What time is

wesmorris said:
Incidental of the mind from whence it spewed forth.

But I think that there could be a rlation between the two graphs, or?


“ (Have I just discovered hot water? ) ”
That could be taken so many ways I have no clue what you mean.

I thought that the two graphs may be connected, and that that connection may be really really obvious ... so I thought that I was missing something obvious. Turns out I didn't, as you said that there was no connection between the two graphs, just incidental similarity.

Also, since your time graph is a circle: What about the border of the green circle? A full line _______ would suggest that the whole thing is finite. A - - - - line would suggest that it is infinite.
 
TIME:

Temporal
Instants
Measured
Eternally?

Tunes
Instrumenting
Macrocosmic
Ensemble? :cool:

Twisting
Illusory
Microquantum
Ephemera?

Totally
Internal
Mental
Engrams? :confused:

We are assuming time is a dimension, even if it is unlike the other 3. If it is, then never mind 4 or more spatial dimensions - what would the Universe be like if it possessed 2 or more temporal dimensions?
 
The Revised Jimhaz Theory of the Universe

Nagarjuna: All is impermanent, but impermanence or permanence never existed. If an entity existed, it would be impermanent or permanent, but how can it exist in the first place?

Time is the recognisable universe.

The effect of time is movement. Time creates chaos and chaos is required for movement.

The effect of movement is energy and matter and life.

Time is infinite. Dark matter is no-time segments of the universe.

The universe should be considered as being full. There is only one thing that can possibly be everywhere at once and that is time.

Fibonnacci/Lucas sequences limits the elements to time groups can create.

Colour spectrum and black streaks represent the curl of time as a cross section

The Yin/Yang symbol is representative of this as well

Time is the void, vortex

Time vortexes can be 'broken up' by collision with other vortexes.

Time vortexes should not be though of as being of a certain size with a large end and a point, but of being like Phi and phi - endless 'fractions' of the universe.

Light/Sound Waves - Sound has a different pitch, as does light depending on the direction it is coming from. This is because it is a part of the time spiral as if it were seen from a different angle.

At any one time you are both as old as the ageless universe and as new as the infinity of the immediately preceding moment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When I refer to a time spiral that is purely a description of something indescribable. I like the concept of a spiral because it leads one to think of infinity.

Black holes are the 'centre' of the time spiral. The term centre is fairly meaningless - they are merely the centre as seen from the time plane and scale in which we exist. What would be more accurate is that it is time at a distance from an observer. They are the centre of our time spiral. We visualise it as densely packed matter, as that is all that we can do. It is the centre when an infinite number of time vortexes overlap. Dark matter is much further up the time spiral, it may even be time that has less overlaps.

Gravity doesn't really exist, what it is, is the relationship between one time universe and another that is on the same plane. Time 'spins' like hurricanes and eddies and it is the spinning of time that attracts objects together. Time is attracted to itself, but only to a degree, the motion of time itself means that where time is accumulated it gets in the way of itself and creates fault lines which crack up. Explosions can be seen as a breakup of time and implosions of a condensing of time.

As time is a spiral vortex made up of other spiral vortexes there exists an infinity of universes.

One must remember the brain can both only sense what it can sense, and our imagination is limited by what we can logically build upon from what we have sensed using comparisons to things that we can actually observe. The brain has evolved to limit the universe because the universe obviously cannot fit into our head.

Nagarjuna: Eye awareness is not existent in the eye. It is not existent in form, nor in the space in between. What is constructed dependent upon the eye and form is erroneous.

Nagarjuna: While colour and shape never exist separately, the separate are not apprehended as one, because the two are known as form.

Nagarjuna: If the eye does not see itself, how can it see form? Therefore, the eye and form are insubstantial. The remaining sense spheres are also similar.

Nagarjuna: The eye is empty of its own substantiality. It is empty of another's substantiality. Similarly, form is also empty, and also the remaining sense spheres.

Time of course is only an effect, as we humans can only sense and dream effects. The evolution of self-desiring life comes from the 'density' of time overlaps. The same applies to the evolution of anything including energy and matter. This occurs because things are made of time and time in our universe spirals inward like a float in a whirlpool. We are mere travellers on time's inward path.

How the Spiral Works
When you look into the horizon from a ship, things appears small. However if you realise that what you are looking into is time itself, because to move to an object that is far away takes time. As you move into what was the horizon then everything becomes its regular size. When you add that everything is circling everything else any size related thoughts become impractical. Distance is visual effect of looking into the spiralling time channel.

If life is a guide, size and speed seem to have a relationship. The world to an ant is little different to ours, around ourselves we can only sense what we can sense so our worlds are essentially the same relative size. The sun would probably regard the planets as having fast movement and a short life compared to its own.

Nagarjuna: How can what is not established in its own intrinsic being produce another? A condition which is not established cannot cause the origination of another.

Time is a mirror against itself, reflecting in and out and in-between and out. Outside of our perception relating to size and distance there are no straight lines in the known universe, therefore everything must be curved in some fashion.

If everything is curved time and time is reflecting everywhere then there must be occasions where time overlaps. Seeing time is everything then the periods of these overlaps are essentially timeless. Overlaps of time create energy/matter only because for something to be matter it must exist in at least two levels of time, inherent permanent universal time and non-inherent temporary time relating to its time configuration. If time does overlap then something is created and perhaps with enough overlaps we end up with this thing called life, human life even where a new level of existence is created whereby it actually has tools to observe time.

Einstein was on the right track when he spoke about space-time, but he kept relating it to objects from the human perspective which is not relevant in the grand time vortex of the universe.
He said MASS AND ENERGY CURVE SPACE AND TIME which is correct but only because matter and energy are time itself. His mathematics don't quite work out because he did not bring into play overlapping time spirals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Time is the only thing that has an intrinsic existence. It must have for even if there was a big bang or singularities or whatever, or any other form of existence including any creator god, there must have been time. Gods can surely only exist where time exists and how can there be a 'moment' before time.

Nothing else has an intrinsic existence. Any object gets its characteristics by being different to some thing else, and therefore must itself have characteristics or properties you would think, but the further you delve down into the parts of these objects the more alike the separate parts become to each other. They gradually lose properties. The object is merely the sum of a seemingly infinite number of sub-parts grouped together by beings with consciousness in a fashion that allows the observer to recognise differences in the manner in which things are grouped. These groupings always change over time, stars explode and so on, so therefore the group does not have an intrinsic or self-contained existence.

Time is the universal backbone that everything depends on. Without time nothing moves, nothing changes.

Force is time
The act of moving any object requires something physical to occur. All forces act in the same manner. They make something move. Nothing more, except that a new equal force is created. Everything that exists is therefore in infinite motion. This is backed up by everything being temporary and it is motion that creates the disturbances of destruction. But destruction is only the destruction of the illusory group, nothing is destroyed, everything that is destructed becomes something else. Nothing is lost and if nothing is lost then the combination of the concept of motion plus equality is actually infinity.

To evince that motion and change is an illusion, Zeno presented the following paradoxes:

1. The Racecourse. Imagine a racecourse of a given length, say 100m. The runner starts at the beginning of the racecourse and reaches the goal in a given time. In this example of motion, the runner traverses a series of units of distance, foot perhaps. Zeno holds, that each unit of distances can be divided into smaller distances, 1/2 foot, 1/4 foot, 1/8 foot and so on, until at last we have an infinite number of distances. How can the runner traverse an infinite number of distances in a finite amount of time?

2. Achilles and the Tortoise. The swift Achilles and the tortoise hold a race contest. Because Achilles is a sportsman, he gives the tortoise a head start. While the tortoise is already moving towards the goal, Achilles starts and pursues the tortoise. In a few seconds he reaches exactly the point, where the tortoise has been when Achilles started. However, during this time the tortoise has moved forward and it takes Achilles a certain amount of time to make up for this distance. Again, the tortoise has moved on in that time and Achilles needs another, smaller amount of time to make up for it. The distance between Achilles and the tortoise will always be divisible and, as in the case of the racecourse, no point can be reached before the previous point has been reached, thus Achilles can never overtake the tortoise.

3. The Arrow. Does the arrow move when the archer shoots it at the target? If there is a reality of space, the arrow must at all times occupy a particular position in space on its way to the target. But for an arrow to occupy a position in space that is equal to its length is precisely what is meant when one says that the arrow is at rest. Since the arrow must always occupy such a position on its trajectory which is equal to its length, the arrow must be always at rest. Therefore motion is an illusion.

Zeno's paradoxes may not be paradoxes if motion is the crossing of a time channel in some time 'direction' - 'down' or 'across' the time spiral as it were.

Of course any such 'movement' would have some type of opposite time effect to all things around it so it would appear as if it moved, and taking from the perspective of a reference point would appear as if 'distance' had been travelled.

To move any object there must be a point of vacancy otherwise there would be no space to move in to, but how do you get this vacancy of space?

For example, lets say the particles at the foremost point of your arm bash into air particles on the pathway from one point to another. You can imagine that your atoms push the atoms of air out of orbit from the larger group, and these strike your particles causes even more volatility of particles, with the illusion of heat as a force being the result, but the problem then becomes that these out-of-group-orbit particles must also find space into which to move.

You might say that there is emptiness between the particles or atoms, but how can that be? Emptiness does not mean some sort of spongy vacuumness, for it to be empty it must have the 'property' of nothingness (or not have any property that can interact with something with a property). Now if it is nothingness than nothing can travel across this void of nothingness as it has no properties by which anything can be carried. It is impossible for say the space between particles to be nothingness because we can see that gravity must flow through this 'space' otherwise each particle would not be able to create an orbit around another. So this seemingly emptiness must actually be full, completely full.

If that is the case then how can space be created?.

It can't. There is no room because complete emptiness does not exist. Anything without any properties cannot exist, properties and thus things can only exist become we can measure them or imagine them, but if it has no properties there is no concept or sense that could possibly be used to imagine or know it.

Any thing with any property must exist, for instance, we know that the conventionally imagined vacuum of space can carry gravity and waves of light and radiation, so it must have some property.

At the same time, things with properties don't have any intrinsic existence, their properties change, even space. Where does the space go in the area where a spaceship is now located. It can't move anywhere, for to do so would be to go back to the concept that space is empty and thus spongy, which I've tried above to show is not correct.

Things obviously do change their relativity to other objects. I would not be surprised if our brain used some complex algorithm of time to measure size and distance, after all it certainly uses time to measure velocity. As far as I can see, if things appear to move but logically can't, then something else is happening, there is still some effect occurring, so imo the only thing that can possibly be occurring is that time is being warped to create the effect. However as nothing has an intrinsic existence it has no power to warp time, as to do so it would have to, in some fashion, be external to time. Clearly however we cannot be external to time, we can only be on some type of different frequency, level, grade or speed of time.

Time however is infinite and anything infinite and somehow separate from everything can only have the property of itself. With only the property of itself, it would have no ability to interact with anything else. If it had other than the property of itself it would not be time.

Elsewhere I've suggested that time should be thought of as having some kind of whirlpool existence, but if time has only one property, itself, then it surely it can't really have different frequency levels or whatever, as that would imply more than one property. The reality of time is that it has both one property and all properties as the one property. It is infinite so it must have both and any property imaginable can only exist if it has a relationship with time.

Thus any thing that can interact with time can only be a property that resides within
the wholeness of time. Essentially we humans just another part of time's property as time itself becomes the universe.

Objects that are part of something larger - as all are - and consists of parts - as all things do - have difficulty in realising or understanding what the whole is that they are part of. Humans for instance have a hard time recognising they have no soul, no self that is separate in any way from the universe, we are merely part of a larger system - family, city, country, earth, solar system and so on.

Nor do we understand what we are made of, nor will we by experimental science regardless of the tools used - there will always be some smaller particle of existence.

Nagarjuna: Because the three characteristics of the compounded object -- origination, duration and destruction -- are non-existent, the compounded and the uncompounded are also non-existent.

Assume if you like that a certain thing is the base unit of the universe. What does it know? As far as I can see, it only knows one thing and that is to move in a certain direction when something nears. It does not actually join with another particle it appears to orbit or move in some fashion near the other. Now if movement is the property of time and is actually illusory due to the limitations of the observing consciousness, and this base particle only knows to move, then it must be time as for something to have the smallest thing, then it must be the thing with only one property. The only thing with one property is time. The only thing with all properties is time. One could say time's one property is that it is the temporary vacuum and fullness of existence that creates the space to move.

The problem with time for humans and anything that could be conceived of holding consciousness is that we think in terms of objects for everything, even god - except we don't do that with time. We think of time as just what is. So if we remove objects from the equation of what is, as they don't actually exist as such, then really all we have left is some type of interconnectedness of something. Time is the thing that interconnects everything. Now if in one hand you have everything and another hand you have time, then on their own then in one way neither can exist as they are reliant on each other - time without matter has no properties other than itself and matter without time has no movement thus no properties as awareness would not exist - so you actually have nothing in each hand. We know time exists though, therefore time is of the nature of motion rather than things, for without motion nothing changes and nothing can exist without change. Thus time could be considered to 'move'. If time moves then it must move in some form of eternal fashion. It must both change and remain the same.

Time Exists = TRUE (confirmed by awareness and consciousness)
Space, matter, gods cannot exist without time = TRUE
Objects exist inherently = FALSE (always temporary and consisting of parts)
Objects exist temporarily = TRUE (there is something inherent that creates the temporariness)
Objects have multiple properties = TRUE
To objects time appears to only have one property = TRUE (the sense of moving forward)
Space is empty = FALSE (emptiness can't carry anything)
The base unit of material existence is known = FALSE
The base unit of material existence could have only 1 property = POSSIBLY
Time can exist without matter = POSSIBLY

Humans sense the world like a kaleidoscope. Our minds group things together. Any one bit or congregation of h2o can be described as water. If you look into a kaleidoscope patterns form. If you look into two mirrors facing each other here is an endless procession of copies of itself. These effects are a reflection of the nature of reality. Time is the same shape, the same conceptual image conjured up in one's brain that appeals to the Mandlebrot brainset in all of us. The shape is an infinitely inwardly spirally tornado of property differences. Fibonnacci, orbiting objects, galaxies or whatever are no mere coincidences.

If you placed yourself in the dead centre of the mirrors without any space and without any direction, then you would experience time (as you do). If from these reflecting mirrors, you were to head in any one direction you would become timeless as because there is an infinity of reflection in all directions, you would never reach the spot where you came from. Once on any one directional path then you couldn't go 'back' to where you started from as any direction that you took would be infinite.

The twin mirrors is the void of reality. One is always at the centre of the void. It's void because it contains all directions, but we travel along only one path, thus the infinity of all other paths is the void, completely unrecognisable. It may be that the void is perceived as emptiness as that is only how it could be perceived, but note that it is not really emptiness but fullness - it contains all possibilities and that is why something which appears to be empty of properties namely space and other vacuums like those between particles can appear to carry time/matter from one point to another. Matter moves through this time void and collects or loses properties in relation to all the other matter that cuts across it's time plane. Gravity may be the natural ability of matter to move into the void as the void has no resistance, but the mass of other matter that is pushes out time directions creates time swirls from which the time planes in the smaller object can then travel towards the object with greater mass.

Evolution

Nagarjuna: Consciousness originates dependent upon an object of consciousness, therefore it is non-existent. Without cognition and an object of consciousness, there is consequently no consciousness at all.

Why would evolution work. Why did things gradually change from random particles, to materials, to elements to complex compounds, to life. Even though evolution is merely predetermined 'coincidence', in that the sum of different causes add up to create a different effect, some which last to replicate part of themselves, some which don't, why is it that life wants to live in the first place? Life is just a combination of things so why is it that things combine?

If time has all properties then it must have all properties that humans have. Therefore all things have awareness of some description. Consciousness is simply complex awareness. Nonetheless it is compounded awareness dependant on compounded materials, and thus very, very complex . The only way it could have become so complex, as us humans are now, is to have a form of self-knowledge of itself, even way back yonder when it became a particle. And that self-knowledge is an awareness that it is a part of time. The property of the base level of existence is one property + time.

Nagarjuna: How can what is not established in its own intrinsic being produce another? A condition which is not established cannot cause the origination of another.

So how did this one property + time come about. Properties are description of matter but you can't have matter without it having any properties, so matter could not just have suddenly appeared, as there is nothing from which it could originate from, except time itself.

Awareness means an ability to interact with something else, so 2 bits of 1 property can interact with each other, but are equal so cancel each other out. It still exists, but is inactive so it then becomes 1, or matter. One bit of matter and another can join with each other and the Fibonnacci sequence starts. The initial property of the one property base units is the awareness of two levels of time, now and forever, caused by a time overlap. Our consciousness is the same, it always relates to the ungraspable instant and the infinity of past-future, but the crucial point is that in having a conscious knowledge of both time and awareness-of-now it is automatically set upon the path that leads deeper into more 'now' time channel, it can only move in that direction, and thus we have the evolution of energy, matter and life. Intelligent design.

Electricity is core driving force of life. Electrical charges move our body and all it's parts and create chemical reactions that allow growth and rejuvenation using food, air and water. It is used to store memories or information and thus create consciousness. Life is merely self directed electrical current.

Electricity is channelled time. The positiveness and negative attributes of electricity come from the congregations of like swirls of time. By like I mean kind of occupying a like position on the time spiral, lets say positive is on the outer perimeter and negative in the more densely centre, the dead spot in the time hurricane. The ability of matter to group is the grouping of like time segments. Grouping on it's own does not produce life though, the groups must become so complex that they become self-organised and able to direct energy/electricity/time flows to a degree.

As humans have the ability to direct time it could be said that we are apprentice masters of time, but something which is a complete master of time would be considered a god. It is therefore possible that created gods exist.
Actually it is possible that anything exists. Ghosts, evil spirits, ESP are all possible if matter is time and motion is crossing time channels. Although these things are more likely to be imagination, all things have causes, and everything a human knows or senses has to at some stage have come from the real world. Imagination and the invention of new concepts occurs from randomness of brain behaviour, caused by its extraordinary complexity, a kind of grouping together of segments of other concepts.

Music
Music appeals to us because it is a reflection of the complexity of the time spiral. Music is the sensed vibration of time spirals of different planes. We like it because it displays our mastery of time.
 
Thought said:
Music appeals to us because it is a reflection of the complexity of the time spiral. Music is the sensed vibration of time spirals of different planes. We like it because it displays our mastery of time.

So who is the author of this -- you, Thought, or Jimhaz?

To say that we like music "because it displays our mastery of time" is a lot of BS propagated by those who can hear, but are unable to listen.

Only dead aesthets like music for reasons of "displaying our mastery of time".
 
Me. jimhaz, Thought are the same person.

It is just a work-in-progress.

Your point about music is a zero point.
 
Your circular shaped graph could just as well, in fact would probably be more correct if it were linear (it will not circle back around to N). The N+5 and higher cats. are dimensions which are not expanded. For more information on this search "Calibi Yau". They are considered outside of human experience because we can not observe them except mathematically. Well, that may not be entirely true...

- KitNyx
 
Does not imaginary time have something to do with the square root of -1? At least when mathematically represented? It's representative variable is usually "i".

- KitNyx
 
wesmorris said:
I think it's necessarily unknowable. You can't hear with your eyes. (you can however, translate sound waves into light and look at the patterns of light that correlate to sound) I don't think we can "visualize" something that is beyond our scope of vision. We can only translate it into something we can envision.


Well hmm. I'm not sure if there is any. I believe it's part of an unproven but very popular theory. For that matter, I don't think there is any evidence of the "fourth". There are three plus time, which is not a spatial dimension.


I thought a hypercube is a four dimensional cube. Maybe I got that part wrong. I'll try to remember to look it up.



Awe shucks, stop.

In regards to hypercubes, if we imagine a two dimensional cube to look like so:

0
0000
0
0

Please, use your imagination :)

Edit2: By way of explanation, the above O's are squares in an unfolded cube. Sorry to not make that more clear, it's difficult given the tools available.

A hypercube would look like the above, unfolded. That is, each 0 is a cube, rather than a square. Obviously, it's impossible to visualize as an assembled real space figure. Imagine visualizeing a sphere from a two dimensional perspective... what you would get is a circle whose diamter grew and then shrunk rapidly as the sphere passed through your universe.

Edit: Note also that one could have a two dimensional hypercube, by unfolding each of the respective cubes, which helps demonstrate the relation between seemingly dissimilar spatial states.

In regards to your sketch, well, I don't follow. Hoe does it relate time as both relative and in motion? What is the position of the observer, at the center of the image? It needs perspective in order to be dissected.
 
Last edited:
talk2farley said:
In regards to hypercubes, if we imagine a two dimensional cube to look like so:

0
0000
0
0

Please, use your imagination :)
Hey I LOVE doing that. I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on that part, I just wasn't sure about the label for a minute.

A hypercube would look like the above, unfolded. That is, each 0 is a cube, rather than a square. Obviously, it's impossible to visualize as an assembled real space figure. Imagine visualizeing a sphere from a two dimensional perspective... what you would get is a circle whose diamter grew and then shrunk rapidly as the sphere passed through your universe.
Dig that, good example. When I was quizzing one of my proffs on it he said "I always just remember that to a three dimensional object, a two dimensional object looks flat, so from any dimension, the pair below seem flat" or something like that. Man I miss school sometimes. I want my masters and phd damnit! :) Perhaps eventually.

Edit: Note also that one could have a two dimensional hypercube, by unfolding each of the respective cubes, which helps demonstrate the relation between seemingly dissimilar spatial states.
Yeah I thought about that but I didn't get to it. It took a few hours to get as far as I did. I was thinking about putting lil graphics by the stuff but uhm, didn't. Good point.

In regards to your sketch, well, I don't follow. Hoe does it relate time as both relative and in motion?
Pardon the poor impression. I did not mean to describe a motion. I was trying to show my impression which is that time is a component of something common to all spatial dimensions as we see it from our subset of dimensionality.

What is the position of the observer, at the center of the image? It needs perspective in order to be dissected.

A human observer woudl inhabit the dimensions that I shaded. This is more of a diagram of the continuum of dimensionality and the role I think what we see as time plays in it.
 
"This is more of a diagram of the continuum of dimensionality and the role I think what we see as time plays in it."

In that sense, its fairly difficult to critique. In my opinion, it is spot on; human perception is limited to the three geometric dimensions, and the temporal fourth (or N) dimension, as it pertains to their geometry ONLY (rather than being capable of percieving time, itself, as a spatial constant). Was this your intention?

Where things get complicated is when you start asking questions of spatial relations, relativity, etc.

One thing, however, is that I have always been taught dimensional theory as a hierarchy. That is, rather than a circle, they exist as a stack. Another thing, I particularly like youre treatment of time as an "imaginary spatial dimension," which occupies no specific slot within the hierarchy, existing instead as "N." This relates back to my original point, regarding our limited ability to percieve all things temporal.
 
talk2farley said:
"This is more of a diagram of the continuum of dimensionality and the role I think what we see as time plays in it."

In that sense, its fairly difficult to critique.

In my opinion, it is spot on;

Okay now which is it? :D

Just teasing you and I do appreciate you undertaking the difficulty.

human perception is limited to the three geometric dimensions, and the temporal fourth (or N) dimension, as it pertains to their geometry ONLY (rather than being capable of percieving time, itself, as a spatial constant). Was this your intention?
Except for your last concept there, I think yes. I'll try to clarify below.

Where things get complicated is when you start asking questions of spatial relations, relativity, etc.
Do not.

Sorry I just wanted to say that because I'm an ass.

One thing, however, is that I have always been taught dimensional theory as a hierarchy. That is, rather than a circle, they exist as a stack.
I agree. My thinking though is more specifically that they are "stacking extrusions". Point extrudes to line, line extrudes to plane, plane extrudes... blah blah. That must make us think that a point may well be an extusion of a compactificated dimension.

Another thing, I particularly like youre treatment of time as an "imaginary spatial dimension," which occupies no specific slot within the hierarchy, existing instead as "N."
Thanks but it seems like you're mixing stuff up here so I'm not sure if we're on the same sheet of music. In my graphic, I'm trying to say "imaginary time" and "time are two very different things. I'm saying imaginary time is as described in the link, perpendicular to ordinary time. Then I'm saying ordinary time is our view of the backbone of the dimensional continuum as limited by our 4 dimensional existence. We can only see "time", but it is part of a "superstructure" that is the point or shell (a 3D name doesn't suffice since this phenomenon exists in ALL dimensions, but observers who span 4 (like us) see it as "change", regardless of which wedge of the graph were their base or point dimension) or whatever that all "stacking extrusions" have in common.

Did that make sense?
 
Hmm... that's the way it works. A point is the the union of 0 and infinity (at least the 'real extents' or 'relative infinity', perhaps 'the reality behind the number line when it's representing a spatial dimension) of the number line representing the compactificated dimension (the dimension(s) below (or "what was extruded")) if you know what I mean. Bah, I thought I had it for a minute but now that seems hoaky.

Bah, that's just what I'm thinking about at the moment and thought I'd share.

I say "union" in the sense that "both are two halfs of the idea of a number line taken to extremes". Like a yin-yang kind of thing.

Which is partially why my graphic is circular. The ends are the poles of the union as in a yin-yang.
 
Last edited:
Please explain to me, what is "imaginary time," and more specifically/importantly, what differentiates it from real time?
 
Wes, unfortunately I am not very witty in this area, but I do find it to be a very interesting theory. In order for us to actually test this theory science would have to develop special equipment. Would you know if there is anything in the works presently?
 
Arrogantly, I contend that the existence of "that which is abstract" is enough evidence to constitute a spatial dimension... internal to us. There is no place for meaning in classical space-time. To me, that is a proof.

Perhaps I'm kind of a sucker for a self-made proof.

But yeah I suppose we don't have the equipment to probe compactificated or (insert whatever the opposite of that is: dispersificated?) dimensions.

Unless of course our minds can be considered instrumentation, then we can see at least one on top of classical spacetime, as our minds directly observe meaning.
 
wesmorris said:
I would swear I read in his book "The universe in a nutshell" that he sees "imaginary time" as the "fourth spatial dimension".
Since you did welcome the discrepancies be pointed out, let me pointout 2 of them as i percieve :

(1) It seems, from the link, the 'imaginary time' is not just a fourth spatial dimension, but it is 'perpendicular' to the time itself, to explain singularities where time cease to exist. (2) In your graph you mentioned hyper-cube exists in 4 spatial dimensions apart from time when you said the imaginary time as the fourth spatial dimension.

IMO, the time is the fundamental dimension to all spatial dimensions. That then enables 1D (a string which requires time from one point to another point, you see?). This 1D enables the 2D (plane) and so on. Thats why it is said time started at Big bang and subsequently the space. And to avoid/consider the question what triggered big bang when the time itself is non-existant, they need a time, the imaginary time.

Cconsidering the time as the fundamental to all dimensions, i feel, there is no need for imaginary time. That is to say, the time existed prior to big bang but the absence of other spatial dimensions does not require time to be brought into a non-existing space (before the big bang). So that it is also valid to say that the time started with the space as in the space-time combo. Nevertheless time exists always as a dimensional requirement or a structure, though suspended in our space-time sense pre- big bang.
 
Last edited:
everneo said:
Since you did welcome the discrepancies be pointed out, let me pointout 2 of them as i percieve :

(1) It seems, from the link, the 'imaginary time' is not just a fourth spatial dimension, but it is 'perpendicular' to the time itself, to explain singularities where time cease to exist.

Okay but I don't see the discrepency. "not just a fourth spatial dimension"? I don't understand that. I think a spatial dimension is too significant to put "just" in front of it. You might consider that "being perpendicular to time" is exactly as demonstrated in the graphic.

(2) In your graph you mentioned hyper-cube exists in 4 spatial dimensions apart from time when you said the imaginary time as the fourth spatial dimension.
Nothing I mention in my graphic is apart from time. I'm not sure how you construe that based that it's all contained within a circle with the continuum that includes time as the hub. Note again that I'm saying time is the component of the intersection of all spatial dimensions. Time is just what we see it as from our perspective in four dimensions.

IMO, the time is the fundamental dimension to all spatial dimensions.
Then I think we mostly agree.

That then enables 1D (a string which requires time from one point to another point, you see?). This 1D enables the 2D (plane) and so on.
That may well be. I might be wrong. I mean to say though that from a 2D perspective it wouldn't be "time" in the same way since it would look different from there, and that time itself is a consequence of the existence of multiple dimesions... in that when they are intersected, time is how the intersection appears if the intersection happens to intersect four dimensions, and if you were 8 it you wouldn't think of it as "time" in the way that we do, because it would be literally different.

Thats why it is said time started at Big bang and subsequently the space. And to avoid/consider the question what triggered big bang when the time itself is non-existant, they need a time, the imaginary time.
I see what you mean but I don't know what to say about that. Regardles of why it was conceived, I believe that space is some sort of continuum of spatial dimensions and we are patterns of interaction across at leaslt four branes.

Cconsidering the time as the fundamental to all dimensions, i feel, there is no need for imaginary time.
I think you're basing that on the reason you think they came up with the idea, rather than the plausibility of the concept regardless of the reason it was thought of.

That is to say, the time existed prior to big bang but the absence of other spatial dimensions does not require time to be brought into a non-existing space (before the big bang).
That is quite possible I guess. This is just a hypothetical that fits into my personal "model of everything" that I've been trying to explore here (throughout a number of threads and over my whole time here) on sciforums.

So that it is also valid to say that the time started with the space as in the space-time combo. Nevertheless time exists always as a dimensional requirement or a structure, though suspended in our space-time sense pre- big bang.

Again, possible. I just look at it differently like I explained. What do you think about my explanation?
 
Wes

Pardon me for the delay in replying.

wesmorris said:
Okay but I don't see the discrepency. "not just a fourth spatial dimension"? I don't understand that. I think a spatial dimension is too significant to put "just" in front of it. You might consider that "being perpendicular to time" is exactly as demonstrated in the graphic.
The 'just' part is not intended for slighting the spacial dimension ; but i view time as more fundamental then spacial dimension(s). I don't get you when you quoted that 'imaginary time' is fourth spacial dimension.


Note again that I'm saying time is the component of the intersection of all spatial dimensions.
I see that from your graph. I would rather think that time is the inherent (and is a necessity for any spacial dimension, other than singularity/point, to come into existence at all) THAN it is a component of intersection of all spacial dimenions.
I think you're basing that on the reason you think they came up with the idea, rather than the plausibility of the concept regardless of the reason it was thought of.
I meant the term imaginary time and its nature that it has to be perpendicular to the time, to help explaining singularities, might not be needed for the reasons i mentioned earlier, but that is just me in this philosophy forum. Considering the plausibility of the concept is based on a reason here, IMO. But it is more convinient to have an imaginary time mathamatically.
I just look at it differently like I explained. What do you think about my explanation?
Before i comment, i must have some idea of what you often stress, that arouse my interest as well as confusion, that time is the intersection of other spacial dimensions. Do you take time as the interval between interactions (of dimensions or branes or the matter therein etc) or time as the requirement (as a fundmental dimension, not the 'flowing' one that marks the changes) of other spacial dimensions.

Would you agree if more than one 'point' exist (even in a single spacial dimension) then that automatically denote that they have time dimension inherent and necessary for their seperation in the first place. ?
 
everneo said:
I don't get you when you quoted that 'imaginary time' is fourth spacial dimension.

Well, that's my understanding of "imaginary time", so that's how I say it. Time itself would possible be considered a spatial dimension if it weren't for that whole negative thing that doesn't quite work out. Maybe there are other reasons too. Regardless, yes I think imaginary time is the 'fourth spacial dimension' as it is presented by Hawking in hit book "the universe in a nutshell". I never finished the book (it went overdue and I keep meaning to go back for it), but I think that it is considered "the next brane after length, width and height and would inherently seem perpedicular to time itself for reasons that are extremely difficult for me to explain and which might be based on utter trash. I'm still thinking about a way to discuss that. It has something to do with the idea of two extremes of any scale (in this case, imaginary time being the top 'knowable' dimension to a human) being two halves of the same thing, a yin yang kind of relationship. Zero and infinity have the same relationship as 'the internal dimension (the abstract dimension)' and 'imaginary time' which is the same as yin and yang in the sense that dimensionally, the internal is the zeroeth dimension and imaginary time is the highest dimension we as humans span. It is perpedicular to time, so we are it in the sense we are perpendicular to time (because it's always right now and there is more subjective time at a time than just that time).

So there's my insane rambling for the day.

Before i comment, i must have some idea of what you often stress, that arouse my interest as well as confusion, that time is the intersection of other spacial dimensions. Do you take time as the interval between interactions (of dimensions or branes or the matter therein etc) or time as the requirement (as a fundmental dimension, not the 'flowing' one that marks the changes) of other spacial dimensions.
It's more like if you're an 8D creature, you won't experience "time". You will exierence a more involved thing that time. It would span all 8 dimensions and from your perspective you might call it "time" but it wouldn't be the same thing a human thinks of as time, due to their limited respective dimensionality. Know what I mean? The idea is basically a generality that extends far past the simple idea of time and ultimatley shows "time" as we see it, to be limited by the contraints of our perspective, rendering questions like "when did the universe begin", sort of non-sensical. Sure it "began" as we see it from our limited capacity for perception, but I think in the ultimate scale of things that are and are not, "when" simply doesn't make sense. The next idea up from that is symbolically yin-yang IMO. The universe has always and never existed. Then I can't really imagine the next step up from that idea.... but I'd imagine for the truth of the matter you'd have to be able to scale the idea up once more for each spatial dimension above us. Ultiamately what I'm tryign to get at is that I think what we perceive as "time" is inherent to our limited dimensionality and only a glimpse of a much more fundamental phenomenon that we might think it is.

Would you agree if more than one 'point' exist (even in a single spacial dimension) then that automatically denote that they have time dimension inherent and necessary for their seperation in the first place. ?

Yeah but I don't know if I'd call it "time". Say all of the universe consists of 2D. A creature of the 1st D would see "time" completely differently than a creature of the 2nd D. A creature than spanned 2D would experience "time" in a different way than either of the other two, though all of them would see in in a manner analagous or related to "change", sort of, in whatever sense that change applies in that dimension or span of dimensionality. I think a 10 D creature would have a much more sophisticated, basically incomprehensible (to humans) perspective on the notion of "time" or "change", if you follow what I'm trying to get at.
 
Back
Top