Debate What is the very nature of Time?

Mr. Door-Chan_16

New Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
19
Hello there, I would like to hear anyone's thoughts on the concept of time, like for example... can time be the same time with space, or is the space in accordance to time important? In which the spatial area of it would be their in that time? Your thoughts, answers, ideas, theories, and proposals would be great. Thank You. -EPC
 

Peaceseeker

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
160
two times exist. at once. time space , of this physical and other physical universes, and time-space for the soul in the non physical universes. the time space of the physical, does not allow for a pause upon one moment of time, the squares of space time , is like that on a chess board or game board. each movement within the physical, is a space on times plate. while in spirit, there is a whole other dimension of space, where time is no part of. allowing the soul to move anywhere among that space, at no measure of time. though i could be wrong about everything, this is just my answer at the moment of this time. lol peace :)
 

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Premium
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
6,502
Hello there, I would like to hear anyone's thoughts on the concept of time, like for example... can time be the same time with space, or is the space in accordance to time important? In which the spatial area of it would be their in that time? Your thoughts, answers, ideas, theories, and proposals would be great. Thank You. -EPC
Time happens all at once but our brains segment it out. "Time" is a measurement. Useful in math.

IMHO
 

Trekkie

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
64
Do you know what your doing , so you set your alarm clock to wake you up for work so your not late ,your doctor's appointment so your not late ,you don't need to know the time when it's evening you just look out the window and wait for the sky to turn dark
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,362
No. But time is observed by time-dependant processes, such as the consumption of hydrogen by the Sun.
Just to make sure. Wouldn't that explain Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity?
The theory explains it. It doesn't explain the theory.
The Theory of Relativity arises from two postulates, that c is the speed limit, and that physics works everywhere.

Harte
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,086
From a more philosophical perspective, it goes back to Parminedes and Heraclitus (with Aristotle being the middle ground opinion). If the universe is static and inherently unchanging, then time is illusory. There is just one big thing and time is your experiencing slices of it. I think this may correspond to what some physicists refer to as block time, though I am unsure about that. On the other hand, if all is flux (Heraclitus), then there exists only the present moment (no past and no future). Time in that sense is just the flux that drives the endless change.

I tend to believe the past probably does not exist, nor does the future, but I take a middle ground in the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense, which I think comports well with what real science (not string theory) has advanced thus far.
 

JackStagger

Junior Member
Joined
May 27, 2019
Messages
37
Time is the consequence of universal forces interacting. It is the rate and direction of all changes, and it can be layered within itself relative to the rest of the universe. Time cannot be "reversed" but it can be undone, redone, circumvented, stopped, or accelerated. In a laboratory sense, in a system with zero entropy and zero potential energy of any kind that system would be equivalent being in a still time state. Time itself is a construct as much as the millimetre is, though much more universal.
 

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Premium
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
6,502
No. But time is observed by time-dependant processes, such as the consumption of hydrogen by the Sun.

The theory explains it. It doesn't explain the theory.
The Theory of Relativity arises from two postulates, that c is the speed limit, and that physics works everywhere.

Harte

Ahhhhh you think like me!
 

Mr. Door-Chan_16

New Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
19
No. But time is observed by time-dependant processes, such as the consumption of hydrogen by the Sun.

The theory explains it. It doesn't explain the theory.
The Theory of Relativity arises from two postulates, that c is the speed limit, and that physics works everywhere.

Harte
I see; and general constants? What about the Planck's Constant in relations to time? Possibly being as small as 1.6 x 10-35 power is certainly questionable, wouldn't an observer such as a virus, ant, dog, man, and a blue whale observe time differently per se?
 

Mr. Door-Chan_16

New Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
19
Time is the consequence of universal forces interacting. It is the rate and direction of all changes, and it can be layered within itself relative to the rest of the universe. Time cannot be "reversed" but it can be undone, redone, circumvented, stopped, or accelerated. In a laboratory sense, in a system with zero entropy and zero potential energy of any kind that system would be equivalent being in a still time state. Time itself is a construct as much as the millimetre is, though much more universal.
I see, do you know any ideas or proposals of time and cosmology by scientists and amateurs? Any information given will be good for study.
 

