• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

Time

7even

Active Member
Local time
Today, 12:00
Joined
Mar 15, 2012
Messages
368
What do you think of time? Just thinking about time really messes with my head. Do mammals perceive time in a similar manner as us? ... Is time an illusion? Would it make sense if I said it was the concept of time and one perceiving it being the main culprit in restricting our freedom?
What would the world be like if we ignored the concept of time?! ... Chaos? I would imagine we'd be focused on truly living life if that was the case...

Visualize 3 dots positioned vertically and are parallel to each other. If the middle dot signifies the present, the first being the past, and the third being the future. Wouldn't the middle dot remain static? While the other 2 dots representing the future and past be constantly repelling the middle dot moving in the opposite direction? (I'm going to draw something really cool)

I'm not really expecting a specific answer, (to any of the questions I even asked..) I'm just saying anything that comes to mind when I think of time.
What is even going on? Nothing makes sense!

Tick tock... I promise I'm sober and sane... I think.
 

Sanctum

Active Member
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
151
Im not good with time. I often feel that there is so little time with so much to do but i know for a fact its probably the opposite, but that's due to my lazy nature. I often have a misconception of time sometimes i think i need 2 hours to do something when i really probably only need 30 minutes. I haven't really been able to gauge time and it seems lately i never really pay time much attention if that makes sense, everything just mushes together.
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:00
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,026
The notion of recurring days of the week is falsely comforting. I have always found the concept quite odd. Thank God it's Friday!

When I feel most intellectually free from temporal demands, time ceases to exist.

Time was less of a factor when I was a kid. Ultimately, time is a learned noetic program. I really wasn't a happy kid though.

Time's necessary for coordinating business, but sort of impinges of human autonomy. The years get more and more swimmy the longer I stay alive.
 

7even

Active Member
Local time
Today, 12:00
Joined
Mar 15, 2012
Messages
368
Im not good with time. I often feel that there is so little time with so much to do but i know for a fact its probably the opposite, but that's due to my lazy nature. I often have a misconception of time sometimes i think i need 2 hours to do something when i really probably only need 30 minutes. I haven't really been able to gauge time and it seems lately i never really pay time much attention if that makes sense, everything just mushes together.
I'm very similar, though I feel like there's enough 'time' in the world to do anything I want to do, I feel like it's unlimited, or at least it should be, but sometimes it seems it's not and that yeah, it mushes together... Because other people seem to take time very seriously and seem to be more aware of it...? Blame it on society :p - While we're lost in our heads.. Don't know. But I'm lazy too, probably because I just don't want to do the things I'm meant to be doing, or something, but I completely get you...
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today, 12:00
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,650
First. Throw all time devices in the trashcan. Computer. News. Almost everything human made. Then you will achieve a more pure experience of time. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible. Our time system is ingrained deeply in about everything.

In short. I imagine that time is irrelevant. The past and the future are only memories and ideas. In that order. As for the present. Doesn't exist either, the universe would have to come to a halt.

Instead of time, I prefer to think of this as a journey. The universe is a spaceship(our solarsystem a shuttle to the modership). And we are traveling. Sit back and relax. We are actually just fuel. Probably. Organic material.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 00:00
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,116
The present is the intersection between the past and the future, it doesn’t exist in of itself, like a vector drawing of an 'X', the more you zoom in the more 'X' there is to see.

At least that's what I think.

Then if we consider that the past cannot be changed and the future is inherently unknowable (if not entirely unpredictable) then what we could call the past is an expression of absolute order and the future is an expression of absolute chaos (getting more chaotic or orderly the further you stray from the present) so that with the present being the point where chaos and order intersect we exist as a singular expression of an infinite possibility.

Answering the conundrum of why we could be anything but we are this.
Because "this" is only one "this" of an infinite set.
 

Mello

Gone.
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
1,041
Expect a thread called: Theory of Relativity in Mind and Reality
 

Nibbler

Being brains, they feel compelled to know everythi
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
190
Time for me: I get into the shower at 7:30am and am sort of shocked when I emerge from the shower and it's no longer 7:30am but much later.

(check time. start shower. start introverted thinking)

"What time is it? Oh yeah, 7:30."

(more showering, thinking)

"I guess I'll do XYZ before I leave. I have time. It's 7:30."

(more showering. more thinking)

"Water feels good. Nice quick shower."

(more showering. more thinking)

"I'm finished. Wait... EIGHT O'CLOCK?! How is that possible?!"
 

Sanctum

Active Member
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
151
Time is truly irrelevant its only a device maintain similarities among people, face it its easier to control people who are similar ( Communism). Even when it comes to death time is irrelevant death can be instantaneous and have nothing to do with how long you lived and even natural death isn't necessarily based on time, I've read that a life span is not measured in years but in the amount of times your heart beats.
 

Nibbler

Being brains, they feel compelled to know everythi
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
190
Time is truly irrelevant its only a device maintain similarities among people, face it its easier to control people who are similar ( Communism). Even when it comes to death time is irrelevant death can be instantaneous and have nothing to do with how long you lived and even natural death isn't necessarily based on time, I've read that a life span is not measured in years but in the amount of times your heart beats.
it's a stretch to link time with Communism. And time isn't irrelevant. It's an important measuring stick in collecting data, curing disease, and processing information.

But it can be difficult to keep up with when measured in daily life.
 

rattymat

Active Member
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
139
Location
New York
It is interesting, the image you created for me. I do think time exists though.
I believe time exists not because of my experiencing time in the fashion that I do, but considering the physical phenomena of change- the formation of our universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and even the formation of atoms and chemical compounds- well, all of these changes require time for them to exist.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,841
Location
California, USA
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=11969

Time comes to me in two ways.

The first is external time. It's the amalgamation and harmonious synchronization of all schedules, appointments, expectations, obligations, routines, standards etc that the everyone in the world operates on as a whole. For specific examples, birthdays, anniversaries, time you have to be at work/school, bus/train schedule, things like that.

The second sense of time is internal. It's formed out of your personal destinations and situation, your fate. Some examples are your death, emergent problems, nostalgic reflection, ETA of where you're going, emergencies or crises(or lack thereof)...

I feel little obligation towards the external sense of time because I don't understand why it is necessary to be synchronized. I feel everyone has their own personal life and situations to go through and this is complicated enough without the external world imposing on your state of mind. Because of this I tend to always be late or absent to appointments. I can easily drift off my sleep cycle. I never hurry to do things, unless it is of critical importance. I forget or disregard expectations and dates, and I don't like to work when everyone else is working. I prefer to work, live on my own time.​
 

RobdoR

Active Member
Local time
Today, 14:00
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
156
Things interact with each other in an orderly manner. Time is the name we give to this phenomenon. The sun and earth interact with each other in a cyclical, predicable manner, but imagine if our interactions were more chaotic and non-linear. How would that affect our perception of time? What if the sun rose and set randomly (within certain bounds)? Would time be useful? What would it measured against?

Up until a few hundred years ago, the sun, stars, and seasons were the only clock available. Did our ancestors feel the same way about time that we do in our overly regulated world?
 

gruesomebrat

Biking in pursuit of self...
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Somewhere North of you.
Time for me: I get into the shower at 7:30am and am sort of shocked when I emerge from the shower and it's no longer 7:30am but much later.

(check time. start shower. start introverted thinking)

"What time is it? Oh yeah, 7:30."

(more showering, thinking)

"I guess I'll do XYZ before I leave. I have time. It's 7:30."

(more showering. more thinking)

"Water feels good. Nice quick shower."

(more showering. more thinking)

"I'm finished. Wait... EIGHT O'CLOCK?! How is that possible?!"
lol, this is so incredibly true for me, except that the last bit should say 9:00 instead of 8.
 

Nibbler

Being brains, they feel compelled to know everythi
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
190
lol, this is so incredibly true for me, except that the last bit should say 9:00 instead of 8.
I have my bouts with that, too. heh. I guess I'm maturing since I've been able to set practical goals and keep to some of them. I can take a too-long of a shower and not make it a marathon shower that was "I swear I was only in there for maybe 10 minutes... 15 tops! What the fuck?" ;)
 

Philosophyking87

It Thinks For Itself
Local time
Today, 05:00
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
828
Location
Corpus Christi, Texas
I would suggest that anyone seriously interested in understanding time from the perspective of physics should go out and read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" (if you have not already done so).

In one of the later chapters, he discusses the arrow of time, which is essentially a product of the fact that we live in a closed system, in which there exists entropy. Hawking posits the notion that if there did not exist entropy, nothing would be in motion, as matter and energy - in a state of entropy - go from a state of order to disorder, such that there can be various states of matter. Thus, if there are various states of matter resulting from a one-way stream of matter and energy from order to disorder (and never the other way around), things will essentially seem to go forward. In other words, there will be a constant shift of arrangements of matter and energy to such an extent that we get the very effect of time.

If there were no entropy, and if matter and energy were not always going from states of order to disorder, Hawking suggests everything would be utterly frozen, with no moment, and hence, no time. And while there is a psychological aspect to time, this clearly shows - with brute intellect - why time makes sense as an objective feature of our world, rather than a mere illusion.

And, of course, as Einstein demonstrated, gravity seems to somehow have an effect on how fast or slow matter and energy seem to change states, such that time can literally seem to slow down or speed up.

[The question of "time" pissed me off for a long time. At first, I thought it was completely illusory, a mere product of perception. But after reading Hawking's book, I basically found the one final and logical answer I had been looking for as to what time actually is. Since reading that incredible chapter on the arrow of time, I have essentially felt intellectually satisfied as to what time is. Hawking's a damn genius.]

 

Nibbler

Being brains, they feel compelled to know everythi
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
190
I would suggest that anyone seriously interested in understanding time from the perspective of physics should go out and read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" (if you have not already done so).


When I was a puppy adult, I tried reading Hawking explain Relativity because I wanted to know what it was all about. I just didn't have the education or the attention span (ADD) to make it though. I would carry that damn book with me all over town and seriously try.

I have education and calmness of age now. I think it's time I tried again. I'd like to read the book you suggest, too.
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today, 18:00
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,837
Location
th
Time for me: I get into the shower at 7:30am and am sort of shocked when I emerge from the shower and it's no longer 7:30am but much later.

(check time. start shower. start introverted thinking)

"What time is it? Oh yeah, 7:30."

(more showering, thinking)

"I guess I'll do XYZ before I leave. I have time. It's 7:30."

(more showering. more thinking)

"Water feels good. Nice quick shower."

(more showering. more thinking)

"I'm finished. Wait... EIGHT O'CLOCK?! How is that possible?!"
9 here too.

I get sooooo much shit for this.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Today, 01:00
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
I believe that time is change is perception. Things must change in some manner or there becomes nothing to perceive and distinguish. Without some change, all is...well dead. And then it doesn't matter what it is that's dead because it has no way to distinguish itself. But consider the following analytical approach:

If you think about how actions can create reactions, it also gives the question of time a new meaning from ideas of causality. Then instead of a deterministic distinction of time that is thought dependent on previous causation, you are free to imagine the world as reacting against previous causation, rather than with it.

However, even though we could say that every action has a reaction, not everything acts or reacts immediately with everything else as Einstein showed with relativity.
So now we have a problem when we imagine time in terms of past, present, and future; past, present, and future requires us to move from state to state to state, from past to present and to the future. However, we know with relativity that our perception of past, present, and future now depends on our relation to what is acting and reacting around us. But what acts and reacts around us exists in different states of past, present, and future by the nature of relativity! If you imagine this to the extreme, it begs the question of how we can hope to describe time completely rather than with relative accuracy, if each action and reaction has its own variable and we can never be sure how many "action and reaction"s are to be accounted for in our understanding of time.
You may still however feel that is not compelling enough to believe. But now add on the problem that by "acting" ourselves in some manner, perhaps just by the nature of thinking about time, we influence, thus adding, another variable, a reaction, unto what we understand as time, inducing a change in how time acts or is "understood".

And now we can imagine why time is not deterministic and why ideas of past, present, and future could be inadequate. What then is time?
One might conclude that because things change, so too must time change, but so too then must time be dependent on the kind of change occurring around it and not any particular kind of change. Interestingly, then in describing time we attempt to encapsulate it, cage it, and give it a definite set of dimensions from which we pretend or believe it should have, as if there is a particular kind of change to be found. Now perhaps that's because it's easier to decide ourselves as being separable from time or a prisoner of time, rather than a part of it when our understanding of it is limited. But, regardless, isn't time what we are? Because what would we be perceived to be without time, if not nothing?

?
 

joal0503

Psychedelic INTP
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
700
excerpt from John Zerzan's Time and its Discontents

http://deoxy.org/timediscontent.htm

...

Just what is "time"? Spengler declared that no one should be allowed to ask. The physicist Richard Feynman (1988) answered, "Don't even ask me. It's just too hard to think about." Empirically as much as in theory, the laboratory is powerless to reveal the flow of time, since no instrument exists that can register its passage. But why do we have such a strong sense that time does pass, ineluctably and in one particular direction, if it really doesn't? Why does this "illusion" have such a hold over us? We might just as well ask why alienation has such a hold over us. The passage of time is intimately familiar, the concept of time mockingly elusive; why should this appear bizarre, in a world whose survival depends on the mystification of its most basic categories?

...

Time in Science

I'm not a scientist but I do know that all things begin and end in eternity. —The Man Who Fell to Earth, Walter Tevis
Science, for our purposes, does not comment on time and estrangement with anywhere near the directness of, say, psychology. But science can be re-construed to shed light on the topic at hand, because of the many parallels between scientific theory and human affairs.

"Time," decided N.A. Kozyrev (1971), "is the most important and the most mysterious phenomenon of Nature. Its notion is beyond the grasp of imagination." Some scientists, in fact, have felt (e.g. Dingle 1966) that "all the real problems associated with the notion of time are independent of physics." Science, and physics in particular, may indeed not have the last word; it is another source of commentary, however, though itself alienated and generally indirect.

Is "physical time" the same as the time of which we are conscious; if not, how does it differ? In physics, time seems to be an undefined basic dimension, as much a taken-for-granted given as it is outside the realm of science. This is one way to remind ourselves that, as with every other kind of thinking, scientific ideas are meaningless outside their cultural context. They are symptoms of and symbol for the ways of living that give rise to them. According to Nietzsche, all writing is inherently metaphorical, even though science is rarely looked at this way. Science has developed by drawing an increasingly sharp separation between inner and outer worlds, between dream and "reality". This has been accomplished by the mathematization of nature, which has largely meant that the scientist proceeds by a method that debars him or her from the larger context, including the origins and significance of his/her projects. Nonetheless, as H.P. Robinson (1964) stated, "the cosmologies which humanity has set up at various times and in various localities inevitably reflect the physical and intellectual environment, including above all the interests and culture of each society."

Subjective time, as P.C.W. Davies pointed out (1981), "possesses apparent qualities that are absent from the 'outside' world and which are fundamental to our conception of reality"—principally the "passing" of time. Our sense of separation from the world owes largely to this discrepancy. We exist in time (and alienation), but time is not found in the physical world. The time variable, though useful to science, is a theoretical construct. "The laws of science," Stephen Hawking (1988) explained, "do not distinguish between past and future." Einstein had gone further than this some thirty years earlier; in one of his last letters, he wrote that "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn, persistent illusion." But science partakes of society in other ways concerning time, and very deeply. The more "rational" it becomes, the more variations in time are suppressed. Theoretical physics geometrizes time by conceiving it as a straight line, for example. Science does not stand apart form the cultural history of time.

