What are your thoughts on time?

Eeyore said:
Time..... consists of past, present and future, according to how we see it. We are all bound by time and space. Because of that, it's impossible to understand the universe. A pastor once said God is not bound by time or space. So in that sense, physical death is bound by time and space but the spirit is not.
Click to expand...

The pastor was referencing the temporal as opposed to the eternal. Knowing the scriptures somewhat, it was easy for me to know where he was coming from. I should have used a reference. Sorry. Thank you for fixing my math. Have a bad habit of blasting past the easiest thing to me when thinking on things that are more fun or, should I say, mentally challenging. I do not take anything you have typed(been corrected that we are not talking, but "typed" seems a strange word to use here) as being rude and hope nothing I say is ever taken as being rude.
.......and I am not really saying anything; just thinking aloud and it is somehow spilling onto the keyboard and ending up here and there.
I actually like thinking aloud. "Why not question things; it is good for you?" Agree. Agree. Agree.
I am questioning things, like how is it possible to KNOW nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? I am also saying that "seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, and leap years" could have been substituted with something else long ago and we could be calling these
units of measure something entirely different had they been. I think light may be the fastest visible substance we can see, but question it as being the fastest thing there COULD be. I question our ability to SEE the speed of light; we may see light, but to see its speed is a hard pill to swallow using logic and reasoning only. I think I need to go back to work, too.
how_we_know.gif
 
Last edited:
Almost makes a lot of "sense" when we cannot define something with our senses but can measure it, we then have an understanding of it....still related to time, though. Wind travels at so many miles per hour, for example.....time used in the answer. Can we measure love, I wonder? Most likely would not be temporally measured.

"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the "Universe"; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Albert Einstein, What I Believe, 1930
 
Last edited:
I also question that we as human beings are parts limited in time and space.
 
Satya said:
Is it linear, circular, eternal, infinite, non existent, what? Is it restricted to the spacial dimensions we understand?

All answers are welcome, whether mystical, philosophical, spiritual, or scientific.
Click to expand...

Its wiggly
 
my thoughts are on how i can become better...and on God...and how he would treat others and stuff ^^
 
VindurNótt said:
Amazing video that explains Time very well, (and then some [and by some, I mean A LOT!!!])

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
Click to expand...

Nota Bene: my post will not make any sense (or very little sense) unless you watch the video in the quoted link, or unless you are familiar with multi-dimensional theory.

Having watched the video, it seems that our experience of time is consequent to our senses working principally in three dimensions (first three dimensions).

Consequently we can have two impressions of time:

firstly, according to sense, by which we remember that things used to be different and we can compare the relative past and present - from this perspective, time is perceived as the state of flux/change in things existing in the first three dimensions;

and secondly, we can intellectually understand (knowledge distinct, but not separate from sense experience) dimensions above the third dimension - so that we can have a concept of ourselves (for example) as static objects/(substances, strictly speaking) in four dimensions - that is, we can have a concept which accounts for time (4th dimension) which is not in a state of flux.

But since all our new knowledge comes to us from our senses (stuck in three dimensions), we cannot know for a fact or have a single static concept of ourselves as four dimensional objects. In other words, we are not capable of seeing/conceiving of our entire life-span as a single concept because our senses cannot know the future, nor is our knowledge of the present perfect, and our memory is relatively poor.

My question then is:
If we had infused knowledge of ourselves (ie. knowledge not from senses) we could, it seems, have a static concept of ourselves across our entire life-span...

So is it possible that there are intelligent beings that have knowledge, without senses (or possibly without participating in the first three dimensions - ie. incorporeal) of the higher dimensions? If so, the concept of these beings of us would be infinitely more telling than our's, because it seems that in a single concept, they could understand everything we will ever do in our lifetime (and everything we will learn) as a single static/unchanging concept.

Furthermore, if there are incorporeal beings whose knowledge functions primarily above three dimensional space (from which our knowledge is derived), is it possible that there is an incorporeal being that can have, in a single concept, which comprehends all the ten dimensions: that is, a concept of the existing universe contained within a concept of every possible universe that could have existed?
 
Last edited:
What if there is no such thing as time?
 
non-existant.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Nota Bene: my post will not make any sense (or very little sense) unless you watch the video in the quoted link, or unless you are familiar with multi-dimensional theory.

Having watched the video, it seems that our experience of time is consequent to our senses working principally in three dimensions (first three dimensions).

Consequently we can have two impressions of time:

firstly, according to sense, by which we remember that things used to be different and we can compare the relative past and present - from this perspective, time is perceived as the state of flux/change in things existing in the first three dimensions;

and secondly, we can intellectually understand (knowledge distinct, but not separate from sense experience) dimensions above the third dimension - so that we can have a concept of ourselves (for example) as static objects/(substances, strictly speaking) in four dimensions - that is, we can have a concept which accounts for time (4th dimension) which is not in a state of flux.

But since all our new knowledge comes to us from our senses (stuck in three dimensions), we cannot know for a fact or have a single static concept of ourselves as four dimensional objects. In other words, we are not capable of seeing/conceiving of our entire life-span as a single concept because our senses cannot know the future, nor is our knowledge of the present perfect, and our memory is relatively poor.

My question then is:
If we had infused knowledge of ourselves (ie. knowledge not from senses) we could, it seems, have a static concept of ourselves across our entire life-span...

So is it possible that there are intelligent beings that have knowledge, without senses (or possibly without participating in the first three dimensions - ie. incorporeal) of the higher dimensions? If so, the concept of these beings of us would be infinitely more telling than our's, because it seems that in a single concept, they could understand everything we will ever do in our lifetime (and everything we will learn) as a single static/unchanging concept.

Furthermore, if there are incorporeal beings whose knowledge functions primarily above three dimensional space (from which our knowledge is derived), is it possible that there is an incorporeal being that can have, in a single concept, which comprehends all the ten dimensions: that is, a concept of the existing universe contained within a concept of every possible universe that could have existed?
Click to expand...
I think it would be possible (and from my own musing, the creature would have to be on a dimensional level that is a multiple of three, just like the "flat-lander" in the video, those able to sense and manipulate up to the 5th dimension would not be able to have any functions, because they would not have any inner workings without falling apart.). For all we know the tree outside your window is a 6 dimensional creature, and it is currently animate on the 4-6th dimensions. I don't think they would be incorporeal, because they would need to exist on our dimensions.

I would love to carry on in this vein, but I have to leave this computer soon, so... to be continued
 
The 10th dimension is so hard to wrap ones head around. As a hypothetical exercise, i've always liked the idea of flatlanders. If 2 dimensional beings existed (2 dimensions not including time) then we would be able to see everything that is currently happening in that 2-dimensional paper-like medium simply by observing it -- in fact we would be able to see 'inside' of everything, so therefore a flatlander would be unable to hide anything from us -- we would be omniscient.

Extrapolating from that, if a 4th dimensional (spatial) being existed, it would be able to see into our world, looking inside and through any material because it is simply looking at our universe from 'the outside' of our dimension. This could, if you wanted, be used to explain god as a being which simply exists on a higher dimension than us.

Alternatively, if we as a three dimensional being were to look into a 2 dimensional object which already included the function 'time' into it, and the time had already been converted into a third dimension. Then that object would become a static 3D object, like a rock. The motion of that universe would be static on one hand (since the time function has been converted into a third spatial dimension). But also active, since time is still active in our perceived universe. Therefore the rock would still be subject to changes -- representing any possible outcomes that the 'rock' dimension could have developed.
 
Last edited:
Now here's a neat little paradox that my rock hypothesis brings up. Who's to say that the 2D+1 universe is contained within an arbitrary object such as a rock. The 2D+1 universe could be contained within the shape of any number of static objects, from a string (as it pertains to string theory) to the nucleus of an atom to all the matter inside of the entire universe itself.

Now I can see why scientists can go insane on trying to do something like comprehend the nature of a concept like infinity. To some degree I think they're on the right track though -- Alan Turing might not have invented the computer if he did not try and simplify the incomplete equations on infinity that Kurt Gödel had worked on (ref: BBC Documentary: "Dangerous Knowledge").
 
Last edited:
There are 1D beings that are subject to time: photons. They have no mass, no extension, but they move. In fact, if you consider a photon, subject to time, it then appears to be a 2D object - a wave of a particular frequency.
 
This is interesting. If we extrapolate the flatlander hypotheses downwards, the flatlander would see the photon (1D) object as we would see a 2D object. When viewed from a certain angle it becomes comprehensible, but when viewed from another it is invisible.

Would it be possible then, that light (photons) is the first dimension?

I've watched documentaries that hypothesize that the weakness of gravity (in comparison to other forces such as nuclear and EM) is explained by its existing as a force spread out over all dimensions
 
Last edited:
I find it very interesting that the dimensions both "start" (0-D) and "end" (10-D) with a single point. Very much liked that video clip! :D

EDIT: I understand how he moves from the 4th to the 5th dimensions, but I'd like to remind you not to get cut by Ockham's Razor. What reason do we have for considering the existence of the 5th dimension? As you travel through the 4th dimension, the other possible timelines are pruned off - they didn't happen, so they "never" existed. When you get to the end of the 4th dimensional path that is life, your line is complete and you had no existence outside of it. Why bother with more dimensions? (I ask partly out of fun, partly to see what responses I get.)
 
Last edited:
I believe multiple dimensions are used to attempt to account for the existence of all forces within the universe, and especially quantum mechanics.

Think of the atom for example, it is comprised of comprehensible parts which seem to move in a fashion that can be fit into a system. But there is nothing to explain WHY this system works the way it does.

Scientists who want to know what each component of the atom is made of look deeper, and hence springs up quantum physics which is highly mathematical in nature.

A problem occurs as one delves deeper into the working of an atom, and that is the quantum 'universe' that each component of the atom is composed of is not systemizable as scientists would want to believe, the quantum physiology of the atom seems random and based on probability -- the laws which apply to things larger than an atom seem to disintegrate.

Thus one of the reasons why the idea of multiple dimensions were created.

Imagine if you were a flatlander all your life and suddenly you ended up in our dimension -- you just viewed someone throwing a baseball at you and it flew past your head. If you were a normal person, the motion of the baseball could be viewed as travelling in a straight (though somewhat curved line, according with gravity) -- yet if you had no 3+1 dimensional perception, as the newly arrived flatlander would, then it would appear as though a round object was getting bigger and semi-random shifts were occuring on its surface (the spin) and you would be unable to comprehend that it was simply the same size and moving towards you while spinning. In fact the idea of depth would be totally foreign to you, and if you looked up at a building, it would appear as if it was built in a distorted fashion, with a tiny top and a huge bottom. And as you moved, the world would appear to shift in scary and uncertain manners.

No mathematical formulas would account for the shifting, unless you were a flatland 'perspective theorist' and fully understood 'perspective theory' which accounted for this new strange third dimension you were a part of.

Now what if in our universe, things which appeared random and incomprehensible could suddenly make sense. Just like the baseball traveling in a flatlanders persepective, it was cohesive.

Hence why theoretical physicists like Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking are working on the holy grail of physics, called 'unified field theory' or as its better know, the 'theory of everything'. That one mathematical formula to unify all forces in nature into one mathematical understanding.

Its so exciting.
 
Last edited:
(Chiming in late)

I just saw that video, and I really enjoyed it. What's funny is, I often had many of those thoughts when I was in junior high and high school about time, and who we are in the span of it - and the universe. The other thing that's always given me pause is this: Scientists often look for life on other planets as if they're conforming to our concepts of life.

Why is that? Why should another being be conformed to our own concepts of time, space, and general existence? Perhaps we've not found life because we've been looking in the wrong universe and/or the wrong dimension. Perhaps there is one higher/functioning life form per universe, but when we die and time no longer applies, then perhaps this is the "folding" we need to reach additional universes.

Which puts a whole different span on things.

Just musing, mind you - I'm not setting anything in stone.
 
Soulful said:
I think that time is a linear construct that exists within our minds so that we can live life here on earth - it's part of the human reality. However, I think that existence is infinite and perhaps once we awaken from being human (i.e. die), our experience of "time" changes entirely - in that it stops being linear, that the past, present, future all exist at once. That we are not restricted by it.

On earth, things happen in cycles - seasons, daylight, nighttime, growth, animal migration, etc.. And we created our time-system as a way to measure our reality and organize our world. So time is very real to us, and very linear to us - but outside of the reality of being human, it is something entirely different and appropriate for the infinity of existence. Perhaps it doesn't exist.... isn't that what infinity is, timelessness? :)
Click to expand...

Agree.

I think ‘time’ is the lag needed for us to experience this reality jointly in a combined consciousness. If a thought is pure energy and we are all the sum of one then we manifest our own experiences. Every action has a reaction.

Matter is energy transformed/converted. Cyclical time?... Infinite into the finite and finite into the infinite.



jamiejannover.gif


It is the relativity of our universe which gives us the illusion of separateness. This apparent distance between matter is what we call space and time is the concept we have labelled the movement of the matter relative to itself.

There is a man who you will answer some nagging questions, his name is Nassim Haramein.

If you are not yet familiar with Nassim Haramein's exciting work, prepare yourself for an exhilarating odyssey into hyperspace and beyond. Haramein, who has spent his lifetime researching fields of physics from quantum theory to relativistic equations and cosmology, will lead you along a fascinating discussion geared to a layman's understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe and creation that includes black holes, gravitational forces, dimensions, and the very structure of space itself - all of which are integral parts of his now-complete Unified Field Theory.
Click to expand...
This is the place to spend your evening...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6151699791256390335

Enjoy :m032:

And remember this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1RQmnSJoRg
 
Last edited:
Time is..

Time is a fluid, never-ending movement, that one can stay with or step out.

Step out of time and watch it go by.
 
Anahata, I watched that 8 hour Nassim Haramein lecture that you linked to. It was quite interesting! Especially the parts about infinities within infinities, as well as the geometry of the universe. My Ti likes chewing on things like that.

There are a few documentaries that run along this line:
What Time Is It (BBC) -- It's about the nature of time as understood by science
What The Bleep Do We Know? Down the Rabbit Hole. -- Talks about the nature of time, space, and hyperspace. Takes on various angles from both a science and metaphysical POV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top