Time is imagined

Hm.

So time is just the other half of distance, or let's say dispersal: like two photons that "propogate" in opposite directions (maybe 'coz they got entangled somewhere).

So, at any time greater than T0, these two photons have a distance between them which is proportional only to the time, or the interval T - T0.

If they're entangled, and this is a known (from T0), then there is a measurement available, which will determine some state shared by, or common to (in a up/down sense) these two photons, maybe the spin state.
The measurement, an interaction with either "copy", will determine the state of the other, at the same time (i.e of both, because they are the same photon). A timeless, or dimension-free (null-space) interaction. What are the dimensions of photon spin..?
The interaction can seem to be superluminal, but it's instantaneous; there is no transfer of energy or information.

Photons propagate in a time-independent way, and entangled photons can interact in a space-independent way. But dispersal is what distance, or space, derives from, and time is the virtual part of it.
Time isn't what goes, it is go. So is (heat) energy, it doesn't "go" anywhere in the sense of a liquid flowing--bits of matter do (and so do bits of energy as radiation, apparently).

We don't imagine the existence of Time, like we imagine the Easter Bunny; Time is imagination itself, or thought--observation makes time appear.
 
Last edited:
Frud11 said:
There's absolutely nothing foolish about the wind (motion of air molecules), and time.

Except for: it's foolish to say that you can substitute time for the wind, or for anything, because there is only one kind of time--the one that always goes forwards. I don't think you can substitute for it in any dynamical equations, at least (you wouldn't get many marks in the exam).
Click to expand...

Since when did the wind blow backwards ?
 
Reiku said:
Imagination is soley due to the observer though Learned Hand. May i just say, that without you, there would be no duration, nor a mind to count the seconds pass on the proverbial clock.
Click to expand...

I don't know any proverbs about clocks. Pease tell me a few!
 
Frud11 said:
Hm.

So time is just the other half of distance, or let's say dispersal: like two photons that "propogate" in opposite directions (maybe 'coz they got entangled somewhere).

So, at any time greater than t0, these two photons have a distance between them which is proportional only to the time, or the interval t - t0.

If they're entangled, and this is a known (from t0), then there is a measurement available, which will determine some state shared by, or common to (in a up/down sense) these two photons, maybe the spin state.
The measurement, an interaction with either "copy", will determine the state of the other, at the same time (i.e of both, because they are the same photon). A timeless, or dimension-free (null-space) interaction. What are the dimensions of photon spin..?
The interaction can seem to be superluminal, but it's instantaneous; there is no transfer of energy or information.

Photons propagate in a time-independent way, and entangled photons can interact in a space-independent way. But dispersal is what distance, or space, derives from, and time is the virtual part of it.
Time isn't what goes, it is go. So is (heat) energy, it doesn't "go" anywhere in the sense of a liquid flowing--bits of matter do (and so do bits of energy as radiation, apparently).

We don't imagine the existence of Time, like we imagine the Easter Bunny; Time is imagination itself, or thought--observation makes time appear.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you are going with this one but , in the case of entangled photons, there is a transfer of information.
 
Myles said:
in the case of entangled photons, there is a transfer of information.
Click to expand...
What information? What is this transferred information?

The interaction between entangled states occurs because of observation (measurement); but there's no information, just pre-assigned meaning to that state; if no assignation (beforehand), then no entanglement.
 
Frud11 said:
What information? What is this transferred information?

The interaction between entangled states occurs because of observation (measurement); but there's no information, just pre-assigned meaning to that state; if no assignation (beforehand), then no entanglement.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read a bit more about entanglement, as you clearly do not understand what is involved.
 
Reiku said:
Imagination is soley due to the observer though Learned Hand. May i just say, that without you, there would be no duration, nor a mind to count the seconds pass on the proverbial clock.
Click to expand...

Well, I did use my imagination, as I guessed at how many seconds transpired in writing that sentence. But good point, although I think the seasons would change in the same way they do now without me around.

Learned
 
Frud11 said:
Hm.

So time is just the other half of distance, or let's say dispersal: like two photons that "propogate" in opposite directions (maybe 'coz they got entangled somewhere).

So, at any time greater than T0, these two photons have a distance between them which is proportional only to the time, or the interval T - T0.

If they're entangled, and this is a known (from T0), then there is a measurement available, which will determine some state shared by, or common to (in a up/down sense) these two photons, maybe the spin state.
The measurement, an interaction with either "copy", will determine the state of the other, at the same time (i.e of both, because they are the same photon). A timeless, or dimension-free (null-space) interaction. What are the dimensions of photon spin..?
The interaction can seem to be superluminal, but it's instantaneous; there is no transfer of energy or information.

Photons propagate in a time-independent way, and entangled photons can interact in a space-independent way. But dispersal is what distance, or space, derives from, and time is the virtual part of it.
Time isn't what goes, it is go. So is (heat) energy, it doesn't "go" anywhere in the sense of a liquid flowing--bits of matter do (and so do bits of energy as radiation, apparently).

We don't imagine the existence of Time, like we imagine the Easter Bunny; Time is imagination itself, or thought--observation makes time appear.
Click to expand...

:bravo::bravo::bravo:
 
Learned Hand said:
Well, I did use my imagination, as I guessed at how many seconds transpired in writing that sentence. But good point, although I think the seasons would change in the same way they do now without me around.

Learned
Click to expand...


Seasons change, so long as there is some intelligence to make it transpire. Without ant intelligence, then there is nothing recorded. Nothing transpires.
 
Myles said:
I don't know any proverbs about clocks. Pease tell me a few!
Click to expand...

How about the clock on the wall, or on your wrist? Why is it on the wall, or on the wrist???

Answer: For a mind to read it.

Without the mind, there is nothing to record. Nothing that exists.
 
Frud,

If you're trying to say that time is not a physical entity, then the only response possible is... duh.
 
But here is where i disagree, because time is space and matter-energy are also space and time. However, there is something to be noted. Relativity says that space and time, are only ''spacetime'' when there is something there to measure the two together.
 
Reiku said:
How about the clock on the wall, or on your wrist? Why is it on the wall, or on the wrist???

Answer: For a mind to read it.

Without the mind, there is nothing to record. Nothing that exists.
Click to expand...

In what sense is it proverbial ?
 
Reiku said:
Seasons change, so long as there is some intelligence to make it transpire. Without ant intelligence, then there is nothing recorded. Nothing transpires.
Click to expand...

So, if I see a tree which has been blown down during the night, it cannot have happened because there was no intelligence to record its falling ?
 
Not at all. Consciousness is a field which records its surroundings. If a tree falls withing a forrest, and if there is no ear to hear it, then how such a sound or sight known>? Then what is reality really all about?
 
Reiku said:
Not at all. Consciousness is a field which records its surroundings. If a tree falls withing a forrest, and if there is no ear to hear it, then how such a sound or sight known>? Then what is reality really all about?
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you are very muddled on this one. You say consciousness is a field which records its surroundings. If you are talking of human consciousness then there is a strict limit to what can be "recorded", that limit being a person's immediate environment. If you are thinking of something else, then please explain what you mean.It seems you are saying that a tree which fell last night didn't fall if it was not observed doing so, which is nonsense.

As far as a tree in a forest is concerned, let's start with a definition of sound.
If certain waves reach my ear they set up vibrations which my brain interprets as sound. Now that seems quite straightforward to me.

If a tree fall within a forest and I do not hear it it's because the air waves which it sets up do not reach my ear. It follows that there is no sound according to my definition. But the tree still falls.

The same goes for sight. So why turn something which can easily be explained into a mystery ?
 
Myles said:
Oh dear, you are very muddled on this one. You say consciousness is a field which records its surroundings. If you are talking of human consciousness then there is a strict limit to what can be "recorded", that limit being a person's immediate environment. If you are thinking of something else, then please explain what you mean.It seems you are saying that a tree which fell last night didn't fall if it was not observed doing so, which is nonsense.

As far as a tree in a forest is concerned, let's start with a definition of sound.
If certain waves reach my ear they set up vibrations which my brain interprets as sound. Now that seems quite straightforward to me.

If a tree fall within a forest and I do not hear it it's because the air waves which it sets up do not reach my ear. It follows that there is no sound according to my definition. But the tree still falls.

The same goes for sight. So why turn something which can easily be explained into a mystery ?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just because I hear thunder and see no flash of light does not mean lightening did not create the sound . . .
 
If you are deaf to a certain accomplishment of reality, then there isn't any reality. Why is this so hard to understand?
 
Reiku said:
If you are deaf to a certain accomplishment of reality, then there isn't any reality. Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

But if deaf, wouldn't I feel the thunder? Kind of like the dude who subwoofs the music in his car on a max amplification?

I guess if I was born without any senses whatsoever (including tactile), reality in my brain would suck enormously, but it still would be my reality. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top