What is time?

[Atla]

Space and time are mind functions, ways how the human experience is constructed roughly inside the head. But this is illusory, actually it's always "now", we are sitting in the middle of eternity.

Agree - but there is no "middle" in eternity (or infinity)... there is actually no place or location at all (but you are well aware of that anyway )

So although there are no separate events, space and time are indeed sort of inherent features of the observable universe, even without objectification

The observable universe is not more than a conceptual map wrapped over infinity (map = objectification/interpretation).
As such, yes, space and time are inherent features of the observable universe, of the map labeled "universe".

Anyway, the map is all we can talk about as "underneath" there is... well... there is no name or concept that is able to contain/define it...

We may have some disagreement then. If we say that Einsteinian spacetime is only a feature of the conceptual map, then absolutely everything we can ever think or talk about is likewise only a feature of the conceptual map. In which case we can't talk about anything, and the map has also no relation whatsoever to what's "underneath". So it's not a map anymore and it isn't wrapped over infinity, it's a self-refuting position not saying anything about anything.

It only makes sense to say that Einstenian spacetime is NOT just a feature of the map, but a feature of the observable universe "underneath". Also, the observable universe is direct, not the map. And it's not infinity, it's finite in size so it's a part of infinity.

My main point is that Einsteinian spacetime is inherent to the part of infinity around us, irregardless of any conceptual map. This was confirmed in every physics experiment ever conducted. It's as basic as direct experience. So we always directly experience a passage of time (even if it's in another sense illusory).

That's a great mistery of time: how can we both have timelessness/eternity and a passage of time simultaneously? (To which the only logical hypothesis I'm aware of is the idea of circular spacetime, the spacetime of our finite universe forming a closed loop.)

What usually happens is that once we see through the ordinary psychological illusion of time, we throw out the notion of time completely. But that turns out to be false as well (false to a lesser degree) - we continue to age, and everything around us continues to change in time.

I remember, after my natural sensation of time was dismantled, I eventually realized that I had to partially rebuild it, artificially. Because the world just kept going on and on and on anyway. But my current sensation of time is nothing like it used to be before.. I just don't feel the flow of time anymore at all.. whenever I look at the world now I see it as both standing still and changing, it's weird..

[AlexW]

If we say that Einsteinian spacetime is only a feature of the conceptual map, then absolutely everything we can ever think or talk about is likewise only a feature of the conceptual map

Correct

In which case we can't talk about anything

We can talk about the map - if whatever is being talked about is absolutely true is another question...

and the map has also no relation whatsoever to what's "underneath"

The only thing that states that relations exist is thought - thus thought is the relation.
The word "apple" is not the reality of the experience, but it still defines a relation - a relation that works when invoking more thought (as in communication) but it is meaningless "to what's underneath".

So it's not a map anymore and it isn't wrapped over infinity, it's a self-refuting position not saying anything about anything.

Yes, in a way, but we pretend/believe the opposite is true, that the map can say something about everything, and thus we continue to live life within/as this "self-refuting position"
Why? - mostly because we are unaware of it (and, also, because we don't want to know anything about it -- what would it mean to me, the ego-self..?)

It only makes sense to say that Einstenian spacetime is NOT just a feature of the map, but a feature of the observable universe "underneath"

But you cant say anything (that anybody else might understand) if you don't use the conceptions of the map.
Stating that spacetime is not a feature of the map, not born from your interpretation (or Einsteins or whoever) is a mistake.

Also, the observable universe is direct, not the map. And it's not infinity, it's finite in size so it's a part of infinity.

What tells you that there is "observing" going on? What tells you that this is a finite universe you are observing?
The direct experience of seeing doesn't tell you any of that...
How can infinity have parts? Only thought can state such a thing.

My main point is that Einsteinian spacetime is inherent to the part of infinity around us, irregardless of any conceptual map.

I doubt that very much.
How I see it: Infinity has no parts, no area around something, and ultimately also no discrete, separate observers.

This was confirmed in every physics experiment ever conducted. It's as basic as direct experience.

Not at all.
I am not sure what you mean when you refer to direct experience, but to me it is simply reality minus belief/idea - it is direct knowing via being, presence.
No physics experiment could have been conducted without thought based interpretation - it would have no result, there would be nothing to discuss. Direct experience is raw, meaningless, presence - here/now - all meaning is derived from thought, it provides an interpretation, it builds the map and keeps it alive by constant thinking.

That's a great mistery of time: how can we both have timelessness/eternity and a passage of time simultaneously? (To which the only logical hypothesis I'm aware of is the idea of circular spacetime, the spacetime of our finite universe forming a closed loop.)

Why is it so difficult to see that time exists nowhere but in/as thought? Is it not obvious that timelessness/eternity is the only reality and that, simultaneously, there are thoughts talking about the passage of time?
It is evident in direct experience, yet we prefer to believe in "facts" derived from thought experiments - guess its one of the defence mechanisms of the ego-self - what would I be if I lose all trust in thought (and thus in my own, separate existence)?

I remember, after my natural sensation of time was dismantled, I eventually realized that I had to partially rebuild it, artificially

Sure, I am not saying that we should throw out all our beliefs for good and cease to name objects, tell the time or live life as "the ONE" - its perfectly fine, even necessary, to use the conceptions we have invented, but we can, at the same time know that none of them define "us".

whenever I look at the world now I see it as both standing still and changing, it's weird..

Yes, sounds familiar - its because you have experienced truth but conventional life works from the limited perspective - its confusing, but in a good way, reminds you of the underlying truth of it all.

[Atla]

We can talk about the map - if whatever is being talked about is absolutely true is another question...

The only thing that states that relations exist is thought - thus thought is the relation.
The word "apple" is not the reality of the experience, but it still defines a relation - a relation that works when invoking more thought (as in communication) but it is meaningless "to what's underneath".

Yes, in a way, but we pretend/believe the opposite is true, that the map can say something about everything, and thus we continue to live life within/as this "self-refuting position"
Why? - mostly because we are unaware of it (and, also, because we don't want to know anything about it -- what would it mean to me, the ego-self..?)

But you cant say anything (that anybody else might understand) if you don't use the conceptions of the map.
Stating that spacetime is not a feature of the map, not born from your interpretation (or Einsteins or whoever) is a mistake.

Yes ultimately everything we talk about is some conceptual overlay, but this is out of context here.
We have to split the conceptual overlay into two parts as well, and pretend that one of them is directly describing what's "underneath".
I think in a way you do this too, otherwise you couldn't communicate anything at all.

What tells you that there is "observing" going on? What tells you that this is a finite universe you are observing?
The direct experience of seeing doesn't tell you any of that...
How can infinity have parts? Only thought can state such a thing.

No, that's not what observable universe means. The observable universe is the part of the universe (or the part of infinity) from which light/electromagnetic radiation had time to reach Earth. Due to the cosmological expansion, we can't tell what's beyond this. (So we can't tell if Einsteinian spacetime still applies beyond it.)

Yes, the universe/infinity has no actual parts, but how do I discuss something like the observable universe, which is smaller than the entire universe/infinity, without some notion like "part"? I'm using "part" metaphorically here.

I doubt that very much.
How I see it: Infinity has no parts, no area around something, and ultimately also no discrete, separate observers.

Not at all.
I am not sure what you mean when you refer to direct experience, but to me it is simply reality minus belief/idea - it is direct knowing via being, presence.
No physics experiment could have been conducted without thought based interpretation - it would have no result, there would be nothing to discuss. Direct experience is raw, meaningless, presence - here/now - all meaning is derived from thought, it provides an interpretation, it builds the map and keeps it alive by constant thinking.

Infinity/the universe has no actual parts, but in the observable universe, Einsteinian spacetime does apply. How do you doubt it when in the last 100 years, every experiment ever conducted has confirmed it?
It is simply wrong to claim that thought based interpretation has anything fundamental to do with this one. Here we are describing what's "underneath", what it's like. (Even if such a description is technically still part of the overlay, because everything humans think, say, write, is always part of it.)

Why is it so difficult to see that time exists nowhere but in/as thought? Is it not obvious that timelessness/eternity is the only reality and that, simultaneously, there are thoughts talking about the passage of time?
It is evident in direct experience, yet we prefer to believe in "facts" derived from thought experiments - guess its one of the defence mechanisms of the ego-self - what would I be if I lose all trust in thought (and thus in my own, separate existence)?

Because it's simply not true, Einstein spacetime applies irregardless of any conceptual map. Here we are describing what's "underneath". (Even if such a description is technically still part of the overlay, because everything humans think, say, write, is always part of it.)

[AlexW]

Yes ultimately everything we talk about is some conceptual overlay, but this is out of context here.
We have to split the conceptual overlay into two parts as well, and pretend that one of them is directly describing what's "underneath".

I don't think its out of context.
If I have to pretend that a description is true - and even Einsteinian spacetime is such a description - then how could it say anything that is absolutely true? Only if we could state anything that is absolute truth could we precisely describe what's "underneath".
I know of only one such absolute truth: "I am"u
Of course even this statement is again part of the map, it will bring up a range of ideas of what "I" and "am" actually mean (and maybe they are not even different - maybe I and am are one and the same). Anyway, its really all you know for sure - the rest is speculation (including Einsteinian spacetime).

I think in a way you do this too, otherwise you couldn't communicate anything at all.

Yes, sure I do - as you said, otherwise there would be no communication.
Its just a bit harsh to say: All you know is "I am" the rest is imagined BS. Its nicer (maybe more fun?) to talk about different things - they all lead to the same ultimate end of "I am" - thats all.

No, that's not what observable universe means. The observable universe is the part of the universe (or the part of infinity) from which light/electromagnetic radiation had time to reach Earth. Due to the cosmological expansion, we can't tell what's beyond this. (So we can't tell if Einsteinian spacetime still applies beyond it.)

I understand, and yes, it sounds great. Now look at the stars and tell me what you really see. Do you experience "electromagnetic radiation reaching Earth"? Do you experience "cosmological expansion"? Or are they all great theories but ultimately made/thought-up?
What if suddenly the truth came out that all this is a very intricate simulation? That you are a character in a computer game played by highly intelligent beings just for fun? I am not saying this is the case, but if we would have been told from childhood on that this is the case we would equally believe it, right?

Yes, the universe/infinity has no actual parts, but how do I discuss something like the observable universe, which is smaller than the entire universe/infinity, without some notion like "part"? I'm using "part" metaphorically here.

I like that - using "part" metaphorically - great!

Infinity/the universe has no actual parts, but in the observable universe, Einsteinian spacetime does apply

Sure. Equally in a game of chess certain rules apply... why? Because we made them up and then play the game according to these rules. The game falls apart once you stop following the rules.

Einstein spacetime applies irregardless of any conceptual map. Here we are describing what's "underneath". (Even if such a description is technically still part of the overlay, because everything humans think, say, write, is always part of it.)

Do you see the problem - your statement contradicts itself, doesn't it?

[Atla]

I don't think its out of context.
If I have to pretend that a description is true - and even Einsteinian spacetime is such a description - then how could it say anything that is absolutely true? Only if we could state anything that is absolute truth could we precisely describe what's "underneath".
I know of only one such absolute truth: "I am"
Of course even this statement is again part of the map, it will bring up a range of ideas of what "I" and "am" actually mean (and maybe they are not even different - maybe I and am are one and the same). Anyway, its really all you know for sure - the rest is speculation (including Einsteinian spacetime).

Yes, sure I do - as you said, otherwise there would be no communication.
Its just a bit harsh to say: All you know is "I am" the rest is imagined BS. Its nicer (maybe more fun?) to talk about different things - they all lead to the same ultimate end of "I am" - thats all.

Well I think that's pretty much out of context in a discussion about time. It just doesn't make much sense to me to turn any discussion into a discussion about "I am". Especially that we can't say anything about "I am", other than that, well, there seems to be something rather than nothing, and we are it (tat tvam asi).

(And although I do treat "I am" as an absolute truth as well, I sometimes speculate that this too might be an illusion in some incomprehensible, magical way, but this is way out of context now.)

I understand, and yes, it sounds great. Now look at the stars and tell me what you really see. Do you experience "electromagnetic radiation reaching Earth"? Do you experience "cosmological expansion"? Or are they all great theories but ultimately made/thought-up?
What if suddenly the truth came out that all this is a very intricate simulation? That you are a character in a computer game played by highly intelligent beings just for fun? I am not saying this is the case, but if we would have been told from childhood on that this is the case we would equally believe it, right?

Yes of course, seeing the stars and experiencing electromagnetic radiation reaching Earth are the same thing said twice. There's no known reason to believe otherwise.

Sure. Equally in a game of chess certain rules apply... why? Because we made them up and then play the game according to these rules. Do game falls apart once you stop following the rules.

No, the (apparent) laws of physics are not made up, you can't not follow (not be bound) by them.

Do you see the problem - your statement contradicts itself, doesn't it?

Then so does yours (just even more).

[AlexW]

No, the (apparent) laws of physics are not made up, you can't not follow (not be bound) by them.

Classical physics breaks down if we go into the quantum realm - what does that tell us?
That the laws of physics only apply to things of a certain scale?
Sounds like something is wrong... a true theory should be able to draw up rules that work for all sizes, no?

[Atla]

No, the (apparent) laws of physics are not made up, you can't not follow (not be bound) by them.

Classical physics breaks down if we go into the quantum realm - what does that tell us?
That the laws of physics only apply to things of a certain scale?
Sounds like something is wrong... a true theory should be able to draw up rules that work for all sizes, no?

Of course, but after mishandling quantum mechanics for nearly a century, now even the mainstream physics community is starting to come to its senses. So more and more of them are moving away from the Copenhagen interpretation and the LIE that QM only applies at small scales.

Of course everything is the quantum world, classical physics is an approximation of that.. in a certain way/sense/"setting" that no one fully understands yet.

[AlexW]

Of course everything is the quantum world, classical physics is an approximation of that.. in a certain way/sense/"setting" that no one fully understands yet.

Its a magical world/universe - isn't it!
I wonder if we will ever "fully understand" - my guess is not...

[Logik]

Sounds like something is wrong... a true theory should be able to draw up rules that work for all sizes, no?

Scale invariance is the biggest horseshit humanity has come up with.

What is "wrong" is the human ideal/expectation of scale invariance. For as long as we rely on Occam's bias for selecting our theories we will always end up with theories that break down at the extremes. Because our theories are simple, but reality is complex.

Scale invariance is a harmful ideal. In fact - this paper (work in progress) is trying to sum up all of humanity's ails and political mud-slinging as a (mis?)understanding of scale, complexity and asymmetry: https://www.academia.edu/38433249/Multi ... Complexity

Most of the tension is between
1) Embedded, complexity-minded, multiscale/fractal localism (politics as an ecology/complex adaptive system),
and
2) Abstract one-dimensional universalists and monoculturalism (politics as a top-down engineering project).

[Atla]

Of course everything is the quantum world, classical physics is an approximation of that.. in a certain way/sense/"setting" that no one fully understands yet.

Its a magical world/universe - isn't it!
I wonder if we will ever "fully understand" - my guess is not...

Dunno.. I spent the last 10 years trying to understand it. My opinion is: the world can NOT be understood in a classical one-universe picture. The only way forward is by adding 1-2 "multiversal" dimension to the picture, the experimental facts point towards some not yet concieved versions of the MWI/relative state/consistent histories interpretations. Something to do with loops and also confirming that there is a grain of truth to the power of intention / various forms of parapsychology etc. (Plus Einsteinian spacetime isn't even that fundamental, so they will never unify QM and GR.)

[Speakpigeon]

You need to tell me more than that.
If you accept there is a succession of "nows", and that the current now seems to follow, and follow from, the previous one, you need to explain how this is case.
And if you don't accept there is a succession of "nows", you would need to say so.

Evidence speaks against a succession of "nows" actually existing - a succession of nows (of apparently separate experiences) is not more than an idea, we never experience such a succession, all we ever do experience are thoughts talking about previous nows, successions, causes and effects, but we actually never really experience any of these things directly.

Fair enough. So, I guess, since I have no evidence that you exist at all you don't.
EB

[Logik]

Fair enough. So, I guess, since I have no evidence that you exist at all you don't.

Uttering the phrase "you don't exist" is a performative contradiction.

What is this "you" that you are referring to and why are you speaking to it if it "doesn't exist"?

[Walker]

What is time?

What it is which we measure with a clock.

So, why bother thinking about and discussing this topic that really has no affect upon your life?

Time is not important.
What is important is Life, and heart valves.

What time is, is on my side.

*

Mundane knowledge fulfillment: Mick Jagger recently underwent a medical procedure. Mick Jagger is front man for The Rolling Stones, which composed and performs, Time Is On My Side.

Clocks are for the purpose of synchronizing schedules of human activity, as in train schedules.

*

In Germany, time is important.

In India, time is meh.

[Dontaskme]

AlexW wrote:

Time (as well as space) require some kind of "substratum" to be conceptualised and thus to make any sense at all.
In deep sleep this substratum is missing and therefore we do not experience time or space - in the waking state this substratum is present as objective experience.

I think what you mean is that extended matter and mind each are aspects of the one substance. This one substance is commonly referred to as nature.

No, it's commonly known as mind. ''Nature'' implies something that is KNOWN....for something to be known you need a mind.

.

[Dontaskme]

The observable universe is not more than a conceptual map wrapped over infinity (map = objectification/interpretation).
As such, yes, space and time are inherent features of the observable universe, of the map labeled "universe".

Anyway, the map is all we can talk about as "underneath" there is... well... there is no name or concept that is able to contain/define it...

Form is empty of a separate self, but it is full of everything in the cosmos. The same is true with feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness.
Thich Nhat Hanh

True AlexW

Can't name that which is empty of a namer.

.