# Is There A Universal Now?

You appear to have the same confusion about distance. Possibly that confusion extends to other physical quantities as well.

You can take previous post and swap time for distance and it works

All distance measurements are arbitrary in same way time measurements are

In that context, it doesn't make any sense to talk about a "SINGULAR" (with large scary capitals) "NOW".

My view is only SINGULAR NOW EXIST

Na small capitals not have the same draw attention impact

BTW, SHOUTING doesn't give your point any more credibility.

Not going for credibility - that should arise from the discussion - the all in capitals is to emphasise the FUNDIMENTIALNESS of the matter and also for emphasis

Will swap for colouration

If humans created time
Well they created what they call time, but what they call time has no fundimential existence and, to coin a phrase, can be said to exist only in a definition state

There were no humans present to keep records of events. There were no NOWs.

The Universe being in existence is its own now

Humans not required

It follows that if "now" is defined as a particular set of simultaneous events

Now is not defined as such in the few dictionaries I looked at

Which makes

then different observers will also disagree about what "now" is.

moot

Michael:
There's no need. I understood you the first time, I think. Didn't I? Did I get something wrong about your position?
All distance measurements are arbitrary in same way time measurements are
What way is that, exactly?

In my previous post, I was careful to distinguish the thing itself from a measurement unit for the thing.

Length is a thing. We can measure length in metres or feet or furlongs or light years or some other unit. The units are something we can choose, so in that specific sense they are arbitrary. But the units being arbitrary has no bearing on whether the thing itself - length, in this case - is arbitrary.

When you walk down to the local shops, the distance you need to walk is a thing. You'll feel more tired if you walk a longer distance than a shorter one, for instance. That's a statement that says nothing at all about units; it's a statement about length.

Length is the thing that stops everything from being in the same place. Unless you believe that, actually, everything is in the same place, then denying the existence of length is ludicrous. And if you do believe, for some reason, that everything is actually in the same place, then you have a lot of explaining to do as to why you get more tired walking 30 miles than 3 feet.

If it is your claim that humans created length, then you have the same problem you have with time. What was the universe like before humans evolved and created length? When, exactly, did that act of creation happen? How did the creation of length by human beings change the physical universe? And what was the mechanism for that change?

Similarly, time is the thing that stops everything from happening simultaneously. If time doesn't exist, then how do you account for any change at all? What does it even mean for something to change, in a timeless universe?

If humans created time, when did that occur? What did the universe look like before time was created by humans? What mechanism changed the physical universe when a human created time?
Hence time in that arbitrary context is a non-existent concept wholly within the thought processes, having no existent properties

A handy agreed upon reference frame but nothing more
A reference frame refers to something. The hint is right there in the name.

Your claim is not just that units of time are arbitrary, but that time itself is either arbitrary or doesn't exist, if I understand you correctly. Which is your claim, by the way? Does time exist in some arbitrary way, or does time not actually exist? Not the units, understand, but the thing itself: time. I don't want to waste time on a misunderstanding of your position.
My view is only SINGULAR NOW EXIST

As opposed to what?

And what kind of evidence would you need to see to change your mind?

Well they created what they call time, but what they call time has no fundimential existence and, to coin a phrase, can be said to exist only in a definition state
Thanks for the clarification.

As I understand it, then, your claim is that time does not exist. Is the word "fundamental" important to your claim? What would a "non-fundamental" existence of time look like?
The Universe being in existence is its own now

Humans not required
Previously, you said that humans create time. But here you are saying that the universe has "its own now". Is "now" a time, or not? If it is, then aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that the universe's "now" doesn't need humans to create it?

Alternatively, if the universe's "now" is something other than time, can you please tell me what the "now" is?
Now is not defined as such in the few dictionaries I looked at
Forget dictionaries.

Tell me your definition of "now". We can go from there. (P.S. It's fine if you want to rely on a particular dictionary definition; just tell me which one.)

Last edited:
The universe is not an observer.
An observer need not be human or even be alive for that matter. It is the simultaneous interaction that counts , not the symbols humans attach to them.
Newton's Third Law does not require a human observer.

As a singular (expanding) object, the universe does have its own timeline. It's called the worldvolume, the entirety of the 3D geometry. Every 2D surface time slice of that worldvolume represents a universal NOW.
The Universe is not infinitely large. It is a singular object with a singular existence.

Time does not grow 3 dimensionally. Time has a single direction and therefore each instant of time represents a 2D surface of duration and ageing of the worldvolume. It is only inside the universe that things happen relative to each other.

Last edited:
My view is only SINGULAR NOW EXIST
That says it all, this is nothing more than a silly philosophical and semantics stand.
Here is what the rest of us call time using your concept. I order a beer in a SINGULAR NOW I receive my beer in a different SINGULAR NOW, the duration between those events is called a passage of time. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that is just rather silly.

Michael:

There's no need. I understood you the first time, I think. Didn't I? Did I get something wrong about your position?

What way is that, exactly?

In my previous post, I was careful to distinguish the thing itself from a measurement unit for the thing.

Length is a thing. We can measure length in metres or feet or furlongs or light years or some other unit. The units are something we can choose, so in that specific sense they are arbitrary. But the units being arbitrary has no bearing on whether the thing itself - length, in this case - is arbitrary.

When you walk down to the local shops, the distance you need to walk is a thing. You'll feel more tired if you walk a longer distance than a shorter one, for instance. That's a statement that says nothing at all about units; it's a statement about length.

Length is the thing that stops everything from being in the same place. Unless you believe that, actually, everything is in the same place, then denying the existence of length is ludicrous. And if you do believe, for some reason, that everything is actually in the same place, then you have a lot of explaining to do as to why you get more tired walking 30 miles than 3 feet.

If it is your claim that humans created length, then you have the same problem you have with time. What was the universe like before humans evolved and created length? When, exactly, did that act of creation happen? How did the creation of length by human beings change the physical universe? And what was the mechanism for that change?

Similarly, time is the thing that stops everything from happening simultaneously. If time doesn't exist, then how do you account for any change at all? What does it even mean for something to change, in a timeless universe?

If humans created time, when did that occur? What did the universe look like before time was created by humans? What mechanism changed the physical universe when a human created time?

A reference frame refers to something. The hint is right there in the name.

Your claim is not just that units of time are arbitrary, but that time itself is either arbitrary or doesn't exist, if I understand you correctly. Which is your claim, by the way? Does time exist in some arbitrary way, or does time not actually exist? Not the units, understand, but the thing itself: time. I don't want to waste time on a misunderstanding of your position.

As opposed to what?

And what kind of evidence would you need to see to change your mind?

Will try to simplify my position

Stuff (let's go the Universe) exist

Fundimential to its existence it has properties

These properties exist humans present or not

Humans come along and begin to codify the stuff (language)

Arising in language there came labelling ideas (ideas which had no backing of stuff), my existing only by being defined

Enter fundimential existence and only existing
only by being defined
• fundimential existence
• has the backing of stuff, where's
• existing only by being defined
• does not (concept)
I try to keep the distinction clear in my posting but obviously I am not

What way is that, exactly?

From a point to another point we give a name. Arbitrary point to arbitrary point a arbitrary distance unit name

There does not exist a fundamental point to point distance which we human can / could discover which could be taken to, and matched with, an alien point to point distance in another galaxy

Similarly, time is the thing that stops everything from happening simultaneously.

In a singular NOW it does

Previously, you said that humans create time.

Correct almost - I think - is the wording
• humans create time or
• humans created time
Whatever - the human version is arbitrary and since my position is no fundimential time exist of no consequence

As opposed to what?

And what kind of evidence would you need to see to change your mind?

As opposed to what?

A line up of a multitude of NOWs

And what kind of evidence would you need to see to change your mind?

Said line up

Tell me your definition of "now". We can go from there. (P.S. It's fine if you want to rely on a particular dictionary definition; just tell me which one.)

