Is Time a Fact?

[Straw Dog]

There is no single definition of time that everyone agrees on. Many quantum physicists will say it does not exist. But we obviously feel 'the passage of time' and have different ways of measuring 'it'. Many have tried to define it terms of entropy but that has problems.

Here is an interesting book from a couple of years ago. The author is a distinguished experimental physicist. It is titled 'Now':


https://www.amazon.com/Now-Physics-Time-Richard-Muller/dp/0393285235

He proposes his own definition- but I won't give any spoilers. The book has a good review of the history of the (scientific) debate on the nature of time too, for a general audience (this is not a very quantitative presentation).

Please, spoil away... I have no intentions of buying that book.

What are the problems of defining it in terms of entropy?

 

[Straw Dog]

Not really sure. Entropy seems to squeeze you into a cause/effect frame of reference. The interval between a cause and its effect is what we seem to call time.

Hmm... we perceive that there is an ‘interval’ rather than just an endless chain of events, whether we observe and remember them or not.

 

[Straw Dog]

Does space exist or is it an illusion?

Space and time together form the background geometry of the universe.

Our perceptions are another thing, the direction being based on the arrow of entropy and dependent on a particular frame of reference.

Yes, space-time describes the context for our experiences. It’s also mathematical, which cannot just be a coincidence. The sense of direction is very much a perceptual and conceptual development.

 

[Straw Dog]

Awareness as experienced is always awareness of object/s, including mental objects, and thus is experienced as limited and fleeting. It has given rise to the notion that awareness does not exist on its own. It is like a person who has known oneself only in a mirror may surmise a non-existent self if the mirror is removed.

But some have been able to remain as awareness itself without any object whatsoever partitioning it. These people teach us that awareness is the foundation of the existence-universe. They have also prescribed methods to attain this knowledge. Some of us might have had success with these prescribed methods.
...

I can understand awareness as a relationship between subject and object. That relationship isn’t necessarily fleeting. It does represent a continuity of consciousness.

I don’t doubt that such prescribed methods can expand and refine the skill of awareness. I’m just skeptical about absolute claims to the foundation of existence itself. It still seems to be a leap. The closest compromise I can agree to is that reality is a relationship and balancing act.

 

[Straw Dog]

What are the implications of this on freewill? Are our choices and the outcomes predetermined?

Also is it , in theory, possible to change the past?

Valjean has given his perspective and I will offer mine.

I think that freewill in the abstract sense is an illusion. Willpower, in the practical sense, is real though. Determinism may be true, but the outcomes are not predetermined. It’s a very fine line between determinism and fatalism that is worth discussing in future threads.

 

[atanu]

I can understand awareness as a relationship between subject and object. That relationship isn’t necessarily fleeting. It does represent a continuity of consciousness.

I don’t doubt that such prescribed methods can expand and refine the skill of awareness. I’m just skeptical about absolute claims to the foundation of existence itself. It still seems to be a leap. The closest compromise I can agree to is that reality is a relationship and balancing act.

But how do the relationships and the balancing acts become known?

 

[Willamena]

Does a measurement of the intervals between events matter in practice? In life?

If your dentist has a charge for missing an appointment, as mine does, then I would say 'yes.'

 

[Straw Dog]

But how do the relationships and the balancing acts become known?

I’d say initially through trial and error. We suffer consequences when a relationship is out of balance, then hopefully learn from our mistakes and pass on the lessons.

Furthermore, subconscious intuition can often pick up on things more acutely than conscious awareness. In some cases, intuition can be a more reliable guide.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What does time, as we know it, really measure.
Does it have a reality outside our perceptions.
As it is not a constant, how useful it in the context of the universe.

Local time is certainly useful.
Could there be such a thing as a universal time, that is unrelated to the vaguries of space-time.

 

[atanu]

I’d say initially through trial and error. We suffer consequences when a relationship is out of balance, then hopefully learn from our mistakes and pass on the lessons.

Furthermore, subconscious intuition can often pick up on things more acutely than conscious awareness. In some cases, intuition can be a more reliable guide.

I intuited this. Our definitions of consciousness are not the same.

Consciousness to me is that which illumines and knows. It is not the object consciousness.

 

[Straw Dog]

I intuited this. Our definitions of consciousness are not the same.

Consciousness to me is that which illumines and knows. It is not the object consciousness.

Fair point. I can’t really argue against “that which illuminates and knows”. My problem is just the absolute claim that consciousness is the foundation of the universe. It sounds like saying humanity is the foundation of the universe. There’s something suspiciously anthropocentric about it, like projecting sentient qualities.

I feel the same way about claiming that matter is the foundation of the universe. In general, I find some forms of coherentism to be more convincing. I take every metatheory with a grain of salt though because the likelihood is probably greater that we have no idea what we’re actually talking about, given humanity’s long history of getting things dead wrong. Not only could reality be stranger than we know, it could be stranger than we can possibly know.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So without measurement, there is no temporal passage of events?

That would suggest a start and end point. How does one go about determining that otherwise?

 

[Straw Dog]

If your dentist has a charge for missing an appointment, as mine does, then I would say 'yes.'

True. The same goes with package delivery. Transportation is a precise business. I need to be at certain places at certain times. Practically speaking, time is real.

 

[atanu]

Fair point. I can’t really argue against “that which illuminates and knows”. My problem is just the absolute claim that consciousness is the foundation of the universe. It sounds like saying humanity is the foundation of the universe. There’s something suspiciously anthropocentric about it, like projecting sentient qualities.

I feel the same way about claiming that matter is the foundation of the universe. In general, I find some forms of coherentism to be more convincing. I take every metatheory with a grain of salt though because the likelihood is probably greater that we have no idea what we’re actually talking about, given humanity’s long history of getting things dead wrong. Not only could reality be stranger than we know, it could be stranger than we can possibly know.

I think we still are differing based on our idea of what consciousness is.

Consciousness is certainly not anthropomorphic. Consciousness is that in which spec-time-objects appear and disappear. The idea of anthropomorphic consciousness is a superposition of the error that body is conscious.

The anthropomorphic idea itself is wrong, since as per Vedanta the truth is unborn and formless and uncreated.

Validating the claim that consciousness is the foundation is not possible in third party objective mode, since it is the very subject.

But meditative methods are said to reveal the truth of non distinction of self and the consciousness.

...

 

[Straw Dog]

I think we still are differing based on our idea of what consciousness is.

Consciousness is certainly not anthropomorphic. Consciousness is that in which spec-time-objects appear and disappear. The idea of anthropomorphic consciousness is a superposition of the error that body is conscious.

The anthropomorphic idea itself is wrong, since as per Vedanta the truth is unborn and formless and uncreated.

Validating the claim that consciousness is the foundation is not possible in third party objective mode, since it is the very subject.

But meditative methods are said to reveal the truth of non distinction of self and the consciousness.

...

It is possible that I am just so deeply conditioned by a temporal, material mentality that I simply cannot understand that way of seeing. I do practice basic meditation, but nowhere near any advanced level… Nor do I have enough spare time to develop it, at least not in this lifetime. So I work with the cards that I’m dealt, which includes working with a positive sense of self and a sense of time.