What is reality ?

[Michael 345]

If it means something like what I think it means, then I think you have a(nother) problem. Simultaneity is relative, so the "now" moment for one observer is necessarily different than the "now" moment for a relatively-moving observer.

Back

A view of the totality of the Universe would see every action occuring at a single NOW

Our view (from inside the Universe) is to be always be looking into history (looking at stuff, from the tip of your nose to the edge of the Universe)

The distances involved (tip of nose - small --- edge of Universe - vast) plus the finite speed of light means it cannot be otherwise

However, just because the sight of the tip of your nose arrives within a miniscule time frame and edge of Universe in a longer time frame does NOT mean they occurred within different NOWs

Again the finite speed of light and separation distances involved do prevent the two different NOWs being SEEN at the same moment but does not prevent two different NOWs OCCURING at the same moment

Coffee time

 

[James R]

Michael:

I fear this discussion is a waste of time, because you're trying to redefine well-understood words like "now" to mean something different than what people understand them to mean.

CHANGE

Change implies there was a "before" and an "after", which implies the passage of time in the interim.

The changed version appears at different NOW

Nobody is arguing that the present happens at the same time as the future or the past - except you when you try to redefine "NOW" to mean, essentially, the whole of space and time.

Distance is not in anyway a something

I disagree. If it's not a "something" then the only alternative is that it is a "nothing". If it's nothing, then we wouldn't need a separate word for it.

Before I go NOW is the only moment in existence

i.e. you're trying to redefine the word "NOW" to mean the whole of space and time. I find that unhelpful, and also not very interesting. It's a wonder you can keep track of your appointments if this is really how you view time. Personally, I think you're having us on. It's pseudoscience pretty much on the same level as Mark Turner's.

A view of the totality of the Universe would see every action occuring at a single NOW

Relativity provides just the kind of view you're looking for. However, it doesn't attempt to redefine "NOW" the way you're trying to.

Our view (from inside the Universe) is to be always be looking into history (looking at stuff, from the tip of your nose to the edge of the Universe)

The distances involved (tip of nose - small --- edge of Universe - vast) plus the finite speed of light means it cannot be otherwise

However, just because the sight of the tip of your nose arrives within a miniscule time frame and edge of Universe in a longer time frame does NOT mean they occurred within different NOWs

Sure it does. The light left the tip of your nose in the past, and it arrives at your retina now. Because it has a finite speed, there was a time delay between emission of the light and its detection.

You can't really explain what's happening even for something as simple as this, using your tortuous redefinition of "NOW".

 

[Michael 345]

You can't really explain what's happening even for something as simple as this, using your tortuous redefinition of "NOW".

Went looking

Found this

Did not know of its existence prior to 10 minutes past

******

Time does not exist—it is a theory conceived of by relative thought. While it is certainly useful for many of our tasks, it still remains as an idea that is only relative to our subjective thinking and its abstraction of “previous” and “future” experience

https://www-zenthinking-net.cdn.amp...e-is-only-thisour-present-moment-experiencing

*****

Cheers

 

[Write4U]

Time does not exist

Time does not exist without the existence of change. Time is the temporal pattern of a dynamic three dimensional geometry.

Time is not a dimensional field which produces a value called time. Au contraire, time is directly associated only with chronological individual timelines of physically measurable patterns, and relatively so to other individual timelines.

The universe has an individual timeline attached to its defined properties. When the universe dies, universal time dies along with it. But that makes no difference. Measurement of Time is capable of infinite starts and stops, depending on the duration of geometric change of any and all persistent chronological patterns.

Time is useful only to living organisms, who are able to make plans for a "future time" as a survival tehnique.
All organisms with sensory abilities develop a sense (concept) of time and duration of change.
Those organisms who have no brains still respond physically (bio-chemically) to regular environmental changes, such as trees losing their leaves in fall, the budding of many flowering plants in response to seasonal changes, phototropism, etc.

Consider this, the slime mold is a single celled pseudopod with no neurons but a hive mind of many nuclei. An awesome example of an evolved ancient neuronless biological organism.

and what makes them quasi-intelligent.

and which can evolve and thrive everywhere on earth and on many planets in the universe.

