Time doesn't exist, clocks exist.

Post Reply New Topic

I know we don't like to let things go to waste but, I'm not sure how much that matters - as in no new schematic is really being invoked. My sense of what you're saying is that things like radioactive decay could be effected by something along those lines, otherwise though if it has no outward effect its really a moot point. If everything froze, likely the oscillations would stop but even if they didn't for some reason and we came to find that the oscillations simply held the atom together rather than having any external effect, the observable effect of time would still be the same - ie. a sequence of events on a fixed scale (or at least fixed to our own corner of space), which would mean that time is still the reorganization of molecules, radioactive decay of atoms, and whatever the bubbling and cracking of dark energy turns out in terms of quirks, etc. (add any subatomic particles, free floating photons, neutrinos, etc. that I didn't mention for brevity).

Times change all the time, hence the change of clocks.

Temperature doesn't exist, thermometers exist. Discuss.

Speed doesn't exist, speedometers exist. Discuss.

Weight doesn't exist, scales exist. Discuss.

Clocks measure time just like thermometers measure temperature and speedometers measure speed. Time is just as real as temperature and speed.

thermometers are an arbitrary measure of temperature, but it does exist.
it is the radiative energy of an energized substance.
so the jiggling of molecules is a function of the stored energy that has been infused into it from it's environment.
when the "temperature" reaches -473 farenheit, then all activity stops and that is a true statement.



velocity is the relative compression and rarefaction of space between two objects.
speed is only relevant when measured between 2 objects. otherwise it is all relative, and impossible to calculate in this universe of sextillions of things.
it does not matter how fast you go, you will never move from the center of the universe (from your perspective).



weight is dependent on the gravitational pull of a nearby object.
mass however is constant.
you may have the idea that things are weightless in space, and that it true, but they do not vary in mass.
if you were hit in the head by a bowling ball at 20mph in interstellar space, it would smash your head precisely the same as it would on earth.

and time is a conceptual rate of change from one state to another state.

You forgot "length doesn't exist, but rulers, and tape measures do exist".

Temperature exists, or else everything would be frozen solid.

Speed exists, or else everything would stay in one place.

Weight exists, or else everything would float off into the Void.

Time exists, or else everything would happen all at once.


Besides, if none of these existed, we could not measure them.

heat exists or the big bang would never have happened. there would be nothing to be frozen.
heat does not exist at zero kelvin, although that temperature does not exist.



if speed did not exist (and therefore if it never existed), then the big bang would still be just a single point of universal mass and would never have exploded into the outward expansion.




weight is dependent on gravity, but mass is not. if there was no force causing it to float off, then it would stay where it was forever.



if time did not exist, nothing would ever have happened.

If nothing had ever happened, time would not exist.

To be is to do. —Socrates
To do is to be. —Plato
Do-be-do-be-do. —Sinatra
Yabba-dabba-doo. —Flintstone.

I might try it this way.

If there's no matter as far as the eye can see does that mean matter doesn't exist?
If you have a full stomach, does that mean hunger doesn't exist?
If you're having a great time out with friends or a significant other does it mean loneliness doesn't exist?

While I can't say it's not out there, maybe someone could enlighten me otherwise, I haven't encountered a robust explanation as to how space isn't infinite and past/future equally so. We can say things about our local universe but it's all we know. If we think we're experiencing timelessness it just means that the nearest place in infinity where another universe is blooming or spread out on it's last puffs of energy is too far away to be observed or felt. That makes such timelessness a much more local and subjective issue and I'd figure that you can't experience timelessness so much as having a body or any sort of cyclical activity going on in your being.

Timelessness, if it could be encountered asymptoticly, would be like a sheer wall and you could only ever approximate it with increasingly bizarre dilations of perception but never actually touch it and if you could it would likely be permanent. Thinking of our own universe you'd be a trace of photons - not much meat left in that.