The nature of time

Forums: Philosophy, Time
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In another thread the Math of Infinity digressed into a discussion about the nature of time and its dependence upon perception

http://able2know.org/topic/185652-1

The sense of time is surely dependent largely upon the size of the observer. For instance where we see the fruit fly buzz in flight, he senses the slow flapping of his wings as we perceive those of a a flamingo and feels the descent of your swatter as the slow collapse of a gigantic redwood

Doubtless if God senses it She does so in a sort of relative way, one nanosecond occupying however long is necessary to think about it and likewise the passage of seventy sepoctillion years factorial. But the conclusion of Geo and myself is that its flow is pretty much independent of the perception

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 9,997 • Replies: 138

No top replies

@dalehileman,

Time is time, it flows in milliseconds that add up to years and so forth. Perception is a large key, a school day is by far longer than 7.3 hours on the computer, but time is still time. I agree fully with your point, so long as it is clear that your own perception doesn't change the flow, and believe me some people I know...

2 Replies

@Jerry954878,

Of course Jerry out perception doesn’t change anything as implied by other participants in the above link

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

that’s “our” perception

0 Replies

This overlaps with the thread on the (subjective vs. objective) nature of "reality." Do you believe in the reality of time as something independent of human perception and our artificial units of measurement? Personally, I see only change. The tempo of its occurrence depends greatly on my mood. I can meditate for a half hour, and when it ends it seems to have happened in an almost timeless instant. I don't deny time (everything doesn't seem to happen at once), I only question its nature.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Do you believe in the reality of time as something independent of human perception and our artificial units of measurement?

Most assuredly JL

Geo help me out here, there’s an apparent semantic impasse

0 Replies

the nature of time is based on the movement of things , and the measurement of this movement

if the Universe was stilled , is there time ?

2 Replies

@north,

Interesting question. Wink

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

if the Universe was stilled , is there time ?

Presumably if expansion reverses and collapse commences, at the end when its size is zero and its mass infinite, time will have stopped

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Yes. If the expansionists are wrong and the cosmos will eventually "collape" into the nothingness from wence it came, time--which like space began with the Big Bang--will stop. But this is only thought, little different from fantasy.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

little different from fantasy.

But I understand it’s taken pretty seriously in some scientific quarters

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

http://www.ghanavillage.com/showthread.php/6272-Can-time-exist-without-consciousness

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

if the Universe was stilled , is there time ?

Quote:

Presumably if expansion reverses and collapse commences, at the end when its size is zero and its mass infinite, time will have stopped

you don't understand , I mean NOW if the Universe is stilled

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

you don't understand , I mean NOW if the Universe is stilled

I’d suppose that whatever stilled it also stopped time but you’ve got me there. Geo where are you

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

http://www.ghanavillage.com/showthread.php/6272-Can-time-exist-without-consciousness

Would you ever ask if computers exist? Or televisions and cars? I'm guessing that unless you want to get philosophical about it, you wouldn't. Of course these things all exist and we know everything about them; the invention, the history and so on...

My admittedly ignorant understanding of it is that, despite all the wonderment, time only exists because we invented it... kinda like computers

2 Replies

I can't stretch my imagination far enough to conceive a stilling of time*. It seems to me that one of reality most basic qualities is its processual nature. There are no static things, only processes. We live in a Heraclitian universe, in which change, motion or time is fundamental.
* that does mean it can't happen, only that I cannot conceive of it, i.e., a motionless reality.

1 Reply

@thack45,

Quote:

My admittedly ignorant understanding of it is that, despite all the wonderment, time only exists because we invented it

I’d strongly disagree. time has all sorts of aspects we couldn't have invented such as its relativity, slowing of clocks, etc at specific rates

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I can't stretch my imagination far enough to conceive a stilling of time*…….that does mean it can't happen, only that I cannot conceive of it, i.e., a motionless reality.

Agreed JL. As to its stopping with the stilling of motion: Suppose everything had stopped except one small particle, which nonetheless is slowing down: At what point in its slowing would we say time had stopped

The impossibility of stilling notwithstanding, time would continue, I’m sure

1 Reply

@Jerry954878,

Jerry954878 wrote:

Time is time, it flows in milliseconds that add up to years and so forth. Perception is a large key, a school day is by far longer than 7.3 hours on the computer, but time is still time. I agree fully with your point, so long as it is clear that your own perception doesn't change the flow, and believe me some people I know...

Time is life, so be very warry of anyone who wants to trade your life for pennies...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

Time is life, so be very warry of anyone who wants to trade your life for pennies...

Well put Fido

Incidentally yes it’s a typo but your observation holds also for anyone with the warry reaction

1 Reply

The nature of time

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know