user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
Time is a dimension. The terms "future" and "past" are relative terms to the dimension of time, just as "left" "right" "above" and "below" are relative terms to other dimensions. Whether something is in the past or in the future depends on where you are in time, just as whether something is to the left, right, above, or below you depends on where you are physically.
In the year 1980, the year 1990 would have been in the future, but the year 1990 is now in the past.
^ Go Nuck, go Nuck! It's your birthday, it's your birthday!
Actually this is one of those questions where I wanted to give a great response, but after I read Nuckinfutz'comment I realized that there was nothing of value I could add on the topic. So I decided to take this opportunity to congratulate Nuck on a well stated response!
Your thoughts aren't unlike mine which is this.We don't decide anything,we don't make anything happen.How could we without invalidating all of the laws of nature?Our "responses" are the products of the same laws that governs the predictability of inanimate objects,primative instinct,...We only experience the the perception of choice.We simply experience.It's our nature.
I'll stop here because there is no end in sight with this topic,back to *reality*.
The rest is an illusion of perception.
Voted : Yes
Nuckinfutz pretty much nailed it down...no need to add to that...
Einstein said that time is relative. In theory, if the universe were to go backward (if the big bang became a big crunch), time would go backward.
But a mathematician wrote a formula based on Einsteins's theories that proved the overall amount of four dimensional space time is constant. So it all evens out. Sort of.
How can there even be a "now" if time can be broken into infinitely smaller increments?
Nuckinfutz - The point I'm trying to get across suggests that what you say is not the case. My idea suggests there is never a future or past. Everything happens now.
What you have said is quite a conventional way of looking at it (no offence intended)
Skylab - I'm saying that time doesn't go forwards and backwards in a neat little line. Perhaps it all occurs at the same time. (a difficult concept I know!)
Applerod - I dont understand your point
Time exists only in reference to teh state of some given point. There is no objective, non-relative Past or Future.
I mean if we accept the postulate that time can be broken down into infinitely smaller units, then it would be impossible for us to delineate a specific moment. And since time in this case is infinite, there cannot be a past or future, or even a present. We cannot pinpoint a moment in time to relate the ideas of past and future, because that would be a segment of time created artificially -- that is to say, by humans.
To follow this line of thinking, perhaps time could be defined as a force, similar (though far from identical) to the way gravity is a force. (In fact, we know that gravity affects time. That's a tangeant but probably fits in somewhere.)
That first if is obviously a big if. If you accept the idea that there was a beginning of time and there will be an end of time -- as in the big bang/big crunch theory, then there would be a point beyond which we cannot break increments of time down any further. I'm still speaking beyond the ability of the human brain to quantify in terms of our subjective experiences.
Applerod - My idea suggests that time is not a factor - We appear to be dividing time up as you say, but the only thing that actually ever occurs ids this precise moment - Not any split second later.
As you say - humans have created the idea of time to help manage what we cant comprehend. Yet you continue to respond to my point by talking about dividing time.
I too am talking beyond the comprehension of our minds but in a different way.
Your points accuratly explain why there should be great doubt as to what time is and if in actual fact the way we measure it means anything. In fact its puts doubt on to whether time exists at all -
So comes my point - Does everything occur simultaniously. Is time non-linear
I just can't come with anything at the moment. What do you think?
Applerod - My brain cant deal with it -
It's like I can see there are possibilities in what I'm thinking... but I just cant visualise it enought to explain it.
I was hoping someone else could help me to be honest
The way I think of it is.... Imagine a timeline. The time in the future goes forward and the time in the past goes back. Now flip that timeline horizontally. All time exists on this one moment. That's the best way I can explain it. I came up with the idea after watching the Butterfly Effect.
Voted : There's no now, time is fluid.
future and past are only words we use to refer to moments different from the one we-re sitting on... they are just words...like black...it is NOT a colour...it is actually the absence of light...so, does the abscence exist? no, but it has a name...because we need to call it something...
|
|
