Is time real?

[senor_blob]

Somting to think about:

Is life and time all that it seems? The answer is: NO! Although that is only my opinion. Although the there is no proof, there are only theories. Some theories include: there are more than one dimensoins that twist time to there will, places where time exists, Acoording to the many theories of the Great Silver Quasar, in the fifth dimension time is squared, to be completely realistic I don't believe him (And I saying this as a close friend). One I dea I do believe is that every can time traval, only, we can go in one direction.

Another theory of life is that were being controlled by creatures from another dimension and when we die we go there, hence religion. And one last crazy idea is.... Well I'll leave that up to all of you. :monkey: :crazy: :insane:

[sajuukar]

This thread has been done before... again, pleez don't mention me in vain... well, if you put it that way I guess itz okay :D and well, like I have said before, just because we don't think it is possible right now, even if we know it isn't possible, we don't really. That is all thnx.

And who is this "Golden Quasar"?... Blarg...

:angel:

I feel free... crazy...

[senor_blob]

:dunce: I'm guessing that this"Golden Quasar" person is either an admirer of u or thinks quasars are cool, also:dunce:

[Alpha_Monkey]

Did anyone see that thing about parallel universes on BBC2 a few days ago? Confusing as HELL! I mean...11 dimensions??? WTF?

[El Russo]

golden quasar beat silver quasar in a race.

[oneredpanther]

Did anyone see that thing about parallel universes on BBC2 a few days ago? Confusing as HELL! I mean...11 dimensions??? WTF?

HAR. yes, Horizon was excellent that night.
You should pay more attention.

The colliding branes and matter ripples really got me thinking.

[sajuukar]

I once heard from a comic strip that time is simply the manifestation of our inability to percive everything at once, so our brains make it seem as if it happens moment after moment.

I've also noticed someone called "Uberpizza" :lol:

[SquidDNA]

There's also the odd bit of neurological research which shows that the area of the brain associated with decision making is only active after we act. One of the interpretations of this is that we're not controlling our actions in the least, sudden decisions are illusory, and we're just rationalizing things we've already decided to do on another level.

Unless I'm screwing this up.

[zenogias]

There's also the odd bit of neurological research which shows that the area of the brain associated with decision making is only active after we act. One of the interpretations of this is that we're not controlling our actions in the least, sudden decisions are illusory, and we're just rationalizing things we've already decided to do on another level. I was thinking "nah, that couldn't be," but then I also thought -- waitaminute, maybe he's right.

Then I went and disproved myself, because I was going to disagree, then I decided to agree. But now I'm trying to figure out who or what I disproved, and now my head hurts.

Oh, and I don't see why time doesn't exist. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have the impressiong that time passes.

[El Russo]

this is what i think;

time is how we perceive the movement of matter from one position to another and the rate at which it does that. time is only there to log these movements and quantify them. it's just a theory but it has plausibility. the universe is like a movie; a movie is not a stream of film, but an interconnected series of individual stills created to give the illusion of streaming. if you could pause the universe you would have one still - time is merely coincidental in that you can measure it against the transitions of the universal stills. thus, time exists only because the universe does and it is not infinite. this means that there is a degree to which time can b measured - it is not a recurring decimal. this degree is the smallest possible movement of the universe between stills, in movie language the difference between consecutive stills. however, this degree is so small that it is immeasurable to us, and it gives the impresion of a truly consecutive stream.

[oneredpanther]

ya, that's a very nice idea you've going there, Russo.
And without Omnislash quoting, I would agree with everything you've said.

I'll just add my brief reasoning as to why I think you're right, so that some of the other physicists here might grasp it as well.
Warning: M-Theory and QED incoming...

You have said that the 'stills' represent the time elapsed between the smallest possible movement in the universe.

This would make sense in that we can assume the smallest possible movement to be diameter of a string. (a "superstring", that is) or perhaps the minimum amplitude of the least energetic string fundemental harmonic (if we assume that no string sits at rest for a period of time greater than: D / c. )

D = string diameter
c = 3.0 x 10^8 ms-1. (the speed of light in a vaccum)

We'll call this time T1. (and imagine that the units are StringSeconds)

At this scale, we can also imagine that the position of a string in hyperspace is determined by a wave function.

For simplicity's sake we could imagine that all strings in the universe vibrate in harmony. If this is case, then looking at any point in space, any particle, or any wave at an interval of time less than T1 will result in the universe's strings not yet having traversed the bounderies of it's own wave function.

On a quantum level (if not quite on the String leve) the universe appears unchanged, since the the wave function for a string occupies an area of space many times less than that of the wave function for even the smallest particle or energy quanta.

And as you will know if you've followed so far, two particles can't share the same space or wave funtion at a given time. That is - in the time, T1, the probability that an electron (for example) is anywhere other than where it was -1 string second ago is zero, because (quite simply) it just couldn't have gone that far!

However, to argue that time doesn't exist is meaningless, fruitless and futile. To even begin this discussion, you would first need to define and quantify Time itself.

And I would bet money that no-one here can define or quantify in words, any spatial dimension we exist in. Time is no different.

Eek! Woolly Mammoth! *runs*

[AcolyteOfDeath]

Time is an invention of humans to tell the movement of the sun across the sky. It is meaningful only to humans, the most sentient of animals, and to all others time is nothing, as they are not aware of it passing. Since all senses are percieved as concepts within the psyche, time can be defined as a sense, and thus a concept, for senses are no more than information before the mind. A sense is a concept, and not actually real. What is real is the bioelectric signal conducted through a nerve cell, nothing more. Time, like all other senses, is a concept and thus is subject to the same rules that apply to all the senses.

[oneredpanther]

Microwave radiation isn't important to your average feral Weasel, but that doesn't make it any less real or important.

Sorry, I hereby dismiss your post as "pointless gibbering and time wasting". Time wasting. hmm, now wait a sec.....

:D

[SquidDNA]

Time is a phenomenon. Scratch that, time is the paper on which phenomenon are written. To question the reality of time is to question the reality of any phenomenon. The point addressed by many is that phenomena are discrete things categorized by the mind (human or otherwise) and in this way the argument boils down to "can you trust your senses?"

Well, lameass, (addressed to nobody in particular, I assure you) you kind of have to. This argument, like the argument questioning the existence of free will, is a fundamentally ridiculous one. You cannot proceed in any direction as an animal or as a sentient being unless it is with the basic assumption that you can trust your senses, and that you're acting of your own voliton. Yes, sometimes our senses fool us. Most of the time they don't. Yes, sometimes external forces control our actions. Most of the time they don't.

Yes, scientifically speaking, our minds are a byproduct of an analytical module developed in an ape's brain. (This is true either in a literal or conceptual sense, take your pick.) But, it's you, isn't it? It's all good and well to say "well, we're but a collection on neurons and so on," but here you are talking to relative strangers on a website devoted (loosely) to gaming. That's what the collection of neurons did. You know what you are, you know what your mind is, and the only acceptable extrapolation of that knowledge is that everyone else has that same narrative essence. Chances are, gee, if several billion animals with well developed analytical modules are noticing something called "time" it's probably really there, just like the sun, and the moon, and the fact there's a down and an up and for the most part things gravitate towards down (no pun intended.)

The notion that time is an inherently human phenomenon is totally absurd. We know that many animals learn, and all other forms of life adapt. The notions of learning and adaptation are meaningless unless an organism has at least the most basic mechanism for sensing events with some sort of reference to previous conditions, however limited. Even bacteria can make decisions.

As for "the universe is an instant which moves forward" versus "the universe is a continuum of time, and consciousness moves forward," I cannot help but say that you give too much credit to consciouisness to bless it with the power of dumbing down TIME just so an ape can figure out if it needs to get some food or not. However, it is also an essentially futile argument, and as residents of consciousness, we have no choice but to proceed as if the future is undetermined, whatever the case may actually be.

[oneredpanther]

ROFLMAO.

That must be THE most blindingly funny, yet acutely correct thing posted in this entire discussion.

Sharp wit AND faultess debate in the same post?
Surely it must be christmas in General Discussion...

I bend over to you, sir. That was good.

I think i'll spurn all the Physics and stick to razor-sharp humour mixed with a slice of science...

[SquidDNA]

Wow, after nearly two years I finally get a compliment on a post!

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. :)

[zenogias]

Time is orange

I've had the word "orange" stuck in my head all day, and I must get it out.

Oh well, better than the time I had the words green and pink stuck in my head for over a week.

Some days, I feel like Ed.

If you've seen Cowboy Bebop you'll understand what I mean. If you haven't, shame on you.

[El Russo]

i thought the future was orange

[zenogias]

You're right, the future is orange.

Everything is orange.

The above is an argument against sugar consumption.

[senor_blob]

:dunce: Umm... Y does it matter what color time is?
time is what ever color u want it to be!:D :dunce:

[sajuukar]

Another thought I didn't wanna put in a new thread :D
Why do you think we perceive time to go by at the rate that it does? Why doesn't time pass at a rate that if we threw up a ball we could come back another day and watch it hit the ground? Or maybe at a rate that light actually travels faster?

Perception... what a monkey...

:angel:

[SquidDNA]

Perception of time is a biological, perhaps psychological phenomenon, and should be considered separate from time itself. :)

We perceive time at the various rates we do because its useful to. It was thought at one point that flies perceived time very quickly, that is, everything seemed very slow to flies because otherwise how would you explain their ability to react so quickly?
Thinking about your day, I'm sure you can come up with different activities that cause you to perceive time differently. If you need to wait 30 seconds and then do something very quickly, your perception of time is slower than that when you are engaged in some kind of tedious, repetitive activity.

[zenogias]

Perception of time is a biological, perhaps psychological phenomenon, and should be considered separate from time itself.
Tell that to an idiot I know who believes that time is completely irrelevent because it's just something we perceive.

If I'd a thought about it at the time, I would have said something like "I wonder what you'll say forty years from now on your deathbed?"

[SquidDNA]

Better yet, we could take that idiot and put him in a cage with a hungry tiger and say "The hungry tiger is irrelavent because it's just something you perceive."

[Walker]

I agree with squid on the perception point. I sometimes wonder what it must be like for mayflies, which live less than 24 hours. Yet they always seem so unhurried, peacefully hovering back and forth over radiant riverbanks in the height of summer.

What must their frame of mind be like? Perhaps they appreciate and enjoy simple life and the living of it all the more because for them, it is in such short supply. Or maybe they just know something we don't.

[El Russo]

walker could u tell me what u've been taking cos i'd love some of that? joke.

[TheBob]

Don't try to comprehend the universe. If you try to, you'll end up like Max Cohen in P and end up putting a drill to your head only to find out the the answer is 42

[SquidDNA]

Walker, I'm pretty sure Mayflies are just thinking

"Fly, look, fly, look, Mayfly6 spotted, female, turn left, follow, land, copulate, yippee!, take off, fly, fly, turn right, fly, fly.." etc.

I mean, they don't even eat. I seriously doubt that with such simple lives they are capable of something as abstract as "enjoyment."

[zenogias]

Guys, fun fact: "42" is no longer witty. It was witty a decade-or-so ago, back when it was new and fresh. These days, with the joke having been repeated a billion times, "42" no longer has the same impact.

This message brought to you by the Council of Good Sense.

Here's another message: read the Hitchhiker's Guide trilogy (all five of them). Now! I command you! The great and might Zeno has spoken!
.
.
.
Again with that sugar thing :mad: ;)

[Walker]

Five of them? Explain, and it better not be "lost journals" or "unfinished and edited by sons dogs vets chiropractor"


Squid: How do you know? I reckon having 24 hours to live would lead to an extreme urgency of thought.
Not eating just cuts an aspect of life that occupies the minds of the rest of us 30 percent of the time right out of their requirements, leaving so much more time to pure contemplation.
If their 24 hour life is all there is for them, and the only responsibility or need they have is to make love, once, then it seems like there is little else for them to do all day long than think. Human philosophers have nothing on them.

[SquidDNA]

Trees have incredibly simple lives, too, do we thus accord them great wisdom?

No.

I apologize if I've come across knowing somehow what a bug thinks, like I overheard one mumbling to itself or something, but while I'm far from a being a neurological expert, I know a thing or two about brains.

The sections of the human brain most commonly associated with abstract thought are mostly absent in other creatures. Looking back at a bug's central nervous system, the wiring is simple by comparison. To my knowledge, insects do not analyze situations or try new things. Insect behavior is overwhelmingly hard-wired. (My apologies to any E&E folks out there if insects actually do sometimes adapt their behaviors; but I'd still be utterly astounded if it was anything at all compared to the extent that mammals do.)

The CNS of an insect lacks the substantial internal nervous communication that mammals possess. So it begs the question, if an insect is having thoughts more complex than its observations and physical reactions to those observations, where are the thoughts occurring?

Zenogias, I have news for you. "42" was old ten years ago, too. It's an old, old joke. And unless you're 25, the joke predates your birth. :D

[AcolyteOfDeath]

Time exists, but as a concept, it is unique only to humans. Time is undefinable by human terms, as we cannot conceptualize what we take for granted. The passage of time is a human concept. Reality itself is a human concept, and a product of our imaginings, and the only reason why we happen to see the same things is that the concept of reality has been passed on from generation to generation. Time is another concept. I doubt we'd be very aware of it passing if we were like all the other life.

[SquidDNA]

All concepts are products of the human mind. "Time" and "reality" are just two of them. "Blue" is another concept. Concepts exist in our minds to describe things we perceive.

Besides that, you've just repeated what you said on page 1.

Now, in a much looser sense, nonhuman minds (and even systems) can perceive and classify stimulus. If a category of classified stimulus can be reckoned as a concept, then all minds which are aware have concepts, even if the concept is as simple as recognizing another of your species, or at what level you should start worrying about the pH of the liquid you're suspended in.

I will agree that probably nothing besides humans has questioned the nature of time or reality. Animals haven't had to classify things into "real" or "not real" and probably havent given any thought to the way their brains perceive time, as chances are they don't know they have brains to begin with. But if an animal can learn and think, then it can remember, and to remember you need to have a sense of time.

If you are aware of your surroundings, then you are aware of the passage of time. Just because wolves don't measure time doesn't mean they don't know it's passing.

[Walker]

Animals sure do percieve time. They can do it pretty damn accurately too, a lot better than I can. Case in point?

I have 2 dogs inside and a horse outside. When the dogs' twice-daily mealtimes roll around you can be sure theyll be sitting there on the sofa looking soulfully at me until I pay them attention, which if I don't they'll climb on me or drop bones in my lap. The very moment I stir from my seat they will race to the door and start whining. They know exactly what time of day they get fed, and they know I know it too. But they do that without the aid of a clock, which if I were asked to go just 2 days without I couldn't tell morning from afternoon.

My horse knows exactly when it's due for its daily constitutional and following feed. While it can't climb in my lap or sit on the sofa (it would if it could, but I won't stand for it), instead it raises hell outside if it doesn't hear the door opening soon enough, kicking at cans and clomping around, and nosing hay about.

Do you want to tell me that none of those animals percieve time and the passing of it? And don't spam me with "learned behavior" or "domestication" - you'll see that behaviour in any animal you lead to believe something will happen at a certain time. What you mean, is wild animals have no reason to percieve time, which not living the scheduled, time-dependant life of a human, is true. But introduce a schedule to any animals life, or any other reason to anticipate a regular period, and they will. The capability is there.

That was aimed at Acolyte. The following is for Squid:

Insects might have small minds but they still percieve time. Perhaps they are percieving physical stimulus like fading light or dropping temperatures, but most insects modify their behaviour according to the time of day. Isn't that just another way of percieving time? They know when to do one thing and when to do another, even if they don't understand the periods in between.
But what is a butterfly doing when it suns its wings? That isn't responding to a stimulus. It'll flap about, suck some nectar, and flap off for some more somewhere else. And then quite unexpectedly it'll dip down into a field, poise atop a daisy and sit there sunning itself. What made that butterfly decide to stop that time, instead of carrying on? It'll sit there, and unless something disturbs it, eventually it'll flap off and start again. What makes it decide when to move? These aren't naturally programmed responses or drives, they are coherent decisions taken by the butterfly, albeit simple ones.

I have several beehives outside and enjoy occasionally stopping to watch them. I could watch for hours and not note the passing of time; they are truly mesmeric. And I assure you that they move, collectively and individually, with a purpose. They make decisions, they do irrational things, they have moods, a social structure and can learn new behaviour. If I must explain how tell me to, but I'm sure you can think yourself. I'm sure you have scientific explanations of hive mentalities and evolutionary organisation or something, but from where I stand, they seem about as organised as your average human settlement, if you view it from afar.

[SquidDNA]

I in no way intended to argue that insects don't perceive time; I was taking the other side and arguing that bacteria can perceive time. :)

Regarding animal behavior and hive mentality vs. insects making decisions as individuals, there's no arguing Science with a Romantic, so I'll agree to disagree. ;)

[zenogias]

Five of them? Explain, and it better not be "lost journals" or "unfinished and edited by sons dogs vets chiropractor"

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Life, the Universe, and Everything
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
Mostly Harmless
And a short story called Young Zaphod Plays it Safe
All by Douglas Adams

Before he died, Adams was working on the sixth book in, as he called it "the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's trilogy."


Oh, and perhaps I should reprhase my statement: "42" was witty a decade ago when I first discovered it, but having had every single serious discussion on the meaning of life degenerate into someone saying "42" followed by a bunch of knowing chuckles, I'm somewhat annoyed by the whole thing.

Not to slight Douglas Adams, just the pseudo-intellectuals who latched on to his work.

[SquidDNA]

By "pseudointellectuals" you appear to mean "people for whom the joke hasn't gotten old yet." :D

I know what you mean, though. Once good jokes get old, they get REALLY old.