What is "now"

[Lost Ego]

now is all you have. are you making the most of it?

alasdair

i'm trying. i'm looking to the future to change my situation in this "now" for the better. i suppose i define the future as part of this now and so i suppose i'm not actually living outside of the now when planning for the future since it'll be part of the now soon enough.

i had a stoned theory the other day about the universe. i was thinking about time and space and how they are connected and figured out that the space that exists behind us (where our planet has traveled) contains the past because the space behind us was connected to the time that existed behind us. If we could travel in the opposite direction faster than the universe is moving/expanding, then we could time travel backwards. Has anyone ever thought of the idea that the universe is traveling through something larger and this "ether", that einstein spoke of, is just an environment that is outside of our universe? As if we're in an air conditioned car and outside of the universe is the summer day. And our car is leaving a tracer behind it and that's the past. and the possible number of places it can go is determined by quantum physics. Also was thinking about the perimeters of the universe, and how it's so mind boggling that there simply isnt a perimeter. Can anyone explain this to me?

What if there is a perimeter which what seperates a large being from the other beings seperate from it. Shouldn't there be a point where time and space just stop? As far as we know time could have been stopped before the big bang. Maybe at some point the universe will keep expanding and eventually reach the end of the universe and it will be sucked into one tiny point, probably one at the end of a theoretical cone shaped perimeter, a wall of anti-space. The only thing in the universe that i know of that could fit the description would be a black hole . Just a fun theory. And if a black hole went over it's carrying capacity, what would happen? Would it implode/explode and cause a new big bang?

Idk where i was going with that lol so i'll just stop now.

 

[panic in paradise]

Also was thinking about the perimeters of the universe, and how it's so mind boggling that there simply isnt a perimeter. Can anyone explain this to me? Shouldn't there be a point where time and space just stop?

you are imagining space as empty when there can be no such thing as empty space. the universe is a sphere where if you traveled long enough in one direction would circumnavigate you back to your starting point. the spaces between neighboring universes are an area of exchange where spent elements are recycled and used to create new elements as they are needed, as long as they are available.

 

[Lost Ego]

you are imagining space as empty when there can be no such thing as empty space. the universe is a sphere where if you traveled long enough in one direction would circumnavigate you back to your starting point. the spaces between neighboring universes are an area of exchange where spent elements are recycled and used to create new elements as they are needed, as long as they are available.

that makes no sense. i'll get back to you when one of us is a little soberer

 

[panic in paradise]

that makes no sense. i'll get back to you when one of us is a little soberer

its something ive posted more on before in the in the Sci-Tech forum, and still have the same opinion. it is something i can only explain as simple as possible in a way you can relate to, i have drawings of my sober visions, but those are put away.

along with the pictures the best i can try and interpret it as, is that there are blades, per say, made up of cosmic-energy. 8 figure 8 shapes that disassemble further what has entered a black-hole. a naked-singularity reassembles/dispenses what was gathered to be used again by us, or, as different elements that only exist in neighboring galaxies to used by them when they are needed. where that "comsic stuff" is kept, is the empty space between the circular or odd shaped neighboring galaxies. a ball inside a box.

 

[P A]

the universe is a sphere where if you traveled long enough in one direction would circumnavigate you back to your starting point...

Does not understand basic high-school geometry.

...the spaces between neighboring universes are an area of exchange where spent elements are recycled and used to create new elements as they are needed, as long as they are available.

Does not understand the principle of conservation (of energy/mass).

 

[panic in paradise]

Does not understand basic high-school geometry.



Does not understand the principle of conservation (of energy/mass).

lolol

cool

+ Tom Cruz Picture

 

[alasdairm]

i had a stoned theory the other day about the universe. i was thinking about time and space and how they are connected and figured out that the space that exists behind us (where our planet has traveled) contains the past because the space behind us was connected to the time that existed behind us. If we could travel in the opposite direction faster than the universe is moving/expanding, then we could time travel backwards.

we've all had these kinds of ideas, especially when high and it's certainly fun to explore and discuss them.

how about this? think of a moment in time as nothing more than a specific arrangement of all the atoms in the universe. if you could control the shape of matter (big if) you could effective travel in time. time and space are basically the same thing...



alasdair

 

[panic in paradise]

how about this? think of a moment in time as nothing more than a specific arrangement of all the atoms in the universe. if you could control the shape of matter (big if) you could effective travel in time. time and space are basically the same thing...



alasdair

like the Nero-Galaxy

NSFW:

Now is a universal state of mind in which our personal world is usually the only one acknowledged.

 

[rangrz]

No PiP, now is an objective, independent physical phenomena, it exists regardless of if anyone agrees on it.

 

[panic in paradise]

yes now is objective, but is almost always subjective to an individual. once that personal view begins to break down, a sense of oneness and singularity with all else begins to build up.

