We all know that time as we deemt it to be doesnt exist. It is our definition of smth that may not be. That is not. We divided up a regularity into separate sections and gave it a name. The astronomers did the same. We note down recurrances and regularities, thats ok. But to form the outside in our image and complaining how it is getting farther is funny.

So what does really exist? What we noticed is that everything is in constant motion. Somehow we wanted to keep track of it, to name it, to conquer it in order to feel more secure, but as usual we didnt see the whole picture. Because of everything being in motion, oscillation, it may seem its heading towards smth, so we gave a direction to it. Time is going forward, and cant go backwards. Right? But what if it didnt exist to begin with? What if our directions like the directions on the roads doesnt apply at all to this world, just in a millieu it passes to our mediocrity by chance.

  • 1
    I do not know what "we" deem it to be. But what we do with clocks seems to be useful for organizing things, whether what they measure is "real" or not. Does it even matter?
    – Conifold
    Mar 15, 2017 at 3:00
  • Why does anyone believe anything? Does what we call time exist? Is spacetime (pace Minkowski) a better description? How would we know if time did not exist? You might find this question answer and comments useful: philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/41386/23399
    – MmmHmm
    Mar 15, 2017 at 3:04
  • "We all know that time as we deemt it to be doesnt exist." This a very strong assertion; can you provide any sort of evidence that it's true? I think the question "why do we still believe in time" is an interesting question, but a lot of what you've said in the body paragraphs to motivate the question is either factually false or else just an opinion asserted as a fact.
    – Not_Here
    Mar 15, 2017 at 4:53
  • 1
    What is a "smth"?
    – user6559
    Mar 15, 2017 at 12:25
  • "smth" is an abbreviation for "something". The OP is probably using a 'phone or similar device without an effective keyboard, so has chosen to abbreviate where possible.
    – Kramii
    Mar 15, 2017 at 13:39

2 Answers 2


We believe in time because it agrees with our observations, and furthermore plays a prominent role in our (very well empirically verified) physical theories of the universe.

We would need a good reason to stop believing in time; an empty "what if?" question is not enough to cast doubt on the notion.

  • My problem is that the notion of time influences our thinking in a way that we usually arrive at a dead end. For example in language: we have present, past, future- it is inevitebly telling us how to think and my problem is that on a bigger scale it doesnt work at all. It is not about believeing time, it is about the uselessness of it.
    – Nobody
    Mar 15, 2017 at 15:02
  • 1
    @Nobody can you expand on what you mean by "on a bigger scale it doesn't work at all" and "its about the uselessness of it?" It sounds like you have a very specific idea of what has value (a timeless value) which may not be shared by everyone.
    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 16, 2017 at 1:28

I don't know of you know anything about chemistry, but I fell there is a go comparison between time and moles (the concept in chemistry, not the animal). A mole (as wikipedia will tell you) is essentially a standard amount, based on an easily available reference material (carbon 12). This standard amount is very useful for conversions of mass and volume, amount, concentration etc, although in itself, its just a number (to further demonstrate this, most chemists never even bother learning what that number is, they just convert to 'number of moles' and back again).

If you've got this far, you've probably got the analogy. Time, (like moles) is very useful, and to all intents and purposes for which it is useful it may as well exist. Academically, it is accepted that although it does not, it would be very useful is it did, so it might as well for the sake of calculation.

On a side note, tis is (a bit) like Hume's response to Cartesian doubt. I can't recall the wording, but essentially he acknowledged that Cartesian doubt was a verifiable philosophical idea, but for the purposes of a practical philosophy for life, r for decisions within life in general, it was too rigorous and a priori to be of any real use. Certainly time doesn't exist, but its very useful to briefly (and frequently) pretend that it does.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .