G
Guest
I don't believe that time really exsists anywhere except in our minds.I think this is what causes the paradoxes that we observe in nature and in our measurements.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Guest
Re:time travel (thoughts on movement)
Hi
in reply to your thoughts that you believe time does not exist anywhere except in our minds, Can I ask you to help with the following as I were thinking along the same lines a while ago. My thought's were that time must actually exist due to the following.
1/ I am led to believe that all things in the universe are moving
2/ If all things are moving then they cover distance (say a-b)
3/ To travel from a-b takes something inbetween (a-???-b)
So why cant the ??? be time, also consider that during the ??? the all things moving are going through change, which is in its self a time measuring device?
It may also be that you are stating your thoughts to be that time travel is only possible with the mind?. Should that be the case it would still take a little of ??? to get from a-b wouldn't it?
Thanks
Rob
Hi
in reply to your thoughts that you believe time does not exist anywhere except in our minds, Can I ask you to help with the following as I were thinking along the same lines a while ago. My thought's were that time must actually exist due to the following.
1/ I am led to believe that all things in the universe are moving
2/ If all things are moving then they cover distance (say a-b)
3/ To travel from a-b takes something inbetween (a-???-b)
So why cant the ??? be time, also consider that during the ??? the all things moving are going through change, which is in its self a time measuring device?
It may also be that you are stating your thoughts to be that time travel is only possible with the mind?. Should that be the case it would still take a little of ??? to get from a-b wouldn't it?
Thanks
Rob
G
Guest
Re:Re:time travel (thoughts on movement)
While my approach to "time" is essentially the same as John's, your questions do beg answers.
To me, what you are describing is the interval between cause and effect or causality if you will. The perspective this puts on it for me is that even tho there is a passage of what we call "time" which describes this causality, it really only exist as a flow of the "now". The fact that we recognize this does not however mean that this flow has left some sort of physical trail that we can return to, (the past), or that it projects some empirical path forward (the future) that we can move up into in any participatory manner.
I believe THOSE aspects of time are only in our minds. They are esoteric by nature, rather than anything real.
While my approach to "time" is essentially the same as John's, your questions do beg answers.
To me, what you are describing is the interval between cause and effect or causality if you will. The perspective this puts on it for me is that even tho there is a passage of what we call "time" which describes this causality, it really only exist as a flow of the "now". The fact that we recognize this does not however mean that this flow has left some sort of physical trail that we can return to, (the past), or that it projects some empirical path forward (the future) that we can move up into in any participatory manner.
I believe THOSE aspects of time are only in our minds. They are esoteric by nature, rather than anything real.
G
Guest
More and more people seem to agree that it's all in our minds (or in our collective mind). Time, and everything else, are exactly what we THINK they are.
G
Guest
Re:Re:time travel (thoughts on movement)
'Time' is what we have named our perception of the universe. We are beings that live in a linear existance, with linear perception - ie..
we witness cause followed by effect. This causality ('time') may thus be a limitation of our perception of the universe, rather than a property of the universe itself.
This naturally leads to the theory that if it is not a universal law, it may be possible to 'bypass' it if we can somehow leep outside of linear human perception. Maybe we will find a way, maybe it's inherently impossible. Only time(there's that word again)..will tell.
The easiest way of stating this theory of the nature of 'time' is perhaps by this metaphor that I've just this second thought up..
Imagine that you are 'looking' at say, an apple for the very first time. You are 'seeing' the form of the apple by perceiving visual information (light rays hitting your retinas). Can you taste the apple this way?
Of course not, because not being able to taste the apple is one of the limitations of the perception that we call sight. So without being able to taste the apple(and never having done so before) can you understand the full nature of the apple? No. You must employ senses other than sight. The more 'senses' that you perceive the apple with, the fuller the overall picture of it's nature.
Perhaps 'time' is the equivalent of seeing but not being able to taste the apple. That may sound crazy, but imagine if we discovered some method, some other way of perceiving, that allowed us to 'taste' the universe too, to effectively overcome the limitation of 'time'. We would then be further towards seeing the overall 'picture' or nature of the universe.
'Time' is what we have named our perception of the universe. We are beings that live in a linear existance, with linear perception - ie..
we witness cause followed by effect. This causality ('time') may thus be a limitation of our perception of the universe, rather than a property of the universe itself.
This naturally leads to the theory that if it is not a universal law, it may be possible to 'bypass' it if we can somehow leep outside of linear human perception. Maybe we will find a way, maybe it's inherently impossible. Only time(there's that word again)..will tell.
The easiest way of stating this theory of the nature of 'time' is perhaps by this metaphor that I've just this second thought up..
Imagine that you are 'looking' at say, an apple for the very first time. You are 'seeing' the form of the apple by perceiving visual information (light rays hitting your retinas). Can you taste the apple this way?
Of course not, because not being able to taste the apple is one of the limitations of the perception that we call sight. So without being able to taste the apple(and never having done so before) can you understand the full nature of the apple? No. You must employ senses other than sight. The more 'senses' that you perceive the apple with, the fuller the overall picture of it's nature.
Perhaps 'time' is the equivalent of seeing but not being able to taste the apple. That may sound crazy, but imagine if we discovered some method, some other way of perceiving, that allowed us to 'taste' the universe too, to effectively overcome the limitation of 'time'. We would then be further towards seeing the overall 'picture' or nature of the universe.
G
Guest
Re:Re:Re:time travel (thoughts on movement)
Just to add...
Imagine that we discover a way to perceive beyond linear perspective. Entering into this state itself might automatically enable time travel.
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL FLIGHT OF FANCY, SO PLEASE DON'T BLUDGEON ME OVER THE HEAD WITH HARD QUANTUM PHYSICS. IT'S SIMPLY DESIGNED TO PROVOKE THOUGHT, NOT A HEATED DEBATE ON THE MOVEMENT OF WAVE PARTICLES ETC. THANKS)
..Instead of only being aware of the point in 'time' that you are consciously occupying, you would suddenly be aware of everything, every point in history, backwards and forward, every infinate interaction that has and will ever occur(even though these 'linear' concepts will be meaningless).
The universe would effectively become an infinate, yet perceivable 'switching gate'. You could 'latch on to'(for want of a better expression) any of the infinate 'points' open to you and emerge into 'normal' perception at that point in 'history'. Words like 'point' and 'history' have no meaning in this extra linear state, but you get the picture.
I would imagine that you could perhaps see no further distance wise, than in 'normal' perception, or maybe 'space would also become meaningless by association and you could? Bloody hell..
Anyway, this would all involve 'the mind', but may also need technology to induce it..
Perhaps you would enter this state, but maybe it would be useless to you, as you could not make sense of it. Imagine being able to perceive every interaction from the most elemental particles up simultaeniously. You may be able to sense this unimaginable input, but could you possibly comprehend it, would your brain be instantaeniously fried?
Maybe comprehension would simply be an integral property of the state.
I believe that said theory would most likey be happier involving a single predetermined 'reality', with integral time travelling incursions. This would negate the possibilty of paradoxes (but that's not really the point that I've been making..
I must stop this for now though as I'm supposed to be working..
Just to add...
Imagine that we discover a way to perceive beyond linear perspective. Entering into this state itself might automatically enable time travel.
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL FLIGHT OF FANCY, SO PLEASE DON'T BLUDGEON ME OVER THE HEAD WITH HARD QUANTUM PHYSICS. IT'S SIMPLY DESIGNED TO PROVOKE THOUGHT, NOT A HEATED DEBATE ON THE MOVEMENT OF WAVE PARTICLES ETC. THANKS)
..Instead of only being aware of the point in 'time' that you are consciously occupying, you would suddenly be aware of everything, every point in history, backwards and forward, every infinate interaction that has and will ever occur(even though these 'linear' concepts will be meaningless).
The universe would effectively become an infinate, yet perceivable 'switching gate'. You could 'latch on to'(for want of a better expression) any of the infinate 'points' open to you and emerge into 'normal' perception at that point in 'history'. Words like 'point' and 'history' have no meaning in this extra linear state, but you get the picture.
I would imagine that you could perhaps see no further distance wise, than in 'normal' perception, or maybe 'space would also become meaningless by association and you could? Bloody hell..
Anyway, this would all involve 'the mind', but may also need technology to induce it..
Perhaps you would enter this state, but maybe it would be useless to you, as you could not make sense of it. Imagine being able to perceive every interaction from the most elemental particles up simultaeniously. You may be able to sense this unimaginable input, but could you possibly comprehend it, would your brain be instantaeniously fried?
Maybe comprehension would simply be an integral property of the state.
I believe that said theory would most likey be happier involving a single predetermined 'reality', with integral time travelling incursions. This would negate the possibilty of paradoxes (but that's not really the point that I've been making..
I must stop this for now though as I'm supposed to be working..
G
Guest
Re:Re:Re:Re:time travel (thoughts on movement)
I really like these two Simon.
You like to contemplate the difficulties as if Time Travel were possible, and I like to contemplate how it can't be.
Yet, we very often come up with the same arguments to support our somewhat differing positions.
I particularly enjoy having it pointed out to me where I could be wrong. Not because I'm a masochist, but because I never know when someone else just might come up with a well thought out view that may give me a perspective that leads to even further learning.
I really like these two Simon.
You like to contemplate the difficulties as if Time Travel were possible, and I like to contemplate how it can't be.
Yet, we very often come up with the same arguments to support our somewhat differing positions.
I particularly enjoy having it pointed out to me where I could be wrong. Not because I'm a masochist, but because I never know when someone else just might come up with a well thought out view that may give me a perspective that leads to even further learning.