NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the nature of Time cyclical or linear? I am debating a friend about this.

Linear Time: Past, Present, Future. Beginnnig , Middle, End
Cyclical Time: Creation, Destruction, Renewal. Life, Death , Rebirth

Time is an illusion that appears between bottles of vodka and robo-trips.

No, actually, I think time as *we* know it is an illusion of a sort, in that I don't think we are percieving the true nature of it.

EDIT:
Meaning it exists, but not in the sense that we say it does.

mmmm, drugs...

It really all depends on what the real physics of our universe are. Mainly the ones involving the origin. There are so many theories out there that it's pretty much impossible to actually know. Sure, there are plenty of hypotheses, learned and unlearned ones, but it is really all jsut speculative. Though all dimensional physicists agree that the 4th dimension is time.

time is Q

We're limited in our perceptions to the extent that we can only perceive that 4th dimension in a linear fashion. We can choose to interpret that perception on philosophical grounds, but I have yet to hear of anyone who does not actually share in the common linear perception of time.

Outside of the novel 'Slaughterhouse Five'. Or people with certain cognitive disorders.

time is Q
So time is a measurable dimension more basic than x, y and z. I can buy that. I belive their is more to time than we know, or can even comprehend. Imagine being a two dimensional shape and living in a two dimensional world. Hieght would blow your mind. Maybe be comprehendable, and in a way measurable. But mind boggling. Perhaps time is the same for us (three dimensional beings). Read Flatland, it is an interesting book and may make you think thoughts like this.

Imagine a pie. Now imagine slicing it up into an infinite amount of slices. A moment in time is a slice of that pie. Forever existing but we are always moving through it.

Hieght would blow your mind.
*coughs* I think you mean depth... Though more people should certainly read Flatland if they want to discuss amateur dimensional physics.

*coughs* I think you mean depth... Though more people should certainly read Flatland if they want to discuss amateur dimensional physics.
Sorry, depth. Typing faster than I am thinking. Yeah, My dad had a copy of flatland lying around, so i started it while I was home for Christmas. Didn't get to finish though :(

All we can conclude is that we inhabit 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. We're going to need another Einstein to get any further than that.


If you want a cool description of time as we know it, watch Star Trek DS9: The Emissary. The good captain tries explaining linear time to a species that exists in multiple dimensions of time.
Ahhhh, the simplicities of a corporeal existence. We exist, and then we cease to exist.

*coughs* I think you mean depth... Though more people should certainly read Flatland if they want to discuss amateur dimensional physics.

I read it. Am I getting the feeling you disapprove of amateurs/laymen discussing dimensional physics?

need better that a new einstien he couldnt comprehend atoms and tried to trash quantom physics


as for the point of this tread well... there is none. the human mind in its current state is to simple to comprehend time or any dimension past depth we can pin math on it but that is our limit so we might as well not try

I read it. Am I getting the feeling you disapprove of amateurs/laymen discussing dimensional physics?

If an "amatuer" didn't at some point discuss and explore it then we would never have any "experts". And, as history has shown the "experts" may be wrong. Experts belived in a flat earth for thousands of years. Experts have belived in multiple atomic models over the years. Expertism (<- is that a word) is relative.

Am I getting the feeling you disapprove of amateurs/laymen discussing dimensional physics?
Only against experts. I myself am certainly a layman regarding physics. That was merely a seconding of Branin's recommendation.

Imagine living in a seven physical dimension tesseract with its expanding topology wrapped around a infinite fractal hypercube with two dimensions of time, a slow one and a fast one..... Fun isn't it.

Seriously though. Time is just time. We don't need to understand it. It's spacetime and the two of them make the universe interesting by having physical dimensions to exist in and a duration to exist at. Its all good grasshopper. Carpe Diem. :)

Only against experts. I myself am certainly a layman regarding physics. That was merely a seconding of Branin's recommendation.

Oh, well thank you.

My previous post is not to argue but to introduce a thought.

If an "amatuer" didn't at some point discuss and explore it then we would never have any "experts".
Yes, but the main differentiating factor is that professionals devote their profession to their subject, and laymen should not be arguing too much with the people who really know what they're talking about. There's a difference between a subjective neonate and an amateur.

How can you know something that you don't know..

What's really cool is that some Grad students at Stanford are investigating the possibility of there being a basic indivisible unit of time. As the photon is the basic unit of light (the particle component), and quarks and bosons are basal units of mass, there may indeed be a basic frame rate at which time moves by.

The problem is that to test the theory you'd have to observe an object entering the event horizon of a black hole or experiencing some other form of massive acceleration so as to slow the perception of the object through a stationery telescope to a snail's pace.

Still the idea that time may not be a continuous function is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time.

Fun fact of the day.

Time is pretty much a subjective measurement that we assign a value to. The basis of this, the second, is defined as the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.


This is all speaking outside the realm of nth dimensional physics and relativity of course, as those tend to show that time may not be a constant. Let's just say for now that it is constnat within a given system :)

Fun fact of the day.

Time is pretty much a subjective measurement that we assign a value to. The basis of this, the second, is defined as the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.


Wow, that is obscure.

You cannot explain time in geometry. It is neither a force, nor a energy. It is simply a measurement, or a "magnitude." Force, on the other hand, is a vector. Therefore, the best way to define "time" is simply to call it a measurement. You can try to do anything you want to that measurement, but it simply will just remain that. Time has no direction, since there is no way to "halt" time. If you define time as the decay or atoms, then time is quite simply just the life span of an atom. Hence, time is simply a measurement. If time was measured in intervals of ten, then our seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, and other things would be different from what we understand. Like all things, time is an artificial construct created by humans to explain the world around them. Dig deep enough and math and you discover everything about it is artificial. Reality is what our sensory equiment tell us it is. Therefore, best leave the question alone and concentrate on more productive things.

I think that Time is merely a measurement of change...

The universe changes constantly, and Time is the line on which we plot those changes...

After all, without change, every moment is exactly the same, and thus, Time is useless... It is only needed to separate one state from the next (and the next, and the next, etc)

And the key thing is that Time doesn't exist except for the present moment...

It leaves no tangible record, and has no predetermined path ahead of it... Which rules out virtually all Time travel ideas... It can't be done; at least not in the accepted sense... One could "remove" themselves from Time's effects, (though some sort of stasis, a state of non-change) and when they re-immerse themselves, they will be in the "future"... However, there's no going back, because their Time no longer exists (unless it were possible to "rewind" the entire universe to the exact state at which you left it...)

So anyways, out of the choices given, I can accept calling it linear... As it moves forward in a continuous progression... However, it's more of a single point traveling in a single direction than a line...lol

I hope no-one bothers posting the link for that 'timecube' site again...

LOL

(Lest we forget such oddities as, "Educated cubeless stupid, you think stupid.
Why worship a dumb 1 day god when I
demonstrate 4 simultaneous 24 hour days
within a single 24 hour rotation of Earth?
Linear, singularity and trinity equate to
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation ")

Tinfoil hats, indeed...


DT.

Imagine a pie. Now imagine slicing it up into an infinite amount of slices. A moment in time is a slice of that pie. Forever existing but we are always moving through it.


but.. that means we all only get small slices of pie!!! nooooooooooooooooooooo!

It's now 4:33pm.

At the tone, it will be 1:37 AM and 15 seconds...



beep

Would time ("the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past") exist without a person (or some other subjective entity) to experience it?

Given your definition, no.
But that ain't the definition of time.

What's really cool is that some Grad students at Stanford are investigating the possibility of there being a basic indivisible unit of time. As the photon is the basic unit of light (the particle component), and quarks and bosons are basal units of mass, there may indeed be a basic frame rate at which time moves by.

The problem is that to test the theory you'd have to observe an object entering the event horizon of a black hole or experiencing some other form of massive acceleration so as to slow the perception of the object through a stationery telescope to a snail's pace.

Still the idea that time may not be a continuous function is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time.

Isn't this just the Planck time? I thought that had already been determined.

I think that Time is merely a measurement of change...

The universe changes constantly, and Time is the line on which we plot those changes...

After all, without change, every moment is exactly the same, and thus, Time is useless... It is only needed to separate one state from the next (and the next, and the next, etc)

And the key thing is that Time doesn't exist except for the present moment...

It leaves no tangible record, and has no predetermined path ahead of it... Which rules out virtually all Time travel ideas... It can't be done; at least not in the accepted sense... One could "remove" themselves from Time's effects, (though some sort of stasis, a state of non-change) and when they re-immerse themselves, they will be in the "future"... However, there's no going back, because their Time no longer exists (unless it were possible to "rewind" the entire universe to the exact state at which you left it...)

So anyways, out of the choices given, I can accept calling it linear... As it moves forward in a continuous progression... However, it's more of a single point traveling in a single direction than a line...lol

Thankyou! Spot on. "The world is in a constant state of flux." Time is simply our method of measuring this. I think linear time is but an illusion, artificial, because it must be in order to be measured. Cyclical is closer to the mark because cycles occur regularly in nature. Thus, time is, in one sense or another, linear, cyclical, and an illusion.

An illusion.

For starters, all definitions of 'time' are rather subjective. Time consists of numbers and symbols we've assigned to it simply created for the simple notion to keep us slightly organized. Anything you can possibly pinpoint as real time is simply change. The real question is what change is, and if change follows a repeatitive pattern.

I think that Time is merely a measurement of change...

The universe changes constantly, and Time is the line on which we plot those changes...

After all, without change, every moment is exactly the same, and thus, Time is useless... It is only needed to separate one state from the next (and the next, and the next, etc)

And the key thing is that Time doesn't exist except for the present moment...

It leaves no tangible record, and has no predetermined path ahead of it... Which rules out virtually all Time travel ideas... It can't be done; at least not in the accepted sense... One could "remove" themselves from Time's effects, (though some sort of stasis, a state of non-change) and when they re-immerse themselves, they will be in the "future"... However, there's no going back, because their Time no longer exists (unless it were possible to "rewind" the entire universe to the exact state at which you left it...)

So anyways, out of the choices given, I can accept calling it linear... As it moves forward in a continuous progression... However, it's more of a single point traveling in a single direction than a line...lol

I must disagree. Spacetime exists. Just because you're only conscious of it from moment to moment doesn't mean it ceases to exist after that moment, or, for that matter, that it doesn't exist before that moment.

Imagine, if you will, a spacetime (four dimensional) loaf of bread.

If you slice that loaf of bread, that's your "moment" of time. Notice, however, that you don't have to slice that loaf directly across. You can slice it a diagonal (up to 45°, to be precise). So, that diagonal slice is still your "moment" of time.

Now, say someone lives REALLY far away from you, and is moving at a different speed than you (which is almost guaranteed, after all). His slice will be on a different diagonal than yours, and thus your "moments" might cross. For him, his "moment" might actually include the American Civil War and the first Moon shot all at the same time. I know it's bizarre, but it's true. So, "time" as a "moment" is relative. Time as a component of spacetime is eternal, from "moment" to "moment".

Thank you, Brian Greene.

An illusion.

For starters, all definitions of 'time' are rather subjective. Time consists of numbers and symbols we've assigned to it simply created for the simple notion to keep us slightly organized. Anything you can possibly pinpoint as real time is simply change. The real question is what change is, and if change follows a repeatitive pattern.

Don't study physics much, do you?

Time exists, folks, just like space.

Time is a funny thing...
Time is simply that which prevents everything happening together.

Thankyou! Spot on. "The world is in a constant state of flux." Time is simply our method of measuring this. I think linear time is but an illusion, artificial, because it must be in order to be measured. Cyclical is closer to the mark because cycles occur regularly in nature. Thus, time is, in one sense or another, linear, cyclical, and an illusion.

Why must time be an illusion to be measured? If something is six inches long, it doesn't have to be illusory to be measured.

Don't study physics much, do you?

Time exists, folks, just like space.

Well, time exists just like space. The physicist's view is not the only way. It is not 'truth', merely a way of looking at things. (Not that I'm saying it's wrong, just that it isn't the only 'correct' way.) Space is also only defined by human measurements. Sure, distance exists, but its importance is only relative.

Why must time be an illusion to be measured? If something is six inches long, it doesn't have to be illusory to be measured.

Measurement, or the things we measure, is an illusion in the sense that it does not exist before we measure it. Six inches are nothing and infinty before we define length to a scale.

Ralph Wiggum: "Time goes Tick Tock! I swallowed a fork!"

"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours that's relativity."

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

-Albert Einstien

If you are an Empiricist, time goes foreward, but sometimes you feel like you are walking in circles.

If you are a Rationalist, time is relative and I've got an equasion for you.

If you are skeptic, time does not exist, at least until you can observe it like the Empiricists.

If you are agnostic, time might exist-or it might not.

Measurement, or the things we measure, is an illusion in the sense that it does not exist before we measure it. Six inches are nothing and infinty before we define length to a scale.

Um, no. Things we measure are not an illusion before we measure them. You are confusing our measuring systems with the actual properties being measured.

For example, an object is six inches long. It is also 15.24 centimeters. It has a given length, no matter how we choose to define that length. We can say it has 1 oolong in length. If we double it's size in all dimesions, it will now have 2 oolongs in length. This is inherent in the object, not illusory.

Would time ("the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past") exist without a person (or some other subjective entity) to experience it?

Okay thank you...you just spooked me out...no sleep for me tonight

Okay thank you...you just spooked me out...no sleep for me tonight

Relax, you won't wink out of existance because I can't see you, pal. :)