"Time" and the Multiverses.

[water]

My dear pokey from the Dark Sea,


Indeed, it seems you are somewhat vain, and this has shown all by itself ...


You say "Now… what's this about monsters but more interestingly, vanity? You think I'm vain?". I didn't think you are vain. I think il sueno de la razon produce monstruos:

If people don't use their reason, their minds and hearts conceive monsters, and the way to deal with those monsters is vanity. Which lulls the mind and the heart even further into sleep, and even more monsters are born, and even more vanity needed to deal with them.
And then people come up with bright ideas of multiverses ...

 

[infinitethoughts]

If people don't use their reason, their minds and hearts conceive monsters, and the way to deal with those monsters is vanity. Which lulls the mind and the heart even further into sleep, and even more monsters are born, and even more vanity needed to deal with them.
And then people come up with bright ideas of multiverses ...

YUCK...scuze me I just got a real nasty taste in my mouth from the above poster. This person seems to be still living in the 12th century.

Anyway I'm gonna use the "Ignore Poster" option.

 

[marv]

Fromthedarksea, your poetry may roll off the tongue, but not into the mind.

Μην αλλάξτε την πορεία, αλλάξτε την πορεία, αφήστε τίποτα οι λέξεις σας διευκρινίζει.

 

[water]

"Originally Posted by infinitethoughts
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."


Looks like I have to start over, judging by the reply you gave me.
I do not know of one religion that shares the views of what I said above. Not one.

Now when you are saying religions, I'm assuming you are talking about the major ones, because you did say "suggesting this over millenia".

Maybe you haven't recognized those common points. For example in Christianity:

Everything exists at the same time.

When it is said that God is outside of time, the idea that everything exists at the same time is employed. "To God, everything is like one day." While humans are living in time (that is, perceiving themselves in time), God is not bound by 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.

Apart from predestination theologies, other theologies emphasize a person's conscious action, choice; choosing godly ways of conduct over ungodly ways of conduct. Whereby godly/ungodly is directly related to God and to the terms in which God sees His creation, and in which the creation is to understand itself.

 

[water]

Fromthedarksea,

If people don't use their reason, their minds and hearts conceive monsters

Being a bit liberal with your assumptions.

Look at Goya's picture. It is from a series of etchings he made in criticism of the social situation in Spain, and that criticism applies in general to the vices of the human kind.

Who are you to say I have no reason? Conclusions. So my conclusions don't match yours. Therefore you're hoping to fool yourself into thinking I have none. Monsters you say? Huh.

The remark about il sueno de la razon produce monstruos was a general one. About what can happen if we let reason go to sleep.

I never thought for a moment that you had no reason. In my view, you are one of the brightest minds here.

But it seems you take offense a bit quickly.

 

[marv]

Huh?

I rest my case.........

 

[marv]

Perhaps I should have added for Fromthedarksea that English is not a pot of flowers to be painted upon a canvas, but a living tool intended to convey meaningful information.

 

[Prince_James]

InfiniteThoughts:

Theories are all well and good, but where is the proof? Demonstrate the necessity and the validity of the notion of multiverses, that time does not in fact exist - contrary to the assertions of modern science, in that time is a proven phenomena brought about by atomic movement dependent on temperature, gravity, and speed - and all your other beliefs. For, and I do not mean to be horribly insulting, what you are spewing sounds more like mystical claptrap then it does a rational philosophical/scientific theory.

Present such proof and we can begin to discuss whether said proof is valid and if it is demonstrated to be, what the impact of such things is.

 

[water]

From the dark sea,

There was a post here by you, an hour or so ago, and now it's gone.
It had links to two pictures, one with an aeroplane going down, and Saturn eating people.

 

[infinitethoughts]

InfiniteThoughts:

Theories are all well and good, but where is the proof? Demonstrate the necessity and the validity of the notion of multiverses, that time does not in fact exist - contrary to the assertions of modern science, in that time is a proven phenomena brought about by atomic movement dependent on temperature, gravity, and speed - and all your other beliefs. For, and I do not mean to be horribly insulting, what you are spewing sounds more like mystical claptrap then it does a rational philosophical/scientific theory.

Present such proof and we can begin to discuss whether said proof is valid and if it is demonstrated to be, what the impact of such things is.

TIME
"What is the present moment and why does it move into the past?"
(From http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/time.htm)

We would all agree this is a legitimate question, yes.

But unfortunately there is a problem. The fundamental basis or foundation of the question is wrong. Modern physicist and philosophers (except for the few I mentioned earlier) are not able to see this.

The use of the word "present" and the "past" are human constructs. They are semantical creations. In viewing what exists, there is no "present" or "past". Just an "eternal" on going moment. The seperation is done by the human intellect.

This seems like a trivial point to make, but it is the starting point for a completely new way of looking at existance.

And at the same time, it points out the obvious fact, that what was thought of as a "natural law" is in fact just a mistaken human conclusion, and has never been corrected. Here we have an entire body of knowledge, based on an erroneous view of existance, and this has been going on for centuries.

MULTIVERSES.
I have shown that the "mighty flow of time" is a semantically driven concept and not part of the natural universe. This "flow of time" is a human concept.

IMPORTANT: Part of the belief system of the "mighty flow of time" (M.F.O.T), is that events are solid and set in stone. That in fact events come from this M.F.O.T, or that the M.F.O.T. is responsible for the events one experiences.
We find now that this assumption becomes very unstable with the removal of the above idea.

The next logical progression then is, WHERE do events come from if not the M.F.O.T.
It only leads to one conclusion. From the perceiver themselves. (Which Quantum Physics backs up scientifically.)

This then leads to the next realization. If the order of events do not come from the M.F.O.T. and they come from the perceiver themselves, or more correctly the perceiver is responsible for them....what are the number of events available and WHERE are they located?

This then leads us to the conclusion that Multiverses must exist. I predict that this way of viewing existance will lead to radical new ways of interacting with the universe. The present views of existance are very archaic, limiting and old fashioned. Take for example the idea of Teleportation. Under the archaic old view of existance, this concept has no chance of existing.

___________
If you find any inconsistencies in my presentation, please point it out and we can discuss it.

NOTE (1) - Because of the complexity of presenting this topic, I may have to come back later and edit.
NOTE (2) - Because of the extreme Religous and "Middle Ages" views of the author "water", they are on my list of Permanent Ignore.

 

[Prince_James]

Infinite Thoughts:

"The use of the word "present" and the "past" are human constructs. They are semantical creations. In viewing what exists, there is no "present" or "past". Just an "eternal" on going moment. The seperation is done by the human intellect."

Incorrect. Whilst nothing but the present moment can be experienced at any given time, the past is knowable through experience, and indeed, motion demonstrates the necessity of a past in order to account for change. A ball thrown at 100 mph takes x amount of seconds to reach homeplate, and simply because one experiences this as a series of "now" moments, with every unit of time going by, one has an experience of a past which now no longer conforms to the future. Similarly, time is demonstrated by the existence of Time Dilation, Inertial Frames, et cetera. We live in a 4d universe, and this is a demonstratable fact, and has been demonstrated time and time again.

"And at the same time, it points out the obvious fact, that what was thought of as a "natural law" is in fact just a mistaken human conclusion, and has never been corrected. Here we have an entire body of knowledge, based on an erroneous view of existance, and this has been going on for centuries."

See above.

"MULTIVERSES.
I have shown that the "mighty flow of time" is a semantically driven concept and not part of the natural universe. This "flow of time" is a human concept."

See above, again.

"IMPORTANT: Part of the belief system of the "mighty flow of time" (M.F.O.T), is that events are solid and set in stone. That in fact events come from this M.F.O.T, or that the M.F.O.T. is responsible for the events one experiences.
We find now that this assumption becomes very unstable with the removal of the above idea."

The flow of time is an experiencable reality and backed up by modern physics. The removal of the above idea has not been attained to warrant signing its death warrant.

"The next logical progression then is, WHERE do events come from if not the M.F.O.T.
It only leads to one conclusion. From the perceiver themselves. (Which Quantum Physics backs up scientifically.)"

Quantum Physics says no such thing. Thusfar, Quantum Physics has only partially proven that the observer has an effect on the observed with the Wave-Particle Duality, Schrodinger's Cat, et cetera, and even then, David Bohm has some theories to account for this. It says -nothing- about time being a creation of the perceiver, also. -Nothing-. It is also not a product of the perceiver's mind, but rather, of things necessary to observe.

"This then leads to the next realization. If the order of events do not come from the M.F.O.T. and they come from the perceiver themselves, or more correctly the perceiver is responsible for them....what are the number of events available and WHERE are they located?"

You will first have to demonstrate the role of the perceiver as such. So far, no such proof has been persented.

"This then leads us to the conclusion that Multiverses must exist. I predict that this way of viewing existance will lead to radical new ways of interacting with the universe. The present views of existance are very archaic, limiting and old fashioned. Take for example the idea of Teleportation. Under the archaic old view of existance, this concept has no chance of existing."

I am afraid you've skipped ahead. From what foundation do multiverses arise from this? Moreover, the idea of teleportation -still- remains science fiction. Even quantum teleportation is not teleportation on a macroscopic level, nor in a true sense, nor has it been demonstrated to violate the speed of light and local realism.

 

[Onefinity]

You cannot prove that the past exists at all. The future is never here. And you can't even pin down the present. I think that this all points to evidence that these are all constructs (not necessarily limited to human organisms), three faces we put upon an "eternal" that we are not permitted to see because it is the essence of our every existence/non-existence.

 

[Onefinity]

Thusfar, Quantum Physics has only partially proven that the observer has an effect on the observed with the Wave-Particle Duality, Schrodinger's Cat, et cetera, and even then, David Bohm has some theories to account for this. It says -nothing- about time being a creation of the perceiver, also. -Nothing-. It is also not a product of the perceiver's mind, but rather, of things necessary to observe.

Actually, the delayed-choice experiment apparently indicates something about the past being established in the present with the participation of the observer.

 

[infinitethoughts]

Incorrect. Whilst nothing but the present moment can be experienced at any given time, the past is knowable through experience, and indeed, motion demonstrates the necessity of a past in order to account for change. A ball thrown at 100 mph takes x amount of seconds to reach homeplate, and simply because one experiences this as a series of "now" moments, with every unit of time going by, one has an experience of a past which now no longer conforms to the future. Similarly, time is demonstrated by the existence of Time Dilation, Inertial Frames, et cetera. We live in a 4d universe, and this is a demonstratable fact, and has been demonstrated time and time again.

Incorrect. I see you didn't read my post very closely. You asked me to prove that time does not exist. I proved it by pointing out that this seperation of a past to a present....and then onto a "future", is purely a semantical creation, a creation by the human intellect.. It does not exist in reality. So then everything after that are simply erroneous statements.

It's exactly like when the world based all it's computations on the fact that the world is flat, then it was discovered the world is round. All computations before that were wrong. Same thing here. Any computation based on the fictitious F.O.T. (Flow of time) are incorrect. Because the initial idea is incorrect.

So then we had the quantum leap from thinkin the world is flat, to seeing it's round. Same thing here, soon we'll have the quantum leap, and the archaic and outmoded model of being hampered by the erroneous concept of F.O.T. will become obsolete, and the human race will move into a more correct view of reality.

Experiences do not come as a result of a fictitious F.O.T, but rather from a spacious and infinite-ly Now universe, where the experience you want is determined by the thoughts you hold in you head, because there is no F.O.T. deciding which random and chaotic experiences you will experience, but rather a scientifically and orderly universe, where the experinces you experience come from you and no where else.

I suggest you go back and read my previous post again.......carefully.

The flow of time is an experiencable reality and backed up by modern physics. The removal of the above idea has not been attained to warrant signing its death warrant.

The flow of time is an invention by the human intellect. Which then gets itself even more in trouble by not seeing this and going deeper and deeper into the "rabbit hole".

Quantum Physics says no such thing. Thusfar, Quantum Physics has only partially proven that the observer has an effect on the observed with the Wave-Particle Duality, Schrodinger's Cat, et cetera, and even then, David Bohm has some theories to account for this. It says -nothing- about time being a creation of the perceiver, also. -Nothing-. It is also not a product of the perceiver's mind, but rather, of things necessary to observe.

See Above.

You will first have to demonstrate the role of the perceiver as such. So far, no such proof has been persented.

See Above.

I am afraid you've skipped ahead. From what foundation do multiverses arise from this? Moreover, the idea of teleportation -still- remains science fiction. Even quantum teleportation is not teleportation on a macroscopic level, nor in a true sense, nor has it been demonstrated to violate the speed of light and local realism.

See Above.

 

[Prince_James]

Onefinity:

You cannot prove that the past exists at all. The future is never here. And you can't even pin down the present. I think that this all points to evidence that these are all constructs (not necessarily limited to human organisms), three faces we put upon an "eternal" that we are not permitted to see because it is the essence of our every existence/non-existence.

I cannot prove that the past exists at all? I video tape myself now and then appear whilst showing the video tape. The actions on videotape must have occurred beforehand because I could not be here, in the present, and yet also there in the past, without it being in the past. Similarly, I allow you to watch me whittle a piece of wood into a toy boat. Once a piece of wood, not a toy boat. You have seen the time movement as I have done as such, as indeed, can not you remember its existence as a block of wood before?

Also, see Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of TIme" and his argument for the partial thermodynamic foundation for time preception in human beings.

Actually, the delayed-choice experiment apparently indicates something about the past being established in the present with the participation of the observer.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30973

Plenty of alternative solutions. Moreover, we may very well be mistaken as to the very nature of the photon itself. Stephen Hawking in the aforementioned book, actually briefly mentions that perhaps we're not dealing with a particle at all, but -simply- a wave.

I also caution against any usage of quantum mechanis beyond quantum levels. The fact that quantum mechanics is -demonstrated- to break down into classical physics means that even if we did have such a thing, our notion of time would still hold valid in the macrocosmic world. Not to say I am conceding -any- point here.

infinitethoughts :

Incorrect. I see you didn't read my post very closely. You asked me to prove that time does not exist. I proved it by pointing out that this seperation of a past to a present....and then onto a "future", is purely a semantical creation, a creation by the human intellect.. It does not exist in reality. So then everything after that are simply erroneous statements.

You have proven no such thing. Inertial frames, absolute zero's effect on time, et cetera, all exist in -reality- and are -demonstrated- to exist, demonstrating that we live in a four dimensions, three of space, one of time. We only perceive the now, but we have perceived the past, and the future is the concept of experiences of now when the present now becomes the past, therefore coming after it. A creation of the human intellect? No. Not if backed up by the before mentioned scientific foundations, nor even of itself. If I am now perceiving a now which differs from the now I perceived before, and this now is current, then that means that what existed is in the past. This becomes a matter of correspondence towhat is real.

It's exactly like when the world based all it's computations on the fact that the world is flat, then it was discovered the world is round. All computations before that were wrong. Same thing here. Any computation based on the fictitious F.O.T. (Flow of time) are incorrect. Because the initial idea is incorrect.

So then we had the quantum leap from thinkin the world is flat, to seeing it's round. Same thing here, soon we'll have the quantum leap, and the archaic and outmoded model of being hampered by the erroneous concept of F.O.T. will become obsolete, and the human race will move into a more correct view of reality.

See above. You are manifestly wrong.

Experiences do not come as a result of a fictitious F.O.T, but rather from a spacious and infinite-ly Now universe, where the experience you want is determined by the thoughts you hold in you head, because there is no F.O.T. deciding which random and chaotic experiences you will experience, but rather a scientifically and orderly universe, where the experinces you experience come from you and no where else.

See my "Argument Against Idealism" for a refutation that we can create external reality by thought.

The initial idea is perfectly correct. Refute the reality of inertial frames, absolute zero's effect on time, et cetera, then we'll speak of it being wrong.

 

[Prince_James]

Another thing on the Delayed-CHoice Experiment:

It assumes that we do, in fact, have a choice as to what to close. If we have no choice, then it was determined to have worked that way anyway.

 

[infinitethoughts]

infinitethoughts :
You have proven no such thing. Inertial frames, absolute zero's effect on time, et cetera, all exist in -reality- and are -demonstrated- to exist, demonstrating that we live in a four dimensions, three of space, one of time.

1) You are saying time has it's own dimension? You are completely wrong.

Time does not have it's own dimension, it is wholly dependent on the human being. This was the basis of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. He took it so far, and now the next generation takes it further.

If it did have it's own dimension, then the experience of time would be universal. If you were bored, it would flow exactly the same as if you were doing something that held your interest.

If it did have its own dimension, you would be able to take me to a place to view it objectively.
You can't. It does not have its own dimension. It is relative to the human.

We only perceive the now, but we have perceived the past, and the future is the concept of experiences of now when the present now becomes the past, therefore coming after it. A creation of the human intellect? No.

2) The past does not exist in the Experiential Now, it is memories. That's all. If you want to base a scientific study on memories, go ahead.

The breaking up of something that is undivided, IE: the Now moment, is a process of the human intellect. But that is the downfall of a section of modern science, isn't it? The dissection into smaller and smaller pieces. The compartmentalization and labeling of something that ultimately cannot be compartmentalised.

Then what happened? Quantum physics came along and when they tried the old way of compartmentalization, they found this method does not work anymore. The more they tried to compartmentalize, the more it moved away from the old Newtonian science of "hard and true facts", to the bizareness and strangeness of the Quantum world. They found out the universe we live in, is much stranger then ever imagined.

It is time for a the old Science to make way for the New discoveries AND the new methods that Quantum Physics forces us to use. But breaking old habits is hard to do.

-----
Anyway......We've reached the point in the discussion where I'm wasting your time, and you are wasting mine. I keep pointing out that the that one cannot use the old methods of science any more, and you are not seeing this. We are no longer dealing with "hard and true facts" in the world of Quantum Physics. But if you don't get what I'm pointing out, why continue?

So I'll end it here.

 

[Onefinity]

Onefinity:

I cannot prove that the past exists at all? I video tape myself now and then appear whilst showing the video tape. The actions on videotape must have occurred beforehand because I could not be here, in the present, and yet also there in the past, without it being in the past. Similarly, I allow you to watch me whittle a piece of wood into a toy boat. Once a piece of wood, not a toy boat. You have seen the time movement as I have done as such, as indeed, can not you remember its existence as a block of wood before?

Believe me, I don't casually say that you can't prove that the past exists. The example you try to pose is an obvious one. Just like a photo of my grandmother. Or an example of carbon dating. Etc. Etc. However, all of these are registered only in the present. I may have a memory, but it is a present memory of a present image, even though my pragmatic patterns tell me that it lay in a place called "the past."

Certainly, the notion of the past is essential for humans. However, no matter what you do, you cannot prove that the past exists or existed. You can only use artifacts to prove that there are impressions of what appear to be change, and these impressions make sense in terms of a trajectory. But they do not prove that there is or ever was a past.

Now, just as with the usefulness of the notion of an "objective" universe apart from us, it is useful to maintain the model that there is a past and a future. But just as with the notion of an "objective" universe, the notion of linear time it cannot be shown; it can only be utilized as a model. Along with that, it is important to consider alternatives, as well as to temper the dysfunction that can occur with an overreliance on objective/linear models. That is why this thread exists.

 

[nameless]

Good evening all.

I have been enjoying your discussion (until it turned into the plaintive dogmatic dying cries and wheezing gasps of 'fundamentalist science'...) on the nature of 'time'.

A 'Planck moment' (after Max Planck, physicist) has been determined to be approximately one ten to the 43rd power of a second. a minute fraction of the time that it takes light to traverse a neutron. A 'packet' of moment too small to need 'time' to exist. So the tiniest moment takes 'no time'.

Each moment of our 'lives', each moment of the 'omniverse', ever, 'exists simultaneously. One Planck moment. BANG! After? Nothing. No 'during', so no 'after'. All temporal constructs. Time is the foundation of all of our fiction; materiality, space/time, cause and effect (there is no such thing ever proven because there IS no such thing! Much better described as 'two features of the same event'.), different dimensions, strings, bananas, whatever ad infinitum... As everything is a fiction, so is time. Good riddance! We have been bending over backward long enough to try to verify a hypnotically fundamentally religious belief in the existence of 'time' with no real evidence other than that of the senses. And they cannot be trusted to accurately tell us anything other than the state of our own mind.

It isn't so hard to imagine, here I am in one moment, feeling the apparent flow of time, feeling full after dinner, fingers poised over the keyboard (ok, finger..) thinking all is well and as it aught to be... All pretty much the same as another moment, except with this heart in a different configuration, fingers a bit different, similar feelings, etc... All these moments simultaneously. Boom!
After the Big Bang? Nothing!!! Even a Big Bang is a poor analog because a 'bang' takes time...

So all of these little bitty 'moments' floating in consciousness, my moments next to your moments, next to Gengis Khan's moments, all together at once...

There seems to be another variable in the equation that has not been mentioned. I was just reading today a bit of Charles Hoy Fort's writings where he shows (as does QM) that the distinguishing of 'this' from 'that', 'now' from 'then', 'me' from 'you' is a purely arbitrary distinction of convenience. And that science is solely involved in these false dichotomies. Science cannot tell us where one thing ends and another begins. Actually, other than in our imagination, there is absolutely no evidence of such a distinction. Science has NEVER proven anything exactly because there is 'nothing' to prove!!

Now remember that there is no quantitative or qualitative difference between anything, such as... between Planck moments. No-'where' my moments of 'me' end and your moments of 'you' begin. Gets rather homogenous at this point...

This paradigm easily naturally allows for all 'psi' phenomena. Within this paradigm, psi is as natural as drinking a cup of water.

It is time for hard physics to open its belt a bit and allow consciousness (as the only real player here) into their stoney halls, as they will become atrophied and useless without growing into the 'moment'.

Excuse me, but I must go clean Occam's Razor..
Good night.
*__-

 

[wesmorris]

Nameless, please examine this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47902

And bring that razor thingy.