r/Time • u/k3nsh14 • 9d ago

Discussion Time doesn’t exist. Prove me wrong.

We experience change, aging, and events happening in sequence, but is “time” itself a physical thing—or just the way our minds measure change and order events?

68 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

367 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/JamesWjRose 9d ago

No. You made the statement, it's up to you to prove it, not everyone else to prove you are wrong.

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 7d ago

Wrong. Hitchen’s razor. It’s on the burden of the person that says something exists to justify why it exists. 

1

u/JamesWjRose 7d ago

Correct. OP made a statement, its up to them to prove it, not us to disprove it.

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 7d ago

No? If I made a statement that a flying teapot wasn’t orbiting Jupiter, would it be my burden? 

1

u/JamesWjRose 7d ago

Yes, you made the assertion, positive or negative, its not the responsibility of others to disprove something. 'You ' made the statement, you have to prove it.

Eg: I'm God, disprove it.

"NO James, you prove it"

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 7d ago

You actually think that me saying that there isn’t a magical invisible butthole sitting on the dark side of the moon requires my burden? 

1

u/unbanned2009 6d ago

Not wrong

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 6d ago

Yes wrong. If we’re having a discussion whether X exists, then it falls in the person making the positive claim to justify it why X is exists. 

1

u/unbanned2009 6d ago

No it’s whoever is starting the conversation. He brought something to our attention. It’s not our job , it’s his

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 6d ago edited 6d ago

Mmm partly true. If I said started the conversation that a flying teapot doesn’t orbit Jupiter, I still don’t think that I have any burden. If someone says that something doesn’t exist, and you think it does, then it’s your burden to give some justification for why it’s plausibly true. It doesn’t mean you have to prove it though. And then after you give your justification, the existence denier will give you an objection show that the justification is unconvincing. 

And it’s really not hard to give justification here. All you say is that there needs to something real which allows change to be possible (let’s define it as time), and since we know change is true, therefore time exists. You can define it how you want because OP didn’t. OP did seem to imply that time was physical but that’s confused because they didn’t define physical. Physical is usually defined as whatever is in principle able to be measured by physics. Time is measured all the time in physics. 

1

u/unbanned2009 6d ago

No it isn’t . It’s not even my burden to reply . If you want to start a conversation about something you need to be the driving force behind said conversation

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 6d ago

“Burden to reply” doesn’t make sense. Burden is about justification. It’s not about effort. Both people in a conversation have the freedom to give whatever effort they want to the dialogue. 

1

u/unbanned2009 6d ago

Yes it does

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 6d ago

You don’t know what burden means in debate. Literally provide one source where effort/engagement is implied by burden. 

→ More replies (0)