Time proof paradox?

[paigetheoracle]

If one is to think of time as containing forwards and reverse events, where are you 'pulling' those events from? If you can obtain the past, then you are withdrawing it from somewhere.

 

Is time capable to store actual material! and actual events! Or should we consider time ONLY significant to that which contains a memory, Like; our minds, doing so by however it is our minds work.

 

See the big question is whether time really is a movement; A dimension that things and a person can pass through, Or is it really not anything more than a result of tallying up frequencies in a memory bank.

 

Why in the world would we be put, or locked into this particular NOW, if there were other capable nows? There is uncountable amounts of now.

 

But here is the catch Now is 0 in value. You are never a little more ahead or behind your now. The now is it and all. It has a value of 0. Infinity is value-less (0) and so is zero (nothing).

 

So with this said, in order for a particle or anything we consider to be a fundamental lasting entity, it needs to create itself. It requires energy to exist. If we believe time is a dimension and connected intimatly with material like things that I just mentioned, then it is to say that TIME somehow contains these particles in every plank second of detail at all times, and at any time, and this is to say all 'TIME' is already designed.

 

Time can only be connected to material if it a) contains all information there could and ever will be and 'plays it through the now', and B) If we consider it responsible for the forcing of forwarding time.

 

I dare to propose with the data measured in our science today that there is no such thing as past or future in a material form, related to this material universe. I think that everything is created all the time at all times.

 

For example, when we measure the speed of light it is the same speed to any observer related to any velocity they travel. I believe all the Electromagnetic radiation (light) that an observer can observer is 'created'. Each blip that occurs must somehow come from within the atoms themselves. Each blip creates a sort of freeze frame or lockdown that creates a sudden NOW moment for an observer. They happen at what we consider a very fast frequency. However this frequency is completely relative. I think our minds or brains work on this frequency and only make a single blip out of say 10^8 of other blips, creating a slower harmonics, thus making us percieve time as we do, but time itself is relative and unfixed, so no moment is absolute in anyway, and time itself becomes irrellavent. What replaces it as somthing relavant now moments comparing to other now moments (memory) to measure these effects and create the result of time.

 

What creates this entire reality I am not sure. But I do think that this entire experience is a constant creation inside infinity and somehow, through some process, the thing respsonbible for creating this is able to make a flicker in infinity (zero) that causes the ability to percieve 'moments' and 'time' inside a place that does not have such things as moments or time. In a sense, on an infinity scale, each moment of time is pausing like effect.

 

Where this can lead to simplify problems I am not sure yet. How we can begin to test and prove this idea I also do not know for sure, but If I began listing a few things I could provide alot of good evidence we currently have that looks good in backing this up.

 

Some good points here, like LaurieAG's last post. It's down to subjective reality versus objective reality and the need to reconcile the differences: To the observer, the outside world seems to move as does their thoughts but the 'now' or zero point is what it all seems to move through.

 

The best model I can come up with is a triangle in front of us, representing the future, spreading out from the now and siphoning possibilities towards us. Behind us is another triangle, spreading out from the now, representing the dispersal of the past. As Arkain suggests, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), only the now is solid, concentrated reality - the past is dissolved matter, returning to the infinite now as opposed to the personal now and once again becoming a possibility that can be picked up later again as a personal now.

 

With regards to the senses as a side but related issue, without personal and social history (records/memory), we'd only have vision to rely on and primitive sounds (pain/pleasure reactions and environmental noise). To me, vision is immediate (now/interlect) whereas sound is always travelling and e-motive (think of music, on its own and it's use in film to evoke a response).

 

Time and indeed all the dimensions are in my opinion, illusions caused by movement from point A to point B. By illusion I mean that without motion, they would not appear to exist. Even the third dimension would not be possible without variations in position - for instance holograms require motion to work/appear real. Depth of field doesn't occur without movement of part of that field, to tell you it isn't one, single layer of vision you're percieving as evidenced in the long term blind who's sight is restored.

 

Reality itself in my opinion is an illusion cause by 'movement with' something. Stillness and separation (contemplative state) reveal the thing viewed and the observer as two distinct entities, which destroys the emotional punch (illusion of connection/involvement)of this belief and frees the mind to see things as they truly are (Christopher Reeve about to kiss Michael Cain in a film and a member of the audience jumping up and shouting 'Don't do it Superman!' at the screen, for instance). This to me is the eternal now and how to get in touch with it as well as being the personal now, that views things dispassionately and scientifically.

[Kriminal99]

If we have person A and person B. and we say that person A is moving forward in time, and person B is moving backwards, the view of each will be no different really besides how they view one another.

 

Cause and effect will always be in the direction of time "flow" for relative to each person, it is only in cross over that it is apparent that time is flowing any otherway than it should. That is there is no reversal of time for each person. Only relative to one another does there appear to be oddities, and even that is somewhat arguable.

 

To person B, Person A will appear to be moving backwards, with regard to his own temporal flow. For person A, Person B will appear to be moving backwards with regards to his own temporal flow. Each will view their frame's cause and effects happening in proper order, they however will observe one another's causes and effects as backwards. It's time dialation. You don't notice the difference of time without refering to somthing outside your own frame of reference. Relative to yourself, time is flowing normally and distance is the same.

 

Get what I mean?

 

No...

 

How do you know viewing is even possible when everything is happening in reverse? It seems odd to talk about the fact that he would view me as traveling backwards in time when I don't even know if he is capable of thinking because he is realized by backwards physics. His ears emitting laughter and being recieved by my vocal chords would cause me to emit a funny joke (Punchline to intro, spoken in reverse of course) from my ears which would be recieved by his vocal chords.

 

It's not that I doubt a world in reverse time could have just as much meaning to a consiousness in it as this world has to us, (as opposed to its only meaning possible of grasping being the reverse order of the way things happen now) its just that it seems like it would be really hard for me to grasp any understanding of it because I don't even know how my mind would work then. Also where is the gaurantee that a consiousness in one flow of time would be a consiousness in reverse flow? Maybe it would just appear as an inanimate object acting according to the laws of physics to whatever entities were consious.

[paigetheoracle]

No...

 

How do you know viewing is even possible when everything is happening in reverse? It seems odd to talk about the fact that he would view me as traveling backwards in time when I don't even know if he is capable of thinking because he is realized by backwards physics. His ears emitting laughter and being recieved by my vocal chords would cause me to emit a funny joke (Punchline to intro, spoken in reverse of course) from my ears which would be recieved by his vocal chords.

 

It's not that I doubt a world in reverse time could have just as much meaning to a consiousness in it as this world has to us, (as opposed to its only meaning possible of grasping being the reverse order of the way things happen now) its just that it seems like it would be really hard for me to grasp any understanding of it because I don't even know how my mind would work then. Also where is the gaurantee that a consiousness in one flow of time would be a consiousness in reverse flow? Maybe it would just appear as an inanimate object acting according to the laws of physics to whatever entities were consious.

 

It's funny you should say that as it's kind of what I believe, although I may put it in different terms. Like matter and anti-matter not being able to exist in the same time and space continuum together, I believe consciousness and unconsciousness can't exist in the same person either.

 

By this I mean consciousness is an inner movement of attention (filling a receptacle) as unconsciousness is attention dissipating by expanding out into a larger field of existence. Think of it as concentration upon a single point of reality as opposed to general awareness, so watered down that everything is slowed down into stasis (the sea as opposed to water coming out of a tap, under pressure - directed and forceful). Look how alcohol distorts perception, where sobriety sharpens it.

 

Subjective and objective as I see it, are two separate streams of reality and could be considered to be moving in opposite time directions - thought towards the past as memory and imagination, towards the future as action (recieved and transmitted ideas). Going back to 'now' - this is the medium through which time passes as impulses to act ( through the body) or think ( ideas to inspire the mind). Now is the borderland between these two separate realities - at least how I see it.

[paigetheoracle]

Speaking as a non-physicist (or even non-scientist) - is it possible time travel could be achieved by speeding up (into the future) or slowing down (into the past) molecular movement? Alternatively,:hihi: could this also be a way to achieve invisibility?

[CraigD]

Speaking as a non-physicist (or even non-scientist) - is it possible time travel could be achieved by speeding up (into the future) or slowing down (into the past) molecular movement?

I don’t think so.

 

Speeding up or slowing down molecular movement is the same thing as simply heating and cooling objects. A properly constructed mechanical clock (for example, a simple pendulum) can be heated and cooled considerably, while still keeping accurate time. This, and the lack of any theoretical suggestion of such an effect, would seem to rule out paigetheoracle’s hypothesis.

Alternatively,:eek_big: could this also be a way to achieve invisibility?

Again, I think no.

 

Objects have been cooled to nearly absolute zero. Although illuminating a very cool object warms it slightly, there’s no evidence to suggest that cooling an object can render it less visible. Warming object will eventually cause them to glow, making them more visible.

[paigetheoracle]

I don’t think so.

 

Speeding up or slowing down molecular movement is the same thing as simply heating and cooling objects. A properly constructed mechanical clock (for example, a simple pendulum) can be heated and cooled considerably, while still keeping accurate time. This, and the lack of any theoretical suggestion of such an effect, would seem to rule out paigetheoracle’s hypothesis.Again, I think no.

 

Objects have been cooled to nearly absolute zero. Although illuminating a very cool object warms it slightly, there’s no evidence to suggest that cooling an object can render it less visible. Warming object will eventually cause them to glow, making them more visible.

 

Oh well, just a thought - as I say not my area but stimulated by this particular idea.:lol: