Point of Origin

[Smurfy]

Using the Law of Cause and Effect, please pinpoint the finite starting point of any one thing.

Interesting thought, you can't do it. At any point.

 

[ttomthebomb]

I was thinking a tree but it originated from another tree and etc;

 

[Smurfy]

I was thinking a tree but it originated from another tree and etc;

Exactly.

 

[ttomthebomb]

Some people might argue that the universe had a point of origin.

I would say time has an origin, seeing as how humans invented 'time'.

 

[Mattis13]

but what if we DIDN'T invent time, what if time invented us? what if we are just the byproduct of elapsed time of multiple happenings in a chain of events? wouldn't the real question then be what caused time? what set it in motion in the first place?

 

[ttomthebomb]

but what if we DIDN'T invent time, what if time invented us? what if we are just the byproduct of elapsed time of multiple happenings in a chain of events? wouldn't the real question then be what caused time? what set it in motion in the first place?

I was implying that we donned "time". Therefore we created time.

 

[Mattis13]

But not necessarily. All we really did was realize it was there, the passing of time occurred before we even gave it the title of "time"

 

[Adam_mybb_import1422]

But not necessarily. All we really did was realize it was there, the passing of time occurred before we even gave it the title of "time"

We invented time. The first system of time was a labeling of the rotation of the earth, a "day". Time does not pass, things move and we use it as a system of measurement.

 

[Mattis13]

But as you yourself said, it is a thing to be measured, something has to exist in the first place before you can even conceive measuring it

 

[Adam_mybb_import1422]

But as you yourself said, it is a thing to be measured, something has to exist in the first place before you can even conceive measuring it

True, however before we labeled it, it was something else entirely.

 

[Mattis13]

But I fail to see how a thing completely changes it's very being merely because it is "measured." A length of cord does not become a length of wire merely because you have "measured" it.

 

[Knight_mybb_import2516]

But as you yourself said, it is a thing to be measured, something has to exist in the first place before you can even conceive measuring it

True, and Adam; what else could it be. We didn't change anything. We just started calling it "t-i-m-e."

 

[Adam_mybb_import1422]

Allow me to rephrase myself. What I'm saying, is that we invented the concept of time. A theoretical metronome clicking along side the universe keeping everything in balance, telling us when to wake up in the morning and get to work. We chose to base this on the passing of the sun, but only because it made sense to do it that way. We very well could have made "days" 29 house, but that wouldn't have made very much sense now would it? I think that in the beginning, time was a label of solar movement. But it has changed, to a method of organization and is no longer bound by the turning of the earth, and only happens to align with it. Does that make any sense?

 

[Mattis13]

Allow me to rephrase myself. What I'm saying, is that we invented the concept of time. A theoretical metronome clicking along side the universe keeping everything in balance, telling us when to wake up in the morning and get to work. We chose to base this on the passing of the sun, but only because it made sense to do it that way. We very well could have made "days" 29 house, but that wouldn't have made very much sense now would it? I think that in the beginning, time was a label of solar movement. But it has changed, to a method of organization and is no longer bound by the turning of the earth, and only happens to align with it. Does that make any sense?

I must say that I applaud you for this. though, the waking up and going to work doesn't pertain to a universal metronome, but an internal one called the circadian rhythm, and that is honestly the only retort I can make to this, well done.

 

[Knight_mybb_import2516]

Allow me to rephrase myself. What I'm saying, is that we invented the concept of time. A theoretical metronome clicking along side the universe keeping everything in balance, telling us when to wake up in the morning and get to work. We chose to base this on the passing of the sun, but only because it made sense to do it that way. We very well could have made "days" 29 house, but that wouldn't have made very much sense now would it? I think that in the beginning, time was a label of solar movement. But it has changed, to a method of organization and is no longer bound by the turning of the earth, and only happens to align with it. Does that make any sense?

It would have made sense if we made it that way. Time is still a label of solar movement, we just base our activities around on a system that is parallel with it. You are contradicting yourself by saying that it is no longer affiliated with the turning of the earth but is aligned with it as well. Using your logic; days were not days until we made them such. Logically speaking, we could have had 28 houses in the month of February; had humanity declared it such.

 

[Adam_mybb_import1422]

Allow me to rephrase myself. What I'm saying, is that we invented the concept of time. A theoretical metronome clicking along side the universe keeping everything in balance, telling us when to wake up in the morning and get to work. We chose to base this on the passing of the sun, but only because it made sense to do it that way. We very well could have made "days" 29 house, but that wouldn't have made very much sense now would it? I think that in the beginning, time was a label of solar movement. But it has changed, to a method of organization and is no longer bound by the turning of the earth, and only happens to align with it. Does that make any sense?

I must say that I applaud you for this. though, the waking up and going to work doesn't pertain to a universal metronome, but an internal one called the circadian rhythm, and that is honestly the only retort I can make to this, well done.

Thank you, that means a lot

However, if days were 29 hours long, would our circadian rhythm not adjust?

---

Allow me to rephrase myself. What I'm saying, is that we invented the concept of time. A theoretical metronome clicking along side the universe keeping everything in balance, telling us when to wake up in the morning and get to work. We chose to base this on the passing of the sun, but only because it made sense to do it that way. We very well could have made "days" 29 house, but that wouldn't have made very much sense now would it? I think that in the beginning, time was a label of solar movement. But it has changed, to a method of organization and is no longer bound by the turning of the earth, and only happens to align with it. Does that make any sense?

It would have made sense if we made it that way. Time is still a label of solar movement, we just base our activities around on a system that is parallel with it. You are contradicting yourself by saying that it is no longer affiliated with the turning of the earth but is aligned with it as well. Using your logic; days were not days until we made them such. Logically speaking, we could have had 28 houses in the month of February; had humanity declared it such.

What I'm saying is that because of how much society has changed, the time system is no longer dependent on solar activity, it would just be absurd to change it.

 

[Provenance]

There is not a single reply that I can post, so I will reply with a general statement.

We did not invent time. We invented measurements for time.
Time is a linear passing of events, and we measure that with a relative cycle.

---

Allow me to rephrase myself. What I'm saying, is that we invented the concept of time. A theoretical metronome clicking along side the universe keeping everything in balance, telling us when to wake up in the morning and get to work. We chose to base this on the passing of the sun, but only because it made sense to do it that way. We very well could have made "days" 29 house, but that wouldn't have made very much sense now would it? I think that in the beginning, time was a label of solar movement. But it has changed, to a method of organization and is no longer bound by the turning of the earth, and only happens to align with it. Does that make any sense?

You should rephrase your statement again.
We did not invent the concept of time, as time is just a progression.
We invented the concept of a local time, a system that is relative to what we experience.

 

[Smurfy]

I agree. There was a prior cause to our "invention" of time. Our "invention" of time, was not based solely off nothing. That is the point of the thread. For every effect their is a prior cause, so how do you find the original cause?

Note: I know the answer to this