The Problem of Time

The Ether is space... which as Nikola Tesla.. described, i propose is a Trans-indental fluid which condesends to obey surtain natural laws... laws set forth by the quality of the applied energy..... namely the Pi value.. which set the standards for all dimensional progressions...

-MT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mosheh Thezion:

Define "transcendental" as used here. Moreover, why a fluid? If it has no energy, it ought to be, as I believe I mentioned before, closer to a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hah right...i am not an idealist at all. i believe time and eternity ALWAYS coexist togther...err, so did William Blake. but i dont see angels in trees...!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"And yet, in the end, the expansion of the 4D space may be just that, an expansion..."

I've been wondering about this myself. I was thinking about how many people describe our universe as a sphere when talking about the 4th dimension. The surface of the sphere is space, while the inside of the sphere is the past and the outside of the sphere is the future. As time progresses, the sphere expands, enlarging the volume of space. perhaps the expansion of space is not due to some dark energy, but rather the intrinsic characteristic of time.

 

i did ask you about this before, yes, but i cant see anything that gives me any insight into your conception of the time-space realtionship. that was why i asked again. maybe you have given your understanding of this relationship but my lack of undersatding of physics has prevented me from realising it.
never mind i think i am almost finished here now anyway.

this is nonsense as is the rest of zeno's idea.

this is simply because time is the identity that we give to the progression of existence.

as you have not given a real response i am imagining that you think either; time has its own existential reality that we cannot move freely in or something else or you dont know or you cant be arsed.
i do not wish to specualte so i refrain form a real response too.

 

it is not "Transcendental".. it is "trans-indental"... and i know what your going to say.... THATS NOT A WORD...

BUT IT USED TO BE... AND TESLA used it.. and so do i...

it means that it transforms its identity.. not transcends....

and i say fluid as it is the eaasiest way to describe space... as having fluid like properties... as well as solid like properties...

but the fluid is the topic we are on.. i.e.. time flow...

-MT

oh.. and space as we know it... has alot of energy... it was applied energy that caused it to form 3D space... and adding more energy made that space move... into the 4D... and then 5D.. and then 6D...

this progression being regulated by the quality of the applied energy, with a fundamental quality of Pi.... setting the standards and trans-indental scale of conversion from one dimensional state to the next.

 

water,

>> Cause and effect. If we want to act in an environment, and survive, we must learn cause
and effect relationships. These seem inevitable, and a side-effect of them and our perception of them, is our
perception of time.
And learning cause and effect relationships seems inherent to living beings. <<

This statement got me thinking. Really.

Because I know quite a few manic-depressive fellows, where I often get the impression, as if they appear to have often severe difficulty to see any correlation of cause and effect. Has anyone else observed that as well? Or is it just a coincidence?

Anyways, and now reading this here, I suddenly got to that spontaneous idea:
perhaps much of that manic-depressive behaviour may simply come from an inability to properly 'sense' time. So they can't always find their way within that dimension?

If that were true, we just would have to invent some sort of 'spectacles' to better 'see' the time.

 

to be honest with you. i put in that last part as illustrative of the fact that the progressive pattern i propose can be seen in many ways...
and if you were real smart.. you could use the idea.. idea of a progressive pattern to support Big Bang exspansion ideas....

but i dont think so... but, i know.. as a scientist.. I CAN BE WRONG.

-MT

 

Duendy:

Tyger tyger burning bright
In the forests of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symettry?

Ellion:

I shall respond to the rest of your post and if I feel like I still need to elaborate more, I'll declare things out right further.

How is it nonsense? If they are nonsense, please refute them?

Yet once again, progression requirse there be a capacity to move from one thing to another. This necessitates a fourth dimension of time which is non-spatial as the movement takes place in the third, but is facillitated by something else. If there was no time, this progression could not exist.

I'll give you a full response then:

We can, as you have noted, move in all directions in space. Time, however, does not have this capacity to moved through. This may be because of what I just noted in my last paragraph, namely, that time is a fourth dimension that, unlike the other three dimensions, manifests and allows for something in another dimension, but itself remains detached. As a non-spatial dimension spatial travel is impossible.

Mosheh Thezion:

Meaning what?

Yet once again: If it truly has no energy, and we know wha thappens when you rob something of most of its energy, why would you suppose a fluidic existence? Fluids appear at higher temperatures than the necessary absolute zero.

Well that is another thing: You're going to have to present proof of all those other dimensions.

Raimon:

I have. It is part of irrationality and slave mentalities, both of which characterize the manic depressive.

Hmmm...I wouldn't say so. Manic depression manifests later and, ontop of that, most seem to understand the concept of time fine.

 

proof?

humm.. ok.. lets say you had a space.. and somehow you made it spin in 4D..
that would attempt to expand it... yes?

now what if the space resisted expansion.. completely, and instead formed tension to resist said exspansion...

thus we have tension from the center outward.. stressed space.. and then if we somehow curled up all that tension into a giant ball..

what would that ball be? a ball of energized space..

and so if we then broke up that ball.. into peices...

would not the explosive motion of that single mass into many pieces going out in all directions be just like exspansion?? just like the 4D rise?

and if each piece was given energy to spin.... would not that spin energy be another highr dimension of motion on that same mass made of that same space?

and so if that 9D mass broke down.. into what?
superclusters... and each thing in orbit of the supercluster again..
gains a new level of spin.. motion energy.. and rips apart..
is not all matter in the universe.. as that same space mass thing, not moving again in a higher dimension?
and if again we take the new small piece and give it spin energy...
would not this new level of spin that formed solarsystems be the next higher dimensional level of motion of that SAME ORIGINAL MASS SPACE THING?

IT WOULD... you ask for evidense for the dimensional motions above the 4TH..
look up into the sky... and you see 3 dimensions of motions right there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i propose 16 dimensions for simplicity...

in truth i contemplate up to 28... but thats to full of questions to be discussed at this time...
16 is enough to discuss what we know.. and once we have done so, then you will understand the need to contemplate 28.

-MT

 

Mosheh, do honestly expect any one to make sense of those diagrams. The fact that you post them in their current form does you no justice at all.IMO

 

RoyLennigan,

I'm not suggesting to look at it in some other way. I am suggesting to not take our perception of reality for granted, as if our perception of reality were reality itself.

This is a good example of the insistence that one's perception of reality is reality itself ...

This is impossible. We cannot but interpret.

You truly think you can
explain
something
without
words?

Considering you said:

I find it questionable to state that "many human-made concepts describe actual aspects of the universe."

Why? Do you really rely on some future generation to make your life meaningful?

Because this is what hoping that the future generations will bring solutions to our problems boils down to: relegating the solving of our own problems to others, thus actively giving up our own responsibility for our life.

I agree.

Then time is space?

Then why are we arguing?

I think that cause and effect reasoning is far more useful than time reasoning.

I hate it when a postivist realist turns into a total relativist!


* * *


Prince_James,

It's not. If you speak of time in terms of past, present, and future (which you do), then you are applying an uni-directiorial (I used "mono-linear" earlier) reasoning.

I think the whole problem with this thread is that constantly the universe and our understanding of the universe are being confused.

In a particular understanding of the universe, time is a fundamental. In some other understanding, time is not a fundamental.

Actually, we just once more stranded against the problem of definition as such.

The thing is that we can speak of something, without having a clear definition of it. We start off with a general, intuitive understanding of terms. And then slowly, in how we develop our arguments, our definition begins to show.

Namely, it takes us knowing a substantial chunk of a theory to understand its basic terms. For example, without knowing a substantial portion of Newton's theory, the terms "mass", "force", "gravity" will mean very little to us, even though we have dilligently learned the definitions and are able to argue about them.

Similar in this thread: Without having discussed a substantial chunk of our own theory, we won't understand what we actually mean by "time" -- even though we all started off very confidently, as if we knew full well what our thoughts on the matter are.

No. It takes time to see space. And it takes space to notice time.

Space just seems more tangible, more immediate. But in fact our understanding of time and space works by the same principles; the understanding of space seems to be primary though.

See:
*over* the whole year
*before* tomorrow*
*after* sunset
*in* this time
*throughout* the year
*in the middle of* the afternoon

-- the words between asterisks are *spatial* words.

We can't know. It is too much of a stretch to assume that our perception of reality is reality though.

There certainly is some correspondence, some alignment, but it is impossible to say whether it is a 1:1 correspondence.

"It cannot have been in the same moment" is equivalent to "It cannot have been in the same state".
I *can* focus only on the progression of states (which are bound by the cause and effect relationships) and acknowledge causality. I think this is the minimum necessary understanding. The concept of time is an extra.

For one thing, we very much like to think that things, including the truth, should be the way we think they should be (be that good or bad for us). For example, that the truth is such that will serve us and our aspirations. How many people, who are declared to be in pursuit of the truth, do you know that have admitted that they don't like what they found, that they have been defeated by their findings?

So often, a truth is a truth only if it serves us; otherwise, it is a lie ...

Yes, "the reality which the language is referencing" -- that is the other system that language is referring to.

If this were so, then
Firstly, all languages would conceptualize reality in the same way. Which they do not.
Secondly, 1:1 translations should be possible from one language to another. Which they are not.

