I say no.
The past does not exist, it is merely a memory in our heads, the future does not exist, it is merely what we anticipate. And the ‘now’ is infinitesimally short and yet, it is the only thing that exists.
So, what is time?
Is time defined by change? Nope, we define change by comparing body A now to body A then, but there is no body A then because it is only a memory. We can’t compare a real thing to a memory.
If time exists, is it linear, does it shoot forward like an arrow?
Again, I don’t think so, time does not flow, because, see above, there is no past and there is no future.
It is a dimension, and is perceived relative to other conditions experienced by the perceiver. Taking the Quantum Leap by Fred Alan Wolf is a good, comprehensible introduction to the incomprehensible.
But I think that quantum theory and Eastern philosophy pretty much agree that the perception of time as linear is merely that–a perception.
You’re phrasing the question wrong. It’s not: Does “Time” exist? The way to ask the question is, Does time “exist”?
So what is existence? Surely not physical existence, since love “exists” even though you cannot touch or weigh or see it. In fact, can existence be conceived of if there were no time? time exists, because without time (and causation, and gummi bears) nothing else could exist.
Is a priori existence the same thing as existence?
This is a strange statement. It remembers me of a philosophical question: “Is the moon there when nobody looks?”
Compare a foto of yourself when you were younger to yourself now. Of course it’s only a picture of what has been. If time does not exist, weren’t you real then, or nothing has happend in between, or has the foto never been taken?
I don’t want to say I’m an expert but AFIK Einstein’s relativity theory states that time is not linear in the sence that not the same amount of time will pass at different places, depending to their (relative) movement to a choosen relative system. This is a cosequence of the statement that light velocity has to be constant.
People have no idea how hard Dimitri Mendeleev tried to find a spot for gummi bears on his original table of the elements, but their tendency to glob together made it really hard to isolate defining chemical properties.
It reminds me of the book “Flatland,” where two-dimensional beings are visited by a three-dimensional creature. The two-dimensionals can not process the idea of a third-dimension.
Some theorists speculate that there are many more than the four dimensions of height, width, depth and time. That I have a difficult time processing. Time is a pretty easy one when visualizing the two-dimensional flatlanders moving through a third dimension of time in a linear fashion.
Four dimensional geometry makes my head spin, just as a third dimension did to the flatlanders. 10-dimensions or more and a person must think in abstract terms.
that’s how I sort of think too. So, you have countless physical formulas and equations that contain time as well, does that mean they are nothing but abstract concepts as well..?
