Lets Play a Game YCM

[Guest JoshIcy]

I'm not trying to get into a conflict' date=' but I don't recall this being under the debate section. It's under General. If someone posts a theory, leave them be, and let the person who created the thread and the following readers be the judge.

[/quote']

 

It's clearly a topic that's up for debate.

 

Go cry some more.

 

No you go cry. If I wanted this to be a debate, I would have posted it in the Debate Forum and Approved the thread myself.

[Dark Lightning]

We all believe that time can be stopped, but in truth, we only wish to stop it with our own minds. But even if time were to stop, we wouldn't stop existing; Existence wouldn't stop.

But I don't believe that time can stop, nonetheless.

[Wuu.]

Man, all this smart crap makes me get a headache.

 

So, time doesn't exist, humans created it, you're talking about us, the living things being frozen for the next 50 years, i think that if we where to be frozen everything else would go on.

But the clothes we wore, or our house at the time that we were frozen would decay over the next 50 year and eventually end up being a rotten, collapsed heap of wood.

 

Seriously, i suck at this =/

[Willieh]

I'm not trying to get into a conflict' date=' but I don't recall this being under the debate section. It's under General. If someone posts a theory, leave them be, and let the person who created the thread and the following readers be the judge.

[/quote']

 

It's clearly a topic that's up for debate.

 

Go cry some more.

 

No you go cry. If I wanted this to be a debate, I would have posted it in the Debate Forum and Approved the thread myself.

 

If this isn't a debate, then what the funk is it?

---

Man' date=' all this smart crap makes me get a headache.

 

So, time doesn't exist, humans created it, you're talking about us, the living things being frozen for the next 50 years, i think that if we where to be frozen everything else would go on.

But the clothes we wore, or our house at the time that we were frozen would decay over the next 50 year and eventually end up being a rotten, collapsed heap of wood.

 

Seriously, i suck at this =/

[/quote']

 

Nothing would decay because everything would be frozen. :P

[Wuu.]

I'm not good at this, i know.

 

But everything should go on, yet it is frozen, nothing will happen, but time would still go on.

 

Seriously, the question is mindbreaking.

[Willieh]

But everything should go on' date=' yet it is frozen, nothing will happen, but time would still go on.

[/quote']

 

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

 

And you can't be bad at talking about something. :P

[Wuu.]

Icy, your question is invalid =/

Maybe this works?

[Guest JoshIcy]

I'm not trying to get into a conflict' date=' but I don't recall this being under the debate section. It's under General. If someone posts a theory, leave them be, and let the person who created the thread and the following readers be the judge.

[/quote']

 

It's clearly a topic that's up for debate.

 

Go cry some more.

 

No you go cry. If I wanted this to be a debate, I would have posted it in the Debate Forum and Approved the thread myself.

 

If this isn't a debate, then what the f*** is it?

 

Stop swearing... We're gonna have to crack down on that soon.

But it's a discussion of ideas. As any good discussion of a subject is. Such is this.

[Lemniscate]

This makes me think of the Frozen Worlds scenario, first proposed by Shoemaker, wherein a world is split into three discrete zones, which have a natural phenomena that occurs at regular, different intervals, wherein all motion ceases in a particular zone. Each zone has it's own intervals for the freeze. During a local freeze, the other zones can observe the freeze. But, there comes a time when all zones freeze at the same time, and there is no one moving to see the freeze, and confirm that it is occurring.

 

There is actually an article I know of, which can be found here, which illustrates my general opinion on it better than I could. (on a separate note, I love this blog).

 

Anyway, I know this isn't directly answering the thread topic, but the general premise is close enough that I believe it suffices.

[Exiro]

If time were to stop (or for you Science Junkies matter to stop moving)' date=' for what would be considered 50yrs. Would time have moved forward at all?[/i']

 

I have no clue what time exactly is, how it works or if it even exists at all, but let's simplify this question. Let's replace 'time being stopped for what would be considered 50 years' by x, and 'time moving forward at all' by y. This would make:

If x is true, would y by true?

 

X is the exact opposite of y.

 

I don't think so, Icy...

[Silver]

If time were to stop (or for you Science Junkies matter to stop moving), for what would be considered 50yrs. Would time have moved forward at all?

Person A says that

No, time would not have moved forward, as you state that time has already stopped, and therefore if time has stopped, time did not continue.

 

What you see above is the basic answer, which would suit the majority of the planet. And yet, one cannot feel completely satisfied by the core answer. So let us dig deeper.

 

In order to fully understand this topic, one must define 'time' itself.

Dictionary.com defines time in at least 8 different ways, 1 of which I feel relevant to the situation:

 

1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

 

Reading this, one would instantly spot a flaw in the answer of the literalist. Because time couldn't have stopped, as we still have these sequential relations, so to speak. Essentially, your argument states that:

Time - Time = Time

Which would be impossible. Nothing minus itself equals itself. Or does it? The only thing that does this is the number 0. Which perhaps symbolises time as being nothing, time not existing. Which once again brings us a new answer:

 

Person B says that

Time does not exist, as the concept of time itself is impossible. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant.

 

However, once again we are met by the feeling of incompleteness. Which means instead of raking into time, we just need to dust off the surface, so as to understand it. And this means we look back, seeing whether time has ever 'stopped' before. And if it clearly hasn't, then that means that time is a cycle.

 

A cycle has no beginning or end, it only moves constantly. And yet, just because a cycle has no end, doesn't mean it can't be finished. Take a circuit, a simple electrical circuit with a switch. The switch has been on as long as anyone can remember. The electricity running through these circuits is time. Now, say someone was to close the circuit switch (this person represents a higher power). Then, about a few seconds later, he starts it again. The electricity didn't run whilst the switch was off. A new answer is shown.

 

Person C says

Yes, time did stop, because the cycle was broken and therefore incomplete.

 

But time is not something that can just be turned off at will, is it? And for that matter, it's not as simple as a cycle. It's a line that has been drawn, that will never end. The very beginning of time means the very beginning of everything that ever existed, and the very beginning of everything that ever existed lies in a higher power. So in order to answer your question, one must ask themselves:

 

Is there a God?

 

And if this question cannot be answered, then your question cannot be answered. For God and time are almost similar, and one must be supported by the other.

 

If we were to ignore God's presence (both in this question and in this world), one must consult themselves about what time really is. Is time really as simple as the ticking of a clock? When we die, have we 'run out of time'? Is time an object? Does time even exist? Can we confirm it?

 

Person D says

I don't know.

 

And this is the satisfying, finite answer. It is the answer which keeps us going, which keeps us from checking the clock every now and again to see whether time has ended.

 

If you're not satisfied with my answer, then pick any of my other answers. Person A, B, C and D are all me. Time is both a link and a cycle, infinity and zero, impossible and existing.

 

So let's ignore the question, let's avoid spending hours and hours lecturing over it. It would be a complete waste of time.

[Aero~]

The way you state it, you're talking about T, in the case that T = time unit, and t = progression in the world, sometimes known as time.

If T would stop, things would still go as planned, but "time lines" would be messed up. Becaues of this, if time was to stop at this moment, in 2010, each "year" in the 50 "year"s that T was stopped, would be labeled, "2010 year a", "2010 year b", and so on; after z would start "2010 year a2", and so on.

[Guest JoshIcy]

I've been doing some discussions and theories based on how this question can be answered. With me and Azrael, and some others time to time. And this question is... ridiculously expansive. Keep going people, you might come up with something that could shock you.

[Azmodius]

How about I don't play a game?

 

This "Game" is just you trying to enforce your superiority, on a children's forum. Nobody cares.

 

inb4uramod!

[Guest JoshIcy]

How about I don't play a game?

 

This "Game" is just you trying to enforce your superiority. Nobody cares.

 

inb4uramod!

 

Every little discussion on YCM turns out into who's better, or who's promoting Atheism etc the most, this discussion is designed to avoid that while still promoting intellectual conversation. And I'm not trying to be superior as Ive not given an answer myself yet as to avoid that statement.

[Mysterium Tremendum]

~Sigh~ If this thread is still being watched, I'll give it a try.

If time stopped and what would be 50 years went by, it would seem to happen in a millisecond since that 1 second would be frozen. Reason: Time has mastered experience. Each second you breath you experience and perceive more. Since the 1 second that time stopped, went by the world would be frozen, people wouldn't be experiencing anything or growing at all. The 50 years that went by will seem like it happened in the same amount of time it took you to take a quarterstep.

This topic is very Circumlocutious, the very 50 years that you spoke of will seem like it never happened because people wouldn't have experienced anything in the meantime because time never advanced from that 1 millisecond even though 50 years really has past, no one would have experienced anything. Since Time has mastered experience, time stops so does experience.

 

lol I think I might of gone on a bit of a rant, but thats my explanation for it. I haven't had time to read all the other posts but this is my account for the question.

[六兆年と一夜物語]

Technically, you wouldn't feel anything, even notice it.

 

Mainly because...

 

- Your senses would freeze, so you can't do anything. That would mean you'd feel it like a second.

 

The main factor here is weather your able to notice anything or not.

[Lemniscate]

Time can be seen as a series of infinite, interrelating causes. Now, stating that at any point, a cause has been achieved, without an effect yet determined, at any point of time stopping, there would be n effects yet to be completed. So, a man drops a cup. Now, let's assume that at the moment that the cup is dropped, time freezes. The man is still, the cup is still, nothing happens. But, based on the definition of cause, which can be defined purely within relation to effect, for the 50 years of the time freeze, the man dropping the cup is not a cause. It is nothing. This action, by not being completed, defies the normal explanation of time, which can be seen as a series of causes, already stated. Thus, we can see that time has not in fact stopped, but has ceased to exist for the 50 year period.

 

Another arguement is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the net entropy of a system is always increasing. So, a cup breaks, and it can't be put back together directly (meaning rising upward and reassembling), as that would break the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So, because the net entropy of a system is continuous increasing, since the creation of space-time, entropy has been above 0. Once being above 0, 0 is an unreachable number, existing only as a previous state in the chain of entropy changes. So, time could logically not freeze, as doing so would defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Now, a point that could validate the freezing of time as a theoretical possibility requires the separation of time and perception. Now, as these things have yet to be observed (perhaps due to the very nature of having a separation exist in the first place) as separate, time has often been seen as synonymous with perception. But, if in the above arguments, the word time, wherever it was used, was changed to perception, we could see the non-existence of what is now perception as a working example of the separation of time and perception. This non-existence, now called time, is continuous. But again, there is a flaw in the argument, as it is now perception that has frozen, and not time. The true validation of the possible freezing of time would require a third level of force, above time, which is independent of both time and perception, and can thus continue while time is frozen, creating the first given theoretical scenario provided in the beginning of this thread, namely, the freezing of time for 50 years.

 

In the end, the question, at least in this train of thought, boils down to the separation of time and perception, whether time is defined relative only to the perceived reality of humans, or whether time is in fact independent of that reality.

[Nexev]

Um... If time stops it doesn't move forward.

 

For one thing time never literally moves forward, it's a figure of speech.

 

Second if time stopped it stopped, no matter what it doesn't move forward. IF someone was immune to a time stop then time would move forward, however it would also make it not technically a time

 

It's like watching a dvd, then you had to piss. You press pause, everything in the dvd freezes completely.

 

The video doesn't move forward because you paused it.

 

To the people in the videa, that dvd is as real a dimension as you if not more. So you just stopped time for one dimension.

 

Since when you stopped the DVD's time it didn't move forward, neither would ours.

 

Plus some other thngs that don't matter like how it's impossible to pause time until a spam of time passed or how it's impossible to notice a time stop since you stopped with it.

 

But it's a good thing time doesn't move when stopped if it did your body would be starved for oxygen while you stopped time (because of your heart beats being stopped) and you'd kill everyone. So actually in reality the ability to stop time is useless.