Time, made up of infinite fixed points?

Okay forget what you know about time travel and all the world lines running parallel and that time travel may shift you to another alternate reality if you run interference, and all the other grandfather paradox related ideas for a sec.

What if I told you that the past, the present, and the future are all existing simultaneously but exclusively, as fixed points, that this very moment you are reading this is being repeated for an infinite amount of time, and that within this very moment you believe that time is progressing. And there is a reason why you think time is progressing, it is because your consciousness is shared throughout all the fixed points that you exist in, it is only natural that your consciousness recognizes the order in which you exist within these fixed points and thus creates the illusion of progression… or time.

 

Let me know your thoughts on this theory

I think @write4u will have fun with this one. He seems very big on the mysteries of consciousness.

I’ve always liked the saying “Time is Natures way of keeping everything from happening at once”

Is time another dimension? Does that presume all other dimensions are points in simultaneous existence?

“Length” is a collection of fixed points?

 

Okay forget what you know about time travel.
Okay. That was easy.

 

And I always thought “Time” was God’s way of keeping me from bumping into myself as I head out the door.

 

... it is because your consciousness is shared throughout all the fixed points that you exist in, it is only natural that your consciousness recognizes the order in which you exist within these fixed points and thus creates the illusion of progression… or time.
Where's the evidence that led you to this conclusion?

Evidence you say? I just told you to imagine. It’s a theory.

What if I told you that the past, the present, and the future are all existing simultaneously but exclusively, as fixed points, -- r01
I'd stop reading, right about there.
What if I told you that the past, the present, and the future are all existing simultaneously but exclusively, as fixed points, that this very moment you are reading this is being repeated for an infinite amount of time,
This statement seems a bit paradoxical

time - “exclusively as fixed points”

but “reading this is being repeated for an infinite amount of time”

Are you saying that the point is being repeated - happening again and again? How is it being repeated if each point in time is just a point? There is no “happening” there is no change … no room to repeat. Otherwise your point would need to have components, then it is no longer a point.

And what is the medium for this “field of infinite points of time”.

 

  • IDK - just throwing stuff out there before I go cut the grass.
Catch ya "later"!

 

What if I told you the exact opposite of everything you said was true, and that was my theory.

Let me know your thoughts on MY theory.

What if I told you the exact opposite of everything you said was true -- CuthbertJ
I'd say your theory is garbage, you are incapable of comprehending what a theory is let alone formulating a theory, your mother smelled of elderberries, and time is not relative. Einstein was wrong.
time is not relative. Einstein was wrong.
There have been "theories" out there along the lines of the OP. But every time I asked the TV the questions as I did above, all I got in response were car insurance commercials and news updates.

 

 

I think @write4u will have fun with this one. He seems very big on the mysteries of consciousness.

I’ve always liked the saying “Time is Natures way of keeping everything from happening at once”

Is time another dimension? Does that presume all other dimensions are points in simultaneous existence?

“Length” is a collection of fixed points?


Thanks for thinking of me…

I’ll begin with a question for general consideration; “Does time exist in the future or is the future a timeless permittive condition?”

IMO, “time” is a emergent simultaneous byproduct of “duration” of existence or change in measurable arbitrary increments. Extremely short durations are usually referred to as “frequencies”, also an emergent phenomena of cyclical duration in “wavelengths”.

We can say “passage of time” because it refers to the duration of universal spacetime since the BB and the beginning of space and its associated timeline, currently symbolized as 13.8 billion years. All other individual timelines within spacetime are created as a result of individual phenomena with an associated “duration”.

My objection to time as an independent dimension is that time is not measurable by itself. You cannot measure time with time…

I’d say your theory is garbage, you are incapable of comprehending what a theory is let alone formulating a theory, your mother smelled of elderberries, and time is not relative. Einstein was wrong.
You're kidding with me right? My point was that the poster's post amounted to nothing, since saying the exact opposite is no different. If you weren't kidding, and actually took me seriously (and totally missed my point) and your comments were serious...oy, that's mean.

Sorry, thought that was going to work. I copied your statement, what if what you (Cuthbert) said that what I (Lausten) said was the exact opposite of the truth. So, take my vile list of insults (one drawn straight from Monty Python’s Holy Grail), and make them the exact opposite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s

Does time exist ...
No. Its just your memory.

Apr 6

Evidence you say? I just told you to imagine. It’s a theory.

researcher01. What if I told you that the past, the present, and the future are all existing simultaneously but exclusively, as fixed points, that this very moment you are reading this is being repeated for an infinite amount of time, and that within this very moment you believe that time is progressing.

Okay taking it from the top and going the mind experiment route.

It makes zero intuitive sense in a world embedded within motion, of atoms, of the ocean’s waves, of your heart, of the incomprehensible biological symphony going on inside of every millimeter of your your body, every moment, to keep you breathing and enjoying your next moment of time.

Again it’s that idiotic human need to think we are above it all, that gives some the license to ridicule the reality of Time with fanciful intellectual confections, born of a bored florid imagination and too much ego. Or was it too much coffee and brandy?

But, why so many others fall for it and indulge the hallucinatory thrill of imaging time away - that I don’t get.

What’s the thrill, what does it offer.

How would it fit into the actual life you are living?

[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:13, topic:7853”]
No. Its just your memory.

That is not incorrect although it’s confusing. What we record as time is always about something that has happened in our past, i.e. what we observe as happening now, has already happened in the past.

A photon released from the sun takes 8 minutes to be measurable on earth. What we experience as a photon in our “now” is already 8 minutes old in duration of time from traveling from the sun to earth.

A nova which we observe on earth, may have happened a million years ago in outer space and the star we see exploding does no longer exist at all.

The question is ; “when does time associates with a specific event become a measurable quantity”? It is only during the event that time becomes a measurable quantity, and even then it requires duration for something to be observable by an observer.

This is why I am confused by the hypothesis that observation affects what is being observed. How can we affect something that has already happened?

When we observe an action, the action is already in the past regardless of how short the duration of travel from POA to POV. And even then, every observer observes the instant of an event from relative timeframes, depending on distance of POV removed from the POA (point of action).

“Now” exist only subjectively at “point of observation”. All other measurable points are in the past.

If you are equating “time” with “what we record as time” you must accept that time, as something which exists, could not have existed before a human made a record of something that happened in our past. You would need to accept that if we don’t record some event then there would be no time which existed for that event. This would mean time is dependent on human memory for its existence.

It may be confusing because the idea that time is a thing, process, condition or whatever is wrong. Time has no existence. There exists no such thing as time.

Consider that there exists no zero amount of any thing and yet we can construct a fraction with zero as the dominator and try to apply that fraction to a thing that does exist. You understand that division by zero makes no sense and is not confusing.

So why should it make sense to apply time, a thing that does not exist, to any consideration of a thing which does exist? We are confused when we try to do that.

Neither the propagation of light nor our recognition of that process has anything to do with time.

[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:16, topic:7853”]

If you are equating “time” with “what we record as time” you must accept that time, as something which exists, could not have existed before a human made a record of something that happened in our past. You would need to accept that if we don’t record some event then there would be no time which existed for that event. This would mean time is dependent on human memory for its existence.

It may be confusing because the idea that time is a thing, process, condition or whatever is wrong. Time has no existence. There exists no such thing as time.

I’m sorry for my lack of clarity. I agree with you completely.

Time (duration) is created with physical change. The duration of physical change or continued existence is causal to the creation of time.

The permissions I speak of are in mathematical context. Events happen in accordance to mathematical permissions or restrictions.