does anybody get this?

[yoyoyo12]

NO SUCH THING AS TIME.

There is no such thing as time. Time does not exist and it never has. Humans are just organisms, biologically progressing. We are just a part of the universe's expansion and a key part in energy transfer. If you think about it, every step, every sound, everything we do “uses” energy, but also has a result. So maybe if I scream, it echoes and disturbs some birds, those birds fly away doing something else, which affects another thing, and so on. That scream may only affect me and the birds that I know of. But maybe another animal heard it? Maybe that animal is now changed its mind about a choice it was about to do, which in turn changes that creatures entire future because every choice matters. EVERY SINGLE choice. If you look at the world as ONE, we are all just ONE speices doing what WE do, which is why humans are all basically the same when it comes down to biological functions and needs. Every other species does what THEY do. The plants do what THEY do. So on and so forth. But this is exactly why the world is so dynamic, it is because every “living” thing affects the world in its own unique way that on a large scale the entire world is affected. That is why every “day” is so different and will never be the same. We are all just organisms interacting, and interacting, and interacting all with the same outcome. Energy perpetuation. All other factors in our life that we deem important and value, are in fact irrelevant and matter the LEAST, because we are here to keep the energy flowing. This is why there is no such thing as TIME. Time is a system we established to organize our days accordingly, but when it comes right down to it what separates one day from another? Nothing, the illusion we have set in our minds that we call time. The past, present, and future are all irrelevant also because the “PAST” is never going to happen again, and the future is “still to come”. But if you are educated enough to realize that the PRESENT, PAST, and FUTURE all have one thing in common. They are in your HEAD! The past is relative to YOU, and ONLY you. Because the only person's past that is important is YOUR OWN. This is because it is literally in your head, every choice you make, or everything you observe using your five senses is stored in your head. YOU are your own unique person which is why YOU know best, whats best for YOU. So if you move, lets say a pencil sitting on your desk, from one spot to another. Your brain stores this and YOU know this as the PAST. When really it doesn't matter if it HAPPENED because the choice you made to move that pencil has an affect on something else, and that has an affect on another thing, and so on. So the past is irrelevant to the PRESENT because it will NEVER happen again. You can attempt to RE-do that scenario. To RE-move that pencil, sure, but then again it will not be EXACTLY the same, and it cant because factors in our environment are constantly changing. Maybe not in your room? Things might not seem to be changing, but if we look at the WORLD as a whole something is different NOW than it was when you last moved that pencil, therefore the PAST will never ever ever happen. Ever. It doesn't matter anyways because that choice has already been made and has already has its little affect on the world, and all you can do now is see if the outcome was bad for YOU as an organism, or good for YOU. The words good and bad are also relative to you because whats good for one person may not be good for another. Now what is the future then? The FUTURE, is simply a long chain of “cause and affect” controlled by choices made in the PRESENT! The present IS every choice you make. It IS every movement of your body, every breath, everything. Everything you do has an affect on another. That is why the future is ALSO in your head, because if you WANT to be something, or DO something in the future, you literally have to create a path there. How do you create that path? CHOICES! Making choices that you know the outcome to is the only way to link them together and reach a designated point in the future/your head. All successful people do this with out thought, but a LARGE LARGE LARGE amount of people don't understand and that is WHY they are so unhappy. We have set up societies all over the “world” where we LIMIT our selves with laws and pointless mind clogging propaganda and advertising that is irrelevant to REALITY.


the hardest part of writing this is that everything is so hard to explain using words. my point of view is TOTALLY different that you can word.. but i triedddddddd

[Donkey]

I understand completely what you mean. And it is something to think about...

But what is the definition of the word time you are referring to?

[yoyoyo12]

well im trying to get people to change their perspective on "time"

we both know time as "oh its 2 am!" or "today is April 21st!" but that isnt necessarily true cuz like... time was invented by humans. We are just animals too after all, and we are kind of LOSTTT in stupid things such as fashion, glamour, money, time, etc.... And if TIME existed then it would be how we see it as: the past, present, and future.

but what im trying to show is that there is NO SUCH THING. like the past is in your head (just a bunch of memories). If anybody tells you what happened to THEM that is their past that you are hearing, and storing as a memory, but its irrelevant to YOU as an individual organism because it doesn't affect you directly.

The future, is also just in your head. Its choices you PLAN to make, and then act on, that BUILD your future. So it doesnt actually "exist".


