What is time?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

trueshrike
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 09:57 am
@ikurwa89,
Time is merely the human brains way of understanding energy.

All things physical are made of matter. Matter is severly condensed form of energy. As things happen, energy is changing, both in amount and level. Our brains comprehend these changes as a forward flow of energy state, thus time. If all energy stopped then there would be no change and thus no time. So simplified time is energy flow in all things and how we perceive it.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 03:10 pm
@trueshrike,
trueshrike;153996 wrote:
Time is merely the human brains way of understanding energy.


If there were no brains, would there be no time? Or merely no conception of time?

And, if there were no time, would there be no matter?

This seems like just another variation of the If a Tree Falls in the Forest discussion.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 03:48 pm
@ikurwa89,
acutely observed. How could there be time without the measure of it? There has to be continuity of perception for time to be meaningful. We instinctively structure and break time up around the Day, the Month, the Lifetime. But all of these are human scales.

Quote:
When it comes to the universe as a whole, time loses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may readily be restored in the theory by considering the universe to be separated into two sub-systems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the universe. So the observer plays an absolutely critical role in this respect. Linde [Andrei Linde, a physicist] expresses it graphically: "Thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time", and "we are together, the universe and us. The moment you say that the universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of this. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead."


Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, p261.

I know this is spooky and kind of through-the-looking-glass. But it does indicate that consciousness is much more fundamental than fortuitous.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 04:13 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;154133 wrote:
acutely observed. How could there be time without the measure of it? There has to be continuity of perception for time to be meaningful. We instinctively structure and break time up around the Day, the Month, the Lifetime. But all of these are human scales.



Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, p261.

I know this is spooky and kind of through-the-looking-glass. But it does indicate that consciousness is much more fundamental than fortuitous.


Yes, it is all very intriguing.

I am still often troubled though by the role of
human consciousness in all of this.

What makes us so great that we could presume
to be architects, or even common laborers, in
the construction of reality?

It strikes me as a bit hubristic.

Regardless, I would still prefer to look at reality "through
the looking glass."
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 04:16 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;154138 wrote:

What makes us so great that we could presume
to be architects, or even common laborers, in
the construction of reality?


Good question. We never to get to see this reality without us. That's the strange thing. For the human form of life, humans and the universe are one, deeply and intimately one. And yet we can imagine it all without us, but only because we are still here. It's a strange thing.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:21 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;154140 wrote:
Good question. We never to get to see this reality without us. That's the strange thing. For the human form of life, humans and the universe are one, deeply and intimately one. And yet we can imagine it all without us, but only because we are still here. It's a strange thing.


Given all of this, wouldn't it be nice if
we could all just be a little more pleasant
to one another as we hurtle along on our
voyage to oblivion?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:53 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;154138 wrote:


What makes us so great that we could presume
to be architects, or even common laborers, in
the construction of reality?

It strikes me as a bit hubristic.


I don't think it is hubris. I think it is real. And I think this is deeply troubling to the modern outlook. We have a large emotional investment in the idea that the development of consciousness is fortuitous. You will find most people will really object to the idea that it isn't.

I don't know if you're an Alan Watts fan but his books cover these ideas brilliantly.
 
Mentally Ill
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 05:59 pm
@TickTockMan,
"Oh good I don't have to go to work Monday then. I will ask my boss to call you. You can explain." -Jeeprs

Come Monday, at the moment of your arrival at work, it will be the present.
But as of Sunday, that moment is not happening. It won't happen until it happens, therefore the future does not actually exist in the same way you and I exist. It only exists as a concept in your mind.
Time is a measurement of the rate of change. We use time to measure the rate at which Earth spins on its axis and rotates around the sun.
It is always the present moment in which that change is occurring.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 06:00 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;154181 wrote:


I don't know if you're an Alan Watts fan but his books cover these ideas brilliantly.


You know, I haven't read any Watts for a number of years. I have one of his books on Zen, and another on Taoism. I'll have to dig them out and re-read them. I don't think I was in the right head space to appreciate them before.

I've just recently found my old copy of Pearce's The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, and am going to start reading it this week, I hope. Just skimming, it looks to have some thoughts that may be pertinent to this thread.

Thanks for the Watts reminder!
 
trueshrike
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 09:44 am
@TickTockMan,
Without a being having conscious thought and having a limited perception focused on the now, time becomes irrelevant. Energy and the matter it makes up will continue flowing onward toward its next level of change.

Take the tree falling in the forest question. The energy and matter that is the tree has reached a point in which there is change occurring. This change will continue with the breakdown of the tree back into the environment, or by someone finally coming along and cutting the tree up for firewood. Either way the energy momentum of the tree has stopped "growing" the tree and is now being converted into other forms of energy and redistributed.

The interesting question I see that has popped up from what I first said, Is the human mind fundamental to shaping of the universe? is an interesting subject in and of itself.

Not to range to broadly here at the moment, but saying yes to that could certainly validate how observation shows change in quantum level analysis, it also validates the ideal of faith and positive thinking.

Last note on this before I head to work and even further removed from the main subject. The movie "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", or the myth of Merlin and how he aged could easily be tied to having a mental faculty that worked similarly to most with a flawed reasoning of how it sees energy flow unfold. This of course would suggest that those humans who we deem mentally unstable or mentally unfit, those who see hallucinations, experience a different reality, may in fact just being experience reality on a level that the rest of us do not. (Not that it should convince you to go along with what they say or do, merely understand that nobody sees themselves as truly insane, or even as the bad guy, everyone does what they do feeling it is in the best interest of at least themselves, and that their way of thinking is to them superior to others reasoning.)
 
north
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 03:43 pm
@trueshrike,
time is the measurement of movement between object(s) , 4 dimensionally

a mathematical representation of this movement

and thats all time is , nothing more , nothing less
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 03:59 pm
@north,
north;155804 wrote:
time is the measurement of movement between object(s) , 4 dimensionally

a mathematical representation of this movement

and thats all time is , nothing more , nothing less


So what is the movement itself called?
Or am I missing something?
 
north
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:13 pm
@TickTockMan,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
time is the measurement of movement between object(s) , 4 dimensionally

a mathematical representation of this movement

and thats all time is , nothing more , nothing less



TickTockMan;155813 wrote:
So what is the movement itself called?
Or am I missing something?


movement

what your missing is the essence of the movement in the first place

which comes from the object(s) themselves
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 05:53 pm
@north,
north;155818 wrote:




movement

what your missing is the essence of the movement in the first place

which comes from the object(s) themselves


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by essence of movement
coming from an object.

What does the essence of movement have to do with the mechanism
of time? Does time depend on objects to exist?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 10:05:35