It is shame that some people including so called scientists twisted the concept of time as if it is physical entity and wasted lots of time discussing and confusing people as if, it can be reversible or flowing to some directions etc. — Corvus

Time is made something physical indeed. The clock, which is projected upon an imaginary (!) time axis in relativity; it. In fact, ideal clocks, with a perfect periodicity, are a fantasy. Coincidentally, I saw on TV that "progress" is made. Time can now be measured more precisely than ever. In a million billion year (no kidding!) the clock runs off one second... Now what an image of progress... so time can be "measured". Which means putting a clock next to a process. Is the process then time? And what about the clock itself? A periodic pricess? Well, periodic processes don't exist. So how can time exist? The only truly periodic process involves virtual particles, which existed before the inflation of the universe. So real clock time only existed when there was no time yet! Far out, man! :smile:

What humans perceive are just physical entities and their motions and changes. They also intuited time from their perception of the motions and changes? So I feel that time is an intuited entity. It is not physical existence, which can be turn back or forward like the scenes of youtube videos. :)

What humans perceive are just physical entities and their motions and changes. — Corvus

Precisely! But don't they perceive time then?

Precisely! But don't they perceive time then? — Hillary

They feel time, but it is different from visual or audible perceptions.
It is kind of intuition, or feeling rather than sensory perception.

They feel time, but it is different from visual or audible perceptions.
It is kind of intuition, or feeling rather than sensory perception.

:up: :100:

We could have felt it the other way round. Effects preceding causes. It would be completely weird, but I think this is what the "fundamental problem" of the direction of time is about. What problems men have created, including wo-men! :smile:

We could have felt it the other way round. Effects preceding causes. — Hillary

Any real life examples for effects preceding causes? :)

Well, in real life, cause always precedes effect. But imagine what it feels like if we time reverse you playing the guitar (it requires some stretch of the imagination, to say the least...). Let's say you have hit an accord and let it the sound die out. Now reverse time. The strings magically start to vibrate, out of the thin air (litterally!). The sound waves all reverse and even come from your ears and inner experience! Instead of hearing a dying accord, you hear one increasing in volume, after which you feel your hand absorbing the energy of the vibrating strings and gone is the sound. And this could be the case for the whole universe. There are no laws forbidding this to happen! But it didn't happen like this. Weird! :smile:

Yeah, if it worked that way, then guitar playing would be impossible. I struck a chord to play the Eagles song, but it goes backwards and the sound die out, and so on ... it never happens fortunately, logically and rightly in the real world. :) So, guitar playing is possible.

But cause and effect you mentioned, and the topic had been much discussed by Hume. I think he said that causality doesn't exist. It is, just like time, an intuited entity from your habit, of seeing some event(s) and what follows immediately after the event. You keep seeing them and happening the same result every time the event happens first, and you get the idea of causality. Would it be correct to say that it is just the way how time works? :)

Everything exists at the same time under the present-dynamism only. The projectile time movement discerned by our mental consciousness is purely due to relativity, owing to the varying vibrational frequencies. Consequently, we often instill the habit of building narratives from a series of linear events; thus, the creation of time-shifting delusions. Fundamentally, conventional time is subjective-cum-relative, in the sense that it depends on the mind of the observer to feed the valuation on the other side of the object or matter. In the end, all the episode varies according to the various observers or minds.

For reference, frequency could be related to space and the process of becoming over time. Time is an indicator of the process of becoming and space is only an expression of the energy at work in terms of frequency. In the end, there is no temporal movement, but a regeneration of events in the present-dynamism. This means, in a twinkling of an eye, that all events or phenomena would fluctuate and be renewed infinitely. Just like the gravitational effects on earth for all different masses are the same (acceleration value, g = 9.80 m/s2) even though the rock strikes the ground before the feather per se. The applicable principle: -

Present-dynamism => Frequency x Becoming (Space x Time)

So I can tell you how pointless this question is, without instantly forgetting why I thought that as I unread your post.

Present-dynamism => Frequency x Becoming (Space x Time) — Takso

Well, that certainly clarifies the issue. :roll:

I really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. It could be me though...

So I can tell you how pointless this question is, without instantly forgetting why I thought that as I unread your post. — Razorback kitten

The point is though, why I don't know about your answer before that backward memory disappears while reading your answer backwards. Why didn't the universe start at the end? The strange thing is that if the universe started as a wind up puppet and the unwinding is time, it doesn't feel like unwinding and this would actually be the case if it started at the end.

It has been said well before Plato time, by Heraclitus "You cannot enter the same river twice." By the way, I have never met Plato in real life, but just intuiting the time of his living from what I read on some of the books.

It has been said well before Plato time, by Heraclitus "You cannot enter the same river twice." — Corvus

Why nit? Can't I jump in the Mississippi twice?

Why nit? Can't I jump in the Mississippi twice? — Hillary

I think he meant that the river you jumped 2nd time was not the same river as the one you jumped first time.

A weak argument follows:

Time is Flowing Backwards

Chronologically, Buddhism & Jainism preceded Christianity & Islam (can't comment on Judaism).

Logically, Buddhism & Jainism succeed Christianity & Islam.

[My argument is premised on the ethics of these religions. Mahavira's & Buddha's morality are more advanced than Jesus' and Mohammad's]