Consciousness could be a side effect of 'entropy', say researchers

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Consciousness could be a side effect of 'entropy', say researchers

It's all connected.
FIONA MACDONALD 19 OCT 2016

t's impressive enough that our human brains are made up of the same 'star stuff' that forms the Universe, but new research suggests that this might not be the only thing the two have in common.

Just like the Universe, our brains might be programmed to maximise disorder - similar to the principle of entropy - and our consciousness could simply be a side effect.

http://www.sciencealert.com/consciousness-could-be-a-result-of-entropy-say-researchers?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

I've long believed that life and everything to do with life was a symptom of entropy. This is pretty cool. It reafirms the likelyhood that not just life, but intelligent life, is an inevitable and quite common occurrance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It reafirms the

Vastet wrote:
It reafirms the likelyhood that not just life, but intelligent life, is an inevitable and quite common occurrance.

I agree


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 I think a better

 I think a better interpretation is that the arrow of time is an illusion. If you subscribe to the Many Worlds theory, your consciousness just represents a set of quantum entaglement outcomes. We only percieve the future as not yet existing because we have no information about it.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:  I think a

EXC wrote:

 I think a better interpretation is that the arrow of time is an illusion. If you subscribe to the Many Worlds theory, your consciousness just represents a set of quantum entaglement outcomes. We only percieve the future as not yet existing because we have no information about it.

I've thought that there is no future, no past.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: I think a better

EXC wrote:

 I think a better interpretation is that the arrow of time is an illusion. If you subscribe to the Many Worlds theory, your consciousness just represents a set of quantum entaglement outcomes. We only percieve the future as not yet existing because we have no information about it.

This has little to do with time. Time's arrow was only mentioned in passing, it was not the subject.

Personally I don't believe that time's arrow is an illusion. If that were the case then it could be seen through and manipulated, and there'd be time travellers from the future all over the place. Intelligent life would be everywhere it could be supported, and we'd have never existed as some species found a use for our solar system as it was billions of years ago.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
well, just for argument's

well, just for argument's sake, how do we know time travelers from the future aren't all over the place?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Because we can't see

Because we can't see evidence of life everywhere. If time is a negligible concern, then there should be detectable intelligent life all around us. Even replacing us with life that was brought back in time to before life on Earth existed.

Instead what we have is exactly what we should expect to have: little to no evidence of any life anywhere but here, and a clear if incomplete evolutionary chain explaining our presence.

The ultimate argument against the possibility of time travel is that species or individuals who had such an ability would certainly reshape time and the universe itself. If the possibility exists, it will be utilised. It might be impossible to travel back in time to alter the past in a way that would change the history of your homeworld without creating a paradox, but there's nothing to prevent colonising billions of other worlds to allow your species to advance itself by thousands or even billions of years while isolating and protecting the homeworld from being affected from the changes you or other species might make. You get your cake and eat it too.

Even just one species mastering time travel would have a significant impact on everything. Such a species would effectively become a god species. Rewriting the universe for its own benefit. That would be fairly easy to detect over massive distances.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sweet subject

 

I tend to agree that life and all its observable emergent characteristics are part of an entropic system carrying free energy from the sun (or vulcanism) to equilibrium. But it's an easier thing to say than to explain. This is fascinating stuff.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
There is no past, present or

There is no past, present or future. We exist in every moment as we pass through time, rather than time passing us.

If you could time travel, you would go back to a moment, let us say to save JFK. You stop the assassination, but the people you left are still experiencing their lives, in a different moment with out you. Your moment in time would then be going on a different path, with JFK living.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That's speculation, and has

That's speculation, and has no effect on time travel that isn't intended to change history anyway. If you send a billion people back in time a thousand years and to a planet a thousand lightyears away, it becomes literally impossible for those people to affect the past of their home.

As long as we are stuck with time's arrow (which is forever), the past, present, and future do exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That's

Vastet wrote:
That's speculation, and has no effect on time travel that isn't intended to change history anyway. If you send a billion people back in time a thousand years and to a planet a thousand lightyears away, it becomes literally impossible for those people to affect the past of their home. As long as we are stuck with time's arrow (which is forever), the past, present, and future do exist.

You are mixing technology. You are moving people from not only a specific moment in time but to a different location in space.

And it isn't speculation. Time is a dimension.

Also that is one of the complaints I point out to theists. God can't change history. Even with all the power and fuck-tard-what-ever bullshit theists try to pull out their ass, their god can not change what already happened. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:You

digitalbeachbum wrote:
You are mixing technology. You are moving people from not only a specific moment in time but to a different location in space.

Which is absolutely necessary unless you want to appear in a vacuum lightyears away from any star anyway. Or did you forget that everything in the universe is constantly moving, our solar system and galaxy included? If you travelled back in time just one second you'd end up in space or inside rock. Travelling through space is an absolute prerequisite to travelling through time.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
And it isn't speculation. Time is a dimension.

Time being a dimension isn't in dispute, your take on it is very much however.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
You are mixing technology. You are moving people from not only a specific moment in time but to a different location in space.
Which is absolutely necessary unless you want to appear in a vacuum lightyears away from any star anyway. Or did you forget that everything in the universe is constantly moving, our solar system and galaxy included? If you travelled back in time just one second you'd end up in space or inside rock. Travelling through space is an absolute prerequisite to travelling through time.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
And it isn't speculation. Time is a dimension.
Time being a dimension isn't in dispute, your take on it is very much however.

Your previous post lead me to believe that you would go back in time to another planet, other than Earth.

It isn't disputable that we pass through time rather than time passing us.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If you took the time to

If you took the time to calculate the motion of and inside the Milky Way it would not be difficult to travel to another solar system by timing your arrival to coincide with the presence of that system at the same coordinates the Earth would occupy in the present. Time travel would be the most efficient method of transportation to other systems, even other galaxies. No faster than light speed required. A civilisation that mastered time travel would occupy the entire universe. The fact no such civilisation exists proves time travel isn't possible.

We don't pass through time and time doesn't pass through us. We are as inextricably linked to time as we are every other dimension. So yes, it is quite disputable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:We don't pass

Vastet wrote:
We don't pass through time and time doesn't pass through us. We are as inextricably linked to time as we are every other dimension.



which is basically the conceptualization of time put forth by the old sautrantika school of early buddhism. time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continuously passing away and coming into being. it is impossible to break those instants down into constituent parts. nothing, including human beings, is the same from one instant to another; therefore, where is the distinct human being that would travel between instants? time travel is impossible because there is no traveler.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That is indeed another valid

That is indeed another valid angle to approach it from. It was recently shown that the conciousness we revel in doesn't exist except for brief periods strung together. In fractions of seconds. You can't type a sentence as a single conciousness. By the time you've finished typing you've effectively died dozens of times.

Each conciousness exists for a fraction of a second in one time and place, and then it is gone forever. Irrecoverable. It is replaced by another conciousness that appears identical but cannot be exactly identical. It is really quite fascinating how we seem to be individuals who exist for decades yet really we are each incalculably numerous individuals who exist for such a short time that we are as incapable of perceiving it as we are incapable of perceiving that television is actually a series of still images and not actual motion.

It makes it much easier to explain things like multiple personalities, examples of what can happen when things don't go quite as they do for most people.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
sautrantika thought always

sautrantika thought always made sense to me. of course, compared to our modern physics, its ideas are very crude, but, considering they predate any kind of significant ideas of space-time in western philosophy, they were revolutionary for their time, and for a layman like me they're complex enough.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm amazed at how accurate

I'm amazed at how accurate they were.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If you took the

Vastet wrote:
If you took the time to calculate the motion of and inside the Milky Way it would not be difficult to travel to another solar system by timing your arrival to coincide with the presence of that system at the same coordinates the Earth would occupy in the present. Time travel would be the most efficient method of transportation to other systems, even other galaxies. No faster than light speed required. A civilisation that mastered time travel would occupy the entire universe. The fact no such civilisation exists proves time travel isn't possible. We don't pass through time and time doesn't pass through us. We are as inextricably linked to time as we are every other dimension. So yes, it is quite disputable.

Yes, if you could master time travel it would be the most efficient form of transporting across vast distances. The bending of time and space or the moving of your environment instead of moving the self would seem the most likely answer to this problem. However I reject any possible ability to go backwards in time to a previous moment to change it. That moment always exists as is the future which already exists. I am only experiencing these moments as the approach me like waves in an ocean.

To say that no civilization exists that doesn't have time travel yet is presumptuous. If they can travel across time to your current moment then it might still happen in the future. They might not be able to visit you when you were born, but they could visit you at death.

Time is the reality between two points yet to be experienced. Time is all around us, always. We are in an environment which constantly moves, our bodies always experience time.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Vastet wrote:We

iwbiek wrote:
Vastet wrote:
We don't pass through time and time doesn't pass through us. We are as inextricably linked to time as we are every other dimension.

which is basically the conceptualization of time put forth by the old sautrantika school of early buddhism. time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continuously passing away and coming into being. it is impossible to break those instants down into constituent parts. nothing, including human beings, is the same from one instant to another; therefore, where is the distinct human being that would travel between instants? time travel is impossible because there is no traveler.

"Time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continously passing away and coming in to being."? I'm wondering if you agree with his statement that "we don't pass through time and time doesn't pass us"? 

I agree with the observation that we as human being are never the same from one instant to another. However I think Vas and I were hitting on the idea of travelling vast distances by manipulating time and space. I believe we all agree that going back in to time to change the past is not possible.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:That

digitalbeachbum wrote:
That moment always exists as is the future which already exists.

No.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
To say that no civilization exists that doesn't have time travel yet is presumptuous.

No.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
If they can travel across time to your current moment then it might still happen in the future.

No. If it happened in the future then it happened in the past. If it didn't happen it cannot happen.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
They might not be able to visit you when you were born, but they could visit you at death.

What?

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Time is the reality between two points yet to be experienced.

No it isn't.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
We are in an environment which constantly moves, our bodies always experience time.

Physically impossible. What we experience is an illusion.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I believe we all agree that going back in to time to change the past is not possible.

I say travelling back in time is absolutely impossible no matter the goal or circumstances. Just being in the past would change the past.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Vastet wrote:
We don't pass through time and time doesn't pass through us. We are as inextricably linked to time as we are every other dimension.

which is basically the conceptualization of time put forth by the old sautrantika school of early buddhism. time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continuously passing away and coming into being. it is impossible to break those instants down into constituent parts. nothing, including human beings, is the same from one instant to another; therefore, where is the distinct human being that would travel between instants? time travel is impossible because there is no traveler.

"Time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continously passing away and coming in to being."? I'm wondering if you agree with his statement that "we don't pass through time and time doesn't pass us"? 

I agree with the observation that we as human being are never the same from one instant to another. However I think Vas and I were hitting on the idea of travelling vast distances by manipulating time and space. I believe we all agree that going back in to time to change the past is not possible.




i don't believe we pass through time or it passes through us because i don't believe there's an "us" distinct from time.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I get to wondering

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Vastet wrote:
We don't pass through time and time doesn't pass through us. We are as inextricably linked to time as we are every other dimension.

which is basically the conceptualization of time put forth by the old sautrantika school of early buddhism. time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continuously passing away and coming into being. it is impossible to break those instants down into constituent parts. nothing, including human beings, is the same from one instant to another; therefore, where is the distinct human being that would travel between instants? time travel is impossible because there is no traveler.

"Time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continously passing away and coming in to being."? I'm wondering if you agree with his statement that "we don't pass through time and time doesn't pass us"? 

I agree with the observation that we as human being are never the same from one instant to another. However I think Vas and I were hitting on the idea of travelling vast distances by manipulating time and space. I believe we all agree that going back in to time to change the past is not possible.

at times if time even exists. It may be a matter of ones's own perspective. We learn to place measurements between one event to another, but, is that really time. It would seem to me that time cannopt exist unless there's something to measure. That would mean tha if there ws only one item in the universe there wouilod be no time. It would take more then one object to have time. Time, as we use it, is a mtter of event---no event no time as time is relative to velocity and and distance. one object cannot be relative to anything, in the case of a singular object there cannot be time. The universe has no demension (I think) so in order for there to be time there must be demension, as demention has at least 3 atributes, or at least 4 sides. (I'm not sure I'm getting this explained rite) A side equals distance. where then would time come into existance at the creation of a 3 demensional object. The object would have to have been created with velocity, and without the there casnnot be time as nothing is moving. So, as I seeit, time cannot exist without all factors needed to cerate time. If one is to think there is time (in the cases presented) then that would have to be a matter of mental invention. But then again, if there were only one object there wouldn't be anuone to comtemplete time. Sothen also, foir there to be time there must also be one to contemplete it, and contemplation is only a matter of mind. Does time exist or do we just think it does to solve a problem that we can't fully contemplate.

If time really is, then it may depend upon there being a user, and then the user must be created . OK, so that puts us back to the start. one object equals no time., there 's nothing to attach time to. Wouldn't that mean then that time is merely a matter of ourselves but yet useful for certain purposes, meaning, we have to exist in order for there to be time.  (holy moly)

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Vastet wrote:
We don't pass through time and time doesn't pass through us. We are as inextricably linked to time as we are every other dimension.

which is basically the conceptualization of time put forth by the old sautrantika school of early buddhism. time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continuously passing away and coming into being. it is impossible to break those instants down into constituent parts. nothing, including human beings, is the same from one instant to another; therefore, where is the distinct human being that would travel between instants? time travel is impossible because there is no traveler.

"Time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continously passing away and coming in to being."? I'm wondering if you agree with his statement that "we don't pass through time and time doesn't pass us"? 

I agree with the observation that we as human being are never the same from one instant to another. However I think Vas and I were hitting on the idea of travelling vast distances by manipulating time and space. I believe we all agree that going back in to time to change the past is not possible.


i don't believe we pass through time or it passes through us because i don't believe there's an "us" distinct from time.

I agree there is no us. Life, the self, is an illusion.

Time is always present in this Universe. It exists with or with out life.

Spacetime to simplify this discussion, exists as a fabric with which we and the planets travel. It is manipulated by our existence because we are on a planet in a solar system, which is moving. We travel on it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
That moment always exists as is the future which already exists.
No.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
To say that no civilization exists that doesn't have time travel yet is presumptuous.
No.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
If they can travel across time to your current moment then it might still happen in the future.
No. If it happened in the future then it happened in the past. If it didn't happen it cannot happen.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
They might not be able to visit you when you were born, but they could visit you at death.
What?
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Time is the reality between two points yet to be experienced.
No it isn't.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
We are in an environment which constantly moves, our bodies always experience time.
Physically impossible. What we experience is an illusion.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
I believe we all agree that going back in to time to change the past is not possible.
I say travelling back in time is absolutely impossible no matter the goal or circumstances. Just being in the past would change the past.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Not impossible, I agree, If you can travel back in time you couldn't change the future of those already in the future (the people you left) but you could change the future of the current timeline you are on. Logically you could save JFK on that timeline then live out that life with JFK.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Vastet wrote:
We don't pass through time and time doesn't pass through us. We are as inextricably linked to time as we are every other dimension.

which is basically the conceptualization of time put forth by the old sautrantika school of early buddhism. time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continuously passing away and coming into being. it is impossible to break those instants down into constituent parts. nothing, including human beings, is the same from one instant to another; therefore, where is the distinct human being that would travel between instants? time travel is impossible because there is no traveler.

"Time and existence itself are a series of distinct instants continously passing away and coming in to being."? I'm wondering if you agree with his statement that "we don't pass through time and time doesn't pass us"? 

I agree with the observation that we as human being are never the same from one instant to another. However I think Vas and I were hitting on the idea of travelling vast distances by manipulating time and space. I believe we all agree that going back in to time to change the past is not possible.


i don't believe we pass through time or it passes through us because i don't believe there's an "us" distinct from time.

I agree there is no us. Life, the self, is an illusion.

Time is always present in this Universe. It exists with or with out life.

Spacetime to simplify this discussion, exists as a fabric with which we and the planets travel. It is manipulated by our existence because we are on a planet in a solar system, which is moving. We travel on it.




i understand perfectly what you mean. i just don't think anything travels on the fabric. i think the fabric is all there is.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

I agree there is no us. Life, the self, is an illusion.

Time is always present in this Universe. It exists with or with out life.

Spacetime to simplify this discussion, exists as a fabric with which we and the planets travel. It is manipulated by our existence because we are on a planet in a solar system, which is moving. We travel on it.


i understand perfectly what you mean. i just don't think anything travels on the fabric. i think the fabric is all there is.

in your view, are we spacetime too?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:at times if

Old Seer wrote:

at times if time even exists. It may be a matter of ones's own perspective. We learn to place measurements between one event to another, but, is that really time. It would seem to me that time cannopt exist unless there's something to measure. That would mean tha if there ws only one item in the universe there wouilod be no time. It would take more then one object to have time. Time, as we use it, is a mtter of event---no event no time as time is relative to velocity and and distance. one object cannot be relative to anything, in the case of a singular object there cannot be time. The universe has no demension (I think) so in order for there to be time there must be demension, as demention has at least 3 atributes, or at least 4 sides. (I'm not sure I'm getting this explained rite) A side equals distance. where then would time come into existance at the creation of a 3 demensional object. The object would have to have been created with velocity, and without the there casnnot be time as nothing is moving. So, as I seeit, time cannot exist without all factors needed to cerate time. If one is to think there is time (in the cases presented) then that would have to be a matter of mental invention. But then again, if there were only one object there wouldn't be anuone to comtemplete time. Sothen also, foir there to be time there must also be one to contemplete it, and contemplation is only a matter of mind. Does time exist or do we just think it does to solve a problem that we can't fully contemplate.

If time really is, then it may depend upon there being a user, and then the user must be created . OK, so that puts us back to the start. one object equals no time., there 's nothing to attach time to. Wouldn't that mean then that time is merely a matter of ourselves but yet useful for certain purposes, meaning, we have to exist in order for there to be time.  (holy moly)

Dimensions are 1) is a line 2) is the plane 3) is the space 4) is the time between two points (the viewer and the subject)

Velocity isn't part of the dimension description, at least none that I know of.

Time existed before humans, before life. Time exists because it is the (as I stated perviously) is a fabric.

Kinda blows the mind huh?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Yes,

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes

No.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Not impossible

False.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I agree, If you can travel back in time you couldn't change the future of those already in the future (the people you left) but you could change the future of the current timeline you are on.

That is patently ridiculous.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Logically you could save JFK on that timeline then live out that life with JFK.

No.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yess---tricky.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

at times if time even exists. It may be a matter of ones's own perspective. We learn to place measurements between one event to another, but, is that really time. It would seem to me that time cannopt exist unless there's something to measure. That would mean tha if there ws only one item in the universe there wouilod be no time. It would take more then one object to have time. Time, as we use it, is a mtter of event---no event no time as time is relative to velocity and and distance. one object cannot be relative to anything, in the case of a singular object there cannot be time. The universe has no demension (I think) so in order for there to be time there must be demension, as demention has at least 3 atributes, or at least 4 sides. (I'm not sure I'm getting this explained rite) A side equals distance. where then would time come into existance at the creation of a 3 demensional object. The object would have to have been created with velocity, and without the there casnnot be time as nothing is moving. So, as I seeit, time cannot exist without all factors needed to cerate time. If one is to think there is time (in the cases presented) then that would have to be a matter of mental invention. But then again, if there were only one object there wouldn't be anuone to comtemplete time. Sothen also, foir there to be time there must also be one to contemplete it, and contemplation is only a matter of mind. Does time exist or do we just think it does to solve a problem that we can't fully contemplate.

If time really is, then it may depend upon there being a user, and then the user must be created . OK, so that puts us back to the start. one object equals no time., there 's nothing to attach time to. Wouldn't that mean then that time is merely a matter of ourselves but yet useful for certain purposes, meaning, we have to exist in order for there to be time.  (holy moly)

Dimensions are 1) is a line 2) is the plane 3) is the space 4) is the time between two points (the viewer and the subject)

Velocity isn't part of the dimension description, at least none that I know of.

Time existed before humans, before life. Time exists because it is the (as I stated perviously) is a fabric.

Kinda blows the mind huh?

Q- was time before the universe was created. If so, then time would have to be the origin of eveything, as I see it. One could say, it was only a matter of time before the universe was/became created. That would mean there was a " time" (better--- a condiftion) when there was only time. What this means --- (or not) that everyhting had to come from a source. If there was only time then there had to have been in that condition, then, no velocity, no dimension etc. If time is an aspect of dimention then where does height, width and depth come from. Would it mean then that "tine" is the procreator of all. If so, how so. Do you see where I'm coming from. Time itself has no physical dimention, and so being, how can time be considers a dimension of it has no dimention of it's own.

One could say then, that time is only one dimention that causes all other dimentions. What I'm saying is-- from the way we're seeing or thinking,  time has to be a dimention of a solid object that gets produced at some "time" in the history of the universe. But, (consider) a cube of rock has height, width, and depth---so, where would time fit into this solid object. Q- does the solid object need time to exist, or, does it already becomes existing in time at it's creation.

But how so. When a solid object is created it would have to "enter" time as time is already existing before the solid objects creation. That could mean that time has nothing to do with the creation of the solid object, and the object enters time upon creation. then"time can't create anything as per my previous statements. But if at the outset of materila creation there was only time, then time would have to be the universal creator, or, there is another dimention unknown existing at, or before, the creation of material. Do you see where I'm coming from.

So, if there was always time, then anything else when it comes into existance merely enters time. Then time cannot be a dimention becasue it takes dimentio to create a solid object, and theres no time within the object. What I;m getting at---there may be no such thing as time and we merely invented it for our own use. It coud be nothing more then a mental reference to what is relative to objects. Nothing can be relavent without something else to be relavent to. If there's no objects in the universe there is no relatvity. If there is only one object there still isn't relativity. Enter antoher object there's relativity. Now then---time can apply, but perhaps not befrore. What we have is a circle of----nothing. Strange. On the other hand, if a solid object enters the universe it  may be relative to time only as there is nothing else if time always is and was. But is time necessary for the solid object to exist---blah  blahh blah and on it goes. ??  Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes
No.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Not impossible
False.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
I agree, If you can travel back in time you couldn't change the future of those already in the future (the people you left) but you could change the future of the current timeline you are on.
That is patently ridiculous.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Logically you could save JFK on that timeline then live out that life with JFK.
No.

Yes.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Something to tink about

in conjuction with my last post.

The engine: The universe has no knowledge to create an engine. So, Logically there was no engine before someone reasoned to make one. The universe only contains the ingredients for the makings. The engine then, is a product of thought plus material. If one looks at time we see the same thing---time plus material plus thought equals result. So then, is there an engine that can come into existance without thought, nope. So then again, is there time without thought. Could it be that time can only exist the moment we need it to, and when not there is no time. Just as the engine cannot exist without thought maybe so---neither can time. This is why I say (without knowing how I could be right) is there really time, or is it a product of thought becaue of the need to tie events together. But under that idea time can only exist as it is needed for one's use, and gone between---times. Is it merely a matter of mind. ?????

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:in conjuction

Old Seer wrote:

in conjuction with my last post.

The engine: The universe has no knowledge to create an engine. So, Logically there was no engine before someone reasoned to make one. The universe only contains the ingredients for the makings. The engine then, is a product of thought plus material. If one looks at time we see the same thing---time plus material plus thought equals result. So then, is there an engine that can come into existance without thought, nope. So then again, is there time without thought. Could it be that time can only exist the moment we need it to, and when not there is no time. Just as the engine cannot exist without thought maybe so---neither can time. This is why I say (without knowing how I could be right) is there really time, or is it a product of thought becaue of the need to tie events together. But under that idea time can only exist as it is needed for one's use, and gone between---times. Is it merely a matter of mind. ?????

