AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

From wikipedia:-"Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars."-I would posit that is because they mistake time as a real thing; next, physics from the same article:-"An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured."-In Physics, they ignore time.-From Buddhism, "Discourse on Living Happily in the Present Moment," Translated by Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh:-"Do not pursue the past.
Do not lose yourself in the future.
The past no longer is.
The future has not yet come. 
Looking deeply at life as it is in the very here and now,
the practitioner dwells in stability and freedom.
We must be diligent today.
To wait until tomorrow is too late.
Death comes unexpectedly.
How can we bargain with it?
The sage calls a person who knows how to dwell in mindfulness night and day
"one who knows the better way to live alone." -I recently learned that I was wrong to lump Hindu time in with Buddhist time:
"# Hindus believe in sanatana-dharmaâ the eternal religionâencompassing the concepts of eternal time, universal truths and a human history that recedes indefinitely.
# Time is viewed as cyclical. History repeats itself not in every detail, but by perennially manifesting similar phenomena (much like the revolving seasons)."-Time is cyclical--this coincides with nearly every semi-developed calendar system we've encountered. (Babylon, Maya). The break of Buddhism with Hinduism makes more sense here; it rejects time entirely. There ARE Vedic writings that agree with the Buddhist idea, but they aren't mainstream. -More as I discover...

--
\"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.\"

4232 views

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if you told people they couldn't remember yesterday, could not plan for tomorrow, and that there lunch date at noon today was postponed indefinitely because noon does not, in fact, exist, neither does tomorrow or yesterday....-I agree, by the way, that time as a 'thing' is non-existent, but it is a useful tool.

4141 views

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if you told people they couldn't remember yesterday, could not plan for tomorrow, and that there lunch date at noon today was postponed indefinitely because noon does not, in fact, exist, neither does tomorrow or yesterday....
> 
> I agree, by the way, that time as a 'thing' is non-existent, but it is a useful tool.-Great response. Philosophic discussions of time make my head spin. And at my age recent memory drives me nuts. Now where did I put that screw driver? I've got to find my glasses so I can look for it.

4116 views

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if you told people they couldn't remember yesterday, could not plan for tomorrow, and that there lunch date at noon today was postponed indefinitely because noon does not, in fact, exist, neither does tomorrow or yesterday....
> > 
> > I agree, by the way, that time as a 'thing' is non-existent, but it is a useful tool.
> 
> Great response. Philosophic discussions of time make my head spin. And at my age recent memory drives me nuts. Now where did I put that screw driver? I've got to find my glasses so I can look for it.-David, can you change the past? If not, why not? What I'm talking about isn't 'philosophy' it is a practical observation. Time only exists to us BECAUSE we have memories. It isn't part of the fabric of reality, we only perceive it as such.

--
\"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.\"

4075 views

David,-Another important thing to help you understand me a little better is that Einstein's theory of relativity also tells us that it's impossible to measure time without velocity and an observer. -Which makes sense; we measure time by rotations on a clock. our days are measured by the earth's rotation, our years by the sun, etc. -If you took all these things away--such as what you would see in deep interstellar space; you would not even have a concept of time--it would be meaningless. For humans, time is a natural consequence of rotation.-What would a civilization look like if there were no 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.\"

4168 views

David,
> 
> Another important thing to help you understand me a little better is that Einstein's theory of relativity also tells us that it's impossible to measure time without velocity and an observer. 
> 
> Which makes sense; we measure time by rotations on a clock. our days are measured by the earth's rotation, our years by the sun, etc. 
> 
> If you took all these things away--such as what you would see in deep interstellar space; you would not even have a concept of time--it would be meaningless. For humans, time is a natural consequence of rotation.
> 
> What would a civilization look like if there were no time?--This is exactly where your philosophic view of time bothers me. It is not important, which is probably a matter of age. I am approaching 82 years of age. I have a very magnificent memory, as long as it isn't right now. I do regularly lose my glasses, I can't complete a day without a written list, but up to three or four years ago, no problem. On the other hand I have memories from when I was two years old, and I can follow year by year events in my life, even into this year. I realize that time is a human construct, based on various rotations and orbits. I realize those measurements might be different and time is a human construct. I'm not going to practice zen, but I've read about timelessness and 'at one' with the universe, if one learns to meditate. On the other hand your point about Einstein does help me in understanding relativity better. Thanks for helping. -Now what do you think of Tony's skeptical plasma/ electricity/ electromagnetism theories. I'm a biologist, but both of you are far more advanced in math and physics.

4153 views

David,
> > 
> > Another important thing to help you understand me a little better is that Einstein's theory of relativity also tells us that it's impossible to measure time without velocity and an observer. 
> > 
> > Which makes sense; we measure time by rotations on a clock. our days are measured by the earth's rotation, our years by the sun, etc. 
> > 
> > If you took all these things away--such as what you would see in deep interstellar space; you would not even have a concept of time--it would be meaningless. For humans, time is a natural consequence of rotation.
> > 
> > What would a civilization look like if there were no time?
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly where your philosophic view of time bothers me. It is not important, which is probably a matter of age. I am approaching 82 years of age. I have a very magnificent memory, as long as it isn't right now. I do regularly lose my glasses, I can't complete a day without a written list, but up to three or four years ago, no problem. On the other hand I have memories from when I was two years old, and I can follow year by year events in my life, even into this year. I realize that time is a human construct, based on various rotations and orbits. I realize those measurements might be different and time is a human construct. I'm not going to practice zen, but I've read about timelessness and 'at one' with the universe, if one learns to meditate. On the other hand your point about Einstein does help me in understanding relativity better. Thanks for helping. 
> 
> Now what do you think of Tony's skeptical plasma/ electricity/ electromagnetism theories. I'm a biologist, but both of you are far more advanced in math and physics.-I honestly don't know... I've been responding here the past couple of days because the responses could be short. -What I need to do is give a lengthy response to dhw, but that requires more effort than what I can spare. (Tests this week just before spring break...)

--
\"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.\"

4174 views

MATT: David, can you change the past? If not, why not? What I'm talking about isn't 'philosophy' it is a practical observation. Time only exists to us BECAUSE we have memories. It isn't part of the fabric of reality, we only perceive it as such. -MATT: [...] we measure time by rotations on a clock. Our days are measured by the earth's rotation, our years by the sun, etc. If you took all these things away--such as what you would see in deep interstellar space; you would not even have a concept of time--it would be meaningless. For humans, time is a natural consequence of rotation.-How do you know "the fabric of reality"? How do you know that our perceptions do not coincide with it?
 
I agree that our human concept of time depends on memory and earth's rotation. Our concept of walking depends on legs. So does that mean walking is not "real"? Are memory, rotation and legs figments of our imagination? As I tried to emphasize early on in our epistemological discussion***, you have to decide WHAT LEVEL you're debating on. None of our man-made realities (language, money, war, education) would have any meaning in deep interstellar space, so on that level, the whole of human life is unreal. By what criteria do you judge the reality of interstellar space to be more "real" than your passage from birth through life to death?-But even on your philosophical level you have a problem, because when you ask David if he can change the past, you're acknowledging the distinction between past and present. This ties in perfectly with my favourite dictionary definition of time: "the continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past." (Chambers) Rotation also entails a distinction ... the position of the earth in relation to the sun is different now from what it was an hour ago. So if we break your argument down into its component parts, what we have is this: 1) the past and future do not exist in the present (agreed); 2) our divisions of time are man-made (agreed); 3) there is a sequence which we call past, present and future ... just as there is a sequence which we call cause and effect, in which effects become causes and so on ad infinitum. This SEQUENCE is the concept of time which I would argue is real, and it would be so even in outer space, where stars live and die. It seems to me that the only way you can deny the SEQUENCE of time (i.e. a before, a now, and an after) is to deny the reality of changing matter. That way madness lies.
 
*** You have said that you need to give me a lengthy response on the epistemological thread. I appreciate your concern, but of course the pre-spring tests take precedence. I'm actually relieved to hear that you give priority to human realities over philosophical! Good luck!

4210 views

dhw pokes me out of my studying stupor...
> How do you know "the fabric of reality"? How do you know that our perceptions do not coincide with it?
> -Because both physicists since Einstein and religious leaders of all kinds have actually agreed on exactly THIS thing. Buddhism declares the the prime cause of suffering is misperception. Hindu mystics believe that the world we see is completely false: another misperception. Plato held to a very similar view when he proposed what came to be known as idealism. Islamic mystics actually agree with the Hindu view as well. -Modern physics starts out with the qualifier "Everything you think you know about the nature of reality is either wrong or backwards." Modern physics goes against perception and intuition CONSTANTLY. This is why "classical mechanics" was abandoned for "quantum mechanics" as the fundamental reality of the universe. -I can't stress again how queer it is to me that in answering your question I found one thing that scientists and many religious mystics universally agree upon...-
> I agree that our human concept of time depends on memory and earth's rotation. Our concept of walking depends on legs. So does that mean walking is not "real"? Are memory, rotation and legs figments of our imagination? As I tried to emphasize early on in our epistemological discussion***, you have to decide WHAT LEVEL you're debating on. None of our man-made realities (language, money, war, education) would have any meaning in deep interstellar space, so on that level, the whole of human life is unreal. By what criteria do you judge the reality of interstellar space to be more "real" than your passage from birth through life to death?
> -I don't see where I made the claim that one was 'more real' than the other. They are equally real. Fly far enough away from the sun and you will be in a position where for the course of your life you will be very unlikely to find anything that lets you measure time. Sleep experiments done where people are sensory and clock deprived show that our patterns evolve into very LONG periods of activity and rest (not even based on a 24hr clock). 70+hr cycles are not uncommon.-My whole point is that the only thing that ACTUALLY EXISTS is right now. This very moment. By the time you read this, this moment is completely gone. -To what extent does our language influence our thinking? One goal I always have is to force the question to you (or anyone else) can you account for how much of what you think is real is actually man-made? -In the question of origin, you can call it philosophical if you want, but I think that it's equally likely that we think there's a prime cause because we don't understand unity; our languages (in order to get by in the everyday world) are necessarily NOT unity. There's no reason that because our languages are based upon cause and effect, past and present, that the nature of the universe or our origin necessarily has to conform to the confines of thinking that our languages force us into. -> But even on your philosophical level you have a problem, because when you ask David if he can change the past, you're acknowledging the distinction between past and present. ... It seems to me that the only way you can deny the SEQUENCE of time (i.e. a before, a now, and an after) is to deny the reality of changing matter. That way madness lies.
> -I guess I just don't see your point here. The future doesn't exist. (If it did we would have determinism.) The only thing that allows us to predict future events is a combination of knowledge about past events combined with information about the present moment. In fact, science uses this ability to judge the effectiveness of its models. -But you think my distinction is a contradiction--it isn't. All I said was that distinctions of past and future are man-made. A measurement of analyzing changes between two states. Take a picture of a busy street. Take a deep breath. Take another picture. THAT is time. You talk about a dictionary definition. Throw it away--that's a vernacular definition. Physics understands time in the way I'm describing it to you. -Go down to quantum mechanics and you will see a statement that says "...because time is not an operator in quantum mechanics." In physics, you don't get 'time' until you get an observer. (Classical Mechanics.) This isn't philosophy... it's part of physics itself...-From the wikipedia article on time (posting it again:) "An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second..."-Again, we compare the state of a clock at predefined intervals and count. -Think about when you listen to a song you've never heard before... Is there a past to the song? No... only the present. Is there a future? No, though you infer one. There is only right now in music. It's the perfect metaphor for what I'm trying to tell you...

--
\"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.\"

4236 views

For Matt-You have argued that only the present exists, and the future and past do not. I agree and have never disagreed.-You have argued that the division*** of time into minutes, years, centuries etc. is man-made. I agree and have never disagreed.-Please can we leave these arguments behind, and focus solely on what follows.-MATT (to David): Time only exists to us BECAUSE we have memories. It isn't part of the fabric of reality, we only perceive it as such.-dhw: How do you know "the fabric of reality"? How do you know that our perceptions do not coincide with it?-MATT: Because both physicists since Einstein and religious leaders of all kinds have actually agreed on exactly THIS thing. [...] Modern physics starts out with the qualifier "Everything you think you know about the nature of reality is either wrong or backwards."-I admit to being stubborn and ignorant, and I fear I shall now be called arrogant, but here goes. If Einstein, your Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim mystics, Plato, and my friend xeno tell me that my future death will precede my present old age which has preceded my middle age which preceded my having children which preceded my getting married which preceded my youth which preceded my childhood which preceded my birth, I will not only disbelieve you all, but I will recommend you get treatment as soon as possible. The sequential concept of time is as real as anything I know, and it conforms to the definition of time as: "the continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past." You have told me to throw this definition away because it is "vernacular" (though it is not dissimilar to your own earlier image of time as a "river"). But it does not endow past and future with present reality, it makes no mention of man-made divisions into units, and it corresponds to experiences, perceptions and observations that permeate every area of life.-I asked by what criteria you judged the reality of interstellar space to be more "real" than your passage from birth through life to death. You responded: "I don't see where I made the claim that one was 'more real' than the other. They are equally real." Then why do you not accept that time as defined above IS "part of the fabric of reality"?-*** On a lighter (darker?) note, I lived and worked in Ghana for four years, and my wife is African. I can confirm that in general the African attitude towards man-made/woman-made divisions of time is not the same as the European or American!

4186 views

For Matt
> 
> You have argued that only the present exists, and the future and past do not. I agree and have never disagreed.
> 
> You have argued that the division*** of time into minutes, years, centuries etc. is man-made. I agree and have never disagreed.
> 
> Please can we leave these arguments behind, and focus solely on what follows.
> 
> MATT (to David): Time only exists to us BECAUSE we have memories. It isn't part of the fabric of reality, we only perceive it as such.
> 
> dhw: How do you know "the fabric of reality"? How do you know that our perceptions do not coincide with it?
> 
> MATT: Because both physicists since Einstein and religious leaders of all kinds have actually agreed on exactly THIS thing. [...] Modern physics starts out with the qualifier "Everything you think you know about the nature of reality is either wrong or backwards."
> 
> I admit to being stubborn and ignorant, and I fear I shall now be called arrogant, but here goes. If Einstein, your Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim mystics, Plato, and my friend xeno tell me that my future death will precede my present old age which has preceded my middle age which preceded my having children which preceded my getting married which preceded my youth which preceded my childhood which preceded my birth, I will not only disbelieve you all, but I will recommend you get treatment as soon as possible. The sequential concept of time is as real as anything I know, and it conforms to the definition of time as: "the continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past." You have told me to throw this definition away because it is "vernacular" (though it is not dissimilar to your own earlier image of time as a "river"). But it does not endow past and future with present reality, it makes no mention of man-made divisions into units, and it corresponds to experiences, perceptions and observations that permeate every area of life.
> -I'm out of ideas on how to convey this to you; in my own life I reject the feeling of continuity of time as false. It is a feeling, that has no basis in reality. Our brains fill in the gaps, give us the impression of time. The notion of time is further reinforced by the fact that our existence isn't eternal. (Which I'm sure will suffer you some more heartburn...) -I've discussed both Einsteinian relativity and time at the quantum level; time is rejected by both disjoint studies in physics. -When I spoke before of the river, I believe I was using it as a parable: time-lessness is something that I've ascribed to prior to getting involved with Buddhism. In fact I think even in that parable I discussed that the only opportunity you have to change anything in the river is right where your hand is; but the future doesn't exist (upstream is unknowable) and downstream your hand simply creates a wake in the present that slowly dissipates. But this view of time breaks down entirely when you study physics. -> I asked by what criteria you judged the reality of interstellar space to be more "real" than your passage from birth through life to death. You responded: "I don't see where I made the claim that one was 'more real' than the other. They are equally real." Then why do you not accept that time as defined above IS "part of the fabric of reality"?
> -Because physics is the penultimate study of the fabric of reality, and time as continuity is denied there. Borrowing from David's methodology in his book, this is a finding that also happens to coincide with esoteric traditions throughout religious history. As David is troubled by a Prime cause, I think it is valuable to discuss time, since it underpins all notions of cause and effect.-Time as "I was born, I have memories of the past" (past= trappings of language) isn't what I'm contesting. What I'm contesting is the notion that time is a part of objective reality. That time is only understood via an observer, and that the universe does not function by or use time, we gain from physics. Time--purely--is a man made construct that feels real. Like a book; a movie, or a play. Time as a continuity only exists because we remember parts of events and our brains fill in the gaps. That book references this study.-> *** On a lighter (darker?) note, I lived and worked in Ghana for four years, and my wife is African. I can confirm that in general the African attitude towards man-made/woman-made divisions of time is not the same as the European or American!-lol... I always joke with my African friends about their being on 'African time.' I just know to invite them a good few hours before I really want them to show up !

--
\"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.\"

4204 views

MATT: I'm out of ideas on how to convey this to you; in my own life I reject the feeling of continuity of time as false. It is a feeling, that has no basis in reality. Our brains fill in the gaps, give us the impression of time. The notion of time is further reinforced by the fact that our existence isn't eternal. (Which I'm sure will suffer you some more heartburn...)-Unless someone else can step in to provide a new slant, we may well have to call it a day ... which is the period of something or the other (does physics have a word for this?) that it takes the Earth to rotate on its axis, though apparently if we weren't here to observe it, there wouldn't be a period of something or the other, although the Earth would presumably continue to rotate on its axis. (I hope that at least you can understand why I find all this so confusing!)
 
I agree that the notion of time is reinforced by our awareness of death (don't worry about my heartburn), but that doesn't make it any the less real. I view births and deaths (like the rotating Earth) as evidence of causes and effects, and befores-nows-afters, which confirm the definition of time as "the continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past." In the material world I know ... which I and many others believe to be real ... most everyday experiences appear to contradict what you call the "qualifier" issued by modern physics: "Everything you think you know about the nature of reality is either wrong or backwards." 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: I've discussed both Einsteinian relativity and time at the quantum level; time is rejected by both disjoint studies in physics. -I like the word "disjoint" in this context! Of course I accept the relativity of time, and I must confess I have no understanding of anything at quantum level, but I think I understand time at Planet Earth level, and I need only look in the mirror to confirm that I am not the man/youth/child I used to be.-MATT: [...] As David is troubled by a Prime cause, I think it is valuable to discuss time, since it underpins all notions of cause and effect.-It most certainly does. Forget the prime cause. If it exists, it is inaccessible, but that doesn't mean that the sequence of cause and effect is not real!
 
MATT: What I'm contesting is the notion that time is a part of objective reality. That time is only understood via an observer, and that the universe does not function by or use time, we gain from physics. Time--purely--is a man made construct that feels real. Like a book; a movie, or a play. Time as a continuity only exists because we remember parts of events and our brains fill in the gaps. That book references this study.-Your references here are to eye-witness accounts. The fact that human perception and human memory work by establishing patterns is now a commonplace, as is the fact that both are notoriously unreliable, but our unreliable interpretation of things does not mean that the things in themselves are not real. "That time is only understood via an observer" applies to all understanding. Billions of stars (not to mention billions of organisms) were born and died long before we were around, but the fact that no-one was there to observe them doesn't mean the sequence of birth and death was not real. When you say the universe doesn't function by or use time, do you mean it doesn't divide things up into minutes/hours/ centuries? If so, of course I'm with you. But if you mean the universe doesn't function and change by causes and effects, by the interactions of physical forces, by the influence of one piece of matter on another, by befores-nows-afters, then count me out.
 
Let me sum up our points of agreement: The word "time" is a human invention, our divisions of it are human inventions, it is relative to space and velocity, only the present is real, past and future are non-existent, and if we were not there to observe/name/ describe it, it could not be observed/named/described (ditto everything else you can think of). Our point of disagreement: the sequence of cause-effect-cause, and the movement from before to now to after, are integral to the functioning 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.
 
SOS! Matt and I are sinking...can anyone rescue us before our something or the other runs out?

4160 views

MATT: I'm out of ideas on how to convey this to you; in my own life I reject the feeling of continuity of time as false. It is a feeling, that has no basis in reality. Our brains fill in the gaps, give us the impression of time. The notion of time is further reinforced by the fact that our existence isn't eternal. (Which I'm sure will suffer you some more heartburn...)
> 
> Unless someone else can step in to provide a new slant, we may well have to call it a day ... which is the period of something or the other (does physics have a word for this?) that it takes the Earth to rotate on its axis, though apparently if we weren't here to observe it, there wouldn't be a period of something or the other, although the Earth would presumably continue to rotate on its axis. (I hope that at least you can understand why I find all this so confusing!)
> -Trust me... I completely understand. It took me years to fully wrap my head around the idea. Physics acknowledges time but only as a unit of measure; for example a second is defined thusly: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." But that's it... there's no more discussion of time inside of physics beyond what we've already covered. It's a quantity such as a meter or kilometer that is only used to describe intervals between observations. -I notice that you like to return often the the idea of continuity. One of the things that we've discovered about nature at its lowest levels is that continuity does not exist. -In a famous experiment hydrogen atoms were exposed to energy, which causes its single electron to jump up a level in energy. However, this shift is EXACT. -There's no gradual transition here. And this rule holds for all of quantum physics; the name itself 'quanta' implies a discrete, non-continuous nature.-> I agree that the notion of time is reinforced by our awareness of death (don't worry about my heartburn), but that doesn't make it any the less real. I view births and deaths (like the rotating Earth) as evidence of causes and effects, and befores-nows-afters, which confirm the definition of time as "the continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past." In the material world I know ... which I and many others believe to be real ... most everyday experiences appear to contradict what you call the "qualifier" issued by modern physics: "Everything you think you know about the nature of reality is either wrong or backwards." 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).
> -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?

--
\"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.\"

4162 views

MATT: Physics acknowledges time but only as a unit of measure; for example a second is defined thusly: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."-Philosophy in reverse: I understand the word ... it's the definition that has me flummoxed!
 
MATT: I notice that you like to return often to the idea of continuity. One of the things that we've discovered about nature at its lowest levels is that continuity does not exist.
 
No, it's you who like to return to it. The only time I've ever mentioned it, to my knowledge, is in the Chambers definition to which I subscribe. The word I like to return to often is SEQUENCE (frequently in block capitals, in the hope of drawing your attention to it), and one obvious SEQUENCE is that of cause and effect. The other theme I like to return to is the claim that time "isn't part of the fabric of reality".-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.)-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."

4182 views

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.\"

4135 views

I adhere to the Chambers definition of time as "the continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past." At the heart of this lie the sequence of cause and effect, and the movement from before to now to after.-MATT: 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.-I do NOT see "differences in state" as a definition of time. I see them as proof that time is real. Differences in state (cause followed by effect) denote a SEQUENCE, and my specific question to you was what you would call the something or other during which such SEQUENCES take place. I call it time. (For that which is 'real' see below.)-MATT: 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...)-It has been dealt with many times. For instance, in my response to the article on eyewitness accounts, I wrote that human perception and memory are notoriously unreliable, "but our unreliable interpretation of things does not mean that the things themselves are not real." My unreliable perception of the sun moving in the sky does not mean the sun is not there.-MATT: 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. -We do not agree on this as a definition of time (see above). If it is part of the fabric of reality when an observer is involved, it is part of the fabric of reality, unless you wish to argue that because something is observed, it is unreal.-MATT: 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...) [...] 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?-I have no problem believing that the earth and the cosmos are unconscious and impersonal, although David might disagree. Why do we think they exist? Because we observe them. The only 'realities' we know of are those we observe, and the only observers we know of are ourselves, so if you're going to argue that 'reality' is that which exists without an observer, you will have to say that nothing we humans observe is real. This makes your argument against the reality of time part of a much wider and unopposable philosophical argument, which ultimately ties in with one of the first points raised on the epistemological thread concerning levels of discussion, and on this level nothing is real, including you. Goodbye, Matt.
 
MATT: Probably the greatest triumph of quantum mechanics is that it can describe reality independent of any observer... and thusly without time...-If there were no humans to describe reality, explain quantum mechanics, and celebrate this great triumph, then according to you there would be no triumph or cause for triumph. Or are you saying the cosmos can perceive quantum mechanics?-MATT: 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.-According to your argument, no-one can ever comprehend reality as it is. According to your argument, reality as it is has to be independent of an observer. Who is this comprehending "you", if it's not an observer? But we have agreed that on a philosophical level no-one can be certain that what he/she observes corresponds to an objective reality. That applies to absolutely every 'reality' you can think of. The bus is on its way, so make your choice between philosophy and common sense! If you choose the former, please note the SEQUENCE of cause and effect (e.g. bus hits you, physics bible squashed, philosophical treatise on time scattered in the wind, fingernail broken, bus-driver collapses with shock, has nervous breakdown, bus wrecked, bus company goes bankrupt...) and tell me what you would call the something or the other during which that SEQUENCE takes place.

4223 views

Dhw and I are like two circling and hungry cats, stalking around the mouse of time. Each is convinced of his own notions of the mouse, and each is equally convinced that they, indeed are the one who will eat the mouse. -I have to say that I think we should agree to regroup and come back to this later. In considering your words here and breaking them apart, this the only way I can make time 'real.'-Time is experience. -My position on this isn't one of conviction it is one of observation. Only 'now' exists because it is only 'now' when any action can be made. Everything you have presented to me is simply not convincing; a great deal of this is because the definition of time I'm using is the one used in physics. If you accept that a second is man made, it makes no sense to me that the experience is any less man made than the second. It's just as arbitrary and changeable. -You have a good case that time can be looked at as an accumulation of events but in the quantum world this definition hits a snag because there is no event without an observer. So either quantum physics is wrong, or your definition is. Frankly, I'll side with physics. -Between observations, you claim we have *something* between them. And that this is what you're calling time. What is this something? You've reinvented the second without calling it the second. At least with where I'm at right now, if you can't produce evidence of this 'something,' than why should I believe it exists, that it isn't just my mind? (Wow... this sounds eerily familiar...) :-( -I sense you are very tired of me. But the 'common sense' level tends to frustrate me because I obsess over corner casesâalthough quantum mechanics is hardly a corner case. In my case I need to try and regroup and try to find a different way to explain myself.

