Reality - Real Time Passage

Since nothing passes from moment to moment it appears impossible that there could be any such thing as time that passes; this would require something of different logical type to the moments to account for such a phenomenon, and the moments are all that exist.

What would be required is something that is to the moments as the projector is to the movie, something that contains all the moments and iterates the sequence. Clearly only the unitary system as a whole contains all the moments of any given sequence. Additionally, the only possible expression of the necessary logical type for an iterator is an emergent property of the system as a whole; only the system as a whole is of the correct logical type to change the functional frame of reference from one block universe to another, giving rise to the appearance of collapse described by Everett. Objectively this transtemporal process is the collapse dynamics, subjectively it is phenomenal consciousness passing through time.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5073/1/Transtemporal_Phenomenal_Consciousness.pdf

It was recently shown that time is an emergent property according to a new Quantum Mechanical view (btw my mind just became enlightened, it was like a shift in consciousness, not phenomenal, absolute). Anyway, there is only the eternal moment according to Quantum Mechanics and once one understands this it would lead to, after logical revelations, to enlightenment/ awakening (an awareness of one's own awareness).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't even feel like responding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not that I'm complaining, but do you not see the relevance of the question of "what is time"? Do you wish now to contribute to the above?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does block universe theory exist as a contending theory of time?

 

Everything about the passage of time suggests that moments are connected and memory intact. So why do some say that the passage of time is an illusion? And if it is not does it go on infinitely? I for one have changed my stance over the years from it being real to it being an illusion.

 

Agreed. The thesis statement is basically gibberish.

 

Russ Watters, would you happen to know if time is actually moving or not?

 

Well I feel like Beer w Straw, really, but I'll make an effort:-

Time is clearly an indispensable concept for making sense of our perceptions. I do not feel that any more needs to be said to justify the validity of the concept of time. Whether we perceive the full continuum or only selected instants, like the dots in a photograph, doesn't seem to me to make any difference to the concept.

Once again I would question why this is being posted in the physics and maths section. What physics are you citing, please?

 

It appears to me that if we could come to a correct conclusion on what is real versus illusory with regards to time we could understand and know what kind of universe we are living in. Whether it is an unchanging four-dimensional block or something else.

 

What?

 

My apologies if I was not clear. Do we live and die within an eternal moment of time thereby suggesting an unchanging block or are we actually moving forward in time? Which of these seems to make the most sense to you?

 

Er, time appears to pass, and as I'm not aware of any evidence to the contrary, I conclude that it can usefully be said to pass. Physical science would obviously collapse without the concept of time passing. And physical science is pretty successful on the whole, wouldn't you say?

I'm unsure what you mean by "are we actually moving forward in time?". Time passes and objects that exist at both t=1 and t=2 may reasonably be presumed to exist during the intervening portion of time, unless there is evidence that they do not. But I do not like the implication of motion. Motion is a change in spatial coordinates, not a change in time.

I have to say the notion of an "eternal moment" of time strikes me as silly and probably deliberately self-contradictory: the sort of thing a philosophical poseur might say, in order to appear (but only superficially) profound. Is there anything of substance behind it?

 

Given the gibberish level of your posts I can't be sure you are using the word "moving" correctly, but assuming you are, no, time is not an object so it does not move.

 

Yes. I once had an experience in which time stood still. Literally. I was wondering if anyone else including you has ever heard of such a concept which is the opposite of the theory of eternalism.

 

Thank you. This answers my question and supports an experience I once had.

 

What you describe is not a concept and is not science. It is a subjective sensation, experienced by you alone.

Nothing in this thread so far is either physics or maths. If you want to spend your time on eternalism vs. presentism this is philosophy not science (and incidentally is a debate that strikes me personally as sterile and pointless, but that's by the by).

You are posting in the wrong section in my opinion and I am going to report it in the hope it may be moved.

 

I think I see what you are getting at. Is time an infinite thing that just ”is”, or is time being created anew every moment.

 

I suppose one might venture to ask; are the past, present and future all interdependent in which case all moments exist as is the case with eternalism giving rise to the reality of passage or are they independent of each other?

 

IOW, are the past, present and future all interconnected?

 

What is moving if not time? Is the concept of motion an illusion?