Existence Without Time: Immaterial Universe & Time

[Prometheus]

Logically, if time exsists, there has to be a time when time did not exsist.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the logic that you speak of. Would you please elaborate on how your statemet is logical?

 

[cyfin]

I am sorry, but I do not understand the logic that you speak of. Would you please elaborate on how your statemet is logical?

Physical space is chaged from one configuration to another. The process and rate at which this takes place is called time and typically measured in seconds. B changes into C and C changes into D. In order for D to exsist, C must exsist. And for C to exsist, B must exsist. Logically, we can infer that there must be an A because B exsists. Unless B is the first. If B is the first, What was there before B? There has to be a condition where this law (time) does not apply.

 

[Prometheus]

If B is the first, What was there before B?

If B was the first, then obviously there was nothing before B.

Logically, we can infer that there must be an A because B exsists.

I still don't understand this. I can recognize that you accept this, however I do not see how this must follow logically.

 

[cyfin]

Time is defined as this condition: "A follows B". When the condition is no longer true, it ceases to be called time. Therefore, A can be the first condition of time, but not the first exsistance of anything else.

 

[Iacchus32]

It's not as though space is a 'thing' that exists between objects, and that that thing would still be there if you took all the objects out of the picture. What we call "empty space" (which is not really empty, but that's not the issue at hand) is just a relationship between objects that have spatial extension. Take away the objects, and there's no relationship to speak of.

So what exactly is space then? Is it comprised of something? Or, is it comprised of nothing? Does it contain an elemental structure, with atoms and electrons and protons and all that good stuff? In other words did space itself exist before the Big Bang? Surely if there was nothing before the Big Bang, there would be no space either, right?

 

[Rader]

This whole discussion is completely unnecessary. The answer is simple. Time does not exsist.

The discussion is about the existence without time. At that moment, in a 0 time frame, in theory time would not exist, nor would there be existence of substance that gives rise to cause and effect.The problem to resovle is, could time and space exist before time and space as we know it? How could time and space evolve from nothing or something, from that which, we do not know what it is?

Time is a logical contradiction. For every cause, there is an effect. And if time exsists, when did it start? Logically, if time exsists, there has to be a time when time did not exsist. In order to explain the change from time not exsisting to time exsisting, you need to have time. Therefore, it contradicts itself and cannot be logically accepted. Time can only be used under asumtions.

If you examine a 0 time frame at the speed of light, everything is crunched into plank time and plank space. Hence the BB gave rise to slower speeds and substance taking form. Although time is relative to the observer, more than assumed calculations can be calculated and correlated.

As Rene Descartes says "I think therefore I am". I am the only thing I know exsists. If time does not exsist. Spacial dimentions are completely useless becuase there can never be any transformations on them. Only one thing needs to exsist. Call it space if you want. call it thought. It is exsistance. It is at a fixed constant state.

In the present, transformations that substance undergoes, in spatial dimensions are measureable. If I alone can do those experiments and confirm those predictions, my physical self per se exists.

Funny thing about "I think therefore I am": It is present tense. Do we need to remember our past in order to know we exsist?

To my understanding essence would have to know all time frames in order for me to know I exist. I am was not always as is now, it was and will be all there is eventually.

All this is completely theoretical. Obviously my observations tell me time exsists. Based upon the asumtion that time exsists, I think its obvious you're referring to God, but as a scientific discussion, we'll leave him/her out of it.

No one knows essence, we only give it names to suite our status.

Before time exsisted, there has to be an immaterial universe. The material universe is a transformation of space around time (or vice versa). Without time to define space, it is then boundless and would occupy everthing. Hence, there is an immaterial universe before time that consists of all space.

That is one possibility but there is more options.

Aka "Everything". Once time was created, it came into exsitance at a single point in space. Since its all arbitrary, we'll call it the "Center" of the universe. From the "Center" of the universe poured out "Everything". Tada! The BIG BANG! Yadda Yadda Yadda. Trillions of years later, we are the current end result.

Is there a point and center of a undefinable place?

Will we ever run out of "Everthing"?

That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. We would just have something more of everything that exists.

 

[Iacchus32]

Yes, this is correct. So, basically if you acknowledge this much, you're acknowledging the original stillness which always was (and still is), before time began ... i.e., due to the advent of matter or, material space. So, before the advent of time, I'm suggesting we had something comparable to the dimension of thought, which is, afterall, realized in the moment ... i.e., through consciousness.

Wait a minute (or a parsec, or a meta-minute)! Either you have just introduced an undefined entity ('consciousness') and you could equally well have said '6oihserioserh', or you are using 'consciousness' with at least some of its usual meanings, and I can ask why you think 'consciousness' can have an existence independent of (human) brains?

Am I suggesting that the Universe was created as the medium for consciousness? Yes. Can I define the condition any better than I already have? I'm not that sure I can. However, there does seem to be a correlation between consciousness and timelessness, the fact being we can only experience the "here and now."

 

[Prometheus]

I think that I understand you now.

Time is defined as this condition: "A follows B".

I think that you should say that you define it this way (decribe this subjectively instead of objectively), as I have never heard of such a definition and I do not agree with it.

When the condition is no longer true, it ceases to be called time.

I completely disagree. Now that I understand that this is your understanding, I can accept it as such.

 

[cyfin]

could time and space exist before time and space as we know it? How could time and space evolve from nothing or something, from that which, we do not know what it is?

What do you mean by "time and space as we know it"? Without time, before time and space, you have only space. Space and Time cannot evolve from nothing( as you put it. I would say everthing) without time. The evolution, or transition, is impossible without time. Unless your just saying there was time, then space restarted and from our perception time started when space restarted.

If you examine a 0 time frame at the speed of light, everything is crunched into plank time and plank space. Hence the BB gave rise to slower speeds and substance taking form. Although time is relative to the observer, more than assumed calculations can be calculated and correlated.

Perhaps we have diffrerent definitions of 0 time frame. You say in a zero time frame everything is over Plank time ( an interval of time) and Plank space ( are you referring to Plank Length? A distance around 10^-33cm?) Based upon many topics the the physics section, people would disagree that time is relative to the observer.

In the present, transformations that substance undergoes, in spatial dimensions are measureable. If I alone can do those experiments and confirm those predictions, my physical self per se exists.

Your ovbservations cannot be trusted. Your senses are not provable. I believe that is the conclution Descartes came to. Only your thoughts can be proven. Becuase this does not help with science. We must work under the assumtions that our senses can be trusted.

That is one possibility but there is more options.

I am interested to hear more

Is there a point and center of a undefinable place?

The only thing undefined is time. Space is still in the spatial dimention and consists of everthing. As soon as time exsists, the material universe(space+time) could only exsists where time exsists. Thinking about it more brought me to another theory: Space was every where. If time came into exsistance everywhere, then gravity would pull everything into a single point. Then from there expand out. (BB). Which ever theory you choose: time exsisting only at a single point or everwhere at once, you get the same effect, the Bing Bang.

 

[Prometheus]

the Bing Bang.

Cute.

Space is still in the spatial dimention and consists of everthing.

What does this mean? Everything does not only consist of space, but of space and time.

As soon as time exsists, the material universe(space+time) could only exsists where time exsists.

Wrong. You are assuming that space is first. If time were first, then there would be no space before space came to exist.

 

[cyfin]

What does this mean? Everything does not only consist of space, but of space and time.

Rader said there was no way do determine the center from an undefined space. The center is defineable because there is still a spatial dimension. Just no time.

Wrong. You are assuming that space is first. If time were first, then there would be no space before space came to exist.

I wouldn't call it an assumtion, but that is a major point in my theory. Time can be traced back to previous transformations of the spatial dimention. Therefore, there must be a time before time that only consists of space. I believe time defines space, I think this is arguable and perhaps the weak point in my theory. If it does define space, then the lack of time would mean a lack of definition of space. As mentioned earlier about thermodynamics, this state would be in "Perfect Order". All matter/energy everywhere simutaniously. It has the highest potential energy, all it needs is a definition from time in order to start its tansfer of energy.

 

[Rader]

What do you mean by "time and space as we know it"?

There is three ways to measure time as we know it.
TIME:
01-There is a thermodynamic arrow that points in a direction of time where disorder or entropy increases.
02-Second there is our physiological arrow, how we feel time, as we remember the past and not the future.
03-Third the cosmological arrow, in which we can observe and measure the expansion of our universe.
SPACE:
The relationships of substance in space , in 3D spatial dimensions.

Without time, before time and space, you have only space.

That is contrary to present theory, unknowable at the present. It is more logical to ascertain that time and space as we know it now, was before, only in a state of which we know nothing of.

Space and Time cannot evolve from nothing ( as you put it.

Nothing is a general term to describe what is not there yet. Nothing is something even it it is nothing. In empty space, if we discount the relations that substance defines, we are left with .999> empty space. When we weight all the substance in the universe, something does not correlate; most of its weight is not accountable. So you see, empty space is almost completely nothing until it is something. Some might argue, that goes against the second law of thermodynamics, I think not, were not creating substance out of nothing. The weight is there, substance volume just might not be yet.

I would say everything) without time. The evolution, or transition, is impossible without time. Unless your just saying there was time, then space restarted and from our perception time started when space restarted

.

There is no reason to dispute that what was before, is not any different than what is now, only in a different state of being.

Perhaps we have different definitions of 0 time frame. You say in a zero time frame everything is over Plank time ( an interval of time) and Plank space ( are you referring to Plank Length? A distance around 10^-33cm?) Based upon many topics the physics section, people would disagree that time is relative to the observer.

They must be students of Newton. Go down to National Scientific and buy two atomic clocks. You hold one under your arm and go have a snooze. :zzz:
Give the other to anybody you want and have him go on a airplane anywhere. Correlate the clocks so they are exactly the same time. When your friend gets back from his trip compare clocks. I guarantee they will not have the same time measured.

Your observations cannot be trusted. Your senses are not provable. I believe that is the conclusion Descartes came to. Only your thoughts can be proven. Because this does not help with science. We must work under the assumptions that our senses can be trusted.

Descartes is dead and we are not. We have theories and the functional world demonstrates they work, that’s why we do not walk into doors. Many things could not be accomplished if they were only unproven assumptions.

The only thing undefined is time.

Everything is definable in new terms, knowledge changes over time.

Space is still in the spatial dimension and consists of everything.

Substance defines spatial dimensions and has relationships in space. Nothing is also there in space. So there you have everything.

As soon as time exists, the material universe (space+time) could only exist where time exists. Thinking about it more brought me to another theory: Space was every where. If time came into existence everywhere, then gravity would pull everything into a single point. Then from there expand out. (BB). Which ever theory you choose: time existing only at a single point or everywhere at once, you get the same effect, the Bing Bang.

Tomorrow we will put it all aside and come up with something better than explains not only the now but the before.

 

[RingoKid]

space and time are only relative when an object has to travel from point A to point B.

This implies the object has to be different from the medium it is traveling in and the object has to be in motion.

Before our universe there was no object to differentiate from the medium. It didn't move cos there was no point a or b to move between to so it took no time to do this.

but the medium as an object itself still existed and still does.

 

[juju]

Hi,

If time is defined as a change, then no change means no time.

If time is defined as a progression of states, then time can still exist if their is no change. Here an unchanging state has an interval of duration in time.

If time is defined as A follows B, the first scenario above
leads to no time if A=B.

This is not true under the second scenario.

juju

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'll just add my two cents. I think it can be confusing to mix up terms used to describe physical phenomena and metaphysical ideas. Time is now pretty much exclusively a physical concept, so if we want to talk about time in another context we'd have to attach some prefix/suffix or additional word to time to distinguish it from physical time. Of course, some people even try to imbue physical time with miraculous qualities, such as when overly-imaginative thinkers like to dream that time is a physical dimension one can move around in.

Time is simply how we measure the rate of change of physical stuff. In Rader's atomic clock example, the rate of change is slowed for the airplane frame of reference relative to the Earthly frame of reference. But while the rate of physical change may be affected by factors such as movement, acceleration, and gravity, that is a different subject from if everything that exists is affected by those physical conditions.

In a thread I started about a year and a half ago PF I asked if in the famous Earth/traveling twin paradox if the twin who'd been raised on Earth, and then traveled in a frame of reference with a different rate of change than he was used to, would notice https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=1110. Everyone arguing from a purely physical perspective insisted that because all physical conditions on the traveling spaceship (including his own physiology) would appear normal, the traveling twin wouldn't notice.

However, if there is something about a human being which is constant and unchanging, and that part of us is the "heart" of our consciousness, then I asked if possibly that part of us wouldn't sense that the passing years seemed longer. Yes, he wouldn't be able to detect any physical irregularities, so he could never produce an objective proof; but the constant part of him that is always in contrast to ever-changing physical conditions might feel it.

There is no reason I can think of why consciousness must exist in time (i.e., within physical conditions). And, in fact, I do experience a part of me which seems impervious to change, something that everything else moves relative to. A great many others have reported this too, people who have made the effort to look inside.

One last point. Physical time is not just the rate of change, time also includes the fact that the rate of change is overall entropic -- it relentlessly marches toward disorder. Now, if consciousness is existentially independent of the body and all physical change, does that mean it never changes? Not necessarily. Look at how a healthy consciousness changes now inside the body: it learns. Learning is change, but it isn’t entropic change. So change without physical conditions that are deteriorating could be constructive, rather than destructive, and consequently make the evolving consciousness ever stronger, maybe even eternally so as some have suggested.

 

[Prometheus]

Time is really simply how we measure the rate of change of physical stuff.

I agree that your statement is simple. However, it is false. Time is not "how we measure" anything. Your usage is fairly simple, and completely misses the much more important point. Perhaps if you were to investigate modern physics ...

There is no reason I can think of why consciousness must exist in time (i.e., within physical conditions). And, in fact, I do experience a part of me which seems impervious to change, something that everything else moves relative to.

You say that you do, in fact, experience ... How do you know that it is a fact. Furthermore, what might you even mean. Nothing is imprevious to change, in my opinion, and I cannot imagine what you might mean.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I agree that your statement is simple. However, it is false. Time is not "how we measure" anything. Your usage is fairly simple, and completely misses the much more important point. Perhaps if you were to investigate modern physics ...

Time is not at measure of anything, eh? Maybe I better look elsewhere for someone to instruct me on the physics I need to “investigate” the meaning of time. What exactly do you think seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. are? What do you think a clock is but a measuring device? When we say “so much time has passed,” is it not expressed in units? To give us measuring units we rely on things that are cyclic, like the Earth’s movement around the Sun, or atomic cycles. Time is nothing but a measurement, pure and simple. Then, we can reflect on why "dimension" is used to describe time in physics. It is merely a metaphor which refers to the fact that the known three dimensions are inescapably bound up in an environment that's constantly changing overall from integration to disintegration, and whose rate of entropic change can be affected by certain circumstances.

To ponder those two integration-disintegration ideas further, we can see the Big Bang gave the universe its beginning (i.e., made it temporal), and so we assume that’s when time began for the universe. We can see everything physical is changing, and that it is changing toward disorganization (overall). If the universe keeps changing entropically, then it will “end” when all the universe’s order is gone. So what does happen in between the beginning and the end of the universe? Well, the universe is given duration by the structure of physicalness, but in the meantime, radiation, nuclear decay, universal expansion, etc. are overall disintegrating the universe -- that’s how much “time” we have left. Therefore time is really our observation of the rate of entropy.

Using that model we might also 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 order, 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.

Now if you want to pump even deeper meaning into it, then I suppose we can talk about what time means to us. I have only so many entropic events left in my body before I’m out of here, and I do see that as significant. I hate wasting time with so little of it left to me (especially at my age).

You say that you do, in fact, experience ... How do you know that it is a fact. Furthermore, what might you even mean. Nothing is impervious to change, in my opinion, and I cannot imagine what you might mean.

I don’t understand why you cannot imagine non-change, it isn’t that difficult to think about is it? But if you want to know what I mean, you might check out some of my threads (you can find that in my profile). I have written extensively on what can be found through the inner experience. A survey of history’s most successful meditators will confirm to you that many have reported there’s something at the root of existence unaffected by change.

In terms of how I “know.” I like to call myself an “experientialist” which simply means that one knows after one experiences something sufficiently. So if I say I know, it is because of experience, and nothing more (like beliefs, faith, pure logic, etc.). You will acknowledge, I’m sure, that there is a difference between what I know, and proving to others what I know. I know I feel happy right now, but you have no way of knowing that because it is happening inside me. If I tell you “I know” anything universal (to humans) that’s inside me, then you can only investigate if it is universally true if you look inside yourself. I say I know there is something unchanging in me, not subject to “time” (as defined), and I see it in others too now that I have experienced in me. Whether you know it, or will know it, depends on if you decide to try to experience it.

 

[Prometheus]

Time is not at measure of anything, eh?

I did not say that time is not a measure of anything. I said that time is not "how we measure". Time is much more that.

Maybe I better look elsewhere for someone to instruct me on the physics I need to “investigate” the meaning of time.

I agree. That is why I am offering you this opportunity. You certainly need not agree with me or accept it.

What exactly do you think seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. are? What do you think a clock is but a measuring device?

The difference between us, I believe, is that you are saying that time is nothing but a way to measure, whereas I say that time is far more fundamental than that. The ability to use time to measure space is due to the fundamental interaction between time and space, which you seem to deny exists.

Time is nothing but a measurement, pure and simple.

I agree that this is simple, as you say. This is very simplistic, in my opinion.

Then, we can reflect on why "dimension" is used to describe time in physics.

You deny that time has the most important of its meanings. Based on your misunderstanding, you then question why people use the word dimension in the context that you have denied it. Perhaps if you were to investigate the concept of dimensions further, you might realize that it does apply.

To ponder those two integration-disintegration ideas further, we can see the Big Bang gave the universe its beginning (i.e., made it temporal),

Speak for youself, and do not say "we" when speaking with me. I see no reason to accept this statement at all.

and so we assume that’s when time began for the universe.

Again you say we, as though you think that you are speaking for more than yourself. You are not.

We can see everything physical is changing, and that it is changing toward disorganization (overall).

I believe that this is a temporary phenomenon.

 

[RingoKid]

everything is a temporary phenomenon when defined by personal time, even in universal time.

time/motion causes change.

In multiversal time nothing is a constant it never changes. We change and move to accommodate it. The perfect nothing.

I think that's what the mayan calendar signifies with the end of the age of motion and the start of the age of light.

No longer will we accept that the light moves towards us perhaps we will see
the light for what it really is. Us projecting our consciousness towards the light both of which propagate in multiversal time and space.

 

[Rader]

I'll just add my two cents.I think it can be confusing to mix up terms used to describe physical phenomena and metaphysical ideas.

We seem to have no other choice, metaphysical ideas give birth to physical phenomena, that is the way we assume the world is at the present. Physics has no physical ideas priori to physcial phenomena. The physcial world is born of relationships not bricks.

Time is now pretty much exclusively a physical concept, so if we want to talk about time in another context we'd have to attach some prefix/suffix or additional word to time to distinguish it from physical time.

Is it?, let's examine this. Special Relativity does demonstrate to us, through our experience, funtional endevours, that are faltless and demand time and space to be unified. As time passes entropy increases. That describes the physical functionality of the macro world. At the micro world level, there is no entropy, time appears to be at standstill. Yet if you ask a physicist working on his particle accelerator, was there a particle or not? It was not always there. How can you have a particle if there is no time? By having a new theory to explain it. Quantum mechanics, shows us how and the machines that are designed from it, again have functionality. Time and space is still there even if it is a different set of relationships to explain it. We will attach a new prefix/suffix, like time is anytime and space is anywhere. OK so now we go all the way back to where we know nothing about our universe the BB, just before that initiates. We have no known evidence to believe something comes from nothing unless nothing was something. In fact virtual particles come from nothing which would have to be something since we experience just that. There is no evidence to suggest that either time or space or the laws that govern this world we live in are anything more than a priori existence in a state of which we do not know anything about yet. All these concepts unfold in a natural way due to specific verifiable and measureable anthropic fine tuning. So put a new prefix/suffix, intrinsic time and space in a limbo state. If there is any validity to your experience Les, this indicates just what I am saying. Now here is a question that maybe only you know what it means. How can you experience Essence and describe it as you have in a spatial way and timeless notion if it did not possesses these qualities?

 

[RingoKid]

Physics has no physical ideas priori to physical phenomena.

If this is true then therein lies the flaw in physics and the way it is taught as before spacetime at T= or < 0 there was no physical phenomena.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I did not say that time is not a measure of anything. I said that time is not "how we measure". Time is much more that.

It seems you are nitpicking. If you claim time is not how we measure, and I say time is a measure of things, that is essentially using time the same way (though our interpretations are in dispute). Just think with me for a second. What exactly do you believe brings about the concept of time in the human mind (and make no mistake, we invented the concept)? Probably most people get a notion of it as kids while they age, and as they watch things in their environment rot, wear out, disappear, die . . . and then some adult relates that to "time." The meaning is, those things had only so much "time" to exist or flourish.

If you are objecting that I want to measure the rate at which reality is disintegrating, okay then, let's not measure it. Now, tell me what time it is, how much time I have before dinner, how long I have to finish my test . . . What use is the concept of time if it has no standards or units by which to give us markers?

I agree. That is why I am offering you this opportunity. You certainly need not agree with me or accept it.

Opportunity for what? You said I should "investigate modern physics," implying you know something about physics which my characterization of time is in disagreement with. Okay, explain what you see I need to learn.

You are taking shots at my definition without giving me something to consider as an alternative. I am not a shallow person, I see there are deep things to existence, I don't think reality is all physical (no insult intended to physicalists), I believe there is "something more." But I just can't see time as one of the deep things unless you want to talk about what time means to a human life, or something similar.

I agree that this is simple, as you say. This is very simplistic, in my opinion.

Why confuse the issue of the human concept of time with reality we are observing losing its structural integrity? Why confuse the issue of the human concept of time with what it means to us to die? How things got organized and our reason for being alive is what is "much more than that," as you put it, not time itself. Time is ordinary (even if a bit tricky), why try to make it profound?

You deny that time has the most important of its meanings. Based on your misunderstanding, you then question why people use the word dimension in the context that you have denied it. Perhaps if you were to investigate the concept of dimensions further, you might realize that it does apply.

I have investigated it, and time is one of the very few areas of physics where I feel comfortable saying it is total nonsense to see time as an actual dimension of the sort where one can move around. The entire concept of a time dimension, beyond its usefulness as a realistic metaphor, has grown from imaginative thinking. It is science fiction, not science. It stemmed from the fact that the rate of time (entropy) can be slower than our current frame of reference, or faster than our current frame of reference. So some surmise that means if we can manipulate reality enough, we might go back or forward in time as though it is really a space dimension!

Think about the absurdity of it. If we could time travel, that means a complete universe would have to exist at every moment we travel through. Where is all that energy and matter going to come from to maintain all those universes? We can't even figure out where the stuff of this universe came from!

No, as Iacchus said, the past and future do not exist as real. Only the present exists, only the present has ever existed, and only the present will ever exist. Because the present includes incessant change, it means the present never stays the same, and that change from what it was to what it will be is what we think of as time passing.

Speak for youself, and do not say "we" when speaking with me. I see no reason to accept this statement at all. . . . Again you say we, as though you think that you are speaking for more than yourself. You are not.

The term "we" is just a grammer thing. Don't get hung up on it. It is mostly a way to not say "I," as well as to suggest there's some common agreement about where I apply the term "we."

I believe that this is a temporary phenomenon.

Okay, make your case. Are you just going to make statements without showing how it might be so? If you can't give direct evidence, can you at least provide some sort of facts from which one can infer that the physical universe is only temporarily headed for disorder? If you can't do either, then you are just speculating and so no different from anyone else who offers factless opinions.

You know, I don't mind at all being disputed if when you do it you show me where I went wrong, and/or why your view is better. Just labeling my views as wrong, simplistic and replacing them with your own unsupported opinions makes me kind of testy.

 

[Les Sleeth]

We seem to have no other choice, metaphysical ideas give birth to physical phenomena, that is the way we assume the world is at the present. Physics has no physical ideas priori to physcial phenomena. The physcial world is born of relationships not bricks.

Nice exchanging ideas with you again Radar.

I am not sure if you wrote what you mean. It sounds backward. Isn't it that observed physical phenomena have given birth to metaphysical ideas, such as physicalism? I agree the physical world is about relationships, but might you agree that we don't know if we see all the things involved in that relationship? With physicalism, for example, the assumption is that if the senses don't detect it, then it doesn't exist. So there actually is an a priori assumption there, even if it is, as you say, due to the [experience of] physical phenomena.

Is it?, let's examine this. Special Relativity does demonstrate to us, through our experience, funtional endevours, that are faltless and demand time and space to be unified. As time passes entropy increases. That describes the physical functionality of the macro world. At the micro world level, there is no entropy, time appears to be at standstill.

Hmmmmm, I don't think you are quite right there. What about radiation, nuclear decay, the prediction of the proton's eventual decay, the observed loss of energy in EM oscillation as the universe expands?

Yet if you ask a physicist working on his particle accelerator, was there a particle or not? It was not always there. How can you have a particle if there is no time? By having a new theory to explain it. Quantum mechanics, shows us how and the machines that are designed from it, again have functionality. Time and space is still there even if it is a different set of relationships to explain it. We will attach a new prefix/suffix, like time is anytime and space is anywhere. OK so now we go all the way back to where we know nothing about our universe the BB, just before that initiates. We have no known evidence to believe something comes from nothing unless nothing was something. In fact virtual particles come from nothing which would have to be something since we experience just that. There is no evidence to suggest that either time or space or the laws that govern this world we live in are anything more than a priori existence in a state of which we do not know anything about yet. All these concepts unfold in a natural way due to specific verifiable and measureable anthropic fine tuning. So put a new prefix/suffix, intrinsic time and space in a limbo state. If there is any validity to your experience Les, this indicates just what I am saying. Now here is a question that maybe only you know what it means. How can you experience Essence and describe it as you have in a spatial way and timeless notion if it did not possesses these qualities?

I probably agree with more than I disagree (I think ). Lately I've been trying to stay away from assigning any non-physical metaphysical significance to what has already been taken possession of by science thinkers. I am not saying that the change relationship described by "time" is all there is to existence. I am simply letting time stand for the rate of entropic change of physical stuff.

Regarding my inner experience, I do not think it is something physical I am experiencing. And while time might be a physical concept because we can see physical processes acting in time, spatial characteristics cannot yet be fully claimed by physics. There are physical aspects we can observe, but how do we know what is present in "space" that we can't see? In fact, those who've become accomplished at the inner experience have many times claimed there is an illumination there, undetected by the senses or mechanical machinery. So I don't see why an uncreated, forever existing Essence can't have spatial characteristics, and can at the same time be timeless. I simply see the shapes that Essence takes as temporary, not the Essence itself.

 

[Prometheus]

It seems you are nitpicking. If you claim time is not how we measure, and I say time is a measure of things, that is essentially using time the same way (though our interpretations are in dispute).

Not to me. You are saying that time is nothing more than a way to measure. I am disagreeing completely.

Just think with me for a second. What exactly do you believe brings about the concept of time in the human mind (and make no mistake, we invented the concept)?

Sorry, but I can't. You ask me to think with you for and second and believe that it is not mistake that we invented the concept. I could not disagree more. In my mind, you have a completel mistaken understanding of time. What do I think brings about the concept of time in the human mind? First and foremost, the existence of time in the universe. How about that? Time was not invented. Ways to measure time were recognized by mankind.

Probably most people get a notion of it as kids while they age,

Here we agree. As people evolve through time, or age, their greater experience with time gives them a notion of time, as you phrase it.

Now, tell me what time it is, how much time I have before dinner, how long I have to finish my test . . . What use is the concept of time if it has no standards or units by which to give us markers?

I am not denying your use of time. I am only stating that you are expressing superficial relationships that exist in time, and are missing the much more important and deeper picture.

You said I should "investigate modern physics," implying you know something about physics which my characterization of time is in disagreement with. Okay, explain what you see I need to learn.

Newtonian physics, where you seem to be stuck, recognizes time as a way to measure motion through space, and nothing more. In modern physics, time is much more. In the universe in its present state, all of space is bound up in time, as space-time. Space by itself, outside of the context of time, is not a meaningful or useful concept. Time is as fundamental to the structure of the universe as space. For you to eliminate the concept of time is to destroy any chance you have for understanding about the structure of the universe.

Why confuse the issue of the human concept of time with reality we are observing losing its structural integrity? Why confuse the issue of the human concept of time with what it means to us to die?

I don't know why you are doing so.

Time is ordinary (even if a bit tricky), why try to make it profound?

Your understanding of time is ordinary, and you do not want to make your understanding profound.

Do you not recognize that physicists talk about time as though it is much more than you claim? Do you not realize that your idea is way outside of common thought? Where do you get the basis for your idea?

I have investigated it, and time is one of the very few areas of physics where I feel comfortable saying it is total nonsense to see time as an actual dimension of the sort where one can move around.

Oh, you have investigated it. Well, that decides it. Wait. I have investigated it as well, as have all of the scientists who have investigated it. I am sorry, but I do not agree with your conclusion.

The entire concept of a time dimension, beyond its usefulness as a realistic metaphor, has grown from imaginative thinking. It is science fiction, not science.

I got it. Replace your word time with the word god. Now, you make sense. Perhaps you were just using an unusual wording. God is science fiction. Not right, but you are much closer now.

Think about the absurdity of it. If we could time travel,

Time travel into the future is unavoidable. Time travel into the past is not possible. I am not sure what you are saying or how it is relevant to the previous points.

Okay, make your case. Are you just going to make statements without showing how it might be so? If you can't give direct evidence, can you at least provide some sort of facts from which one can infer that the physical universe is only temporarily headed for disorder?

The universe is cyclic.

You know, I don't mind at all being disputed if when you do it you show me where I went wrong, and/or why your view is better. Just labeling my views as wrong, simplistic and replacing them with your own unsupported opinions makes me kind of testy.

Where did you come up with your idea, and what sort of investigation did you do, that would lead you to the idea that the concept of time in modern physics is wrong, and that instead that time is a meaningless concept invented by mankind?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Not to me. You are saying that time is nothing more than a way to measure. I am disagreeing completely.

Look, I am not saying that the time concept doesn't have a corresponding aspect in reality. But every reference to time in the real world is one of measurement, and that's because the concept was invented to represent the rate of something.

Sorry, but I can't. You ask me to think with you for and second and believe that it is not mistake that we invented the concept. I could not disagree more. In my mind, you have a completel mistaken understanding of time.

LOL! Who/what the heck do you think invented the concept? Rocks? Trees? Lizards? If humans didn't exist, would there be a concept of time?

What do I think brings about the concept of time in the human mind? First and foremost, the existence of time in the universe. How about that? Time was not invented. Ways to measure time were recognized by mankind.

I said entropic change was represented by the human mind with the concept of "time." The concept is totally different than the reality the concept strives to represent; we invented the concept not what time corresponds to in reality.

I am not denying your use of time. I am only stating that you are expressing superficial relationships that exist in time, and are missing the much more important and deeper picture.

Would you care to share what your concept of "deeper" is? Better yet, tell me what my model of time can't account for, and I will defend it. Send anything you please my way.

Newtonian physics, where you seem to be stuck, recognizes time as a way to measure motion through space, and nothing more. In modern physics, time is much more.

In the universe in its present state, all of space is bound up in time, as space-time. Space by itself, outside of the context of time, is not a meaningful or useful concept. Time is as fundamental to the structure of the universe as space.

I haven't disputed any of that, but so what? Why do you think that makes time profound? Still seems ordinary physics to me.

For you to eliminate the concept of time is to destroy any chance you have for understanding about the structure of the universe.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? I have NOT tried to eliminate the concept of time, and I DO think time is necessary to understand the structure of the universe (as I have stated a couple of times already). I merely have said that time isn't anything magical and, in fact, is quite ordinary.

Your understanding of time is ordinary, and you do not want to make your understanding profound.

That's right. I also ain't buying the miracle of the loaves and fishes as "profound." Assuming something cool happened with Jesus and the people there, then I think it was probably that everyone was very surprised to find out how much food people came up with when before that it appeared little food was present. Maybe the "miracle" was how everyone suddenly shared. Now that makes sense, but given the confirmable incidents of supernatural occurances on planet Earth, a miracle that reproduces lots of food from a little doesn't.

Same with time. My, experiences, and everyone else's you can cite, have been quite ordinary. If you don't want to believe in God, and want to make physics some big mystical thing with all kinds of miraculous things happening, then why not make time "profound."

Do you not recognize that physicists talk about time as though it is much more than you claim? Do you not realize that your idea is way outside of common thought? Where do you get the basis for your idea?

You might want to do a search of this site for all the threads started on time. It's a highly contemplated subject. You will find I am not the only one describing time as only a measurement, nor the only one turned off by attempts to make it just this side of magical.

Oh, you have investigated it. Well, that decides it. Wait. I have investigated it as well, as have all of the scientists who have investigated it. I am sorry, but I do not agree with your conclusion. . . . I got it. Replace your word time with the word god. Now, you make sense. Perhaps you were just using an unusual wording. God is science fiction. Not right, but you are much closer now.

I didn't say I was right, you are the one who in your first paragraph said I was "wrong" and then didn't feel the need to explain how/why I was wrong. And my view of time has nothing to do with the belief in god. As most people who know me know, I am not religious.

Time travel into the future is unavoidable. Time travel into the past is not possible. I am not sure what you are saying or how it is relevant to the previous points.

Unavoidable? Would you care to give evidence of that?

The universe is cyclic.

True, and that could mean it will recycle once its run down. I recognize the possibility. But right now there is nothing counterbalancing entropy. Wouldn't you agree? Few if any experts are willing to say the universe will for certain recycle. What makes you so sure?

Where did you come up with your idea, and what sort of investigation did you do, that would lead you to the idea that the concept of time in modern physics is wrong, and that instead that time is a meaningless concept invented by mankind?

See, you think I am saying something really contrary to science, but I am not (I hope). My way of describing time is completely derived from my understanding of science. There is change, overall change is entropic, entropic change is occurring at a pace, that pace can be altered by gravity, etc., pace is measured by cycles, time is represented in human concepts by cyclic data . . . I mean really, how far out in left field is any of that?

 

[Prometheus]

every reference to time in the real world is one of measurement, and that's because the concept was invented to represent the rate of something.

Before mankind was around, I assume that time had not been invented yet. Yet, the Earth still moved around the sun, and the sun still moved through the galaxy. Such movement required time, in my opinion. Do you disagree with this?

LOL! Who/what the heck do you think invented the concept? Rocks? Trees? Lizards? If humans didn't exist, would there be a concept of time?

I agree that it requires people in order for there to be a concept of time. Is that what you are arguing? Without people, there is still time, but no concept, as concepts are formulated by people.

The concept is totally different than the reality the concept strives to represent; we invented the concept not what time corresponds to in reality.

I agree with this.

Would you care to share what your concept of "deeper" is? Better yet, tell me what my model of time can't account for, and I will defend it. Send anything you please my way.

With your use of the word concept, I am not sure if you are saying that time is no more than measurement, or that the concept of time of most humans is no more than measurement. Time is as fundamental to the universe as space. All of space, now, is bound up with time. Does your model of time account for this?

I haven't disputed any of that, but so what? Why do you think that makes time profound? Still seems ordinary physics to me.

Ordinary, yes, yet profound in relation to the understanding that most people have.

You might want to do a search of this site for all the threads started on time. It's a highly contemplated subject. You will find I am not the only one describing time as only a measurement,

I agree.

Unavoidable? Would you care to give evidence of that?

Every second of every day, you move into your future. You cannot avoid it. Previously, you were young. Since over time you have moved into your future, you have now evolved to a point in your life where you weren't in the past.

Few if any experts are willing to say the universe will for certain recycle. What makes you so sure?

A fair question. I have accumulated quite a bit of evidence, which is sufficient to convince me. It is not easy to present the evidence here, and of course you would be under no obligation to accept it.

See, you think I am saying something really contrary to science, but I am not (I hope). My way of describing time is completely derived from my understanding of science. There is change, overall change is entropic, entropic change is occurring at a pace, that pace can be altered by gravity, etc., pace is measured by cycles, time is represented in human concepts by cyclic data . . . I mean really, how far out in left field is any of that?

I see that you place quite a bit of emphasis on cyclic data. If you place such emphasis on this cyclic data and on the cyclic nature of time, are you therefore open to the idea that the entire universe follows a similar cycle?

 

[Iacchus32]

In my opinion, time just kind of goes along for the ride, and wouldn't exist if, in fact there was no-thing to measure ... in relation to other things that is.

As far as time being a concept, time is exactly what it is (in essence), and the concept, no matter who or what came up with the patent, is merely acknowledging this.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Before mankind was around, I assume that time had not been invented yet. Yet, the Earth still moved around the sun, and the sun still moved through the galaxy. Such movement required time, in my opinion. Do you disagree with this?

True. I have acknowledge that the concept of time is related to something going on in reality.

I agree that it requires people in order for there to be a concept of time. Is that what you are arguing? Without people, there is still time, but no concept, as concepts are formulated by people.

It is partly what I am saying, but not quite. Without people's concepts there is something happening, and you can call it time, but what it is describing is what we are debating. I'll explain more below.

With your use of the word concept, I am not sure if you are saying that time is no more than measurement, or that the concept of time of most humans is no more than measurement. Time is as fundamental to the universe as space. All of space, now, is bound up with time. Does your model of time account for this?

Yes, I am saying time is a measurement, but I am also saying it is related to something going on in reality. Let me offer an analogy.

Say all that exists is an infinite ocean of water. This ocean has always existed and always will exist. The general, enduring condition of the ocean is one where everything is the same; it is homogeneous, blended, undifferentiated H20. But every once in awhile some spot freezes for awhile creating an ice world.

Okay, so one spot in the ocean does freeze into a large ice sphere, and then on the surface of the ice sphere little ice shapes form which are conscious they are bound up in ice. Now, the ice shapes observe the sphere they are part of and notice it is slowly melting; and they observe themselves and notice they are melting too. In a spot a zillion molecules away another ice world is melting too, but at a slower rate because the ocean is colder there. Somebody wants to know the relation of all things melting in the ocean. They find out how many crystals their world is made of, how many they themselves are made up of, and how many their world and they can lose before disappearing. They learn how to count ice crystals, measure temperature, and then can calculate the pace at which ice crystals will melt in a given situation. How do they decide pace? While the melting is going on, they observe waves in the ocean oscillating regularly, and they use that regularity to mark how often on average ice crystals in their region melt. They say, "every 100 oscillations, a crystal melts," and by that means keep track of the melting.

So there are two things -- there is the rate of melting and there is keeping track of the melting. In terms of space, since the ocean water represents that, as ice melts, then space increases; or if in an area of the ocean lots of ice worlds form, then there is less "space" in that spot. So yes there is an intimate relationship between space and the structured forms in it.

Every second of every day, you move into your future. You cannot avoid it. Previously, you were young. Since over time you have moved into your future, you have now evolved to a point in your life where you weren't in the past.

Now this, IMO, is exactly how people make the concept of time "mystical." There is no future! You are talking about time like it's some place or dimension or kingdom. All that exists is just so many entropic events (ice crystal meltings) left in the universe/your body. There is no past, there is only whatever structure that's been and what happened to it.

Don't you see that it's consciousness which is creating this "realm" of time. It is a conceptual "world," built from our imagination and our memory of events. But as an actual dimension, in physical reality it ain't there. There is structure, there is change, there is the fact that overall change is entropic, and there is the rate of change. That's it. Show me something more and I'll believe it.

I see that you place quite a bit of emphasis on cyclic data. If you place such emphasis on this cyclic data and on the cyclic nature of time, are you therefore open to the idea that the entire universe follows a similar cycle?

Sure, but if we are going to guess what will happen then as I said in another post, the fact that the universe's cycles are running down isn't exactly an indication it will keep recycling.

 

[Prometheus]

It is partly what I am saying, but not quite.

Les,

It is clear that you have given this a lot of thought. That is a good thing.

We are in significant disagreement, but that is not a bad thing.

I think that you should continue with your idea unless and until you find evidence that convinces you otherwise. It is clear that my arguments cannot supply sufficient evidence to do so. As well, my position is fixed to the point that it would require significant evidence to cause a shift. This forum seems to not provide us the opportunity to make sufficient points to do other than to spout our positions.

I appreciate your postings of your position and the fact that you hold it. I still do not consider that i can accept your position as my own. Perhaps we can continue this discussion later from other angles.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les,

It is clear that you have given this a lot of thought. That is a good thing.

We are in significant disagreement, but that is not a bad thing.

I think that you should continue with your idea unless and until you find evidence that convinces you otherwise. It is clear that my arguments cannot supply sufficient evidence to do so. As well, my position is fixed to the point that it would require significant evidence to cause a shift. This forum seems to not provide us the opportunity to make sufficient points to do other than to spout our positions.

I appreciate your postings of your position and the fact that you hold it. I still do not consider that i can accept your position as my own. Perhaps we can continue this discussion later from other angles.

Thanks for providing the opportunity for me to work out some of my developing thoughts on the subject of time. If it seems I came at you hard it was only because of your opening paragraphs where you seemed to think I had only thought about this superficially. Usually when I stick my neck out, I've thought about the subject somewhat.

As you wisely suggest, it might be best see what comes of our exchanges in future (which doesn't exist of course ) discussions.