The Illusion of Time (The nature of a \'Creator\')
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 03:59 (5274 days ago)
I recently had a very good discussion with some friends at work (myself), a Christian, a Muslim, and an atheist. -They walk into a bar...-Okay, joking aside, we started probing our Christian friend's ideas on the nature of God. -"If he knows everything before it happens, then he already knows the future."-"No... he just knows the decision you're going to make when you make it."-"Then he has no power. He either knows the future or he doesn't; if he doesn't know the future then he's not all-powerful."-It got me thinking deeply about time; and the fact that time doesn't actually exist. I might lose you guys in Esoteric Buddhism here, but a recent SciAm article contributed to this exact topic. -It impacts our discussions because David has spoken a bit about his God's intelligence, and I think this could provide some synergy for him...-I'll start out by describing my view of what time is. Time is nothing but two "measurements." In Buddhist philosophy, there is an intense denial of the entire concept of time; teachings such as the Prajna paramita Sutra (diamond sutra) focus the concept that existence is a raging river, upon which man attempts to stake his claim. The past: doesn't exist. The future? Doesn't exist. Only NOW exists. -A river is a good metaphor to discuss my idea, for you should imagine yourself standing at the bank, with a timer. A river indeed also hides a crucial fallacy that we all have at one time or another. -Click. Breath two breaths Click.-What is it that you have accomplished here? How much time has passed? This exercise demonstrates my point about what time is. There is no measurement for the present. Nietzsche--often discussed his love for the musical arts because they were the only art that doesn't exist for posterity--it is now, it is already gone by the next beat. -Our illusion of time as an actual object comes from our ability as humans to analyze recorded information and infer from it to future events. It seems deceptively tangible--like water as it flows through our fingers as we reach into the water. We can look upstream and see water, we can trace its movement through our fingers, and can watch it flow away from us. -The discussion that spawned all of this got me thinking: if God knows what we're going to do at the moment we're going to do it, the entire universe is that instant, and therefore that "playground." If God literally IS the entire universe, then he can only know its past, know its present, and just like us--can only predict the future. The lack of predictability--is precisely the kind of thing of entertainment for a being that can know the position of everything in the universe at once...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
MATT: The past: doesn't exist. The future? Doesn't exist. Only NOW exists.-Yet again you've come up with a rich thread, and I'm picking on this particular observation because of a fact which I've mentioned in the "brief guide" and which continues to run through my mind. Forgive me if I quote myself: "When we look at a star that is 186,281 miles away, we see it as it was one second ago. If I had a telescope that could focus on an object 660 million miles away, I would see it as it was an hour ago. The greater the distance, the further back into the past we can see. [...] Theoretically, it means that nothing is lost so long as light is able to travel. A telescope on a planet X billion miles away would enable the observer to watch the crucifixion."-Theoretically, then, the past DOES exist. To this I'd like to add some comments made by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society and Professor of Cosmology at Cambridge University ... presumably not the sort of scientist given to rash statements. An article in The Sunday Times quotes him as saying: "Some aspects of reality ... a unified theory of physics or a full understanding of consciousness ... might elude us simply because they're beyond human comprehension." Modern scientists have so far failed to reconcile the two "deeply contradictory theories" relating to the forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, and those that rule the microworld of atoms and particles. He believes that string theory is the most promising idea, and that particles "woven from space itself" could exist in 10 or 11 dimensions, whereas of course we can only experience three spatial dimensions plus time.-If you consider these comments, plus the time-light equation, you come to a point at which almost any scenario is feasible: multiple dimensions and universes, forms of existence different from our own, extensions of ourselves not merely as past images that never fade but even as constantly present images independent of three-dimensional flesh and blood and of time as we experience it. Of course that is all fantasy, but if Lord Rees is right and the greatest mysteries of the universe are and will remain beyond our comprehension, fantasy may be the only way in which we can transcend our limitations. Even if our scientists must, of course, continue their quest (he says thousands have been working on the problems for several decades and are still nowhere near an answer), it would be just as presumptuous to discount the experiences of the mystics as it would be to claim that eventually science will come up with satisfactory answers confined to our three dimensions plus time. In our present state at least, we remain profoundly ignorant ... which for some of us provides all the more reason to sit on the agnostic fence.-Your conclusion, Matt, that God can only know the past and present, and be entertained by the unpredictability of the future, had me smiling and nodding. That's if he's there, of course.
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Friday, June 18, 2010, 19:42 (5271 days ago) @ dhw
> Your conclusion, Matt, that God can only know the past and present, and be entertained by the unpredictability of the future, had me smiling and nodding. That's if he's there, of course.-You are presuming, of course, the religious description of God, and therefore you have given Him a past memory capacity. How do you know that? Perhaps He represents only current intellect from moment to moment. Then He would not know what is coming in the future, and that would explain all the blind alleys evolution has turned down, until He acts to correct the direction He wants.
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, June 18, 2010, 22:09 (5270 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Friday, June 18, 2010, 22:25
> > Your conclusion, Matt, that God can only know the past and present, and be entertained by the unpredictability of the future, had me smiling and nodding. That's if he's there, of course. > > You are presuming, of course, the religious description of God, and therefore you have given Him a past memory capacity. How do you know that? Perhaps He represents only current intellect from moment to moment. Then He would not know what is coming in the future, and that would explain all the blind alleys evolution has turned down, until He acts to correct the direction He wants.-Not having the capacity to view the past completely nullifies any argument FOR a creator or a designer. You can only improve on something if you know why it didn't work. What you describe here David, is shooting from the hip--and in no recorded example in history--has shooting from the hip resulted in something better that's lasted longer than a generation... -Further, not having a memory means that the intelligence would be required to be purely childlike; not what I would consider a UI to be. Only the long experience of multiple generations grants you the ability to make truly educated decisions. -I simply don't think a UI--if it exists--can be this way.-[EDIT]-While my post here describes a UI as "I would like it to be" I would stress that a UI w/o a memory is no UI at all. An infinite intelligence is of no use if you can't remember long enough to use it. -Using your own example, he can't "want" a direction without a plan, and you can't have a plan without having some kind of memory. Not to sound condescending--but you have to try harder than that!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Friday, June 18, 2010, 23:41 (5270 days ago) @ xeno6696
I simply don't think a UI--if it exists--can be this way. > > [EDIT] > > While my post here describes a UI as "I would like it to be" I would stress that a UI w/o a memory is no UI at all. An infinite intelligence is of no use if you can't remember long enough to use it. > > Using your own example, he can't "want" a direction without a plan, and you can't have a plan without having some kind of memory. Not to sound condescending--but you have to try harder than that!-All I am pointing out in a very facetious way, is we can know nothing at all about the UI. The UI could have a limited memory of its plan, but not the past, and still function at an immediate level. The intelligence may not be limitless. You cannot make the assumptions you are making. Religion is creeping into your thinking.-And our reality is not just at this moment. I can go back to the past in my memories; I can tell you the first memory in my life at the age of 2 years 4 months, and I can still see the scene in my mind's eye, in fact two scenes. And this is just as you insist the UI should have.
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 19, 2010, 13:54 (5270 days ago) @ David Turell
David, > And our reality is not just at this moment. I can go back to the past in my memories; I can tell you the first memory in my life at the age of 2 years 4 months, and I can still see the scene in my mind's eye, in fact two scenes. -That past doesn't exist. Again--I reiterate--only "measurements" (or "observations" if you will) of the event exist. But it's not the event itself; light from the cosmos, a memory in your head--are ghosts of something long since dead. Or taken another way--all you have is a memory, that event and that day at 2yrs and 4mos is something you can never go back to, because at all times you're in "now."-And as a medical scientist you should also know that memory cannot be trusted; multiple studies have been done that suggest that as humans, we remember what we want to remember. 5 witnesses to a car crash can have a dramatically different take on the entire incident. This happened to my wife and I back in '02. We were behind a guy that got hit, we saw him move forward on a green arrow. Everyone else saw him running a red. I used to subscribe to American Psychologist, and at that time (ironically) they ran an article on just such a phenomenon. One theory is that our brain only remembers a few details and then "recreates" the memory on recall; not stores it the way we think it would with a computer. -> And this is just as you insist the UI should have. You say we cannot reason about the UI, but if the universe is designed as you claim, then I argue that indeed we can. Because if the universe is designed there is a few things that we CAN say we know about it, just by looking at its design.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Saturday, June 19, 2010, 14:22 (5270 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > And this is just as you insist the UI should have. > You say we cannot reason about the UI, but if the universe is designed as you claim, then I argue that indeed we can. Because if the universe is designed there is a few things that we CAN say we know about it, just by looking at its design.-This answer is for dhw and Matt: Just as Matt lives only in the present, and infers the past, the point I am making is quite close to Matt's statement. The approach I have taken from 'probabilities', that pure chance and a passive Darwin system cannot have created the life we see, the Earth we have, indicate a universal intelligence has to be behind it all. The complete abilities of that UI, its personality, will only be guesses. Omnipotence, loving, etc. are all religious wishful thinking. From my reasoning there is a UI, and my own hope that some human qualities are also present. On that presumption, I pray.
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, June 18, 2010, 22:02 (5270 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, -You gave me something to think about, but I'll counter the argument with something that I bet you've already considered. -In discussing stars--you (unwittingly) allow for the exact fallacy I was worried about in the original post. You can look at a star through a telescope and see it as it was only an hour previously. But the light you see even then is not reality. The reality for however long ago the light was emitted, but even with that; a star is much more than just light. So even in your example you're not getting the star in itself, are you?-We can even take another tact here; every photon emitted is itself--a measurement. As each successive photon hits your eye, either naked or via telescope--is a measurement of something that once was, long ago. The past--does not exist. Only our measurements of the past exist. To illustrate this further, ask yourself this question: "What does that bit of light actually tell me?"-Reality--for each of us--is ONLY where we are at this very moment in time.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
MATT: You gave me something to think about.-Ah, tit for tat!-MATT: In discussing stars--you (unwittingly) allow for the exact fallacy I was worried about in the original post. You can look at a star through a telescope and see it as it was only an hour previously. But the light you see even then is not reality. The reality for however long ago the light was emitted, but even with that; a star is much more than just light. So even in your example you're not getting the star in itself, are you?-True, but this observation applies just as much to the present as to the past. It depends what level we're thinking on. I can never "get" anything "in itself". I can only get my perception of it. The example I gave was witnessing the crucifixion, but if you and I witnessed a crucifixion together in our present, we would still offer different accounts, so we couldn't claim that our version was reality or the crucifixion in itself. On this level, in line with your observation that the past does not exist and only our measurements of it exist, one would have to say the present does not exist ... only our perceptions of it exist.-You conclude: "Reality ... for each of us ... is ONLY where we are at this very moment in time." If at this very moment in time I watch a 3-D newsreel of some past event (the equivalent of my watching the crucifixion through my telescope on Planet X), I will be in the presence of the past. Once again, what I perceive is not the thing in itself ... it never can be ... but the image is as "real" to me as the view I have out of my study window at this moment. And so on one level I'd say you are right, because we can never claim that what we see is reality in itself, but on another level, theoretically, the past ... in the same sense of perceptions of the past ... can go on for ever, depending on the position of our observation post out there in space.-Perception is one thing, but how about participation? Supposing life is one gigantic computer game, with infinite potential for repetition and variation? Could the Illusion of Time actually = The Illusion of Life?
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 19, 2010, 14:15 (5270 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Saturday, June 19, 2010, 14:22
dhw, You ask a huge question in here! > MATT: You gave me something to think about. > > Ah, tit for tat! > > MATT: In discussing stars--you (unwittingly) allow for the exact fallacy I was worried about in the original post. You can look at a star through a telescope and see it as it was only an hour previously. But the light you see even then is not reality. The reality for however long ago the light was emitted, but even with that; a star is much more than just light. So even in your example you're not getting the star in itself, are you? > > True, but this observation applies just as much to the present as to the past. It depends what level we're thinking on. I can never "get" anything "in itself". I can only get my perception of it. The example I gave was witnessing the crucifixion, but if you and I witnessed a crucifixion together in our present, we would still offer different accounts, so we couldn't claim that our version was reality or the crucifixion in itself. On this level, in line with your observation that the past does not exist and only our measurements of it exist, one would have to say the present does not exist ... only our perceptions of it exist. > -Well, this is true as well; the post I just sent to David discusses briefly the phenomenon of 5 people watching the same car accident and reporting 5 different sequences of events. Perception always creeps in, and the fact may be we only remember what we want to remember. But let me focus you again on the river.-Your hand is in the river, and in no two moments is the "same" river flowing through your fingertips. So it is with time. When you look upstream towards your future, you have what might be, but you can't predict which molecules will actually hit your hand. When you look downstream, you'll have a general idea, based on the speed, where your touch "influenced" the stream.-But you're reasoning about an event that hasn't happened and one that already did in both cases. The only event that's actually happening is the river flowing through your fingers right now! The past, only exists in what observations we humans choose to write down--or in rare cases, are able to infer based on things we DO know. Happened. -(more for david) I'm not arguing that events in the past never happened, just shedding light on the paucity of information actually available to us. - > You conclude: "Reality ... for each of us ... is ONLY where we are at this very moment in time." If at this very moment in time I watch a 3-D newsreel of some past event (the equivalent of my watching the crucifixion through my telescope on Planet X), I will be in the presence of the past. -Presence again of "measurements" put to newsreel, yes. -Once again, what I perceive is not the thing in itself ... it never can be ... but the image is as "real" to me as the view I have out of my study window at this moment. And so on one level I'd say you are right, because we can never claim that what we see is reality in itself, but on another level, theoretically, the past ... in the same sense of perceptions of the past ... can go on for ever, depending on the position of our observation post out there in space. > > Perception is one thing, but how about participation? Supposing life is one gigantic computer game, with infinite potential for repetition and variation? Could the Illusion of Time actually = The Illusion of Life?-[EDIT] And I almost forgot the biggest question of all!!!-I hope my previous paragraphs coincide with what you say here in these two paragraphs. The late comedian George Carlin once said, "Life began a very long time ago, and is a continuous process." The continuity of life would also suggest that "now" is the only thing that matters for life as well. I think the same work I did on the river for time can apply to life too; as a single, continuous process, life at large has millions of "states" (organisms) at any given second, but they are all part of the same continuity. Most animals don't get the luxury of looking back on what came before it. And I think a great deal of thinking about the world is lead astray by the illusion of "life" just as much as the illusion of "time."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
MATT: I hope my previous paragraphs coincide with what you say here in these two paragraphs. -Indeed they do. The river image is an excellent one for time, and what you say about millions of states, "now", and continuity is the equivalent of what mystics describe as the interconnectedness of all things. However, I don't think the image works quite so well for life, because unlike time, the past, present and future of life don't just flow one way. I'd like to consider two quotes from your earlier paragraphs:-1) "The past only exists in what observations we humans choose to write down ... or in rare cases, are able to infer on things we DO know. Happened."-A great deal of our human culture is devoted precisely to our attempts to counter the flow of time. We do this not only by writing things down in the form of historiography, reports, diaries etc., but also through art, monuments, archives, museums. The concept of nationhood, for instance, depends on the retention of memories.*** As you've pointed out, what is retained is not the past itself but interpretations of the past, which is why history can be rewritten in accordance with current requirements. But whatever is retained REMAINS PRESENT, as I'll try to illustrate through the second quote: -"When you look downstream, you'll have a general idea [..] where your touch "influenced" the stream." -You may have influenced the stream, but the stream has also influenced you and continues to do so, because although the past may no longer be real, its impact is. A striking example is trauma.*** And as everybody now knows, our childhood experiences especially have a huge effect on our personality, even though we may not have a conscious memory of them. Sometimes, a psychiatrist may be able to "pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow" (of course, Shakespeare knew it all long before we did), but most of the past remains hidden and influential. It affects our present and our future. You could extend this collectively too. No matter what your views may be on the Israel-Palestine tragedy, you can't discount the traumatic effects of modern history on the Jews, from the pogroms to the Holocaust. And so although time flows onwards like a river, I'd suggest that in life there is also a contraflow, because the past ... no matter how unreal it has become ... exercises a never-ending influence on the present.-***All of this is the subject of two marvellous books on memory by Jan and Aleida Assmann that I keep referring to periodically. Infuriatingly, there have been more hold-ups, and so the books are still only available in German. I'll keep you informed. -For David: Like Matt, I find it impossible to conceive of a UI who can't remember what he designed. If from your reasoning you deduce that there is a UI, we can also deduce from our reasoning that he has a memory, since it's reasonable to argue that intelligence can't function without some kind of acquired knowledge. This really won't be of much use if you've forgotten what you learned! However, characteristics such as benevolence and omniscience are certainly in a different category.
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Monday, June 21, 2010, 16:37 (5268 days ago) @ dhw
> Indeed they do. The river image is an excellent one for time, - As a white water rafter I view a river as cfs, cubic feet per second. Each river is different. For time, its speed of passage is different for different ages. A four or five year old has little in his memory bank, and each day seems very long. By mid-life days are obviously much shorter, and even faster for octogenarians. So memory really does matter. The UI has a memory of at least 13.7 billion years, but we have no idea of beforehand, that is, behind the Big Bang.
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, June 21, 2010, 22:55 (5267 days ago) @ dhw
dhw creates a striking argument discussing how life carries its past with it. -Here I concede to flawless logic. Indeed; we carry all the changes to our genomes that didn't result in abject failure, as well as all of its successes. In this sense--for life--conservation of the past is EXACTLY what the point IS. -Moving on to culture and our attempts to preserve it: I didn't mean to say that certain events never happened: Clearly all history leading to 1967 resulted in the firm and swift manner that the Israelis took their destiny into their own hands. -I could argue here that this past doesn't actually exist--and though technically correct in terms of here/now vs. everything else, it also fails because as you of all people should know--it doesn't matter if an event exists or not if it is pivotal in the development of an individual; extrapolate a shared event to a group of many and this only becomes more severe. -At the moment I can't say much else about this.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Thursday, August 05, 2010, 17:22 (5223 days ago) @ xeno6696
> It got me thinking deeply about time; and the fact that time doesn't actually exist. I might lose you guys in Esoteric Buddhism here, but a recent SciAm article contributed to this exact topic. > > I'll start out by describing my view of what time is. Time is nothing but two "measurements." In Buddhist philosophy, there is an intense denial of the entire concept of time; teachings such as the Prajna paramita Sutra (diamond sutra) focus the concept that existence is a raging river, upon which man attempts to stake his claim. The past: doesn't exist. The future? Doesn't exist. Only NOW exists. - A new approach to cosmology does away with the Big Bang theory, combining time, energy, matter, and length:-http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html
The Illusion of Time
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Thursday, August 05, 2010, 23:26 (5222 days ago) @ David Turell
That's a fascinating article. Personally I hope the big-bang "inflation" model is wrong, and that a replacement can be found, since it all seems so "ad hoc". It will need some very basic re-examination of assumptions.-Here is another on similar lines, but not so convincing to my way of thinking:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727711.100-is-a-cosmic-chameleon-driving-galaxies-apart.html-This again seems "ad hoc" and not derived from fundamental principles.
--
GPJ
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 10, 2010, 17:41 (5187 days ago) @ xeno6696
This has been an extremely interesting discussion, so let me start by saying thank you for asking a tough question and reviewing from both the perspective of science and agnosticism.-The original post made some references to Buddhism. I am not an expert on it, and have only just begun studying it. However, I have studied several other major religions, more out of morbid curiosity than anything, but some of the things I have found are interesting in that they expose a basic understanding of things not to be discovered by science for several thousand years. -The issue of time is one of those things, and the Buddhist view is not the only religion by far to have a premise in its religious text. -For example, for the bible 2 Peter 3, "a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day." It could be a reference to the perspective of an entity that has an extrodinarily long life, or could be read as, Time has no meaning, or does not exist.-"According to the Hindu theory of creation, time (Sanskrit 'kal') is a manifestation of God. Creation begins when God makes his energies active and ends when he withdraws all his energies into a state of inactivity. God is timeless, for time is relative and ceases to exist in the Absolute. The past, the present and the future coexist in him simultaneously."-The concept is even reflected in the Jewish Kabballa (though I don't have a copy or link to one to reference.)-My point is, there is something very intuitive about timelessness. The idea has been around a LONG time. Humans have a nasty tendency towards arrogance, and we arrogantly assume that the ancient civilizations were ignorant and barbaric compared to us. (A lot of horse poo in my opinion, but regardless) However, it is only now that we are rediscovering that time may not exist. Even if the religious texts are not 'Inspired by God' they are worth digging into as a source of insight into things that we are only just now discovering.
The Illusion of Time
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: Humans have a nasty tendency towards arrogance, and we arrogantly assume that the ancient civilizations were ignorant and barbaric compared to us.-First of all, welcome to the forum, and thank you for reopening this thread with such an interesting post. The comment above strikes a chord of recognition, as it seems to me that regardless of whether God exists or not, our own civilization has lost touch with many of the ideas that our ancestors took for granted ... a healthy respect for Nature perhaps being at the forefront. -However, as I read what you wrote about timelessness, the thought occurred to me that without time existence would be both inconceivable and unbearable. I don't mean relative time, as in your quote from 2 Peter 3, but the total absence. Without time there could be no before and after, and therefore no change. We ourselves may moan about the effects of age, and the passing of our moments of happiness, but imagine being stuck at the same point in your life for ever. If there is a God, the same would surely apply, and I can only suppose that he would be bored out of his mind. Creating life would at least be a distraction from the endless sameness of his existence. There is a similar problem with the concept of an afterlife: what are we supposed to do throughout eternity or in a timeless void? It's only the onward movement that allows life to take on its variety. Without such movement ... which is totally dependent on the flow of time ... we, the rest of existence, and God himself might as well be dead.-A possible rejoinder to this is that we are ignorant, and the universe (or God) holds secrets to which we finite beings have no access. No-one can argue with that (although scientists like Hawking and Mlodinow have their own quasi-religious faith that we CAN unravel the secrets) ... but it's hard to build beliefs on ignorance, and time-based existence is the only one we actually know. There may be "something very intuitive about timelessness", but I think there's also something very exciting and even reassuring about time.-Once again, thank you for joining us. I'd be interested to know your own views on the importance of time and timelessness.
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 11, 2010, 11:52 (5186 days ago) @ dhw
Thanks for the warm welcome. -First off, I think you are confusing timelessness with a static universe. The two are not in any way synonymous. Things change, sometimes they change predictably, sometimes not. -An easy analogy is racketball. A skilled player can strike the ball, predict the flight path of the ball, the incidence angle of the ball striking the wall, and return trajectory of the ball, and may other incidental attribute(i.e. velocity, force, bounce, even the physical shape of the ball as it proceeds through the stages) That does not imply that anything after the ball is set in stone, nor that any instant of the balls path exists prior to, or after, that particular instant. Each instant also introduces seemingly random variables into the equation that make the outcome that much more unpredictable. -The real trick to time is that it can not be measured. The measuring of it is in fact an illusion. You are either remembering, or predicting, never measuring. One second, one milisecond, microsecond ago, is still the past, and one microsecond from now is still the future. It is a physical impossibility. But what about something that is not physical, that does not share our limitations?
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Saturday, September 11, 2010, 15:44 (5186 days ago) @ dhw
> No-one can argue with that (although scientists like Hawking and Mlodinow have their own quasi-religious faith that we CAN unravel the secrets)-Saw Larry King last night (not even a high school graduate, so stupid, so famous) ask Mlodinow about his personal faith. M accepts his scientific findings as 'truths', but would not discuss his personal faith. His parents were Jewish holocaust survivers. From the tone of his answer I suspect his God is still around. > > Once again, thank you for joining us. I'd be interested to know your own views on the importance of time and timelessness.-Agreed.
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 05:50 (5185 days ago) @ dhw
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: Humans have a nasty tendency towards arrogance, and we arrogantly assume that the ancient civilizations were ignorant and barbaric compared to us. > > First of all, welcome to the forum, and thank you for reopening this thread with such an interesting post. The comment above strikes a chord of recognition, as it seems to me that regardless of whether God exists or not, our own civilization has lost touch with many of the ideas that our ancestors took for granted ... a healthy respect for Nature perhaps being at the forefront. > > However, as I read what you wrote about timelessness, the thought occurred to me that without time existence would be both inconceivable and unbearable. I don't mean relative time, as in your quote from 2 Peter 3, but the total absence. Without time there could be no before and after, and therefore no change. We ourselves may moan about the effects of age, and the passing of our moments of happiness, but imagine being stuck at the same point in your life for ever. If there is a God, the same would surely apply, and I can only suppose that he would be bored out of his mind. Creating life would at least be a distraction from the endless sameness of his existence. There is a similar problem with the concept of an afterlife: what are we supposed to do throughout eternity or in a timeless void? It's only the onward movement that allows life to take on its variety. Without such movement ... which is totally dependent on the flow of time ... we, the rest of existence, and God himself might as well be dead. > -The Buddhist in me stirs...-No; your concept of how timelessness works here isn't quite right: you are following the fallacy I warned about in the original post. -Buddhist timelessness doesn't make any claims at all that we won't age or that things don't change; only that our concept of time itself is a man-made illusion. It isn't a property of the universe, but a convenient signpost between two measurements. Clearly, Buddhist babies still develop into adults, and Buddhist scientists can recreate past events. So what gives? The difference is on treating time as if it is REAL. Take out a ruler. Is a centimeter real, or did we make it up? Time is no different. - > A possible rejoinder to this is that we are ignorant, and the universe (or God) holds secrets to which we finite beings have no access. No-one can argue with that (although scientists like Hawking and Mlodinow have their own quasi-religious faith that we CAN unravel the secrets) ... but it's hard to build beliefs on ignorance, and time-based existence is the only one we actually know. There may be "something very intuitive about timelessness", but I think there's also something very exciting and even reassuring about time. > -We only know it because it is what we are taught; My experience with African culture (so far) has shown me that they simply don't have the same concept of time as I have here in America; Time is relative. If time is relative; is it real?-> Once again, thank you for joining us. I'd be interested to know your own views on the importance of time and timelessness.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Sunday, September 12, 2010, 06:19 (5185 days ago) @ xeno6696
> We only know it because it is what we are taught; My experience with African culture (so far) has shown me that they simply don't have the same concept of time as I have here in America; Time is relative. If time is relative; is it real?- We measure the passage of events. The universe evolves and we refer to the universe as containing space-time; really space evolution. Time is our measurement, on a clock, based on the sun and earth rotation. Light-years are a distance mechanism we invent. As noted in the physics of the universe time can run in either direction, but doesn't appear to. We are built to remember the past and recognize the present instant, and the arrow points to the future in our minds and consciousness. Time is as real as we make it, but it is our construct.
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 05:19 (5185 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
"Balance_Maintained,"-Thank you for coming to the site, I am always happy to see new faces! Now, on with the discussion... > The original post made some references to Buddhism. I am not an expert on it, and have only just begun studying it. However, I have studied several other major religions, more out of morbid curiosity than anything, but some of the things I have found are interesting in that they expose a basic understanding of things not to be discovered by science for several thousand years. > -As far as the Buddhist perspective there isn't much to say: time is man-made; it is an illusion. The only thing that exists at any point in the universe is "now." We can make predictions about the future, we can analyze the past, but the only important part of existence is in "here and now." This wisdom is echoed in many religions--including the Abrahamic religions.-> The issue of time is one of those things, and the Buddhist view is not the only religion by far to have a premise in its religious text. > > For example, for the bible 2 Peter 3, "a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day." It could be a reference to the perspective of an entity that has an extrodinarily long life, or could be read as, Time has no meaning, or does not exist. > -This was my argument as a christian to support evolution. Obviously, I've since given up that ghost, but one would wish that more Christians would read their damn book...-> "According to the Hindu theory of creation, time (Sanskrit 'kal') is a manifestation of God. Creation begins when God makes his energies active and ends when he withdraws all his energies into a state of inactivity. God is timeless, for time is relative and ceases to exist in the Absolute. The past, the present and the future coexist in him simultaneously." > > The concept is even reflected in the Jewish Kabballa (though I don't have a copy or link to one to reference.) > -Kabbalism refers to timelessness in terms of the Godhead. There is a few suggestions of this mentioned in the Zohar; but in general it is applied to God and not to the world or the universe. -> My point is, there is something very intuitive about timelessness. The idea has been around a LONG time. Humans have a nasty tendency towards arrogance, and we arrogantly assume that the ancient civilizations were ignorant and barbaric compared to us. (A lot of horse poo in my opinion, but regardless) However, it is only now that we are rediscovering that time may not exist. Even if the religious texts are not 'Inspired by God' they are worth digging into as a source of insight into things that we are only just now discovering.-Physics has done quite a bit to demonstrate that nature is NOT intuitive. While I don't deride ancient civilizations in terms of wisdom; I would echo dhw here in asking the question: "Would you prefer to submit to medicine of 4000 years ago, or medicine in this day and age?" Especially in terms of emergency care, the ancients had nothing on us. Or, what about disease being caused by demons instead of bacteria? -I bring this up only in the caution that the ancients did not have all the answers, otherwise we wouldn't be wrestling with many of the same questions.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Friday, September 10, 2010, 19:31 (5187 days ago) @ xeno6696
> The discussion that spawned all of this got me thinking: if God knows what we're going to do at the moment we're going to do it, the entire universe is that instant, and therefore that "playground." If God literally IS the entire universe, then he can only know its past, know its present, and just like us--can only predict the future. The lack of predictability--is precisely the kind of thing of entertainment for a being that can know the position of everything in the universe at once...-I certainly can agree with you that a river is a river, and at 10 thousand CFM (the Grand Canyon Colorado generally), it is a different river every instant. And time is certainly like that, only past, the instant of now, and the future. -On the other hand there are laws by which the universe operates and evolves and appears to be controlled in a certain direction to a very cold ending. I think God knows the future of the universe, just as we are predicting it; but your thought about unpredictability seems to fit His favorite folks, free-will humans. That is where the fun is!! And any other free-will folks, if there are any.
The Illusion of Time
by romansh , Saturday, September 11, 2010, 20:20 (5186 days ago) @ xeno6696
Our illusion of time as an actual object comes from our ability as humans to analyze recorded information and infer from it to future events. It seems deceptively tangible--like water as it flows through our fingers as we reach into the water. We can look upstream and see water, we can trace its movement through our fingers, and can watch it flow away from us. -If time is an illusion and I suspect this could be true, then everything else is also an illusion, eg intelligence, life, free will, consciousness. For example if time is an illusion, then I don't see how concepts like velocity, acceleration and energy are not also illusions.-But beware of the word "illusion" - it does not mean delusion. It just means something is not what it seems - it does not mean that something does not exist.
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 11, 2010, 21:21 (5186 days ago) @ romansh
If time is an illusion and I suspect this could be true, then everything else is also an illusion, eg intelligence, life, free will, consciousness. For example if time is an illusion, then I don't see how concepts like velocity, acceleration and energy are not also illusions. > The are most definately illusions. If you could take a snapshot of 'now', then you would see no acceleration, no velocity. Energy is different, energy (to the best of my knowledge) can exist without time, but the standard of measurement would have to change.- > But beware of the word "illusion" - it does not mean delusion. It just means something is not what it seems - it does not mean that something does not exist.-If time exists, point me to the past or future. Point me to anywhen except right now. You can't. And neither can the worlds top minds. Past, present, and future can only exist now, in the form of memory, prediction, and current state. -As I said in my earlier post with the racketball analogy, when can record and infer, but those are not real data, they are guesses with inherent flaws limited to the sensory perception of the observer or the observers instrumentation. Whats more, right now is limited to your current perspective, so right now, as you know it, is only real to you, and even that much of reality is limited to what your senses can detect.-Maybe that is what we are only beginning to scratch the surface of with quantem physics. To steal a quote from a game that spoke with surprising clarity, "Nothing is real, everything is permitted." Atoms existing in two places at once, 'nothing' containing energy, time not existing as we know it. What I wonder is if man kind will be able to survive long enough to make that leap.
The Illusion of Time
by romansh , Saturday, September 11, 2010, 21:38 (5186 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
If time exists, point me to the past or future. Point me to anywhen except right now. You can't. And neither can the worlds top minds. Past, present, and future can only exist now, in the form of memory, prediction, and current state. -I think we have moved on beyond Zeno's paradoxes with the invention of calculus and with the concept of zero.-We can no more point to where a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat than to five minutes ago and tomorrow. That is without going behind the curtain - to mix a metaphor.-Now I take your point we only have the "now" whatever that is, and our perception of that is likely illusory. Some authorities of myths point out that "eternity" actually refers to "now". But then experiments by Benjamin Libet and similar show that the "now" is not quite what it seems. -While I agree with you philosophically speaking, the pragmatic me still saves towards my pension. Assuming there is a future now.
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 11, 2010, 22:11 (5185 days ago) @ romansh
And I understand your point as well. At the moment, we are having to deal with the constraints of our limited reality, and within those limitations, time, as a concept, is a useful tool. As long as we realize the tool is illusory and flawed, then you can avoid the trap of using it as a cosmological reality to make statements of fiction=statements of fact. Ultimately, we can not even be assured of the precision of our guestimates of time, and it is only within the reference framework of leaps of faith like this that our science makes sense. That is one of the reasons I am so skeptical about modern science. They assume to much, and assert too much, and like religion, take too much on faith.
The Illusion of Time
by romansh , Saturday, September 11, 2010, 23:19 (5185 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
As long as we realize the tool is illusory I can accept this as a hypothesis > ... and flawed, then you can avoid the trap of using it as a cosmological reality to make statements of fiction=statements of fact. now is this also a hypothesis or is it a fact and do I have to take this on faith?
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 12, 2010, 00:11 (5185 days ago) @ romansh
Well... try asking a more fundemental question.-If science can not *prove* the speed of light, consistently, by direct observation, (And by that I mean consistant with no anomalous abnormatlities. Things they can account for I will grant them a little leeway with provided they can correct for them) then using it as a constant is in fact a logical fallacy, because it is not proven as a constant. The data at the moment indicates a reduction in speed over time, which has not proven either. So using that theory as fact would be a logical fallacy as well. And while using a fallacious number may make the math pretty, in the long term garbage in=garbage out.-I am tired of science getting away with taking 'best fit' scenarios and foisting them off on the public. The average person is not a scientist, and I would wager are not able to perform the complex calculations needed to confirm what they are being told. Also, a recognition of how terms are used differently in the scientific community versus the layman usage should be addressed as well. A little more intellectual honesty and a touch of humility would be a welcome relief.
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Sunday, September 12, 2010, 00:37 (5185 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
And while using a fallacious number may make the math pretty, in the long term garbage in=garbage out. > > I am tired of science getting away with taking 'best fit' scenarios and foisting them off on the public. The average person is not a scientist, and I would wager are not able to perform the complex calculations needed to confirm what they are being told. Also, a recognition of how terms are used differently in the scientific community versus the layman usage should be addressed as well. A little more intellectual honesty and a touch of humility would be a welcome relief.-I have to agree. The equations of physics have the problem that the arrow of time can run in both directions. Where is the backwards arrow in our experience of reality? We all agree there is a present moment.-And I am still waiting for a recent reference on the slowing of time since the BB. I know it is conjectured.
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 12, 2010, 01:07 (5185 days ago) @ David Turell
The latest I have read on it suggest that it is still under investigation, and somehow I doubt any controversial findings will be released in a hurry even if they are found.-http://www.opfocus.org/index.php?topic=story&v=8&s=4
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Sunday, September 12, 2010, 06:02 (5185 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The latest I have read on it suggest that it is still under investigation, and somehow I doubt any controversial findings will be released in a hurry even if they are found. > > http://www.opfocus.org/index.php?topic=story&v=8&s=4-The website shows lots of speculation, even a hope that the speed of light will be shown to be slowing. I'll take proof over speculation. I don't think science will hide the discovery of a change in speed, if proven.
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 12, 2010, 12:01 (5185 days ago) @ David Turell
I didn't say they would hide it, just that they wouldn't be fast to release it. I think they would try everything in their power to get back to falsify it.
The Illusion of Time
by David Turell , Sunday, September 12, 2010, 14:53 (5185 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I didn't say they would hide it, just that they wouldn't be fast to release it. I think they would try everything in their power to get back to falsify it.-Our experience with climategate certainly supports your contention. Peer review and the plethora of government grants has politicized science to a point where your mistrust of science seems very valid.
The Illusion of Time
Last night I drafted a reply to Balance_Maintained's post of 11 September at 11.52. This morning I woke to find that in the (non-existent) time in between, there had been twenty more posts! I wonder if/when ... in the course of this (non-existent) time ... you guys sleep. But of course US (non-existent) time is different from UK (non-existent) time, and in any case you guys may be an illusion. -That time is "our construct" (David) is clear, but so is language, and some of our language is used to denote things that we believe really exist (e.g. me). Romansh points out that "we only have the "now", whatever that is, and our perception of that is likely illusory." Balance-Maintained says that "past, present and future can only exist now, in the form of memory, prediction, and current state," and "much of reality is limited to what your senses can detect." Put all this together, and you have the argument that reality (whatever that is) exists only as we perceive it. In the context of this discussion, our present perceptions of "reality" immediately become our memories of our perceptions of reality. All this is clear, although I would strongly advise Balance_Maintained that when Romansh's intelligent brick comes flying towards his head, he should duck rather than tell himself it's an illusory perception. But what I do not understand is how it is possible for our present to turn into our past, for memory to exist without a past, and for prediction to take place without a future, if there is not an onward flow from one to the other. Balance_Maintained began this discussion with the claim that "we are rediscovering that time may not exist". If it does not exist, what name would you give to that onward flow?
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 12, 2010, 15:16 (5185 days ago) @ dhw
You have actually just hit the proverbial nail on the head. Even though we are able to intellectually understand, to a certain extent, that time may not exist, we are limited in discussing it because of the limitations of our language and of our own understanding.
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 13, 2010, 02:35 (5184 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
You have actually just hit the proverbial nail on the head. Even though we are able to intellectually understand, to a certain extent, that time may not exist, we are limited in discussing it because of the limitations of our language and of our own understanding.-Maybe it's just me--but I don't have this problem. It is likely due to my time in Buddhism, but time is a concept I am willing to let go; many religions speak of acting in the present moment... the reason is that when the urge to do good comes your way, most people decide to shelve it for later, for when they don't have time... Sufi writers especially discuss this tragedy. -A timeless universe is easy for me to comprehend. It actually simplifies a great many things.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 13, 2010, 02:32 (5184 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, I'm interjecting again, sorry!->... But what I do not understand is how it is possible for our present to turn into our past, for memory to exist without a past, and for prediction to take place without a future, if there is not an onward flow from one to the other. Balance_Maintained began this discussion with the claim that "we are rediscovering that time may not exist". If it does not exist, what name would you give to that onward flow?-Think of it this way: Our brains record like tape-recorders; the moment of "now," the only moment that truly exists is here and gone just as fast as when you listen to your favorite song; our language helps preserve "now" in our memories, but they are only memories. We all know we can't undo the past, correct? My view tells us why. Because the present moment that was recorded in your memory cannot be reclaimed. -Our belief in time as an actual object comes from our ability to organize and plan--you can't organize and plan if all you have is "here and now." You need to be able to look at past recordings to discern patterns, and then plan for the future. -But time is nothing more than a ruler we use to mark events.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: I have said that Time is a linguistic construct that humans need to express an idea that we do not yet fully understand. I am not claiming to fully understand it myself, and by default I am left having to use the same literary constructs as everyone else. That does not mean it exists, it just means that our way of thinking and language are closely interwoven with that concept.-We have linguistic constructs for all the things we do not yet fully understand: consciousness, life, love, beauty, dark energy, imagination, will....That may not mean they exist, but it certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. You and Matt have explained the non-existence theory very clearly, and I'll switch to Matt's post on the subject, so that I can combine the two. But first, please don't apologize, Matt, for intervening! These discussions are open, and I find it immensely helpful to get these multiple viewpoints. -MATT: Our language helps preserve "now" in our memories, but they are only memories. [..] The present moment that was recorded in your memory cannot be reclaimed. [...] Time is nothing more than a ruler we use to mark events.-I have no problem at all with this, but I'm stubbornly reluctant to allow philosophy to take over from pragmatism, so I will argue my case so that you can both enlighten me with yours. What you have shown is that the past has no reality, and in a flash the present also loses its reality. The future has no reality anyway. But although they have no reality, we all assume (and why should we not?) that our memories ... even though they can't capture the reality of what was once fleetingly real ... nevertheless relate to something that WAS real. I don't want to get sidetracked into issues of subjective interpretation here, so let's take a solid, material example. You and I are looking at a building. What we see will be our personal perception of it, but we do not doubt its reality, and if there were a million people standing there with us, they too would testify to the reality of the building. Through the mere fact that it is standing there in our present, we would all agree that it must have been built in the past. Each such perception of the present (immediately turning into memory) ... whether linked to material things or experiences or history or evolution ... testifies to the once-reality of the past. In other words, there has been an onward movement in which present has become past. We don't understand it, and as you say, it's a ruler we use to mark events, but "nothing more than a ruler" seems to me to miss out on the fact that the onward flow continues, and the records of the no-longer-real ... abstract as well as material ... are evidence of the reality of the movement. I would argue, then, that time is not the present, past and future, but the flow that links them. And so if you claim that time does not exist, you will have to convince me that there is no onward flow.
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 09:59 (5183 days ago) @ dhw
Tell you what, I can do one better. I can give you a practical example of how we are each correct. Study the way an old movie film works. Then, imagine having the same movie(i.e. locations, actors,scenes,etc) recorded from a million different camera angles, maybe even a few cameras that are recording something completely unrelated. Then ask yourself a couple of questions.-
- Are all of these movies real?
- Do the events in them exist anymore?
- Are the films one continues stream, or a million instances strung together by the something we can not see within the framework of the movie?
- Do each of the different camera angles reflect reality?
- How can each of the different perspectives be real if they are all different?
- etc etc etc
-I am not implying that one 'now' to the next is not strung together, simply that I do not think that the framework for this mechanism is human's conception of 'Time'.
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 00:26 (5182 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tell you what, I can do one better. I can give you a practical example of how we are each correct. Study the way an old movie film works. Then, imagine having the same movie(i.e. locations, actors,scenes,etc) recorded from a million different camera angles, maybe even a few cameras that are recording something completely unrelated. Then ask yourself a couple of questions. > >
- Are all of these movies real? >
- Do the events in them exist anymore? >
- Are the films one continues stream, or a million instances strung together by the something we can not see within the framework of the movie? >
- Do each of the different camera angles reflect reality? >
- How can each of the different perspectives be real if they are all different? >
- etc etc etc >
> > I am not implying that one 'now' to the next is not strung together, simply that I do not think that the framework for this mechanism is human's conception of 'Time'.-I don't see how the question of "framework" plays in. We are humans. We only have a "human" conception of time. We have no knowledge of any other; and moreso, our conception of time is false. Remember the last great experience you had? Maybe it was a roller coaster, or the thrill of a kiss. But that event is only in your mind, and as much as you will it to be, that moment cannot be revisted in actuality; the past is the past, and is gone. The future is forever uncertain; but at all times, we have "now." I will repeat and answer your questions here:-> [*]Are all of these movies real? Yes. > [*]Do the events in them exist anymore? No. > [*]Are the films one continues stream, or a million instances strung together by the something we can not see within the framework of the movie?-They are a million instances strung together by the editor and director, and our brains interpret them as a continuous stream. -> [*]Do each of the different camera angles reflect reality? They are a recording of different angles of the same reality. > [*]How can each of the different perspectives be real if they are all different? I don't see why this question is here; each camera captured a different angle of the same events.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 13:09 (5182 days ago) @ xeno6696
Xeno, You and I are arguing for the same side of the coin ;) And, by answering the questions, you illustrated my point beautifully.->I don't see how the question of "framework" plays in. We are humans. We only >have a "human" conception of time. We have no knowledge of any other; and >moreso, our conception of time is false.-Framework plays in as a relation to another discussion thread on here, consciousness. Framework, conception, perspective are only available to a conscious entity. More importantly, only a consciousness aware of both self and other. Animals controlled by instinct, adaptation, or behavior learned by repetition show no discernible acknowledgment of the concept of time.-> > > [*]Are all of these movies real? > Yes. > > [*]Do the events in them exist anymore? > No. > > [*]Are the films one continues stream, or a million instances strung together by the something we can not see within the framework of the movie? > > They are a million instances strung together by the editor and director, and our brains interpret them as a continuous stream. > I found your answer to this last question interesting. Will think on it some more before replying to it.-> > [*]Do each of the different camera angles reflect reality? > They are a recording of different angles of the same reality. > > [*]How can each of the different perspectives be real if they are all different? > I don't see why this question is here; each camera captured a different angle of the same events.-This question is here because of a few reasons. One, time is relative to the viewer. To a person viewing the scene from an emotionally detached and uninterested viewpoint might time may seem to drag on interminably, while to a viewer with a vested interest or intense curiosity time may 'fly' by. To a person involved in the chase scene(using the analogy of a film), senses heightened from the adrenaline rush may seem to make time slow down, where a few seconds seem like minutes or hours. -If each persons perspective of time is relative to them, are all perspectives real? The answer of course no, because time is only a measurement tool, not a real physical property.
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 16, 2010, 01:55 (5181 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance_Maintained > > They are a million instances strung together by the editor and director, and our brains interpret them as a continuous stream. > > > I found your answer to this last question interesting. Will think on it some more before replying to it. > -I eagerly await a response: Plenty of interesting scientific and metaphysical questions can be asked here...-> > If each persons perspective of time is relative to them, are all perspectives real? The answer of course no, because time is only a measurement tool, not a real physical property.-Unreal in the abstract sense that each person only captured "a reflection" or unreal in the literal sense? I'm an amateur fighter, and I'm pretty sure that when I hit a guy, we all see me hitting a guy although for me its in slow motion while for everyone else its very quick. THIS is the relativity I'm used to seeing with time; it doesn't mean that the hit never happened, but it does mean that my perception of the hit, my opponent's perception of the hit, and the crowd's perception of the hit are all drastically different? Are we on the same page here?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Illusion of Time
Balance_Maintained asks me to imagine a movie shot from a million different camera angles, and to ask some questions:-Are all of these movies real? Do the events exist anymore? [...] Do each of the camera angles reflect reality? How can each of the different perspectives be real if they are all different?-I've pinpointed these questions, because in all of them you're emphasizing "reality", but reality is not the point in dispute. A film of an event is not the event itself (see Magritte's painting of a pipe, entitled Ceci n'est pas une pipe), and although you can have as many different perspectives as you like of an object, they will all be perceptions of the object and not the object itself, the one neither more nor less real than the other. But I don't see what connection this has with your subsequent comment:-"I am not implying that one 'now' to the next is not strung together, simply that I do not think that the framework for this mechanism is human's conception of 'Time'."-The million perspectives and the no-longer-existing events have nothing to do with my concept of 'time'. It is the "stringing together" in which the "now" becomes the "then". But as usual there is a danger that I've misunderstood you completely, and so to make matters clear, perhaps you would explain exactly what you think IS humans' conception of time.
The Illusion of Time
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 16:00 (5182 days ago) @ dhw
In my analogy, time would be the little bits of black cellophane that tie each frame together. When you play the film, you can't see them because they are not part of the reality of the movie. Intellectually, you know that each frame is tied together and progress from one instant to the next in a linear pattern too fast for your eye to detect, but it is not part of the reality that is the film.-In real world terms, Time is the imaginary construct we have designed to link one instant and the next. It is not part of reality(i.e. it is not a real thing) but it is useful as an imaginary tool that helps us measure events. Changes between one state and another are real, changes between one position and another are real, but the rate of change is an illusion. By the way, you out to check out the new experiments on Quantum Teleportation (or instant transmission).
The Illusion of Time
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 23:52 (5182 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 00:14
dhw > MATT: Our language helps preserve "now" in our memories, but they are only memories. [..] The present moment that was recorded in your memory cannot be reclaimed. [...] Time is nothing more than a ruler we use to mark events. > > I have no problem at all with this, but I'm stubbornly reluctant to allow philosophy to take over from pragmatism, so I will argue my case so that you can both enlighten me with yours. What you have shown is that the past has no reality, and in a flash the present also loses its reality. The future has no reality anyway. But although they have no reality, we all assume (and why should we not?) that our memories ... even though they can't capture the reality of what was once fleetingly real ... nevertheless relate to something that WAS real. <<-I did try to deal with this; I'll try again. I do not say that "things in the past never happened." I do not say that "there is no events that did not occur prior to the present moment." -What I say is that time is separate from events. This shouldn't be too shocking anyway; Einstein already proved that time is relative in the first place. -First I need to try and restate myself: The absence of time does not negate cause and effect. I read your issue here as that the absence of time negates cause and effect? To me you seem to be reasoning, "If time doesn't exist, then nothing that happened in the past happened." -Earlier this morning I had eaten bad fish. Now I have stomach cramps. -There is a cause and effect here; I ate bad fish, and now I have food poisoning because of it. How does time even affect this? -It doesn't. Bacteria began to grow in the morning--multiplying, but always in the "present moment," until it got to the point where my body detected there was something wrong and started to fight the infection. When the doctor asks me, "How long ago did you eat the fish?" He is doing so because different species of bacteria grow at different speeds. Time here again, is only a measurement, one of many that the doctor uses to assess the type of infection. -Lets try another event: Some kids in a physics class are lined up, spaced every meter apart from each other. A bowling ball is rolled down their length, and as the ball passes them, each child clicks a stopwatch. -How does time affect this? -Again, it doesn't. In this instance, time is an explicit measurement in relation to the bowling ball. -Even our clocks are just a measurement of the position of our sun around the earth. -Time is practical because we need a way to reason about events yesterday to today. But it doesn't make it real. Time is a tool that lets us quantify and reason about the past.-- >>I don't want to get sidetracked into issues of subjective interpretation here, so let's take a solid, material example. You and I are looking at a building. What we see will be our personal perception of it, but we do not doubt its reality, and if there were a million people standing there with us, they too would testify to the reality of the building. Through the mere fact that it is standing there in our present, we would all agree that it must have been built in the past. Each such perception of the present (immediately turning into memory) ... whether linked to material things or experiences or history or evolution ... testifies to the once-reality of the past. In other words, there has been an onward movement in which present has become past. We don't understand it, and as you say, it's a ruler we use to mark events, but "nothing more than a ruler" seems to me to miss out on the fact that the onward flow continues, and the records of the no-longer-real ... abstract as well as material ... are evidence of the reality of the movement. I would argue, then, that time is not the present, past and future, but the flow that links them. And so if you claim that time does not exist, you will have to convince me that there is no onward flow.-[EDIT]-You are presenting a false dilemma. My examples above deal with this. But I'll play. First let me explain more explicitly why I think it's a false dilemma: What creates time? For you to state that there is an actual flow, you have to be able to tell me what it is. I say that time is the difference between what I measured [at the present moment] yesterday, and [at the present moment] today. There is no "flow." There just "is." -In regards to the building, this is information that requires us to know how long it takes to build the building, and this knowledge tells us that the building has a minimum "age" (another two measurements of past vs. present).-[EDIT2] I'm milking my brain for any other way to dispel the idea of a "flow." I look into the past, I see what I would describe above as measurements. If a ball hit yesterday hits me in the head today, there's still a path of cause and effect. What convinces you that there is a "flow?" I think our differences here is one of perspective... you already accept that the future doesn't contain reality. -[EDITED]
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"