Is our perception of time restricting us?

[mushy366]

The more i think about the universie and things like time dilation the more amazed i become. What is time? Why does it pass? Before time what was there? Outside our universe is there another mechanism that takes the place of time? Do things need to have a beginning and and end outside our universe?

If time is a property of the big bang, then maybe thats why we have so much confusion about where all the energy in the universe came from. Take out the aspect of time and it didnt need to come from anywhere!

I find time and how it can pass at different speeds for different people amazing.

 

[29apples]

I would imagine time existed before the big bang. Otherwise how would the big bang know when to start?

 

[mushy366]

I would imagine time existed before the big bang. Otherwise how would the big bang know when to start?

Start implies a time, no time no need for it to start.

 

[Hespera]

Starting time depends on where you are! Starting time on the Indian reservation or in Vietnam is different from starting time in japan!

 

[Nostromo]

Starting time depends on where you are! Starting time on the Indian reservation or in Vietnam is different from starting time in japan!

Ho, ho. Velly funny.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is our perception of time restricting us?

IMO, yes. Of course I have all the answers, but no one seems to have the time to listen.

 

[29apples]

Start implies a time, no time no need for it to start.

Then when does it start?

 

[Hespera]

it doesnt start till everyone gets there.

 

[Resha Caner]

One of the things we struggled with in another thread was - even if our perception of time is wrong, are we capable of comprehending time in a different way?

For me that ties back to the fallen nature of humanity, but secular views of science don't seem to want to admit such possibilities. Or, others don't want to admit metaphysical difficulties to science. It's supposed to be all about the data ... even if we're perceiving that data incorrectly.

 

[mushy366]

Then when does it start?

It starts when time is created. However, the thing that created it might not have been under the influence of time therefore it didnt need to have a beginning.

 

[Hespera]

One of the things we struggled with in another thread was - even if our perception of time is wrong, are we capable of comprehending time in a different way?

For me that ties back to the fallen nature of humanity, but secular views of science don't seem to want to admit such possibilities. Or, others don't want to admit metaphysical difficulties to science. It's supposed to be all about the data ... even if we're perceiving that data incorrectly.

For me, I wonder how people such as yourself go about "knowing" things like what "science" does or doesnt seem to want to admit. how do you know this? What every last individual that makes up the science community thinks?

Maybe the key is the word "seem", as in what seems to you to be, on no basis other than thats what you decided to think.

(we note the use of the word "admit" btw, with is generally used to mean reluctance to accept or state a truth)

What is most noteworthy about a post such as yours tho, is just how upside down and backwards it really is.

In the 'admit' department, we find rare to none, the theists who will accept in any way the possibility that there could be no god. Or even that their particular interpretation of their sect or their religion could possibly be mistaken in any way.

We have posters here who probably would actually rather die than to admit such a thing.

Science, by its deepest nature, is about the understanding that one could always be profoundly mistaken.

Of course its all about the data in science. And often enough it is perceived incorrectly. Any number of quite public examples could be cited.

Any chance you might accept / admit that YOU could be perceiving your "data" (bible?) incorrectly? Profoundly incorrectly?

Or is just the other guys who are susceptible to this error?

 

[Greg1234]

Start implies a time, no time no need for it to start.

Past present and future imply time

 

[Greg1234]

For me, I wonder how people such as yourself go about "knowing" things like what "science" does or doesnt seem to want to admit. how do you know this? What every last individual that makes up the science community thinks?

Maybe the key is the word "seem", as in what seems to you to be, on no basis other than thats what you decided to think.

(we note the use of the word "admit" btw, with is generally used to mean reluctance to accept or state a truth)

What is most noteworthy about a post such as yours tho, is just how upside down and backwards it really is.

In the 'admit' department, we find rare to none, the theists who will accept in any way the possibility that there could be no god. Or even that their particular interpretation of their sect or their religion could possibly be mistaken in any way.

We have posters here who probably would actually rather die than to admit such a thing.

Science, by its deepest nature, is about the understanding that one could always be profoundly mistaken.

Of course its all about the data in science. And often enough it is perceived incorrectly. Any number of quite public examples could be cited.

Any chance you might accept / admit that YOU could be perceiving your "data" (bible?) incorrectly? Profoundly incorrectly?

Or is just the other guys who are susceptible to this error?

You don't get people to "admit" that human can arise by chance. Provided that enough fear has not been induced.

 

[Hespera]

You don't get people to "admit" that human can arise by chance. Provided that enough fear has not been induced.

I will "admit" that that is ungrammatical and makes no sense.

If you mean that evolution is just about "chance", nobody will "admit" that which is not true.

I thought that fear was for you guys, you know, the ones who think they will be tortured forever if they dont toe the line to the most precise detail.

When did that fear get induced in you? It certainly did not come about by "chance". Someone did it to you. You should seek them out and subject them to criticism and re-education for this crime.

 

[Resha Caner]

For me, I wonder how people such as yourself go about "knowing" things like what "science" does or doesnt seem to want to admit. how do you know this? What every last individual that makes up the science community thinks?

You sound a bit prickly there. No need. Let's keep this friendly.

Maybe the key is the word "seem", as in what seems to you to be, on no basis other than thats what you decided to think.

Yes, exactly. Fully admitted. That is exactly the reason I put the word "seems" in there. There is a wide spectrum of scientific opinion, and I know I was generalizing. All I really meant to convey is that within that spectrum I have encountered the opinions I mentioned. It may not be your opinion, but it is an opinion that some hold (the objection to metaphysics is actually pretty common among empiricists), and that was the basis for my comment.

What is most noteworthy about a post such as yours tho, is just how upside down and backwards it really is.

Well, give me a chance. Maybe I'll say something you'll find interesting.

Science, by its deepest nature, is about the understanding that one could always be profoundly mistaken.

That's a nice platitude. In my experience as an engineer it's rarely held to. The literature on the philosophy of science is riddled with examples of where that is not the case. It's the whole point behind Kuhn's "paradigms" that people don't face up to incomplete theories in that idealistic way - not because they're dishonest but because of "incommensurability" issues.

Any chance you might accept / admit that YOU could be perceiving your "data" (bible?) incorrectly?

Sure. In fact, I could give you examples. But the topic here is varying perceptions of time, not mistakes I've made ... although I suppose the "Biblical" view of time might be an interesting part of the discussion, seeing as it is not the same as the Western view of time.

 

[Greg1234]

I will "admit" that that is ungrammatical and makes no sense.

If you mean that evolution is just about "chance", nobody will "admit" that which is not true.

Call it whatever you like.

I thought that fear was for you guys, you know, the ones who think they will be tortured forever if they dont toe the line to the most precise detail.

When did that fear get induced in you? It certainly did not come about by "chance". Someone did it to you. You should seek them out and subject them to criticism and re-education for this crime.

No fear is needed to see that a man is intelligently designed as he clearly is. To get people to think that one day physical science will find an unintelligent purely naturalistic cause for life is accomplished through inducing fear of physical science.

 

[Resha Caner]

Start implies a time, no time no need for it to start.

OK. I've tried this "Flatland" analogy for time before. Even though it never seems to go anywhere, I'll try again. It all relates back to what I think is a flawed perception of "time" and "dimension." What I'm trying to convey is my elementary understanding of a paper by Mars, Senovilla, and Vera (I asked a physicist to explain it to me once, but be brushed me off, telling me it was above my head and I should go take some physics classes). It's based on an idea from Hawking that "time" is a conversion of physical 4-space into physical 3-space + time.

So, look at the picture:

http://www.christianforums.com/users/269139-albums3648-32012/

There is an infinite "X" space and "Y" space (shown in the picture as axes of a plane). Space does not need time to exist. However, we need "time" (the line) to travel between these 2 spaces. If we are at X = 1 on the line, "time" appears to be quite linear to us even though it's not. So, as we attempt to extrapolate back in "time" (along the line) our assumption leads us to conclude time is infinite and had no beginning. In "reality", however, the distance where "time originated" (since it originated in Space Y and not as we are thinking of it) is finite.

So how was that? Simple? Mind-bending? Idiotic?

 

[Hespera]

You sound a bit prickly there. No need. Let's keep this friendly.



Yes, exactly. Fully admitted. That is exactly the reason I put the word "seems" in there. There is a wide spectrum of scientific opinion, and I know I was generalizing. All I really meant to convey is that within that spectrum I have encountered the opinions I mentioned. It may not be your opinion, but it is an opinion that some hold (the objection to metaphysics is actually pretty common among empiricists), and that was the basis for my comment.



Well, give me a chance. Maybe I'll say something you'll find interesting.



That's a nice platitude. In my experience as an engineer it's rarely held to. The literature on the philosophy of science is riddled with examples of where that is not the case. It's the whole point behind Kuhn's "paradigms" that people don't face up to incomplete theories in that idealistic way - not because they're dishonest but because of "incommensurability" issues.



Sure. In fact, I could give you examples. But the topic here is varying perceptions of time, not mistakes I've made ... although I suppose the "Biblical" view of time might be an interesting part of the discussion, seeing as it is not the same as the Western view of time.

You sound a bit prickly there. No need. Let's keep this friendly.

Get back in bed, get out the other side. Check the calendar. Ok. sorry, dont mean to be prickly.

I was generalizing

yep. I think i did it myself once, in i think it was 2003 November.

That's a nice platitude. In my experience as an engineer it's rarely held to

Not a platitude as i read the ditionary, just a statement of the contrast between the core values of science and religion; in science, we at least try.

I wonder why so many engineers are fundamentalists and so few scientists are. Any idea?

that people don't face up to incomplete theories

awfully generalized again, what btw is an incomplete theory? I thought they are all incomplete / unproven.

and really one cant be constantly worrying about whether the earth will move under your theory,treat it as valid, work with it, watch for anything that might falsify it.

But the topic here is varying perceptions of time, not mistakes I've made

.

that is fair.

but do you know of people who are inclined to keep it as a wide open possibility that their religious views are totally mistaken down to the core?

 

[Hespera]

Call it whatever you like.


No fear is needed to see that a man is intelligently designed as he clearly is. To get people to think that one day physical science will find an unintelligent purely naturalistic cause for life is accomplished through inducing fear of physical science.

So nobody induced in you the terror of going to hell if you dont think what you are supposed to think?

 

[Greg1234]

So nobody induced in you the terror of going to hell if you dont think what you are supposed to think?

No terror is needed. I can see that man is intelligently designed to realize that man is intelligently designed.