## Seeing Time

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:40 pm
Let’s think about the arrow of time.

Time progresses from one state to the next. We experience what’s in the current state but not the state itself. What’s in the current state is dependent on physics and what’s in the previous state. Reverse time and what’s in the current state is still dependent on physics and what’s in the previous state. Nothing changes. The arrow of time is always from the previous state to the current state regardless of the direction of time. The direction of time is always last to current to next. The reason this is is because state is undifferentiated without matter. It is matter and energy that causes the universe to change from state to state.

Space is the same from point to point. So are states.
There are many people who will say I am wrong. They will say that to change time will reverse motion. But remember that relational time is dependent on motion. Motion is not dependent on relational time. So to change time one must change motion. That is not possible. E=M (d/t)*2 whether t goes from left to right or right to left. Gravity = G*M/R^2 which doesn’t depend on time. Reversing a film of an egg falling and breaking can be reversed but there is no physics that can explain that happening in reality. And yet some people will say that they don’t have to explain physics. They just say it will happen and physics be damned.

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

It has been said that entropy creates the direction of time.

No.

Entropy creates the direction of entropy. Entropy doesn't create time so it doesn't direct time. It would be silly to say that entropy creates the direction of space. Entropy occurs in space and it occurs in time. Time does not occur in entropy and none of the time dependent formulas can be expressed as a function of entropy. The direction of entropy seems to be a sticking point in understanding time.

GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

memory creates the direction of time. events are recorded. the order the events are recorded determines that time is moving forward.

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:38 pm
memory creates the direction of time. events are recorded. the order the events are recorded determines that time is moving forward.
Memory reveals the order of events but events are not time.

Time goes next, next, next, next, next ........

If time goes last, last, last, last, last ........, that is the same function with a different name.

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

Time always proceeds from next to next

If you read a series from left to right you read it next to next to next. If you read the series from right to left you read it next to next to next. A series of 8 characters read from left to right and then right to left, takes 16 steps even if you end up at the starting character.

The series doesn’t come from time. It may change over time but not because of time. Similarly entropy changes over time but not because of time. Nor does entropy change time from next to next to next in anyway whatsoever.

This also true of events. Events proceed next to next to next. Reverse time and they will continue to proceed next to next to next. Time is not the determining factor on how they change only the factor that they will change.

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

After some thought I offer a clarification.

One cannot say that A is dependent on B and B is dependent on A.

That is an impossibility.

But that is what time seems to be:

Time is dependent on motion and motion is dependent on time.

NO!! That is an impossibility.

What must be is the first reference to time is a different time than the second reference to time.

I deduce that the first reference to time is relational time and the second reference to time is absolute time.

Not only does this make logical sense but it conforms to Newton's thinking.

Have I proved the existence of absolute time? I think I have but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

AlexW
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

### Re: Seeing Time

jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
Time is dependent on motion and motion is dependent on time.
The measurement of time (and movement) is dependent an thought - time actually IS thought, not more and not less.
No memory of the past, no anticipation of the future and all you are left with is the now. Time evaporates in the now.
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
What must be is the first reference to time is a different time than the second reference to time.
Yes, the first is a memory the second one now. The first is only an idea, the second reality.
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
Have I proved the existence of absolute time?
There is no such thing as absolute time - there is only the now.
Stating that now = absolute time is the same as saying that there is no time, as once it is realised as being absolute it merges with eternity.
When we measure time we cut eternity into imaginary slices and call them seconds, minutes, hours... this is only possible once we exit reality (really an impossibility) via creating (and believing in) an illusion of thought that we, from now on, use to measure a part of eternity... while practical in our daily lives it doesn't change the fact that it is an illusion.

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

So, I must have explained the illusion because you haven't.

AlexW
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

### Re: Seeing Time

An explanation is only useful if it is based on truth/reality. Your explanation has nothing to do with reality - its pure thought story.
I do understand that explaining an illusion might be fun, but it doesn't change the fact that it is illusory

Stating that time is created by thought (as I did before) is all that is necessary to explain the illusion of time. What is unclear about that?

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

AlexW wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 8:48 am
An explanation is only useful if it is based on truth/reality. Your explanation has nothing to do with reality - its pure thought story.
I do understand that explaining an illusion might be fun, but it doesn't change the fact that it is illusory

Stating that time is created by thought (as I did before) is all that is necessary to explain the illusion of time. What is unclear about that?
It is not unclear at all. Your claim is a claim without a basis. I say that it is a naked claim.

You don't consider my premise nor do you consider my argument. You simply do a hachet job on thinking.

AlexW
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

### Re: Seeing Time

jayjacobus wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 3:41 pm
It is not unclear at all. Your claim is a claim without a basis. I say that it is a naked claim.
Depends what you build your basis on. The basis I use is direct experience which is prior to conceptual thought. Thought attempts to make sense of direct experience - actually your only way of knowing the world/universe. When explanations (which are always only thought) are not in tune with reality then the explanation cannot be true (BUT: at the same time it seems to be true within the conceptual structure/belief-system you have erected).
jayjacobus wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 3:41 pm
You don't consider my premise nor do you consider my argument. You simply do a hachet job on thinking.
OK, let answer more directly to your post (sorry if I have not gone into that properly):
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
One cannot say that A is dependent on B and B is dependent on A.
That is an impossibility.
One can say it, but it makes not much sense. Still the thought system most of humanity uses is built on exactly this mistake.
A can only be an object (or subject) if there is at least one B (an object). Without B there is no A, no subject, as it couldn't differentiate itself from anything. So saying that I am "A" is useless if there is only A.
If you go deep enough into your own direct experience (strip away as many layers of conceptual thought as possible) you will find that neither A nor B exist as separate entities. You will find no thing, but only *this*, infinity, eternity...
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
Time is dependent on motion and motion is dependent on time.
NO!! That is an impossibility.
Yes, and as you said, motion is only possible if there are separate objects, but what if there are none? You might still be able to make them up, bring them into existence via dualistic thinking (which is exactly what we do) and then built a theory of time on top of the wrong assumption - but this doesn't make time real, it makes it something we can use like many other crazy ideas (useful or not) but it won't become anymore real because of that.
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
What must be is the first reference to time is a different time than the second reference to time.
Time itself is only an idea, a reference to an idea is again not more than that.
But yes, in a way the reference to the second time, if you call it now, this moment, is the only time that really exists (it's not really time though as time needs a past to qualify as time - otherwise its simply now and calling it time is confusion).
The past, the first reference to time, is only a thought, again happening now, the second reference to time is always now (or you might have two points of time, both only remembered, both in the past - they are as such both only thoughts happening now).
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
I deduce that the first reference to time is relational time and the second reference to time is absolute time.
I am not sure how you came up with the name, relational time, but I guess you call it relational as it seems to be in a certain relation to now, which I guess is what you refer to when you mention "absolute time", right?
What puts things into relation? What can put now, this moment, reality, into relation with the past (which again only exists as thought happening now)?
The answer is thought. Thought is as such the relation that "relational time" uses to relate to the now. Agree? Or do you see another kind of relation? If so can you please let me know what kind of relation?

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

AlexW wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 11:39 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 3:41 pm
It is not unclear at all. Your claim is a claim without a basis. I say that it is a naked claim.
Depends what you build your basis on. The basis I use is direct experience which is prior to conceptual thought. Thought attempts to make sense of direct experience - actually your only way of knowing the world/universe. When explanations (which are always only thought) are not in tune with reality then the explanation cannot be true (BUT: at the same time it seems to be true within the conceptual structure/belief-system you have erected).
jayjacobus wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 3:41 pm
You don't consider my premise nor do you consider my argument. You simply do a hachet job on thinking.
OK, let answer more directly to your post (sorry if I have not gone into that properly):
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
One cannot say that A is dependent on B and B is dependent on A.
That is an impossibility.
One can say it, but it makes not much sense. Still the thought system most of humanity uses is built on exactly this mistake.
A can only be an object (or subject) if there is at least one B (an object). Without B there is no A, no subject, as it couldn't differentiate itself from anything. So saying that I am "A" is useless if there is only A.
If you go deep enough into your own direct experience (strip away as many layers of conceptual thought as possible) you will find that neither A nor B exist as separate entities. You will find no thing, but only *this*, infinity, eternity...
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
Time is dependent on motion and motion is dependent on time.
NO!! That is an impossibility.
Yes, and as you said, motion is only possible if there are separate objects, but what if there are none? You might still be able to make them up, bring them into existence via dualistic thinking (which is exactly what we do) and then built a theory of time on top of the wrong assumption - but this doesn't make time real, it makes it something we can use like many other crazy ideas (useful or not) but it won't become anymore real because of that.
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
What must be is the first reference to time is a different time than the second reference to time.
Time itself is only an idea, a reference to an idea is again not more than that.
But yes, in a way the reference to the second time, if you call it now, this moment, is the only time that really exists (it's not really time though as time needs a past to qualify as time - otherwise its simply now and calling it time is confusion).
The past, the first reference to time, is only a thought, again happening now, the second reference to time is always now (or you might have two points of time, both only remembered, both in the past - they are as such both only thoughts happening now).
jayjacobus wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
I deduce that the first reference to time is relational time and the second reference to time is absolute time.
I am not sure how you came up with the name, relational time, but I guess you call it relational as it seems to be in a certain relation to now, which I guess is what you refer to when you mention "absolute time", right?
What puts things into relation? What can put now, this moment, reality, into relation with the past (which again only exists as thought happening now)?
The answer is thought. Thought is as such the relation that "relational time" uses to relate to the now. Agree? Or do you see another kind of relation? If so can you please let me know what kind of relation?
WHEN THE BAT IS IN THE BELFRY, it's your belfry.

When the donkey brays, it comes out of your mouth.

When the dunce is in the corner, chances are it's you.

When brains were handed out, you got crap.

Do you understand what I am saying now?

AlexW
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

### Re: Seeing Time

Sounds like you are upset... I didn't mean to offend you.
Anyway, the donkey has to go now to take his son to soccer.
Good luck proving "the existence of absolute time"

jayjacobus
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Seeing Time

That's odd.

You seem to be trying to offend me.

And it's a surprise that you have a son because you reason like a teenager.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests