What is 'time'?

[Ducado]

all I'll contribute from personal experience & my hard scientific background is that we don't know anything like as much as we think we do.. we're all pretty arrogant (if we think otherwise) and 'science' is as much a 'religion' if you ask me, and Richard Dawkins is one of its high priests.

we're very puny when it comes to scientifically explaining things & having everything fit within our conceptual frameworks, and I've seen & experienced things that make a mockery of those offering up rigid hard scientific explanations or 'truths'.

with regards to time, it's a hypothetical construct that exists in each of us (which is one way of looking at things) and in another it isn't what we collectively perceive & understand it to be; much of which is illusory & far too complex for us to comprehend.

in conclusion, I know enough to know that I don't know, and the more I know the more I realise how much I don't know

(and I've seen numerous events over the past three decades that make a mockery of our modern thinking and defy all manner of existing scientific explanation, as have others I've shared such with)

Intresting and it's a position that I tend to take

 

[BigJimLittleJim]

Some really interesting answers to my questions so far so thanks for that blues.

I'm also intrigued by how time is cyclical - ie - the way the seasons always happen at roughly the same time, the way birds migrate in cycles etc. It's as though nature and even the animals 'know' what time it is.

Also how it can be summer on one side of the planet, but winter on the other (different 'times') but both parts of the planet are still existing and 'running' on the same 'time'.

I also love how I can usually somehow 'know' what time it without consulting a clock. Even if I wake up in the middle of the night I can usually 'guess' the time within a few minutes either way. Can most folk do this?

Science has an answer to all your observations, but isn't our world beautiful and fascinating if we allow ourselves to appreciate it??

 

[Irwell]

It's a comfortable notion that we'd like to believe in as the alternative is scary. That's a little facetious, there are good scientific reasons to believe in a multiverse.

It's almost a half-way house between string theory and 'god', though at the same time disputing neither.

This is hard to explain properly. Basically, everybody is moving through time right now. You can move through space by moving your arm but even if you keep your arm completely still, you are still moving through time. Think of a picture taken of you every millisecond put next to each other. Each picture represents time and movement is just the illusion of watching time go past quickly as the position changes bit by bit.

The problem with this is that it means we move in four dimension from the beginning of our lives, thus we are just one long string of pictures. The issue of this comes down to relative time and relative space. There is no "forward" in time just as there is no "forward" in space. Your perception of what "forward" is changes depending on which direction you are facing in and is almost entirely private to you, just as the same is within time. The consequence of this when applied to the series of pictures is that the pictures in front of you already exist as the notion of "direction" in time is nonsense.

I disagree on a minor aspect of your point about dimensions, we move in eleven dimensions rather than four. Whether they can't be observed because they are on such a small scale that any traversal of them cannot be seen or because only gravity can traverse them is open to question however. Whilst not proven or disproven either way, my personal opinion edges more towards the compactification of dimensions rather than brane-world scenarios.

I also disagree that one's view of 'forward' is necessarily determined by where they are facing. 'Forward' to me is determined by my trajectory, not by the direction I am facing. If I am not moving I don't think of any direction as being forward.

These are only minor things, though, and I agree with the premise of what you are saying.

Therefore everything you will ever do is already pre-determined which includes everything from blinking to murdering 300 people and we're just moving through time. The multiverse gives us an out to this - if every possible event that could happen HAS happened then we retain a sense of free will and choice as each decision we make creates a new Universe where that decision didn't occur rather than the alternative.

That isn't my personal view of the multiverse at all. The alternate universe doesn't exist from the point we 'make a decision', it exists at all times. The universes within the multiverse are simply universes with different combinations of physical constants and the like, changing the variables that govern the chemical reactions by which the universe develops. There is a universe out there that up until this point has followed the exact same path ours has, but 30 seconds from having read this sentence the alternate you will punch itself for no apparent reason.

I do agree, though, with the idea that everything within this universe is predetermined.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Who created hours minutes and seconds? And how did it become accepted by everyone on the planet?

This was one of my next questions and yes it's a complete head wrecker.

It feels completely impossible that when 'creating' the 24 hour clock we use today, that anyone could've 'known' how long a second or minute was. Also, how the fuck did they convince everyone on the planet of it's importance or it's need to be implemented?

You have to think, this was years and years ago.

If someone came up with such a concept today, even with our global communications capacity, there would be, in my opinion, no chance of getting it to 'stick'.

Mind boggling.

 

[Damocles]

all I'll contribute from personal experience & my hard scientific background is that we don't know anything like as much as we think we do.. we're all pretty arrogant (if we think otherwise) and 'science' is as much a 'religion' if you ask me, and Richard Dawkins is one of its high priests.

we're very puny when it comes to scientifically explaining things & having everything fit within our conceptual frameworks, and I've seen & experienced things that make a mockery of those offering up rigid hard scientific explanations or 'truths'.

with regards to time, it's a hypothetical construct that exists in each of us (which is one way of looking at things) and in another it isn't what we collectively perceive & understand it to be; much of which is illusory & far too complex for us to comprehend.

in conclusion, I know enough to know that I don't know, and the more I know the more I realise how much I don't know

(and I've seen numerous events over the past three decades that make a mockery of our modern thinking and defy all manner of existing scientific explanation, as have others I've shared such with)

Top post.

Could you elaborate? give some examples of the situations you allude to above mate?

Perhaps he could, but anybody who says that "time is a hypothetical construct" should under no circumstances be listened to on any ideas about time.

His post is bullshit mysticism which layman often confuse for some deep understanding.

 

[Bigga]

all I'll contribute from personal experience & my hard scientific background is that we don't know anything like as much as we think we do.. we're all pretty arrogant (if we think otherwise) and 'science' is as much a 'religion' if you ask me, and Richard Dawkins is one of its high priests.

we're very puny when it comes to scientifically explaining things & having everything fit within our conceptual frameworks, and I've seen & experienced things that make a mockery of those offering up rigid hard scientific explanations or 'truths'.

with regards to time, it's a hypothetical construct that exists in each of us (which is one way of looking at things) and in another it isn't what we collectively perceive & understand it to be; much of which is illusory & far too complex for us to comprehend.

in conclusion, I know enough to know that I don't know, and the more I know the more I realise how much I don't know

(and I've seen numerous events over the past three decades that make a mockery of our modern thinking and defy all manner of existing scientific explanation, as have others I've shared such with)

LOL!!

I remember saying once, that 'science was the new religion' and was roundly shouted down!!

The question, earlier, was whether time has a future or whether it is present followed by present ad infinitum sounded interesting until you add your point that it may be a "construct that exists in each of us". This part I can relate to, as I have posted on this forum before, my relationship with time and seeing my 'future' in 'snap shots of moments' that have since played out.

My own personal experience leads me to believe that maybe time is already written and this is a linear path. I have had an experience of being 'pulled/ compelled' in a direction when thinking of someone only to actually meet them. That was a REALLY strange experience for me as I was wanting to head in another direction full stop!

But I digress...

 

[Stoned Rose]

It's a comfortable notion that we'd like to believe in as the alternative is scary. That's a little facetious, there are good scientific reasons to believe in a multiverse.

It's almost a half-way house between string theory and 'god', though at the same time disputing neither.

This is hard to explain properly. Basically, everybody is moving through time right now. You can move through space by moving your arm but even if you keep your arm completely still, you are still moving through time. Think of a picture taken of you every millisecond put next to each other. Each picture represents time and movement is just the illusion of watching time go past quickly as the position changes bit by bit.

The problem with this is that it means we move in four dimension from the beginning of our lives, thus we are just one long string of pictures. The issue of this comes down to relative time and relative space. There is no "forward" in time just as there is no "forward" in space. Your perception of what "forward" is changes depending on which direction you are facing in and is almost entirely private to you, just as the same is within time. The consequence of this when applied to the series of pictures is that the pictures in front of you already exist as the notion of "direction" in time is nonsense.

I disagree on a minor aspect of your point about dimensions, we move in eleven dimensions rather than four. Whether they can't be observed because they are on such a small scale that any traversal of them cannot be seen or because only gravity can traverse them is open to question however. Whilst not proven or disproven either way, my personal opinion edges more towards the compactification of dimensions rather than brane-world scenarios.

I also disagree that one's view of 'forward' is necessarily determined by where they are facing. 'Forward' to me is determined by my trajectory, not by the direction I am facing. If I am not moving I don't think of any direction as being forward.

These are only minor things, though, and I agree with the premise of what you are saying.

Therefore everything you will ever do is already pre-determined which includes everything from blinking to murdering 300 people and we're just moving through time. The multiverse gives us an out to this - if every possible event that could happen HAS happened then we retain a sense of free will and choice as each decision we make creates a new Universe where that decision didn't occur rather than the alternative.

That isn't my personal view of the multiverse at all. The alternate universe doesn't exist from the point we 'make a decision', it exists at all times. The universes within the multiverse are simply universes with different combinations of physical constants and the like, changing the variables that govern the chemical reactions by which the universe develops. There is a universe out there that up until this point has followed the exact same path ours has, but 30 seconds from having read this sentence the alternate you will punch itself for no apparent reason.

I do agree, though, with the idea that everything within this universe is predetermined.

Really interesting.

If everything is pre-determined who or what has pre-determined it?

And why would they / it pre-determine in the way they do?

I find this fascinating but ultimately frightening and disillusioning because ultimately it would place us as 'toys' in a 'game'.

 

[Damocles]

Who created hours minutes and seconds? And how did it become accepted by everyone on the planet?

This was one of my next questions and yes it's a complete head wrecker.

It feels completely impossible that when 'creating' the 24 hour clock we use today, that anyone could've 'known' how long a second or minute was. Also, how the fuck did they convince everyone on the planet of it's importance or it's need to be implemented?

You have to think, this was years and years ago.

If someone came up with such a concept today, even with our global communications capacity, there would be, in my opinion, no chance of getting it to 'stick'.

Mind boggling.

This confuses time and timekeeping. We set arbitary units about time but they aren't time no more than our units like an inch is relevant to space.

They are our measurements of time rather than actual time itself which exists whether or not we choose to measure it. Think of it this way - we might never choose to measure how tall you are but this doesn't mean that your height has changed. You still exist in the "up" axis.

For the record I seem to think the 60 minutes thing came from the Sumerians and was due to divisibility and their numbering system or something. There was a good BBC4 documentary on it a few months back.

 

[BigJimLittleJim]

all I'll contribute from personal experience & my hard scientific background is that we don't know anything like as much as we think we do.. we're all pretty arrogant (if we think otherwise) and 'science' is as much a 'religion' if you ask me, and Richard Dawkins is one of its high priests.

we're very puny when it comes to scientifically explaining things & having everything fit within our conceptual frameworks, and I've seen & experienced things that make a mockery of those offering up rigid hard scientific explanations or 'truths'.

with regards to time, it's a hypothetical construct that exists in each of us (which is one way of looking at things) and in another it isn't what we collectively perceive & understand it to be; much of which is illusory & far too complex for us to comprehend.

in conclusion, I know enough to know that I don't know, and the more I know the more I realise how much I don't know

(and I've seen numerous events over the past three decades that make a mockery of our modern thinking and defy all manner of existing scientific explanation, as have others I've shared such with)

Top post.

Could you elaborate? give some examples of the situations you allude to above mate?

Perhaps he could, but anybody who says that "time is a hypothetical construct" should under no circumstances be listened to on any ideas about time.

His post is bullshit mysticism which layman often confuse for some deep understanding.

Bit harsh mate, this thread has taken on a nice Saturday night tokers feel to it, and I'm planning on necking some pain killers soon to get into the groove, chillax and throw in some mystic truth bombs for a laugh :)

 

[Stoned Rose]

all I'll contribute from personal experience & my hard scientific background is that we don't know anything like as much as we think we do.. we're all pretty arrogant (if we think otherwise) and 'science' is as much a 'religion' if you ask me, and Richard Dawkins is one of its high priests.

we're very puny when it comes to scientifically explaining things & having everything fit within our conceptual frameworks, and I've seen & experienced things that make a mockery of those offering up rigid hard scientific explanations or 'truths'.

with regards to time, it's a hypothetical construct that exists in each of us (which is one way of looking at things) and in another it isn't what we collectively perceive & understand it to be; much of which is illusory & far too complex for us to comprehend.

in conclusion, I know enough to know that I don't know, and the more I know the more I realise how much I don't know

(and I've seen numerous events over the past three decades that make a mockery of our modern thinking and defy all manner of existing scientific explanation, as have others I've shared such with)

Top post.

Could you elaborate? give some examples of the situations you allude to above mate?

Perhaps he could, but anybody who says that "time is a hypothetical construct" should under no circumstances be listened to on any ideas about time.

His post is bullshit mysticism which layman often confuse for some deep understanding.

Bit harsh that Damo mate.

I'm interested to hear his (any others') insights on this subject.