## Raymond Tallis

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

It’s easy to shift from one perspective of time to another without realizing the shift. Thinking of time as absolute and relational in the same paragraph leads to such a shift and I did so in earlier posts.

Absolute time may be repetitive but relational time is related to motion and change which can be infinitely divided. The distinction may be subtle but the connotation can be misleading. Other people make not so subtle shifts in meaning.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

The perspective about time leads me to comment on Minkowski spacetime. He relates time to x,y,z while time relates to change in x,y,z. Without change there is no time.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

x,y,z are used to specify reference points. They are not the objects that are being referred to. Are there reference points which can't be seen? That would not be of any value in locating objects.

Besides changing the meaning of the dimensions over time does not make sense.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Time does not control reality. This is because time is relational, concerning how two or more events are connected. Reversing time does not change the events, only how the relationships are specified. Baking a cake for 40 minutes is the same time as starting at 0 minutes and counting up to 40 or starting at 40 and counting down to 0. Time does not control heat it only measures how much duration is required. The required duration is the same whether time is backward or forward.

Absolute time (if it exists) permits changes but does not determine what the changes will be. So the physical determinants will be the same no matter what direction time heads.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Time as we think of it is a frame of reference. Like numbers it is an abstract set of reference points but unlike numbers it doesn’t refer to physical objects. It refers to mind representations, memories.

Take away this frame of reference and mind representations and what is left is movement and change. But movement and change is not time so take away movement and change and nothing is left, at least nothing discernible.

Looked at this way, time seems to be only a frame of reference and the interpretation of representations to which it refers.
A lot more can and has been written about time but the writers should always realize what time is and what it can’t be.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

The above post does not dismiss Newtonian time. Newtonian time is theoretical and the theory is that a function underlies all movement and change. This could be (I'm not sure) but call it operational time not dimensional time. While theoretical time covers all of space its only characteristic is a repetitive operation.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

It has been said that time is what we use a clock to measure. A clock has an operation and every operation produces the same tick tock which is a beat The beat has a set duration of one second and, as long is the clock is functioning , it has a never ending beat. But the hands of the clock transform the beats into sums of beats and positions of the hands. The positions of the hands correspond to location of the earth’s rotation or time of day. This, of course is by design.

While it is the beat of the clock that determines its function, people don’t say “what beat is it?” nor ”How many beats until dinner?” They forget that time is really a function and not just a measurement. The count of beats is never used for dates but could be.

Now, however is not a beat or beats. It is the time we live in. This has been discussed before.

Counting space is wrong headed. Time is not a compilation of space. It’s a compilation of beats.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

A beat has a duration. Once the beat is done the duration remains. The present has beats and duration. The past only has duration.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

An antecedent cannot become a precedent to the past. This is because the antecedent is a result of the past and a cause of the future. How can an antecedent be a cause of the past? Reversing time does not change the antecedent's effect on the future or it's outcome from the past.

Looked at a different way, the new past must be different than the old past and follow the new sequence from precedent to antecedent. In other words the "new" future.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Is time subjective? Perhaps, in the sense that distance is subjective because distance is not known without a mind. But distance exists and to most people distance is objective. Time is objective too but, like distance, is relational. All the time relationships are objective. The relationships are not mind dependent. They exist without a mind but are not interpreted without a mind.

The basis of relationships exist in reality but, if the connections are not physical, the relationships are only know in the mind.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

The hands of a clock move but the face of the clock is stationary. What this means is that all change is done by the hands and no change is done by the face. Yet the hands point to positions on the fixed face. The face represents times that were, are and will be but the representations are in space, not in time. This is not a problem because everyone knows the clock represents time, not space. The past beats cannot be experienced because the past beats are gone. But where the hands are, indicate when they are relative to a fixed frame of reference. The hands of the clock move in time. The face is for reference only.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Change can be thought of as many, many minute incremental changes.

Only one incremental change is active in a series at any one time.

The active incremental change follows and is determined by the last incremental change.

All prior incremental changes are inactive.

The physical universe progresses from one active incremental change to the next without any impact from inactive incremental changes.

People are aware of the active and inactive incremental changes allowing them to see cause and effect.

Time emerges from awareness of the sequence created by the active incremental changes.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Time is relational to movement. If time is a dimension and there is movement, then there is some time that is not dimensional. But all time is relational to movement. So no time is dimensional. The fourth dimension is mathematical trickery.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

It can be said that I am in the present, the present was in the future before now and the past will follow next after the present. This sounds like the future was in the past and the past will be in the future. Alternatively, looked at a different way, the past preceded the present and thus the past was actually in the past. It is the ever changing present that confounds the two perceptions. The present does precede the past but it is a different present at each and every moment. The past and future never change. Only the present changes and with it the perception of past and future changes. All change happens in the present or when the present was then. In other words there were many, many presents, each with a slightly different relationship to the time index.

jayjacobus
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Time is not an illusion because time is not a perception. It is an interpretation. Movement, change, order and memories are perceptions. Is the time interpretation of perceptions wrong? Not necessarily but some people use the interpretation as if it is real. It is not real. It is a frame of reference. Different ways of manipulating the frame of reference can lead to odd results. I would suggest going back to the perceptions when devising a new way of looking at time.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests