time is relative.

[danielost]

You've left out the most important factor, speed. You've given no reason why an immortal would be traveling faster than a human.

BTW the speed of thought is a lot slower than you seem to think.

If your talking physicql thought, it is probable faster than you think, near the speed of light.

But, that isn't what I am talking about. What I meant is kind of like the movie "jump". You think I want to go to paris, pop you there.

As for the immortal he doesn't have to travel any faster than we do, but to him it will seem like he just wanted to get there and now he is The mmortasl wouldn't experence time like we do. Any more than we experience time like the ant does. To the ant we are traveling at the speed of thought.

Edited March 28, 2013 by danielost

[Rlyeh]

If your talking physicql thought, it is probable faster than you think, near the speed of light.

Not even close. It's actually slower than the speed of sound.

But, that isn't what I am talking about. What I meant is kind of like the movie "jump". You think I want to go to paris, pop you there.

Fiction then.

As for the immortal he doesn't have to travel any faster than we do, but to him it will seem like he just wanted to get there and now he is The mmortasl wouldn't experence time like we do. Any more than we experience time like the ant does. To the ant we are traveling at the speed of thought.

Baseless assertions. The ant takes longer to travel ten miles because it does not travel as fast as a human walking.

However if this immortal is not aware of the length of his journey then he can't be called all knowing.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Rlyeh

[danielost]

If something takes ten minutes to do, it takes the same ten minutes for anyone, immortal or not, to do it. Besides, we all live under this illsion that we are immortal anyway, and waste our time accordingly.

From our point of view. To an ant ten minutes could be life time. To an immortal it my take that long to think of ten minutes. Of, cousre all of that is from our point of view.

A man, a bird and a turtle see an explosion. To the man it happened in an instance. To the bird it takes for ever. To the turtle it was ver so quickly it didn't even notice.

[Rlyeh]

From our point of view. To an ant ten minutes could be life time. To an immortal it my take that long to think of ten minutes. Of, cousre all of that is from our point of view.

A man, a bird and a turtle see an explosion. To the man it happened in an instance. To the bird it takes for ever. To the turtle it was ver so quickly it didn't even notice.

Any experiments to verify this?

[danielost]

Not even close. It's actually slower than the speed of sound.

Fiction then.

Baseless assertions. The ant takes longer to travel ten miles because it does not travel as fast as a human walking.

However if this immortal is not aware of the length of his journey then he can't be called all knowing.

You never noticedthat they run every where. Slowing down if they don't know which way to go. I f we were the same size we would be the 'low ones.

[Rlyeh]

You never noticedthat they run every where. Slowing down if they don't know which way to go. I f we were the same size we would be the 'low ones.

If we were but we aren't, we are larger and therefore can cover distance in less time.

[Frank Merton]

This discussion about how or even if there is a sense of time in ants doesn't get us anywhere that I can see. For the most part they are entirely instinctual creatures, not sensate and therefore not motivated by emotions but simply by stimulus and reflex.

Time does seem to speed up as we get older; this is I think probably because we have more life experience to compare each unit of time to, so each incremental unit does not seem to be as much. Also, things don't happen to us at the same rate -- we settle down and don't change jobs or residences or friends as often, so that the landmarks get further apart.

Let me also observe that the psychological passage of time is only loosely related to the real passage of time: hence when we are asleep time passes outside our consciousness.

[Mr Walker]

Linear time exists and humans percieve it from within that timeline. If oyu are old enough you have an exerperince connected to quite along span of time. There is no future, past, or present, other than in human terms. The past from our perspective is what was once the present and the future The present is the instant between our past and our future. And the future ? Well it does not exist. Many potental futures are possible not just one, and so in practice none exist. Only the past and the present have physical existence to a human being. We are capapble of projecting and exptrapolating into future time quite accurately but this is mathematicla guess work not knolwedge We DO have the abilty to create construct and alter our futures using our understanding of the past and our ability to maniipulate the preesent physically

So, from many extrapolated or imagined futures we are capable of constructing one which will then become our present and then our past. As we move through time we also shape and construct it, so all past and present are built or constructed via understandings of our future at that time. Our past and present were once our future, and our future will become our present and our past.

[danielost]

Linear time exists and humans percieve it from within that timeline. If oyu are old enough you have an exerperince connected to quite along span of time. There is no future, past, or present, other than in human terms. The past from our perspective is what was once the present and the future The present is the instant between our past and our future. And the future ? Well it does not exist. Many potental futures are possible not just one, and so in practice none exist. Only the past and the present have physical existence to a human being. We are capapble of projecting and exptrapolating into future time quite accurately but this is mathematicla guess work not knolwedge We DO have the abilty to create construct and alter our futures using our understanding of the past and our ability to maniipulate the preesent physically

So, from many extrapolated or imagined futures we are capable of constructing one which will then become our present and then our past. As we move through time we also shape and construct it, so all past and present are built or constructed via understandings of our future at that time. Our past and present were once our future, and our future will become our present and our past.

Then explain peoople who can see the future. Such as revalations.

Edited April 2, 2013 by danielost

[The Id3al Experience]

Then explain peoople who can see the future. Such as revalations.

Apart from them never really been confirmed as real ability - however, My theroy on this is, that based on your current energy state - Its one of the 'possiable' futures that is most likely to happen if you contiue down that path per say.

[Mr Walker]

Then explain peoople who can see the future. Such as revalations.

One can accurately see many futures which might occur. God shows me, for example, very clear and accurate images of my future. But he does this so tha ti can CHANGE that future which might have been, into a better one which WILL be.

God shows me how I might die for example in one future and how to act so that I will not die, This involves altering the future. God sees all potential futures and can help us shape and direct the future to the best result for us and for all humanity. The future is changeable, both individual and that of the universe, and god works hard to alter the future into the best possible one.

So do I.

[Frank Merton]

Someone who says they can see the future is suspect -- their probity, their honesty, maybe even their sanity. We can all make good guesses about things that might happen, much as a weatherman makes good predictions nowadays with modern knowledge, but no one has the ability to to more than than that.

Thinking of the future as some sort of "place" that we could see or even visit and return from is fraught with problems. For this to be an accurate picture you have to think of the present as an infinitesimal boundary moving at varying speeds (based on the relative motions of objects -- such that the total motion is the speed of light) between two realms, the past and the future, and any visitor to the future has to also be in a different "present" that is doing the same thing. No that is too much when we have the much simpler conception available to us of only the "present" existing and past and future being illusions derived from the fact that the present is in constant flux.

[White Crane Feather]

The past is a record the future a probability... That's it. They only exist in an information state.

[Mr Walker]

Someone who says they can see the future is suspect -- their probity, their honesty, maybe even their sanity. We can all make good guesses about things that might happen, much as a weatherman makes good predictions nowadays with modern knowledge, but no one has the ability to to more than than that.

Thinking of the future as some sort of "place" that we could see or even visit and return from is fraught with problems. For this to be an accurate picture you have to think of the present as an infinitesimal boundary moving at varying speeds (based on the relative motions of objects -- such that the total motion is the speed of light) between two realms, the past and the future, and any visitor to the future has to also be in a different "present" that is doing the same thing. No that is too much when we have the much simpler conception available to us of only the "present" existing and past and future being illusions derived from the fact that the present is in constant flux.

It is conceivable for an advanced technology to be able to extrapolate "a" future accurately, and to create a virtual simulcrum of it, like we might make a movie about a future. But "the" future does not exist yet, except as one of many potentialities. All of us can visit the past because we have actually been there (for at least some of it) when it was the present. The past has existed and so in a very real sense still exists it is possible that with suficient technology one could move back to the past and return to the present eg by exceeding the speed of light. We view the past every time we gaze at a star.

[StarMountainKid]

The future is an extension of the present, and the present moment is also an extension of the past. In this sense, past, present and future exist concurrently.

Every moment exists in the present, whether that present moment existed in the 'past' or will exist in the 'future'. These are different present moments, but the differences of these present moments only exist in the spatial dimensions, not in time. In this view, time is not relative it is static. It is always 'now', so time does not pass, time has no interval. It is always this very same moment, change only occurs in our three-dimensional space. Time never changes from past to future.

The static-like dimension of time must still exist in this scenario to order the sequence of events and to define the present moment. Without this dimension of time there would be chaos. Events would occur randomly, cancelling the laws of cause and effect and entropy. The arrow of time would point in any random direction in any volume of space.

It's an idea.

[Frank Merton]

That's all too deterministic for me. Probabilities are things that might be, indeed, probably will be, but not must be.

When one gets into the business of trying to calculate the future of any sort of real system, the variables multiply so fast that you soon have a chaotic system where no conceivable computer could make the necessary calculations. It is a fine line between incalculable and only theoretically calculable but never really calculable. The difference will never be tested.

[danielost]

Time, distance and speed are factures of each other. You can't have one without the others. Even just moving into the future, you are using all three. So as I said before time, distance, and speed are relative.(I am adding speed to the list.). The men who went to the moon gained a couple of seconds on the rest of us. Ie they went forward through time slower than the rest of us did.

[Frank Merton]

Ah but we don't move into the future: we stay in the present.

[danielost]

Ah but we don't move into the future: we stay in the present.

Standing still is movement. It takes time, your going a distance, at a speed that can be measured.

[Frank Merton]

Yea -- of course I'm moving -- I move with the motions of the earth I'm on. Nevertheless I am now in the present just as I was ten minutes ago when I posted the last message.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Ah but we don't move into the future: we stay in the present.

Ah, but the present is always moving, and takes us along with it.

[Frank Merton]

That is one possible interpretation. I think what is happening is that time is an illusion brought about by change. There just is what is.

[+Liquid Gardens]

That is one possible interpretation. I think what is happening is that time is an illusion brought about by change. There just is what is.

Could we then also say, 'our position on the earth is an illusion brought about by change. There just is what is.'? I was at home 'earlier' and am now at work; the statement, 'I am now 15 miles away from my former position at home', is categorically different than '3.5 hours have elapsed since I was last at home'?

[Frank Merton]

I know where you are going, I think. Is the passage of time a different sort of motion that movement in space. Of course the two are interconnected in ways I don't understand, so I'm out of my depth. It is just that time as a dimension is a very different thing than space as dimensions. We can expend energy to move in space, the proposed movment in time requires no energy expenditure and in fact cannot be controlled.

So I do not perceive movement in time; I perceive change -- movement in space -- but we remain in the present. It's a chessboard with each object moving in accordance to its nature -- physics -- from moment to moment, but the chessboard is still the chessboard.

[+Liquid Gardens]

So I do not perceive movement in time; I perceive change -- movement in space -- but we remain in the present. It's a chessboard with each object moving in accordance to its nature -- physics -- from moment to moment, but the chessboard is still the chessboard.

It seems like we perceive movement in time the same way we perceive movement in space, I may not be where I formerly was, but I am clearly not 'when' I formerly was either. As far as remaining 'in the present', couldn't we say that that's equivalent to, 'we remain 'here''? I'm always 'here', but my 'here' changes just as 'the present' does; the 'present' doesn't seem to be any more fixed than 'here' is, outside of the fact that we personally have some control over where 'here' is for us.

I wonder how this works also looking at objects a great distance away. We see stars as they were in the past, not as they are in 'the present', so I'm not sure how that's possible if there is only 'the present'. I had always thought that time is treated as 'a dimension' by physics (thus the word, 'spacetime' I think) and that other dimensions may exist, but have no understanding of how that works.

(And don't get me wrong Frank, I'm no expert either, I'm not even sure I disagree with you; just trying to see if I can challenge it and what the repercussions are, if any, if viewing time this way)