What is Time?

[Dan Rowden]

An aesthete sees a difference between a poop and a rose that is all about him. An aesthete is just a gaudy solipsist.

[Leyla Shen]

Time is causality.

Hungry today, for instance, we willingly learn from yesterday we won’t be fed without tomorrow.

[hsandman]

An aesthete sees a difference between a poop and a rose that is all about him. An aesthete is just a gaudy solipsist.

Ahh... I was working with this definition:
"aesthete"
A)

noun
one who professes great sensitivity to the beauty of art and nature

One who cultivates an unusually high sensitivity to beauty, as in art or nature.

And you with:

B)

"aesthete"
a person who affects great love of art, music, poetry, etc., and indifference to practical “worldly” matters.

I hate when word definitions can be so fuzzy/liberal. That "and" addendum makes all the difference. A) Druid becomes B )gaudy solipsist. :-S

Edit: *lol*
I will not buy this record, it is scratched.

Legendas Monty Python: The Dirty Hungarian Phrase Book
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Z5Sll7uow

[Dan Rowden]

No aesthete can ever be wise.

Is this your "pearl of wisdom" or did you take wrong turn somewhere step in it and brought it home on your shoe soule?

The wise person does not see life through aesthetic filters because such are borne entirely of the ego which discriminates between things on the basis of what empowerment it derives from them. What does it mean to say a thing is "beauteous"? It means nothing more than to say "this empowers my ego". Such dynamics do not and cannot exist in the wise.

Aesthetes also have this rather awful tendency to think their subjective, egotistical judgments are somehow facets of some kind of objective reality - i.e. that the world really is beautiful or ugly etc.

Where are you getting these contorted definitions of words from?

The English language. I get that you're familiarity with it isn't that intimate, but that's not my problem.

Wise,Genius.. I know the words Truth and Courage is meaning-less to you people as indicated by the lockdown of Worldly forum…

Yeah, I was really afraid of the stuff you were posting. I had to shut the place down before I had a mental meltdown. I know you're upset about it, sandman, but really, grow up.

Do you have special meaning for word Honesty as well, or is this boards motto some sort of twisted word pun at reality?

Honesty: telling it like it really is. That special enough for you?

There is more to Life. You don’t have to be a “machine/psychopath” to be wise and enlightened, you can also, at the same time be alive and enjoy and appreciate the ups and downs of this “time” and not just define “what it is”.

Well, then, I suggest you sit back and enjoy the "downs" of Worldly Matters being closed, if that's your philosophical outlook.

[Dan Rowden]

Time is a measurement of rate of change.

Yes

Without a consciousness that experiences change and has memory, time just wouldn't exist.

Ok,then my question to you is :what does man say in regard to this when he digs in the earth and observes layers of strata containing different species.Is this not ,at least empiricial evidence, that what you've described as time above 'passed'; prior to consciousness/memory?

How do we speak of time,during the 'time' of the early development of organisms? Do we say that the earth has "memory'"?

No, we wouldn't say that. In the example you give, the concept of time is being imposed on a state of affairs. What we do is essentially carve up the infinitely complex tapestry of causation into temporal increments according to how we tend to experience the passage of change. So, we bring the idea of the passage of time, in a specific way, to the layers of strata and the content therein. There's the continuum of change but no "time" till we put it there, time being a measurement of change or duration (duration being itself a measurement).

We can't help but do this because it's part of what discriminative consciousness is, but what we bring to phenomena isn't an objective part of what it is, it's intrinsic to what we are. It's like water bringing "wetness" with it wherever it goes.

You can see how relative and circumstantial our whole relationship to time is - whilst being absolute to our consciousness at its core. Say you find yourself on a planet that has no rotation (therefore permanent noontime), a landscape as bleak as the most "boring" red sand plains of Mars, no wind, no vegetation, just you and bleakness. What sense of time would you have? How would you measure it, there being no change occurring that you can perceive save the moment of your own mind and body?

When we say "time passes", what are we actually saying? Are we not simply saying: my consciousness is carving the world into temporal increments according to whatever rhythms loom largest in my mind?

[mikiel]

Someone here please tell me how you see the question, "what is time" related to the ongoing aesthetics question.
How is Truth related to Beauty? How is reification of "time" related to truth? (i.e., Is time objectively real or a human artifact?) If Beauty is 'in the eye of the beholder' (subjective) and time is an artifact of homosapien tendency to measure and record 'event duration'... how did aesthetics take over the thread?
Just a whim here, on how threads jump the track.

Anyone for a thread on how enlightenment sees aesthetics differently than before "E?'
Does it count that for "me" as an individual, everything not only shines its own light... a change in aesthetics, for this individual... but Truth stands as a principle independent of personal opinion?
Well, whether or not it 'counts' in the opinion of forum participants, ... the question remains.

Just a "happy hour" contribution for the amusement of the forum.
(Oh... Q: Why do I still drink as an 'enlightened one? Just kidding. (I do drink in moderation.) Why do I enjoy eating and sex so much? How unenlightened! Why am i still a biker who loves to bullshit with the local Free Souls? ...
Because i am a 'free soul'....
Just playing around here. Hope you all enjoyed the lack of seriosity... yup... i just coined a new word!
mikiel

[Steven Coyle]

Dan,

Couldn't the blissful state of enlightenment be semanticized! as, beautiful?

Or, to paraphrase Hakuin, "the brilliance of Nirvana"?

Surely, if one has removed attachments to words and things, labeling something as beautiful is only a transitory thing in and of itself. Is it not?

[Dan Rowden]

I'd be very uncomfortable with any such labels for enlightenment. It is not, for example, a "blissful" state. It is not a beauteous state or one with any such aesthetic dimension; it is literally free of all such things. This is why I try as much as possible to avoid dropping labels onto it, as they're all somewhat misleading in the end. "Liberation" is about the best and most benign label I can think of and even that can conjure up bad inferences in people (such as seeing an equivalence to Xian "salvation" and so forth).

So, basically, no, I wouldn't want to see enlightenment given a verbal paint job.

[Steven Coyle]

Dan,

I see your point, not wanting to label enlightenment with any words which may conjure preconception or prejudice. From my experience, enlightenment encompasses all states, so giving it a label is misleading - however, I gotta admit that its liberating qualities are often naturally blissful - as experience of the true Self, characterized by pure and sane thinking, is remarkably peacefully in essence. (Beautiful even!) jur. (-:

[Steven]

I'd be very uncomfortable with any such labels for enlightenment. It is not, for example, a "blissful" state. It is not a beauteous state or one with any such aesthetic dimension; it is literally free of all such things. This is why I try as much as possible to avoid dropping labels onto it, as they're all somewhat misleading in the end. "Liberation" is about the best and most benign label I can think of and even that can conjure up bad inferences in people (such as seeing an equivalence to Xian "salvation" and so forth).

So, basically, no, I wouldn't want to see enlightenment given a verbal paint job.

"Enlightenment is knowing the self" - Lao Tzu.

"Time seperates modes of Being" - Martin Heidegger.

As I understand it, time is a distinction between expressions or manifestations of possibility. As apple is distinct from orange, so ripe is distinct from rotten. Time keeps these distinctions seperate, yet existant.

Time when viewed from the subjective perspective of a particular manifestation of possibility, i.e. me, appears linear, directional, and does not allow me direct vision of another point in time. This is because my concurrent accumulation of thought and conclusion can only occur through one particular related chain of time seperated manifestations of possibility, and because my conclusions of perception do not co-incide within this particular manifestation of possibility with said particular entity.

Time is what allows relationships, change is a perception. All possible manifestations of existence differ not only in form, but in time, and it is time that allows relationships to ultimately equal each other, nothing, while being distinct, something.

Or, in the subjective perception of distinction of entity and relationship that equals nothing while existing, we perceive time.

[Ataraxia]

Ok,this is good stuff,Dan.I've been thinking along the same lines.

You can see how relative and circumstantial our whole relationship to time is - whilst being absolute to our consciousness at its core.

So then it must follow that "time travel" is not(nor will it ever be ) literally possible;in an ultimate,or objective sense.We can neither travel forward, nor back.Relatively speaking we can,but not ultimately.What has 'happened' has happened,and what will 'happen' in the future,will happen.We are forever,stuck in the now.

Moreover the physicist Dave Toast linked would be right in this regard.Causation can't be 'reversed'.

The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now."

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, anyone who thinks that the proposition of a eventually collapsing universe meant that time would be reversed is, to put it candidly (but probably unkindly), dumb as dirt.

[Ataraxia]

Right.So if causation is absolutely true,then so is "time can't reverse"

I don't have a problem with that personally.

[Tomas]

The title speaks for itself: what is time?

To narrow the question down a little, is time an intrinisic feature of the universe, or is it an a priori conceptual projection of the human mind?

Or could it be a product of the interaction of both these features (i.e. "objective" features of the universe meeting the "subjective" human mind)? Or is it something else altogether?

Time, some wit has said, is God's way of keeping everything from happening at once.

.

[mikiel]

Yes, anyone who thinks that the proposition of a eventually collapsing universe meant that time would be reversed is, to put it candidly (but probably unkindly), dumb as dirt.

Agreed. I like the oscillating (Bang/Crunch) cosmology, as I have "seen" it in vision all my life as a mystic. It was thought to have a major problem... the "missing matter" which is required for the cosmic critical density to allow gravity to bring it all back from the outer reaches of its expansion phase. But the "missing matter" is being found by new technology and techniques. Up to 90% of all matter doesn't emit or reflect light, but is now being increasingly detected.

Long story short, "Kosmos breathes" out (Bang) and in (Crunch.) So do animals like us humans, but we don't say "time goes forward on the outbreath and reverses on the inbreath."
Like you said, dumb. I like "dumb as a bucket of hammers."

Btw, the oscillating model also explains where "it all" came from before the bang. All other models just ignore the question... assuming "something out of nothing" just like the religious myth of God pulling cosmos out of a magic hat... only without the "agent" God.
They also say "time started at the bang." I guess it is then supposed to "end" at some point of total cosmic entropy. (Good luck to them positing the "moment" when that happens and "time stops.")
"Dumb-de-dumb-dumb!"... the dramatic music of the linear mind.
mikiel

[Steven]

Right.So if causation is absolutely true,then so is "time can't reverse"

I don't have a problem with that personally.

The assumption that the apparent motion of or within time is absolutely true pervades this topic, and pervades almost all historical and contemporary thinking on the question of time.

Supposing that the assumption carries some truth, that time has motion or causes/allows motion, then it is not possible for the human mind to experience any 'reversal' and to be aware of it, due to the very fact that any reversal would reverse the process of thinking and experiencing. Conclusion would lead to thought, thought would lead to experience, experience would lead to event, and the accumulated awareness and cognition of the subject would decrease and devolve.

We perceive a direction of time, because it is only by following this chain that experience can lead to thought, then to conclusion; it is only in this particular direction or sequence of events that thought develops and progresses. We cannot experience the reverse and know it. It is impossible. We can only experience and then know by experience preceding knowledge.

The entire perception of a sole direction of time is an illusion. The entire perception of directional time is I would go so far as to say also a complete illusion. What we experience is merely one of a myriad of possibilities, and what we are is also merely one of a myriad of possibilities. These myriad possibilities are all accounted for and make up the true "Universe" and we know this.

Our relationship to the definate is merely a relationship between possibilities. We see a definate large scale Universe, but these are definate only relative to us, and we ourselves are merely possible.

Another fallacy pervading this topic is the emergance of the Universe from the now non-existing Big Bang. Our perceived and relatively definate Universe is contained within the Big Bang, is bounded by the singularity we "think" produced us.

What we infact are, is another possible expression of the Big Bang. Our Universe contains what the singularity contains, and we perceive this Singularity in our "past," a prior form in some moving conveyor belt of singular existence. Its literal, physical form is seperate from us by the distance of time, a form we cannot experience directly because we do not belong to it directly, we are both mere expressions of the same thing. This is how we relate to the singularity, as a part of the totality including it, and as we "look" into the past we witness the coalescing threads of all possibility merging into our unified whole.

The singularity that is supposedly "behind us" not only bounds us entireally, but contains within it every possibility that we are not. Every possible "definate" Universe distinct from ours is contained within the true Universe we are a part of, and makes up the entirety we think we emerged from, but infact contains us.

The direction of time we think we perceive exists because we witness the contents of our thoughts, and all that is related to them. Time itself, the unfathomable engine and dimension of movement and change, is the awareness of distinction we have abstracted and embellished to intricate and knotty heights. The Universe itself the mere "entirety of all things" as both a whole and singular entity, and perhaps infinately diverse possible variations. The smallest, most simple, most bland encapsulates and bounds, and is contituted of the most large, complex, and varied.

Where do black holes lead? Where do galaxies expand to? Do blackholes lead behind and beyond? Do galaxies expand outwards? Do they not both lead inwards? Do they not both expand inwards? Does not all mass and all matter fall inwards under gravity? The singularity did not explode outwards, all distinction and "progression" is a mere part of it, and it bounds us, because it by absolute, irrefutable definition is our entirety, thus all logic must lead us in whatever direction and by whatever time towards it. We can never escape "the singularity" because we are already inside it.

[mikiel]

Steven,
This is not the thread for my several disagreements with your multi-faceted cosmology, but I do want to focus on the nature of "time" as an "engine" before this trail goes totally cold.
You said:
" Time itself, the unfathomable engine and dimension of movement and change, is the awareness of distinction we have abstracted and embellished to intricate and knotty heights."

An "engine" is an actual driving force or agent. Time, as I've said in several ways in this thread, is merely the concept of event duration. A perfectly valid concept, as long it it isn't reified into an actual entity or agent, as you have done in reference to it as an engine.

One more nit to pick... "Unfathomable?" Hardly. Pick an "event', any event. It becomes a designated event by your designation. Earth keeps turning and orbiting without a specific start/stop designation until we want to designate a day as one rev. or a year as one orbit... starting and ending whenever you punch the clock.

But aside from this nit picking, I will agree that "Time... is the awareness of distinction we have abstracted and embellished to intricate and knotty heights."

Like I've said "time" is one of my favorite topics now that science has fabricated a mythical fabric "spacetime" out of nothing (in both parts) which is very malleable, being bent every which way by gravity and all.
I say this "fabric" is the modern science version of "The Emporer's New Clothes." And, yes, I am arguing (in principle) with his greatness, Einstein on this one.
mikiel

[illrod]

By "continous of the present moment" are you implying that there is only one "moment" or continum that our minds divide into "past" "present" and "future"? Or something else altogether?

that is interesting. I would say that it is a continuous stream, as everywhere you look (not perceive, as perception supervenes sensation) you are in the present. Thinking of causality is what causes us to conceptualize the past or future without empirical evidence, i.e., if I am observing two dogs sniffing each other aggressively and whatnot, I may conceptualize a possible occurrence (them fighting) based off of observation of the present stream. Also, if I am to have this idea, I must retrieve the memory of those dogs interacting, so I am reaching into another portion, while still existing in the stream. If the dogs do begin fighting, I may search within my memory for the idea I had about them fighting, and say 'I saw it coming', thus assuring that I looked into a separate conceptual portion.

[Steven]

Steven,

" Time itself, the unfathomable engine and dimension of movement and change, is the awareness of distinction we have abstracted and embellished to intricate and knotty heights."

An "engine" is an actual driving force or agent. Time, as I've said in several ways in this thread, is merely the concept of event duration. A perfectly valid concept, as long it it isn't reified into an actual entity or agent, as you have done in reference to it as an engine.

One more nit to pick... "Unfathomable?" Hardly. Pick an "event', any event. It becomes a designated event by your designation. Earth keeps turning and orbiting without a specific start/stop designation until we want to designate a day as one rev. or a year as one orbit... starting and ending whenever you punch the clock.

But aside from this nit picking, I will agree that "Time... is the awareness of distinction we have abstracted and embellished to intricate and knotty heights."

mikiel

When time is viewed as an engine or dimension it is unfathomable, that is to say imperfectly explained. I should perhaps have used quotation marks instead of commas. The perception of time as an engine or dimension is the embellishment and abstraction of awareness of distinction. The perception of time as an engine or dimension is what is false, because it is not complete.

Einstein was a mathematician, hence the geometrical expression of his insightful change of perspective on relationships. Time can always be shown as physically existant in theories because forms relate and relationships can be extrapolated.

By "continous of the present moment" are you implying that there is only one "moment" or continum that our minds divide into "past" "present" and "future"? Or something else altogether?

that is interesting. I would say that it is a continuous stream, as everywhere you look (not perceive, as perception supervenes sensation) you are in the present. Thinking of causality is what causes us to conceptualize the past or future without empirical evidence, i.e., if I am observing two dogs sniffing each other aggressively and whatnot, I may conceptualize a possible occurrence (them fighting) based off of observation of the present stream. Also, if I am to have this idea, I must retrieve the memory of those dogs interacting, so I am reaching into another portion, while still existing in the stream. If the dogs do begin fighting, I may search within my memory for the idea I had about them fighting, and say 'I saw it coming', thus assuring that I looked into a separate conceptual portion.

Ask yourself whether it is necessary for an entire Universe to physically move in the presence of "time" when all that is necessary for the same effect is for conceptions to relate in the absence of "time".

Ask yourself why the Universe favours a "direction" that just so happens to be the "direction" necessary for experience to lead to conclusion.

Is it not true that awareness MUST perceive a direction of time/motion, and one direction only, irrespective of the factual existence of time/motion, if awareness is to exist at all?

Is it not true to say that a moment of experience that is related to moment of conclusion will inevitably relate to an illusion of directional time and Universal motion?

Is it not true to say that all possible forms of every existant thing is exactly how we know our Universe expresses the existance of entities at the fundamental level?

Is it not true to say that every existent entity is fundamentally reliant upon all possible forms of itself for its factual existence relative to other entities?

Is it not therefore true to claim that Time is an Illusion created by the FACT that all possible forms of existant entities concurrently exist and require relationship to each other for their existence?

[illrod]

Steven,

requiring a relationship to survive does not necessarily create that illusion. You could have dependency in a finite system, or with simply nothing changing. I would think the idea of all existent matter concurrently existing relative to one another would touch more on gravity rather than time. When a plant undergoes photosynthesis, I am not observing interdependent properties so much as I am observing gradual development.

[mikiel]

Steven:
---------------
"When time is viewed as an engine or dimension it is unfathomable, that is to say imperfectly explained. I should perhaps have used quotation marks instead of commas. The perception of time as an engine or dimension is the embellishment and abstraction of awareness of distinction. The perception of time as an engine or dimension is what is false, because it is not complete.

Einstein was a mathematician, hence the geometrical expression of his insightful change of perspective on relationships. Time can always be shown as physically existant in theories because forms relate and relationships can be extrapolated."
----------------

I see that I partly misunderstood you. But what I mean by the error of reification of time is making it into a real existing entity/medium/force... whatever. Once one "gets" that now is ongoing everywhere, the *concept* of duration or "elapsed time" is put into perspective. Of course it "takes 8+ minutes" for sunlight to reach Earth. But sunlight is steady on Earth constantly in the present. Now is always "the ongoing present" everywhere. This transcends relativity, which is about who can see what and when in the context of the constant speed, and speed limit of light.
Einstein and Minkowski "made something of it", (reified time), woven together with space (no-thing-ness) by using math as a creator of entities rather than a tool of descripton of actual existing entities. How else can we explain gravity?, he argued. We can't, yet, just like we can't yet explain action-at-a-distance between two "entangled particles" in quantum physics.
Well, I did go on about it...

mikiel

[brokenhead]

I may not be sure what time is, but I know the definition of "no time at all":
It's what elapses between the light changing to green and the guy behind you leaning on his horn.

[JustinZijlstra]

Steven:
---------------
"When time is viewed as an engine or dimension it is unfathomable, that is to say imperfectly explained. I should perhaps have used quotation marks instead of commas. The perception of time as an engine or dimension is the embellishment and abstraction of awareness of distinction. The perception of time as an engine or dimension is what is false, because it is not complete.

Einstein was a mathematician, hence the geometrical expression of his insightful change of perspective on relationships. Time can always be shown as physically existant in theories because forms relate and relationships can be extrapolated."
----------------

I see that I partly misunderstood you. But what I mean by the error of reification of time is making it into a real existing entity/medium/force... whatever. Once one "gets" that now is ongoing everywhere, the *concept* of duration or "elapsed time" is put into perspective. Of course it "takes 8+ minutes" for sunlight to reach Earth. But sunlight is steady on Earth constantly in the present. Now is always "the ongoing present" everywhere. This transcends relativity, which is about who can see what and when in the context of the constant speed, and speed limit of light.
Einstein and Minkowski "made something of it", (reified time), woven together with space (no-thing-ness) by using math as a creator of entities rather than a tool of descripton of actual existing entities. How else can we explain gravity?, he argued. We can't, yet, just like we can't yet explain action-at-a-distance between two "entangled particles" in quantum physics.
Well, I did go on about it...

mikiel

I made it fat.
Thanks for these words.

One can view it as myth being utilised more deeply, imagery is no space. But systematic imagery can create models to experience new things.

[Steven]

Steven:
---------------
"When time is viewed as an engine or dimension it is unfathomable, that is to say imperfectly explained. I should perhaps have used quotation marks instead of commas. The perception of time as an engine or dimension is the embellishment and abstraction of awareness of distinction. The perception of time as an engine or dimension is what is false, because it is not complete.

Einstein was a mathematician, hence the geometrical expression of his insightful change of perspective on relationships. Time can always be shown as physically existant in theories because forms relate and relationships can be extrapolated."
----------------

I see that I partly misunderstood you. But what I mean by the error of reification of time is making it into a real existing entity/medium/force... whatever. Once one "gets" that now is ongoing everywhere, the *concept* of duration or "elapsed time" is put into perspective. Of course it "takes 8+ minutes" for sunlight to reach Earth. But sunlight is steady on Earth constantly in the present. Now is always "the ongoing present" everywhere. This transcends relativity, which is about who can see what and when in the context of the constant speed, and speed limit of light.
Einstein and Minkowski "made something of it", (reified time), woven together with space (no-thing-ness) by using math as a creator of entities rather than a tool of descripton of actual existing entities. How else can we explain gravity?, he argued. We can't, yet, just like we can't yet explain action-at-a-distance between two "entangled particles" in quantum physics.
Well, I did go on about it...

mikiel

The explanation of gravity is fundamental to understanding our Universe. In all my life the distinction between explanation and description has been the focal point of my conscious existence.

This distinction is the primary reason why I visit this site so rarely, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

The question I posed in my above post, though not directly, is what sense can be made from a Universe lacking time, or a Universe in which human awareness is realised as requiring a perception of time?

The "on-going now" rejects the existence of a past or of a future, but it still requires the explanation of what enables its motion.

If ALL possible things exist then there is no Time and so it does not need explained, there is no Motion and so it does not need explained, there is only the perception of time and motion from existant entities that needs explained.

[mikiel]

Steven:
The explanation of gravity is fundamental to understanding our Universe. In all my life the distinction between explanation and description has been the focal point of my conscious existence.

[/b]The "law of gravity" doesn't "explain" how gravity works. It simply states that, universally, mass attracts mass, directly with massiveness and inversely with distance between masses. Einstein and Minkowski were trying to explain how gravity works when they *invented" the malleable medium, "spacetime" out of no-real-thing... as per the 'thought experiments' they were famous for.[/b]

This distinction is the primary reason why I visit this site so rarely, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

The question I posed in my above post, though not directly, is what sense can be made from a Universe lacking time, or a Universe in which human awareness is realised as requiring a perception of time?

The "on-going now" rejects the existence of a past or of a future, but it still requires the explanation of what enables its motion.

The universe is dynamic by nature, obviously not static in any sense, micro to macro. "What enables its motion" is not "time" (only a descriptive concept of any given event duration) but the actual physics of the forces behind its expansion and (according to the oscillation model) its contraction... perpetually cycling.

If ALL possible things exist then there is no Time and so it does not need explained, there is no Motion and so it does not need explained, there is only the perception of time and motion from existant entities that needs explained.

It seems that you are ignoring the common sense distinction between things that do actually exist and things that have existed (in the past) and might possibly come into existence in the (not yet existing) future. So your statement above posits a false premise, the "if" for openers. Time remains the description of "duration" (elapsed time) in the always ongoing Now, and motion is the very nature of this dynamic universe.

mikiel