Define Time

a reply to: Bootifool

Thank you for those links. They are fascinating indeed.

There is no time. But yes, humans have invented a clever way of chaining events together and calling it time. It is a tool to effectively enable cooperation.

For some reason humans feel a need to keep track, a lot, the rest of universe just acts as required and in perfect cooperation anyway. Describing linear time to a non-linear entity seems quite hopeless or rather it would already have access to that information being ever present and such, time linear beings being contained within. But being of such a fundamentally different nature I think it probably would fall on deaf ears, as explaining sight to blind person it doesn't have the tools required for understanding.

Like a wise man once said“I have realized that the past and future are real illusions, that they exist in the present, which is what there is and all there is.”

I run into a problem with communicating with this non-time linear entity. As it has no body and is spread out over the course of all eternity, can it possibly focus itself as to even initiate active communication with a time-linear entity?
The only why I can think of where this could possibly work is if by it very nature it sends random/predetermined messages, taking the on the form of the voice of the receptor, all over time. Time-linear beings then intercept and interpret these messages and then acts, or not, on these, the act symbolizing the response to it.

I guess the above description could fit to describe the relationship between the supposed god/gods and humans. But none the less it was just made to fit the facts and is as good an explanation as any, one shouldn't attach any meaning or truth to it.

a reply to: EternalSolace

One word,

Order

a reply to: EternalSolace Your argument is flawed. By using a spoken language they would have to have a concept of a sequence of events. In language, there's structure to a sentence, some version of subject, verb, and modifiers. Time being explained as a sequence of events is no different than saying that communicating with a language is using a sequence of words to convey a thought. A question followed by an answer is a sequence of events.

Now as for the science to it, look at the Special Theory of Relativity. We've tested and confirmed that moving objects do indeed experience the passage of "time" differently. Time "slows down" for moving objects. The passage of time is relative to the observer.

N.A.Kozyrev wrote a bit about time. He was fascinated with spiral movement patterns. He pointed out that in a spinning object, the outer edge is moving faster than the inside. Should we apply special theory differently to the atoms between the edge and the center? Do we apply the time alteration to the entire spinning object because of the shared bonds and such? Would you argue that the spinning object isn't moving relative to you standing still? If so, then do you define the object as one entity and that special theory time alterations don't act at an atomic level, but rather on some vague concept of what an "object" is?

Einstein explained gravity as a "curvature of space". People still don't get how something can curve in all directions at once. They're trying to apply a 2D analogy to 3D space. Gravity is simply a thinning of the time space continuum. The quantum medium thins a bit, and creates a buoyancy. Gravity is a buoyancy effect. If so, then the increase in relative mass in Special Theory could be the same amount of matter, but with less of the quantum medium around it, so that the amount of matter per unity of "space" changes. Reaching near infinite mass would mean that "space" is stretched extremely thin. This could also explain the time variation. That the 'fabric of space" is stretched thin, and so the reactions of things are slowed down. Thus it is conceivable to create a kind of stasis, but not to "travel through time".

Here's what my favorite philosopher, Alan Watts, said about time:

“Time is a measure of energy, a measure of motion. And we have agreed internationally on the speed of the clock. And I want you to think about clocks and watches for a moment. We are of course slaves to them. And you will notice that your watch is a circle, and that it is calibrated, and that each minute, or second, is marked by a hairline which is made as narrow as possible, as yet to be consistent with being visible.

And when we think of a moment of time, when we think what we mean by the word "now"; we think of the shortest possible instant that is here and gone, because that corresponds with the hairline on the watch. And as a result of this fabulous idea, we are a people who feel that we don’t have any present, because the present is instantly vanishing - it goes so quickly. It is always becoming past. And we have the sensation, therefore, of our lives as something that is constantly flowing away from us. We are constantly losing time. And so we have a sense of urgency. Time is not to be wasted. Time is money. And so, because of the tyranny of this thing, we feel that we have a past, and we know who we are in terms of our past. Nobody can ever tell you who they are, they can only tell you who they were.

