Ive been thinking about time.

[covelent]

Ok, so the rate of time is not constant throughout the universe, it changes depending on a number of influences. Its got me thinking. Have you ever seen one of those slow motion videos of like a water balloon bursting or a slinky dropping or whatever?

It shows that when you slow down time, its sort of like looking at something through a microscope. You see more detail but you run the risk of losing an overall grasp of the thing as a whole. You dont see what it actually looked like when it happened, that gets almost lost due to the detail.

So, with a time lapse camera do you think were seeing things more as a whole, skipping the details and seeing the bigger picture? I think we should launch one into space and concentrate on a point and watch how it evolves over long time scales without intermediate details.

Do we already do this maybe?

Just venting a thought really, does anyone agree with the slowmotion/microscope analogy?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Spoiler

I agree, and I like what it may imply (I'm guessing it's already been done, but I really have no idea. It could probably be done on a smaller scale though).

So... how does relativity come into play given this correlation between speed and level of organization?

*EDIT:

I wonder what sort of information is contained in small things?

http://www.trueactivist.com/gab_gal...-the-track-and-it-sounds-like-people-singing/

 

[covelent]

Well, if you flew by me at say 80% the speed of light, relative to me, I would observe more detail in your reference frame, thus missing your bigger picture and you would see my bigger picture, so to speak. You would miss the finer details of my reference frame.

Edit: do you mean small things when time is slowed down or sped up?

 

[covelent]

That cricket thing is amazing. Just shows you what we miss due to the speed of time.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Small in that a few seconds may be experienced as days by a bacterium.

When we hear a cricket, we reduce the sound to its big picture form of "chirp" when it's really something that might put Mozart to shame. Same with bird vocalizations, just to a lesser degree because we can identify some level of complexity when we hear them in real time. Basically, we do this weird thing where we mistake complexity for simplicity and visa versa because we're limited by our intrinsic ability to interpret (our position within the gradient of complexity). We relate everything to us, as opposed to what we aren't, which is flawed (imho).

I wonder what a general mathematical formula for this phenomenon might look like?

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

I didn't read through it carefully but if I understand it correctly you're saying that perception of time is subjective.

 

[pernoctator]

Small in that a few seconds may be experienced as days by a bacterium.

When we hear a cricket, we reduce the sound to its big picture form of "chirp" when it's really something that might put Mozart to shame. Same with bird vocalizations, just to a lesser degree because we can identify some level of complexity when we hear them in real time. Basically, we do this weird thing where we mistake complexity for simplicity and visa versa because we're limited by our intrinsic ability to interpret (our position within the gradient of complexity). We relate everything to us, as opposed to what we aren't, which is flawed (imho).

I wonder what a general mathematical formula for this phenomenon might look like?

I think you would need at least 3 variables:

- capture rate: how many times the observer can assimilate a moment (frames per second)
- memory: the length of the moving window of frames that are analyzed collectively
- change resolution: the smallest amount of change that can be measured

From these, it should be possible to determine the minimum and maximum rate of change with which an observer's sense of complexity would be accurate.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think you would need at least 3 variables:

- capture rate: how many times the observer can assimilate a moment (frames per second)
- memory: the length of the moving window of frames that are analyzed collectively
- change resolution: the smallest amount of change that can be measured

From these, it should be possible to determine the minimum and maximum rate of change with which an observer's sense of complexity would be accurate.

I like this, but....

Memory is interesting because it shouldn't move exactly with the observer. The initial storage process is tainted by the filter of perception, and the recall process isn't, realistically, eidetic. This would mean that the amount of information that would need to be taken in to be correct would be greater than the maximum amount available, unless the observer is immortal.

 

[Helvete]

Here's an interesting thread.

I think these things are immeasurable though as the universe is infinite. You'd have to have a standardised filter of perception. This is already flawed though as the universe is infinite, ever changing.
So really you'd need a standardised filter of perception that changes at the same rate the universe changes.

A cricket might find more beauty in our voices then they find in their own, yet a creature of epic proportions to us, if one existed, would hear us as chirping. Meaning comparing us to the cricket and the creature to a human scale wise.
So then does the cricket hear vibes of sweet harmonious sound waves from the creature, details within the details or is it then distorted out of focus at this point.
Then surely the creature would also hear the bigger picture of the cricket? More realistically though it would miss this entirely. So at what point do you overlook the bigger picture of something smaller than you just to observe something else in detail of something bigger than you on a continuous scale?

 

[covelent]

Check this out guys!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24078179

 

[covelent]

Normanthedoorman, yes, I do think of time as being very much subjective.
I think it would be incorrect to even say that our perception of an hour remains constant throughout our own lives.

 

[covelent]

Quick question guys,
you all have these quotes at the end of each message, I have one I want to use. Are you inserting it manually every time? surely not?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Click User CP and then on the left under Settings & Options click Edit Signature.

 

[covelent]

Thankyou Doctor!

 

[covelent]

Just so were clear, are we all in agreement that the cricket hears the other crickets not as a chirp but as we do when we hear it slowed down?
That is amazing because it means all small creatures do hear each others noises slower than we do.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Just so were clear, are we all in agreement that the cricket hears the other crickets not as a chirp but as we do when we hear it slowed down?
That is amazing because it means all small creatures do hear each others noises slower than we do.

Sort of. I think using body size is a little misleading, but maybe the "size" of something else in terms of cognition and/or perception wouldn't be.

 

[Base groove]

Just so were clear, are we all in agreement that the cricket hears the other crickets not as a chirp but as we do when we hear it slowed down?
That is amazing because it means all small creatures do hear each others noises slower than we do.

umm,

No and no?

 

[covelent]

Why not?
If small creatures experience a sort of slow motion time, compared to us, then they would hear the chirps slower. Have I got this wrong?

 

[Base groove]

Why not?
If small creatures experience a sort of slow motion time, compared to us, then they would hear the chirps slower. Have I got this wrong?

No, I suppose as a hypothetical "if - then" contingency, you are accurate.

Your inductive generalization and anthropomorphism is astounding, however

 

[covelent]

Its not entirely hypothetical, look at my earlier link.

What is "inductive generilization and anthropomorphism" in lay mans terms please?

 

[pernoctator]

I like this, but....

Memory is interesting because it shouldn't move exactly with the observer. The initial storage process is tainted by the filter of perception, and the recall process isn't, realistically, eidetic. This would mean that the amount of information that would need to be taken in to be correct would be greater than the maximum amount available, unless the observer is immortal.

It wasn't easy to decide on a definition of "memory" that I was happy with, because I don't mean it in a normal sense. This is a very short collection of memories in the immediate past that are collectively perceived as "current". The movement of the sun isn't perceived as motion even though you remember where it was in the morning and know it happened, because it's no longer within this "local" pool of memories that are compared for differences.

 

[Base groove]

What is "inductive generilization and anthropomorphism" in lay mans terms please?

Here ya go.

Yes I went there....

 

[covelent]

Now basegroove, explain to me the point of me being on this forum to talk to people about their opinions on things if I'm just going to google everything I do not understand?

 

[Base groove]

Now basegroove, explain to me the point of me being on this forum to talk to people about their opinions on things if I'm just going to google everything I do not understand?

You will keep up with the conversation and not ask other people to explain elementary principles to you ... so you can actually craft together an appropriate response instead of ... ^

 

[covelent]

And basegroove, whether I'm looking at this from a human perspective or not, the cricket may still experience time differently from me, as the study suggests so why wouldn't he hear the chirp slower than I would?

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Just so were clear, are we all in agreement that the cricket hears the other crickets not as a chirp but as we do when we hear it slowed down?
That is amazing because it means all small creatures do hear each others noises slower than we do.

It seems possible. We, people, perceive time subjectively, sometimes it elapses slower, sometimes faster. But in biology always are limits, so I doubt if those crickets perceive their voice, like we hear in slow motion.

 

[Base groove]

And basegroove, whether I'm looking at this from a human perspective or not, the cricket may still experience time differently from me, as the study suggests so why wouldn't he hear the chirp slower than I would?

But that's not what you said and that's not what I'm arguing.

Sigh ... I have linked the post and quoted it. Do I really have to link it or quote it again?

the cricket hears the other crickets not as a chirp but as we do when we hear it slowed down?

