Retard here. Can time exist without at least two physical things,

Time Is Just An Illusion

>>7671038
That's what I've been thinking about. Is time just our way of telling one thing's position in relation to something else, and not something that actually exists on its own?

>>7666334
Yes. Humans can only perceive time linearly, which is where your notion is coming from.

you are exactly right but proofing this practically is nearly impossible.

>>7671043
He's Being Memerific, It Wasn't A Legit Response. Besides, If Mirrors Aren't Real Then How Can Time Be?

>>7671046
>Yes.
Explain.

>>7671036
Space and time are reliant on each other.
Without something to measure space, it'd be impossible to determine if there was space, or if time was passing.
But space/time could potentially be there. But as a measurement tool it'd be completely useless.

>>7671061
>Without something to measure space, it'd be impossible to determine if there was space, or if time was passing.
So doesn't that require at least two physical objects is well? If you know object A is at one point and object B is at another, that's the only way you can determine there is space in between them, right? But if A and B were both stationary, there would be space, but no time, right?

>But space/time could potentially be there
This is the part I don't get. It could potentially be there, but it would be impossible to measure it, right? So is it something that exists independently of physical objects and is only rendered measurable by the existence of those objects, or is it a concept that doesn't exist in reality that is used to describe the relation between those objects?

Bumping with question: to travel back in time, would you have to perform an action that is the inverse of motion? If complete stillness is 0 and motion is always positive, what is negative motion?

>>7671036
If you don't have relative motion then time has no meaning. It may be there or not be there, it doesn't matter though

Well, even when two objects are in 0 motion to each other, their molecules and atoms are decomposing.

I mean, 0 motion is probably impossible because absolute 0 degrees kelvin is probably impossible and may not even result in absolute 0 motion.

But with no reference, time can not be recorded. It can still be experienced. If someone was deprived of all sensory input, they would still experience time passing.

They only limitation we have is that we experience time linearly, when time is relative and not truly linear.

>>7671092
Now thats retarded

>>7671050
>>>7666666

>>7671180
Stop.

>>7671071
>So doesn't that require at least two physical objects is well?
to measure it
>If you know object A is at one point and object B is at another, that's the only way you can determine there is space in between them, right? But if A and B were both stationary, there would be space, but no time, right?
if both were completely stationary, you'd have a snapshot of space (hence space/time). Time is a measurement of motion. Whether it's based relative to revolutions around your sun, or around a galaxy. Without motion there's nothing to base time off of.

>Second part
I'm going to venture a guess at the first one.
Space/time remains in superposition until it's collapsed by mass (I'd even go as far to say it's possible that matter is condensed space/time).
But it's possible we're interpreting space/time phenomenon completely wrong, or at least in a constricting way.