Time simply does not exist

@fresco,

I can relate to those ideas. I'm starting to view existence or reality more and more as 'information reacting to information', and that most, if not all, verbal distinctions we make between objects are more or less arbitrary.

0 Replies

@Razzleg,

Quote:

"Time is an abstract measurement"...yes. "Time is not needed in the universe"...yes. "The natural world is simply movement through space and the conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy...wait doesn't the word "through" imply a temporal measurement --how otherwise to mark the entrance and exit? Hmmm...

Unfortunately it seams my previous post was not enough to clarify the idea...

I suppose you can understand the radio station tuning metaphor on which the change of frequency doesn't mean that the station you were listening stopped existing...at such light time is just another axis of space where events are distributed thus given you the impression of motion forward...time is indeed another axis with space in space ! Nothing prevents an ensemble of existing you just don't have access to it because "you" are distributed through it...that, is you cannot access the all of information because its parted in sets where you as anything else are scattered with progressive change in content...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

again...the problem of time and space which is not experienced as an ensemble is the problem of hard determinism constricting consciousness to a "box", meaning, the problem that your distributed self, your awareness, cannot do anything concerning the objective scattering of sets where "you" is distributed...the problem of simulated speed or how this fragments of spacetime inter relates in relativity is another matter concerning how information is parted and organized through those sets...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

so...is there anything that makes time different from space ? No ! Time is just more space, with more sets of progressive information...Spacetime is not by far the best terminology to describe the phenomena...I rather call it Spacing-space...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

time and space are conjoined

I am actually questioning if this is actually accurate. If space can be bent in the presence of gravity then how can you determine if time is an aspect of space? You wouldn't be able to yet it is assumed as if they are one and the same.

When space is bent a straight line may appear straight to one observer and another at a different distance or angle may appear not straight. I would think time would follow such but not as a consequence of being linked to space but because the space itself. So in otherwords if you can step out of the bent space then you would actually see a longer path yet time is still behaving normally.

The conpensation we use on satallites in my opinion isn't about their velocities but instead about their path length through this space. Since they are traveling in a different part of bent space than the ground there is a discrepency because of warped curve of space but since we can't see this warpage we assume it has to do with time instead.

Part of my reasoning is coming from new discoveries of dark matter and how much warping of space there is associated with it than previously thought. It is as if space were a sea of bubbles casting distortions of images of objects floating within this sea.

I get berated for saying time is constant because einstein suggests that the speed of light is constant and time must then vary to conform to this law. But all he did was exchange one for the other. I still think you can have both a speed of light constant and that of time if space gets warped in the presence of matter, which it does.

2 Replies

I felt like doing a little shameless speculation...
From another perspective, time can be thought of as direction.
If three objects moved in one direction at three different speeds, observers located on the objects could perceive the difference in speed.
But if they were also moving sideways at the same time, all three at the exact same speed, they would have no way to detect that movement without an external reference point.
Time is like that. Everything in our universe moves in three dimensions, at different speeds and in different directions.
But all of this moves in tandem along the axis of time.

Our physical bodies are restricted to these dimensions. We can move any direction in the three dimensional space we perceive, but our movement in the fourth dimension is fixed.

Our minds are not so restricted. We can remember a moment yesterday, and establish a mental link between that moment and now. The perspective is five dimensional, as we can move freely in the fourth dimension with our thought.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

...the fact still that varying distances from observer to observer bring the experiencing of phenomena in different "time" frames even if such discrepancy can be explained by the curvature of space that we cannot see...
...thus the usage of time terminology still seams practical...you still don't have an ensemble of all moments of space with all the data as simultaneous...the"spacing" of space is just more or less stretched, thus carrying more or less information within...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Our minds are not so restricted. We can remember a moment yesterday, and establish a mental link between that moment and now. The perspective is five dimensional, as we can move freely in the fourth dimension with our thought.

But you can't...it takes units "time" to use memory or to recall anything...so there is a limit to how much you can recall per unit spacing of space..."data" still is "boxed"...although of course, in remembering you keep reporting to a past event...nevertheless mind that present events, your current mental state of affairs, affects the very structure of those recollections...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...a small correction:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...the fact still that varying distances from observer to observer bring the experiencing of phenomena in different "time" frames even if such discrepancy can be explained by the curvature of space that we cannot see...
...thus the usage of time terminology still seams practical...from an "off time" perspective you still don't have an ensemble of all moments of space with all the data as simultaneous distributed uniformly per time unit...the"spacing of space" is just more or less stretched, thus carrying more or less information within...if space stretches "spacing of space" stretches to !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Even at risk of sounding silly I will nevertheless advance straightforward reasoning as I go on this matter...

...now, from the previous posts there are some interesting developments concerning awareness of instantaneous segments, or patterns of information that we acquire per unit time, (or the spacing of space as I prefer) all in a row, which end up reminding me of the reminiscence from Plato and the Mandelbrot fractal set...you see how come we can instantaneously recognize a full pattern of information per unit time ? I immediately think of symmetry between observer and observed, between part and the whole, like in an hologram...wherever we look, which part we choose to look at, we instantaneously recognize a full segment per unit time because we already have it in our own segment, or whatever we are being per unit spacetime...in turn, I still maintain this as nothing to do with consciousness being everywhere, as whatever part of the Universe we refer to it also has the image of the whole in itself but it doesn't inform itself so completely or so complexly...as a system of information, non living objects, or non aware objects, acquire basic patterns of information of their surroundings, like gravitational pull and such, they don't use complex symmetric extensions for comparison...we, as aware entity's, are able of comprising more complex mathematical relations of data at various levels, but the workings are the same...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...furthermore the all model I am building on this regard in my mind casts a new understanding on the workings of entanglement...patterns of information which share the same state, behave exactly the same way at a distance, because in whatever part of information of each segment of space in which they are always contains the whole of information of reality built in itself like DNA...what you are being, or doing in each moment, doesn't solely depend on the local transit of information but also depends on your internal state, asking for symmetry...like a state inside that state, you still have the DNA of reality, to match data with local events...but if another particle shares the same state then it behaves exactly in the same way...

...oh dear...hope this all makes sense... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I'm sorry Fil, but that didn't make sense to me. Could you rephrase it, and maybe I'll get what you're saying?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...in a nutshell I am admitting that local interactions may depend on your internal state...as you and your "pals" like to put it, you see what you need to see, as the remaining info is treated as "noise"...not that it isn't there or that you are making or building local reality as you want, but you just capture from what your internal state has in a given unit time...simultaneously I am still washing away consciousness as being self "agency"...I am saying its just a matter of complexity in a given point of a process...you don't control what you are being, you just are being, and accordingly, you observe local events depending on what you are being, but still without the benefit of the choice...it just conforms...

...so for instance, an experimenter which is observing two entangled particles will place them in different local spaces from his perspective of the hologram, but each particle if sharing the same internal state will see its local space as being similar, and thus react in the same way...how ? well consider that if in whatever local space you are, like in an hologram, the whole pattern of info is there you end up capturing whatever matches your internal state...the "depth of field" which you locally acquire is limited by your internal state...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...this in turn means that given X distance there is in fact another Earth with exactly the same internal state sharing an entanglement with this Earth with a local perspective of space with a moon a solar system like ours and so on...it behaves accordingly naturally...the trick in here is that "distance" works also in "depth of field"...it may be the case that the whole Universe repeats at ultra micro and macro scales...

...oh well I probably will be shot at by daring to think upon the matter unconventionally...people love to move in packs for comfort and sometimes I tend to stray way from the crowd...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

simultaneously I am still washing away consciousness as being self "agency"...I am saying its just a matter of complexity in a given point of a process

On this we agree. Consciousness is one thing. Consciousness of consciousness, which is the essence of self, is another.
In a sense, even a rock has awareness, in that it will react to it's surroundings. It will crack from a hard enough blow. It will go where gravity pulls it. In this sense, everything has awareness. It's all information being exchanged on the same frequency, and that's why a spoon cannot pass through a tabletop. The two are aware of each other.
I am thinking that consciousness is something as unimpressive and common as this kind of awareness that is laced into everything that exists. No agency of self, just awareness like flickering images that have no continuity.
Then one of these flickers is remembered, and the next is seen in contrast to it, and so on. Soon you have awareness of awareness, which seems to require an agency of self.

1 Reply

@xxxx,

xxxx wrote:

time is an abstract measurment.

So time does exist then! Granted, it does not exist independently of us, but it still exists. It is by virtue of being an abstract measurement a very part of our facticity. Look back to Kant for this.

Now the real question is: do the referents of our abstract measurements, i.e., those things that we use to measure with via time, exist independently of us?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

But it doesn't, its the same...it just is more complex...you do what you want do, because of what you are which you didn't choose to be...there is what soft determinism likes to coin as conformity...you are "free" and not free, if you accept the apparent contradiction...I in turn say to hell with soft determinism it all is just a way of getting round the problem...

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
time is an abstract measurment. Time is not needed in the universe. The natural world is simply movement through space and the coversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Even without time the world would be able to function properly. There is no need for it.

Language simply does not exist.

Language is an abstract function. Language is not needed in the universe. The natural world is simply movement through space and the conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Even without language the world would be able to function properly. There is no need for it.

If language is an abstract function, then language exists! Simple existential generalization. However, it does not exist independently of us, and it seems nebulous to talk about it in such a away. Although, you can use autopoiesis to account for the languaging of given organisms, but even then this requires a observer noting phenomenal domains. So really it's nebulous to talk about language independent of some observer.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...that is just silly Vik...the natural world works itself as a "language"...language as I see it is just orderly change of information...the distinction we do regarding "our" language as being representative or symbolic only means we have a lower resolution to describe the workings of reality...why on hell do we compartmentalize so much the extended meaning of words ? in it we produce bureaucracy instead of understanding...

Information is never transmitted between organisms. There is only orienting behavior between two (or more) physiologically similar entities engaging within a given cognitive domain (which involves language). Thus, information theory, thermodynamic implications aside, is useless in its attempts to speak of an outside world organizing information. We wouldn't even be able to acquire it!

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

...given "us" and "observer" are languaging, and that "we" do not really know what they mean in last instance, or what they refer to, the correct approach to problem pretty much stays open...why don't you acknowledge that ?

0 Replies

Time simply does not exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know