I know everything about everything. - Debate me about anything. (50 cent, member)

~~The Unfan~~ · 12-13-2008, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

Why doesn't something need to be witnessed to happen?

So did the anything ever come into being? I don't think the first life form witness what was before it.

Quote:

How can you have an object without a subject?

Grass.

Quote:

Now you're trying to distinguish between relativity and "real" time, but how can you have any sort of objective time... consider if the universe were a movie and you were God watching it. You could play it in fast forward or slow it down, and it would be the exact same, none of the characters in the movie would be able to tell. It only makes sense to talk about the "speed of change" if your perception relies on that very change.

This assumes a whole lot. It assumes a force outside of the natural universe. One for which there is no such proof, therefore one I will not consider the effects of on the natural universe.

cardboard adolescent · 12-13-2008, 11:59 AM

No it doesn't. I was just showing that all measurements are relative to the observer. Time is the most subjective thing there is, it has to be experienced or it means nothing.

right-track · 12-13-2008, 01:00 PM

Unfan, CA is right.
What he's saying is that time is relative to the individual.
And he's not talking hypothetically either. It's a scientific fact.

anticipation · 12-13-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

No it doesn't. I was just showing that all measurements are relative to the observer. Time is the most subjective thing there is, it has to be experienced or it means nothing.

i agree, except replace experienced with accepted, and now we're in business.

time has to be accepted as real by an entity for it to become real. if someone thinks "i don't need a measurement by which to govern the span of my existence, so what's the point in creating one?", then time means nothing.

dac · 12-13-2008, 01:19 PM

Ok Unfan, Dwayne Wade or LeBron James?

cardboard adolescent · 12-13-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anticipation

i agree, except replace experienced with accepted, and now we're in business.

time has to be accepted as real by an entity for it to become real. if someone thinks "i don't need a measurement by which to govern the span of my existence, so what's the point in creating one?", then time means nothing.

this is a pretty moot point, but if time is subjective, then wouldn't the decision not to adopt time involve recognizing time as something which exists, albeit only on a subjective level? in which case, even by denying time you're affirming it. you can refuse to recognize time but you can't really refuse to experience it, except maybe through suicide.

anticipation · 12-13-2008, 01:43 PM

maybe i was trying to say that the decision was innate or unconcious, but since i don't believe in either of those theories or the semantics that go along with them, i'll just say that time is not necessarily something that you can actively deny, but something you just naturally ignore.

right-track · 12-13-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anticipation

maybe i was trying to say that the decision was innate or unconcious, but since i don't believe in either of those theories or the semantics that go along with them, i'll just say that time is not necessarily something that you can actively deny, but something you just naturally ignore.

Or until you die of old age.

I agree with you that time as we use it ie; 20.48 for this post...is an abstract concept.
But there's no way we can ignore time. If we didn't exist, time would continue in it's many forms, regardless.

anticipation · 12-13-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

If we didn't exist, time would continue in it's many forms, regardless.

that depends, do animals have the cognitive ability to recognize their own aging, or do they only know that they have become weaker without knowing why?

FaSho · 12-13-2008, 02:04 PM

Explain to me how it is logically possible to believe a god is a man or a woman and not a higher being that has no gender.

12-13-2008, 01:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
dac MB's Biggest Fanboy Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land Posts: 2,852	Ok Unfan, Dwayne Wade or LeBron James? __________________

12-13-2008, 11:59 AM	#12 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	No it doesn't. I was just showing that all measurements are relative to the observer. Time is the most subjective thing there is, it has to be experienced or it means nothing.

12-13-2008, 01:00 PM	#13 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,723	Unfan, CA is right. What he's saying is that time is relative to the individual. And he's not talking hypothetically either. It's a scientific fact.

12-13-2008, 01:43 PM	#17 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,565	maybe i was trying to say that the decision was innate or unconcious, but since i don't believe in either of those theories or the semantics that go along with them, i'll just say that time is not necessarily something that you can actively deny, but something you just naturally ignore.