Seeing Time

[-1-]

People experience the passing of time. This experience is revealed by the brain. The passing of time is “concealed” in reality and revealed by the brain but “concealed” is not really right because passing requires movement of two or more realities yet only one reality is available at any one point. So, the passing of time must come from the brain’s processing of .current and past realities.

This explains why time is not just concealed in reality. It exists in the brain but doesn’t exist in reality. People who see time are seeing what’s in the mind, not what’s in reality..

It exists in the brain ... and it MAY or MAY not exist in reality. We just don't know. Your conclusion is biassed. Epitemiological conundrum: to declare what we don't know does not exist.

[-1-]

Funny thing... to describe motion, we need the concept of time. Time is an excellent notion, to help describe motion. Once we have started to rely on time as a quantifiable quality, we could never again do without it. It's like a phantom variable in an equation: if it exists, it has problems when we juxtapose theories that both use time; (GR and QM, for instance). If it does not exist, our entire construct of reality collapses.

One of the special gifts of physical reality for mankind to drive mankind crazy.

[jayjacobus]

People experience the passing of time. This experience is revealed by the brain. The passing of time is “concealed” in reality and revealed by the brain but “concealed” is not really right because passing requires movement of two or more realities yet only one reality is available at any one point. So, the passing of time must come from the brain’s processing of .current and past realities.

This explains why time is not just concealed in reality. It exists in the brain but doesn’t exist in reality. People who see time are seeing what’s in the mind, not what’s in reality..

It exists in the brain ... and it MAY or MAY not exist in reality. We just don't know. Your conclusion is biassed. Epitemiological conundrum: to declare what we don't know does not exist.

I said that wrong. Time as we think of it is a frame of reference and the frame of reference doesn't exist in reality. Moreover the perception of now is a duration and the duration is bits of change stitched together by the brain. If you accept this, then there is a phenomenon in reality that becomes time in the brain. But I shouldn't have said "doesn't exist in reality". Instead I should have said "doesn't exist in reality in the form we experience."

[bahman]

I said that wrong. Time as we think of it is a frame of reference and the frame of reference doesn't exist in reality. Moreover the perception of now is a duration and the duration is bits of change stitched together by the brain. If you accept this, then there is a phenomenon in reality that becomes time in the brain. But I shouldn't have said "doesn't exist in reality". Instead I should have said "doesn't exist in reality in the form we experience."

Time is real. I have a argument for that. Any cause and effect lie on different points. There should be a duration to reach from one point to another otherwise either two points lie on each other, which this is problematic, or the effect will never take place.

[jayjacobus]

Funny thing... to describe motion, we need the concept of time. Time is an excellent notion, to help describe motion. Once we have started to rely on time as a quantifiable quality, we could never again do without it. It's like a phantom variable in an equation: if it exists, it has problems when we juxtapose theories that both use time; (GR and QM, for instance). If it does not exist, our entire construct of reality collapses.

One of the special gifts of physical reality for mankind to drive mankind crazy.

Think of an engine in a car. The engine cycles through its stages over and over. It has a movement but the engine doesn't move itself. The car moves. Focusing on the movement of the car does not explain the engine. The same is true for time. In my opinion we should try to understand time separately from motion. When we do, we will shed the bias and start conceiving of time as it really is.

[jayjacobus]

I said that wrong. Time as we think of it is a frame of reference and the frame of reference doesn't exist in reality. Moreover the perception of now is a duration and the duration is bits of change stitched together by the brain. If you accept this, then there is a phenomenon in reality that becomes time in the brain. But I shouldn't have said "doesn't exist in reality". Instead I should have said "doesn't exist in reality in the form we experience."

Time is real. I have a argument for that. Any cause and effect lie on different points. There should be a duration to reach from one point to another otherwise either two points lie on each other, which this is problematic, or the effect will never take place.

Two states cannot exist together. But one state can precede and effect the next state. If duration is a natural phenomenon, there would be conflicts between many states and we would see many states at once. There is a chain of events that seem connected but in reality only the last state is connected directly to the present state.

[-1-]

Think of an engine in a car. The engine cycles through its stages over and over. It has a movement but the engine doesn't move itself. The car moves. Focusing on the movement of the car does not explain the engine. The same is true for time. In my opinion we should try to understand time separately from motion. When we do, we will shed the bias and start conceiving of time as it really is.

I can't quite buy this. It's true that the engine's movement and the car's movement seem independent from each other; but they are not, if you include the transmission and the gearing.

Likewise, motion and time can be perhaps tied together, if we connect the dots, so to speak. Maybe humankind's vision of time vis-a-vis motion lacks the insight into the "transmission". Whatever the equivalent in reality is to the transmission of the car.

All I am saying is that theoretice we can't exclude something that we can't include yet. Most great mentally developed new theories and working models introduce something to the already known mechanism of an old, recognized system. Time and motion is a system; we ought not to say time does not exist as we could possibly imagine it; or as we imagine it now. There is no proof pro or con whether our interpretation of a succession of instances of displacement, which we see as speed and direction, is a mirage.

I mean theories can exist that deny that, but for a theory to be such, it needs somewhat more than a fantasy; it needs at least some basis, which either has already been observed, or it needs to predict something that comes true later.

[-1-]

If duration is a natural phenomenon, there would be conflicts between many states and we would see many states at once.

This you'd have to show in order to make it accepted. Either by a thought experiment, or by a logical deducing. Just stating this does not convince anyone.

As we speak, our perception shows us changes of causative nature, over a duration of time. There are not many states, only one state. There are no conflicts between states. (I figure you mean subsets of the universal state.) You need to substantiate a denial of this, please.

[-1-]

(By "as we speak" I meant at the current time, with the current knowledge of physics.)

[jayjacobus]

Think of an engine in a car. The engine cycles through its stages over and over. It has a movement but the engine doesn't move itself. The car moves. Focusing on the movement of the car does not explain the engine. The same is true for time. In my opinion we should try to understand time separately from motion. When we do, we will shed the bias and start conceiving of time as it really is.

I can't quite buy this. It's true that the engine's movement and the car's movement seem independent from each other; but they are not, if you include the transmission and the gearing.

Likewise, motion and time can be perhaps tied together, if we connect the dots, so to speak. Maybe humankind's vision of time vis-a-vis motion lacks the insight into the "transmission". Whatever the equivalent in reality is to the transmission of the car.

All I am saying is that theoretice we can't exclude something that we can't include yet. Most great mentally developed new theories and working models introduce something to the already known mechanism of an old, recognized system. Time and motion is a system; we ought not to say time does not exist as we could possibly imagine it; or as we imagine it now. There is no proof pro or con whether our interpretation of a succession of instances of displacement, which we see as speed and direction, is a mirage.

I mean theories can exist that deny that, but for a theory to be such, it needs somewhat more than a fantasy; it needs at least some basis, which either has already been observed, or it needs to predict something that comes true later.

Okay but time is motion has not been proven. Even if it is widely accepted, that does not make it true. I can deduce that motion requires time but that does not mean that time is motion. Throw out the unproven assumption and take a fresh look without the baggage of time is motion. There are dots connecting a theory but the dots aren't proven. Even so they lead to what time is without the conundrums we have now. Isn't it worth a try? After all evolution was not proven at first but later facts proved it was true.

[-1-]

Okay but time is motion has not been proven. Even if it is widely accepted, that does not make it true. I can deduce that motion requires time but that does not mean that time is motion. Throw out the unproven assumption and take a fresh look without the baggage of time is motion. There are dots connecting a theory but the dots aren't proven. Even so they lead to what time is without the conundrums we have now. Isn't it worth a try? After all evolution was not proven at first but later facts proved it was true.

Time is motion has not been proven. I totally agree with that. For two reasons:
1. Time does not mean motion. Time is displacement divided by speed. Nobody has tried to even suggest that time is motion.
2. Nothing gets proven. In science. It is a misconception to think that science endeavours to prove anything. It can't. It won't.

[jayjacobus]

If duration is a natural phenomenon, there would be conflicts between many states and we would see many states at once.

This you'd have to show in order to make it accepted. Either by a thought experiment, or by a logical deducing. Just stating this does not convince anyone.

As we speak, our perception shows us changes of causative nature, over a duration of time. There are not many states, only one state. There are no conflicts between states. (I figure you mean subsets of the universal state.) You need to substantiate a denial of this, please.

I think you just made my point. There is only one state and one state does not make a duration. I can't deny that.

[jayjacobus]

Okay but time is motion has not been proven. Even if it is widely accepted, that does not make it true. I can deduce that motion requires time but that does not mean that time is motion. Throw out the unproven assumption and take a fresh look without the baggage of time is motion. There are dots connecting a theory but the dots aren't proven. Even so they lead to what time is without the conundrums we have now. Isn't it worth a try? After all evolution was not proven at first but later facts proved it was true.

Time is motion has not been proven. I totally agree with that. For two reasons:
1. Time does not mean motion. Time is displacement divided by speed. Nobody has tried to even suggest that time is motion.
2. Nothing gets proven. In science. It is a misconception to think that science endeavours to prove anything. It can't. It won't.

You may be drinking from the same well. Time in use comes from the movement of the clock which comes from the movement of the Earth. If there is a fundamental time, it operates beneath movement and, it seems to me, is repetitive rather progressive. Yet even if I am right the conventions in use will still work.

I don't agree that nothing is proven.

[-1-]

If duration is a natural phenomenon, there would be conflicts between many states and we would see many states at once.

This you'd have to show in order to make it accepted. Either by a thought experiment, or by a logical deducing. Just stating this does not convince anyone.

As we speak, our perception shows us changes of causative nature, over a duration of time. There are not many states, only one state. There are no conflicts between states. (I figure you mean subsets of the universal state.) You need to substantiate a denial of this, please.

I think you just made my point. There is only one state and one state does not make a duration. I can't deny that.

Yeah, you're right. I miswrote. I should have said "There are not many states, only one state at any given time, but it keeps changing over time." My mistake.

[bahman]

Two states cannot exist together. But one state can precede and effect the next state. If duration is a natural phenomenon, there would be conflicts between many states and we would see many states at once. There is a chain of events that seem connected but in reality only the last state is connected directly to the present state.

How that (the bold part part) is possible when there is no time, which is a substance, that can differentiate them? In another word, cause and effect lie at the on a timeless point if there is no duration.