 

[Mu-ham-mad]

I find the exact opposite: once I break down concepts and associations of language -- including the concept of one-ness with anything else except my own one person -- I find that my personal awareness of myself as a single human being increases (obviously, given the way I have worded it!). All other concepts of time and space are learned concepts that have no existence outside of the realm of language - once language is broken down (by whatever means - I prefer psychedelic drugs), then one is oneself and at one with one's own person, if you wish to put it in those terms. All ideas about being one with the universe etc. seem to me to be simple abstractions of language, rather than any tangible reality. Of course, I may have misconstrued the language that you have used -- assuming-you to be speaking literally rather than metaphorically.

 

[HeWhoHowls]

I would consider "now" to be a state of being. The only state we experience technically, for we never experience the future or past. The now is what we experience. And what else is life other than an incredibly large series of experiences, ya know.

 

[ebola?]

you are imagining space as empty when there can be no such thing as empty space. the universe is a sphere where if you traveled long enough in one direction would circumnavigate you back to your starting point.

Maybe, but now the scientific consensus is "probably not". This would be true if the cosmological constant were relatively small, correlating with the geometry of space curving back on itself. However, current measurements suggest that this is unlikely the case.

No PiP, now is an objective, independent physical phenomena, it exists regardless of if anyone agrees on it.

How so? Doesn't relativistic mechanics abandon the preservation of simultaneity of events to preserve order of causation when light-speed is constant? Doesn't this itself suggest that we reconstruct our concept of "now" in light of the inadequacy of common sense? And just common-sensically, how should we interpret our personal experience of now when our experience thereof derives of neural integration of various sense data and a cognitive attempt to place constructed cognitive objects in mutual relations? How do these neural operations stand in relation to an 'objective' 'now'?

ebola

 

[DeathDomokun]

Man the first 4 or 5 pages of this thread is one of my favourites..
As for your question on the relativity of an 'objective now', please read this thread from the beginning.

 

[rangrz]

Maybe, but now the scientific consensus is "probably not". This would be true if the cosmological constant were relatively small, correlating with the geometry of space curving back on itself. However, current measurements suggest that this is unlikely the case.




How so? Doesn't relativistic mechanics abandon the preservation of simultaneity of events to preserve order of causation when light-speed is constant? Doesn't this itself suggest that we reconstruct our concept of "now" in light of the inadequacy of common sense? And just common-sensically, how should we interpret our personal experience of now when our experience thereof derives of neural integration of various sense data and a cognitive attempt to place constructed cognitive objects in mutual relations? How do these neural operations stand in relation to an 'objective' 'now'?

ebola

I did not feel this necessary given my discussion of the implications of relativity earlier in this thread, but I suppose then, "now" is objective to the observer in a given frame of reference, I.e the point where past and present light cones meet is objective, and in no case can the observer violate causality or engage in "time travel" this is what I mean by objective. Further, "now" can calculated mathematically for any given frame by an observer in any other frame, I.e. it's not subjective or 'internal' it's a basic, physical reality.

I dunno about how we 'should' interpret them, nor exactly how the brain processes sensory info. I was only dealing with now in physical terms. (to me, discussionof time is a physics discussion, not neurobiology or cognitive science)

 

[DeathDomokun]

That's because it's not necessary rangrz..

^
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.

The next 2 pages have more posts trying to explain maths/physics in English, which is a massive leap in medium and lacks the foundation that makes conveying this simple? understandable? idk what word.
Anyway, all you have to do is read 3 pages of text. You can even skip all other posters if you're so inclined. 2-4.
That is the prerequisite for making another post in this thread.

 

[ebola?]

I did not feel this necessary given my discussion of the implications of relativity earlier in this thread, but I suppose then, "now" is objective to the observer in a given frame of reference, I.e the point where past and present light cones meet is objective, and in no case can the observer violate causality or engage in "time travel" this is what I mean by objective. Further, "now" can calculated mathematically for any given frame by an observer in any other frame, I.e. it's not subjective or 'internal' it's a basic, physical reality.

Ah. The problem for me is that use of "objectivity" can vary a great deal contextually. For many, "objective", in general use means "irrespective of context". In this sense, the 'objective' now posited by relativistic mechanics is not 'objective' per se, as it varies by frame of reference. I find straightforward identification of "subjective" with internal, perceptive characteristics and "objective" with external, calculable characteristics problematic, as they take as given the processes which produce internality and externality, ignoring how the two processes lead to their codevelopment dialectically. I find it more useful to look at how unified processes produce subject and object standing in mutual relation to one another, as a subject takes an object, and as an object acts upon a subject.

ebola

 

[DOB]

for me,now is about 2 to 3 milisecond long polygons of time/conciousness.....

 

[mazing]

Well, if i say NOW, then the present or NOW i was perceiving happened 5 seconds ago which belong to the past so i dont see a flaw with NOW being in the past.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

now is gone

bye-bye

"now" is not past but now "now" is