Also, if time does exist, doesn’t there have to be a definable beginning or end? Otherwise it’s just infinity which to me suggests the absense of time.
I partially read “The Discoverers” by Daniel Boorstin several years ago and he discussed how different societies conceptualized of time and how they kept time. And it has had me wondering ever since. Then I started exploring Zen Buddhism which emphasizes the present moment as the only tangible reality, along with the illusion of the ego, which only furthered my questioning.
EDIT – I am aware that the concept of time is based on the revolution of the Earth and it’s moon. However, that is just how humans conceive of time. That’s not proof of time itself.
EDIT 2 – The explanation of timespace and relativity is the best from an objective point of view. No matter how much I read or watch, it was always a bit hard to grasp but it makes sense in terms of change or entropy. The reality of time being flexible vs the human perception of time being linear and unchangeable gets closer to what I am asking.
EDIT 3 – “Exist” is a tricky word.
In: 7871
Currently, in the field of physics we don’t have a way to prove that time exists (at least yet). We do have proof, however, of the existence of space-time. We know that time moves differently based on things like speed and gravity, but we don’t have any way to prove that time can exist without space (or vice versa).
Basically we know that time is real in the context of space and matter, but we currently have no way of knowing if time would still move without the existence of stuff. I find it very interesting that it’s so easy for us to split these two in our minds, but if you think about it it’s hard to conceptualize one without the other.
Latest Answers