Concept of time

[Creeping Death]

What do you think that time is? I feel that it's just a human invention, and doesn't exist. But im not satisfied with that. It doesn't make any sense that time wouldnt exist at all. But im sure that it's not just an endlessly flowing one-way stream. How about you?

[bubaloo]

The concept of time is self-evident. An hour consists of a certain number of minutes, a day of hours and a year of days. But we rarely think about the fundamental nature of time. Time is passing non-stop, and we follow it with clocks and calendars. Yet we cannot study it with a microscope or experiment with it. And it still keeps passing. We just cannot say what exactly happens when time passes. Time is represented through change, such as the circular motion of the moon around the earth. The passing of time is indeed closely connected to the concept of space.

[Creeping Death]

People invented the calendar. Hours, days, minutes and all that. Im wondering how other cultures view time. I've read that the shamans and indians and other cultures view time in a completely different way than we do in the "official" world of europe, asia, africa, and america. In what way can that be?

[hard2core]

Here is a revelation that I had recently while exploring the universe with DXM.


Let us place a point in the universe.
Then place another.


Traveling the length between the two point represents a 1 dimensional universe.


Let us cross two 1 dimensional universe and make a plane.


Thus, we have a 2 dimensional universe full of length and width.


Now if we intersect two 2 dimensional universes we obtain space which is our dimension. We are free to move within length, width, and depth of our 3 dimensional universe.


Now if we intersect two 3 dimensional universes...we obtain time travel. A 4th dimensional being would be able to observe all that is along a timeline. Now they would not be able to change anything, but they would be able to rewind and fast forward through life like a video tape. Like a single path of choices that are predetermined and can only exist within it's own destiny.


Now if we intersect two 4 dimensional universes...we obtain possibilities. A 5th dimensional being would be able to move within and out of all times and all possible choices. All paths exist in the 5th dimension.


I believe that our bodies exist in a 3rd dimensional realm.
Our minds exist in a 4th dimensional realm.
Our spirits exist in a 5th dimensional realm.

[yuval]

whatever time is, our PERCEPTION of it seems to be cruical to our state of consciousness. eckhart tolle's "The Power of Now", the most convincing account of what it's like to have an ongoing (25 years) mystical experience like the one one has on acid, has a theory focused around how we perceive time.


it's a very niceread - this guy didn't make it to the #1 spot on the NY Times bestseller list by selling to acidheads i'll tell you that. i especially like that first chapter, about identifying with thoughts, and the second one, about our capacity for emotional pain.

[billyloner]

Originally Posted by bubaloo

Time is represented through change, such as the circular motion of the moon around the earth.

this is right, all motion and change in general is a representation of time and the passage of it. i dont really see how time can simply be a construct of the human mind - if this were so, we would have to believe that before the human mind developed, there was no time, and everything 'before' that point (a very difficult concept if time did not exist...)existed as one. and then suddenly time sprang into action with the advent of the mind. which is rather far-fetched.


however this does not mean the human mind may have a massive impact on our perception of time. if our mind were built in a different way, we may perceive time differently. and we all know it is possible to alter our perceptions of time, through verious means and methods - drug use, sitting bored with nothing to do, doing something enjoyable, etc.


im also not sure i believe that time can be represented by a simple straight line. if it were simply a 4th dimension in the same way as space has 3, then it could be. but i think the dimension of time is of a different nature to the ordinary spatial dimensions we can see. but i have no evidence for that, or any real reason to think it, its just a feeling i have really. its probably bullshit, but i dont care

[motorhead]

Time is a funny thing. Ive been on the forum since 7 oclock this morniing, sipping beer, snortin percs and i cant believe its almost 1:30 in the afternoon. If i was at work, shit, this would seem like forever you know. Funny thing time. If i could only save it in a bottle.

[Hyperreal]

It's only the time that it is.

[als5555]

a guy in a movie once said "i have trouble believing in the past and the future, somehow i'm always stuck in the present." does man control the future or does the future control man, certain things are inevitable, but we are finding ways to make less and less things that way. time is a process, the process of things decomposing and becoming new, the process of change, of evolution and transformation. this is the concept that man calls time. but the process of splitting and measuring time with clocks is purely man made, so one could say that time is artificial.

[Funkameleon5]

time is one of the many concepts where human language becomes horribly inadequate

i believe that time exists, because i have a past... there is a series of events that brought me to the now... and i have a future, because each now continually progresses on to another now... and there is a now, because i exist, i am here (at least i think i am)... but past and future are abstract concepts, they are not tangable... i can not show you the past or future, i can not touch or feel the past or future, but i can try to tell you about them... i know i have been through a past and that i will proceed through a future...

i have explored the concept of time as a 4th nontangable, nonspatial demention... but my explorations and discussions have been nonconclusive

im not completely sure, but i think these concepts and questions of time fall into some sort of quantum theory... something ive done some, but very little study of

[boomer0]

time is a dimension, if you trust scientific research. it is manipulated by factors such as gravity and speed, this has been scientifically proven (which is not to say it's definately true). the dimension of time and the human measurement of time i believe are two different things, the latter being a tool as previously stated.

[daeron]

Originally Posted by boomer0

time is a dimension, if you trust scientific research. it is manipulated by factors such as gravity and speed, this has been scientifically proven (which is not to say it's definately true). the dimension of time and the human measurement of time i believe are two different things, the latter being a tool as previously stated.

not quite so.time itself has been rarely studied,its more used as a parameter or a variable dettermining the more complex functions such as speed(velocity).


thats why i claim its just an another tool,we have no physical proof of its exsitence yet we use it to explain other concepts.


we can percieve the change,and the rate of change but can we percieve the time itself?Does the clock measure time,or the change in whater mechanism is used to power the clock?And does this change or the rate of changemeans the same thing as the concept of time?


For that matter what is the concept of time,when you really get down to it?Is time used to describe some change or does it have an independent non descriptive meaning by itself?


and more importantly why do i always ponder this kind of questions when im drunk?

[boomer0]

you make a good point, but if you accept certain things time can be proven to be true. if you don't accept those things, then absolutely nothing can be proven true. i see where you're coming from though and i agree that what i said isn't neccessarially a fact. it's a tough (impossible?) question to answer. drugs can help us because they often incubate very abstract ideas that would in most cases be tossed out by the more rational parts of our brain. aslo, in the case of hallucinogens, theycan give us a physical manifestation of these ideas by altering (perhaps opening up, who knows) our perception, which helps us to really believe things. the realer it seems, the more likely you are to believe it, and if you believe it then the question is answered to you,whether or not it's the truth. that's kinda off on a tangent, i love this forum though, and that's sorta what it's all about in my opinion. anyway, keep drinkin', smokin', trippin' and try toponderyour abstract ideaswhile your at it.

[yuval]

Originally Posted by daeron

For that matter what is the concept of time,when you really get down to it?Is time used to describe some change or does it have an independent non descriptive meaning by itself?

man i'm no physicist but it's been said before in a nice paper titled "liquid time", that using 'change' as a parameter, instead of time, is a totally valid point of view:


http://www.the-door.info/dimensions.htm


The paper explains:


"how conceptualization renders temporality and how it could be reworked to represent reality in a way that alludes to the extraordinary experience of immediacy invoked during transcendence"


would love to hear your thoughts on this provoking paper.

[afromonkey]

just because we can't visualise a fourth (or fifth or nth) spatial
dimension, doesn't neccesarily indicate that it must be a non spatial
dimension, does it? I don't know very much physics, but isn't it
possible that the fourth dimension is a spatial dimension perpendicular
to all the other spatial dimension?



and another thing, ya know how it's possible to produce an image in two
dimensions that appears 3 dimensional (draw a cube) would it be
possible to produce a three dimensional cube that seems four
dimensional?

[daeron]

excuse me but the nerdy,sci part of my personality will take over now(sorry for the length,btw):


before i even start to talk about my "theories",i would like to point out what makes a good thesis-simplicity.now you may call me dumb or plain but in order to understand things we need toexpress ourselves in a concise manner,and stay off the roads that lead to spiritualisic mumbo-jumbo(thats one of my arguments why i think that leary is full of crap,btw)


so as for the 4th dimension as a spatial one,i think its highly unlikely(but not entirely of course).The main reason is this-what do you need to fully define an object in space,in a certain moment?you need only 3 spatial dimensions,the 4th one would be nonessential,and could be expressed as one of the 3 dimensions,thus it is non existent as a fundamental spatial dimension.it would be something like saying that some person is 180cm high AND is 30x times the length of a 6cmline ofcoke(a rough example but i hope im clear on this).


Nowto understand myview of time we got to definea//any// process.(there are 2 ways the empirical/completely experimental,using thelaws of chance&probability,its a more complicated matter so i wont use that example ill use the deterministic-but it will yield the same result)


first you define your object.to do so youve got to define its 3 spatial dimensions:





^now what info do we have about the process from this-none!why because were observing the object in one moment.but if we do a series of observations of an object in different moments:





^now we have substantially more info on the process.if that process is simply a change of position,and we want to determine its speed or acceleration what parameters do we need?we need the spatial parameters but do we need time as an essential parameter?NO!


we dont have to know that no1position was at 1pm,no2 at 4pm,etc.No we need to know the change of the "time",between 1-2,2-3,etc.Than we use a series of experimets to measure the change of positions and its relation to the change of "time",etc


Now what is this "time" we use as a variable?Thats the main question.It seems we have jumped over one step.We havent defined it but still we use it.Thats why i call it a tool.We use it without fully understanding it.


My opinion(or better yet impression)is that time is just an another abstract tool like daffodil.It is used to describe the world we perceive as living sapient beings.And thats the whole point-we are living (not always sapient,lol) beings,and we function in a linear fashion.We are not just series of moments because we remember these moments,and weave them in to a whole that we call our exsitence.


So what is this 4th dimension?Is it this time thingie?IMO its unlikely,the best the time can do is to be a pseudodimension.Something we use to describe the change/the rate of change,but is it more simpler than change itself.


If it is than change cant be the 4th dimension.


Is the change(rate of) a function of time oris itthe other way around?


Orare the both conceptsfunctions of something else,the real 4th dimension?


and this is where you afomonkey asked a great question:and another thing, ya know how it's possible to produce an image in two dimensions that appears 3 dimensional (draw a cube) would it be possible to produce a three dimensional cube that seems four dimensional?


Thats a great Q,cos we cant even be sure that there are 4 dimensions,maybe we just have an impression of the 4th,of the time,change,whatever?


I would rather stop on these(and other)questions than to make a final impression/decision.


We humans,homo sapiens are not a scientific race.We are a race of engineers!


-we dont want to know how the things work we want to know how to make them work!














PS did you notice how many typos i made.....dammit daeron first learn to write than go off mumbling bout time..Edited by: daeron

[yuval]

daeron did you take a look at the link i posted? what do you think?

[daeron]

yeah ive read it sorry if ididnt make myself more clear,my impression is that although it may be a step torwards realising the real concept of time(if there is such a thing) i think we cant just take change as a 4th dimension.maybe my real point is that we cant even percieve the 4th dimension(?).to state such a thing you must first corelate time(whatever it is)--change.Which is the function of what?


is there some "force",some other variable behind what we percieve as time or change?and is that the 4th dimension or the Nth?or there only 3?will a unified theory have answers to this?


heh i certanly dont have the answers,and i think no other human does...


one thing slightly off topic yuval,the way this guy writes anoys me a bit.firstly:you see i dont like the words spiritual,ect(that may be a personal opinion...) but using such terms which have such abstract meanings can be misleading,and you may not actually understand what the author is refering.


Second thing(and this is were i become a bastard) is that eloquency doesnt mean that youre right,smart or that that what youre saying is not just a bucked of droolof a crazed acidhead.Thats why i dislike Leary,and others.


If you discusssomething like time,you cant get all retoric and shit,you have to be concise.


this is of course my view of his way of writting and like him im letting my own opinion influence my writing!


as for the idea of change as the governing parameter/variable it is more logic than the idea of the undefined time,but i dont know if its true....


sometimes the smartest thing you can say is I DONT KNOW

[yuval]

i didn't like the complexity of his case either, although i appreciate the fact that he simply (pun not intended) tried to make a formal case out of it, for it to be as complete as possible.


2 years ago when i came upon this paper i read it, said "huh?", then went to the guestbook and read a comment that said something like: "for the past few days i've been trying to look at how things change instead of looking at motion etc. - and it's really cool" - that was the clearest presentation of the case in his website at the time.


simplicity is important, i totally agree with you, as is cannonization (defining from the ground up what is important, reputable, scientifically validatedetc.).


all the best


y

[daeron]

you may be surprised to hear that the classic physic and chemistry,have used "the change" for a long time now.Most of the deterministic explanations are based on the "change of time",infinitely small "delta t",to get to the generalized differential equations.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urnchemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


but in science most of the things are abstract so many dont even see that theyre actually using changeinstead of time itself.Thats the basic principle on which all experiments function.


the problem arises when you try to explain this to the masses...

[yuval]

i had the worst thermodynamics teacher ever in uni... still remember that tho

[boomer0]

Originally Posted by afromonkey

just because we can't visualise a fourth (or fifth or nth) spatial dimension, doesn't neccesarily indicate that it must be a non spatial dimension, does it? I don't know very much physics, but isn't it possible that the fourth dimension is a spatial dimension perpendicular to all the other spatial dimension?

and another thing, ya know how it's possible to produce an image in two dimensions that appears 3 dimensional (draw a cube) would it be possible to produce a three dimensional cube that seems four dimensional?

it's very possible. string theory, a relatively new theory with a lot of promise for the future of physics, requires something like 11 dimensions and a lot of people have accepted this as the truth. also i haven't seen it but i've heard about this thing called the hypercube that supposedly looks likea four dimensional object. even if we saw a four dimensional object though, i don't think our brains would be able to understand it.

[Nicaine]

Originally Posted by Creeping Death

What do you think that time is? I feel that it's just a human invention, and doesn't exist.

Agreed. It's a mode of perception, a way the brain organizes perceptual data. Same with space (space/time continuum)... it's invented as a way of organizing and locating oneself in a way that can be made sense of.

But im not satisfied with that. It doesn't make any sense that time wouldnt exist at all.

It makes sense to me. Try watching a really good movie, and see how fast the time goes by. Now sit and stare at the wall for two hours. Which speed of time passing is the "real" speed? Does time "pass" at all, or do events get stored in memory and give a sensation *as if* time had gone by -- determined by comparing and contrasting memories?Edited by: Nicaine

[Qish]

just remember people einstein found 11 dimensions.

[phenethylamine]

Time is something that we have created for ourselves to schedule what our body needs as far as sleep and to keep all the paperwork and all that shit in life on time and it's all really just a big illusion, a big neon distraction in our minds. I mean, for all we know, human or human-like life forms may have existed 1 trillion yearsbefore as far back as we can imagine of imagining. There may have been civilizations that were far more advanced than we are now, they may even still exist, or they may have also found out about splitting the atom and destroyed themselves well before we even reached a level of consciousness that makes us wonder what time is. Time is not the point, and neither is anything that lies within the lines of time. No matter what time it is, it is right now. no matter where you are, you are here. ask yourself what time it is without a clock, its now. Where are we? we are here, definitely, no matter what.