Time Travel... the fly in the ointment

[Speakpigeon]

Yet, the geometry of space and the furniture of space (basically, the distribution of energy throughout space) appear to be no less continuous than time appears to be. It seems to me that the distinction between space and time is a distinction given by our native cognitive model of reality.

Our consciousness is the consciousness of an ever moving "now".

The notion of motion requires a reference frame relative to which things may be said to be moving. If time does not exist (just the "now") then there is no reference frame and "now" is not moving.

It's also not changing since now cannot be in the past. There's just one now, which is... now.

Yet we do have this sense of moving through time and/or of an ever changing now. This may be entirely based on our sense of memory, which if time doesn't exist is just one aspect of now, as the appearance of past "nows".

If the past and future are equally as real as this "now" the question is; why is consciousness at this now and how does it move along?

I think why consciousness seems to be now is a fair question. Obviously, we can imagine various explanations. The conventional one for example is that time and space exist with sentient beings having a local perception of them (seen from a now and a here). Yet, this seems to conflict with our sense of being now. It doesn't conflict in any logical sense, but I would say that there is at least an impression of a conflict. Maybe it is just the seeming improbability of being right now rather than at any other moment in time. However, we only have a local perception, and this includes our sense of self. According to it, we remain the same person throughout our lives (and maybe beyond) even though the particulars do change over time. So why is this permanent being, the person we are supposed to be, conscious of just the now? Well, if we accept that the character of locality of our perception does extend to absolutely every bit of information that we are conscious of then the notion of permanent being becomes obscure and useless. Instead, there is just a continuous succession of beings, each one limited to a point along a continuous curve in space-time. Each being is complete with memories of having been the previous beings along the curve. An illusion but one we cannot shake off. We think we are now, and we are, each other being along the curve also exists in its own time and place and its its own sense of being now. No movement. No passage of time. A sort of still frame with each being along the curve conceiving of itself as moving along the curve, through the passage of time.

Well, at least that's one explanation.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Even if that was implied (and it isn't), my liking or disliking it would have no bearing on its truth or falsehood.

Of course it is implied.

If the past and future are as real as the present then to look at any object is to look at a temporary illusion.

It really isn't there since the time before it existed and the time after it no longer exists is as real as the time I can see it.

The very concept of being "real" is an illusion.

You seem to struggle with the idea that stuff might both exist and be unpleasant to you.

I haven't said a word about things being unpleasant.

I have said they lack explanation and evidence.

There seems to be two separate issues.

One is the concept that the universe is a 4 dimensional universe. This is easy to see. For there to be movement or change requires a 4th dimension. When we see movement or change we are seeing the freedom the 4th dimension allows.

There is also the issue that the past and future are as real as the present.

This is not apparent in the least. It is merely something some have claimed because I suppose it is pleasant for them to claim it.

 

[bilby]

Of course it is implied.

If the past and future are as real as the present then to look at any object is to look at a temporary illusion.

It really isn't there since the time before it existed and the time after it no longer exists is as real as the time I can see it.

The very concept of being "real" is an illusion.

You seem to struggle with the idea that stuff might both exist and be unpleasant to you.

I haven't said a word about things being unpleasant.

I have said they lack explanation and evidence.

There seems to be two separate issues.

One is the concept that the universe is a 4 dimensional universe. This is easy to see. For there to be movement or change requires a 4th dimension. When we see movement or change we are seeing the freedom the 4th dimension allows.

There is also the issue that the past and future are as real as the present.

This is not apparent in the least. It is merely something some have claimed because I suppose it is pleasant for them to claim it.

If there is a fourth dimension, and if that dimension is time, then the past and future are as real as the present in EXACTLY the same way that 'over there' is as real as 'over here'.

 

[untermensche]

Our consciousness is the consciousness of an ever moving "now".

The notion of motion requires a reference frame relative to which things may be said to be moving. If time does not exist (just the "now") then there is no reference frame and "now" is not moving.

Until it was possible to record motion memory served as our reference.

If all that existed was "now" and your memory then "now" is continually in motion because the world is continually in motion.

It's also not changing since now cannot be in the past. There's just one now, which is... now.

There is a "now" for every observer. But apparently there are some observers in my past and some in my future. They know how my life will turn out before I do.

The universe is very god-like in it's nature.

Yet we do have this sense of moving through time and/or of an ever changing now. This may be entirely based on our sense of memory, which if time doesn't exist is just one aspect of now, as the appearance of past "nows".

A memory merely makes the movement of the universe apparent. It doesn't create the movement.

If the past and future are equally as real as this "now" the question is; why is consciousness at this now and how does it move along?

