Time: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Time » Time

Page: 1 2

Time

Carlos01
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Location: above ground
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 314

Posted 03/11/04 - 02:39 PM:	#1
The other day I was thinking about time. I was thinking about nostalgia; about how it would be ideal if every day were better than the last, but unfortunately it isn't and sometimes we have to look into the past for wisdom. And that got me thinking; why would you want the future to be better than the past? If time, as we see it, is a dimension, then there are two directions you can go; past and future. Why would you want good things to exist in the future? Think of it like this; imagine two dimensional matter moving through three dimensional space. Imagine the two dimensional matter represents three dimensional matter and three dimensional space represents "time". When you move something in three dimensional space, it is usually because there is something else in the location you're bringing the thing to. For example, you move a cup next to a soda fountain so that it will fill up with soda. What are we moving ourselves towards? I think everyone believes the future should be better than the past, but I don't think anyone knows why. I think it is something instinctual; it may be a product of evolution. But, if you think about it, there is no logical reason why you should want to move things like that. That reasoning is really quite a bit like dualism. And after all, it has to be us who are moving; not time! I have asked a lot a questions here, but to focus it, here is my main question; if we are moving through time, where are we moving? Someone said, "It is said that what is called 'the spirit of an age' is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end." Could this be true? I know it sounds superstitious, but sometimes superstitions are right, even if they don't know why. Like birds being signs of weather patterns.
"...what I regard as the objective, more or less deliberate manifestations of my existence are merely the premises, within the limits of this existence, of an activity whose true extent is quite unknown to me." -André Breton

FauxPhilosopher
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Location: Home of the Blues
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 24

Posted 03/11/04 - 03:59 PM:	#2
Unconnected question: If we are moving forward through time as if it was a dimension, could you go sideways or at a slant, or how about going up or down? What would happen? Just curious........
I reserve the right to make a fool of myself in any of the above posts... In a state of constant bemusement since Feb 11th, 2004

Carlos01
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Location: above ground
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 314

Posted 03/11/04 - 04:50 PM:	#3
Well, unless I am mistaken, time is just one dimension. And each dimension allows for two directions. Like this; x= first dimension y= second dimension z= third dimension. Moving in x is moving right or left. Y; up or down. Z; forward or backward. Going sideways in three dimensions is by moving in x. So moving sideways in four dimensions would be like moving in the y axis, I guess; or some axis lower than four. But I should think that there are only two directions to go in the fourth dimension itself. Whether they exist in the way they appear to us is another thing. SHORT ANSWER: I don't know.
"...what I regard as the objective, more or less deliberate manifestations of my existence are merely the premises, within the limits of this existence, of an activity whose true extent is quite unknown to me." -André Breton

fotia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
Location: Ontario
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 31

Posted 03/11/04 - 05:41 PM:	#4
Check out the other "TIME" threads.

rirriri
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 11, 2004
Location: Chicago
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 13

Posted 03/11/04 - 05:53 PM:	#5
hello, i've come to the conclusion that first of all the past is at least partially meaningless (in the current context). It is a time that will never occur again and it's occurences are completely out of context. One could argue that the past's events are influencing current occurrences, but again, it's vast and unorganized if this were to be proven. The future on the other hand has the ability to change with the events of the present time. The past cannot change as such. Accepting the past without analyzing it may be the best solution and one which I find to be the clearest mode of living. The past can hold mistakes, lessons, learnings, and such...however too often it is over-analyzed and treated with too much honor and dignity. The past is nothing but what has happened, the present is far more important to the current time and the future. just my general outlook, that is. cheers syed

Carlos01
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Location: above ground
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 314

Posted 03/11/04 - 06:20 PM:	#6
Right, but WHY? Why is the past in the past? Is it possible that what we consider "the past" doesn't mean anything more than the word "go"?
"...what I regard as the objective, more or less deliberate manifestations of my existence are merely the premises, within the limits of this existence, of an activity whose true extent is quite unknown to me." -André Breton

rirriri
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 11, 2004
Location: Chicago
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 13

Posted 03/11/04 - 06:32 PM:	#7
if the past were anything besides the past, then there would be no future. the border of time would be gone. If the past wasn't the past, then there would be a different dimension to reach it. If you burn a piece of paper, are you able to bring it back into that condition before it burned again? that piece of paper's past is the original form it was in. Time has been conveniently labelled as seconds/minutes/hours, when essentially it is only the representation of physical form that has occurred in all objects. It is due to the physical nature of this world that we MUST treat the past as the past. If there is an object that has not changed appearance for 50 years (e.g. an isolated diamond in a vacuum seal), then one could argue that the past for that object has not occurred, hence people say "it hasn't aged".

Carlos01
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Location: above ground
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 314

Posted 03/11/04 - 06:48 PM:	#8
That gave me an idea; is it possible time only exists for individual objects, and not the universe as a whole? It is possible to reform a piece of paper; if something tracked where the ashes and the gas went and a computer kept track of where the atoms originally were, it could make them exactly the way they used to be. Not probable, but possible. Wouldn't that effectively be time traveling?
"...what I regard as the objective, more or less deliberate manifestations of my existence are merely the premises, within the limits of this existence, of an activity whose true extent is quite unknown to me." -André Breton

rirriri
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 11, 2004
Location: Chicago
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 13

Posted 03/11/04 - 06:58 PM:	#9
Carlos01 wrote: That gave me an idea; is it possible time only exists for individual objects, and not the universe as a whole? It is possible to reform a piece of paper; if something tracked where the ashes and the gas went and a computer kept track of where the atoms originally were, it could make them exactly the way they used to be. Not probable, but possible. Wouldn't that effectively be time traveling? scientifically speaking, it would be virtually impossible to recreate EVERY attribute of the paper (atmospheric, chemical, etc..) to the time prior to its burning, but in theory it would work YES. It's also possible that everything is actually moving backwards. What if everything is actually moving backwards. What if that piece of paper is actually disintegrating into the past and that's it's burning isn't really the future, it's actually the past. It's an interesting thought. y'know how they say the universe was expanding, and now it's shrinking. Well, maybe this shrinking is time moving backwards again and we are going into the past. DECONSTRUCTION!

Carlos01
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
Location: above ground
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 314

Posted 03/11/04 - 07:07 PM:	#10
Oh no; the universe is getting bigger. In fact, they used to think that it was slowing down and that eventually it would come almost to a complete stop, but recent evidence shows it's actually getting FASTER.
"...what I regard as the objective, more or less deliberate manifestations of my existence are merely the premises, within the limits of this existence, of an activity whose true extent is quite unknown to me." -André Breton

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.