TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[arkain101]

Precisely.

What is the universe made of? It is impossible to tell, you can't observe it.

It has no things, it just has reasoning and measurements, of specific value whether designed or not.

Reasoning explains a photons behavior, because it is a singular frame of reference of its own universe.

The universe is made of thought and it is the origin of the universe, you can't see what thought is made of but it forms you a reality.

Some people argue, close your eyes and set out infront of a bus, then try to tell me its an illusion.

Closing your eyes does not stop thought. reasoning, or meaning. It just dims one of your senses. Of course the bus will hit me and possibly kill me.

If I stop my reasoning, I take a anistetic that renders me unconscious, go ahead and put me infront of a bus, I can't reason it happened, and relative to me it never did.

There is nothing but relative to a mind.

Where does reasoning go (the univese) if you have remove the mind concept from the universe?
Does the universe take on micro, minicmicro, macro, supermacro...
The scale of photons, scale of atoms or scale of macroscopic...
Its uncertain, and unreasonable. So you may aswell consider it a photon, or a fundamental object that observes its own unvierse of nothing.
So you remove the mind from the universe and the universe truly ceases to exist, It changes at infinite rate, untill something becomes aware again of change.

By how we experience time, we say we observe change.

By how we observe change we observe light that comes at us. (information)

By when we observe light come at us we see things change and it feels as if its forward.

As we experince the present, it is the past of a previous position.

Then we emmit our past which becomes another positions future.

The change we observe is the direction of past and future anialating themselves into an infinite now.

Change we observe, is not of direction, its frozen changes or infinite change your choice.

this is all of course relative to this concept of thinking. Not neccesaraly fact, but I persue alternative concepts this way to discover them fully.

[hardkraft]

Originally Posted by infamous

I think you're reading too much into the definition of experience hardkraft. All particles interact with their surroundings and therefore, in very simple terms, they experience an existence relative to enviornmental stimuli.

Then "interact with" would be a better choice of words I suppose. Normally I would understand experience in that sense but in a later post it was said that "photons experience themselves" which looks like it's leaning towards an existential meaning. Now, if we were using "interact with" from the start then I doubt that "photons interact with themselves" would come up. In this case the choice of words steared the discussion in a different direction.

EDIT: However if you put a human inside a photon speed vehicle the question suddenly becomes very interesting and beggs more questions and word "experience" is no longer confusing nor controversial because we all know what experiencing human means.

[InfiniteNow]

It's important to be weary of making absolute claims when speaking of photons... Think of particles and anti-particles, coming into existence and annhilating. How can any of us say with certainty that this has nothing to do with photonic autointeraction?

[arkain101]

How can any of us say with certainty that this has nothing to do with photonic autointeraction?

What do you mean sir?

[InfiniteNow]

None of us can speak with absolutely certainty, so doing so should be avoided.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

None of us can speak with absolutely certainty, so doing so should be avoided.

So very true Infynow,.......If there were no uncertainty, we would have no need of science would we? I get very nervous when people begin acting like the final answers stop with them, none of us have all the answers...................................Infy

[hardkraft]

Arkain, I agree with pretty everything you said. However it's not enough to perceive change to experience time for example. One needs memory to compare it agains previous changes. A simple memory is not sufficient either. It needs to be an ordered memory. One needs to know which changes came first and which later.
In similar manner, light can give some information but to be more useful it needs to be fashioned into areas and colors. That information to be practical needs to be generalized into ovals, triangles, lines and so on. It's even more useful if one can count those shapes and compare their sizes.
I also came to understand that the direction of events is not arbitrary. Life and therefore reason could not have existed if time went the other direction.
It's importan to realize that all those "detection" and "computation" mechanisms were invented by nature to enable organisms cope with reality and material world that really does exist. However those inventions were fine tuned to cope with very limited scope of middle-scale, middle-speed reality. The question is though, is it the only possible way to describe it? Can we improve on those inventions or is it better to dispose with numbers, shapes, colors and scents and invent a system from scratch that would better match everything from micro to macro, slow to fast?

[arkain101]

I can't reply too detailed as of now, but;

However it's not enough to perceive change to experience time for example.

Well, I suppose I may have meant more than to experience time, but to measure it, you need light to come at you.

I feel like there is a bit to sift through here before getting back into it.

[CraigD]

I’m poorly read in the writing of Julian Barbour – this 8/16/1999 Edge interview that InfinteNow linked from post #71 is the first I can recall reading of his views. From that, and subsequent post in this tread, I believe many may misunderstand Barbour’s position: he suggests not just “there is no time”, but, more radically, “there is no time nor space.” In short, he suggests that, ultimately, objective physical reality may be defined only in terms of the relationships (or “transactions”) between fundamental physical entities (I hesitate to use the term particles, because its connotations to existing, space-time using theories risks confusion under Barbour’s formalism).

I find Barbour’s ideas strongly similar to the ”only connected” ideas I encountered in 2005 in Greg Egan’s (very hard) science fiction novel “Schild’s Ladder”, which describes a fictional theory called “Quantum Graph Theory”. Though Egan’s speculation is fictional (in the book QGT achieves a widely accepted form in 2035-2038), he is, in the opinion of me and his many of his many fans, a good interpreter of science (despite having only roughly my own scientific credentials – a BS in math and professional computer programming experience), so I consider his speculations worthy of attention.

These ideas have been influential in my own intellectual life – although I lack the formal skills to make much practical use of them, they’re very philosophically satisfying, speaking to many deep, nagging questions about the fundamental nature of reality, and reminding me of my own work in computer simulations in which I have attempted to model everyday reality without the use of arithmetic of any kind. Alas, my own work has not been nearly as successful or readable as Barbors or Egans but learning through the published work of such famous folk that I’m not alone in my stranger deep private thought is very heartening

[infamous]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I’m poorly read in the writing of Julian Barbour – this 8/16/1999 Edge interview that InfinteNow linked from post #71 is the first I can recall reading of his views. From that, and subsequent post in this tread, I believe many may misunderstand Barbour’s position: he suggests not just “there is no time”, but, more radically, “there is no time nor space.” />

I just finished reading this interview and was struck by what I interpret as a similiar rationale akin to Einstein's World Lines. This interpretation of reality suggests that each moment of the NOW, is a separate and stratified existence. In plain terms, like the individual pictures on a roll of motion picture film. It is also easy to see how quantum interpretation could fit into this picture of reality.

So often when I read about new ideas being presented by capable scientists, such as Julian Barbour, I find myself being enriched with new ideas of my own. In reading about his thought experiment where the universe was comprised of only three individual particles, it stimulated another thought within my mind.

In a former post, I made a comment about the life of a photon, starting with it's birth at the Big Bang and ending with the heat death of the universe. Because the photon experiences no passage of time, according to Barbour, it would experience only two nows, one at it's birth, and the other at it's death. On the other hand, the physical universe which we humans experience would pass through an almost infinite number of nows. Very strange this universe we live in.......................................Infy