Time works as a dimension in our calculations. But calculations are models, nothing more. The universe is not a model. The universe is the now, unfolding through cycles. The cycles are real and the dimensions are useful, but they are not ontological. At least I don’t believe so.
To me that says that unfolding exists and doesn’t exist, a contradiction.
The way we measure the unfolding is the contradiction. We assume that cycles are immutable, and of course they aren’t. A second here might be a month there. We always look for a “ground”, but is there one? Is the “speed of light” a constant, for example? Bose-Einstein condensation says no, what is the medium through which the speed of a photon is measured? A vaccum? What is a vaccum? A void? There is no such thing as a void, what they call dark matter I called the unrealised potential of the field, for example.
What do seconds and months have to do with cycles? What does immutability have to do with the issue that any measurement implies time and therefore a 4th dimension?
It’s a contrived dimension. We want something we can divide until we reach some indivisible entity. There is none. It’s (Z?)Xeno’s paradox, and like that, it exists only within the mind. There are no segments other than those we proscribe to duration.
Seriously?
Who is this we? Mabye time is infinitely divisible, maybe not. Just like space. I really don’t get why you’re fine with space but not with time. If we throw out time then we should throw out space too.
Yeah.. seconds and months are arbitrary durations derived from the movement of the Earth.
I’m not saying to throw it out, just to reconsider how we think it works. I don’t think it works the way we think it does. Our equations work, but would they work in every context? I’m not sure.
I agree with that 100%.
35 seconds. 23 seconds. 7 seconds.
Maybe we mean something different by cycles. I can think of universe level cycles and maybe particle level cycles, but not really anything in between.
There’s a whole universe in between. Orbital cycles, energetic cycles, biological cycles, mnemonic cycles, the possibilities are practically infinite.
Those aren’t true cycles obviously, just highly similar repetations over time that usually break eventually.
As do all cycles Atla, besides the eternal cycle of Potential, Release and Expression, which is the only cycle that holds its water… But it’s not a cycle, it’s a balance, like I stated before.
In that case no cycle is relevant to the fundamental issue of time. Whatever.
TIme is a misnomer and a misconfiguration defined by humans who are subject to beginnings, middles and ends.
That’s my position on it.
Time is the sequence of events, but we only experience the now. The past is a memory, the future is a possibility.
1 Like
So in picking up where I left off, I have to start here, and it involves a lot of reading—but before I even think about catching up, let’s just deal with here:
There must be something in common (is this a distinction, or an indistinction?) between moments that doesn’t change, otherwise we could not use the same word to refer to more than one moment.
Knock that around inside your farraday cage and get back to me.
Note to self: Is it variety that is the spice of life, or is it that which keeps us coming back repeatedly? …would both be terrible? I think if the English translation said “and on the seventh day, they recreated“ it would make a lot more sense/explain things better.
Which moments don’t change?
You changing past or future ones? Only as much as you’re “changing” now.
They are all moments.
Only one of them at a time (except their info/our experiencing them more than as mere memory) is ever “now” to beings subject to time.
We still have more degrees of freedom than a point on a line, or a line on a surface, or a surface of a body, or a body of a universe. No wait, we just have the body degrees of freedom… unless the mind of the whole timeline gives us more… as they gave us the previous ones.
How long is a moment? What is a moment? How is it defined?