GENIUS FORUMS

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.

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.

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.

Steven wrote:

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.

This does not tell us anything that our eyes could not already tell us, albeit the inverse square law could prove a platform from which a mind of greater abstraction than ours reveals some lesson or insight upon the deeper workings of our perceived cosmos.

It tells us that all mass attracts all other mass. If there is enough mass to equal "critical density", (i.e., the "missing matter" is found... and that is happening), then the outward expansion will eventually be reversed and the "crunch" half of the whole cycle will begin. I have "seen" this in vision all my life as a mystic, and now science is getting close to verifying that the oscillation model is workable

This is neither here nor there to our current discussion as I read it. One may describe what ones sees, and do so with mathematics, geometry, and the approval of the scientific community, but this does not make it factual truth, especially when errors and problematics are found within theories.
Our discussion is about "time." We are sharing cosmologies that address the questiuon, ie. the nonsense about time as an actual force or "engine" and the complete "dumbness" of time having a beginning and ending. Such linear thinking should be the functional definition of moronic... not that I am saying you endorse such nonsense.

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.

Underlying the perception of an event duration is the perception of change, and while Time may be recognised as the duration of an event or perhaps the scale of a dimension it is inevitable the Time is premised upon perception of change.

I have no problem with this.

Thus any dynamic Universe is governed by Time, albeit not Time as is commonly used. When the perception of a dimension containing various incarnations of the present is rejected in favour of a "dynamic now" the underlying principle is still that of Time Allowing Change.
Here you go into your own metaphysica philosophy. Time is not an active agent of any sort, so it 'governs' nothing. "Dimension" has become a meaningless word since the M-theory camp has made up "11 dimensions" to unify the 5 or 6 versions of string theory into imaginary "membrabne universes"...etc. Change happens via the four known universal forces, plus perhaps the "force" of the omnipresent Consciousness... which remains metaphysical at this point in science. The duration of any change's 'elapsed time' can be designated, but this doesn't mean that "Time Allows Change."

One cannot reasonably accept the cessation or absence of time untill one accepts the cessation or absence of motion. Time, regardless of its popular usage, is the concept that describes a perception of change, of motion.

Yes, merely the concept of duration, in no way a cause of motion.

"Perpetually Cycling" means only that you no longer regard Time as a dimension, but as an engine allowing change, whatever that may be.
Again, not an "engine", just a concept of "how long *it* takes for a given, designated event to happen, and the "it" is no agent, anymore than the "it" in "It is raining."

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.

I do ignore the distinction because I regard all of these, past present and future, as seperate yet related modes of existence. I do not experience all the possible "me" that Quantum Mechanics tells us concurrently do exist, and nor do I experience my past or my future as I experience my present. The common sense position would tell us that one me exists, and exists now, but I reject this position. It is fair to say that "this is what I think I experience" and this is the only a priori truth of the situation.

You are confusing potentials with actual manifestations, regarding what quantum mechanics tells us about what exists actually vs potentially.... Heisenburg's uncertainty principle and all that... "virtual particles" as waves of potential not yet 'collapsed' into 'a real boy.'
As to the "me"... it is an illusory identity, supposed to be separate from the world/cosmos of "not-me." All illusion. There is One Universal Identity in/as all forms/individuals

So your statement above posits a false premise, the "if" for openers.

The false premise of "If" is only false in this particular context if your mind is not open to alternative perspectives.

Time remains the description of "duration" (elapsed time) in the always ongoing Now, and motion is the very nature of this dynamic universe.

First and absolute, motion is the very nature of your experience of this Universe.

Second, Time may be the description of duration but it is premised upon the cognition of change.

mikiel wrote:It tells us that all mass attracts all other mass. If there is enough mass to equal "critical density", (i.e., the "missing matter" is found... and that is happening), then the outward expansion will eventually be reversed and the "crunch" half of the whole cycle will begin. I have "seen" this in vision all my life as a mystic, and now science is getting close to verifying that the oscillation model is workable

Our discussion is about "time." We are sharing cosmologies that address the questiuon, ie. the nonsense about time as an actual force or "engine" and the complete "dumbness" of time having a beginning and ending. Such linear thinking should be the functional definition of moronic... not that I am saying you endorse such nonsense.

Here you go into your own metaphysica philosophy. Time is not an active agent of any sort, so it 'governs' nothing. "Dimension" has become a meaningless word since the M-theory camp has made up "11 dimensions" to unify the 5 or 6 versions of string theory into imaginary "membrabne universes"...etc. Change happens via the four known universal forces, plus perhaps the "force" of the omnipresent Consciousness... which remains metaphysical at this point in science. The duration of any change's 'elapsed time' can be designated, but this doesn't mean that "Time Allows Change."

Again, not an "engine", just a concept of "how long *it* takes for a given, designated event to happen, and the "it" is no agent, anymore than the "it" in "It is raining."

Change happens via the four known universal forces, plus perhaps the "force" of the omnipresent Consciousness... which remains metaphysical at this point in science.

mikiel wrote:Time is the *concept* of event duration, not a real thing in any sense but the "elapsed time" it takes anything and everything to happen... always in the present.

Vroomfondel wrote: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?

Dan Rowden wrote:No aesthete can ever be wise.

Vroomfondel wrote:The title speaks for itself: what is time?