I think it would be awesome if the moon would crash in to the earth killing all life. That would solve all our problems.

Sorry, thinking of something else.

Think of all the atoms in your body. Then the planets, the stars. The space between them and our awarness of this space between them is time. How long does it take for me to reach my destination. how long until that object passes me. When will my package arrive at the door. etc. etc.

When you are drunk you do not think of time. You aren't aware of it. However it does exist. You don't create time. It isn't a construct which is there and then gone because you don't think about it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes
No.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Not impossible
False.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
I agree, If you can travel back in time you couldn't change the future of those already in the future (the people you left) but you could change the future of the current timeline you are on.
That is patently ridiculous.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Logically you could save JFK on that timeline then live out that life with JFK.
No.

Yes.

No.

Old Seer wrote:

in conjuction with my last post.

The engine: The universe has no knowledge to create an engine. So, Logically there was no engine before someone reasoned to make one. The universe only contains the ingredients for the makings. The engine then, is a product of thought plus material. If one looks at time we see the same thing---time plus material plus thought equals result. So then, is there an engine that can come into existance without thought, nope. So then again, is there time without thought. Could it be that time can only exist the moment we need it to, and when not there is no time. Just as the engine cannot exist without thought maybe so---neither can time. This is why I say (without knowing how I could be right) is there really time, or is it a product of thought becaue of the need to tie events together. But under that idea time can only exist as it is needed for one's use, and gone between---times. Is it merely a matter of mind. ?????

That's debatable. Technically our whole solar system in an engine.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
The space between them and our awarness of this space between them is time.

LOL no.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I understand the points

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes
No.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Not impossible
False.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
I agree, If you can travel back in time you couldn't change the future of those already in the future (the people you left) but you could change the future of the current timeline you are on.
That is patently ridiculous.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Logically you could save JFK on that timeline then live out that life with JFK.
No.

Yes.

No.
Old Seer wrote:

in conjuction with my last post.

The engine: The universe has no knowledge to create an engine. So, Logically there was no engine before someone reasoned to make one. The universe only contains the ingredients for the makings. The engine then, is a product of thought plus material. If one looks at time we see the same thing---time plus material plus thought equals result. So then, is there an engine that can come into existance without thought, nope. So then again, is there time without thought. Could it be that time can only exist the moment we need it to, and when not there is no time. Just as the engine cannot exist without thought maybe so---neither can time. This is why I say (without knowing how I could be right) is there really time, or is it a product of thought becaue of the need to tie events together. But under that idea time can only exist as it is needed for one's use, and gone between---times. Is it merely a matter of mind. ?????

That's debatable. Technically our whole solar system in an engine.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
The space between them and our awarness of this space between them is time.
LOL no.
being made. I'm submitting for thought.

Lets look at "velocity". Velocity cannot exist unless there is movement. But as long as there is only one object in the universe there is no movement because there is no relativity. Something connot be relative to nothing, correct? Relativity can only come into existance when there becomes a second object. If that object is yourself then there is an object that can comprehend. The only way you could tell that there is velocity is when you have to turn your head as the object goes by to remain in sight of the object  as its moving, because the object is changing direction/angle of sight relative to you.

Velocity did not exist until there was relativity, would that be correct? Distance did not exist until the entry of a second object. But distance exists without measurement, that is---what is the distance between you and the other object. There has been no development at this stage for the neasurement of distance--so then --what is distance without ---numbers, at this point you don't have any numbers. Does distance come into being "when" you apply numbers, or when another odject entered the universe?

But now there's the time idea or existence. From what we say and probably agree ---is that time always was, and of course "was" before any object became in the universe. But here's a problem. If time is a demention then there has always been demention. From TV science programs I've herad said that there are 11 dementions. Did all of the demention said exist along with time before any solid object entered the universe. From the solid object we know there is dimention because the object has 3 dimentions. But did those dimentions exist before the entry of a solid object. If not, then how did time also exist before the entry of the object (even be it a single atom or particle). How can dimention exist prior to the entry of an object if there was no dimention but time. But if time is demention then how did/could it exist without an application to or upon something.

If there was no velocity to begin with, and no distance, then how can there be time. If you see what I'm getting at?. Can time exist without something it must be attached to in order to exist. Can it be a dimention without attachment. In certain circles of scientists the universe alway contained something--etc gravity lets say. If something always existed then time is applicable. But there's no proof that there always was something.

IOW, time may be noting more then an expression of thought. I've got no proof of that however, so as I see it time always was. And again--if time has no physical properties then it's just an expression of what angle the sun is relative to any point on the planet. But that makes it something srictly mental.  Could it be that we are merely applying something we could call "the mental dimention'. Because the universe has no center or edge. As a moving object moves then, it has no destination no matter where the movement is. The universe doesn't register it as movement---because there's no where to go. If the universe isn't goin anywhere--neither is anything in it. Perhaps all our labels are for our use within our confines of the planet, and on planet earth we are going ssomewhere on planet earth, but to the universe we're going nowhere.

 

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Space & time are one. You

Space & time are one. You can't have one without the other. Not in this universe anyway. Velocity is a measurement of x distance travelled in y time. Without time and space both, there can be no velocity.

We have only identified 4 dimensions. Anything more than 4 is speculation.

The main problem you seem to be having is the beginning of time and space, but we don't know there was a beginning. We know the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, but that says nothing about the non-observable universe nor anything that might have been before the observable universe. We have no data on 'before', and we will never have any data on 'before'. Unless perhaps we can find a way to travel distances that have never even been conceived of (tens of billions of lightyears at a minimum) in a reasonable time frame (months or less). Otherwise the answers to what was before or what is beyond the observable universe will forever be beyond reach. There's not much point in speculating on something that is impossible to know and can't affect us in any way.

Regardless, time is observable. Questioning its existence is akin to questioning the existence of yourself. If you do, it won't do anything for you, and most likely you'll get hurt. Even if it doesn't really exist, it still exists to us. So it exists. This isn't debatable, it's simply a fact.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Understood

Vastet wrote:
Space & time are one. You can't have one without the other. Not in this universe anyway. Velocity is a measurement of x distance travelled in y time. Without time and space both, there can be no velocity. We have only identified 4 dimensions. Anything more than 4 is speculation. The main problem you seem to be having is the beginning of time and space, but we don't know there was a beginning. We know the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, but that says nothing about the non-observable universe nor anything that might have been before the observable universe. We have no data on 'before', and we will never have any data on 'before'. Unless perhaps we can find a way to travel distances that have never even been conceived of (tens of billions of lightyears at a minimum) in a reasonable time frame (months or less). Otherwise the answers to what was before or what is beyond the observable universe will forever be beyond reach. There's not much point in speculating on something that is impossible to know and can't affect us in any way. Regardless, time is observable. Questioning its existence is akin to questioning the existence of yourself. If you do, it won't do anything for you, and most likely you'll get hurt. Even if it doesn't really exist, it still exists to us. So it exists. This isn't debatable, it's simply a fact.

Your statement--"Even if it doesn't exist, it still exits to us". I'm not sure exactly what you mean on this account. But that's the essence of all my fruitless information. Is time just a matter of us.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I would think it simple. As

I would think it simple. As far as we are concerned, time exists and cannot be manipulated. None of us can stop, reverse, or otherwise change time in any way. Nothing we do or refuse to do has any impact whatsoever on time. So time exists independent of us. We are not necessary for time, but time is necessary for us. Even if it were proved somehow that time doesn't exist objectively, it would change absolutely nothing. We still could not stop, reverse, or otherwise change time in any way. We would see absolutely no impact whatsoever to such a proof. Therefore time still exists even if it doesn't exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.