Korean Job Discussion Forums

[badfish]

No: time is a man-made concept believe it or not. can you remember going on a trip and it seeming like it was over as soon as it started b/c it was so fun. can you remember watching a clock tick because you were so bored and ready to do something else? its all relative. the rate your mind processes information can approach the rate of reality but it can never go faster - a variation of Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity. but in a dream, reality doesn't exist, so the mind has an artificial reality that it can create with different parameters such as: the amount of time in reality for these thoughts to be processed. so basically, your brain creates that thought that the dream's reality was 30 minutes to an hour long.

Yes: the effects of aging on living organisms (especially humans), the rising and setting of the sun at regular intervals, phases of the moon, seasons etc

[VanIslander]

yer no jajdude

[badfish]

[VanIslander]

But you do ask an important if philosophically bad question, according to Wittgenstein. As time is neither a thing nor a non-thing (like an idea). As Ryle would later say, it's a category mistake to think of time in term of things.

Read Heidegger's Time and Being or his "Being and Time" to see how far the nonsense goes.

[jajdude]

[arjuna]

[jajdude]

Time is a friend and enemy. Give me the weekend and kill Monday morning.

[faster]

Julian Barbour says time does not exist -- "change" is primary, but time is a perception of change.

Also, in A New Refutation of Time Jorge Luis Borges writes:

The denial of time involves two negations: the negation of the succession of terms in a series, and the negation of the synchronism of terms in two series. In fact, if each term is absolute, its relations are reduced to the consciousness that those relations exist. One state precedes another if it knows it is anterior; a state of G is contemporaneous to a state of H if it knows it is contemporaneous. Contrary to what Schopenhauer affirmed in his table of fundamental truths, each fraction of time does not simultaneously fill the whole of space: time is not ubiquitous. (Of course, at this point in the argument, space no longer exists.)

And yet, and yet... To deny temporal succession, to deny the self, to deny the astronomical universe, are measures of apparent despair and of secret consolation. Our destiny (in contrast to Swedenborg's hell and the hell of Tibetan mythology) is not frightful because it is unreal; it is frightful because it is irreversible and ironbound. Time is substance of which I am made. Time is a river which sweeps me along, but I am the river; it is a tiger which mangles me, but I am the tiger; it is a fire which consumes me, but I am the fire. The world, unfortunately, is real; I, unfortunately, am Borges.

[beachbumNC]

did you know that if you fly towards the Sun at warp speed, the slingshot effect of the Sun's gravity can send you backwards or forwards in time? that way you can travel back to the 20th Century to save the whales.

ask Captain Kirk if you don't believe me.

[idonojacs]

Do donuts exist?

[tfunk]

I think that time is something so fundamental to human qualitative experience that:

a. It cannot be turned into a 'noun' (objectified).
b. It is so fundamental to our experience that any attempt to define it as 'verbs' etc. is self referential. For example, in maths the numbers 0 and 1 are considered axiomatic concepts ('it is' and 'it isn't' in English grammar) so any attempt to define these concepts must rely on terms that are themselves derivatives of these concepts. It would be like if I tried to define a door as 'a door is a door that acts as a barrier between two rooms'.

Space co-arises with non-space (space can be defined as the distance between two points) and is viewed as having objective reality.
Time co-arises with movement (the distance between 'starting' and 'finishing' and is viewed as quantitative and defined as both qualitative/quantitative).

I think the whole 'problem' with time is that we are obsessed with defining something, we feel that to define something is to conquer/control it. If you look at the most fundamental aspects of the English language, the verb 'to be' for example, you'll see that they all introduce metaphysical 'problems'.

There are some aspects of reality that don't fit into our template of noun->verb->subject.

I gotta go, it's time for me to go to work.

[Jizzo T. Clown]

There is only the eternal Now.

[tfunk]

[ED209]

[Jizzo T. Clown]

The ancient Greeks said "It's behind me" to talk about the future because they could already see what happened in the past ("No need to worry, it's in front of us now").

Alan Watts has a lot to say on the topic

And From The Eternal Now by Paul Tillich: