some Neoplatonism...

I wonder what kind of shadow *time would cast on the cave wall. And could somebody please loosen my chains, they are getting a little uncomfortable.

And could somebody please loosen my chains

There you go, dear, is that better?

It's all very simple, dear friends, time is all around you, it is how you move through it that makes all the difference!

Dear caradea (tautology of not) looking for your word "receptary" I found a bunch of contrived definitions that are mildly amusing:

PRAVITY: physical deformity ("no amount of make-up can help you
defy the Law of P.")
PREANTEPENULTIMATE: the fourth from last ("please hand me the p.
bottle from that shelf")
PREPUCE: foreskin ("the protein was painstakingly isolated from
10,000 kilo of p.")
PROLEGOMENA: preliminary remarks; long introductions ("writing
original p. to an article is quite difficult")
PROTEAN: infinitely variable ("there are indications that protein
folds are not p.")
PSILOSOPHER: superficial philosopher ("... and someone who has
limited knowledge of protein folds is a phi-psi-losopher")
PTARMIC: snot-promoting, sternutatory, errhine ("this protein
causes the p. symptoms in allergic reactions")
PURPURACEOUS: purple, purpurescent ("the heavy-metal derivative
had a deep p. colour")
PYGOPHILOUS: buttock-loving ("she's the living proof that fat is
a p. substance")
PYRIFORM: pear-shaped ("p. women get pregnant more easily than
apple-shaped ones, I read in the newspaper")
QUADRIGAMIST: someone who has married four times ("I say, is that
fellow really a q. ?")
QUAESITUM: objective; true value ("the ultimate q. is to measure
the q. of this quantity")
QUANTULUM: small quantity ("I always add a q. of BOG to my
crystallisation solutions")
QUASIHEMIDEMISEMICENTURY: one 16th of a century ("a typical PhD
takes a q.")
QUIDDITY: essence or nature of a thing ("once you've built your
skeleton, you've uncovered the q. of your protein")
QUIRE: set of folded sheets fitting one within another; collection
of 24 sheets of the same size ("the structure can best be described
as a beta-q.")
RECLIVATE: sigmoid, S-shaped ("if we plot X versus Y, we obtain
a r. curve")
RECREMENT: waste product, impurity; something secreted from the
body, then reabsorbed ("saliva is the best example of a r., for
most people anyway")
REDARGUTION: refutation ("if there doesn't exist a r. of a receptary
(unproved fact; postulate), that doesn't mean it's true")
REDDITION: translation, explanation ("could you render a r. of this
paragraph ?")
REPAND: having a wavy or undulating outline ("look how nicely r. my
mask has turned out")
RETICULUM: network ("thanks to Castor the whole bloody r. is down
again")
RETRAD: backward ("dummy, you've traced the whole chain r. !")
RETRORSE: bent backward or downward ("two of the sheets were r.")
RETROUSSE: turned up ("two of the sheets were r.")

<<I wonder what kind of shadow *time would cast on the cave wall. And could somebody please loosen my chains, they are getting a little uncomfortable. >>

<<There you go, dear...>>

Hold it, Wow! Brandon's teasing us! Since *he's the one in chains, perhaps he should tell us all about the shadow of time... But I can tell him *this, sooner or later it is cast on each of us.

<<I wonder what kind of shadow *time would cast on the cave wall. And could somebody please loosen my chains, they are getting a little uncomfortable. >>

<<There you go, dear...>>

Hold it, Wow! Brandon's teasing us! Since *he's the one in chains, perhaps he should tell us all about the shadow of time... But I can tell him *this, sooner or later it falls on each of us.

>I found a bunch of contrived definitions...

some of those are not so contrived. for an example, the root for protean (defined here as infinitely variable) is Proteus, a lesser god who had the ability to change form. quasihemidemisemicentury, on the other hand....

And the symptoms of syphilis are said to be Protean, because they can suggest so many other diseases. The
guy who wrote those was a scientist specializing in crystallography. Regrettably it is over a year since his last update.

What is time? The shadow on the dial, the striking of the clock, the running of the sand, day and night, summer and winter, months, years, centuries - these are but arbitrary and outward signs, the measure of time, not time itself. Time is the life of the soul.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Modern man thinks he loses something--time--when he does not do things quickly. Yet he does not know what to do with the time he gains--except kill it.
- Erich Fromm

God exists in eternity. The only point where eternity meets time is in the present. The present is the only time there is.
- Marianne Williamson

"Time takes too much time"
- 'The time is now', Moloko

The scale of things can make unexpected changes. First it was learned that Euclidean geometry was not reliable in infinite space, then it was found even less applicable in the ultraminute.Perhaps something similar applies to time. in our lives it is linear, but if we try to go backwards towards the beginning of time, we see it is impossible to speak of a beginning of time, because if there had been a "time" when there was no time, how could it have been created out of nothingness The same applies to God. If He has not always existed, how could He have been created? No use thinking about it.

No use thinking about it.

Oh, but Dr. Bill, it's such fun to think about it. I love wondering about things. Especially if I can't imagine myself getting the answer in the near future.

I just finished reading Sophie's World, and it made me start wondering about a lot of old things that I'd forgotten about.

i once read about an [N.A.] indian culture whose language included absolutely no provisions for the concept
of past, present or future...

I've been passively searching for a language that is without tense. I've found several references that show that Chinese / Mandarin does not have tense in the way we think about it. Anyone here know about how Chinese handles tense?

I've also found references that the Hmong language has no past or future tenses and that ancient Hebrew has no tense. There seems to be a lot of research floating about where linguists search for tense markers in tenseless texts (whereas readers of my writing are looking for sense markers in my senseless texts).

And if you want to learn more about detensing languages (tensed language, this site notes, is responsible for this mistaken metaphysical picture of temporal reality; therefore we ought to divest language of tenses so that we may conceive of temporal reality as it really is), check this site out: http://www.otago.ac.nz/philosophy/459/oldBtheory.html

ancient Hebrew has no tense

I thought they lived in them, out in the desert and all.

I just realized something while reading this thread that I never noticed before...time backwards is emit...hmmm.

time backwards is emit...hmmm

Mmmh. Time, sis? Draw, k. Cab, emit!

Okay, back to "Another One Bites the Dust"

(whereas readers of my writing are looking for sense markers in my senseless texts).

bloody hilarious, brandon =)
_____________________________________

i saw this in a magazine today, thought it was interesting:

"Has it occurred to anybody yet that ours may be the last generation to die? What a gyp! But think about it: We know what makes cells die, we know of cells that resist death (example: cancer), and we're learning fast how to manipulate cells. How long can it be before some bright MIT dork[sic] strings all that together and produces the line-edit in our genetic code that lets us theoretically live forever? Could be less than a generation away. Amazing. Our immortal descendants will be fascinated by us, will wonder what it was like knowing your story would have to end, what it was like to have to squeeze your entire life into just 100 years...then again, it may be the very imminence of death that forces us to step up the pace. Would you learn all earth's languages if you had an extra millenium, or would you play more Play-Station 2? Tortoises live significanly longer than we do, and look how they squander their extra time. Giant redwoods live for centiries, and what could be more sedentary? Death may be the best thing that ever happened to us...."

so much for "time is the fire in which we all burn" (who said that first, anyhow??)

Interesting post, caradea. I might brag to these immortal descendents that we enjoyed living in a world of plenty, whereas unless this MIT dork [sic] comes up with interplanetary travel, all these billions of timeless tenants will be living in Hong Kong-like apartments crammed to the limit.

Time is the fire: John Oliver???

I do not suffer boredom very often. But I cannot imagine eternal life being sufficiently free of boredom to avoid becoming a curse, not a blessing.

Oh, I just made sense of all this : You are all talking about one dimensional time, aren't you?

I'd go for the language learning option. It would be more fun than play station.

come and see the only teenager who prefers languages to stupid computer games.

Mmmh. Time, sis? Draw, k. Cab, emit!

Ah!...the Eternal Return.... ...time...emit...

Death may be the best thing that ever happened to us

I know I am deathless,
I know this orbit of mine cannot be swept by a carpenter's
compass,
I know I shall not pass like a child's carlacue cut with a burnt
stick at night.

I know I am august,
I do not trouble my spirit to vindicate itself or to be understood,
I see that the elementary laws never apologize,
(I reckon I behave no prouder than the level I plant my house by,
after all.)

I exist as I am, that is enough,
If no other in the world be aware I sit content,
And if each and all be aware I sit content.

One world is aware and by far the largest to me, and that is
myself,
And whether I come to my own to-day or in ten thousand or ten
million years,
I can cheerfully take it now, or with equal cheerfulness I can wait.

My foothold is tenon'd and mortis'd in granite,
I laugh at what you call dissolution,
And I know the amplitude of time.

--Walt Whitman, Song of Myself, verse 20, lines 404-421


There is no stoppage and never can be stoppage,
If I, you, and the worlds, and all beneath or upon their surfaces,
were this moment reduced back to a pallid float, it would
not avail in the long run,
We would surely bring up again where we now stand,
And surely go as much farther, and then farther and farther. --W.W., Song of Myself, 45: 1191-95

from Song of Myself (6-What is the grass?)

And now it seems to me the beautiful uncut hair of graves.

Tenderly I will use you curling grass,
It may be you transpire from the breasts of young men,
It may be if I had known them I would have loved them,
It may be you are from old people, or from offspring taken soon
out of their mothers' laps,
And here you are the mothers' laps.

This grass is very dark to be from the white heads of old mothers,
Darker than the colorless breasts of old men,
Dark to come from under the faint red roofs of mouths.

O I perceive after so many uttering tongues,
And I perceive they do not come from the roofs of mouths for
nothing.

I wish I could translate the hints about the dead young men and
women,
And the hints about old men and mothers, and the offspring taken
soon out of their laps.

What do you think has become of the young and the old?
And what do you think has become of the women and children?

They are alive and well somewhere,
The smallest sprout shows there is really no death,
And if ever there was it led forward life, and does not wait at the
end to arrest it,
And ceas'd the moment life appear'd.

All goes onward and outward, nothing collapses,
And to die is different from what any one supposed, and luckier.

from Passage To India (8: 185-211)

Ah more than any priest O soul we too believe in God,
But with the mystery of God we dare not dally.

O soul thou pleasest me, I thee,
Sailing these seas or on the hills, or waking in the night,
Thoughts, silent thoughts, of Time and Space and Death, like
waters flowing,
Bear me indeed as through the regions infinite,
Whose air I breathe, whose ripples hear, lave me all over,
Bathe me O God in thee, mounting to thee,
I and my soul to range in range of thee.

O Thou transcendent,
Nameless, the fibre and the breath,
Light of the light, shedding forth universes, thou centre of them,
Thou mightier centre of the true, the good, the loving,
Thou moral, spiritual fountain--affection's source--thou reservoir,
(O pensive soul of me--O thirst unsatisfied--waitest not there?
Waitest not haply for us somewhere there the Comrade perfect?)
Thou pulse--thou motive of the stars, suns, systems,
That, circling, move in order, safe, harmonious,
Athwart the shapeless vastnesses of space,
How should I think, how breathe a single breath, how speak, if
out of myself,
I could not launch, to those, superior universes?

Swiftly I shrivel at the thought of God,
At Nature and its wonders, Time and Space and Death,
But that I, turning, call to thee O soul, thou actual Me,
And lo, thou gently masterest the orbs,
Thou matest Time, smilest content at Death,
And fillest, swellest full the vastnesses of Space.

--Walt Whitman, all selections from Leaves of Grass.

It's a questionable command from Dylan; to not go gently into the night, is to try to avoid what seems right.
In the most expensive shopping area in Germany a 'clinic' opened recently where anti-aging professionals use the latest in age-reversal technology to try to slow down those nasty free-radicals in the body. This midlife obsession with holding up the hands of time is awful. How can one fear gracefully aging, topped off by a momentous event - being 'untethered'. After all, it's the chance catch more than a glimpse. People spending all their time thinking about how everyone is dying, should just live.

a questionable command from Dylan

Thanks Max for posting this, and for another perspective on a favourite poem, BY. I have tended to parse this as "rage against death, because the possibilities of life are so rich and varied" - in other words, very much along the lines of argument already discussed as to how the limiting function of death sets the premium by which we hold life dear.

If chickens laid diamonds we'd all be toothless millionaires

If chickens laid diamonds we'd all be toothless millionaires

C'mon, Mav... you know full well that if chickens laid diamonds, we'd all covet eggs.

yeahbut. There's hard-boiled and hard-boiled!

These posts reminded me of a poem that i learned in my AP english class (which remains to this day the only class--and the only teacher--that i believe was worthwhile...), but for the life of me i cannot remember the title, the author, or even a line sufficient to googlize it. perhaps someone can help:

in a nutshell, it was spoken by a lover to his fair maiden, with several stanzas detailing the ways he'd love to spend a thousand years on each part of her body, but the final stanza basically says "but hey, we're short on time, so let's get to the meat and potatoes".

the only thing that came to mind was "time is still a-flying", but it's not Herrick's work that i'm looking for.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

in response to Dylan, isn't it wonderful how for each and every perspective so effortlessly and artfully laid out before us, there's another offering a diametrically opposed point of view? i'll submit this, from one of my favorite poets:


The time you won your town the race
We chaired you through the market-place;
Man and boy stood cheering by,
And home we brought you shoulder-high.

To-day, the road all runners come,
Shoulder high-high we bring you home,
And set you at your threshold down,
Townsman of a stiller town.

Smart lad, to slip betimes away
From fields where glory does not stay
And early though the laurel grows
It whithers quicker than the rose.

Eyes the shady night has shut
Cannot see the record cut,
And silence sounds no worse than cheers
After earth has stopped the ears:

Now you will not swell the rout
of lads that wore their honours out,
Runners whom renown outran
And the name died before the man.

So set, before its echos fade,
The fleet foot on the sill of shade,
And hold to the low lintel up
The still-defended challenge-cup.

And round that early-laurelled head
Will flock to gaze the strengthless dead,
And find unwithered on its curls
The garland briefer than a girl's.

~AE Houseman

OTOH, i've always thought that he had his tongue firmly planted in cheek when he wrote this, so maybe it's not so different from _Do Not Go Gentle_ after all.

belligerentyouth>>>

People spending all their time thinking about how everyone is dying, should just live.

Amen, I say, but judging from the proliferation of self-help books on this subject, and the size of the bank accounts of their authors, I assume many find it hard to do so.
which brings to mind Pascal's observation, which I quote here:

"We never keep to the present. We recall the past; we anticipate the future as if we found it too slow in coming and were trying to hurry it up, or we recall the past as if to stay its too rapid flight. We are so unwise that we wander about in times that do not belong to us, and do not think of the one that does; so vain that we dream of times that are not and blindly flee the only one that is. The fact is that the present usually hurts. We thrust it out of sight because it distresses us, and if we find it enjoyable, we are sorry to see it slip away. We try to give it the support of the future, and think how we are going to arrange things over which we have no control for a time we can never be sure of reaching.

Let each of us examine his thoughts; he will find them wholly concerned with the past or the future. We almost never think of the present, and if we think of it, it is only to see what light it throws on our plans for the future. The present is never our end. The past and the present are our means, the future alone our end.
Thus we never actually live, but hope to live, and since we are always planning to be happy, it is inevitable that we should never be so."

Pascal was born in 1623 and died after a long illness in 1662.

Thanks for that quote, wordcrazy. It's a new one on me, and very interesting.

I try not to bring days-old threads back to the top, but I am now starting my real catching-up, and I have to say that I think this is one of the best threads we've ever had. I loved it all, from Dr. Bill's contrived quotations, to peoples' opinions, to the wonderful citations!
To Brandon: of course time exists, if the earth does!
Geez--all you have to do is observe changes all around you, in organic life, and geology, too!
To tsuwm: what would or could time be, if not linear?
(Please Send Private if you're ready for this thread to end.)

what would or could time be, if not linear?
Spatial.
And I don't care if the OED does say "spatial as opposed to time" ... what do they know, anyway, except what we tell them.
If time isn't spatial then why do authors and scientist talk about the space-time continuum and doors to other times and space portals and E =MC squared and all that stuff?
Huh? Huh?

>I found a bunch of contrived definitions...
>some of those are not so contrived ...
For another example, "quiddity". Some Gilbert and Sullivan song (can anyone help me recall which one?) rhymes it with avidity and rapidity. I wonder if quiddity was a word in ordinary use in those days, one the then-audience would recognize.

Quiddity is in my dictionary, but no date given. I am sure however that it is much older than Gilbert & Sullivan.

Two of the words you quote are in G&S "Patience"

BUNTHORNE
To stuff his conversation full of quibble and of
quiddity,
To dine on chops and roly-poly pudding with
avidity--
He'd better clear away with all convenient

quasihemidemisemicentury, on the other hand....(1/16 century, per wwh's definition) British musicians call an 8th note a "quaver". I undersatnd the terms for shorter notes (1/16th, 1/32nd, 1/64th, and 1/128th) are semiquaver, demisemiquaver, hemisimidemiquaver, and quasihemidemisemiquaver (whew). So the last would be 1/16th of a quaver.
(Edit: which fits right into our "time" subject.)

In reply to:

---

what would or could time be, if not linear?
Spatial.
And I don't care if the OED does say "spatial as opposed to time" ... what do they know, anyway,
except what we tell them.
If time isn't spatial then why do authors and scientist talk about the space-time continuum and doors
to other times and space portals and E =MC squared and all that stuff?
Huh? Huh?

---

the space-time continuum refers to the four "standard" dimensions; i.e., the three dimensions of space plus time, but. there appear to be "discontinuities" in the space-time continuum, such as the origin of space-time (the Big Bang, if you like). one explanation for this comes from Stephen Hawking (see 'A Brief History of Time') in the form of "imaginary time", which flows at right angles to ordinary time!
http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm

There is *nothing like a theory about an imaginary existence based on a relationship (ie. right angles) to a presumption of time being linear.

Musick : Welcome to my timeless world. wow

On Sunday last, we sang in church that great classic hymn with words by Isaac Watts with the stanzas, A thousand ages in thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun. Time, like an ever-rolling stream, Bears all its sons away; They fly, forgotten, as a dream Dies at the opening day. There was originally asnother stanza, now always omitted, between these two: The busy tribes of flesh and blood With all their lives and cares Are carried downwards by thy flood, And lost in following years.

An interesting conceit in this poetry, that it is Time that takes us off this mortal coil, rather than Death, or, eschewing abstraction, sickness, accident, or homicide or the instruments of the same. A rather deep metaphysical device, this transference of the agency of Death to Time.

Raising you one D, how about this expression, at once more down to earth and still theologically and metaphysically challenging, by Dr. Donne:

Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not soe,
For, those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill mee.
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones and soules deliverie.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better than thy stroake; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.

Philosophy aside, would you agree with me that the 8th line of this is a masterpiece? It's one of my favorite lines in all literature.

or if you'd like a graphic explaination about time-- and the big bang, try this..
long url has been deleted-- see tsumw post below for a shorter url to same url....
oh no, that's going to make the threads go wide...ok, I'll leave it up for a day or two, and then ditch it.

>the total cessation of existence

this thread may have set some sort of standard for staying on topic... but it has probably just been quordlepated.

>the total cessation of existence

this thread may have set some sort of standard for staying on topic...

First I read straying in place of "staying".

But more seriously: To ask whether time exists is to ask for begging the question, since existence can hardly be considered without implying time (and vice versa).
And time approaches linearity, like all continuously differentiable functions, at the infinitesimally short limit. Where human age is concerned, I favor logarithmic time.

Logarithmic time? Further explanation, please? Thank you.

since existence can hardly be considered without implying time (and vice versa).

Surely this is not so?

I am able to imagine an entity that ceases to exist at the identical point at which it is created. It would have existed for no time whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that it did not exist
Such an entity might, perhaps, find it necessary to invent time in order to make sense of its situation, but such an invention could only be a convention, without real existence, or real meaning outside the experience of the entity.

an entity that ceases to exist at the identical point at which it is created
I don't think I can agree with this. If something exists, it is. And if something is, then there has to be a time in which it exists, no matter how brief.
The situation you imagine may certainly be possible, but from my understanding, knowledge, and beliefs, I don't think you can say that something ceases to exist, unless it has already in fact existed.

[speculation alert]

here's a theory, and it's my theory: before the big bang there was no time (actually, there was virtually nothing). the big bang happened in no time at all. time started with the big bang and has been expanding (but you can't tell because everything is relative to the obvious observer) as the universe expands to fill the big void (see New Yorker link below). one day the universe will begin to contract and time (as we know it) will stop (this will also be the beginning of the end of the universe as we know it). that's the theory, and it's my theory. the fact that it makes no sense is a moot point and totally begs the question; ask a quantum mechanic.

ot, here is a shortened link if you want to remove that wiiiiiiiiide one...
http://www.cartoonbank.com/cartoonissue_closeup.asp?pf_id=46122&dept_id=1001

Actually it make as much sense as anything about the subject-- it sounds like you read the article in NYTimes science section yesterday-- (or came to NY and saw the show at the planeterium) i have done both, and the only meaning i find to time is either -- I am on time or late..

so time is, must be, three dimentional or else how could i , a three dimentional being, be on time!

Where human age is concerned, I favor logarithmic time.

That's a good term for it, wseiber. I've always thought of it as telescoping time, but logarithmic says it better.

Jackie: If something exists, it is. And if something is, then there has to be a time in which it exists, no matter how brief.


My whole point is that, if something exists, it is.
My hypothesis is something that comes into existence and ceases to exist at exactly the same point. The very fact that one can postulate the fact that it comes into being, and them ceases to be is a clear statement of its existence.
But time isn't part of my hypothesis! I see no reason why time has to be part of it. If so, how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? The very fact that this question is, in practical terms, unanswerable* is part of the reason why I am prepared to accept the possibility that time does not realy exist.

(*name any amount of time, and you can always halve it!)

There has to be a possibility that the "big bang" which started "time" (as per tsuwm) and that which ends "time" are an example of exactly the phenomenon that I have postulated.
In which case, "time" is, indeed,© a convention of ours, invented, as Prof. Chronotis stated, to stop everything from seeming to happen at the same time!

[clarification alert]

one day the universe will begin to contract and time (as we know it) will stop

tsuwm - I think I buy your theory, but I wanted to be sure how you meant the above. Following your description, I see time beginning after that big ol' bang, and expanding as the universe does. But does time stop when the universe begins contracting, or does time just begin to contract at that point, only stopping when we get to the final Big Squeeze? If time stops when the universe begins contracting, when does the contraction happen?

[flashback alert] when does the contraction happen? how far apart are the contractions? how long do they last? Hey - maybe it's all just one very, very long birthing process - but what's being born?

And after the Big Squeeze, where the hell are we all going to find parking spaces?

I've always been wary of Western Civilization's perspective on the existence of time. I'm not sure it exists or not. If it does exist, I'm not sure its linear (some people, while looking across their flat fields, figured the Earth was flat, too). But I do have a much surer sense (within myself, mind you; I've got no empirical support to provide) that if something has a beginning, it *must have an ending. The only things eternal, I figure, are things that always have been. Something cannot begin existence and then last forever. If time began, it surely will end. If time is forever, it must have existed forever.

(I feel the same about my own existence; I (my soul) was created at birth and will cease to exist sometime in the future OR I've always been around but, like everyone else, have a lousy memory of my pre-birth existence. As an optimist, I prefer the latter idea.)

But time isn't part of my hypothesis! I see no reason why time has to be part of it. If so, how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? The very fact that this question is, in practical terms, unanswerable* is part of the reason why I am prepared to accept the possibility that time does not realy exist.

AUGH! The question "how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? " isn't unanswerable! Just because we may not be able to measure it or name it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! Mercy--
if we based our theory on that, we'd have to say that anything shorter than the shortest duration we have a name and measuring capability for, doesn't exist! That is--
let's say that a second was the shortest amount of time that we have named and measured. Would we then say that any length of time shorter than a second does not exist?
Given what we know now, no! So, I am extrapolating that, down beyond what we know of measuring time today.

And besides, if time truly isn't part of your hypothesis, then there is no need to have asked that question.

I still say that if something exists, it exists in a period of time. And that goes for tsuwm's Before the Big Bang theory, too: there was something there, that all of these celestial (isn't that a lovely word?) bodies were formed from. So, I think there was time, then, and probably also changes of some kind, that marked the passage of time. Even if it was nothing more than all the little electrons and quarks and things moving in their little orbits, something happened.

I think that if anything changes, that is indication that time has passed. Hmm--I was going to say that if a true vacuum existed, then perhaps there wouldn't be time inside it. But as far as the Big Bang theory goes, all this mass couldn't have suddenly sprung into being from a vacuum! It just couldn't have. But since I can't quite get my mind around the concept of a universe that contains a vacuum, with...something...affecting it from outside, let me go here: let's say that scientists have created a perfect vacuum inside a container. Is there time inside that container? I say yes! If light falls on it, and changes with the turning of the earth, that's a change inside the container. Okay, let's say the container is opaque: what about changes in temperature, or in whatever the container is resting on? Gravity shouldn't affect the vacuum, but changes in temperature might, if they affect the container by altering its size slightly.

I don't think we can stop time. Not today, but possibly in the distant future. I don't think time will ever run backward, though it may eventually become possible for humans to travel back through it. Whew, what an exercise!
Cool discussion!

jackie jobates there was something there...

yes, but it wasn't spatial, and it follows there was no time. it was pure energy. this is where Einstein led us, but even he didn't want to believe it -- he introduced a cosmic fudge factor... the "greatest blunder" of his scientific career.

In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum,
a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no
sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious
vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning,
but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no
data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything
about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a
trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in
the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of
the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of
philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very
beginning.

- Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize winning physicist