In my opinion, time and space are representations of energy. So, time is the unreaveling of energy percieved by us, human beings, as gradual change in spatial relations of the objects created by energy.

I think birth and death, the way humans set up these characteristics of human life stages, have a stinch of stone age. Why? Because we are one with Universe, and as such we are Universe. We are the wave of Universe that plays differenet frequencies, periodically this wave is higher, it reaches that frequency that we habitually call life. Death of live matter is just different frequency that continues and melts with Universal matter, exists and is preserved eternally by Universe and in time rises again in a form of Big Bang, expension, galaxy, plant, mollusk, fish, animal, human, you. We can not cry over every wave that rises and falls in the ocean. We can not call fallen wave a death, it is silly. We are one with the body of Universe, its stars, it's vacuum, exploding planets, volcanoes and ice ages. We are indestructible, we always reappear. What we want is to reappear one day after dying. We crave, want, dream up that tiny fragment of our life would not go away, while in reality we have in our hands eternal life, eternal reapperance that is a lot more valuable than tiny fragment of one life. We cry about nothing. We cry like babies when parent walks into another room. The tragic flir of death has to be given up. It is separation, yes, but it is not becoming a nothingness, never was.

Time is definitely not an illusion (whatever that term may mean). It is quite real and it is the internal experience of memory pressing from where it is into what it is coming. Time is literally the process of living and experiencing. But it is not scientific time. Scientific time is carved out of some spatial movement with the practical purpose of trying to establish simultaneity of events. But this time is not the experience of real time which is continuous (cannot be divided) and heterogenous (will seem to move slower it faster depending upon experiences).

If one wishes to experience real time (duration) just close your eyes and feel time being created by the mind. It may feel very, very slow.

For a non-dualist you do seem to quite clearly separate mind from the physical..

Are all things actually happening at once? — Mike Adams

No. Time is nature's way of preventing everything from happening at once.

If time means nothing to a photon, should it mean anything to any of us? — Mike Adams

What does it mean to say that "time means nothing to a photon"? Is it to say that time doesn't pass, or that the photon doesn't change?

Are all things actually happening at once? — Mike Adams

So I am born, live and die all at once? Obama and Trump are president at the same time? If find this concept of everything happening at once impossible to understand.

Time is measured change. Change happens and is relative. Because it is relative, it allows us to measure it, which we call time.

Linear time: The past, the present, the future have to flow into each other in a specific sequence: past-present-future.

Non-linear time: The past, the present and the future, all, exist at the same time. There is no specific sequence and if there appears to be so, it's an illusion.
Is this what you mean?

NO...then what do you mean?

YES...Well, what does it mean to say that the past, the present and the future, all, exist at the same time? I like to use space to make sense of this. We don't dispute that all events (past, present, future) can occur at the same place e.g. all events in human history have taken place at one and the same place - Earth. Could we, then, extend this thought to time itself and claim all events (past, present, future) occur at the same time? For this to be reasonable, the flow of time must be an illusion too. Otherwise how could we say that all events are occurring at the same time?

Well, without change time wouldn't make sense at all. Imagine a universe without motion or any kind of change. How would we measure time and would time be of any significance at all. Imagine you're immortal; would time matter to you? So, change is essential for time. Given this is so, we can imagine a world without time. In such a world the past, the present and future, all, will be identical. Thus making time non-linear or even non-existent.

However, in a world with change, time does flow and that makes it impossible for the past, the present and the future to occupy the same point in time. I think non-linear time is an incoherent concept.

The most distant end of the future is supposed to be timeless with regard to a high state entropy.

There is a flavor of non-linear time in the experience of recurrent phenomena. The coffee I'm drinking this morning is the same as the coffee I drank yesterday morning. The learned patterns by which I navigate the world recur, just like every tomorrow will have a 7:00 am (with the Sun at it's seasonal point). We can time stamp a peculiar set of relations relative to another periodic phenomenon but I might soon forget.

Everything that matters, that remembers itself, that persists in-itself, is enabled by recurrence in contrast with change. As the poet, William Blake, said two minutes ago: "Eternity is in love with the productions of time."

The body that I inhabit today is by some measures the same as it was yesterday but different by some other measures. You can and can't step in the same river twice, depending upon whether it is (provisionally) the same river you're stepping in.

Well, what does it mean to say that the past, the present and the future, all, exist at the same time? — TheMadFool

Well they can't exist at the same time, but the intention in meaning is some sort of crossover perhaps. Special relativity teaches us that the order of events is observer dependent.

Another possible intention in saying they exist "at the same time" is perhaps that they exist together in some sort of container. I think general relativity possibly supports the notion of "block spacetime", which is that the whole of spacetime is one gigantic block that doesn't change. It has a philosophical counterpart I believe in "eternalism", which is a sort of democracy of all points of spacetime - they simply exist in and of themselves without a flow of time.

Well they can't exist at the same time, but the intention in meaning is some sort of crossover perhaps. Special relativity teaches us that the order of events is observer dependent. — Jake Tarragon

Yes, time is relative (so they say). According to Theory of Relativity (note I'm not an expert), time depends on the frame of reference i.e. a perspective A may show time x but another perspective, B, will show time y. However, within the same perspective A or B or whatever, time flow is linear. At least that's what I think is the case.

Another possible intention in saying they exist "at the same time" is perhaps that they exist together in some sort of container. I think general relativity possibly supports the notion of "block spacetime", which is that the whole of spacetime is one gigantic block that doesn't change. It has a philosophical counterpart I believe in "eternalism", which is a sort of democracy of all points of spacetime - they simply exist in and of themselves without a flow of time. — Jake Tarragon

Yes, block time makes sense but trivially so. Take our everyday experience by the watch. Every second ticks by and we move from the present into the future and leave the past. However, our entire experience of time can be put into a block - say a day, or a month, year, decade, etc. So, in a sense, the past, present and future for a certain duration of time, can be grouped in a single block of time. However, this is an uninteresting observation because it doesn't reveal anything about the nature of time. It's just a conceptual schema.

If time means nothing to a photon, should it mean anything to any of us? — Mike Adams

Time means nothing to the photon, but it does mean something to any particle with mass. Relativistically-speaking, mass has a meaningful temporality because it can go slower than lightspeed. It enjoys a range of temporal rates that is bounded by absolute rest and the speed of light.

For a photon, we can say that its journey is over the same instant it began. Time as we think of it doesn't really exist for a massless particle. But a particle with mass "experiences" a range of clock speeds. So it makes a difference if my twin heads off in a rocket at near light speed while I remain in a rest mass inertial frame. One of us is going to look a lot older than the other the next time we meet.

One of us is going to look a lot older than the other the next time we meet. — apokrisis

Can't happen. Relativity requires reciprocity in all frames of reference. Neither traveler can be viewed as growing older.

Receptivity?

Reciprocity. Sorry for the auto-correct error.

And yet a muon travelling at relativistic speed takes much longer to decay. Fancy that.

Right. Muon's decay takes much longer and Relativity says it shouldn't. There is no preferred frame of reference. Fancy that.

Not just the nuts. The absolute coconuts.

Relativity says no preferred frame of reference. Period. I have no idea why you brought relativity into muon decay. It is irrelevant. Relativity is about measurement transformation between frames of reference. It as no ontological significance.

Bonkers.

Nope. No preferred frame of reference. Everything remains the same in it's own frame of reference. It is the core of relativity. Sorry you have to look elsewhere.

P.S. I know you read it or heard it some where and are just parroting. Ask for a refund.

Fruitloop.

It must hurt that all effects are relativistic. The muon isn't decaying faster, the human on Earth is because the human is actually the one accelerating? :) Let's keep it Relativistic. :) But then again, if they are both accelerating relative to each other, then the effects cancel each other out? Oh well, so much for no preferred frame of reference. What a mess.

I always noticed that those who parroted the best did the best in science class. Memorize and parrot.

You did badly in science class? Is that what causes you to blather on here?

No. I did fine. I just observed those that were the best at parroting got the best grades. Zero ability to question the obvious. After all the "A" is what counts. The jobs go to the lemmings.

Remember: all frames of reference are reciprocal. The muons don't behave any differently in any frames of reference according to Relativity. You see, I understand.

Remember: all frames of reference are reciprocal. — Rich

So they have an inverse relationship, and yet are the same? Did 1/x = x/1 when you went to school, getting your mighty fine grades while apparently parroting nothing and questioning everything?

I think you need to add reciprocals as another basic principle you completely fail to understand.

No. I understand it very well. No preferred frame of reference. Period. The muin is not moving faster, it is the observers. The muons aren't decaying at a different rate it is the humans observers. Yes. Relativity holds fast.

No preferred frame of reference. — Rich

Ho, ho! Trying to slip out from under the rubble of the wreck of your own argument.

Reciprocality says there is a "preferred" and absolute connection between two inertial frames. So if it looks like acceleration going from frame A to frame B, it looks like a matching deceleration going in the other direction.

You do understand the difference between inertia and acceleration? You got an A for that back at school?

"looks like"? Zero ontological implications. The human beings are decaying slower from the muon's point of view. No real change in the muon's decay rate. And that is STR.

BTW, they is no direction either. Humans are accelerating away from the muons which are sitting still. You just like making things up on the fly. More of your "scientific doubletalk"? I really wonder how many forum members actually believe the gobblygook you post? Did you just predict the death of the universe as fact? My guess is many buy into your nonsense. After all it's scientific fact and who better to proselytize scientific myths and fantasies. Science can't even predict what will happen tomorrow, but a billion, billion years from now? Why not? It's a very, very long time.

Drowning not waving.

Laughing hysterically. Looks like? Deceleration? STR? I noticed some members actually take you seriously. Well, heck millions believe politicians why not you?