Further Treatises on Time... (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, March 18, 2011, 02:17 (4999 days ago) @ dhw

dhw, -
> dhw: If you genuinely believe that the laws of physics, not to mention biology, are wrong or backwards, step in front of that bus (but do please give yourself enough something or the other to step away again).
> MATT: Here you're taking the discussion from time to cause and effect. We haven't made it there yet. Remember the same physics that describes what happens when I step in front of a bus is the same physics that denies a continuity of time; maybe we should dive deeper here?
> 
> The SEQUENCE of cause and effect, of before-now-after, of birth-life-death, is at the heart of my belief that time is part of the fabric of reality. I do see time as a continuous flow, but my emphasis is not on that. Between cause and effect there can be a gap (so "continuity" would be misleading) which I would call temporal. So let me repeat what I wrote in my last post, to see if you can prove to me that, although your response will follow on from all our other posts (cause-effect-cause etc. with temporal gaps), the something or other during which this SEQUENCE of exchanges takes place cannot be called "time". (What WOULD you call it? That is a genuine question, and your answer might be helpful.)
> -What you're discussing here is precisely my definition of time: Differences in state between at least two observations. But again--and I know you'll be flummoxed for me saying this--that which is 'real' is precisely that which exists without an observer. We've already agreed that knowledge is an agreement based on perception (I think its time to merge this to the "framework" thread) but what hasn't been dealt with is the question on confidence in the accuracy of perception. (This underlies both our agreed upon framework and our own personal frameworks...)-But I don't think you can link cause-effect-cause chains as time. We need to return to an earlier state of agreement. -The future does not exist. (By definition.)
The present moment exists. (Both of our "present moments" are different.)
The past does not exist. I DO NOT MEAN THIS to say that NO EVENTS lead up to this moment. -Since time (and we DO agree on this--to me you just reworded my definition) is 'a difference of state between at least two observations,' time is only part of the fabric of reality when an observer is involved. It is real to us (as humans) but not at all real to the cosmos. (Unless of course you posit that the cosmos can perceive itself...) -This is another fact that I view you will discredit as "philosophical" but it is no less true... -Probably the greatest triumph of quantum mechanics is that it can describe reality independent of any observer... and thusly without time...-There is no cause until a cause is observed... there is no effect until an effect is observed. -> I wrote: "Our point of disagreement: the sequence of cause-effect-cause, and the movement from before to now to after, are integral to the function of the Earth and of the universe just as they are to the course of life. This sequence/movement is what I and many others call "time", and as such it is part of the fabric of reality."-I posit that this 'fact' is only true within the realm of 'classical' thinking. I sense... that you tend to treat 'philosophical' precisely that which goes beyond the 'common sense level' that you've referenced on a couple of occasions... The cutting criticism (when eastern thought is taken to its extreme) is that if you don't comprehend reality without causes and effects... then you will never comprehend reality as it is.-I posit that the earth does not care about a sequence of events, and is agnostic to both the events that created it as well as the universe at large... what role then, 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.\"