--
\"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.\"

4180 views

Dhw and I are like two circling and hungry cats, stalking around the mouse of time. Each is convinced of his own notions of the mouse, and each is equally convinced that they, indeed are the one who will eat the mouse. 
> 
> I sense you are very tired of me. But the 'common sense' level tends to frustrate me because I obsess over corner casesâalthough quantum mechanics is hardly a corner case. In my case I need to try and regroup and try to find a different way to explain myself.-I got tired of the whole subject awhile ago. The universe is timeless, but not eternal in the meaning I am using. We invent time intervals based on rotation of the Earth, Earth orbit, etc. The Earth is also measureless, but we set up measurements based on the length of a man's foot or a standard meter. Weight in old England was based on a standard stone. So the Earth is weighless also. We invent all of these measurements, and they are mental games, but necessary to conduct manufacture and other activities, the Olympics for example. And in quantum mechanics, where everything is an average of activity, no time is all the time. I don't think a romantic writer of tall tales and stories and live plays can ever really cross swords with a hard-nosed mathematical physicist. They both approach life so differently. And I was raised on detective stories in med school, so I look for solutions to puzzles. I'm happy with my view of time, and Matt has helped me with Einstein. With much thanks.

4233 views

MATT: I sense you are very tired of me. -Absolutely not. Our discussions are never less than stimulating ... particularly when you are acting as the devil's advocate! ... and for all our disagreements, your scientific expertise in so many fields is enormously helpful to me. David is right in so far as my artistic (but not, I hasten to add, "romantic") background entails a different approach to life and the world ... a different hierarchy, if you like, to return to our epistemological framework. But as you will have gathered, I do not accept the universal validity of ANY hierarchy, which means I recognize that my own values have no more authority than anyone else's. The philosophical level of argument, which questions the reality of everything we think we know, is therefore perfectly acceptable to me intellectually, and since it coincides with your quantum physics, we could even draw the line there. But to do so would be to accept a hierarchy that goes against many of the tenets resulting from what you rightly call experience. Despite their subjectivity, I'm not convinced that our perceptions are necessarily false (after all, most of science is also based on perception), and so I draw my line between the "philosophical" and the "common sense" levels. The fact that time is a man-made word, and our divisions of it are also man-made, does not make it unreal for me. Similarly, if I stand at Point A, Point B may be 10 feet away and Point C may be 20 feet away, and these are man-made measurements, but that does not mean the space between them and me is not 'real'. You also live on this 'common sense' level ... you have no choice. The difference between us is that I reject the absoluteness of your argument that this level is not part of the "fabric of reality". Without a universal authority (God?) to tell us what is 'real', it seems to me that the only guides we have are our human perception and experience.-I think you're right that we've probably reached a dead end for the moment, but my main concern now is that you should not feel you've been wasting your time. I really do appreciate your patience in the face of my obtuseness!

4166 views

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if you told people they couldn't remember yesterday, could not plan for tomorrow, and that there lunch date at noon today was postponed indefinitely because noon does not, in fact, exist, neither does tomorrow or yesterday....
>-Here you miss my point...
 
> I agree, by the way, that time as a 'thing' is non-existent, but it is a useful tool.-And here you get it... what gives?-You're missing some context, but my overall point was that time is only a snapshot of states, not a discretely 'real' thing.

--
\"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.\"

4146 views

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if you told people they couldn't remember yesterday, could not plan for tomorrow, and that there lunch date at noon today was postponed indefinitely because noon does not, in fact, exist, neither does tomorrow or yesterday....
> >
> 
> Here you miss my point...
> 
> > I agree, by the way, that time as a 'thing' is non-existent, but it is a useful tool.
> 
> And here you get it... what gives?
> 
> You're missing some context, but my overall point was that time is only a snapshot of states, not a discretely 'real' thing.-I didn't miss the point at all, I was merely pointing that that even though time is not "real", without it, all we would have is chaos because the human mind is not equipped to live in a "timeless" state. We all need our little delusions, they make life more interesting.

4103 views

Balance,
> > > I agree, by the way, that time as a 'thing' is non-existent, but it is a useful tool.
> > 
> > And here you get it... what gives?
> > 
> > You're missing some context, but my overall point was that time is only a snapshot of states, not a discretely 'real' thing.
> 
> I didn't miss the point at all, I was merely pointing that that even though time is not "real", without it, all we would have is chaos because the human mind is not equipped to live in a "timeless" state. We all need our little delusions, they make life more interesting.-I would disagree with "equipped." I don't know if I had mentioned this to you, but I had spent about 6 years practicing Zen, quit for 3 years, and have picked it back up again. -Our mind is certainly "equipped" to be in a timeless state, but it requires a great deal of concentration. -It's not natural or intuitive, by any stretch, and if this is what you meant I accept that. -I was never challenging time being useful; only pointing out that it isn't a 'real' thing even though intuitively it is very real. -One of the most wonderful things is when meditating and you can sync your mind with the '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.\"

4174 views

Wow... picking apart the syntax. Going to have to be more careful on my choice of language. Putting the concept on the individual level was actually the mistake, not my statement. In order to have a functioning society at our current state of mind and understanding, a concept of 'time', even if fabricated, is necessary for society to function. I agree that if allowed to move in our on cycles we would most definitely change our individual cycles to whatever worked for us individually, but then we would run into problems with the way society functions. Nothing could be scheduled, nothing could be billed. The past and future don't exist, right? So what ever good you received in the past, the past does not exist so the shipment may or may not have ever happened. All we have is a transition of states. The boxes are in my warehouse. Now the boxes are in your warehouse. You are right, are language does not support the concept of no time. It is hard to even have a discussion about it. While the individual may be 'equipped' for timelessness, society is not. Perhaps that clarifies the point as I was trying to make.

4200 views

Wow... picking apart the syntax. Going to have to be more careful on my choice of language. Putting the concept on the individual level was actually the mistake, not my statement. In order to have a functioning society at our current state of mind and understanding, a concept of 'time', even if fabricated, is necessary for society to function. I agree that if allowed to move in our on cycles we would most definitely change our individual cycles to whatever worked for us individually, but then we would run into problems with the way society functions. Nothing could be scheduled, nothing could be billed. The past and future don't exist, right? So what ever good you received in the past, the past does not exist so the shipment may or may not have ever happened. All we have is a transition of states. The boxes are in my warehouse. Now the boxes are in your warehouse. You are right, are language does not support the concept of no time. It is hard to even have a discussion about it. While the individual may be 'equipped' for timelessness, society is not. Perhaps that clarifies the point as I was trying to make.-There's more relativity there than you think... have you spent time in Africa or among former citizens of Africa? I was invited to a wedding ceremony for a lady friend who was Sudanese. The time was 7pm. We waited at the hall for 2 hours before she and the entire wedding party finally showed up. Of course, I didn't care so much, (though my wife was angry, lol...) but they don't live by a clock over there. If you've worked with anyone from Brazil... trust me, they won't be on time. Give them 1-2hrs. Again, because they have different ideas about time than we do. -You're already aware that most of the world follows a lunar calendar (especially native civilizations.) The concept of time that you're discussing here (and I myself am a part of) is so culturally based it's not even funny...-I think its a bit of a myth that "nothing would get done..." stuff would still get done, I just think that there would be a more relaxed way of doing things. I would even go so far as to suggest life expectancies would go up, as stress would go down. -And my apologies... I analyze people's words and read a few times before I respond. (I usually try to account for multiple meanings...) I don't mean to be a syntax/semantics hound, but sometimes things are ambiguous... again I apologize!

--
\"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.\"

4185 views


> There's more relativity there than you think... have you spent time in Africa or among former citizens of Africa? I was invited to a wedding ceremony for a lady friend who was Sudanese. The time was 7pm. We waited at the hall for 2 hours before she and the entire wedding party finally showed up. Of course, I didn't care so much, (though my wife was angry, lol...) but they don't live by a clock over there. If you've worked with anyone from Brazil... trust me, they won't be on time. Give them 1-2hrs. Again, because they have different ideas about time than we do. 
> -I spent over a year working in Africa, a year and a half in the Middle-East, plus time in the UAE, Italy, Norway, and the UK. I definitely understand what you are talking about. --> You're already aware that most of the world follows a lunar calendar (especially native civilizations.) The concept of time that you're discussing here (and I myself am a part of) is so culturally based it's not even funny...
> 
> I think its a bit of a myth that "nothing would get done..." stuff would still get done, I just think that there would be a more relaxed way of doing things. I would even go so far as to suggest life expectancies would go up, as stress would go down. 
> -There IS a more relaxed atmosphere... sometimes too relaxed. I have watched shipments of food rot on the dock because no one would get down to the dock to crane them from the dock to the boat. That is just one example, I could give you hundreds more. -> And my apologies... I analyze people's words and read a few times before I respond. (I usually try to account for multiple meanings...) I don't mean to be a syntax/semantics hound, but sometimes things are ambiguous... again I apologize!-No need to apologize. I am a bit flustered today. It is getting close to time for me to go home from work, so of course everyone starts scrambling to finish things they have let sit to long, and a lot has fallen into my lap at the last minute. If that weren't enough, finals are coming up next week :P

4236 views

Tony,
> No need to apologize. I am a bit flustered today. It is getting close to time for me to go home from work, so of course everyone starts scrambling to finish things they have let sit to long, and a lot has fallen into my lap at the last minute. If that weren't enough, finals are coming up next week :P-Are you a Master's student such as myself?

--
\"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.\"

4172 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum