Time.

[LEDO]

Time represents change. If there was no change (entropy) time would not exist. When the universe was a singularity, its entropy was at infinity for its size. Time did not exist. It would be impossible to say how long the universe existed in that state. Once the Big Bang or expansion took place time began.

[Watson]

But, none of that proves what time is, or shows me at all that there is any way of looking back on or forward to specific 'times.'

[TruthWorthy]

But, none of that proves what time is, or shows me at all that there is any way of looking back on or forward to specific 'times.'

What about when you think ahead to check you emails but your computer's swiched off?

[Watson]

That's just a concept of what will be and what is to be, not a real example of observing time. It exists only in my mind so long as I think about it. What about if I forget to check my email?

[LEDO]

But, none of that proves what time is, or shows me at all that there is any way of looking back on or forward to specific 'times.'

No Watson, that is exactly what time is. It is a measurement of the change in entropy.

[Knight]

Watson,

I'll elaborate. There is an argument that the idea of god doesn't form a meaningful impression in the mind so talking about the concept is meaningless. The argument is called theological noncognitivism and was brought to my attention on these forums by a purple rabbit from the 26th dimension and I find it highly amusing.

Read more about it here if you like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

Interesting. I find it seems to be a very weak argument, as it's logic is essentially boiled down to thus:
'Words only have meaning because we give/assign it to them."
That's a given for any language, of course. Somewhere, back down the line many hundreds of thousands of years ago, someone assigned the word 'God' to the experience they were going through. It was then consented upon by the masses that this word, 'God', was the most appropriate, and thus phased itself into modern language.

As a theological noncognitivist, I have to correct a misconception. The language aspect is not actually addressing the issue. The point is, how do we define God? Defining something, by definition, limits that thing to what we know it to be. In order to do this, what we are defining needs to be verifiable. THAT is the key. I actually started a thread regarding this matter called "theological noncognitivism" so if you'd like to discuss this more please post it there.

Now, time is verifiable because we can observe it simply by existing. In order for any action to occur, time is required for the action to be carried out. Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2ujpzdeolA

---

That's just a concept of what will be and what is to be, not a real example of observing time. It exists only in my mind so long as I think about it. What about if I forget to check my email?

When you talking about observing something, of course what you observe is in your mind. Where else would it be? Now, it's not JUST your mind. When I observe it, it is in my mind too. Our observing what happens does not mean that it doesn't exist. Time is a necessary concept. Without it, nothing could happen. Now, that's not to say our knowing or not knowing about it has any effect, but existence itself relies on the passage of what we observe as moments.

You observe gravity in the same way. We can measure it and experience it, both in ourselves and with everything else in the universe. Do you deny the existence of gravity as well? With time and gravity, we can make accurate predictions, which demonstrates that the fundamentals of the concept are grounded in reality.

Time predictions include sunrise/sunset & speed/velocity, just to name two. That's not to say one can predict the future, but one can, by observing how time relates to reality, determine how much time (of what we observe) it takes for something to occur.

If you're looking for a picture of the space/time continuum, you're living in the wrong time period. Science hasn't reached that point yet, if it ever will. One does not have to have a complete understanding of something in order for it to be verifiable--it just has to be a coherent understanding. If you have an alternative to what we observe as time, please share.