Time is not real

S

Stars931

Temporal Novice
We build machines to measure time, and we perceive the passage of time. We see that events have a beginning middle and end, repleat with new beginning and so on. How much of this is cultural, based on a certain mind set? The very language that we use helps define the world so that we can manipulate aspects of our world. Can we prove that there is a future? We can extroplate a future but there is no way a future can be "proved". Similarly how can we prove there is a past. Certain there are agreed upon events that appearsed to occur in the past, such as the bombing at Pearl Harbor. We have memories of the past, but those memories exist in the present. The future appears to exist based on expectations, anticpations, fears, hopes, dreams and even extraoplations, and all these occur in the present. So from a certain poiunt of view we could say that there is no future or no past.

If we hold the premise "there is no past and no future" then how does time travel fit into that? Because we live in a linear based time reality, and we make agreements on the rules of that reality, our perceptions are shaped around those concepts which include language and cultural morays. Linear time based realities are based on a beginning, middle and end. Even philosophies of an afterlife or of an eternity exist on a linear system: we die (end) and then an eternity begins (under some religious /philosophical structures). Eternity having a beginning is an oxymoron. Eternity is forever. If we were to look at time as a cycle or a circle, that eternity exists as a cycle or spiral that intersects linear time and lifts us to a different perspective.

Instead of time travel, which implies a futuire and a past, what about allowing the present to expand to a large now. Then travel would be obsolete, because we would need to go from place to place because we would know a large present that might include a lifetime.
 
Stars 931,
I was checking out your web site and it states that you are a certified hypnotherapist. Did you ever do any cases with people who have experienced "missing time" ? Have you been able to access the missing information through hypnotherapy?

-pamela
 
Stars931

If everything is the present then how come everything doesn't happen at once?

What is the difference between a one to one certainty and a 50/50 chance. Mathmatically they are both equal. (50/50 = 5/5 = 4/4.......=1/1 = 1).
 
"If everything is the present then how come everything doesn't happen at once?"

Tough question. In a sense, maybe it does all happen at once: our temporal, physical world of birth, death, and time exists with our non-physical minds and souls independent of time, along with all the other dimensions being speculated about -- all happening at once with all possible outcomes existing at once. Maybe.
 
I am not a mathematcian ( nor a speller ), but Dr. Bean I guess I have not explained this exercise in "no-time" well enough.

Since we define the present based on the past and the future it exists in a certain perceptual field. Our language is designed to speak in a linear time based reality, with past, present and future tenses, so it becomes difficult to talk about time outside this perceptual field. It is only natural that math and sciences premises spring from a linear time based system. When you speak of everything happening at once you are speaking of an object oriented linear reality and cause and effect relationship bercause you use the term "everything". In an eternity-in-the moment based system there are no "things". There are only relationships between... Here my ordinary thinking becomes boggled because I have no way to adequeately describe what I am talking about. Even the word present is a concept that belongs to a linear based time system and it becomes meaningless in this system based on relationships without objects.

Maybe a good way to come up with a working definition of relationship is to say that there are no absolutes, no objects. Who we are is based on relationship. Without relationship we could not exist. Our existence is defined by relationship. To be so reduntant is perhaps my own fobble. Language is an artifical way of taking reality and making it symbolic so that we can manipulate the world around us as objects which is good for us and necessary, but artifical and for our convience.
 
Hi everyone. I'm Dymenzionz, your new Moderator. I used to be moderater several months ago, but I temporarily left. Now I'm back...woo hoo!

This board has grown in the years its been active, and continues to thrive with minds. I'm glad to come back to it in its confident and prosperous state.

-Dymenzionz

P.S. I understand the point Stars is trying to get across. God knows it is extremely hard to put these "temporal" complex ideas into writing and at large: a feasible theorum.

Keep it up everyone.
 
Welcome Back Dymenzionz!
(MERRY CHRISTMAS!)

I "pale" in comparisson to your leadership by example here, as your legacy was not an easy transition for me (we won't go into details.) nonetheless, i'ts good to have you back.
 
