The only evidence for time moving, is alas only a psychological function. Recently, i've read quite a few postulations, from physicists such as Dr. Kaku, Dr. Wolf, and among others that time does not flow at all.

It turns out from the perspective of any flux in time is not bound by the present... But this is kind of strange, because the present time, according to our frame of references is certainly the only real time ever present; and the present time is what we experience flickering from second to second.

But does time move into the future and leave the past?

If time moves, what is it moving relative to? What is it moving in reference to...? The answer would have to be itself, but that is illogical.

Dr. Wolf explains that relativity states that our histories are layed out before us, frozen in time. This grim picture would mean that every timeframe would all be sitting side by side, existing in an all-time state. This means that when big bang occurred, a big crunch quickly followed, and anything happening in-between is merely a product of our derranged minds.

In a more geometrical sense according to relativity, time is much like how we envision space, like an expanding balloon, except time has a wobbly surface which is distorted by the presence of matter in space. But since matter and space are the same thing (because the vacuum is physical as well), and since space is already one continuum with time, then time can't really move relative to space, nor can it move relative to matter. It simply doesn't make sense.

So Time cannot have a flow. Nor does it really move. It actually encompasses both the past and the future (1), and our minds seem to drag in-between them. If there is any time dimension that moves, it is purely a psychological one. That's why i have postulated that we can use mathematics to describe an extra time dimension for the mind (2).

The psychological interpretation of time, allows a series of starts and stops in time, which we always percieve in present time. Time does expand however, and we can percieve this as a simple imaginary expansion, or the passing of time relative to the expansion. But we should no longer look at our clocks on the wall and imagine each second pass us by, but imagine the second that just passed us, is in fact the same time as the second you move into, as counterintuitive as it might sound.

(1) - Though Dr. Wolf might not agree with that, since he summarizes the mind creates what it observes... so he might also consider the same rule for the present time. Speaking to Dr Wolf, he said,

''We really do not experience a time flow
at all. Time does not flow for if it did it would need to flow with respect
time which makes no sense. We experience motion as a flow or a series of
stops and starts.''

Frank J. Tipler has made some use of the idea of time starting and stopping in such a sense. He has set a theory stating that things flash in and out of existence in (quite possibly) the Planck Time.

(2) - Actually, the math i did was very basic. I would need to sit a while and work out some other variables. There has also been a professor recently at the USC proclaiming the laws of relativity incomplete, proposing a second time dimension.

Does Time Move At All?

On a Friday, at work, 30 minutes before quitting time...time is motionless.

Lol... yeh i suppose ;)

...But does time move into the future and leave the past?....
Nobody says so, so it has no sense to refute it. The time is dimension and the dimension cannot move, being just an abstract attribute of space-time geometry.

Asking if time moves is like asking if change makes any difference.
Time doesn't move, time is "movement", geddit? Like the way distance is a gap between two places.

I keep asking myself what reference time would need to flow in respect to. Couldn't a second time dimension be a refenence, instead of saying the oxymoronic statement, ''Time in reference with time.''

Time doesn't move, time is "movement", geddit?Nope, you should supply some testable prediction, which follows from such concept. if you don't find some it's supposedly better to spend the time by cooking, for example.

The above stance shouldn't be considered as a manifestation of arrogance and/or negativism - it can just serve as a simple criterion of relevance of whatever claim of personal preference.

I've nothing against the fundamental claims like "the time is energy" "the time is motion" "the time stays at rest" or whatever else - I just don't see any testable applications of them.

Come on, time is an artifact of observation. If things didn't move or change, there wouldn't be any time, or anything to observe.
But time itself isn't anything more than a way to measure, or the way we measure the gap between things.

Time "exists" because distance "exists".

My testable prediction of this principle, is the following: it will take a certain (individually measurable) time, because of the number of words, to read to the end of this sentence.

Corollary: any distance necessarily is also a time; there's a relation.

Time "exists" because distance "exists".
But the distance has nothing to do with motion. For example bellow is the animation of star sky twinkling, apparently existing in time. We can even define two time arrows here, each of different speed.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/star_twinkling1.gif

So we can experience time, but no apparent motion exists here. This effectively renders the claim "time is motion" refused.

any distance necessarily is also a time; there's a relation
OK, we can say, the time is the immanent attribute of space-time by the same way, like the space. But this is somewhat trivial conclusion. What the time really is? If nothing else, our answer should enable to quantitatively predict the number of dimensions of particular space-time, or it will remain useless for physics.

Come on, time is an artifact of observation. If things didn't move or change, there wouldn't be any time, or anything to observe.
But time itself isn't anything more than a way to measure, or the way we measure the gap between things.

Time "exists" because distance "exists".


I know you never specifically said consciousness, or mind, but with all that above, it begs the question that somehow the mind is time. Fred Hoyle believed this, and Dr. Wolf might also. He's certainly made reference to it in his book. To go as far as saying the mind is time, might we be able to say that then mind is somehow a dimension?
Wolf doesn't believe that the mind is a dimension... but i do. Treating it like one
a^{2} + b^{2} + c^{2} + tdi^{2}
Let i^{2} = i *k^{2}
Then the real part would be
a^{2} + b^{2} + c^{2} - i^{2}*k^{2}^{2} = 0
which simplifies to:
a^{2} + b^{2} +c^{2} + k2^{2} =0
The only solution is a=b=c=k^{2}=0

There's cetainly distances in time.

But the distance has nothing to do with motion.I'm afraid I can't see how this could be the case, try as I might.

Distance has very much to do with motion - if things didn't separate from each other there wouldn't be any space, for a kick-off.

Lovely question Reiku.
Certainly from a human perspective, it seems to have a direction.
Past Present Future.
Is that the same as having movement?

When I'm out having a great date with a beautiful woman and enjoying the evening very much it seems to go by so fast but if I'm out with a floozie then time passes very slowly. :(

When I'm out having a great date with a beautiful woman and enjoying the evening very much it seems to go by so fast but if I'm out with a floozie then time passes very slowly. :(

"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and its longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Einstein

Dr. Wolf explains that relativity states that our histories are layed out before us, frozen in time. This grim picture would mean that every timeframe would all be sitting side by side, existing in an all-time state. This means that when big bang occurred, a big crunch quickly followed, and anything happening in-between is merely a product of our derranged minds.

Who is this Dr.Wolf ?

Dr Fred Alan Wolf is a leading pioneer in the new physics and consciousness.

Time always has an arrow with radioactive materials. When we measure a radioactive material, we always find that the number of atoms of the material [radioisotope] will decrease with the 'passage of time', following a radioactive decay law that is, itself, the solution of a differential equation.

Dr Fred Alan Wolf is a leading pioneer in the new physics and consciousness.
Dr. Wolf's ideas are childish and ad-hoced. His spherical particle waves are similar to pictures of string theorists: general concept is OK, but it's realization is schematic and apparently non-physical. No wonder, both theories are having problems with testable predictions and logic - they're both based on belief, not the understanding of principle.

http://www.glafreniere.com/images/Doppler_total.gif http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Physics/Elementaryparticle/Particlephysics/QuantumGravity/Superstrings/stringint1.gif

reiku---

We've argued at length before about ``psychological time'', and such. I don't think that our opinions on this matter have changed. I don't agree wi th the notion that time is only a result of the fact that we percieve it---this much is clear from general relativity.

Ben
I think time takes on a different form with mind. I never said the two where interdependant here, but in a sense they are. For any flow to exist, a mind must be present. But on the larger picture, time exists in fleeting flashes of stops and starts. But heh... whatever you say.
And you know special relativity... your arguement that time is not a result of how we percieve it, is in fact a theory that is observer-dependant.

Zeph
I'm not clued up on this theory. So i cannot make any comment that would approve or disprove your dislike. However, he is the founder, not sure if you know, of a mathematical insert called qwiffs that determine probabilities. You should read up more of his work.

Dr Wagner
Yes... the radiative arrow of time...
We all know there is about several arrows of time, and psychological arrow is but one. We know we percieve, or recreate time in our neural networks. We sense time flow, but as i said, this is due to the way our heads work. Without us, time is found to be discontinuous.

In fact Ben... Can i ask you to consider putting this back... since i never spoke about observer-dependancies in the original post... nor did i hint at anything you might have found objectionable. So...

But the distance has nothing to do with motion. For example bellow is the animation of star sky twinkling, apparently existing in time. We can even define two time arrows here, each of different speed.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/star_twinkling1.gif

So we can experience time, but no apparent motion exists here. This effectively renders the claim "time is motion" refused.

The "Twinkle" is caused by the fact that the Star outputs various light wavelengths, and due to the distance only a small amount of that light reaches the observer. Depending on the distance also defines what spectrum of light is visible, the closer the Star the more Red spectrum (Infra-red) the further the more Violet. (Ultra-Violet) you then have ranges outside of the visual spectrum like UHF.

No matter the distance the output includes Photon's and Waves. Depending on the spectrum location defines the length of the wave, this implies a distance. A "Twinkle" occurs when there is a change in that wave length, perhaps a gravitation distortion, perhaps dust particles absorbing the light on route to the observer. However the Twinkle is for a duration of time, a measurement of the absence of light loss due to the observation and that observation is using a cognitive that utilises it's own waveforms to identify the passage of time.

Namely the light of the star isn't just a record of the lights passage but also the observer themselves contains fundamentally there own interpreted passage of time.

In essence a usual Theory applied is that if there was a completely empty vacuum (without background radiation like Zero-point) there would be no passage of time, other than that made by the observer since the observer becomes the measurement device.

What I mean is that if you existed in this empty vacuum with no measurements around you, your observations are concluded by the motion of thoughts running through your neurons, which in turn are made up of molecular composites which in turn are made up of atoms that contain moving particles.

Of course if you are interested in that, you'd probably best look into how Time is measured through the Atomic Clock.

I belive that time is not a factor.
Time is precived backwards.
Time is the past.

You can not change the past and there for you can not change time.

Everything happens in the precent, RIGHT NOW.
You can not change what you did 1 sek. ago or yesterday.

Our minds can remember and learn from the past.
And that is what we call time.

We know from past expirence that it takes an average acorn , time , to grow into a tree.
What it depence on is : (a)potential and
(b)circumstances.

If a+b=1 Then
a+(b/1000)=0,001

Everything is binary, either something happens or it don´t.
1 it happens, 0 it don´t.

What it depence on is; what potentials does it have and are the circumstances fulfilled. If this is so then 1.
If not fulfilled then 0.

We can speed up "time" by changing the circumstances.
If an acorn have optimale circumstances it will grow quicker, because it is easier to achive the potential.

I just want to make my reply to the last poster public, because his views are very valid. There is a theory stating that existence is built up on nothing but binary codes of zero's and one's. One way to imagine this, is to imagine that the most fundamental of matter -- such as quarks and gluon energy as representing zero's and one's.

Also, i agree time isn't a factor, that is, unless there is a reference to cosmological time. We give that reference, so long as mind exists, a form of time exists, but it is purely imaginal, and totally ethereal, as is space... (1)

(1) - however, space vacuum is a physical and potentially physical realm, therego, if space and time are one continuum as spacetime, meaning that both play the same roles(2), then time and space are also physical.

(2) - i can qoute Minkowski in 1908 if someone wishes decairing time and space as one thing only...

We know we percieve, or recreate time in our neural networks. We sense time flow, but as i said, this is due to the way our heads work. Without us, time is found to be discontinuous.

This is not true..... if we look at the other planets in our solarsystem, then we see that there is change all round our little planet where we have the ability to precive time. time happens all the time.

Time is the distance between the past and the precent.

Yes... without us, time is discontinuous, and has no imaginary flow, or in real time, which is the same as imaginary space.

Yes... without us, time is discontinuous, and has no imaginary flow, or in real time, which is the same as imaginary space.

:confused:

Whatever, things still move after humanity is finally gone right ?

:confused:

Whatever, things still move after humanity is finally gone right ?

Yep

Things move, but what reference do they have, in consideration to a real passing of existence? In other words, who is there to say something is evolving, when there isn't a human? You might as well say that time doesn't exist.

Things move, but what reference do they have, in consideration to a real passing of existence? In other words, who is there to say something is evolving, when there isn't a human? You might as well say that time doesn't exist.

:bugeye: This is typical egocentric reasoning.. in other words bullshit.
Things don't suddenly vanish when there is no human around.

Well, if it is, let the aether decide on any human reasoning, when a human isn't present.

Well, if it is, let the aether decide on any human reasoning, when a human isn't present.

You think the universe depends on humans being present in it ?

Well, yes, from our perspective. The universe is relative to us. If weare not here, then existence as we know it cannot exist. So some other alternative ust take its place, which can only be described as ''potential.''

Well, yes, from our perspective. The universe is relative to us. If weare not here, then existence as we know it cannot exist. So some other alternative ust take its place, which can only be described as ''potential.''

Alright.. I'll be honest, I'm starting to get irritated. It's not just this conversation though, also outside factors. It seems smart for me to quit. Sorry.

Quit if you do, but you do it a second to late of your past, and a second too far for your future. Neither can be reached.

In other words, the present is an existence that can never be reached, since the future and the past are also somehow present.

Simply because the past is what we live to exist in the future, and both sandwitch the present

If living is the same as;

past + presens = life.

Past((a)potential) + present((b)circumstances = life


You can not change the past and there for you can not change time.

Everything happens in the present, RIGHT NOW.
You can not change what you did 1 sek. ago or yesterday.

Our minds can remember and learn from the past.
And that is what we call time.

We know from past expirence that it takes an average acorn , time , to grow into a tree.
What it depence on is : (a)potential and
(b)circumstances.

If a+b=1 Then
a+(b/1000)=0,001

Everything is binary, either something happens or it don´t.
1 it happens, 0 it don´t.

What it depence on is; what potentials does it have and are the circumstances fulfilled. If this is so then 1.
If not fulfilled then 0.

We can speed up "time" by changing the circumstances.
If an acorn have optimale circumstances it will grow quicker, because it is easier to achive the potential.

a+b=1
When we die, we are no longer a part of the mental part of the present, because the mind is tied to the body and the body is dead. We can not reach any of our potentials because we have no way of changing our curcumstances.
()+b=1
So when we die we become curcumstances for others to reach their potentials.
Our body becomes curcumstances for life on another level ex. food for worms and other forms of life.
Our mind becomes curcumstances for others in the race to reach their potential.
What we put up as a foundation, those after can build upon.

Yinyang has the right idea. Suppose the flow of time is only psychological. Then time cannot have a flow if mind is not present, then it is found to discontinuous, in fleeting flashes of existence.

As for the nature of time, we can never reach the future, and we never ever spent any time in the past. The only time we take a distance in is the present, and somehow this ''so-called'' present time ''excites'' reality to function accordingly.

If the past and future sandwich the present, then in some strange and paradoxical way, the past and future are the same as what we would call the present. But to save ourselves from insanity, we make a distinction between the two.

Does "time move", you ask?

You got to be kidding me.

Time is the measurment of movement, you fool.

What kind of dualistic universe have I fallen into?
It's called simplicity.

Does "time move", you ask?

You got to be kidding me.

Time is the measurment of movement, you fool.

What kind of dualistic universe have I fallen into?
It's called simplicity.

Have you read the rest of the debat?
Or just the the headline?

Time is no measurement. We are the only beings to ascribe such a function, malakas.