What is time?

[Jehu]

Thank you for your highly informative reply. Am I to understand that you are willing to enquire into the “nature of reality”, or are you simply expecting that I will present some sort of hypothesis? If the latter is correct, I’m afraid I have no theories to put forth. If, however, it is an enquiry you wish to undertake, let me offer the following as a point of departure.

 

Let us begin by first defining precisely what is meant by “the nature of reality”, for if we are to have any hope of succeeding in our investigation, we must have a clear idea of what it is that we are looking for. By the term, “nature”, we mean that set of qualities and characteristics that are essential to all “things” being perceived or thought about, including ideas, sensations, objects, properties, and activities. When we speak of “reality”, we mean that which is actual and existent, and which underlies the appearance of all such things. Thus, to enquire into the nature of reality, is to endeavour to discover that set of primitive underlying elements that are fundamental to all things’ being perceived or thought about.

 

Now, given that these essential qualities and characteristics are the fundamental elements of all things, it follows that they themselves cannot be “things”, that is to say, that they, being more fundamental than things, cannot be individually perceived or thought about. On the contrary, only when all of the elements are bound together to comprise a thing, may they then be perceived or thought about. For this reason, the nature of reality is subtle and difficult to understand. Nevertheless, if we are to communicate these elements, we will need to designate surrogate things (i.e., concepts) in their place, however, we must remember that these surrogates are not the elements themselves, but merely communicatory devices which direct the mind toward that which cannot itself be taken as a direct object. Accordingly, when the ancients referred to the elements as spirit, water, earth, fire, and wind, they did not mean that these concepts were identical with the elements, but simply that these concepts (which varied from one tradition to another) embodied certain qualities or characteristics that were indicative of the actual elements. I do not, however, expect that you will simply accept the validity of the ancient elements, and I mention them here only as an illustrative example of the use of surrogates to designate that which is otherwise inexpressible.

 

With regard to that relationship which binds the fundamental elements together, as a thing, it is this law or principle that in metaphysics is called the “First Principle” or “Ultimate Principle”. Consequently, this one principle must hold for all domains of reality, that is to say, it must be evident in the binding together of all manner of things, without exception.

 

It is important here, that we recognize the subtle distinction drawn, in our definitions above, between a thing’s being perceived and its being thought about. To be perceived, requires only that a thing enter into one’s field of cognitive awareness, that is to say, that one becomes conscious of the thing’s presence in one or more sensory fields. To be thought about, on the other hand, requires only that a thing enter into one’s field of cognitive knowledge (the mind), that is to say, that one is able to identify or know what the thing is. It is possible then, that one can perceive a thing without necessarily thinking about it, and that one can think about a thing without necessarily perceiving it. From this, it follows that those elements that give rise to the perception of a thing, must necessarily originate external of the apprehending mind, while those elements that give rise to thinking about a thing, must necessarily originate within the apprehending mind itself. Accordingly, the fundamental elements may be divide into two distinct groups, (1) those that are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s being perceived, and (2) those that are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s being thought about. Thus, it may be asserted that everything comprises two natures, the one pertaining to its being perceived, the other to its being recognized.

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

Thank you for your highly informative reply. Am I to understand that you are willing to enquire into the “nature of reality”, or are you simply expecting that I will present some sort of hypothesis? ... [complete copy of previous post]

As our bodies brain will manifest our physical propeties things like cell reproduction, axion and dentrite chemical reaction (in theory they never actually touch), these are the QM points where space-time are of concern to me does it happen at arate of 50m or c would standardize or limit the thought process (put it in a bow, so to say). Random thought based on experiences are already present, however a catalysis is usually all it takes to generate or trigger a profound thought major or minor. Once we start to find the smallest element that will compose a thought, then examine that, we then would disect that and label its parts. I feel we were born with the knowledge of our ancestrial experiences and only need to share random thought to catalyze an event in the mind section of our brain. Thank you for sharing your idea, please continue.

 

DORSEY

[Little Bang]

Q, I have no idea how the photon does that but I am enthralled by the idea of the universe being created by a single photon. This concept would get rid of the inflation problem, explain why the arrow of time always points in the same direction, and there might be some sort of event probability density relationship with gravity. I'll have to think on that one for a while. What the hell, I'm having fun, that's what we're here for anyway.

[Jehu]

As our bodies brain will manifest our physical propeties things like cell reproduction, axion and dentrite chemical reaction (in theory they never actually touch), these are the QM points where space-time are of concern to me does it happen at arate of 50m or c would standardize or limit the thought process (put it in a bow, so to say). Random thought based on experiences are already present, however a catalysis is usually all it takes to generate or trigger a profound thought major or minor. Once we start to find the smallest element that will compose a thought, then examine that, we then would disect that and label its parts. I feel we were born with the knowledge of our ancestrial experiences and only need to share random thought to catalyze an event in the mind section of our brain. Thank you for sharing your idea, please continue.

 

DORSEY

 

Yes, I agree fully, to analyse a thought would achieve the same aim, for the nature of reality must necessarily be the nature of all things, including thoughts. However, I strongly suspect that if we concentrate first on the material class of things, we will be less apt to go astray, for it is the material class that apparently gives rise to the perceptual experience.

 

To continue our enquiry then, let us turn first to identifying those elements which pertain to the perception of a thing, and which appear to originate in the body’s sensory faculties. To aid in uncovering these elements, let us consider carefully the two-fold definition of the concept of “matter”, which is commonly expressed as, “that which has mass and occupies space”. In physics, mass is defined as a “measurement of inertia”, and inertia is defined as “the tendency of a material object to resist any attempt to alter its state of motion”. Thus mass is a measurement of a material objects resistance to external influence, that is to say, a measure of its stability. This stability is the fundamental property of all matter, and that feature which enables material objects to influence one another.

 

Since only material objects are able to directly influence the material sensory organs of the body, the term, “mass”, as it pertains to the definition of matter (above), must signify the “substantial quality” of matter, and that feature whereby material objects are rendered perceptible. Hence, this stability or substance is clearly an essential quality whereby a thing is perceived. But what are we to make of matter’s being extended in space, is this feature any less essential? Surely not, for the shape or spatial distribution of a thing is that characteristic feature whereby the mind is able to differentiate it from other things. Hence, a material thing’s “occupation of space” must, also be counted among the fundamental elements whereby it is perceived.

 

A careful examination of any given thing will reveal the presence of two elements that are essential to its being perceived. We shall call these two primitive elements “structure” and “substance”, and all things possess these elements, regardless of their class. The substance of a thing we will define as that set of perceptible qualities which render it noticeable to the mind, while its structure is a characteristic pattern of distribution residing within that substance, which renders the thing distinguishable from other things, having the same or similar substance. For example, the substance of a clay pot comprises the sum of the clay and other material substances of which it is comprised, while its structure is its characteristic pot-like shape, and it this pot-like shape that distinguishes the pot from a clay tile, for example, which shares the same substance. We shall designate structure and substance to be the “immediate elements”, because they are given to the mind immediately by the senses, and not by the mediation of study or mentation. Consequently, these two elements must necessarily be present in a single instance of perception, and so it follows that they must also be static.

 

Any objections thus far? Any questions or comments?

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

Yes, I agree fully, to analyse a thought would achieve the same aim, for the nature of reality must necessarily be the nature of all things, including thoughts. [full copy of preceding post removed for brevity]

Please believe me we are on the same line of thought, however if I see a clay pot the total reminiscense would be different for me since I am an Indian, my only question to you is , "Why would it be static?" in level 4 QM(Quantum Mechanics) , you may find that once toched always conazine, or if particle A collides with B then A1 and B2 are created, in an instant no space and time.. (thought), the body or in your example will continue to the next collision, in an instant. The one thing that can not happen is "Static photons" unless you are making a bomb, colliding photons = destroying matter. We are not talking about that the feeling here is why, not how, Your e-mail has either an Asymetrical or S IP address, that only means one spot or a few spots can use the same input signal, think about that , we bounce photons off one another already!! GOD will be proud when the QM is standard thought. If the Big Dino's refused to learn will the small mammels do any better, or maybe the ants and other bugs know something we don't.

 

DORSEY

[Jehu]

Please believe me we are on the same line of thought, however if I see a clay pot the total reminiscense would be different for me since I am an Indian, my only question to you is , "Why would it be static?" in level 4 QM(Quantum Mechanics) , you may find that once toched always conazine, or if particle A collides with B then A1 and B2 are created, in an instant no space and time.. (thought), the body or in your example will continue to the next collision, in an instant. The one thing that can not happen is "Static photons" unless you are making a bomb, colliding photons = destroying matter. We are not talking about that the feeling here is why, not how, Your e-mail has either an Asymetrical or S IP address, that only means one spot or a few spots can use the same input signal, think about that , we bounce photons off one another already!! GOD will be proud when the QM is standard thought. If the Big Dino's refused to learn will the small mammels do any better, or maybe the ants and other bugs know something we don't.

 

DORSEY

We are speaking here, only of the elements of perception, that is to say, that which is necessary and sufficient for a thing to enter into one’s field of sensory awareness. We have not yet brought mentation (“reminiscence”) into play, thus it would make no difference, at this stage, whether the observer were from a pot-making culture or not.

 

Now, these perceptual elements are given to the mind directly by the senses, in a single instance of perception, and since an instance, like a point in geometry, has no duration, these elements must be motionless, for motion or change requires the introduction of time, and we have made no mention of time as yet. As to whether or not QM is the theoretical model that best fits the true nature of reality, we would prefer not to speculate, but to allow reason alone to be our guiding principle. Would you agree?

 

Hope this is helpful.

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

We are speaking here, only of the elements of perception, that is to say, that which is necessary and sufficient for a thing to enter into one’s field of sensory awareness. We have not yet brought mentation (“reminiscence”) into play, thus it would make no difference, at this stage, whether the observer were from a pot-making culture or not.

 

Now, these perceptual elements are given to the mind directly by the senses, in a single instance of perception, and since an instance, like a point in geometry, has no duration, these elements must be motionless, for motion or change requires the introduction of time, and we have made no mention of time as yet. As to whether or not QM is the theoretical model that best fits the true nature of reality, we would prefer not to speculate, but to allow reason alone to be our guiding principle. Would you agree?

 

Hope this is helpful.

Hi Jehu! I almost hear you, reason is what we do; folks are going to be unreasonable and even insistant on what they feel is "The Answer" (smile). I have to ask you about "SYNCHRONICITY" , you don't mention it so I wonder have you caught up on it or did you disregard it all together. I ask you this because you state a basic, but, not the only Essential Characteristics of a Synchronistic event ? This is level 4 QM .. . I find that a space-time continuum that is one molecule thick and 600 light years wide is wonderful (black hole), however it is moving! Within your mind is a universe.If, the photon is the unit we will continue to examine. All I will ask you guys is where do we agree to start.

I had to explain the diff from a Ghost and a Spirit and it comes down to time- space, If your spirit missed your time-space ride, or, you hit or got hit in route you will become a ghost, (smile). Your redirected plasma field will have to return to point A , cause point B was distracted and still exist but you need a jump start to get you back up to c , just long enough to slow down and get off at B. (smile).

 

DORSEY

[infamous]

All I will ask you guys is where do we agree to start.

Actually MAD, your incoherence makes it difficult to agree or disagree with any of your nebulous renderings.

 

 

I had to explain the diff from a Ghost and a Spirit and it comes down to time- space, If your spirit missed your time-space ride, or, you hit or got hit in route you will become a ghost, (smile).

These opinions belong in either the Theology forum or the Strange Claims forum. Please stay on topic and offer us scientific evidence in support of your contributions.

 

 

Your redirected plasma field will have to return to point A , cause point B was distracted and still exist but you need a jump start to get you back up to c , just long enough to slow down and get off at B. (smile).

 

DORSEY

This rambling is completely disconnected with the subject of this thread, 'What is time'. If you have scientific evidence to support this nonsense, please advise us of such. Otherwise, please refrain from spouting forth this incoherent vomit...................................Infy

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

Actually MAD, your incoherence makes it difficult to agree or disagree with any of your nebulous renderings.

 

 

These opinions belong in either the Theology forum or the Strange Claims forum. Please stay on topic and offer us scientific evidence in support of your contributions.

 

 

This rambling is completely disconnected with the subject of this thread, 'What is time'. If you have scientific evidence to support this nonsense, please advise us of such. Otherwise, please refrain from spouting forth this incoherent vomit...................................Infy

A weasle is an example of a sneaky animal, but in evolution space-time a hairy snake, would be more accurate. If you are not having fun then you are working, if this is your job you are in trouble. I don't remember you and your tunnel mind having the right to tell me not to mix a few things up. Your lack of imagination is why you seem to be a stupid twit, trying to insist someone stay on your program of endless baffle, you little fool, how long will you stay stuck in your own little world, you are not half of a photon. Bring it ... to the next level. If you don't like something or have not gathered enough information,on your week and often irrelevant comments, simply keep them to, and with in your little head. People have fun saying and thinking as they feel not what your "p...k " butt feels it should be 'Go to PHOTON LAND, and don't try it .. not here!!

 

DORSEY

 

I must ask you to forgive the insulting manner I have addressd your insults to me, my insult do not reflect how much more I am than you. I know only a dumb fool would call out aperson they do not know, and could not be you. I feel bad to have to cruch a bug or mask an ugly person so I'm sorry if I let your snide remarks collide with other folks helping response.

[infamous]

I don't remember you and your tunnel mind having the right to tell me not to mix a few things up.

Actually MAD, if you'll notice, my responsibilities here at Hypography include instructing members on proper behavior.

 

Your lack of imagination is why you seem to be a stupid twit, you little fool, you are not half of a photon.

 

If you don't like something or have not gathered enough information,on your week and often irrelevant comments, simply keep them to, and with in your little head. People have fun saying and thinking as they feel not what your "p...k " butt feels it should be 'Go to PHOTON LAND, and don't try it .. not here!!

 

DORSEY

You are way over the line here MAD. Please read our FAQ and rules page, you have broken several, all within this single post.

 

I must ask you to forgive the insulting manner I have addressd your insults to me, my insult do not reflect how much more I am than you. I know only a dumb fool would call out aperson they do not know, and could not be you. I feel bad to have to cruch a bug or mask an ugly person so I'm sorry if I let your snide remarks collide with other folks helping response.

I don't think my comments could be characterized as personal insults. I was addressing the issue of your constant tendency to make claims without any scientific background material to support them. Bringing up ghosts and spirits certainly belongs in the Strange Claims forum. My comment about incoherent vomit is the only thing that can even be remotely associated with an insult. And in retrospect, not particularly a personal one at that. The truth is, most of your commentary is, in fact very incoherent, and I'm not the only one that's noticing........Infy

[Racoon]

Actually MAD, if you'll notice, my responsibilities here at Hypography include instructing members on proper behavior.

 

You are way over the line here MAD. Please read our FAQ and rules page, you have broken several, all within this single post.

 

 

:cup:

 

Give 'em Hell Infy!

Thats what he gets for having a middle name in his Handle!! :confused: >>>:eek:

 

You are a voice of reason.

 

So don't mess with Infy!! :confused:

If you know whats good for you.

He'll turn you everyway but loose! :hihi:

[TheBigDog]

Returning to topic... I knew I had written something at Hypography about time, but I had a devil of a time finding it. But I have!

 

Each point in space experiences now at the same moment. But the space separating all points in space make each point's perception of now to be unique. This is upheld by Special Relativity and the rules around causality. You cannot perceive something faster than it radiates potential causality. So anything perceived as now in any point in space is either before or after it is perceived for each adjacent point in space.

 

Even our own actions are not perceived by us until after they have happened. And our brain, in an attempt to simplify them for best understanding, summarizes them into "macro actions" happening over a period of time, as being one action in one moment in time. So for humans the reality of any single action is not only always in the past, but also effected by our brain's interpretation of what is experienced by our body.

 

A chain of observed events, with demonstrable cause and effect lets us know that there is a linear progression of time. NOW is the leading point of that linear progression. And like a line in geometry, each point on that line is a marker indicating; 1) all points before the marker, 2) the marker, 3) all points after the marker. On the line representing time now is a point where there is no number 3 - nothing after the marker. But the line is always growing. So the instant you drop a point marker on now it is in the past.

 

Bill

 

This was originally posted on the thread Moments and Events, the very first thread started (with his very first post) by InfiniteNow. Good reading on a similar topic.

 

Bill

[Jehu]

While you have provided an excellent description of the general understanding of time, we should not accept the validity of the proposition, “A chain of observed events, with demonstrable cause and effect lets us know that there is a linear progression of time.” At best, our observations tell us only that there is the appearance of a linear progression of events. On the other hand, logic tells us that there is something inherently wrong with this view of time. An event, for example, must take place over some finite span of time for an event necessarily entails a motion, be it the movement of a thing itself with respect to its surrounding environment, or the movement of a thing’s constituent elements with respect to one another. In addition, no rate of motion is permitted to exceed the speed of light, and so any motion, however slight, must take some finite time to occur. However, if we accept this proposition, then we must ask how it is that any event is able to occur within the confines of that instant which we call NOW. As you say, an instant is the temporal equivalent to a point in space, and as it can have no temporal extension, that which takes place within an instant must necessarily be static. This then brings to Zeno’s question, if there is no motion in an instant, how can there be motion in a sequence of instants? Zeno then reasoned, quite correctly, that motion was the product of our own mentation, a mere illusion. It follows from this that time is also a product of our mentation, for without the notion of motion or change, there would be no time either. The brilliant Buddhist logistician, Nagarjuna, came to the same realization regarding motion when he wrote, “On the path, there is only the path which we have already traveled and the path which we have not yet traveled. On the path we have already traveled (the past), there exists no motion, and on the path we have not yet traveled (the future), there exists no motion, and there is no other path than these two.” Now my question to you is this, why do we consistently deny that which logic tells is the true nature of things, and succumb so willingly to the way things appear to be?

 

Regards, Jehu

[questor]

Jehu, the philosophers you quote did not have the benefit of molecular and atomic science. behold a boulder. it sits still, there is no perceptive motion, yet we knowthis rock is composed of atoms with a somewhat furious movement. this movement does not propel the rock from place to place, but it does contribute to the rocks' aging and eventual decay. this takes place regardless of man's observance. time exists without the presence of man. we merely have developed agreed upon means to measure it.

[Jehu]

Jehu, the philosophers you quote did not have the benefit of molecular and atomic science. behold a boulder. it sits still, there is no perceptive motion, yet we knowthis rock is composed of atoms with a somewhat furious movement. this movement does not propel the rock from place to place, but it does contribute to the rocks' aging and eventual decay. this takes place regardless of man's observance. time exists without the presence of man. we merely have developed agreed upon means to measure it.

 

I’m sorry but I do not fully understand the thrust of your argument. What you appear to be saying is that the mere appearance of a seemingly external and objective universe is sufficient to convince you that it is so, and given that you are fully convinced, so should we all be. There are those of us, however, who question the premises upon which the sciences are based, though we have no quarrel with the sciences themselves, nor their methodologies. To borrow an ancient analogy, science is like a blind man whom is able to venture far and wide, but never known precisely where he is, while philosophy is like a man with no legs, who sees exactly where he is, but can go nowhere. So you see, science and philosophy are complementary disciplines, and quite useless when they stand in opposition to one another. It is not my intention to criticize the sciences per say, nor any particular theory, but merely to point out any logical inconsistencies in their founding concepts.

 

Regards, Jehu

[ughaibu]

As logic is primarilly concerned with human communication, there is no reason to believe that what "logic tells is the true nature of things" any more than there is about what science tells us. We want to know things that we can understand, both science and logic offer ways of understanding.

[Jehu]

As logic is primarilly concerned with human communication, there is no reason to believe that what "logic tells is the true nature of things" any more than there is about what science tells us. We want to know things that we can understand, both science and logic offer ways of understanding.

 

Why do you say that “logic is primarily concerned with human communication”? Logic is the science of reasoning, and so is the foundation of all the sciences, for the notion of scientific method is itself based upon logic. In fact, one could say that there would be no possibility of intellectual endeavour whatsoever, were it not that there existed some universal law of reasoning. The principle difference between the scientist and the philosopher, within any given discipline, is that the scientist is concerned primarily with such knowledge as can be gleaned from the interactions of things, while the philosopher seeks to know what the thing is in itself. The physicist, for example, take the notions of space, time, matter, energy, and motion, to be self-evident, and proceeds from their to build a model of reality which best fits their observations. The philosopher, on the other hand, is more concerned with the logical demonstration of the fundamental concepts themselves. The reason why such importance is placed upon these fundamental concepts is best illustrated by another ancient analogy, the story of the blind Sufis and the elephant. Each branch of science is like a blind (or nearsighted, at least) man who is trying to make sense of something that is much greater than the piece he is able to examine. In other words, each science is constructing a model of reality based upon its own limited view. Philosophy, and especially metaphysics, seeks to see the elephant as a whole, and thereby provide a comprehensive and coherent view of reality, that might then be used to guide the progress of all sciences. Therefore, as I stated before, the two disciplines are complementary, and need not conflict.

 

Regards, Jehu