Raymond Tallis

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

Time is repetitious. A second is n repetitions (where n is some unknown). A minute is nX60 repetitions. An hour is nX60x60 repetitions. A turning wheel does not make time circular nor does a bullet make time linear. A chronology seems linear but that linearity is not necessarily true of time, the source of motion.

This assumes that chronology emerges from time and time, the source, does not follow chronology. The time associated with chronology is an index and is not the same time from which chronology emerges.
Last edited by jayjacobus on Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

Time comes from motion and motion comes from physics in time. But these are different connotations of time and should have different words. The first is a relation to motion and the second is possibly an action of some sort, perhaps a wave. Do gravitional waves exist without time?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

People live their lives in the present. Historical figures did as well. Consciousness is always in the present. It seems that for a time to be the past it must first be the present. If this is true, then the present is the temporal location of all events. The present could be time zero?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

The nature of time is represented by a movement of a clock, the Earth and all movement. The tick of a clock comes from the nature of time. The nature of time is not in any tick other than the current tick. The prior times have no movement. Yet the prior realities are accumulated so that the present reality reflects past movements. Relations of past realities and there indices give time a length appearance. But the length appearance should not be confused with the nature of time.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

If physical space does not exist, then the space is a concept of relationships. But it seems that space has locations, distances and dimensions. So space is something more than relationships.

If physical time does not exist then time is a concept of relationships. It seems that without relationships there is nothing to detect time. All physics involving time require motion to understand time. Yet synchronicty suggests that there is an underlying governor that effects motion but is not motion itself. This could be evidence of physical time.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

Take a point in time. Add a dimension and a line emerges. But all movement is in the point at the head of the line. The line does not explain time nor does it represent time. It represents the sequence of past realities with one active time at the forefront. Saying that time comes from the past is not correct. Time comes from the present and current reality is bound to the last reality and changes in the present reality. Reality changes in time but time is always the same except when time is seen as an index. Then the index changes as reality changes.

It is possible to create a four dimensional index but active time does not explain the four dimensional index nor does the four dimensional index explain active time.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

Consciousness is here and now. The brain brings objects at a distance to here and now. This is mainly through sight and appearances. The objects in reality have motion, mass and energy. The appearances have motion only. Mass and energy can only be determined by contact with the objects, Because mass and energy can be measured separately from appearance, mass and energy exist without appearances.

TV’s and movies create artificial motion. Its artificial motion because the appearance of the objects have no mass or energy.

It is the appearance of motion that reveals the existence of time but it is not the appearance that touches the body of a person. It is actual physical matter that touches the body.

Some philosophies of time seem to recognize this.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

The present is perceptible, one might say discernible. The past and the future are not discernible. Yet there are remnants from the past that are still discernible in the present. These include memories, photos, books, movies, archeology, fossils, physical laws and time lines. These are about the past but are not the past itself.

There are no remnants from the future because the future has not occurred yet. But the future is known from the cognition of repetitive change, extension of trends/trajectories and the laws of probability. But the future is indiscernible and will only be discernible when the present reaches the future. Until that happens the future will become more and more predictable. One cannot say that the future is fixed because it only becomes fixed when the present reaches each successive future.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

The future is a conceptualization which comes from comprehending current and past events. A conceptualization can’t become physical. Nor does the indiscernible fourth dimenion become conceptual because it is indiscernible. For these reasons the conceptual future and the fourth dimensional future are unconnected.

One might speculate that the fourth dimension contains space and time but no events. If this is true, conceptual time will exist unchanged. In fact no speculation about the fourth dimension will change the conceptualization of time. The advocates of the fourth dimension are free to speculate whatever they wish. There doesn't seem to be any real constraints.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

The past is a mental representation that exists in the mind. There is significant evidence that the past once existed in reality but the evidence is suggestive and detached. Because the past is a mental representation, it comes from reasoning, not perception. To decide that the past is real is to think that reasoning creates reality.

The future is also a mental representation. While the future never existed, it is deduced from continuity in reality.

Three dimensions is also a mental representation. It helps explain and exhibit aspects of space.

Thinking that mental representations have real physical correlates is logically unsound. Reality leads to mental representations. The reverse is not true.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

A combination of sets can create a whole new set.

A lemon is in the set of fruits. Sugar is in the set of sweeteners.

Lemonade is in the set of beverages.

Lemonade does not make lemons and sugar into beverages.

Space time, if it's true, doesn't bring time and space into a fourth dimension.

Space is not in the fourth dimension. Neither is time. Moreover, time is not a subset of space nor is space a subset of time.
Last edited by jayjacobus on Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

jayjacobus wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 6:24 pm Times are relationships. Like all relationships times are constructed by the brain. Relationships are not causative but have an interpretation if there is an interpreter like consciousness. This is a simplistic answer to what time is but leads to an understanding of past, future, before, after, duration motion, change.
All relationships are causal.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

All relationships are causal.
[/quote]

Indicative.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

Time is real and fundamental to our view of reality. If time is not what we think it is, then the universe is not what we think it is.

Water is H20 but water didn't change when H20 was discovered.

Thinking about how time is understood and used: will that ever change because someone says time is an illusion?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus »

The future exists in the mind. It is an evaluation of current and past conditions projected into the mind. Is there a real future? That can’t be determined logically because the future has no present conditions but the future that is in the mind has no physical correlates. It is a mental representation. I can think what is real but I can’t make real what I think.

Where does the idea of a real future come from? It is a rationalization of how reality works.

It’s insulting to suggest the rain god proof but that does come to mind.

The present comes from the past with logically changes or the present comes from the future without any logic.
Post Reply