The Counscious Defines Time
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
The focus of zeno's paradox is the fact that there are an infinite number of discrete distances between any two points and traversing each discrete distance will require a discrete amount of time. The total amount of time necessary to travel between the points is the sum of this infinite set of discrete distances. Zeno assumed that the sum of an infinite set of discrete numbers must be infinite; he was wrong.
Ok... first of all, why did we started this discussion for Zeno's paradox? Was that something about time?
Someone said zeno's paradox proved that time wasn't quantifiable. I didn't really understand what his point was, and since zeno's paradox has been solved for hundreds of years (it's a classic problem in introductory calculus classes) I figured it would be simpler to just point out that zeno's paradox is faulty rather than trying to dispute whatever convoluted logic had lead him to believe it made time unquantifiable.
Maybe try to see time using zeno's paradox...?:bugeye: I don't know what you and notme were exactly talking about and I can't say anything in this sense, but I can prove that there is a paradox related to time.
Time itself must have had a beginning, or there would be no "present". If time never "began", then what we have is infinite time in the past, and this infinite time in the "past" cannot support time in the "present". To see that in an easier way, simply change your perspective. Imagine that you are living IN the infinite time in the past. So where the "present" is, you say that is in the "infinite future". When will this future arrive? When will the "infinite future" become "present"? Never! Because for infinite measures there is no end. So time must have had a beginning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an earlier post:
If time always existed:
<--------------------+----------------------------->
infinite past...present..?......infinite future?
If time was created:
<-----------------+--------------->
beginning...middle..........end
If time is an illusion and it doesn't really exist
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since time had a beginning, something must have begun time. Then we have all those theories that explains nothing. Even if one of them are proven true, then we will need another one in order to know what came before what created time. Our search will never end, and I believe that is because we are searching in the wrong way and in the wrong place.
Time itself must have had a beginning, or there would be no "present". If time never "began", then what we have is infinite time in the past, and this infinite time in the "past" cannot support time in the "present". To see that in an easier way, simply change your perspective. Imagine that you are living IN the infinite time in the past. So where the "present" is, you say that is in the "infinite future". When will this future arrive? When will the "infinite future" become "present"? Never! Because for infinite measures there is no end. So time must have had a beginning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an earlier post:
If time always existed:
<--------------------+----------------------------->
infinite past...present..?......infinite future?
If time was created:
<-----------------+--------------->
beginning...middle..........end
If time is an illusion and it doesn't really exist
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since time had a beginning, something must have begun time. Then we have all those theories that explains nothing. Even if one of them are proven true, then we will need another one in order to know what came before what created time. Our search will never end, and I believe that is because we are searching in the wrong way and in the wrong place.
This is my first day here.
I haven't had the time to read all seven pages of this post, so please forgive me if I am just echoing someone else here.
Consciousness is simply a way to define the level and direction of cognizant awareness of stimuli.
If your consciousness is aimed deeply within (using abstract emotional thought) and not focused critcally what is happening externally to you (such as sleep [not including lucid dreaming] or a deep state of transcendental meditation for example), then the analytical and alert part of your brain is in a sort of stasis.
You are not actively using the "left" part of your brain (the center of analytical reasoning, and the part that does mathematics and is accutely aware of time).
Therefore the passing of time is something that goes basically unnoticed.
This is why when you play an instrument, paint a picture, compose a concerto, write a poem or novel and other such "right brained" things, time seems to pass more slowly.
It is also why a "watched pot never boils" your consciousness, your awareness and critical thought is focused intently on that pot of water.
That does not mean that time "slows down" for you.
Time is universal.
It is easy enough to prove this...
If you are sleeping, or in a coma, time still passes at the same rate for your body as if you are awake.
Your hair still grows.
Your nails still grow.
You still age.
You may not "notice" the time passing, but it does.
No?
I haven't had the time to read all seven pages of this post, so please forgive me if I am just echoing someone else here.
Consciousness is simply a way to define the level and direction of cognizant awareness of stimuli.
If your consciousness is aimed deeply within (using abstract emotional thought) and not focused critcally what is happening externally to you (such as sleep [not including lucid dreaming] or a deep state of transcendental meditation for example), then the analytical and alert part of your brain is in a sort of stasis.
You are not actively using the "left" part of your brain (the center of analytical reasoning, and the part that does mathematics and is accutely aware of time).
Therefore the passing of time is something that goes basically unnoticed.
This is why when you play an instrument, paint a picture, compose a concerto, write a poem or novel and other such "right brained" things, time seems to pass more slowly.
It is also why a "watched pot never boils" your consciousness, your awareness and critical thought is focused intently on that pot of water.
That does not mean that time "slows down" for you.
Time is universal.
It is easy enough to prove this...
If you are sleeping, or in a coma, time still passes at the same rate for your body as if you are awake.
Your hair still grows.
Your nails still grow.
You still age.
You may not "notice" the time passing, but it does.
No?
Posted somewhere else:
"For something to come into being without a creator, time must be a constant that always existed and will always exist. That cannot work, since if we have an infinite time in the past we would never have arrived in the present. If there were infinite time in the past, there would take an infinite time for us to arrive in the present. Therefore, time must have been created (or made, you can argue...). But how can you make time out of nothing? How can time be created? To create or make something you need time in order to do it. If you don't have time, how can it happen at all? For this reason, time should be seen as an illusion of the mind, as "if" the brain would create it in order to be able to work.
Time had to be "created" by a timeless being. Somenone that is not under time, but above it. In truth, there is no time. In the same way God is not under time, neither we are. Our brains are under time because that is how it works. Without time, the brain could never regulate anthing. But with a better consciousness we can bring this awareness to ourselves.
Time is a paradox...
"
"For something to come into being without a creator, time must be a constant that always existed and will always exist. That cannot work, since if we have an infinite time in the past we would never have arrived in the present. If there were infinite time in the past, there would take an infinite time for us to arrive in the present. Therefore, time must have been created (or made, you can argue...). But how can you make time out of nothing? How can time be created? To create or make something you need time in order to do it. If you don't have time, how can it happen at all? For this reason, time should be seen as an illusion of the mind, as "if" the brain would create it in order to be able to work.
Time had to be "created" by a timeless being. Somenone that is not under time, but above it. In truth, there is no time. In the same way God is not under time, neither we are. Our brains are under time because that is how it works. Without time, the brain could never regulate anthing. But with a better consciousness we can bring this awareness to ourselves.
Time is a paradox...
"
I can understand that reasoning.
Although I would not say that it "must" be this way, I conceed that it is a strong likliehood.
That's absurd.
Where is teh reasoning and justification of that?
Just because time did not have a beginning and will not have an end why would that mean we (in the present) can't be somewhere on this infinite line?
That is like saying, "If space is infinate we can't be here right now."
Infinate time and the concept of the present are not mutually exclusive.
All that stating that time is infinite includes is the fact that we can not be at the beginning or teh end of time, but we can be anywhere on teh endless line.
one_raven,
If time never had a beginning, how can we measure it at all? If we are in the infinite past, will we ever arrive in the "present" it would take an infinite time to get to the present, therefore, you would never get to the present.
IXL777,
Ok... lets agree that it is a strong likelyhood, although I might have some other things to add that might make it even stronger...
Ok. We are in the present, right? If there is infinite time in the future, when are we going to arrive to the end of the future? Never, right? Now, think that you are in a "present" somewhere in the infinite past. When you look to the "endless future" you see our present. So when will the present arrive? Never...!
If time never had a beginning, how can we measure it at all? If we are in the infinite past, will we ever arrive in the "present" it would take an infinite time to get to the present, therefore, you would never get to the present.
IXL777,
Yup...
I still don't see the underlying logic in your assertion.
Imagine there is a string that stretches on forever.
It has no beginning and no end.
I stand alongside that string and put my finger on it.
Where I just put my finger is the present.
There doesn;t have to be a beginning or an end for there to be points along it.
If space is infinate, does that mean that we can not be anywhere in space because we can't be at the beginning or end of it?
It just doesn't make any logical sense.
Humans didn't invent time.
We invented ways of measuring it.
We conceptualized seconds, minutes, years etc to give ourselves a frame of reference and a better understanding through measurement.
Just because something isn't measured, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
We invented the concept of days so we can measure time, however, what has past is now gone.
That is not OUR doing.
Imagine there is a string that stretches on forever.
It has no beginning and no end.
I stand alongside that string and put my finger on it.
Where I just put my finger is the present.
There doesn;t have to be a beginning or an end for there to be points along it.
If space is infinate, does that mean that we can not be anywhere in space because we can't be at the beginning or end of it?
It just doesn't make any logical sense.
Humans didn't invent time.
We invented ways of measuring it.
We conceptualized seconds, minutes, years etc to give ourselves a frame of reference and a better understanding through measurement.
Just because something isn't measured, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
We invented the concept of days so we can measure time, however, what has past is now gone.
That is not OUR doing.
one_raven,
If you go and look to a star 1 million light years away you will be seeing how it was 1 million years ago, no matter from where you look. If they look at us right now they will be seeing like we were 1 million years away. Does that make any sense? Which one lives in the present? Certainly not both...! Who is right? Who is wrong? There is no answer, cause both believe they live the present and in reality there is no past nor future but an infinite present that is always here. Time doesn't exist; it is just a manifestation of our belief.
You cannot imagine that because all that you know is rooted on time. Without time you simply cannot comprehend anything. That's how your brain works. It uses time and measures it, and regulates everything according to it. But there is no past nore future, there is just present. What we call past and future are mere concepts that our minds uses to understand the world.
If you go and look to a star 1 million light years away you will be seeing how it was 1 million years ago, no matter from where you look. If they look at us right now they will be seeing like we were 1 million years away. Does that make any sense? Which one lives in the present? Certainly not both...! Who is right? Who is wrong? There is no answer, cause both believe they live the present and in reality there is no past nor future but an infinite present that is always here. Time doesn't exist; it is just a manifestation of our belief.
You cannot imagine that because all that you know is rooted on time. Without time you simply cannot comprehend anything. That's how your brain works. It uses time and measures it, and regulates everything according to it. But there is no past nore future, there is just present. What we call past and future are mere concepts that our minds uses to understand the world.
Truthseeker,
I think you're saying the same thing I believe, that there's no dimensional, tangible, time thing, it's merely the measurement of existence through interaction with the universe. A clock is not measuring time, it is measuring the continuing movement of whatever clicks the next second off, whether it be another decaying atom or the movement of a gear. We perceive this as something that isn't really there.
We just are.
In your example of things lightyears away being in a "different" present...both are correct. There's one universal present, regardless of our limitations to see it all in real time.
I think you're saying the same thing I believe, that there's no dimensional, tangible, time thing, it's merely the measurement of existence through interaction with the universe. A clock is not measuring time, it is measuring the continuing movement of whatever clicks the next second off, whether it be another decaying atom or the movement of a gear. We perceive this as something that isn't really there.
We just are.
In your example of things lightyears away being in a "different" present...both are correct. There's one universal present, regardless of our limitations to see it all in real time.
Jaxom,
If one_raven is not able to understand me, maybe you can give me a hand...? Ya know... it is not very easy for me to speak in English...
If one_raven is not able to understand me, maybe you can give me a hand...?
Ya know... it is not very easy for me to speak in English...The problem of explaining time comes down ultimately to the same problem as that of explaining anything else. It seems a particularly tough problem because we forget that the same issues arise in explaining how matter and mind come to exist, (and many eminent scientists suggest that they do not on any reductionist view).
I agree with some here that time is a creation of consciousness (not mind) but would add therefore that it follows that so is everything else. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
I agree with some here that time is a creation of consciousness (not mind) but would add therefore that it follows that so is everything else. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Canute,
Yeah... absolutly (without sarcasm).
Both