Philosophy Now Forum

This question of time is as old as philosophy, but to my knowledge, there are still no answers that satisfy any reasoned thought. I believe the problem lies in the distinction between actual reality, and the conceptual understanding of it built up in the mind, and that until our ideas are constructed in such a way as to allow for the discrepancy between the two, time will remain a paradoxical subject.

So primarily it is necessary to understand that time is a concept, and it's creation by the mind was necessitated by the need to understand, and predict the changing state of our physical world.


In actual reality there is only change, and so past states are non-existent, but in the reality of the mind, with its capacity for memory and projection, the phenomena becomes one of what was, what is and what will be. This mental understanding is not a true representation of actual reality, but an abstracted concept created in the mental realm, and our attempts to understand temporal phenomena are problematic because in actual reality there is no such thing.

So when we try to understand ideas such as time dilation in the theory of relativity, the problems arise as a result of our projection of a conceptual reality that has no existence in actual reality, and it all becomes a lot easier to understand when we think in terms of relative change, that is, one event changing in relation to another.

So when we ask how time began, we need to rephrase the question to, how did change begin, and although the answer may still allude us, it at least removes the paradoxical nature of the inquiry. It also allows us to consider the idea that there was no initial beginning, and that change is simply a natural aspect of reality. If there is in fact a mechanism by which the universe can revert to a primary state, then without the need to consider temporal implications, the paradox of eternity is dissolved.

So my answer to the question of times beginning, is it began when animals evolved sufficiently for the concept to form.

Ok i think time began.when location began.that to me makes scence.so time space and location began at one in the same instant.momentum .stuff started to move in relative way.

Voice of time, thanks for doing the decent thing, I hope you actually stick to what you say as it's more than I could have hoped for. Not that I read the shit you and a couple of others litter this forum with, but any ho cheers.

Jackles, I agree with what you say in an idealist sense. If the whole of reality is in fact a mental reality, then the three concepts you mention what necessarily accompany one another into existence. Before this point there would only have been what you have described elsewhere as a state of absolute fact, or what I would term as unconscious potential.

James,

I agree with your understanding of time. In the next to the last paragraph you seem to swerve from your own understanding when you bring up a question of the beginning of change. That is a concept and would be unrelated to the activity occurring. As you seem to get close to, words cannot represent what is not a word, so our words create a model to work within. You falter more considering change to be a "natural aspect" - vs. what, an unnatural aspect? And lastly I don't know where you go with a mention of some possible "mechanism by which the universe can revert to a primary state", a proposition full of concepts and so, like time, not of any relevance to the activity of change that is occurring.

The paragraph you question, is just me exploring ideas, and is indeed as you point out, nothing to do with the subject of time except where change relates to time by being the process through which temporal concepts are created.

I see time as a concept only, and actual reality has no past or future, only changes in its state. The idea that there is a fifth dimension is senseless, and when it's implications are considered, seems far from possible. For instance, if you think about the idea of time dilation, and assume that matter is able to traverse a fifth dimension at different rates, then how would the energy that is in the universe at any point remain stable.

And how about concepts like "before" and "after" ?

When a lion sees a prey he imagines the meal "after the chase".

Or would just say that there is only the change of proteins of the prey entering the body of the predator ?

"I'll boycott his thread"

Which is sufficient reason for me to involve myself in it...

Time, I think, is all about entropy (degradation of systems).

It's 'universal' in that it applies across the board to all systems (*in differing ways).

Animals **perceive this degradation in ways particular to the make up of the animal.

I, for example, perceive time as analog (continuous), and one-directioned.

I also perceive it as varying in passage (depending on how my attention is focused).

My perception (and understanding of perception) is only a modeling of Reality, not Reality Itself.









*the (particular slice of the) world I perceive is analog and one-directioned...in certain regions (a singularity, for example) time ceases to have a meaning as matter is rendered into 'nuthin'...on the (sub)nuclear level, time seems to work easily in either direction...so: there is consistency with time (it always works 'this' way in 'this' circumstance) but also variability (it always works differently in differing circumstances).

**what we call 'time' is only what we observe which, as James says, is "only change".

Whats the differents between.sumfin and nufin den.

What's the difference between sumthin' and nuthin'?

Probably not a helluva lot.

henry quirk wrote:What's the difference between sumthin' and nuthin'?

Probably not a helluva lot.

That would depend on your perspective.

If you are far away from sumthin', and also far away from nuthin', there would probably not appear to be much difference. Especially it there wasn't anything else around.

But if you are in the middle of sumthin' is would probably seem to be quite different than being in the middle of nuthin'.

Can we at least agree on the spelling? Sumthin' & Nuthin' or is it Sumfin' & Nufin'?

I like somthin and nothin.then only the gs are missin.

"That would depend on your perspective"

Yep...how one stands in relation to 'this' or 'that' is everything.

On sumthin' versus nuthin': If, in fact, I 'am' an illusion (a whole whack of nuthin' with notions of existing) then I'm a persistent mirage...

henry quirk wrote:"That would depend on your perspective"

Yep...how one stands in relation to 'this' or 'that' is everything.

On sumthin' versus nuthin': If, in fact, I 'am' an illusion (a whole whack of nuthin' with notions of existing) then I'm a persistent mirage...

Then do you shimmer in the distance, If you shimmy, I don't want to know, TMI.

I sometimes shimmer, but only after I've been drinking awhile.

Yes i agree with your logic about sumthin.nuthin gives tense to sumthin..the illusion of sumfin is caused by nuthin.there for nuthin dos not move but causes sumthin to aparently move.giving sumthin tense.so nuthin prexisted sumthin.causing sumthin to be in existance which is nuthin.so nuthin is the existance that sumthin is in.
So sumthin is localised nuthin.nuthin being nonlocality.as in quantum physics.
So from this we can say that sumthin is a fictional form of nuthin.nonlocalitiy is fact all else this side of that fact is fiction.all things that move in time space are fictional.
Movement is fictional as in the general theory of relativity.
Tense there for being timelike fictional movement relative to absolute fact or nonlocality which dos not move in any terms .