Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A compilation of The Good Mans thoughts: Time

  1. Feb 4, 2005 #1
    Hi, I have some different ideas that I feel belong in this particular forum.
    Instead of making a new topic for each separate idea, I decided it might be easiar on everyone if I just posted them all in the same thread. This way if/when my ideas aren't appreciated by someone then they don't have to be annoyed by all my posts spamming the forum. If someone wants to discuss my philosophical ideas then they know where to find them.

    Ill start this thread with my view on time.


    Time as we deal with it in society is relative. Things like clocks don't keep track of how many events have happened. Ie. In the 10minutes it takes someone to brush their teeth in Kansas. Someone else on a spaceship could have been born, become an adult,raised a family and had countless experiences.

    Epistomoligacly time is linked to the individual. If said person has 3 precepts then I would view that as 3 units of time to that person. Time is based on change of the individual. If while you were reading the last sentence 100million generations came and went, time to you was only the amount of precepts it took to read the sentence.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 5, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Actually, we prefer if you did start a separate thread for each idea and not compile it into one thread.
  4. Feb 5, 2005 #3
    You may like this.

    "If time really existed, we would be able to perceive it independent of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations. It would exist on its own, and we would be able to perceive it. The fact is, however, that time can exist only in dependence upon there being something to which we can relate the notion of time. For example: if nothing had ceased, we could have no notion of the past; if there were nothing here, we could have no notion of the present; and if we did not anticipate anything happening, we could have no notion of the future. Since time can only exist in dependence upon these things, it cannot truly exist."

    Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso
    The Sun of Wisdom
    (Commentary on Nargaruna's 'Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way')

    If you check out the thread on Gregg Rosenberg's 'A Place for Consciousness' you'll see this discussed in terms of what he calls 'bare differences'.
  5. Feb 7, 2005 #4
    So, we suggest that time is based on an individuals perception of time. I agree, but can we say that even though time is perceptually changed is there not still a constant? Myself, an ant and a giant all travel 100 meters. No matter what, we all went 100 meters, but the ant traveled further than I, and the giant traveled less. Unless I'm missing something (probably), if I am though I'm all ears... or I guess eyes.
  6. Feb 7, 2005 #5

    Kerrie thats interesting, what would be your reasoning behind this statement?

    On me personally its a lot easiar to manage just one thread. As I dont have to worry about tons of email reminders, will only have to keep track of one thread and I am able to inter-weave topics into each other. These topics will all be related and come from the same view point and thus make things easiar.

    Imagine if you will a religious forum and inside this religious forum people can make threads on/about religion. Now if a particular Muslim person was to start posting about all his religious ideas he could potentially post in 1000s of different threads. Or he could post in 1 thread about his ideas. Now someone else who is Muslim and shares his view-point knows where to go when they want to discuss Islamic ideas. Consquently someone who isnt Muslim but wants to read up on a Muslims point of view knows where to go. Imagine this being a religious forum and a Muslim making a thread called: My Ideas On Religion. If I didnt feel that my ideas came from a distinct Philisophical category then I wouldnt just put them in 1 Philisophical thread.

    And again its just much easiar on me to manage as well as easiar for me to inter-weave my views.
  7. Feb 8, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    because it enables the topic to get off subject. when you post a topic with a subject line, people are drawn to post under that subject. otherwise, i lock topics that get off subject, plain and simple. so, please just post one topic at at time. we have journals if you prefer to write about anything you like at random.
  8. Feb 8, 2005 #7
    Kerrie I would argue that my views are all on topic. That the subject at hand is my views on Epistemology.

    Your own words are:
    Thats the exact reason why Im doing what I am doing. As it will let people who want to discuss my ideas on Epistemology discuss them in 1 place. As I said before im not writing anything at random. This thread is all about how I view epistemology. By doing this people will be able to view my entire picture on epistemology and will be able to discuss it ((pros,cons,faults, ect.)) and hopefully this will produce a coherent picture of epistemology.
    Seeing how there is nothing else like this in this forum. That allows people to see a complete tapestry of views on Epistemology and how they inter-link, I would ask that this thread not be closed down when the thread eventually starts getting away from just my view on time.
  9. Feb 8, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    john, there is no flexibility on this policy, please see the pm i sent and continue this on topic of time, or i will need to lock it.
  10. Mar 26, 2005 #9
    Time is funny, notice how none of these online conversations depend on time like all other in person conversations. Since all of what was said can't be disputed because it's all recorded from moment one, this conversation (about time) must at some point come to an end. Does that make sense? Is there an infinate ammount of ways of viewing the concept of time? Perhaps this idea can be used to prove if any topic can be fully understood and/or defined. If there is no more to talk about, then everyone is satisfied that we are talking about the same exact thing? Or do we will the closure of such topics as a means to take our minds off of something we can't understand? Is there no end to conversation as long as there is will to keep talking? If so, then Kerrie is kind of a party pooper... Why do you want to end time as we know it in this particular conversational aventure? (just kidding). If time is highly linked with perception, then does it have anything to do with our will to keep percieving it? One must be alive in order to percieve time, but one can't percieve without the existance of time, ie. one can't be alive and not percieve time. Either time exists, or we aren't alive. "time doesn't exist" <--- now thats a bunch of hooplah!
  11. Mar 27, 2005 #10
    The problem with that argument (about time not existing) is that there is an assumption that was made where the unknown entity (the mind) is given the property that it doesn't need time to think. Try and do that right now, make a train of thought that doesn't take any time to construct... If time doesn't exist, then any person could think of everything at once (because thoughts wouldn't be seperated by techniques we all use to construct them one by one and group by group). The simple fact that correlations between two similar ideas aren't all 100% shows that methods are used to compare two different thoughts. Ideas are all finite and there may as well be an infinate ammount of them, but the fact remains that they are many, not one. How many things can a person think of at once? I argue that a person can only focus thier attention on one thing at any one moment ("snapshot"). If you try to contradict me and think of two things at once, you are in effect thinking of only one thing (or idea), that is composed of two correlated ideas. If you think you can get around it by thinking of two seemingly unrelated things like dolphins and bicycles, think of a dolphin-bicycle, and there you go, however funny the image you get in your head, it is one image. Now think of two seperate images in your head (like, your mom on the left, and a #2 pencil on the right, does that contradict my presumption? I would say not, because this new scene that you can imagine is not two scenes of two different ideas, but it's one idea, manufactured to try to prove me wrong. A person must not be able to think of everything at once, otherwise all thoughts would be 100% correlated with all other thoughts, and there would be no such thing as a single thought. "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once." - My friend Andrew Hayes said this, but I don't know if he was quoting it.
  12. Mar 27, 2005 #11
    kerrie is just the messenger, we all know freom the "past" that you should not shoot the messenger.

    time is real, and it is not real. it is a figment of the imagination. if we were incapable of senceing anything, we prolly wouldnt need tiem to lean on, but time is just what we need it to be. how could i explain when i needed my medication if there was nothing to compare then amd now, thus time was born. i go outside and look at the stars, im not unique in that way, millions of people have done that. but who realizes that most of the stars i am looking at are simply streaks of light traveling across space forever, untill it impacts my retina. although the stars are long dead, i am still able to see them. time may not be accurate, but we use it to serve the purpose it was designed for. if we dint put a name on it would it still be there, if a tree falls in a forest with noone to hear, does it make a sound?

    pointless questions without answers. we could make answers, but what would be the point, since we made time in the first place. call it a paradox or watever you want.
    we try to measure time by saying that the earth revolves once in 24 hours, we can try to be more accurate by measureing howmany seconds it takes for photons to move from one point to another. but it is all relative to to each individuals point of view, it just so happens that we all are forced to view a complex theory in simplistic terms that are used everyday. it wont change unless we change it. it is wat we want it to be, we dont make it we just view it the only way we can because we are mortal adn we all knwo that our time will end.
  13. Mar 29, 2005 #12
    I should have been more clear, I really don't have anything against Kerrie, in fact I voted for him! or was that Kerry... at any rate

    It didn't seem to make a differance though; however, it's possible to fix mistakes as long as there is time to fix them... or do I mean "will to fix them"?

    Thank you for willing another iteration of this "greater good" (conversation) into existance. The flavor evolves along with our perception of it, and here I am adding a "garnish" to your "meat and potatoes".
  14. Mar 30, 2005 #13
    My personal opinion is that Time exists independently from anything else and relates to the speed of cause/effect in our universe.

    Our perception of Time differs with each individual precisely because we are individuals and are hardwired differently.
  15. Mar 31, 2005 #14
    yes, good point. I can't deny that what I've stated is merely one perception of reality out of the teaming billions of human minds. It's not right for me to think that I've got precedence over everybody else. I'm willing to bet that perhaps everybody is aware of this feeling. Again, this is just my opinion. Is there anything that can said about time which can be agreed upon with certainty from the viewpoint of all human minds? Is that question even valid?
  16. Mar 31, 2005 #15
    whoopse, I messed up the quote thinggy, the paragraph in the middle is my response to the first quote, the one on the bottom (outside of the quote) is my response to the second quote
  17. Apr 14, 2005 #16
    Here’s my two cents worth…

    Everything that we perceive as real is tied to a notion of dimension, whether that be space (here and there), time (then and now), and consciousness (individual and universal). To perceive anything, dichotomies in at least one of the above dimensions must be perceived.

    If one by one we could eliminate the seemingly infinite dichotomies that allow us to perceive our individual existences, we would ultimately find that they lose meaning and cease to exist, if they really exist at all. For example, we have a concept of temperature because we can perceive of a temperature that I’ll call hot and a temperature that I’ll call cold. However, what if at all times it was the same temperature everywhere? How would we know temperature exists? Does it matter? The concept of temperature loses its meaning and ceases to exist to us as individuals in this world. In another example, I have men feuding over who is the strongest and who is the weakest until all men have killed one another leaving only two to decide the question. One man kills the other, leaving only himself. This man is now both the strongest and the weakest man. The comparative notion of strength (amongst other things) becomes meaningless. Though in this example the lone man can perceive of it from memory, it loses its meaning in the present tense and ceases to exist.

    There is only one time, and it is Now. All moments happen concurrently. There is only one place, and it is Here. All places are in fact right where you are. There is only one consciousness and it is Universal/God. You exist on many levels of consciousness, but they all are really One.

    I wrote the below ecstatic poem stream of thought… it says the same thing:

    The sun is settling on my lids, and my warm breath expires, rising with me, turning cold with me, settling as I continue beyond its earthly purpose, beyond the earth. Outward and inward at the same time, yet never really moving, realizing that I had never moved, realizing that movement is a dream that I dreamt, and that I had been in one place, motionless, timeless, without punctuation, pauses or rests… that I’ve been and am and will be waiting for you, and you for me, to be here where we are and where we’ll be when we get here. Infinite as it may seem, we’ve been everywhere with a stillness. Today, I awoke from the dream and realized that I am boundless and forever.
  18. Apr 21, 2005 #17
    "Everything that we perceive as real is tied to a notion of dimension, whether that be space (here and there), time (then and now), and consciousness (individual and universal). To perceive anything, dichotomies in at least one of the above dimensions must be perceived" - Marc Carpentier

    hmm, dichotomies... you mean like how a photon only uses 2 out of the 4 dimensions (no length in the direction of travel, no rate of time)? but what about a particle? those use all 4 dimensions, so there is no dichotomy? I also noticed that you defined "perception" using the word "perception". In accord with your stance, would that itself be a dichotomy, and therefore be real?

    "Though in this example the lone man can perceive of it from memory, it loses its meaning in the present tense and ceases to exist." - Marc Carpentier

    interesting, do you define all things that exist to have meaning? If something doesn't have any meaning, then it doesn't exist?
  19. Apr 29, 2005 #18
    hmm, dichotomies... you mean like how a photon only uses 2 out of the 4 dimensions (no length in the direction of travel, no rate of time)? but what about a particle? those use all 4 dimensions, so there is no dichotomy? I also noticed that you defined "perception" using the word "perception". In accord with your stance, would that itself be a dichotomy, and therefore be real? - Jonny_trigonometry

    We know from Heisenburg and his Uncertainty Principle that not all dimensions described by dichotomies can be perceived/measured at the same moment. Get this one and that, and the other(s) can’t be discretely determined. So at this level of physics, we don’t know as much as we think we know about particles. This is because we are a part of the experiment that we are measuring. It’s like a blood cell trying to take the pulse of the very human in which it itself flows. I use the word perception loosely. I believe words are the bricks of the walls we speak. They are limited and cannot approach all that we have to say in the way we need to explain them. We use what we can to convey as best we can that which we are trying to say. Humans have always had problems communicating verbally, this is a given. But, yes, even perception is a dichotomy. There is “how you see thing”, and there is “how I see things”, and everything in between. If we all saw things in the exact same way, then there would be only one perception, and the “notion” of such a thing as “perception” would not come to the fore.

    interesting, do you define all things that exist to have meaning? If something doesn't have any meaning, then it doesn't exist? - Jonny_trigonometry

    I don’t define all things that exist as having meaning; quite the contrary. I often wonder of all the things that exist that we do not know of simply because we lack the senses or intellect to perceive them. Note that I didn’t say that temperature didn’t exist in absolute terms – I said that we would not know of its existence, and that it loses meaning to us as individuals in this world. As for meaning, I can say that if it exists, humans will try to ascribe a meaning to it; this forum is a good example of that. You can figure out the corollary, which is more along the lines of what I was trying to say.
  20. Apr 30, 2005 #19
    ride on Time

    Time is purely a reference system for progress.
    Progress requires a sense of order .
    A sense of order requires a certain inteligence.
    Increased inteligence tends to work to declare its own order
    When all is well , then time is nowhere. This soon changes , and time once more calls you , for what purpose ? for your progress.

