What is time?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 01:01 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;152458 wrote:
Thanks for the lead on Kingsley. I've just visited his website and there seem to be a number of interesting articles to read.

Sometimes I wonder if it's really as deep and profound as we make it out to be, or if all of the often Byzantine conduits through which the mystical tradition must travel is just a distraction, or a red herring, to conceal a truth that may be so remarkably simple that anyone could grasp it, yet so ontologically shocking that if everyone did grasp it our current paradigm would crumble like a mouthful of rotten teeth.

Then again, maybe it's so complicated and arcane to mask the truth that it's all just a metaphysical blivet. (this definition, not Wiki's: Urban Dictionary: blivet)

But speaking of Time and Reality, I'd be curious to know your take on the relationship between the two, lest the "What is Time" topic go too far astray . . .


The thing about the mystical is that it SOUNDS arcane and complicated when it is written down or expressed - but it usually originates in an insight which seems completely elementary to the person who has it, right up until the time s/he tries to explain it to anyone....so in a sense, almost like what you said, simple yet shocking, but really, I believe, in a benign sort of way. I like to think of it as a kind of 'knowing without knowing how you know' or even 'knowing without knowing' (I suppose that sounds satisfactorily mystical:bigsmile:)

As for time and reality: I think one of the hallmarks of the mystical realization is the sense of being outside of time, or beyond time. It is actually described quite well in one of Russell's better essays, mysticism and logic, at The Project Gutenberg eBook of Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays, by Bertrand Russell.

in which he states
Quote:
there is some sense-easier to feel than to state-in which time is an unimportant and superficial characteristic of reality. Past and future must be acknowledged to be as real as the present, and a certain emancipation from slavery to time is essential to philosophic thought. The importance of time is rather practical than theoretical, rather in relation to our desires than in relation to truth. A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is. Both in [22]thought and in feeling, even though time be real, to realise the unimportance of time is the gate of wisdom.
Russell generally ends up coming out in favour of logic over mysticism, but he understands the mystical insight considerably more well than many other philosophers, in my view.

I think mysticism both east and west equates time with the temporal, the passing, the transitory, as opposed to the real, which has been conceived as the changeless, the enduring, and so forth. Conceptually, it is a rather problematic opposition, because one is inclined to ask 'a changeless what? An enduring what?'. Which is one of those questions that does yield answers easily, I think.
 
ThouAreThat
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 01:05 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;145498 wrote:
Time the most fascinating cocept in the world, yet many people still claim that it's objective and NOT subjective.

I would like to see the perspective of this forum on time? Do you think it exists? Is it subjective or objective? Do you think the past and the future is real?

Do you think only the present is real or do you think there is no difference between the past,present and the future(my point of view).

Have a read of this article which goes in great depth in discussing time among many great philosophers from ancient times till modern.



About time:

As observed, there is real (present) time and psychological time.

Psychological time is based on knowledge. I know there was my past and I know that there will be my future. Both projected future and remembered past reside in my knowledge. Knowledge is what I have accumulated in my mind from the time I was born.

Therefore knowledge is the past, as well as the future and the past in terms of psychological time contained in knowledge. (The past is the past and the future is the past)

What is time therefore?

The only kind of time qualifying for the word of real or present TIME is the real and present time in which we all live, fleeting second by second, awake and cognizing the ever present change of the universe unfolding this very present moment. This present time is eternal and consciousness can bear witness of its observation.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 01:18 am
@ThouAreThat,
ThouAreThat;152666 wrote:
Psychological time is based on knowledge. I know there was my past and I know that there will be my future. Both projected future and remembered past reside in my knowledge. Knowledge is what I have accumulated in my mind from the time I was born..


This is what Krishnamurti says too. I think it is quite true. But for most of us, it is the only kind of life and mind we know.
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 04:38 am
@ikurwa89,
for me:
eternity,everlasting,ageless is a synonym of timeless
therefore timeless is infinite

if timeless is infinite
then time is finite
it has beginning and has the end,it has duration

if somethings have duration then, time is present on it
if somethings have no duration then, time does not exist

but both time and timeless has past, present and future on it
the only difference is the time is finite and the timeless is infinite

i think past is gone, present exist and future will come to exist.

---------- Post added 04-16-2010 at 05:45 AM ----------

i think time machine is possible if events in the past will repeat to the future.
but still repeated events will still count as future
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:31 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;152663 wrote:
I think mysticism both east and west equates time with the temporal, the passing, the transitory, as opposed to the real, which has been conceived as the changeless, the enduring, and so forth. Conceptually, it is a rather problematic opposition, because one is inclined to ask 'a changeless what? An enduring what?'. Which is one of those questions that does yield answers easily, I think.


Is reality possible without time, conversely, is time possible without reality?
Do they create each other? Or at least allow the other to be?

I sometimes wonder if time is what is unchanging, and reality ever-changing.

Difficult to explain what I am saying, for as soon as the words form, the
reality they are describing has shifted while time moves on with indifference.
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:58 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;152846 wrote:
Is reality possible without time, conversely, is time possible without reality?
Do they create each other? Or at least allow the other to be?

I sometimes wonder if time is what is unchanging, and reality ever-changing.

Difficult to explain what I am saying, for as soon as the words form, the
reality they are describing has shifted while time moves on with indifference.

correct if me not:

time can exist with reality
timeless can also exist with reality

time has duration therefore it has beginning and has the end
timeless has no duration because it is also another word for eternity

there are real things that time exist
there are real things that is timeless
there are no unreal only real
but it can be true or false

therefore reality can exist without time
but time need reality to exist
but that reality can be true or false
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 12:15 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;152663 wrote:
The thing about the mystical is that it SOUNDS arcane and complicated when it is written down or expressed - but it usually originates in an insight which seems completely elementary to the person who has it, right up until the time s/he tries to explain it to anyone....so in a sense, almost like what you said, simple yet shocking, but really, I believe, in a benign sort of way. I like to think of it as a kind of 'knowing without knowing how you know' or even 'knowing without knowing' (I suppose that sounds satisfactorily mystical:bigsmile:)

As for time and reality: I think one of the hallmarks of the mystical realization is the sense of being outside of time, or beyond time. It is actually described quite well in one of Russell's better essays, mysticism and logic, at The Project Gutenberg eBook of Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays, by Bertrand Russell.

in which he states Russell generally ends up coming out in favour of logic over mysticism, but he understands the mystical insight considerably more well than many other philosophers, in my view.

I think mysticism both east and west equates time with the temporal, the passing, the transitory, as opposed to the real, which has been conceived as the changeless, the enduring, and so forth. Conceptually, it is a rather problematic opposition, because one is inclined to ask 'a changeless what? An enduring what?'. Which is one of those questions that does yield answers easily, I think.


Thanks for the Russell quote. Great post in general.

---------- Post added 04-16-2010 at 01:19 PM ----------

ThouAreThat;152666 wrote:
(The past is the past and the future is the past)


I agree. The future exist as an idea in the present manufactured from the past. Of course we good quality and elaborate, but this is, IMO, the gist.

---------- Post added 04-16-2010 at 01:24 PM ----------

Wisdom Seeker;152854 wrote:

therefore reality can exist without time
but time need reality to exist
but that reality can be true or false


interesting thoughts. In my opinion, human reality cannot exist without time, although we can indeed, as humans within time, imagine timelessness. What is time? Is time the perception of change which is therefore dependent on memory? Can an animal with no memory at all, and I mean none, ever conceive of such a concept, or even experience it without understanding it?

Does the future exist as the conceptual content of desire and fear?
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 01:30 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;152861 wrote:
In my opinion, human reality cannot exist without time,


Just human reality? I don't see how any sort of realty can exist without time. Conversely, I don't see how time could exist without reality.

I don't think memory has anything to do with time; that is, time as a dynamic process.

Do you remember what you felt like to be alive in 1246 AD?

Memory is faulty. Beyond the conceits of human activity, would remembering
something wrong have a physical effect in the ever-lasting now?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 01:39 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;152911 wrote:
Just human reality? I don't see how any sort of realty can exist without time. Conversely, I don't see how time could exist without reality.

I don't think memory has anything to do with time; that is, time as a dynamic process.

Do you remember what you felt like to be alive in 1246 AD?

Memory is faulty. Beyond the conceits of human activity, would remembering
something wrong have a physical effect in the ever-lasting now?


Yes, I see your objections. But could you mention something like process if you never had had the memory to conceive of time in the first place? And is motion perceivable without memory? As a thought experiment, imagine an absolute absence of memory. Now, imagine a moving object. You would only see where it was at that instant, never it's motion. You could not compare where it is to where it was. Another example is music. Could music have meaning if we did not remember the preceding note? Only the barest, assuming chords are played. I exaggerate the memory issue to argue a point.

The history issue is something else, and it's a good one. I still hold that unless we had the time concept to begin with, we could make no sense of what remains of the past. In fact, without memory, we couldn't read a book. In my view, memory and concept (and memory is concept?) are crucial, foundational.

I think humans can imagine timelessness, but only as a negation of time, from an immersion in time. Time is such a fundamental cultural factor that I think we take it for granted. Are time and change the same thing? It's a matter of terms I suppose. The two are certainly related.

salute!
recon
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 02:07 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;152914 wrote:
Yes, I see your objections. But could you mention something like process if you never had had the memory to conceive of time in the first place? And is motion perceivable without memory? As a thought experiment, imagine an absolute absence of memory. Now, imagine a moving object. You would only see where it was at that instant, never it's motion. You could not compare where it is to where it was. Another example is music. Could music have meaning if we did not remember the preceding note? Only the barest, assuming chords are played. I exaggerate the memory issue to argue a point.


Yes. I agree with what you say. I meant much the same thing that I think you are saying here when I said that I can't see time existing without reality, and vice-versa.

A minor caveat or two, I would add:

I think, however, that the tendency is to look at such matters anthropocentrically. It would not matter if I never had the memory to conceive of time in the first place. Time would continue regardless of my absence or my observations. It is very easy for me to imagine a world without me. And, having had more than one level six salvia experience, I don't need to imagine an absolute absence of memory (or anything else but the empty amnesia of The Void, for that matter). I have been there, and have brought nothing back.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 02:34 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;152922 wrote:

I think, however, that the tendency is to look at such matters anthropocentrically.


Good point. I can only answer, respectfully, with this objection. Even if we consciously attempt to avoid this, are we not still operating thus within our human system of concepts? Of course it's gets even trickier. Because "man" is an abstraction within this same system. I view this concept system as the inside of the surface of a hollow sphere. I don't see meaning outside of concept unless we are talking emotions, raw sensation. But as soon as we talk emotion or sensation, we have conceptualized it.

So I feel that time and self and all the other grand themes are a part of this nexus. Then there are concepts like "transrational" which if they refer to more than emotion or raw sensation strike me as questionable. But I can't prove that. Might be prejudice. But here goes: man talks of the infinite but cannot truly conceive it, except in finite terms as the negation of the finite. Or in math it's something like an endless loop. Repeat to desired precision.

I wondered a little from the time theme, but I see it as all connected.

Of course I admit that this "system of concepts" would just be a concept within this same system of concepts...as the system's self-consciousness.
:perplexed:
 
awareness
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 02:34 pm
@ikurwa89,
time = causality = change
now = real
past/future = belief in change/causality
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 02:36 pm
@awareness,
awareness;152930 wrote:
time = causality = change
now = real
past/future = belief in change/causality


I like your terse style. I must say that I can't see time as equal to causality, although the two seem related. If by belief you mean memory or expectation, I can dig it.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 02:46 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;152929 wrote:
Even if we consciously attempt to avoid this, are we not still operating thus within our human system of concepts? Of course it's gets even trickier. Because "man" is an abstraction within this same system.


Indeed. How can we look at such things in a way that is not anthropocentric?
Or egocentric . . .

I certainly haven't figured it out. Perhaps, in the end, there is no need to,
as things just seem to keep on happening whether we want them to or not.

I reckon that everything is happening exactly as it is supposed to, which, as I may have mentioned before, is different than saying everything happens for a reason.

