What is time?

[Rade]

Rade:You have not contemplated the idea that only now exists and that the past is gone and the future hasn't happened yet.....Only now exists.

Yes, I have so contemplated. As you existed in the past-now when you wrote your post, you also exist in the present-now as you read my post, and, god willing, you will exist as the future-now when you conclude your read. But not only the now exists, also exist time and space independent of the 'now'--for if there was no time neither would there be a 'now'. And if there was no space, neither would there be any place for Existence to exist. Thus much better than to say "only now exists" is "only Existence exists", then develop your thinking of how time and the concepts of past-present-future enters the philosophic picture.

 

We can apprehend time only when we label "motion", and we mark it by the terms "before-past" and "after-future". And we judge these two to be different such that some third thing must be intermediate to them, and that thing we call time. Thus the mind can comprehend the concept 'now' to be a number "two", one before and one after. But, the mind also can comprehend the 'now' as the number one, what we call the 'present', which is always in relation to a before and an after. Thus we see how on the one hand the 'now' is always the same (it always measures time in so far as time involves the before and after), but on the other hand, the 'now' is in perpetual succession because it takes the form of different attributes (i.e., past-present-future).

 

We have no external evidence suggesting that all three co-exist.

True, past-present-future nows as existents cannot co-exist, I never so suggested. However, I think you miss my point. The 'now' as the 'present', as the one, is a boundary, it is an attribute of time. The 'now' (present) connects the past and future 'time' (not past and future existents). The 'now' is beginning of future time and the end of past time. Thus it is the begin of future and end of past that 'co-exist' within the 'now', not past and future existents.

 

And even 'now' is untouchable because by the time you become aware of it, it's gone

Yes, of course. The reason is that the now as "present" is the mathematical limit of all aspects of the past and the future. The present is indivisible, there is no time within the present, neither motion nor rest, yet it does exist as a boundary within time. There is nothing to be aware of within the present, for awareness requires motion of energy and matter, and none of these are possible within the 'present'. All awareness occurs within time and space.

 

The whole concept of space time is like a structure of fog. Space is nothing and time is an internal concept used to order events in a conscious mind, i.e. it doesn't exist outside of a conscious mind.

Well, I completely disagree with this philosophic belief system you have (subjective idealism). Neither space nor time that are present within the universe derive their existence from the presence of a conscious mind. Space is not the same as 'nothingness' also called the 'void', thus your comment that 'space is nothing' is false. The human mind does not create reality, it identifies it.

[watcher]

there is a possibility that space is conscious.

[lawcat]

I am not sure we can talk about "now" in any momentary point-like terms. It seems to me that "now" must be an approximation, much like a point. There is no such thing as a real point; it is an approximation, or a bounded limit beyond which we can not reduce further. "Now" is always bounded to the extent of our precision between past and future. Now can be a day, or two hours, or 1 second, or a nanosecond.

[watcher]

when people speaks about "NOW" ala echart tolle, they are talikng about stilling the mind.

when achieved what's left is an awake spacelike consciousness

this is how time is transcended

 

it is like removing this arbitrary point. a self referencing mechanism of the mental perception. in short, now is a different state of consciousness from our ordinary day state of consciousness of space, time and objects. in this state, time space and objects are seen as one substance

[lawcat]

I can not wrap my hands around that concept. IMO even consciousness is subject to time, for it can not exist without it.

 

But I like what Rade had to say several posts ago.

time is that which is intermediate between two moments, space is that which is intermediate between two existents. Thus space-time is that which is intermediate between two moments of existents.

 

Although it seems circular from the first glance--i.e. because spacetime is a collection of moments and existents, then all moments and existents are spacetime--there is more to it. I wish we could expand it from there.

[watcher]

yes that is a good description of their relationship.

i think the mystery is as to what is the substance of spacetime

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Rade, if you agree that you cannot perceive by touch or sight or any other sense the past or the future, how then do you conclude that they exist? I would say that your 'perception' of time is purely an internal construct based upon the fact that you have memory and imagination. You perceive a distance between events because they have distance, internally, in your world of ordered events. Wouldn't your idea of time, then, be more subjective than mine? It certainly isn't an object you can point to or touch or see with your senses.

 

If you are saying that time is necessary to cause change, you have made it into an existent, a cause, and I don't think it is one. It is simply the effect of a consciousness being aware of change.

 

Our belief in time as causative factor (whether on its own or coupled with space) has blinded us to any cause for change that might be mechanical in nature and that operates at a level we cannot perceive directly. Basically, it acts as a placeholder which blocks other valid exploration.

[watcher]

If you are saying that time is necessary to cause change, you have made it into an existent, a cause, and I don't think it is one. It is simply the effect of a consciousness being aware of change.

 

or simply put time is motion. as measured.

and what ever measures motion or change is what perceived time.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Watcher, I'm asking you to consider that the perception you have is really referencing something which is purely in your mind. And the distance between those two referents are what you and I refer to as time. The difference here is that I am saying that the perception of the difference is purely internal. You assume, because it is so clear to you - and it is clearly a perception (but an internal one) that it automatically references something that exists outside of yourself. It doesn't. It just feels that it must. It's not the same as touching a tree.

[watcher]

Watcher, I'm asking you to consider that the perception you have is really referencing something which is purely in your mind. And the distance between those two referents are what you and I refer to as time. The difference here is that I am saying that the perception of the difference is purely internal. You assume, because it is so clear to you - and it is clearly a perception (but an internal one) that it automatically references something that exists outside of yourself. It doesn't. It just feels that it must. It's not the same as touching a tree.

 

the problem with pure idealism is if that all things are happening in the mind that is assumed to be inside the brain, why is it that things are perceived outside of our head. in other words, where is the mind? the mind can't be inside the skull, isn't it.?

 

if this is the case then it is useless to talk about whether perceptions happens internally or externally of me. it appears to be non local too

[Little Bang]

No matter how fast you observe an event it is already in the past. There is no such thing as now.

[watcher]

No matter how fast you observe an event it is already in the past. There is no such thing as now.

 

if what is seen is in the past, what observes must be in the now.

[Little Bang]

When you become conscious of an event the event has already happened. You can never be conscious of a now event because it is already in the past when you become aware of it.

[AnssiH]

Thank you.

Still, one must ask why clocks slow down and speed up at different velocities

 

Yes one must ask that, and the epistemological analysis that I am talking about exposes quite interesting (and quite mundane) information about that.

 

But whenever I refer to relationships that we have defined in our minds as part of our model of reality, you take that as idealism. I don't think it makes sense for me to use my time trying to explain it to you.

 

Just as a general commentary on the topic of this thread, I just went to the barber shop this morning, and read this finnish science magazine for a bit. It's quite respected as a mainstream science magazine, but really their physics articles are just embarrassing at best.

 

I've complained before that the mainstream publications are quite sensationalistic in their physics articles. I guess it makes sense; wild claims about reality are more interesting than dry and complicated expressions of intuitive relationships. And when you can dress those claims as "science" on the basis that some model can be interpreted that way, you have the material for an "scientists are saying that [add whatever wild claim your heart desires]"-article.

 

The net effect of that is that the crazy interpretations get waaaaay more attention than they deserve, and become sort of established as the public facades of the theories (Like Minkowski spacetime).

 

This time it was an article titled "Time does not exist". They gave the impression that this is some sort of "new finding" that physicists have just recently found out; "scientists have found that time may not exists, but instead the past and the future exists all the time". They went on to say that "Einstein's theory of relativity says that time does not exist", so while they implied this was new development, they were actually referring to what Minkowski wrote in his paper at, oh let's see, 1908. I'm not very good at math, but I think that's over 100 years ago. Not exactly "recent", and not exactly "a finding".

 

And of course they had an "expert physicist" of some sort that was commenting on the issue, talking about how time is seen as static in relativity, and the writer of the article went on to even criticize the physicist saying "why aren't the physicists making more ruckus about this thing, I think people would find it comforting that their childhood still exists?". (see what I meant about "embarrassing at best")

 

At least that physicist added a very last one-sentence disclaimer in the end, saying "...but this is just a mathematical model and we should not draw too far reaching conclusions about it". Unfortunately, I think that comment gets very much buried under the sensationalist tone of the rest of the article.

 

What is sort of comforting underneath all that stupidity is that the article was part of some series called "Wild Claims". What makes that aspect immediately sad again is that the same magazine, like all the others, routinely refers to aspects of relativity that only exist in the "static spacetime" interpretation of relativity, without realizing it at all. I don't think the writer of that article realized for a second that they were talking about the same standard interpretation of relativity that they always talk about anyway. You know the feeling you get when someone is just so far behind the curve that there doesn't seem to be any way to even explain the issues to them.... ...and then that person writes articles to a science magazine... I would have a joke about that, but it makes me too angry

 

-Anssi

[Michael Mooney]

No matter how fast you observe an event it is already in the past. There is no such thing as now.

 

No matter how you reify "time" and slice it up into "moments" or whatever, the "is"-ness of the present is ongoing, always "now." The "future" is the concept/word for *not* yet *now*, the present. The "past" is the concept/word for not still now, the present.

The "present" is the concept/word for now, which *is* all there *is*, ever, always.

 

Can you wrap your mind around that?... seriously!

Naturally, there *is* always a delay between the origins of specific "signals" we call sensations/perceptions and what is being experienced.

But "signal delay" is a big can o worms re both "time" and relativity in general.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

AnssiH:

But whenever I refer to relationships that we have defined in our minds as part of our model of reality, you take that as idealism. I don't think it makes sense for me to use my time trying to explain it to you.

 

First, I appreciate the gist of the central theme of your post.

But I think you misunderstand me as expressed in the criticism above.

 

I get that you do not dismiss "the world" as 'all in our minds'... given the absurdity, which i have frequently pointed out, that 'our minds' require *brains*, which exposes the absurdity of subjective idealism when you think about the required denial of bodies with brains supporting "minds."

That is why I asked about your philosophy as per possibly a version of Kant's transcendental idealism.

 

It still seems to me that you think one version of 'what we think we know about the world/cosmos' is as good as another (if it is internally consistent and coherent) since it is all about perceived patterns, which all depends on our equipment and perspective of perception.

 

You never did answer whether my paraphrase of all that was accurate... that no one can really *know* anything for sure in the the ontological sense of what actually exists, in and of itself... like "time" in this thread.

 

So you continue to beat around that bush and *assume* that no one here besides your hero, Doctordick and you even understand the issue at hand... "What is Time."

 

Such arrogance and elitism does nothing to further the dialogue on this subject. And you really don't want to pursue the assumption that I'm just to stupid to understand... which is how I read you.

Michael

[watcher]

When you become conscious of an event the event has already happened. You can never be conscious of a now event because it is already in the past when you become aware of it.

 

lets say you observed a supernova in deep distant space.

you know that the brightness of supernova you now see happened in the past .

but you can imagine a different state for that supernova right now, say right now it has collapse into t he black hole.

 

so you as a conscious observer must be in the now to know this. otherwise cannot conceived a different state for that collapsed star. events does not happens simultaneously but there is no known laws to say that consciousness as an observer is part of an event and therefore subject to time.