Do we create time?

Hi folks,
I decided to put it here,in 'Philosophy' section,and not under Parapsychology
It is about Robert Lanza'z another article.He argues that we create time,not other way around.Here is the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/is-death-the-end-new-expe_b_774814.html

What bothers me with Lanza's articles that he always uses scientific experiments to support his ideas.For example , in this article he uses references to some experiments to point out that we create time.

"Numerous experiments confirm that such uncertainty is built into the fabric of reality. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a fundamental concept of quantum physics. However, it only makes sense from a biocentric perspective."

What do you guys think?You see,it makes sense only under 'bioncentrism'. Or is it one more woo?
Thank you

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SSure we have create time for man. Before the working week was 48 hours now the working week is 40 hour and less, Before it have taken 6 to 7 days to travel from London to New York , Now it take 7 hours or less.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I remember posted about Lanza earlier this year,and few posters simply pointed out that he simply 'misused' the valid scientific experiments for his theory use.Perhaps that's the case with this article as well.

Wow,here:
http://www.near-death.com/science/research/science.html
I found this about Lanza:
"His mentors described him as a "genius" and the "Bill Gates of Science.""

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. The psychological phenomenon known as boredom can create time.

 

Ok ,guys, thanks for the responses, I see that you are not going to be Lanza's fans

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Woo.

 

No way.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/06/227-robert-lanza.html

 

I think the big question is: why are you recycling crap from FOUR YEARS AGO and a different forum?

 

Games have rules. Any version of time, or its building blocks, defined as beyond manipulation by human will (as physical body actions, thought, etc) you accordingly could not manufacture.

This leaves subjective concepts of time, or a sequence of moments as actually experienced by a particular individual, receiving such a label. Which there is no guarantee that YOU would be responsible for either, unless you identify with the opaque and semi-transparent causes of your functioning and applicable generated representations. At any rate:

Oliver Sacks: I heard strikingly similar accounts in the late 1960s from some of my post-encephalitic patients, when they were "awakened," and especially overexcited, by taking the drug L-DOPA. Some patients described cinematic vision; some described extraordinary "standstills," sometimes hours long, in which not only visual flow was arrested, but the stream of movement, of action, of thought itself. These standstills were especially severe with one patient, Hester Y. Once I was called to the ward because Mrs. Y. had started a bath, and there was now a flood in the bathroom. I found her standing completely motionless in the middle of the flood. She jumped when I touched her, and said, "What happened?"

"You tell me," I answered.

She said that she had started to run a bath for herself, and there was an inch of water in the tub...and then I touched her, and she suddenly realized that the tub must have run over and caused a flood. But she had been stuck, transfixed, at that perceptual moment when there was just an inch of water in the bath.

Such standstills showed that consciousness could be brought to a halt, stopped dead, for substantial periods, while automatic, nonconscious function --maintenance of posture or breathing, for example-- continued as before. --In the River Of Consciousness

- - - - - - -

Kristof Koch: A common metaphor for consciousness is that we live and experience things in a river of time. This implies that perception proceeds smoothly from our first waking moment of the day until we sink our heads onto the pillow at night. But this continuity of consciousness may be yet another illusion. Consider patients who experience "cinematographic vision" resulting from severe migraine headaches. According to Oliver Sacks, the neurologist and noted author who coined the term, these men and women occasionally lose their sense of visual continuity and instead see a flickering series of still images. The images do not overlap or seem superimposed; they just last too long, like a movie that has been stuck on freeze-frame and then suddenly jumps ahead to catch up to a real-time moving scene.

Sacks describes one woman on a hospital ward who had started to run water into a tub for a bath. She stepped up to the tub when the water had risen to an inch deep and then stood there, transfixed by the spigot, while the tub filled to overflowing, running onto the floor. Sacks came upon her, touched her, and she suddenly saw the overflow. She told him later that the image in her mind was of the water coming from the faucet into the inch of water and that no further visual change had occurred until he had touched her.

Sacks himself has experienced cinematographic vision following the drinking of sakau, a popular intoxicant in Micronesia, describing a swaying palm as "a succession of stills, like a film run too slow, its continuity no longer maintained." These clinical observations demonstrate that under normal circumstances, temporal splitting of sensations is barely, if ever, noticeable to us. Our perception seems to be the result of a sequence of individual snapshots, a sequence of moments, like individual, discrete movie frames that, when quickly scrolling past us, we experience as continuous motion. The important point is that we experience events that occur more or less at the same moment as synchronous. And events that reach us sequentially are perceived in that order. Depending on the study, the duration of such snapshots is between 20 and 200 milliseconds. We do not know yet whether this discrepancy reflects the crudeness of our instruments or some fundamental quality of neurons. Still, such discrete perceptual snapshots may explain the common observation that time sometimes seems to pass more slowly or quickly.

Assume that the snapshot of each moment increases in duration for some reason, so that fewer snapshots are taken per second. In this case, an external event would appear shorter and time would seem to race by. But if the individual images were shorter in duration --there were more of them per unit of time-- then time would appear to pass more slowly. People who have been in automobile accidents, natural catastrophes and other traumatic events often report that at the height of the drama, everything seemed to go in slow motion. At present, we know little about how the brain mediates our sense of time.

If, in fact, changing coalitions of larger neuron groups are the neuronal correlates of consciousness, our state-of-the-art research techniques are inadequate to follow this process. Our methods either cover large regions of the brain at a crude temporal resolution (such as fMRI, which tracks sluggish power consumption at time-scales of seconds), or we register precisely (within one thousandth of a second) the firing rate of one or a handful of neurons out of billions (microelectrode recording). We need fine-grained instruments that cover all of the brain to get a picture of how widely scattered groups of thousands of neurons work together. Eventually this level of interrogation may enable us to manipulate our flow of consciousness with technology. As things stand now, this is only a dream. --The Movie in Your Head

 

Now that the thread is reopened let me take the opportunity

IMO, Time is a *numerical* result of *duration of change of one physical state to another state (events). Without a dynamic event (change), the concept of time would cease to exist.

We have three physical dimensions plus a metaphysical permittive dimension we can observe as pure numbers in human mathematics. It is the final result of the duration of the event and the equations which then dictate (*imply* ) the new physical event and its duration.

But this timeless permittive condition (dimension) cannot be named time alone. It's bigger than time. It's a timeless permittive condition which allows the creation of observable and causal action during which the chronology of duration of the physical mathematical translation can be measured as time.

And when we begin with a permittive condition, with one restriction that information can only be xchanged only in a form of consistent mathematical functions. I really like Tegmark's universe. It's logical and it makes sense to me.

 

I agree time is a concept that only has meaning where there is change.

The rest of it sounds fairly meaningless to me, especially the cod-mathematical spiel. And the wonderfully opaque new synonym for time, "chronology of duration", strikes me as a classic example of a metaphysician getting too far up his own arse to be able to see out any more.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you look at the flow of time, time only goes in one direction; to the future. We can't go backwards in time, except in science fiction. I can't go back be to being 10 years old, but I can anticipate my next birthday, in the future.

That being said, all the clocks that we use to measure time, work in cycles, which is not how time flows. The clock repeats itself by returning to 12 midnight once each day. The second hand returns each minute, and the minute hand returns each hour. Atomic clocks use a repeating cycle. However, in the sentence above, time only goes forward and is not a cycle. I don't go back to being 10 years old, periodically, like the clock will go back to 10. Right off the bat we are not even paralleling time properly with our clocks. This is where manmade up comes in.

A more accurate clock, that better reflects the uni-directional nature of time, would be an entropy clock. Entropy will spontaneously increase and like time does not cycle backwards, but moves in one direction; 2nd law.

A better clock that more accurately reflects the nature of time would be a fish clock. In a fish clock we place a fresh fish, of a certain size, on a table at say 70F. When you can smell the decaying fish at 25 feet, this will be one unit of time. We can't un-stink the fish, just like we can't go back in time. This allows our clock to be more consistent with the nature of time.

Interestingly, if we cool the room to say 34 degrees we can cause the fish clock to slow; refrigeration. In this cases, temperature, will act like mass and velocity in relativity, and can slow the entropy clock; takes longer to stink. The Relativity of Einstein make use of cyclic clocks which is not how time flows, so what exactly is relativity describing? Does it describe manmade time?

To answer this question consider the sand dial, where sand flows from one chamber to another driven by gravity. This is an entropy clock in the sense that all the grains of sand will never be in the same place. After the sand dial finishes, we will need to use muscular energy to flip the sand dial. Since all the grains of sand are in a slightly different place, this is not a cycle in the micro-sense, but only a cycle in the macro-sense.

Since the flipping of the sand dial takes energy, the cycling in the macro-sense has added some energy to the entropy clock. Our cyclic clocks have added energy. In that cases, the time we measure with cyclic clocks is time plus energy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Consider the reason why time can only move in one direction. Time is a result (a byproduct) of a dynamic event.
You can go back in space, but you will always be going forward in time, as a *result* of your actions.

And I believe the use of *chronology of duration* is a perfectly good description of time (col)lapsing during a series of *changeing states8

 

Time IS a human being

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That would be a terrible clock. It would be useless in allowing people to arrive at meetings at the same time for instance.

Our clocks work just fine and the cyclic aspect of the clock mirrors the nature of the day/night cycle.

 

Hey, you're right!
Uh, apart from the fact that it got dark yesterday and it's doing exactly the same thing today.
And I'm pretty sure that I remember a winter last year. Come on, surely if we had one a year ago we shouldn't get another. What does reality think it's playing at by making cycles when we all know time doesn't cycle?
In other words you're neglecting what we use clocks FOR.

And such a clock would tell us f*ck all that's useful for everyday life.

As usual you post drivel without knowing what you're talking about.

 

And you are a "Valued Senior Member"?

 

He's evidence that Sci has low standards.
And still fails to meet them.

 

Maybe he was having a valued senior moment.