Stars931;

The existance of a real past and future is the central issue here. Seems the short of it is that time is deemed to not exist because nobody has produced a single ounce of it yet. If time is motion then motion is real but time is just the CONCEPT of change.

But if time were the LACK of motion, that is to say fixed location, then time would take on the idenity of its location. It would have the tangible physical properties of whatever was measured anywhere anytime. In this case not only would time be real but REALITY itself would be definable as time. Indeed time could just as well be everything as it could be nothing.
 
It seems that time is the measure of duration of movement. Maybe the spin attribute of particles is analogous to time. And maybe time only has meaning if someone is there to observe or measure it. That could also apply to the whole universe, I suppose.
 
There may not be "time. The perception of time is only the perception of change. What we call the past is the state of things prior to the "event" that changed it. The future would be a future state based on an event not yet happened.

Hmmm. I hadn’t really thought of the universe as a big State Machine before. But if it were, then time travel would be possible by resetting back to an earlier or future state. Reality though would have too many variables to control and no reset button. At least I hope not.
 
NoTime

If you believe the tennents of quantum mechanics, the event, the observer, and the observed are the same thing, in one bundle. That in fact if nobody saw it, it didn't happen. The "meaning" that you ascribe to the observer comes in only two forms: it is A.) real or B.) not real, depending on whether or not it was in fact observed. To me this says that living beings GENERATE physicality through the functioning of their minds. Sounds far out but don't blame me *I* didn't make the crazy theory up.

The point that I'm trying to introduce here is that the "stillness of location" and mind and time may be the same thing. Physical reality (in this hypothosis) occurs when a nonphysical quantum potential "falls through" into the fixed location of a living mind. The mind is the gate that lets the possible become the real. Once it becomes real it immediatly freezes in as the most recent portion of the past.

Ah, here's the crackers, now where did I set that can of cheeze-wizz?
 
Yes, it seems that quantum mechanics is putting the scientific stamp of approval on the old theories that thinking and the mind create the physical universe and everything in it. A book published in 1946 had the following:

The Law of Thought: "Every thing existing on the physical plane is an exteriorization of a thought, which must be balanced through the one who issued the thought, and in accordance with that one's responsibility, at the conjunctiion of time, condition, and place."

Pretty heavy stuff.
 
kentheee

I can see by the way you worded your last post that you believe in the existance of a past that propagates forward to create the future (plus or minus a few changes thrown in). This is a common sense way of seeing things, and a view I held for a long time. Upon closer inspection however, (plus a few well placed smacks up side the head) the case begins to look quite different. Getting a time theory to actually match the facts one must consider that the future forms or grows first and THEN crystalizes out to form the present and consequentally the past. It all LOOKS very much the same but the polarity of timic direction is reversed.

By definition the future must exist before we get there otherwise it wouldn't BE the future would it? So again by definition, the future must exist before the present and before the past. So the future is already there and needs not be caused by the past or be an extention of the past. The only way out of this logic loop is to assume that the future does not exist AT ALL. Take your pick. In the world of quantum physics, and real life, you can't have it both ways....... believe me I've tried!
 
Quantum mechanics is reaching the point of stating that time, the past, the future, or anything else for that matter is exactly what we THINK it is.
 
Dear Star,

50/50=5/5=4/4.......=1/1=1. I think that you are on the verge of a major discovery about the nature of time and paradoxes. According to this model you have just proven that all events that are opposing are infact equal and the same. This means that, mathematically speaking two counterdicting events can be true at the same time without creating conflict on acount that both counterdicting events are one in the same event. Thus it might be conscieved that the sum of finite existance is the sum of two equal opposites that are one in the same and equal to a single instant or event.

Since any finite closed quantity exhibits a ratio of opposite forces such as 25parts negative and 75parts positive..it is conscievable that chance and probability is also a balance of forces which would be responcible for the bell distribution known as the bell theorum.

So an event as a whole will have parts of it saying that it is one kind of thing and the other parts saying that it is somthing else.

For instance,

As one shrinks to an infinitely small point one exists everywhere simultaneously and still exists as a single entity. One can occupy many regions of space if all those regions are connected to a volume of energy of infinite density. This is because any signal or vibration recieved by an energy of infinite density will probagate to all points within that medium instantly. Thus all points in that space will be connected and appear to be one in the same which goes hand in hand with my theorum that as energy density increases the space-time density decreases in that region of space that the energy is occupying--which is responcible for gravity as well. Space of higher density will gravitate towards a space of low density. This is because space-time of low density is also a space-time quantity of low pressure. Gravity therefore works much like the lift of an airplane. As lower pressure exists on the top of the wing the plane lifts. As low pressure space-time exists in the region of matter all other spaces around mass are higher pressure and therefore inertially accelerate toward the regions of low pressure. Thus you have particals of mass energy and surrounded by high pressure space-time and gravitating toward other masses and energies as a result of the low pressure space-time that occupies the area where energy is at rest.

If you have any questions E-mail me at [email protected]

Regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
I was reading Shadow's postingh #28, And I haven't been here in a while. It seems that time may be specfic to a place when we consider phenomonlogical time, or the subjective element. We are definitely to preoccupioed with intellectual ideas and thoughts etc. to acknowlegdge and experience the other aspects of your knowing. I have experienced a different flaor or time based on feelings and intruition. These would hardly stand up under scientific investigation because science deals in hard observable data with strict guidelines. Before the advent of time zones, trains in Europe would never arrive on time because everyone's time was different. The people on the train would have their time pieces set one way and the people of the town in a different way, often times it would be hours off.
 
Ask yourselves a question. What do we know for sure about time? Answer: That it is a man made concept. Thats it. Time may or may not exist. I beleive that "rgrunt" is on the right track but, what do i know. same as you. NOTHING. Dont get me wrong, but seriously, any type of study or investigation relies on one thing, FACTS, and here we have none, 0 zip.I think perhaps, instead of discusing the possibility of tinme travel, lets first determine what it is, if anything we would be traveling through. If i'm wrong then i appologies, but please let me know. And please do so with proven facts. Thanx
 
the time as so in my opinion exists since the existence is reduced to which 'is' (to be) and the time he is something. Now that stops the cage of the human conscience its body and the nature, there are no reasons for existence is single a problem to be moored to these however the human reason can break these loops and obtain no fisicas answers if a of the science verification? I say that if but within his mind. This can be explained so that the man and all being of the nature has a past which can be entered of several ways, but the conscience can create worlds and universes as it is the case of schizophrenia, to which the man tries to uir but that this within each one.
 
It seems to me that we first visualized time as the memory of things gone by which leads one to speculating on what is yet to come.

In so doing, we creat a tangibility of the past and the future as if they are something of substance that persist outside the realm of our existence. Something tangible. A "where/when" we could actually travel to.

But to me, these "tangible" pasts or futures do in fact NOT exist. Never have. Never will. They are conceptual manifestations of the mind playing "what if" games with itself.

But the mind is full of "what ifs" that can never be. (As well as many that can, which is where true inovation comes from.)

Many things are possible. But conceptualizing that something could be so does not automatically mean that it could be.

There will always be things we can do, and things we cannot. We probably CAN solve the issue of faster than light travel someday. For ourselves. We CAN solve the problem of population growth if we apply ourselves vigorously.

We probably CANNOT ever manifest matter just by imagining it. Nor can we probably ever manifest energy from nothing. They have to come from somewhere. Not matter on WHAT level.

The laws of the physics of the universe are fixed and undeniable. We may not KNOW all of them yet, (and probably NEVER will), but they are immutable nonetheless.

And to me "Time Travel" is itself a flight of fantasy based on a conceptual misnomer of how we think of time.

So far, I can only think of ONE viable definition of time. The manner in which we describe the lapse between cause and effect.

What else could it be?
 
Back
Top