We may have an accurate concordance with the things necessarily pertaining our surivial. The rest is speculation.
See, if you would find yourself alone in a forest in a dark night, you would be lost with your poor human night vision. You'd be eaten by all those other creatures who have good night vision or other means of orientation. Those other creatures have an accurate concordance with reality when it comes to darkness, but you wouldn't have that accurate concordance.

That's why they make them, so they can sense. They give them mechanical+electronic sensory organs. They use them for measuring all sorts of things, from air moisture to electric current. (Although measuring instruments are a combination of a sensory "organ" and an analog computer -- a kind of computer which processes only one kind of information.)

Oh. You do know that the position and movement of the planets is just a theoretical construct, based on Ockham's Razor, right? It is possible that they move in some much more complex ways, yet a theory as ours seems to work well enough as it is.
So it's hard to say what moves and what doesn't ...

Do you know such an object?
And how can a thing be in motion, yet have no cause for the motion? This defies the whole concept of causality.

Ideally, yes.

At some point, when a thing becomes neatly abstract, humans have a strong tendency to accept things that are completely contrary to what they profess they believe. So, yes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or you aren't being observant.

Iti s imaginable they had a largely different understanding of time.

So? Do you think it is the lessening of the light and thus non-preferrable conditions for the wolf to run around, or the "setting of the sun" that leads him to rest?

Why does it do that? Because daylight conditions aren't preferrable for the bat, or because it's daytime?

See the difference?

Yeah, so that people can actually measure how much time they waste ...

Please. Just not another love-hate relationship, okay?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Love me, or hate me, but don't leave it up to me.

Oh? You'll prove something? Bring at least a picture of a white horse, will you?

Do you know that in some languages, they don't have words for yellow, blue, green, brown, etc.?

But you didn't like it when Glaucon said it! He posted his reply while I was composing mine, so I didn't know he'd already address the issue this way.

Well, which time is real, which time is the right time? If you can't say which one is the right one, then there's nothing to measure. And what you can't measure -- does it exist?

 

duendy,

I was once called an angel. A Velazquez angel ...
Know "The temptation of St. Thomas Aquinas"?

Anyway, good ole William Blake sed, terribly pertinent to this thred:

Oh, reader, behold the philosopher's grave!
He was born quite a fool, but he died quite a knave!



* * *


ellion,

Woohoo!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

* * *


Raimon,

I don't think it has to do with their understanding of time. I'm not a neuropsychologist, so I can't speak with competence, of course.


But I'll address the matter from a philosophical perspective. I think the troubles people have with the "manic-depressive" only show that we tend to depend on others viewing the world exactly as we do -- and if they don't, we tend to say they have a disorder, or are "different". Moreover, our troubles with them show how flat and shallow our interaction with other people tends to be.

See, we love to ask others about their motives, we want them to explain themselves, we want them to tell us who they are -- and when they fail to give us satisfying answers, we tend to turn against them. But if you look at those questions -- they are the central questions of philosophy and religion, and scholars have troubles finding consistent, coherent answers to them. No wonder they are so hard to answer if one isn't schooled in answering them, or if one isn't simply socially conditioned into giving a particular answer that we find acceptable.

People with "mental disorders" challenge our conditioning. My bet is that the manic depressive have highly susceptible minds, and are able to process information very quickly. This is how they can notice the many inconsistencies we otherwise don't notice.

So many people like to subscribe to relativism or constructivism, and they seem perfectly sane and well-functioning. Yet, they aren't consistent with it, because if those noetic theories are lived out consistently, we'd become insane. Fortunately for all the constructivists, relativists, nihilists, and naive realists, they have slow brains and good conditioning from early childhood, so their mind doesn't run the danger of being truly consistent with what it says it believes.

On the other hand, some people with naturally hyperactive brains and poor conditioning from early childhood, fall victim to the mind's inherent propensity to be consistent. So they end up being manic depressive.


Strictly speaking, causal relationships cannot be fathomed. The best we can do is economical approximations -- approximations that tend to work in our world.
Maybe the manic depressive lack the sense of economy (and this is something we get conditioned into by upbringing!), and take the principle that causal relationships cannot be fathomed full course. Hence their inability to make causal connections between events.

Strictly speaking, unless we agree on a common noetic theory and a common morality, it is completely pointless to ask questions like "Why did you do that?" or "Who are you?"

