Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 68
view profile
History
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as deathPage 5 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Albert Einstein was one of the great minds of our time. Eventually he ran out of time and died. Too bad we can't ask him if his theory has panned out as he thought.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 12/9/2013 11:53:37 AM
^ Yes. That's a good topic indeed.
 Flurr
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 70
view profile
History
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/13/2014 5:28:22 PM
Very true, if you have once existed in this universe then you will always exist in this universe, at least somewhere.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/17/2014 4:12:22 AM

the universe will expand to a point where the light from distant galaxies no longer reach us, the night sky will turn black. The fuel in the stars will slowly run out, one by one they will extinguish from the universe. Black holes will suck up all remaining matter until eventually, it is all gone and even they will evaporate leaving, nothing


I know that the following has been done to death, and that it will stick like a thorn in the arse of the hard-core adherents to current formal science, but it still needs to be considered and just hasn’t been considered the right way without negative reactions or approaches from either side of the idea.

I always felt this to be too simple or straightforward, concerning how and why we extrapolate that...that there might be more to it. I know how this is extrapolated, but it seems like squeezing too much out of too little, concerning data and observations. And again this may just be from me not knowing all that "they" know.

- We see the universe expanding, and even accelerating in that expansion, but we are seeing what's happening during a snippet of time that is so absolutely, ridiculously, outrageously, small, and short, compared to the whole of time implied. For all we know, the universe could be doing a shape-shifting dance like Flubber. How much more is there, really, that isn't this extreme squeezing of data, to say that it all was just at one point before expanding...and to say that it'll simply continute expanding out into immeasurable vastness?

- Concerning the earlier stages before the age of stars, and what's going on with black holes, we've theorized, and confirmed to an extent, pretty good about these things...but we're still not that sure and don't really know that much about all that (?).

- Being a closed or isolated universe, and matter and energy not being able to be created or destroyed...might it not be that this is a natural property of things such that we'd inevitably observe it this way, but that there is more to that story as well? In principle, it isn't intrinsically nonsensical (?) to think it’s possible that matter and energy does get destroyed or created, that there might be more to the “life cycle” of matter and energy, the quanta building blocks, but we just don’t observe that yet because otherwise that’s how things operate for things within the reach of our experience so far…and that there are more or “higher” features to everything, or how it all works, that we just can’t observe or extrapolate yet (I’m trying really hard to not say “dimension” nor “supernatural”, because of different reasons for each, and because neither is not quite what I mean).

Otherwise, I want to make an additional comment that...geez...this universe is just so damned big. Wow. How in the world did we even come up with a map of the cosmic background radiation in the first place? The scale of vastness really does mesmerize me.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/17/2014 4:04:54 PM
andyaa:


because light doesn't travel instantaneous we see the universe as it was. The further you look, the further back in time you are seeing. Right in front of you is the whole 13+ billion years of the universe

In other words, we're not limited to a particular snapshot of the universe's timeline. We can first see what's around us, and gain some data from that. Then we look back a little (further away, so further back in time), and gain some data from that. Then we look back even further, and then even further still, and gain data all along the way. And we compare everything that we figure from every stretch of time to see some consistency in what might be happening on the larger scale, instead of guessing at things from just a really small stretch of the timeline.

Like the cosmic teapot argument, that would be for you show, currently there is no evidence to show that the universe is doing anything other than expanding isotropically

Well, remember, I wasn't claiming that such-and-such about the universe was true, or that we should consider something more than we should consider something for which there is no evidence. But I was just showing an example of making sure that we're able to conceive of other things to make sure that we're not blinded against a needed paradigm shift or re-interpretation.

in the past the universe was highly energetic, not so today, we can say from this that it will be less so in the future until 1 day that energy will no longer be useful

That's going to suck. Good thing that time is so unimaginably far away. I sometimes ponder the fact that the universe, and organic life, seems to be doing an entropy-trade-off, and is always trying to build something or do something with it, such that maybe there'll be some kind of "monument" left over at the very end when it's all burnt up and is completely dead, to commemorate the once-alive universe.


unenjoyable:

Yes. Trying to comprehend exactly what "space" really is, is quite slippery indeed.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/17/2014 6:51:48 PM
Dam.

Intervention! Fish are friends, not food.

Minnie don't burn chicken.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/19/2014 9:41:03 AM
^ Ever heard of things like "half life" and "decay"? Is that applicable?
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 75
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:57:34 PM
Atoms don't die.

They will if the Big Rip hypothesis comes true. . . in 20 billion years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

That stuff makes "In the Year 2525" by Zager and Evans seem like a nursery rhyme by comparison.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:07:33 PM
^ That's an amazing thing to look over.

...and it's really a trip to imagine a probe that we sent out drifting along somewhere in deep space a million years from now. Somehow that thought is...speechless.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/23/2014 9:01:36 PM
Ok folks, so what is the question...

"There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death"

More of a statement, really. But so, what was the op...

"According to Albert Einstein, “the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” If time does not exist, as many physicists believe, if the past, present and future all exist at the same time but in different dimensions or frames of reference, than is it also true that we never die, that all men who have ever lived still live? If so, I wish I could somehow tune in with my much younger self."

Sounds like more jibber jabber to me...cherry picking science, and making leaps and assumptions (and did Einstein even say that? does science even say that?) -

The distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion? I still wish people would explain what they mean by "illusion" without being vague, self-contradictive, and circular. Yes, time is an abstract. I guess. But time still happens in reality. As I've said so many times, no pun intended, you have to understand what you're even talking about when you say "time" in order to say these things.

And then op says that "time does not exist", or that "past present and future exist simultaneously, (which is established in very, very shaky fashion), therefore we never die. I can just say, with that twisted face of sarcastic confusion, "Um, like, really? We never die? All just because time doesn't exist and is an illusion?"

And then...what the hell is "linear" time supposed to be? Either I'm not seeing it necessary to add the word "linear", or time goes sideways and up and down, all crazy like, and I didn't know it. Time is linear as opposed to what? Changing it's mind and going backwards sometimes because it gets a wild hair in it's azz? Jumping around sideways? Linear would mean that things happen in sequence. One thing, then another thing, then the other thing, and so on. Cause and effect. Even seeing things as a network or ecosystem of cause-and-effect, inter-related mutually-affecting frames-of-reference...even with things constantly splitting off and cascading into ever more complicated and interlacing trees...it still all happens in linear fashion. So, what is linear time? Linear as opposed to what?
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/24/2014 3:31:59 PM
Wait...is there anything to suggest that maybe Dark Matter is what everything becomes closer to the end of the entropy road? Because of properties or behaviours that only manifest at that point, it clumps up and acts on other matter like it does...is also why it's "dark"...or maybe it's post-blackhole congregation...maybe even is a body/structure a step beyond blackholes, which behaves differently?
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 1/31/2014 1:55:15 PM
I always thought that a reconciliation of Olbers's Paradox a simple one...simple in a way that it might be wrong? - stars are dimmer the further away they are, accounting for different sizes and relative brightness. The paradox only recognizes that there are so many stars up there, so much that every field of view would be saturated, and this is what seems too shallow to me. There might be that many stars up there, but that says nothing about how far away you have to go to have enough to completely saturate your view. And, forget whether or not the space between here and there does or does not weaken the light very much because of the dust and particles in the intervening distances...but another thing about distance is that the size of the star goes down, not just it's apparent brightness. That means that everytime this happens, there is that much more area in your field of view that you need more stars to fill...and then we're right back where we started. Also, I think that we have a degree of the "glare" or relative brightness effect - just like the moon might seem brighter or dimmer than it is, and you hold up a sample of a shade of grey and see that it's much dimmer or brighter than you thought...because of the blackness around it...and just like when you go where there are no man-made lights, the sky seems to come alive with a trillion more stars that were already there the whole time...the night sky is in fact pretty damned full of light and stars, but we only see those which are the brightest relatively, down to a certain point of dimness...and what we think is the blackness around all these stars is not a simple blackness, but in fact it's a background of light which just looks black relatively.

Nothing outside the event horizon (the point of no return) ever gets drawn in. If black holes sucked up everything. The Universe wouldn’t exist

Ok, this is just plain craziness. Things outside of the event horizon get drawn in all of the time. Just like with the gravity of any body, it has to be within a certain distance and without a trajectory/speed that allows it to escape the pull, according to the strength of the gravity in question. "If black holes sucked up everything" is invalid. Black holes do not just "suck in everything". So the universe will continue existing, at least for the time being.

On a seperate note:

Listened to a public radio interview/call in of scientists today. It seems that we're not so sure that everything works the same all over the universe. Fundamental constants, Laws of physics, and stuff like that. Also, as I could've swore that I always understood about Einstein's Relativity Theory, there is nothing at all in the theory which suggests a possibility for backwards time travel.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/2/2014 4:27:21 PM

Black holes will suck up all remaining matter until eventually

Oh, c’mon, man. This obviously refers to how, over the ultimate longest timescales, everything will eventually become black holes / black holes will eventually suck in everything, over the course of time…but very different from talking as if a black hole has a magical infinite reach and can grab everything out to whatever distance and bring it in at any moment, relatively instantly.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/4/2014 8:49:01 AM

You are one crazy mixed up dude!

Ok...when thinking of many of the posts here in general...try to imagine something -

I click, scroll, and read that ^ and I suddenly burst out in out loud laughter. Laughter which lasts for several moments, after which I take a breath, and indulge in laughter again, just for the sake of laughter because it's so funny and so fun. *sigh* That was fun.

Ok...um...after checking over this post to make sure I don't need to edit anything...I've burst out in laughter again. Oh what great fun.

You are one crazy mixed up dude!
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/8/2014 4:31:31 PM

you are the crazy dude .... and I'm laughing... but like look says .... that's fun.

Like look says? Hope that doesn't mean what I think it means.

Oh, and I'm gonna pray for the little baby black holes too.
 Burning-Chrome
Joined: 7/4/2013
Msg: 83
view profile
History
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/24/2014 1:48:32 AM
The initial assumption of this thread is wrong, there may not be such a thing as time but there is such a thing as atomic decay based on gravity. And once a atom has go past a specific point of decay, you can't go back. You can use energy to rebuild it to be something like it formerly was, or you can use energy to speed up it's rate of decay, making it appear to age faster and thus travel forward in time, but the one thing you can not do is return to an exactly the same previous state.

Time is best viewed like a river of potential energy pouring out from the source of the big bang, different parts of that river go at different speeds, meaning the whole thing is quite fluid and bendable, but only really in one direction. An object caught in the flow has three choices, it can go with the flow, expend energy and kick with the flow, essentially speeding it's self up, or expend a lot of energy fighting against the flow and not really getting anywhere as the flow pushes it along at it's speed anyway.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/24/2014 3:32:20 AM
But I rail against the notion that there is no time in the first place.
 Burning-Chrome
Joined: 7/4/2013
Msg: 85
view profile
History
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/24/2014 3:54:36 AM
That's a case of splitting hairs, time in it's self isn't real, it's our perception of atomic decay under the force of gravity. Therefore you can't say it's the real '4th' dimension, because it's just an extrapolation of the other 3 dimensions in relation to their energy. However the forces of gravity and atomic decay are obviously real therefore time as an observable phenomenon is real, it's just not one of the basic phenomenon from which all others can be measured, hence the term, time is relative.
 Burning-Chrome
Joined: 7/4/2013
Msg: 86
view profile
History
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/24/2014 10:22:35 AM
I wouldn't say has no place in our experience as it obviously has so much to do with how we perceive and experience reality, but yes it is just a neat mathematical trick we pull within a matrix who's parameters are energy and mass so we can measure changes in those states.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/24/2014 4:01:20 PM


But I rail against the notion that there is no time in the first place.

That's a case of splitting hairs, time in it's self isn't real, it's our perception of atomic decay under the force of gravity. Therefore you can't say it's the real '4th' dimension, because it's just an extrapolation of the other 3 dimensions in relation to their energy. However the forces of gravity and atomic decay are obviously real therefore time as an observable phenomenon is real, it's just not one of the basic phenomenon from which all others can be measured, hence the term, time is relative

Um, so, time is real then. "Itself" real or not? Is real, I say. Don't know about that spitting hairs thing. "Just a perception", or "only observed phenomena", to me, is meaningless, concerning whether or not it's real. Time is whatever time is. And so, whatever it is, if it is that, then it is, and so it's "real". It "exists". Not a 4th dimension? Ok, so what? I think you mean a literal spatial dimension, and I agree. But it doesn't have to be a dimension to be "real". It's so odd to me how many people begin speaking about time as a trick of perception, or something like that, as if that means it's not real...hell, in a sense, matter itself could be called simply a "perception". It's "just" energy. And then what is energy? Oh wait, it's just another trick of perception. Well, ok, whatever...it still "exists". It's still real. Part of what I understand time to be includes that it's our ability to perceive a certain phenomena. But time is that. That's what time is. So time "is". It's not "just a perception". It actually happens.
 Burning-Chrome
Joined: 7/4/2013
Msg: 88
view profile
History
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/24/2014 4:17:06 PM
That's like saying you have a real relationship with a popstar because you watch them on TV. In fact that's the perfect analogy. The perceived brand of the pop star is no closer to being the real person they actually are then time is to the actual process which drives it, that being atomic decay. It's like you perceive the sky to be blue and to have a certain limit to it during the day, but you know it isn't. You know that's photons refracting within the atoms that make up the atmosphere and that in reality once you get passed that atmosphere you can see almost forever in almost any direction. What you perceive to be real isn't always the case. In fact what you can see, hear, smell and touch makes up less than 1% of the reality that surrounds you. It's very hard to define anything as real when we all have such a blinkered view.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/24/2014 4:53:00 PM
I guess it's game time. Dumb argument time. Bubba?! Is that you?!

The sky being blue is "only photons refracting within the atoms that make up the atmosphere". Ok, fine. But the sky is still blue. It's still a real thing that the sky is blue, "perception" or not. Because when we say that the sky is blue, this is what we mean...when we say it's blue, we mean "photons refracting within the atoms that make up the atmosphere make it appear blue". The sky isn't blue anymore when we leave the atmosphere? So what. Doesn't matter.

This business with things "only being" such-and-such is always weird. Taste and smell is "only" chemical signals to your brain. Well, so what? Since that's what we mean when we talk about smell, then that's what it is, and it really is that. It's no less real. It's "just" the chemical signals, but it's still "real". Love is "only a chemical activity" in the brain. So? Love still really "happens".

"having a real relationship with a popstar because you watch them on TV" is not a very good analogy. The character being different than the actor is a poor demonstration. Ok, time is different than the actual process which drives it...so what? There's no relevance. The velocity of the spaceship is different than the rocket that drives it, but the velocity is still real. The velocity still happens. The spaceship is still really moving. If it's not, then don't bother getting out of the way. Something tasting like strawberries to me is different than the chemicals that make that happen, and it's "only" a certain chemical signal to my brain "tricking" me into thinking that it tastes that way. But it still tastes like strawberries. The taste is still real. When we say something tastes like strawberries, all of this ^ is what we mean. For that matter, the sky isn't even really blue, because that's just a wavelength of light, and my brain interpreting that wavelength and letting me know that it's that wavelength that is there...but wait, guess what? That's what we mean when we say "blue". Therefore "blue" is still real.

Time is such-and-such. Ok. That's what time is. That doesn't somehow mean that it in fact "isn't". That can't negate it's existence. It still really is "there". It actually "happens". It's "real".

Hahaha....oh god, this kind of jazz really cracks me up. Say all of that ^ outloud and realize how damned stupid it is...how dumb it is that it has to be explained like that.

I propose that there isn't even really 3 dimensions, so a 4th one doesn't make sense anyway. Things just "are", the way that they are. Nature isn't thinking in terms of different axis for dimensions. Three dimensions are "just our way of being able to measure things spatially". But wait, is that what we mean when we say "three dimensions"? Or do we need to make sure that we're not mixed up between the fact that there isn't literally any "dimensions", yet reality manifesting itself in a three-dimensional way is something that still really happens. Is still a real thing. But wait again...if we therefore are treating time as an additional dimension, then it can really be just that, for the purposes of application...not that it's really a "dimension" any more than the previous 3 are. Unless they are. Are the 3 dimensions really there, as forces of nature or reality? Ok wait a minute...I don't even know what I mean anymore. I'm all mixed up now. What the hell was I saying? Maybe I'm not real either. I am "only a particular arrangement of matter and energy" for this moment in time.

Oh holy sh!t. Since time isn't real, then there isn't even this moment in time, in which there to be my particular arrangement of matter and energy.

*POOF* (poster has disappeared, as poster wasn't real in the first place)
 Burning-Chrome
Joined: 7/4/2013
Msg: 90
view profile
History
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/25/2014 1:23:08 AM
Or maybe I just went to bed . . . .

If time is so real, why do we have to keep adjusting it so much in order to make it practical for us. I mean. you'd think with it being such a universal constant for all but no, two atomic clocks under different gravitational conditions keep time differently. And this is because it is a human abstraction, it is not a universal constant. Hence why two objects moving at different velocities relative to each other perceive time at different rates. We call this the theory of relativity and it's such a good theory we built the modern world on it. And all because a patent clerk realized that the only things that where really real where matter and energy.

You live in an abstraction of the real world created by your mind, even something as simple as the concept of the number one is actually an elaborate logical underpinning created by your mind. Because you recognize that you your self are a unique individual, a single self you therefore assume the same of other objects. This creates the concept of one. The same can be said with almost everything else you experience, they are abstractions created by your brain. For example colour, you can see colour because photons bounce around the universe until they hit receptors in your eye where they become electrons which are transmitted to your eye. Now photons them selves do not have a colour, you do not get red photons and blue photons and green photons, what colour is perceived depends upon the wave length of the photon, a wave length that can change at any point. It's only the photon which is actually real, everything else is just an abstraction of it's properties.

Exactly the same could be said of time. Just like colour is an abstraction of the properties of photons, time is an abstraction of the properties of mass and gravity and how they relate to one another.

Which funnily enough brings us right to the last point the above poster was trying to make. Just like time the other three dimensions aren't real either. Again they are abstractions. Things either are, or they aren't. (Shrodingers Cat, quantum theory and probability) What determines whether they are or aren't is the relative relationship between their energy and their mass. From these two measurements, so long as they are placed in to context against the same measurements of everything else that surrounds the given object, all it's further properties can be worked out. We call this the standard model and there is only one piece of it left to figure out which is Gravity, is it a force or a particle or both. Once we've answered that then we'll be able to work out how the abstraction of time really works (At least in theory, my money's on this being the point where we just find a new level of detail.)
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/25/2014 5:58:32 PM
You were sent here by aliens to entertain me and see how long I'd take the bait, weren't you?

If time is so real, why do we have to keep adjusting it so much in order to make it practical for us

1 - You have to adjust your car sometimes. But it still really is real. Really real.
2 - You're talking about adjusting clocks, and calender days, and stuff. That's not quite the kind of time that you think that you're talking about.

you'd think with it being such a universal constant for all but no

Very big mistake that everyone makes for some odd reason. There is not any kind of universal constant of time. No overarching or underlying time-frame for everything.

...sigh...no, I'll pick apart the rest of your jibber jabber later. I'm dropping the bait for now. It's so tedious and tiring and idiotic, I don't feel like it right now. Looks like a lot more crazy crap there, but maybe later.
There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death
Posted: 2/27/2014 12:58:45 AM
^ That is a funny thing to try to imagine or comprehend. What is the perpetually fleeting "now" after all? But I don't know that it leaves it just an abstract conceptual state.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > There is no such thing as time, and thus no such thing as death