As implied above, however, physics does not contain the idea of a present instant of time that passes (Park 1972). Furthermore, the fundamental laws are not only completely reversible as to the "arrow of time"—as Hawking noted—but "irreversible phenomena appear as the result of the particular nature of our human cognition," according to Watanabe (1953). Once again we find human experience playing a decisive role, even in this most "objective" realm. Zee (1992) put it this way: "Time is that one concept in physics we can't talk about without dragging in, at some level, consciousness."

Even in seemingly straightforward areas ambiguities exist where time is concerned. While the complexity of the most complex species may increase, for example, not all species become more complex, prompting J.M. Smith (1972) to conclude that it is "difficult to say whether evolution as a whole has a direction."

In terms of the cosmos, it is argued, "time's arrow" is automatically indicated by the fact that the galaxies are receding away from each other. But there seems to be virtual unanimity that as far as the basics of physics are concerned, the "flow" of time is irrelevant and makes no sense; fundamental physical laws are completely neutral with regard to the direction of time (Mehlberg 1961, 1971, Landsberg 1982, Squires 1986, Watanabe 1953, 1956, Swinburne 1986, Morris 1984, Mallove 1987, D'Espagnant 1989, etc.). Modern physics even provides scenarios in which time ceases to exist and, in reverse, comes into existence. So why is our world asymmetric in time? Why can't it go backward as well as forward? This is a paradox, inasmuch as the individual molecular dynamics are all reversible. The main point, to which I will return later, is that time's arrow reveals itself as complexity develops, in striking parallel with the social world.

The flow of time manifests itself in the context of future and past, and they in turn depend on a referent known as the now. With Einstein and relativity, it is clear that there is no universal present: we cannot say it is "now" throughout the universe. There is no fixed interval at all that is independent of the system to which it refers, just as alienation is dependent on its context.

Time is thus robbed of the autonomy and objectivity it enjoyed in the Newtonian world. It is definitely more individually delineated, in Einstein's revelations, than the absolute and universal monarch it had been. Time is relative to specific conditions and varies according to such factors as speed and gravitation. But if time has become more "decentralized", it has also colonized subjectivity more than ever before. As time and alienation have become the rule throughout the world, there is little solace in knowing that they are dependent on varying circumstances. The relief comes in acting on this understanding; it is the invariance of alienation that causes the Newtonian model of independently flowing time to hold sway within us, long after its theoretical foundations were eliminated by relativity.

Quantum theory, dealing with the smallest parts of the universe, is known as the fundamental theory of matter. The core of quantum theory follows other fundamental physical theories, like relativity, in making no distinction in the direction of time (Coveny and Highfield 1990). A basic premise is indeterminism, in which the movement of particles at this level is a matter of probabilities. Along with such elements as positrons, which can be regarded as electrons moving backward in time, and tachyons, faster-than-light particles that generate effects and contexts reversing the temporal order (Gribbin 1979, Lindley 1993), quantum physics has raised fundamental questions about time and causality. In the quantum microworld common acausal relationships have been discovered that transcend time and put into question the very notion of the ordering of events in time. There can be "connections and correlations between very distant events in the absence of any intermediary force or signal" which occur instantaneously (Zohar 1982, Aspect 1982). The eminent American physicist John Wheeler has called attention (1977, 1980, 1986) to phenomena in which action taken now affects the course of events that have already happened.

Gleick (1992) summed up the situation as follows: "With simultaneity gone, sequentiality was foundering, causality was under pressure, and scientists generally felt themselves free to consider temporal possibilities that would have seemed far-fetched a generation before." At least one approach in quantum physics has attempted to remove the notion of time altogether (J.G. Taylor 1972); D. Park (1972), for instance, said, "I prefer the atemporal representation to the temporal one."

The bewildering situation in science finds its match in the extremity of the social world. Alienation, like time, produces ever greater oddities and pressures: the most fundamental questions finally, almost necessarily, emerge in both cases.

St. Augustine's fifth century complaint was that he didn't understand what the measurement of time really consisted of. Einstein, admitting the inadequacy of his comment, often defined time as "what a clock measures." Quantum physics, for its part, posits the inseparability of measurer and what is measured. Via a process physicists don't claim to understand fully, the act of observation or measurement not only reveals a particle's condition but actually determines it (Pagels 1983). This has prompted Wheeler (1984) to ask, "Is everything—including time—built from nothingness by acts of observer-participancy?" Again a striking parallel, for alienation, at every level and from its origin, requires exactly such participation, virtually as a matter of definition.

Time's arrow—irrevocable, one-direction-only time—is the monster that has proven itself more terrifying than any physical projectile. Directionless time is not time at all, and Cambel (1993) identifies time directionality as "a primary characteristic of complex systems." The time-reversible behavior of atomic particles is "generally commuted into behavior of the system that is irreversible," concluded Schlegel (1961). If not rooted in the micro world, where does time come from? Where does our time-bound world come from? It is here that we encounter a provocative analogy. The small scale world described by physics, with its mysterious change into the macro world of complex systems, is analogous to the "primitive" social world and the origins of division of labor, leading to complex, class-divided society with its apparently irreversible "progress".

A generally held tenet of physical theory is that the arrow of time is dependent on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (e.g. Reichenbach 1956), which asserts that all systems tend toward ever greater disorder or entropy. The past is thus more orderly than the future. Some proponents of the Second Law (e.g. Boltzmann 1866) have found in entropic increase the very meaning of the past-future distinction.

This general principle of irreversibility was developed in the middle decades of the 19th century, beginning with Carnot in 1824, when industrial capitalism itself reached its apparent non-reversible point. If evolution was the century's optimistic application of irreversible time, the Second Law of Thermodynamics was its pessimistic one. In its original terms, it pictured a universe as an enormous heat engine running down, where work became increasingly subject to inefficiency and disorder. But nature, as Toda (1978) noticed, is not an engine, does not work, and is not concerned with "order" or "disorder". The cultural aspect of this theory—namely, capital's fear for its future—is hard to miss.

One hundred and fifty years later, theoretical physicists realize that the Second Law and its supposed explanation of the arrow of time cannot be considered a solved problem (N=82eman 1982). Many supporters of reversible time in nature consider the Second Law too superficial, a secondary law not a primary one (e.g. Haken 1988, Penrose 1989). Others (e.g. Sklar 1985) find the very concept of entropy ill-defined and problematic, and, related to the charge of superficiality, it is argued that the phenomena described by the Second Law can be ascribed to particular initial conditions and do not represent the workings of a general principle (Davies 1981, Barrow 1991). Furthermore, not every pair of events that bear the "afterward" relation the one to the other bear an entropic difference. The science of complexity (with a wider scope than chaos theory) has discovered that not all systems tend toward disorder (Lewin 1992), also contrary to the Second Law. Moreover, isolated systems, in which no exchanges with the environment are allowed, display the Second Law's irreversible trend; even the universe may not be such a closed system. Sklar (1974) points out that we don't know whether the total entropy of the universe is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stationary.

Despite such aporias and objections, a movement toward an "irreversible physics" based on the Second Law is underway, with quite interesting implications. 1977 Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine seems to be the most tireless and public advocate of the view that there is an innate unidirectional time at all levels of existence. Whereas the fundamentals of every major scientific theory, as noted, are neutral with respect to time, Prigogine gives time a primary emphasis in the universe. Irreversibility is for him and his like-minded fellow believers an over-arching primal axiom. In supposedly nonpartisan science, the question of time has clearly become a political matter.

Prigogine (1985), in a symposium sponsored by Honda and promoting such projects as Artificial Intelligence: "Questions such as the origin of life, the origin of the universe, or the origin of matter, can no longer be discussed without recourse to irreversibility." It is no coincidence that non-scientist Alvin Toffler, America's leading cheerleader for a high-tech world, provided an enthusiastic forward for one of the basic texts of the pro-time campaign, Prigogine and Stenger's Order Out of Chaos (1984). Prigogine disciple Ervin Laszlo, in a bid to legitimate and extend the dogma of universally irreversible time, asks whether the laws of nature are applicable to the human world. He soon answers, in effect, his own disingenuous question (1985): "The general irreversibility of technological innovation overrides the indeterminacy of individual points of bifurcation and drives the processes of history in the observed direction from primitive tribes to modern techno-industrial states." How "scientific"! This transposition from the "laws of nature" to the social world could hardly be improved on as a description of time, division of labor, and the mega-machine crushing the autonomy or "reversibility" of human decision. Leggett (1987) expressed this perfectly: "So it would seem that the arrow of time which appears in the apparently impersonal subject of thermodynamics is intimately related to what we, as human agents, can or cannot do."

It is deliverance from "chaos" which Prigogine and others promise the ruling system, using the model of irreversible time. Capital has always reigned in fear of entropy or disorder. Resistance, especially resistance to work, is the real entropy, which time, history, and progress constantly seek to banish. Prigogine and Stenger (1984) wrote: "Irreversibility is either true on all levels or none." All or nothing, always the ultimate stakes of the game.

Since civilization subjugated humanity we have had to live with the melancholy idea that our highest aspirations are perhaps impossible in a world of steadily mounting time. The more that pleasure and understanding are deferred, moved out of reach—and this is the essence of civilization—the more palpable is the dimension of time. Nostalgia for the past, fascination with the idea of time travel, and the heated quest for increased longevity are some of the symptoms of time sickness, and there seems to be no ready cure. "What does not elapse in time is the lapse of time itself," as Merleau-Ponty (1945) realized.

In addition to the general antipathy at large, however, it is possible to point out some recent specifics of opposition. The Society for the Retardation of Time was established in 1990 and has a few hundred members in four European countries. Less whimsical than it may sound, its members are committed to reversing the contemporary acceleration of time in everyday life, toward the aim of being allowed to live more satisfying lives. Michael Theunissen's Negative Theology of Time appeared in 1991, aimed explicitly at what it sees as the ultimate human enemy. This work has engendered a very lively debate in philosophical circles (Penta 1993), due to its demand for a negative reconsideration of time.

"Time is the one single movement appropriate to itself in all its parts," wrote Merleau-Ponty (1962). Here we see the fullness of alienation in the separated world of capital. Time is thought of by us before its parts; it thus reveals the totality. The crisis of time is the crisis of the whole. Its triumph, apparently well established, was in fact never complete as long as anyone could question the first premises of its being.

Above Lake Silviplana, Nietzsche found the inspiration for Thus Spake Zarathustra. "Six thousand feet above men and time...," he wrote in his journal. But time cannot be transcended by means of a lofty contempt for humanity, because overcoming the alienation that it generates is not a solitary project. In this sense I prefer Rexroth's (1968) formulation: "the only Absolute is the Community of Love with which Time ends."

Can we put an end to time? Its movement can be seen as the master and measure of a social existence that has become increasingly empty and technicized. Averse to all that is spontaneous and immediate, time more and more clearly reveals its bond with alienation. The scope of our project of renewal must include the entire length of this joint domination. Divided life will be replaced by the possibility of living completely and wholly—timelessly—only when we erase the primary causes of that division.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today, 05:00
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,948
Location
Oklahoma
So what we have here is a clashing of times, with liturgical time being trumped by secular time. As I wrote last year:
[The] problem with Christmas ending early due to New Year's Day is that we are allowing secular time to trump liturgical time. Which defeats the whole point of the liturgical calender. Our lives are governed by the clocks of the world--the punchclock, the appointment book, the federal "holidays." The whole point of the liturgical calender is to create a "sanctuary in time," similar to the Jewish observance of the Sabbath.
To illustrate this, I went on to quote Abraham Heschel's description of how how Jews use the Sabbath to create "holiness in time," that the life of the spirit is less about the geography of place than the topography of time.

We shouldn't go to holy places as much as create holy times:

The Bible is more concerned with time than with space. It sees the world in the dimension of time. It pays more attention to generations, to events, than to countries, to things; it is more concerned with history than with geography. To understand the teaching of the Bible, one must accept its premise that time has a meaning for life which is at least equal to that of space; that time has a significance and sovereignty of its own...

Judaism is a religion of time aiming at the sanctification of time. Unlike the space-minded man to whom time is unvaried, iterative, homogeneous, to whom all hours are alike, qualitiless, empty shells, the Bible senses the diversified character of time. There are no two hours alike. Every hour is unique and the only one given at the moment, exclusive and endlessly precious.

Judaism teaches us to be attached to holiness in time, to be attached to sacred events, to learn how to consecrate sanctuaries that emerge from the magnificent stream of the year. The Sabbaths are our great cathedrals...

The meaning of the Sabbath is to celebrate time rather than space.


http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2013/01/cathedrals-of-time.html
.:Davidstar:
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Today, 01:00
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
Wow, thanks, @joal0503.

edit:
To add to what joal posted, if time is dimensionless or it doesn't elapse, it could also be thought of as an uncountable set.
In an uncountable set, all types of order are possible from infinite disorder, making time travel and everything that's mentioned very real and possible. Then the only component to any order of time would be our perception.
 

givalentine

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
13
Location
California
Wow. Ok that was a lot of information, haven't posted in years. But this is mainly what my degree is on, Philosophy of Time and Time Travel.
Firstly, initial posts discuss the experience of time, which is more the field of psychology or neuroscience. And there is of course, the dreaded "mental time travel" which isn't really time travel in the slightest sense, but discusses the feeling of having an hour pass by quickly or slowly for example. Might want to clarify what you mean by "time." A distinction between personal or local time (that is, time as we experience it) and external time (in the universe, or in theoretical "pockets" where the time functions differently from our personal experience) is also important to be considered.

Secondly, on the achingly long scientifically based post on time, there are a lot of things in there that aren't necessarily correct. I highly recommend Barry Dainton's TIme and Space if anyone is interested. I think the last edition is 2010 so you're in relatively (PUN INTENDED) good hands in terms of current science (quantum theory, Gold universes, entropy, string theory, and the like...). There are several theories about the nature of time that are in the forefront right now. The main ones being the four-dimensional block view (see David Lewis), Presentism, Endurantism, and Perdurantism. For what its worth, Lewis' theory suggests that each "slice" of time is actually real. He also ascribes to modal realism - a theory about the multitude of worlds. By worlds I mean every logically possible world IS ACTUALLY a world, but it is completely spatio-temporally isolates from our own. He does set a lower limit to the number of worlds - 2c (Beth two...or two to the power of the continuum) which is literally too big for me to tell you what it is. Yes its a real thing. Anyway, these theories disagree on whether the present, past, future are equally real...also on whether time itself is real (see McTaggart for a start). Of course, thw word "real" is subject to some discussion too.

One of the first posts there was talking about the present being a sort of crossing of the past and future rather than a thing in itself. I think you are using a lot of the logic of Zeno and the early Greeks, and also talking about trying to combine A and B theories of time (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is a great place to look google that)..if you want to start way back there read Zeno's Paradoxes. The disagreement after Zeno was on the nature of time (Heraclitus and Parmenides). Keep in mind there are dozens of sound objections to Zeno, but the ideas are wonderful to read anyway.

Generally, I wouldn't say that relativity is against the existence of time, even time as we experience it. There is a difference if you are considering the special versus general theory, but that begins when more complex questions are being asked about the reality of the past or future (determinism, backward causation, etc). For example, things like light cones, information, and memory seem to only work in the past-to-future time arrow (see huw price Time's arrow and Archimedes Point). True, einstein himself was a skeptic about the reality of time. But he had many a disagreement with philosopher Gödel about that. No matter how much you read, it seems to come down to the need of a unifying theory between relativity and quantum mechanics. Time at it is actualized in our universe is definitely NOT the only way that it can logically be. And these arguments get so intricate. They begin with a theory about the nature of space itself (which can either be a relationist or substantivalist view of space). Its also nice to keep in mind that just like the particles in the universe proportionally match the elements within us and our environment (hence why we are carbon-based, etc), we are also in an ideal state of entropy to experience a "time." Of course, these are contingent facts.

So really, clarify the question you have if you could. Or else i'm going to sit here and type forever about the useless facts about time I know.
 

givalentine

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 03:00
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
13
Location
California
Oh, and the nature of time does have a lot to do with trying to explain the origin of causal chains themselves. That gets more complicated later with causal loops in time travel and the origins of the universe itself. Hawking says that asking what became before the Big Bang (so a time before time) is like asking "what's north of the north pole." A good thing to keep in mind....unless you ascribe to the theory of baby-universes or have a good explanation of the origin of causal chains in your back pocket.
 

Wolf18

a who
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
575
Location
Far away from All This
What do you think of time?
I'm not really expecting a specific answer, (to any of the questions I even asked..) I'm just saying anything that comes to mind when I think of time.
What is even going on? Nothing makes sense!
I see time as standing still as we move through it. Sort of like frames in a camera or film. Every moment stands by itself, and is a separate dimension, so that we are not ever actually moving, we instead travel through dimensions. The problems come up when I am asked how each moment is measured. I have absolutely no idea.

SW
 

Nezaros

Highly Irregular
Local time
Today, 04:00
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
594
Location
Returning some videotapes
I think it's an awesome song.

Really though, I've always thought time to be a concept invented by the mind. Matter interacts with itself, which causes things to happen. Time is just an arbitrary measure we use to keep track of what happens in what order.
 

Wolf18

a who
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
575
Location
Far away from All This
Really though, I've always thought time to be a concept invented by the mind. Matter interacts with itself, which causes things to happen. Time is just an arbitrary measure we use to keep track of what happens in what order.
it's a fair point, but doesn't it get dull? It's far more interesting to think of time as something beyond our minds. Also, by your definition, time only applies to creatures that have minds that are complex enough to process it, but everything is affected by time. Even rocks.

SW
 

gilliatt

Active Member
Local time
Today, 06:00
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
296
Location
usa
Going back to Galileo's time there were no decent methods for measuring intervals of time accurately. In 1656 the Dutch scientist Christian Huygens devised a method for having the hands of a clock driven by the even motion of a swinging pendulum. We understood that a swinging pendulum swings with an even periodicity, independent, to a certain extent, of the size of the swing. Galileo knew this fact. How to check time? There is the rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun(the day). The rotation of the Moon around the Earth(the month). An the revolution of the Earth about the Sun(the year). I would say there is nothing in the sky shorter than a day in which to check. But not so fast, a telescope changes everything. We got Moons of other planets as a check of time.
 

Wolf18

a who
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
575
Location
Far away from All This
Going back to Galileo's time there were no decent methods for measuring intervals of time accurately. In 1656 the Dutch scientist Christian Huygens devised a method for having the hands of a clock driven by the even motion of a swinging pendulum. We understood that a swinging pendulum swings with an even periodicity, independent, to a certain extent, of the size of the swing. Galileo knew this fact. How to check time? There is the rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun(the day). The rotation of the Moon around the Earth(the month). An the revolution of the Earth about the Sun(the year). I would say there is nothing in the sky shorter than a day in which to check. But not so fast, a telescope changes everything. We got Moons of other planets as a check of time.
Well, the problem with that is that time is happening between seconds. It is not that time stops in time for the pendulum to complete its swing, because then the pendulum would be operating outside of time. The only way to measure ALL time would be with quantum mechanics, and I'm not sure of the best way to go about that (or any way, to be honest).

SW
 

Nameless01

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
8
Time is like that place in the sidewalk that always has a puddle when it rains.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today, 12:00
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
I think it's an awesome song.

Really though, I've always thought time to be a concept invented by the mind. Matter interacts with itself, which causes things to happen. Time is just an arbitrary measure we use to keep track of what happens in what order.
isn't the progressive order of causal events what we call time?
 

Bonbonnom

Member
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
36
time is not an illusion and i hate it when people ask this because it is such a stupid question. Do you age? if so, then time is not an illusion. You may be confusing time with the measure of time. Time exists but the measurements we use: seconds minutes and hours; are quite literally made up.

If you ignored time, all you would do is suffer the consequences without understanding the cause and effect leading to those consequences. Just because you ignore something doesn't mean it's not there. that's like trying to ignore the tiger that's gnawing on your half eaten leg and thinking if you do that your leg will still be there.

parallel refers to lines. if the dots are positioned the way you say, then simply saying vertically or to specify more, saying in a straight line, should suffice for most people.

Why do you view time as 3 separate entities. the present is both the past and the future. One thing i hate is when people say live in the now because time isn't real. Well when they realize that the future is the present and when they're finally in the present to come, they'll suffer the consequences of their idiocy. The past is simply the present that has occurred and the future is the present that has not occurred. Everything is the present. There is not past nor future, not because they don't exist, but because they exist simultaneously with the present. Without the past you show there was never a present to begin with and without the future you show that time is not moving. Once time stops, it ceases to exist. Thus since both past and future are required for time and thus the present to exist, they are one and the same, yet they are 3 separate entities.

A good analogy is to compare it to water. ice is the past, liquid water the present and steam the future. They can not exist at the same time, but ice will always, eventually, turn to liquid (barring sublimation for the sake of the analogy). The only place to go if the environment is only getting warmer is for it to turn to steam. the only bad thing about this analogy is that this is finite, time is not.

The only other way to explain it is using your depiction, instead of having them separate, overlap them like a ven diagram. Don't stretch them, just let them sit there. This is time. It does not move, it does not pass us by, it simply is.

the past is needed to predict the future and to give way to the present. the present is needed as a plane of existence and to give way to the future. The future is needed as a destination coming from the present and to allow change. They are all interconnected, not separate, and the moment you separate them, you've failed to grasp the concept of time.
 

Bonbonnom

Member
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
36
First. Throw all time devices in the trashcan. Computer. News. Almost everything human made. Then you will achieve a more pure experience of time. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible. Our time system is ingrained deeply in about everything.

In short. I imagine that time is irrelevant. The past and the future are only memories and ideas. In that order. As for the present. Doesn't exist either, the universe would have to come to a halt.

Instead of time, I prefer to think of this as a journey. The universe is a spaceship(our solarsystem a shuttle to the modership). And we are traveling. Sit back and relax. We are actually just fuel. Probably. Organic material.
You misunderstand the idea of what the present is. The present isn't a single point where we exist. The present is the meeting point between the past and the future. In time travel shows and things you'll often see them break through some sort of barrier type thing. That's basically the present except you can't really break through it. Time travel is impossible because while past and future exist, they don't exist separately from the present and thus you can't travel back or forward to get to one or the other. Experiments where they claim to have "time traveled" in which an quickly aging material was slowed from aging, that wasn't time travel, that was the slowing of time. Similar to cryogenics.
 

Bonbonnom

Member
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
36
Time is truly irrelevant its only a device maintain similarities among people, face it its easier to control people who are similar ( Communism). Even when it comes to death time is irrelevant death can be instantaneous and have nothing to do with how long you lived and even natural death isn't necessarily based on time, I've read that a life span is not measured in years but in the amount of times your heart beats.
but a heart is still set to beat a certain amount of times over a certain period of time, with minor fluctuations here and there. Time isn't irrelevant, it just isn't the sole factor. What you're suggesting is like trying create a test, getting the results, but instead of finding the percentages, you just take the number right. this tells you information about a single instance, but only the percentage will tell you about the past and the outlook of the future.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
Location
Schmocation
You misunderstand the idea of what the present is. The present isn't a single point where we exist. The present is the meeting point between the past and the future. In time travel shows and things you'll often see them break through some sort of barrier type thing. That's basically the present except you can't really break through it. Time travel is impossible because while past and future exist, they don't exist separately from the present and thus you can't travel back or forward to get to one or the other. Experiments where they claim to have "time traveled" in which an quickly aging material was slowed from aging, that wasn't time travel, that was the slowing of time. Similar to cryogenics.
The slowing of time creates time travel relative to everything else...

I get what you are saying, but it's just pedantic semantics.

You can't fire yourself into your own future or past, but you can fire yourself into the future or past.

Time travel does exist; simply look up on a clear night.
 

Bonbonnom

Member
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
36
The slowing of time creates time travel relative to everything else...

I get what you are saying, but it's just pedantic semantics.

You can't fire yourself into your own future or past, but you can fire yourself into the future or past.

Time travel does exist; simply look up on a clear night.
looking up on a clear night isn't time travel it's still just the passing of time.

Otherwise i can see what you're saying and yes it is somewhat semantics. But if what you are saying is truly time travel, then sitting on my couch doing absolutely nothing is still technically time travel just as well since i'm moving through time. Not having aged is not the same as time travel. Time travel at least in the way i was referring was the skipping through time, not moving through it in a frozen state.

I won't say that what i said was wrong, but i'll admit that the wording was poor. I should have specified by saying "time travel, as one would see in a more sci-fi setting." But generally i believed it was still easy enough to discern the differences. Your statement really doesn't add anything. it highlights flaws in my presentation, not in the material.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
Location
Schmocation
Looking up at the stars is looking into their past - time travel. Many are billions of light years away and therefore, may not even exist anymore. We are looking at echos of stars.

The sun's light along with it's gravitational pull are from 8 minutes ago. These are the past being experienced in the present. If the sun were to somehow vanish instantaneously, we wouldn't know or feel any difference for 8 minutes. Technically, to us, the sun is 8 minutes in the future.

There are many ways to pass through time at different rates. Not all of them are science-fiction either.

GPS works on the basis of time travel. The satellites in space are moving through time faster than we are on Earth. Sure, the difference in time is small, but it is enough to create problems if not taken into consideration.

Flying close to a black hole would take you quite far into the future, as would travelling at very, very high speeds - >90% speed of light.

Time is always relative
 

Bonbonnom

Member
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
36
Looking at anything is looking into its past. whether it's a second or a millionth of a second it's still in the past. I think our discrepancy here is two different ideas of what time travel we're talking about and as i'm sobering up and waking up for the day i realize that.

Now i think i can formulate my ideas a bit better. What i'm trying to get across is that regardless of one's perception of the passage of time, you are still experiencing it in the present. True time travel requires the all to cliche paradox of existing as 2 of the same beings in one time period. That in itself is the proof you've actually gone into the future. The extra you shows that it is a different time than your own. If anything you're age traveling not time traveling. I hope that makes a bit more sense. Yes it is partly semantics, but this way you'll probably be able to understand my point a bit better since i'm sure i made it a bit confusing before.
 
Top Bottom