Time?

[Your Computer]

I'm confused. At first, you're saying it's impossible for something without a conscious to exist without another conscious, for example, humans. Then at the end, are you saying something without a conscious exists without another conscious (humans)? I might be reading this wrong but it seems like you're going against what you said.

If that's how you translate what i posted, then i understand why you are confused. Let me try to put it in simpler terms, though it may not have the same impact.

A conscious demands self-awareness.
Only conscious entities can act on their own.
"Time" is unconscious, therefore time cannot act on its own and is not aware of itself.
A conscious above "time" makes "time" act.
Humans and matter within this universe are restricted by "time," therefore humans are not the conscious entity that manipulates and controls or creates "time."

What are your options to counter my argument? That time is conscious? Then how will you prove that time is aware of itself? That unconscious entities are capable of action, even though action is an expression of a thought, and a thought is an attribute of a conscious? Stick with a world of paradoxes and contradictions? Then i would leave that to you to sort it all out.

[Danny Boy]

Why do people have the tendency to complicate what is simple? in my point of view. awareness does not define time. the mind does not define anything. saying that awareness is what defines time is like saying a water fall will stop flowing if we aren't looking at it.

things are already in motion whit or whiteout us.

all we do is to view a portion of those movements.

time can exist whiteout a "public".

like a river whit no fish. the only difference is that we wouldn't know how really fast it would go because we wouldn't be there to measure it.

[Statyk]

What I am basically saying is what is known as "time" now, was thought up of by and for humans. Perhaps if humans never existed, where would "time" be? Would the universe just stop? No, of course not. Everything moves whether we exist or not. So the IDEA of time (24 hours, days, months, etc.) was created by humans to get a better understanding of how the universe moves. Movement would still persist without our input. Time is not aware of its existence, but it still exists. Otherwise we would all be "frozen".

[failedALIAS]

Wibbly-Wobbly Timey-Wimey Stuff!!!
Fuck all of you!

[Your Computer]

Why do people have the tendency to complicate what is simple? in my point of view. awareness does not define time. the mind does not define anything. saying that awareness is what defines time is like saying a water fall will stop flowing if we aren't looking at it.

things are already in motion whit or whiteout us.

all we do is to view a portion of those movements.

time can exist whiteout a "public".

like a river whit no fish. the only difference is that we wouldn't know how really fast it would go because we wouldn't be there to measure it.

Why do you try to simplify things without understanding? Things may already be in motion, but in the dimension of time that we fall under, things can only move forward in time. Therefore everything that is in motion was not always in motion. Which would lead back to my statement.

I am uncertain of what you mean by "awareness defining time," but i don't recall making a statement that could be linked to a "waterfall will stop moving if we stop staring at it."

What I am basically saying is what is known as "time" now, was thought up of by and for humans. Perhaps if humans never existed, where would "time" be? Would the universe just stop? No, of course not. Everything moves whether we exist or not. So the IDEA of time (24 hours, days, months, etc.) was created by humans to get a better understanding of how the universe moves. Movement would still persist without our input. Time is not aware of its existence, but it still exists. Otherwise we would all be "frozen".

If there was no noticable restriction (that only things in this dimension of time can only move forward in time), would you not be able to so-called time travel with ease? Also, if there existed no such thing as time, how could you therefore be frozen in time?

When you say "idea of time" you're really talking about "measurement of time." A measurement of time always requires a subjective reference point, or you would not be able to measure time. Yet, would you say water does not exist because we can measure it in gallons? For how can you measure something that doesn't exist? Can a person look into another person's mind and say, "Your idea is 'this' big"? Instead, understanding in this fashion requires reference from reality, even if the measurement itself is subjective.

[Statyk]

No, time travel is not possible because in reality, progress in life and organisms is not technically "saved". There is no timeframe.

One does not simply

Put the universe in reverse.

Time is not a physical entity, but have you not gone through your life telling others that "I will be over in 15 minutes"? It's not existent physically in a world-sense, but it exists in our minds, much like math. It is something to aid in understanding and organization. Am I wrong?

[Your Computer]

No, time travel is not possible because in reality, progress in life and organisms is not technically "saved". There is no timeframe.

One does not simply

Put the universe in reverse.

Time is not a physical entity, but have you not gone through your life telling others that "I will be over in 15 minutes"? It's not existent physically in a world-sense, but it exists in our minds, much like math. It is something to aid in understanding and organization. Am I wrong?

Progress not being saved is an interesting way of saying that this dimension of time can only move forward. However, if time's existence is entirely dependent on our minds, then we can definitely say that progress is saved, even if subjective. So, technically, you would at least be able to travel back in time and therefore claim time travel is possible.

Measurement of time is indeed practical in our daily lives. Measurement of time is indeed subjective. But the observable restriction that we call "time" cannot be denied. It's like trying to deny gravity, since gravity and time are said to be related.

[Zaffre]

I don't want my mind fried, so I'll just say that if I punched myself in the nose I would swear because I was hurt. My action in the present affected what would happen in the future. If I had not punched myself in the nose, I would not have reacted, thus changing the future.

SCIENCE.

[Ghieri]

I don't want my mind fried, so I'll just say that if I punched myself in the nose I would swear because I was hurt. My action in the present affected what would happen in the future. If I had not punched myself in the nose, I would not have reacted, thus changing the future.

SCIENCE.

That's not so much time as it is memory. You tried an action, observed the reaction, considered it negative, and stored the negative action-reaction data in your memory, making you less likely to do it again.

I'm not sure that time has any effect on that other than the ambient "Go forward" effect.

[failedALIAS]

I don't want my mind fried, so I'll just say that if I punched myself in the nose I would swear because I was hurt. My action in the present affected what would happen in the future. If I had not punched myself in the nose, I would not have reacted, thus changing the future.

SCIENCE.

That's not so much time as it is memory. You tried an action, observed the reaction, considered it negative, and stored the negative action-reaction data in your memory, making you less likely to do it again.

I'm not sure that time has any effect on that other than the ambient "Go forward" effect.

Hey man, let Zaffre have this one.