Does time exist outside of consciousness?
- Thread starter ольга
- Start date
А сознание может существовать вне времени?
У тебя нет переводчика, Ривер?
together point try make a throwing to words and randomly
Concordicus
Registered Member
It depends on how you are looking at it. Energy in the form of light originates in a certain location in space and traverses an undetermined distance to reach another location in space. This does not occur instantaneously. So we call the interval between when the light leaves its source until it gets to the other location as time. This would take place whether or not there was any consciousness available to quantify the interval. This transaction takes place with or without any conscious presence.
However, when it come to assigning a name to this interval and how to measure it, some conscious presence is required.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
Define duration without using time or a synonymous concept. Good luck.
grzegorzsz830402
Registered Senior Member
Duration.
Number of cycles A in respect to B.
How many cycles of A, you will observe, to observe full complete process B.
You can represent proces B in any A cycle.
(obviously within reason) ( you preferably choose for cycle A, something that will complete multitude of cycles, for one complete process B).
Number of cycles of chosen by you cycle will be duration of process B.
B is what you wish to understand in context of other cycles.
B can also be a cycle.
B : duration of your life
(assume fixed number of your choice)
A : days
B: years
Earth
A: 36 525
B:100
Mars
A: ~35,568
B:~53.17
Last edited:
Для циклов нужна дискретность. Чем "отделены" события друг от друга?
grzegorzsz830402
Registered Senior Member
Yes, cycles generally require discreteness to be countable in duration framework.
A cycle is a repeatable process with a defined start and end, allowing us to tally how many times it occurs during process B.
Discreteness means each cycle is a distinct instance, separable from the next, with a clear boundary or marker that distinguishes one cycle from another.
More.
Time is not fundamental.
You can not have time without space, matter and change or motion.
You could even say, that to observe those transformation, you need counciousness with memory, to conceptualise those transformation as time.
Yet, you could have matter and space without time.
Matter in space, no change no motion.
(still picture like)
Feel free to push back.
grzegorzsz830402
Registered Senior Member
Current mainstream scientific model:
time is dependent on the reference frame, primarily due to Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Special Relativity (1905):Time is relative to the observer’s relative velocity.
So, within assumptions of current mainstream scientific model, how can we discuss time without observer ( reference frame)?
time is dependent on the reference frame, primarily due to Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Special Relativity (1905):Time is relative to the observer’s relative velocity.
So, within assumptions of current mainstream scientific model, how can we discuss time without observer ( reference frame)?
А если объекты просто находятся в неподвижности напротив друг друга, или двигаются параллельно, то время для них останавливается?
grzegorzsz830402
Registered Senior Member
You see this is problem with relatively. You can not speak about time without observe or reference frame.
Time is not absolute according to relatively.
Depending on different references frame you would give different answers.
That is why your question is interesting from relativity point of view.
Because without observe / reference frame you can not speak about time.
I don't know if you could conclude that time do not exist in that scenario.
Maybe you could say it, or you could say that you can not simply speak about time without reference frame.
Logical limitations.
According to relatively, time as absolute, do not exist as such.
According to Einstein's theory of relativity (both special and general), time is not absolute and does not exist as a universal, fixed entity. Instead, time is relative and depends on the observer's reference frame.
У меня тут возникли некоторые мысли, только я не знаю как бы мне это понятно объяснить. Можно попробовать.
Если мы принимаем, что вакуум - это не пустота, а абсолют, включающий в себя все варианты событий(по сути, это мультиверс), и он создаётся одной единственной точкой, которая постоянно создаёт равновесные объекты, которые мы уже можем воспринимать, (это фундаментальные частицы, из которых состоит материя). Т.е. Вселенная создаётся постоянно одной единственной точкой, и мы получаем некий цикл, некую дискретность: "присутствие - отсутствие". Это как бы постоянно возникающая Вселенная, как бы "выныривающая" из мультиверса, и возвращающаяся в него обратно. Постоянно создающая новые варианты. Наверное, это слишком сложно...
grzegorzsz830402
Registered Senior Member
It is interesting for sure.
"Probably, this is too complicated..."
I don't see problem with it being complicated.
Although it would be complicated to test it.
Either prove it or disprove it.
"If we accept that vacuum is not emptiness, but an absolute that includes all variants of events (essentially, it is a multiverse)"
We could make such assumption about vacuum but why to confuse vocabulary.
Then we would have to come up with different word for vacuum.
(space devoid of matter)
You could say:
("If we accept that {space} is not emptiness, but an absolute...)
Question:
Within assumptions of your conceptualisation.
Is time absolute?
Or is it relative as well?
Просто мультиверс включает в себя и нулевое состояние, т.е. "отсутствие". Но для нас вакуумом, пустотой будет казаться и то, что неопределимо, то, что не статично, не имеет состояния покоя.