What is Time? A metaphysical perspective...

[primummobile]

Thanks for the kind words. While I still disagree, I believe you are right in asserting that I'm trying too hard. You hold on to your beliefs and I hold onto mine.

In order for true communication to exist between us, we both have to be willing to let go of our own views and take time to consider that we may be the ones who are wrong instead of the other person.

Therefore it makes sense that unless I'm willing to admit that I can have it all wrong, I will never be able to get your point of view. But the reverse is true as well: unless you are willing to admit that my ideas may be right, then I will never be able to find the right words to convince you that how short or long something takes is not a function of how we are perceiving reality, but that it is actually the other way around.

There is nothing I can say or do that will suddenly make you realise that we as humans DO have an internal chronometer. That how we are perceiving reality IS in fact a function of how fast we move through time and space. That our focus is actually the mechanism we use to control the rate at which we are moving through the dimension of time. That the reason why a watched pot never boils, is because we are putting our focus on something that we expect to happen. And that an expectation automatically implies that it hasn't happened yet, so that it must be in the future instead of in the present. That the expectation is actually telling us that we need to move faster through time in order to bring that future event into the present. That doing so actually causes our perception of the time in the environment to slow down and the seconds appear to last longer. That all of this is actually happening according to the laws and predictions of relativity. That the principle of relativity follows the laws of physics which are the same everywhere in the universe. And that time itself is not an exception to the laws of physics and hence no exception to the laws of relativity.

All of that, no matter how hard I try to explain, no matter how much observational evidence I manage to come up with, it will never make sense to anyone who cannot let go of his or her own assumption that the reverse is already true, so therefore what I'm saying simply cannot be true. As long as you hold on to your assumption, your belief, that perception originates from the mind rather than from the physical reality and I hold on to mine that the reverse is true, we will never agree. And that's fine. We don't have to. I respect that you see it different.

Like I said earlier: nearly everyone I know sees it your way. But even if the whole world were to disagree with me, that still doesn't necessarily mean you all must be right and I must be wrong. There is no right or wrong. We just happen to look at our reality from a different perspective. If I look at it from your point of view, I would agree with you as well. But if you were to look at it from my point of view, you'd see the other side of reality that is hidden from your senses. Just like you will never be able to see the dark side of the moon by looking at it from Earth, you will never be able to see reality the way I do by holding on to your current views.

That is all there is to our differences. That is all there is to be said. Even if you would disagree with this post, it would still confirm that there is nothing I can say or do that will make you think otherwise. So I am not going to waste your time any further and would like to leave it at that.

In any case thanks for reading all of the posts. I am glad you found it to be interesting nevertheless and would like to express my gratitude for all the time and effort you spent on it.

Wishing you all the best in life,
Kris

I know you want to get out of this conversation, so please forgive me for extending it. I didn't notice this before, but your last post brought it to mind. You seem to be attempting to define reality. That is a pretty tricky thing to do all by itself. On top of that, you are attempting to define time, which is just about as tough. The best definition I've heard for time is along the lines of, "Time is that which clocks measure."

My mind isn't closed to your ideas. I just don't think you have a valid scientific base for them. As to whether or not they are correct, we would have to arrive at a mutually agreeable definition for both "time" and "reality", which we aren't likely to do.

[Luckmeister]

I can't let this thread go without commenting on what you said below:

That is the key dilemma here. Do you trust your own assumptions or are you willing to open your mind to the idea that the reverse might be true as well? Imagine that it is real just for one second. Imagine that I'm right just for one second. And then read the list of implications again. Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong and regardless of whether they make sense or not, I ask you this: which assumption offers the most possibilities for taking GR to the next level?

But before I answer, you then said...

Oh and before answering that question, don't forget that there exists a mathematical model out there that is capable of unifying the force of gravitation with the force of electromagnetism by extending general relativity to a five-dimensional spacetime. That model is called the Kaluza-Klein theory...

And in Wikipedia, the following comment is made regarding that model...

However, an attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues...

And now I will answer -- your assumption offers the most possibilities for taking GR to the next level. But that is a good reason for not choosing your assumption as the default. Why? Because it requires a serious modification of the most important groundbreaking theory in the history of cosmology, if not physics itself. No serious physicist is going to read your hypothesis in this thread and say "Oh, that sounds better. I accept your idea as the preferred theory." You just don't have enough to ask for that.

The fact is, you have just begun to develop this as a theory. The most important work on it is ahead of you, if you want the level of acceptance you have asked for.

[Seiryuu]

I know you want to get out of this conversation, so please forgive me for extending it. I didn't notice this before, but your last post brought it to mind. You seem to be attempting to define reality. That is a pretty tricky thing to do all by itself. On top of that, you are attempting to define time, which is just about as tough. The best definition I've heard for time is along the lines of, "Time is that which clocks measure."

The concepts of time and reality are interwoven with eachother. And yes, they are not easy to define, which is why I explicitly mentioned my definitions of time in part2:

Definitions

Let me close this article by overthrowing one of the most popular current definitions of time in physics textbooks (according to Wikipedia), which is based on the instrument that measures it. The current definition of time goes like this: “time is what a clock reads”.

Not a very good one, is it? But it was the best they could come up with, that covered both aspects of time, without denying the other one. In a sense, they did succeed by defining it this way. But on the other hand, I would like to quote a famous phrase amongst the scientific world, first coined by the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli: "That's not right - that's not even wrong". And so it is.

Time to do better! Time for a replacement, not by one, but by TWO definitions! Here they are:

Absolute Time or as I would like to call it from this point on, Chronotime is a well defined moment in a chronology of events. It is no longer measured in seconds and minutes, but rather in Chronae, the new time unit I just made up for this previously unnamed fundamental quantity. 1 Chrona represents one ‘moment in time’ as we currently know it and is the equivalent of a single event.

Relative Time or Duration is the distance between two chronological events. It continues to be measured in seconds and minutes, with the second as the base unit. As we all know, however, unlike the Chrona, the second does not represent the shortest amount in between two events. That amount is quantified by what know as the instant.

Going from there we can also define the interrelated ratios between both quantities like this:

The amount of events that happen in a particular duration is that which I would like to call “the speed at which we move through time”.
It is represented in chronae / seconds or c/s.

Vice versa, the duration of a particular event is the amount of seconds it takes for an event to take place from start to finish.
It is represented in seconds / chronae or s/c.

Also, in part one, in the section about time travel you can find my take on what defines reality:

In other words: past/present/future are mere words of one and the same concept: reality. In order to go back or forward, one must also change reality. It is impossible to do this without changing reality as well, due to the nature of what absolute time is.

My mind isn't closed to your ideas. I just don't think you have a valid scientific base for them.

That's the whole point. You are ignoring the whole observational evidences that I managed to list, based on the belief that all of it is subjective. Therefore, it seems that I have no valid scientific base for my ideas. It would be a whole different story if you would accept the so called 'subjective observations' as evidence. But you can't, since that requires my ideas to be right a priori. So we are at a stalemate here: either my ideas are wrong and all of the evidence in favour is subjective in which case I have no valid scientific base or either my ideas are right and all of the evidence in favour is objective in which case I have a very solid scientific base. Do you see that the main issue here is one of perception?

As to whether or not they are correct, we would have to arrive at a mutually agreeable definition for both "time" and "reality", which we aren't likely to do.

I can only give you my definitions. It is up to you whether you agree or not.

[Seiryuu]

And in Wikipedia, the following comment is made regarding that model...

However, an attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues...

There are still a number of issues yes. But the same article also states the following:

Even in the absence of a completely satisfying theoretical physics framework, the idea of exploring extra, compactified, dimensions is of considerable interest in the experimental physics and astrophysics communities. A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If a spatial extra dimension is of radius R, the invariant mass of such standing waves would be Mn = nh/Rc with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible mass values is often called the Kaluza–Klein tower. Similarly, in Thermal quantum field theory a compactification of the euclidean time dimension leads to the Matsubara frequencies and thus to a discretized thermal energy spectrum.

As far as I can tell, Kaluza-Klein theory would benefit from a theoretical physics framework that can answer some of the questions as to what the extra compactified dimension is and how it relates to the current ones. I know you probably won't believe me, but I am providing you with such a theoretical framework. Even if my theory would turn out to be incompatible with the math of Kaluza-Klein, we are both trying to achieve the same goals: extending GR to five dimensions in order to solve some of the greater issues at hand, such as the unification of the two fundamental forces of gravitation and electromagnetism. So what if it founders on a number of issues if it is capable of solving even just this single one? Wouldn't that be worth exploring further? Wouldn't it be worth testing out how my theoretical logic compares and holds up to the predictions of KK?

Sure I would do it by myself if I could. But the math simply goes too far beyond my understanding and I wouldn't know where to begin in the first place. I would need help with that.

And now I will answer -- your assumption offers the most possibilities for taking GR to the next level. But that is a good reason for not choosing your assumption as the default. Why? Because it requires a serious modification of the most important groundbreaking theory in the history of cosmology, if not physics itself. No serious physicist is going to read your hypothesis in this thread and say "Oh, that sounds better. I accept your idea as the preferred theory." You just don't have enough to ask for that.

They don't have to. The only level of acceptance I'm asking for is that the views may be considered as 'possible', so that maybe, just maybe one day, a real physicist will come along who can say: "Oh, this sounds interesting. What if I were to verify it?"

The fact is, you have just begun to develop this as a theory. The most important work on it is ahead of you, if you want the level of acceptance you have asked for.

The fact is: that what lies ahead is beyond my capabilities. I don't have the skills to turn it into a scientific theory that contains a solid mathematical background. So if no one sees any value in what I have presented here in the first place, there is no way for me to take it to next level or to develop it any further. It's as simple as that.

That's also the reason why I have no other choice for now but to rely on the math that is already present in current theories, such as Kaluza-Klein, in the hope that it matches out. Why KK? Because from what I understand of it, KK is essentially trying to express the same thing in math as I have tried to express in words. Am I 100% certain of that? No, but it is my best and as far as I'm concerned my only chance. Because if it does, then my interpretations could relate KK to real world observations and experiments and vice versa KK would contain all the advanced math I'd ever need to back up my logic. In a perfect world, this would be an ideal example of a cross-disciplinary symbiosis between hard science and intuitive understanding.

[Luckmeister]

The fact is: that what lies ahead is beyond my capabilities. I don't have the skills to turn it into a scientific theory that contains a solid mathematical background.

Understood -- You have presented your case and posters have told you your idea is interesting. That's as far as we can go at this point.

So if no one sees any value in what I have presented here in the first place, there is no way for me to take it to next level or to develop it any further. It's as simple as that.

No, you have it backwards. It's difficult to see what you consider "value in what you've presented" when there is no way you can take it to the next level. That's the unfortunate fact.

Your frustration is misplaced. It's not our fault that time has been such a difficult thing for the finest scientific minds in the world to pin down. That is what should frustrate you, not our lack of acceptance. Once again, you're expecting too much.

By now, a lot of people have read this thread and have been exposed to your idea. And it will live on in forum archives. Be happy that you've done your best at this time. You have a lot of passion and that is a good thing.

Mike

[primummobile]

That's the whole point. You are ignoring the whole observational evidences that I managed to list, based on the belief that all of it is subjective. Therefore, it seems that I have no valid scientific base for my ideas. It would be a whole different story if you would accept the so called 'subjective observations' as evidence. But you can't, since that requires my ideas to be right a priori. So we are at a stalemate here: either my ideas are wrong and all of the evidence in favour is subjective in which case I have no valid scientific base or either my ideas are right and all of the evidence in favour is objective in which case I have a very solid scientific base. Do you see that the main issue here is one of perception?



I can only give you my definitions. It is up to you whether you agree or not.

That's an unfair assessment. I'm not ignoring your definitions. I'm explicitly telling you that we are going to have a hard time agreeing on a definition. You also have to remember that I am not as well-versed on your theory as what you are. Just because I have read it doesn't mean that I remember every word you have said. I'm also frequently away from the computer and when I return I don't always remember all the points I wanted to bring up with you. That's why I brought this up now.

I am also unable to accept subjective observations as evidence unless it can be demonstrated that multiple people perceive it in exactly the same way. I don't even accept that, if I were to somehow be able to see your thoughts, that I would interpret what you call "blue" as "blue". I might call it red, or black. Maybe, if I were looking through your mind, other people would appear to me to be purple. I've given thought (not very seriously, but I have given it thought) to the fact that maybe we all 'like' the same flavors in food, but we interpret those tastes differently, maybe so that what you taste as chocolate I would taste as vanilla if I were tasting it through you.

Many insects can see colors in the ultraviolet wavelengths. There are snakes that can detect infared. We can do neither. Their realties are completely alien to us. Does your theory only apply to humans? What about aliens who can only see in longer wavelengths like microwaves, or in shorter wavelengths like x-rays? What if they can only perceive radio waves? We build observational equipment specifically to see all of this stuff, because the version of reality delivered to us by our senses is so incomplete! And that's only vision. If our eyesight is so limited, how can we trust any of our other perceptions of reality to be complete?

I once spent a great deal of time wondering why I perceived time to be passing more quickly the older I became. I don't perceive it to be passing more quickly in the short term, i.e minutes, hours, or days, but in months and years. The months and years fly by now more quickly than I would like them to, and I believe there are three reasons for that:

1) Since I finished college, I don't think I have worked less than fifty hours in a week. And it's usually closer to sixty or seventy hours. That doesn't leave a lot of time for my mind to be idle, so I can't concentrate or fret over time the way I could when I was younger.

2) No one likes to get old. I'm only 38, but it seems like only yesterday that I was 24 and finishing college. Now, it seems like only yesterday, but when I slow down and think about it, I realize that I have done as many things in the last 14 years as I did in my first and second 14 years. No doubt, the next 14 years will seem to go even faster. But I also have no doubt that my life will be as different when I am 52 years old as it is different now from when I was 24 years old. I think that fear of getting old makes time seem to go faster than it is. Fear is a powerful factor in our perception. It makes us see things that aren't there.

3) And, this is the one I said before. Namely, 1/24 is larger than 1/38. When I was 24 years old a year seemed longer because then a year was a larger part of my life than what it is now.

I don't argue that you perceive things as you do. What I argue is whether that perception is valid as the basis for a measurable theory. If you can't measure it, it's not science. It is philosophy. I take as much pleasure, if not more, from philosophy as I do science. I just can't call them the same thing. That's all. I'm not ignoring your arguments.

[Seiryuu]

Understood -- You have presented your case and posters have told you your idea is interesting. That's as far as we can go at this point.

Aye, it seems I will have to accept that.

No, you have it backwards. It's difficult to see what you consider "value in what you've presented" when there is no way you can take it to the next level. That's the unfortunate fact.

I suppose you're right. The only thing I can do at this point however is actively looking out for people who can help me do just that.

Your frustration is misplaced. It's not our fault that time has been such a difficult thing for the finest scientific minds in the world to pin down. That is what should frustrate you, not our lack of acceptance. Once again, you're expecting too much.

Roger that as well. Although, it is is difficult for me to accept. Am I expecting too much? Probably.

It's true that I'm not easily satisfied. I don't know why, but for some reason I usually don't let go of something that I'm working on or have taken interest in untill I have reached a certain level of 'perfection'. As long as there is always something more that can be improved, that just doesn't feel right or that I haven't gotten around to yet, I will continue to question those things that bother me somehow and look for the answers untill I have either reached that level or untill I have no other choice but to admit that it is beyond my limits of understanding. Even if that means turning long-established ideas upside down or inside out. Even if it means I have to shatter all of my own beliefs in the process as well.

While you may consider not being easily satisfied to be a negative trait, it is exactly this sense of dissatisfaction that also propels me forward. That urges me to find out more, to look deeper and to go beyond that which has already been established as a general truth. Sometimes I wish I could settle for anything less. That I could just be happy with 'having done my best' as you put it. But the truth is that I do not find peace with that thought. For me it is very hard to accept that I did not manage to reach that 'next level' in the first place. I cannot help but see that as a sort of failure from my part.

By now, a lot of people have read this thread and have been exposed to your idea. And it will live on in forum archives. Be happy that you've done your best at this time. You have a lot of passion and that is a good thing.

Mike

Thanks!

[Seiryuu]

I am also unable to accept subjective observations as evidence unless it can be demonstrated that multiple people perceive it in exactly the same way.

That's the whole point. You are ignoring the whole observational evidences that I managed to list, based on the belief that all of it is subjective.

All I can say is that there is a general consensus that as we grow older time appears to go faster. This clearly demonstrates that multiple people perceive it in exactly the same way.
All I can say is that we are also all familiar with the 'time flying by or dragging on' phenomenon. Again this clearly demonstrates that multiple people perceive it in exactly the same way.

I don't argue that you perceive things as you do. What I argue is whether that perception is valid as the basis for a measurable theory.

As long as you hold on to your assumption, your belief, that perception originates from the mind rather than from the physical reality and I hold on to mine that the reverse is true, we will never agree.

If you can't measure it, it's not science. It is philosophy.

it seems that whenever activities are taking place that alter our perception of time, it appears to have an effect on the heart rate variations.

And

Moreover, self-reported sleep duration is only moderately correlated with actual sleep time as measured by actigraphy, and those affected with sleep state misperception may typically report having slept only four hours despite having slept a full eight hours.

There is a difference between not being able to measure it and not knowing how to measure it.

That's an unfair assessment. I'm not ignoring your arguments.

You are right. You aren't ignoring them. But you aren't accepting them either.

So again I stand by my words: there is nothing I can say or do that will convince you and therefore I really don't wish to argue with you any further about this.

My apologies, but this is where I sign off.

[primummobile]

All I can say is that there is a general consensus that as we grow older time appears to go faster. This clearly demonstrates that multiple people perceive it in exactly the same way.
All I can say is that we are also all familiar with the 'time flying by or dragging on' phenomenon. Again this clearly demonstrates that multiple people perceive it in exactly the same way.

No, it doesn't. That's like saying that two people perceive cold in the same way. They don't. They both still perceive that it is cold but that's it. It's not measurable.

I'm asking you to convince me by responding directly to what I have asked you, particularly in my last post. If I wasn't interested in this I wouldn't be asking you. You can do it via PM if you wish, or you can even email me. Otherwise, I wish you luck, and I look forward to your revisions and what you have to say when you next post on this.

[Seiryuu]

No, it doesn't. That's like saying that two people perceive cold in the same way. They don't. They both still perceive that it is cold but that's it. It's not measurable.

Since they both perceive that it is cold, it implies that they both perceive it in the same way. You are right however in that they may not agree on how cold it is. One person may perceive a certain temperature to be colder than the other person. But that difference in cold perception is just as real as the difference in time perception, since it effectively means that that person is actually feeling a bigger temperature decrease than the other person. Is this unmeasurable? Perhaps, I don't know. I can only repeat that it's not because we don't know how to measure something, that it is unmeasurable to begin with.

I'm asking you to convince me by responding directly to what I have asked you, particularly in my last post. If I wasn't interested in this I wouldn't be asking you.

And if I wasn't interested, I wouldn't be responding either. But it seems we're just going over the same arguments again and again and I really don't think anymore I am capable of convincing you. Since you are explicitly asking I will give you my take on your last post, but I doubt that we'll ever agree.

I'm not ignoring your definitions. I'm explicitly telling you that we are going to have a hard time agreeing on a definition. You also have to remember that I am not as well-versed on your theory as what you are. Just because I have read it doesn't mean that I remember every word you have said. I'm also frequently away from the computer and when I return I don't always remember all the points I wanted to bring up with you. That's why I brought this up now.

Even I don't remember every word, but it is true that I don't need to in order to answer. I get that it is much harder for you to try and understand someone else's 'theory'. But if we do not agree on the definitions, we cannot agree at all. Agreeing on a definition is vital before discussing anything else. That's why I included them. If you are having issues with these, that's fine, but you cannot expect me to change them as they are an integral part of the premise. So unless you accept them 'as is', I don't see what else I can do.

I am also unable to accept subjective observations as evidence unless it can be demonstrated that multiple people perceive it in exactly the same way. I don't even accept that, if I were to somehow be able to see your thoughts, that I would interpret what you call "blue" as "blue". I might call it red, or black. Maybe, if I were looking through your mind, other people would appear to me to be purple. I've given thought (not very seriously, but I have given it thought) to the fact that maybe we all 'like' the same flavors in food, but we interpret those tastes differently, maybe so that what you taste as chocolate I would taste as vanilla if I were tasting it through you.

I'm with you here. Maybe I do perceive what you call red as blue and vice versa and maybe may chocolate does taste like your vanilla. We have no way of knowing for sure. So let's do a mini thought experiment here.

First, let's assume that our perception is observer independent and that we all perceive blue as blue, red as red and chocolate as chocolate. In this scenario, would you agree we all perceive those things in the same way and that our perception is objective rather than subjective?

Now, let's assume the other scenario in which perception is observer dependent. What does this mean?

If my blue is your red and vice versa, then the only thing they have in common and that we can both agree on is how the colours are defined. Regardless of whether we really see the same colours, we both agree on what red is and what blue is. My experience for red, matches your experience for red. Not because the colours are the same, but because our definitions are the same. We attribute a certain definition to a certain colour, allowing us to agree on what that colour is. In this scenario, you would probably agree that we all perceive colours in different ways and thus our perception is subjective rather than objective. Am I right? I hope so, because this is where we see things differently. Allow me to elaborate.

Since perception is observer dependent in this scenario, you see it as subjective, for you reason that two different observers cannot agree on the same colours if they see different colours. We have no way of telling or 'measuring' for sure if it's really the same colour. And you are right!

But that's not the full story. For if colours are observer dependent, it means they are in fact relative between two observers. Relative in this case, meaning subjective. But this is from the point of view in which we are comparing two observers. If we just look at the point of view of either observer independently, both of their experiences are actually objective relative to themselves.

But that's not the only reason why I'm calling a perception 'objective' rather than 'subjective'. I reason that two different observers CAN agree on the same colours, even if they see them differently. Why? Because it doesn't matter what they see, as long as they agree on the definition of what it is that they're seeing! If my blue is your red, but we both call it 'red' then we are all perceiving red in the same way, not by colour, but by definition. The definition makes that what we are perceiving objective, even though the actual experience may be subjective.

I don't know if any of this still makes sense to you, but hey, you DID ask for it!

Many insects can see colors in the ultraviolet wavelengths. There are snakes that can detect infared. We can do neither. Their realties are completely alien to us. Does your theory only apply to humans? What about aliens who can only see in longer wavelengths like microwaves, or in shorter wavelengths like x-rays? What if they can only perceive radio waves? We build observational equipment specifically to see all of this stuff, because the version of reality delivered to us by our senses is so incomplete! And that's only vision. If our eyesight is so limited, how can we trust any of our other perceptions of reality to be complete?

First of all, I do not distinguish between humans or any other species. Also, I believe in an observer dependent spacetime. This means I believe in the latter scenario in which we may actually see colours differently, without us knowing. But, what does this mean? Does it mean that your blue is my red and vice versa? Or does it mean that there are slight variations in how we see the spectrum ranges? For example I may see certain certain colours more as blue, while you see them more as green.

I don't know anymore where I read it or how it was called, but some scientists actually tried to verify this in an experiment in which they were also comparing not only the colours but also the hues and brightnesses that correspond with each colour or something like that. I don't remember the exact details. What they found out was that it is very unlikely that your red can ever be my blue and vice versa, due to the fact that no matter which colour, we all seemed to agree on which one was lighter, darker and so on.

This seems to contradict the idea of us seeing colours differently. But on the other hand and you'll find this to be interesting, check out the following two links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2011/08/horizon.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1026082313.htm

Remarkeable, don't you agree? I'm not even sure if they support my take on this, as I must admit I'm a bit tired and may not have read it thoroughly enough, but this is what I believe:

I believe that insects who can see ultraviolet and snakes who can see infrared do not see any different colours than we do. I don't think there exist some exotic colours out there that we cannot imagine. Instead, I believe that ultraviolet for an insect is what we perceive as violet and infrared for a snake is what we perceive as red. Why? Because I believe in absolute relativity. Even when it comes down to colours

This means that although these animals can see or detect colours outside our spectrum, the colours remain the same. It's just that some animals have their spectrum of vision shifted to what we know as the 'ultraviolet range' and some have their spectrum of vision shifted to what we know as the 'infrared range'. For those animals that have a broader spectrum alltogether, it means that they are able to distinguish more variations in the colours compared to us, while animals who have a narrower spectrum will not be able to distinguish as much variations compared to us.

Can I prove all of this? No, it's just my opinion. Could this be tested? Actually, I think it can be done. But I'm not going to be the one to do it!

As for the other senses, one phrase: absolute relativity! ^^
The principles of relativity are valid on all domains of time and space, including the domain of perception.

I once spent a great deal of time wondering why I perceived time to be passing more quickly the older I became. I don't perceive it to be passing more quickly in the short term, i.e minutes, hours, or days, but in months and years. The months and years fly by now more quickly than I would like them to, and I believe there are three reasons for that:

1) Since I finished college, I don't think I have worked less than fifty hours in a week. And it's usually closer to sixty or seventy hours. That doesn't leave a lot of time for my mind to be idle, so I can't concentrate or fret over time the way I could when I was younger.

2) No one likes to get old. I'm only 38, but it seems like only yesterday that I was 24 and finishing college. Now, it seems like only yesterday, but when I slow down and think about it, I realize that I have done as many things in the last 14 years as I did in my first and second 14 years. No doubt, the next 14 years will seem to go even faster. But I also have no doubt that my life will be as different when I am 52 years old as it is different now from when I was 24 years old. I think that fear of getting old makes time seem to go faster than it is. Fear is a powerful factor in our perception. It makes us see things that aren't there.

3) And, this is the one I said before. Namely, 1/24 is larger than 1/38. When I was 24 years old a year seemed longer because then a year was a larger part of my life than what it is now.

That's fine. We have different beliefs here.

You can do it via PM if you wish, or you can even email me. Otherwise, I wish you luck, and I look forward to your revisions and what you have to say when you next post on this.

I hope you like it, regardless of whether you deem it plausible or not.

There is one more thought I would like to leave you with. Or rather one more question:

How do you perceive time?

Which one of the senses are you using? Sight? Hearing? Or is it taste or smell? Touch perhaps? Is it a combination of all of these? Or none? If it's none, then how come you are able to perceive it in the first place, if our perception is solely based on the (physical) senses?

[primummobile]

Ok, I'm going to make this brief because I don't want to break any forum rules here, and I'm not completely familiar with them.

I think we perceive the passage of time because our senses accumulate information about the world around us, and then we observe the continuity from past to present due to the information our senses accumulate.

I think that is completely different from the proper passage of time, which is our motion through the time-like dimension. One is objective, and the other is not.

I have much more to say on this but I am going to send it to you as a private message about twelve hours from now. You should read it, because I think what I say you may find interesting, based on what you've posted so far. Like I said, I really don't want to break the rules here.

[R.A.F.]

....I am going to send it to you as a private message about twelve hours from now.

Why do you keep posting that you are going to PM another poster?

[primummobile]

I don't 'keep' posting it. I've said it once and only once. Please show me where I said that elsewhere. And I said I would continue the conversation via PM because the ATM forum is not for the development of an idea , it is to present an idea and then defend it. The moderators have said on this board again and again that if you want to discuss the development of an ATM idea it must be done in private. Since I said no less than two times that I did not wish to run afoul of the rules, it would be reasonable to conclude that is why I wished to continue the discussion via PM. If it bothers people I won't.

[Seiryuu]

Ok, I'm going to make this brief because I don't want to break any forum rules here, and I'm not completely familiar with them.

I think we perceive the passage of time because our senses accumulate information about the world around us, and then we observe the continuity from past to present due to the information our senses accumulate.

I think that is completely different from the proper passage of time, which is our motion through the time-like dimension. One is objective, and the other is not.

I have much more to say on this but I am going to send it to you as a private message about twelve hours from now. You should read it, because I think what I say you may find interesting, based on what you've posted so far. Like I said, I really don't want to break the rules here. (my bold)

If you feel it may be valuable to me, feel free to send it and I will read it.

But perhaps we should be making sure first that we agree on how we define our senses in the first place. Did you know that there is not even a general consensus on what senses really are? I quote from wikipedia:

Senses are physiological capacities of organisms that provide data for perception. The senses and their operation, classification, and theory are overlapping topics studied by a variety of fields, most notably neuroscience, cognitive psychology (or cognitive science), and philosophy of perception. The nervous system has a specific sensory system or organ, dedicated to each sense.

Human beings have a multitude of senses. Sight (ophthalmoception), hearing (audioception), taste (gustaoception), smell (olfacoception or olfacception), and touch (tactioception) are the five traditionally recognized. Whilst the ability to detect other stimuli beyond those governed by the traditional senses exists, including temperature (thermoception), kinesthetic sense (proprioception), pain (nociception), balance (equilibrioception), acceleration (kinesthesioception), and various internal stimuli (e.g. the different chemoreceptors for detecting salt and carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood), only a small number of these can safely be classified as separate senses in and of themselves. What constitutes a sense is a matter of some debate, leading to difficulties in defining what exactly a sense is.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

I have added bold on your quote to indicate the subtle shift you are making here. If passage of time is based on the information that our five tradiional senses accumulate, what part of us allows us to observe all of that information as something continuous? Sure you will answer: the brain. But that's not the question. The question is: how does our brain know this in the first place?

My answer to that question is that we are actually 'perceiving' or 'sensing' it, thanks to our internal clock. I would like to hear your answer as well.

Regardless of that, here is another passage of the same wikipedia article about time perception:

Chronoception refers to how the passage of time is perceived and experienced. Although the sense of time is not associated with a specific sensory system the work of psychologists and neuroscientists indicates that human brains do have a system governing the perception of time, composed of a highly distributed system involving the cerebral cortex, cerebellum and basal ganglia. One particular component, the suprachiasmatic nucleus, is responsible for the circadian (or daily) rhythm, while other cell clusters appear to be capable of shorter-range (ultradian) timekeeping.

My bold. If human brains have a system of governing the perception of time, I feel it is justified to conclude that we may consider that system as an internal clock. I justify this based upon the definition of what a clock is (according to Wikipedia):

A clock is an instrument used to indicate, keep, and co-ordinate time.

If humans do have an internal clock, it means that our perception of time is based upon that clock. This also means that if your clock differs from mine, we will have a different time perception. So it must be observer dependent.

Now as for the matter about whether all of this is subjective or not, let me use one of the most popular current definitions of what time is:

Time is what clocks measure

If humans have an internal clock and time is what clocks measure, I'd say we as humans are able to measure time with our internal clock. Now I ask you, and consider this carefully, why would you consider this measurement to be any less objective than the measurement of time with an external clock?

[Seiryuu]

I don't 'keep' posting it. I've said it once and only once. Please show me where I said that elsewhere. And I said I would continue the conversation via PM because the ATM forum is not for the development of an idea , it is to present an idea and then defend it. The moderators have said on this board again and again that if you want to discuss the development of an ATM idea it must be done in private. Since I said no less than two times that I did not wish to run afoul of the rules, it would be reasonable to conclude that is why I wished to continue the discussion via PM. If it bothers people I won't.

On a sidenote, you're not the only one who is confused about that rule. While I have read them, I have no idea either if I'm allowed to discuss this any further with you in this topic. I didn't even know if I was allowed to start it in the first place, which is why I sort of asked permission first with my initial post. Since no mod intervened, I'm just assuming that it was ok, but it's not like they gave me explicit permission or anything. So the topic has remained open solely upon the grace of the mods and I am grateful to them for allowing it to exist.

The thing is, that although the rules themselves are clear, what is within the scope of said rules is not. In fact, depending on how you look at them, some appear to be in direct conflict with eachother.

For example:

4. Be prepared to defend your ideas. You are going to be challenged to defend them with evidence and you are expected to do so. Doing your preparation and your research before you even start your thread is an excellent idea. The ATM forum is not intended for you to develop your idea, it is for you to present your idea.

Conflicts with

7. Don’t make claims that extend beyond what your data (or the data you’re referencing) can support. If you consider something as unproven speculation – say so. When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it was shown to be wrong and don’t keep repeating it. Be willing to modify your views.

It conficts because as soon as I acknowledge that something has been shown to be wrong and as soon as I'm willing to modify my views, I am already developing the idea. So if we take rule 4 to the letter, I am not even allowed to acknowledge my own mistakes, because that could be considered as a development.

And what about rule nr9? (my bold)

9. Questions put to you about your theory must be answered in a timely fashion. It is acceptable to answer “I don’t know” or to ask for more time to come up with the information. If you do ask for more time, a Moderator may temporarily close the thread until you are ready to answer.

If we take the rules to the letter, coming up with the requested information at a later time is in direct conflict with rule nr4, that says research has to be done on beforehand. So if you were to ask me anything that I hadn't initially thought of or considered in the first place, I ought to respond with 'I don't know' instead of looking into it, doing further research and getting back to you with an appropriate response. After all, this too can be considered as the development of the ideas.

So am I guilty of doing this too? Yups, I am. Can it be avoid it? I don't think so.

The only case in which it is possible to defend an idea without further developing it is when you are capable of answering all of the questions and challenges by referencing to the premise that has been posted. So this indeed implies that all research must be done on beforehand. But in order to do all the research on beforehand, we have to know which questions or challenges will be asked on beforehand as well. Because if we don't know that either, then how can we determine if we have effectively done all of the research we were supposed to before posting it here? We have no way of telling for sure. Therefore anyone who posts anything at all in the ATM forum has to take the risk of violating rule nr4 a priori. I don't see any other way...

Funny to notice that there is a sort of causal law at work here. Can you see it? Either we know all the questions and challenges on beforehand, in which case we are able to do all the research on beforehand as well or either we don't know all the questions and challenges on beforehand, in which case we aren't able to do all the research on beforehand either.

In the first scenario the cause and effect are linked together, with no way of telling which one is which. In the second scenario we can discern between cause and effect, but it invokes the uncertainty principle: the observer who is creating the topic only knows the cause (the state of the premise at which it is posted) and can determine the effect (questions and challenges show if sufficient research has be done on beforehand) and the observers who are challenging the premise only know the effect (is the premise able to deal with all of the questions and challenges) and can determine the cause (whether sufficient research has been done on beforehand).

This however, competely on a sidenote... ^^

[primummobile]

I'm not going to send you the PM. I only wished to do so because I didn't want your thread to be closed because I was offering my own philosophical insights to your argument.

I agree with most of what you posted. In fact, I spent a great deal of time once working on that Wikipedia article about "Time". But here are my problems:

Any kind of machine-based clock is objective. Every clock has an oscillator that vibrates at a fixed frequency. This is true for every type of clock we have, from pendulum-based clocks up to atomic clocks. We also have mathematical rules, via Special Relativity, that tell exactly how the clock should appear, no matter what its motion, to any observer in the same frame of reference. There is no ambiguity in this. Our GPS system uses atomic clocks on a network of satellites that are constantly transmitting what their clocks read, the position of the satellite, and other data. They are so accurate that we can use them to measure our position anywhere on Earth to within a few feet based on how long it takes a radio signal to reach us from satellites. The encrypted signal used by the US military is even more exacting. These must be so accurate that we must take SR corrections into account, or the system would not work. I believe our most accurate atomic clocks are accurate to within one second in about 130 million years.

Our circadian rhythms aren't anything even remotely like that. They just tell us about when to be tired and about when to wake up. Everything is an approximation, and it varies wildly from person to person, and they're more based on the time of the day than actual time. That's why people get jet lag. Their bodies are telling them that the time is off, but they don't know by how much. They just know that they feel tired when they shouldn't be and wide awake when they should be tired. But they only have an objective sense of the time difference when they look at their clock.

We really don't know what time is, as we've discussed. I, however; think that "time is that which clocks measure" is just a good a definition as any. It may not be satifying, but it is accurate. What do we know about time? We know that we exist in a universe that has at least three spatial dimensions and at least one time-like dimension. We are free to travel at any velocity through the spatial dimensions (up to the speed of light) but we cannot help travelling through the time-like dimension. Every thing in the universe is travelling at the speed of light, if you add in our motion through the time-like dimension. Any motion at all through the spatial dimensions subtracts from our speed through the time-like dimension, and our clocks slow down accordingly. We can measure this and calculate it with great accuracy. That's also why photons don't 'age'. They are travelling at the speed of light through the spatial dimensions, so have no velocity left to give to the time-like dimension. So, even though we don't know exactly what time is, we have a very good understanding of what time does.

I think that our perception of time is subjective because we don't understand it. When we are anticipating something good, it seems to take longer to arrive. If we are anticipating something bad, it seems to arrive too quickly. A few years ago, I was required to attend a customer service seminar. We were all asked to stand up, and then told to sit down after two minutes had passed. For the exercise, we were told to not look at our clocks, and to not count to ourselves. We were also not permitted to talk. We weren't allowed to do anything but stand there. People started sitting down after about 45 seconds, and it varied from there, until about 3/4 of the people were sitting after about a minute and 45 seconds. Then we were told to do the same thing, but this time we were to join in a conversation with the other people at the same table. Other than that, the rules were the same. Don't look at the clock, don't count to yourself, and sit down after two minutes. This time, very few people were sitting down when the two minute mark was reached, although some people started to sit a little after a minute had passed. During all of this, the clock on the wall measured exactly the same time, even though the internal clocks of everyone in the room were measuring wildly different times. Had the exercise been extended to an hour, there would have probably been even more variation in our internal clocks.

I also don't really think that time is moving faster as we get older. I think that as we get older, that time appears to be moving faster only in retrospect. As we live it, a day seems just as long (or short) to me now as what it always has. It's only when I look back on it that it seems to have gone any faster, and even then it's only when I look back on it in blocks of months or years.

The point to all that is that it's not measurable. We have no way to measure those variations, and even if we did, they appear to be random. Every person is different. We have no way to quantify this, and therefore no way to predict its behavior. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my whole take on all of this is that you are arguing that there is an actual physical phenomenon at work here. But even if there is, we don't have any way to pin down even what it is. For real time, it takes enormous speeds or enormous gravity wells to even cause a perceptible (by human perception) difference in how fast our clocks tick. Even our real motion through space, which is probably at least a few million kilometers per hour, causes very little difference between our clocks and a clock at rest with respect to the spatial dimensions. I guess I just don't understand what phenomenon you are attributing our changes in perception to, other than internal brain functions, which by nature are highly subjective.

I have added bold on your quote to indicate the subtle shift you are making here. If passage of time is based on the information that our five tradiional senses accumulate, what part of us allows us to observe all of that information as something continuous? Sure you will answer: the brain. But that's not the question. The question is: how does our brain know this in the first place?

I've actually previously read the Wiki article on 'senses' too, although I never contributed to it. Our interests are actually pretty similar. I don't have an answer to your question. The only thing I can say is what you already said: we have some type of internal clock, that is based on an innate understanding of causality. We aren't born knowing the law of gravity. But we observe that objects fall to the Earth if they have nothing to support them. From the time that we see gravity at work, we understand that if we knock a cup off a table it will then fall to the ground. We have to learn that objects fall, but we are born understanding causality. We have an innate understanding that we can't go backwards. So our brain's innate understanding, and along with that sensory information, and along with that -what we are thinking as we perceive that sensory information-is all recorded. It all forms a history and our brain is constantly comparing new sensory information and events to what it already has stored. That's why some people make such strong associations between traumatic events and innocuous things like smells or sounds. Because that sensory information is wired to correspond to that event. All of that history is what gives us a perception of time passing. A person in a deep coma has no perception of the passage of time, and if they wake up after a long period of time in a coma, they are frequently traumatized by the 'missing time'. The point is that the perception of the passage of time is the product of consciousness, and that's the closest I can come to answering your question.

So yes, we are hardwired to perceive time passing. But so many things change that perception. Drugs change it. Age or experience can change it for some people, although a person who is in a coma for many years will presumably experience the passage of time according to his perceived age rather than his actual age. Fear can change it. Excitement can change it. Our perception is intimately tied to our emotions, and our emotions are completely subjective. I've been in a few car accidents, and when those are happening time seems to move very slowly.

The point is, I don't see how you can measure or predict it, so I don't see how it can be objective, unless I am missing something.

[Luckmeister]

Wow, you put a lot of thought into that post and I especially like the following paragraph concisely describing what is known about time.

We really don't know what time is, as we've discussed. I, however; think that "time is that which clocks measure" is just a good a definition as any. It may not be satifying, but it is accurate. What do we know about time? We know that we exist in a universe that has at least three spatial dimensions and at least one time-like dimension. We are free to travel at any velocity through the spatial dimensions (up to the speed of light) but we cannot help travelling through the time-like dimension. Every thing in the universe is travelling at the speed of light, if you add in our motion through the time-like dimension. Any motion at all through the spatial dimensions subtracts from our speed through the time-like dimension, and our clocks slow down accordingly. We can measure this and calculate it with great accuracy. That's also why photons don't 'age'. They are travelling at the speed of light through the spatial dimensions, so have no velocity left to give to the time-like dimension. So, even though we don't know exactly what time is, we have a very good understanding of what time does.

[primummobile]

Wow, you put a lot of thought into that post and I especially like the following paragraph concisely describing what is known about time.

Thanks. (sorry, I'm awkward with compliments) I've put a lot of thought into what time could be, but it's difficult for me to put into words. But if I spent a little less time on my posts they might not be so meandering because I would remember what I had already said.

[Seiryuu]

I like it as well, for it indeed shows you have put a lot of thought into what time could be, just like I have. So I'm very glad that you decided to post it as it is indeed very interesting to read. And yet at the same time, your views are completely incompatible with mine, for one and one reason only: the argument about whether the perception of time is objective or not. But we already knew that, for it is precisely this axiom that my ideas are based on, which you are rejecting. The only way I can convince you is to prove that my axiom is right. But if I could do that, it wouldn't be an axiom in the first place.

That is the core of our issues and the stalemate in which we find ourselves. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong, based upon we are currently presenting. I cannot convince you and you cannot convince me. But again I ask you, if both ideas are equal in value, then which idea offers the most options for taking GR to the next level?

The point is, I don't see how you can measure or predict it, so I don't see how it can be objective, unless I am missing something.

What you are missing is the value of indirect measurement, through observational and circumstantional evidence. Since you oppose the idea that it our internal measurements are objective in the first place, you also reject all of these indirect measurements based upon the assumption of subjectivity.

From what I can tell, there is however an ever more deeper issue at hand than just the fact that we're not agreeing on whether perception is subjective or not. What you are also seem to be missing is that you are evaluating my ideas based upon YOUR definitions and understanding of what time is. You have never agreed with my definitions of what time could be from the start. Therefore you continue to see the motion through time as one-dimensional. You believe that my motion through time somehow corresponds with the motion through spacetime as described in SR. A change in distance over a period of time. It doesn't. I'm not contradicting SR and it's laws when it comes to comparing the motion through space in respect to to it's time parameter. I never have.

The motion through time that I am talking about simply does not exist SR. Moving through time the way I define it has nothing to do with a change in distance over a period of time in the way that we know it. That's 4-dimensional thinking. What I am talking about is the motion through timesequences over a period of timedurations. Or in other words, a change in events over a period of time. But this requires a 5-dimensional framework. I have told you this before: unless you start thinking in 5 dimensions, you cannot hope to ever understand what it is that I'm talking about.

If you are really serious about wanting to know what time is, then how come it is so hard for you to accept my definitions? I'm not saying that you have to agree on whether my definitions must be right or not, that's something different. But what you are doing here is that you are challenging the entire hypothesis based on the a priori assumption that our perception is subjective and that my definitions are wrong. Therefore you continue to reject all evidence that is based upon the opposite assumption and raise arguments that are based upon YOUR understanding of what time is. But again if you state that you don't know what time is in the first place, then how come it is so hard for you to accept my definitions?

Have you even believed for one second that there really could be a person who has figured out what time is? Who has not only been able to figure it out, but also been able to precisely define it without using circular logic? Because I don't know if you are aware of it, our current definition of what a clock is, is based upon the concept of time. Therefore it should come as no surpise that if we define time as the quantity 'that which clocks measure', it makes sense.

Of course it makes sense! It makes sense, because the current definitions of what time and clocks are, are based upon circular logic! Clocks are defined using time and time is defined using clocks. Can you not see how fundamentally flawed this understanding of 'what time is', really is? Can you not see that if you are determined to reject my definitions, you will need to come up with some better alternatives? And that they'd better be damn good if you want to find a solid ground for rejecting my ideas?

That's all I can say for now. You deserve a more thorough reply than this, but I will need time to re-read your post and see what I can comment on, without getting back into the same arguments as before.

[primummobile]

From what I can tell, there is however an ever more deeper issue at hand than just the fact that we're not agreeing on whether perception is subjective or not. What you are also seem to be missing is that you are evaluating my ideas based upon your definitions and understanding of what time is. You have never agreed with my definitions of what time could be from the start. Therefore you continue to see the motion through time as one-dimensional. You believe that my motion through time somehow corresponds with the motion through spacetime as described in SR. A change in distance over a period of time. It doesn't. I'm not contradicting SR and it's laws when it comes to comparing the motion through space in respect to to it's time parameter. I never have.

I don't think I am saying that at all. I was just explaining what I consider to be objective about time, which is clocks and SR. I know I said it before, but I reinforced it because I was trying to make the point again about what I consider objective and why... and what I consider subjective and why. I frequently use an example of something opposite to demonstrate what I am trying to say. In this case, that SR makes very exacting predictions that are beyond our powers of perception but that have been experimentally verified.

I also don't completely disagree with you about time. I think I established in my first post to you that I agree with you that past, present, and future are one. If it were possible to be outside of this universe, whatever that means, I think an observer of our universe would see not only all of space, but all of time as well. There would be no temporal distinction for that external observer. It's difficult to imagine because we are stuck travelling through the time-like dimension. That's simply what I think an observer outside of that dimension would see were he to look at us. There's a lot more I could say about that, but it's not relevent for this discussion. I'm just pointing something we agree about in at least one type of time.

But how do you know that you're not just a brain in a vat? How do you know that I'm not a part of whatever simulation your brain is running? The answer is that you don't know. As Morpheus would say:

What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Even if you are just a brain in a vat, the time-like dimension described by SR is something consistent in your external world. But your second time-dimension is entirely internal, no matter what the true state of your reality is. Given that you can't even trust your senses to tell you what is 'real', you certainly can't trust them to tell you whether any thing that you are experiencing only internally is a real physical phenomenon or just something that you are perceiving and interpreting in a certain way. There are serious, mainstream physicists who have proposed that our 'universe' is a 3-D holographic projection of the 'real' 2-D universe. I don't put much stock in that as it is highly speculative and we have no real way to test it, but it makes the point that, at least mathematically, it is possible that reality is incredibly different from what we perceive it to be.

That's what I'm getting at. It's not that I don't understand your so-named '5-dimensional' way of looking at things. I'm not even saying with certainty that it is wrong. I'm asking how do you know? I can tell you until the end of time that I love my wife, but there is no way for you to ever know if that is true or not, because the only thing you have to base it on is my own interpretation of the electrochemical reactions taking place inside of my own brain. Do you see what I am saying? Unless you can have some kind of independent verification of what I am saying, you have no way to know if it is true. I may be lying, I may be confusing one emotion for another, I may be measuring the strength of my emotion using the wrong type of measuring stick, or I may not even exist, except for in your own mind. The point is that you have no way to tell what is true--if it is something that only you can perceive with no quantifiable way to compare it to the similar thing other people perceive.

I assume you are familiar with solipsism. We reject solipsism as a true picture of reality for many reasons. We can't defend it. Even if we did accept it, it wouldn't change anything. And accepting solipsism begs even more questions, the most obvious being if you are not a human walking the earth in this universe, then what are you? In fact, the absurdity of solipsist thought is frequently used to argue why some philosophical positions cannot be correct. To be clear, I don't place your theory in that category. But I do perceive it as leading down that road. Granted, the road is long, but it all eventually leads to the same place. Absent a clock that I can see, your perception of time can only remain to me what you say it is. I can't see it. Only you can.

Now, there are also people, both physicists and philosophers, who have given consideration to the possibility that more than one dimension of time exists. In that regard only, you are not the first.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

I have given thought to it as well. I don't remember the first time, but I do remember proposing it as a possibility in another forum about ten years ago. But for it to be considered anything other than metaphysics (itself a branch of philosophy), you must provide a stick with which to measure it, which brings us back to the same point we have been circling for the last several days.

If you are really serious about wanting to know what time is, then how come it is so hard for you to accept my definitions? I'm not saying that you have to agree on whether my definitions must be right or not, that's something different. But what you are doing here is that you are challenging the entire hypothesis based on the a priori assumption that our perception is subjective and that my definitions are wrong. Therefore you continue to reject all evidence that is based upon the opposite assumption and raise arguments that are based upon YOUR understanding of what time is. But again if you state that you don't know what time is in the first place, then how come it is so hard for you to accept my definitions?

Have you even believed for one second that there really could be a person who has figured out what time is? Who has not only been able to figure it out, but also been able to precisely define it without using circular logic? Because I don't know if you are aware of it, our current definition of what a clock is, is based upon the concept of time. Therefore it should come as no surpise that if we define time as the quantity 'that which clocks measure', it makes sense.

Of course it makes sense! It makes sense, because the current definitions of what time and clocks are, are based upon circular logic! Clocks are defined using time and time is defined using clocks. Can you not see how fundamentally flawed this understanding of 'what time is', really is? Can you not see that if you are determined to reject my definitions, you will need to come up with some better alternatives? And that they'd better be damn good if you want to find a solid ground for rejecting my ideas?

I don't see the definition being circular as a problem. When you say, "Time is that which clocks measure", the definition is using the word "that" as a substitute for the definition of time. I could just as well say that a meter is "that which this stick measures". In the second case, "that" is "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second". The problem isn't that the definition is circular. The problem is that we don't have a universally agreed upon definition for "that". Like I said before, we may not know what time is, but we know what time does. In this case, the time that clocks measure can probably be further defined as a distance travelled in the time-like dimension. So, in its most basic sense, a clock is an odometer and it measures a distance. That distance can be defined as "time".

If we were only able to view the electromagnetic spectrum in x-rays, and a person came along with the ability to see light at a wavelength of 380-740nm, (visible light) that person saying that the dominant color of the sky at those wavelengths was blue would never be accepted until we were able to construct a device to 'see' at those wavelengths and confirm what the person said. And then, we would insist that other devices be constructed and the results interpreted by persons other than the conductors of the first experiment, before we would completely accept that the dominant color of the sky in the 380-740nm range was somewhere between 450-495nm, which is blue.

I'm an electrical engineer, and I use test equipment occasionally. Usually the techs do the direct measurement, but I am not unfamiliar with any of the procedures. I frequently use an oscilloscope when doing things like getting frequency readings from induction motors. Before I use the scope, I always test it and calibrate it to make sure it is functioning correctly. The scope has an internal circuit that produces a known signal, and I can test it on that. My techs periodically (usually weekly) test those circuits. It sounds like an infinite regression of tests, but it's not. I suppose you could call it 'circular testing' if you wished, and it's how we maintain our equipment and ensure it is functioning as designed. But you have no back-up for your perception. You have no way to calibrate it. I don't know how you would do it if you wanted to. But if you know of any test you can tell me to confirm that your internal chronometer is correct and functioning how you say it does, then please tell me what it is. This is what I've been trying to get from you. If you don't have that, then you can't trust your 'equipment' to be accurate. If you haven't calibrated and tested your equipment, then you can't say that the dominant color of the sky is blue, because for all you know it may only be dominantly blue at one select range of wavelengths. There could be other 'wavelengths' to your internal chronometer that you aren't even considering, and that you don't even know exist.

I know you presented this as a metaphysical discussion, and I think it has great value as a metaphysical discussion. I think you have a lot of passion, and I admire that. But, and there is always a 'but', I don't think that you are doing much to eliminate confirmation bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias The whole problem with anything perceived is the fact that we are emotional creatures. In fact, I can see emotion oozing out of your posts. The only way to remove ourselves from that is to provide a ruler that is external to ourselves that other people can use. Until then, this will remain a metaphysical and not a physical discussion. Understand though, there is nothing wrong with that. Metaphysics isn't any less real. It's just more open to interpretation.

[Seiryuu]

Any kind of machine-based clock is objective. Every clock has an oscillator that vibrates at a fixed frequency.

You claim that clocks tick at a fixed frequency? Are you sure of that? Fixed to what? A frequency is expressed in 1/s. Therefore the frequency is fixed in respect to the second as its reference. However nowadays a second is defined based upon the rate at which atomic clocks tick. To be more precise, according to Wikipedia:

Since 1967, the second has been defined to be: the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

As you can see the second itself is defined based upon a duration of periods, which is in itself a frequency! So the whole idea that clocks fibrate at a fixed frequency, stems from the assumption that the frequency that is being used to define the second is fixed as well! Is it? How would you be able to tell? Let's see:

During the 1970s it was realized that gravitational time dilation caused the second produced by each atomic clock to differ depending on its altitude. A uniform second was produced by correcting the output of each atomic clock to mean sea level (the rotating geoid), lengthening the second by about 1×10−10. This correction was applied at the beginning of 1977 and formalized in 1980. In relativistic terms, the SI second is defined as the proper time on the rotating geoid.

Aha! So here we are observing high precisional clocks ticking at different rates! But of course, we know this to be due to gravitational time dilation! Problem solved! We can just attribute it to gravity!

Except, you have no idea what causes gravity either! So actually, we can conclude that clocks DO tick at variable rates, albeit under the influence of gravity. In order to determine what is the cause of that, we need to know what gravity is. But, as far as I'm concerned, we can conclude nevertheless that we are observering clocks to tick at variable rates instead of fixed ones!

On a sidenote: my hypothesis predicts that gravity itself is caused by moving at different rates through time (aka: time dilation), instead of the other way around.

This is true for every type of clock we have, from pendulum-based clocks up to atomic clocks. We also have mathematical rules, via Special Relativity, that tell exactly how the clock should appear, no matter what its motion, to any observer in the same frame of reference. There is no ambiguity in this. Our GPS system uses atomic clocks on a network of satellites that are constantly transmitting what their clocks read, the position of the satellite, and other data. They are so accurate that we can use them to measure our position anywhere on Earth to within a few feet based on how long it takes a radio signal to reach us from satellites. The encrypted signal used by the US military is even more exacting. These must be so accurate that we must take SR corrections into account, or the system would not work. I believe our most accurate atomic clocks are accurate to within one second in about 130 million years.

I am not contradicting this part.

Our circadian rhythms aren't anything even remotely like that. They just tell us about when to be tired and about when to wake up. Everything is an approximation, and it varies wildly from person to person, and they're more based on the time of the day than actual time. That's why people get jet lag. Their bodies are telling them that the time is off, but they don't know by how much. They just know that they feel tired when they shouldn't be and wide awake when they should be tired. But they only have an objective sense of the time difference when they look at their clock.

All the more reason to assume that time is relative depending on the observers. However this assumes that our circadion rhythms are based upon our time perception. This warrants further investigation.

We really don't know what time is, as we've discussed.

As arrogant as it may sound: you may not know what time is, but I do. You're just not accepting my definitions.

I, however; think that "time is that which clocks measure" is just a good a definition as any. It may not be satifying, but it is accurate.

It's accurate, because it uses circular logic. That makes it a very bad definition to begin with.

What do we know about time? We know that we exist in a universe that has at least three spatial dimensions and at least one time-like dimension.

Correct. Motion through time as I define it requires at least an one more.

We are free to travel at any velocity through the spatial dimensions (up to the speed of light) but we cannot help travelling through the time-like dimension.

Incorrect. We are only free to travel at any velocity in our local section of space. In reality, however we cannot help but travelling through the space-like dimensions either, due to the movements of the planets, the solar systems and the galaxies themselves. We are always in motion relative to something. Therefore we are never at rest and therefore we cannot help travelling through the dimensions of space either.

This is further described in my implication of 'absolute relativity', but to summarise I will simply assert that all dimensions are spatial, including the dimensions of time. I suppose I really need to start working on revising my ideas of what dimensions are, as they are capable of explaining this assertion in further detail. They require a topic of their own, though.

Every thing in the universe is travelling at the speed of light, if you add in our motion through the time-like dimension. Any motion at all through the spatial dimensions subtracts from our speed through the time-like dimension, and our clocks slow down accordingly. We can measure this and calculate it with great accuracy. That's also why photons don't 'age'. They are travelling at the speed of light through the spatial dimensions, so have no velocity left to give to the time-like dimension. So, even though we don't know exactly what time is, we have a very good understanding of what time does.

This seems to be correct in the 4D observer-independent spacetime as you currently know it. In my version, which is based upon a 5D observer dependent spacetime, this notion is utterly destroyed.

I think that our perception of time is subjective because we don't understand it.

It's actually the other way around: because you believe our perception of time is subjective, you don't understand what time is.

When we are anticipating something good, it seems to take longer to arrive. If we are anticipating something bad, it seems to arrive too quickly. A few years ago, I was required to attend a customer service seminar. We were all asked to stand up, and then told to sit down after two minutes had passed. For the exercise, we were told to not look at our clocks, and to not count to ourselves. We were also not permitted to talk. We weren't allowed to do anything but stand there. People started sitting down after about 45 seconds, and it varied from there, until about 3/4 of the people were sitting after about a minute and 45 seconds. Then we were told to do the same thing, but this time we were to join in a conversation with the other people at the same table. Other than that, the rules were the same. Don't look at the clock, don't count to yourself, and sit down after two minutes. This time, very few people were sitting down when the two minute mark was reached, although some people started to sit a little after a minute had passed. During all of this, the clock on the wall measured exactly the same time, even though the internal clocks of everyone in the room were measuring wildly different times. Had the exercise been extended to an hour, there would have probably been even more variation in our internal clocks.

We are in agreement on this. That is why I'm considering this to be observational evidence in favour of my hypthesis.

I also don't really think that time is moving faster as we get older. I think that as we get older, that time appears to be moving faster only in retrospect. As we live it, a day seems just as long (or short) to me now as what it always has. It's only when I look back on it that it seems to have gone any faster, and even then it's only when I look back on it in blocks of months or years.

That's why time is two-dimensional. The durations remain the same, but the amount of actual time-sequences that have passed were variable.

The point to all that is that it's not measurable.

Incorrect. The rate at which we move through time can be expressed in frequencies. As I have shown, the second merely corresponds with the duration of a certain frequency. In space, we can measure differences in frequencies and therefore differences in time rates by comparing two frames of reference that are experiencing time dilation relative to eachother.

We have no way to measure those variations, and even if we did, they appear to be random. Every person is different. We have no way to quantify this, and therefore no way to predict its behavior.

As for us, we may be able to measure it by determining our HRV frequencies. This is unconfirmed though.

They are not random either and we do have ways of predicting its behaviour. As I have previously stated before, focus is the mechanism that controls our rate through time. Let me reuse your quote from before:

When we are anticipating something good, it seems to take longer to arrive. If we are anticipating something bad, it seems to arrive too quickly.

There you have it! You have just succesfully predicted its behaviour!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my whole take on all of this is that you are arguing that there is an actual physical phenomenon at work here.

Of course there is. If you started to think in 5 dimensions, you would agree.

But even if there is, we don't have any way to pin down even what it is.

Sure we do. Just read my definitions of what time is.

For real time, it takes enormous speeds or enormous gravity wells to even cause a perceptible (by human perception) difference in how fast our clocks tick.

Wait, I thought you were stating that clocks tick at a fixed rate? Where is that quote? Here is your own quote on that:

Any kind of machine-based clock is objective. Every clock has an oscillator that vibrates at a fixed frequency.

See how you are contradicting yourself?

Even our real motion through space, which is probably at least a few million kilometers per hour, causes very little difference between our clocks and a clock at rest with respect to the spatial dimensions.

Because that so called 'clock at rest' with respect to the spatial dimensions, measures the rate of time in units who are based upon that real motion through space to begin with. The second as a unit is defined upon this motion.

[Seiryuu]

I guess I just don't understand what phenomenon you are attributing our changes in perception to, other than internal brain functions, which by nature are highly subjective.

This is an assumption, not a fact! This assumption is the reason why you don't understand it.

I've actually previously read the Wiki article on 'senses' too, although I never contributed to it. Our interests are actually pretty similar. I don't have an answer to your question. The only thing I can say is what you already said: we have some type of internal clock, that is based on an innate understanding of causality. We aren't born knowing the law of gravity. But we observe that objects fall to the Earth if they have nothing to support them. From the time that we see gravity at work, we understand that if we knock a cup off a table it will then fall to the ground. We have to learn that objects fall, but we are born understanding causality.

Interesting. I had to really let this sink in, but I think you're on to something here. Based on this, if I were to define time in terms of causality, I would define it as such:

Time is the distance between two causally related events.

