That is not time. That is merely an EVENT.

JB

The way I understand "time" is from the point of view of a hypothetical "time traveler."

The three dimensions of space, and the dimension of "time" are coordinates within a multidimensional matrix for the location of an "event."

It is all about events and observers. Events require observers and memory.

The dimensions of our known space are totally dependent on memory and observers.

Matter equals stored condensed memory.

This stored condensed memory (matter) creates space and the movement of this "matter" in relation to each other within an operating reality creates "time."

"Time" (on earth) is determined by the location and movements of the galaxies, stars, planets, sun, earth, moon, etc.

The movement of these bodies in relation to each other are "events." They are not time. Time is a coordinate. Time is part of an address for the location of an event.

JB

From your first reply I was afraid you weren't going to pick up on the "straight line" I fed you. Thanks for taking it all the way.

Robert Heinlein wrote a fascinating SciFi story based on exactly that premise. One of the characters built a machine that was capable of moving to any set of coordinates in any of the dimensions. (Although he postulated six dimensions instead of just four.) In the same story he also postulated that all matter was composed of "fictons" ("fictional particle"). Not too far off from where quantum physics seems to be headed.

Well yum yum, thanks for "feeding" me. It was a very tasty snack!

I confess that the main reason for feeding you that "change of position..." line was to lead you into bringing up "time travel". So thank you for feeding me back.

My biggest problem with the "time travel" concept stems from the fact that time is not "real" anymore than latitude and logitude are "real". Yes, the "places" they refer to may be "real" but the "coordinates" are simply made-up ideas that have no physical reality. When you travel on the earth, you are not traveling "through the coordinates". You are traveling "through space". The coordinates are only an arbitrarily agreed upon system for describing any point relative to any other point. In othjer words, the coordinates are the description of the location, not the location itself.

Another analogy is the "map/territory" comparison. The map is a made-up thing that shows the relationships of the various physical objects and locations. But it is not the territory itself. It is a description of the territory.

So yes, what we call "time" is a "coordinate system". But it is not the thing it describes. It is simply a made-up-and-agreed-upon system for DESCRIBING events.

So "time travel" is really a misnomer. "Event travel" would be more accurate.

I agree that time is not real anymore than latitude and longitude are "real".

Event travel is a good name for it, yes I agree.



Yes I agree. The coordinates are the address.



Actually yes, time is a coordinate. But it does not 'describe' the event it is merely one of the coordinates for the location of the 'memory' of the event within a multidimensional matrix of probabilities.

Here is my idea:

The 'memory' is like a 3 dimensional holographic replay of the event. To go there, or to follow the path of time would be like following a tunnel where others had left a path of memories that linger. These memories are like tiny programs that exist like three dimensional holographic movies that you can step into and be a part of.

[Note: You're right about the term "description of". I should have used "label for" instead.]



I would say that memory is “a full-motion, full-sensory 3 dimensional recording” (“movie” for short). “A memory" would be a specific frame, shot, or scene in the movie. The act of remembering is the act of reviewing the movie to find “a memory”. So now we get to the "coordinate system". The coordinate system we call "time" comes into play when we ask "When did such-and-such happen?". The answer to that question is a specific coordinate (a date and/or a time). So every individual has their own movie and every movie has a specific frame, shot or scene that corresponds to that coordinate. Thus, “time” could be said to be simply a way of “synchronizing memories”.

I'm pretty sure we agree up to this point.

But beyond that, here’s my opinion: Exactly as in film, for each and every frame, the location and orientation of the “camera” is fixed at the point from which the individual recorded it. The movie is just a “reproduction” with a fixed viewpoint that cannot be changed. So if a frame was recorded using binocular vision, you can’t “go around behind” the objects in the image, any more than you can go around behind the objects in a photograph. (This is why I said “3 dimensional” and not “holographic” - because the visual portion of the recordings is binocular – at least for the parts that are recorded when “in human form”).

As to “memories that linger”: Not sure what that means but in my opinion, the only movies that exist are the movies that are “in the possession of” individuals or “selves”. There aren’t any other movies.

So “time travel”, from my perspective, is really just “reliving” a frame, shot or scene in one of the pre-recorded movies. And the “reliving” can only be done from the viewpoint of the "self" who originally recorded it. So if that’s what you mean by “time travel” then we’re in 100% agreement.

Very interesting.

De Broglie discovered that matter was like light, both wave and particle like.

Quantum mechanics says that it all depends on what you are looking for. If I am not mistaken, light travels in what is commonly described as waves, and this has been effectively shown in the double slit inference experiment by Thomas Young.

Hmmmm....

But light is radiated and absorbed in chunks(quanta)....

That's what quantum mechanics claims...




Time most certainly does exist... this is laughable to the point of absurdity.




Thank you James for all of your earlier explanation...

It is good to see you... hope you are well!!!

Great Creative!

Then, if time exists, please describe it for me.

Creative;


The double slit experiment contradicts the idea that light is a particle, for how is it possible for one particle go through both slits and produce an interference pattern?

A credible theory of reality must explain the double slit experiment. That theory is TWS (The Wave Structure of Matter)

TWS clearly solves these problems of the interference of light in the double slit experiment.

The Spherical Wave Structure of Matter in Space indicates that Space itself is a continuous wave medium (which necessarily connects all things) and there are no such things as discrete particles.



It is obvious that Waves are central to Quantum Theory and thus to understanding the structure of Matter. The problem has been the further introduction of the 'particle' concept, and thus the resulting paradox of the 'Particle/Wave' duality.

The solution to this apparent paradox is to simply explain how the discrete 'particle' properties of Matter and Light (quanta) are in fact caused by Standing Wave interactions.

In fact the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter not only explains and solves the problems of Quantum Theory, but also Albert Einstein's Relativity and Cosmology.

Max Planck's Discovery of the Particle (Quantum) Properties of Light, E=hf. (1900)
He showed (from purely formal/mathematical foundations) that light must be emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts if it was to correctly describe observed phenomena (i.e. Blackbody radiation).

Prior to then light had been considered as a continuous electromagnetic wave, thus the discrete nature of light was completely unexpected.

The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter explains Max Planck's (1900) discovery that there are only certain allowed discrete energy states for electrons in molecules and atoms, and further, that light is only ever emitted and absorbed by electrons in discrete or 'quantum' amounts, as the electrons move from one stable standing wave pattern to another.



Time is intimately connected to Motion, for Time is ultimately caused by the Wave-Motions of Space. It is also correct to assume an absolute Time (like QT rather than Relativity) such that we have a constant reference to measure the changing velocity of wave-motion. (But Time does not exist as a 'thing in itself' like Newton thought!)

The Spherical Wave Motion of Space unites Time, Matter, Motion & Forces

To unite these four apparently separate things is easy. Einstein was correct, there are no separate and discrete matter 'particles' - that space, time, matter and motion are one interconnected thing. His error was to work from continuous fields in space-time, rather than wave motions of a continuous space (see website listed below on the wave structure of matter).

So Time is really caused by Motion, as the wave Motion of Space. Matter is the same, caused by the wave motion of space. This is why Space, Time, Matter and Motion are all interconnected - they are all due to the wave motion of space.


This information was compiled from:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com

I don't think anyone was saying that time doesn't exist. (At least I wasn't.) It was the nature of time that was under discussion.

Well actually I think I did say that time does not exist, but I meant that it does not exist as a 'thing in itself' like Newton thought.

The nature of time is something that is part of the whole space-time-matter thingy we call this universe.

"It seems to me that the idea that we are all egalitarian spirits is certainly nicer than the idea that we are all pathetically inept inferior beings to some supreme deity that's hung up on being worshiped. That's like something straight out of Freddy's Nightmares.

And the other thing that we truly aren't facing is the possiblity that atheism is true!

There's nothing to it!

We truly are just the ripples and that's that. When the ripples are gone so are we!

It was all for naught. We just wanted it to be something more than it truly was.

I can't seriously rule out that possiblity.

The main thing that bothers me about a 'spirit' world. Is that if such a thing exists then it seems to me there would be some way to contact it, or intervention would be a more likely event than it actually seems to be."

Abracadabra


I think this is a very important statement being made. It should not be overlooked. It is my opinion that humans have ALWAYS had a need to explain death and what comes after because it is frightening. The conceptualization of a spirit world by man is in no small part a vehicle to keep the beast at bay and comfort us in some respect. If its an invention that no one can credibly prove or disprove, all the better. Kind of like Moses getting the commandments up on a mountain from "god" when no one was around. Thats very convenient. I think there is definitely a possibility of there simply being nothing postmortem. Its a prospect that is surely more frightening to some, thus the compulsive desire to explain and offer other alternatives and possibilities. Yet there still exists no more credible evidence to rule this theory out in it's entirety.

Of course we have folks that will place a direct call to the spirit world for you. Generally we find them online charging $2.99 per minute.

If you have no evidence to the contrary, then of course the “poof when you die” atheistic materialism must be left on the table as one of the not-yet-proven-or-disproven possibilities. But for me personally, I have experienced/observed phenomena that contradict that theory. (Specifically “past life memory” and “out-of-body experience”) So for me, accepting atheistic materialism as a possibility would be accepting something that counters my own personal experience – essentially saying that what I experienced was illusion or hallucination. But then “All is illusion and there is no meaning to anything” is pretty much the foundation of atheistic materialism. Which makes it seem like all viewpoints are based on circular reasoning. So if I’m going to start with an unproven assumption that will be used to prove itself and everything else, then a self-centric position seems better than an other-centric position, as far as a starting point goes.

“But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong” – Dennis Miller

Well then you simply admit that there is no conclusive proof one way or another. That is where we stand at this moment in time. You can say that you personally have what you truly believe to be evidence of an "out-of-body-phenomena" or a "past life memory". Many can attest to a similar set of experiences or circumstances over the course of their life time that might constitute as "evidence" in this realm, however, your standard of "proof" might be considerably different than mine so it becomes a completely subjective opinion. Since it is much more emotionally and psychologically satisfying to convince ourselves that there is some form of afterlife awaiting us postmortem, than that conclusion is much more likely to rise to the surface. In my case, I chose to research EVERY possible alternative that I could find to truly put my experience to the test and I found alternative explanations to be a definite possibility. That was my "burden of proof". Does that nullify your experience in any way? Well since you have not stated exactly what occurred in your case, I cant even speak to it. And as stated, my standard of conclusive evidence might be different than that of your own.

Abracadabra stated:



Actually I think we face that possibility when we first learn about death, perhaps at an early age. I personally worried a lot about death, growing old, and dieing from the age of ten to fourteen. There were a few years of my young adult life where I considered myself an atheist or at the very least, agnostic.

I accepted the idea of of death with nothing beyond quite comfortably and I could accept it again if somehow I discovered this to be true. Death is the great escape from the burden of life. No retribution for sins or crimes, no responsibility, no having to live another life, no worry about hell and damnation preached by religions. It is a very freeing concept indeed.

If it is true, I would hope that someone could actually prove it to me.

But until then I have accepted the idea that I will probably have to be responsible for my lives and my actions and my creations for an unknown eternity, so I may as well pace myself and make the best of this journey if it is going to be such a long one.

I suppose it might be a good idea to prepare for either one, and then you might have the best advantage of all. Live as if this is the last life you will ever see, but don't count on it. Live well and live ethically and be the kind of person who can look back and be proud of all that you have done for the good of all.

JB

You’re absolutely right. There is nothing about my experiences that I can prove to you. Which points out the subjective nature of proof – in order to accept “a proof”, you must first agree on one or more premises. And for me, ultimately, the one premise that is senior to all others is “what I observe”. And secondary to that is “my evaluations of those observations”. “Others’ observations” and “others’ evaluations” fall WAY behind. And I imagine that’s pretty much the way it is for you too. So all I’m really saying is that my evaluation of my experiences has led me to the conclusion that certain options are not worth considering. Especially the “dead end” options like atheistic materialism. I see no reason to consider it - if only because it itself postulates that there is no reason for anything.

I think a healthy dose of skepticism is always a good idea. I am apprehensive of most any claim that a person will make when they speak in absolutes. That generally is a tip off to me that they are an individual I will clash with in some respect so they are best avoided. That in no way discredits their personal opinions, but it simply means I wont be able to communicate with them effectively so I wont waste my time. Yes I am in agreement with you here as far as our personal criteria for evaluating our own observations. I am not familiar with the components of atheism except that it is the belief that there is definitely nothing happening once we pass. That sounds to me like it would appeal to the personality type that I mentioned, an individual who insists on viewing the world in absolute, non negotiable terms. That doesn't interest me at all just as a person that insists that there is beyond a shadow of a doubt an after life or spirit realm.

This one had me ROTFL.

Don't count on life ever being over.



There's no question about it. I'm a theist whether I like it or not. I seriously can't believe in atheism. I've tried. I just can't muster the faith. To me it would require more faith to believe in atheism than to believe in theism. Believing in theism is the easier thing to do.

Truly it is.

I seriously wish I could become an atheist. I just can't do it.

It would change my life if I could truly become an atheist. It would actually change it for the better.

I think I am slowly becoming an atheist, but it's too little too late now. I wish I had become an atheist as a young child. I would have had a much better life.