Time
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
Hmm, how to describe what time is to me without using the word time... That's a bti of a toughy actually >_<;
Hmm, lets try this...
Time to me is very precious. Once it passes you by, you can't get it back. Unless, someone really does invent a time machine, there's no way to go back in time. As for time standing still, the same thing goes for it as well.. Make the best out of it before it slips awal.
Hmm, that's not what you asked xD; Sorries o__o;
Hmm, lets try this...
Time to me is very precious. Once it passes you by, you can't get it back. Unless, someone really does invent a time machine, there's no way to go back in time. As for time standing still, the same thing goes for it as well.. Make the best out of it before it slips awal.
Hmm, that's not what you asked xD; Sorries o__o;
Putting the metaphysical meaning of time aside.(I will get into it later)
(I think someone else knows this better, but that's what I know so far about time.)
From the works of Eienstien about relativity, scientist come up with the idea of 'space-time'. Basically, Space and Time are relative, meaning, time is mutually inclusive to space. Like any physical body, time can also be bent, as it is flexible, and can be broken, and even segmented. A space 'Wormhole' is one of the best example of a distorted space-time, in which time is physically shortened along with space. You know, something like that.
(I think someone else knows this better, but that's what I know so far about time.)
From the works of Eienstien about relativity, scientist come up with the idea of 'space-time'. Basically, Space and Time are relative, meaning, time is mutually inclusive to space. Like any physical body, time can also be bent, as it is flexible, and can be broken, and even segmented. A space 'Wormhole' is one of the best example of a distorted space-time, in which time is physically shortened along with space. You know, something like that.
A concept created by humans to better organize and understand their lives, would be my definition of time. Beyond the fact that we seem to be stuck in the concept there's no real definition of "time". The theory of relativity presents a scenario where traveling close to the speed of light would in fact slow down aging, and in a sense time, yet the same "time" would pass for those not travelling at those speeds. If time is constant, and I'm talking about a larger concept of time than how long it takes a planet to spin around itself, then that shouldn't be possible should it?
Although never actually proven through experiements (the aging thing) this theory presents us with the possiblity that our understanding of time simply isn't correct. Time is not about nano seconds, seconds, minutes, hours and days. This theory says that several million of those can pass on earth, while the people travelling at close to light speed would only experience a handful of them. Naturally we don't know if Albert Einstein's theory is correct in that regard, his math makes sense, and what little we can see from earth seems to support it, but if it is correct it leaves us with less knowledge of time than we thought we had. Which is actually quite exciting.
Although never actually proven through experiements (the aging thing) this theory presents us with the possiblity that our understanding of time simply isn't correct. Time is not about nano seconds, seconds, minutes, hours and days. This theory says that several million of those can pass on earth, while the people travelling at close to light speed would only experience a handful of them. Naturally we don't know if Albert Einstein's theory is correct in that regard, his math makes sense, and what little we can see from earth seems to support it, but if it is correct it leaves us with less knowledge of time than we thought we had. Which is actually quite exciting.
As far as I know, Time Dilation (consequently; slowing down of aging process) has been observed through experiments, arguably the most famous example was by Hafele and Keating. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
How about this : Time is a continuous process of change of matter, ie, the time is a concept that serves us so we can concentrate in a continuous motion, in relation to past, present and future events, provided that it is present, the reference point.
Time does not flow in all systems, for all observers, just as fast (experimentally verified fact,as stated above), so that indeed there is some sort of "flow" of time.
Things change. It is a fact. And it is this change, we call the stream of time.
Let me provide a modified analogy from the book of Brian Greene, "The fabric of the universe", and the fact that the basis of OTR's is a wonderful feature.
Imagine that you are now, at this moment, sitting in a comfy chair and read, for example, Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason."
At the same time I also sit on the other side of the galaxy, staring into space and not thinking about anything.
If there was some miracle telescope and you and I could see each other,noted that it is, in the same period of time.
And we would agree that now is right now.
At one point I get up from a chair, sit in a space vehicle and start to drive/drift/whatever, away from you, in certain speed,in order to purchase a sports betting ticket, on the match between (insert football teams here).
Depending on the speed of my suspension, from you,my present would become your past, or vice versa, you'd be there in my future.
For me it was a reality and the moment that you have long passed that correlated with my current present.
And vice versa.
If the sportsbook was in your direction and I'd moved to you, and not from you.
Then it would be my present, coincided with your future.
It implicitly suggests that the past, present and future constitute one whole and that every moment of the whole forever and ever, exist.
Time does not flow in all systems, for all observers, just as fast (experimentally verified fact,as stated above), so that indeed there is some sort of "flow" of time.
Things change. It is a fact. And it is this change, we call the stream of time.
Let me provide a modified analogy from the book of Brian Greene, "The fabric of the universe", and the fact that the basis of OTR's is a wonderful feature.
Imagine that you are now, at this moment, sitting in a comfy chair and read, for example, Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason."
At the same time I also sit on the other side of the galaxy, staring into space and not thinking about anything.
If there was some miracle telescope and you and I could see each other,noted that it is, in the same period of time.
And we would agree that now is right now.
At one point I get up from a chair, sit in a space vehicle and start to drive/drift/whatever, away from you, in certain speed,in order to purchase a sports betting ticket, on the match between (insert football teams here).
Depending on the speed of my suspension, from you,my present would become your past, or vice versa, you'd be there in my future.
For me it was a reality and the moment that you have long passed that correlated with my current present.
And vice versa.
If the sportsbook was in your direction and I'd moved to you, and not from you.
Then it would be my present, coincided with your future.
It implicitly suggests that the past, present and future constitute one whole and that every moment of the whole forever and ever, exist.
the basis is simply what I see and what I "know". My perception as a insignificant human and the knowledge given to me by other equally insignificant humans. We dont exist besides time but in time, hence are perception will never be 100%. Just like how we cant see the whole pool from in the pool. Because of this while i cant say its 100% absolute , I can say from were we stand its an uncontrollable & unalterable force . Hence to us its subjectively a 100% absolute force of the universe.
I do not understand what is the meaning of "Subjective Absolute" implied in your statement, both words has diametrically opposite nature and cannot exist together at the same time. Furthermore, the limitation of perception demand that the notion of "Absolute" as unverifiable. Therefore, the claim that "Time" is "Absolute" is false.
I suppose you can consider it a false absolute defined by our perspective. True saying time is absolute is subjective but saying it is not is illogical.....humans at the very core is is only capable of holding finite information...so you cant call such a thing false without it being illogical...To say time being absolute is false you would first have to have all the knowledge of the universe and then determine that.....otherwise your speaking from the same false perspective I spoke of earlier.
Now hold on a second there, I think you're confusing things. I do not know for sure in regard to your cosmological view on the nature of the universe and reality, however - it seems to me that you basically accept the limitation of our perception as such that nothing in reality is definite (correct me if I'm wrong here).
Despite this, it is appear to me that you are trying to argue the absolute nature of "Time" from reason alone. This is of course somewhat confusing to me because at the same time you also acknowledge it yourself that perception is limited, and therefore - a priori justification bear no absolute value. If anything, to stay true with the limited nature of perception, you should instead argue from observational point of view (a posteriori justification).
So, what does our observations yields? Scientifically speaking; it is inferred from observations that "Time" is not absolute, and that "Time Dilation" has been measured in laboratory.
Because of this, the claim that "Time" is absolute (linear) is false. If I were to assert that "Time" is "non linear", to the contrary - you can't claim that I am arguing from a false perspective, because unlike you - I don't subscribe to the notion of "absolute". My argument is purely based upon observation, thus consequently is not "absolute" by its very nature. Indeed, the one that used such notion is you, thus it is you that need to defend the idea of "absolutism", not me.
Despite this, it is appear to me that you are trying to argue the absolute nature of "Time" from reason alone. This is of course somewhat confusing to me because at the same time you also acknowledge it yourself that perception is limited, and therefore - a priori justification bear no absolute value. If anything, to stay true with the limited nature of perception, you should instead argue from observational point of view (a posteriori justification).
So, what does our observations yields? Scientifically speaking; it is inferred from observations that "Time" is not absolute, and that "Time Dilation" has been measured in laboratory.
Because of this, the claim that "Time" is absolute (linear) is false. If I were to assert that "Time" is "non linear", to the contrary - you can't claim that I am arguing from a false perspective, because unlike you - I don't subscribe to the notion of "absolute". My argument is purely based upon observation, thus consequently is not "absolute" by its very nature. Indeed, the one that used such notion is you, thus it is you that need to defend the idea of "absolutism", not me.
My point regarding that is looking from our perception nothing is a 100% but that doesn't mean nothing is 100%. So I cannot 100% tell you if its absolute or not and I never will but I'm not ganna say that its definitely not as I would need to know everything to back up that statement. I guess in the end regarding my statement it becomes a classic perception vs reality. My apology if i confused you but earlier I was talking about our perception on the matter and in your last post you switched to objective reality itself. In my post 2 post ago i said the its a subjective absolute force(maybe not the best words to put it in) but what I meant was that thru our perception nothing can be 100% definite but thru the perception of us humans time a uncontrollable and incomprehensible force , which is why we can look at it as absolute despite not being 100% sure. A false absolute defined by our perception , while a time travelers perception would be the exact opposite simply because hes looking at it from a different perspective. But neither of us our looking at it from an objective standpoint and neither of us can say for sure unless we know every perspective their is on the matter.
I believe that while time itself may be obsolete, our own perceptions of it can never be.
As said before, it is based on perception. As a child, time can pass slowly and one believes 5 years to be an eternity of time. Even as a teenage, the perception of 5 years is large, but to call it an 'eternity' is laughable. As a middle aged person, 5 years seems to be but a blip.
The same can be said of a fly. It only lives for so long, so to it a second alone could be an eternity.
However, as a measurement, time is the same- at least on the outside. We can measure it as something certain, but whether it appears to be a certain lengthened moment will depend.
As said before, it is based on perception. As a child, time can pass slowly and one believes 5 years to be an eternity of time. Even as a teenage, the perception of 5 years is large, but to call it an 'eternity' is laughable. As a middle aged person, 5 years seems to be but a blip.
The same can be said of a fly. It only lives for so long, so to it a second alone could be an eternity.
However, as a measurement, time is the same- at least on the outside. We can measure it as something certain, but whether it appears to be a certain lengthened moment will depend.