The awareness of time
Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness.
Comments (115)
I advocate for the Carlo Rovelli descriptions of time.
Having watched all his youtube offerings regarding time, a few times, I think that from the reference frame of an individual human, we experience time/spacetime, 'completely personally,' from cradle to grave.
My time and your time are never exactly the same. Even when I am right next to you, staring at your face, there is still a physical distance between your eyes and mine. That distance has to be covered by light. So I am not seeing you as you are now, as it took a duration >0 for the information regarding your image, to reach me and be interpreted/processed by my brain. As long as distance and brain process time, exists between you and what you are looking at/observing/detecting, you cannot observe/detect 'now.'
I think that's part of the description of time, as Carlo describes it but I fully accept, that this is my interpretation, of part of what he says about time.
Yes. My strongest intuition of the meaning of the nature of time as we experience it might be summed in this excerpt of my favourite passage (by Fichte):
Shall I eat and drink only that I may hunger and thirst and eat and drink again, till the grave which is open beneath my feet shall swallow me up, and I myself become the food of worms? Shall I beget beings like myself, that they too may eat and drink and die, and leave behind them beings like themselves to do the same that I have done? To what purpose this ever-revolving circle, this ceaseless and unvarying round, in which all things appear only to pass away, and pass away only that they may re-appear unaltered;??this monster continually devouring itself that it may again bring itself forth, and bringing itself forth only that it may again devour itself? This can never be the vocation of my being, and of all being. There must be something which exists because it has come into existence; and now endures, and cannot again re-appear, having once become such as it is. And this element of permanent endurance must be produced amid the vicissitudes of the transitory and perishable, maintain itself there, and be borne onwards, pure and inviolate, upon the waves of time.
The sensation of the meaning of time contains not only trivial empirical-causal elements, but the awareness of being part of a culture, a species, a world, a universe. Right now I'm reading a chapter called "Intuition of Time" in Cassirer's Phenomenology of Cognition. It woke me up early this morning. A lot of times, I find reading about time to be...frustrating. It's as Augustine said: What then is time? Provided that no one asks me, I know. If I want to explain it to an inquirer, I do not know.
Cassirer mentions that different types of metaphysical systems correspond with differing types of temporal intuition, which I think is accurate. He says Parmenides and Spinoza embody the "present type" while Fichte is determined by futurity. Personally, I am exploring the idea that, while objects may have a temporal position, consciousness actually has a temporal "size." Objects are three dimensional and moving through or in time, as it were. But consciousness actually exists in the past, present and future, has actual temporal dimension. An intuition.
Food for thought.
Quoting Pantagruel
Ha! I can only agree with Fichte and have had similar thoughts, as I am sure many do. More recently I feel time is like being trapped inside a speeding train, the stations I see passing in a blur are like the obligatory seasonal and life events which come and go by with monotonous regularity and are also opportunities I've failed to make use of.
Yeah, I am only attracted to the physics of time. Metaphysical notions/projections/handlings of time are a little like watching sci-fi, great fun, very entertaining, sometimes even thought provoking, but not real.
There is always the possibility that some sci-fi becomes sci.
:up:
One physical dimension that does interest me is the relationship between entropy and time. Usually, it is theoretically possible to trace any number of paths in any given context. However it seems like the arrow of time might be fundamentally related to the physical gradient of entropy. However the universe doesn't just align itself to the gradient of maximum entropy. There are discrete relativistic frames with - possibly - discrete timelines. And negentropic gradients exist within those frames. Does negentropy entail some kind of divergence of of temporality from its fundamental gradient? Stuff like that.
Absafragginlootly!
Quoting Pantagruel
Isnt this a description of a content that takes place within the structure of time rather than an elucidation of the form of time itself?
My preference is for William James notion of specious time:
Quoting universeness
To me its the opposite. Its the physics of time thats not real. Or put better, such empirical accounts are profoundly limited by their ignorance of the subjective structures that make them intelligible.
Yes, what I should have said is that a description of time in physics is already a metaphysics. That is, it uses the conventionalized language of empiricism to express a metaphysical position on time. The thermodynamic arrow model brings physics closer to recent approaches in philosophy, butI think youll see further modifications, perhaps along the lines of Karen Baeads agential realism.
Sean Carroll discusses that area quite well, with:
"In his book The Big Picture, physicist Sean M. Carroll compares the asymmetry of time to the asymmetry of space: While physical laws are in general isotropic, near Earth there is an obvious distinction between "up" and "down", due to proximity to this huge body, which breaks the symmetry of space. Similarly, physical laws are in general symmetric to the flipping of time direction, but near the Big Bang, there is an obvious distinction between "forward" and "backward" in time, due to relative proximity to this special event, which breaks the symmetry of time.
Under this view, all the arrows of time are a result of our relative proximity in time to the Big Bang and the special circumstances that existed then. (Strictly speaking, the weak interactions are asymmetric to both spatial reflection and to flipping of the time direction. However, they do obey a more complicated symmetry that includes both.)"
Well, I agree that any proposed structure of, or structure to, time, remains in some sense, empirically unproven.
Do you think that there is an existent universal frame, in which time truly ticked from 0 to 13.8 billion years? I can only imagine such a reference frame being 'outside' of spacetime, observing in and I currently reject that, as an impossible reference frame.
Do you think this might relate to the apparently anomalous extremely-early galaxies discovered by the JWT?
Well, Sean talks of our relative proximity in time, rather than in spacetime, but I assume that he meant spacetime.
I always assumed that whichever direction we point our telescope in space, we observe the past, yes?
We cannot observe a galaxy any older than our own, can we?
There is no galaxy we can observe that is further from the big bang than us, as any such galaxy would be older than 13.8 billion years, and in a sense, in our future. That does not mean such galaxies do not exist, but they are beyond our observation, based on my understanding of the expanding 'raisin bread' metaphor. So, the very early, large galaxy formations reported by the JWST, are not explained by our 'proximity in spacetime,' unless I am missing something in my interpretation.
I agree that it doesn't feel that way, but it could just as easily be that way. Perhaps consciousness is a case of perpetual last-thursdayism, where every moment of consciousness is there for a moment and then gone, and the next moment is a consciousness that only feel as though it's connected to previous moments because it "remembers" those previous moments.
Would there be any difference between those two things? Between a genuine continuity and an illusion of continuity due to memory being persisted? Maybe not. But there is potentially an ethical difference, even if there's no detectible difference. The ethical difference between those two worlds is, the teleporter problem ceases to be a problem in a world where the continuous nature of consciousness is merely an illusion. Not that that matters anyway...
Cant think how that would be conceptualised. Inflation just proposes faster than light expansion, how would such have an effect on our current position in the universe? Inflation only lasted from [math]{10^{-36}}[/math] seconds until [math]{10^{-32}}[/math] seconds after the big bang. After inflation, the universe was a volume of around 0.88mm cubed. If inflation happened for much longer then I think that would affect the speed of light constant, would it not?
:up: Brainstorming is always fun, no matter how the runes fall!
Quoting Tom Storm
We don't have awareness of time, per se. If there's "nothing" in the universe but time, then we wouldn't be able to perceive it. How we perceive time is through object permanence and memory. I saw a huge tree when I passed the bridge, then I came back the same way and saw the tree again. In my memory, I saw a tree on my way, then I saw it again on my way back. The two moments are both in our thought. The second time triggered my memory that I saw that tree the first time. If I deliberate further, because my mind has object permanence, I believe that I will pass that tree again tomorrow if I go that way (unless someone cut down the tree before I get there).
Edit. there are things that we perceive that isn't temporal.
Does anyone happen to what parts of the brain THC would have to affect to result in the sense of slowed time? Does that part of the brain also cause older people to feel time is passing faster than it did say, 40 years earlier? (This seems to be real, not just old folk's imaginations.)
I don't think so. It's much more than that. "Time" is ... scrambled eggs which cannot ever unscramble (and reshell) themselves.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/585498
"Awareness of time"? That's like looking through a keyhole at the Atlantic ocean or the Grand Canyon or a hurricane.
Suppose we are relative clocks interacting with, and by way of, innumerably other, relative clocks (pace Heidegger / Kant) à la unbounded atoms swirling-recombining ...
Suppose cosmological the Hubble volume's expansion is, in effect, all clocks winding down, or unwinding ...
No doubt, as far as I can discern it, this is a metaphysical question that has only a physical solution. :chin:
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes, I am very interested in the relationship between time and entropy, including the possible temporal implications of negentropy.
What I find interesting is the temporal differential between relativistic and gravitational time dilation. For any sufficiently massive object, there is essentially a temporally inflated zone which includes both a relative past (nearest the mass) and a relative future (distantly orbiting the mass).
Id agree with that. But then, in order to justify the concept itself, one has to ask ..what is the irreducible awareness which limits the context, such that without it, the concept wouldnt even occur.
:chin:
I don't know. I guess my intuition is that, an event happens in a now. But we don't perceive discrete-instantaneous nows, rather a continuous flow. So the "awareness of time" is itself fundamentally temporal in nature, that is, is "stretched out" in time.
I would submit the irreducible awareness, that by which every single human ever, is affected, is change.
No big deal; just throwing it out there.
Ok. Do you think this equates with "causality"?
Not in the sense of fundamental awareness, I should think. Change presupposes causality, but causality doesnt rise to immediate awareness, as does, say, motion.
You see that, then you might ask what caused that. If you ask what does this cause, then you dont have fundamental awareness.
I think perception arises merely from the presence of something to the sensory apparatus. Its like it just waits around, not doing much of anything until something comes along that presents itself. Perception doesnt care about order.
Or ..benefit of the doubt .why would perception care about order? How would it know of it? Is ordered perception different than chaotic perception?
But I dont want to go off on a tangent here. Were talking about awareness of time.
I think.
I'm assuming there is some inherent relationship between the genesis of the biological cognitive faculty and the transcendental conditions of consciousness. Some sort of structuration would seem to be required. I think we are only able to perceive chaos against a background of order.
Quoting Joshs
I've been following this thread but didn't feel like I had anything to contribute. Then I tripped over this from Charles S. Peirce last night while reading. When he says "air" in this context, I think he is making the distinction between the notes and the melody.
Quoting Charles S. Peirce - How to Make Our Ideas Clear
I think we are only able to perceive objects. Order/chaos is a relative quality thought to belong to an object, but not as a property for the determination of what it is. To merely perceive an object affords no judgement as to its qualitative state.
We understand chaos against the background of its complement, but that is a logical conclusion given a certain set of conditions as premises. And while I agree there is an inherent relationship, it remains that perception doesnt do logic any more than understanding does perception.
Just like anything, it all depends on ones interpretation of the words being used.
Hmm. I think it is pretty established that our perceptions are essentially pre-formatted with and by understanding. The whole catalog of cognitive biases, for example, pertains to the way that judgement infiltrates perception. Observations are theory-laden.
If perception is the affect of a real physical object on the sensory apparatus, and judgement infiltrates perception, then does it follow that judgement changes how we are affected by objects? If such is the case, then, e.g., the sound made by an object would be changed by a judgement. It doesnt make sense that the sound an apple makes hitting the floor because it fell out of your hand, will be different than the sound an apple makes hitting the floor because a judgement is that it tastes bad.
Perception is entirely independent of understanding, even though, as you say, they are necessarily related by their job descriptions.
I think a decontexualized quale as an intuition. I could get away with calling that a bare perception, as long as I didnt cross-examine myself too much.
Quoting Pantagruel
An inference is a logical construct, and I deny to my eyes, ears, nose, skin or tongue the capacity of syllogistic propositions.
I fear there will be a pervasive conceptual inconsistency if we continue here. Well be the Hatfield and McCoys of philosophical discourse, so to speak. So, carry on, and have fun with it.
I'm not caught up on this thread, so apologies if the thread has moved on.
I do think there is interesting scientific evidence for consciousness being 'clocked' to some extent, at brain wave frequencies. So there may be a temporal size along such lines.
I'm more skeptical that consciousness 'exists in the future'. I think our brains are continually modelling and updating their modelling of the future. This is what allows us to catch a ball flying through the air, even though our sensing of a moving ball's position is continuously time delayed. So I think it makes sense that it seems that our consciousness exists in part in the future.
If you perceive an event unfold, like an arrow being shot at a person, if you are really fast it is possible to "intercede" in the future of that event. i.e. You can shove the person aside, if you are fast enough. And if your powers of inference are good enough, you can even better predict events. Like seeing someone walking up with a bow. Which gives you even more time to intercede. Like temporal intuition.
Right. I think that an important aspect of what our minds are 'evolutionarily for' is interceding in events in the future, so presenting a model with representations of the future to our minds is what our brains do. So us having multiple possible futures being represented in consciousness makes intuitive sense to me. However, I see that as different from consciousness being in the future.
Does that make sense?
Semantics? Whose to say, its all in the results, which are in the future.
Or frame of reference, which I suppose is pretty close to the same thing.
Yes. What we are aware of is Change. And the cognitive ability to keep track of changes in the environment may be a minimum requirement for the continued survival of complex organisms ; to stave-off entropy. The actual progression of change may be continuous ("ongoing now"), but we humans tend to digitize holistic qualities into measurable increments. Each measured moment (now) is like a single still image on a strip of movie film. But the moments themselves are artifacts of mental processing, not inherent in Nature. Although I've heard of some theories saying that Time is essentially quantized*1.
Recently, I had a light-bulb moment, when I realized that Time is essentially a way to measure the "flow" of Energy, which is what we know as "Causation"*2. Energy is the cause, and Time is the effect. We seem to perceive Change, and conceive it as Time. The act of perception/conception is what we call "Awareness". So, I suspect that Consciousness is limited to only those elements of the world that can keep track of changes, via a record of energy events : Moments ; Memory. Does a rock retain a concept of Now & Then? :smile:
*1. Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit? :
"The brief answer to this question is, 'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-quantized-in-othe/
*2. Time is the currency of Physics :
From a cosmological perspective it seems that Time (progressive change) is one activity that Energy is working on. Ironically, we typically think of Time as a fundamental feature of reality. But, it may be merely an effect of something even more essential : the cosmic power of Causation.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html
Yes, this is pretty much where I was going. I like to maintain a connection with the notion of energy. Also, you can 'topologize' the idea of energy by viewing it in terms of gradients in the environment (or forming an environment).
I have been exploring this as well. As you can see in my bio, I am (and have been) trying to epistemically bridge the chasm of time, and if the above quote is true, it would help a ton with the pain in the ass that memory skepticism poses.
First, an important point of possible confusion. Consciousness can have "temporal extension" in two distinct ways. Consciousness can have a motion-temporal-extension and an object-temporal-extension. Most assume the former, but I interpreted your comment as pertaining to the latter, meaning consciousness itself extends into time, without any movement necessary (like a still-standing chair extending into the three spatial dimensions). In this reply, I am interested in the latter. Some might say the former necessitates the latter, but at least mathematically, that is not true. N-dimensional manifolds can be embedded into M-dimensional spaces, where M > N. So, does consciousness have a temporal dimension, or does it merely move through time?
Is the present (as a "percept") actually a duration? Looking at a river, one might think/feel so. But I am able to bring doubt to this. What would it even mean?
Does it mean that we experience multiple instants of time simultaneously? Well, if that's the case, it cannot be in the sense of squeezing durations into instants, for that would not correspond to my experiential reality. Instead, if we experience multiple instants simultaneously, we take the past x units of time with us in the experiential, spacious box that is the present, and this allows us to actually engage in temporally extended experiences. But is it the only way?
Does remembering, even in its most basic form, imply an actual experience of the past? Could it be that the present feels like a duration only because we bring with us representations of the past that we apprehend simultaneously as we do the present instant? I mean, if one is already postulating the ability of simultaneous apprehension of distinct percepts, there is no explanatory need to postulate a temporal extension of consciousness. However, if our experience of the past is merely through representations of the past, as opposed to an actual, direct apprehension of the recent past, then we incur the question of memory skepticism.
Do you have any more thoughts on this?
Quoting Ø implies everything
A number of philosophers make a distinction between retentional memory (what youre calling actual
memory) and presented memory. The former always accompanies the present as a past that was never present, whereas the latter, as a represented and reconstructed past, is itself a new present.
Yes, this was the sense in which I was differentiating it from matter, which only moves through time, has a temporal vector. The objective past, for me, is embedded within the objective present and, insofar as it consisted of cyclical events or processes, is ongoing. I think there are a variety of neuro-cognitive mechanisms for memory that are viable explanations, but being if consciousness is "temporally inflated" then its lived experience encompasses something of the past and the future in the moment. Which seems to just describe awareness. Possibly knowledge of the causes of things can give some form of memory, as deducing the state of the past from the present.
Are you saying the past is immanent in the present through influence, or are you saying the past and present actually co-occur? If the latter, you are stepping into dangerous grounds, because you are saying that different moments of time co-occur, implying a meta-time for those temporally-distanced moments to co-occur in. I assume it was the former, but I am just making sure.
Quoting Pantagruel
How could one explain the object-temporal-extension (OTE) of consciousness via neurocognitive mechanism? If consciousness has OTE, then this is a property far more fundamental than that which can be dealt with at the neurocognitive level, I believe. Conversely, I believe the consciousness' awareness of its motion-temporal-extension (MTE) is within the (partial, of course) explanatory capacity of the neurocognitive level.
Quoting Pantagruel
This is how most of memory works. It is reconstructive; generating episodic memories from kernels of preserved, episode-incurrent data and from episode-relevant data regarding the world. So, even if the kernels do not tell you whether the past actually featured a car flying, your reconstruction of the memory will not feature any cars flying, because your model of the world says that is impossible/improbable.
I know Thomas Reid held a direct realist notion of memory. To him, every memory was the apprehension of the actual past. But you are talking about views in which both realist (retentional) memories and representative (presented) memories exist? That makes sense, but how do these view-holders determine which memories are retentional and which are presented?
I had in mind phenomenological and poststructural writers like Husserl and Deleuze. For Husserl, retention does not require a second act of turning back to examine what has past. It is bundled inseparably into the experience of the now.
I think "influence" is misleading. For an ongoing process, the present is more like the face of the past, I'd say. Michael Leyton's book, Symmetry, Causality, and Mind looks at how the present is the "shape" of the past, how we extract time from shape.
I'm not so clear on your concept of object versus motion temporal extension.
Are you implying here that we create time?
Not really. You fall asleep and awaken in the blink of an eye, finding that an hour has past and the world has moved on.
If time measures change, or gives change substance, it is a bit strange that the metrics in special relativity allow for a change of spacetime when there is no change of position in space.
Quoting jgill
Quantum field theory, or at least certain interpretations of it, might offer more fertile ground than special relativity for thinking through the relation between time and change.
Everything in the universe has a "temporal dimension" in the sense that all things change*1. That's what Einstein referred to as the "Fourth Dimension". We visualize that ongoing change as a river of water flowing downhill. But it's really the flow of invisible Energy/Causation flowing from hot to cold states, and causing physical changes along the way, that we can see, and attribute to the passing of ghostly Causation.
However, due to the digitizing of incoming data*2, our perception only captures still shots (moments, instants) of change. Which we then conceive as a continuous stream of change. So, our awareness of the "present" is actually delayed slightly from the external event.
Strangely, a related question arises : during the 10 billion years before the emergence of Life & Mind (sentience ; consciousness) --- did Time, as we know it --- still exist? Obviously, change was occurring, but is physical Change the same as metaphysical (conceptual) Time? Is there a temporal dimension when there is no one to measure it? When a tree falls in the forest --- with no ears around --- does it make a sound? :smile:
*1. All things flow, nothing abides. You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are continually flowing on. Nothing is permanent except change. ___Heraclitus
*2. Digital Perception : Neurons require a minimum input stimulus before firing an output. Thus there is a time-delay (+/- 80 milliseconds) between input & output. But our Conception of change is analog, with the gaps filled-in. Hence, as in a movie, we are not normally aware of the still frames that flash by faster than 80ms.
Let's forget about time as a dimension, in order to simplify things to the more comprehensible spatial dimension.
Let's say I have a chair; if I throw it across the room, it has a spatial extension. Why? Because it is moving through space; that's motion-spatial-extension (MSE).
Let's say the chair stands perfectly still however. Does it no longer have a spatial extension? Of course it does! But it isn't moving through space, the object itself extends into space. Thus, it has object-spatial-extension (OSE).
Now, at first, it might seem that OSE is perhaps a special case of MSE. That is not true; one does not imply the other. Take for example a zeroth-dimensional point moving through space (which is what particles are to some physicists). That zeroth-dimensional point, as an object, does not have any axis of which its form can extend into space, and thus, it has no OSE. Nevertheless, it moves through space, and thus has MSE.
So, what about our consciousness? Well, I think it is safe to say our consciousness moves through time; it has motion-temporal-extension (MTE). But does the "form" of consciousness; the "geometry"; the "shape"; does it have temporal extension? Does consciousness have object-temporal-extension (OTE)?
If it does, it would mean that some of our "memories" are actually the past contained within the manifold of consciousness, and thus, are as real and direct as other percepts. This would mean such memories are not representational, and thus not subject to the skepticism regarding any potential representational corruption.
Yes, agreed. But that is merely motion-temporal-extension (MSE). The question is, does consciousness have object-temporal-extension (OSE). In the above comment, I explained the difference. Here I will add another point to differentiate them:
If an object has MSE, then it can move from one (set) of point(s) on the temporal axis to another (set) of point(s). But if an object has OSE, then the object itself extends across multiple points on the temporal axis. The object's butt is in the past and its face in the future, all without moving, just like how a chair is extended through space without moving.
If consciousness has no OSE, then it is merely a point moving down the time axis. If consciousness has OSE, then it is a set of points co-moving down the time axis.
@Pantagruel You might want to see this comment too, as I am expanding on the above explanation :)
Ok. I understand your usages. I'm not sure I fully agree. To the extent that nothing is every truly at rest, the distinction between OSE and MSE breaks down. However, I agree the concept is a useful analogy for consciousness as presenting actual temporal extension (versus a vector motion through time, which is what your MSE characterizes, vector motion through space). Since historical pastness is literally embedded in the now (as the shape of the now) it seems to me that past temporal dimension effectively collapses into the now for objects (retrievable as information, depending on knowledge of both particular details and governing laws).
Yes. Time is just one way to measure the world. Spatial extension (3D) is timeless & static. But dynamic Motion extension brings in a new vector of time. Motion is a change in Spatial position that requires a fourth arrow for measurement.
In theory, Consciousness could be aware of static existence (object), but in practice our brains are designed to register differences in position (process). That's why our eyes are constantly sweeping the scene to detect meaningful differences in location (motion). So a time interval (change) is more meaningful to living organisms than static location in space. :smile:
I would say the restlessness of all things does not matter. In any quantum/instant of time, every object stands still, yet it still has OSE. Unless you propose that its OSE arises from the fact that it will have a new position in the next instant/quantum of time, then you must agree the restlessness of everything is immaterial to the distinction between OSE and MSE.
In this comment, it seemed like you thought the distinction wasn't there, due to the fact that nothing is at rest. After I explained that it does not matter, you seem to have now moved on to saying there is no utility in the distinction; however, it being a useless distinction does not follow from the restlessness of all things, just like it not being a real distinction does not.
The utility of the distinction lies in pointing out conflations one might have in regards to spatial/temporal extension. The distinction of object- and motion-temporal-extension is very important for consciousness, since the latter is pretty trivial, but the former could be extremely important for epistemology, if ever figured out.
The distinction between the spatial equivalents is important for our ability to draw the aforementioned analogy, and that ability comes at no cost, since the concept makes complete sense despite the restlessness of all things (as I've explained). There may be other such concrete utilities in making the distinction.
So, if you are going to disagree, please explain how the distinction is illusory/useless with all this in mind.
Does your question imply that we can even consider time & thereby designate it in any other way than in the sense of "the awareness of time"? If, & only if, not, then why even ask that question? For, in that case, it's obvious that what we designate by "time" refers only to "the awareness of time," since, by your own admission, it can't even be considered & designated in any other way than that (& so you've answered your own question).
I agree consciousness has what you would call OTE. re. OSE and MSE, an object has dimensions, and it moves through space, yes.
I was reading this repose from Victor Toth on Quora, to the question:
How did the universe expand faster than c during inflationary period? Its been said that if the universe was in a false vacuum, that it would radiate out at c from a location in space. How is this different?
I think the question is flawed due to the notion of the universe starting from a position IN space but Victors answer, helped improve my understanding of the concepts involved and I think it relates to your musings regarding time. I initially editorialised on what Victor posted to relate it more to your OP, but I then decided to just let you read what victor posted and let you decide which parts you think relate to your musings on time. I did however underline the parts I thought were most important.
Here is Victors response to the emboldened question above:
[b]"The universe did not expand faster than c during the inflationary period.
The universe did not expand slower than c during the inflationary period either.
Cosmic expansion does not have a speed measured in units of length divided by units of time, the way we normally measure speed. Cosmic expansion is measured by the Hubble parameter, which (in the units that are customarily used for this purpose) tells you that, for instance, at the present, two galaxies that are 1 Mpc (megaparsec, approx. 3 million light years) apart, are moving away from each other at a speed of roughly 70 km/s.
Now from this you can infer that there will be galaxies that are 10 Mpc apart, moving away from each other, on average, at 700 km/s. And there will be galaxies that are 10 Gpc (gigaparsec, 1000 Mpc) that are moving away from each other at 700,000 km/s.
Yes, 700,000 km/s. Which is more than twice the vacuum speed of light. Today.
This sounds like a direct violation of relativity theory, except that it is not.Relativity theory does not tell you that distant things, measured in your local reference frame, cannot appear to move faster than light in your choice of coordinates. What they cannot do is move faster than a ray of light at the same place where they are. And you dont even need cosmology for this. Here on the good Earth, because of the Earths gravitational field, clocks tick ever so slightly slower than in deep space. So in principle, it is possible to set up an experiment in interplanetary space that involves a ray of light. Observed from the Earth, that ray of light will appear to travel from point A to point B ever so slightly faster than 299,792,458 m/s. Moreover, high-energy massive particles, chasing that ray of light, may also appear faster than 299,792,458 m/s as measured in our Earthbound reference frame. Does this mean that they are faster than light? Nope: They are still slower than the ray of light at their location. We measure them to be faster than the nominal speed of light because we are using our local coordinate system to describe distant events at places where the gravitational field differs from the field at our location.
So back to inflation. It is not about faster than c. It is about how the rate of expansion, characterized by the Hubble-parameter, changes over time.
Imagine things flying apart at a constant speed. Today, a galaxy is 1 Mpc away from us, moving at 70 km/s. Roughly 14 billion years from now, that galaxy will be 2 Mpc away from us, still moving at 70 km/s. So that means that 14 billion years hence, in this universe, the Hubble parameter will have decreased from 70 km/s/Mpc to 70 km/s/(2 Mpc) = 35 km/s/Mpc.
Now imagine in turn a universe in which the Hubble parameter is constant. Today, a galaxy is 1 Mpc away from us moving at 70 km/s. That means that when it gets to 2 Mpc billions of years from now, it will be moving at 140 km/s. At 3 Mpc, its speed will be 210 km/s. And so on. It is accelerating.
Thats what cosmic inflation means: accelerating expansion. The mechanism behind this inflation is a field that is a relativistic medium with very large, negative pressure. You may have seen the Newtonian field equation for gravitation, ?2U=4?G?.