Notice how this is actually the causal version of my original definition:

Relative Time or Duration is the distance between two chronological events.

We have an innate understanding that we can't go backwards. So our brain's innate understanding, and along with that sensory information, and along with that -what we are thinking as we perceive that sensory information-is all recorded. It all forms a history and our brain is constantly comparing new sensory information and events to what it already has stored. That's why some people make such strong associations between traumatic events and innocuous things like smells or sounds. Because that sensory information is wired to correspond to that event. All of that history is what gives us a perception of time passing. A person in a deep coma has no perception of the passage of time, and if they wake up after a long period of time in a coma, they are frequently traumatized by the 'missing time'. The point is that the perception of the passage of time is the product of consciousness, and that's the closest I can come to answering your question.

Exactly! I've said it all along:

The hard part is to imagine how this movement could occur. After all, moving in a visual space is easy. We see it happening. But moving in a non-visual space dimension, that of past, present and future is a hidden movement. We don't even notice it and it appears not to happen at all. How can we be moving then, if there's no evidence of that motion? The answer to me is the movement through this dimension is a movement of the consciousness. What we experience as the present, is the current location our consciousness is in at the moment. Therefore it's easy to see that as we move along, we'll always experience the present, as the consciousness corresponds with the train in my example.

So yes, we are hardwired to perceive time passing. But so many things change that perception. Drugs change it. Age or experience can change it for some people, although a person who is in a coma for many years will presumably experience the passage of time according to his perceived age rather than his actual age. Fear can change it. Excitement can change it. Our perception is intimately tied to our emotions, and our emotions are completely subjective. I've been in a few car accidents, and when those are happening time seems to move very slowly. (my bold)

I agree for 99% with this. The only part I don't agree with is the part that I put into bold. The reason for that is again this hardcore assumption of subjectivity. You are ASSUMING that our emotions are subjective. THEY ARE NOT!

And this is not a mere assertion, for I know this by experience thanks to meditations. You can verify this one yourself if you want to. If you really take the time to feel an emotion, you will notice that every single one of them has a physical effect on the body. We all know that fear causes us to shiver. Laughter causes us to shake. Shame causes us to feel warmer. Indifference causes us to feel cold. Joy causes a more general sensation of well being, and so on.

I realise that these may be the most apparent ones, but I can assure you that every single one of them can be felt physically. Some are just more subtle than others.

Even Wikipedia agrees with me! Hurray for the scientific backup! (before anyone points this out to me: do not mind this fine sample of self-sarcasm)

Emotions are the various bodily feelings associated with mood, temperament, personality, disposition, and motivation and also with hormones and neurotransmitters such as dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin, oxytocin and cortisol.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

The point is, I don't see how you can measure or predict it, so I don't see how it can be objective, unless I am missing something.

What you are missing is that you hold on the the belief that something cannot be objective unless you are able to measure it. What you are missing is what I have pointed out before: there is a difference between not being able to measure something and not knowing how to measure something.

QED

[primummobile]

Ok, you evidently made two posts while I was writing mine. It'll take me a while to get to them. My work is piling up.

But I will say this, based on the last statement of your last post. You are mistaken that I am not understanding the difference between not being able to measure something and not knowing how. I know there is a difference. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter. If you can't measure it, I can't accept your results. That's why there is such a big, blurry line between philosophy and science that everyone is constantly fighting over. You need either math or a good measuring stick for it to be science. Else, it is philosophy. If there is a physical phenomenon behind your fifth dimension, you need to be able to measure it before you can tell what it is.

[primummobile]

Addendum: I can't accept your results as science. If you took out the stuff about it being 'real' I would accept it in a heartbeat.

[Seiryuu]

I don't think I am saying that at all. I was just explaining what I consider to be objective about time, which is clocks and SR. I know I said it before, but I reinforced it because I was trying to make the point again about what I consider objective and why... and what I consider subjective and why.

And you are wrong. Clocks are measuring an objective rate of time, yes, but since there is no prefered frame of reference in relativity, no clock can be used objectively to measure all other clocks with. For time itself is relative. You should know this.

I frequently use an example of something opposite to demonstrate what I am trying to say. In this case, that SR makes very exacting predictions that are beyond our powers of perception but that have been experimentally verified.

SR makes no predictions that are beyond our powers of perception. I will assert that if SR predicts it, we can also perceive it. One way or another.

I also don't completely disagree with you about time. I think I established in my first post to you that I agree with you that past, present, and future are one.

True.

If it were possible to be outside of this universe, whatever that means, I think an observer of our universe would see not only all of space, but all of time as well. There would be no temporal distinction for that external observer. It's difficult to imagine because we are stuck travelling through the time-like dimension. That's simply what I think an observer outside of that dimension would see were he to look at us. There's a lot more I could say about that, but it's not relevent for this discussion. I'm just pointing something we agree about in at least one type of time.

Well, it is is not possible to be outside of this universe, due to how the 'universe' is defined ;-)

It is also not possible to exist outside of any dimension. If the universe is 5-dimensional we exist in all of them. If the universe contains 11 dimensions, we exist in all of them. If the universe contains an infinite amount of dimensions we exist in all of them. More about this will come as soon I have revised my dimensional theory.

But how do you know that you're not just a brain in a vat? How do you know that I'm not a part of whatever simulation your brain is running? The answer is that you don't know.

True. We can never be sure. But that doesn't make my experience any less real. Just like in the matrix, consciousness itself makes it real and the question about what is real and not becomes irrelevant.

Even if you are just a brain in a vat, the time-like dimension described by SR is something consistent in your external world. But your second time-dimension is entirely internal, no matter what the true state of your reality is.

Nope. That is what I'm trying to tell you: it's not internal. It's a physical real phenomenon. Which is why we can also see it's effects in the physical world. If it was entirely internal, I wouldn't be able to come up with OBSERVATIONAL evidence. I've put observational in caps, to demonstrate that it is in fact external.

Given that you can't even trust your senses to tell you what is 'real', you certainly can't trust them to tell you whether any thing that you are experiencing only internally is a real physical phenomenon or just something that you are perceiving and interpreting in a certain way. There are serious, mainstream physicists who have proposed that our 'universe' is a 3-D holographic projection of the 'real' 2-D universe. I don't put much stock in that as it is highly speculative and we have no real way to test it, but it makes the point that, at least mathematically, it is possible that reality is incredibly different from what we perceive it to be.

You're the one who keeps assuming that you can't even trust your senses. And so I have to keep on repeating it: I do NOT share this belief and I trust my senses 100%.

That's what I'm getting at. It's not that I don't understand your so-named '5-dimensional' way of looking at things. I'm not even saying with certainty that it is wrong. I'm asking how do you know? I can tell you until the end of time that I love my wife, but there is no way for you to ever know if that is true or not, because the only thing you have to base it on is my own interpretation of the electrochemical reactions taking place inside of my own brain. Do you see what I am saying? Unless you can have some kind of independent verification of what I am saying, you have no way to know if it is true. I may be lying, I may be confusing one emotion for another, I may be measuring the strength of my emotion using the wrong type of measuring stick, or I may not even exist, except for in your own mind. The point is that you have no way to tell what is true--if it is something that only you can perceive with no quantifiable way to compare it to the similar thing other people perceive.

I CAN perceive and I CAN compare it. Not directly, that is true, but through the observational and circumstantional evidence. This means I can tell if you love your wife or not based upon your actions. And it means that I can also use your actions to measure the amount of love you have for her, by comparing it to the actions of others.

I assume you are familiar with solipsism. We reject solipsism as a true picture of reality for many reasons. We can't defend it. Even if we did accept it, it wouldn't change anything. And accepting solipsism begs even more questions, the most obvious being if you are not a human walking the earth in this universe, then what are you? In fact, the absurdity of solipsist thought is frequently used to argue why some philosophical positions cannot be correct. To be clear, I don't place your theory in that category. But I do perceive it as leading down that road. Granted, the road is long, but it all eventually leads to the same place. Absent a clock that I can see, your perception of time can only remain to me what you say it is. I can't see it. Only you can.

Actually, I wasn't familiar with it. So thanks for bringing this to my attention.

There is an easy way of finding out if solipsism is a true picture of reality. Let's analyze the following the statements:

The self is the only existing reality.

If this statement is true, then it is not possible for reality to exist outside of the self.
If this statement is false, then it is possible for reality to exist outside of the self.

Both conflicting views can be unified in one case: the case in which the self is both real and unreal at the same time.

I leave it up to you to determine the consequences. ^^

Now, there are also people, both physicists and philosophers, who have given consideration to the possibility that more than one dimension of time exists. In that regard only, you are not the first.

I am well aware of this. Unlike most however, I do not distinguish between dimensions of space and time. For me they are the same.

I have given thought to it as well. I don't remember the first time, but I do remember proposing it as a possibility in another forum about ten years ago. But for it to be considered anything other than metaphysics (itself a branch of philosophy), you must provide a stick with which to measure it, which brings us back to the same point we have been circling for the last several days.

It doesn't matter how many rulers I provide you with, if you keep stating that the rulers themselves are subjective.

I don't see the definition being circular as a problem.

Two definitions who are circular to eachother fail to define anything at all. They aren't even definitions to begin with, by definition of what the word 'definition' means.

When you say, "Time is that which clocks measure", the definition is using the word "that" as a substitute for the definition of time. I could just as well say that a meter is "that which this stick measures". In the second case, "that" is "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second". The problem isn't that the definition is circular. The problem is that we don't have a universally agreed upon definition for "that". Like I said before, we may not know what time is, but we know what time does. In this case, the time that clocks measure can probably be further defined as a distance travelled in the time-like dimension. So, in its most basic sense, a clock is an odometer and it measures a distance. That distance can be defined as "time".

Now you are starting to get to something that resembles a definition for 'that'. But notice that in order to justify your use of circular logic, you first need to obtain a definition of "that" which does not depend on the concept of a clock. However if you can do that, the circular logic wasn't needed in the first place.

Notice also how you independently derived almost the exact same definition of what time is as I have. And notice that although it is perfect on it's own, you do not differentiate between the aspect of time that talks about how long something lasted in duration vs the aspect of time that talks about when something took place in a chain of chronological events.

If we were only able to view the electromagnetic spectrum in x-rays, and a person came along with the ability to see light at a wavelength of 380-740nm, (visible light) that person saying that the dominant color of the sky at those wavelengths was blue would never be accepted until we were able to construct a device to 'see' at those wavelengths and confirm what the person said. And then, we would insist that other devices be constructed and the results interpreted by persons other than the conductors of the first experiment, before we would completely accept that the dominant color of the sky in the 380-740nm range was somewhere between 450-495nm, which is blue.

You don't believe this person, because you do not understand the mechanics behind how colours are being perceived. Which is why you are building more machines to verify it by experiment. However if you would truly understand the mechanics behind colour perception, you wouldn't need to verify it in the first place. You'd know instead that it cannot be any other way, due to physical laws that govern the way colours are being perceived.

I'm an electrical engineer, and I use test equipment occasionally. Usually the techs do the direct measurement, but I am not unfamiliar with any of the procedures. I frequently use an oscilloscope when doing things like getting frequency readings from induction motors. Before I use the scope, I always test it and calibrate it to make sure it is functioning correctly. The scope has an internal circuit that produces a known signal, and I can test it on that. My techs periodically (usually weekly) test those circuits. It sounds like an infinite regression of tests, but it's not. I suppose you could call it 'circular testing' if you wished, and it's how we maintain our equipment and ensure it is functioning as designed. But you have no back-up for your perception. You have no way to calibrate it. I don't know how you would do it if you wanted to.

Sure I have. Measurement is all about comparison. Comparing one frame of reference with another. All I have to do is pick one frame as the reference point and use it to calibrate all the others with, relative to that frame.

But if you know of any test you can tell me to confirm that your internal chronometer is correct and functioning how you say it does, then please tell me what it is. This is what I've been trying to get from you. If you don't have that, then you can't trust your 'equipment' to be accurate. If you haven't calibrated and tested your equipment, then you can't say that the dominant color of the sky is blue, because for all you know it may only be dominantly blue at one select range of wavelengths. There could be other 'wavelengths' to your internal chronometer that you aren't even considering, and that you don't even know exist.

I have been telling you, but it's not my fault that you keep on rejecting all of the suggested tests on the grounds of 'being subjective'.

I know you presented this as a metaphysical discussion, and I think it has great value as a metaphysical discussion. I think you have a lot of passion, and I admire that. But, and there is always a 'but', I don't think that you are doing much to eliminate confirmation bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Which one of us do you think is more biased?

The whole problem with anything perceived is the fact that we are emotional creatures. In fact, I can see emotion oozing out of your posts. The only way to remove ourselves from that is to provide a ruler that is external to ourselves that other people can use. Until then, this will remain a metaphysical and not a physical discussion. Understand though, there is nothing wrong with that. Metaphysics isn't any less real. It's just more open to interpretation.

First you state that it is fact that we are emotional creatures and then you attempt to find a way of removing ourselves from it. This is a contradictio in terminis. If there is a way for us to remove ourselves from our emotions, then the fact that we are emotional creatures is false. If it were true, we wouldn't be able to remove ourselves from it at all.

As for the external rules, I am going to repeat that it doesn't matter how many rulers I provide you with, if you keep on stating that the rulers themselves are being subjective.

[Seiryuu]

Ok, you evidently made two posts while I was writing mine. It'll take me a while to get to them. My work is piling up.

But I will say this, based on the last statement of your last post. You are mistaken that I am not understanding the difference between not being able to measure something and not knowing how. I know there is a difference. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter. If you can't measure it, I can't accept your results. That's why there is such a big, blurry line between philosophy and science that everyone is constantly fighting over. You need either math or a good measuring stick for it to be science. Else, it is philosophy. If there is a physical phenomenon behind your fifth dimension, you need to be able to measure it before you can tell what it is.

I too will refer to my last statement of the previous post as answer on this part.

Addendum: I can't accept your results as science. If you took out the stuff about it being 'real' I would accept it in a heartbeat.

In that case, I would kindly yet firmly ask you to refrain from posting anything more in this thread, for the only thing you are proving is that you are unwilling to change your own views. I am justifying or 'measuring' this on the grounds of the overwhelming amount of arguments that I have provided against them and that you are unwilling to counter properly instead of rejecting them as being 'subjective'.

You are also proving that I was right in asserting this:

So again I stand by my words: there is nothing I can say or do that will convince you and therefore I really don't wish to argue with you any further about this.

I am grateful to you for all of the interesting thoughts and challenges, but I will no longer allow our arguments to continue any further beyond this point.

[Luckmeister]

Then I too will self-exile myself from this thread.

But on my way out, since you say you trust your senses 100%, this Wiki page must be totally mistaken... right? Or do you somehow perceive more accurately than everyone else?

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

[primummobile]

I too will refer to my last statement of the previous post as answer on this part.



In that case, I would kindly yet firmly ask you to refrain from posting anything more in this thread, for the only thing you are proving is that you are unwilling to change your own views. I am justifying or 'measuring' this on the grounds of the overwhelming amount of arguments that I have provided against them and that you are unwilling to counter properly instead of rejecting them as being 'subjective'.

You are also proving that I was right in asserting this:



I am grateful to you for all of the interesting thoughts and challenges, but I will no longer allow our arguments to continue any further beyond this point.

Why would you say that? I have been perfectly cordial to you and if you haven't noticed, there are only two of us replying to you. I thought we were reaching an understanding. You chose to post here. I thought you wanted to be challenged instead of just pontificating. I told you where I agreed with you and I was just about to tell you more I agreed on but since this evidently an invitation-only thread I guess I will abstain.

But before I go, instead of bending over backwards to be cordial I will just be blunt. Science requires independent observation and verification. It requires that you make predictions based on those observations. It requires that you perform experiments. It requires the math to back it up. You have provided none of this. Despite what you say, emotions are not objective, and I have never heard anyone but you claim they are. You saying it does not make it so. That being said, I was thoroughly enjoying having a very interesting PHILOSOPHICAL debate with you, while also pointing out where I felt the science to be lacking. The latter is the reason you post stuff here. It's the reason the forum exists. If you didn't want that you probably shouldn't have posted your ideas here.

[Seiryuu]

Then I too will self-exile myself from this thread.

But on my way out, since you say you trust your senses 100%, this Wiki page must be totally mistaken... right? Or do you somehow perceive more accurately than everyone else?

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

Nope, I'm just not attributing the illusion to the senses, but rather to the interpretation of the mind. That is all.

If you wish to hear more, then I could say to you that I regard the data which the senses are gathering to be 100% objective. What the brain does with that data is a different story. And that has been my whole point all along: subjectivity arises from the mind instead of from the senses. The mind is responsible for the distortion of how we perceive reality. The mind is the one who is capable of skewing the data that are gathered. And the mind is capable of seeing things that aren't there to begin with. Don't blame the senses for this.

[Seiryuu]

Why would you say that? I have been perfectly cordial to you and if you haven't noticed, there are only two of us replying to you.

You have been and I didn't mean to offend you. You may not understand, but I must do so in order to prevent you from turning my thread into one-sided debate between the two of us. Since you are unwilling to withdraw your views on your own, I must either admit that you are right and I am wrong before you will be satisfied. Unless I do that, we will not be able to reach an understanding.

Now on it's own, I don't mind admitting that I'm wrong. But what you are virtually asking me is to admit that the base principle, the axiom so to speak, on which the entire hypothesis is based is wrong. Don't you get why I can't do that? Either my 5th dimension is physically real or either its not. If you don't accept that it is real, then we are arguing about something fictional. And if all I ever wanted was to write fiction, I would have written a novel instead of a hypothesis.

I thought we were reaching an understanding.

Not in the slightest. We were still going over the same arguments again and again. If we were reaching an understanding, we wouldn't have to keep on repeating the same things over and over.

You chose to post here. I thought you wanted to be challenged instead of just pontificating. I told you where I agreed with you and I was just about to tell you more I agreed on but since this evidently an invitation-only thread I guess I will abstain.

This is going to sound harsh and I apologize in advance. You may not want to hear it either. But indeed I want to be challenged. I don't want to be told over and over again which parts you are agreeing with and which ones you aren't. What you are doing isn't challenging anymore. It's giving YOUR opinion in contrast to mine, leading to an endless discussion that is dominating the entire thread and that clearly isn't going to get solved by either of us.

You keep on repeating on how much you agree with certain parts of what I am presenting, but you don't see that all of those parts are based upon the one thing that you continue to reject. What it comes down to is this: if you reject the base principles of a hypothesis, you cannot agree with anything that is built upon that base principle. It is as simple as that. Saying that you do regardless, implies that you accept the base principles along with it.

It's time to take a stand on how you feel about all of this: either you accept the base principle and we can continue further, or either you completely disagree with all that I have written. You cannot have it both ways.

But before I go, instead of bending over backwards to be cordial I will just be blunt. Science requires independent observation and verification. It requires that you make predictions based on those observations. It requires that you perform experiments. It requires the math to back it up. You have provided none of this.

From your perspective, indeed I haven't. I hope you can find peace with that thought and still hold warm feelings towards you, even though it may not be apparent.

Despite what you say, emotions are not objective, and I have never heard anyone but you claim they are. You saying it does not make it so.

I hope that one day you may experience intense joy. Then maybe you will feel the physical sensation that corresponds with it in the body. Consider this an experiment.

That being said, I was thoroughly enjoying having a very interesting PHILOSOPHICAL debate with you, while also pointing out where I felt the science to be lacking. The latter is the reason you post stuff here. It's the reason the forum exists. If you didn't want that you probably shouldn't have posted your ideas here.

And this is the reason why I am putting a hold to it. You were enjoying a philosophical debate, but you weren't interested in admitting that what I am presenting could be anything more than that. In order for me to take this to the next level, I need people who are able to see and value the science in what I have written. For that is indeed the reason why I posted it here on a forum that deals with science, instead of on a forum that deals with philosophy.

I am sorry, but the truth is that you were not pointing out to me where the science was lacking. You simply didn't see the science that was present in it to begin with. And therefore you aren't taking my assertions about this being a physical phenomenon seriously either.

So for the few days that are left untill this topic closes, I would like to enjoy challenges with people who do want to take my assertions seriously. Should there be no one left after reading this post, then so be it. I prefer silence over endless arguments about the same things over and over.

That is the truth. And I am sincerely sorry if it hurts or if it offends you, but in your determination not to let go of your own views, you have left me with no other choice.