A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

[The Voice of Time]

So I was thinking, pondering the other day what is the "nature" of time as we experience it. I found it a truly complex problem to solve, but in the end I found a staggeringly simple (or at least relatively simple) explanation for it.

Imagine 3 people keeping track of three different things. Each of these people, as the world flows by in their minds they will create "layers" of knowledge, which could be called instantaneous perspectives, or instantaneous Gestalts of Time. These would all contain a degree of "activeness", meaning that you remember something clearer that is now, than was 3 seconds ago because the activeness of the 3-seconds past has declined in the absence of the initial "ignition" creating what some one English epistemologist called "imprint". The sudden activity of neurons upon creating the image of knowing.

Each of these persons, checking each other; starts at same time, as a cause, each "imprint" in each person would say that "yes, that other person was instant, at the same instance, with me in initiating and tracking ones process" (alternatively but much less preferable some by-standers confirming instead. As we are investigating time being a human experience and clocks an artificial construction, clocks are invalid for use in this test). Then they have three different types of processes of things (like water dropping and landing until it's empty, or some similar natural object of simple counting, but one unique process for each person). As these people continue to keep track, and because the things are different in their process (at least that's what the test requires if the last part of it shall be completed), they will all experience a lack of uniform process-length, in that they will complete the processes at different layerings of the mind, there will be a different activity when the processes are all ended according to each of them.

All the processes, while we cannot confirm the exact difference of layering as in counting layers, we can say such things with certainty of mind that, x y and z, are either before or after each other in completing, in that each and every one of them are either completed in the last layering, in the former layering, or in the layering in-between those. The result we achieve here is that each of them has an ambiguous but relationally determined length, but also, we can state such things as that the "distance of layering between any two of the processes, the additional one layering functioning as a measure device", can be calculated as "one process being longer and shorter", and when this type of calculation is carried out in all 3 possible combinations (that all of the three processes are used once as a measure device to calculate the others) you will see, that process of value a (shortest), b (middle), c (longest), are in relation to each other having "different" values, because the measuring device gives different outcomes as itself changes. Example: M = process being measuring device, in this instance being b (middle), if b (middle) is measured against "c" (longest) and "a" (shortest), c = longest and a = shortest, however, if c (longest) = M, and b (middle) and a (shortest), then b = longest and a = shortest, in other words, it has changed which one is the longest! Right now this doesn't seem very surprising, but let us continue, a = M, c, b, and c = longest and b = shortest, now, which one of these has the smallest average length disparity? The reason why I'm asking this is because any process with the smallest length disparity compared to other processes will be the most accurate device of measurement in telling if other things occur in rhythm with that thing! Think of it, rhythm, if three different rhythms, let me give you them a lasting in a imagined value-system equalling a = 3, b = 5, and c = 10, then when 5 * a occurs, five times three seconds, you would have 5a/c = 1,5 c, and 5a/b = 3 b. When 5 * c occurs you will have 10 b and 18,66 a. If 5 * b then 2,5 c and 6,33 a.

Look now, if you want to have accuracy in length, you want a process which has the least disparity in comparison with other alternative measuring, because if there's great disparity then the value fluctuates wildly and you don't have the faintest idea which one to pick! So, if two "c" process occurs, you have 4b, if one "a" occurs you have 1b, that you have experienced, so which one of these gives the right value? With my imagined value-system, you could of course just say that "oh, it doesn't matter because arithmetics says I can just convert one to the other freely, as they are all based on the numbers in the imagined value-system", however, here comes the problem, this system doesn't exist, you don't KNOW the actual relation value of each one of them, to find this out you would first have to give authority to one of them (seconds is officially the count of some atom's decay, a process in other words just like the rest of these here, so it would be among one of the alternatives here and you would not be able to know it is a good measure, yet). So we want to find the least disparity so that regardless of which other process we measure against this least-disparity-of-length process, those would be as similar to this one process as possible in outcome of value when counting through the relationship how many... apples falls down from the tree for each rain-drop (rain-drop-falling being the measure here), and later how many oranges falls down from the tree for each rain-drop, and when you try shifting positions and calculating using apples or oranges as the measure in this trio of processes, you would get as much similar as possible a relational value as when counting from the rain-drops.

A lot of time in the world may have been lost to us if this is just something I found out now and not something known to time-specialists beforehand, because if not known beforehand that means the such called "seconds" we have on our time-counting-systems may have treated different processes (objects-in-time etc.) with unacceptable disparity of accuracy resulting in a distortion of synchronization of the world at large, and a false understanding of time. For the somewhat complexness of this I've written above, or the rather unintuitive nature of it, this might very well have been the case I think.

But! I'm skipping part the calculations! Let me go through them: so a (shortest), b (middle) and c (longest). If a = M then b = shortest and c = longest. If b = M then a equals shortest and c = longest. If c = M then a = shortest and b = longest. So, a is twice shortest, b is once shortest and once longest, c is twice longest. The number equivalent here is a = 1, b = 1.5, and c = 2, as 1 is always shortest, therefore "a" = 1/1 = 1; 2 always longer than 1, therefore "c" = 2/2 = 1; while "b" therefore 1/2. The result we come up with is that "a" has disparity-average 1 , "b" has disparity-average 0.5, and "c" has disparity-average 1. This is easily proven in a more simplistic way by stating that as a is shortest, it is a = 1, c, being always longest also longer than b, is c = 3, and b being always in-between, b = 2. Here the "difference" between "c" and "a", "a" and "c", is 2 from both sides! While the difference between b (2) and a (1) and b (2) and c (3) is always 1, half of both a and c.

With such small numbers and just three logical types this might seem unimpressive, but as you start escalating with greater number of things you get more sophisticated sums. What with 4 processes? 10 processes? what if we compare 1000 processes? It's just a thought experiment, as I guess three processes is the closest thing you can get to anytime conduct this test, this experiment, in the real world, there is a saying that 2 is a couple, 3 is a group, 4 is a crowd. Crowds are hard to eye, not so with a rather small group.

[The Voice of Time]

That was not an argument. And you know it's not stupid. If you want to argue against me be my guest, but please save me your laser-guided attempts of trying to destroy a person's thrill of joy or emotions just for the lolz. Man up and bring me something real engaging and not just this sourness of yours!

[response to moderator-deleted post]

[ForgedinHell]

That was not an argument. And you know it's not stupid. If you want to argue against me be my guest, but please save me your laser-guided attempts of trying to destroy a person's thrill of joy or emotions just for the lolz. Man up and bring me something real engaging and not just this sourness of yours!

No, your "theory" is stupid, and in science, it's evidence that counts, not couch-potato speculation like you philosophy guys engage in. Why do you think scientists and engineers get bored to death when a humanities guy stops on by to discuss their science theories? It's worse than talking to a child, because at least a child has a sincere interest in learning about reality.

Take for example your substitution of other time keepers besides a clock. What you don't realize is that makes no differenece. Since time itself varies depending on reference frames, whether one uses a standard digital clock, water dripping, or whatever, the result will be exactly the same. After that feeble suggestion by you, I do admit I stopped paying attention to the rest of the feeble theory.

If you want to understand time, pick up a damn book on physics and study it. Not a pop physics book, but an actual textbook, and work through the problems. It will take you years of study, but unlike the study oh philosophy, you actually learn something that is real and meaningful when you study physics.

Good enough argument for you now, or do you want me to add to your thumping?

[The Voice of Time]

The point here is a dialectic of different reference frames. Read it again, entirely this time, all is proven.

If qualities of the world are lost, as I here have proven they are, throughout time, then a question pops up which is not natural for physicists to ask, rather philosophers of physics, namely: what is the quality, the good quality, of the time passing? This however is very interesting for the human well-being, as well as it leaves evidence, just like math leaves evidence in their theorems and so forth, of a hidden something in time, lost to observation.

It is interesting that what you claim above, that physicists only cares about evidence (not that I don't have evidence as this could be called mathematical evidence, or some form of primitive but powerful theoretical physics) is what they said back in the time of Einstein, namely they claimed that Einstein didn't do physics but philosophy ^^ I think they are both very interlinked. Powerful philosophies, like systems of axioms, ethical filtering systems (very useful in medical knowledge, biology etc.), logical clarification systems (computer science etc.), and so forth are the frameworks which enables good science.

My theory is no less pure physics than Schrödinger's Cat, which itself is philosophy, but have had huge influence on the history of physics, introducing terms such as "entanglement". I think it is you who needs to pick up a physics book and read the introduction describing the field ^^ But this thread here is more focused on the epistemological side of the issue, not the physical, as it's rather interesting to individuals how they obtain knowledge about the world.

[ForgedinHell]

The point here is a dialectic of different reference frames. Read it again, entirely this time, all is proven.

If qualities of the world are lost, as I here have proven they are, throughout time, then a question pops up which is not natural for physicists to ask, rather philosophers of physics, namely: what is the quality, the good quality, of the time passing? This however is very interesting for the human well-being, as well as it leaves evidence, just like math leaves evidence in their theorems and so forth, of a hidden something in time, lost to observation.

It is interesting that what you claim above, that physicists only cares about evidence (not that I don't have evidence as this could be called mathematical evidence, or some form of primitive but powerful theoretical physics) is what they said back in the time of Einstein, namely they claimed that Einstein didn't do physics but philosophy ^^ I think they are both very interlinked. Powerful philosophies, like systems of axioms, ethical filtering systems (very useful in medical knowledge, biology etc.), logical clarification systems (computer science etc.), and so forth are the frameworks which enables good science.

My theory is no less pure physics than Schrödinger's Cat, which itself is philosophy, but have had huge influence on the history of physics, introducing terms such as "entanglement". I think it is you who needs to pick up a physics book and read the introduction describing the field ^^ But this thread here is more focused on the epistemological side of the issue, not the physical, as it's rather interesting to individuals how they obtain knowledge about the world.

Look, Einstein proved his point through real math, and you did nothing of the kind. He also started off accepting a couple fundamental principles, and went from there. Furthermore, until the empirical evidence came in, scientists held off on believing in the theory, which is what scientists do. The only jerk-offs who claimed Einsteing wasn't doing real science were the nazis, who didn't like his mathematical "Jew physics." To compare your nonsense in any way to the work of Einstein is a farce.

[Resha Caner]

So I was thinking, pondering the other day what is the "nature" of time as we experience it. I found it a truly complex problem to solve, but in the end I found a staggeringly simple (or at least relatively simple) explanation for it.

Maybe I'm just too tired, but the length of your post was a bit much for me to absorb. So can we break it down? Is there a one sentence sound bite for your idea that would serve as a summary?

In the meantime, I'll key in on your statement: "time as we experience it." Do you think time exists apart from the human mind? If so, is it physical or metaphysical?

[The Voice of Time]

I use math there above, just because I don't use function theory, matrix theory, Calculus or some else easily spotable advanced form of mathematics that doesn't make the subject less mathematical ^^ You are lecturing me on getting a physics book when you obviously do not have the faintest idea yourself about what physics studies, not to mention math and in this other thread WW2 History. You are bluffing confidence and knowledge, and trying to remove yourself from the topic while still denouncing it in the shadow of general non-supported statements.

Einstein was divided. He has been called both a philosopher and a physicist, because on the one hand his physics is a phenomenological theory of the laws underlying the movements of things, such has the curvature of space and the implications of the speed of light, on the other hand it is a physics theory which tells of the calculable nature of the given phenomena, that the movements of things are also portrayable through math.

I have not focused as much on phenomenology and instead epistemology, and offered a display of its mathematical nature. If you don't understand the connection you should buy a math book, advanced mathematics, foundations, analytic number theory, algebra, and so forth, before you try to portray meta-understandings you do not possess but fake and deceive.

[ForgedinHell]

I use math there above, just because I don't use function theory, matrix theory, Calculus or some else easily spotable advanced form of mathematics that doesn't make the subject less mathematical ^^ You are lecturing me on getting a physics book when you obviously do not have the faintest idea yourself about what physics studies, not to mention math and in this other thread WW2 History. You are bluffing confidence and knowledge, and trying to remove yourself from the topic while still denouncing it in the shadow of general non-supported statements.

Einstein was divided. He has been called both a philosopher and a physicist, because on the one hand his physics is a phenomenological theory of the laws underlying the movements of things, such has the curvature of space and the implications of the speed of light, on the other hand it is a physics theory which tells of the calculable nature of the given phenomena, that the movements of things are also portrayable through math.

I have not focused as much on phenomenology and instead epistemology, and offered a display of its mathematical nature. If you don't understand the connection you should buy a math book, advanced mathematics, foundations, analytic number theory, algebra, and so forth, before you try to portray meta-understandings you do not possess but fake and deceive.

Strange then how years ago I managed to earn a degree in physics and was only two math classes shy of a degree in math? I have forgotten a lot, but I am relearning. Einstein was a scientist, and to the extent he held philosophical views, they were very similar to other Jewish thinkers and scientists, like Deutsch and Goldstein. But, please do not insult the physicist Einstein by referring to him as a philosopher. It's an insult, as another great scientists named Feynman pointed out. Physicists, unlike philosophers, actually know things and they know how to think.

[Grendel]

No, your "theory" is stupid, and in science, it's evidence that counts, not couch-potato speculation like you philosophy guys engage in. Why do you think scientists and engineers get bored to death when a humanities guy stops on by to discuss their science theories? It's worse than talking to a child, because at least a child has a sincere interest in learning about reality.

So you joined a philosophy forum simply to tell people to stop talking about philosophy!?!?

Bye! I'm off to an an archaeology forum now to tell them it's wrong to chat about the past............

[ForgedinHell]

No, your "theory" is stupid, and in science, it's evidence that counts, not couch-potato speculation like you philosophy guys engage in. Why do you think scientists and engineers get bored to death when a humanities guy stops on by to discuss their science theories? It's worse than talking to a child, because at least a child has a sincere interest in learning about reality.

So you joined a philosophy forum simply to tell people to stop talking about philosophy!?!?

Bye! I'm off to an an archaeology forum now to tell them it's wrong to chat about the past............

Why not come to a philosophy forum and explain to its membership how they are better off studying science? If I made that statement at a science forum, people would just say, "Duh." So, you, with your degree in philosophy, who no doubt claims to now be educated in "how to think," somehow concluded that no one should ever criticize the failings of philosophy on a philosophy forum, impliedly, because of some social reason of civility? But, what if my position is true, which it is? Would I then be more civil, more mannered, more respected, by allowing people on a philosophy forum to continue living in ignorance? Is that the argument your study in philosophy is telling you to make? And you wonder why I take the position I have?

[The Voice of Time]

So I was thinking, pondering the other day what is the "nature" of time as we experience it. I found it a truly complex problem to solve, but in the end I found a staggeringly simple (or at least relatively simple) explanation for it.

Maybe I'm just too tired, but the length of your post was a bit much for me to absorb. So can we break it down? Is there a one sentence sound bite for your idea that would serve as a summary?

In the meantime, I'll key in on your statement: "time as we experience it." Do you think time exists apart from the human mind? If so, is it physical or metaphysical?

I'm not of the opinion that the statement that time exists apart from the mind makes any sense, as then we couldn't know it. The post I'm afraid cannot be shortened... at least not easily... as I already shortened it.

But let me try to bring a short summary, though this won't make the good point: 3 people observe the completion of 3 processes which all initiates simultaneously. These three processes are all, as specified how above, put into relation to each other in an epistemological sense. Further, as they can all now be compared, we want to find out which one is the most dependable regardless of which other process we choose to compare it with, this is a fundamental challenge of time's capacity for treating things equally and not varying as you vary what is used to measure time with, that is; what process is used to measure other processes. In the end is given a calculation which shows that between 3 given processes, the one completed not first and not last will principally be the most equal-treating, in other words, the disparity left when choosing this one, the disparity compared to both of the others, is less than if choosing some of the others, and in so doing you will not, and this is the cookie of it all: you will not "loose" time, as in processes, in that you don't count all things in the same rhythm, because if the rhythm is different you'll have different results, and of course the results will be always capable of differing but here they are principally differing from the point of view, and we want the point of view which is the most similar to the least-disparity so that no one point of view (process used as measure-device) counts all movements of a given something (all change in that something) but another one doesn't count all that change in the same rhythm and therefore achieves a different result, because points of view cannot be changed like fixed currency, instead points of view are fundamental, and non-negotiable.


As easy and short as I could make it, but you should read the whole thing. This just tells about it, the thing at the top proves it.

[The Voice of Time]

No, your "theory" is stupid, and in science, it's evidence that counts, not couch-potato speculation like you philosophy guys engage in. Why do you think scientists and engineers get bored to death when a humanities guy stops on by to discuss their science theories? It's worse than talking to a child, because at least a child has a sincere interest in learning about reality.

So you joined a philosophy forum simply to tell people to stop talking about philosophy!?!?

Bye! I'm off to an an archaeology forum now to tell them it's wrong to chat about the past............

God, that stuck in my imagination, I laughed out loud!

[The Voice of Time]

But, please do not insult the physicist Einstein by referring to him as a philosopher. It's an insult, as another great scientists named Feynman pointed out. Physicists, unlike philosophers, actually know things and they know how to think.

Wikipedia categorizes him as a Philosopher of Science, and speaks of him being extremely interested in the philosophical implications of his theories:

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

Also, he was deeply into Spinoza, a Jewish philosopher which in no way can be called a scientist. Instead, a deeply religious and highly metaphysically interested personality of the early modern era. As well, there is actually an own wiki-article dedicated purely to Albert's religious views! So much for the pure scientist Albert ^^ The degree you had in physics must be one of those you stress yourself for just to make the exam and then have no deep understanding of it afterwards... mayhap it was shallow, I dunno. You don't show an understanding at least. And you won't win a discussion on Einstein if your current knowledge is a portrayal of the rest of your knowledge, then I must be vastly more knowledgeable about this personality (I've read an extensive biography about him published in the midst of the last decade, watched movies about him and altogether held an eye on the guy wherever I go on the internet).

[ForgedinHell]

No, your "theory" is stupid, and in science, it's evidence that counts, not couch-potato speculation like you philosophy guys engage in. Why do you think scientists and engineers get bored to death when a humanities guy stops on by to discuss their science theories? It's worse than talking to a child, because at least a child has a sincere interest in learning about reality.

So you joined a philosophy forum simply to tell people to stop talking about philosophy!?!?

Bye! I'm off to an an archaeology forum now to tell them it's wrong to chat about the past............

God, that stuck in my imagination, I laughed out loud!

It figures you would laugh, because you are engaged in an even bigger farce. You yourself are claiming to have a scientific theory regarding time. It's anything but. When you say "same time" how do you get there? When you say clocks are discarded, but you use other devices, what does that have to do with time itself? When you concern yourself about varying measurements regarding length, that is precisely why physicists use the invariant quantity called space-time, because that only differs between observers when causal relationships are unaffected between events. You are engaged in a mental "experiment" that physicists have already dealt with long ago, and have come up with far betters answers to, especially since their answers are supported by empirical evidence.

Read a book on physics, then you'll start to learn how to reason.

[ForgedinHell]

But, please do not insult the physicist Einstein by referring to him as a philosopher. It's an insult, as another great scientists named Feynman pointed out. Physicists, unlike philosophers, actually know things and they know how to think.

Wikipedia categorizes him as a Philosopher of Science, and speaks of him being extremely interested in the philosophical implications of his theories:

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

Also, he was deeply into Spinoza, a Jewish philosopher which in no way can be called a scientist. Instead, a deeply religious and highly metaphysically interested personality of the early modern era. As well, there is actually an own wiki-article dedicated purely to Albert's religious views! So much for the pure scientist Albert ^^ The degree you had in physics must be one of those you stress yourself for just to make the exam and then have no deep understanding of it afterwards... mayhap it was shallow, I dunno. You don't show an understanding at least. And you won't win a discussion on Einstein if your current knowledge is a portrayal of the rest of your knowledge, then I must be vastly more knowledgeable about this personality (I've read an extensive biography about him published in the midst of the last decade, watched movies about him and altogether held an eye on the guy wherever I go on the internet).

Einstein didn't believe in life after death, a creator god, any supernatural realm. Neither did Spinoza. What you and others consider to be religion, he considered to be superstition. What you and others on here consider to be god, he thought of as a false belief that was childish. Einstein was reliious in the sense he believed in Spinoza's god, which is an atheist's view of the cosmos. In a nutshell, Einstein believed that there was an order underlying everything, that could be explained with math. Big deal. People accept this view without ever dwelling on Spinoza, nor do they need to. Furthermore, only by looking at the empirical evidence can we figure out if the math really is correct.