Without going into details, this equation tells us that the gravitational field, U,
is determined by the density of matter, ?.
Except that its not the full picture. When there is substantial pressure, a version of this equation with relativistic corrections replaces ?
with ?+3p. When p is large and negative, ?+3p is negative.
If a region of space is dominated by such a medium, its gravitational effect on distant things will be repulsive. Pushing things apart. Accelerating them.
And thats how inflation supposedly took place: the presence of a field with large negative pressure caused stuff everywhere in the universe to be pushed away from other stuff everywhere else, accelerating the rate of expansion. Eventually, this medium is supposed to have vanished, in a phase transition or something, so it is no longer doing its thing. (And this is one of the sticking points of inflation and the reason why some researchers are skeptical about the whole concept.) But if there was indeed a period of time in the early universe dominated by such a medium, every time distances between things doubled, on average, the rate of expansion doubled, too. This exponential period in the expansion of the universe is what we call the inflationary epoch."[/b]
It seems to me, that any notion of a personal 'awareness of time,' must be perceived with a description of expansion/inflation/ relative reference frames, such as Victors in mind. 'It's all relative.'
Okay. So, that leads to another question, which I've noted in my original comment:
Quoting ItIsWhatItIs
It's a question that is likewise asked of objective reality in general. Perhaps the experience of time offers avenues of conceptualizing this overlapping of the subjective and objective, in the context of the varying depths of consciousness of the "now" for example. There are material events that can be seen as consciousness-like in the sense of likewise being "temporally-inflated." Complex adaptive systems that rely on cyclical mechanisms, for example. The ontology of such systems is seemingly more trans-temporal than that of basic objects. Although, at the atomic level, cyclicality and resonance are also in evidence.
I believe this generally true. The same thing was believed by Heraclitus 2,500 years ago! :smile:
However, this does not apply to us as beings, and esp. the mind, since most of the time we live "in the past" (remembering, contemplating, affected by and stuck on incidents, etc.) and sometimes also "in the future" (dreaming, wishing, etc.) In fact, whenever we are thinking --anything-- we don't live in the present, now. To live in the present, we must be just aware --perceive, observe, etc.-- the environment. That is be part of "the ongoing now" of the Universe that you talked about.
Quoting Pantagruel
I believe that in way this is also true. Time does not actually exist. It is a concept and something we have created to help us explain, describe and measure change and movement.
TIme is certainly flux
:up: Toth is a fine expositor. So are Muller and Fernee.
Yeah, I think Quora has a good number of contributors who have a career background in science.
A bit convoluted. To exist possibly means to persist through a duration of time. Can something exist in only an instant of time? The blink of an eye, then gone? Could we detect such an occurrence?
First of all, "duration of time" is a pleonasm or a self-referential expresssion (however you want to look at it), since duration already refers to a length of time. The same applies to "a period of tme" or "interval of time". They are all self-referential expressions. I know these expressions are commonly used. But better avoid this, at least in this place, isn't that right?
So, right. For something to exist, it must persist for some length of time. This is about the same as if we say "For a javelin throw to be valid, the javelin must go across some distance." Does that "distance" --or any distance for that matter-- actually exist? Of course not. Both time and distance are dimensions. They aer both used for description and measurement purposes. They do not actually exist.
Quoting jgill
Yes, if you set a length for that "instant", however small it may be. E.g. a soap bubble pops up after a few of seconds. It does exist for that length of time.
Otherwise, there's no absolute present. That would require an instant of zero-length. Which is absurd of course. So, we have to set a length for an instant, however small that may be. Which makes "present" a relative thing.
Right. This is why I mentioned Heractlitus. :smile: ("Everything flows")
Quantum fluctuations?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
In physics, Planck time is posited as the smallest duration possible. From wiki:
The Planck time is the length of time at which no smaller meaningful length can be validly measured due to the indeterminacy expressed in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Theoretically, this is the shortest time measurement that is possible. Planck time is roughly [math]{10^{?43}}[/math]seconds. However, to date, the smallest time interval that was measured was [math]{10^{?21}}[/math] seconds, a "zeptosecond." One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Are you suggesting that a dimension does not have a physical existence?
Any reference to a space dimension has direction and extent, does it not? Just like any reference to a notion of a dimension of time, has a direction and a duration. Planck time has an associated Planck length, and afaik, anything smaller than a Plank length takes you into the physics of black holes.
Hi! Long time no see!
Yes, I know that. It's too short for me to grasp it! :grin:
Quoting universeness
Isn't it quite evident I do? :smile:
A dimension refers to a physical existence. Itself is not either physical or existent.
Quoting universeness
This is exacely what I'm saying: "a reference to".
A concept refers to something that exists or not. Itself does not exist. (In the strict sense, of course. Because the verb "exist" can be used figuratively in all sorts of ways.)
Hi Alkis! People have in the past, exclaimed 'long time no see! or long time no hear!' to me before, and I am never sure if their 'happy state,' indicates that my absence from their life, has been a joy or a curse. :lol:
It seems to me that you are stating that the labels that we choose to use for a real existent such as 'distance,' dimension or 'time,' fall short.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Does the path you are on, not currently terminate at cogito ergo sum?
Otherwise, what do you conceptualise, as existing, between dimensionless point coordinates, you observe over a duration in spacetime, say, from an agreed reference/origin point, (0,0,0,0) using centimeters and seconds, coordinates:
(2cm, 3cm, 4cm, 0sec) and
(4cm, 5cm, 6cm, 1sec) ?
I would insist that 'space or spacetime' or 'distance' or 'extent' exists between those two dimensionless coordinates, do you perceive of such differently?
:grin:
I personally am on the "joy" side. :smile:
Quoting universeness
Fall short of what?
Quoting universeness
Right, this is the second element I talked about (besides "desdcription"): measurement.
E.g. "10 cm" means nothing by itself, i.e. without a context or reference. But even we use it to refer e.g. to a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean much. Americans would use "inches". Chinese would use "shì cùn". And so on. All these measures are references. They serve as descriptions and measurements, for comparison purposes. They have no existence themselves. The only existent element in all that is the chocolate itself. And it is independent of any description or measurent.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Being able to reference / label / indicate, what scientists observe.
Units of measurements are mathematical constructs/conveniences, I can appreciate that point.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Well it means 10cm of chocolate bar, and that categorisation has, as you suggest, mathematical meaning to humans, as does 10cm of space (even without indicating which dimension, as in length, breath or height.) I still think you are taking a step too far by stating that a concept such as distance does not exist in an observable 3D universe, which contains discrete objects, with very clear boundaries or termination points or spacetime between one object and another. I think such as time dilation, could not be true in a universe where distance had no 'reality.' If there is no 'real' distance, then why can I not just move instantly to any dimensionless coordinate within the universe?
Are you conceptualising a model, within which discrete (or separate objects) don't really exist?
Some notion, suggesting that the entire universe is really still, a singularity, its just in an expanded/inflated/extended state?
If so, I would expect to experience more ability to naturally network, with other humans.
Do you think such as Sheldrakes morphic resonance is such an example of 'natural networking?'
Yes, by all means.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
In physics and math the word instant means instantaneous or infinitesimal - having no length or duration. However, in common usage it can mean a tiny interval. Planck time is the limit of measurability and does not necessarily imply the smallest possible time interval.
My views and the labels I use are often different than those used in conventional Science.
Quoting universeness
The "chocolate bar" was sthe simplest example I could think of off-hand. The essential thing is that what units measure --time, distance, length, weight, etc.-- are constructs or concepts, and as such they have no physical/material existence, i.e. they do not really exist. Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones."
(Why do I have to bring up an external view? Well, I do it sometime, only to show that I'm not the only one who has certain views about a subject but also persons who are much more knowledgeable than me on that subject.)
Anyway, there have been not a single person who has rejected my view about time and argumented --in a plausible way-- in favor of physicality or even the actual existence of time. And I'm not surprised! :smile:
Quoting universeness
It might look or sound so, but if one grasps the essence and meaning of what distance is, I'm sure one will find what I say not only far-fetched but even quite obvious. One needs also to see a subject from all its aspects and include one's own experience with it: E.g. Can I really perceive "distance" or "space"? Can I conceive them as something that can be sensed? As much as I try I will only see lack, absence of anything. How can absence of anything has en existence? One could say, "Well, one can't perceive atoms either, since they are not visible with a naked eye. True, but Science can, using special tools. However, Science has not show similar observation results and evidence about (empty) space, has it?
Quoting universeness
To say that something contains something else --in concrete, physical terms-- we must be able to perceive that kind of container, mustn't we? So, what is this "container" here?
I'm not sure if you refer to "distance" or the "3D universe". And I als don't know which is considered larger: the space, which "contains" the Universe, or the Universe, which "contains" space? They are both so vast that it might nor even matter which of the two is the case.
But what I can say is that the word "contains" here is a figure of speech.
This is a very important point that I brought up earlier on: We are using concepts in expressions in a figurative way so often that they finally become a reality! They acquire flesh and bones. They come to be used in literal sense. See what I mean? One such expression is "space contains".
Quoting universeness
This distance you are taking about is a vector, i.e. it is defined by magnitude and direction. But this is not important. It's only to say that it is a term used in various scientific areas for description and demonstration purposes.
Distance is something we can perceive and/or measure. Again, the measurement factor comes in. You use it in geometry, to show how far way is point A from point B. But points A and B are hypothetical. They don't really exist. In fact, there are no actual "points" in the Universe. They are used only for descriptive purposes.
But let's look at what you say from a logical viewpoint:
So, what you are saying, I think, here is somthing like the following: "The distance between points A and B is X. If there were no distance, we could move from A to B instantly." Right? But this would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all. Which nullifies, invalidates the first proposition.
And also from a physical viewpoint:
Distance generally decribes how far one point is from another. Now, points exist only in geometry as applied to hundreds of different fiels, beside Math. They are assigned arbitrarily and used to describe shapes, topographic elements, relations of physical objects in space, etc. We set, assign or draw a point on paper, blackboard, computer screen, etc., or we select any point on any object or shape and we call it point A. This is something we create or assign. And, how many points can we create depends on the size of the available 3D space and the size of the point. And the minimum size of of the point --which is what we need and should be-- depends on the medium that we use to draw or set it. In sa computer scree, for example, that would be a pixel, but that would also depends on the screen resolution. This never ends, as you see. Yet, we can assume arbitrarily a cetain point. Now what about outside any drawing media? What abount in the whole Universe? Can we assign such points? In fact, do such points have any meaning at all? Do such points exist at all?
So, if points do not really exist, distance doesn't really exist either.
Quoting universeness
No.
Quoting universeness
I have no idea about this.
Interesting.
But doesn't infinitesimal mean exceedingly small? And as such it still has a length/duration?
So, what I undestand, in Physics "instant" is just concept and something referention, used for description purposes, and as such it has no existence by itself. The same about --and maybe worse with-- "tiny interval". How mush is "tiny"?
I didn't know about this Planck's time. I know about Planck's time which about 10?43 seconds, as it is brought up by @universeness (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/823560)
An interesting counter view, is offered by Lee Smolin, in his book 'Time Reborn.' I have not read the book, but he talks about it in this interview (posted with an audio and textual versions):
Ira Flatlow 21min interview with Lee Smolin.
He states during this interview (with Ira Flatlow):
Well, what I mean when I say that time is real is that everything which is real and everything which is true is real or true in a moment, which is one of a succession of moments. That's what we experience, Ira. And the question is: Is that the structure of nature? Does nature exist in a series of moments, one after the other? Is that what's really real about the world? Or is that, as Einstein said, an illusion, and there is some timeless picture which is the truer picture?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
You traverse space, by means of physical effort, you walk, run, (perhaps even still skip and jump Alkis!). Why is that physical experience almost overruled, by your metaphysical musings about the existence of distance? If distance does not exist then why do you have to physically traverse it, over time?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
So how else do you perceive say, a box of cornflakes? So yes, the universe must be a container.
I also perceive the big bang singularity, with some notion of 'container,' don't you?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
On such a scale, I accept that my perception breaks down, somewhere between the notions of infinite space and infinite space that is not boundless. At those scales, I merely have to admit, 'I currently don't know.'
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I understand what you mean on the scale of the extremely big or at the scale of the extremely small. But, there is still you, me and all other biological lifeforms, traversing space, by physical means, and by doing work that uses energy. Distance and time are real, in that sense. So, I think it's very important to not state, that all notions of real experienced space and real experienced time/duration, are in every use of such labels, untrue. That what I mean by when I say that I think you are taking a logical step too far. Your step too far, is also too 'metaphysical' for me.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
This is why I asked you about such a path, leading to such as cogito ergo sum. It's like the solipsistic position. I don't see how you get to 'points A and B are hypothetical,' when I can choose them and physically label them A and B, in 'real' physical spacetime.
To me, It's almost like slapping a solipsist until they accept I am real and if they don't accept I am real, then I am justified in continuing to slap them, as if I am not real, then they are not really being slapped and I am doing nothing bad. Surely I am unable to terminate their existence, if solipsism is true,in any sense.
This for me, is where the empirical, trounces all metaphysical notions of spacetime.
But still, I accept that it's not possible for me to identify the smallest duration of time or the biggest size possible for a universe.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
On your first sentence, yes. If quantum superposition is true then perhaps an object can be in two places at once, there is some evidence for quantum superposition discussed in places such as this Caltech article but this is superposition at a quantum level, there is no evidence (afaik) of superposition at a macro level such as experienced by humans.
I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, that fact that points DON'T coincide, and humans can't be in two places at the same time, is evidence that distance is real!!! You are the one suggesting distance is not real!
Quoting Alkis Piskas
No, they exist in real spacetime. I can make two goalposts, and label them A and B, and there is observable, traversable, measurable distance between them. These points exist in real spacetime and not just in mathematical geometric representations.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Why do you conclude that the fact that we do the assignment, makes the result, not real? We are real, so what we do is real!
Quoting Alkis Piskas
But 3D points in space do exist. Mathematical coordinate systems such as cartesian coordinates are valid. If I give you an (x,y,z) coordinate relative to an agreed origin position then that 'place'/'position in 3D space' exists! and any relative distance to it, is real as it then becomes traversable. We know this is true or else we could not have landed on the moon! A coordinate such as (x,y,z,a,b,c) is far harder to demonstrate, as we cannot demonstrate a 6D spatial point exists.
I've always thought of infinitesimals as part of the metaphysics of mathematics. They don't really exist in normal arithmetic, but have a mathematical description that allows them to be used in calculus, say. Leibniz came up with the idea, then a bit later the limit definitions took over.
Infinitesimal
They have no Euclidean dimension (except for position).
I have listened about half of the interview. I still didn't hear anything substantial or specific about time ...
So I looked in YT ... (BTW, always prefer Youtube than just audio or other audiovisual medium. It has usully transcripts of what is said, which is very helpful for different reasons.)
So, you can listen to Smolin's Theory of Time at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hi4VbERDyI
But there's something else more interesting and more at the point regarding time:
Lee Smolin - The Nature of Time
I have watched about half of it (with small jumps) ... He talks about the cocetn of the main things the main argument that I heard from Smolin about time being real didn't persuade me at all:
Here's parts I copy-paste from the video transcript:
~5:55: "One of the most mysterious aspects of time is the future and we all think about the future ... about aging, which is our concern with our own futures, the concern with the future of the planet climate change and so forth."
OK, the word "future" here is used as a figure of speech, an expression that wa all know what it means.
Then,
~6:18: "If time isn't real, if you're one of those people believes the time is an illusion, then what is the future? Is the future already determined? Do you think, when you think about the future, that are you one of these people who's a fatalist that ... well, it's bound it's all set up it's bound what's going to happen is bound to happen it's already determined or is the future open?"
~6:50: "If the future is open is novelty possible? There's this idea of science [that] explains everything in terms of laws and how could anything new ever happen because it's things of just time is just the rearrangement of atoms nothing is really happening but atoms moving around in which case nothing new can ever happen most of my scientific ..."
~7:12: "We see novelty all the time in the evolution of the universe, the appearance of galaxies stars planets, life, everything up to including everything that we experience each day is novel in the universe. Is that a real aspect of reality or is it an illusion?"
I stop here, because I can't find any good argument about the existence of time as something real but only ideas related to time (like novelty) which don't tell us anything specific about time or are an evidence that time is real, that it actually exists. Does novelty --which is a pure concept-- offers as such an evidence?
See, once again, ideas about time, concepts related to time, descriptions, figures of speech and common language expressions using the word "time". There's nothing scientific or a plausible argument in all this that can be used as an evidence for the existence of time as something real.
Quoting universeness
Abtract talk. What is a "moment" other than a concept? How can "a succession of moments" --which is also an idea, it hs not even a foundation of some sort-- form an explanation and evidence about the existence/reality of time?
Quoting universeness
What is the space I'm traversing? Can it be specified? Can it be perceived? Can it be sensed? Or all that is just movement and change, feeling the effort I am doing, the resistance I feel from the air, thew sound my steps are procusing? All these these are physical and real. Only these.
Quoting universeness
I can understand the universe as a container. I can't undestand the Big Bang singularity at all, either as a container or anything else! :grin:
Quoting universeness
Are infinite and "not boundless" compatible?
I can conceive the Universe as one of the two. But only conceive. Can't know or figure out which for certain.
Quoting universeness
(See my comment about "traversing space" earlier on)
Quoting universeness
Well, I always believe I'm mostly talking in an "earthly", everyday language. Maybe by "stepping too far" you mean going too deep? I may do this. I want to get to the essence of things. But in doing this, I try to use as less abstract thinking as possible. On the contrary, sometimes I feel I oversimplify things, at least in the minds of others. (For me, simple is beautiful and effective. One of my favorite mottos is "Truth is always simple" :smile:) Maybe this exudes a metaphysical aroma. I don't know ...
Quoting universeness
Do points A and B really exist? Does a point really exist ? Points can't and don't exist by themselves. As I said, it is we who assign a point, which can never be precise enough, anyway. Hence, the "hypothetical" attribute. In the same sense that a second cannot exist by itself. And even if we measure it, it can never be precise enough, i.e. absolute. Water in glass is real. It exists by itself. But its "volume" is not. It doesn't exist by itself.
But even if points A and B refer to real objects, e.g. two loudspeakers, their distance isn't. They are just apart. What we call distance is the measured path between them: 30cm, 50cm, 1m? Do these measures exist? And, as I said, this measured distance can never be precise enough.
BTW, this reminds me of Zeno's Arrow "paradox", a simple version of which is: An arrow can never reach its target, because it has always to pass from the middle of the distance between the archer and the target, ad infinitum. Well, that's why I call it "paradox", because it's a pseudo paradox: it assumes that space is discontinuous and thus divisible. (He did the same with the Achilles and the Tortoise "paradox", considering time as discontinuous and thus divisible.)
So, the concepts of space and time can be only conceived as continuous in nature. They have no start, intermediate points or end. Otherwise, they the Universe would follow Zeno's "laws"! :smile:
Quoting universeness
I don't think it's possible foe anyone else. :smile:
Quoting universeness
You lost me! :smile:
Quoting universeness
No, the opposite. I said exactly: "This would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all." That is, there would be no distance at all.
I guess, I can never be clear enough! :smile:
Quoting universeness
What exactly can you observe? It's empty space. You can do that only mentally, i.e. imagine a line that joins these two goalposts. Or, in the physical worls you can draw a line. Or take a measuring tape and measure the distance. OK. What you would have done is simply using physical means to measure that distance. And, as I said, measurement is one of the things we are using the concept of distance (and time) for. The other is description. In doing so, we make distance acquire"flesh and bones", i.e. become somewhat "real".
Now, if we remove the line between the two goalposts --both physically and mentally-- and also forget about measurement, is there anything there that we can perceive and refer to as a distance?
So, isn't what we call "distance" only what we can visualize and/or measure?
The goalposts, on the other hand are real and they don't need to be visualized.
Quoting universeness
I don't know what do you mean by "result". But assigning physical points is a real event and the points are real too. Evidently. But the distance between these points, as I said above, is only what we can visualize and/or measure.
Quoting universeness
If they dont exist in 2D, as we used them all this time, how can they exist in 3D? :smile:
Quoting universeness
Yes, geometry. It's the first or among the first things I brought up in this exchange:
From the Greek geo (= land) and metron (= measure) -> "measurenent of the land". (Of course, this was people's most imporantn thing at that time: their land property! :smile)
So, guess what? Right. Measurement again! :smile:
Interesting. :up:
Wasnt that contested by Newton?
Taking all the points made by both of us, and the links we have used, I see the main difference in our viewpoints, is, that I consider the observability and measurement and traversability of space, proof that space exists, and it follows that distance exists and time must exist, as change requires duration.
You did not find Smolin's viewpoints compelling. I find his point of view regarding time quite valid.
But I also find Carlo Rovelli's notions of time quite compelling, and he, like you, proposes that time is illusionary. I like his comment that:
So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Perhaps I did not present the terms involved very well. It's based on the proposal that the geometry of the universe may be curved, but on such a large scale, that our measuring methodologies report that it's geometry is flat.
How do we know the universe is flat?
The Possibility of a 'finite' Yet 'unbounded' Universe.
Yes. That's a way to look at it. Howeve, please allow me to say that 1) I present solid and extensive arguments --and new each time-- based on examples and real experience and 2) I also present similarly valid and grounded arguments agsinst your statements, etc. On the other hand, I can't see the same thing from your part. You seem not even try. It looks like you just or mainly stick to your views, without defending them approriately. Also, bringing in external "help" from other people and esp. providing me with links to interviews etc., well this not at all my cup of tea nor I find it effective. Sometimes it may be useful but most of the times it's not at all. It's just a wate of time. And I don't mean only you: unfortunately a lot of people do it.)
You see, this lack of expanding and supporting your personal views prevents me from seeing the foundations of your viewpoints, which could mabe allow me to view myself the subject from a different angle and with additional data. In fact, you deprive me of that pleasure! :smile:
Well, this is howI view this exhange myself, of course.
Quoting universeness
See, this doesn't help at all the discussion. It's just another view. And based on QM, not in real life. Not something anyone can experience, connect it to real life and so on. Such things are only useful for taining one's intellect. Like Math problems. They are fun, but they are not useful for our lives.
Philosophy to be valuable, must apply to life, to things that can be experienced or explain basic things in life and the Universe. 2,500 years ago, Heractitus said "Everything flows". This condensed "knowledge" explains the concept of time better than most theories of sophsiticated except "empty" or useless views about time I have come upon.
Quoting universeness
Interesting. But it has nothing to do with what I have said so far neither helps me undestand better the nature of time ...
***
Challenge: Prove (show) to me that time is physical and thus it exists and it is real.
In a new unit of time. Forget all we have said.
Both were eclipsed by Weierstrass and Cauchy with their formalization of limits. :cool:
Non-standard analysis was formalized in the last century - it uses infinitesimals - but is rarely taught these days. A friend who was in the math department at CU Boulder told me they experimented with it one term, but for whatever reasons it was not successful.
Important at the time, virtual trivia now. Possibly a subject for philosophers to entertain. :smile:
True, though relativity came along.
A far more relevant and interesting conflict of ideas of time is Einstein vs Bergson.
This is just a your personal (rather self-centred imo) view Alkis, for me, it has no value beyond your personal complaint. You wont be surprised that I also don't agree with it's proposals.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Was your use of Heraclitus and Einstein above, you bringing in external help, contradicting your own position?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I accept that the above, confirms that this is how you view our exchange on this thread.
That has little meaning for me, as I don't see our exchanges as competitive, I see them as interesting.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The term 'physical,' described as:
[b]1. Relating to the body as opposed to the mind:
2. Relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete:
"the physical world"
SIMILAR: material, substantial, solid, concrete, tangible, palpable
3. relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally: "physical laws"[/b]
Physicists define time as the progression of events from the past to the present into the future.
Your physical body in the reference frame of its own existence, (cogito ergo sum), in your own personal reality, materially, tangibly and palpably, experiences progressing from the past, to the present to the future. This can be empirically demonstrated by observing you over any notional time unit you wish, from sand clocks, sundials, water clocks to atomic clocks. (The base unit of time in the International System of Units (SI), and by extension most of the Western world, is the second, defined as about 9 billion oscillations of the caesium atom.)
I understand the proposals that time is an emergent property, rather than 'physically' real, but I think such notions are similar to all 'Plato style' 'idealistic' notions, such as the ideal clock or an ideal measurement etc. There is no biggest or smallest, or any real example of nothing/infinite/perfect. These are simple placeholders, for notions that have no actual existents and can only ever be asymptotically approached. WE (as an example of self-aware existents,) make time and distance real, and for me, any proposals from real physics or metaphysics, that time and distance are not real, remains, currently, of little significance or value. I remain open to the possibility, that such notions, if irrefutably confirmed, will become significant and gain value in the 'dare I say,' future.
It does not matter if you do not change your position regarding time, based on anything I have offered in our exchange here. The truth of what time is, exists, regardless of whether or not you, I or anyone else, currently, has correct knowledge of it.
Of course it's a personal view and complaint. Whose else could it be? :smile:
Quoting universeness
I have talked about that already (maybe not in this thread). I very rarely do that and only lust a statement and after I have already set forth my position clearly. And not so much as a support, but rather to show that I'm not the only one who believes something but even persons much more knowledgeable than me on s subject. And I always use very known persons, something which serves as a stable and solid reference shared with the other person. Also to give a little "color" or breath of air to the discussion, as a kind of "ornament". So, it is very evident that I don't actually need to do that at all.
But let's come to the hot point in my message: the challenge!
Quoting universeness
I agree.
Quoting universeness
This is a theretical approach based on an arbitrary use of undefined concepts. Certainly nothing physical in it.
Quoting universeness
Existence, reality, experiences, etc. All this is concepts, mental constracts. Not physical. We are not speaking here about psychological time ot how I perceive time in my mind, etc. This belongs to another area.
Quoting universeness
Don't quite get this.
Quoting universeness
Maybe so. OK, but about the physicality of time?
Quoting universeness
Oh god. Is it I who needs to change my position regarding time, after all the argumentations and counter argumentations, examples, detailed desciptions and all that, explaining the non-physicality and even non actual existence??? Whereas you haven't really said --much less proved-- anything about the physicality of time during the whole time and not even in the challenge I proposed to you?
Godssake, universeness. Get real!
This is hardy a novel approach, with all due respect, it's quite mundane, and I think the points you make would certainly be supported better, if you could cite a wider range of published and peer reviewed science, that supports your position.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
You have not proved the non-physicality of time, in any way, shape or form. You have also not demonstrated why such non-physicality, if true, is in any way, significant. You have only mostly offered your own speculations. Also, making appeals, in the name of non-existent gods, does not help you demonstrate your own ability to 'get real.'
What about the fact that consciousness is dependent upon the physical brain?
Or are you merely brainstorming? :wink:
Conscious presents itself in our experience of it through the physical brain, as well as through the mechanisms of other living beings. Consciousness is embodied but it is also embedded in environmental information and processes in a non-trivial way. Mind needs a mechanism of interaction and influence with matter, that is true. But who is to say what form that could take? Amoeba's do not have a brain, but they can learn and have memory. Perhaps consciousness of some kind subsists through and as a kind of supervenient field of quantum coherence.
Not bad :strong: