Seeing Time

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 753
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Seeing Time

Post by Philosophy Now » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:23 am

Raymond Tallis keeps his eye on time.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/84/Seeing_Time

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by davidm » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:42 pm

Before reading and commenting on this article, I felt I had to read the author’s earlier article on time, tense, and physics. I’d like to comment on that article first.

If we take the special and general theories of relativity seriously — and we should — it is difficult to escape the conclusion that past, present and future all exist in an unchanging “block” universe. It seems impossible to conceive of the relativity of simultaneity without subscribing to the literal reality of the past and future alongside the present.

But how seriously should we take the theory of relativity? Well, strictly, the special theory of relativity is false, for it describes purely flat local spaces and it is subsumed under general relativity. Nevertheless, block spacetime emerges from GR; but is GR really correct? So far it has passed every test, but we also know that it is not compatible with quantum mechanics. So either or both GR and QM must strictly be false. As the philosopher Bradley Monton has argued, one may even be able to derive a preferred reference frame from QM.

So I think we just don’t know and must reserve judgment on these matters. But this puts me in the mind of the physicist Max Tegmark, who distinguished between the “bird” view (mathematical) of spacetime and the “worm” view (lived experience) of spacetime. Which takes precedence? For Tegmark it seems to be the “bird” view and for Tallis it seems to be the “worm” view.

Can the two views be reconciled? Consider that if the block universe actually exists, then humans (and all other objects) have temporal parts — they are spread out across time, as they are spread out across space. My temporal parts have temporal boundary conditions — my birth at one end, my death at the other end. In between I am a world tube in Minkowski spacetime.

If this is right, my conscious experience of “now” is no surprise — my earlier temporal parts have their own conscious experiences of their “nows” and my later temporal parts have their own conscious experiences of their “nows.”

Still, this seems unsatisfying. Why am I, as I type this, experiencing this now, rather than an earlier or later now?

Of course, every other one of my “nows” is entitled to ask the same question.

Now I note something interesting. If we take temporal parts seriously and decide that there is a multiplicity of “me,” each of which is experiencing a different “now,” this is exactly analogous to the Many Worlds metatheory of quantum mechanics — that there is a multiplicity of distinct, orthogonal worlds in which endless different versions of “I” experience different realities. Under MW one can ask, “Why do I experience this version of reality?” — just as under the block universe, one can ask “Why do I experience this version of now?”

Given that GR and QM are held to be incompatible, perhaps there is a bridge here hinting at a future unification of the two?

The real linchpin, I suggest, is to resolve the nature of consciousness. Since I subscribe to the idea that there is a Hard Problem of Consciousness that awaits resolution, we may have to wait for that resolution (if it is achievable) to understand time, relativity, subjectivity and quantum physics.

jayjacobus
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:53 pm

It's confusing. If there is energy without motion in the 4th dimension then e=m. How can that be? Or if there is motion in the 4th dimension then each dimension changes and has its own time. But if that's the case, then time is parallel to our time in the 4th dimension. So do dimensions have no effect on each other?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

quoting myself from elsewhere...

Post by henry quirk » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:50 pm

Without sumthin' to measure (the decay of that dead cat in the box, for example), and the measurer, there ain't no time.

Time is perceived change of state, change of status, changes in conveyed information.

So: Rick Hunter built his Time Sphere for nuthin' cuz he and it are stuck 'here and now' with the rest of us monkeys.

...and...

Time is the result of perception...time is that sense of progression and sequence...time is what we see reality 'do'.

...and...

We perceive change, we measure it (formally and informally), and call one aspect of this perceiving/measuring 'time'.

'nuff said

jayjacobus
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:38 pm

Among other faculties, people are aware of relationships. This is because of the brain’s portrayal of reality. Without the brain, relationships are concealed in reality. Distances, for example, are portrayed by the brain. But distances without the brain are concealed.

A person seeing his shadow is aware of his shadow but that awareness has no direct effect. Instead he needs to interpret what the shadow means. It means time but time is an interpretation not an awareness. So, the brain does not reveal time. It reveals changes and memories that lead to an interpretation of time. If the brain does not reveal time, then time in reality is not discernible and may not actually exist (except in the mind). It probably doesn’t..

jayjacobus
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:30 pm

People experience the passing of time. This experience is revealed by the brain. The passing of time is “concealed” in reality and revealed by the brain but “concealed” is not really right because passing requires movement of two or more realities yet only one reality is available at any one point. So, the passing of time must come from the brain’s processing of .current and past realities.

This explains why time is not just concealed in reality. It exists in the brain but doesn’t exist in reality. People who see time are seeing what’s in the mind, not what’s in reality..

jayjacobus
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:50 pm

The brain captures a representation of each reality as each reality changes. The representation becomes the past in the brain and can be recalled. The representation is not the past but a representation of the past. Some people apparently think that the past exists but the representation of the past is what exists. In part, time as a concept comes from the sequence of representations, not from the actual past. .

People do not see time. They recall representations of the past.

jayjacobus
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:27 pm

The brain does not process time. It processes movement, change and sequences. The brain does not reveal time. The mind deduces time as a concept to organize and facilitate the ever moving reality. Saying that time is a perception is like saying numbers and words are a perception. I cannot see the past but I can remember the past and assign it a label. The label exists in my mind, not in reality. Events also exist in my mind, not in reality. To say that past events exist is reality requires evidence, not rationalization.

jayjacobus
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:30 pm

Time in one sense is a phenomenon. The phenomenon can only be experienced in the present. The past is in the wake of the phenomenon. The phenomenon is not still effecting the wake. The wake is fixed and became fixed in a past present. How can we know about the wake? Only through memories or records not by seeing an actual physical wake.

The word time has many connotations and that can be confusing. There should probably be different words to distinguish time, the phenomenon from time the wake and a word that means past present that distinguishes past changes from the progressing present.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman » Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:12 pm

We perceive forms. Our brain creates motion. That is all. We don't and cannot see time.

jayjacobus
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:19 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:12 pm
We perceive forms. Our brain creates motion. That is all. We don't and cannot see time.
I agree that we don't and cannot see time. Time is an interpretation that comes from motion but the brain does not create motion. It transforms physical motion into the appearance of motion. The appearance of motion does not have the energy nor the mass of moving objects.

I am not an idealist but, if I was, the statement "our brain creates motion" is not explanatory.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman » Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:23 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:19 pm
I agree that we don't and cannot see time.
Yes.
jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:19 pm
Time is an interpretation that comes from motion but the brain does not create motion.
Time is real and it is not an interpretation that comes from motion. In fact motion, speed for example, is not real. The only things which are real are change in form, position for example, and time.
jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:19 pm
It transforms physical motion into the appearance of motion. The appearance of motion does not have the energy nor the mass of moving objects.
We cannot perceive motion but form. Therefore brain does not transform physical motion to appearance/experience of motion. The brain use form in order to construct appearance of motion.
jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:19 pm
I am not an idealist but, if I was, the statement "our brain creates motion" is not explanatory.
I agree. I meant the appearance of motion is constructed by brain.

jayjacobus
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:02 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:23 pm

Time is real and it is not an interpretation that comes from motion. In fact motion, speed for example, is not real. The only things which are real are change in form, position for example, and time.
Time is real if you mean absolute time. But all other aspects of time are conceptual and the concepts of time come from interpretations.
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:23 pm

We cannot perceive motion but form. Therefore brain does not transform physical motion to appearance/experience of motion. The brain use form in order to construct appearance of motion.


I agree. I meant the appearance of motion is constructed by brain.
You disagree and then you agree.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:18 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:02 pm
Time is real if you mean absolute time.
What is the difference between time and absolute time?
jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:02 pm
But all other aspects of time are conceptual and the concepts of time come from interpretations.
What do you mean with aspect of time?
jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:02 pm
You disagree and then you agree.
I think I just agree with your last statement!

jayjacobus
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:37 am

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:18 am
jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:02 pm
Time is real if you mean absolute time.
What is the difference between time and absolute time?
Absolute time comes from Newton and is fundamental. Time is usually relational time. Absolute time is repetitive. Relational time is progressive.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:18 am
jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:02 pm
But all other aspects of time are conceptual and the concepts of time come from interpretations.
What do you mean with aspect of time?
Most time is an index or a measurement Neither index nor measurements exit in nature. They were conceived by people. They are concepts not perceptions.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:18 am
jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:02 pm
You disagree and then you agree.
I think I just agree with your last statement!
Perhaps we are quibbling about words.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests