Following on from this msn convo: plaid says: time goes so slow plaid says: and so fast at the same time. Ben says: i find that it goes slow at bad bits and fast at good bits Ben says: but not at the same time plaid says: ... plaid says: not at the same time? Ben says: it never goes slow AND fast at the same time plaid says: oh. plaid says: well, talking about time doing anything at the same time is kind of nonsensical, i suppose. Ben says: heh Ben says: can anything happen at the same time? plaid says: but, this week is rather a rubbish week, so it's been dragging. nevertheless i can look at it and say, it's wednesday already. woah. plaid says: um... yes? plaid says: i think you're sitting in wycombe and i'm sitting in nowheresville at the same time. Ben says: ah but, is this wycombe time the same as your nowheresville time? plaid says: what is time anyway? plaid says: does it even exist? Ben says: it exists as much as length and width and height does plaid says: do Ben says: that too Ben says: anyway, show me width Ben says: if you can do that, then you can show me time too So, what's all this time stuff about? Let me know.
Ah that important philosophical question: "How long is a peice of string?" Or the rephrased version I hear all the time: "How much do I have to write in the exam?"
[quote:c3ddc7fd43="spiky"] Or the rephrased version I hear all the time: "How much do I have to write in the exam?"[/quote:c3ddc7fd43] That's generally my statement or at least when is the coursework due...because that week generally flies by and suddenly it's due the next day... At the moment time, as in days, fly by quickly, while time, as in the time until our next break, seems to be creeping further away. :roll:
[quote:6b84c35535="Buzzfloyd"]Plaid needs to read about the theory of relativity.[/quote:6b84c35535] I think the conversations explains some of it quite well, though perhaps unknowingly. P.S. Also, just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there. We can all be keenly aware fo time, at times.
[quote:5dbeb1c95d="Maljonic"]P.S. Also, just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there.[/quote:5dbeb1c95d] Painfully proven by my living room table leg and my right pinky toe on the way to the bathroom at night.
But, is time a thing or a description? You can take all the atoms in the universe and grind them into dust, but would you find a single grain of time? Would you find a grain of height, width or depth, the other 3 (easily recognisable) dimensions? I don't think you would. I believe time is a description. It is how an object behaves rather than something that object has. We can quantify that behaviour into seconds, minutes, years etc, but even that is only in reference to something else, such as the properties of a radioactive decay or the journey of the earth round the sun. And I think that is how we become aware of time, as a reference between other events rather than actually touching it*. Much in the same way that you are aware of length as a reference to other things. *This sentence was nigh on impossible for me to convey properly what I mean, still not 100% happy with it, hopefully it's clear. This hunter-gatherer language isn't helping my debate...
I see time as a tool, to make life easier. It would be no good turning up for work whenever you feel like it, and expecting to get paid however much you wanted. Well, actually, it would be really, really good, but if everyone did it the world would soon become rather chaotic. Even more than it already is. Hours, minutes etc are just a human invention, but I suppose past, present and future are real. Or are they? 8) [size=12:52c6ba5d46][/size:52c6ba5d46]
[quote:9ca7702166="Electric_Man"][quote:9ca7702166="Maljonic"]P.S. Also, just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there. We can all be keenly aware fo time, at times.[/quote:9ca7702166] But, is time a thing or a description? You can take all the atoms in the universe and grind them into dust, but would you find a single grain of time? Would you find a grain of height, width or depth, the other 3 (easily recognisable) dimensions? I don't think you would. I believe time is a description. It is how an object behaves rather than something that object has. We can quantify that behaviour into seconds, minutes, years etc, but even that is only in reference to something else, such as the properties of a radioactive decay or the journey of the earth round the sun. And I think that is how we become aware of time, as a reference between other events rather than actually touching it*. Much in the same way that you are aware of length as a reference to other things. *This sentence was nigh on impossible for me to convey properly what I mean, still not 100% happy with it, hopefully it's clear. This hunter-gatherer language isn't helping my debate...[/quote:9ca7702166] I think that it doesn't have to be a 'thing' in a physical sense to exist, just the fact that we are aware of it makes it exist, for me at least. It's a bit like love in that way, we can't grind that to dust either, or prove that it exists, but no one would say it doesn't exist. Obviously seconds etc are made up by humans, but other organisms experience time too I'm sure.
[quote:3e21899f45="KaptenKaries"][quote:3e21899f45="Maljonic"]P.S. Also, just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there.[/quote:3e21899f45] Painfully proven by my living room table leg and my right pinky toe on the way to the bathroom at night.[/quote:3e21899f45]Sounds like something a physics professor might say.