And we think we also have a future. And that is terribly important, because we have a naive hope that the future is somehow going to supply what we are looking for. You see, if you live in a present that is so short that it is not really here at all, you will always feel vaguely frustrated.”

originally posted by: Funafuti

And we think we also have a future. And that is terribly important, because we have a naive hope that the future is somehow going to supply what we are looking for. You see, if you live in a present that is so short that it is not really here at all, you will always feel vaguely frustrated.”

But is 'now' (the present) so short?
When in your experience is it not now?
Is now ever gone?
Now is missed completely because there is the dream of 'my life' happening - 'my life' only appears in 'past stories' and future stories' but it is totally missed that those stories happen now.

Nobody can ever tell you who they are, they can only tell you who they were.

What are you - now?

Could there ever be life outside the present?

But is 'now' (the present) so short?
When in your experience is it not now?
Is now ever gone?
Now is missed completely because there is the dream of 'my life' happening - 'my life' only appears in 'past stories' and future stories' but it is totally missed that those stories happen now.

Nobody can ever tell you who they are, they can only tell you who they were.

What are you - now?

Could there ever be life outside the present?

In my experience there is no now, future or past. The "now" is a concept just as abstract as the "future" or the "past". I would say that there is nothing but "the happening" (kind of another word for the present) which is and cannot be other than eternal.

a reply to: Bootifool

Such an awesome answer. I believe that one day we will move beyond the constraints of time. That said, I don't think it's impossible for a being to have always existed outside of time. I don't believe that it's impossible for a being to exist outside of the realm of past, present, and future.

It might seem fallacious or flawed, but I challenge those who think that way to explore beyond human constraints.


If effect can precede cause, what does that mean for time?

The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate.
In New Quantum Experiment, Effect Happens Before Cause

a reply to: EternalSolace

I will just touch on your points very briefly; It is possible, of course no one is denying this, that there could exist 'timeless' agents -- theists postulate the existence of a supernatural agency of some sort. The implication, however, is with the modal status of possibility; thought experiments are extremely useful in philosophy, especially as counterarguments, but, when we exceed the logically possibly, that is when our ideas become irrational. The thought experiment you had raised could have been formulated in a more logically consistent way. There are a range of possibilities which my imagination confers me the ability to conceive of, only within the range of the logically possible, I cannot conceive of a square-circle no matter how hard I try.

The second point on the quantum experiment is interesting, and I'll have to give that much more thought.

a reply to: logical1ty

I get what you're saying, I think; That I'm on a more philosophical plane, rather than a plane of reality. Though, I'm not really referring to a supernatural entity such as a god, or ethereal being. If one consideres that there is life other than human in the universe, one also has to consider that there might be a 'timeless' entity as well. That leads me to think that what is logical for humanity, might not be logical for another species. The square-circle I understand and agree that it's illogical to consider such a thing. But along our understanding, time has no set boundaries. It's subjective in it's movement. It's defined in so many different ways. So is it really logical to narrow it's possibilities or the ability to exist above it?

I could have possibly made a better thought experiment, but it's not something that I've ever done in a public way before. That's why it's so rough around the edges.

a reply to: EternalSolace

That's a good thing, that you have the curiosity to philosophise. There is no doubt that this is the impetus behind our search after answers. I understand that you were not directly referring to God, I was merely using it as an example; that theists postulate such a supernatural agency -- i.e., being timeless -- as possibly existing. I would greatly recommend checking out the works of David Hume and Immanuel Kant in regards to causal intelligibility and time (particularly Kant's account of time and causation). Moreover, just to keep this brief, I understand your intent behind the thought experiment, don't take it as a loss or whatever, approach it logically. To use Kant's principle of an infinite judgement, your thought experiment could be not-P, therefore there is an infinite possibility of other thought experiments that you could use apart from this one. This is the beauty of philosophy, we find that P is false, we proceed with caution next time to ensure that our other propositions are true. In fact, you could even go on to reformulate the given thought experiment in a particular way as to make it valid.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: EternalSolace

One word,

Order

Is it really order? Or can it be chaos?