Space and Time

[gladness]

lately ive been thinking about space and time and i thought id share a bit of my theory

basically, i propose that time is an illusion created by our constant change in perception through the physical reality we inhabit. i think this has been said in the past, but id like to get a different perspective on it.

without space, there would be no possibility for time, for you need change to perceive time. without time, there would be no possibility for us as humans to perceive space, because we need time to pass for our brain to feed our consciousness, for light to enter our eyes, and so on.

so if we were able to expand our consciousness to the point where we encompass the whole of reality, time and space wouldn't exist, if we were aware of everything, we wouldn't need to move, we wouldn't need to wait for our "brain" to process the external, because there would be no external information, only internal knowledge. we would be experiencing every possible thing at the same time.

so where does consciousness go when we die??
some people say we join heaven, get reincarnated or join our loved ones
some people say we simply go nowhere.

i say both happen, i say we do in fact go nowhere, we fade into nothing, we go to a place where time, nor space exists. and that is god. you return to the infinite consciousness which is god. dreaming is what i believe to be an experience of this realm tainted by our brains filtration system.


this explanation has been rather vague although if you ask me to expand on something ill happily do so.

 

[Haim]

Saying we keep consciousness after death is also saying a table have consciousness,I doubt that.
It is puzzling that we have consciousness that is just a material,but we are a material,we have some sort of computer,we are some sort of computer(depend on how you define we,I)
When you turn off a computer it just turned off,notting,blank,black,non existence it does not have part of him go on.
It is very puzzling why certain segment of material is a consciousness segment and not connected to other material beside input(hear,see,feel,smell)

 

[Tannhauser]

I would like to comment on the underlying assumptions:

basically, i propose that time is an illusion created by our constant change in perception through the physical reality we inhabit. i think this has been said in the past, but id like to get a different perspective on it.

without space, there would be no possibility for time, for you need change to perceive time. without time, there would be no possibility for us as humans to perceive space, because we need time to pass for our brain to feed our consciousness, for light to enter our eyes, and so on.

Should the second paragraph actually read as the converse, i.e. "without time, there would be no possibility for space"?. As it is, the deduction does not seem to make sense.

But either way, the underlying assumption seems to be that the existence of space is dependent on existence of time (or the converse), because of the way humans perceive space. But I think most would agree that the nature of the universe is independent of the way humans perceive it. As for example Kant has pointed out, time and space are not inherent properties of the universe, they are rather a part of the human mental apparatus, a way for us to understand our physical world.

If we are talking about the possibility of space without time, it seems completely possible in light of for example general relativity (although I'll readily admit I have no expertise in that field). Einstein pointed out that a time coordinate in space-time is no different than a space coordinate. Hence a 3-dimensional world without time can also be regarded as a 2-dimensional space with time and so on.

 

[gladness]

Saying we keep consciousness after death is also saying a table have consciousness,I doubt that.

i don't doubt it. i mean really why do we all believe that each other have consciousness?
we believe it because we have similar characteristics that we can relate to.

i do believe that a table has a certain level of consciousness, and perhaps the level of consciousness depends on the atomic structure/ecosystem/evolution of that thing. i think its ignorant to believe that humans and a few members of the animal kingdom posses the infinitely bliss and incomprehensible thing we call consciousness, and the rest of reality doesnt, because they dont have a brain. when you turn off a computer, sure it stops and goes blank, although that power is still there in the wall.

as for the rest of the comment, i feel the same way, its interesting.

 

[gladness]

Should the second paragraph actually read as the converse, i.e. "without time, there would be no possibility for space"?. As it is, the deduction does not seem to make sense.

it makes sense in my head, they're the same concept just worded differently. if you weren't in a reality, rather you WERE the reality. time wouldn't exist because you would be experiencing everything, every possibility at once. you wouldn't have to take in information from your exterior in order to perceive it, you just already have it in you. you wouldn't have to move or do anything and therefor no constant change in perception, therefor time would not exist from that point of perspective.

they are rather a part of the human mental apparatus, a way for us to understand our physical world.

i think your right. i think space and time are both illusory, but it doesnt mean they arent real. it means we experience them differently to how other things would. but in a way, if what we experience isnt real, what is? is an ants experience real? is an atoms experience real? is a planets experience real? is gods experience real?

i think the truth of the matter is that real is whatever you experience it to be. and when someone says "my real is the only real" because they have looked through a telescope, it only displays the evolution of perspective.

to be frank, i dont care about the laws of physics, or planets, black holes, quantum mechanics, because our awareness of them doesn't matter, i know alot of people on this site are hell bent on the scientific process, but i think its not the right way to gain truth/wisdom.

 

[Reluctantly]

If we are talking about the possibility of space without time, it seems completely possible in light of for example general relativity (although I'll readily admit I have no expertise in that field). Einstein pointed out that a time coordinate in space-time is no different than a space coordinate. Hence a 3-dimensional world without time can also be regarded as a 2-dimensional space with time and so on.

I guess it depends on how you define time. But at its basic form, there is no sense of time between two objects, unless there is at least some change occurring in one object relative to the other. Otherwise, we have no reference for what any length of time would mean objectively and can't be certain whether the objects are the same object or separate.

In that sense I don't agree that a 3-dimensional world without time could also be regarded as a 2-dimensional space with time because the latter would dynamically change its 2-dimensional space with regard to time, while the 3-dimensional world without time is completely frozen or static.

And it makes me wonder then, the frozen 3-dimensional world is one giant world that seized; you couldn't distinguish a human being or any object separate from the totality of that world because nothing seems to act independently; there is no basis to say that anything could or should be differentiated. The 2-dimensional world with time, on the other hand, is capable of relative change, whereby objects can change relative to other objects, directly distinguishing themselves from them in doing so. For example, a human being can walk to a door and open it, showing it can change its orientation with other objects in 3-dimensional space. It becomes something by having the ability to influence reality.

 

[Tannhauser]

I guess it depends on how you define time. But at its basic form, there is no sense of time between two objects, unless there is at least some change occurring in one object relative to the other. Otherwise, we have no reference for what any length of time would mean objectively and can't be certain whether the objects are the same object or separate.

In that sense I don't agree that a 3-dimensional world without time could also be regarded as a 2-dimensional space with time because the latter would dynamically change its 2-dimensional space with regard to time, while the 3-dimensional world without time is completely frozen or static.

And it makes me wonder then, the frozen 3-dimensional world is one giant world that seized; you couldn't distinguish a human being or any object separate from the totality of that world because nothing seems to act independently; there is no basis to say that anything could or should be differentiated. The 2-dimensional world with time, on the other hand, is capable of relative change, whereby objects can change relative to other objects, directly distinguishing themselves from them in doing so. For example, a human being can walk to a door and open it, showing it can change its orientation with other objects in 3-dimensional space. It becomes something by having the ability to influence reality.

I think the difference between a "frozen" 3D world and a 2D world with time is only that of perspective. When you observe a 2D world with time, it means you confine yourself to viewing each "slice" of a 3D image progressively along one of its dimensions. On the other hand viewing a static 3D world is basically viewing a 3D image from a 4-dimensional perspective.

Its kind of like plotting a 3D graph. You can either view it as a 2-dimensional animation, or a static 3D image.

So that might make one wonder: if someone could see us from a 5-dimensional perspective, they can see our whole life as a static 4D image and can tell exactly what will happen at all points along the time axis.

 

[Stagename]

so where does consciousness go when we die??

Your question makes an implicit assumption that consciousness go somewhere after we die. Why? If you don't know the answer, you should not make an implicit assumption in the question. It is like asking you if you have stopped beating your wife yet.

If you blow up a house, then the house was there a minute ago, but not any more. Does it make sense to ask where it went? No. It didn't go anywhere. It is no more. The same is very likely the case with consciousness, as it is supported by the brain, which is supported by biological energy. When the support fails, the entire structure fails.

some people say we join heaven, get reincarnated or join our loved ones
some people say we simply go nowhere.

i say both happen, i say we do in fact go nowhere, we fade into nothing, we go to a place where time, nor space exists. and that is god. you return to the infinite consciousness which is god. dreaming is what i believe to be an experience of this realm tainted by our brains filtration system.


this explanation has been rather vague although if you ask me to expand on something ill happily do so.

You can say whatever you want. But if you don't provide any sound reasoning for your claim, then it doesn't deserve any consideration from anyone. The way you start off this post doesn't even connect at all with your conclusion. What does time and space have to do with an afterlife? And you even include god? What the hell are you talking about?

Try to filter out your implicit assumptions. Or at least make them explicit including the reasoning supporting them. Good luck.

 

[doncarlzone]

lately ive been thinking about space and time and i thought id share a bit of my theory

basically, i propose that time is an illusion created by our constant change in perception through the physical reality we inhabit. i think this has been said in the past, but id like to get a different perspective on it.

without space, there would be no possibility for time, for you need change to perceive time. without time, there would be no possibility for us as humans to perceive space, because we need time to pass for our brain to feed our consciousness, for light to enter our eyes, and so on.

so if we were able to expand our consciousness to the point where we encompass the whole of reality, time and space wouldn't exist, if we were aware of everything, we wouldn't need to move, we wouldn't need to wait for our "brain" to process the external, because there would be no external information, only internal knowledge. we would be experiencing every possible thing at the same time.

so where does consciousness go when we die??
some people say we join heaven, get reincarnated or join our loved ones
some people say we simply go nowhere.

i say both happen, i say we do in fact go nowhere, we fade into nothing, we go to a place where time, nor space exists. and that is god. you return to the infinite consciousness which is god. dreaming is what i believe to be an experience of this realm tainted by our brains filtration system.


this explanation has been rather vague although if you ask me to expand on something ill happily do so.

Sounds like a Kantian approach flavored with some pantheistic spirituality.

Even if we, as Kant proposes, form external matter (or things in themselves) in time and space, why would that be an illusion? I suppose you could argue that if someone thinks that a coke bottle looks like it appears to most humans (red, round etc..) independently of any human perception then that would be an illusion - but that's nothing new really, far from. If you follow Kant's approach, then being able to perceive in time and space is a prerequisite for a thinking thing to make sense of the world (look up Kant's transcendental apperception) - and thus time and space does not exist independently of us (as I gather you also suggest). Now clearly Newton would disagree with that.

Moving on to consciousness. Who suggests that consciousness only belongs to humans? That sounds like an absurd argument, surely there are plenty of sentient beings possessing something which could reasonably be defined as consciousness?

And lastly, is your argument that consciousness exist independently of matter? It sounds like it. And what would be your argument to support that claim? If not, how is it that we "go" somewhere after we die.

 

[Reluctantly]

I think the difference between a "frozen" 3D world and a 2D world with time is only that of perspective. When you observe a 2D world with time, it means you confine yourself to viewing each "slice" of a 3D image progressively along one of its dimensions. On the other hand viewing a static 3D world is basically viewing a 3D image from a 4-dimensional perspective.

Its kind of like plotting a 3D graph. You can either view it as a 2-dimensional animation, or a static 3D image.

So that might make one wonder: if someone could see us from a 5-dimensional perspective, they can see our whole life as a static 4D image and can tell exactly what will happen at all points along the time axis.

Yes, I would agree with you, if time was interchangeable with space. However time doesn't create a spacial slices, but rather creates spacial changes. Therefore a 4-dimensional space is not equivalent to a 3-dimensional space with time. One changes, the other does not.

 

[Tannhauser]

Yes, I would agree with you, if time was interchangeable with space. However time doesn't create a spacial slices, but rather creates spacial changes. Therefore a 4-dimensional space is not equivalent to a 3-dimensional space with time. One changes, the other does not.

Again I would say that thinking of "change" of a 3-dimensional space as something different from looking at a 4-dimensional space at progressive points along the time-axis is just a difference in perception. For example, what is the difference between saying "a particle has position (x, y, z) at time t" and saying "the particle has position (x, y, z, t)". The difference is probably just the human propensity to think of dimensions only as spatial dimensions and time as change within the spatial dimensions.

But you are right that there is a fundamental difference between spatial dimensions and time dimension, at least from our perspective: we seem to be confined to always move forward along the time-axis while being able to move in any direction in the spatial dimensions.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i don't doubt it. i mean really why do we all believe that each other have consciousness?
we believe it because we have similar characteristics that we can relate to.

i do believe that a table has a certain level of consciousness, and perhaps the level of consciousness depends on the atomic structure/ecosystem/evolution of that thing. i think its ignorant to believe that humans and a few members of the animal kingdom posses the infinitely bliss and incomprehensible thing we call consciousness, and the rest of reality doesnt, because they dont have a brain. when you turn off a computer, sure it stops and goes blank, although that power is still there in the wall.

as for the rest of the comment, i feel the same way, its interesting.

Yes, everything is conscious. Everything is everything. Everything has a little of all the properties. Everything is slightly rock, slightly sunset, slightly table, slightly retrofuturistic, slightly pond, slightly tautological, slightly FAT32, slightly basketball.

Stuff is continuous, spectral. That's good insight. Most people lack it. Don't get carried away! Stuff is also complex, feedbacky, systemic.

 

[gilliatt]

Time is a measurement of motion, it is a relationship. Space is also a relational concept, a relationship. In the universe everything that exists is finite. You can say, places are in the universe, not the other way around. There is nothing outside the universe because outside the universe has no referent. The universe is everything. So there is no such place as outside. There is no nothing 'out there' there is no out there. So, space e.g. ; here are in Paris, that is your point of the earth which you stand---that's your spatial position, your GPS. There is another point or object, different positions, two relationships within the universe.Like being in a box etc. The universe cannot be anywhere because places, objects are in the universe, not the reverse. Is the universe some size? No. It's everything. To exist is to be something, nothing-non-existence. Every atom, particle, everything has a specific nature. A is A. A thing is itself. Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification. Reality is that which exists, the unreal does not exist, the unreal is merely that negation of existence, unreal-it is that attempt to abandon reason. (Always like to plug that one in there for all you Kantians) ha!
No, we really don't die, the world stops!

 

[gladness]

latelatelate reply

If you blow up a house, then the house was there a minute ago, but not any more. Does it make sense to ask where it went? No. It didn't go anywhere. It is no more. The same is very likely the case with consciousness, as it is supported by the brain, which is supported by biological energy. When the support fails, the entire structure fails.


You can say whatever you want. But if you don't provide any sound reasoning for your claim, then it doesn't deserve any consideration from anyone.

I agree that if you destroy something physical, it can be seen as to not exist anymore. Perhaps what you dont understand is that consciousness inst physical, and hence cannot be destroyed in the way a building, or a human can. consciousness isn't located anywhere, the only way you can "remove" it from a human is to stop the process of their brain, which in my perspective is only a filtration system.

 

[Haim]

latelatelate reply

I agree that if you destroy something physical, it can be seen as to not exist anymore. Perhaps what you dont understand is that consciousness inst physical, and hence cannot be destroyed in the way a building, or a human can. consciousness isn't located anywhere, the only way you can "remove" it from a human is to stop the process of their brain, which in my perspective is only a filtration system.

consciousness is a physical thing, it is your brain.there is no soul, what you perceive as soul is just something else related to the brain.Burn a person brain and you wouldn't find consciousness.It is puzzling but in the end it just the brain notting magical.

 

[gladness]

latereply

And lastly, is your argument that consciousness exist independently of matter? It sounds like it. And what would be your argument to support that claim? If not, how is it that we "go" somewhere after we die.

yes that is what my argument is, more or less. the thing alot of people keep forgetting is that matter is an illusion, and its all just frequency perceived by us in different tones giving rise to perception. due to the current understanding of physics, it would be inpossible for consiousness (if it were physical) to just come and go the way you think it does.

Can you touch consciousness? can you locate it? the truth is that consciousness is not only everywhere, but it is everything and so to "go" somewhere after death seems like a trivial statement. how do you "go" to a thought? how do you "go" to a fictional place in your minds eye? you dont go there, you already are there, you just have to "look" for it. or contract your perception into a specific subsection of reality. so i would assume when we die we have the choice to inhibit stars, humans, ants, tables, as we choose.

 

[Stagename]

latelatelate reply

I agree that if you destroy something physical, it can be seen as to not exist anymore. Perhaps what you dont understand is that consciousness inst physical, and hence cannot be destroyed in the way a building, or a human can. consciousness isn't located anywhere, the only way you can "remove" it from a human is to stop the process of their brain, which in my perspective is only a filtration system.

Hey,

I sounded a bit angry in that previous reply. Sorry about that.

Anyway.

What do you make of a digital 3d world then? Isn't that comparable with the mind? The digital world is supported by computer hardware and electricity. Just as the mind is supported by the brain and energy.

So where does the digital world go when the computer is shut down or destroyed?

Nowhere. It does not exist as its existence is no longer supported by the computer. There is no indication to believe anything else in regard to the mind and consciousness.

 

[PaulMaster]

Time is an artificial tool for measurement we created. Like a yardstick. It measures rates of fluctuation.

Space is a thing. I believe that all things are waves in an ocean. Separate-ish, but nothing is entirely its own, independent entity.

Ultimately, there is only one giant thing - the Universe - that all "waves" are a part of. It is in constant flux.

 

[deltamind106]

Einstein demonstrated a very-convincing theory (the General theory of relativity) that has been experimentally verified to a remarkable degree of accuracy, that time and space do not exist separate from each other, but rather they form a single unified entity known as spacetime.

GPS (that you use to locate your position on the earth) requires the use of clocks that must be so accurate that they actually incorporate Einsteins theory of relativity to be accurate enough. Otherwise, without the adjustments imposed by the theory of relativity, your GPS position would be so far off that you couldn't use it to navigate the public roads. (For the curious, the satellites that transmit the signals to your GPS are *moving* in space, which affects the rate at which time passes for those satellites, which must be compensated for).

So, every time you turn on the GPS in your car, you're using a system that only works because it incorporates physics that assume space and time are a unified whole.

 

[HDINTP]

"Everything is energy and that's all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics"
Albert Einstein

 

[Sinny91]

Are we living ‘underwater’? Researchers believe the universe might be a ‘liquid superfluid’

New research suggest spacetime might be a type of ultra-cool fluid
Known as a superfluid, this phase of matter possess unusual qualities
It would provide a medium for waves and photons to travel like sound in air
But for it to exist the researchers say it would need a viscosity of zero
This could provide us with a new theory of 'quantum gravity'

What is ‘space’? Is it empty, or is it full of stuff that provides a medium through which photons, electromagnetic waves and everything else can move?
That’s a question scientists have yet to find an answer to, but a new theory suggests spacetime itself might be a ‘liquid superfluid’.
And, if proven true, it could force us to take another look at the Standard Model of physics.

In their paper Astrophysical Constraints on Planck Scale Dissipative Phenomena, they tackle the question of spacetime being a fluid.
They did this by creating models attempting to fuse gravity and quantum mechanics into ‘quantum gravity’.
One of the biggest problems in understanding the universe has been trying to figure out how things move through space.
Consider how waves move through water, for example – the wave propagates through the water, using it as a ‘medium’ through which to move.
As far as we know, a transfer of energy of this sort requires a medium, like how sound passes through air or heat through metal.
How, then do electromagnetic waves, photons and so on move through space, where there is believed to be nothing?
The supposed existence of a medium in space is more commonly known as an ether, but proving or disproving its existence has been a struggle.
In Liberati and Maccione’s research, they suggest that this ether is in fact a superfluid.
They say to us, the spacetime just appears as one ‘classical’ object, something that is whole.
But instead we should consider it as being merely the ‘visible’ aspect of a fluid.

In Einstein’s 1905 Theory of Special Relativity, he was the first to propose that space and time might be linked.
The term ‘spacetime’ was coined three years later by mathematician Hermann Minkowski.
Einstein postulated that the speed of light (about 300,000,000 metres per second) is the same for all observers.
He also said that anyone moving at constant speed would observe the same physical laws.
However, when someone moves through space, they would experience time at a slower rate.
This is because space and time can be thought of as one.
Consider a moon in orbit around a planet – the moon stays in orbit because the planet ‘warps’ space, keeping the moon snared in its gravity.
In the same way, if you were to synchronise two clocks and then fly one away at great speeds into space, they would lose their synchronisation.
This is because a great mass, or speed, can warp time just as it warps space.
Thus, Einstein concluded that space and time must be inherently linked as spacetime.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...chers-believe-universe-liquid-superfluid.html

Cosmo: April 25, 2014

The ETHER IS a superfuid and the matter and energy we can observe is just the visible portion of this fluid. When in a placid state, it's only observable effect is gravity....

Gravity is a flow...it is the energetic dimension of time

Cosmo has since been proven correct in regards to Gravitational Waves.

 

[sushi]

space is wave-like, i don't know what time is.

 

[gladness]

the only thing that separates understanding from knowledge and wisdom from truth, is faith. i now know the truth and i always thought it was a paradox. Nothing could be closer, or further to and from it.

 

[wanderingSpark]

space-time: 3 dimensions of space for every point in time.
Thinking of Einstein's space-time bed-sheet that sags with mass causing the vortex of gravity..

if space-time is like a sheet with all perceivable matter and energy on the top, what is on the underside? the other side of the coin.

maybe Time-Space: 3 dimensions of time for every point in space...