    Many moons ago, there were people with no sense of order or of time.
    Slowly they became aware of a sense of time , from where ? from their observations of the universe around them.
    Their early habits and lifestyles were dictated by sunrise / sunset, winter / summer.

    Therefore to some extent they were victims of time.
    The universe itself , sun stars moon has a sense of order reflected to us by time.

    The universe therfore must have a certain inteligence.

    In time, people became more aware of time, and slowly they began to think and construct tools which would allow them to gain control over time .
    At the deep level, they feel that this is of vital importance and it is so.

    In todays time, we have all the tools and knowledge available to allow us to gain full control over time.
    But look around you and see how many have achieved this. Most people today are still total victims of time in that they are possesed with carreers , money , property , egos etc to the detriment of their very souls.
    The sad thing is that they know no other way.
    But there is always other ways for those whom look, and when you look with sincerity, then a way shall appear , and you must trust your instincts on that one.
  21. Apr 30, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    funny how some assume i am male because of my name...
  22. May 8, 2005 #21
    My humor is too bland and pitiful to even notice I guess. Sorry.
  23. May 10, 2005 #22
    I'm one of those people who think odd thoughts and write them down. Unfortunately, the path my thoughts go mostly revolve around Physics which is a subject that I do not have a high qualification in. This can be a curse and a blessing.

    A curse because many of the questions I have bouncing around in my head may have an answer to anyone with a degree in Physics.

    A blessing because I don't recognise what is "impossible" and so I'm not confined by the "reality box" that many qualified people find themselves.

    Here's one of the little things I wrote to myself which is related to the subject at hand:

    Ref: Time dilation

    Is the Time Dilation effect everything to do with the nature of a persons perception of Time and totally independent to Space/Time itself?

    Note: Remember thoughts on the speed of light being the interaction limit between particles (or information) on our Space/Time plane instead of an actual velocity of some type.

    e.g. the information that allows one particle to recognise and react to a nearby particle travels between them at 3.335640952*10^-9 sec per meter.

    This would also recognise that information is massless (as apposed to photons being a massless particle that can be effected by gravity which might indicate that it actually has mass (which is supported by the equation E=MC^2 in that if a photon has an energy signature then it must have mass: M=C^2/E)

    Also, with regards to abstract information, our whole science is founded upon an abstract concept of numbers.

    Numbers in themselves do not mean anything. They simple show some relationship between things, reactions, whatever.

    Our whole system can allow us to predict a certain outcome or probability but does nothing to explain the reality of anything. The WHY? or the WHERE? of events that we perceive.

    I've got a lot more to say on the subject but I don't want to just type and not have a debate about this. I would like to know what you people think.
  24. May 10, 2005 #23
    Its not down to human perceptions. It affects muons, which we can safely assume do not have minds.

    It is standardly regarded as both.

    A photon has no *rest* mass. It's KE is equivalent to mass, however.
  25. May 10, 2005 #24
    I thought they couldn't escape a black hole because space-time is being sucked in faster than the speed of light past the event horizon...
  26. May 11, 2005 #25

    Thanks for your comments :)

    With regards to:
    I've just read up a little bit about Muons:
    It's human perceptions that note the apparent effects of Time Dilation. We should question whether our perceptions are accurate enough (or non-biased enough) to accord a Physical law to a phenomenon such as this.

    The thoughts that paragraph was reminding me of was regarding the possiblility of light travelling in a similar way to the Newton's Cradle effect as apposed to Photons actually travelling great distances at the speed of light.

    The use of the word "equivalent" is interesting here. Is this just scientific talk stating "we're not sure but we think this may be likely"? (that photons act like they have mass in certain conditions but don't actually have any mass)

    I think it's more and more important that remember that we base a lot of our attempts to understand physics on 'theories' and 'assumptions' and always question the validity of what we think is true.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook