Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Time for a comment?

I found this on another forum and thought it might interest Orac.

"Time is subjective to an individual, if there was no us or life with a brain, time would simply ''vanish'' and be immaterial , the universe does not need time to exist, we do not need time to exist to exist, time is subjective invention in the aim of immortality. Time is no more than a measuring aid."

A nice philosophical idea, so now all you need to define is when the first brain actually appeared

So the universe isn't 13 Billion years old it's only as old as the first brain you define and you are going to call this science?

I think I prefer GOD and creation .... hmm does that mean I prefer religion over philosophy

Whats even cooler under this is, I can argue my brain is the only one that matters (until I exist I can't be sure any other brain was before me). The universe didn't exist till my brain was born, and history is therefore nothing more than a figment of my imagination. The converse is I made everything when my brain was born .... yes I am a GOD and invented everything.

It's fun to play around with this bit => time would simply ''vanish'' and be immaterial

That is the crux of the problem with this sort of philosophy it gives humans (AKA thought) a special role above everything else ... how very stupidly human ego.

Are they really trying to suggest a plant for example has no concept of time if an animal with a brain isn't around?

Was this a serious argument, comes out more like a plot from a Matrix movie .... Nothing exists until you do ... prove it ain't so ... Matrix 5 the sequel.

Sadly, it is a serious argument. You will notice, though, that: "the universe does not need time to exist", so he is trying to leave an escape from the accusation that he is saying the universe came into existence with the first consciousness.

Bill S. your argument is very very strong . Nature always select
optimal solution. People do not always feel optimal solution .

However take a tree it has growth rings which infer time passage and they exist with or without a consciousness. There will be millions of such things on non conscious objects.

So even if you claim time it is not needed without a consciousness it is clear it does exist without it!

Crackpots do the same with QM and give the observer a special role, only you can use the background radiation as an observer and they end up grasping at the same straws.

So it's clear such ideas are philosophy because we have data outside the consciousness exists condition. In science you want to cover all known conditions, not just the ones which involve "consciousness exists".

If we used the above you could argue why study black holes or the universe light years away, you or my consciousness is never going to get there in our lifetime. The reverse argument for science is those things may shed light on here and now physics and hence the same argument runs for time.

AR2 please delete Marosz's spam as usual. I have no issue if he wants to type something intelligent but this repeat spamming needs to stop.

Orac I will not add more to this TOPIC

many people have got wrong imagination about Time and Space
not Exit any UNLOGIC GENIUS ( all is very logic and it is calssica )

Like many of his ilk, this guy shifts his ground. His "fall-back" question when the going gets tough is:"Can anyone prove that ten minutes into the future exists?"

I have to say that I become involved in this sort of exchange only when thinking of counter arguments helps me to clarify my own thoughts. Pre was great for that if you could keep him from blowing his top.

You have got very good at applying first principles and logic now and can cut thru these pseudoscience junk arguments.

The proof of ten minutes into the future existing is easy, most layman do it hours in advance when they set an alarm clock. The prediction of all your frameworks says it's true that is all you need. Now all this crackpot needs to do is show an example when setting an alarm clock 10 minutes into the future doesn't work.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results” ... Albert Einstein

The is a classic example of a layman or crackpot not understanding the basic rules of science.

Science doesn't prove anything is right, it can only falsifies what is wrong. So the question is framed wrong, science does not have to prove ten minutes into the future exists our physical laws predict that is true. If he believes the physics laws are wrong what he must do is falsify them. The onus is on him to prove science is wrong not on science to prove itself right. Many of those types here do the same, they demand science prove something and don't get why everyone in science just ignores them.

When anyone asks you to "prove it to them" they aren't practicing science. You can show a calculation of an answer in science but that is not a proof it is a verification within a framework and depends on assumptions. We got into that on another thread, where multiple valid answers can exist and even use the same calculation.

In classical physics time exists by induction but its nature is unclear. In general relativity time exists as a required part of every point in space. In QM time becomes a fundamental quantity that exists for the wavefunction to exist for any observer. In most normal layman situations the three answers to any problem look exactly the same. So every framework in science plays time as a fundamental structure of the universe and hence it exists in The International System of Quantities (SI).

It is up to those who say that isn't right to falsify, not for science to prove it. Science will quite happily just use time like it always has until that happens