Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

i think that to use the words like 'right now' and past and present and future, we are using these from within the context of time. from within the box of time, trying to look out.

 

if we look at our existence with time definitively laid out like we do with space, aren't we just the sum of the experiences of our bodies (and souls if you believe in that stuff)? past, present, AND future?

 

"who you are" is a question that is very difficult to interpret. i think it is who you were. who you are. and who you will be. you can't understand one without the other. if you look at time as something that you are not experiencing, not measuring, then isn't the only logical conclusion something akin to predestination? (but with the catch that what decided your future is your current situation and your past situation...the path leading up to 'where you are', and 'where you are' being a continually changing moment as you move in time continuously in one direction 'forward')

 

is my thinking wrong? :rolleyes:

Posted

Infinite, you said:

''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''

 

of course we are part of the universe, but we are not the cause of the universe or of time. we do experience time by observing it, but time does not depend on our observing or experiencing. time existed before man and will exist after man, therefore time is independent of and has no relation to man. on the other hand , man relates to time by observation and experiencing.

Posted

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.

Just to try and get things back on track... :rolleyes:

 

This thread is about "NOW." The concept of time is being discussed elsewhere. Although it's tough to speak of NOW without referencing time (:)) , please try.

 

 

Thanks everyone again for the excellent thoughts and opinions you've shared here. It's been great. :)

Posted
Just to try and get things back on track... :rolleyes:

 

This thread is about "NOW." The concept of time is being discussed elsewhere. Although it's tough to speak of NOW without referencing time (:)) , please try.

 

 

Thanks everyone again for the excellent thoughts and opinions you've shared here. It's been great. :)

 

so our existence is basically a sum or series of NOWs? :D

Posted
Perhaps, but what is now?

 

you can't definite it exactly. its always changing. you can't stop time for a second and then point out a point in time that was 'now'.

 

humans can understand the concept. thats why we have the words 'present' and 'now'

Posted

NOW is an instant in time. if time were a string NOW could be marked on it and exist forever. if this were not so, we could have no carbon dating or planetariums. NOW is the same for rocks and trees and humans. we are just toying with semantics here.

Posted
NOW is an instant in time. if time were a string NOW could be marked on it and exist forever. if this were not so, we could have no carbon dating or planetariums. NOW is the same for rocks and trees and humans. we are just toying with semantics here.

 

yeah i agree, i was just saying that humans can understand the concept of now thoroughly. in fact that's behind all the toying with semantics and even asking the question.

Posted
NOW is an instant in time. if time were a string NOW could be marked on it and exist forever. if this were not so, we could have no carbon dating or planetariums. NOW is the same for rocks and trees and humans. we are just toying with semantics here.
Semantics is very important. We have to be clued into the same definitions or it isn't possible to communicate.

 

There is no "instant" in time. Time is a coordinate system we use arbitrarily to measure sequences of events. Events are not even fixed in "time." You can't freeze frame anything in reality. All we know about reality is our memory of what has happened. That's just our own perception. Outside ourselves, there is no perception of time. There just is. Events are defined but they do not occur statically. There is no stop and start, there is just a flow, or continuum. I think most theoretical physicists will agree .

Posted

lindagarrette:

Semantics is very important. We have to be clued into the same definitions or it isn't possible to communicate.

 

There is no "instant" in time. Time is a coordinate system we use arbitrarily to measure sequences of events. Events are not even fixed in "time." You can't freeze frame anything in reality. All we know about reality is our memory of what has happened. That's just our own perception. Outside ourselves, there is no perception of time. There just is. Events are defined but they do not occur statically. There is no stop and start, there is just a flow, or continuum.

Very, very nice.

 

I think most theoretical physicists will agree .
Who cares about that?
Posted

Linda, here again you amaze me with your thought process. you relate everything to human beings ,as if everything happens because of man's perception or presence. let me ask you some questions.

1. did time exist before man?

2. did events occur before man?

3. if it was possible to film these events, could you separate the events

into different time segments?

4. were any of these events dependent on man's observation of them?

5. does the measurement of time cause any change in the intervals of change? in other words does man's presence or observance of time change it in any way?

 

your quote:

''There is no "instant" in time. Time is a coordinate system we use arbitrarily to measure sequences of events. Events are not even fixed in "time." You can't freeze frame anything in reality. All we know about reality is our memory of what has happened. That's just our own perception. Outside ourselves, there is no perception of time. There just is. Events are defined but they do not occur statically. There is no stop and start, there is just a flow, or continuum. ''

 

there are definitely instants in time. time is composed of instants connected and flowing. time exists independently of our perception. incidents occur

in instants of time. if you had a video camera to record a days incidents, you would be able to capture any event as occurring in static, measureable instants of time.

Posted

Linda, here again you amaze me with your thought process. you relate everything to human beings ,as if everything happens because of man's perception or presence.

Linda can speak for herself, but some of your points presented me with a desire to comment. Everything is related to humans (trying to replace your usage of "man." it seems too old-fashioned and out of style for my taste). However, I do not believe anyone here is positing that everything happens because of humans, only that we have no concept of it all without ourselves being a place in it, nor can we discuss it with any semblance to the way things are if we attempt to remove ourselves from the equation post hoc. You may better understand the approach I am taking by looking at the following:

 

From http://www.station1.net/DouglasJones/many.htm

"The Copenhagen Interpretation makes a distinction between the observer and the observed; when no one is watching, a system evolves deterministically according to a wave equation, but when someone is watching, the wavefunction of the system "collapses" to the observed state, which is why the act of observing changes the system. The Copenhagen Interpretation gives the observer special status, not accorded to any other object in quantum theory, and cannot explain the observer itself, while Many-Worlds models the entire observer-observee system."

 

Both models discuss the observer, one with observer as PART OF the system, the other with the observer awkwardly seperate from it.

 

 

let me ask you some questions...

questor: 1. did time exist before man? No. Time is a concept that we invented in our attempts to understand the universe around us and to share that dynamic yet limited understanding with others. However, what that concept represents, that part of the universe which we are trying so hard to understand, is most certainly present without humans

questor: 2. did events occur before man? please see above. An event is a concept we introduced.

questor: 3. if it was possible to film these events, could you separate the events into different time segments?Could seperate them into different "representational segments," but even those are perceived in the moment... now.

questor: 4. were any of these events dependent on man's observation of them? This was answered at 1 & 2

questor: 5. does the measurement of time cause any change in the intervals of change? in other words does man's presence or observance of time change it in any way? If there is any validity in the Many-Worlds model, then most definitely yes.

 

there are definitely instants in time. time is composed of instants connected and flowing. time exists independently of our perception. incidents occur in instants of time. if you had a video camera to record a days incidents, you would be able to capture any event as occurring in static, measureable instants of time.

 

This issue is laden in the sludge of semantics. This is why it is so hard to understand issues and concepts like this, even when we are asking the questions only of ourselves. Is it this, or is it that? The usual answer is yes...both. You are clearly an intelligent individual who has a passion on the topic, questor, but it's frustrating that you seem so often to imply "I'm right, you're wrong" in many of your posts... as if these things are "common sense" and any presentation of proof is not required. It would be easier to stay in the realm of understanding with different viewpoints if you acknowledged in your tone that there can be more than one viewpoint which is valid.

 

But to reinterate, I am not trying to delve into the meaning of time (although, trust me, that is by far one of my favorite contemplative activities :lol: ), but into the meaning and nature of NOW.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

:lol:

The concept of now is my religion...

 

Everything is now.

Now is everything.

 

:D <--- get it... the "present." hehehe :D

 

Very wise InfiniteNow-San!

 

Now is all anyone has..

 

Zen is Now!

 

Infinite Now!

 

InfiniteZen!! :) :)

Posted

Of all the threads I've contemplated, this one has had the biggest impact on me. It connects directly with the thread discussing The Final Theory because that thread provides the mechanism that steps the universe through the continuum we call time.

Now is the bleeding edge of existence. It is the life giving, event driving expression of the motor of the universe.

  • 5 months later...
Posted
So this is my first post... Although interested in each of these, I am neither mathematician nor physicist, philosopher nor religious guru, but am certainly a curious individual who likes to hear and listen to the views of others in each of these sects. I learn more about myself by "pinging" ideas off of others and listening for what comes back... like they do on submarines with sound... I'd love to hear any one else's thoughts, comments, or explanations of the present.

 

Cheers, and thanks again for sharing. :)

 

This is where it all began for me, and you know what? It's still right now. Somehow though, each of my previous 2,999 posts, each representing their own "right now," are somehow included in this right now.

 

I'm like dog chasing my tail with this concept, I swear.

 

 

Perhaps NOW is the only absolute frame of reference there is.

 

I know that according to (our current understanding of) Einstein there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, but... Does that statement stir any new ideas/criticisms/agreements for/from anyone else?

 

In my time at Hypography, I've learned so very much. Not just hard facts and data, but about myself and how I interact with others.

 

Now is all anyone has..

 

Zen is Now!

 

 

I've learned that there are some topics that I know quite a lot about, and many others about which I don't have a clue.

 

Outside ourselves, there is no perception of time. There just is. Events are defined but they do not occur statically. There is no stop and start, there is just a flow, or continuum.

 

 

Hypography has helped me to reinforce my curiosity about the world.

 

The sense of the flow of time is a mystery. We have no "real" explanation as to what time is. All human experience tells us that time moves from the past towards the future in a relatively straight path (ie, even flow) but it is very hard to prove that it is so.

 

 

The members here have helped me realize that there are a vast number of interesting and intelligent people all around me.

 

The whole discussion of quantum-time is a fascinating 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.

 

 

People with kind hearts, and curiousity and enthusiasm are here, sharing their thoughts and perspectives through their words.

 

To rationalize the thought of time, one must imagine the passing from one event into another. There are a few quantum physicists that believe that there exists a finite measure for the moment of time. A smallest capsule of time if you will. Of course this theory has not been proven as yet, but it does cause one to ponder the mystries that lie before us in the field of physics.

 

Many of you have become friends to me, and I to you. Thank you for that.

 

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.

 

Can anyone out there perhaps assist me in breathing new life into this thread?

 

___As to getting the point across more efficiently & smarter, that is exactly to the point of this thread. My now moment, smarter or not, is predicated on Fuller's past now moments which he used to elucidate geometric truths. Fuller is not making fun of anyone; he is trying to lift every one up.

___Do we each need to re-invent an axe before we go to chopping wood? Knowledge is not machine power; knowledge is machine fuel.

 

I ask that if you are curious or mildly interested, you take a few nows (or, just one since I propose they are the same) and read through what's been posted already; treating this thread as place to discuss what is possible and what now means to you.

 

Now has no measure either. It's the smallest interval. It has no components but is a component of all things and all actions. ...Close your eyes then open them. What do you see? You see now.

 

 

 

Cheers, and a heart felt thanks to all of you whether or not one of your quotes was included in this psuedo montage. :)

 

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.

 

:lol:

 

 

InfiniteNow

∞ňǿω

Rep Power: 168

 

Posts: 3,000

Threads: 70

Join Date: Dec 2005

Location: Austin, TX

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...