What is time?

[Doctordick]

Since neural activity requires metabolism, it also seems you "need time to create a memory".

I hope you realize that "the present" has no temporal extent. There isn't enough time in the present to do anything! :hyper: :kiss:

 

And, gee whiz, under Einstein's theory, it doesn't have any spacial extent either! :hihi:

 

These are just the first major errors in the common paradigm. :esmoking:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

These are just the first major errors in the common paradigm.

Wow it sure is tight in here, isn't it?

[niin]

Time doesn't really exist

 

For "anything" to exist...it has to be "physical". A thing is "physical" if it can effect other "stuff" and be affected by other "stuff".

If "stuff" don't move (relatively)....it does not effect anything and therefore does not exist.

 

The concept of time is used to describe relative movement.

If you really wanted to...you could remove time from any equation and use relative movement.

 

please, if you disagree with me. try if you can find faults in my logic.

 

ps: This is just my working hypotesis.

[arkain101]

I tend to agree time is not a gear in the gears of the makings of space. But in relativity this is not true, time is a part of how space operates. Time flexing/dialtion has not been proven to work at a level great enough for us to make a significant use out of it as far as I know today. I've heard of particles living long in acceleartors, satalites losing a fraction of a fraction of a second per year, and atomic clocks falling out of sync by tiny amounts. So far no large scale usable dialation to create a useful time travel. There remains paradox's as I understand aswell.

However in a mathamatical geometry diagram Time can be very well shown it much delay if light is to be a universal constant in velocity.

I have suggested and postulated other explanations to the avg constant of speed of light and why it seems so. However I know every little about Max Planks observations and equations part of physics, so its best to read everything before making new things, as I've been learning, but that is why I have been trying to exploit some parts of basic physics that I suggest are OVERLOOKED.

[Little Bang]

The photon has no future only a past.

[InfiniteNow]

Time doesn't really exist

 

For "anything" to exist...it has to be "physical". A thing is "physical" if it can effect other "stuff" and be affected by other "stuff".

If "stuff" don't move (relatively)....it does not effect anything and therefore does not exist.

...

please, if you disagree with me. try if you can find faults in my logic.

Hmm... we might first start by defining what it is to exist. This has plagued philosophers for ages...

 

Even if we choose not to, an idea is not "physical," yet it can very significantly effect other "stuff," as well as be effected by other "stuff." Yet ideas exist (whatever that is).

 

There's one example of a flaw with this anyway. Sounds to me more like you're trying to replace the word "cotton swab" with "Q-tip." Same thing really, and doesn't help define it. :eek_big:

[niin]

an idea is not "physical,"

 

I think it is.

Your idea is just a specific configuration of neurons in your physical brain.

[arkain101]

Hmm... we might first start by defining what it is to exist. This has plagued philosophers for ages...

 

What it is to exist I think can quite plainly and clearly be explained as the opposite to that which is nothing, that which does not exist.

 

Which takes me to a previous thought and statement I made ealier. If a person is to think of something, no matter what it is, if that thought has occurd in there mind, wouldnt it be true to state that it has happened at some level in the space-time field. If we dont look at the person who had the thought and stored it in there memory as a person but rather a pile of matter and light and we were capable of plugging a technology into this being and pull out the data (memory) of the obscure thought and brought it into the visual, then it obviously its source exists.

 

In space we see light of events that are no longer here. So we might see two stars colide in a telescope that is detected to be 5000 light years away. When we watch the stars collide, they no longer exist, yet we are able to see it happen. The colliding stars that are no longer there, still exist in the universe at least in the visual represenation. Therefore since it is the opposite of nothing it is here and exists. And depending on whether times dimension is true, it could be held somewhere in time as BEING.

 

My opinion is, Because we have existence today, it = that existence has always been and will awalys be, simply because it is the only there there is. If you take away existence you have nothing, and with the classifaction of nothing, I dont think there ever could be a 'something', therefore Existence is EVERYTHING.. I mean so grandly imagined...Everything!

[hallenrm]

Reading the posts above, a thought just crossed my mind!;)

 

Here it goes!! We all agree that atoms exist, electrons exist and so on:)

 

The electric current exists, because electrons exist!

 

What if thoughts are configuration of sub electronic particles, say gluons.

They exist, and they cross the minds of individual human beings at particular time!:eek: :evil: :evil: :) :) ;)

[InfiniteNow]

Time doesn't really exist

 

For "anything" to exist...it has to be "physical".

an idea is not "physical,"

I think it is.

Your idea is just a specific configuration of neurons in your physical brain.

 

Well, you just negated your own point then. Time is also physical by this definition as it's "just a specific configuration of neurons in your physical brain."

 

 

Cheers. ;)

[niin]

Well, you just negated your own point then. Time is also physical by this definition as it's "just a specific configuration of neurons in your physical brain."

 

lol...I negated my own point?

I hope not.

 

"Time" don't exist in your brain.

The "idea of time" exist in your brain.

Therefor...the "idea of time" is physical.

Time is not physical.

 

I hope i explained it okay.

 

 

PS: InfiniteNow, I like your posts.

[arkain101]

what if you could go back in time?

 

would time be physical, and would it exit if we fond out how to stroll down the one way street the wrong way

[infamous]

what if you could go back in time?

 

would time be physical, and would it exit if we fond out how to stroll down the one way street the wrong way

The views I'm about to express are only speculation, no body has ever made this trip so quesswork is all we have to go on. IMHO, if we were ever able to travel back in time I believe that it would be to another universe of our own making. That's to say, it would have no effect on the one we presently reside in. Just my own opinion, everone has one..................................Infy

[arkain101]

yes, since if time was in a linear 1 universe scale. People from the infinite future would be showing up all the time. Rouge travelers would come back and warn people of things and all kinds of wacky strange stuff. So yes time may not be reversable but maybe there is somewhere you can go to live in reverse time eventually becoming a baby, going back into the womb and dissapearing. lol

[Doctordick]

The photon has no future only a past.

In it's own frame (which is where you must be if you are going to see things from the photon's perspective), it doesn't even have a past! :lol: :lol: :lol:

We all agree that atoms exist, electrons exist and so on ...

Then you would say that the question of existence is a state determined by belief? ;) That means the gods exist; at least for the people who believe it! :lol: :lol: :lol:

what if you could go back in time?

Ok, let's look at that from your perspective. For the sake of argument, suppose you have a personal time machine (let it be that car from "Back to the Future"). Now, exactly what do you mean by going back in time? Don't you mean that the events you experience are those which you previously attributed to the past? That is, you re-experience (somewhat altered perhaps) events you have already experienced or at least thought that others had experienced? Aren't these just new events to you? It seems to me that you simply continue to experience new events! Every morning, I experience the sun rising again and events proceeding slightly different from the way they did the last time I woke up. Perhaps, from your perspective of my experiences, I am just reliving the same day? :) :eek: :lol:

 

It is exactly that perspective which led me to the conclusion that "the past is what you know", "the future is what you don't know" and the present is "the event of learning new things". I suppose you guys are all much more brilliant than I am but I really do wish you would explain to me why you find my definition of time so implausible.

People from the infinite future would be showing up all the time.

But isn't that exactly what happens as you walk down the street? Wasn't the event (of meeting those people) in the future before you met them. :hihi:

... travelers would come back and warn people of things and all kinds of wacky strange stuff.

Gee, from my admittedly mundane experiences, the world seems to be chock full of people warning us of wacky strange stuff. :hammer: :lol:

 

Someone, anyone, please explain to me why "time" is something other than a personal parameter describing the order of our growth in information. I cannot understand why you all think that your that your personal comprehension of time (that diary of experiences you have constructed) must map faithfully over all of the supposed experiences of others. That very concept implies the existence of a universal time which is a direct contradiction of experiment. As I see it, the concept "time" only makes sense as a personal organizational parameter of our experiences. Please, persuade me that I am wrong. :shrug:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

I think a lot of people who think they think don't think at all. :hammer:

[ughaibu]

A point that puzzles me with regard to Milton Erickson's experiments with hypnotically distorted perception of time, is whether or not the time is later "balanced" by some means, for example, extended sleep. If not, what determines the person's habitual speed of perception? Is it a direct consequence of attention?

[Little Bang]

Doc, if a photon were created by a star say ten million light years away and at the time of it's creation it had a clock on it that we could observe. When the photon was created the clock read exactly 10:30 AM. When the photon arrives at Earth I look at it's clock and it will read exactly 10:30 AM. To me this implies that every possible event that this photon can be involved in happens instantly, relative to the photon. Hence my statement, the photon has no future, only a past.

 

BTW Doc, your description of time is a good explanation of how we view time.