...Instead, there is just a continuous succession of beings, each one limited to a point along a continuous curve in space-time. Each being is complete with memories of having been the previous beings along the curve. An illusion but one we cannot shake off. We think we are now, and we are, each other being along the curve also exists in its own time and place and its its own sense of being now. No movement. No passage of time. A sort of still frame with each being along the curve conceiving of itself as moving along the curve, through the passage of time.

Well, at least that's one explanation.
EB

Say there are a succession of beings.

The question remains. Why am I at this particular point in the succession with a memory of being all the prior manifestations and no knowledge of the future successions?

Why is my consciousness at this particular point in the succession if it is possible to be at any or none?

- - - Updated - - -

If there is a fourth dimension, and if that dimension is time, then the past and future are as real as the present in EXACTLY the same way that 'over there' is as real as 'over here'.

You can provide evidence of "over there".

You can provide none of 100 years from now.

 

[bilby]

The notion of motion requires a reference frame relative to which things may be said to be moving. If time does not exist (just the "now") then there is no reference frame and "now" is not moving.

Until it was possible to record motion memory served as our reference.

If all that existed was "now" and your memory then "now" is continually in motion because the world is continually in motion.

It's also not changing since now cannot be in the past. There's just one now, which is... now.

There is a "now" for every observer. But apparently there are some observers in my past and some in my future. They know how my life will turn out before I do.

The universe is very god-like in it's nature.

Yet we do have this sense of moving through time and/or of an ever changing now. This may be entirely based on our sense of memory, which if time doesn't exist is just one aspect of now, as the appearance of past "nows".

A memory merely makes the movement of the universe apparent. It doesn't create the movement.

If the past and future are equally as real as this "now" the question is; why is consciousness at this now and how does it move along?

...Instead, there is just a continuous succession of beings, each one limited to a point along a continuous curve in space-time. Each being is complete with memories of having been the previous beings along the curve. An illusion but one we cannot shake off. We think we are now, and we are, each other being along the curve also exists in its own time and place and its its own sense of being now. No movement. No passage of time. A sort of still frame with each being along the curve conceiving of itself as moving along the curve, through the passage of time.

Well, at least that's one explanation.
EB

Say there are a succession of beings.

The question remains. Why am I at this particular point in the succession with a memory of being all the prior manifestations and no knowledge of the future successions?

Why is my consciousness at this particular point in the succession if it is possible to be at any or none?

- - - Updated - - -

If there is a fourth dimension, and if that dimension is time, then the past and future are as real as the present in EXACTLY the same way that 'over there' is as real as 'over here'.

You can provide evidence of "over there".

You can provide none of 100 years from now.

Sure I can.

One hundred years ago is well evidenced.

One hundred years from now is the same thing, viewed from the other end.

Are you really going to argue that the year 2115 cannot possibly ever exist? And therefore that the current year couldn't possibly exist if we started from 1915?

Because I am very confident both that the present exists, and that everything that exists in the present was a possible future in 1915.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The same thing that gives you the "illusion" of being wherever you are, and not on the surface of the Moon; or in orbit around Neptune; or at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

Or are you of the impression that only the place you are at is real?

But I am not just where I am. I am here and I am also thousands of miles away. I am at every point I have every been and every point I will ever be.

If the past and future is as real as the present.

If I am at all those places why do I have the illusion I am only in one place?

According to the conventionnal explanation I revisited above, you are not the same at those different places and times. There is a different version of you at each of those places and times, and each one of these versions has the unshakable impression (illusion) of being uniquely you, as is the other versions didn't exist at all. Each version is only locally aware of its space-time bubble but possess something that it takes to be the memory of its own past although it's only a report on the other versions all located in the past.

That's the explanation anyway.

The God who played this trick on us is nothing but a screwed up pervert.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yet we do have this sense of moving through time and/or of an ever changing now. This may be entirely based on our sense of memory, which if time doesn't exist is just one aspect of now, as the appearance of past "nows".

A memory merely makes the movement of the universe apparent. It doesn't create the movement.

If the model of a block space-time is true then there is no movement because there is in fact a different being at each space-time point along your life curve. In this case, your memory is not an actual memory (recording) of the past and motion through time is illusory.

Of course this model may be wrong. For example our intuition may be true, i.e. space is real but only now is real, not the past and not the future. In this case, on top of space, we need change instead of time. If so, our impression that there is a time dimension is an illusion created by change (and by memory, as a recording of changes). Yet, in this case, there is still no motion through time since time would be an illusion. Only change would be real. I guess you view seems to be along those lines. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with it on a logical level.

If the past and future are equally as real as this "now" the question is; why is consciousness at this now and how does it move along?

...Instead, there is just a continuous succession of beings, each one limited to a point along a continuous curve in space-time. Each being is complete with memories of having been the previous beings along the curve. An illusion but one we cannot shake off. We think we are now, and we are, each other being along the curve also exists in its own time and place and its its own sense of being now. No movement. No passage of time. A sort of still frame with each being along the curve conceiving of itself as moving along the curve, through the passage of time.
Well, at least that's one explanation.
EB

Say there are a succession of beings.
The question remains. Why am I at this particular point in the succession with a memory of being all the prior manifestations and no knowledge of the future successions?
Why is my consciousness at this particular point in the succession if it is possible to be at any or none?

If the idea of block space-time is true then there is not one consciousness spread along the space-time curve of your life. Instead, there is a different instance of consciousness for each being along this curve. In this case, the impression of one consciousness is an illusion. Each being is conscious of its local space-time bubble and nothing else.

In this case, the impression of continuity is given by "memory", which is nothing but a subset of each being. Each memory is in continuity with its immediate past and future neighbours but they are still different things and unrelated to each other except through space-time continuity. In this case, our memory is not a record of our past. This is just an illusion of such.

The trick played on us is that this gives us the illusion of being the same person as all the beings stuck in their own local space-time along one space-time curve.

I would agree that this sounds completely implausible but it doesn't seem illogical, which is the point.

In this case the reason for things being this way and no other would be absolutely inaccessible as outside of our space-time block. A trick played on us.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

No. You will be dead in the future and you are alive when you read this.

Time being the fourth dimension doesnt make everything exist on the same time!!!

That is what some have said.

The have said the past and the future are just as real as the present.

So I am never born, alive, and long dead all at once.

Yet all I feel is alive.

Why this illusion?

Because...



Learn to use words properly and the problem disappears!

 

[untermensche]

...Are you really going to argue that the year 2115 cannot possibly ever exist?...

That's not the argument I have to make.

The argument I have to make is that it may not ever exist.

Can you say without doubt it will?

 

[Kharakov]

...Are you really going to argue that the year 2115 cannot possibly ever exist?...

That's not the argument I have to make.

The argument I have to make is that it may not ever exist.

Can you say without doubt it will?

Apples may float tomorrow.

 

[beero1000]

That's not the argument I have to make.

The argument I have to make is that it may not ever exist.

Can you say without doubt it will?

Apples may float tomorrow.

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. Apples float whenever no one is looking. After all, no one can see where they aren't looking, so obviously that means that the universe only exists as a swath of sight and everything else is an illusion...

 

[untermensche]

That's not the argument I have to make.

The argument I have to make is that it may not ever exist.

Can you say without doubt it will?

Apples may float tomorrow.

The extraordinary claim is that the future is out there, already unfolded, and all our choices have already been made.

That is the claim in need of evidence.

Not a claim on top of a claim, but evidence.

 

[bilby]

Apples may float tomorrow.

The extraordinary claim is that the future is out there, already unfolded, and all our choices have already been made.

That is the claim in need of evidence.

Not a claim on top of a claim, but evidence.

If it is a claim, who is claiming it? As far as I am aware, all those here who support this support it as a possibility; there are lots of competing models, and this is one of them.

Ruling out models of time is hard; ruling out models of the future is harder still.

I consider this model possible; and agree with you that if it is correct, then the future is immutable. However it is not supported to declare this impossible simply because it predicts a result you don't like.

If you say that you consider this possible (but unlikely) as a model of reality, then we are in agreement.

If you say it is impossible, then that is a claim you need to support.

I consider it to be possible, and my feeling is that it is as probable as any other possibility.

 

[PyramidHead]

Apples may float tomorrow.

The extraordinary claim is that the future is out there, already unfolded, and all our choices have already been made.

That is the claim in need of evidence.

Not a claim on top of a claim, but evidence.

First you use a spatial term ("out there") to describe a location in time.

Then you use a temporal word that describes the past ("already") to talk about the future.

And you wonder why nobody is taking you seriously. You should have said:

The extraordinary claim is that the future is yet to occur, but it will occur, and our choices will be made when it occurs.

But you won't say it that way, even though it's the accurate way and uses language properly, because it doesn't sound so extraordinary anymore. You NEED to mix up spatial words with temporal words, past with future, otherwise you cannot maintain your position that time must not be anything like space.

 

[untermensche]

The extraordinary claim is that the future is out there, already unfolded, and all our choices have already been made.

That is the claim in need of evidence.

Not a claim on top of a claim, but evidence.

First you use a spatial term ("out there") to describe a location in time.

The future is a future state of all that exists in the universe.

All that exists must exist at some location.

So if the future exists already, then the future state of all that exists must exist somewhere already too.

The extraordinary claim is that the future is yet to occur, but it will occur, and our choices will be made when it occurs.

What's extraordinary about that?

 

[untermensche]

If it is a claim, who is claiming it? As far as I am aware, all those here who support this support it as a possibility; there are lots of competing models, and this is one of them.

That's fine but at least to me there are some implications to the idea that the past and the future are as real as the present.

The present is a present state of the universe. The past and future are different states of the universe.

If the present state of the universe exists and all the different states it had and will have exist as well, that is a lot of universes existing all at once.

Ruling out models of time is hard; ruling out models of the future is harder still.

I don't see how it would be falsifiable to say the future is as real as the present.

How could anyone prove anything about the future?

We can say that in the future things will work as they have worked in the past, but this can't be proven.

I consider this model possible; and agree with you that if it is correct, then the future is immutable. However it is not supported to declare this impossible simply because it predicts a result you don't like.

If you examine the implications of something it is sometimes possible to say things are impossible.

I don't think I have reached anywhere near a point where I can make claims about possible and impossible.

But a past that has real existence has logical problems.

If the past is real then theoretically it is possible for me to visit myself last week.

The problem is the duplication of matter.

Since the matter that makes up me now is almost the same matter that made me up a week ago, to visit myself is to have two copies of the same matter.

 

[PyramidHead]

First you use a spatial term ("out there") to describe a location in time.

The future is a future state of all that exists in the universe.

All that exists must exist at some location.

So if the future exists already, then the future state of all that exists must exist somewhere already too.

"Location" is a spatial term. Like "height" or "width." Saying "the length of that pole is two feet high" is nonsensical, because measurements of height are not measurements of length. Time is a different dimension than height, length, and width. So "where is the future" is not a real question.

The extraordinary claim is that the future is yet to occur, but it will occur, and our choices will be made when it occurs.

What's extraordinary about that?

Nothing, which was my point: if you stop phrasing the claim using the wrong words, your problem becomes a non-problem. Hence, your point can be boiled down to a misuse of language.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's fine but at least to me there are some implications to the idea that the past and the future are as real as the present.

The present is a present state of the universe. The past and future are different states of the universe.

If the present state of the universe exists and all the different states it had and will have exist as well, that is a lot of universes existing all at once.

Ruling out models of time is hard; ruling out models of the future is harder still.

I don't see how it would be falsifiable to say the future is as real as the present.

How could anyone prove anything about the future?

We can say that in the future things will work as they have worked in the past, but this can't be proven.

I consider this model possible; and agree with you that if it is correct, then the future is immutable. However it is not supported to declare this impossible simply because it predicts a result you don't like.

If you examine the implications of something it is sometimes possible to say things are impossible.

I don't think I have reached anywhere near a point where I can make claims about possible and impossible.

But a past that has real existence has logical problems.

If the past is real then theoretically it is possible for me to visit myself last week.

The problem is the duplication of matter.

Since the matter that makes up me now is almost the same matter that made me up a week ago, to visit myself is to have two copies of the same matter.

The idea that the past and the future exist is the idea that time is a dimension similar to a space dimension. I don't see where there is any logical problem with this idea.

There is certainly a terminological problem. According to the idea that time is a dimension similar to a space dimension, if the past and the future exist they of course don't exist at the same time as the present, or as each other. Yet, all times would somehow exist together to make this space-like dimension. We still have to say that the past existed, that the future will exist etc. Yet, past, present and future form just one entity, the time dimension. Then the whole space-time is still. It's not changing at all.
EB

 

[Peez]

PyramidHead:
Hence, your point can be boiled down to a misuse of language.

I brought this up in post #5 of this thread.

I'm just sayin'

Peez

 

[untermensche]

The idea that the past and the future exist is the idea that time is a dimension similar to a space dimension. I don't see where there is any logical problem with this idea.

There is certainly a terminological problem. According to the idea that time is a dimension similar to a space dimension, if the past and the future exist they of course don't exist at the same time as the present, or as each other. Yet, all times would somehow exist together to make this space-like dimension. We still have to say that the past existed, that the future will exist etc. Yet, past, present and future form just one entity, the time dimension. Then the whole space-time is still. It's not changing at all.
EB

According to the video presented in this thread the claim is that the past and future do exist at the same time as the present.

The thought experiment was of some distant alien traveling towards earth at such a speed that it's "slice of now" becomes "tilted" and to that alien the past of earth is as real as the present of the alien.

So the entire past of earth is just sitting somewhere so that a distant alien could include any bit of it in that alien's "slice of now".