Are You into Time?

[Lestat]

Back in my drug-induced teenage years, whenever someone would ask me what time it was, I'd reply, "I'm not into time". Who would've thought that this might've been the correct position to take?

From everything I've been reading, it's looking more and more like time might not actually exist. Clocks? They are simply devices that measure movement, not necessarily time. We construe movement as time, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as time. There also seems to be no good reason for time to point towards the future. If it existed at all, it should just as easily point towards the past. So my question is:

If there really is no such thing as time, then does this mean there is no such thing as eternity? Or how about infinity? Also, does this increase or decrease the likelihood of a God? You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[godBoy]

I'm not too sure what you are trying to explain, prove/disprove here.

Time is a word to describe the consistent changing nature around us that can be measured. It's just a word, and everyone knows that it exists. After 80 or so years of it - they will go into the ground.

You might as well be asking is there such thing as existence? It doesn't seem like a sensible question to me.

[Rodney_King]

I completely agree. It decreases the likelihood of a God that judges you based on what you do(not that you'd believe in that anyway).
The Buddhists seem to have it right. Enlightenment is when you can let go of time, and merely exist. Everything is one, infinity may just be when we divide existence into more and more pieces.
I understand what you're saying, although it is hard to explain.

[godBoy]

Oh, now I see how Lestat's point is directly promoting the idea of re-incarnation and the Buddhas great theory about escaping this wheel of suffering.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see in that sentence the difficulties logic starts to have when you make just a small beginning to thinking outside of the box.

PairTheBoard

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
From everything I've been reading, it's looking more and more like time might not actually exist. Clocks? They are simply devices that measure movement, not necessarily time. We construe movement as time, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as time. There also seems to be no good reason for time to point towards the future. If it existed at all, it should just as easily point towards the past. So my question is:


If there really is no such thing as time, then does this mean there is no such thing as eternity? Or how about infinity? Also, does this increase or decrease the likelihood of a God? You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would the Universe still be the way it seems to be if we developed the provable conclusion that time was an emergent property of perception, and science's assumption of it as a physical property essential to the Universe is flawed?

If we came up with time to be able to articulate change, perhaps it is not necessary for time to pass or have physical properties for the Universe, but our perception of it needs time to exist to be able to express what is going on around us?

This view should have zero influence on the probabilities of God's existence though. In effect, nothing would have changed. We would just have a better understanding of the Universe, at minimum. Continuity is essential to the human psyche, and we seem to have made the transition from flat-Earth to heliocentric views to where we are at today. There are other transitions, I'm sure.

I don't know that this is one of them though.

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]

From everything I've been reading, it's looking more and more like time might not actually exist. Clocks? They are simply devices that measure movement, not necessarily time. We construe movement as time, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as time. There also seems to be no good reason for time to point towards the future. If it existed at all, it should just as easily point towards the past.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok. I'm just getting out of my drug-induced teenage years, and don't know much about physics, got any handy sources?

[ QUOTE ]

If there really is no such thing as time, then does this mean there is no such thing as eternity? Or how about infinity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it's hard to picture things without time. But if there's no time, and every event is simply a movement in a direction... then there is no eternity? Everything just is, I guess.
But that state of being would appear like an infinite-eternity to us observers...

Also: might entropy be important in these considerations? Could "the end of time" be interpreted as "the loss of all energy?"

[ QUOTE ]

Also, does this increase or decrease the likelihood of a God? You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I guess the "who created God" arguement can be dealt with in this model even if we're still in the dark about why anything exists at all. That might sway individuals' personal assessments but does little in the way of providing proof. Still, if such a discovery were somehow to be made, I would be more inclined to believe in a God than I currently am.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Back in my drug-induced teenage years, whenever someone would ask me what time it was, I'd reply, "I'm not into time".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read that in some high powered secret societies (remember both pres bushes and john kerry skull and bones) the answer "there is no time" to the question of what time is it marks you as a potential fellow member.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not too sure what you are trying to explain, prove/disprove here.

Time is a word to describe the consistent changing nature around us that can be measured. It's just a word, and everyone knows that it exists. After 80 or so years of it - they will go into the ground.

You might as well be asking is there such thing as existence? It doesn't seem like a sensible question to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to explain or prove anything, since I'm nowhere near smart enough to fully grasp the concepts of time and space.

Anyway, this stuff isn't so obvious to me. Time, the way most people conceive of it, is kind of like a yardstick where the we keep moving away from a beginning. That's kinda the way I always looked at it. But time doesn't have to be like a one-way yardstick. It can loop back on itself, or might not exist at all. Again, not simple or obvious stuff to most people.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see in that sentence the difficulties logic starts to have when you make just a small beginning to thinking outside of the box.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see what you're getting at. Thinking outside the box is good, but logic is still important and we ought not abandon it. The difficulties we face are not with logic itself, but in the problem presented. Namely one in which we do not yet know the answer to. Suspending logic so that an any answer can be plugged in, is just not acceptable.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see in that sentence the difficulties logic starts to have when you make just a small beginning to thinking outside of the box.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is carried over from DS's thread on Cost/Benefits of Religion:



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I submit this is why many people cling to religion even while suspecting they could be wrong. You can't tell me people like NotReady don't see or understand the sound logic that is presented on this board, day after day. Of course he sees it! But it's like being told your mother's not your mother. He's better off refusing to accept that, and he knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You only think you have "sound logic" because you don't understand the nature of what you are applying that logic to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what IS the nature of what we are applying that logic to? I say it's reality. You say, it's what?....

[/ QUOTE ]

You might try rereading my last couple of hundred posts, as many of them have been speaking to this point. You can see from your discussion of Time here that you don't even understand the nature of our physical reality as it relates to Time all that well. Your logic is breaking down already as you try to apply it in that context. Yet you presume you understand the nature of All Reality well enough that you can apply your logic with brute force to questions much more mysterious than Time. Like "God", whatever is really being pointed to by that word.

I usually distinguish between physical reality and Spiritual Reality so as to emphasize that concepts discussed involving the Spiritual must be dealt with differently than those to which science can be applied. But even then I have to recognize the limitations of my descriptive tools for Spiritual Reality and its nature. This is why I started the Thread, "Is a Zen Koan Accurate". Did you read that thread?

Zen Buddhists are quick to point out that their descriptions of the True Buddha Nature cannot really tell it to you. You must experience it to realize what they are talking about. Even in Christianity, the Vatican freely admits that the best we can do with our language is provide metaphors and analogies for that which we experience in Faith. I understand that none of this makes much sense to you. That's why I pointed out to you in this thread what starts to happen to your logic when you make just a small beginning to thinking outside of the box.

PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Yet you presume you understand the nature of All Reality well enough that you can apply your logic with brute force to questions much more mysterious than Time. </font>

But I do no such thing. At least I don't think I do, or I try not to. I'm willing to entertain all kinds of notions about the "spiritual world" as you call it, or the "oneness with the universe", etc. I don't know much about Buddhists, but from the little I know, it has a much sounder philosophy than most other religions.

All I'm saying is that logic stands and should not be abandoned or suspended. Logic means you can change your stance (and probably will). However, in lieu of concrete answers, the proper stance is, "I don't yet know, or it's probably this, or there's no reason to suspect this, etc.".

That's all I'm saying. It doesn't matter that we're still ignorant about much of our universe. There are a myriad of potential answers, but we still don't abandon logic. And abandoning logic is what you MUST do, if you want to be a Christian.

[godBoy]

Now your question is different, it seems like you are asking if it's possible time did not have a beginning.

This is different to asking if time exists at all - which is what I was answering with yes.
I'm doing so in the same way those math types claimed .999{repeating} was exactly the same as 1.
Time itself - is a useful concept that we can use to make measurements with.

Are you asking if eternity exists?
I would say it's impossible to test from our observation point(somewhere within it), but it is a very interesting philosophical thing to question.

[MidGe]

Lestat,

I agree entirely with you and I don't think many would disagree. Time is a measurement of change. If there was no change anywhere (ie everything was frozen), there would be no time, let alone a way of measuring it. Which makes everlasting life of paradise somewhat moot, unless it was variable and therefore sometimes better/worse than others. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

On another thread a while back, I made the point that time was a derived spatial measurement, not another dimension.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
But I do no such thing. At least I don't think I do, or I try not to. I'm willing to entertain all kinds of notions about the "spiritual world" as you call it, or the "oneness with the universe", etc. I don't know much about Buddhists, but from the little I know, it has a much sounder philosophy than most other religions

[/ QUOTE ]

You entertain the notions. But you don't really understand them because you've never had the experience for what the notions are trying to point to. You are standing outside of something you can't see into, applying logic in hopes of discovering what's there when the only way you can really find out is to step inside. The reports you hear from those who have stepped inside sound like poetry and Zen Koans to you. You conclude they have abandoned logic. They haven't. You just don't understand the limitations of language for what they have discovered.

PairTheBoard

[Rodney_King]

PairTheBoard--
what would you describe your beliefs/spiritual leanings as? I guess I had you pegged as an atheist from most of your domination of the evangelical posters, would you consider yourself more in line with Buddhism?
I like the statement of how those "inside" haven't actually abandoned logic, others cannot see their logic. I love koans, although I am no Zen master, I have had moments where I definitely understand what they are saying. Would it then be clear to say your main issue with Christians is more along the lines of how many seem to point repeatedly to the Bible? It's not because they were moved to do so themselves, or have logic they can't explain, it is more of a herd/brainwashing mentality.

Excuse me if I'm making no sense, it is 430 in the morning and i'm taking a break from writing a paper.
essentially, PTB, you are the man.

[Lestat]

So you think that those who have "stepped inside" are privvy to an understanding the rest of us aren't?

When I used to drop acid, I thought I was privvy to a whole other reality that was beyond most people's understanding too. The point is, there are all kinds of ways to "feel" an inner understanding. Whatever floats your boat. It doesn't mean you're any closer to the actual answer though. Logic simply is the realization of this fact.

[joes28]

[ QUOTE ]
Back in my drug-induced teenage years, whenever someone would ask me what time it was, I'd reply, "I'm not into time". Who would've thought that this might've been the correct position to take?

From everything I've been reading, it's looking more and more like time might not actually exist. Clocks? They are simply devices that measure movement, not necessarily time. We construe movement as time, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as time. There also seems to be no good reason for time to point towards the future. If it existed at all, it should just as easily point towards the past. So my question is:

If there really is no such thing as time, then does this mean there is no such thing as eternity? Or how about infinity? Also, does this increase or decrease the likelihood of a God? You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it not also become more reasonable that the universe has always existed?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Time is a measurement of change. If there was no change anywhere (ie everything was frozen), there would be no time, let alone a way of measuring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an interesting thought experiment on this point. I can't recall who crafted it...

Imagine a 'universe' made up of 3 distinct areas. During 'normal' times, people can move from area to area freely. Each area is observable from the other areas.

Now let each area have a cycle of x = 3,4, or 5 years. Every x years, all change stops in an area. So after 3 years, all change stops in area 1. When change resumes, the inhabitants of area 1 look out at the other two areas and see a bunch of miraculous changes (plants appearing, people disappearing, etc.). To the inhabitants of areas 2 and 3, nothing unusual happened with time...there was just a 'freezing' in area 1.

Since each area can observe the cycles of the others, they could figure out what the cycle times were, and could likewise figure out their own cycle time. They could then infer that every 60 years, all 3 areas would 'freeze' simultaneously...

Does it really make sense to say that time doesn't exist during the 60th year?

(Not that I agree with it neccesarily, but I think it's an interesting argument)

[MidGe]

The thought experiments fail to address the issue, imo. It makes someone both aware of change and not. A single change, in a universe, doesn't matter how small and insignificant, whether observed or not, would be a quantum of time *derived" from a spatial change. No single change, no time!

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PairTheBoard--
what would you describe your beliefs/spiritual leanings as? I guess I had you pegged as an atheist from most of your domination of the evangelical posters, would you consider yourself more in line with Buddhism?
I like the statement of how those "inside" haven't actually abandoned logic, others cannot see their logic. I love koans, although I am no Zen master, I have had moments where I definitely understand what they are saying. Would it then be clear to say your main issue with Christians is more along the lines of how many seem to point repeatedly to the Bible? It's not because they were moved to do so themselves, or have logic they can't explain, it is more of a herd/brainwashing mentality.

Excuse me if I'm making no sense, it is 430 in the morning and i'm taking a break from writing a paper.
essentially, PTB, you are the man.

[/ QUOTE ]

My main problem with Orthodox Christianity is its dogma of hell, understood as Eternal suffering or torment or torture or whatever softened form of the undesirable they try to sell, which is the fate of those after death who don't qualify for heaven under their cannonically approved qualifications. It's an inhumane doctrine. It isn't consistent with the God of Love they preach. And it sounds nothing like the Good News Jesus pronounced.

I also criticize those Christians who don't take the Reality of the Spiritual seriously and instead insist on a magical interpretation of spiritual events. By magical I mean physical magic which violates our common sense understanding of how things work in the physical world. An example is the Resurrection. A Spiritual Resurrection is not Real enough for them so they insist it was some kind of magical physical restoration of a dead body back to life. They shout down anyone who says otherwise when in fact it is they who cheapen the Event.

My most personal views are a work in progress and probably not the concern of this Forum. I'm open to a lot of things.

PairTheBoard

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
From everything I've been reading, it's looking more and more like time might not actually exist. Clocks? They are simply devices that measure movement, not necessarily time. We construe movement as time, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as time. There also seems to be no good reason for time to point towards the future. If it existed at all, it should just as easily point towards the past.




[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like we're leading up to an interesting question here...



[ QUOTE ]
does this increase or decrease the likelihood of a God?




[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, nevermind. Just another question about the existence of God.

All kidding aside, why do only God-related questions get asked here? If someone only slightly versed in philosophy glanced at this message board, he would mistake us for scholastics who've been propelled into the computer age. And its not the question-asker's fault; he knows he'll only get responses if he can somehow tie in his topic with that old firestarter.

End of gripe.

OP,

A further argument or backup info about the time topic would be very interesting, to me at least.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
So you think that those who have "stepped inside" are privvy to an understanding the rest of us aren't?

When I used to drop acid, I thought I was privvy to a whole other reality that was beyond most people's understanding too. The point is, there are all kinds of ways to "feel" an inner understanding. Whatever floats your boat. It doesn't mean you're any closer to the actual answer though. Logic simply is the realization of this fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing with acid induced revelations is that they usually evaporate when you come down. Spiritual experience is an ongoing part of life. It has staying power.

You keep thinking in terms of "knowledge" and talk about being "privy" to it. It's not like that. You can't just dismiss the experience by calling it a "feeling". Something Real is happening. There are just limitations to language for describing it.

I think we are starting to repeat ourselves. Maybe we should give it a rest.

PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

Oh man, I have tons of questions/comments about this that are not God related. It's true I included the God question at the end, to get some response, butu also... because I really do think it takes away at least part of one problem that some atheists have (myself included) But you can substitute bang-bang for God and other things as well. If you don't need a beginning, then many more things are possible. Right, or wrong?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Why does it not also become more reasonable that the universe has always existed? </font>

I suppose it does. But one of my arguments against the explanation for a creator, is what created the creator? Without time, it seems plausible that creator didn't need a creator or even a beginning for that matter. Yes, the same would hold true for the universe, but without time, it does sort of quash the "what created the creator?" argument. At least I think it does... ??

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Time is a measurement of change. If there was no change anywhere (ie everything was frozen), there would be no time, let alone a way of measuring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an interesting thought experiment on this point. I can't recall who crafted it...

Imagine a 'universe' made up of 3 distinct areas. During 'normal' times, people can move from area to area freely. Each area is observable from the other areas.

Now let each area have a cycle of x = 3,4, or 5 years. Every x years, all change stops in an area. So after 3 years, all change stops in area 1. When change resumes, the inhabitants of area 1 look out at the other two areas and see a bunch of miraculous changes (plants appearing, people disappearing, etc.). To the inhabitants of areas 2 and 3, nothing unusual happened with time...there was just a 'freezing' in area 1.

Since each area can observe the cycles of the others, they could figure out what the cycle times were, and could likewise figure out their own cycle time. They could then infer that every 60 years, all 3 areas would 'freeze' simultaneously...

Does it really make sense to say that time doesn't exist during the 60th year?

(Not that I agree with it neccesarily, but I think it's an interesting argument)

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, how does this relate to time coming to an almost standstill at the speed of light? I never understood that anyway, but could it be possible that at the speed of light there can be no movement relative to the object traveling at such speed. Hence, time is merely our perception of movement and doesn't really exist. I wish I understood more about this stuff. As it is, I can probably seriously injure my brain trying to think about it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think that those who have "stepped inside" are privvy to an understanding the rest of us aren't?

When I used to drop acid, I thought I was privvy to a whole other reality that was beyond most people's understanding too. The point is, there are all kinds of ways to "feel" an inner understanding. Whatever floats your boat. It doesn't mean you're any closer to the actual answer though. Logic simply is the realization of this fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing with acid induced revelations is that they usually evaporate when you come down. Spiritual experience is an ongoing part of life. It has staying power.

You keep thinking in terms of "knowledge" and talk about being "privy" to it. It's not like that. You can't just dismiss the experience by calling it a "feeling". Something Real is happening. There are just limitations to language for describing it.

I think we are starting to repeat ourselves. Maybe we should give it a rest.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I can stop after this one last question...

What makes you so sure these "feelings" are real and not just the product or by-product of chemical reactions taking place within the brain? This is what I mean. If you feel something spiritual and feel it's powerful, you assume that it's real, when it may be nothing more than the way your brain is interpreting it's surrounding. Sensory perception may in fact be quite unique.

There may in fact be a spiritual world out there, but it's wishful thinking at best. I might seriously feel my dead great granfather is guiding me. You can't prove he isn't, but you'd be right to assume it's likely nothing more than my imagination or my unique interpretation. The human brain is capable of powerful hallucinations even without drugs. I'll read your response if you have one, but I'm done trying to make sense.

[PattdownManiac]

All I know is when this cop was telling me to tilt my head back, close my eyes, hold my arms out, estimate 30 seconds in my head, then tell him "stop", if I replied that time is not real I so would have been screwed.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think that those who have "stepped inside" are privvy to an understanding the rest of us aren't?

When I used to drop acid, I thought I was privvy to a whole other reality that was beyond most people's understanding too. The point is, there are all kinds of ways to "feel" an inner understanding. Whatever floats your boat. It doesn't mean you're any closer to the actual answer though. Logic simply is the realization of this fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing with acid induced revelations is that they usually evaporate when you come down. Spiritual experience is an ongoing part of life. It has staying power.

You keep thinking in terms of "knowledge" and talk about being "privy" to it. It's not like that. You can't just dismiss the experience by calling it a "feeling". Something Real is happening. There are just limitations to language for describing it.

I think we are starting to repeat ourselves. Maybe we should give it a rest.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I can stop after this one last question...

What makes you so sure these "feelings" are real and not just the product or by-product of chemical reactions taking place within the brain? This is what I mean. If you feel something spiritual and feel it's powerful, you assume that it's real, when it may be nothing more than the way your brain is interpreting it's surrounding. Sensory perception may in fact be quite unique.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again you translate "spiritual experience" to "feelings". And now further to "by-products of chemical reactions in the brain". How do you know you would be so quick to put "spiritual experience" into those terms once you actually had such an experience? You are trying to tell people what their spiritual experiences are when you don't even know what it is to have one. Maybe instead of trying to tell them about something you haven't experienced you might consider what they tell you about what they have. Listen to the language they use rather than the language you apriori want to impose on them. That's the language they find most suited to Their Experience.

When you walk into a class on Galois Theory do you insist the class be taught using only the terms of differential calculus?


PairTheBoard

[Duke]

Time is obviously variable, but we haven't yet found any way at all to reverse it. This is key, and this directionality that it exhibits is intrinsic - at least as far as we know.

If there is some new net of experiments of which I'm unaware where grenades explode and then reassemble in the same manner, then I'll have to rethink my own basic understanding of it.

[m_the0ry]

If you ask me,

Time definitely exists, but it is only because of our particular location and situation that we're able to distinguish it from any other dimension. I can move any direction in time but I have to obey the laws of nature: just like I must conserve momentum and energy when I move in space. All points in space and time exist indefinitely, 'past' is just a man-made concept to define the extent of our influence on nature with respect to how we are aware of ourselves.

[brandofo]

[ QUOTE ]
If there really is no such thing as time, then does this mean there is no such thing as eternity? Or how about infinity?

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read any replies yet, but I think most physicists and even a lot of religious people would agree that eternity is the absence of time.

[speedfreek]

The only issue I have with the OP is a similar one to PairtheBoard had. It was later explained using the term logic, but logic doesn't apply to the statement below:

"(If time doesn't exist) You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed."

To me, if there is no time and thus no beginning of time, it becomes logical to assume that you don't have to account for "what created the universe" any more. If our universe is just a small part of some eternal universe with no beginning or end, then that makes a god redundant, as it just complicates the issue by introducing an omnipotent deity into the equation. This is known as using Occam's Razor.