This is an idea I've been working on about how the brain's rate of perception infers time and space. It's based on a supposition of 'Tom Burns Bacon'(?), but I'm unaware of the name of it's author. Time is not inherent to the Universe. A detailed search of the Universe will reveal that there's no such thing as 'time', but only this moment... and this moment....and this moment. Some think of time as being one moment piled up ontop of another moment to create four dimensional space. You can imagine it a bit like a polaroid picture being taken of this present moment and then another being slapped on top, and then another, until eventually a worm-like structure appears. This idea of four dimensional space creates the illusion that time is real, and somehow tangible in the Universe, but it's not. The only place where four dimensional space exists is in the human mind. What really happens with that polaroid as it lands on top of the one below, is that the old picture disappears- it ceases to exist and it's replaced by this moment....and then this moment... Over 99% of an atom is empty space. In-fact there is hardly any matter whatsoever. The electrons which orbit an atom spin so fast that it enables a mostly empty structure to appear solid to the observer. If we were to shrink ourselves and accelerate our speed of perception, the electrons of that atom would appear to slow down in their orbits. Eventually the atom would become more apparent for its empty space than its solidness, and I can't help but draw on an image of our own solar system to illustrate this (but perhaps another time). What this shows is an inextricable relationship between matter, time and our rate of perception. The rate at which we percieve the spin of an atom designates just how solid (or empty) matter appears to be. Matter is thus revealed as a function of time. Time is created by our rate of perception and is therefore personal to each observer. Time is the product of how we percieve the Universe, and not inherent to the Universe itself. Time inside an atom is measured in attoseconds. One attosecond is one quillionth of a second. To try and give that some kind of perspective, one attosecond is to one second what one second is to the age of the Universe. One attosecond is the time it takes light to travel the length of 3 hydrogen atoms. 150 attoseconds is the time it takes for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. These speeds are unfathomably fast, but only in relation to our rate of perception which is measured in 'yawn' milliseconds. The earliest response to stimuli begins at the cerebellum within 2 ms, whilst the first response of the visual cortex is around 50-70 ms. A full state of arousal of the brain takes around 200 ms. So what we have is a vast, almost unthinkable difference in time scales : one millisecond is one thousandth of a second, but if an attosecond were stretched to the length of a full second, a second would last longer than 31 million years. If I was to speed up my rate of perception from milliseconds to attoseconds, then the rate at which I drop the next polaroid would slow down. The motion of the Universe would thus slow down BUT the metronome of my thoughts would remain the same. I could have millions and millions of thoughts, one after the other, in the exact same moments where you produce only one thought. If I increased it further, say the speed of light, then I would stop....everything would stop....but only in relation to me; in other words only my experience would have stopped - and not the Universe itself.
That is interesting. Are you making it up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, just kidding. I have to agree with you that time is a continuum of "nows". The perception of time is a characteristic of the brains ability of store "nows". Though individual perceptions of time might differ from one person to the next, I think that the equipment that we use to perceive time (the brain) is genetically quite similar among humans and so the perception of time from one person to the next is probably quite similar. And the point about time on different levels is interesting, and probaly would become a characteristic of different levels of order in a discussion of Turtles all the way down. But infinite regression is pseudoscience. It seems that time in attoseconds it is only a concept where the interval between "nows" is closer to zero, just like time itself is only a concept to some of us. On the real time continuum each now would be infinitely short and of course nothing can be real that is infinitely short. It is surreal or imaginary and so it is conceptual (but not real). Of course there are those who insist that time is more than a concept and exists coupled with space to create space-time.
Perhaps You should re-work Your idea (though it may cost your valuable time!) Then why not use the word "time"? Probably. "Four dimensional space" is a relatively new invention of the human mind, "Time" is not. Who says it has anything to do with polaroids - I hardly understand? Why contradict Yourself: If time is only an illusion of course You cannot do anything "another time"! Let us assume You are right(You´re not in my opinion), then of course we cannot change our false perception since we cannot change anything. If I increased it further, say the speed of light, then I would stop....everything would stop....but only in relation to me; in other words only my experience would have stopped - and not the Universe itself.[/QUOTE] So You and your mind is outside the universe?
I just want to comment on this statement because it is a common impression and gets brought up when the "concept" of time is referred to as anything other than the relative measure of motion between objects (and particles). In other words, the ability of the brain to remember the past events (nows) can be used to describe time as a comparison of stored memories. This concept of time must be added to the obvious use of "time" as a common endeavor to measure time. By combining the perception and the measurement aspects of time you have a broader description of what time is. If you try to describe time as one of the two descriptions, perception in the brain or relative motion time measurement, there are always paradoxes. The objection to perception only, i.e. "then you cannot do anything another time", or "then of course we cannot change ... anything" presents a paradox because we obviously can do things and change things. There is problem with this thinking as you point out. IMHO the problem with the narrow description of time as perception in the brain is that we are forgetting that the brain can not only remember past events and put them into a "time passes" perspective (perception), but ... The brain can also anticipate the future and cause actions "now" that will affect the future. By using our ability to anticipate time passing and to think into the future we can affect events. That ability to affect the future by what we do now is one reason that I can't agree with the concept that the universe is deterministic.
"If I increased it further, say the speed of light, then I would stop....everything would stop....but only in relation to me; in other words only my experience would have stopped - and not the Universe itself.[/quote] So You and your mind is outside the universe?" Hello fantasus. Thanks for reading. If my experience came to an end, then only pure consciousness would remain. You know, the stuff of empty awareness which Buddhists sometimes refer to as 'mind'. So it appears I would be gone, but the mind (or pure consciousness) would remain. Consciousness is thus revealed as something which always belonged to the Universe anyways. To also add to the intrigue, if spacetime does not exist, then the speed of light in a vacuum has nothing to do with time. The speed of light in a vacuum is simply the speed of light in a vacuum. This then opens up the possibility of waves which propagate faster than light in a vacuum.
Hello quantum wave. Thanks for reading. "By using our ability to anticipate time passing and to think into the future we can affect events. That ability to affect the future by what we do now is one reason that I can't agree with the concept that the universe is deterministic." How can you change the future? What ever you do now shall always be the future. The future is not a variable. The future depends on what you do now. The future does not change. The future will always be exactly what it is meant to be.
Have you ever felt that you had a choice and that the option that you choose will have consequences? You are saying that the option to choose is an illusion because of the gymnastics that you perceive surrounding the concept of time. If you think that the perception of choice is an illusion it doesn't affect your choice, you just do what you want to do, and as you do it you believe that you had no choice. Does that thinking make it easier to choose? No, you still go through the same process of choice. That is in fact what choice is. It is doing what you want to do given all of the extenuating circumstances that your brain processes as you choose. You make the choice whether it is predetermined or not. The thing is that choice is conscious (generally) while predetermination has a vague sense of helplessness and futility to it but it is not a determining factor in how we choose. Make life simple and accept that you have choices and try to choose with full consideration of the consequences. You should never be able to justify your actions by claiming predetermination, and it won't stand up in court Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
"Make life simple and accept that you have choices and try to choose with full consideration of the consequences." I'm not saying we don't have choices. We make choices every moment of the day."Shall I scratch my nose? Shall I go downstairs and kiss my wife? Shall I stand up, kiss myself, and scratch my wife?" We have choices- but it's the illusion that we think we have a choice. i mean, what choice do we have exactly? A choice to choose something which is going to happen anyways?
OK, I'll hear you out. If events are determined beyond our control, would you try to describe how that predetermination works.
I wonder, do we even have to resort to the idea of predetermination? If we don't include predetermination, we are still left with the illusion of choice. Fundamentally, both the future and past do not exist. Now is the only thing which is real. If now is all there is, how can we expect anything to be different?
Are you saying our brains are not real? Because the past is recorded there and it is available for recall by you and me. The past does then exist in that sense. And though our actions occur in the "now", we act based on the anticipation of the future. We are so accustomed to the future coming to pass that to say there is no future is a very hard sell to someone who plans for the future.
In my humble opinion the word "speed" cannot be separated from time. Without time of course there could be no movement and to talk about "speed" would make no sense! (very little if anything else would)
When we recall the past, we always do so in this moment don't we? We may have such strong attachments to past experiences, then these past events appear real. But what do we really have? We have only a memory of our past personal experiences. It is not time which has passed but it has been the passing of an experience. I wonder if our belief in the future is related to a fear about what the future holds?
Exactly!! Time, distance, and speed are all inextricably tied to one another; one systematically denotes the other. Drop one, and nothing makes sense.
that is absolutely erroneous for instance I have a vehicle at a stand still , is by adding time alone going to move this vehicle ?
