Time, and nature of reality

[fccool]

The following is an essay on the subject I wrote in my spare time. Hopefully, some of you will find it interesting enough to read and spark up a discussion.

What is time? We are accustomed to the concept because we never question any other possibilities. Our experience dictates that time exists, because we can measure it, we observe it in terms of change, motion and directional change. Time seems to be a universal constant that we can relate to, and something that standardizes our conscious experience in case of our relative observance. After all, without some sort of frame of reference it would be very difficult to experience certain events in our lives.

But what is time? We understand time in terms of relative and constant movement in one direction - forward. In order to standardize the motion we sample it into different segments that we can collectively reference. For example, a day is a pretty straightforward cycle of earth's rotation around its axis.

We then divide this motion into 24 equal segments and we get hour. Subsequently we divide the hour into 60 equal segments that are called minutes, and so on. To be more precise, we can reference measurable motion of clock's movement for a standard reference of "time passage".

For the longest time I did not question the idea of time. It's so widespread and accepted that virtually every theory revolves the standard idea of time in a material and sole physical reality. The idea is so established that virtually all of the understanding of our world revolves around this idea of time. There are various arguments as far as "relative time" and time travel. We ponder what it would be like if "time travel " was possible, and much of other amusing, but nevertheless nonsense.

After a quite traumatic experience , I've spent some time in bed-ridden isolation recovering from my injury. Needless to say, I've had plentiful opportunities to think though my own understanding of reality as I was beginning to question certain concepts that I took for granted. Time turned out to be one of such concepts.

[fccool]

As I was recapping my past, and pondering about my shattered future, I could not help but notice that these only existed as memories in my mind. A picture snapshots that only represented "changed now", and imagined "now to come". Yet in terms of "time" neither the past or the future seemed to exist. Time was only a perspective of my conscious effort to interpret the changes that took place around me. These ideas lead me to formulate different ideas about our existence and reality as we relate to it.

In terms of time, it seems to constantly in one direction - forward, at least in the way we tend to understand that motion. Each "tick" on the clock, as we used to understanding it, represents a sample of aggregate universal motion that we can measure. As we consciously experience and "record" this motion in our mind, recollection or reconstruction of that "sampled" motion represents the "past".

We can utilize various mediums to capture this motion, and play it back, be it video, audio, or a mental picture. In either case, the capture represents the sampled capture of "universal change" at certain period of its existence. To sum up, the way we understand time is that everything in our known universe is in constant motion, and we experience the motion in a linear fashion, with sub-sampled measurable changes that represent "time passage".

Traditional understanding of time as it relates to ontological reality generally falls into two philosophical interpretations, that of realism, and idealism. To avoid lengthy and boring exposition on either, I'll simply define realism as a belief that reality exists apart from conscious experience of it. If the tree falls in the woods, it does make a sound, no matter if someone is there to hear it. The idealists would argue that reality does not exist apart from the mind, and only exists as a "creation of the mind" in terms of collective conscious experience. Generally, most of our accepted understanding of our world tends to be interpreted through philosophy of the realism, and time is no exception.

[fccool]

For a while I pondered of various possibilities for existence of "in-between" philosophical explanation of reality that would place itself in-between realism and idealism views. To better relate the theory to you, I'd like to present it in terms of a computer game.

Let's consider a fairly popular computer game called World of Warcraft. It's a multiplayer fantasy game that allows one to create and manipulate a fictional character in the virtual "World of Warcraft" (WOW). I won't bore you with details, and move straight to the heart of the analogy. There are several pre-requisites required for the WOW to be experienced.

1) A computer that contains the physical copy of the world

2) A player that experiences the world through the computer

3) A network that connects all of the players to experience the game simultaneously

4) A central server that saves the state of every single player and changes of the physical world at any given moment in time.

In terms of this virtual reality, we can dissect it in two possible ways - conscious (the way a player would experience it) and ontological (the way it "is" under the hood). On the conscious level, each and every player would experience the reality in linear fashion. There are certain rules to the reality that define it and describe it, and character would experience it based on these rules, as one would progress through various states triggered by the anticipated responses of the game.

The reality can be modified, and changed on individual and collective level by triggering these responses. This change is reflected in the "central storage" as a "possible copy" of the reality for that particular player at a certain given time. Once the player logs off, the state is saved, and can be recalled at will for the game to keep on going.

[fccool]

Let's consider what's happening under the hood of such experience, and how we would interpret "time" phenomenon in such situation. We can say that the entire reality exists as a progression of pre-defined possibilities that's directed by a collective of conscious of the players. On the pure ontological level the entire reality is reflected as a collection of "anticipated rules" for every possible experience that trigger a certain outcome, or a possibility. To simplify it even further, we can describe such reality collective of various possibilities and "versions" of such possibilities once these has been triggered by a conscious decision of the player.

In relative terms, everything that can ever happen in the game exists as a collective of rules that define what will happen given certain "anticipated action". So, if a player decides to go left, then he merely moves through a state of reality that already exists by simply shifting to that pre-rendered possibility. Such "version of reality" is already there, preloaded into the memory as a collection of simultaneously existing states, simply awaiting for a player to make a conscious choice to "to arrive" at that particular anticipated possibility.

So, in terms of such ontological existence, everything that can possibly happen already exists, perhaps in limited terms of pre-loaded states, but it nevertheless exists in some shape or form, as either some sort of recorded possible motion, or a collective state, which is then interpolated on the "conscious experience" level of the player into observable motion from point A to point B. Yet, in terms of ontological reality, both point A and point B already exist in order to make the conscious experience of interpolation possible. Thus, in such a world we can conclude that motion is merely an experience of the player, and not the "reality" of such world, in which both states exists simultaneously, for each and every player that "joins the game", yet in terms of time and motion, everything that can happen already exists as "anticipated reality" that's merely consciously experienced as a progression, instead of simultaneously existing states. Otherwise, such experience would be somewhat meaningless.

[fccool]

Now, with this over-simplified view of the virtual world, let's jump over to the "real" one. I think we can all come to an agreement that we exist, in some shape or form. Perhaps, I can argue that each and every part of "my world" is simply a part of "my creation", yet I don't hold such view (although I can consider it as a possibility). But, for the sake of the argument, let's consider that we exist with ability to collectively experience our reality.

If all of us form a tight mesh of collective possibilities that we travel through, then we can theorize that the world is really "motionless" in terms of things "happening". The only thing that would change is our conscious switch to a different state of pre-existing reality, which in turn does not have to move anywhere. We can think of it in terms of all of us mentally travelling through a maze. The maze itself does not move, only we do. In terms of consciousness, the experience of time is a variable phenomenon. Some dreams may pack several days of experience in a span of few hours. And some may lack any experience and thus the "sense of time". Dreams, in terms of above-described reality are merely "possible states" that our mind moves through. They feel as "real" as our world would be, when we experience them. Thus dreams would be a different set of possibilities that we don't experience collectively, but individually. It's a "single player" game that we walk through.

In terms of our collective experience, can be encoded into referenced state of reality at any given moment of our collective conscious experience. Thus, our memories are not of themselves "copies" of certain reality, but merely reference to a sequence of possibilities that can be accessed through "links" to such sequences and recalled at will. Just like a central server of the game world containing all of the possible information contained in such world, one would have to have a massive machine to maintain a constant copy of the "experienced events". It's much more probable that such information is simply reference to certain sequence of existing "possibilities" that can be experienced in some shape or form, either individually or collectively.

[fccool]

Such theory does not dismiss the existence of physical reality, but it expands on such reality as existing multiverse of all (limited) possible outcomes as defined by the rules of such reality, which can then be consciously experience by "plugging-into" and "walking-through" such possibilities via controlled conscious choices that progress based on certain constraints. Time in such reality would only exist in the realm of conscious experience of it.

Perhaps, the above could lead to opening up a discussion about the nature of some observable phenomena in the realm of quantum physics, but it I think there's enough food for thought for now .

