NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps too simple....

Is "now" relative?

Depends on the context I guess.

Perhaps too simple....

Is "now" relative?

Main Entry: 1 NOW
Pronunciation: 'nau
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English nu; akin to Old High German nu now, Latin nunc, Greek nyn
1 a : at the present time or moment b : in the time immediately before the present <thought of them just now> c : in the time immediately to follow : FORTHWITH <come in now>
2 -- used with the sense of present time weakened or lost to express command, request, or admonition <now hear this> <now you be sure to write>
Of course, I didn't take all the definitions, but I think these two wrap it up nicely -- "now" is a moment. "Now" is ever-changing. Because of that, yes, I do believe that "now" is relative.

Simonist']Of course, I didn't take all the definitions, but I think these two wrap it up nicely -- "now" is a moment. "Now" is ever-changing. Because of that, yes, I do believe that "now" is relative.

well said.... I would have to agree on this one..

Perhaps too simple....

Is "now" relative?

Ahhhhh Space Balls paradox!

Perhaps too simple....

Is "now" relative?

What's that supposed to mean. Now is an instant in time. It's not a measurement of time, so it isn't relative, no.

Depends on the context I guess.
Haha!

Wonderful response.

Ahhhhh Space Balls paradox!
Indeed! Is this NOW? Or is this NOW when NOW was filmed...? ..no. :)

What's that supposed to mean. Now is an instant in time. It's not a measurement of time, so it isn't relative, no.
...but we experience that instant in time subjectively.

Indeed! Is this NOW? Or is this NOW when NOW was filmed...? ..no. :)

You know what fast forward........and never watch this again. >.>

now is now. or now.
or now.
or now.
or now.
or now.
or now.
or now.
or now.
or now.
or now.


this relates to how you can never tell the exact time because it is ever changing.

now does not exist because it cannot be defined
lets see the whole evolution/creation war begin to burn

now may be relative, if that how you see it.

Perhaps too simple....

Is "now" relative?

Yes, ignoring the straight forward progression of time, we also find that 'now' is a different thing at different places in the cosmos, and although we can travel through the cosmos we are limited by the speed of light. Thus there are always a multitude of 'nows' to which we can never have access, even though they have not yet occurred, and this multitude greatly outnumbers the amount of 'nows' to which we could potentially have access, even if we did have the ability to travel in any direction we chose at an infinitesmally smaller speed than c.

Given that we base our own particular concept of 'now' on a fairly straightforward definition of that experienced by the individual and that we define the individual based on their continuity in space and time, and that no two individuals can occupy the same position in space and time, the 'now' is a relative matter, based on the position of the human individual. This is, of course, ignoring those cases where brains are separated in twain and two separate thinking entities exist... ...it also fluffs on the issue of where exactly the 'now' is located with regards to the total space occupied by a human body, as a rule of thumb and as a philosophical joke we could always just point at the centre of the pineal gland.

...but we experience that instant in time subjectively.

You can't experience an instant in time. It's to small to percieve. So small in fact that it doesn't actually exist. What we can percieve is a change in time. Change in time is relative. An instant, being both not a change in time, and non-existant, is not relative since it is not percieved.

When is now?
You missed it.
When?
Just now.
When will now be now?
SOON.

When is now?
You missed it.
When?
Just now.
When will now be now?
SOON.

:D

"Now" is relative.
"Now" represents the position in time which a conscious entity inhabits. "Now" changes constantly. The "Now" of an entity is not always the "Now" of every other entity, when you consider relativity, which I believe was mentioned.

When you remember a past event, is "now" then, or is "now" the present, looking back at then?

Perhaps too simple....

Is "now" relative?

My answer would be to say that "now" does not even exsist in any substantive sense. While I do not deny that time exists it cannot be quantified (the arbitary division of the clock does not really quantify time but more our experiance of time). We cannot add time or subtract time; it has no phsysical dividable exsistance. Thus there is no "now" independant of our experiance of it. I would contend instead that rather than "now" being relative it is rather our EXPERIANCE of "now" that is relative. Now (hehe), it may be that by "now" you were actually appealing to our experiance of the present (the now) in that case my answer remains the same, for similar reasons.

"Now" is relative.
"Now" represents the position in time which a conscious entity inhabits. "Now" changes constantly. The "Now" of an entity is not always the "Now" of every other entity, when you consider relativity, which I believe was mentioned.

When you remember a past event, is "now" then, or is "now" the present, looking back at then?

If it represents the position in time a conscious entity inhabits, then it can't be relative. A position is an infinitely small point. We can't percieve points, only changes in points. Somebody travelling extremely fast can say that the time between my birthday and 'now' is 15 years. Somebody stationary compared to that person will say that it has in fact been 150 years since the travelling persons birthday. Time is relative because it is a measurement of change.
'Now' on the otherhand cannot be percieved because it cannot be measured. It is a point. A point in time is independant of the actual time line because it cannot be measure and the time line can. If we can't measure something then the measurements can't be compared and found to be relative. Now is an instant, can not be measured, is not relative, does not exist. It's purely an abstract concept.

Yes, ignoring the straight forward progression of time, we also find
"We", LoL! ..haha. Never mind.

..that 'now' is a different thing at different places in the cosmos, and although we can travel through the cosmos we are limited by the speed of light. Thus there are always a multitude of 'nows' to which we can never have access, even though they have not yet occurred, and this multitude greatly outnumbers the amount of 'nows' to which we could potentially have access, even if we did have the ability to travel in any direction we chose at an infinitesmally smaller speed than c.
But... which ones count, to you?

Given that we base our own particular concept of 'now' on a fairly straightforward definition of that experienced by the individual and that we define the individual based on their continuity in space and time, and that no two individuals can occupy the same position in space and time, the 'now' is a relative matter, based on the position of the human individual. This is, of course, ignoring those cases where brains are separated in twain...
Mark?

...and two separate thinking entities exist...
What if they are not entirely separate, but just two different perspectives of the same thing?

...it also fluffs on the issue of where exactly the 'now' is located with regards to the total space ocupied by a human body, as a rule of thumb and as a philosophical joke we could always just point at the centre of the pineal gland.
What if the "total space occupied by a human body" is up to us?

Ack! I am lacking in knowledge of the "pineal gland," though I'm certain it was a clever joke.

You can't experience an instant in time. It's to small to percieve. So small in fact that it doesn't actually exist. What we can percieve is a change in time. Change in time is relative. An instant, being both not a change in time, and non-existant, is not relative since it is not percieved.
So.... you are determining an "instant" by some sort of measurement?

My answer would be to say that "now" does not even exsist in any substantive sense. While I do not deny that time exists it cannot be quantified (the arbitary division of the clock does not really quantify time but more our experiance of time). We cannot add time or subtract time; it has no phsysical dividable exsistance. Thus there is no "now" independant of our experiance of it. I would contend instead that rather than "now" being relative it is rather our EXPERIANCE of "now" that is relative. Now (hehe), it may be that by "now" you were actually appealing to our experiance of the present (the now) in that case my answer remains the same, for similar reasons.
Do we "experience" anything other than "now"?

What's that supposed to mean. Now is an instant in time. It's not a measurement of time, so it isn't relative, no.
It can be more than just an instant in time. We can talk of 'now' as being the state of society/the world/ourselves at this moment, but we're not meaning that exact moment in time. Rather the general position of how we feel based on the events leading up to this time.

If it represents the position in time a conscious entity inhabits, then it can't be relative. A position is an infinitely small point. We can't percieve points, only changes in points. Somebody travelling extremely fast can say that the time between my birthday and 'now' is 15 years. Somebody stationary compared to that person will say that it has in fact been 150 years since the travelling persons birthday. Time is relative because it is a measurement of change.
'Now' on the otherhand cannot be percieved because it cannot be measured. It is a point. A point in time is independant of the actual time line because it cannot be measure and the time line can. If we can't measure something then the measurements can't be compared and found to be relative. Now is an instant, can not be measured, is not relative, does not exist. It's purely an abstract concept.
What, then, is "the position in time a conscious entity inhabits", if not "now"?

So.... you are determining an "instant" by some sort of measurement?

Sort of. You take two points in time. There is a distance between them witch is percieved relative to gravity and velocity. If you take the two points and make the distance between the infinitely small, the difference between them can't be percieved because we can't assign a value to 'infinitelt small'.

It can be more than just an instant in time. We can talk of 'now' as being the state of society/the world/ourselves at this moment, but we're not meaning that exact moment in time. Rather the general position of how we feel based on the events leading up to this time.

Well the question was a bit vague. By 'now' most people think of the instant in time.

Do we "experience" anything other than "now"?

I don't understand by what you mean by "now". Do you mean "Do we "experience" anything other than <THE> "now"?". Could you please explain?

Sort of. You take two points in time. There is a distance between them witch is percieved relative to gravity and velocity.
..like, a minute, or a second.

If you take the two points and make the distance between the infinitely small, the difference between them can't be percieved because we can't assign a value to 'infinitelt small'.
So "now" as a moment is undefinable, and therefore not absolute. How can it exist, then, for conscious entities?

What, then, is "the position in time a conscious entity inhabits", if not "now"?
It can be now. But seeing as how 'now' is just an instant in time, and any concious entity is bounded by the universe (which time is part of), all entities in the universe are inhabiting an instant in time. When you think about 'now', you and all other objects in the universe are subject to exactly the same instant in time. They may be at different speeds and in different gravitational fields, but it's irrelevant because 'now' is an instant not a measurable differance. Thus all entities occupy the same instant in time, but time travels slower for some objects compared to others.

I don't understand by what you mean by "now". Do you mean "Do we "experience" anything other than <THE> "now"?". Could you please explain?
I don't believe that we can experience anything other than "the now"; and by inverse, what we experience must necessarily be "the now".

..like, a minute, or a second.


So "now" as a moment is undefinable, and therefore not absolute. How can it exist, then?

It doesn't. But the non-existant period can be useful. If you know calculus you'd know what I'm talking about.

It can be now. But seeing as how 'now' is just an instant in time, and any concious entity is bounded by the universe (which time is part of), all entities in the universe are inhabiting an instant in time. When you think about 'now', you and all other objects in the universe are subject to exactly the same instant in time. They may be at different speeds and in different gravitational fields, but it's irrelevant because 'now' is an instant not a measurable differance. Thus all entities occupy the same instant in time, but time travels slower for some objects compared to others.
Are you suggesting that the universe can offer us anothing other than "now"?

(Consider before you reply)

I don't believe that we can experience anything other than "the now"; and by inverse, what we experience must necessarily be "the now".

Thanks for clearing that up, I was just a wee bit puzzled.
But, I agree entirely.

Are you suggesting that the universe can offer us anothing other than "now"?

(Consider before you reply)

I don't understand the question.

Thanks for clearing that up, I was just a wee bit puzzled.
But, I agree entirely.

It's a fact. You don't need to agree with it.:rolleyes:

It doesn't. But the non-existant period can be useful. If you know calculus you'd know what I'm talking about.
:)

Believe it or not, I have no clue about calculus, and know exactly what you are talking about.

:)

Believe it or not, I have no clue about calculus, and know exactly what you are talking about.

:fluffle:

Well the question was a bit vague. By 'now' most people think of the instant in time.
True, but they can also talk about the what's happening in the world/your life right now.
But to use the definition of 'now' as an exact instant in time makes the above question unanswerable.

"Now" is relative.
"Now" represents the position in time which a conscious entity inhabits. "Now" changes constantly. The "Now" of an entity is not always the "Now" of every other entity, when you consider relativity, which I believe was mentioned.

When you remember a past event, is "now" then, or is "now" the present, looking back at then?

Considering consious awareness lags behind reality by about half a second, by the time you realize it's now, it's already then.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Are you suggesting that the universe can offer us anothing other than "now"?
I don't understand the question.
Okay, this might throw a few people, even those who have responded until now.

I am addressing those people who seem to consider that "now" means something objective; that when you witness the eruption of a supernova half-way across the galaxy, that it means that it's "happening" was then, rather than now, when you witness it.

Is "now" when it happens, so-many lightyears ago? or is it "now" when you witness it?

True, but they can also talk about the what's happening in the world/your life right now.
But to use the definition of 'now' as an exact instant in time makes the above question unanswerable.

It is answerable, and has been answered.

The other uses of the word 'now' are so incredibly obvious as to whether or not they are relative that there's no point asking the question. Only when we deal with now as a period of time does the question actually mean anything.

Okay, this might throw a few people, even those who have responded until now.

I am addressing those people who seem to consider that "now" means something objective; that when you witness the eruption of a supernova half-way across the galaxy, that it means that it's "happening" was then, rather than now, when you witness it.

Is "now" when it happens, so-many lightyears ago? or is it "now" when you witness it?

This is now the realm of the linguist, not the philosopher. What you're asking for is a precise definition of the word 'now'.

True, but they can also talk about the what's happening in the world/your life right now.
But to use the definition of 'now' as an exact instant in time makes the above question unanswerable.

When people say now in that situation, they are talking about a more generalized "now" which depending on how often you see them, could include the span of days to years. Aside from that, even though "now" may not exist as an instance in time, it allows conscious existance, as consciousness can not exist without a frame of reference, and all experience must happen, and the point in time it happens in is defined as "now". Therefore, even if "now" does not exist in its own right, it exists as a facilitator for consciousness. Because of that, it must be relative, as everyone sees the world differently and will have different experiences. I hope that was sufficiently complicated.

Okay, this might throw a few people, even those who have responded until now.

I am addressing those people who seem to consider that "now" means something objective; that when you witness the eruption of a supernova half-way across the galaxy, that it means that it's "happening" was then, rather than now, when you witness it.

Is "now" when it happens, so-many lightyears ago? or is it "now" when you witness it?

I think the definition of 'now' that most people use is 'the current instant in time'. Which would make 'now' the moment you witness the supernova.

This is now the realm of the linguist, not the philosopher. What you're asking for is a precise definition of the word 'now'.
How can it possibly differ (the realm of the linguist from the philosopher)? Words are the tool of the philosopher.

How can it possibly differ (the realm of the linguist from the philosopher)? Words are the tool of the philosopher.

The linguist assigns definition to the word. The philosopher assigns meaning to the definition. What you're asking for is a definition. See my other post for my opinion.

But... which ones count, to you?

The one where I am, I have no access to the others.



What if they are not entirely separate, but just two different perspectives of the same thing?

I was thinking more in terms where the person has undergone a corpus callosotomy, and it is no longer clear that their body represents just a single individual.


What if the "total space occupied by a human body" is up to us?

I don't think I quite follow what you're asking here.

Ack! I am lacking in knowledge of the "pineal gland," though I'm certain it was a clever joke.

Descartes tried to sidestep the question of how the mind and the body interact by describing this interaction as the function of the pineal gland. Needless to say this utterly failed to solve his problem.

The linguist assigns definition to the word. The philosopher assigns meaning to the definition. What you're asking for is a definition. See my other post for my opinion.
I like those definitions; but by them, isn't everyone a philosopher?

I was thinking more in terms where the person has undergone a corpus callosotomy, and it is no longer clear that their body represents just a single individual.
Does "now" change for these people?

The one where I am, I have no access to the others.
Right, then!