A Position on Time

[morethanasphere]

I posit that time does not exist, that time is nothing more than an intellectual construct employed by consciousness to measure change. In a universe lacking consciousness, a conscious being, ie the observer, nothing would be different from the universe we know. There would still be entropy, things would change. There would still be motion, velocity, etc. There would be accretion and sublimation, growth and decay, etc. But with no one to observe this and measure it, keep track of it and add it all up, there would be no such thing as time. Consciousness in this context would include all forms of life, known or unknown, bodied or bodiless. So in a universe without life, ie consciousness, there would be no such thing as time, as time is nothing more than an intellectual construct.

This position has significant even grave implications as regards physics insofar as presently understood, ie "space-time." It may be that a fundamental error was made in the last 100-150 years or so, and much backtracking and rethinking will need to be done.

Refutations welcomed.

 

[IJesusChrist]

time describes the change in movement - you can't have acceleration without time. It truly does exist, however, it does not have to be linear - so actually I have made the same arguement myself.

A more direct question I think, maybe is: "Did the universe exist without life?"

i.e. is consciousness the only reason it exists - much the same way "If a tree falls in the forest, and nothing is around to hear it - did it make a sound?" Sure it made vibrations, sure it fell - but there was no conscious perception of it.

Time, in my opinion, is simply an amazing dimension in which consciousness perceives linearly - there is no reason why we should not be able to view it in entirity - example being Who watches the watchmen, and kurt vonnegut's book slaughter house five: The blue man, and the aliens respectively do not perceieve time as linear events, but rather are conscious of their entire existance from birth to death, and simply choose what to view.

This however does defy the laws of physics (i.e. travelling back in time to some extent but consciousness as an idea cannot act on the past) but really has no reason to prevent it.

 

[morethanasphere]

you can't have acceleration without time

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. You can't have acceleration without time. "You" being the observer. Conversely, time can't exist without the observer.

I once read that Hawking said somewhere that there's no rational reason we can't "remember" the future as well as the past, like it's a choice we all make. Early psychedelic pioneers like Huxley saw hallucinogens as ways to open the "reducing valve" placed on consciousness, either willfully by the individual or imposed by society collectively.

Here's something about time travel...If it's actually possible, it's being done right now. If it's physically possible, someone, somewhere, some-when will invent it and do it. At first it will be very expensive, the exclusive province of military and other gov't groups. Eventually though, like computers in our own frame of reference, it will become cheap, even commonplace, easily affordable by all or at least many. Sooo....time travelers from the future are here now. Keep your eyes out for them. They'll be well-briefed, but not perfectly in sync with our ways and mores. And look at the teeth. The teeth are a dead giveaway.

 

[IJesusChrist]

Have a feeling you didn't read my post - I said exactly what you quoted from Stephen Hawking.

No there is no time-travel to the past. First then time would exist, would it not? Secondly, the grand-father paradox.

 

[BrainEater]

 

[morethanasphere]

Have a feeling you didn't read my post - I said exactly what you quoted from Stephen Hawking.

Actually, that's why I responded as I did, so you'd know I have a similar frame of reference.

No there is no time-travel to the past. First then time would exist, would it not?

Time travel requires a traveler, an observer. Without an observer, there is no time.

What's the grandfather paradox? I know what it is. It's a point of divergence.

 

[IJesusChrist]

What? It's going back in time and killing your grandfather before your father is born - thus making you forever unexistant... but who killed your grandfather? You don't exist.

 

[BrainEater]

"reality is what you can get away with, because if you can't get away with it, it ain't real" -RAW

"who is the master, who makes the grass green?" -RAW

fuck off and go find the "outside" representations of your brain if that's what is so important for you.

:finga:

 

[ophiuchus]

12 monkeys! terry gilliam would love to weigh in on this im sure

 

[IJesusChrist]

BrainEater, why not try to use some logic, rather than psychadelic wishwash wam bam vortex vertigo fractal mind conundrum pseudoscience poop face?

 

[BrainEater]

because i can and because i want. sigh. yawn. why not intelligence, instead of stupidity, i ask you?

 

[morethanasphere]

What? It's going back in time and killing your grandfather before your father is born - thus making you forever unexistant... but who killed your grandfather? You don't exist.

Nooo, you created a divergence point and split a new timeline off the old one. Eventually, though, at some point further on, all the timelines reconverge back into one.So no worries.

 

[IJesusChrist]

and you know this how?

How can it converge if in one you never exist, and the other you do?

That would mean time is not linear, and time can be manipulated, making it a real subject, rather than an arbitrary one. There is no travelling into the past.

 

[BrainEater]

you are right. there is only relativity towards the NOW. which is effectively all there is anyway. hence travelling into the past, would mean, to oppose what there was, or what there IS and what came to be . if that makes sense, it is only logical, you could only come back from the future, so to speak, if there actually were such a thing as a NOW. the question is, would you be able to "come back" to such a thing like the past, if there ever was such a thing in the first place, regarding the totality of a possible existent NOW, that could or would be, at any time.

 

[BrainEater]

"men feared time, yet time fear the pyramids" - vinnie paz

 

[morethanasphere]

and you know this how?

Branes

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -of-branes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_(M-Theory)

 

[IJesusChrist]

I will never take you seriously if you take Brane theory seriously.

 

[morethanasphere]

I will never take you seriously if you take Brane theory seriously.

Well, you are some dude declaring himself JesusChrist on a druguser website and she is nothing more than an eminent particle physicist, so yeah, I see your point. I mean, you know all there is to know, right? Nothing was not made but for you and all that? I get it. Pardon me for not digging on your scared rap. Think I need a bonghit or something?

 

[BrainEater]

yo keep blinding yourself!!! :mrgreen:
just kidding ok!

so it's like this: speed of light is the minimum speed of space/time. by moving we just leave a trail of light behind us. that's relativity, brought to you by professor 1stone aka einstein lol :lol:



peace out

 

[IJesusChrist]

My point being, how did you come to the point of researching, or hearing about branes?

Was it:
1.Discovery channel
2.Wikipedia
3.IAmTheBestScientistEverButCan'tMakeADecentWesbite.org

? If you actually studied quantum mechanics -> string theory -> m-theory -> and derived the meaning of Branes, I'd give you some credit.

But really brane theory is just silly. They don't even understand what string theory is, yet they proceed beyond that assumption to brane's and the beginning of space and time. It's a bunch of scientists cooped up in their little cubicles too long, talking to too many other scientists cooped up in their underground accelerators, never getting laid, talking to normal people, sitting in the grass, smoking some weed. They're a bit lost in their own papers and pencils.

It bugs me when people take up these advanced theories that take years to truly understand the concept as well as their derivations, and then post it on a website where the probability of anyone haveing any idea what the actual derivation is is pretty low.

IT bugs me cause I used to do it :wink: