Moments and events

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Questor, if time exists, can you point to it and show it to me? If you point outward, all you can show me is now. You can show me that change takes place but not the effects of time. That would imply that time is the cause of change and that is what I am disputing. Time is not the cause of change. Assuming it exists externally, it would cause no effects and that is synonymous with not existing, which is my entire point.

Something else drives change.

[Buffy]

Buffy:But Buffer, when you say 'within' time you give it substance that it might not have.

Nah, you're the one that's associating the use of the word "within" as implying "substance". I just look at time as a dimension that is measurable. Its just a variable in my multidimensional algebraic equations...

And when you say x is a function of time you imply that x is somehow caused by time.

Nope. Again you do. I'll take this example to point out that 99% of all fallacies are due to people assuming "correlation" means the same thing as "cause" (and then of course they self servingly choose whichever variable they want to label as the cause!). Don't fall into that trap! Call it a "blindspot" if you will, but the kind of conclusion you're implying (I think!) here smacks of the good ol' "its obvious" argument...

 

Its true that we could all live in The Matrix and its all an illusion, but then whats the point? That's so like a boy to think that way! :hihi:

 

Cheerily,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy, ok. I'll give you the point. :hihi: In your case you don't include a causal relationship. I still think, however, that normal usage could interpret t as a causative factor as opposed to a relative one.

After all, "time heals all wounds".... :hihi:

[TheBigDog]

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

[Buffy]

I still think, however, that normal usage could interpret it as a causative factor as opposed to a relative one.

After all, "time heals all wounds".... :hihi:

Sure, you *could* but then you'd just be talking about feelings and meta-physical interpretation. At that point, its not science anymore, so your view of time's existence is cool and artsy, but its relevance to the physical world becomes nil....

 

"Time heals all wounds" is actually a perfect example of colloquial usage implying causation when indeed none exists. In this phrase, "time" has a meta-physical--indeed anthropomorphic--quality that goes far beyond anything that one could conclude as relevant to the physical world....

 

Meta and Non-Meta,

Buffy

[questor]

Steve, time itself does not have ''effects''. it exists as an entity we do not understand. the so called ''effects'' of time are due to natural degradation due to erosion, friction, decay and other activity. these things can be observed, time cannot. time can only be measured.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

buffy

:"Time heals all wounds" is actually a perfect example of colloquial usage implying causation when indeed none exists. In this phrase, "time" has a meta-physical--indeed anthropomorphic--quality that goes far beyond anything that one could conclude as relevant to the physical world....

I know and agree 100%. I threw it in there to prove the point that time is generally eroneously considered a causative factor. In this case the use is 'internal' but I think it is projected into existence as a cause there too. And I think that is a cause for more than a few blindspots.

I think we agree on this Buffy.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

questor:

Steve, time itself does not have ''effects''. it exists as an entity we do not understand. the so called ''effects'' of time are due to natural degradation due to erosion, friction, decay and other activity. these things can be observed, time cannot. time can only be measured

. I think I can agree with that.

[InfiniteNow]

It seems that this thread has now morphed into the psychology of time and/or now...

 

The following site is a rather complete view of some of the various attempts at explanation. Many of the points contained within mirror those made by ldsoftwaresteve and others here, but it also examines a couple of other issues that haven't (yet) been raised in this thread.

 

Again, it's a relatively complete exposition, so make sure you have a few moments (ha ha :hihi: ... what the heck are those?) to check it out before you launch it.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/

 

 

Maybe some of the topics contained there will answer previous questions and present some new ones.

 

 

 

Cheers. :hihi:

 

 

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

InfiniteNow

[InfiniteNow]

From the site linked above:

‘We are constantly aware of a certain duration—the specious present—varying from a few seconds to probably not more than a minute, and this duration (with its content perceived as having one part earlier and another part later) is the original intuition of time.’ This surprising variation in the length of the specious present makes one suspect that more than one definition is hidden in James' rather vague characterisation. One could define it, for example, as the extent of short-term memory, in which case it might well vary from person to person, and also from one sense modality to another. Or it might be the interval in which information is experienced as a single unit (say a sentence, or musical phrase)—a rather ambiguous and unsatisfactory definition. A quite different definition is this: the interval of time such that events occurring within that interval are experienced as present.

 

Some recent posts have made me wonder how interesting it would be if this concept of the specious moment were somehow and inextricably linked to Planck time. Still chewing on this thought. There may be something to it, and it may be complete hogwosh. Will have to revisit it again later.

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~

InfiniteNow

[Buffy]

Some recent posts have made me wonder how interesting it would be if this concept of the specious moment were somehow and inextricably linked to Planck time. Still chewing on this thought.

More to chew on:

• We both have Planck Time Unit stopwatches
  
• We both have really good reflexes
  
• You start your stopwatch
  
• I start my stopwatch 1/2 Planck Time Unit later
  

Is this possible? If it were, Planck Time would not have the strange effects that some claim: it would mean that time is continuous, and not quantized (although as Linda's post above points out, Planck Time is *defined* as the smallest span of time we can *measure* and it really has nothing to do with quanization). If not, we've got an interesting "universe clock" ticking away the frames, because the universe *is* quantized in the time dimension...I'm not sure there's any way to establish this!

 

Note this same paradox works for space too, just do the appropriate substitutions above.

 

Edge-triggered,

Buffy

[questor]

it does little good to interject man's perception into all issues. why not just consider time as an entity of the universe and discuss it from that aspect. now we don't have to worry about memory, perceiving ''now'' or any of the other impediments of man's perceptions.

[lindagarrette]

it does little good to interject man's perception into all issues. why not just consider time as an entity of the universe and discuss it from that aspect. now we don't have to worry about memory, perceiving ''now'' or any of the other impediments of man's perceptions.

Time is not an "entity," it is a concept for pinpointing events. It's a coordinate system in the space/time universe. Things can happen simultaneously in different places or sequentially in the same place. In our minds, there is no "now" since every event immediately becomes a memory. Memory is the most important part of ourselves. Without it, we wouldn't be. That's why the notion of disembodied brains or reincarnation are so ludicrous. What are you other than your memories?

[InfiniteNow]

it does little good to interject man's perception into all issues. why not just consider time as an entity of the universe and discuss it from that aspect. now we don't have to worry about memory, perceiving ''now'' or any of the other impediments of man's perceptions.

 

Questor, I think I understand the motivation behind your point, but am struggling with the point itself.

How does one consider ANYTHING contained in the set of infinity, the set of everything (as it were), without the "impediments of man's perceptions?" Isn't that a bit like considering math without worrying about the impediments of numbers and formulae? Not attacking, but seeking to better understand. :rolleyes:

 

 

In our minds, there is no "now" since every event immediately becomes a memory. Memory is the most important part of ourselves. Without it, we wouldn't be. That's why the notion of disembodied brains or reincarnation are so ludicrous. What are you other than your memories?

 

...and the memories that others have of us.

[InfiniteNow]

More to chew on:

• We both have Planck Time Unit stopwatches
  
  
• We both have really good reflexes
  
  
• You start your stopwatch
  
  
• I start my stopwatch 1/2 Planck Time Unit later
  
  

Is this possible?

 

I've always been of the frame of mind that, while some things certainly may be less probable than others, ANYTHING is possible, especially given enough imagination and resources.

[questor]

the universe does not exist because of man. a concept is an idea from a human brain. time does not exist because of man. time was here billions of years before man appeared. it exists as part of the makeup of the universe. it has no connection to man in any physical way. man only observes time.

[InfiniteNow]

...it exists as part of the makeup of the universe. it has no connection to man in any physical way. man only observes time.

Let me go about this another way then...

 

Is man not part of this same universe of which time is part? Further, do we as a species not also experience time, or do you continue to hold that we are some how completely seperate from and purely objective ovservers of time? Oh, here's a good one...what is it to exist without man having created this concept for us to disucss?

 

I am no die-hard supporter of the Strong Anthropic Principle, but if you believe otherwise, then we should probably spend some time (that thing which is part of the makeup of the universe and which has no connection with man in any physical way) to get to know one another better, as I assure you I am not closed to ANY ideas.

 

 

Cheers. :rolleyes: