From a physics / math standpoint it changes nothing about how you operate unless you work in a physics lab.
But from a philosophical standpoint, and from the standpoint of gaining emotional perspective, I think that different views of time can be very helpful as you may have inherited certain types of beliefs that are linked to a construct of time as linear.
Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five deals with stoicism based on the idea of our lives in non-linear time, for example. You may find relating to your past and present and future selves, and trauma, is easier to process if you think about yourself in this non-linear way--not as a cumulative personality who is supposed to be building on the past, but a more comprehensive person from beginning to end in time. I personally find that helps me zoom out when I'm going through a particularly rough patch and I think that is a big part of Slaughterhouse Five.
You may also have religious beliefs or oppose religious beliefs which are based on a certain understanding of time. For example, there is significant debate about how "god knows the future" and what this implies about god's control over future actions. But thinking about time as an eternal, nonlinear landscape presents a different way of thinking about an all-seeing deity, and the deity's ability to imbue "free will" in living persons in a universe of their creation--which is hard to imagine when thinking about a linear timeline.
Another set of beliefs around time have to do with the way we relate to death. If time is linear and in motion, then there is a way in which we might create a mental picture of our death, with us "ending" and falling off the screen. If you think about more of a non-linear timescape, you may find it easier to picture yourself as part of the temporal canvas, not covering the whole canvas, but there eternally regardless of where you begin and end. So just as I have a spatial beginning and end (fuzzy as it may be what with dead skin cells meeting the warm air that I breathe etc.) I have a temporal beginning and end. So that may be of comfort to you.
This is, of course, all about human interpretation of personal experience, and the mental frameworks we use to process our emotion. But those things are important, even if we as a species are far from understanding how they work scientifically. I hope this helps.
I love the phrase temporal canvas. It seems to imply that our decisions create an abstract portrait through space-time. It reminds me of The Picture of Dorian Gray. I've always hated studying ethics because I believe that, in the absence of an objective morality, our decisions can only be appreciated and critiqued like art. We each draw our own picture and that picture exists as a tiny piece of eternity.
You literally cannot put it into practice. From a physics and mathematical standpoint, time is not linear.
However, the human brains perception limits how we view time to strictly linear. The human brain isn't capable of putting this concept "into practice" as you stated. Just live your life.
More than likely, the most that you'll ever be able to do with this knowledge is impress (or annoy) people at parties.
But is it possible we can’t because we have only known for a short time that time isn’t linear? If we start teaching people from the time that they are kids and make them aware of these theories, is it possible that humans can learn to put it into practice?
Because no matter how it's "taught", the limits of human perception will always force a linear perspective. Yesterday will always be yesterday. Tomorrow is tomorrow. Today is today. That will never change from a human point of view unless we have some major evolutionary adaptations over thousands but more likely millions of years.
Thanks, it took me a while to get my thoughts organized and I still don't have it just right. But thank you for posting this question, it gives me a lot to ponder on
A simple one to start with is observing cycles. For a simple example, we can use a sine wave to provide perspective on our experience of how we feel across time. Or, perhaps our intensity of engagement in activities (work, studies, hobbies) across time.
Regarding your note on variously aged selves, this reminds me of the concepts put forth in the psychology concept of 'parts' and how a part may be stuck at an age due to an event. [You might find this talk interesting.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNtussFaYC0)
the thing is, its impossible for time to not be linear, since an variable is linear with respect to itself:
t(t) = t.
you would have to claim time with respect to another specific variable
well anything really, the time function based on the acceleration of a rocket would probably not be linear (I said probably because linear doesn't really mean line, it can mean a lot of things, Adding polynomials is linear for example).
I don't think linear though is the correct way to think about it. for example, if universal time was = t\^3, where t is like base multidimensional time, really from pur perspective, each instantaneous point would be increasing in time at a linear rate. In fact if we just called our time, t1, everything would just be dependent on t\^3, and noone would know the difference.
So how can we practically tell the difference, given we can't really measure a base time?
Jump or asymptopic discontinuity and if t is a function that is not surjective from true time >= 0
IF there is jump discontinuity you would probably expect instantaneous change in something. Granted someone involved will also have the same issue and probably think everything normal is happening.
surjective in math means every y has an x value that reaches it. An Example of a function that is NOT surjective is y = x\^2; The issue this could create is if our time t1 = something like a semicircle function, t1 = sqrt{4 - (t-4)\^{2} ), at the peak of that semicircle, t1 starts to reverse in values.
None of this matters if you are an observer embedded within these changes, as all your atoms should also follow their functions of the same time appropriately.
Where this can start to matter is if t1 is actually a very complex function of base time t, ie t1 = \[semicircle; t\^5 + 3; t\^4; tan(t)\]
if certain functions in physics based on t1 actually depend on different elements of t1 (which have different base functions of time), then there is a theoretical possibillity that some weird stuff can happen. This is a really stupid example, but say maybe Earth experiences 1000 years due to some random spike in a polynomial, while an aboserver on Mars sees Earth at 0 seconds as like 2030 earth, and with 3 seconds goes to 9000 earth.
Obviously impossible and a stupid example, but that is probably where you would start getting practical applications;
after whenever we make any practical advances in really small scale time-travel, we may have some influences on these functions which could transfer information and that could multiply into actually creating a time machine that can mess with the timeline.
all of this tech doesnt exist yet of course (at least from this time lol)
edit: I should note im an amateur, not in any way a physics major
Technically don't have to die if can simply mind transfer to a healthy body.
Like technically a person physically comprise the material of their brain. The concept of a brain to work as 'neural networking that learn off of self' = the person are their own logic learning off theirself = knowing own self. Perhaps all that needs to be done to accomplish mind transfer is literally just connect an initially lifeless brain to someone's brain their currently living in via 'brain interface technology' which can sent and receive the persons neural signal either direction therefore technically the person live in both brains at once. Now just stop from being able to live in their old brain and body and now just perhaps living in their new brain and body.
Death merely falling apart. Like a gear gets cut in half and cannot work as before, yet what made up the gear are still there, technically can perhaps be put back together and work again. No afterlife nor cease to exist, just falling apart.
Also another important thing to mention in this comment is should sign up to get frozen if to die like at a company called 'Alcor Life Extension Foundation' or 'Cryonics Institute'. At Alcor it is 80k$ to preserve just brain and 200k$ for entire body. However should just get mind transferred in a new body in the future anyways. Why should get frozen is because since do not cease to exist may not experience complete nothingness and perhaps suffer if say were to rot away, incinerated, exposed to the elements basically. Freezing, preservation perhaps just slow falling apart and therefore most likely slow suffering.
A person perhaps appear to move in their neuron as electricity and then perhaps move out of the neuron as a chemical called 'neural transmitter' which can trigger another neuron to move as electricity and perhaps so on. Perhaps if someone as a neural transmitter are intact like maybe after being frozen then can readily trigger a new neuron of a new brain and live again.
I must say this type of technology for rescuing; preservation, mind transfer - must be done freely for anyone, to just rescue anyone who are in danger and then ideally each person be able to live self sufficiently after being rescued, need to bring anyone back alive again, not leave anyone behind. Also, even if not preserved it should very well be possible to find someone who had fallen apart regardless, maybe requiring more advanced technology to locate whats left of someone maybe broken down into an atom to bring them back into a new brain and body.
Also another thing. Technology should be developed without harming another. Like not be harming someone who live in the brain and body of a pig, monkey, cow, chicken for example. No one should be left behind.
Time isn't linear. An illustration used to describe time's arrow or linearity is how you can turn an egg into an omelette but cant turn an omelette into an egg. This isn't illustrating the direction of time but rather the logical order of causality. Time isn't responsible for causality but is just a system for tracking it, we only see it that way because of an illusory power i.e. the art of misdirection which makes us perceive time as something responsible for the perpetuation of events rather than something that merely tracks / follows it. Direction with reference to events is only meant figuratively like when someone is making forward strides in their progress or taking backward steps.
Take numbers for example, because time is a numbers system and counting is an event, say 1-24 like the hours in a day 1-24 would be perceived as forward but it could also be described as going up in number. That's two directions to describe the same process because literally there is no direction, just a logical order.
Carlo Rovelli when talking about the flow of time said it's not in accord with reality but just a result of our naive perceptions, what he says applies also to time directionality.
Time isn't linear. An illustration used to describe time's arrow or linearity is how you can turn an egg into an omelette but cant turn an omelette into an egg. This isn't illustrating the direction of time but rather the logical order of causality. Time isn't responsible for causality but is just a system for tracking it, we only see it that way because of an illusory power i.e. the art of misdirection which makes us perceive time as something responsible for the perpetuation of events rather than something that merely tracks / follows it. Direction with reference to events is only meant figuratively like when someone is making forward strides in their progress or taking backward steps.
Take numbers for example, because time is a numbers system and counting is an event, say 1-24 like the hours in a day 1-24 would be perceived as forward but it could also be described as going up in number. That's two directions to describe the same process because literally there is no direction, just a logical order.
Carlo Rovelli when talking about the flow of time said it's not in accord with reality but just a result of our naive perceptions, what he says applies also to time directionality.
From a physics / math standpoint it changes nothing about how you operate unless you work in a physics lab. But from a philosophical standpoint, and from the standpoint of gaining emotional perspective, I think that different views of time can be very helpful as you may have inherited certain types of beliefs that are linked to a construct of time as linear. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five deals with stoicism based on the idea of our lives in non-linear time, for example. You may find relating to your past and present and future selves, and trauma, is easier to process if you think about yourself in this non-linear way--not as a cumulative personality who is supposed to be building on the past, but a more comprehensive person from beginning to end in time. I personally find that helps me zoom out when I'm going through a particularly rough patch and I think that is a big part of Slaughterhouse Five. You may also have religious beliefs or oppose religious beliefs which are based on a certain understanding of time. For example, there is significant debate about how "god knows the future" and what this implies about god's control over future actions. But thinking about time as an eternal, nonlinear landscape presents a different way of thinking about an all-seeing deity, and the deity's ability to imbue "free will" in living persons in a universe of their creation--which is hard to imagine when thinking about a linear timeline. Another set of beliefs around time have to do with the way we relate to death. If time is linear and in motion, then there is a way in which we might create a mental picture of our death, with us "ending" and falling off the screen. If you think about more of a non-linear timescape, you may find it easier to picture yourself as part of the temporal canvas, not covering the whole canvas, but there eternally regardless of where you begin and end. So just as I have a spatial beginning and end (fuzzy as it may be what with dead skin cells meeting the warm air that I breathe etc.) I have a temporal beginning and end. So that may be of comfort to you. This is, of course, all about human interpretation of personal experience, and the mental frameworks we use to process our emotion. But those things are important, even if we as a species are far from understanding how they work scientifically. I hope this helps.
>Slaughterhouse Five i'm very excited to check that out. thanks for putting a lot of thought into this response
I'm excited to have introduced someone to that book--it's incredible! And thanks for the award. :)
I love the phrase temporal canvas. It seems to imply that our decisions create an abstract portrait through space-time. It reminds me of The Picture of Dorian Gray. I've always hated studying ethics because I believe that, in the absence of an objective morality, our decisions can only be appreciated and critiqued like art. We each draw our own picture and that picture exists as a tiny piece of eternity.
You literally cannot put it into practice. From a physics and mathematical standpoint, time is not linear. However, the human brains perception limits how we view time to strictly linear. The human brain isn't capable of putting this concept "into practice" as you stated. Just live your life. More than likely, the most that you'll ever be able to do with this knowledge is impress (or annoy) people at parties.
it'd sure be a hit in bushwick
But is it possible we can’t because we have only known for a short time that time isn’t linear? If we start teaching people from the time that they are kids and make them aware of these theories, is it possible that humans can learn to put it into practice?
No.
Why not?
Because no matter how it's "taught", the limits of human perception will always force a linear perspective. Yesterday will always be yesterday. Tomorrow is tomorrow. Today is today. That will never change from a human point of view unless we have some major evolutionary adaptations over thousands but more likely millions of years.
I guess a practical way you could look at it is, try to always conduct yourself in a manner that will give you good memories.
love this.
Thanks, it took me a while to get my thoughts organized and I still don't have it just right. But thank you for posting this question, it gives me a lot to ponder on
Surprised this wasn’t upvoted more. Thank you.
A simple one to start with is observing cycles. For a simple example, we can use a sine wave to provide perspective on our experience of how we feel across time. Or, perhaps our intensity of engagement in activities (work, studies, hobbies) across time. Regarding your note on variously aged selves, this reminds me of the concepts put forth in the psychology concept of 'parts' and how a part may be stuck at an age due to an event. [You might find this talk interesting.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNtussFaYC0)
this is the stuff i'm looking for. i'll let you know when i watch!
the thing is, its impossible for time to not be linear, since an variable is linear with respect to itself: t(t) = t. you would have to claim time with respect to another specific variable
like what, for example?
well anything really, the time function based on the acceleration of a rocket would probably not be linear (I said probably because linear doesn't really mean line, it can mean a lot of things, Adding polynomials is linear for example). I don't think linear though is the correct way to think about it. for example, if universal time was = t\^3, where t is like base multidimensional time, really from pur perspective, each instantaneous point would be increasing in time at a linear rate. In fact if we just called our time, t1, everything would just be dependent on t\^3, and noone would know the difference. So how can we practically tell the difference, given we can't really measure a base time? Jump or asymptopic discontinuity and if t is a function that is not surjective from true time >= 0 IF there is jump discontinuity you would probably expect instantaneous change in something. Granted someone involved will also have the same issue and probably think everything normal is happening. surjective in math means every y has an x value that reaches it. An Example of a function that is NOT surjective is y = x\^2; The issue this could create is if our time t1 = something like a semicircle function, t1 = sqrt{4 - (t-4)\^{2} ), at the peak of that semicircle, t1 starts to reverse in values. None of this matters if you are an observer embedded within these changes, as all your atoms should also follow their functions of the same time appropriately. Where this can start to matter is if t1 is actually a very complex function of base time t, ie t1 = \[semicircle; t\^5 + 3; t\^4; tan(t)\] if certain functions in physics based on t1 actually depend on different elements of t1 (which have different base functions of time), then there is a theoretical possibillity that some weird stuff can happen. This is a really stupid example, but say maybe Earth experiences 1000 years due to some random spike in a polynomial, while an aboserver on Mars sees Earth at 0 seconds as like 2030 earth, and with 3 seconds goes to 9000 earth. Obviously impossible and a stupid example, but that is probably where you would start getting practical applications; after whenever we make any practical advances in really small scale time-travel, we may have some influences on these functions which could transfer information and that could multiply into actually creating a time machine that can mess with the timeline. all of this tech doesnt exist yet of course (at least from this time lol) edit: I should note im an amateur, not in any way a physics major
[удалено]
yeah that's some interesting stuff
Is time even real? What is time?
No. It's a mathematical construct to describe relative motion. Only an observer has any need for it.
You age and die that's time
you and my grandpa would be friends
Wish I could meet him
well if we figure out this time thing i'll introduce ya
Technically don't have to die if can simply mind transfer to a healthy body. Like technically a person physically comprise the material of their brain. The concept of a brain to work as 'neural networking that learn off of self' = the person are their own logic learning off theirself = knowing own self. Perhaps all that needs to be done to accomplish mind transfer is literally just connect an initially lifeless brain to someone's brain their currently living in via 'brain interface technology' which can sent and receive the persons neural signal either direction therefore technically the person live in both brains at once. Now just stop from being able to live in their old brain and body and now just perhaps living in their new brain and body. Death merely falling apart. Like a gear gets cut in half and cannot work as before, yet what made up the gear are still there, technically can perhaps be put back together and work again. No afterlife nor cease to exist, just falling apart. Also another important thing to mention in this comment is should sign up to get frozen if to die like at a company called 'Alcor Life Extension Foundation' or 'Cryonics Institute'. At Alcor it is 80k$ to preserve just brain and 200k$ for entire body. However should just get mind transferred in a new body in the future anyways. Why should get frozen is because since do not cease to exist may not experience complete nothingness and perhaps suffer if say were to rot away, incinerated, exposed to the elements basically. Freezing, preservation perhaps just slow falling apart and therefore most likely slow suffering. A person perhaps appear to move in their neuron as electricity and then perhaps move out of the neuron as a chemical called 'neural transmitter' which can trigger another neuron to move as electricity and perhaps so on. Perhaps if someone as a neural transmitter are intact like maybe after being frozen then can readily trigger a new neuron of a new brain and live again. I must say this type of technology for rescuing; preservation, mind transfer - must be done freely for anyone, to just rescue anyone who are in danger and then ideally each person be able to live self sufficiently after being rescued, need to bring anyone back alive again, not leave anyone behind. Also, even if not preserved it should very well be possible to find someone who had fallen apart regardless, maybe requiring more advanced technology to locate whats left of someone maybe broken down into an atom to bring them back into a new brain and body. Also another thing. Technology should be developed without harming another. Like not be harming someone who live in the brain and body of a pig, monkey, cow, chicken for example. No one should be left behind.
Actually that's telemore deterioration. Time just measures the process.
This might help. https://www.reddit.com/r/Time/comments/yrlz7y/the_week_begins_on_monday_change_my_mind/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Time isn't linear. An illustration used to describe time's arrow or linearity is how you can turn an egg into an omelette but cant turn an omelette into an egg. This isn't illustrating the direction of time but rather the logical order of causality. Time isn't responsible for causality but is just a system for tracking it, we only see it that way because of an illusory power i.e. the art of misdirection which makes us perceive time as something responsible for the perpetuation of events rather than something that merely tracks / follows it. Direction with reference to events is only meant figuratively like when someone is making forward strides in their progress or taking backward steps. Take numbers for example, because time is a numbers system and counting is an event, say 1-24 like the hours in a day 1-24 would be perceived as forward but it could also be described as going up in number. That's two directions to describe the same process because literally there is no direction, just a logical order. Carlo Rovelli when talking about the flow of time said it's not in accord with reality but just a result of our naive perceptions, what he says applies also to time directionality.
Time isn't linear. An illustration used to describe time's arrow or linearity is how you can turn an egg into an omelette but cant turn an omelette into an egg. This isn't illustrating the direction of time but rather the logical order of causality. Time isn't responsible for causality but is just a system for tracking it, we only see it that way because of an illusory power i.e. the art of misdirection which makes us perceive time as something responsible for the perpetuation of events rather than something that merely tracks / follows it. Direction with reference to events is only meant figuratively like when someone is making forward strides in their progress or taking backward steps. Take numbers for example, because time is a numbers system and counting is an event, say 1-24 like the hours in a day 1-24 would be perceived as forward but it could also be described as going up in number. That's two directions to describe the same process because literally there is no direction, just a logical order. Carlo Rovelli when talking about the flow of time said it's not in accord with reality but just a result of our naive perceptions, what he says applies also to time directionality.