Time Explained

[arkain101]

I too agree. But on some level it seems there is no importance or reasoning for time or for the universe for that matter without an observer or mind..

 

True a tape recorder would record time at the rate time goes with or without a life form around. But in my minds eye, it mearly never happened because the begginning and end of it all is really the same thing that may happen infinite times over in any measurement of time you choose without something around to validate it otherwise.

 

Lets say you were able to criogenically freeze yourself for some billions of years. All that 'time' happened but it was only validated by your mind to be the blink of an eye. :phones:

[Farsight]

But on some level it seems there is no importance or reasoning for time or for the universe for that matter without an observer or mind.

I take the view that what's there is there, whether there's an observer or not. Look in the essay and see how I make a big distinction between what we experience and what's actually there. Colour is the thing we experience, wavelength is what's there. Time is what we experience, motion is what's there. But there's something there. The Universe is there, however we experience it, independently of our experience, regardless of observer or mind.

[arkain101]

Thankyou.

 

I apologize for straying off line from your essay and topic. When I get new concepts running in my thoughts its difficult to not discuss them with others in a topic going over things related to these thoughts.

 

Anyways I am going to read the essay again more thouroughly this time.

 

see ya.

[arkain101]

Alright. ;)

 

I think I will reply in sections. It is a rather large essay and would be more effective to work in sections than the whole krackatoa. :)

 

Obviously this 'IS' a good essay. It got my attention, so, good work.

 

Popular wrote:

But let’s start with something easier. Let’s start with colour. Follow the link below to conduct an experiment:

 

http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/O...erception.html

 

This demonstrates something important about colour perception. What you thought was yellow is in fact grey. It really is. It isn’t a trick. Tear a small hole in a piece of paper to make your own mask to remove context. Hold it up to one image after the other, and you realise that the effect is genuine. It comes as a shock, but genuine it is. Yellow is grey.

 

I checked these experiments. What I found was the effects were NOT genuine. I had trouble getting the results suggested on the site and of what you said.

 

Illusion #1

 

With our without the mask the yellow looking center remained yellow whether it was grey or not in some other ways of description.

 

What I found in this experiment is that the 'white' colored mask did add to the greying effect more than would a black color mask. Remember, that even though there is a mask covering the other colors, the white 'noise' of color from the mask is also entering your eye. This part I assume comes down to physics, chemistry and biology. If you have two colors entering your eye and interacting with your retina, harmonic frequencies may insue. This is, colors may mix, frequencies may mix and combine, then generating new colors very true and very acurate to your perception.

 

This should be a reminder that in the subatomic world there is no such thing as colour. A photon has a wavelength, an electromagnetic oscillation, a motion.

 

You said it well. There is no color. Not in any perspective other than what we explain as our mind. Therefore how we percieve a color is relative to the make up of our being, and not related to anything else. If your retina says its green, then something is occuring in your eye to generate green impusles to your brain. Whether or not the frequencies of the light source match what is normally green is not as important as one may first assume. There are variables occuring in our biotics to create real perception in your brain/mind.

 

Illusion #2.

 

This one worked. The colors went from their original then ended up grey when I changed the filter slider.

 

However, did you notice as I did there remained little speckles of yellow and blue on the grey squares after all other colored squares had been filtered out by a white mask? If there is colors remained from the blue and yellow filter when all other variables are excluded then my assumption is that something deeper is happening.

 

Again with the other colors entering my retina I know that certiain cones are going ot be subjected with multiple frequencies, altering the original signals from the photons and giving my brain a different message.

 

The colored filter is overlaying the grey. Put on some yellow sunglasses, things will appear to have a yellow tint, and other colors may stand out more, or become altered, thus the glasses are the cause. Or rather the tint of those glasses.

 

Illusion #3

 

I used paper masks in all the experiments. I used my hands. I used a black mask. In the third illusion the 'orange' square remained orange throughout any posistion of the slider adjuster (with a mask of sorts covering the rest of the moniter. the color of the orange seemed to be less intense but it did not turn dark brown like it appeared when I removed the mask and looked with the white circle there.

 

However, I noticed that with the large white circle mixed in with the two squares, it alterted the colors. It mixed in with the input.

 

 

So as for us not seeing colors for what they really are, I think, what colors really are is what we see.

 

As you said color exists nowhere except in our perception. Thus what we percieve is the only source of a color.