 

No, i'm not acquainted with The Temptation of St Thomas Aquinas....have read oters speak about him tho. will look into it. i feel that the 'saints' 'temptations' really moreso expose the violonce of the Christian faith, which guilts their believers tio fight against instinctual impluses fro dear life--LITERERALLY, and te seem surprised when these reprssed forces build up and invade the unknowing closed-off 'thinker's space'

I dont think manyknow who much their TIME is opressed/manipulated. TIME is at the forefront of power-elites schems for mind-control, along with sexuality

For if we dig that a huge oppression over church-believers was guilt about sexuality, so it is now with T I M E. people demand--not all--what you are DDOING with your time. like 'do you have a job?.......CVs......you know. te fme circuit. ladder of success. time is money. all time is filled up for many with:
'work'
'leisure--much of which is provided by State';

mobile phonews ringing........
TIME

no time for oceanic time no more

pity thepoor mums who are right there wit demanding kids. all on herown. no community. no time for herself. too tired even for sex

ticktockticktock fukin tick.....

 

Prince James

It's really quite simple.

Time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.

This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, of phase, etc)" and is expressed by simple equation: F (t)=F (t+t1). It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.

We call this symmetry term the "energy conservation law,” and "momentum conservation law" for space non-existence (shift symmetry), and "special relativity" for velocity non-existence (shift symmetry), “charge conservation” for phase non-existence, etc.)

Because nothing depends on time, there is no absolute time. No time stones, no other marks indicating time. The only way of "measuring" this mathematical quantity is to take any periodic process say, a pendulum, or a string, or a light bouncing between mirrors, or an electron oscillating in an atom, etc - then call the device a "clock device" or simply "clock”, then take TWO measurements of numbers of oscillations say, at two different locations, or at 2 different gravity environments, or at 2 different states of motion, etc., then take a RATIO of these two numbers (can't be one number because time is not absolute) and then label this ratio as "relative rate of one time versus another" or "rate of time versus reference clock rate", or "time in conventional units of time" or "accurate time" or simply "time".

Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.

This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood.

 

right (Q), you've 'defined' it objectively---ie., 'time'. now define it subjectively.../
your time to do so starrts................. now.....ticktockticktocktick...will have to hurry you...ticktocktick tockkkkk.....

 

'time'. now define it subjectively.../

Huh?

 

it is my experience, that intelegent people are able to look at an image and actually precieve the patterns which are presented...

then there are others.. who look at the same image, and seeing a surtain level of complexity, turn away and say.. "Thats jibberish"

unfortunately... most people turn away... and are not very bright.

-MT

 

i don't think that what we observe must be reality, in fact i believe that reality is not something that can be observable. reality is what is, and the observation of it is just a description, or a shadow of what is really there. we observe disturbance or effects on the universe, but not the actual universe itself. but, i don't think that is any reason to give up on searching for any kind of knowledge. our perception of the universe might be skewed, but that doesn't mean we are unable to find out what reality is, or at least find out aspects of the universe that actually exist.

another thing is that we have technology and machines to aid us in observing the universe. we turn reality (or what we think is reality) into numbers and equations. would these numbers merely be description of the illusion, or would they be description of the actualy thing?

what else do we have to go on but our own experience? is there anything else that comes closer to reality?

but we can lessen the extent of interpretation in order to maximize the similarity to what we experience.

not to someone else, but i think without words in my head all the time. it helps me see the world more clearly.

you are thinking too absolutely for my thoughts to make sense to you. many human-made concepts describe actual aspects. they are not the aspects themselves, but attempt to explain them and succeed in creating a humanized, simplified, unrealistic, but simliar model to reality. our perception of the universe probably isnt reality, though it probably has similarities.

you misunderstand me. i am not giving up on the subject. i intend to spend my entire life devoted to topics like these. i just don't give in to false hopes of ever completing the journey in my lifetime. i doubt we will ever truly know the answers to many of the questions we are contemplating. but that doesn't mean i'm going to give up.

no, i guess i meant the dimension when i said medium. i view time like coordinates on a graph. only there are at least 4 different sets of total coordinates (3 for space, one for time). without the 4th, a point only exists in an unchanging space. i think time allows for space, but is not space itself. also, i might've been hasty in concluding that time is change. time allows for change as well, it wouldn't neccessarily be the same thing. time is just a label applied to the ability for change to occur in succession.

if it helps you think of it more easily, the better for you. i'm just used to time being there, so i play with the meaning a little bit so that it fits my view of the universe better. this is why i think without words sometimes; its easier to understand things.

if i were somehow to think of everything, i think i'd disproove everything i thought.

 

Huh?

Time is change.
Change is not “dependant” on Time.

Our perception of change is linear and unavoidable, since we are, ourselves, products of change. We are defined by our temporality.
Time is how we interpret this change/temporality.

There’s nothing “circular” about it.

Our confusion is grounded in our simplified abstraction of time, as we experience it.