Mr. Door-Chan_16

New Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
19
From a more philosophical perspective, it goes back to Parminedes and Heraclitus (with Aristotle being the middle ground opinion). If the universe is static and inherently unchanging, then time is illusory. There is just one big thing and time is your experiencing slices of it. I think this may correspond to what some physicists refer to as block time, though I am unsure about that. On the other hand, if all is flux (Heraclitus), then there exists only the present moment (no past and no future). Time in that sense is just the flux that drives the endless change.

I tend to believe the past probably does not exist, nor does the future, but I take a middle ground in the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense, which I think comports well with what real science (not string theory) has advanced thus far.
From what I've heard, there is a philosophy that states that the past, present and future are happening at the same time right here, right now. Can you further elaborate to me about that?
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,086
From what I've heard, there is a philosophy that states that the past, present and future are happening at the same time right here, right now. Can you further elaborate to me about that?
The idea there is that the universe is one static (unchanging) thing. A moment in time is merely a slice in that unchanging thing, and your experience of time derives from your experiencing that thing one slice at a time in a sequential order from a specific point of reference. If this is true, then the past, present, and future are not "happening" at all. They simply are.

The other side of that position is that the past and future do not exist at all. There is but one present moment that is constantly in flux.

The third middle way is that of Aristotle, which requires you to understand act, potency, substance and cause, and I haven't the inclination to try to explain those concepts in a forum post. That is more inline with what I think, and I think science supports it much more than it does the other two positions.
 

JackStagger

Junior Member
Joined
May 27, 2019
Messages
37
Wouldn't an observer such as a virus, ant, dog, man, and a blue whale observe time differently per se?
Yes, they would observe different things at different rates. Like how when you're a child time seems to pass slowly and as an adult it seems to pass more quickly. It's because your observational ability and desires have changed, time has not changed.

The constraints of time are sequence and causality, it is information that travels faster than the speed of light because it doesn't actually travel anywhere even though it is not omnipresent or uniform. It is not a complicated field or aether, it is simply cause and effect. That's my opinion based on relatively recent advancements others have made while studying the nature of black holes and light as it relates to information. I do not think this is antagonistic to any notion within quantum physics, otherwise it would be a terrible concept. I put it very simply so to not seem counter to what others might hold true.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Door-Chan_16

New Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
19
Yes, they would observe different things at different rates. Like how when you're a child time seems to pass slowly and as an adult it seems to pass more quickly. It's because your observational ability and desires have changed, time has not changed.

The constraints of time are sequence and causality, it is information that travels faster than the speed of light because it doesn't actually travel anywhere even though it is not omnipresent or uniform. It is not a complicated field or aether, it is simply cause and effect. That's my opinion based on relatively recent advancements others have made while studying the nature of black holes and light as it relates to information. I do not preclude to think this is antagonistic to any notion within quantum physics, otherwise it would be a terrible concept. I put it very simply so to not seem counter to what others might hold true.
The idea there is that the universe is one static (unchanging) thing. A moment in time is merely a slice in that unchanging thing, and your experience of time derives from your experiencing that thing one slice at a time in a sequential order from a specific point of reference. If this is true, then the past, present, and future are not "happening" at all. They simply are.

The other side of that position is that the past and future do not exist at all. There is but one present moment that is constantly in flux.

The third middle way is that of Aristotle, which requires you to understand act, potency, substance and cause, and I haven't the inclination to try to explain those concepts in a forum post. That is more inline with what I think, and I think science supports it much more than it does the other two positions.
I see. Philosophical Time, Scientific Time, Real Time and Universal Time are abruptly different from not just the observer, but to everyone else observing or not, to the observer.
 
Top