 

Also, there appears to be several spoken and unspoken vairables at play. So I am not convinced that it is so cut and dry as stated in this essay.

[Farsight]

arkain: thanks for the compliment and the detailed attention. But please try illusion1 again with a home made mask. Any colour mask you wish. A piece of paper or card with a little hole or holes in the right place. The two central colours really are the same. They're both grey, even though when you look at the whole image one looks yellow. If you say I'm wrong about illusion1, which I think is the best, my credibility is shot for the rest of the essay.

[arkain101]

I tried the first illusion again.

 

I was able to make it look a little more grey, just using some masks and the such, but no matter how I did it they did match. The yellow one remained somewhat yellow, and this may have everything to do with my eyes.

 

What I decided to do was to blow up the pictures immensly to see what it looked like in full screen scale. At this magnitude of zoom you can see that the yellow one is infact much more grey than it appears from a distance.

 

So to wrap it up; When the object is very small the grey is filtered out more, which seems to do with surrounding colors. Where as a large image of the center peice the grey is more easily detectable.

 

Yes they are both grey However they are not exactly the same as the two zoomed images showed me. One is more dominated with blue mixture. And blue is a color that has a frequency that we do not detect very well. The other is grey with yellow mixed in. Yellow is a frequency we detect better.

 

Which is why I think the color we see is not a false perception of the world. What we see is a very true and real understandable result.

 

here we compare the two images, unaltered, only increased in size.

 

 

[arkain101]

Hold it up to one image after the other, and you realise that the effect is genuine. It comes as a shock, but genuine it is. Yellow is grey. What does this tell you? It tells you that colour is perception rather than reality.

 

Remember that at the center of our retina there is the majority of color absorbing cones, and the outter ranges of our retina is rods which detect light intensity in shades.

 

Thus when we see the yellow object in the center, the grey we are looking at is mixed in with yellow, pink, blue and other colors. All these colors go strait to our cones which detect color. Grey is a lack of light. Colors are a intensity of light. When this combination enters the eye we need to detect something, and that something we tend to detect is what is dominent. So it is reality, but our perceptions are not perfection.

 

When its something large enough we can easily make out the differences. But that is the same with anything. A truck might be red. But if you drive that truck away untill its miles away, that truck is so small looking that we might see it black, or orange or whatever it happens to be. Realistcally this is not the color of the truck if you were standing beside it, but at that great distance it is not only red that dominates your retina, thus what we see is true, however it is not perfect.

[arkain101]

Did you know that smell is really shape? Nevermind, because you should be getting the drift by now. We are accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how we experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, fundamental, underlying things that are there. And nowhere is this more so than with Time.

 

Alot of things in our mind can be drawn out in a shape, but a shape is nothing but a perception entering our minds again to become shapeless untill you measure it out back into data on paper or what have you.

 

Our mind is sizeless and our thoughts and everything that we are is often refered to as weightless and shapeless. They can be looked at in many ways such as electromagnetic detection and things like this, but as soon as you look at them outside of the mind, they are data and information, and as you look at data and information you activate your mind which sends them back into the concsciousness you just took them from.

 

The mind is an entity, it takes all these things that happen in the universe and make it into something real that can not be found anywhere else.

[arkain101]

Strange but true. Because when you get down to the subatomic nitty-gritty, there is no colour. There is no heat. There is no sound. There is no pressure. There is no time, not the way you think. Now try to imagine a particle, without a surface please. And you see why the quantum world, the real world of physics, is oh so very strange.

 

If you don't believe me, if you think I'm wrong, show me the maths. But make sure you kick t out of all of your equations. And note that there are physicists who think like me. Julian Barbour. Carlo Rovelli. And more. Ever heard of a book called A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein, by Palle Yourgrau?

 

Interesting essay. I read through it all.

 

I agree with how you view time. You got at the details.

 

I want to know if you agree with my summerized way of describing what all those details collect to say.

 

Imagine losing the ability to remember anything, even the smallest second. In this state you are still able to experience the now, however, its up to you whether you would be aware of it.

 

Since time has been erased from your awareness you are like the picture of atoms bouncing off eachother.

 

You can no longer measure things, or refer to time. You are a tempature, a motion, just like the rest of the universe, a simple experience of now, that is timeless.

 

But while you are now more or less 'dead' the universe continues, it has the ability to follow a method of operation that reflects what memory is.

 

It knows where to go next, and each thing in it. It follows a pathway and laws and all this requires that same type of thing, some kind of structure, some kind of memory, and what that thing is, is up to you to describe.

 

So because our brains can remember, time suddenly becomes a product and can be measured. But when memory is lost what results is the universe and reality in its raw pure structure.

[Farsight]

Arkain:

 

That was a good idea to post up those images in #40. Why didn't I think of that? The thing about colour perception is that it depends on "context". We're adapted to still recognise grass as green even when the sun is red and setting and the light meeting our eyes isn't the "green" wavelength. Something like that.

 

The thing about smell being a shape is to do with molecular receptors. You can find out more if you look up olfaction on wikipedia.

 

Thanks for paying so much attention. I think you pretty much summed up time there. I'd say you've got it! Now you'll notice just how prevalent the "time is a length" phrases are, and just how often people talk about "the past" or "the future" as if it's an actual place. You'll totally understand special relativity, and will be bemused at people struggling with "the twins paradox" or talking about time travel. And more than anything you'll notice how people take their current concept of time so much for granted that they have a real problem thinking about it rationally.

[justforfun]

Since time has been erased from your awareness you are like the picture of atoms bouncing off eachother.

 

You can no longer measure things, or refer to time. You are a tempature, a motion, just like the rest of the universe, a simple experience of now, that is timeless.

 

But while you are now more or less 'dead' the universe continues, it has the ability to follow a method of operation that reflects what memory is.

 

It knows where to go next, and each thing in it. It follows a pathway and laws and all this requires that same type of thing, some kind of structure, some kind of memory, and what that thing is, is up to you to describe.

 

So because our brains can remember, time suddenly becomes a product and can be measured. But when memory is lost what results is the universe and reality in its raw pure structure.

My take on this time thing stems from a theory of parallel universes I read awhile ago which suggested that there were an infinite number of STATIC universes. There was no motion in any of them, much like individual frames of a movie film. Therefore what we experience as time is and movement within the Universe is actually movement between/among parallel universes.

Or, as Seth sais in "The Unknown Reality":

The individual, like the species, exists in multidimensional terms; and hovers around focuses of probabilities; weaving in and out of alternate realities constantly.”

Whatever...

0.o

[Farsight]

justforfun: I don't believe any theory that involves "parallel universes". The word Universe is of Greek origin. It is made up of Uni as in "unicycle" and Verse as in "vice versa". What it means is "turned into one". That really means everything. So talking about parallel universes is talking about multiple everythings. It doesn't make sense.

 

Hence I see it as turtles all the way down, conjuror's trickery from somebody who explains nothing, but wants to persuade you they're explaining everything. Especially when the real explanation is so simple.

[Farsight]

Boerseun/Tormod/Anybody:

 

How's the TIME EXPLAINED essay looking? I've put it on some other forums, and from what I'm seeing some people think it's great, others just don't get it, and others sneer and call me names. But nobody has pointed out the flaw, fatal or otherwise. Nobody can bust it.

 

What say ye? Does it sound better after a second reading? Does it now feel right? Am I kidding myself or what?

[arkain101]

Popular, it coincides with my theory.

 

There is measureable time of light and observation you make through it.

 

Then there is the relative but fixed time of matter itself. As in an object heats up for time 't' and takes time 't' to cool back down.

 

Time is said to be syncronized for all material, and thus can explain why specific particles can act in syncroniciity at any distance, but the light in which transfers from material to material it can display a relative time of it own seperate manner which can slow and speed up.

 

We end up with two times. One relative and unfixed, one fixed. However they are all relative, and relative to no memory time can not move.

[Farsight]

Two times arkain? I was rather thinking we ended up with none!

[Kriminal99]

Time is a concept we subconsiously defined as the difference between observed events... its all about comparing events we see to other events we have seen and determing how many of one event can occur before the other finishes.

 

Time distortion can be put in terms of spatial distortion for this reason, for if a ball rolls at a set rate of 2 grid marks per hour and then we just stretch out the gridmarks, or compress the gridmarks the ball still rolls at 2 gridmarks per hour but there is a difference relative to non grid mark based measurements.

[Little Bang]

Popular, I applaud you expose of time, I can't find any problem with your definition. I don't think Ark has got it yet.