It seems as though the sequencing aspect is the part of reality that we experience as the passage of time, particularly as we become capable of predicting the future based on the past, like when and where to throw the spear.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If there is no time, then how is there a sequence?
Everything would be happening "at the same time".
Certainly.I don't think an untested prediction is part of objective reality in science. Until its tested, its still just hypothetical.
Yes. But it seems that what appears to us to be the 'real' world we navigate through is itself a predictive model, and although we try to make sense of sensory perceptions, they are used to update and correct our predictive model of the world. Our senses don't have the resolution and bandwidth nor our brains the real-time processing capacity to continually construct a high-resolution world from sensory information; so we live in a virtual perceptual world.The future only seems real to us (ie: it 'exists') because we can recall past predictions which then happen (or test out) in the present. Without the capacity of memory, we wouldn't be capable of recollecting such predictions, so predictions are a function of the past (or our memory capability).
Time is an intrinsic essential for our mind to do what it does .. ie: to make sense of what it perceives. Without it (or memory) nothing would make sense.
PS: In other words, (and in short), memory and making sense of perceptions are all of what we 'really are'!
Hmm .. ah dunno .. my 'world' seems pretty well 'resolved' to me ..... But it seems that what appears to us to be the 'real' world we navigate through is itself a predictive model, and although we try to make sense of sensory perceptions, they are used to update and correct our predictive model of the world. Our senses don't have the resolution and bandwidth nor our brains the real-time processing capacity to continually construct a high-resolution world from sensory information; so we live in a virtual perceptual world.
Hmm .. ah dunno .. my 'world' seems pretty well 'resolved' to me ..
Welcome back ...It may "seem" that way to you, but since you and I and dad all hold radically different beliefs about the universe that we live in, it's just a subjective concept of reality at best case.
That seems to be a perfectly valid way of looking at it. We experience a flow of time because we accumulate memories of the past but we can only attempt to predict the future.
The difficulty in prediction reflects the increase in entropy towards the future - there are increasingly many ways the future can be different from now. If we assume low entropy in the past (the Past Hypothesis), we can explain our singular record (e.g. memories) of it. Without the Past Hypothesis, statistical mechanics (which is time-reversible) would lead us to expect entropy to increase towards the past as well as the future.
Whether that means time's an 'illusion' seems moot, even if we assume the universe is a 4D eternalist block of spacetime where past, present, and future are equally real. It's real enough from where we sit.
It may be an illusion in that we experience it from a very limited, even misleading, perspective, but that's true of almost everything else in our experience too...
If there is no time, then how is there a sequence?
Everything would be happening "at the same time".
Welcome back ...
My notions of what I hold as being real in the context of 'universe', I allow to be informed by the scientific process.
Any beliefs I may hold about it, are also distinguished by that process, which then treats them with neutrality.
Dad holds untestable beliefs about the universe.
I have found from past extensive conversations between you and I, that many of your beliefs about the universe usually turn out to be misconceptions of science's various narrations on it.
Good grief! ... Straight back into the tired old 'rut' again ... (as expected).
True, the reason it interests me is, I worry that if time doesn't exist, is there a fundemental missunderstanding that we have that gives us a lack of ability to understand something. If we come fromt he pressumtion that time exists outside of a abstract concept, we may be missing what relativity and other things that appear to effect time are.
I know ... as I said .. you hold many misconceptions ...As I said, I just don't see how your beliefs about the universe are any more or less "testable" than dad's beliefs.
I know ... as I said .. you hold many misconceptions ...
Nope .. Its objective fact .. you cannot make that claim because of your misconceptions.And that too is just a subjective perception.
Your beliefs are still beliefs .. regardless of labs .. because of your misconceptions.Michael said:Like I said, my beliefs about photons and time work in the lab.
Nope ...and that's because of your misconceived 'controls'.Michael said:The same isn't true of dad's beliefs or yours. A different state past is just as untestable in a controlled experiment as "space expansion" as a presumed cause of redshift. It's literally six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Nope .. Its objective fact .. you cannot make that claim because of your misconceptions.
Your beliefs are still beliefs .. regardless of labs .. because of your misconceptions.
Nope ...and that's because of your misconceived 'controls'.
I think the point is that we don't take it as hypothetical, we take it as real - and when it's tested against our senses, it (our perceptual reality) can change. That's when we notice the discrepancy - and sometimes have to apologise, "Sorry, I thought you were someone else".Where a 'predictive (worldview) model' is viewed as being hypothetical (until its tested), there doesn't seem to be much room left for reality there(?)
Seems to me that a predictive model of reality that we experience as real is a virtual world experience.I'm not sure there's much value in imagining it as being 'virtual' also .. especially when one can't really test for a specifically 'virtual' world(?)
I think it's worth remembering that these are all models, and they're useful in different scenarios. We don't know the true nature of the universe, and although our models of it work extremely well, they're not congruent with each other, and they have their limits. General Relativity treats time as a fundamental part of a malleable spacetime manifold; in quantum mechanics, it appears not to be fundamental but emergent from entanglement; and in statistical mechanics, the flow of time is a result of the Past Hypothesis, a very low entropy big bang. We know that GR is not correct, it fails in some situations, and it seems likely that it's a geometric interpretation of a limit of some more extensive quantum theory.True, the reason it interests me is, I worry that if time doesn't exist, is there a fundemental missunderstanding that we have that gives us a lack of ability to understand something. If we come fromt he pressumtion that time exists outside of a abstract concept, we may be missing what relativity and other things that appear to effect time are.
I think it's worth remembering that these are all models, and they're useful in different scenarios. We don't know the true nature of the universe, and although our models of it work extremely well, they're not congruent with each other, and they have their limits. General Relativity treats time as a fundamental part of a malleable spacetime manifold; in quantum mechanics, it appears not to be fundamental but emergent from entanglement; and in statistical mechanics, the flow of time is a result of the Past Hypothesis, a very low entropy big bang. We know that GR is not correct, it fails in some situations, and it seems likely that it's a geometric interpretation of a limit of some more extensive quantum theory.
So it seems sensible not to commit to any one model or interpretation, but to use whichever model is most appropriate to the context, being aware that there may be other ways of interpreting it.
"the previous state of the ever present now...".....because you remember the previous state of the ever prsent now as having been there.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?