[Tom Wetmore]

Interesting start on the topic! As you might have picked up from other discussions and topics here, I have a continuing fascination with time theory.

I think the analogy to interactive computer games is useful to understand how we process time. Many computer games are programed to produce the same pre-programed outcome/response to the gamer's input/interaction. They become very predictable and progress through the game environment succeeds because of that predictability. If you do A, B and C the result will always be X. That is like the theological idea of predestination. The difference is that we have no do-overs in our real experience of time. If that is how time works for us in a theological sense where there are only two ultimate outcomes, predestination becomes a depressing thought , because in the above , if you miss step B you will never get to achieve X. Unlike the computer game analogy it is only winning or losing and no second chances. You will have missed the opportunity and be placed on the path toward Y. The only hope would be that without do-overs, you would need multiple paths to X or more possible outcomes than just being saved or being lost.

Fortunately I think life is closer to a multiplayer interactive mode with infinite possible opportunities to manipulate the environment, the interactions with others that change the possible outcomes in infinite ways. Like life, it becomes less predictable. But it is also more interesting and engaging. But again we have the vital difference that in real life, there is no do-over, no second chance to replay a scene for a better outcome. Time marches on. No rewind.

[Tom Wetmore]

Now for a twist to time theory as we have set it up. As I was typing the previous post, a thought occurred to me. Understanding that time never stops, there are no do-overs or second chances once the wrong choice is made, how does God solve the problem of sin without potentially messing with the space/time continuum and upsetting the entire fabric of the universe. (Real experiential time travel would be potentially disastrous as suggested by the movie Back to the Future.) God's solution - forgiveness. How do you think this alters time and the nature of reality?

[teresaq]

I was with you, Tom, until your last sentence...Can you elaborate more?

[Tom Wetmore]

I ended with a question because I am not too sure. I am still thinking.

[teresaq]

Oh, OK.

[fccool]

Tom,

I think you've sort of lost in the wordiness of my essay, and you've missed a couple points I was making.

Time is an abstract concept. It's not some physical existence in reality. Time only can be explained relatively to other phenomenons, such as motion and distance. It's sort of just like love. You can't pick up love from a table as say, here, have some love. The same with time. It's a contrived concept that helps us to relate to this reality. It's a construct that does not exist in actual reality.

Think of it in terms of matter in motion. We measure a certain distance something moves with a constant speed, and we call it time. That's the only thing that time is. It does not move "forward". It's just an assumption that everything in the universe changes irreversibly.

In terms of paradoxes, God can turn back the time without causing any cataclysms. All He would do is to re-arrange all matter (physical and non-physical) in the universe to a certain previous state. That would of course require him to violate free will of every conscious being ever created.

Yet, the point is that time does not really "exits" in terms of Past or Future. There's only ever-changing now that we have ability to take snap shots of and arrange in chronological order to form sense of passed history. Yet, if all matter in the universe would come to a stand-still, would time still exist? How? How would you measure it in relative terms?

So, there's no "time", there's constant change. By "time passing" we simply saying that things are changing. If we went to bed, and woke up and everything, including clocks would remain in the same position... no matter how much "time" has passed, not time has passed in reality.

I hope it makes some sense.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, that does make sense. It is consistent with the jumble of thoughts I have been attempting to process and articulate.

In terms of time being only the present, the difficulty is that the only part of time we can analyze is the present after the fact, or the past. The present never stands still. We can conceptualize the future on a similar basis, imagining many snapshots of potential changes. Mentally we construct future sort of like a mirroring of our memory of the past. But as time progresses those future moments of our imagination pass instantly through the blink of the present and become past quicker than our mind can process. The future becomes the past in the present. So, I would theorize the opposite concept of time as only being the present. There is no time in the present. It is only past or future. Now is illusive. (Think of the notion of living in the moment. Time becomes irrelevant.)

The difference between past and future is that seeing the former is a deterministic process and the latter is a stochastic process. (For those unfamiliar with those concepts see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process .) From that perspective think about foretelling the future. As humans we tend to assume God sees the future and conveys it in prophecy only as a deterministic process. But to do so leaves out the free will of man. God did not create a clock that ticks only in one predetermined way with every moving part working in complete synchronization without variation. The free will of man renders the future as random multiplied by the number of living humans and a universe of variables.

I see life and time as one. Both are dynamic. The opposite of each is stasis. If God stopped time we would all be dead.

Now to incorporate fractal theory into time theory. (Hint - it is impossible. Or is it?) (This is just an allusion back to the last part of the googlenope that was part of the impetus for me for the Original Thoughts forum. The first part of that googlenope is what I just discussed above.)

[Tom Wetmore]

Now to address teresaq's question. The key perhaps is to understand the paradox that fccool noted. Yes, God could fix the problem with turning the clock back to enable a do-over. (In the computer game analogy, this is how gamers perfect their efforts to win the game. If there was no do-over the game would have to be simple enough to win with one run-through and thus ultimately would be boringly unchallenging...) But life allows for no do-over because it would violate the free will of everyone. So God had to devise another plan that would still respect our absolute right of free choice to determine our future.

Enter the paradox of forgiveness. An all-knowing God with perfect memory of the past and the ability to perfectly foresee the stochastic future in all its infinitely random possible permutations. He gives us an opportunity for second chances, do-overs, without infringing on our free will or turning back time. Look only to the future. God has to alter His own memory of the past when He forgives. He says in doing so, His divine free will allows him the luxury we do not have. He no longer remembers that which He forgives. In the end, He grants forgiveness to those who believe this impossible paradox of the forgetting omniscient One. To believe in forgiveness allows for God to create all things new again, a re-creation, a complete do-over that respects everyone's choice. Those who choose life continue on as if the past does not exist. Those who do not believe continue on as if there is no future and ultimately reach that stasis known as irreversible death. Time and the nature of reality is completely changed in the blink of the eye.

How does God do it? That remains a future mystery. But our clue is that he does not reverse time/life. He stops it. The paradox of new life through death. But that takes us off of the topic. Or does it?

Forgiveness is the ultimate game changer for life and reality as we know it. And if it changes life it changes time itself.

[teresaq]

If all matter came to a standstill, as in a tree stopped growing which is imperceptible...Like looking at black space?

I admit my comprehension of what you are saying is coming and going.

This isn't quite in keeping with your thought maybe, but I picked up the idea from Ellen White somewhere that we count time here but not in heaven, which I have vaguely wondered at in the back of my mind.

I mean, can you imagine saying I am a trillion years old today?

Feel free to correct me in where I do err in your thought.

[teresaq]

I am familiar with this idea, if it is the same, from some others. That God is aware of possible choices I could make this second, the next second, and the next second is mind-blowing to say the least and if that were true, Wow, what an awesome God!!

But that is as far as I can go. "deterministic", as I understand it, means that it is "determined". Where I don't see that knowing the future as that it was determined to be. I don't see God knowing what choices I will make as it is determined to be that way, except by myself...

But I have been positive many times in my 60 years, just to find out what I wasn't so right over time what with clearer understanding and more facts brought into play. :)

[wayfinder]

Here is another thought: Is virtual reality "real"? Is truth real and if so, is virtual truth real? What is the make-up of reality?

[teresaq]

What comes to mind as I read what you "said",

I sinned, that means I will die, (not that God will kill me). Irreversibly, permanently dead. God wants me to live but can't wipe me out and recreate me, or let me die and recreate me, cause I would still have my same mindset...

God wants to forgive me-let me live- but that won't alter the consequences of my actions, I will still die...that is as far as I'm getting right now.

But you are saying something different, I believe, that I haven't quite gotten the idea of yet, I don't think...

[wayfinder]

It appears that God created "time" on the fourth day of creation, or at least He created the "great clocks" by which to measure time or observe the passage of time. (See Genesis 1:14-16)

When God formed His kingdom He created another clock, this one kept time by calucating years/days with weeks of years and weeks of Sabbath years.

(See Leviticus 25:1-6)

My understanding of God's creation is, if He created it, it exists.

[fccool]

The question is not the existence, but the nature of it.

I believe as a society we went way left with Newtonian/Einstein ideas of space and time, which then was then accepted by scientific community as the world as we know it. Modern physics of General Relativity is somewhat a mantra that's rather seldom questioned. For example, we have a physical model of "space-time" which is a 3 dimensional model of space, and then time having an axis (or dimension) or its own. And no-one questions it even for a bit, which should be done as often it's brought up in our physics classrooms.

I'll touch on it very briefly, and try to make it as simple as I can, which it should be simple.

Essentially, Einstein shot physics as we know it in the foot, perhaps not intentionally, but in terms of our continual developing understanding of the universe. Perhaps it's not even his fault, but the scientific community that desperately needed some explanation/model that would make all of the "numbers" work. So, the idea of "time dimension" sort of took its own life and whenever you are talking to any physics teacher they usually speak of it in terms of "reality", while in reality they simply recite a doctrine that they perhaps never questioned.

Here's a nasty little problem with physics that's hardly ever discussed. In our "Einstein is a geniuous who should not be questioned" scientific community, we regard time as a changing and moving "thing". That's why we have a separate dimension just for time. So, we have time that's constantly moving forward in set intervals, and then we have change in space as moving from point A to point B during that time "motion".

Here's the problem in a nutshell. There's no such thing as "moving time". This concept should not even exist in modern physics, yet somehow it made it and established itself as a standard. I understand the pragmatic nature of it, but it does not accurately reflect our reality. Just to show you a small example of what I'm talking about, let's take a very simple physics equation of velocity:

v (velocity) = dx (distance traveled) / dt (time interval for that travel) . A simple pragmatic example would be traveling 10 miles in 2 minutes, you'll have a velocity of 5 miles per minute. Sounds simple and pragmatic enough, until you start considering the "movement" of time itself.

To demonstrate that "motion of/in time" does not exists, we can plug the time into that equation. v = dx/dt , which essentially would be the same as v = dt/dt = 1. No matter which interval in the "motion of time" you have. So, motion in time does not exist. It's a self-reference. It's nonsense. Time does not "move". Time is a measurement of one spatial property do another one.

To make things worse, we have then have the idea of "time slowing down" in objects that approach the speed of light. It a false concept. Once again, time does not "move". It can't speed up, or slow down. What speeds up or slows down is the perceived motion of objects. If we comparing a clock that travels and the other one that stands still, what we actually comparing is an impact of motion, or energy on certain clock that causes it to measure its own movements differently. It has nothing to do with "time slowing down". If we fill two water-bottles with water, and drop a food coloring into both. Then have one stand still, and the other one to be shaken, we can't say that time moves faster in the one that we shake because food coloring propagated sooner. The mere change in some physical property of object does not constitute "relative movement of time". Yet, in modern physics we have "time dilation". It's fascinating, yet absolutely illogical.

[teresaq]

HUH?! No really...you're going to have to explain that to me cause I'm lost. :)

[teresaq]

#464914

Wow! I pretty much understood that!! Partly because I study math on my own, but the other also. ok. Agreed. Time itself does not "move", I do. I think I agree. Time, in a sense, does move. At least on this planet. Day turns into night, night turns into day. season begins, season ends.

And in some sense in heaven also if we will be meeting every sabbath and new moon.

[fccool]

What you've described above is not a change it time, but change in relative state of things. Time can't move, because it's an abstract concept that helps us to relate certain things in chronological progression of certain change. It does not exist as a standalone "object". I hope it makes sense.

A good Christian analogy would be the idea of sin. Sin is not something that exist as a standalone "object". It's an action, or a property that describe a certain state or occurrence. It's not something that exists apart from objects or people that it describes.

[teresaq]

ok. I dimly perceive your point. I also feel a bit scared participating in this thought.

[fccool]

It can be a bit awkward realizing that reality may be different than our general concept of it. But the idea that time does not exist is not the most awkward thought there is. But, more on that in a different thread.