Time

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: Time

Did noone look at this?

I started to read through it, but stopped at the "probability tree" diagram, because I had trouble wrapping my head around what he was talking about. This is the logic path that I'm trying to follow here:

A probability tree is a map of all possibilities for any given event. A probability path is the path followed down a probability tree in order to reach your current multidimensional position (the 'Now').

Then:

It maps out a very small number of possible events. In order to expand it to the ultimate conclusion, you would have to take every conceivable event, and map a probability tree for every possible outcome. Doing so you would create a highly complex (but not infinite) probability matrix. A map of all possibilities/existence within our universe.

Then:

Each and every node within the probability matrix constitutes a separate and unique multidimensional universe. A singular 'Now'.

Then:

So; Once again time does not exist. It is simply our mind applying an understandable framework to the progression of our consciousness through a series of static, overlapping, and simultaneously coexisting, multidimensional universes. The progression of our consciousness occurs in a linear, contiguous, and continuous fashion.

So a probability tree is a map of all the possibilities for an event, a probability path is the path taken from the beginning of the tree to where you are now, and a probability matrix is the eventuality of expanding the probability tree to all its possible outcomes.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, he's saying that every possible node (node being a possible outcome at one point or another within the probability matrix) of the probability matrix simultaneously coexists, but as humans, we have the inability to sense or experience all possibilities at once, because:

Your consciousness travels in one direction down a specific probability path. Your life experience is the contiguous progression of your consciousness from one simultaneously coexisting multidimensional universe to another.

therefore, time cannot exist as we define it.

I'm not sure I can agree here. Saying that every possible outcome of a certain situation is a separate simultaneously coexisting universe seems a bit of a stretch to me.

After reading through the beginning again, I have a problem with another logic path he went down, which is basically this:

A shadow (which he defined as 2-dimensional) is cast upon a 3-dimensional object. The two can coexist simultaneously without interfering with each other, and they can occupy the same physical space.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

We as humans don't have the capability to sense other dimensions than the three that we do: x, y, and z.

Perhaps. But this is where I started to say, "Hmmm, I don't think so."

Perhaps shadows are objects which consist of dimensions W, X and Y, but we can only sense the X and Y dimensions of these objects. They overlap our universe in dimensions X and Y, yet exist fully in a different universe. One that is slightly offset from the universe that we exist in. Overlapping, simultaneously coexisting, multidimensional universes.

This is what he used as the basis for his probability tree/path/matrix thing, and I'm not sure he can do that. Here's why:

To say that we have the inability to sense other dimensions is fine. But he's saying that it's possible that shadows have another dimension that we can't sense, that exists in some separate universe, therefore since shadows and 3-dimensional objects can simultaneously coexist and overlap, without interfering with one another, that the universes that all the dimensions exist in must also overlap, and simultaneously coexist. So then he uses "overlapping, simultaneously coexisting, multidimensional universes" as the basis of his probability matrix, with each node being one of these overlapping blah blah blah universes.

The problem I have with this is simply that if you say that we, as humans, have the inability to sense these "other dimensions" that shadows might possibly occupy, then you can't base your entire "time does not exist as we define it" argument off of that. What his whole probability matrix thing comes down to is that it's possible for each and every single possible outcome of a given situation to all be simultaneously coexisting at once, because it's possible for universes to simultaneously coexist, because it's possible for shadows to exist in a dimension that cannot be sensed by humans, therefore cannot be objectively measured or tested in any way, shape, or form. I think that's a very bad logic path to follow, and I think this guy just used that crazy logic path to come to a conclusion that allowed him to say, "Wow, I can say time doesn't exist and I have what looks like proof for it!"

This theory isn't completely mine. It's the result of reading a lot of books, watching late night sci-fi, and a highly overactive imagination.

This guy is one of the people devonin mentioned earlier in the thread:

There is a philsophical basis to support arguing that time doesn't actually exist, and that reality is in fact a series of unconnected still-frames, and that time is a construction wholly of the human mind to enable it to basically -pretend- that there's a logical flow there and thus be able to actually process incoming sensory inputs in a useful way.

As for my personal opinion on the topic, devonin summed it up pretty well:

Time is a dimension because it is. We can observe things moving through it, we can see evidence of the movement of time previous to us, and predict the movements thereof after us as well.

Our -labels- for the passage of time are simply declared by us in the same way that the label of "dog" or "tree" is declared by us. The object exists anyway whether we name it or not.

Time exists whether we name its passage or not.

I just wanted to point out the problems I had with that link that Izzy gave.

[Izzy]

Re: Time

I don't know about exactly what it explains but i think it has the general idea in a simpler form. The argument "time is a dimension because it is" Doesn't hold any proof. Show a way to show evidence of things moving through time and not have being the effects of the human observation of what we precieve as time and it might be considered so. You would have to show something going backward or forward in time without it being through relative speed.

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: Time

Show a way to show evidence of things moving through time and not have being the effects of the human observation of what we precieve as time and it might be considered so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asking us to show you evidence of the passing of time...without that evidence being observable?

[Izzy]

Re: Time

Evidence of time being a dimension without time passing.

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: Time

Now I don't want to sound like I'm contradicting myself, because of what I said in my giant text earlier. I was just saying I didn't like the logic that guy was using to make his point.

I think it would be difficult to try to prove that time is a dimension without time passing.

I'd even go so far as to say that theoretically, if time stopped, time would technically not exist at all. We pretty much define time in terms of it's passage.

time
–noun
1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

The accept standard of modern physics is that time is indeed the 4th dimension. (Yes, from NOVA, as superkid referenced.) I've read Charles and Brian Greene's books, so I'm knowledgable about the string theory and the existence (not the workings of) up to the 11th dimension.

devonin says that space can be observed spacially. I believe that science is worthless if I bring up the fact that everything is based on our perception, and that there is nothing in this world to prove that our perception is justifiable as the truth. It is only an apparent truth, to which we have no choice but to believe that everything we perceive is true.

That said, your website bases the his belief that time does not exist on the idea that only what humans can easily perceive through the 5 human senses is justifiable as existent. This is the ultimate flaw in his way of thinking. Human perception is not the only true way of comprehending the universe. Dark matter and dark energy are impossible to percept, yet they have to exist to maintain the mass-energy balance of the universe, as well as the spiral galaxy acceleration and the expansion of the universe.

There is no proof that time exists. There is no proof that dark matter/energy exists. There is no proof that a superforce (origin of the 5 fundamental forces) exists. There is no proof that the graviton exists. Yet we believe they exist, because otherwise, the information that we do have proof for, achieved by our enhanced perception, cannot make sense. If the entity of the concept of time did not exist, motion is not possible. If dark matter/energy did not exist, the universe cannot have it's size or it's acceleration. If the superforce did not exist, none of the 5 fundamental forces can interfere with each other as direct vector quantities. If the graviton did not exist, gravity wouldn't be a force anymore.

Time was simply a name given to a concept necessary to make our current understanding of the universe make sense. Just because we cannot percept does not mean it's inexistent. Our 5 senses aren't the only things that the universe can be observed by. If you think that the universe can only be observed by our 5 senses, then you are thinking like the universe was created to accomodate human beings. There is nothing wrong with thinking that, but I stand by the idea that the universe is the universe regardless of how humans percept it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Btw, this robsworld site follows exactly what the author of Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu believes about time. That human experience is just a passage of a series of 3D frames with infinitesimally small gaps in between them. In expansion to this, allow me some time to add some edits explaining how this idea works out, and how it relates to parallel universes.

The most important thing that this author assumes is that the universe existed after humans were existent. This is a fact that I cannot come to accept, but I will proceed with doing so. The universe starts with a source (ie Suzumiya Haruhi). From that source, there is an infinite amount of possibilities that can be enacted by this source that in turn cause consequences that follow the rules of the currently understood laws of physics. However, it is this source that brings about change, and all other apparent changes are mere consequences of this choice. Hence, the world we percept now is nothing but a mere consequence from the source. (Bringing in a Suzumiya Haruhi reference, the source decided to bring about the universe starting from the year 1999, which is 3 years before the time of the anime.) Now, the infinite probabilities of the future are not just neglected because the source causes one to be picked over the other. There is a 3D frame for each and everyone of the probabilities that this source could veer towards, and each 3D frame is created on the basis of a parallel dimension, aka parallel universe. As the site states, there is no free will. Every probability is chosen and is preserved. In this case, the motion of travelling in between parallel dimensions is done by exceeding the speed of light in breaking the fabric of space which encases this 3D frame. By doing so, one goes "in between" void to another stable dimension. That is what is known as "time travel". Hence, the infinite possibilities created by the source creates a variety of parallel universes to which one can travel to and from (Another SH reference, humans just don't know how to do that yet).

Another important thing: this idea bases that consciousness is a tangible substance. I do partially believe that this is true (in fact, I believe that consciousness is dark matter), but not in the direction that this argument brings it. I will proceed with accepting their interpretations. Consciousness exists in a state of void, separate from the baryonic substance it controls. However, consciousness does not have the power to choose the probability factor that happens to be the future the baryonic substance witnesses. All it can do is maintain the status of the baryonic substance withing the 3D frame through the will of the individual. Hence, when you go "unconscious", you have the greatest chance of roaming in between parallel universe. Those that have become "vegetables" (in the sense of a permanent coma), are eternally wandering parallel universes. Consciousness is obviously an extraordinary source of energy, provided that it can break the velocity of light.

My reviews: This idea is extremely arrogant. Basically, it states that humans are the almighty beings that control the universe through the human perception. I hate this idea. I believe that the universe is independent of human actions, and that the law of physics is unbent by human conciousness. Rather, I believe that human conciousness is just another part of the universe which the law of physics is dominant over. There is no scientific proof that conciousness exists as an entity, but there is also no proof that conciousness doesn't (ie, exploration of a void, preferably in a black hole). This idea is just as competent as the others in terms of how time works. It's a matter of what you believe.

Some good stories that use this theory: Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu/Shousitsu, Bokurano, [Golden Compass, Subtle Knife, Amber Spyglass]

Note: I don't believe there's anything wrong with overactive imagination. I derived my concept of the mechanisms of the universe not only from Charles/Brian Greene's books concerning the M and string theory + other physics related books, but also from a variety of anime and fiction.

[darkness1477]

Re: Time

thats a long post midday though i didnt read that thing from what groundbreaker said it sounds like this man came up with a theory about how the world works that may be right but isn't generally acceptable in todays soceity yet i don't see how it is any worse than any of the theories that people came up with like hte big bang and eveolution. i can undersdtand him thinking thatbut the way he said it sounded like it was proven facts and thats the problem with humanity we pass things of as fact yet its nothing more than a bunch of guesses people came upo with that when explained a certain way make sense

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

I stated that it's a theory, fairly equivalent in possibility in comparison to just about anything else provided that our perception is worth scrap. I'm saying I don't stand by the idea that the universe revolves around humans. I stand by the idea that the universe is the universe, unaffected by our existence.

This is Critical Thinking, and I'm pretty sure it requires even the slightest bit of conventional writing.

[darkness1477]

Re: Time

sorry i didnt read your post

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

Hence I summarized the post O_o

I can write elaborately on many things related to cosmology and physics.

[Izzy]

Re: Time

You can just say "without time motion would not exist". There is nothing but an equally overactive imagination to say that. There is nothing to show that time is a dimension and there is nothing to show that the first three dimensions are even as definite as we think they are. I don't care how positive anyone is that humans have defined perfectly such a universal concept there is nothing but our own imaginations to show it.

[yk13]

Re: Time

You can just say "without time motion would not exist". There is nothing but an equally overactive imagination to say that. There is nothing to show that time is a dimension and there is nothing to show that the first three dimensions are even as definite as we think they are.

yes because obviously mathematical proof constitutes as the products of an overactive imagination, after all, it's all done in our mind

and also math doesn't exist it was created by an overactive imagination

also english doesn't exist it was created by an overactive imagination

also i didn't post it was a product of your overactive imagination

[Izzy]

Re: Time

Why are you angry. lol

Your post is full of contradictions and is just a play on words. Math and English are something we made up yea. But its not like we are trying to say that english is a universal law.

[yk13]

Re: Time

Thats not true. Things naturally flow from high to low by itself. There doesn't have to be a universal time variable.

it's not as if our system of time is based on anything


oh wate it is

[Izzy]

Re: Time

If thats what you want to think I'm not here to stop you. Our system of time is based on the position of earth. Its defined by that but the amount of reactions was done mathmatically.