The Nature of Time

[dpgillam]

Assumption 1

In 2 dimensional math, we know that slope is a sub-function of X and Y; defined as the change of y over the change in X. You must have both dimensions to have slope.

 

Assumption 2

Time is not a man-made construct as commonly believed. Anything that can be trained proves it has memory, and therefore has some limited concept of time. So time is a real variable, not a construct.

 

Assumption 3

We exist in (at least 3) dimensional space; X, Y, and Z.

 

Now for the questions:

 

If you have a cube-built building, each floor has 4 rooms, a central elevator to change floors, and 3 floors (all chosen for simplicity's sake)

A movement from room 101 to 303 (bottom corner diagonally to top opposite corner) you have shifted all three dimensions.

 

But it takes time to make that move.

So, is Time a sub-function of the 3 dimensions (as slope is to 2D) or is it a 4th dimension?

 

That is: Is the change in time inherent to the change in place? (and yes, you can have a zero change in the 3D while still having time change, the same way you can have zero or undefined slope)

 

Or is time a separate dimension that you are moving through additionally, much like how in 2D space you are technically moving on the Z axis even though you dont change it?

 

Could time be made up of multiple variables (we will call them A and B for simplicity's sake), with your decisions shifting where and how A and B intersect to determine events? (this comes from the "infinite possibilities" theory)

 

Or, given genetic make-up and upbringing, (or religion, if you prefer) is your path mostly "destined" at birth, making both the past and the future fairly linear?

[Tidus44]

Time is thought of as a linear passage of events with memory being a reference point. But, all points of reference are arbitrary, they are convenient, but they are nonexistent in reality.

 

We experience everything now, not in the past, not in the future. Memory doesn’t exist in a linear pattern, so there is no line, no points, no reference in reality, only those we make. What we perceive as reality is just energy. Our consciousness is a single point of perception (the now) and that single point is what we use to think of as time. Time does not exist, only our perception of arbitrary and convenient reference points exist and therefore time itself is a man made construct.

 

Each of the questions asked assumes time to be linear and to be a universal constant. By stating "It takes time to make that move", it is assumed that the passage of time starts and ends with some event and progresses in a linear fashion. The event is simply a convenient reference in order to begin a measurement. However, in reality, an individual's perception will be entirely different than anyone else's perception, as will their reference points. The passage can be marked on a scale (another man made construct), but even the scale is an arbitrary and convenient reference as any number of different scales can be used.

Even the assumption of dimensions is a perception, as they are only what we perceive to be reality. We are aware of three dimensions that define length, width, and depth, but (for example) superstring theory suggests ten different dimensions govern the universe. So limiting to 3 dimensions limits perception and thus the reference points used to measure the event.

 

It all becomes relative, based on perception.

Since everything is energy, or a form thereof, nothing begins or ends, we only perceive it as a relative point of reference.

[Beriallord]

Time supposedly slows down the closer to light speed you get. Moving 90% of light speed traveling 4 light years; 4 years of time would pass for people on Earth whereas the ones moving at that speed would only age a few months. The passing of time is in seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc is only from the perspective of humans living on Earth. The universe doesn't operate according to human perceptions of time and reality.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Beriallord

[dpgillam]

Excellent points, gentlemen. Give me some time to think on these, please.

[LadyMilla]

Here is an article that you may find interesting:

 

Quantum experiment shows that time is a quantum phenomenon that emerges from entanglement

[Ihoe]

I'd like to add that there could be as many as 26 dimensions to the universe, so reaching a fairly valid deduction from the above assumptions is going to be really far fetched. I'll start by making assumptions of my own. Firstly, let's define a point. A point is an entity with a value of zero in all axis. Now we bound the X axis to certain begin and end values and what we end up is a line. If we bound the line's Y axis by a certain beginning and an end, we will have a surface. Or kind of a line of lines. Now we take each surface and bound the Z axis similarly, and we will end up with a cube, or Space.

 

Now if you were to add another dimension and call it T, and bound it by the beginning of time and the end of time, and extend the cube's values to confine within the added dimension and make up for the added combinations, we would end up with a shape called a Tessaract. a cube of cubes, wherein all the information about all the possible states of space is held. a Timeline. The information contained within this shape is ostensibly linear as it only contains the information for one timeline. a Tessaract when assumed inherently unique, would illustrate the idea of "Destiny".

 

Now if you were to believe a Tessaract is not a unique entity, and that each only held information viable in its' own universe, to access the information of the multiverse, you would need a new dimension. a Dimension to pinpoint which universe is addressed. You will need to draw a 5-Cube or a Decatreon for illustration. And I would think that each unique dimensional address in this model would account for the tiniest amount of measurement not confined to the laws of a singular universe, a Global Variable to paraphrase.

 

Now if this were the case, if you went back in time (assuming that you ended up in the same universe you came from) and killed yourself, nothing magical would happen. What would happen is, you will probably expand the decatreon to make up for the additional universe you have created. The one in which you killed yourself. Like a river branching, in one branch you're alive and in another you are killed by you. And the original universe will remain untouched due to the branching. All the data would be unharmed.

 

This is gross oversimplification on my part, as the universe might not be bounded by specific amounts, which could completely nullify theorizing by shapes.

 

Personally, I don't believe in a unique timeline but I also think it is too early for science to decide whether such theories are not gobbledygook, even though they appear logical enough.

[Deleted1205226User]

Mmh, is Time long or is it wide?

[dpgillam]

Tessaract stuff

Forgive me for the edit; brilliant stuff, but Im trying to keep replies short :laugh:

 

To me the problem of the tessaract is that it doesnt really address "different dimensions" in the same way;

Rather than addressing the issues of "what comes after XYZ?" it starts discussing the probability of parallel earths.

It starts the idea of chaining together multiple {XYZT} cubes; 4 dimensional cubes chained endlessly to create N! parallel universes.

 

Its clear you consider time to be a separate dimension from the 3 Cartesian dimensions. And I would like to know why. I see in the hard sciences that time is used both as a function of the 3 cartesian, and as its own separate dimension; something mathematics says should be impossible.

 

Im trying to fogure out if time can exist independently of the other 3 dimensions (making it a separate 4th) or if it can only exist within the confines of the other 3 (making it a function)

[Ihoe]

 

...Interesting Stuff...

 

I would personally think of time as both a separate dimension, and also as and entity meaningless on it's own.

 

I would think that it's of a different class of entities compared to the other dimensions with ranges and boundaries that could only be of the type "time". Now I'd like to think of time as an identifier somewhat, It's not purely a function as there could be more branching occurring in the same universe (or state) space for XYZ. If you look at it from my perspective, Time is not of the same fabric as X or Y or Z, it's of the same fabric of XYZ together as a unique entity (in 3D space), therefore time would be meaningless if there is no XYZ, or space, if you will.

 

Now to be meaningless, doesn't correlate to impossible. In a "point universe" time is a single value (null) function. It "means" nothing.

 

I consider time to be an identifier for space state, and further dimensions as functions of time in a parent-child sort of relationship.

[niphilim222]

I don't have time to post something long so i will keep it short. Yet time tells me to keep focused, i guess things are looking up.