Human beings and time

[Beaudreaux]

Is human experience time bound? I believe it is and that the following statements would all be true:

• You cannot do something before you have done it.
• There are actions that you have not yet taken.
• Actions you have already taken cannot be changed.
• etc.

Do you also believe human actions are bound by time or do you disagree? Can you explain why?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Really? No one has any thoughts on this?

 

[Abulafia]

I can see that this was directed primarily at me, yet rejuvenating into another thread is rather disconcerting.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I can see that this was directed primarily at me, yet rejuvenating into another thread is rather disconcerting.

Well, SOMEone thinks a lot of themselves.

Actually, several other people have made the claim that time does not exist. Wanted to hear their thoughts as well. Why would you find that disconcerting?

 

[Abulafia]

Well, SOMEone thinks a lot of themselves.

Blame it on hubris. What else does an existential nihilist have to hold in high esteem besides themselves?

Actually, several other people have made the claim that time does not exist. Wanted to hear their thoughts as well. Why would you find that disconcerting?

You mean Thief...:ignore:

Because it is combining 2 topics, and with this one, that makes 3.

 

[wmjbyatt]

A time boundary can only exist if we recognize an object which is bound. All of your positions require this word "you." If one denies the notion of self, then time does not bind us.

I personally do not believe time to bind us, because I do not believe that we move through time. I understand time as an extension of space, and I understand events as static objects that extend through that space. In essence, I do not believe that we "act," but rather that action is.

 

[Beaudreaux]

A time boundary can only exist if we recognize an object which is bound. All of your positions require this word "you." If one denies the notion of self, then time does not bind us.

I suppose because there is no longer an "us".

I personally do not believe time to bind us, because I do not believe that we move through time. I understand time as an extension of space, and I understand events as static objects that extend through that space. In essence, I do not believe that we "act," but rather that action is.

That is interesting, I must admit. When did you first come to this conclusion?

 

[wmjbyatt]

That is interesting, I must admit. When did you first come to this conclusion?

I'm not positive... I know I've become AWARE that I have this belief sometime in the past two years. I'm a student of mathematics and philosophy, and this notion concords with the mathematical understanding of dimensionality. I've had trouble with the concept of motion for years, because of the way it limits what is possible. The notion of time as static and events as objects within that static space developed in conversations over a period of years, I think. It was crystallized and given a very articulate construction last December when I read W.V.O Quine's "Philosophy of Logic." In it, Dr Quine argues that we can talk about verb-casted actions in formal logic (which has no notion of temporality) by reframing them as noun-casted events in four-space. That is, instead of saying, "At 4pm Jim walked to the store," we can say "There exists a walking with the following qualities: it is owned by Jim, spatially bound by Jim's house on one side and the store on the other, and it is temporally located at 4pm." His argument helped clear up my own constructions of the matter and gave me a much clearer language with which to discuss it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not positive... I know I've become AWARE that I have this belief sometime in the past two years. I'm a student of mathematics and philosophy, and this notion concords with the mathematical understanding of dimensionality. I've had trouble with the concept of motion for years, because of the way it limits what is possible. The notion of time as static and events as objects within that static space developed in conversations over a period of years, I think. It was crystallized and given a very articulate construction last December when I read W.V.O Quine's "Philosophy of Logic." In it, Dr Quine argues that we can talk about verb-casted actions in formal logic (which has no notion of temporality) by reframing them as noun-casted events in four-space. That is, instead of saying, "At 4pm Jim walked to the store," we can say "There exists a walking with the following qualities: it is owned by Jim, spatially bound by Jim's house on one side and the store on the other, and it is temporally located at 4pm." His argument helped clear up my own constructions of the matter and gave me a much clearer language with which to discuss it.

I'm confused by the following terms you used in this single post: "two years," "for years," "period of years," and "last December." What common concept are these terms referencing?

 

[wmjbyatt]

I'm confused by the following terms you used in this single post: "two years," "for years," "period of years," and "last December." What common concept are these terms referencing?

Haha, you have a point, but for the purpose of communication we must often break away from our understanding of world, no? It was Wittgenstein who argued that all sentences were either contradictions or tautologies, and those are both useless for communicating new information.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I'm not positive... I know I've become AWARE that I have this belief sometime in the past two years. I'm a student of mathematics and philosophy, and this notion concords with the mathematical understanding of dimensionality. I've had trouble with the concept of motion for years, because of the way it limits what is possible. The notion of time as static and events as objects within that static space developed in conversations over a period of years, I think. It was crystallized and given a very articulate construction last December when I read W.V.O Quine's "Philosophy of Logic." In it, Dr Quine argues that we can talk about verb-casted actions in formal logic (which has no notion of temporality) by reframing them as noun-casted events in four-space. That is, instead of saying, "At 4pm Jim walked to the store," we can say "There exists a walking with the following qualities: it is owned by Jim, spatially bound by Jim's house on one side and the store on the other, and it is temporally located at 4pm." His argument helped clear up my own constructions of the matter and gave me a much clearer language with which to discuss it.

So, you claim it was around two years ago that you realized that we do not move through time?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Haha, you have a point, but for the purpose of communication we must often break away from our understanding of world, no? It was Wittgenstein who argued that all sentences were either contradictions or tautologies, and those are both useless for communicating new information.

If that is true, wouldn't that mean that it is not now nor would it ever be possible to communicate new information?

 

[Engyo]

Is human experience time bound? I believe it is and that the following statements would all be true:

• You cannot do something before you have done it.
• There are actions that you have not yet taken.
• Actions you have already taken cannot be changed.
• etc.

Do you also believe human actions are bound by time or do you disagree? Can you explain why?

Human EXPERIENCE of human activities is bound by time; this is the nature of our human brains.

Why do some experiences, which take only seconds, seem to go on forever?

Why do other activities, which take hours, days or weeks, seem like they are over in an instant?

 

[wmjbyatt]

If that is true, wouldn't that mean that it is not now nor would it ever be possible to communicate new information?

Like I said, language doesn't do a perfect job of encapsulating the relevant ideas, but in short, that depends on your definitions of "new" and "communicate." And just because I understand this particular metaphysics doesn't mean I operate as though it were the only interpretation. This structure does allow for the illusion of motion through time, and I find illusion to be as real as non-illusion, just from a different perspective.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Human EXPERIENCE of human activities is bound by time; this is the nature of our human brains.

Why do some experiences, which take only seconds, seem to go on forever?

Why do other activities, which take hours, days or weeks, seem like they are over in an instant?

And why is it we know how long those experiences ACTUALLY took by looking at a timepiece?

 

[Engyo]

And why is it we know how long those experiences ACTUALLY took by looking at a timepiece?

I'm not sure we actually do know how long they took by such measurements; we know how much time was measured by the timepiece, of course, but I could consider the experiential duration as valid as the mechanically (or electronically) measured duration from a subjective veiwpoint.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I'm not sure we actually do know how long they took by such measurements; we know how much time was measured by the timepiece, of course, but I could consider the experiential duration as valid as the mechanically (or electronically) measured duration from a subjective veiwpoint.

Do you know what the term is for an experiential duration of time from a subjective viewpoint that is different from the time actually measured? "Incorrect".

But let's roll with the concept anyway. Are there other measurable phenomena that you feel may have different subjective measures that are "as valid"? How about length? If you think a mile is an inch, are you correct? How about the efficacy of penicillin to kill bacteria? If you think it doesn't work, is that valid too? How about measured rainfall? If you think a desert is really a lake, is your position valid?

 

[wmjbyatt]

Do you know what the term is for an experiential duration of time from a subjective viewpoint that is different from the time actually measured? "Incorrect".

But let's roll with the concept anyway. Are there other measurable phenomena that you feel may have different subjective measures that are "as valid"? How about length? If you think a mile is an inch, are you correct? How about the efficacy of penicillin to kill bacteria? If you think it doesn't work, is that valid too? How about measured rainfall? If you think a desert is really a lake, is your position valid?

Check out a little theory called "Special Relativity." Neat results in that regard. Under certain time-and-space compression phenomena, two observers can measure the same objects as different lengths and both be correct. For example, if a ten-foot long car passes by me at 0.43 times the speed of light, I'd measure it as only nine feet long. Someone IN the car would still measure it as ten feet long, and we'd both be right.

 

[jmvizanko]

You cannot do something before you have done it.

There are actions that you have not yet taken.

These two imply that the present is an infinitesimally small period of time between the past and future. Could it be possible that the present is not infinitesimally small, and that there is a period of time where you are still in the past yet also creating the future? What if time jumps in discreet steps, such as is posited by loop quantum gravity?

And, out of curiosity, does the latter statement imply that you believe in strong determinism? Or just that there will be things you can do in the future, that you just can't do yet because you aren't there yet?

 

[Beaudreaux]

These two imply that the present is an infinitesimally small period of time between the past and future. Could it be possible that the present is not infinitesimally small, and that there is a period of time where you are still in the past yet also creating the future? What if time jumps in discreet steps, such as is posited by loop quantum gravity?

would love to hear more about that.

And, out of curiosity, does the latter statement imply that you believe in strong determinism? Or just that there will be things you can do in the future, that you just can't do yet because you aren't there yet?

the latter.