100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Physics &Nothing | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... Where is your evidence for that statement??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. Exactly, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... Then perhaps you should contemplate on that a little more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
dovebear
on
Tue 07/23/13 02:16 PM
|
|
Frost said it best. Entropy, Being observed. perceived by our senses and then labeled into a word. Where does it exist, in the mind in consciousness. How much time do I have to finish this paperwork, not enough.
:p Oh yeah, I never said consciousness creates time, Nothing in this Universe is created or destroyed, only transformed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We define a light-year as the distance that light travels while the Earth makes a complete trip around the Sun. wrong... a light year is defined as to how far light travels in the time it takes the earth to go around the sun ... Six in one hand; a half a dozen in the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Frost379
on
Tue 07/23/13 05:07 PM
|
|
Lol, those definitions are essentially the same. A light year is a measure of distance, it is defined as the distance light travels in one year in a perfect vacuum. Similarly, one second is defined, according to the international system if units as "The duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". A meter can be defined as "the distance light travels through vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second". Definitions come and go, and some are more accurate and precise than others reflecting current and new understanding. Either way, regardless of how you want to define the observables of time, length, mass, etc... On whatever whatever arbitrary scale you so choose, It still does not take away from their concepts and says nothing about their existence. The definitions are mental constructs associated with any observable or phenomena, and the words, syntax, etc are all arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We define a light-year as the distance that light travels while the Earth makes a complete trip around the Sun. wrong... a light year is defined as to how far light travels in the time it takes the earth to go around the sun ... hahahaha! This is to funny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We define a light-year as the distance that light travels while the Earth makes a complete trip around the Sun. wrong... a light year is defined as to how far light travels in the time it takes the earth to go around the sun ... hahahaha! This is to funny. It is funny. And in reality, light has no attribute that can be called "speed." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Frost379
on
Wed 07/24/13 12:13 AM
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... Your not a physicist are you? Science first starts off as a philosophy, science is nothing without it. If all your concerned about is what mainstream scientists say, then you will only be memorizing facts, without understanding anything. If you ask a physicist to explain what is really going on, they will all have varied responses and interperetations. Physicists don't really have a clue what is going on, they develop a theoretical model that predicts certian observed phenomena very well, then they use the model, still not knowing what is going on; its all a black box. Before the term physics, the field was called natural philosophy. Any physicist who does not have a grasp on philosophical ideas would probably not be a good physicist, just a good lab rat, a human calculator, conforming to the mainstream rules of how things are done; they are only good at doing what they are told. Regardless, when I was taking quantum mechanics, QED, and others, as I have a B.S. in physics and some grad work done, you cannot escape the philosophy, it is littered throughout the texts, various philisophical ideas and view points. I find it hard to understand how one could only be interested in science and not philosophy, for physics is still called, natural philosophy. Science and philosophy are intertwined. The closest explanation about time that scientist can give in terms of a theory or law is probably the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always increases, this is one of the only time-assymetric laws out there, the arrow of time, etc, and requires time to move forward. Only a couple other physical concepts are time-assymetric, but most of the physical theories or laws say nothing about the direction of time, or the nature of time, and do not require time to move forward like the second law of thermo, this is called time-symmetry. Time is poorly understood, and so is gravity, and pretty much everything for that matter, that is when philosophy comes to the rescue, at least to try and shed some light on the issue. Once the world was flat, then all the sudden It became roundish. Once it was thought that velocity had no bound, then velocity was bound by the speed of light. Newtonian mechanics said nothing about a maximum speed limit, but maxwells equations predicted there was a speed limit and it was c. Once time was thought to be invariant, a constant, then it became variable, relative, and interconnected with space, mass, etc... Hence space-time. It was thought that time moved the same for everyone, now it is thought that time is relative and depends on your speed. For example, the twin paradox goes something like this, "if one twin was on the earth and was 20 years old, and another was traveling away with sufficient velocity, and he comes back, the twin who came back can be 25 and the one who stayed on the earth can now be 50." A homework problem I once had was to calculate how fast the twin was traveling, how far, etc, for this to happen. And there is sufficient evidence that this can happen. One application using these concepts is GPS. Your looking for an explanation of time from science, unfortunately, science cannot give you an answer. Does time exist? regardless, scientist still use time as a variable, and people percieve it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We define a light-year as the distance that light travels while the Earth makes a complete trip around the Sun. wrong... a light year is defined as to how far light travels in the time it takes the earth to go around the sun ... Six in one hand; a half a dozen in the other. i noticed this after i posted it... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... Your not a physicist are you? Science first starts off as a philosophy, science is nothing without it. If all your concerned about is what mainstream scientists say, then you will only be memorizing facts, without understanding anything. If you ask a physicist to explain what is really going on, they will all have varied responses and interperetations. Physicists don't really have a clue what is going on, they develop a theoretical model that predicts certian observed phenomena very well, then they use the model, still not knowing what is going on; its all a black box. Before the term physics, the field was called natural philosophy. Any physicist who does not have a grasp on philosophical ideas would probably not be a good physicist, just a good lab rat, a human calculator, conforming to the mainstream rules of how things are done; they are only good at doing what they are told. Regardless, when I was taking quantum mechanics, QED, and others, as I have a B.S. in physics and some grad work done, you cannot escape the philosophy, it is littered throughout the texts, various philisophical ideas and view points. I find it hard to understand how one could only be interested in science and not philosophy, for physics is still called, natural philosophy. Science and philosophy are intertwined. The closest explanation about time that scientist can give in terms of a theory or law is probably the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always increases, this is one of the only time-assymetric laws out there, the arrow of time, etc, and requires time to move forward. Only a couple other physical concepts are time-assymetric, but most of the physical theories or laws say nothing about the direction of time, or the nature of time, and do not require time to move forward like the second law of thermo, this is called time-symmetry. Time is poorly understood, and so is gravity, and pretty much everything for that matter, that is when philosophy comes to the rescue, at least to try and shed some light on the issue. Once the world was flat, then all the sudden It became roundish. Once it was thought that velocity had no bound, then velocity was bound by the speed of light. Newtonian mechanics said nothing about a maximum speed limit, but maxwells equations predicted there was a speed limit and it was c. Once time was thought to be invariant, a constant, then it became variable, relative, and interconnected with space, mass, etc... Hence space-time. It was thought that time moved the same for everyone, now it is thought that time is relative and depends on your speed. For example, the twin paradox goes something like this, "if one twin was on the earth and was 20 years old, and another was traveling away with sufficient velocity, and he comes back, the twin who came back can be 25 and the one who stayed on the earth can now be 50." A homework problem I once had was to calculate how fast the twin was traveling, how far, etc, for this to happen. And there is sufficient evidence that this can happen. One application using these concepts is GPS. Your looking for an explanation of time from science, unfortunately, science cannot give you an answer. Does time exist? regardless, scientist still use time as a variable, and people percieve it. yea, you seem pretty smart, so i'll say this... i wasn't looking for a definition of time, i know what it is... i'm asking how scientists can think that time can be slowed/sped up when it is nothing more than a perception? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Frost379
on
Wed 07/24/13 10:40 AM
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... Your not a physicist are you? Science first starts off as a philosophy, science is nothing without it. If all your concerned about is what mainstream scientists say, then you will only be memorizing facts, without understanding anything. If you ask a physicist to explain what is really going on, they will all have varied responses and interperetations. Physicists don't really have a clue what is going on, they develop a theoretical model that predicts certian observed phenomena very well, then they use the model, still not knowing what is going on; its all a black box. Before the term physics, the field was called natural philosophy. Any physicist who does not have a grasp on philosophical ideas would probably not be a good physicist, just a good lab rat, a human calculator, conforming to the mainstream rules of how things are done; they are only good at doing what they are told. Regardless, when I was taking quantum mechanics, QED, and others, as I have a B.S. in physics and some grad work done, you cannot escape the philosophy, it is littered throughout the texts, various philisophical ideas and view points. I find it hard to understand how one could only be interested in science and not philosophy, for physics is still called, natural philosophy. Science and philosophy are intertwined. The closest explanation about time that scientist can give in terms of a theory or law is probably the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always increases, this is one of the only time-assymetric laws out there, the arrow of time, etc, and requires time to move forward. Only a couple other physical concepts are time-assymetric, but most of the physical theories or laws say nothing about the direction of time, or the nature of time, and do not require time to move forward like the second law of thermo, this is called time-symmetry. Time is poorly understood, and so is gravity, and pretty much everything for that matter, that is when philosophy comes to the rescue, at least to try and shed some light on the issue. Once the world was flat, then all the sudden It became roundish. Once it was thought that velocity had no bound, then velocity was bound by the speed of light. Newtonian mechanics said nothing about a maximum speed limit, but maxwells equations predicted there was a speed limit and it was c. Once time was thought to be invariant, a constant, then it became variable, relative, and interconnected with space, mass, etc... Hence space-time. It was thought that time moved the same for everyone, now it is thought that time is relative and depends on your speed. For example, the twin paradox goes something like this, "if one twin was on the earth and was 20 years old, and another was traveling away with sufficient velocity, and he comes back, the twin who came back can be 25 and the one who stayed on the earth can now be 50." A homework problem I once had was to calculate how fast the twin was traveling, how far, etc, for this to happen. And there is sufficient evidence that this can happen. One application using these concepts is GPS. Your looking for an explanation of time from science, unfortunately, science cannot give you an answer. Does time exist? regardless, scientist still use time as a variable, and people percieve it. yea, you seem pretty smart, so i'll say this... i wasn't looking for a definition of time, i know what it is... i'm asking how scientists can think that time can be slowed/sped up when it is nothing more than a perception? Well, the twin paradox has been experimentally verified. "The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment." Therefore, you can observe the other twin having aged slower than the other. Sure, time is a perception, but so is everything else, so if we are going down your road of reasoning, how can scientists say anything about anything then? I don't see how time as a perception negates scientists claiming it can or cannot be slowed down. Also, the perception comes from something, we have observed people aging, moon cycles, etc. check out Lorentz transformations, space contraction, and time dialation. These our relativistic concepts. Otherwise, try and elaborate a little more. I am not quite sure where you are coming from because your question about this specific example of time as a perception, and what can be said about this perception is not limited to this case of time. It encompasses everything that is a perception, and since everything is perceived, what can then be said about anything, including time? If you have a counter example please explain so I can see where you are coming from. For instance, give me an example in which you agree what scientists say about something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... Your not a physicist are you? Science first starts off as a philosophy, science is nothing without it. If all your concerned about is what mainstream scientists say, then you will only be memorizing facts, without understanding anything. If you ask a physicist to explain what is really going on, they will all have varied responses and interperetations. Physicists don't really have a clue what is going on, they develop a theoretical model that predicts certian observed phenomena very well, then they use the model, still not knowing what is going on; its all a black box. Before the term physics, the field was called natural philosophy. Any physicist who does not have a grasp on philosophical ideas would probably not be a good physicist, just a good lab rat, a human calculator, conforming to the mainstream rules of how things are done; they are only good at doing what they are told. Regardless, when I was taking quantum mechanics, QED, and others, as I have a B.S. in physics and some grad work done, you cannot escape the philosophy, it is littered throughout the texts, various philisophical ideas and view points. I find it hard to understand how one could only be interested in science and not philosophy, for physics is still called, natural philosophy. Science and philosophy are intertwined. The closest explanation about time that scientist can give in terms of a theory or law is probably the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always increases, this is one of the only time-assymetric laws out there, the arrow of time, etc, and requires time to move forward. Only a couple other physical concepts are time-assymetric, but most of the physical theories or laws say nothing about the direction of time, or the nature of time, and do not require time to move forward like the second law of thermo, this is called time-symmetry. Time is poorly understood, and so is gravity, and pretty much everything for that matter, that is when philosophy comes to the rescue, at least to try and shed some light on the issue. Once the world was flat, then all the sudden It became roundish. Once it was thought that velocity had no bound, then velocity was bound by the speed of light. Newtonian mechanics said nothing about a maximum speed limit, but maxwells equations predicted there was a speed limit and it was c. Once time was thought to be invariant, a constant, then it became variable, relative, and interconnected with space, mass, etc... Hence space-time. It was thought that time moved the same for everyone, now it is thought that time is relative and depends on your speed. For example, the twin paradox goes something like this, "if one twin was on the earth and was 20 years old, and another was traveling away with sufficient velocity, and he comes back, the twin who came back can be 25 and the one who stayed on the earth can now be 50." A homework problem I once had was to calculate how fast the twin was traveling, how far, etc, for this to happen. And there is sufficient evidence that this can happen. One application using these concepts is GPS. Your looking for an explanation of time from science, unfortunately, science cannot give you an answer. Does time exist? regardless, scientist still use time as a variable, and people percieve it. yea, you seem pretty smart, so i'll say this... i wasn't looking for a definition of time, i know what it is... i'm asking how scientists can think that time can be slowed/sped up when it is nothing more than a perception? Well, the twin paradox has been experimentally verified. "The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment." Therefore, you can observe the other twin having aged slower than the other. Sure time is a perception, so is everything else, so if we are going down that road of reasoning, how can scientists say anything about anything then? I don't see how time as a perception negates scientists claiming it can or cannot be slowed down. Also, the perception come from something, we have observed people aging, moon cycles, etc. check out Lorentz transformations, space contraction, and time dialation. These our relativistic concepts. Otherwise, try and elaborate a little more. I am not quite sure what you are asking because your question about this specific example of time as a perception and what can be said about perceptions is not limited to this case. It encompasses everything that is a perception and what can be said, and everything is perceived, observed, etc... my opinion on that is whatever they called "time dilation" was something else, they just don't know what yet. sure, people have "proven" things, but some of the things they prove tend to change with new evidence they learn... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consciousness is time. If the universe had zero consciousness there would not be anything to experience any moment. The Universe would not exist in the form we see it, without consciousness to experience anything the Universe would exist as a singularity, undivided, because there is nothing to experience its parts. it would become all space and time in a single entity. I believe the Universe does exist right now as a singularity relative to no consciousness. But since we are conscious beings in a Universe full of consciousness we will experience the vacuum that separates and divides the singularity into the fractal structure we see right now. not sure what that means, but consciousness isn't time, it's an understanding that perceives reality... doesn't create it, but perceives it... First you say time only exists in the mind, then you say consciousness is not time. So if time does not exist as a conscious observation in the mind how is it that time exists in the mind? That's a little contradicting. When I say time is consciousness I mean exactly that, time doesn't exist, it is in the mind. It is conscious observation. You see things move, you calculate how long it takes something to get from point a to point b, Time is movement through space observed by the conscious mind. i don't see it as contradicting, it's two separate things you are talking about... i'll give you this, time might be a part of consciousness, but both are separate from each other... we invented time to have a better understanding, to make equations work, same as with an inch or a mile. anyway, my whole point to this is that time cannot be bent, slowed down, go backwards, or anything else like that, because it is a figment of our perception... Consciousness is what perceives, therefore if you say "time is a figment of our perception", then it is a figment of consciousness. if you say so... lets back up a bit... i'm mainly talking about science in terms of their theories, like black holes bending space time, where as you two are taking to some philosophical level that i don't care about... i'm really not sure what any of what your talking about has anything to do with scientific theories on time... Your not a physicist are you? Science first starts off as a philosophy, science is nothing without it. If all your concerned about is what mainstream scientists say, then you will only be memorizing facts, without understanding anything. If you ask a physicist to explain what is really going on, they will all have varied responses and interperetations. Physicists don't really have a clue what is going on, they develop a theoretical model that predicts certian observed phenomena very well, then they use the model, still not knowing what is going on; its all a black box. Before the term physics, the field was called natural philosophy. Any physicist who does not have a grasp on philosophical ideas would probably not be a good physicist, just a good lab rat, a human calculator, conforming to the mainstream rules of how things are done; they are only good at doing what they are told. Regardless, when I was taking quantum mechanics, QED, and others, as I have a B.S. in physics and some grad work done, you cannot escape the philosophy, it is littered throughout the texts, various philisophical ideas and view points. I find it hard to understand how one could only be interested in science and not philosophy, for physics is still called, natural philosophy. Science and philosophy are intertwined. The closest explanation about time that scientist can give in terms of a theory or law is probably the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always increases, this is one of the only time-assymetric laws out there, the arrow of time, etc, and requires time to move forward. Only a couple other physical concepts are time-assymetric, but most of the physical theories or laws say nothing about the direction of time, or the nature of time, and do not require time to move forward like the second law of thermo, this is called time-symmetry. Time is poorly understood, and so is gravity, and pretty much everything for that matter, that is when philosophy comes to the rescue, at least to try and shed some light on the issue. Once the world was flat, then all the sudden It became roundish. Once it was thought that velocity had no bound, then velocity was bound by the speed of light. Newtonian mechanics said nothing about a maximum speed limit, but maxwells equations predicted there was a speed limit and it was c. Once time was thought to be invariant, a constant, then it became variable, relative, and interconnected with space, mass, etc... Hence space-time. It was thought that time moved the same for everyone, now it is thought that time is relative and depends on your speed. For example, the twin paradox goes something like this, "if one twin was on the earth and was 20 years old, and another was traveling away with sufficient velocity, and he comes back, the twin who came back can be 25 and the one who stayed on the earth can now be 50." A homework problem I once had was to calculate how fast the twin was traveling, how far, etc, for this to happen. And there is sufficient evidence that this can happen. One application using these concepts is GPS. Your looking for an explanation of time from science, unfortunately, science cannot give you an answer. Does time exist? regardless, scientist still use time as a variable, and people percieve it. yea, you seem pretty smart, so i'll say this... i wasn't looking for a definition of time, i know what it is... i'm asking how scientists can think that time can be slowed/sped up when it is nothing more than a perception? Well, the twin paradox has been experimentally verified. "The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment." Therefore, you can observe the other twin having aged slower than the other. Sure time is a perception, so is everything else, so if we are going down that road of reasoning, how can scientists say anything about anything then? I don't see how time as a perception negates scientists claiming it can or cannot be slowed down. Also, the perception come from something, we have observed people aging, moon cycles, etc. check out Lorentz transformations, space contraction, and time dialation. These our relativistic concepts. Otherwise, try and elaborate a little more. I am not quite sure what you are asking because your question about this specific example of time as a perception and what can be said about perceptions is not limited to this case. It encompasses everything that is a perception and what can be said, and everything is perceived, observed, etc... my opinion on that is whatever they called "time dilation" was something else, they just don't know what yet. sure, people have "proven" things, but some of the things they prove tend to change with new evidence they learn... But there is experimental verification for time dilation. In the experiment, there were two synced atomic clocks, and one clock slowed down relative to the other, time slowed down for that clock, regardless of what you call it like time dilation. Also, in science, nothing is proven. This is an easy way to detect quacks, say on infomercials where people say "clinically proven" for some kind of supplement. Pharmaceuticals never claim to be proven. Instead you say there is evidence for this and that or the data supports this hypothesis or theory, etc... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a personal point of view, I can slow time down. Just smoke some pot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a personal point of view, I can slow time down. Just smoke some pot. pass it around... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer edibles, especially with high CBD.
|
|
|
|
|