My goto is Merriam-Webster
at the present time or moment is given as the first definition from my app - along with many others which at a glance did not appear to be relevant

Here is what the rest of us call time using your concept. I order a beer in a SINGULAR NOW I receive my beer in a different SINGULAR NOW

The singular now being referred to is the Universe's singular now

Within the Universe each atom / collection of atoms have their own singular now subservient to the Universe singular now

If you think you have more than one now ie one orders the beer - one receives it (in your words a different singular now) there must be a lot of you running around with beer at / in different stages of consumption

Question according to the time you and the rest are using what would be the interval between

For the record my answer would be - a singular now does not have intervals

Last edited:
Write4U said:
But can anyone explain to me how a multi-nucleic single-celled slime mold can learn to anticipate timed intervals (future NOWS) without a clock?
Is that something that needs an explanation?
Do slime molds have no internal clocks?
Can you tell me how a cell can count NOWS? They have no hearts that go tick tock. They do have plasma circulation and cellular comunication.
Apparently it is the cytoskeleton of the cell that can store memories, albeit of the short-term variety.
How do you know they can anticipate timed intervals?
It has been tested and proven. Slime mold can learn timed intervals and after a while learn to anticipate the change before it actually happens

If you take the time to watch this discussion between biology scientists, you will find many answers on the subject of interspecies communication and a certain awareness of environmental conditions by even the most simple organisms and turns out that there is no such thing as an independently simple organism.

This discussion clearly explains that age old mantra of "everything is connected to everything" does not just apply to pure physics but also to biological interactions of all life on earth.

And then there is mention of "mycilia" in the root systems of plants.

Last edited:
The singular now being referred to is the Universe's singular now
Write4U likes your post... I rest my case, you must be wrong.

Write4U likes your post... I rest my case, you must be wrong.

Write4U is on my Iggy list so sorry does not count

Write4U likes your post... I rest my case, you must be wrong.
That statement just shows your ignorance, not mine.

And as far as Michael is concerned, I don't have to like him personally (or vice versa) as long as our interpretation is compatible I can offer my agreement with the statement.

I am not here for a popularity contest. I am just amazed at the lazy thinking displayed by many " learned fellows". You no longer feel it necessary to learn. Your loss.

Last edited:
Do slime molds have no internal clocks?
This confirms that slime old does in fact do have internal clocks.

Tell me your definition of "now". We can go from there.
"Now" doesn't come from "there". It comes from "then" that was once "now"

Last edited:
Neddy;
Yes, and fortunately he does know the distance. The intelligent observer can measure the distance by sending a light signal to the distant place, measuring the amount of time it takes for that signal to return to their eyes (reflecting off a mirror or bright surface, for example) then simply divide by 2. Just as you yourself stated is the Einstein synch convention. The intelligent observer would use a CLOCK to measure that. And during that process, both clocks would be synchronised, even the distant one.
That is "now at a distance."
But it is not a "universal now," because other reference frames say those clocks are not synchronised.
We agree on the above.
Unfortunately, the clock synch convention was conceived about 1900. It could only have been implemented for no more than 120 yr. The method would have synchronized clocks within a 60 ly radius. Beyond that, distances are speculations, dependent on theories.

Write4U;
#211
I agree with the posit.
But is the phrase "within the dynamic universe" not a limiting factor?
It is impossible to visualize the entire universe from "within". That construct can only be seen in its entirety from "without", no?
We are elements/members of the universe, so our view can only be from the inside.
We can only see/perceive the universe as an historical sequence of images.
The pdf is the general case for reciprocal observations by two observers with a relative velocity. Clock synchronization is a special case when the relative velocity is zero.
#212
But can anyone explain to me how a multi-nucleic single-celled slime mold can learn to anticipate timed intervals (future NOWS) without a clock?
Plant and animal life forms are essentially programmed. The human has biological clocks for life support functions, as do plants and animals.

#### Attachments

• reciprocal slow time.pdf
32 KB · Views: 0
We can only see/perceive the universe as an historical sequence of images.
Yes and therefore we cannot objectively see the universe as a singular object from witout.
Anytime there is reference to a human observer rather than an imaginary external observer, the argument changes to relativism, not objectivism.
This is a non-relativistic picture of ................................................................... NOW.
Plant and animal life forms are essentially programmed. The human has biological clocks for life support functions, as do plants and animals.