What is "now"

[ugly]

now is all that there is, and all that'll ever be

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6531720/Ram-Dassbe-Here-Now

Bless you!! I was going to post at the end of this thread, and I see that my like minded kin in forum was a step ahead of me.

It's great to have you here, Junk!

 

[Lost Ego]

^ wow thanks ugly for bringing attention to that link, i didnt even notice it - just the pic. i'm 20 pages into the book and i it. omg

just to prove a point, there is no time or space, there is only now, right here. the rest is all a product of thought.

 

[Delighted]

we understand what now means when we do things that give us pleasure...

 

[Lost Ego]

^ why pleasure? why not pain?

 

[DeathDomokun]

I'd argue pain brings you into the moment more than pleasure.

 

[L2R]

^both works just the same imo

 

[Lost Ego]

No, that is wrong. That is as invalid as saying the only real spatial position is "here". For one thing, just as "here" is relative to the observer, is the concept of simultaneity. Observers at different inertial frames of reference will always disagree about when "now" is.

I almost want to add to the above posters that pleasure speeds up time and pain slows down time .

Rangrz: Since you cannot experience someone else's pain/pleasure, nor can you experience their "now" (sober atleast), and you cannot even verify that they even have a "now" so your arguement is invalid sir . I believe simultaneity only exists in computers lol. I understand that you're coming from the angle that the laws of quantum physics aren't psuedo-science and should be accounted for... But do u even have a degree in physics? If you say my p.o.v. is skewed i'll argue that im stoned.

 

[rangrz]

^

Degree in Physics, not yet... am doing my M.Sc atm [but its not quite pure physics, is med physics/biophysics, never the less it still requires me to be well versed in relativistic mechanics and quantum theory]


Okay, so a handwavey explanation.
I am not trying to define someone's cognition or emotional experience. That is separate from time, and is the concern of psychology and neurophysiology, not physics per se. When I say simultaneity , I mean if two observers [could be a person, a computer or anything what so ever...a clock a video camera for this thought experiment is perfect] are at the same inertial frame, and they are both recording and putting a time stamp on the image, and the clocks are synced and super accurate, now a car crash happens. The cameras are bad ass high speed cameras too, and they both see it, [and are the same distance from the crash so the time it takes for light to get to them is the same] then the moment when car 1 one touches car 2 will have the exact same timestamp on it.

Now, if they where in different frames, [even accounting for the fact that light will take different time to reach them now] they will show different timestamps. The one which is at a higher rate of speed is going to show it happening earlier, due to time dilation...which is a key concept of general relativity. At velocity C, time appears to stop for that observer. Hence, simultaneity is relative. Again it does need to be stated that As no frame is privileged , a co-moving observer is admitted to the same world line...so, in my first example, the cameras are in the same proper frame, in the second, they are not.

Where T is time and X is distance, we see that the very fast object "moves" in time less then the very slow object. They will obviously disagree on the simultaneity of event [in this case, at what point in TIME did each object reach some arbitrary point in space] The Very Fast Object as you see, is lower on the time axis, but will still "see" the very low object in the same point in space, except one will think it is 1982 and the other will think it is 1992 when it arrived at that point, as they [and hence their clocks] are not in the same proper frame. The point here that is relevent to the thread; people are also "objects" or "observers" and not immune to this effect, if you where in a significantly different frame then someone else, you two would have very REAL [not psychogenic] disagreements over "what time it is" If you guys agreed to a co-ordinate time, you would find that you two aged at different rates.

 

[Delighted]

I think that when we are in pain we hurry the moment to pass quicker, so we can not feel this moment, we can not feel now as we precipitate then...something like this))))))

 

[Lost Ego]

^

Degree in Physics, not yet... am doing my M.Sc atm [but its not quite pure physics, is med physics/biophysics, never the less it still requires me to be well versed in relativistic mechanics and quantum theory]


Okay, so a handwavey explanation.
I am not trying to define someone's cognition or emotional experience. That is separate from time, and is the concern of psychology and neurophysiology, not physics per se. When I say simultaneity , I mean if two observers [could be a person, a computer or anything what so ever...a clock a video camera for this thought experiment is perfect] are at the same inertial frame, and they are both recording and putting a time stamp on the image, and the clocks are synced and super accurate, now a car crash happens. The cameras are bad ass high speed cameras too, and they both see it, [and are the same distance from the crash so the time it takes for light to get to them is the same] then the moment when car 1 one touches car 2 will have the exact same timestamp on it.

Now, if they where in different frames, [even accounting for the fact that light will take different time to reach them now] they will show different timestamps. The one which is at a higher rate of speed is going to show it happening earlier, due to time dilation...which is a key concept of general relativity. At velocity C, time appears to stop for that observer. Hence, simultaneity is relative. Again it does need to be stated that As no frame is privileged , a co-moving observer is admitted to the same world line...so, in my first example, the cameras are in the same proper frame, in the second, they are not.

Where T is time and X is distance, we see that the very fast object "moves" in time less then the very slow object. They will obviously disagree on the simultaneity of event [in this case, at what point in TIME did each object reach some arbitrary point in space] The Very Fast Object as you see, is lower on the time axis, but will still "see" the very low object in the same point in space, except one will think it is 1982 and the other will think it is 1992 when it arrived at that point, as they [and hence their clocks] are not in the same proper frame. The point here that is relevent to the thread; people are also "objects" or "observers" and not immune to this effect, if you where in a significantly different frame then someone else, you two would have very REAL [not psychogenic] disagreements over "what time it is" If you guys agreed to a co-ordinate time, you would find that you two aged at different rates.

I've heard of this phenomena - particles aging significantly slower when traveling at the speed of light. Off topic but if our planet were traveling 3x faster would we be living longer? Would the object moving faster experience more/less 'nows' in an objective 1 hour period(would it actually feel like a longer period of time) or would clocks just run slower?? I believe my argument is still valid - there is nothing but now and time is an illusion. Just because physics accounts for time just means that it's actually accounting for the progression of now or a series of nows. I suppose if it's the latter then time does exist... Is now an infinite continuum of consciousness or is it a finite series of conscious moments that stack upon one another? Perhaps the former only applys to inanimate objects

Either way this argument is irrelevant. I mainly created this thread to hopefully indirectly figure out 1 aspect of consciousness.

 

[rangrz]

Clocks tick slower. Your subjective experience of time would be the same, but if we used another clock in a different, it would tick fast and you would have aged slower. There was an example that was like "A guy has a brother, and the guy goes on a super duper fast rocket ship around the galaxy for a year and some very high relativistic velocity. He returns to earth and finds his brother has married, has two kids and has aged 20 years and experienced lived 20 years, while the guy has aged one year and only has the experienced living one year."

Consciousness would be finite stack of now I think, because a time frame shorter then one Planck time is meaningless and thus your consciousness must be discreetly packaged into "bits" of some minimum period of time.

And time is not illusion any more then space is! It's another axis, but is not less real then space.

 

[derekseyes]

And time is not illusion any more then space is!

Can you define time? The concept of time, not what a second is by the atomic clock. I'm not sure that it's possible, myself.

 

[rangrz]

Can you define time? The concept of time, not what a second is by the atomic clock. I'm not sure that it's possible, myself.

Not any more then I can define distance or space is. Define for me the concept of distance or space, not by a meter stick [or ergo, other apparatus, which includes basically anything, any object you use becomes a different type of meter stick] Objects fit into and move in time just as they do in space. Again, just I said you have to be at the same spatial co-ordinates to meet you friend at a coffee shop at 3pm [So be at the same coffee shop] you have to have the same time co-ordinate [be there at 3pm] The concept is essentially the same, time is a "place" a "location" where events happen.

It behaves in a similar way.



Different events can happen at the same location at different times, yes? But also, different events can happen at the same time in different location. It is equivalent to say "I was not at the coffee shop" as it is to say "I was not there at 3pm" To conclude "I did not meet my friend"

You can not be in two different places at the same time, correct? You can also not be in the same time at two different locations. Just as you are not at the coffee shop if you are stuck in traffic at 3PM, it is equivalent that if you where stuck in traffic at 3PM, you where not in the coffee shop" They behave the same and it not apt to draw a distinction as in commonly done.

 

[panic in paradise]

I purpose now is the momentary reality of personal perspective that is allowed to continue uninterrupted.

life is the active change amongst that.

 

[Lost Ego]

Clocks tick slower. Your subjective experience of time would be the same, but if we used another clock in a different, it would tick fast and you would have aged slower. There was an example that was like "A guy has a brother, and the guy goes on a super duper fast rocket ship around the galaxy for a year and some very high relativistic velocity. He returns to earth and finds his brother has married, has two kids and has aged 20 years and experienced lived 20 years, while the guy has aged one year and only has the experienced living one year."

Consciousness would be finite stack of now I think, because a time frame shorter then one Planck Length is meaningless and thus your consciousness must be discreetly packaged into "bits" of some minimum period of time.

And time is not illusion any more then space is! It's another axis, but is not less real then space.

Wait now we're getting down to something. A Planck length is distance not time, are you implying the 2 are one in the same? Perhaps the rate at which the now progresses or our bodys decay is just 1/V = T where V is velocity and T is the rate at which we age or experience the now. My theory sort of makes sense, no? Also if you think about it, the faster you move the less room there is for vibration and the slower everything vibrates the slower we can percieve the now. Perhaps the now is pivotal on perception, perhaps because perception is also in turn what creates the now.

And no i can't help but believe that consciousness can't be divided by any frame of time except for one entire lifetime. Ugh this conversation is so frustrating. Trying to fathom how sentience works is like being locked in a metal room(since birth) with no windows and trying to see what this prison looks like from the outside.

 

[Topmid]

now is when time does not exist to you. people say it's dumb to live in the now, but what you are doing now determines your future. what you are doing now was determined by your past. it's all a mind game. it's ok to set goals for yourself but don't worry about the end result. only worry about each step. if you want the light to turn green because you're in such a hurry, it will play with you and make you anxious. sit at the light and listen to your music. you'll eventually notice that every light will be green for you.

 

[Lost Ego]

^ word to that my brother.

i think i just stumbled upon the answer of consciousness and the now, i can't determine anything to do with a higher power/afterlife yet but im getting there. anyways... your ego, what you think with, is the presence of a brain. consciousness is that energy we feel within us, and we experience it as a "soul", in all reality all you are experiencing is the vibrations of energy your whole body is emitting/producing. as you experience your body's energy being produced bit by by, that's now. what we experience as god imo is just you experiencing the sensation of vibrations from mother earth and the sun and possibly all stars and other matter as well. i know this question is unrelated but it's my thread so: how would you label this view in philosophical terms? (empiricism? skepticism? rationalism? etc...) i find it hard to label myself or my views but i do love labels so please do judge me.

 

[yagecero]

Now is where you are when you are dancing, surfing, playing music, making love, riding a roller coaster, anything that keeps you fully here and present and not thinking about the past or the future.

+1

But, these moments are not the "regular" state that we experience in our day-to-day lives, constantly. It's when we can fit as many moments like these into our day(s) that we feel content. My favourite Latin American author of the Boom, Julio Cortázar likes to play with these states of being in his fiction. Often, he depicts moments where his characters experience a connection to the totality of now, but more frequently, he moves within the more mundane world, where our psychology often slips into memory (or bastardised versions of) or wild speculation about the future.

In one of my favourite stories of his Las babas del diablo, or Blow-up (translated by Paul Blackburn [unfortunately, not so well]) the narrator muses: "Now, what a word, what a stupid lie."

It's one of my favourite quotes.

 

[rangrz]

A Planck length is distance not time,

I was trying to say a "a length of time equal to one planck time" and it came out confusing cause of that, I fix'd it.

I don't where you are going with vibrations.. what vibrations? What is vibrating? at which scale of resolution? Why would it vibrate slower at small scales of resolution? If anything, it would vibrate with a shorter wave length because its smaller and hotter, and thus vibrate faster?

 

[Lost Ego]

Ohh, ok. Was my theory on how relativity works practical?

To be honest I had a bad acid trip last year and I'm just trying to find solidity in the world around me. I now see my vibration theory isn't feasible... I was just thinking about how matter vibrates, our brain waves "vibrate" or oscillate, how our sight and hearing is based upon vibrations and the frequency at which they vibrate determines how we percieve the world... but i suppose none of that was at all relevant lol. Oh wait were you still referring to the relativity thing? I'm not exactly sure what i meant with that, the whole "room for vibrations" thing was the first thing to pop into my head at the time. How exactly does it work? Why do particles moving faster decay slower? Do we even know that answer?