 

[Michael 345]

Time does not exist

I think this is true

Unfortunately my ability to explain is woefully lacking

I thought my post directly prior to your above "sighs" might help

But apparently not

Back to the bunker

Adjust tin foil hat, wipes a tear away, sulks off

 

[Dywyddyr]

Got it

Every thing which exists must have properties

except TIME

And length, breadth and depth. And concepts. Etc.

 

[James R]

Went looking

Found this

Did not know of its existence prior to 10 minutes past

******

Time does not exist—it is a theory conceived of by relative thought. While it is certainly useful for many of our tasks, it still remains as an idea that is only relative to our subjective thinking and its abstraction of “previous” and “future” experience

https://www-zenthinking-net.cdn.ampproject.org/v/www.zenthinking.net/blog/there-is-only-thisour-present-moment-experiencing?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&format=amp&usqp=mq331AQA#aoh=15653421836753&amp_ct=1565342200747&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=http://www.zenthinking.net/blog/there-is-only-thisour-present-moment-experiencing

*****

Yeah, that's all a bit muddled. I think it even muddles the main Zen idea it's trying to get across.

Mindfulness stresses that from moment to moment we only perceive the "now". We can't change the past, and the future is uncertain. Therefore, we ought to deal with the only thing we can directly influence - the present.

This is all well and good, but it is very far from the claim that the past and future don't exist, or that time itself doesn't exist.

But notice how what's written in your link gives the game away. It starts off saying that time is only a theory conceived by "relative thought" - whatever that's supposed to mean. But then, a little further down, it says things like this:

There is no past. There is no future. There is only now. Every moment is sacred and divine, and whatever you do in this very moment will affect everything in the following moment, which will still be perceived as now. No matter what “time” it is, it is always now.​

No past and no future. Okay, but if that's true then there is no "every moment", such as it talks about immediately following the claim that there's "only now". Without past or future, there can only be one moment. Similarly, see how it says that what we do in "this very moment" (i.e. now, the present) will affect everything "in the following moment". Following moment? I thought it said there's no future. How can there be a following moment, if there's no future?

See, the author of the piece doesn't really believe what s/he's writing there. Without realising it, s/he contradicts him/herself.

 

[James R]

Time does not exist without the existence of change.

Or rather, change cannot exist without time.

As soon as you start talking about change, you've given up on the idea that time doesn't exist. There's no point pretending any more.

 

[Michael 345]

No past and no future

OK

Let's stick with the tip of the nose for the moment

Do you believe / think your tip of nose is operating in a future now, or a past now or the same now using the rest of your body as a reference now?

 

[Write4U]

Or rather, change cannot exist without time.

I agree.

As soon as you start talking about change, you've given up on the idea that time doesn't exist. There's no point pretending any more.

I don't quite agree with that.
All this proves is that time only emerges as a by-product of change. My claim is that time does not exist independent of change, not that there is no such thing as a dedicated temporal measurement of duration we have named time.

 

[James R]

Let's stick with the tip of the nose for the moment

Do you believe / think your tip of nose is operating in a future now, or a past now or the same now using the rest of your body as a reference now?

I don't know what terms like "future now" and "past now" mean. They sound contradictory to me.

If you want to talk about events that will happen in the future, you can just say that. If you want to talk about events that happened in the past, you can just say that. Things that are happening now are neither in the past nor the future. That's what "now" means to the rest of us.

 

[James R]

All this proves is that time only emerges as a by-product of change. My claim is that time does not exist independent of change, not that there is no such thing as a dedicated temporal measurement of duration we have named time.

Your view is less obviously wrong than Michael's. He does think that there's no such thing as time. Or so he tells us.

You say that time emerges as a by-product of change. Can you tell me what kind of change can happen before time emerges, then?

(By the way, you see I can't even frame that question without using the word "before", which presumes that time exists. And I don't think you could either.)

 

[Write4U]

Your view is less obviously wrong than Michael's. He does think that there's no such thing as time. Or so he tells us.

Thank you for your interest. I have a problem with the concept that there is only a chronology of NOWs and that the chronology of "nows" from beginning to end does not add up to an accumulative "history of duration" of change as measured in arbitrary units of time.

You say that time emerges as a by-product of change. Can you tell me what kind of change can happen before time emerges, then?

There's the crux. There is no such thing as change without duration. The act of change demands a temporal permission from necessity. A perfect example of a one way application of "necessity and sufficiency".

Time emerges simultaneous with duration of change.
Hence Einstein's "spacetime" is the expressed pattern of the universe's ability to experience a "durable existence". Space cannot exist without time, nor can time exist without dynamic continuation (chronology) of space.

Chronology (from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chrónos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia)[2] is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time. Consider, for example, the use of a timeline or sequence of events. It is also "the determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events".

Chronology is a part of periodization. It is also a part of the discipline of history including earth history, the earth sciences, and study of the geologic time scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology

Time lines are also called world lines and may be grouped.

The world line (or worldline) of an object is the path that object traces in 4-dimensional spacetime. It is an important concept in modern physics, and particularly theoretical physics.

The concept of a "world line" is distinguished from concepts such as an "orbit" or a "trajectory" (e.g., a planet's orbit in space or the trajectory of a car on a road) by the time dimension, and typically encompasses a large area of spacetime wherein perceptually straight paths are recalculated to show their (relatively) more absolute position states—to reveal the nature of special relativity or gravitational interactions.

The idea of world lines originates in physics and was pioneered by Hermann Minkowski. The term is now most often used in relativity theories (i.e., special relativity and general relativity).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line

World line, worldsheet, and world volume, as they are derived from particles, strings, and branes.

(By the way, you see I can't even frame that question without using the word "before", which presumes that time exists. And I don't think you could either.)

I have no problems with "before" and "after". Time is created during any and all change and once created is a measurable quantity (record of duration) of change for that specific event or chronology of events.
This explains why time is a variable temporal commodity. Each time line is associated with a specific event or chronology. There are individual time-lines for individual chronologies and block time-lines for groups (blocks) of shared temporal time-lines.

There are many reasons to keep a timeline. You might want to create a chronological map of how a project or company developed, track a family history, or follow your career progress or trajectory. But whatever the reason, you need the right tool to make the timeline easy to work with. You can't just use a spreadsheet or text document to create a helpful, interactive tool. Instead, you need the right software to do the job.

https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/five-apps/five-apps-for-creating-timelines/

Thus a record of Time (having emerged during periods of change) can be used arbitrarily for every purpose, from quantum measurement to universal chronological history. 14.5 billion years of temporal measurement associated with the durable existence (world volume) of the earth and it's evolutionary history.

 

[Asexperia]

Reality is what we left at death.

 

[Write4U]

Reality is what we left at death.

True for those who are dead.
But we can also say that after leaving human reality, our parts continue to exist in the universal reality of particle physics........

As Tegmark observes: there is no quantitative physical difference between a live beetle and a dead beetle. The only difference is their mathematical biological organizational pattern.

 

[Write4U]

A view of the totality of the Universe would see every action occuring at a single NOW

That just brought an image of the BB to mind. Such an action can only be performed by a singularity.

I have long imagined the BB as a singular mega quantum event where everything (the release of all universal energy) happened at once in the same place, in all directions.

After that, inflation and the formation of 3 dimensional space allowed for the emergence of quantum chronology of physical reality, simultaneously creating time (temporal permission) in the process.

IMO, the binary aspects of quantum suggests that reality is a binary quantum function. IOW, each quantum particle fluctuates between enfolded potential implicate and unfolded physical expression (change) in a quantum world chronology.

We're real only half of the time of existence. Half enfolded as quantum potential, half unfolded as expressed quantum reality (Bohm).

The term half-life has more applications than what it is commonly used for............

 

[Michael 345]

I don't know what terms like "future now" and "past now" mean. They sound contradictory to me.

OK I am sure you do ... But I will be specific just for you

Do you believe / think your tip of nose is operating in

• a future now ie or 3:32:16.6893pm on your birth date
• a past now ie 9:55:26,4321am on your pets birthday or failing that, your neighbors or failing that your own
• the same now ie the time on the equipment you start to reply?

Exact enough? or would you prefer reference to the old Greenwich Mean?

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Before the Higgs particle is the quantum realm .

I see.

You made the claim that "The Higgs field has no basis in reality." You were asked to support your claim. You ignored that and tried to change the subject again.

This is troll-like behaviour. You are officially warned.

What post and what thread did I make this claim ?