It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Forward Time Thinking Conundrum

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I noticed that one of the big reasons that people believe in a higher power is that we think of time as having an arrow forward.

I pose a simple question (and I am not asking about whether or not you believe in a higher power, so please keep off of that subject)- If we had never thought of time as always moving forward, do you all think that a belief in a higher power would be as strong as it is?




posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I think the main problem is we cannot create an experiment to distinguish between a higher power or primordial soup. The problem is, most characteristics of the "thing" that 'created' the universe can be applied to both the creationists god and the evolutionists starting point. Both claim their 'power that be' have always been. Neither can show a reason that either spawned life as we know it or the universe. Neither can explain why this being or starting point existed to begin with.

I think you are partially right, in that we cannot fathom something without an orgin, without immediately questioning where that thing came from. Or only experience of existence is something else creating it, it is impossible for us to adequately perceive a primary mover. This may very well be due to our perception of time as one way. I believe if we could shift our paradigm to consists of time as circular, their would be no need to search for a god, a creator or starting point.

But this time loop will then be subject to the same problem. Why a time loop and where did it come from?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I thought about that myself, and then I realized that the problem I was having was the word 'circular'. If time travelled circularly then we would have another problem- time would be moving forward until it moved backward.

Instead of looking at time as a line or a circle, we should probably think of it as the same shape as the universe of whatever else exists beyond the universe. Then we do not have a direction or path for time to travel, it just exists everywhere.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I recently had a life-changing epiphany about this.

Being brought up christian and being Christian for most of my life, right up to recently, I was always told that, and I quote "God has a plan for you, sonny."
There is the underlining belief in "Fate" when believing in a God.

I always, whether conscience or no, believed that my life was not my own choosing (at least in all the significant experiences), and that I was acting out some kind of God-written script. I felt like I was just watching my own life happen an not contributing or taking part.

It all felt like a dream.

I had dreams. I had goals, but I thought they were just going to "play out" later in life. I was a slacker because I wasn't putting anything in, because I felt I had no control.



A couple of months after becoming agnostic I though about this and realised that I wasn't just watching things "play out". That there wasn't a script or a set future like there is in the past. And suddenly it was like waking up in the drivers seat of a speeding vehicle and if I don't take control, I'm going to crash.

.... It's a scary feeling. I truly learnt that I have no choice but to take responsibility for my own life.





Sorry if that wasn't exactly on topic but I felt that my experience was direclty due to the "linear time line" dilemma.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
No, this is perfect! That is exactly my experience, right down to the childhood teachings.

I think that this is something that isnt paid attention to nearly as much as it should be, as you Good Wolf, probably know. When you realize time may not be linear then you start to think of the possibilities. Or, if you are so set in your ways, you ignore the idea.

Good for you, Good Wolf.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Weeeeeeeeell, this may frustrate you but I do believe there is a timeline. Paradoxically, I subscribe to determinism philosophy BUT that it isnt pre-set in an intelligent way. It's hard to describe. It's like blindly hitting a billiard ball. It's path is set but there is no target or purpose or reason that for it's path.


Everything we do is a reaction of something else, especially in our thoughts. My post was a reaction to yours and your latest post was a reaction to mine etc etc. Think about impulses. The "im going to get something to eat" thought after seeing food on TV. Like the blind billiard ball, things are in motion and things have a set path but the idea that "everything happens for a reason" is the pre set path idea that I freed myself of.

I hope that doesn't muddy the water too much, but if it does, forget I said it and pretend I just said the first thing.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Apparently there are reactions to the actions, of course. But think of it this way-

If time were like the LCD monitor instead of a line, then pushing the monitor screen still causes a reaction but doesn't have an arrow pointing somewhere. It just makes its impression on the space around it.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid
 


I don't think that's a very good analogy. [I hate scuffing up my monitor].

I kinda see it like the person who keeps asking "why". Everything has a cause but all those causes have causes too, and they have causes, and they have causes etc.

It seems like everything is a reaction of the first action and the laws of nature.


But this is getting off topic now. The main point is that life is not a movie, it's live television.


or analogies to that affect.



In the past I have thought heavily about time travel (into the past). Mainly I thought about whether or not history would chance with my presence, in relation to the laws of causality.

I came up with a hypothesis that any change, no mater, how big, would not change history forever. But rather there would be a kind of normalising effect and eventually things would go back to the way they are supposed to be. Like imagine that Columbus did not discover america but actually did get to india. Eventually America would be colonised all the same. And eventually a population in excess of 300 million would live there.

Thinking about time travel was also the thing that convinced me that evolution was true. It turned out that even when I outwardly said that it was false, internally I still expected to see dinosaurs If I went back 100 million years.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Causality does not have to be so formal in concept. Instead of a path of dominos, go back to the LCD screen concept for a minute and think of it like this-

The screen is touched. This distorts the screen, and now a mulitude of distortions are caused by that distortion, as though others were touching the screens after you (though this is not what we see when actually touch an LCD, obviously).

Time travel would still be possible in this kind of timespace if current theories are true. Holographic universe and such ideas. And, if time is indeed like this LCD idea, we would truly then be able to change history as the past we go back to is actually currently happening, as opposed to already having happened and being set in the recording of time.

Then again, were it currently happening along with the present, then the present might not be affected as they are both, seperately and together, in real time. This might support the alternate universes idea (that the titorites love so much).

But, either way, it would seem so far that not thinking so linearly can challenge a religious based belief system.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid
 


Sorry there is something strange about looking at grey fox and being told about fondling an LCD screen. Wouldn't touching water be a better analogy liquid time?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreyFoxSolid
If we had never thought of time as always moving forward, do you all think that a belief in a higher power would be as strong as it is?


I would say no. The idea of us being eternally present supports that we (like God) had no beginning and have no end.

The idea that the universe was created a long time ago without any doing on our part lends credence to the belief that there's something greater than us. Something that comes before is often equated with being "greater".

I'm of the belief that there's two different timelines running simultaneously. In one, there's the timeline of knowledge which indeed runs forward. Since the beginning of the universe, knowledge (based on association) has been increasing exponentially just like the fibonacci sequence. The constant evolution of thought.

However, there's another timeline which is more or less a dream. A way of perceiving all current universal knowledge in the form of an interactive story. What most call "Reality".

In this second timeline (the Story), the past and future extend out from the present, constantly changing shape (due to the increase of knowledge) as time goes on. In this sense, the true beginning would be somewhere in between past and future. Like sequels and prequels. The future is always in flux and the past continues to be reevaluated due to the existence of the 'knowledge timeline'.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You are picky, picky, picky.

Water could work.

And I dont fondle LCD screens!



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Kruel
 


Interesting. Then again, have we been eternally present? I would assume that in a non-linear time frame we would not have to have existed always. I think this is where the conditioning might come in. We did have a start, but this does not show that things such as 'beginnings' must be real (which would further imply 'ends').

My answer to the creation of the universe? It came from something else. There was not nothingness beforehand and there has never been.

As for your two timelines idea, I will think about that a bit more.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid
 


Yes I am picky, sorry. I tend to over analyse things. ... And then I over analyse my over analysing things and before ya know it Im TRAPPED IN analysis.

[--breath--breath--]

In fact it's probably why I came to the aforementioned epiphanies.


But yea, tell you what, you can have that term for the theory it seems like you're concocting. The "Liquid Time Model" free of charge.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Let's mix the two and call it the "LTD- Liquid Time Display". Now it's half mine!



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Going back to my first post, I think it can best be summarised by saying "there is no future, there is only the past and the now."


Heres a thought for ya on the beginning of the universe. What if there was no begining because time did not always travel in a strait path in the past. That the big bang first moment was not the beginning but rather the origin (graph axis) point in the timeline. Maybe before the big bang was like negative time?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreyFoxSolid
reply to post by Kruel
 


Interesting. Then again, have we been eternally present? I would assume that in a non-linear time frame we would not have to have existed always. I think this is where the conditioning might come in. We did have a start, but this does not show that things such as 'beginnings' must be real (which would further imply 'ends').


I guess it depends on how you define existence. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed and everything is made up of energy, who we are now is merely the result of a transformation of energy. I believe that the ego has a beginning and an end, but the information gained via experience does not. It passes on to other forms and transcends time (for example: retrocausality).



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
This is what I was getting at before. No arrow at the creation or even after.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid
 


I'm not sure what you mean. As in, if the universe or time was cyclical instead of linear less people would believe in God? I have some thoughts on this but wanted to make sure that is what you mean before posting. If that's not what you meant, then I have nothing to add.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   



I guess it depends on how you define existence. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed and everything is made up of energy, who we are now is merely the result of a transformation of energy. I believe that the ego has a beginning and an end, but the information gained via experience does not. It passes on to other forms and transcends time (for example: retrocausality).


Ah, I see your point now. Not that 'we' have been eternally present, but the energy that we are formed with has. The idea of creating or destroying energy is interesting. We have seen examples that this can be done. Those examples can be debated too.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join