Time Doesn't Exist

[int]

A few of us were having a little chat on IRC the other day.

One person (not me ;) ) was of the opinion that time is nothing more than an "idea" we use and everything is measurable.

This is an idea I've toyed around with as well. Sure, you can factor in x amount of dimensions, but it seems to complicate the issue and I'm a subscriber to the KISS line of thought (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

So what is time, other than a human interest story?

[file cabinet]

this is the IRC discussion int is referring to:
http://www.intpcentral.com/irc2/time_travel.html
Unforunately, I wasn't able to save it to be nicely formatted.. oh well.

this post updated Thu Nov 17 19:32:33 CST 2005 to fix broken link

[Utopmk]

It is the process of things falling apart.
There I conclude that it is a physical process, indeed.
Therefore, it exists.

[jittus rye]

Hmm, That isn't all of the log, it was a lot longer than that. I think we changed subjects then changed back. But anyways utopmk, I think that the process of things falling apart is more related to energy than time. Because energy allows living things, and non living things to generate wear and tair (tear?) on their structure, down to molecular form. If physical things lacked any kenetic energy in a vaccum, such as space, then they would not change or age at all.

[MacGuffin]

And just like my chemistry and engineering classes, it all comes back to entropy.

[Utopmk]

Time is the measurment of the "energy" that makes things fall apart.
A live documentation of an energy which must exist.

[jittus rye]

So if time is only a measurement, then it isn't physical, and can't be affected by gravity, and time travel isn't possible ^_^.

[Utopmk]

Well in that case you would have to work with the idea of energy, instead of time. If you could manipulate this energy, you might find yourself in a different time.

[Johnny]

Kant claims that time is just one of the necessary concepts that we use to achieve our understanding of the scientific world. Without time, there is no scientific understanding, regardless of its pace in relation to other moving bodies.

Pretty neat idea, and he would also claim that time travel is a fantasy, that a time machine does not interrupt the progression of time itself.

[Claverhouse]

Time travel is not possible, let alone desirable ( although one may say that undergoing the duration of time normally is a form of one-way time-travel anyway ), simply because all the molecules that compose you, composed, or will compose, something other at any other time.

Therefore, unless you are talking of going as pure insubstantial mind merely to survey rather than interact, the bits that form you were or will be already there, and not available to form your body.


Claverhouse :ph34r: :D

[Strephonade]

What about teleportation? If time can be measured in a physical sense, what happens to a particle that can move from one place to another in an instant or less?

[Claverhouse]

The particles that make up your thumb, would be particles making up either grass, say, or earth, or some living creature etc. Everything is reused: so the particle couldn't be used twice in the same time/space slice.

As for teleportation, that theoretically would be moving particles through the dimension of space, not time. Not that any of us have ever seen a teleportation device or are going to, outside SF: Douglas Adams pointed out the disadvantages of even small bits getting mixed up in the Hitchhiker's Guide.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Strephonade]

Well, I agree that everything is comprised of particles, and that everything is comprised of the same particles in various arrangements. Zooming infinitely closer, we can see that the particles have particles, which behave in some rather strange ways--I think it is actually possible in quantum mechanics to have a particle in two places simultaneously, or states of particles (correct me if I am wrong, though).

If we consider our existence on this plane, and our perception of things in this plane to be confined to this expanse, then our perception of time would be shaped, if you will, by the same expanse. So let us fold this plane. A bug walking across a leaf walks the same distance, in a certain length of time. A bug that encounters a folded leaf, makes a small hole, and burrows through, crosses the same expanse in less time, quite easily. Now, what if these bugs are particles, or states of particles, and the leaf is this plane of existence?

Not long ago, there was an article in news about a group of scientists who were able to get a particle state to do exactly this--to disappear from one spot, and reappear instantaneously in another, without traversing the space in between.


Here is the article: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3811785.stm)

[jittus rye]

Wow that really is teleportation. The particle only exsisted once though, like claverhouse said, and I don't think the same techniques could be applied when trying to get atoms or molecules to teleport, let alone cells or multicellular organisms. That is certainly something of great potentional though, the whole particle teleportation thing. Perhaps it coverts to energy or is actually appearing to be in a certain place when it isn't, or perhaps they made a sub atomic particle, and lost one. I don't know. Do they?

[SensEye]

Count me in with the time doesn't exist crowd. I always thought of it as a measurement of motion, but utopmk's term energy is perhaps more comprehensive.

As per usual, I am bemused that the crowd at this forum seems to share similar thoughts. :blink:

[Star Cannon]

We dream and yet we sense no "time". We are awake, and we feel the passage of 'age'. We antrophy. but the world around us seemingly does not. Does that make time? I don't believe so. I think that the world around us, since it does not antrophy AS FAST, was the cause of a notion of time.

Time cannot be sequence, for we dream in sequence. Time cannot be events, because Time itself it not a cause. It is not a verp, it is not an adjective. It is a notion. A noun. A notion.

Time does not exist in the mind. It can be felt but that is the job of the senses. The mind can read the data sent in by the senses and it can conclude based on it. However, Time, for the mind, is an external association for the senses. And therefore it cannot exist where things are not physical. Therefore Time does not exist. It is simply an illusion of the senses.

Star Cannon

[Melody]

If you consider the theory of relativity (a silly name, because relativity is completely practical,) you notice that time and space are intertwined. There is nothing majestic about it. After you see the reasoning and the equations, you smack yourself in the head and wonder why you never noticed relativity yourself. If there is no space, you cannot say, "It took me two hours to get there."

Anyway, I do not think there is such a thing as space or time or even dimension. I think distance and time are what we observe is there, but they are not what is actually there. As for dimension, I doubt the most basic element--whatever it may be--has any respect whatsoever for our notions of analysis. That is, I think existence gets a big woody every time someone says "3D" and "space" and "time" because it does not have to worry about us figuring out that dimensions are meaningless. Existence probably masturbates after this and says, "Man, are those motherfuckers on the wrong track!"

Relatedly, something many people do not take note of is that math is abstract. It is our creation. It is not even close to reality, just a human tool for analysis. :D

I think at its most basic level, existence is a dimensionless something.

[int]

And if not dimensionless, always something (and I count energy as something, as it is not a nothing).

[Melody]

Yeah, energy is definitely something.

E = mc^2 is an equation from relativity. Again, I state that relativity is practical. This equation is not magical. It has been proven, etc. Anyway, it is an equation, and in the physical reality, mass and energy can be exchanged according to the proportion it states (c^2.) You may have heard that nuclei of some atoms are actually lighter than the sum of their component particles. They lose mass into the energy required to hold them together (or something like that, I do not remember specifically.)

However, I am going to be insane again and say that energy and mass are also things that we observe, but are not actually real. It is a little hard to explain how I view existence, but it is something like, "Forget all the things we observe, because they all high-level constructs. This goes for spacetime, mass, energy, causality, logic -- everything. Forget them all. Put these concepts in the trash can and throw it out the window. They are too complex. The absolute truth is much, much simpler." I guess I am talking about something like "The Theory of Everything."

[paladinoflunaria]

I'd say time doesn't exist- it is just an idea. Even spatial dimensions are crap. Just look at Hilbert-space.

[Crazy]

Time is simply the measurement of linear events. An interpretation of the distance on a linear plane between events. It is an invention of the human species. From this, we form a basis for other types of measurement, such as speed. It is a notional standard. it is invented by us just as size, distance, weight, speed, etc. are. The are just terms to describe our experiences. They are all concepts of reality. Reality itself is a concept held by each person differently.

[Mealz]

I like your ideas melody, they are fascinating!

Your e=mc^2 thoughts seem right to me (been doing fission and fusion in physics)

Its plain that mass and energy are related, I believe gravity and time are too. I also have some religious theories tied up with gravity (therefore mass, therefore energy) and time.

I also tend to agree that all our concepts of reality are quite poor, grossly simplified models of the truth that we only accept as truth because they are our only means of rationalising our observations.

[Melody]

:D

I was reading some book, and its explanation of mass is that it is energy, in a form that resists motion.

neaty stuff

[Xenophon]

Here is a new twist on this conversation. I was having a discussion with a friend about entropy generation. I think it was steven hawking who said that entropy defines the direction of time. Since entropy is the natural by-product of energy usage, you could say that energy usage defines the direction of time.

I am a big fan of logical wholes, and so I was thinking: Maybe time can be completely defined as energy usage. If there was no energy being expended in the universe, it would not be a big leap to say that no time was passing. Of course this is ridiculous, because any mass that is not at a temperature of absolute zero is expending energy through radiation.

I don't have any more reason to think that energy expenditure is time, but I would like to bring up a few interesting consequences. The biggest difference between our present society and those of the past is the enormous amount of energy that we use. In "The Hydrogen Economy", Jeremy Rifkin says that on average we each use 46 times the energy that one person produces daily. Is it just a coincidence that everything is speeding up, or is the increased pace of life on earth a by-product of the increased energy usage that we enjoy?

[Sackanaka]

Yeah, energy is definitely something.

E = mc^2 is an equation from relativity. Again, I state that relativity is practical. This equation is not magical. It has been proven, etc. Anyway, it is an equation, and in the physical reality, mass and energy can be exchanged according to the proportion it states (c^2.) You may have heard that nuclei of some atoms are actually lighter than the sum of their component particles. They lose mass into the energy required to hold them together (or something like that, I do not remember specifically.)

However, I am going to be insane again and say that energy and mass are also things that we observe, but are not actually real. It is a little hard to explain how I view existence, but it is something like, "Forget all the things we observe, because they all high-level constructs. This goes for spacetime, mass, energy, causality, logic -- everything. Forget them all. Put these concepts in the trash can and throw it out the window. They are too complex. The absolute truth is much, much simpler." I guess I am talking about something like "The Theory of Everything."You may all hate me for this and I'm not wearing my flame-retardant ego, but I tend to take the concept of time not existing in the direction of Melody. After analyzing the physical world so much, trying to make sense of it, I realize that everything can be considered only as real as I perceive it. This of course takes into account that it is stupid to go about life denying all that is physical, since that would pretty much make me weird (not that weird is a bad thing, but being connected to others for potential is good). The point? The theory of everything: Zen.

[Sackanaka]

On another hand, my thoughts on time/physicalness went pretty extreme late in my physics class. I thought, "well if matter moves and can be broken down into energy, and energy fluctuates as a function of time, what if everything was made of "little packets of time" that just existed?

[Aryan]

I think perception involves giving system attributes and classifying system according to those attributes
Time is also just an attribute
It doesn't matter whether it exists or not
It is just an intuitive tool that helps us to classify different systems with respect to this attribute

[Claverhouse]

I think perception involves giving system attributes and classifying system according to those attributes
Time is also just an attribute
It doesn't matter whether it exists or not
It is just an intuitive tool that helps us to classify different systems with respect to this attribute

You might find it rather difficult to exist without the process.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Aryan]

You might find it rather difficult to exist without the process.


Time is an intuitive tool, if it hadnt existed and we were using some other intuitve tool, we would still have existed anyway ;P

[Almaviva]

For an hour yesterday, I had actually convinced myself that time existed.

[INTrPosr]

Kant claims that time is just one of the necessary concepts that we use to achieve our understanding of the scientific world. Without time, there is no scientific understanding, regardless of its pace in relation to other moving bodies.

That would be close to how I would explain the theory. Moreso, time like anything else is man's feeble attempt to harness nature by categorizing and naming it. Wait a minute, that sounds like Keirsey's description of the INTP, and Beren's description of Ti.

[Google Monster]

I agree that time doesn't exist as a rule for the universe.

[Boneca]

I've been thinking about time a lot lately, I admit to having a problem with it. I have realised that time requires change. Because if nothing changes, there is no way of measuring time.
Also, if things would change but then always go back to the previous state, then time would be cyclical, not linear.
Therefore, I draw the conclusion that our notion of time as something absolute is wrong.

Reading this thread, I must say that I really like your notion of time as a simple measurement of entropy, i.e. really a measure of energy.

I have a feeling that everything is ultimately energy, we just perceive it in different ways.

[Google Monster]

The present can't be observed so it makes sense that observers would believe that time exist.

[last_caress]

Time travel is not possible, let alone desirable ( although one may say that undergoing the duration of time normally is a form of one-way time-travel anyway ), simply because all the molecules that compose you, composed, or will compose, something other at any other time.

Therefore, unless you are talking of going as pure insubstantial mind merely to survey rather than interact, the bits that form you were or will be already there, and not available to form your body.


Claverhouse :ph34r: :D

Good argument, but I'm not totally convinced that things would behave as such, since we in my opinion don't have nearly enough information about how time works let alone the complete laws of physics.
What about this (provided time is linear)?
You travel back in time, but the present reality is already a result of your trip back. In other words, what you do during your trip was determined in the past. You appeared in the past first and were born later.

[Boneca]

What about this (provided time is linear)?
You travel back in time, but the present reality is already a result of your trip back. In other words, what you do during your trip was determined in the past. You appeared in the past first and were born later.
Ugh, I had a long and heated discussion about this once. :banghead:
I think that scenario proves that time travel is not possible if time is linear (as most people tend to see it). Unless perhaps you have a totally deterministic world view, then you could always say that fate pre-twisted your timeline for you.

[last_caress]

Ugh, I had a long and heated discussion about this once. :banghead:
I think that scenario proves that time travel is not possible if time is linear (as most people tend to see it). Unless perhaps you have a totally deterministic world view, then you could always say that fate pre-twisted your timeline for you.


I believe it's probably not possible personally.
However I felt that I should present this possibility in response to a post proposing impossibility.
Who's to say the universe isn't deterministic?
Apparently random particle behavior may governed by something we have not discovered yet.
Than again maybe it is random.
Personally I will reserve judgement until more conclusive data comes to light.

[songbird36]

I think that time is essentially a manmade construct - designed to impose a semblance of order on a chaotic universe. It gives us a reference point for events - both in the past and future.

Whether it has some kind of intrinsic existence that is capable of objective definition, I seriously doubt.

I also agree that if the trillions of cells in our bodies are in fact dying and being replaced every micro second of our existence (so that our entire body is replaced every 9 days or so), the idea of travelling back or forward in time makes no sense. We cannot wind back a process of death that has already occurred in our body.

If on the other hand we do have a soul or spirit, or some other sort of incorporeal existence, it seems possible that this could transcend space and time limitations. In what way I'm not sure, but it's an interesting possibility to think about.

[mgb]

I'll probably be eaten alive here because I haven't taken physics anything for 10 years.

When we talk in term of time being linear I got to thinking that space is too. We live in the x,y,z axis. Movement on those axis is not limited. When we introduce the fourth dimension it should theorhetically be able to go back and forth on that axis, while at the same time moving anywhere on the x,y,z axis.

I really have no clue how you would accomplish any of that. I mean, I know just by being I am moving forward on the x axis and taking a step backwards puts me in the same position, I really couldn't tell you how you manipulate time in the same way.

Also, time isn't a constant across the universe. If it indeed shifts (or our perception of it) then it is not static. Which makes time oddly enough like the truth, only known at certain places and certain times under certain conditions.

I guess the only proof that time doesn't exist that we have is that we can't manipulate it.

[mgb]

Time travel is not possible, let alone desirable ( although one may say that undergoing the duration of time normally is a form of one-way time-travel anyway ), simply because all the molecules that compose you, composed, or will compose, something other at any other time.

Therefore, unless you are talking of going as pure insubstantial mind merely to survey rather than interact, the bits that form you were or will be already there, and not available to form your body.


Claverhouse :ph34r: :D

That's really interesting. I wonder if you went back in time if those particles that make you up would get pulled from where they are to make you or if they would pull you apart to go back to their pre/post-you source. If you pull them away does that mean that someone travelling through time could potentially pull your particles away to make up their own.

[mgb]

Time travel is not possible, let alone desirable ( although one may say that undergoing the duration of time normally is a form of one-way time-travel anyway ), simply because all the molecules that compose you, composed, or will compose, something other at any other time.

Therefore, unless you are talking of going as pure insubstantial mind merely to survey rather than interact, the bits that form you were or will be already there, and not available to form your body.


Ok, this one kept me up last night.

We live in a 3 dimensional world. The x,y,z axis. We assume that this axis runs along a line, so to speak, that is time. Time travel isn't possible because as Claverhouse points out we will become disassembled. That requires the idea that to go back in time (or forward) we are rewinding, so that the particles that created us go back to whence they came.

What if we look at it this way. If you are at 1,1,1 on the x,y,z axis and you go to 2,2,2 (walking biking whatever) to get back to 1,1,1 you don't have to reverse you could take some sort of cirlce root through 3,3,3 then -1,-1,-1, however you do it. The route is different so you aren't rewinding but you do end up back at the same spot.

So going back in time wasn't so much rewinding back to a certain spot but taking a different route there so that you are still you, just back in time.

What if time had more than one dimension? Rather than one line, what if time was 3 dimensional? I picture this looking like a smaller bubble (expressing the x,y,z axis as a sphere) inside the much larger bubble of time. In that way you could move around in your x,y,z coordinates without going backwards and also your xt,yt,zt (lets call them) without things seeming to rewind. If looked at like this the particles that compose you would not split apart. They would exist at a certain time and place (that gives them an x,y,z xt,yt,zt coordinate) but that is the time they exist that way. So you could argue that two minutes later (even if that two minutes later person goes back to visit two minutes before person) the particles are actually different particles now.

In that case time truly does exist and could be easily manipulated (had we the understanding).

To be honest, I can't back any of this up let alone prove it with "math" but I just thought it might be interesting.

[Network Alchemy]

like the theory of infinite universes which all exist frozen like a lattice where each universe is surrounded by those which are closest to it so that by this theory we only exist in instants but the universe is different than commonly thought as relativity has shown and in particular neither time nor space are absolute quantities in a way that every entity will agree about them and there are no x y z t coordinates which are something like an artists guidelines designed to fit into a mathematical framework for humans an opinion i am sure descartes will forgive me for so a lattice of universes would likely not be populated by a temporal index

[cuspuser]

Count me in with the time doesn't exist crowd. I always thought of it as a measurement of motion, but utopmk's term energy is perhaps more comprehensive.

As per usual, I am bemused that the crowd at this forum seems to share similar thoughts. :blink:

Wow, this is almost exactly what i was going to put ... i wasn't going to bother to post after i saw it, but the whole similar thoughts part made me ...

[CosmicDust]

Time is a sort of emergent property...I went to a talk and lunch today with this particle physics dude, and he mentioned that time and space are not fundamental properties. Space loses meaning on the Planck scale. Space and time are like mass and energy, constructs made of even more fundamental stuff, the ultimate substance of reality.

[songbird36]

[QUOTE=mgbradsh]Ok, this one kept me up last night.


What if time had more than one dimension? Rather than one line, what if time was 3 dimensional? I picture this looking like a smaller bubble (expressing the x,y,z axis as a sphere) inside the much larger bubble of time. In that way you could move around in your x,y,z coordinates without going backwards and also your xt,yt,zt (lets call them) without things seeming to rewind. If looked at like this the particles that compose you would not split apart. They would exist at a certain time and place (that gives them an x,y,z xt,yt,zt coordinate) but that is the time they exist that way. So you could argue that two minutes later (even if that two minutes later person goes back to visit two minutes before person) the particles are actually different particles now.

You speak as if time can occupy space.

It's an interesting idea, but unlikely, I think.

As I see it, time occupies the same function as measurements. A measurement (say 1 centimetre or 1 gallon) is an *operator* or *descriptor*- it needs something of physical substance to operate on, or describe, but has no physical reality in itself.

[Vylence]

If time is the release of energy you would have to reverse this to go back in time. How could you reverse all the energy coming out of a human? It is interesting to note that from what I understand photons have polarization. But what would this be like? Would a human moving back in time de-age, reforming the food in his stomach? Where would he get the matter for his bowels to reform it?

The other thought here is that the person wouldn't actually move backward through time but continue forward through backward time. Where everyone else de-aged. In this instance would your disappearance from the equation cause a hole? A bigger and bigger instance where you missing from the past time line causes a problem.

Or could it be that you would notice yourself moving backward? Can you be in both places at once? One of the questions of quantum mechanics is how a photon can act like a particle and a wave.

Mayhaps the dimensial theory comes into play here, you move backward and as soon as this move starts you enter an alternate dimension where its normally going backward. You're removed from the normal timeline in our dimension.

[Network Alchemy]

the concepts of a wave and a particle are what is causing a problem and in general the physicists are looking in an existing town for a space on which to allocate a building not recognizing their needs are best met creating an entirely new town

[Chill]

Ok, this one kept me up last night.

We live in a 3 dimensional world. The x,y,z axis. We assume that this axis runs along a line, so to speak, that is time. Time travel isn't possible because as Claverhouse points out we will become disassembled. That requires the idea that to go back in time (or forward) we are rewinding, so that the particles that created us go back to whence they came.

What if we look at it this way. If you are at 1,1,1 on the x,y,z axis and you go to 2,2,2 (walking biking whatever) to get back to 1,1,1 you don't have to reverse you could take some sort of cirlce root through 3,3,3 then -1,-1,-1, however you do it. The route is different so you aren't rewinding but you do end up back at the same spot.

So going back in time wasn't so much rewinding back to a certain spot but taking a different route there so that you are still you, just back in time.


I particularly like this idea. The idea of 'rewinding' time always seemed to not really do anything. But thinking about has brought a couple things to light.

suppose four dimensions, x,y,z,T. T being the time dimension. And somebody exists at (1,1,1,1), let's call him Bob, because well I like naming things anyways. Bob at point (1,1,1,1) fucks up something that allows him to keep the same position. It is now (1,1,1,2). Bob decides to 'rewind' time to fix it. To do so, he moves straight backwards down the T dimension. But there is a problem. Something already exists at (1,1,1,1), Bob! Now what happens?

Perhaps Bob reverts to what he was at (1,1,1,1), thus being pointless, because Bob being exactly what he was at (1,1,1,1), does the same thing. Perhaps the universe breaks due to two objects existing at the same locationl. Or perhaps Bob dies from fucking with the universe. Haven't figured that out yet. So for Bob to do something, He'd after move around himself somehow, and end up in a different (x,y,z,1) to stop himself.

Now the first option is on the surface, the most boring one. But consider, what if we are already moving back and forth through time! Seeing, moving back and forth is easy for the universe as a whole to due, and we wouldn't notice, because we are exactly the same as before. How could we know if God was pressing an intergalactic rewind/fast-forward?

But wait! What if we aren't exactly the same each time? Oh now, it get's really interesting. Cause figure, moving costs energy right? And perhaps with some quantum mechanic randomness, very complex systems are changed a little and very subtly, each and every time the universe moves backward along Time. This could explain visions of the future (assuming they're real of course), feelings of deja vu, and who knows what else?! Just something to ponder about.

Oh and I'd speculate on what causes the universe to move back and forth, but this post is plenty long enough.

[mgb]

You speak as if time can occupy space.



I was thinking of it the other way around, space occupys time.

Which brings up another question. At the very leading frontier of the universe's expansion, what would time look like?

[mgb]

I particularly like this idea. The idea of 'rewinding' time always seemed to not really do anything. But thinking about has brought a couple things to light.

suppose four dimensions, x,y,z,T. T being the time dimension. And somebody exists at (1,1,1,1), let's call him Bob, because well I like naming things anyways. Bob at point (1,1,1,1) fucks up something that allows him to keep the same position. It is now (1,1,1,2). Bob decides to 'rewind' time to fix it. To do so, he moves straight backwards down the T dimension. But there is a problem. Something already exists at (1,1,1,1), Bob! Now what happens?

Perhaps Bob reverts to what he was at (1,1,1,1), thus being pointless, because Bob being exactly what he was at (1,1,1,1), does the same thing. Perhaps the universe breaks due to two objects existing at the same locationl. Or perhaps Bob dies from fucking with the universe. Haven't figured that out yet. So for Bob to do something, He'd after move around himself somehow, and end up in a different (x,y,z,1) to stop himself.

Now the first option is on the surface, the most boring one. But consider, what if we are already moving back and forth through time! Seeing, moving back and forth is easy for the universe as a whole to due, and we wouldn't notice, because we are exactly the same as before. How could we know if God was pressing an intergalactic rewind/fast-forward?

But wait! What if we aren't exactly the same each time? Oh now, it get's really interesting. Cause figure, moving costs energy right? And perhaps with some quantum mechanic randomness, very complex systems are changed a little and very subtly, each and every time the universe moves backward along Time. This could explain visions of the future (assuming they're real of course), feelings of deja vu, and who knows what else?! Just something to ponder about.

Oh and I'd speculate on what causes the universe to move back and forth, but this post is plenty long enough.

When I answer these questions I try and put myself in a two dimensional perspective. Wouldn't someone in the 2nd dimension worry about the same stuff we are? They have no idea they could leap off the page, but the people in the third dimension know they can. That's why I tried to make time not on a line but a space.

So I think that someone could go back in time and watch themselves do something because its no longerthemselves because at position 1,1,1,2 they aren't the same person they were at 1,1,1,1. I find thinking of it that way makes time easier.

[mgb]

Time is a sort of emergent property...I went to a talk and lunch today with this particle physics dude, and he mentioned that time and space are not fundamental properties. Space loses meaning on the Planck scale. Space and time are like mass and energy, constructs made of even more fundamental stuff, the ultimate substance of reality.

Why does time have to be emergent?

I forgot what the Planck scale was so I had to look it up?

I believe it was used to examine the universe at its earliest stages 5.44 times 10 to the negative 44 seconds. Indeed a time (according to the article I googled) where physics as we know it may not have existed and quantum physics ruled.

The Planck Scale
Quantity Value
Planck Mass 1.2 x 1019 GeV/c2
Planck Length 1.6 x 10-33 cm
Planck Time 5.4 x 10-44 s
Planck Temperature 1.4 x 1032 K


This is "the scale". It does however included time and space. While the laws they are governed by are different than ours (the article does mention that no "marriage" has been found between Planck time and our time, but does give superstrings as a possible alternative) it would seem that we are still slaves to time as we know it.

[Chill]

When I answer these questions I try and put myself in a two dimensional perspective. Wouldn't someone in the 2nd dimension worry about the same stuff we are? They have no idea they could leap off the page, but the people in the third dimension know they can. That's why I tried to make time not on a line but a space.

So I think that someone could go back in time and watch themselves do something because its no longerthemselves because at position 1,1,1,2 they aren't the same person they were at 1,1,1,1. I find thinking of it that way makes time easier.

My point was that you couldn't reverse through time as a means of time travel, because you in the past are occupying the route. Just more of a proof that to time travel, one has to take a more roundabout route, such as the circular one you described.

Now I think the problem of hypothetical 2dimensional person visualizing a third dimension, and our problem of moving along the time dimension are different, in that we perceive the 4dimension we just don't move forward and backward along it. (or at least we don't realize as I suggested in my last post on this thread). The mere fact we are contemplating moving back along time, a 2dimensional wouldn't even consider another spatial dimension unless they could detect someother way.

[Network Alchemy]

it should be realized that if dimensions exist there have to be mechanics responsible for their sustenance which means what is in their range such as entities identifiable by length width height and time is not absolute but in a sandbox and thus the query is back at square one if dimensions are used because they admit to not being basic which leads to distance and time not being basic and the problem is that simply using the notions of forward backward or location incites dimension but having a recognition of this can help

[Dman]

How about the notion that time is simply a measurement of change. If absolutely nothing changed (due to energy, motion, whatever), then the concept of time would not exist, no? Of course, we would not be aware that anything exists in a frozen universe such as that.

Therefore, time does exist because change exists. It's simply a measuring device. If time were to "speed up" or "slow down" we would not notice, because it is all relative. We would never notice these changes unless we were to somehow remove ourselves from our current perspective - such as taking a high speed trip in space and then returning.

The ratio of all things "changing" on earth remains relatively the same to those on the planet, while the rate of change increases for the high speed space traveler. I'm too lazy to remember why that is, but the point is that time must exist for the simple reason that it is a measurement of change.

[mgb]

So could going forward in time simply be going faster than those around youor even removing yourself to space and going a rapid speed? You haven't aged as much relative to the people you left behind and therefore time is different for you until you slow down and go the same speed as them. Except I can't think of a way back.

[Dman]

So could going forward in time simply be going faster than those around youor even removing yourself to space and going a rapid speed? You haven't aged as much relative to the people you left behind and therefore time is different for you until you slow down and go the same speed as them. Except I can't think of a way back.

Yes, I believe so. It's been recorded that people who travel frequently in jet airplanes are actually relatively younger than us land-lubbers by a few seconds. So presumably, if you orbited earth at super-fast high speeds, you would get to the future down below faster than they would. Of course, you wouldn't have skipped anything, just passed time more rapidly relative to them.

The reason you can't go backwards is due to the very measurement of change itself. To go backwards, every change from macro to micro levels would have to exactly reverse. That is a physically impossible law in our observable universe. I bet it has something to do with the fact that our universe is expanding rather than contracting.

[Network Alchemy]

the only requirement in the relativistic framework to travel backwards through time is a speed faster than the speed of light

[Vylence]

Isn't light effected by gravity? If this is true couldn't it be that the pressure of speeding up or slowing down could impede normal functioning of whatever was being measured?

[Chill]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but i think physicists use the word 'time' to reference the fourth dimension of space-time, as for measure of change they use 'entropy'

[punkasscrab]

It took me a long time to read this whole thread.
.
.
.
This whole topic is way over my head but it reminded me of a time travel proof that someone proposed to me. If time travel is invented by humans then they will inevitably use it. And if they used it we would know because people from the future would be here among us. So time travel may be possible but is never realized by humans on Earth.

But ... wouldn't there have to be one existance that leads up to the moment that time travel is invented?

So time travelers could travel back and change history, even eradicate their own future, but wouldn't one whole existance have to exist to lead up to that point?

If that is true and time travelers alter history by time traveling wouldn't the new existance have to live along side the original existance because they occupy the same moments in time ? That seems like it opens the possibilities of multiple simultanious realities.

Great, I've gone and confused myself. :)

[Dman]

Lots of possibilities. It could be that it will be invented, and our descendants simply are smart enough to avoid detection. Or they could have been detected, i.e. the alien/ufo theory. They could be changing history all the time, but we would never know it, this being the only history we have experienced! What if Hitler really won the "first time" but they changed it so he lost, which is what we're experiencing?

Perhaps that far in the future when/if time-travel is discovered, there are such other more important ramifications discovered that going into our past would be insignificant (i.e. traveling to other universes, dimensions, etc).

Or the pessimistic (realistic) view that humans don’t survive long enough to discover time-travel.

Lots of good sci-fi book writing material here.

[punkasscrab]

hmmm ... the time travelers of the future could have differing views and fight a war of sorts altering history to their liking. This war could so screw things up as to totally eliminate themselves in the future. If they are eliminated in the future then any time before them is not altered because they never were. Is that a paradox or am I even more confused ?

edit...

Just thought of something else. What if time travelers from the future cause the butterfly effect every time they visit no matter how careful they are. And the slightest effect might just alter things enough where time travel differed in some way to make this first particular time travel never happen. If it never happened then they can't be there and the world goes on as it should. This could be repeated over and over until they invent a time travel method that is undetectable and doesn't alter anything. Then they could be here and we wouldn't know.

[Dman]

That's awesome. Sounds like a cool idea for a movie.

[Sackanaka]

edit...

Just thought of something else. What if time travelers from the future cause the butterfly effect every time they visit no matter how careful they are. And the slightest effect might just alter things enough where time travel differed in some way to make this first particular time travel never happen. If it never happened then they can't be there and the world goes on as it should. This could be repeated over and over until they invent a time travel method that is undetectable and doesn't alter anything. Then they could be here and we wouldn't know.

May I add some ideas? Take that situation as a given; this could explain why there were so many more "cool things" that happened long ago, like beginnings of great religions, Stonehenge, the pyramids, etc. As for why the travelers would go to that time and not of our Present, because by now we would already be too inquistive of these travelers' technology and REALLY throw off the course of natural history (assuming that matters in the first place... ooh that could be a sequel 8O ). And maybe several of these travelers hypothesized different methods to get the most people to believe in them, so one made a whole bunch of face masks of dogs, birds, cats and ruled the sands, another guy with a big white beard and surrounded by an ambient "aura" talked to a bunch of gov't-oppressed folk and told them he'll be back in a few centuries or so... and he would one day ;). I like creating stories/adding my own thoughts :D

[Chill]

Well remember, if time travelers fuck up and people realize that they could time travel, they could then time travel to prvent themselves from fucking up. Damn, the time highway could get crowded.

[Vylence]

If they fucked up and changed things enough where they couldn't be changing things, then they would forget all progress and try it again, once again fucking up.

Though to the guy who talked of two simultaneous events, thats almost what quantom theory talks about. Light having two possabilites, just that when it goes undetected it seems like a wave, detected leads them to believe a particle. They think this is impossible because if they tried to detect light from suns far far away it would have to change its path to set this up. Which means it would alter what it did long long ago. Or at least thats what I gleamed from the only article I've read about it.

[Sackanaka]

And like most matters of scientific progress, we actually need willing J's to test out all these hypotheses. :p

[Chill]

If they fucked up and changed things enough where they couldn't be changing things, then they would forget all progress and try it again, once again fucking up.

Though to the guy who talked of two simultaneous events, thats almost what quantom theory talks about. Light having two possabilites, just that when it goes undetected it seems like a wave, detected leads them to believe a particle. They think this is impossible because if they tried to detect light from suns far far away it would have to change its path to set this up. Which means it would alter what it did long long ago. Or at least thats what I gleamed from the only article I've read about it.

Unless while unchanging they told themselves to not change that thing. Reminds me of a webcomic i read one time.

[Chill]

And like most matters of scientific progress, we actually need willing J's to test out all these hypotheses. :p

Not necessarilly true. If the experiment were interesting enough, it's possible a some P's would do the testing. For alittle while at least.

[Sackanaka]

Not necessarilly true. If the experiment were interesting enough, it's possible a some P's would do the testing. For alittle while at least.
Key words: If + while ;P

[howiec]

Time is real enough, insofar as you can say anything is real. You can't define an event without having time as the fourth dimension.

Spacetime, taken together, isn't exactly the existence of the three spatial dimensions over the linear progression of time. Any one dimension can be analysed as a linear progression (or regression), but saying that time is simply a linear progression is similar to insisting that a number line is equivalent to a cartesian plane.

I can't even really begin to think through a lot of the things people have said about time travel on anything but a superficial level because the mechanics of time travel aren't even theoretically defined at the level they're describing. The entire concept of time travel being possible exists as an extension of special relativity. If something were moving faster than the speed of light from Point A to Point B, then it would arrive at Point B before it left Point A. (Special relativity is the one that describes this particular quirk; it's seperate enough from general relativity.) The problem with this scenario is that it contradicts causality. So, if a particle like a tachyon which moved at speeds faster than light did exist, then either the theory of special relativity or the theory of causality is flawed, possibly entirely false. If there's a flaw in special relativity, not in causality, then the mechanics of the situation are just different than was previously assumed, and I couldn't even guess how that would affect the idea of something like time travel. If the flaw is with causality, however, then that would basically mean that it's perfectly fine for the particle to arrive at Point B before it leaves Point A because no laws of the universe are broken as long as the event does in fact occur, even if it doesn't occur sequentially.

A lot of people have made statements about the fact that all of our perceptions about the universe are just our own personal realities which we cannot claim to be absolute. I agree with that. However, I noticed at least one statement somewhere about the existence of an absolute or fundamental beyond our concieved reality. Why would you assume that such things exist?

[Chill]

howiec, i believe the problem you describe exists because you haven't taken into account frames of reference. Assuming Point A & B are stationary with respect to each other, thus in the same frame of reference. Point A & B would observe the 'something' to arrive before it left. And for all intents purposes for those points, it does arrive before it left. Remember special relativity doesn't deal with acceleration, that's general relativity (and it is general that shows the impossibility of a mass exceeding the speed of light). If you wanted to keep strictly with special relativity you would have said not something left point A (implying that it was stationary at point A and tend accelerates past to speed of light) but that something passes by point A at speed greater than the speed of light.

Now of course I(we?) could have confused general and special relativity. I was never very good with names.

[howiec]

howiec, i believe the problem you describe exists because you haven't taken into account frames of reference. Assuming Point A & B are stationary with respect to each other, thus in the same frame of reference. Point A & B would observe the 'something' to arrive before it left. And for all intents purposes for those points, it does arrive before it left. Remember special relativity doesn't deal with acceleration, that's general relativity (and it is general that shows the impossibility of a mass exceeding the speed of light). If you wanted to keep strictly with special relativity you would have said not something left point A (implying that it was stationary at point A and tend accelerates past to speed of light) but that something passes by point A at speed greater than the speed of light.

Now of course I(we?) could have confused general and special relativity. I was never very good with names.

You're talking about special relativity. The difference between the two is that special relativity doesn't account for gravity and general relativity does. Both can handle acceleration.

Special relativity establishes the speed of light barrier. The consideration of frames of reference isn't necessary, because the problem that exists is that within the same frame of reference that an event is occurring, not as percieved by something in a different frame of reference, an object travelling faster than the speed of light from Point A to Point B would arrive at Point B before it left Point A.

[QrioCT]

damn! this was my theory! i had a whole theory about this...one of my best, which i thought was my original. i guess it was already taken? or maybe all the people i told about it spread the word.

and yes, there is no such things as time. from my original theory, time is just changes.

if all the changes stop, time stops. Without changes, you can't age, you cant move, you cant think...like how the movie screen is when you press stop. it makes no difference anymore. time is a measurement of change.

by the way, our time(the 24 hour system) is based on a constant change(earth spinning around the sun). we base the measurement of our changes on a constant measurement, like we base our inch/cm rulers on constant degree of change in length.

grrrr...im still pissed by theory was taken...:D

[mgb]

Isn't it more than that...I mean assuming the universe eventually reaches complete entropy won't time still click on. Could it not be more than just a function of observation?

[QrioCT]

maybe, but if it never have any effects on anything at all ever its the same as though it doesnt exist. there would be no use for time if everything stops, and time is just a human invention/perception. like even if you were there, you wouldnt age, wouldnt go hungry, and wouldnt think or feel time ticking by at all.

like how do people/scientists know if something exists? when something detects it. like you know my words exists here because your eyes are detecting it...or humans would have no way to know that radio rays exists unless theres the radio to detect it.

if there was no change at all, how do you detect time?

of course, just because something exists doesnt mean it has to create an evidence or response. but if it doesnt, its the same as though it doesnt exist because its existence makes no difference.

[Dman]

damn! this was my theory! i had a whole theory about this...one of my best, which i thought was my original. i guess it was already taken? or maybe all the people i told about it spread the word.

and yes, there is no such things as time. from my original theory, time is just changes.

if all the changes stop, time stops. Without changes, you can't age, you cant move, you cant think...like how the movie screen is when you press stop. it makes no difference anymore. time is a measurement of change.

grrrr...im still pissed by theory was taken...:D

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I already posted that exact same thought on page 6 of this thread.

[Dman]

So the thought is, time has always existed and we have no reason to believe it would ever cease. Something caused the big bang, so something changed. The fact that something changed means time existed before the big bang. If you suppose time could “stop”, then it could never be detected, so it actually wouldn’t “stop”. There would be no way of knowing it had stopped and then started again. From the definition that time = change, time could have stopped yesterday, and then started again. It could happen all the time (haha). We would never know.

I think the fact that time exists now is evidence that it will always exist. It’s infinite.

[jittus rye]

Time not exsisting is a theory many logical people have come up shot out of their mind, perhaps half of them ending up thinking time is only a measurement of something or another. Therefore time is liters.

[Dman]

Time not exsisting is a theory many logical people have come up shot out of their mind, perhaps half of them ending up thinking time is only a measurement of something or another. Therefore time is liters.

Curious; what would your definition be?

[QrioCT]

um, Dman, i think u might have misunderstood my idea...? sory, maybe i wuznt clear.

cuz what i was trying to say the whole time:D is that time=changes. like the phrase, "untouched by time" means "unchanged".

say, it took 10000 years in outside universe for the stuff that happened in 1 second(like if it took 10000 years for you to finish that blink, and finish reading this last word and every single thing on the universe), it would be like slow motion on TV. everything achieved would be exactly the same. except we only perceive it as slow because of what WE are used to.

and by the way, our time system minutes, hours, years etc. is just another change. its the change of time it takes for the Earth to go around the sun. we just base it on a constant/consistent system. its just a measure.

there is no such thing as time, as there is no such thing as an inch. you need lengths of objects to show what an inch is, like u need changes in objects to show what time is.

could anyone find a way to show time without using any reference to changes?

then you might convince me otherwise.

[Dman]

um, Dman, i think u might have misunderstood my idea...? sory, maybe i wuznt clear.

cuz what i was trying to say the whole time:D is that time=changes. like the phrase, "untouched by time" means "unchanged".

say, it took 10000 years in outside universe for the stuff that happened in 1 second(like if it took 10000 years for you to finish that blink, and finish reading this last word and every single thing on the universe), it would be like slow motion on TV. everything achieved would be exactly the same. except we only perceive it as slow because of what WE are used to.

and by the way, our time system minutes, hours, years etc. is just another change. its the change of time it takes for the Earth to go around the sun. we just base it on a constant/consistent system. its just a measure.

there is no such thing as time, as there is no such thing as an inch. you need lengths of objects to show what an inch is, like u need changes in objects to show what time is.

could anyone find a way to show time without using any reference to changes?

then you might convince me otherwise.

We were thinking along the same line of thought. The difference was that I said time does exist, because changes exist, you said time did not exist but rather it was the measurement of changes.

I agree that measurements of time are similar to measurement of length. But that refers to the measurements, not the underlying dimension. The dimension of length exists, but the measurement is abstract. Same with time - time exists, but the measurements of time are abstracts.

Time exists because the changes exist. Regardless of whether or not we measure it, it still occurs. Therefore it exists.

[QrioCT]

Time exists because the changes exist. Regardless of whether or not we measure it, it still occurs. Therefore it exists.

right. time would still continue to exist even if we stop measuring them. however, i think that time would "stop" if every single change in the universe stops. what's ur thoughts on that?

[Dman]

right. time would still continue to exist even if we stop measuring them. however, i think that time would "stop" if every single change in the universe stops. what's ur thoughts on that?

Yeah, I agree; that one's trickier than first glance though...

if absolutely every change stopped, then time would stop - but since the stop could never be felt/observed/measured, then no one or no thing would ever know it stopped…so does it stop? If it were to ever begin again, no one would ever know about the stop... kind of like "If a tree fell in the woods would it make a sound" dilemma.

[QrioCT]

good point. since your thoughts/senses stop, you wont feel it there. hmmm...i think that even something is not sensed, it still occurs.

like even if the tree fell and no one was there to hear the sound, the sound(aka vibration of atmosphere) is still achieved.

[Dman]

good point. since your thoughts/senses stop, you wont feel it there. hmmm...i think that even something is not sensed, it still occurs.

like even if the tree fell and no one was there to hear the sound, the sound(aka vibration of atmosphere) is still achieved.

Ahh, yes, but if all changes stopped - i.e. time stopped, thus there was nothing there to observe or notice it had stopped, how could we ever know that it indeed stopped? From this perspective, time cannot stop for the basic reason that we could never possibly know that it had, nor would it matter. It would make no difference.

It's different from the tree falling in the woods because that would leave (haha) evidence, whereas time stopping would not - unless some changes began again before others did.

[QrioCT]

but what if it never started again? it is like everyone and everything "died" without anyone knowing. like if time did not stop(at least not forever), you were going to finish reading this sentence. like u just did. but say time stopped now and would never start again, then you would never finish reading this post. but you just would never know, that's all.

[Dman]

but what if it never started again? it is like everyone and everything "died" without anyone knowing. like if time did not stop(at least not forever), you were going to finish reading this sentence. like u just did. but say time stopped now and would never start again, then you would never finish reading this post. but you just would never know, that's all.

Yeah, that's a trip. That's where I'm coming from saying it must always exist. If time stopped like that, nothing would exist, or would ever have existed. If it stopped, there would be no such thing as the past or the future - or the present.

[QrioCT]

Yeah, that's a trip. That's where I'm coming from saying it must always exist. If time stopped like that, nothing would exist, or would ever have existed. If it stopped, there would be no such thing as the past or the future - or the present.

im not getting you. say all the changes stopped right now. but how could that mean that changes in the past never happened? stopped now means im not going to change from now on, and what *is* is. like a picture that doesnt move. but for me to have gotten where i am now, past changes(like growing) had to have happened. i cannot be destroyed into inexistence, and no change can happen to turn me back to when i didnt exist(because that requires change).

what decides in your mind, existence? if you meant that no one will *know* that anything exists or ever existed if time stopped, then i agree. but that wouldnt mean it didnt happen right? or probably im misunderstanding you.

[SensEye]

Yeah, that's a trip. That's where I'm coming from saying it must always exist. If time stopped like that, nothing would exist, or would ever have existed. If it stopped, there would be no such thing as the past or the future - or the present. I would say neither the past or the future exists now. Only the present exists and it is constantly changing. If you stopped change, the present would simply be frozen. It would still exist, but nothing within the system could perceive it's existence. Such a perception would constitute a change.

[Dman]

If time stopped, that would mean it became a single point. As it is, time is a continuum, there are no “points”. The “present” is a concept of a point in time, or at least a small slice of time. When is right now? The second I wrote that? The 1/10th of a second I wrote that? 1/100th? You see where I’m going. Hence, if time stopped, it would no longer be on a continuum, meaning you couldn’t recall back or go forward.

If there were some hypothetical outside observer, it would see everything as it stopped, and speculate as to how it came to be in existence, but for all it knew everything just popped into existence exactly the way it is. In a sense it did, since it “jumped” from being on a continuum to a point. Thus no past. Obviously no future. And no present, as the present is merely a slice of time, a small series of time - not a point - as I mentioned above.

As far as we as humans know, I agree that only what we consider “the present” exists. We cannot travel forward or backward on the continuum at will, thus those two are simply abstracts. However that does not mean the future and past do not exist, only that we can’t observe that they exist. There is some evidence that certain particles can move through time differently than we appear to, perhaps indicating that something can move differently within the continuum than how we know.

Didn’t Q from Star Trek TNG do that? There’s your proof!

[QrioCT]

star trek...;)
interesting ideas...that gave me a whole new perspective. im still on the way to molding my old system into the idea.

however, theoretically, if we could magically change everything back to how it was yesterday, would that be going back in time? or its more like a "past in the future" because once you've had the present you cant go to a pure past because in the past of the past there's the present. (dat was a confusing mouthful). wait, no, that's incorrect because in the pure yesterday you wouldnt have had the memory or "changes" that happened today. all right then i guess there is no way to go back in time anyhow.

and lets see, the future. that's a lot more complex because there's so freaken many ways that things could turn out from here. (like, what's the chance that i wrote the exact last sentence out of all the possible combination of words? probably very little.) so there's probably going to be a lot of futures we could go to theoretically. (im talking theoretially...yeah i got ur idea on the continuum thing Dman that only the "present" literally "exists"). so to be in the true future, we'll have to have the memories and experiences that we've had between now and whenever we go to. so probably there isnt a pure future that you can go to either if you're skipping a lot of experiences.

i wonder if any professional scientists wrote anything about the time doesnt exist theory. probably had, if this thing is so spread out that we've got a several people on a forum who already knew it before. anyone read anything about it?

[Google Monster]

time is the measurement of c. So to say time doesn't exist is like saying light does not exist.

[L. Bartholomew]

There are only so many ways to look at time.
!. Time is finite. It has a beginning and an end. But in this senario you run into nothingness. What came before time? What comes after? How did it come to be? etc.
2. Time is infinite. It goes on forever in both directions. And the problem with this is, well, you comprehend infinity and tell me what you come up with.
3. Time began at a distinct point and will continue forever and the other way around. Obviously, we hit both problems here.

Any way you look at it you run into logically incomprehansible situations.
I prefer infinity, I believe, because something from nothing really doesn't sit well with me...

[wezl]

Time is a manifestation of the expansion of the universe. (also shows up in thermodynamics, ie entropy as mentioned by several) The universe is expanding at the speed of light (speed implies time,eh) and everything in the universe is also expanding at same, including us. To go back in time would require extreme shinking to get to the universe as it was. Very difficult.

[Garyincinci]

The universe is expanding at the speed of light (speed implies time,eh) and everything in the universe is also expanding at same, including us.
What source is this from please? I've always went by the Hubble Constant myself. 70 (km/sec)/Mpc, with an uncertainty of 10%.


Time...is an illusion. Lunchtime...doubly so.

[wezl]

I've always went by the Hubble Constant myself. 70 (km/sec)/Mpc, with an uncertainty of 10%.
Hubble expansion is another thing altogether. It is a relative expansion between individual components. I'm referring to a general, undifferentiated expansion that shows itself in relativity and the speed of light. It is this expansion that prevents things running in reverse, otherwise as likely.

[sammyburbank]

This is an idea I've toyed around with as well. Sure, you can factor in x amount of dimensions,

This is an idea i had when i was 16, reading about the "many universes" theory. I thought of a "sideways" in time, and it blew my little mind.

Ha!

[nBT]

ok quickie i gotta shower

time = change, if change stopped so would time. but were stuk in it. bliss us.
only the present exists. as a slice of time. (quantum theories). since we cant detect we are standing still, id like to propose a hypothetical 'god' that plays RPG. your turn, no yours, then after the dices are rolled time is moves on a frame. heh.
anycase, its a nice one for paranormal expiriences. this would also inicate that the 'soul' is timeless.

change = energy. so to be rime traveling you would only need to pump alot of energy into your vessel. probably an infinite amout.

time = energy also explains the slowness of evolution at the start. perhaps our ways of generating change has become more efficient. (see intelligence thread).
the time progresses slower at the edges of the expandng universe, and is faster (because more change) in the center. if teleportation is possible, so is timetravel.

edit: if the amount of energy is is fixed for the physical construct, then energy is a function of change. if it is not fixed, then energy could be the driving force of the universe.

[Ckyzxr]

I couldn't pass this one by without throwing my insignificant view of "time" around.

From my observations, we measure time through rapidly repeating or consistent movements or events (i.e. quartz). Time is actually the rate of decay of matter OR energy conversion. Gravity affects rate of energy conversion. Energy conversion rate can be slower or faster in relation to another "grouping" of matter. Energy and Matter are interchangable so "time" is rate of energy/matter conversion on an atomic (or lower/higher) level. Simple.

Time travel is the adjusted rate of energy conversion of one group of matter/energy, then reunited in relative and observed proximity with another group of matter.

Go ahead, call me on my crap. :)

[floid]

Time is a master concept the thinking mind uses as a context in which to do it's thing.

Outside of that, it does not exist at all.

The past is memory whether etched in stone or neural patterns.

The future is a possibility whether hoped for or dreaded.

The present, NOW , is all there ever IS.

IS exists.

WAS and WILL BE are concepts.

If you speculate about the future you do it NOW.

If you remember the past you do it NOW.

Outside of conceptualization there is no time.

[Dgall78]

Does this really break down into two verisons of time?
Time being linear and time be "now" or possibly multidimensional?
Imganie time as an infinant card deck infront of you.... every frame of life is a random pull from the deck dropped at your present spot, you take a step forward, another random card drops. would it possible for time to be both linear in the past, and random in the future? past experiences of the random card fallings will give a person percived patters giving them the abilitly to predict what "cards" will be coming give us some perception of the future? Is this crap?

[floid]

Does this really break down into two verisons of time?
Time being linear and time be "now" or possibly multidimensional?

You might conceive of as many versions of time as you liked but the only time you would actually every directly experience would be NOW.



Imganie time as an infinant card deck infront of you.... every frame of life is a random pull from the deck dropped at your present spot, you take a step forward, another random card drops. would it possible for time to be both linear in the past, and random in the future? past experiences of the random card fallings will give a person percived patters giving them the abilitly to predict what "cards" will be coming give us some perception of the future? Is this crap?

It is not crap it is another way of thinking about it.
Thought requires a conceptual frameword in which to exist --- Space/Time is that framework -- and it is purely conceptual.

All you will ever directly experience is HERE and NOW.

It's one of those things that is so obvious that it's really easy to miss.

[Dgall78]

All you will ever directly experience is HERE and NOW.

It's one of those things that is so obvious that it's really easy to miss.

So obvious that you walk right past it, but its also in some sences too easy. What is now is now because of the past, and now will influence the future.
I quess a major factor is how you define reality, is reality here and now or the sum of many heres and nows, past present and future. to take your thought further, my direct experiences are just wave forms that colapeses as soon as they leave my field of vision, and therefor that reality no longer exisits (at least for me).
Its also a very individualistic look at things, not that im sure that it matters, but its dependent on every one being in the same here and now as everyone else, and that doesnt seem to hold up in relativity. If not, every one would be moving at different velocities, not to say we arent..... I dunno.

[floid]

So obvious that you walk right past it, but its also in some sences too easy. What is now is now because of the past, and now will influence the future.

Once again this is only true in the realm of thought where sequence and causality are meaningful.
Outside of thought they are meaningless.



I quess a major factor is how you define reality, is reality here and now or the sum of many heres and nows, past present and future. to take your thought further, my direct experiences are just wave forms that colapeses as soon as they leave my field of vision, and therefor that reality no longer exisits (at least for me).
Its also a very individualistic look at things, not that im sure that it matters, but its dependent on every one being in the same here and now as everyone else, and that doesnt seem to hold up in relativity. If not, every one would be moving at different velocities, not to say we arent..... I dunno.

Everything said is a thought and every thought arises from duality.
Duality is the Matrix we live in, the dream we are dreaming while we think we are thinking profound thoughts.
What is beyond it looks like nothingness, emptyness, and obliteration to
us because we try to apprehend it through thought.

Eventually, hopefully, one will grow tired of words and thinking and a gap will open up.
Don't resist.
Let yourself be swallowed up in the void which is only a void because no word, concept, or thought can in any way refer to it.

It is always NOW it is always HERE and there is only ONE.

This has been called awakening, enlightenment, nirvana, the peace that passes understanding, salvation, death, everlasting life, and many more.

Of course it is none of them and all of them.

I guess you might say, finally, that it is you.

But, as I step back into the realm of thought and consider proper etiquette, I add, with a wry smile, "This, of course, is only my opinion."

That, too, is meaningless.

[Dgall78]

and then the ten thousand things will be delivered to my door step by a stork in pouch right?
This is not to me an excercise in thinking profound thoughts, its pure curiousity.

"realm of thought where sequence and causality are meaningful.
Outside of thought they are meaningless."
outside of thought every thing is meaningless (to humanity) since thought is the only tool a person has. Even if your meditating to clear your mind of all thought, the purpose of it is to gain some kind of insight, insight requires thought.
Your line assumes one of two things... things are random, or things are controlled by an outside force both which require no involvment.

[Google Monster]

Was is more accurate when speaking of experience. Sure only "now" exist but our minds can only bring information about the present but we can only experience the past that has already happened.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

this was probably said earilier, but time is just a relativistic model. you're time-traveling by driving in a car.

[Miss Anthropic]

Has anyone noticed how time (appears to) accelerates as you age?

[jimkopelli]

I know for sure that it slows down in lectures. Especially architecture lectures involving bad slides and a deaf instructor.

[Dgall78]

Has anyone noticed how time (appears to) accelerates as you age?

there is a theory that the perception of time is realted to visual stimulation. I personally feel like time is slowing down as I get older in the sence of right now, but on a whole is going by quicker.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

It's a strange thing. The perception of time as a human seems to slow with age, but time in accordance to the universe seems to be speeding up.

[Google Monster]

Probably has something to do with lesser couriosity. Not enough things in the world anymore to impress you and catch your attention.

[punkasscrab]

I'm resurecting this ancient thread to pick a few thoughts about dimensions. We take as a given the obvious four dimensions and use reason to deduce the existence of others. Many things that are obvious to us are false, perhaps our entire perception of reality.

Take for instance a 3D object composed of polygons rendered in X-Y-Z coordinates. The object, when viewed from a stationary position, will appear exactly as an X-Y graph if the observer has no knowledge of the Z coordinate. An example could be a billboard replicating the landscape placed on a highway tricking a traveler to drive through it? Could the known dimensions be replicated in a single dimension relative to an observers point of reference?


Vision is one dimensional but comprehension and understanding requires four or more dimensions. Is it possible that realitiy is one dimensional (actually without dimension) and dimensions are illusions that fit the rules of reality? Under such a scenario, reality is whatever craziness it is and dimensions are the interpretation of our existence that ties reality into ... well, existance. Because it would be awfully hard to exist in a non-dimensional way.... ouch, my brain hurts.

I don't actually believe this far out idea myself but I was curious if anybody else questions the nature of reality and if somehow the notion of dimensions themselves may be no more real than the underpinnings of mathematics.

[kuranes]

About as far as I got with this was looking at pix of Tesseracts. There's some on Wolfram's site, I think. Some illos of Tesseracts are much more easily grasped than others.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

current definition of time: a relativisitic model used for measuring various forms of plasticity. Not a giant clock that sits in the sky, or anything that dictates anything over reality, just a usefull reference point.

I think the chinese were onto something with their view of time as static set of events repeating through an encapsulated series of progression/retrogressions - as opposed to a single enduring line. For calculating actions that are relevant to us in the felt human experience (eg. returning, standing, biting through, retreat, conflict, peace) it's much more effective, to the point that, with a proper intuition - the future as we understand it with the enduring method, can be predicted and strategized before they happen. It's the same methodology Sun Tzu used to write the Art of War and confucious used in the Book of Changes.

I remember reading of a Chinese sage who was famous for what they call the Plum Blossom Divination. Basically this guy saw two sparrows fighting on a plum blossom tree, and both fell to the ground at the same time. He did a calculation in his head based on that method, and was able to intuit that, in 7 days a small girl would walk into a farmers field, the farmer would see her, she would be frightened, fall and hurt her leg, but the injury wouldn't be serious. Amazing I think.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

About time speeding up: If you divide time into periods of habit and novelty (when things change, and when they stay the same) and layer it over our known history, the rate at which things progress (the length of time in between habit and novelty), then "time", as we intepret it as humans at the immediate level of experience, is actually speeding up, as in progressions happen faster and faster with each "flip" from habit to novelty.

At the bottom of it all, the general idea is that the same events happen, over and over again, just with different faces - each loop making a slight progression over the last. The rate of time it takes to reach a loop decreases with each iteration.

[euterpenc]

Time does exist, or at least time exists as long as humans do. Existence in the physical world or even nonphysical world is inexplicable otherwise. I think Xenosaga had a bit to say about such. Isn't the greek word xeno related to time? (i'm just guessing on that one)

I like the idea of time being an infinite number of different possible sequences of events. Every time an event of any scale takes place, it prevents us from going on any other timelines that could have happened if that event had not happened, or something else happened instead. Make any sense?

think of it like this:

______________ <--- our line
| |__________ }\
| |__________ } ----------other timelines
|__________ }/

[kuranes]

you <--------- -~^
------------> - - - - - - - - - > l llll> me
-------
time/infinity

[euterpenc]

?

[abathur]

who's to say that, if time exists only because change exists, that change could not only exist because time exists?

[file cabinet]

this is the IRC discussion int is referring to:
http://www.intpcentral.com/irc2/time_travel.html
Unforunately, I wasn't able to save it to be nicely formatted.. oh well.

this post updated Thu Nov 17 19:32:33 CST 2005 to fix broken link

i noticed the link was broken so I've corrected this issue.. may or may not be relevant to present discussion of course..

[Melody]

I'm resurecting this ancient thread to pick a few thoughts about dimensions. We take as a given the obvious four dimensions and use reason to deduce the existence of others. Many things that are obvious to us are false, perhaps our entire perception of reality.

Take for instance a 3D object composed of polygons rendered in X-Y-Z coordinates. The object, when viewed from a stationary position, will appear exactly as an X-Y graph if the observer has no knowledge of the Z coordinate. An example could be a billboard replicating the landscape placed on a highway tricking a traveler to drive through it? Could the known dimensions be replicated in a single dimension relative to an observers point of reference?


Vision is one dimensional but comprehension and understanding requires four or more dimensions. Is it possible that realitiy is one dimensional (actually without dimension) and dimensions are illusions that fit the rules of reality? Under such a scenario, reality is whatever craziness it is and dimensions are the interpretation of our existence that ties reality into ... well, existance. Because it would be awfully hard to exist in a non-dimensional way.... ouch, my brain hurts.

I don't actually believe this far out idea myself but I was curious if anybody else questions the nature of reality and if somehow the notion of dimensions themselves may be no more real than the underpinnings of mathematics.
it should be realized that if dimensions exist there have to be mechanics responsible for their sustenance which means what is in their range such as entities identifiable by length width height and time is not absolute but in a sandbox and thus the query is back at square one if dimensions are used because they admit to not being basic which leads to distance and time not being basic and the problem is that simply using the notions of forward backward or location incites dimension but having a recognition of this can helpi am assuming dimensions are not basic

while it may seem like a great assumption... to me dimensionality is an even greater assumption

think about what dimensions themselves would be if they existed. when we think of space as having dimensions, we are introducing an additional component. a space does not need dimensions to "exist." dimensions only appear when we want to know differences. the space itself does not care how far object X is from object Y. if it does, it is something more like a machine rather than a space, which would mean dimensions are not basic but a construct of this machine

explaining from a different angle, think of two arbitrary (very arbitrary) particles that are not near eachother. what happens? nothing. nothing happens until the two particles are touching. the space they are in is irrelevant, the physics of the particles is dictated by the particles, not the space. at no time do the particles say, "yowzza. im about to collide with another particle! i better align myself to the Z axis so that those fucking humans have an easier time interpreting the results of this bullshit experiment im a part of!"

i think the whole idea of 'space' is ridiculous

anyway, the point is

existence possessing dimensionality is an assumption, so be careful about how u use the concept of 'dimensions'

i believe dimensions are entirely in the domain of analysis ie mathematics, and as ive said 5 billion times, do not confuse the structure of mathematics with that of reality

[edit]i think when ppl speak of "dimensions" in the context of the universe, they mean something like the "shape" of the universe. an example ive given before is spacetime, a four-dimensional manifold...however, it is not necessarily the "shape" of this manifold that makes particles act the way they do, even though general relativity is taught as an interaction between mass-energy and the space it is in. it may just as easily be the behavior of the particles alone which causes this apparent conformance to a space. i dunno enuff gr but i think ppl that study it are aware of this and find it obvious.... they better, it seems obvious enuff to me given that a dynamic space is wack :p

[Nivegna]

No time doesn't exist it is merely a form of an object(s) rather than the object(s) itself (themselves). Forms of an object include space, time, color etc... Kant demonstrated that the world we experience is not the real world. That world does not embody our species’ concepts of space, time, and causality. We perceive things through a scaffolding of three-dimensional space, in a tense of past-present-future, and within a framework of casual connections. As an 18th century philosopher would not have known, but 20th century physics has confirmed, these constructs are not even a component of the world that we can describe mathematically and measure with special instruments. Newtonian concepts of space and time do not apply to the macro world of special and general relativity or to the micro world of quantum mechanics. The real world is something altogether different from what we human beings experience and measure.

In states of affairs within the Noumenal realm time and space are (asymptotic nexus) "in themselves" (kant's rock bottom reality of "things as they are in themselves" )--- therefore, it's really more akin to a movement like up, down, left or right. Science works cognitively in Kant's phenemonal realm only (not Noumenal). Time travel is possible. Simply calibrate some Gaussian formulas to finish Unified Field Theory then use an oscillator/engine/generator based on spherical harmonics(quantum harmonic oscillator). A wide variety of physical phenomena ranging from problems in Newtonian mechanics to those quantum field theory can be understood and visualized by using the so-called harmonic oscillator. Time travel is as simple as walking to your left, right, up or down; basically, it's the same exact thing. There is absolutely no difference between time travel and moving to your left, right, up or down: it's directly analogous. Therefore, it is possible.

_ :banana:

[Nivegna]

I remember reading of a Chinese sage who was famous for what they call the Plum Blossom Divination. Basically this guy saw two sparrows fighting on a plum blossom tree, and both fell to the ground at the same time. He did a calculation in his head based on that method, and was able to intuit that, in 7 days a small girl would walk into a farmers field, the farmer would see her, she would be frightened, fall and hurt her leg, but the injury wouldn't be serious. Amazing I think.



That's retarded -- belief in a causal nexus is mere superstition.

[Star Cannon]

Hmmm... Nivegna, I don't think bashing something that comes from an inituitive realization is a good idea, considering that it probably happened years and years ago, and also considering how information is easily corrupted...
By the way, where did you get your Avatar pic? That is soooo freaking cool!

Time... well... I guess it's just a way of measuring what portion of the day we're refering to, right?
In order to see if it really exists, we need to DEFINE what time is...

Courtesy of dictionary.com..:
TIME: n
A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.

An interval, especially a span of years, marked by similar events, conditions, or phenomena; an era. Often used in the plural: hard times; a time of troubles.
times The present with respect to prevailing conditions and trends: You must change with the times.
A suitable or opportune moment or season: a time for taking stock of one's life.

Periods or a period designated for a given activity: harvest time; time for bed.
Periods or a period necessary or available for a given activity: I have no time for golf.
A period at one's disposal: Do you have time for a chat?
An appointed or fated moment, especially of death or giving birth: He died before his time. Her time is near.

WEll. With that out of the way... My musings on this this subject...
Time is a noun. If it were solid, I could pick up and toss it around. But's not solid. so I must resort observation and logic, yes? According to the above:

A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.

A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.

A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.

They speak of measurements. Since humans created measurements, time is man made...
If time is also defined by events that occur between two fixed dates, then I could conclude, by the rapid acceleration of events happening the world, that "time" is accelerating.
Humans created various calendars in order to measure longer periods of time... for the purpose of keeping track of events...
So, Time does exist... as a man made concept. It exists in our heads... nothing more.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

That's retarded -- belief in a causal nexus is mere superstition.

As I said before, time is a relativistic model (see: model theism) used for measuring various forms of plasticity. Meaning, it doesn't have to adhere to any corner you try to paint yourself into. I didn't say anything remotely close to "belief", and in fact you countered that with the largest festering form of belief, in non-belief, aka unhealthy skepticism. Thats why belief sucks, because it robs you of even remotely considering it's opposite - and even if that opposite is "wrong", it's comtemplation can do nothing but further your own understanding.

Does the equator exist?

"You bufoon! Look at the ground, do you see a line?"
"Rubbish, it's clearly displayed on my globe, 1 inch in diamater. Are you blind?"

These guys continue their argument until the end of enternity, while others take brief pleasure in not missing the point