I can summarize this in a simple sentence.
Thats just the way it IS. it JUST is. We as people look for a reason for everything.. but it just IS.

past = memories [YOUR memories or other people's memories or EVERYBODY's memories put together (history text books?), thats all it is, looking at it from a biological point of view the past is just a series of memories/choices that have affected the world]

present = everyyyyy choice that you are currently making


future = choices/affects linked together having a certain outcome (desirable or not)





ughh its SO hard to express things with words! loool i srsly dunno how to

but just THINK. all i can suggest. THINK THINK THINK and ur gnna figure so much shit out its crazy. lol

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Time does exist, as a human construct, but also as the "fourth" dimension of space that we can experience. So far, we've theorized the "zero" dimension all the way up to the tenth dimension, which encompasses all space, all time, and all possibilities of multiple infinite universes. Yayyy :D

Here's a video that explains it way better than I could.

JkxieS-6WuA

ySBaYMESb8o

[Perseus]

Well Mr. Yo-yo, time techniclaly exists because in our time based system, when you go into outer-space, time slows down than what we classify as "normal" time.

Also, the past, look into a telescope and point it 5 million light years away and what do you see? The past because that light has not reached us yet, so it is not always just in your mind.

And for future reference, could you please like put gaps between your paragraphs because it is easy to get lost in your massive paragraph.

[Curthose93]

Well Mr. Yo-yo, time techniclaly exists because in our time based system, when you go into outer-space, time slows down than what we classify as "normal" time.

Also, the past, look into a telescope and point it 5 million light years away and what do you see? The past because that light has not reached us yet, so it is not always just in your mind.

That doesn't prove that time exists. That only proves that light energy being produced by far away stars right now hasn't reached Earth yet. Things "take time" as we humans think of it, but time doesn't actually exist as a force in the universe. You can't fold time and you can't travel through it, because it is only a concept used to keep track of shit.

[Perseus]

Well, worm holes are, in away, what you just said CUrthose, but we do not know if worm holes exist so Im not going to start spweing stuff out.
But, what I saw saying was that he said that time does not exist but if you look at the Andromeda(?) Galaxy, you will see the past.

[Curthose93]

Well, worm holes are, in away, what you just said CUrthose, but we do not know if worm holes exist so Im not going to start spweing stuff out.
But, what I saw saying was that he said that time does not exist but if you look at the Andromeda(?) Galaxy, you will see the past.

You don't see the past. You see the reflection of light that "takes time" to bounce of the matter in Andromeda and radiate out to us here on Earth. That is, the light from Andromeda doesn't magically teleport to Earth immediately after it is relfected.

If, for example, Andromeda was destroyed 2.5 million years ago, then it ceased to exist 2.5 million years ago. We are seeing light reaching our eyes that was reflected off of material in that galaxy 2.5 million years ago. We are not literally seeing through time into the past. The universe only exists as energy and matter(and nothing), and the processes that these things go through create a basis for the illusion of a controlling force called "time".

Time is like a kind of pseudo-force. It doesn't exist itself, but it appears to exist based on our observations of other actual forces.

And wormholes have nothing to do with what I said. Wormholes are "shortcuts through space and time", and since time doesn't exist(I think), wormholes don't exist(I know you don't assert that they do) and are totally separate from anything I've said.

[Perseus]

I know how we see because I know that the speed of light travels, we see how long for it to get to us. Im just saying, by seeing the light reaching our eyes, we are seeing what that galaxy or soemthing in space looked like then, so we are technically seeing in the past of the universe because we havew not recieved that new light. Ugh, it'd be easier for to explain what Im tryign to explain in person, but I can't do that, so you have that.

[Curthose93]

I know how we see because I know that the speed of light travels, we see how long for it to get to us. Im just saying, by seeing the light reaching our eyes, we are seeing what that galaxy or soemthing in space looked like then, so we are technically seeing in the past of the universe because we havew not recieved that new light. Ugh, it'd be easier for to explain what Im tryign to explain in person, but I can't do that, so you have that.


No, I understand what you mean now, but I mean to say that we are not technically seeing into the past, because the past only exists in the form of memory, and inference or whatever. You can't technically see into the past, you can only do so in a poetic, or metaphorical sense.

[A.J.]

Its technically true, but its just theory. Time is man-made but it does exist.

[INFERNO]

First, yoyoyo12, this is not too important but each time someone says there are 5 bodily senses, I tell them to think. There are 7 senses: the usual 5 plus balance (by vestibular system among other areas) and sense of the locations of your limbs and yourself in space.