Anthropomorphism

it means all small creatures do hear each others noises slower than we do.

Inductive generalization (fallacy of defective induction)

/astounding

 

[covelent]

You will keep up with the conversation and not ask other people to explain elementary principles to you ... so you can actually craft together an appropriate response instead of ... ^

Apologies for the inconvenience!

 

[covelent]

It seems possible. We, people, perceive time subjectively, sometimes it elapses slower, sometimes faster. But in biology always are limits, so I doubt if those crickets perceive their voice, like we hear in slow motion.

Yea I think the difference would be very slight, but still there.

 

[Base groove]

Apologies for the inconvenience!

Oh no big deal... that wasn't the point either now was it?

I'm not going to stop berating you as long as you maintain a passive aggressive stance .... (i.e. you should directly confront the points I've made or stop replying to this theme altogether; having the final word is not an option as long as it's perceived as another quip, that ain't how I argue mang)

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It wasn't easy to decide on a definition of "memory" that I was happy with, because I don't mean it in a normal sense. This is a very short collection of memories in the immediate past that are collectively perceived as "current". The movement of the sun isn't perceived as motion even though you remember where it was in the morning and know it happened, because it's no longer within this "local" pool of memories that are compared for differences.

How cool would it be to apply immediate, short term, and long term memory, as well as focus? (i.e. we miss 99.999% of what's happening within our own sphere of perception)

It would require the observer to use heuristics, amirite?

Why not?
If small creatures experience a sort of slow motion time, compared to us, then they would hear the chirps slower. Have I got this wrong?

Frequency and pitch. Small critters tend to produce high frequency sounds because the anatomy they use to do so is also small. But it's not true for all. Frogs, for example. Some species produce high frequency, high pitched vocalizations, some that are pretty much the same size produce the opposite. Also, it's difficult to say unless you're a cricket, amirite?

But I want to get you thinking in terms of the size of something that isn't readily measurable, unlike body size.

Maybe... lifespan, or cognitive capacity, or some measure of perception. Or a measure of use of nonvocal communication.

Apologies for the inconvenience!

You're encountering an INTJ for the first time, I see. It gets better, I promise.

No, I suppose as a hypothetical "if - then" contingency, you are accurate.

Your inductive generalization and anthropomorphism is astounding, however

Such big words. Many wow.

You will keep up with the conversation and not ask other people to explain elementary principles to you ... so you can actually craft together an appropriate response instead of ... ^

Pretty soon he'll (she'll?) surpass you. You heard it here first.

 

[The Void]

@OP
Just to check something.
How do you visualize a scenario without time?

 

[covelent]

But that's not what you said and that's not what I'm arguing.

Sigh ... I have linked the post and quoted it. Do I really have to link it or quote it again?



Anthropomorphism



Inductive generalization (fallacy of defective induction)



/astounding

Ok, that was inductive generalization I suppose.

But the way they "perceive" the sound, whether it be through ears or other means, might still be a slower version when compared to ours.

 

[Base groove]

But the way they "perceive" the sound, whether it be through ears or other means, might still be a slower version when compared to ours.

Correct, it might. *shrug*

Anyway the sound is perceived probably first by the colliculi and sensed by the cochlea. (THD? - make me wrong)

I don't really dispute that post. Is that what your point actually is? Do you hereby abandon your past reasoning as fallacious and evil?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Anyway the sound is perceived probably first by the colliculi and sensed by the cochlea. (THD? - make me wrong)

Crickets don't have ears. Well, not like people do, anyway...

 

[Base groove]

Yeah I guess I'm mostly familiar with the anatomy of my own phylum

That being said, do crickets even have colliculi??? Perhaps not, as wiki states they are structures found in mammalian brains...

There are very small mammals though, perhaps they are more likely to perceive sounds the way we do compared to a cricket?

 

[covelent]

Frequency and pitch. Small critters tend to produce high frequency sounds because the anatomy they use to do so is also small. But it's not true for all. Frogs, for example. Some species produce high frequency, high pitched vocalizations, some that are pretty much the same size produce the opposite. Also, it's difficult to say unless you're a cricket, amirite?

But I want to get you thinking in terms of the size of something that isn't readily measurable, unlike body size.

Maybe... lifespan, or cognitive capacity, or some measure of perception. Or a measure of use of nonvocal communication.

You're encountering an INTJ for the first time, I see. It gets better, I promise.

Such big words. Many wow.

Pretty soon he'll (she'll?) surpass you. You heard it here first.

Yea without actually being a cricket for a day I can not be certain. Its very interesting to think about non vocal communication in this way. I shall do some research!

I'am a he.

 

[covelent]

No basegroove I will not abandon my last point, Ive more modified it in my eyes. I thought the way a cricket "heard" it was irrelevant really, what was relevant was that I think they hear it slower than us, be that with little hairs on their body that pick up vibrations or whatever, they might perceive it slower than we would.

 

[Base groove]

No basegroove I will not abandon my last point, Ive more modified it in my eyes. I thought the way a cricket "heard" it was irrelevant really, what was relevant was that I think they hear it slower than us, be that with little hairs on their body that pick up vibrations or whatever, they might perceive it slower than we would.

I suggested you abandoned your fallacious reasoning, not the revision, or your 'point'.

All is good, except your crap logic. Don't be sad. And don't make me link it again or so help me....

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Just so were clear, are we all in agreement that the cricket hears the other crickets not as a chirp but as we do when we hear it slowed down?

No there is not enough evidence and research.

That is amazing because it means all small creatures do hear each others noises slower than we do.

No it doesn't mean that, you are wrong here.

The safest way for you is not to use the word "all" unless you have an inductive/deductive proof for the generalisation.

If some of the points from that article were true:
The ability to process sound input faster, doesn't mean that they experience time "differently" they have a different awarness, not time.

No basegroove I will not abandon my last point, Ive more modified it in my eyes. I thought the way a cricket "heard" it was irrelevant really, what was relevant was that I think they hear it slower than us, be that with little hairs on their body that pick up vibrations or whatever, they might perceive it slower than we would.

Does a human reading 3 pages that is able to remember 80% of the content "sees" "faster" than the person able to read one page with the same accuracy? They experience the time in the same way, one has a greater capacity and neural connections that aid in the process.

It is the information intake, also, the contents do not change, rather, the sensory input is the same however either you are wired to distinguish it accurately in that "amount" of time or not.

 

[covelent]

basegroove..........what is fallicious?

I'm kidding, point taken. but trust me, my logic is not crap, its my ability to make you understand my logic that is crap!

 

[covelent]

No there is not enough evidence and research.

No it doesn't mean that, you are wrong here.

The safest way for you is not to use the word "all" unless you have an inductive/deductive proof for the generalisation.

If some of the points from that article were true:
The ability to process sound input faster, doesn't mean that they experience time "differently" they have a different awarness, not time.

So is the article saying their perception of time is no different from ours in your opinion?

 

[Base groove]

basegroove..........what is fallicious?

but trust me, my logic is not crap

 

[Base groove]

So is the article saying their perception of time is no different from ours in your opinion?

STRAWMAN.

 

[covelent]

I now realise I stated that like fact when I should have stated it like an idea ("are we in agreement.......")

 

[covelent]

Too funny!

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Time to stop derailing?

my logic is not crap, its my ability to make you understand my logic that is crap!

(I'm really starting to like this kid)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

So is the article saying their perception of time is no different from ours in your opinion?

Lol, the article states one thing, that we all interpret in the same way. We don't exchange our interpretations of this article, rather, we are discussing the perception of time.

Also, this article has a limited application as it is not a comprehensive and broad study.

 

[covelent]

Yea defo time to stop derailing!

Thankyou doctor!

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Lol, the article states one thing, that we all interpret in the same way. We don't exchange our interpretations of this article, rather, we are discussing the perception of time.

Also, this article has a limited application as it is not a comprehensive and broad study.

For the record, the most research that's been done in this field is in ornithology, specifically the lab at Cornell.

Basically it seems like there's a gradient of complexity within communication that's independent of communication style, meaning that complex vocalizers also tend to have complex visual communication, complex pheromones, ESP (thrown in for shits and giggles, see Princeton PEAR), etc.

The perception of complexity appears to be relative. But what makes it so, if true?