Are we time itself? or does time happen around us?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Copperknickers
If they did, then clocks wouldn't show a different time when you looked at them again.
Anyone who isn't blind?
Anyone who isn't blind?
Do you think time always exists? No end of time? Do you believe in eternalism?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Time operates on us - we aren't time itself. As for the time machine, it would depend on how the time machine functioned. Since we don't know what is possible and what is not, we could equally envision two time machines - one in which the time inside was isolated, and one in which it was not.
Original post by skunkboy
Do you think time always exists? No end of time? Do you believe in eternalism?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
That's not relevant to the fact that time is happening right now. Maybe its linked with the size of the universe and is not entirely regular. But it is definitely not dependent on observers.
The whole discussion about time gets me more and more messed up the longer I think about it.
So far to me, time is the changing of information. I find it easiest to think about as if it's linear (to begin with), where every frame in a continuous timeline is slightly different from the next. Expanding on that, after every 'frame' the timeline branches off into what could be assumed an infinite amount of different timelines, ending up with an unimaginable amount of possible 'universes'. That's just the passing of time at one speed (excuse the use of the word speed, I can't think of a better one).
When it comes to timetravelling (at a rate of change of information different to our current reality, I'll call it 1rtu - relative time unit), according to our timeline it's as if you're 'skipping' frames, like how you would speed up a film. But in that other timeline that moves at for example 2rtu, everything seems normal, and the original timeline looks a lot slower. I'm just imagining this as a set of conveyor belts where one moves faster than the other.
So if we were to timetravel, we'd be on a completely different timeline to everything else.
People are discussing whether time is 'real' or not. I agree that the passing of time is an illusion but at the same time it's very real to OUR plane of reality (Referring to how we perceive it), whether or not time is different to other animals and everything else around us is an interesting question, because if time IS perceived differently to them then it'd explain why I can never hit that piece of **** goddamn fly. (Little bastard living at 2rtu)
Zooming out of reality and looking at the timelines (ignoring the infinite branching), they all seem to have direction, forwards. And yet at the view we are currently in, we can see both the before and after 'frames', the time exists, or at least what we call time, but we now see it as something stationary. The passing of time does not exist, but the time that we are viewing certainly does.
You could almost suggest that in our current position, time is still acting upon us, but at a different level, and as long as you have consciousness you can be sure that it exists (I defined time previously as the changing of information, which I'm assuming includes thought as information).
I have out frazzled my thoughts and I think I need a breath of fresh air.
So far to me, time is the changing of information. I find it easiest to think about as if it's linear (to begin with), where every frame in a continuous timeline is slightly different from the next. Expanding on that, after every 'frame' the timeline branches off into what could be assumed an infinite amount of different timelines, ending up with an unimaginable amount of possible 'universes'. That's just the passing of time at one speed (excuse the use of the word speed, I can't think of a better one).
When it comes to timetravelling (at a rate of change of information different to our current reality, I'll call it 1rtu - relative time unit), according to our timeline it's as if you're 'skipping' frames, like how you would speed up a film. But in that other timeline that moves at for example 2rtu, everything seems normal, and the original timeline looks a lot slower. I'm just imagining this as a set of conveyor belts where one moves faster than the other.
So if we were to timetravel, we'd be on a completely different timeline to everything else.
People are discussing whether time is 'real' or not. I agree that the passing of time is an illusion but at the same time it's very real to OUR plane of reality (Referring to how we perceive it), whether or not time is different to other animals and everything else around us is an interesting question, because if time IS perceived differently to them then it'd explain why I can never hit that piece of **** goddamn fly. (Little bastard living at 2rtu)
Zooming out of reality and looking at the timelines (ignoring the infinite branching), they all seem to have direction, forwards. And yet at the view we are currently in, we can see both the before and after 'frames', the time exists, or at least what we call time, but we now see it as something stationary. The passing of time does not exist, but the time that we are viewing certainly does.
You could almost suggest that in our current position, time is still acting upon us, but at a different level, and as long as you have consciousness you can be sure that it exists (I defined time previously as the changing of information, which I'm assuming includes thought as information).
I have out frazzled my thoughts and I think I need a breath of fresh air.
Original post by miser
Time operates on us - we aren't time itself. As for the time machine, it would depend on how the time machine functioned. Since we don't know what is possible and what is not, we could equally envision two time machines - one in which the time inside was isolated, and one in which it was not.
Time operates on us? I don't get it. Time is kinda like a surgeon and we...a patient?
I think a time machine is just marvellous imaginations on a piece of paper or movie screen. No one can invent such an imaginary thing. Why not? It's because time actually doesn't pass or flow! So there is no past or future time in reality. Only present time exists, I think. Someone said " Why does time pass so quickly (or slowly )? " That's just their feelings. You can call that... illusion.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Copperknickers
That's not relevant to the fact that time is happening right now. Maybe its linked with the size of the universe and is not entirely regular. But it is definitely not dependent on observers.
I don't think so. It is definitely dependent on an observer. If no observers, time is meaningless.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ruthless Dutchman
The whole discussion about time gets me more and more messed up the longer I think about it.
So far to me, time is the changing of information. I find it easiest to think about as if it's linear (to begin with), where every frame in a continuous timeline is slightly different from the next. Expanding on that, after every 'frame' the timeline branches off into what could be assumed an infinite amount of different timelines, ending up with an unimaginable amount of possible 'universes'. That's just the passing of time at one speed (excuse the use of the word speed, I can't think of a better one).
When it comes to timetravelling (at a rate of change of information different to our current reality, I'll call it 1rtu - relative time unit), according to our timeline it's as if you're 'skipping' frames, like how you would speed up a film. But in that other timeline that moves at for example 2rtu, everything seems normal, and the original timeline looks a lot slower. I'm just imagining this as a set of conveyor belts where one moves faster than the other.
So if we were to timetravel, we'd be on a completely different timeline to everything else.
People are discussing whether time is 'real' or not. I agree that the passing of time is an illusion but at the same time it's very real to OUR plane of reality (Referring to how we perceive it), whether or not time is different to other animals and everything else around us is an interesting question, because if time IS perceived differently to them then it'd explain why I can never hit that piece of **** goddamn fly. (Little bastard living at 2rtu)
Zooming out of reality and looking at the timelines (ignoring the infinite branching), they all seem to have direction, forwards. And yet at the view we are currently in, we can see both the before and after 'frames', the time exists, or at least what we call time, but we now see it as something stationary. The passing of time does not exist, but the time that we are viewing certainly does.
You could almost suggest that in our current position, time is still acting upon us, but at a different level, and as long as you have consciousness you can be sure that it exists (I defined time previously as the changing of information, which I'm assuming includes thought as information).
I have out frazzled my thoughts and I think I need a breath of fresh air.
So far to me, time is the changing of information. I find it easiest to think about as if it's linear (to begin with), where every frame in a continuous timeline is slightly different from the next. Expanding on that, after every 'frame' the timeline branches off into what could be assumed an infinite amount of different timelines, ending up with an unimaginable amount of possible 'universes'. That's just the passing of time at one speed (excuse the use of the word speed, I can't think of a better one).
When it comes to timetravelling (at a rate of change of information different to our current reality, I'll call it 1rtu - relative time unit), according to our timeline it's as if you're 'skipping' frames, like how you would speed up a film. But in that other timeline that moves at for example 2rtu, everything seems normal, and the original timeline looks a lot slower. I'm just imagining this as a set of conveyor belts where one moves faster than the other.
So if we were to timetravel, we'd be on a completely different timeline to everything else.
People are discussing whether time is 'real' or not. I agree that the passing of time is an illusion but at the same time it's very real to OUR plane of reality (Referring to how we perceive it), whether or not time is different to other animals and everything else around us is an interesting question, because if time IS perceived differently to them then it'd explain why I can never hit that piece of **** goddamn fly. (Little bastard living at 2rtu)
Zooming out of reality and looking at the timelines (ignoring the infinite branching), they all seem to have direction, forwards. And yet at the view we are currently in, we can see both the before and after 'frames', the time exists, or at least what we call time, but we now see it as something stationary. The passing of time does not exist, but the time that we are viewing certainly does.
You could almost suggest that in our current position, time is still acting upon us, but at a different level, and as long as you have consciousness you can be sure that it exists (I defined time previously as the changing of information, which I'm assuming includes thought as information).
I have out frazzled my thoughts and I think I need a breath of fresh air.
Actually time doesn't pass or flow. Time doesn't move. Time has no direction. Things that cause time move. Time is just a relationship between an observer, an observed object, speed, and length.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by skunkboy
Actually time doesn't pass or flow. Time doesn't move. Time has no direction. Things that cause time move. Time is just a relationship between an observer, an observed object, speed, and length.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Time does pass, time does have a direction because it's another dimension. Time is relative but it's fundamental in the universe. If you were to do undergraduate physics you'd know the ins and outs as to why this is.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by skunkboy
Time operates on us? I don't get it. Time is kinda like a surgeon and we...a patient?
That's not the kind of operate I meant. I meant "to produce an appropriate physical effect; to issue in the result designed by nature". See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operate
Original post by skunkboy
I think a time machine is just marvellous imaginations on a piece of paper or movie screen. No one can invent such an imaginary thing. Why not? It's because time actually doesn't pass or flow! So there is no past or future time in reality. Only present time exists, I think. Someone said " Why does time pass so quickly (or slowly )? " That's just their feelings. You can call that... illusion.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think you're quite right that our sensation of time passing 'quickly' or 'slowly' is illusory - we don't have anything at all to compare it with. If time moved quickly, it would feel just the same as if it moved 'slowly'. There's nothing to measure the speed of time with, except in terms relative to other locations in space.
However, when you say the past and future don't exist, I've seen no evidence for this. As it seems to me, the past and future are merely inaccessible to us, potentially in a way remedied by the exploitation of hitherto undiscovered physical laws. Whether we can travel in time depends almost entirely on this, and since we do not know the answer to it, we can't in good conscience decide that it's impossible.
Seems analogous to the tree falling and making a sound.
Frankly, a falling tree always makes a sound. Just like a human who dies, or sleeps, or generally has a moment where everything seems to happen quickly, is always subject to the same concept and reality of 'time'.
Time is the fact of the passage of existence as is known to be true and constant.
Also. Time travel is impossible. To suggest that you can travel to your past, is also implying that you can go to your future. Both are utterly paradoxical.
Consider this: If I invent a time machine, I could go to the past and teach an earlier age of man to build one. Then they could go back and teach an even earlier age. This could happen and loop infinitely. Human technological epochs would be brought closer and closer together. It would have already happened. If time travel were possible, we'd already know about it because of this, and existence would be reduced to a blip, which doesn't even make sense.
It's a nice thought-game but is quite obviously nothing more than a human-invented fanciful whim.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Frankly, a falling tree always makes a sound. Just like a human who dies, or sleeps, or generally has a moment where everything seems to happen quickly, is always subject to the same concept and reality of 'time'.
Time is the fact of the passage of existence as is known to be true and constant.
Also. Time travel is impossible. To suggest that you can travel to your past, is also implying that you can go to your future. Both are utterly paradoxical.
Consider this: If I invent a time machine, I could go to the past and teach an earlier age of man to build one. Then they could go back and teach an even earlier age. This could happen and loop infinitely. Human technological epochs would be brought closer and closer together. It would have already happened. If time travel were possible, we'd already know about it because of this, and existence would be reduced to a blip, which doesn't even make sense.
It's a nice thought-game but is quite obviously nothing more than a human-invented fanciful whim.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by skunkboy
Actually time doesn't pass or flow. Time doesn't move. Time has no direction. Things that cause time move. Time is just a relationship between an observer, an observed object, speed, and length.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick question what dimension are you referring from? I said that outside our dimension time can be seen as the difference between two 'timeframes'. A line of timeframes generates a 'structure' with direction.
The passing of time is an experience of time described in our native dimension.
It's not so much that moving objects cause time, because ultimately stationary objects still appear in each timeframe, do they disappear out of existence? Are you suggesting temperature is now a factor that affects time?
Your final definition of time is back in the dimension where you can visualise time as a structure with each timeframe visible.
Have you considered stepping back further outside this dimension, where time in this dimension, is as negligible as distance in the time dimension? That's a conversation for a different thread.
Original post by skunkboy
I don't think so. It is definitely dependent on an observer. If no observers, time is meaningless.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And besides, as I said before, it is meaningful so long as there is an observer at any point: are you saying it was meaningless for 13 billion years until animals came along and observed it? I think that even if it is only observed once, all the preceding expanse of time to the point where it is observed becomes meaningful.
Original post by JohnPaul_
Time does pass, time does have a direction because it's another dimension. Time is relative but it's fundamental in the universe. If you were to do undergraduate physics you'd know the ins and outs as to why this is.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It seems to me that you're completely sure about what you know of time. So could you give me the evidence showing time does pass and does have a direction? Can you just give me a good simple example? How does time pass? How does time have direction?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ruthless Dutchman
Quick question what dimension are you referring from? I said that outside our dimension time can be seen as the difference between two 'timeframes'. A line of timeframes generates a 'structure' with direction.
The passing of time is an experience of time described in our native dimension.
It's not so much that moving objects cause time, because ultimately stationary objects still appear in each timeframe, do they disappear out of existence? Are you suggesting temperature is now a factor that affects time?
Your final definition of time is back in the dimension where you can visualise time as a structure with each timeframe visible.
Have you considered stepping back further outside this dimension, where time in this dimension, is as negligible as distance in the time dimension? That's a conversation for a different thread.
The passing of time is an experience of time described in our native dimension.
It's not so much that moving objects cause time, because ultimately stationary objects still appear in each timeframe, do they disappear out of existence? Are you suggesting temperature is now a factor that affects time?
Your final definition of time is back in the dimension where you can visualise time as a structure with each timeframe visible.
Have you considered stepping back further outside this dimension, where time in this dimension, is as negligible as distance in the time dimension? That's a conversation for a different thread.
1. I have been talking about time in the 3-d universe . Imagining higher dimensions is far beyond my ability, really.
2. Yeah, time in different dimensions can be quite different. 100 yrs in our dimension may become just 1 day in another higher dimension.
3. Who defines time, do you think? God or human beings? Things in the universe are directly or indirectly related to each other. So moving objects and temperature can affect time. If the sun gets hotter and bigger,do you think that would change the way the earth moves around it? And that would affect time in the world?
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by skunkboy
1. I have been talking about time in the 3-d universe . Imagining higher dimensions is far beyond my ability, really.
2. Yeah, time in different dimensions can be quite different. 100 yrs in our dimension may become just 1 day in another higher dimension.
3. Who defines time, do you think? God or human beings? Things in the universe are directly or indirectly related to each other. So moving objects and temperature can affect time. If the sun gets hotter and bigger,do you think that would change the way the earth moves around it? And that would affect time in the world?
Posted from TSR Mobile
2. Yeah, time in different dimensions can be quite different. 100 yrs in our dimension may become just 1 day in another higher dimension.
3. Who defines time, do you think? God or human beings? Things in the universe are directly or indirectly related to each other. So moving objects and temperature can affect time. If the sun gets hotter and bigger,do you think that would change the way the earth moves around it? And that would affect time in the world?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Oh of course we've defined time, and as always it's in relation to the perspective of whoever. I guess I understand what you mean by "would time exist without humans", by the fact that we have defined time as a mean of differentiating 'now' from 'tomorrow' and 'yesterday', whereas with animals it's likely it's something they are not concerned about. We've defined time, yes, as we've defined the duration of time in accordance to our orbit around the sun and the how long it takes to get from one morning to the next. Our definition of time has become more rigid when applying it to radioactive atom decay.
Of course you are correct in that a change in the earth's orbit would change our perception of time and seconds and days would not be as we know them now.
As for the rest of unobserved space, we know that things such as stars and planets have not been made at the same instance, this event difference we call time but again it is a human definition to differentiate events.
You could say consider a drifting colony in space, no star or planet to orbit and so the concept of day and night is unknown to them. Yet I'm sure that if they are conscious to the fact that something happened 'before', then there must be some way of defining how long ago? It's only a thought though, I'll admit I wouldn't know how to define time, or how to quantify it without SOME point of reference.
Original post by miser
That's not the kind of operate I meant. I meant "to produce an appropriate physical effect; to issue in the result designed by nature". See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operate
I think you're quite right that our sensation of time passing 'quickly' or 'slowly' is illusory - we don't have anything at all to compare it with. If time moved quickly, it would feel just the same as if it moved 'slowly'. There's nothing to measure the speed of time with, except in terms relative to other locations in space.
However, when you say the past and future don't exist, I've seen no evidence for this. As it seems to me, the past and future are merely inaccessible to us, potentially in a way remedied by the exploitation of hitherto undiscovered physical laws. Whether we can travel in time depends almost entirely on this, and since we do not know the answer to it, we can't in good conscience decide that it's impossible.
I think you're quite right that our sensation of time passing 'quickly' or 'slowly' is illusory - we don't have anything at all to compare it with. If time moved quickly, it would feel just the same as if it moved 'slowly'. There's nothing to measure the speed of time with, except in terms relative to other locations in space.
However, when you say the past and future don't exist, I've seen no evidence for this. As it seems to me, the past and future are merely inaccessible to us, potentially in a way remedied by the exploitation of hitherto undiscovered physical laws. Whether we can travel in time depends almost entirely on this, and since we do not know the answer to it, we can't in good conscience decide that it's impossible.
You're quite right, mod. I shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that it's impossible to build a time machine. The unknown are still unknown. Scientists still don't know a lot about dark matter or energy, or consciousness.
Sir Isaac Newton says " I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
Newton just found a pretty shell or a smooth pebble on the seashore. But how many prettier shells or smoother pebbles are there on the seashores or in the great oceans before us?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ruthless Dutchman
Oh of course we've defined time, and as always it's in relation to the perspective of whoever. I guess I understand what you mean by "would time exist without humans", by the fact that we have defined time as a mean of differentiating 'now' from 'tomorrow' and 'yesterday', whereas with animals it's likely it's something they are not concerned about. We've defined time, yes, as we've defined the duration of time in accordance to our orbit around the sun and the how long it takes to get from one morning to the next. Our definition of time has become more rigid when applying it to radioactive atom decay.
Of course you are correct in that a change in the earth's orbit would change our perception of time and seconds and days would not be as we know them now.
As for the rest of unobserved space, we know that things such as stars and planets have not been made at the same instance, this event difference we call time but again it is a human definition to differentiate events.
You could say consider a drifting colony in space, no star or planet to orbit and so the concept of day and night is unknown to them. Yet I'm sure that if they are conscious to the fact that something happened 'before', then there must be some way of defining how long ago? It's only a thought though, I'll admit I wouldn't know how to define time, or how to quantify it without SOME point of reference.
Of course you are correct in that a change in the earth's orbit would change our perception of time and seconds and days would not be as we know them now.
As for the rest of unobserved space, we know that things such as stars and planets have not been made at the same instance, this event difference we call time but again it is a human definition to differentiate events.
You could say consider a drifting colony in space, no star or planet to orbit and so the concept of day and night is unknown to them. Yet I'm sure that if they are conscious to the fact that something happened 'before', then there must be some way of defining how long ago? It's only a thought though, I'll admit I wouldn't know how to define time, or how to quantify it without SOME point of reference.
Okay, do you think viruses and bacteria can experience time? They can be aware of it? Just curious.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by skunkboy
Okay, do you think viruses and bacteria can experience time? They can be aware of it? Just curious.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I doubt they'd be aware of it, then again, I have no idea whether or not there is a consciousness within a bacterium or virus any more complex than white blood cells and antibodies.
Maybe a culture of bacteria is more cultured than we thought and they have a more precise method of measuring their experience of time?
tl;dr: I have no clue whatsoever. I'm going to say yes for the novelty of cultured bacteria and viruses with berets.
Original post by Ruthless Dutchman
I doubt they'd be aware of it, then again, I have no idea whether or not there is a consciousness within a bacterium or virus any more complex than white blood cells and antibodies.
Maybe a culture of bacteria is more cultured than we thought and they have a more precise method of measuring their experience of time?
tl;dr: I have no clue whatsoever. I'm going to say yes for the novelty of cultured bacteria and viruses with berets.
Maybe a culture of bacteria is more cultured than we thought and they have a more precise method of measuring their experience of time?
tl;dr: I have no clue whatsoever. I'm going to say yes for the novelty of cultured bacteria and viruses with berets.
Lol, here are Martin Heidegger's quotes concerning time.
Quote 1
Time is not a thing, thus, nothing which is, and yet it remains constant in its passing away without being something temporal like the beings in time.
Quote 2
Time-space as commonly understood, in the sense of the distance measured between two time-points, is the result of time calculation.
Quote 3
True time is four-dimensional.
Quote 4
We do not say: Being is,time is,but rather: there is being and there is time.
Quote 5
We name time when we say: everything has its time. This means: everything which actually is, every being comes and goes at the right time and remains for a time during the time allotted to it. Everything has its time.
According to the quotes, I think there is time around us..everywhere. Also,we are time itself. Why? Because our bodies have their own time,right? Every particle inside our bodies always moves,which causes distance and time, right? What do you think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by skunkboy
Okay, do you think viruses and bacteria can experience time? They can be aware of it? Just curious.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Do the atoms that make up viruses experience time? Yes. Viruses move. They have a velocity. Therefore time must pass.
Are they aware of the time passing? No. Probably not.
There's a distinction to be drawn between experiencing time and being aware of time. They are two completely different things. You can experience time without being aware of it. This happens every night when you go to sleep.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Idea award silver work resolution code
- How best to approach
- TW: Eating disorder thoughts getting worse
- Is My Fiction Any Good?
- Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England
- How to get someone back?
- Higher Arabic Edexcel GCSE- Speaking test
- starting a new job dilemma
- Durham Sutton Trust Summer School
- Predictions of A level classical civilisation 2023
- Gf got spiked on holiday
- I am so worried about AI
- How does debt system work within Universities?
- When would be the earliest I could move into accommodation?
- How can I send PM's on TSR as a new member?
- Is My Fiction Any Good?
- Did I hurt her?
- please help with my degree
- I need help - does my friend still want to be friends with me?
- Prioritising university courses and living with my soulmate...
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
