"Time" and the Multiverses.

I

infinitethoughts

Registered Senior Member
Well looks like it's finally becoming common knowledge that this thing we call "time" does not exist. (So sayeth Barbour, Hawking, Misner and other physicist's. Which I've been saying for years, also.)
That we do not exist in a "uni"-verse but rather a Multiverse.

So then what is this "progression" or "movement", that we have labeled as "time"?

Simple, it's the movement thru the Multiverse. Here's where the fun begins:

Everything exists at the same time.

Unplug your mind from Newtonian/Middle ages archaicism and start choosing events you want from the Multi-verse VS choosing events that the old view has metaprogrammed into your mind.

---
"I AM A TRAVELLER, AN INFINITE
TRAVELLER....TRAVELLING THRU
INFINITE PARALLEL UNIVERSES.

My next moments *come* from
these infinite parallel universes...."
 
Ummm..

How exactly do you plan to corroborate your assertion that there are infinite parallel universes?

Time "exists", I think, as a result of change in kinetic energy. "Exists", in this context, meaning "is perceivable".
 
§outh§tar said:
Ummm..

How exactly do you plan to corroborate your assertion that there are infinite parallel universes?

Time "exists", I think, as a result of change in kinetic energy. "Exists", in this context, meaning "is perceivable".
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, everything you experience are IPU's (Infinite parallel universes) Because of the metaprogamming a person is born into they are led to believe it is all just coming from a "uni"verse and not the multiverse.

"Time" is manmade. It is merely a device that man invented to measure the continual change going on around him.
 
BlindMouse2of3 said:
If time doesn’t exist then how does it work when you say "Everything exists at the same time."
Click to expand...

Time, or better said, this system of reality, is the process of putting Simultani-ality, (the experience of no "time") into linear form for the express purpose of experiencing limitation.

Think of it this way, every experience is existing in the eternal Now, somewhere in the multiverse.

Because of the manmade concept of "time", it creates a worldview that all experiences are "down the road", so to speak. This is incorrect. They are not "down the road" but rather spacially located, and when I say "spacially" located even that is not able to fully explain it. Maybe I should say "holographically spacially located". And this is where the multi-verse comes in.
 
Last edited:
infinitethoughts said:
Time, or better said, this system of reality, is the process of putting Simultani-ality, (the experience of no "time") into linear form for the express purpose of experiencing limitation.

Think of it this way, every experience is existing in the eternal Now, somewhere in the multiverse.

Because of the manmade concept of "time", it creates a worldview that all experiences are "down the road", so to speak. This is incorrect. They are not "down the road" but rather spacially located, and when I say "spacially" located even that is not able to fully explain it. Maybe I should say "holographically spacially located". And this is where the multi-verse comes in.
Click to expand...

I think you are on the right track. Just a note on one thing. I don't think that time is only man-made, but something that all biological entities experience as innate to their structure. I might even go beyond that to say any physical forms that have a cyclical nature of any kind. Of course, only humans attach all the angst, vision, history, etc. to the notion of time.
 
Here's what I think about time: if we want to grasp its nature, we need to stop thinking of it as a NOUN, and recognize it as a VERB. It is not "time," but "to time," or "timING." The indexing of cycles. Interspersed between every unit of time is a gap. If we want to "measure" that (which means to divide), we need to interject yet another unit. And so on. But those units are borrowed from something that makes sense to our structures, like the cycles of the day, the month, the cesium atom, whatever our bodies and cultures must use. Those borrowed standards notwithstanding, there is of course no absolute measure for duration. Put another way, how long is a "moment"? A moment is not an event, which only exists when bounded subjectively by things meaningful to the observer. A moment is infinitely short, or infinitely long.

Now, it is necessary at some point, when discussing time, to confront the nature of memory, history, past, present, future, etc. And then to entertain the notion of non-linear time, which is essentially the absence of time (what Gebser called "achronon," I believe) and the idea that everything exists in eternity (which is not the same as "forever," but more like a moment that has no duration, and is always here). That's where it gets really interesting. Non-linear tim(ing) and eternity. Change and no-change. All here at once. Wow. I believe it is one of the most, if not the most, difficult metaphysical challenge to grapple with.
 
infinitethoughts said:
"Time" is manmade. It is merely a device that man invented to measure the continual change going on around him.
Click to expand...

I think time isn't "man-made" so much as a consequence of man's circumstance. I think from this particular "point of view" on the universe, that is of being human and conscious - time is as self-evident in perception, as it underlies it. I would seem to me that if you were looking at it from a non-human lock into dimensionality, time wouldn't at all exist in the way it seems to from our POV.
 
In an 11 dimensional universe for instance, objects occuring on branes locked between dimension 2 and 3 wouldn't be able to detect anything at all about branes locked between 6 and 7.

I hypothesize "time" as we know it as our particular perspective on a piece of universal geometry that is common to all dimensions.

Sorry if I murdered the concept of branes. I'll have to re-read some of what I've read about it.
 
Fromthedarksea said:
"Holographically spacially located"?

And I suppose that in each and every one of them, you're doing some little thing differently. The overall effect would be a nonsynchronically correct identity because in each universe you would be seeing, thinking, acting slightly askew. This would also indicate that you would never be able to align yourself with your other selves because every one of you would always be off.

"Into linear form for the express purpose of experiencing limitation"?

See what I mean? You're off.
Click to expand...

The first part of your response I don't view multiverses that way. I think the multiverse revolves around each identity, not the other way around as you are implying. Conscousness is the important and the fundamental thing here, not the multiverse.

The second part stems from the idea that in an eternal system, evetually the inhabitants will want to experience "non" eternity, or better said the illusion of "time passing", or even better said the complete hypnotic focus that "you are running out of time"......hence this place.
 
Onefinity said:
Here's what I think about time: if we want to grasp its nature, we need to stop thinking of it as a NOUN, and recognize it as a VERB. It is not "time," but "to time," or "timING." The indexing of cycles. Interspersed between every unit of time is a gap. If we want to "measure" that (which means to divide), we need to interject yet another unit. And so on. But those units are borrowed from something that makes sense to our structures, like the cycles of the day, the month, the cesium atom, whatever our bodies and cultures must use. Those borrowed standards notwithstanding, there is of course no absolute measure for duration. Put another way, how long is a "moment"? A moment is not an event, which only exists when bounded subjectively by things meaningful to the observer. A moment is infinitely short, or infinitely long.

Now, it is necessary at some point, when discussing time, to confront the nature of memory, history, past, present, future, etc. And then to entertain the notion of non-linear time, which is essentially the absence of time (what Gebser called "achronon," I believe) and the idea that everything exists in eternity (which is not the same as "forever," but more like a moment that has no duration, and is always here). That's where it gets really interesting. Non-linear tim(ing) and eternity. Change and no-change. All here at once. Wow. I believe it is one of the most, if not the most, difficult metaphysical challenge to grapple with.
Click to expand...

Here's more to add to what you said.......when you say "How long is a moment", the phrasing of this question is based on our "invention" of "timing". (Good point about the word timing, by the way.)

Take away the "invention" and you just have something in front of you. The interest in how long it exists disappears, and you then just have a "continuous continum" with no outside system trying to measure it.
I think this is the experience of "eternity".
 
wesmorris said:
I think time isn't "man-made" so much as a consequence of man's circumstance. I think from this particular "point of view" on the universe, that is of being human and conscious - time is as self-evident in perception, as it underlies it. I would seem to me that if you were looking at it from a non-human lock into dimensionality, time wouldn't at all exist in the way it seems to from our POV.
Click to expand...

Right, good points.
 
Right, I see your points.


Fromthedarksea said:
I don't think the "inhabitants" are wanting to experience mortality but rather have forgotten about immortality. Nothing on this planet is set up to accommodate immortality -- the whole infrastructure is based on recrimination. I think the idiots are caught-up in a time-loop.
Click to expand...

Actually I should have been more specific. Somehow before this system of reality there exists an eternal sytem. (This part is the unknown factor.) The players( which of course are us) in this system look forward to "the game of time", and the specific challenges that happen from this. Hence this system we live in.

Getting back to the unknown factor, the previous system is unknown. This system could be anything, it could be that this system that we are now in, is on a massive computer harddrive, and the previous system is simply a technologically advanced civilzation where the common problems, IE: aging, supply and demand have been solved. (This was addressed in the move The Thirteenth Floor.

What would a civilization do that that had no more problems? Why it would create problems in order to experience the challenge of solving the problems. It would have to temporarily remove all memory of it, sort of like what happens here when we're born.

But like I said the previous system is an unknown, and that seems to be the tricky part....is trying to figure it out.
 
Why does the human race work so hard to complcate the trivial? Time is simply a useful construct for the benefit of man. It's only the difference between two or more events like the planting of wheat and the harvesting of that wheat. Basically, it's motion.

Ask yourself, "What would happen to those things to which we attach "time", such as growth or decay, if every particle (even those we haven't discovered yet) were to instantly freeze in place and cease their motion throughout the Universe?"

There would be no "time", and still no need for multiple universes.
 
infinitethoughts said:
That we do not exist in a "uni"-verse but rather a Multiverse.

So then what is this "progression" or "movement", that we have labeled as "time"?

Simple, it's the movement thru the Multiverse. Here's where the fun begins:

Everything exists at the same time.

Unplug your mind from Newtonian/Middle ages archaicism and start choosing events you want from the Multi-verse VS choosing events that the old view has metaprogrammed into your mind.
Click to expand...

So?
Various religions have been suggesting this over millenia.
Good morning.
 
Fromthedarksea said:
The religion section is next door, dear. But I fear now this thread has been doused with your holy water.
Click to expand...

You fear in vain.
Beware, vain fears make monsters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top