Have an illuminated weekend, Recon!

TTM
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 05:17 pm
@TickTockMan,
Time is the unexperienced experience or the experienced unexperience.
Time only exists to not exist.
Time only not exists to exist.
It is only as real as what is done with in or with out it.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 06:11 pm
@ikurwa89,
"Time is God's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once" - Woody Allen
 
ikurwa89
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 01:14 am
@ikurwa89,
There is no such thing as past and future, only present.

Everything happens in the present..the big bang, evolution etc.

Time is not a feature of the universe just a perception of some animals
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 02:39 am
@ikurwa89,
Oh good I don't have to go to work Monday then. I will ask my boss to call you. You can explain.
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 02:46 am
@ikurwa89,
Of course theres the old story about the tavern with a sign proclaiming "Free beer tomorrow"
 
William
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 06:48 am
@ikurwa89,
What happens when we speed? What does "coming to a screeching halt mean"? What if we just paced ourselves? Does speed kill?

Time is no more that an indication that there was a "then" as it relates to "now". That's all it is. It is there as a "reminder to help us remember". If we don't have the time it's difficult to remember. That means we are in too much of a hurry to do that.

As we regard it to the future, we assume that it will end thereby alluding us to believe it had a starting point. It is reflective in the so many ways it bothers us. "If we only had the time?" What in the hell does that mean?

"Hey, just STOP...................and think about it", ha! Ever said that before? Ha! Man if we just knew what we were truly telling each other when we say that, huh? Time is such a imposition! "Hey man, slow down you're going too fast". Yet time just keeps moving on, Huh! Yep, it surely does.

Now when we think of our destination, where ever that is, how fast do we want to get there? Can we "make it in time and on time"?

What if we regarded time as just a constant and left it at that and just aligned our selves with the flow of it; no beginning, no end, just the flow of everything in a forward direction. Would we lose track of it? I think not. The mind would have the time to do that for us.

Now I know that is a tall order for me to convince you of that. Unless you've been there yourself, it is truly difficult any one who hasn't to imagine. If we regarded time as "just a reminder" of a past commitment and only that we would always be on time every time all the time; then it would matter to a certain degree.

So now it is prudent to ask not what time is, but what it is that makes us rush? This is important because when we rush, speed, get in a hurry mentally and physically all hell breaks loose. We are telling us what hell is all the time and we regard it little, because we have done that in all ways and all days.............so far.

Don't you think it is time we stopped to listen to ourselves and what we are saying to each other in the words and phrases we are using to communicate with one another. Do we have to scream before we can hear? It sure seems that way. Perhaps if we stopped to think about One language, one voice, one people, one Earth, one universe we might understand why time is killing us as we rush through it. Now not all do that, but those that do are hurting us all.

Yeah, time is truly a killer and so is speed. It really screws up that time and mind equilibrium when we regard it and focus on it the way we do especially in the way we regard it as "running out of time". Damn what a horrible thought that is; damn, damn, damn and triple damn, ha!

Now you might ask William, how can we not worry about the time we have left. That's easy, stop worrying about it. Stop trying to figure it out; just role with the flow. Stay focused in the moment don't let "now and then" be a concern of yours. The mind knows what was and will, if you do not rush it, tell you what it is you need to know in that moment. It is precise, exact and never wrong if you don't bother it so.

Now once you do that, you will then see what it is you need to see, hear what it is you need to hear, returning you to your senses and allowing them to do what they were intended to do. What that is, I haven't a clue; I can only imagine what that could be. How much more can we communicate with each other that is beyond what the senses alone offer?

If you could only see me and all the ways that I offer in my communication with others in the flesh it might help. It's really difficult to do than in such a black and white linear medium as this so surely is. Words alone can't do it. You need they eyes they hear better than the ears ever could. If one cannot see then the ears see for them. If we just stopped trying to figure every thing out I think we would really know what "coming to ones senses" really means in ways we could never imagine. What time is it? I don't care to know. It's just a reminder just in case I might have "forgotten" something.

William
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/21/2020 at 03:29:58