Brian Greene: "The Past is as Real as the Present

[Simetra7]

Memories can most certainly be changed; all it takes is a proper adjustment of brain function, whether that comes from a whack on the head, a degenerative disease, or more complex psychological factors. Memories can also bring about certain thoughts and emotions and our thoughts and emotions can in turn influence what we remember and how we remember it, so there is plenty of room for interaction as well.



Are the memories actually being changed, or are new interpretations of the memory being put in place, leaving the original memory lurking somewhere in the subconcious, possibly to be rediscovered at a later date.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If we assume for a moment that Green's interpretation is correct - the past is real - and keeping in mind that he speaks from a scientific, not philosophical point of view, what would be the resolution? Would this mean that the concept of "time" is flawed; or "real", or that both concepts are flawed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry, I didn't mean to step on the discussion. Consider this a floater...but I would be interested in knowing how this question would be addressed.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Memories can most certainly be changed; all it takes is a proper adjustment of brain function, whether that comes from a whack on the head, a degenerative disease, or more complex psychological factors. Memories can also bring about certain thoughts and emotions and our thoughts and emotions can in turn influence what we remember and how we remember it, so there is plenty of room for interaction as well.

Are the memories actually being changed, or are new interpretations of the memory being put in place, leaving the original memory lurking somewhere in the subconcious, possibly to be rediscovered at a later date.

This goes to Dennet's distinction between "Stalinist" and "Orwellian" reconstructions. The Stalinist one would edit the memory trace to make it consistent, changing the sequence of memories and such. Orwellian would just scrap the whole thing and replace it with a consisten scheme constructed offline.

 

[somasimple]

Hi All,
I think that we are only living in the Past. The real present is our future.
http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=549

 

[nameless]

Personally, I have never experienced anything other then the apparent 'present' NOW. The ultimate NOW, being a Planck moment. No time!
I have never found any evidence of a 'past', other than as a 'mental construct' in the present!
No 'future', either, other than as a 'mental construct' in the present!
I've never looked at my feet and exclaimed, "Yippee! I'm in the 'past'!" or Yowza! I'm in the 'future'!" The 'realest reality' that I have found is Now/Here! After all, have YOU ever been 'there'? Nope, you are always 'here'. Yet we believe in all 'this' even with no direct experience. What about pink unicorns? Zeus? *__- The 'imagination' is/can be wonderful, but 'believing' it to be more than 'imagination/subjective fiction' is 'delusion'.

I think the concepts of past and future are one of those 'illusory' social constructs (memes?) that are passed and 'believed' for convenience and socialization and because if something is heard often enough, it is erroneously 'believed' as 'true'. 'Time' is, perhaps, another illusion that is the basis for the whole 'dream of life'. No 'time', no 'space', no 'matter', etc... Time is as fictitious as the 'solidity' of 'matter'.. but a useful fiction nontheless..
One has the best 'times' in dreams in which one is 'lucid'.

There is serenity in Chaos.
Seek ye first the Eye of the Hurricane!

 

[Simetra7]

If we assume for a moment that Green's interpretation is correct - the past is real - and keeping in mind that he speaks from a scientific, not philosophical point of view, what would be the resolution? Would this mean that the concept of "time" is flawed; or "real", or that both concepts are flawed.

If the past is indeed real, then we would have to ask the question, "Where exactly is it?" And if the past is real then it would follow that the future is also real. At the rate technology is advancing at the present time, it would be reasonable to assume that some time in the future, somebody would work out where the past and future actually are, and how to travel back and forth between them. We have no evidence that people from the future are visiting the present. Of course this could also mean that humankind annihilated itself before ever reaching that stage!As for the concept of time itself, I think that so little is really understood about it that there is plenty of room for flaws.

 

[nameless]

So, you are discussing a 'figment' of the imagination, for which there is no evidence, as if it were 'reality'? Is that the definition of 'belief' and 'faith'? Science? Sounds like desperate grasping at validations for one's emotionally held 'beliefs'. Like religion...
Hmmm, I'm beginning to see Science as 'just' another religion. Intellect only so far, desperately clung to beliefs and constructs, validations, faith, groundless assumptions, the parallels seem to be endless...

 

[Simetra7]

So, you are discussing a 'figment' of the imagination, for which there is no evidence, as if it were 'reality'? Is that the definition of 'belief' and 'faith'? Science? Sounds like desperate grasping at validations for one's emotionally held 'beliefs'. Like religion...

I don't see how discussing a point of view that is different from your own can be construed as desperate grasping! It's just a discussion. In fact i totally agree with your earlier post, that the now is all there is. I was merely addressing the original question.

 

[nameless]

No harm meant, I was just being a bit dramatic... That IS the way it seems to me though. I was under the impression that science 'finds things', learns about them, tries to disprove them, and only, after having gone through the 'fire', and evermore available to further 'fire', only then is the 'hypothesis' tentatively accepted, until shown to be 'useless'. Emotional beliefs posit the accepted hypothesis, for, ordinarilly non-rational reasons, and then 'proof' and 'evidence' is sought to support ones 'belief' so desperately that 'falsifying the evidence' is a popular method of 'validation' o0f one's 'beliefs'.
I do get a bit dramatic at times as it is usually appreciated in all the oh so deadly serious conversations... a bit of 'street theater' in the name of 'truth', perhaps.
*__-

 

[Gir]

So, you are discussing a 'figment' of the imagination, for which there is no evidence, as if it were 'reality'? Is that the definition of 'belief' and 'faith'? Science? Sounds like desperate grasping at validations for one's emotionally held 'beliefs'. Like religion...
Hmmm, I'm beginning to see Science as 'just' another religion. Intellect only so far, desperately clung to beliefs and constructs, validations, faith, groundless assumptions, the parallels seem to be endless...

yes, that's right. just because we cannot at this point explain exactly what causes us to experience time it must not exist. give me a break. time must exist in some sense or we couldn't be having this conversation right now. time definatly progresses as we each type and in turn wait for a reply. to think we've made all possible scientific discoveries is very short sighted and ignorant. and then to say that there is no time and simply saying the universe is a giant machanical device, well okay, but even a machanical device requires time to pass for movements to take place. I have yet to see an argument for the non-existance of time that makes any sense what-so-ever.

you say groundless assumptions, well on what grounds do you base your "time does not exist" theory?

 

[Gir]

No harm meant, I was just being a bit dramatic... That IS the way it seems to me though. I was under the impression that science 'finds things', learns about them, tries to disprove them, and only, after having gone through the 'fire', and evermore available to further 'fire', only then is the 'hypothesis' tentatively accepted, until shown to be 'useless'. Emotional beliefs posit the accepted hypothesis, for, ordinarilly non-rational reasons, and then 'proof' and 'evidence' is sought to support ones 'belief' so desperately that 'falsifying the evidence' is a popular method of 'validation' o0f one's 'beliefs'.
I do get a bit dramatic at times as it is usually appreciated in all the oh so deadly serious conversations... a bit of 'street theater' in the name of 'truth', perhaps.
*__-

Im not sure if you noticed, but the reasons you stated for science being like faith is ignoring scientific method. a big part of that is being impartial. although as with the media, SOME jump to wild conclusions before having an understanding of what they're really looking for.

 

[nameless]

yes, that's right. just because we cannot at this point explain exactly what causes us to experience time it must not exist. give me a break. time must exist in some sense or we couldn't be having this conversation right now. time definatly progresses as we each type and in turn wait for a reply. to think we've made all possible scientific discoveries is very short sighted and ignorant. and then to say that there is no time and simply saying the universe is a giant machanical device, well okay, but even a machanical device requires time to pass for movements to take place. I have yet to see an argument for the non-existance of time that makes any sense what-so-ever. ...you say groundless assumptions, well on what grounds do you base your "time does not exist" theory?

All you have to do to get a bit of a glimpse into some of the foundational data that has led me to my present perspective is to 'Soople' or 'Google' phrases as 'time is an illusion', or 'time as illusion', or 'illusory time', or 'time does not exist' and whatever else you would enter if you were really interesting in learning. Then read what you are able to translate on the first, say, forty pages of each search thread; collate, compare, experiment and then all this is a bit of the raw data for 'critical creative thought'.

It shouldn't be long before you will be well educated and have an understanding into the hypothesis that time does not exist other than as a mental construct. No mind, no time.

One reason that it is so difficult to accept is that ones entire 'reality' is predicated upon the 'assumption' of time. Without time, there cannot be space, matter, dimentionality, duality, NOTHING could 'exist'. So that our long dearly held 'beliefs' and 'assumptions' must be totally discarded in the face of 'truth'. People hold tightly to their 'self images'.
Ego is involved.
Even physicists 'refused to see what was before their eyes' due to tightly held emotional egoic beliefs. Those 'assumptions' 'colored' their work. Those groundless assumptions. Time can be reversed in the equations, time can be eliminated from the equations and it makes no difference, the equations remain symmetrical! It was obfuscatingly kept in the equations due to 'beliefs' (like religion, scientific method or not!), 'ass-umptions' (hey, no assumptions, no grants, right?), dishonest lazy cowardly 'givens'.

But, the Earth was finally accepted as NOT the center of the universe. Soon you will accept also.. Any science magazine will be full of the new paradigm in ten or fifteen years.

I'll be happy to provide a couple of referrences if you like. How... would you like it, detailed down and dirty physics, equations and referrences and all? Overview of basics for a layman? A view from Buddhist writings? Should you be laughing, I found Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle practically word for word in the Avatamsaka Sutra!
I would think that your own, sincere and honest search (for 'truth') would probably be most fruitful.
Then, hopefully, welcome to NOW!

 

[sd01g]

If the past is indeed real, then we would have to ask the question, "Where exactly is it?" And if the past is real then it would follow that the future is also real. At the rate technology is advancing at the present time, it would be reasonable to assume that some time in the future, somebody would work out where the past and future actually are, and how to travel back and forth between them. We have no evidence that people from the future are visiting the present. Of course this could also mean that humankind annihilated itself before ever reaching that stage!As for the concept of time itself, I think that so little is really understood about it that there is plenty of room for flaws.

I agree with you. The past has no existence or location except for memory and history. Real existence is composed of matter/energy and is constantly in motion and changing location and exists only in what we perceive to be the present. No amount of diatribe will negate this fact.

For those who think the past is Real--locate it. Go ahead and try, you will fail 100% of the time. For those who think 'memory' is the same as experiencing the THE NOW, then maybe 'illusions' is the best answer.

 

[nameless]

I agree with you. The past has no existence or location except for memory and history. Real existence is composed of matter/energy and is constantly in motion and changing location and exists only in what we perceive to be the present. No amount of diatribe will negate this fact.

For those who think the past is Real--locate it. Go ahead and try, you will fail 100% of the time. For those who think 'memory' is the same as experiencing the THE NOW, then maybe 'illusions' is the best answer.

You are almost there..

If we can agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of 'matter/energy/space/time'? After all, for something to 'exist', it must 'exist' for some period of 'time'? In 'space'? Hence, 'space/time'.

So what would be the ultimate NOW of which you speak? An hour? Couldn't be, as that would involve memory to build that 'hour'. A second? Same problem. A second still is too long for the most ultimate NOW. A 'Planck moment' seems to be the penultimate NOW that requires no 'thought', but awareness/consciousness only. A Planck moment is outside 'Time'. It is too 'short' to be considered temporally relevent. Another one of those 'speed of light' things. No smaller increment of Now can be (theoretically) possible as time has no 'dimensionality' at this level, therefore 'nothing' to further divide.

So, in the ultimate NOW, 'time' has no reality, no 'existence'.

Therefore, all apparent 'materiality', 'space/time/matter/energy', can have no inherent existence because...
it is within consciousness that there is 'mind';
it is within mind that there is 'time';
it is within 'time' that there is 'sensorily/mentally apparent existence',
where we find our egoic 'selves'..

All is a dream of 'consciousness', existing within 'mind' alone.

Even if there were such a 'thing' as an 'out there' (objective reality), we could never possibly 'know' it!

All we can ever 'know' is what is within 'mind';
all we can 'see',
all we can 'measure',
all we can 'touch',
all we can 'weigh' and determine 'mass',
all we 'hear',
and smell',
all we can 'concieve/imagine',
our whole 'universe'...
All we can ever 'know' is what is within 'mind'.

 

[Tournesol]

If the past is indeed real, then we would have to ask the question, "Where exactly is it?"

If there is, literally, a 4th dimension , that is where it is.

And if the past is real then it would follow that the future is also real.

Not necessarily.

 

[sd01g]

You are almost there..

If we can agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of 'matter/energy/space/time'? After all, for something to 'exist', it must 'exist' for some period of 'time'? In 'space'? Hence, 'space/time'.

.

Unfortunately we can not agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of matter/energy/space. Things just exist and move in space. Always have and always will. Time is not a function of existence. Time is a construct of the mind to account for the movement of matter/energy in space. The Mind can not process 'movement' without the constructs of time and space. If you think that 'time' is something Real, just try to LOCATE it. Empirically, you will find only movement of matter/energy in space--some random, some uniform--and that is all you will find. You will find no UNITS of time. The units of time (seconds, minutes, hours, etc.) are not empirical realities but are constructs of mind and do not exist independently of mind.

THE NOW is not a function of time. Memory is a function of time. THE NOW is how we experience existence--The Present.

 

[Genecks]

I don't know, man. I'm still psyched out about yesterday. :)

 

[Gir]

Unfortunately we can not agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of matter/energy/space. Things just exist and move in space. Always have and always will. Time is not a function of existence. Time is a construct of the mind to account for the movement of matter/energy in space. The Mind can not process 'movement' without the constructs of time and space. If you think that 'time' is something Real, just try to LOCATE it. Empirically, you will find only movement of matter/energy in space--some random, some uniform--and that is all you will find. You will find no UNITS of time. The units of time (seconds, minutes, hours, etc.) are not empirical realities but are constructs of mind and do not exist independently of mind.

THE NOW is not a function of time. Memory is a function of time. THE NOW is how we experience existence--The Present.

you sir have the mind of a nat, that is all.

 

[sd01g]

you sir have the mind of a nat, that is all.

I did not intend to offend you or anyone else. If you are off offended by other people's ideas just disregard them and replace them with better ideas.

 

[Gir]

I did not intend to offend you or anyone else. If you are off offended by other people's ideas just disregard them and replace them with better ideas.

simply because we cannot see something with our eyes does not mean it isn't there. I think insted of arguing about the existence or non-existance of time, we should all come up with some common definition of time. this argument is going nowhere because we all have a different understanding what what time is supposed to be.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Unfortunately we can not agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of matter/energy/space. Things just exist and move in space. Always have and always will. Time is not a function of existence. Time is a construct of the mind to account for the movement of matter/energy in space. The Mind can not process 'movement' without the constructs of time and space. If you think that 'time' is something Real, just try to LOCATE it. Empirically, you will find only movement of matter/energy in space--some random, some uniform--and that is all you will find. You will find no UNITS of time. The units of time (seconds, minutes, hours, etc.) are not empirical realities but are constructs of mind and do not exist independently of mind.

THE NOW is not a function of time. Memory is a function of time. THE NOW is how we experience existence--The Present.

I have debated this subject quite a few times here, and it seldom goes anywhere. I mostly agree with your assessment of time, but possibly if we include a few more qualifiers in the description of time it will make sense to doubters that time is nothing but a mental construct.

I think movement is the key here. A nearly indistinquishable aspect of movement that helps explain time is change[/i]. Everything, without exception, is moving but how are things changing when they move? As most people at this site know, they change entropically . . . the universe is flying apart at ever great speeds, things are disorganizing, oscillation rates are slowing down, protons are decaying (or so it is believed), etc. If the universe keeps going the way it is, we can predict that at some point it will have entropically yielded all its order and therefore structure. So what we call "time" is simply our way of measuring the rate of entropic change. A human being's entropic decline, for instance, is measured by how many times the Earth orbits the Sun.

We might say there are two types of time: universal time and unique time. If a person traveled from point A to point B, rather than saying so much time had passed while traveling, one could more accurately say some quantity of matter in the universe had surrendered its energy, and so much expansion had taken place—that is, so many universal entropic events had happened. This would be referring to universal time. However, at one particular place in the universe, where a man in a spaceship accelerates to take off from a planet and then travels along at, say, half the speed of light, time progresses slower for him than for his twin brother he left behind on the planet. This would be referring to unique time. So universal time is the overall rate of entropy for the entire universe, but because the rate of entropy can change in a particular circumstance, various situations within the universe exist at relative rates of time.

In any case, just as you have suggested, time is not a real "something," it is a measurement system and as such exists only in our concepts. The only reason people think it is an actual something is because they project their awareness of their own entropic change onto reality. They say, "time is passing" when really it is they who are passing.

 

[Gir]

I have debated this subject quite a few times here, and it seldom goes anywhere. I mostly agree with your assessment of time, but possibly if we include a few more qualifiers in the description of time it will make sense to doubters that time is nothing but a mental construct.

I think movement is the key here. A nearly indistinquishable aspect of movement that helps explain time is change[/i]. Everything, without exception, is moving but how are things changing when they move? As most people at this site know, they change entropically . . . the universe is flying apart at ever great speeds, things are disorganizing, oscillation rates are slowing down, protons are decaying (or so it is believed), etc. If the universe keeps going the way it is, we can predict that at some point it will have entropically yielded all its order and therefore structure. So what we call "time" is simply our way of measuring the rate of entropic change. A human being's entropic decline, for instance, is measured by how many times the Earth orbits the Sun.

We might say there are two types of time: universal time and unique time. If a person traveled from point A to point B, rather than saying so much time had passed while traveling, one could more accurately say some quantity of matter in the universe had surrendered its energy, and so much expansion had taken place—that is, so many universal entropic events had happened. This would be referring to universal time. However, at one particular place in the universe, where a man in a spaceship accelerates to take off from a planet and then travels along at, say, half the speed of light, time progresses slower for him than for his twin brother he left behind on the planet. This would be referring to unique time. So universal time is the overall rate of entropy for the entire universe, but because the rate of entropy can change in a particular circumstance, various situations within the universe exist at relative rates of time.

In any case, just as you have suggested, time is not a real "something," it is a measurement system and as such exists only in our concepts. The only reason people think it is an actual something is because they project their awareness of their own entropic change onto reality. They say, "time is passing" when really it is they who are passing.

it's all symantics for crying out loud! just because it's not tangable, time does progress. it's only with a very narrow view of the universe and it's properties could time possibly not exist. our clocks do not measure spacific time, they're simply a device to give us a general idea of how much time has passed. you can keep on going thinking that time doesn't exist, but even the way you describe the nonexistance of time you suggest that time must be real.

time doesn't exist in the sense that it's some particle that we can put on the table of elements, it's much more complex than that, and to say it doesn't exist because we can't touch it is just ignorant. if time is a simple construct of the mind then how did the universe exist before there were minds?

 

[nameless]

Unfortunately we can not agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of matter/energy/space.

Please accept my appologies. I assumed (in error of course as are all 'assumptions') a certain level of 'education'. Sorry.
Perhaps if you did an honest net search/study of 'time' we just might be of similar thought afterall..

Things just exist and move in space. Always have and always will.

Says who? Is this some kind of 'doctrine' that you 'believe'? Evidence? What evidence have you of even such a 'thing' as 'always'? Ever been there?

Time is a construct of the mind to account for the movement of matter/energy in space.

Time is a mental 'construct' to ALLOW for the mental 'construct' of 'existence'. There can be nothing in 'existence' that does not 'exist' in 'time'. Do some physics research.. the concept isn't that difficult...

The Mind can not process 'movement' without the constructs of time and space.

Have you heard of space/time? One and the same? No 'and'.

If you think that 'time' is something Real, just try to LOCATE it.

Nonsence. You obviously do not understand what I have been saying to ask me this. Perhaps you might carefully re-read my posts, do a short study of 'time' and we can talk further?

...it's all symantics for crying out loud!

First, it is 'semantics'. Second, why not dismiss numbers and numerical concepts with, "Its all mathematics for crying out loud!" or "Its all physics for crying out loud."
Perhaps if you knew what 'semantics' actually is, and everyone else that hasn't a clue yet dismisses the science of semantics as useless in understanding our 'realities', y'all wouldn't be so quick to repeat such nonsense...

 

[nameless]

for someone who didnt add anything you sure went on and on for awhile didnt you?

For someone who is not responding to the point (not that it needs response, its validity is obvious, regarding 'semantics'..), and seems unable to find value in these words, you are blessedly brief. Thank you.

 

[deckart]

Hehe, I get a kick out of nameless.

 

[Les Sleeth]

it's all symantics for crying out loud! just because it's not tangable, time does progress. it's only with a very narrow view of the universe and it's properties could time possibly not exist. our clocks do not measure spacific time, they're simply a device to give us a general idea of how much time has passed. you can keep on going thinking that time doesn't exist, but even the way you describe the nonexistance of time you suggest that time must be real.

time doesn't exist in the sense that it's some particle that we can put on the table of elements, it's much more complex than that, and to say it doesn't exist because we can't touch it is just ignorant. if time is a simple construct of the mind then how did the universe exist before there were minds?

I'm not sure why you are so upset over the suggestion that time is only a concept. I actually don't mean to say that the time concept doesn't represent a real situation. Things really are changing, and changing in an overall way toward disorganization. That is very real, especially since that change is going to end my life here one of these days.

Usually when someone raises the issue of if time is real, they mean the way some people look at time like dimension one can travel through, say to the past. But time has never shown itself to be that sort of reality. Past is simply what's already changed, future is what will change. There is no third actuality called "time" there. Time is simply how we keep track of the rate of change.

 

[sd01g]

common ground

To: nameless, Gir, Les Sleeth et al: In an effort to better understand the opinions and positions of those who seem to have interest and insight to the very interesting notion of understanding TIME, I would appreciated your opinions (yes or no answers) to any or all of the following 5 questions.

1) can something come from or originate from nothing?

2) can a human mind exist without a human brain?

3) if all matter/energy ceased to exist, would anything be left?

4) if all matter/energy ceased to exist, would 'time' exist?

5) if all matter/energy ceased to move, would 'time' exist?

My opinion 1) no 2) no 3) no 4) no 5) no

thanks

 

[Les Sleeth]

To: nameless, Gir, Les Sleeth et al: In an effort to better understand the opinions and positions of those who seem to have interest and insight to the very interesting notion of understanding TIME, I would appreciated your opinions (yes or no answers) to any or all of the following 5 questions.

1) can something come from or originate from nothing?

2) can a human mind exist without a human brain?

3) if all matter/energy ceased to exist, would anything be left?

4) if all matter/energy ceased to exist, would 'time' exist?

5) if all matter/energy ceased to move, would 'time' exist?

My opinion 1) no 2) no 3) no 4) no 5) no

thanks

1) no 2) yes 3) yes 4) no 5) no

We disagree on 2 and 3, but that doesn't really matter in terms of defining time. It seems we are agreeing time is a physical concept, and outside the movement/change of physicalness, time has no meaning.

I think it would have been useful to have also asked:

6. If there were no consciousness to observe, would movement/change exist in the physical universe?

7. If there were no consciousness to observe, would time exist in the physical universe?

My opinion: 6) yes 7) no

 

[nameless]

1) can something come from or originate from nothing?

Can something? Possibly, I guess, but I have never seen any evidence that that has ever happened, nor, I hypothesize, ever will. Your definitions of 'some-thing' and 'no-thing', so I can offer a meaningful response, might be appropriate. I guess everyone else knows what you mean... So I'll vote No

2) can a human mind exist without a human brain?

A human mind exists within human brain, no brain = no mind, so I'll vote, 'no'.

3) if all matter/energy ceased to exist, would anything be left?

WTF am I missing here? You are obviously attempting to lead us somewhere, but you need to define your terms. By definition, things are 'made' of matter/energy in space/time. Remove any component of the equation and it no longer works. Unless you have some really wild definitions... like for the 'thing' in 'any-thing'. OK, I'll play.. I vote a resounding obvious 'NO', no 'things' will be left..

4) if all matter/energy ceased to exist, would 'time' exist?

Define 'exist'. Do hallucinations 'exist'? Does Sherlock Holmes exist? OK, on to the game.. As 'matter' and 'time' has sole 'existence' within mind as a sort of a hologramic dream... Since the brain is 'matter', and the mind is a function of the brain, if there no matter = no mind = no 'matter', no 'time', no 'space', etc... So No, time cannot exist without a mind to 'conceive' it.

5) if all matter/energy ceased to move, would 'time' exist?

We do understand that all is always in (apparent) motion? But, the same reasoning for question 4 applies here without a hitch. So, No.

In respect to the fact that you asked for 'yes' and 'no' answers, I kept the 'qualifications' real short!

I have been giving further thought to #2 and realize that I don't have any idea what a 'mind' is. Perhaps mine has been gone too long? I really don't know how to 'place' mind. Forget 'human' mind and let's just deal, for the moment, with mind. It is within the mind (I may not know what it is, but I know a bit of what it does, 'thinks' for one..) that concepts exist. The 'self', complete with a brain still exists as a concept within mind. So a 'personal brain' cannot exist without a 'mind' as 'matrix'. Perhaps Consciousness somehow creates mind, perhaps one big 'un, with lots of little egos floating around, one in each 'moment'. The ego (imaginarily) distinguishes between a 'this' and a 'that', and, in a flash of Duality, all the 'universe' (as the perspective of that one ego) is born. The ego becomes individual 'self' and will kill to defend this basic 'assumption' of existence in a physical universe. Thus is created the Dream.
Uh... What was the question?
Oh yeah... if you get the 'human' from out from before mind, I'd be tempted to change my answer to YES as 'human' cannot exist except as 'concept' within a 'mind' .. human is part of the ego created 'reality'. Duality; for human to 'exist', not human must 'exist'. And neither 'concept' exists without Duality, born of ego within mind.
So, back to no.

My head hurts...
*__-

 

[Tournesol]

Have you heard of space/time? One and the same? No 'and'.

Space-time means they are brought into the same framework, it doesn't mean they are identical in every way.

 

[Tournesol]

I'm not sure why you are so upset over the suggestion that time is only a concept. I actually don't mean to say that the time concept doesn't represent a real situation.

If a concept "represents a real situation" how can it be "just a concept".

Usually when someone raises the issue of if time is real, they mean the way some people look at time like dimension one can travel through, say to the past.

The reality of time and the reality of time travel are 2 different issues.

But time has never shown itself to be that sort of reality.

An independent dimension ? That is exactly what is *has* been shown
as in realtivity .

Past is simply what's already changed, future is what will change. There is no third actuality called "time" there.

Where you have a past /future distinction, you have time. You don't have
a "third" , and you don't need one.

Time is simply how we keep track of the rate of change.

(the concept of) Change is incomprehensible without (the concept of) time.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If a concept "represents a real situation" how can it be "just a concept".

It represents a method for tracking how things change. Is velocity "real." Show me where velocity exists. No, velocity is a measurement concept (like energy) to describe the rate of speed in a specific direction. Yet although there is no "thing" called velocity, it does describe a situation that involves a thing.

Similarly, time is a concept to keep track of the rate of change. It describes something about actual things, but there is no "thing" that is time just like there is no "thing" that's velocity.

The reality of time and the reality of time travel are 2 different issues.

That's right, time is a measurement concept and time travel is a fairy tale.

An independent dimension? That is exactly what is *has* been shown as in realtivity.

Calling time a "dimension" has been a convenient way to refer to it to emphasize the importance of the fact that rate of change can be affected by gravity or acceleration. When there is change/movement, there is a rate of change. Without movement there is no "time" because there is no change.

Relativity tells us that a frame of reference under acceleration, for instance, will change slower relative to one that isn't. It it not an actual dimension, its just that the rate of change is quite obviously inseparable from change itself and the space required for change to happen in.

Without the human mind to invent a measuring system, there would still be differing rates of change, but there would be no time invented to gauge that rate.

Where you have a past /future distinction, you have time. You don't have a "third" , and you don't need one.

Past and future aren't time. They don't exist and never have except as a memory or a concept. Only this moment exists and always will. The "distinction" you refer to is simply recognizing how things have changed from one condition to another, as well as the possibility that things will continue to change to other conditions.

If the past is real, then we should be able to reverse the events of the universe and get there. I believe Hawking at one time believed this, and had in one of his videos a cup and saucer that had fallen and broken, lifting themselves up from the ground and reassembling during the reversal of time. Later Hawking realized his concept was false.

(the concept of) Change is incomprehensible without (the concept of) time.

Hmmmm, I had to think about this one. If time is only a measurement technique as I say, then if there is change it seems we should be able to figure a way to measure its rate.

But I have in other threads suggested the possibility that there might be some sort of uncreated, always-existing base substance which makes up everything (the idea of neutral substance monism). If the base substance exists in an infinite ocean, and since it is indestructible, it will never "age" and so ultimately that stuff is timeless.

Also, in such a situation, changes might take place in terms of temporary shapes the stuff takes. If we wanted to keep track of the changes of some form of the base substance, but everything else around it was changing chaotically, then how could we assign any time values (i.e., since we "time" things relative to other orderly cycles like celestial orbits or a cesium atom).

So I think to use the time concept we have to have both changing stuff and orderly cycles of change.

 

[nameless]

Space-time means they are brought into the same framework, it doesn't mean they are identical in every way.

'Space/time', in my understanding, are two aspects of one 'event'. One integral 'aspect' cannot be removed from an 'event' without destroying/altering/eliminating the 'event'.

I wouldn't tackle your 'identical in every way' statement as it seems 'loaded'. Suffice to say that their 'definition' is inextricably 'interpenetrant', like an 'object' and it's 'qualities'. For all intents and purposes, yes, they are the same 'thing'. Space/time IS the framework wherein 'matter/energy' may 'exist'.
No-'thing' to 'frame' = no 'frame'.
No 'time' to 'exist' = no 'existence'.
No 'space' to exist = no 'existence'.
All intimately inextricably involved in/as the 'existence' of each.
No 'variable' can be 'safely' removed from the equation without drastically altering the 'parameters/context'.

This is my understandind. Perhaps it is not as 'heavy' as your 'This IS that' statement. That seems to 'transcend' subjective understanding... 'seems', but doesn't and statements of Is-ness always invite argument as opposed to discussion.

 

[Tournesol]

It represents a method for tracking how things change. Is velocity "real." Show me where velocity exists. No, velocity is a measurement concept (like energy) to describe the rate of speed in a specific direction.

That is barely coherent. The only difference between speed and velocity is that velocity has a direction.

Yet although there is no "thing" called velocity, it does describe a situation that involves a thing.

As ever , in anti-time arguments, we are back to "only things are real".
But things are spatio-temporally individuated.

Similarly, time is a concept to keep track of the rate of change.

Change is a concpet that makes no sense without time.

The reality of time and the reality of time travel are 2 different issues.

That's right, time is a measurement concept and time travel is a fairy tale.

It remains the case that the impossibility of time travel does not disrove
time.

An independent dimension? That is exactly what is *has* been shown as in realtivity.

Calling time a "dimension" has been a convenient way to refer to it to emphasize the importance of the fact that rate of change can be affected by gravity or acceleration.

According to most relativists, it is more than a case of just "calling".

When there is change/movement, there is a rate of change. Without movement there is no "time" because there is no change.

Without time, there is no movement. Movement mean being in different places
at different times.

Relativity tells us that a frame of reference under acceleration, for instance, will change slower relative to one that isn't. It it not an actual dimension, its just that the rate of change is quite obviously inseparable from change itself and the space required for change to happen in.

Relativity uses a 4-dimensional continuum.

Without the human mind to invent a measuring system, there would still be differing rates of change, but there would be no time invented to gauge that rate.

Without the human mind there would be no measurements of time...or
measurements of space , or measurements of mass...

This is another of the hardy perennials of the anti-time brigade...take "time"
to be the measurement, and not what is measured.

Where you have a past /future distinction, you have time. You don't have a "third" , and you don't need one.

Past and future aren't time. They don't exist and never have except as a memory or a concept.

a) you don't know that.

b) if it is true, there is still the fact that one "now" is always changing into
another...you don't get rid of time that easily.

Only this moment exists and always will. The "distinction" you refer to is simply recognizing how things have changed from one condition to another, as well as the possibility that things will continue to change to other conditions.

Change makes no sense without time.

If the past is real, then we should be able to reverse the events of the universe and get there.

That makes no sense. You might as well say "if space is real, we should be
able to travel faster than light".

(the concept of) Change is incomprehensible without (the concept of) time.

Hmmmm, I had to think about this one. If time is only a measurement technique as I say, then if there is change it seems we should be able to figure a way to measure its rate.

To say that something changes means that it is in different states at
different times. Being able to quantify the difference in times, for all its importance to phsyics, is not
essential to the concept.

But I have in other threads suggested the possibility that there might be some sort of uncreated, always-existing base substance which makes up everything (the idea of neutral substance monism). If the base substance exists in an infinite ocean, and since it is indestructible, it will never "age" and so ultimately that stuff is timeless.

Whatever.

Also, in such a situation, changes might take place in terms of temporary shapes the stuff takes. If we wanted to keep track of the changes of some form of the base substance, but everything else around it was changing chaotically, then how could we assign any time values (i.e., since we "time" things relative to other orderly cycles like celestial orbits or a cesium atom).

Where you have change, you have time, even if you can't measure it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

That is barely coherent. The only difference between speed and velocity is that velocity has a direction.

It would be coherent if you hadn't missed the point. I wasn't talking about speed or velocity. Recall, you were the one who asked, "If a concept 'represents a real situation' how can it be 'just a concept.'" I simply answered that by distinquishing between a measurement scale and the thing being measured.

Without time, there is no movement. Movement means being in different places at different times.

Your argument is exactly backward. Without movement there is no time. In fact, that just about proves time is nothing since it disappears without something of substance that's changing.

Time isn't what allows movement, time begins with movement. Isn't that obvious? If absolute zero were possible, and all atoms stopped oscillating or moving through space, what is the time standard? You cannot say it took "x" time for something to change or move since nothing is moving. You cannot apply time to anything. No years pass because there are no orbits, no clocks turn .. . . all is frozen still.

But let two different types of atoms oscillate and we can say in relation to one atom, one oscillates faster or slower. In other words, the change rate can vary. If one atom has 100 zillion oscillations left before it decomposes, then we say it has more "time" if it oscillates slower, or less "time" if it oscillates faster.

Past and future aren't time. They don't exist and never have except as a memory or a concept.

if it is true, there is still the fact that one "now" is always changing into another...you don't get rid of time that easily.

Lol! You just made my case. Time is an aspect of change, specifically, the rate of change. Nothing more, nothing less.

To say that something changes means that it is in different states at different times. Being able to quantify the difference in times, for all its importance to phsyics, is not essential to the concept.

We don't need the extra concept unless you want to measure! If you don't want to measure you can say something changes to different states and that covers the circumstances totally.

Where you have change, you have time, even if you can't measure it.

That's right, because you can't have change without a rate of change (although without changes in the rate of change itself there is nothing to measure it against).

This is another of the hardy perennials of the anti-time brigade...take "time" to be the measurement, and not what is measured.

What the heck is measured? RATE OF CHANGE, period. Show me what else you are measuring and I'll concede.

As ever, in anti-time arguments, we are back to "only things are real". But things are spatio-temporally individuated.

Nonsense. I haven't said only "things" are real, and I am certainly not anti-time. But I am just about convinced that everyone who thinks time is something substantial is projecting their own passing existence onto reality. They think time is passing when it is they who are passing. Their clinging to existence makes them imbue time with all sorts of mystical qualities since their rate of change determines when they are going to change from the state of being alive to . . . whatever awaits.

 

[Tournesol]

It would be coherent if you hadn't missed the point. I wasn't talking about speed or velocity. Recall, you were the one who asked, "If a concept 'represents a real situation' how can it be 'just a concept.'" I simply answered that by distinquishing between a measurement scale and the thing being measured.

Time isn't just a quantitative measurment. It is needed to understand change conceptually.

Your argument is exactly backward. Without movement there is no time.

It's not an either/or thing. It may well be that change/movement depends
on time AND vice-versa.

In fact, that just about proves time is nothing since it disappears without something of substance that's changing.

That doesn't mean time is "nothing". It *would* mean that time
is secondary or epiphenomenal. However, you have not refuted
the argument that change requires time -- stating that there is also
a dependence in the other direction is not a refutation.

Time isn't what allows movement, time begins with movement. Isn't that obvious?

No, the question of "empty time" is contentious.

If absolute zero were possible, and all atoms stopped oscillating or moving through space, what is the time standard? You cannot say it took "x" time for something to change or move since nothing is moving. You cannot apply time to anything. No years pass because there are no orbits, no clocks turn .. . . all is frozen still.

You wouldn't be able to measure time, but time is more than a measurement.
And is is still the case that arguing for a dependence of time on change does not show that there is no dependence of change on time.

But let two different types of atoms oscillate and we can say in relation to one atom, one oscillates faster or slower. In other words, the change rate can vary. If one atom has 100 zillion oscillations left before it decomposes, then we say it has more "time" if it oscillates slower, or less "time" if it oscillates faster.

something cannot be in two different states at the same time. Therefore any kind of change requires time, no matter how fast or slow.

Lol! You just made my case. Time is an aspect of change,

AND change is an aspect of time.

We don't need the extra concept unless you want to measure! If you don't want to measure you can say something changes to different states and that covers the circumstances totally.

Only if you don't want to think about what change is. As soon as you think about it , you see that it requires time.

That's right, because you can't have change without a rate of change (although without changes in the rate of change itself there is nothing to measure it against).

You can't have change without time, because otherwise you would
have to admit that something has contradictory properties: you would
have to say that X is both cold and hot, rather saying that X started off cold and heated up.

What the heck is measured? RATE OF CHANGE, period. Show me what else you are measuring and I'll concede.

Rate of change depends on change. Change is being in different states at
different times.

 

[Les Sleeth]

[I mixed up the order of your comments, to help me answer better.]

You can't have change without time, because otherwise you would have to admit that something has contradictory properties: you would have to say that X is both cold and hot, rather saying that X started off cold and heated up.

You are confusing sequential-ness with time.

something cannot be in two different states at the same time. Therefore any kind of change requires time, no matter how fast or slow.

You can’t have two different states within an entity’s change continuum in the same space.

Time isn't just a quantitative measurement. It is needed to understand change conceptually.

There is the sequence of changes, the order of events, where we can say this change happened before or after that change. That history of changes only required space to happen in. I will try to demonstrate below why time doesn’t necessarily have to be part of a change situation.

That doesn't mean time is "nothing". It *would* mean that time is secondary or epiphenomenal.

Ahhhh, and right there is what I suspect you believe . . . that somehow some new property of reality arises epiphenomenally from material change.

What the heck is measured? RATE OF CHANGE, period. Show me what else you are measuring and I'll concede.

Rate of change depends on change. Change is being in different states at different times.

Here's were we are hung up in my opinion. I say your statement fails to properly distinguish between the aspects of a change situation. Let’s identify the aspects:
1. An entity we can identify undergoes a series of changes (and since all we can realistically talk about are physical entities, let’s assume here the nature of all entities is physical).
2. There is a sequence of change events for any changing entity; the history of dependent change events for any entity is its change continuum.
3. Any entity requires space in which to exist, and therefore to change.
4. A rate of change for changes within an entity’s change continuum can only be determined if some other change rate is available to compare to.

Now you say, and I agree, "rate of change depends on change." Okay, so let's look at a changing entity to analyze that dependence. A sliver of ice falls on a hot burner at 2 PM, by 2:00:09 the ice state has transformed into liquid, and by 2:00:17 the liquid state has completely transformed into vapor.

Did 17 seconds pass during that transformation? Hold that thought and let's look at some other ideas.

Let's say that the only entity changing in the universe was that ice. If nothing else is changing, how will we know 17 seconds passed? No clocks are working. No cesium atoms are vibrating, no planets are orbiting suns. Yet change has taken place. If we can somehow enter this motionless world and toss a second ice sliver on the burner, and if we had a tape recording of our first ice sliver melting, we could compare it to that and say it transformed slower, faster, or the same. But without something to compare it to, or without something cycling to keep the beat, we have no basis for any entity’s rate of change. In fact, you cannot even say it has a “rate” of change; you can only say it changes.

So time is relative to other changing things; but time for those "other changing things" is relative to other changing things as well. As you can see, there is nothing there nearly as concrete as you wish to attach to time because there is no way to state time without something to compare change to.

So I say you are mixing sequentualness and time. Sequentialness is totally independent of relative conditions, while time is totally dependent on relative conditions. A changing entity must have space, and since for a given entity no two change states can exist simultaneously in the same space, that determines a mutable entity must change sequentially. The “timing” of changes, however, isn’t nearly so significant to an entity’s existence while it actually exists. And timing, or pace of change, is all time is. It is only significant to those of us who want to determine things about an entity or use an entity’s change rate for some practical purpose (like clocks or metronomes).

 

[Intuitive]

I guess there would be no way to prove seeing the future, as I was a boy of 10 years old, I use to have day visions that would come true, They weren't like the normal days dreams like in imagination, The day dreams were very involintarily trance like, I never really realized I was seeing something of significants, until the day dream come true, There has been several times that my day dreams actually saved my life in my latter years, It all seems to be a random chance occurance mostly, but if the event was about me then the randomness seemed to go away, I remember the day when I was about 10 years old, I had a girl friend and we use to mow lawns for people, We charged $10 for front and the back yard, at that time we were very active as children, We wanted to build a tree fort in the back of the apartments were there was an old Black Oak Tree about 40 or 50 ft tall, We decided that the best place to get our materials for the tree house was the construction site down the road that at that time was expanding track houses, There was a very good source of plywood and 2x4s, We started to gather our resources from the site to build our fort, not the first day but the second day we were gathering the last bit of wood for our fort, I ask my friend laura to gather up some of those pieces of 2x4s and I'll take this piece of plywood to the fort and I'll meet you there, Well, As I was walking what at that time was about 3 blocks from our fort, I had my first day dream that changed my life as I got older, I was walking down the side walk with the piece of plywood on my head to help me hold up the wieght of the wood so I could carry it without getting tire, I remember, In my day dream, I saw Tony, I saw him and laura at the foundation of the housing project, inside the skeliton of the house, the walls were without paneling, I saw it vividly, Tony was raping laura and laura could do nothing against tony because he was an older boy of about 16, remember, I thought nothing of this dream and it didn't mean much to me except that it was a day dream, as I got to the tree fort and place the plywood beside the tree and began to place the wood in its spot so I could nail it in place, about ten minutes went by and I was curious to why laura hadn't shown up yet, maybe she needed help, so I went back out to the construction site to see what was taking her so long, my eyes were the widest they had ever been, I saw my day dream occurring right in front of me, Tony was raping laura, I went to lauras house, because her house was closer, I went and told her dad, her dad went down there and tony was gone but laura was still there, there was a police report but no evidence to instigate a 16 year old boy that he did what he did, lauras older brother had found out and went to defend his sisters honer and tony kick his butt, later in life tony and his two brothers are all in prison for simular crimes later as they got older.

I know that a lot of people don't have the abilty to see visions of the future but I do know it happens to me on occasion, The visions seemed to have lessoned as I got older, Now I only have them when my life is in danger.

for some reason I can't do this on purpose, If I could I would be a very wealthy person.

As I read and study other peoples work, I think to myself, What if this has to do with some random quantum entanglement of some rare electronic event in the mind, a neural spark somehow entangled with a future thought.

If time travel is possible then I would be willing to bet it would be something like the movie Quantum Leap, with quantum entanglement and hosting someones thought our even our own future thought of an important event.

The funny thing is, it only occures with a random trance like day dream, It never happens in my sleep dreams, all of my sleep dreams have never come true, my sleep dreams seem to be metaphorical in nature or caused by an emotionalism I had before I went to sleep.

please except my story as truth as difficult as it is to believe in someone you don't know, but it is what happens to me.

 

[Tournesol]

Originally Posted by Tournesol
You can't have change without time, because otherwise you would have to admit that something has contradictory properties: you would have to say that X is both cold and hot, rather saying that X started off cold and heated up.

You are confusing sequential-ness with time.

No, I am noting that sequentialness is part of time, and always has been. For instance, McTaggart's famous a-series and b-series arguments are all about
sequentialness. It is you who are out of step with the history of philosophy.

something cannot be in two different states at the same time. Therefore any kind of change requires time, no matter how fast or slow.

You can’t have two different states within an entity’s change continuum in the same space.

I don't know how to make sense of that. Obviously a thing can change from one state to another while remaining in the same place, so where do
different "spaces" come from ? Are you saying that when something
changes state, it leaps instantaneously (so no time is involved) from
one place to another ? Or are you saying that one spatial continuum is
succesively replaced by another and another...of course that process
just *is* (what anyone but you would call) time.

Time isn't just a quantitative measurement. It is needed to understand change conceptually.

There is the sequence of changes, the order of events, where we can say this change happened before or after that change.

err...yes, that';s what most people call 'time;.

That doesn't mean time is "nothing". It *would* mean that time is secondary or epiphenomenal.

Ahhhh, and right there is what I suspect you believe . . . that somehow some new property of reality arises epiphenomenally from material change.

No ,what I believe is that your argument that "time is nothing" is ill-founded.

Rate of change depends on change. Change is being in different states at different times.

Here's were we are hung up in my opinion. I say your statement fails to properly distinguish between the aspects of a change situation. Let’s identify the aspects:
1. An entity we can identify undergoes a series of changes (and since all we can realistically talk about are physical entities, let’s assume here the nature of all entities is physical).
2. There is a sequence of change events for any changing entity; the history of dependent change events for any entity is its change continuum.
3. Any entity requires space
in which to exist, and therefore to change.

Space alone does not allow something to change, or it would have to
have contradictory properties

4. A rate of change for changes within an entity’s change continuum can only be determined if some other change rate is available to compare to.

Note that the standard philosophical defintion of "time" is
"the non-spatial continuum of change".
So, in talking about "change continua" you are in fact talking about time.
You think you are not , because you think "time" means measurement, and only measurement. So your argument is like:-
"There are no bachelors in this room".
"Yes there are..there are 3 unmarried men".
"oh, when I say 'bachelor', I don't mean 'unmarried man'"

Now you say, and I agree, "rate of change depends on change." Okay, so let's look at a changing entity to analyze that dependence. A sliver of ice falls on a hot burner at 2 PM, by 2:00:09 the ice state has transformed into liquid, and by 2:00:17 the liquid state has completely transformed into vapor.

Did 17 seconds pass during that transformation? Hold that thought and let's look at some other ideas.

Let's say that the only entity changing in the universe was that ice. If nothing else is changing, how will we know 17 seconds passed? No clocks are working. No cesium atoms are vibrating, no planets are orbiting suns. Yet change has taken place. If we can somehow enter this motionless world and toss a second ice sliver on the burner, and if we had a tape recording of our first ice sliver melting, we could compare it to that and say it transformed slower, faster, or the same. But without something to compare it to, or without something cycling to keep the beat, we have no basis for any entity’s rate of change. In fact, you cannot even say it has a “rate” of change; you can only say it changes.

So time is relative to other changing things;

The measurement or quantification is. But the word "time" does
not standardly refer to measurement alone. Your whole argument is based
on idiosyncratic defintion.

but time for those "other changing things" is relative to other changing things as well. As you can see, there is nothing there nearly as concrete as you wish to attach to time because there is no way to state time without something to compare change to.

1) all measurements depend on comparison

2) who said that "realtive" equates to "unreal" ?

So I say you are mixing sequentualness and time.

No, you are confusedly separating them.

Sequentialness is totally independent of relative conditions, while

measurement of

time is totally dependent on relative conditions. A changing entity must have space,

and time

and since for a given entity no two change states can exist simultaneously in the same space, that determines a mutable entity must change sequentially.

In a temporal sequence..not a spatial sequence like a row of books on a shelf.

The “timing” of changes, however, isn’t nearly so significant to an entity’s existence while it actually exists.

No: hence the measurement aspect of time is not what is philosophically important; what is important is the sequence or continuum aspect.

And timing, or pace of change, is all time is.

No, that is an eccentric defintion.

It is only significant to those of us who want to determine things about an entity or use an entity’s change rate for some practical purpose (like clocks or metronomes).

 

[Les Sleeth]

No, I am noting that sequentialness is part of time, and always has been. For instance, McTaggart's famous a-series and b-series arguments are all about sequentialness. It is you who are out of step with the history of philosophy.

A condescending argument that often seems typical of you. Can't you just pretend once in awhile like you don't believe anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?

The measurement or quantification is. But the word "time" does not standardly refer to measurement alone. Your whole argument is based on idiosyncratic defintion.

And as smart as you think you are, you still haven't gotten my point. I know the "standardly" way most people think of time, and I claim THAT is what is if not idiosyncratic, then is a projection. Time, as anything more than the rate of change, is an imagined property stemming from projecting part of our own psychology onto reality.

You can show me change, you can show me space, but you cannot show me time. You can slow the rate of time keeping devices, and then project onto reality "time" has slowed when all that's slowed is the rate of change of that frame of reference. But go ahead and believe time has properties beyond the rate of change if you want, but I'll never agree with you since I've yet to observe these properties, and no one else can make them observable either.

Our projection with time comes about because there are things which exist now but didn't before, and won't exist in the future. It's all passing. Some of it will be left when we pass, some will pass before we do. All this constantly reminds us of how much time we have to do things and to exist. But I am saying that all that's really going on is change, and that in this universe, it's change toward evermore an entropic condition.

The change is relentless, it never stops. The part of our psychology that is mystified by both our existence and our temporariness may see time as a magical property that is partially responsible for existence and nonexistence. You can''t just call that "rate of change" now can you? No, time is SOMETHING.

You can exalt the fact that the changing universe has made human consciousness possible, but that doesn't mean the rate of that change is anymore than the rate of change. What we have is x amount of changing matter, and when that matter has all disintegrated, then there will no longer be the basis for any sort of change that can produce a human being. So the amount of changing matter left in the universe represents all the potential for "time" we have left.

I have not said, or at least meant to say, that time is only a measurement. I am trying to say that change and its rate covers the whole story until you want to measure the rate of change, and then its useful to have another term to help refer to that measurement system.

 

[Tournesol]

A condescending argument that often seems typical of you. Can't you just pretend once in awhile like you don't believe anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?

Who is arrogant ... the guy who reads the literature, and learns what others have had to say about a subject ... or the guy who thinks he doesn't need to ?

 

[sd01g]

You can exalt the fact that the changing universe has made human consciousness possible, but that doesn't mean the rate of that change is anymore than the rate of change. What we have is x amount of changing matter, and when that matter has all disintegrated, then there will no longer be the basis for any sort of change that can produce a human being. So the amount of changing matter left in the universe represents all the potential for "time" we have left.

I agree with you that empirically time is movement/change, but why do you think the universe is running out of time? New stars are being created in the universe and gamma-ray bursts are redistributing matter/energy that gravity has concentrated. The universe is a dynamic system in which dying/dead stars are being replaced by new stars. If the human race can progress for another 1000 years, we might be able to travel to other planets outside of our solar system. We might even survive after our star is recycled.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Who is arrogant ... the guy who reads the literature, and learns what others have had to say about a subject ... or the guy who thinks he doesn't need to ?

Why would you assume I don’t think it necessary to be well-read on the subject? I’ve read it and forgotten most of it (except for Leibniz) because, as you know, the nature of time is an ancient argument, and for the most part the debates have been almost entirely rationalistic. In the case of McTaggart, I neither saw the relevance of the A series/B relations argument nor did I want to turn our debate into a another tired, old rationalistic exercise that typifies McTaggart and his dissenters.

McTaggart’s A series point is not relevant because I was talking about sequences of physical changes, and he simply tried to show the contradiction in the concept of past-present-future time. In my opinion, McTaggart’s contradiction is created by his assumption (that at any time all A properties must exist); but as is so typical of the rationalist, he doesn’t find it necessary to confirm that his assumption is true yet goes on to philosophize endlessly anyway. And then he argues against the complaints to his assumption with more rationalistic arguments. It’s rationalism, in my opinion, that has made philosophy seem like “mental masturbation” to so many today.

If you had to select anyone to claim my point of view represents I would have thought you’d choose Leibniz, except I think my view is even more radically event-dependent than his because I claim the “time” you speak of is nothing more than a psychological sense created by our from-birth, never-ending awareness of the incessant changes in physical events that go on around us, and to us, every moment we exist. I say that outside that psychological sense there is no actual “dimension” of time beyond the rate of change of physical events.

People who carry around the psychological sense of time (and I think most of us do) may project their subjective experience onto objective reality so that time to them is not in their head, but part of the fabric of physical reality. That perspective seems reinforced when relativity tells us time can be messed with (I believe it is subjective projection combined with knowledge of relativity effects which has created the fairy tale of time travel).

Yet when we look we can’t find this “dimension” of time anywhere. That’s why, if you look back at my answers to you, I have opposed what I see as your Platonic view by constantly referencing observable physical reality, what is actually there. When we study reality we find only physical change and the space for that to happen in; and then within the realm of physical change we can see the trait of rate of change along with the fact that the rate of physical change can be affected by relativistic effects.

So what is the basis for the belief in a “dimension” of time? I have never, not once, seen one iota of objective evidence for it. Every single argument for time is merely a claim or an appeal to intuition, but without anything actual to observe as s “dimension.” I say parsimony demands that we remove time from subjective interpretations and rationalistic analysis, and limit our definition to what we have evidence to support.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I agree with you that empirically time is movement/change, but why do you think the universe is running out of time? New stars are being created in the universe and gamma-ray bursts are redistributing matter/energy that gravity has concentrated. The universe is a dynamic system in which dying/dead stars are being replaced by new stars. If the human race can progress for another 1000 years, we might be able to travel to other planets outside of our solar system. We might even survive after our star is recycled.

New stars are being created, but not new hydrogen, and hydrogen is being consumed like crazy. Overall, since the universe is expanding, less energy is available to do work or maintain mass in any given location with each passing moment. Following this trend, at some point what was the universe may become some huge expanse of energy (or potential energy?), except without mass there won't be anything to move, and without movement there is no time.

 

[sd01g]

New stars are being created, but not new hydrogen, and hydrogen is being consumed like crazy. Overall, since the universe is expanding, less energy is available to do work or maintain mass in any given location with each passing moment. Following this trend, at some point what was the universe may become some huge expanse of energy (or potential energy?), except without mass there won't be anything to move, and without movement there is no time.

How do you know that new hydrogen is not being created? We do not know what is happening inside dark quark bodies (black holes). It is quite possible that new hydrogen is being created and released as gamma-ray bursts. There is still a massive amount of knowledge about the universe that we do not know yet. Dude, be optimistic. Note: There have been times when there was no time, but there has never been a time when there was no existence.

 

[Les Sleeth]

How do you know that new hydrogen is not being created? We do not know what is happening inside dark quark bodies (black holes). It is quite possible that new hydrogen is being created and released as gamma-ray bursts.

Okay, I'll adjust my statement to say as far as what has been observed there is no new hydrogen being created.

There is still a massive amount of knowledge about the universe that we do not know yet.

True, but I can't see a reason to postulate hydrogen is being created by gamma bursts. Do you know something I don't? (That's a serious question, I haven't ever heard anything about hydrogen creation.)

Dude, be optimistic.

Lol. I AM optimistic, mainly because I don't necessarily think consciousness needs the universe to exist.

Note: There have been times when there was no time, but there has never been a time when there was no existence.

Well, we agree on that, but as you must know, not everyone agrees and there is no way to prove you are right.

 

[Tournesol]

Why would you assume I don't think it necessary to be well-read on the subject?

So why get so het up about my mention of McTaggart ?

I’ve read it and forgotten most of it (except for Leibniz) because, as you know, the nature of time is an ancient argument, and for the most part the debates have been almost entirely rationalistic.

There is clearly some sort of empirical evidence for time, so arguments *against* time have to be rationalistic -- to the extent of inviting the reader to
ignore the evidence of his senses. However, I am not arguing against time.

In the case of McTaggart, I neither saw the relevance of the A series/B relations argument nor did I want to turn our debate into a another tired, old rationalistic exercise that typifies McTaggart and his dissenters.

There is nothing new of fresh about the declaration that time is a subjective, psychological phenomenon; it goes back to Parmenides.

McTaggart's A series point is not relevant because I was talking about sequences of physical changes,

Indeed: my point was that for Mctaggart and every other philosopher, a sequence of changes *is* a temporal sequence.

and he simply tried to show the contradiction in the concept of past-present-future time. In my opinion, McTaggart's contradiction is created by his assumption (that at any time all A properties must exist);

IMO it is created by his assumption that pastness, presentness and futureness are *inherent* properties of world-states.

but as is so typical of the rationalist, he doesn’t find it necessary to confirm that his assumption is true yet goes on to philosophize endlessly anyway.

But if we choose to argue against him, we can replace his incorrect assumptions with correct ones, and learn something about time in the process.

And then he argues against the complaints to his assumption with more rationalistic arguments. It's rationalism, in my opinion, that has made philosophy seem like “mental masturbation” to so many today.

If you had to select anyone to claim my point of view represents I would have thought you'd choose Leibniz, except I think my view is even more radically event-dependent than his because I claim the time you speak of is nothing more than a psychological sense created by our from-birth, never-ending awareness of the incessant changes in physical events that go on around us, and to us, every moment we exist.

It remains the case that time-as-a-dimension is needed to explain change, particularly to avoid the problem of conteadictory states.
Refusing to analyse the concept of change is not a response.

I say that outside that psychological sense there is no actual “dimension” of time beyond the rate of change of physical events.

Note that the problem of showing how change occurs without contradiction is completely independent of whether the change in question
is psychological/internal or physical/external.

People who carry around the psychological sense of time (and I think most of us do) may project their subjective experience onto objective reality so that time to them is not in their head, but part of the fabric of physical reality.

Moving time inside our heads does nothing to show how change can occur without contradiction. It also makes everything else
worse, since you then go down the road of supposing that people are exempt from or unique within the universe.

That perspective seems reinforced when relativity tells us time can be messed with (I believe it is subjective projection combined with knowledge of relativity effects which has created the fairy tale of time travel).

Actually, it was Kip Thorne's work on closed timelike loops. But, as I said before, you can believe in time-as-a-dimension without
believing in time travel.

Yet when we look we can't find this dimension of time anywhere.

Hmmm. can we 'find' dimensions of space ? Do we see them ? Or do we see gaps and shapes, and posit dimensions in order
to explain them ? Are you saying that we don't 'find' a time dimension in some naive, direct way ? Or that a time dimension
doesn't feature in our more sophisticated, scientific explorations ? The latter is surely wrong.

That's why, if you look back at my answers to you, I have opposed what I see as your Platonic

If you mean by "Platonic" that I am shutting my eyes and trying to figur out everything rationalistically, that is not what I am doing.
Nor am I engaging in the kind of one-legged empiricism that leads to idealism or solipsism.
It is possible to look *and* think.

view by constantly referencing observable physical reality, what is actually there.

Are you seriously asserting that what we can directly observe is *all* that is there -- that we cannot infer anything else, even if it
is needed to explain what we can see ? So, when we see objects falling, we have to stop there and regard it as a brute fact; we can't
appeal to an unseen force of gravity as explaining it.

When we study reality we find only physical change and the space for that to happen in; and then within the realm of physical change we can see the trait of rate of change along with the fact that the rate of physical change can be affected by relativistic effects.

If we want to make *sense*of reality, we have to posit all sorts of things we cannot see with the naked eye, whether atoms, gravitational
fields or a time-dimension.

So what is the basis for the belief in a dimension of time? I have never, not once, seen one iota of objective evidence for it.

1) Relativity posits one in order to explain observed results

2) Relativity predicts observed results to umpteen decimal places of accuracy.

Every single argument for time is merely a claim or an appeal to intuition, but without anything actual to observe as dimension.

We *see* change. We are forced to posit a dimension in order to make sense of what we see. Where is the appeal to intuitionin that ?

I say parsimony demands that we remove time from subjective interpretations and rationalistic analysis, and limit our definition to what we have evidence to support.

Solipsism it is, then!

 

[Les Sleeth]

It remains the case that time-as-a-dimension is needed to explain change, particularly to avoid the problem of contradictory states.

If you are still referring to McTaggart’s analysis, I see it as merely a language trick to create an apparent logical conundrum where there isn’t any. What was his justification for assuming all states must exist simultaneously in “time” in the first place? As critics have pointed out, all you have to do is say the past state was, the present state is, and the future state will be, and then there are no contradictory states.

Moving time inside our heads does nothing to show how change can occur without contradiction. It also makes everything else worse, since you then go down the road of supposing that people are exempt from or unique within the universe.

What contradiction can you describe that can be empirically confirmed?

No one is saying people are exempt from anything. Their physical bodies are doing exactly what the rest of the universe is doing: changing.

In my last post below I will try another approach to explain why there is no actual or implied contradiction.

Hmmm. can we 'find' dimensions of space ? Do we see them ? Or do we see gaps and shapes, and posit dimensions in order to explain them ?

Yes we can see space, but the dimensions are actually matter, not space

Are you seriously asserting that what we can directly observe is *all* that is there -- that we cannot infer anything else, even if it is needed to explain what we can see ? So, when we see objects falling, we have to stop there and regard it as a brute fact; we can't appeal to an unseen force of gravity as explaining it.

Well, I am saying you have to be able to either observe something directly, or an effect of something. We can see at least traces of atoms, and we can see the effects of fields. Time, on the other hand, has no traces and no observable effects.

We *see* change. We are forced to posit a dimension in order to make sense of what we see. Where is the appeal to intuition in that ?

This is what I meant in my earlier post about the Platonic view of time, that like space, we need a dimension for change to happen within. All we need is space and something changing.

Solipsism it is, then!

I can’t see how solipsism applies here. If you say that because I claim time is a psychological sense, then projection is the proper term for what I’m describing. And if you say that because I insist on the epistemology of observation of traces/effects, that is the basis of empiricism, and so you’d have to also call science solipsism.

Refusing to analyse the concept of change is not a response.

But I have analyzed it. You are convinced time is a dimension, and I suspect you aren’t going to accept any other view of time. I too am convinced of my view, although I believe I would change my mind if someone could demonstrate a time dimension to me. To date, I have never experienced a time dimension in any way, shape or form except in the mind of myself and others. So let me try another way of explaining time that jives with something I have experienced.

Assume there is only one true absolute; let’s call it existence. I will define existence as “neutral” (i.e., not matter and not mind), assume that existence cannot not exist, and that there cannot be a beginning or end of existence; so neither time nor boundaries are properties of “pure” existence (i.e., existence is eternal and infinite).

If existence is the most basic state, then all that we see is some form and/or condition of existence. In other words, there is one pure existence, but a great many forms and conditions of existence. Although we can see how forms or conditions may be relative to other forms or conditions, ultimately every form and condition is relative to the absoluteness of pure existence.

For physical forms of existence, “time” is a condition. A physical form has a beginning where it arises from pure existence, and then so many changes before it loses its form and becomes pure existence again.

Physical forms also have the condition of dimensions. A dimension is extension along a unique plane, and of course within the infinite, eternal realm of pure existence. In this model, space doesn’t have dimensions, physical objects do. Space is a finite condition of existence (itself infinite) that allows extension.

Is time a dimension? A physical form of existence is extended in at least three planes of D x W x H. A physical form also can be described metaphorically as extended in terms of duration, but it isn’t at all like the original meaning of a dimension. A virtual particle has very little “extension” compared to proton because it pops in and out of existence faster. Time becomes associated with dimensions in relativity where, say, acceleration affects physical extension as well as duration. But all that really happens is the form’s rate of change, change that will eventually end in pure existence, is slower than a non-accelerating frame of reference.

So time as a dimension is metaphorical. If we want to say time is a dimension, then we have to redefine dimension and come up with a new term for physical extension. Overall time is the condition of temporariness of physical forms relative to the absoluteness of pure existence. The march toward pure existence is entropic change, so “time” is both how many entropic changes a physical form has left, and the rate of those changes.

Where’s the time dimension except in our mind? Consciousness is conditioned by entropic change just like we are conditioned by light, sound, taste, gravity . . . Constant, unrelenting entropic change is part of our conscious experience from the moment we are born, long before we are able to contemplate it intellectually. So we are quite unconsciously conditioned to accept temporariness as part, or a “dimension,” of the world in which we live. That is why I think time (as a dimension) is projected from the sense of our own limited duration as we watch ourselves and everything else change right out of sight.

 

[Gir]

all you're really doing is calling time by another name.