Moments and events

[kamil]

Time is just the concept of measuring the change of things. Example: The change in the position of the clock hand can be compared to the change of position of a car, or of the position of the Sun. Thats what the whole concept of time relies on, measuring how the state of something changes as compared to the change in state of another.

 

InfiniteNow:Yes. What if there is only now? There might not be any such thing as the past or the future, except in our heads.

 

One of Einstien's favourite philosopher stated 'the distinction between the future and the past is only an illusion'.

 

 

BTW, Cool thread Infinitenow!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Kamil:

Time is just the concept of measuring the change of things. Example: The change in the position of the clock hand can be compared to the change of position of a car, or of the position of the Sun. Thats what the whole concept of time relies on, measuring how the state of something changes as compared to the change in state of another.

Precisely. But what if time is just the effect of our perception of change which we are only aware of because we have the capacity to remember? I personally think gravity is an effect and that we'll never discover a so-called gravity wave. If that thought is correct, it opens up the possibility that some of the other phenomena that we think we perceive are also just an effect of something else. Think about that for a while.

On the one hand we have existence. On the other we have our perception of it. They are not the same thing.

Outside of myself I can only see now. I can't see yesterday and I can't see tomorrow.

So those two things exist only in my head along with other things that I use to comprehend existence, such as 'in', 'on', 'under', ...Do you see where I'm going with this (please tell me, I don't!)? :)

If mathematical formulas reference a phenomenon that exists only in my head, isn't that a possible weakness in their use? I mean, isn't it possible that we need to consider this when we work with mathematics? Certainly I don't know the answer to that, however, 'do the rules apply to both sets of referents in exactly the same way' seems to be a valid question? Now it might be flawed of course, but even so, it does tend to flesh out the meaning of time a little and if time is just an effect of something else, at the very least we need to know that and not treat it as an entity that can be directly perceived (assuming of course that you can't treat both kinds of entities the same way).

I guess that would also mean that there is no such thing as a time machine, although I have just thought of where one could exist: in my head, as a construct composed of memory and expectation.

This HAS been quite an interesting thread. I would like to thank both Mark McCutcheon and DoctorDick for giving me insight into this beautiful, beautiful subject and InfiniteNow for bringing it up.

[kamil]

Good post Idsoftwaresteve, memory is a very important tool in defining time. We Humans do have a special gift in remembering past events. Though i think that there are other ways of having knowledge of past events:

 

Lets say everytime a car completes 1km i draw a line on a piece of paper, then how can i determin how many kilometers the car has covered? simply just by counting the amount of lines I drew. Like you can remember when was sunday simply by just looking at the calendar. Or how many days till your birthday. Therefore i think memory too relies on this concept, that everytime we experience something, a mark is left in our minds to remember it.

 

Thank you very much InfiniteNow for bringing this up, and Idsoftwaresteve and everyone else who contributed to this excelent thread. ANyway off to sleep and see you guys tomorow:)

[InfiniteNow]

Lets say everytime a car completes 1km i draw a line on a piece of paper, then how can i determin how many kilometers the car has covered? simply just by counting the amount of lines I drew.

 

It could be taken another step and one could further ask, were all lines always present? If so, were they also always not present?

 

I guess I am approaching this with kind of a Many Worlds Interpretation. This interpretation is strongly related to the concept of a collapsing wave function as described earlier, and also the opening post of this thread. How is it now ...and now ...and now ...and now ...and now ... ad infinitum... :)

 

 

Although they are all somehow the same, they are also somehow distinct.

 

 

...at least that's what it seems like from my limited perspective. Thanks again to everyone who has posted a response. It's really enriching to hear how others see the same concept.

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

InfiniteNow

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Kamil:

Lets say everytime a car completes 1km i draw a line on a piece of paper, then how can i determin how many kilometers the car has covered? simply just by counting the amount of lines I drew. Like you can remember when was sunday simply by just looking at the calendar. Or how many days till your birthday. Therefore i think memory too relies on this concept, that everytime we experience something, a mark is left in our minds to remember it.

Well, of course we see the effects of change. But that wasn't my point. when I close my eyes and then open them, I see now. If I do it again, I still see only now.

at no time when I open my eyes do I see tomorrow or yesterday. What exists right now is all that exists. Time is something that we presume to be present, but what if it isn't? We've created a concept internally and under most, if not all cases, that means that something is subsumed by that concept in the world when I open my eyes. I mean nothing spiritual or mystical here either. I'm talking about pure perception via senses. There is only now.

Time is an internal concept which might have no, meaning zero, referent in existence. Does anybody understand what I'm talking about?

[InfiniteNow]

Does anybody understand what I'm talking about?

We're certainly on the same page here, ldsoftwaresteve, and it's reassuring to hear the similarity of what you express to what I have been thinking for so many years.

 

However, I sure don't even begin to claim that I understand it! ...yet

 

 

:)

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

InfiniteNow

[ldsoftwaresteve]

InfiniteNow:

However, I sure don't even begin to claim that I understand it! ...yet

I can attempt feebly to describe it, which is incidentally how anything is ever understood. We take feeble first steps, fall down, etc. etc.

 

Assuming time only exists internally, what does that mean?

 

Well, if time doesn't exist in the external world, which is what I'm claiming, that is a start.

 

In other words, I cannot describe anything external in terms of time. Because there isn't anything there to use in my description. There's just now.

 

That also means that our concept of time refers only to internal (mental) referents, most likely just items of memory (past events) and items of expectation (future events).

 

When we 'sense' the passage of time, we sense a change in the sensory input. No input provides no sense of time. And if the input is identical to a moment ago, we detect no change in the passage of time.

 

Perhaps a better way of looking at it is that our senses provide input and if that input changes, we feel it as an internal passage of time. Outside, the constant now bombardment of our senses continues to happen and it happens now. Another way of looking at it is that 'now' is change taking place. something drives that change. We assume it is something called time. But if it isn't, then it's something else entirely.

 

Think optical illusion.

 

This has implications in the meaning of life too, so it isn't esoteric (unless of course the assertion is completely wrong). Perhaps life is that which can detect change. At the very least, that becomes a characteristic of living things.

 

So now we have some substance to it. :) Although the idea might be completely false.

[InfiniteNow]

This has implications in the meaning of life too, so it isn't esoteric (unless of course the assertion is completely wrong). Perhaps life is that which can detect change. At the very least, that becomes a characteristic of living things.

 

I have never thought about it in this way, and granted, my view of what constitutes/defines life is rather broad (and is most definitely not limited to the concepts of biology), but I would go on to say that instead, perhaps life is that which experiences change... or further, that which changes. Detection seems to limit it too much.

 

This is why I love exploring the concept of NOW so much. With every attempt I've made to better understand, the discussion morphs (just as this thread has) into so many other topics and areas. To name a brief few: Existentialism, and Philosophy in general, Cosmology and Astronomy, Biology, Mathematics, Consciousness and Perception... and of course, my personal favorite, confusion. :)

 

Our confusion helps motivate us to find understanding.

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

InfiniteNow

[ldsoftwaresteve]

InfiniteNow:

Our confusion helps motivate us to find understanding

So then it could be said that those who seek understanding are confused. :)

We all know that stupid people are confused.

So, stupid people seek understanding. ;)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

InfiniteNow:

but I would go on to say that instead, perhaps life is that which experiences change... or further, that which changes.

Yes, subtle but more accurate. A machine does not experience although it can be made to detect.

[Turtle]

The quotes below come from Buckminster Fullers Synergetics, & the link following each quote leads to the complete online version of that work where the quotes derived. How is it that Einstein accorded to Fuller the highest praise, and yet so few people have any familiarity with Fuller's seminal works? Everyone positing this & that theory without knowledge of what is laid down before now.

 

 

333.00 There is a minimum set of patterns, which is a consequence of one set of patterns reacting with another set of patterns. In order to have a monkey wrench, you also have to make one or buy one at a store, you have to have other things, and these procurements in turn have antecedent event requirements. Each event of Universe leads back to all the great complex of events, and we get then to a minimum set of complementary events whereby the system regenerates itself, and we thus come to Universe. This tends to be a clearly defined inventory of relative abundance of the various chemical element patterns in Universe which needs a large amount of the pattern hydrogen while apparently not as much of the pattern uranium.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s03/p3000.html

 

310.13 There is a phenomenon that we might describe as the eternal disquietude of the Odd Ball promulgating eternal reorderings, realignments, and inexorable transformings to accommodate the eternal regeneration integrity of intellectually differentiable Universe. This suggests philosophically that the individual metaphysical human viewpoint__the individual ego of the human__is indeed an essential function of the eternally regenerative integrity of complex law-governed Universe.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s03/p0000.html#310.10

 

 

 

:)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Turtle,

How is it that Einstein accorded to Fuller the highest praise, and yet so few people have any familiarity with Fuller's seminal works? Everyone positing this & that theory without knowledge of what is laid down before now.

Obviously, you think highly of Albert's recommendation. Please continue to read him then. I dislike his style (from what you posted) and so choose not to myself, recommendations from on high notwithstanding.

His style gives me the image of a person who is capable of juggling many visual images simultaneously, something which frustrates me because it is too tiresome to keep up. If his intent was to get a point across he could do it in a way that was easy for me and not meant just to impress me with his visual skills.

I suspect you haven't read the previous posts and haven't got an opinion yourself - which would interest me. Paraphrase him, if you like.

[Turtle]

Turtle, Obviously, you think highly of Albert's recommendation. Please continue to read him then. I dislike his style (from what you posted) and so choose not to myself, recommendations from on high notwithstanding.

His style gives me the image of a person who is capable of juggling many visual images simultaneously, something which frustrates me because it is too tiresome to keep up. If his intent was to get a point across he could do it in a way that was easy for me and not meant just to impress me with his visual skills.

I suspect you haven't read the previous posts and haven't got an opinion yourself - which would interest me. Paraphrase him, if you like.

 

___I read the entire thread before posting a reply as is my habit.

___Many dislike Fuller's style & that is unfortunate. Many also find deep concentrated thought tiresome which is unfortunate as well.

___My paraphrased opinion of Fuller's view is that too few people make efficient use of past moments, now moments, & future moments by virtue of their ignorance of how things work & their lack of interest in going to the trouble to find out.:)

[Buffy]

{Fuller's} style gives me the image of a person who is capable of juggling many visual images simultaneously, something which frustrates me because it is too tiresome to keep up. If his intent was to get a point across he could do it in a way that was easy for me and not meant just to impress me with his visual skills.

Oooh, try not to take Uncle Bucky's (or Uncle Albert's) style too personally! He like lots of smart people *do* realize that they're *terrible* communicators, but then again, that's *not* their role in life! They get to think it up so we *marketing* people can explain it to the masses. Of course, then *we* have to try to understand him, and as you say, its not easy.

 

Bottom line: beware of dismissing stuff because you don't like how its conveyed. It may be true (or false like your other favorite thread here ld! :) )...

I suspect you haven't read the previous posts and haven't got an opinion yourself...

I only browsed them so I'm ignorant enough of the progression to toss off an opinion that will probably be an interesting counterpoint to the one that Turtle is typing away at as I speak:

 

Existentially, we experience time, therefore it exists. That's tautological, but that's okay! Really! The whole discussion of quantum-time is a facinating one both in physics and meta-physics. I personally think there are time quanta tics, but just as with Planck-length squiggly things, they can't be compressed, nor are they empty. If they are quanta or continuous does not matter in being able to define the experience of time in physical terms as a sequence of (possibly infinitely divisible) states. From the stand point of consciousness, it has continuity and therefore provides a measurable fourth dimension, that is no less real (but just as relative!) as the other three we feel more "comfortable" with.

 

Mathematically, I always tried to throw away the visualizations that compress the higher dimensions into 2D or 3D that we can "understand". They are at best inadequate and are quite misleading as well. It is hard for folks who have not had post-Calculus math to really get multidimensionalism, but once you do, and see how solid it is, it becomes very easy to deal with "Einsteinian" worldviews entirely from a mathematical viewpoint and see how solid they are too. I don't pretend to have more than a very rudimentary education in this stuff, but I've seen it all work following the steps, so makes sense to me. Einstein really did not deal directly with quantum-time, so that's not really relevant here, but he did show how time is just another dimension and its not so special...

 

Always tomorrow but never today,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Turtle:

My paraphrased opinion of Fuller's view is that too few people make efficient use of past moments, now moments, & future moments by virtue of their ignorance of how things work & their lack of interest in going to the trouble to find out.

I see. That was a lot easier to understand than his uh, stuff and to me, you seem smarter than him. You got the point across a lot more efficiently. Or was he only addressing the folks who could figure him out and making fun of those who couldn't? If that was the case, then what was the point of all his work and what kind of person would appreciate that?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy:

From the stand point of consciousness, it has continuity and therefore provides a measurable fourth dimension, that is no less real (but just as relative!) as the other three we feel more "comfortable" with.

Well, HI! ;)

Of course we are aware of time, but I guess my point is that it might not really exist as a phenomena outside my head. Outside there is only now. Inside, well that's a whole different story. Please do not assume that I think time is a meaningless concept. If we stopped using it or being aware of it, we'd become extinct rather quickly.

I obviously would never say that change isn't taking place from one moment to the next. But the term 'moment' is a concept derived from the perception of change between now(1) and now(2).

And that's my point, I guess, that time is not perceivable outside of the sense of it that is manufactured internally. We persist through many 'nows' and retain an image of previous nows.

I think because it is so 'self-evident' internally anyway, that we believe it exists externally by definition. But like gravity waves which to date we have not discovered, nobody can point to a thing called time anywhere and say, "that there is time". I'm raising the point that it might not exist.

Something drives change of that there is simply no doubt. But whether it is time, well, that is something else again. We assume it is. I suspect it might not be. And I know I'm not alone in that suspicion. Although 5,999,999,999 to ?+ isn't all that big a measure of certainty. ;)

The importance of at least positing its non-existence is that we automatically start thinking of, well, 'what the hell could be going on then'. And that never hurts.

Nice to hear from you again. :)

[InfiniteNow]

Buffy's discussion of quantum time, sequential states, or "time packets" reminded me of a book by an English physicist, Julian Barbour.

(that... and also an album by

Digital Underground called Sex Packets

, but that's not really relevant here)

 

 

From Wikipedia:

Julian Barbour (born 1937) is a British physicist. He is the author of The End of Time, Absolute or Relative Motion? and The Discovery of Dynamics.

 

He holds the controversial view that time does not exist, and that most of physics' problems arise from assuming that it does exist. He argues that we have no evidence of the past other than our memory of it, and no evidence of the future other than our belief in it. It is all an illusion: there is no motion and no change.

 

 

The End of Time is an interesting book. Barbour speaks about time not existing and being composed of little "slices." Sort of like a pile of photographs stacked infinitely high. Much of the book talks about psi and the Schroedinger wave equation. Relatively interesting... pun fully intended. :)

 

 

Reading some of the previous posts I thought... Our concepts of "time" and "now" are not really the same. Yet describing now always seems to be done using time. Maybe that's part of the snag.

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

InfiniteNow