Time is bonkers

[Radiation]

I believe science sees time as dimensional but it's actually much more likely motion, things 'tick' at a certain rate but can slow down based on effects like mavity or speed, the past and future don't exist, there is only the present, the motion or rate of change and our memory or awareness of it is what we call time, a measurement.

When you die time most likely ceases to exist from your point of view similar to a dreamless sleep, if the universe is infinite in nature then the chances are that given enough time universes will pop in and out of existence over many googolplex years, eventually a conscious being similar to yourself will appear, so in a sense you'll be reincarnated again, if true this would happen instantly upon death from your point of view, of course you won't have any knowledge of it.

 

[DAnDan]

I believe science sees time as dimensional but it's actually much more likely motion, things 'tick' at a certain rate but can slow down based on effects like mavity or speed, the past and future don't exist, there is only the present, the motion or rate of change and our memory or awareness of it is what we call time, a measurement.

So, do you have any evidence to back this theory? Or are you going to dispute hundreds of years of scientific work and evidence with nothing to back it up?

 

[Radiation]

So, do you have any evidence to back this theory? Or are you going to dispute hundreds of years of scientific work and evidence with nothing to back it up?

I doubt this view changes any current observations or equations, i don't dispute hundreds of years of scientific work, only the idea that time is dimensional, which as far as i've seen has no evidence, they've observed things running slower under mavity or at speed and that's it, no evidence the past or future exists as well as the present, so it's really the only rational view to have about time at the moment.

 

[Amleto]

I doubt this view changes any current observations or equations, i don't dispute hundreds of years of scientific work, only the idea that time is dimensional, which as far as i've seen has no evidence, they've observed things running slower under mavity or at speed and that's it, no evidence the past or future exists as well as the present, so it's really the only rational view to have about time at the moment.

no evidence about the past? seen the stars lately?

 

[DAnDan]

no evidence about the past? seen the stars lately?

That's not that the past exists now, only that light takes a long time to get to us.

 

[Radiation]

no evidence about the past? seen the stars lately?

There's no evidence of the past existing in a dimensional sense, matter and energy have constantly been changing it's state and we can see evidence of that but there isn't a time line where all states exist.

 

[TFleming]

The definition of sound requires a recipient to interpret the vibrations. So no, there wouldn't be 'sound' but there would be the required circumstances for it to occur if you were there to interpret the vibrations.

 

[Gilly]

The definition of sound requires a recipient to interpret the vibrations. So no, there wouldn't be 'sound' but there would be the required circumstances for it to occur if you were there to interpret the vibrations.

Is a red brick still a red brick if there is no-one around to see it?

 

[Frapple]

If your brain was any simpler it wouldn't try to figure itself out.

 

[Nerusy]

semantics and ignoring common sense. Even when you reach an "answer" you won't be satisfied.

 

[El_Commi]

Lay off the drugs

 

[ng93]

I'm no biologist so this may be completely wrong, but isn't consciousness just a series of chemical reactions (albeit very complex ones)? If so then its no different to any other chemical reaction, e.g. photosynthesis. So saying that your birth/death has any influence on time is akin to saying that plants 'feeding' off the sun alters time, i.e. its bonkers .

Humans like to think that their special, but in reality were not. Just lucky (although depending how you look at it consciousness and intelligence could also be described as unlucky).

/jumps of a cliff

 

[StoutMeister]

Sorry for bonkers / philosophical thread on a Monday, but over the weekend I heard on the TV the old question “if a tree falls down and there’s no one to hear it, does it make a sound”. Now I’ve never really paid a great deal of thought to it but as I was bored it led to me think of my own perception of time. As expected I have no recollection of time prior to being born and despite billions of years passing the first I knew of anything was sometime 38 and a bit years ago.

Obviously this lead me to consider death and how obviously I will not perceive any of that either, thus I will once again be outside of time. In turn this lead me to wonder if the universe would cease to exist with me, as my perception of time would be zero and thus infinite then surely it must. The only way it could not cease would be if I was reborn and started to perceive time again (I don’t want to get into re-incarnation though). I realise that the universe wont cease to exist for everyone else but as I will have no reference points between the time of death and the end of the universe (even if that is infinite: S ) then surely it must cease to exist with my death.

Again sorry, not wanting to start a LOLoam thread and not really sure why I posted it, but it bent my mind on a hot Sunday afternoon.

Mid-life crisis coming on..

 

[Johno please?]

As expected I have no recollection of time prior to being born and despite billions of years passing the first I knew of anything was sometime 38 and a bit years ago.

I've thought this in the past, its quite humbling really.

To quote Mark Twain - "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit."



Of course the universe and time still goes on... just not for you

 

[LOAM]

snip

I'm not sure anyone has said their birth/death has influence on time. Have they ?
Im not sure anyone has said humans are special either tbh.

Mid-life crisis coming on..

 

[StoutMeister]

 

[Rainmaker]

I'm no biologist so this may be completely wrong, but isn't consciousness just a series of chemical reactions (albeit very complex ones)? If so then its no different to any other chemical reaction, e.g. photosynthesis. So saying that your birth/death has any influence on time is akin to saying that plants 'feeding' off the sun alters time, i.e. its bonkers .

Humans like to think that their special, but in reality were not. Just lucky (although depending how you look at it consciousness and intelligence could also be described as unlucky).

/jumps of a cliff

Nobody really knows what consciousness is. When you say humans like to think they're special, but they're really not, do you realise that without our perception the universe as we know it wouldn't exist? When we're not looking at it, the universe looks nothing like we think it does; it 'collapses down' and then when observed the 'reality particles' instantly form what we think we'll see.

That's hardly the scientifically worded version, but it'll suffice. Mind = blown.

As for the whole tree falling in a forest, you're doing it wrong! It's an old Zen koan ('riddle') which is designed to be purposefully abstract. It's not meant to be answered logically, or even to have any definite answer. It's to push a student to new realisations and understandings based outside of logic and words. Instinctive realisation, if you will. Trying to answer it using reason and science defeats the object of the exercise!

 

[ng93]

I'm not sure anyone has said their birth/death has influence on time. Have they ?
Im not sure anyone has said humans are special either tbh.

I might of misread it but i thought thats what the op said.

Nobody really knows what consciousness is. When you say humans like to think they're special, but they're really not, do you realise that without our perception the universe as we know it wouldn't exist? When we're not looking at it, the universe looks nothing like we think it does; it 'collapses down' and then when observed the 'reality particles' instantly form what we think we'll see.

That's hardly the scientifically worded version, but it'll suffice. Mind = blown.

tbh i only posted it as a point of view for the discussion. your universe theories sound interesting, got any links?

 

[Random Guy]

Time is an illusion......

...lunchtime doubly so!

 

[THMRK]

I'm no biologist so this may be completely wrong, but isn't consciousness just a series of chemical reactions (albeit very complex ones)? If so then its no different to any other chemical reaction, e.g. photosynthesis. So saying that your birth/death has any influence on time is akin to saying that plants 'feeding' off the sun alters time, i.e. its bonkers .

Humans like to think that their special, but in reality were not. Just lucky (although depending how you look at it consciousness and intelligence could also be described as unlucky).

/jumps of a cliff

You're completely wrong. If consciousness truly were a series of chemical reactions then the hard problem of consciousness wouldn't be, well, so hard.

Assuming consciousness is just a function of the brain is a materialist way of looking at it, in the philosophical sense I mean. It still doesn't account for the essential feeling of consciousness, the privacy of the mental (if it were a function of the brain a doctor should be able to tell you how you're feeling better than you can, for example), the separateness of persons, the authoritative knowledge we have of our own minds, the subjectivity of consciousness, the feeling of conscious states, and the obviousness of our beliefs and desires (and the 'feel' of them).

If one goes as far as eliminative materialism then we not only end up in a state of scepticism about minds, but we end up beyond that in a state where we don't have minds at all. Which is surely wrong, because at the very least we all have different minds that see the world in different ways.

They don't call it the hard problem of consciousness for nothing!