|
| I
take
a
different
<
|
|
 |
|
 |
I take a different aprpaoch to understanding time but it involves a radical departure from conventional physical cosmology. (I know that makes me sound like a crank, but I haven't found any counter arguments very convincing so far, so I do think there is a possibility that this hypothesis has real explanatory power).Time is subjective because energy is subjective and energy is the container of time (as space is the container of matter). Energy subjective??? Yes. Energy can only be experienced. It's not a glowing cloud that gets coiled up inside of springs and released through action, it's just the experience of a spring or a nerve or a human being experiencing a change from tension to release or vice versa. Of course I'm simplifying here, but stay with me.Our experiences of the energy of something else seeing a spring pop, feeling a log burn, reading a person's emotional shifts on their face (yes, that's energy too), is a second hand experience. The first hand experience is our nervous system imitating those changes as the content of our awareness.That is what we sense, feel, see, etc is the interior' of our own nervous system recapitulating the changes it is detecting through the body cells, tissues, and organs, of the changes in the environment. Experience = change = energy. No subjectivity, no change, no energy (not talking about any one organism's subjectivity, I'm talking about the ontological necessity of perception or detection in the cosmos to define energy).If you can get the gist of that, then maybe it will make sense that time is the container of energy. It doesn't ex-ist, it in-sists. Since energy is change, and change requires some sort of fundamental capacity to sense that there was an original state to begin with and an extension of that sense into memory to sense that the now state is different in some way from the original state, time can be understood as energy which is not occurring now'.The sequential nature of time is important, but it is not primitive. On this list, the #3 trumps the #1. In the vernacular sense of time', I think that it is just an aggregate measure of physical change modeled in a linear fashion. It has no existence of it's own beyond our sense of sequential causality (which evaporates predictably under altered states of consciousness dreams, drugs, trance, etc). We are the ones who interpret the digits on the clocks and the calender squares as a shared temporal text. In reality, there are no days, just astrophysical orientations woven together by our memories and monitoring of regular oscillating patterns.As far as aging and entropy goes, those are existential functions (so having to do with the reflected secondhand side of our experience matter). If my hypothesis is correct, entropy is actually a function of space more than time. If you think about two sandcastles, one of which is confined within a glass, castle shaped jar, and the other naked, entropy is going to be staved off for much longer under glass.Space is to matter what time is to energy' (experience of change). If you think about a universe with nothing at all in it except a single proton (or a ping pong ball, whatever, some kind of ideal sphere of matter) and no exterior phenomena as a frame of reference, there can be no space. There's no position or speed or spin. For those things you need some other object to relate to to be able to generate the relation of space so space would not be a rich hyperdimensional topology of superstrings and intangible vacuum energy, it would in fact be a true void. A void created not by a Big Bang, but by a Big Shatter of the singularity (which exists still across the gaps of spaces and insists still through the stories of times).I know, it sounds completely nutty, but I've spent a lot of time debating with people about it and have not heard any new convincing objections. I think all of the irreconcilable strangeness of entanglement and uncertainty, gravity and electromagnetism, mind and brain, perception and relativity, entropy and cosmology, QM and GR can all be tied up neatly by using a sense-based model of the cosmos.Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread here, it's hard to comment on time in this model without commenting on everything else.
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Angel
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
22 december 2014, 03:13:02
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
190.200.51.219
|
|
|
|