Onto the real debate, time does exist. What we perceive as a second, hour, etc... may be incorrect, perhaps our measurements of quantifying time are wrong, that's possible. However, when you look at the world, such as people aging, that is an example of some passage of time. Consider the Doppler Effect or having two people at different points on Earth, assuming it's completely flat for where they are with nothing in the way to obstruct their view, if they are at different distances to a moving object, one will see the object pass them first. It doesn't matter how great the difference is between the time it takes for the second person to have the object pass them as long as there is a difference.

I know how we see because I know that the speed of light travels, we see how long for it to get to us. Im just saying, by seeing the light reaching our eyes, we are seeing what that galaxy or soemthing in space looked like then, so we are technically seeing in the past of the universe because we havew not recieved that new light. Ugh, it'd be easier for to explain what Im tryign to explain in person, but I can't do that, so you have that.

This makes very good sense.

No, I understand what you mean now, but I mean to say that we are not technically seeing into the past, because the past only exists in the form of memory, and inference or whatever. You can't technically see into the past, you can only do so in a poetic, or metaphorical sense.

If you have two galaxies, very far apart so that the light from one galaxy reaches the other and due to the distance traveled, the observing galaxy sees an image of the past of the giving galaxy. In this sense, you can see into the past. If you say you cannot, then you would be implying that light would get to both galaxies instantaneously, which is not what occurs. In saying that you don't see into the past implies that time is independent upon distance traveled.

We cannot phyiscally travel back to the past to view the past, that I agree with. We can play a movie, rewind it then watch previous parts but that's not physically being in the past, although, it is the closest we have that doesn't require memory of the events.

But, if time doesn't exist, then I assume people don't age? I assume that the Doppler Effect doesn't exist? I also assume, that you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or have any other bodily senses as in order to do so, there is a brief passage of time for the sensations to be processed.

As I said, I believe time exists, however, I find it perfectly reasonable that our methods of the units we use may be wrong. What we say is an hour or a day may in fact be wrong.

That doesn't prove that time exists. That only proves that light energy being produced by far away stars right now hasn't reached Earth yet. Things "take time" as we humans think of it, but time doesn't actually exist as a force in the universe. You can't fold time and you can't travel through it, because it is only a concept used to keep track of shit.

Bold part implies time exists.
Underlined part is contradicted by the part in bold.
Underlined and bold part implies that we cannot travel in the future of time, which as far as I can tell, is possible. A demonstration: read THISSSSS then read.....





THISSSSSS

There was a brief passage in time between that. Very small but time nonetheless.

[Curthose93]

Look, Inferno, I think it would help if you gave me a really thorough definition of what you mean by "time". Your arguments just make no sense to me, so there is obviously some kind of misunderstanding.

And when I say what is "time", I mean 'what is the nature of time'.. like 'in what form do you think it exists in the universe'?

I think that time is just a concept. I mean that time is not composed of anything tangible, and it does not physically affect anything in the universe. We cannot percieve it with our senses or by using any tools, because it is a non-physical concept. We are not travelling forward through time, we justare. Time doesn't control the movement of photons, they just move through the physical force of energy pushing. When we see light from a far away galaxy, that light just is. It does not have any kind of time stamp physically embedded into it or anything like that. That light is not from the past.

I guess I have the same problem as the OP. I can't think of a succinct way to verbalize my thoughts.

[INFERNO]

Look, Inferno, I think it would help if you gave me a really thorough definition of what you mean by "time". Your arguments just make no sense to me, so there is obviously some kind of misunderstanding.

And when I say what is "time", I mean 'what is the nature of time'.. like 'in what form do you think it exists in the universe'?

I think that time is just a concept. I mean that time is not composed of anything tangible, and it does not physically affect anything in the universe. We cannot percieve it with our senses or by using any tools, because it is a non-physical concept. We are not travelling forward through time, we justare. Time doesn't control the movement of photons, they just move through the physical force of energy pushing. When we see light from a far away galaxy, that light just is. It does not have any kind of time stamp physically embedded into it or anything like that. That light is not from the past.

I guess I have the same problem as the OP. I can't think of a succinct way to verbalize my thoughts.

Fair enough, I haven't defined "time" for my arguments, that's my mistake. When I say time, I mean a force that always is present (unless the universe is destroyed, which I'm a bit unsure on the effect of time then), always at the same speed, always in one direction (forward), such as an arrow being shot although this arrow never slows down, never changes direction, etc... . It's a force where all or most particles travel along.

Your definition of time seems to be a bit different, in that you're questioning in what form it exists, whereas I'm not doing that.

You could perceive its existence by noticing the physical effects it generates (i.e. aging).

I'm confused what you mean by we're not traveling through time, we just are. We just are what? Are we standing still in time?

I agree, time has no control over the movement of particles. They are moved by a force acting on them to move them, to overcome resistance from other particles in space. Time cannot do this. However, even though time cannot do this, the amount of time that passes from point A to point B can be measured, so although time does not affect the movement of the particle, it can be used to measure how fast something is moving, how much delay there is from point A to point B.

Once again, I'm not sure what you mean by light just is. Is it light from the present? Is it light not moving? I'm confused as to what you mean.

Now here is where I'm very confused. You defined time as in what form does it exist, the nature of it. Despite this, you then talk about light not being from the past, which is consistant with the definition I'm using, which as you said before, you had an alternative definition. Now, I'm not sure what you're definition of time is because you've stepped onto some other definition.

When you say something is not from the past, this implies that you believe things are moving in time. After all, if it's from the past, that means that you are now ahead of it, however...

time doesn't actually exist as a force in the universe

you can't travel through it

In denying that something is not from the past, you haven't denied that time travel is not possible for everything, you've denied it for one specific thing. Hopefully, you aren't attemptign to generalize this to deny time for everything. When I mean "for everything", I don't mean each thing has its own time. No, that'd be rather hypocritical on my part. What I mean is the effect time has on that specific thing, how that thing moves in time.

[Curthose93]

You say that we can measure time. Do you mean that we can physically quantify it, like in the same way that we are able to measure electrical current, temperature, or anything like that? You say that time is used to measure how fast something is moving. I say yes, that is all it is used for. We invented the concept of time(seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, and so on) so that we may keep track of the various physical processes in the universe. The movement of a car can be "measured" by km/h, but that measurement is relative. You are not measuring an actual "time-force".

Aging is the result of damage done to your DNA by small particles of matter or energy colliding with the genes in your cells. What would any other force have to do with it?

I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to understand why you would think that time(as you define it) is responsible for movement, aging or anything.

My view on the idea of time being an actual, present force in the universe is that same as my view on the idea of god. Neither one has actually been measured physically, and therefore they only "exist" in the form of assumptions.

Warning: The following info was retrieved from Wikipedia!

Time is just "a measuring system used to sequence events". In physics, it is considered a "fundamental quantity".

Warning over



We use measurements of time(which is a concept) to aid in other calculations, and outside of math, to simply keep track of events(dinner time, bed time, time to go to work, etc). Time has no control over anything in the universe, because we invented it to work with the forces that actually do exist.

[MisterAndrews]

This is a slightly confused answer because I cant find the right words, but here goes:

Time is not a force, it is a unit of measurement. It is not a force because time itself does not control anything within the universe, it was created so that we could moderate everyday life and other things in the universe.

Time is relative. what humans percieve to be an hour could be 3 hours on another planet. This is because we created our measurments of time, just as (somewhere out there) another Intelligent Life Form will have created theirs.

There is no question that time does exist, but not as a force. As a measurment like Metres and Miles.

[Perseus]

Ok, I am goign to put this out here, but this may not be entirely true.
Scientists believe time started once the Big Bang occured 14.7 millions years ago.
Well, whether we have a Big Freeze, Big Crunch, or another form *big* death to the universe, time will freeze because no matter will exist in space except for some lightly dimed stars and galaxies.
Now, I read this in a book a while back ago so some more of that has slipped my mind, but ponder that because it is believed that time only exists with matter.

And, as INFERNO said, a way to proove time exists is by the fact that we age of the years. If time didn't exist, we would never grow old because there would be nothing going forward; it would just be now all the time.

EDIT: WHoops, ccan't believe I forgot this. The reason time freezes is because when the universe is dead, it will be so cold that is -458.73 degreese Fareignheit, which is absolute 0( degreese Kelvin) where all everything is frozen, including time.

[INFERNO]

Aging is the result of damage done to your DNA by small particles of matter or energy colliding with the genes in your cells. What would any other force have to do with it?

Aging is caused for many reasons, you outlined one of them. However, the damage to DNA does not occur immediately, it takes a certain amount of TIME. That is what I meant by time being involved in aging.


I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to understand why you would think that time(as you define it) is responsible for movement, aging or anything.

As I said before, it doesn't cause movement. So I don't know why you keep pushing on that. As for aging, see above.


My view on the idea of time being an actual, present force in the universe is that same as my view on the idea of god. Neither one has actually been measured physically, and therefore they only "exist" in the form of assumptions.

Time can be measured physically and its effects also can. However, they do exist in the form of assumptions and concepts and we cannot directly see time.


We use measurements of time(which is a concept) to aid in other calculations, and outside of math, to simply keep track of events(dinner time, bed time, time to go to work, etc). Time has no control over anything in the universe, because we invented it to work with the forces that actually do exist.

I agree.

This is a slightly confused answer because I cant find the right words, but here goes:

Time is not a force, it is a unit of measurement. It is not a force because time itself does not control anything within the universe, it was created so that we could moderate everyday life and other things in the universe.

Time is relative. what humans percieve to be an hour could be 3 hours on another planet. This is because we created our measurments of time, just as (somewhere out there) another Intelligent Life Form will have created theirs.

There is no question that time does exist, but not as a force. As a measurment like Metres and Miles.

I also agree.



WHoops, ccan't believe I forgot this. The reason time freezes is because when the universe is dead, it will be so cold that is -458.73 degreese Fareignheit, which is absolute 0( degreese Kelvin) where all everything is frozen, including time.

This implies that you believe time is a physical thing, composed of molecules that can be slowed down and that it is not a mere human-derived concept. Therefore, prove that it's a physical force, that it is composed of atoms and molecules. If you fail to do that, then you cannot say that it is stopped by a temperature.

[Perseus]

I never said that i believed that. I said some scientists believe that and it actually showed a picture of what it might look like when the universe died and there was no time.

[INFERNO]

I never said that i believed that. I said some scientists believe that and it actually showed a picture of what it might look like when the universe died and there was no time.

Then give some evidence that the scientists used. Fine, the quote implied that the scientists believe time is composed of atoms and molecules. In which case, give evidence they used to show it. They cannot randomly say that if the universe ends, it freezes and time goes bye-bye because of the cold temperature if they don't show it's composed of atoms that can be affected by time.

[Perseus]

I was saying what I read in a book around in September.. it was astronomy, but they mentioned that for like a couple of paragraphs.
And also, what, do you not think that universe is going to die by a it expanding too much or something of that sort?(Sorry if this statement hijacks this thread.)

[INFERNO]

I was saying what I read in a book around in September.. it was astronomy, but they mentioned that for like a couple of paragraphs.
And also, what, do you not think that universe is going to die by a it expanding too much or something of that sort?(Sorry if this statement hijacks this thread.)

You've danced away from providing evidence that the scientists must have given in order to establish their conclusion that with extreme cold, time stops. If it's from a book, that's nice, you can show their arguments for that. Otherwise, you're giving a claim, saying "no, it's not mine, it's theirs, it's all in some book I read a while ago". Either, provide evidence from that book or from other sources, or you statement is disregarded (and no, I'm not going to look online for sources for you, that's your job).

I never said anything about what I believe regarding the universe's death. How you think I didn't believe that is beyond me. Death by the universe expanding too much makes little sense to me. If it indeed is infinite as we may believe, then this idea of it expanding too much makes little sense. If it's finite, then the question arises, what are its boundaries, how big is it? I've heard the theory of the "crunches", however, what I fail to understand is, if the universe constantly grows and grows, how can it "crunch" upon itself? This would imply that there are some sort of walls containing the universe preventing it from expanding more, thus it folds back and crunches.

I haven't given much thought to it, and so, my answer may be more or less nonsense, however, I focus more on where we were, where we are and where we soon will be. To me, if the universe does end, I'm sure as hell not going to be around. We're more likely to blow up our planet first.

[Perseus]

INFERNO, I was just just stating what I read to see if anyone(doubt it now) actually understand what i was saying because my memory is that of a five year old.
I am not going to provide sources because I don't exactly believe what that author said; honestly, I don't know whay he mentioned it; I was just learning more about the Big Bang that I didn't know, and he decided to put it in.

[INFERNO]

INFERNO, I was just just stating what I read to see if anyone(doubt it now) actually understand what i was saying because my memory is that of a five year old.
I am not going to provide sources because I don't exactly believe what that author said; honestly, I don't know whay he mentioned it; I was just learning more about the Big Bang that I didn't know, and he decided to put it in.

Right, then that statement of yours is discredited and not worth debating any more.

[Curthose93]

Inferno,

I guess we don't have anything to debate at all. To me, it sounded like you were arguing that time is, in fact, a physical force, but your replies to DaTrooper would indicate otherwise.

But I'm still confused. What exactly do you think time is? If it is not comprised of some sort of physical particles, then how does it exist?

[INFERNO]

Inferno,

I guess we don't have anything to debate at all. To me, it sounded like you were arguing that time is, in fact, a physical force, but your replies to DaTrooper would indicate otherwise.

But I'm still confused. What exactly do you think time is? If it is not comprised of some sort of physical particles, then how does it exist?

No, I've been saying it's NOT a physical force over and over again. It's not a force that produces movement, etc... . It's a concept that we use to measure how long something has been. It's not a physical force we can directly see occurring, but rather indirect ways, such as through aging. For aging, time itself does not cause aging. Time is used to show how long it has been for the DNA and other possible age-causing factors to occur. This is what I've been trying to get at over and over again.

Before you asked me for my definition on time, so to quote myself:

force that always is present (unless the universe is destroyed, which I'm a bit unsure on the effect of time then), always at the same speed, always in one direction (forward), such as an arrow being shot although this arrow never slows down, never changes direction, etc... . It's a force where all or most particles travel along.

When I say force in that definition, it's not a physical force but rather a conceptual force. I never said it's composed of particles, I said it's a force (conceptual) where particles travel along. My best way to explain my definition is to use an analogy: you're driving in your car along a highway, you don't change speed, you don't change direction (always going forwards), you're not part of this highway and if you wish, you can change lanes or go on an off-ramp yet still move forward (assume off-ramps aren't curvy). Time isn't a force pushing the car, it's something that the particles follow.

Time exists conceptually. We can measure effects it can lead to (but not produce), such as aging. This is what I've been trying to say over and over again, however, for some reason you think it's a physical force, which I've said already that it's not.

[Curthose93]

You said that it is a force, but since you've apparently been saying that it is merely a concept, it cannot be an actual force(according to my understanding of what a force is). Particles cannot travel along a concept, so I personally think you need to spend some time rethinking your ideas of the universe. I mean seriously, what makes particles follow the force of time? If time is a concept, then it leads to no effects, therefore we cannot measure anything about how time affects anything.

That's what I'm trying to get at. If it doesn't exist in the physical universe in any form, it neither directly affects nor leads to anything. That's how it doesn't exist.

I don't think it is a physical force. I think time doesn't exist. Don't say that I do.

You are mistaking a human concept for something that actually affects the universe. My only mistake was in not understanding this immediately.

But then, how could I understand? You seem to contradict yourself by saying that it is a conceptual force(non-existent, only in the human mind) and particles somehow follow it. Please explain that.

[Oblivion]

Time is just a human made way to organize ourselves so that we can function together more easily, and with greater precision.
I don't see a big deal :P

[INFERNO]

You said that it is a force, but since you've apparently been saying that it is merely a concept, it cannot be an actual force(according to my understanding of what a force is). Particles cannot travel along a concept, so I personally think you need to spend some time rethinking your ideas of the universe. I mean seriously, what makes particles follow the force of time? If time is a concept, then it leads to no effects, therefore we cannot measure anything about how time affects anything.

That's what I'm trying to get at. If it doesn't exist in the physical universe in any form, it neither directly affects nor leads to anything. That's how it doesn't exist.

I don't think it is a physical force. I think time doesn't exist. Don't say that I do.

You are mistaking a human concept for something that actually affects the universe. My only mistake was in not understanding this immediately.

But then, how could I understand? You seem to contradict yourself by saying that it is a conceptual force(non-existent, only in the human mind) and particles somehow follow it. Please explain that.

If intelligence is only a concept, then as you said, it leads to no effects, so how can we measure it? Just because it is a concept doesn't mean we cannot measure it, doesn't mean there are no effects it has, doesn't mean it does not exist.

It's a conceptual force and part of that conception is particles following it. I thought I made that clear but perhaps it wasn't (after all, if time is a concept, then the fact that particles follow it is also a concept).

[Curthose93]

Yeah, sorry. It's just the when you say particles follow it, I thought you meant that it physically existed as a thing for the particles to travel along. You mean that particles only travel along time in a conceptual manner, as we percieve it, based on our made-up system of time, right?

[INFERNO]

Yeah, sorry. It's just the when you say particles follow it, I thought you meant that it physically existed as a thing for the particles to travel along. You mean that particles only travel along time in a conceptual manner, as we percieve it, based on our made-up system of time, right?

Precisely. I think I shouldn't have used the word "force" before, especially without saying it was a conceptual force. But I think now you understand what I meant.