Does 'time' exist?

[TelegramSam]

Well it didn't exist until Rassilon stabilized...

Well on second thought, nevermind. The CIA* might not like me divulging the Time Lords' secrets



*Celestial Intervention Agency

[Jerry Freeman]

This is an interesting thread.

It seems to me, the past and future aren't much different from "somewhere else" in the three dimensions of space.

If we want to argue that the past and future don't exist, then we could argue on similar logic that everywhere except the place I occupy as I type this in Orwell, New York, United States doesn't exist either.

We occupy one point at a time in each of four dimensions:

A point along an X axis (one of two perpendicular directions on the surface of the plane we chose as our base ...

A point along a Y axis on the same plane, perpendicular to the X axis ...

A point along a Z axis perpendicular to the X and Y axes ...

And a point along a timeline.

Looking at it this way, time doesn't seem so different from the other three dimensions:

North/Here/South
East/Here/West
Up/Here/Down
Past/Now/Future

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Joseph E. Smith]

"Time", as I see it, is a concept (just like money or 'ownership of land'), an idea that tries to add legitimacy or body to an idea which supports the viability of possession of the intangible. It does, and does not exist on a couple of planes.... the biggest of which is our (Western society's) preception of 'ownership'. To be in control of time is to be in control of destiny, chaos, emptiness and the universe... seemingly. Who can truly claim (let alone prove) such possession?

The indigenous peoples of Australia have the concept of time pretty spot on. Time, and the land, own us.

[Nanohedron]

A former main squeeze once told me about the time she was in 9th grade and everyone got herded into the auditorium to watch a modern dance performance. A period of enforced cultural appreciation, if you will. Apparently the dancers were scampering all over the stage in their Martha Graham-style gauzy robes and crying out, "Time.......is a dimension! Time.......is a dimension!" Sheesh. So much for art.

I think the choreographer had been "expanding" his or her mind a bit too much, if you ask me. It was back in the day, after all.

[jim stone]

The leading picture of time in physics is that time
is like space, it's a continuum. Just as there are other
places than here, which are just as real as here, there
are other times than now that are just as real as now.
The future and past are as real as the present.
We just happen to be here now. If so, time is as
real as space.

This view is called eternalism.
Presentism, the idea that only the present is real,
the past is no more, the future is yet to be,
is probably a long shot.

There are terrific problems for presentism, it turns
out, that we went into in the thread Carol S kindly
posted the link to above. However there are some
philosophers, very clever ones, still committed
to presentism and trying to make it work.

But I think the past, the present, and the future
are equally real, the whole caboodle exists, just like
space. It's called the space-time continuum.

For we mortals, the past was real, the present is real, and the future will be real.... or something.

Well, all other things being equal, time is most likely as
the best theories in physics say. On that account, time is like a
river, the past is behind us, still real, the future is ahead of us,
as real as today, only we haven't yet reached it.

Personally I find the idea that the
past is real pretty disturbing. I had hoped that the Holocaust
and a lot of other bad stuff had vanished like the snow.
No such luck, I'm afraid.

[Denny]

The first wife had a talent for changing the past.

I could sent you her number, Jim, maybe she could help.

Yeah, right!

[Dale]

But the ball is only stopping in relation to your perception of reference point in space at the given time, and then only possibly on one of the commonly agreed to x,y,z axes of space.

Nah, the problem I posed doesn't go there. Here's my hand, here's the sky, here's the ball. When I'm talking about "stopping" I'm talking up and down motion in your basic 10th grade Geometry world.

You know, I probably should have said that (inside my head) the perception if time is all about reference points. Now that you've defined the reference point (basic 10th grade Geometry) the conclusion you asserted is easily supported. Don't misunderstand - I mean no slight or criticism.

In a roundabout way you support my conclusion. You proving your assertion by defining your point of reference proves my assertion as well.

If you're asserting relativity, I think that's been done.

[scottielvr]

If you're asserting relativity, I think that's been done.

"A man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. He sits on a hot stove for a minute, it's longer than any hour. That is relativity."
--Albert Einstein

[dfernandez77]

If you're asserting relativity, I think that's been done.

In spades!

I notice on reflection that some of my responses seem glib and pompous - though I don't mean for them to be (including my comments in this thread).

I appreciate many of the opinions shared here, both when I do and don't agree. Especially yours Dale, because they come packaged in such a great style of writing.

Hmmm. All things being relative, perhaps this should have gone in the "Everyone is a Cutie Pie" thread.

[brianormond]

-Somewhere between "Is now always now?" and whatever absolute answer exists-are our individual and collective lives.
Steve Goodman said "You must read in between the lines."

(.. he also said "Talk Backwards" too)

[Dale]

If you're asserting relativity, I think that's been done.

In spades!

I notice on reflection that some of my responses seem glib and pompous - though I don't mean for them to be (including my comments in this thread).

I appreciate many of the opinions shared here, both when I do and don't agree. Especially yours Dale, because they come packaged in such a great style of writing.

Hmmm. All things being relative, perhaps this should have gone in the "Everyone is a Cutie Pie" thread.

Thank you for your gracious post. Much appreciated.

[Mitch]

No, the universe never started and the boudlessness of it reflects boundless room for the Creator. The Creation then does not become a certain point in a timeline but a perpetual state of re-imagination.

According to Hawking, even with no boundaries, the universe could still have started off with just the minimum possible non-conformity allowed by the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. This principle implies that the early universe cannont have been completely uniform because of fluctuation in particles and velocities. The universe could then have undergone a period of rapid expansion and the initial non-uniformities would have been amplified until they were big enough to explain the origin of the structures we see around us...galaxies, stars, and eventually insignificant creatures like ourselves.

I have a resonance with this arguement.

The string theorists postulate that time is at the centre of a 10 or 11 dimensional universe (each with only one time) and eminates outwards from it. That the "Present" is the surface of a "bubble" that is ever-expanding away from that centre. Another hypthesis is that the present is the edge of a ring described by 2 universe-bubbles colliding. How either of these can occur in universes that contain only one time dimension escapes me.

The "Uncertainty Principal" seems most likely to me - that within nothing an infinatesimal-eth of anything will constitute a universe. Indeed that "eth" can only be god - a hapless spec of nothing that caused a universe by mistake. I prefer to think of god in these terms - he accidentally created himself and made us to make up for the guilt (monkeys and goats were later editions).

Dales "eth" of a moment in which the ball is stationary is a damn good message! That in passing even at rest is in motion - this is the nature ov vectors - always you find yourself bound by the singularities - the "eth"s. It also points out the falacy of observing the numbers and forgetting what they describe - although beautiful, numbers are as flawed as any other language, the symbol is not the thing.

I was always amazed by folks who were so proud of their digital watches (when they first came out). They would sprout on, and on, about how accurate they are. When in fact they cannot tell you anything between when the digit turns-over and the next (usually a whole minute), while my good old analog-timepiece showed every single "eth" between the numbers on their dials.

If we postulate the original "eth" then we can see infinite dimensions appearing - all at 90% of each other. Within them , you can pick any to be time - and as many times as you want. This allows for a cubing of the infinite It also allows for as many universes as you might ever care for, with all of them having the one hapless ultimate deity (poor sod).

My question, as always with our time dimension, is this - why does memory seem to fall in one direction only? If we had perfect perception of time it would cease to be time Is this the answer then? That it would be boring for God?

I like eth because it is the undoing of the. And I can see nothing at all wrong with passing through eth to the next universe - I thinksk we actually have 3 time dimensions. This allows for a lot more fun.

The cube is a most amazing creature. I think that, infinitely expressed, it defines the nature of our universe and god with it.

So for me the answer to life, the universe and time and everything is ... 90%

90% is the nature and essence of eth. from that all else is. Eth is the creator of the, the will always be subordinate.

Now, about the question ...

[djm]

I like the story about the pig.

djm

[Mitch]

I like the story about the pig.

djm

[fyffer]

Recommended Reading:

Einstein's Dreams

Reading that book inspired me to write a song, I entitled simply "Time"


TIME - words and music by Chris Myers

I found some time; it was just sitting there on the street.
Nobody stopped to pick it up, so I picked it up.
I asked a little boy if he had lost some time.
He said, "I got too much already; you can take some more of mine"

CHORUS:
For the old, time moves to quickly,
For the young, not fast enough.
For the short time spent in lovers' arms, it's tough.
For the time we spend together,
For the time we spend alone,
For the youth we try to cling to soon is gone

I spent my time on a book I longed to read
I wrapped myself in its pages for a time.
An old woman happened by me, she said, "Where'd you get that time?
I lost some of it years ago. What you have there must be mine."

CHORUS

BRIDGE:
It's been said that time is money, but not through a child's eyes
Time, like money, cannot be saved, but only spent more wise
Time heals all wounds, or that's what people say,
Except the ones that She inflicts - what does that mean for us today?

CHORUS