Are you saying the past is imminent in the present through influence — Ø implies everything

I think "influence" is misleading. For an ongoing process, the present is more like the face of the past, I'd say. Michael Leyton's book, Symmetry, Causality, and Mind looks at how the present is the "shape" of the past, how we extract time from shape.

I'm not so clear on your concept of object versus motion temporal extension.

Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

Are you implying here that we create time?

More that time can't be construed as entirely or merely objective. That consciousness is an essentially temporal being, versus merely a being in time.

Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

Not really. You fall asleep and awaken in the blink of an eye, finding that an hour has past and the world has moved on.

If time measures change, or gives change substance, it is a bit strange that the metrics in special relativity allow for a change of spacetime when there is no change of position in space.

If time measures change, or gives change substance, it is a bit strange that the metrics in special relativity allow for a change of spacetime when there is no change of position in space. — jgill

Quantum field theory, or at least certain interpretations of it, might offer more fertile ground than special relativity for thinking through the relation between time and change.

So, does consciousness have a temporal dimension, or does it merely move through time?
Is the present (as a "percept") actually a duration? Looking at a river, one might think/feel so. But I am able to bring doubt to this. What would it even mean? — Ø implies everything

Everything in the universe has a "temporal dimension" in the sense that all things change*1. That's what Einstein referred to as the "Fourth Dimension". We visualize that ongoing change as a river of water flowing downhill. But it's really the flow of invisible Energy/Causation flowing from hot to cold states, and causing physical changes along the way, that we can see, and attribute to the passing of ghostly Causation.

However, due to the digitizing of incoming data*2, our perception only captures still shots (moments, instants) of change. Which we then conceive as a continuous stream of change. So, our awareness of the "present" is actually delayed slightly from the external event.

Strangely, a related question arises : during the 10 billion years before the emergence of Life & Mind (sentience ; consciousness) --- did Time, as we know it --- still exist? Obviously, change was occurring, but is physical Change the same as metaphysical (conceptual) Time? Is there a temporal dimension when there is no one to measure it? When a tree falls in the forest --- with no ears around --- does it make a sound? :smile:



*1. All things flow, nothing abides. You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are continually flowing on. Nothing is permanent except change. ___Heraclitus

*2. Digital Perception : Neurons require a minimum input stimulus before firing an output. Thus there is a time-delay (+/- 80 milliseconds) between input & output. But our Conception of change is analog, with the gaps filled-in. Hence, as in a movie, we are not normally aware of the still frames that flash by faster than 80ms.

I'm not so clear on your concept of object versus motion temporal extension. — Pantagruel

Let's forget about time as a dimension, in order to simplify things to the more comprehensible spatial dimension.

Let's say I have a chair; if I throw it across the room, it has a spatial extension. Why? Because it is moving through space; that's motion-spatial-extension (MSE).

Let's say the chair stands perfectly still however. Does it no longer have a spatial extension? Of course it does! But it isn't moving through space, the object itself extends into space. Thus, it has object-spatial-extension (OSE).

Now, at first, it might seem that OSE is perhaps a special case of MSE. That is not true; one does not imply the other. Take for example a zeroth-dimensional point moving through space (which is what particles are to some physicists). That zeroth-dimensional point, as an object, does not have any axis of which its form can extend into space, and thus, it has no OSE. Nevertheless, it moves through space, and thus has MSE.

So, what about our consciousness? Well, I think it is safe to say our consciousness moves through time; it has motion-temporal-extension (MTE). But does the "form" of consciousness; the "geometry"; the "shape"; does it have temporal extension? Does consciousness have object-temporal-extension (OTE)?

If it does, it would mean that some of our "memories" are actually the past contained within the manifold of consciousness, and thus, are as real and direct as other percepts. This would mean such memories are not representational, and thus not subject to the skepticism regarding any potential representational corruption.

Everything in the universe has a "temporal dimension" in the sense that all things change — Gnomon

Yes, agreed. But that is merely motion-temporal-extension (MSE). The question is, does consciousness have object-temporal-extension (OSE). In the above comment, I explained the difference. Here I will add another point to differentiate them:

If an object has MSE, then it can move from one (set) of point(s) on the temporal axis to another (set) of point(s). But if an object has OSE, then the object itself extends across multiple points on the temporal axis. The object's butt is in the past and its face in the future, all without moving, just like how a chair is extended through space without moving.

If consciousness has no OSE, then it is merely a point moving down the time axis. If consciousness has OSE, then it is a set of points co-moving down the time axis.

@Pantagruel You might want to see this comment too, as I am expanding on the above explanation :)

If it does, it would mean that some of our "memories" are actually the past contained within the manifold of consciousness, and thus, are as real and direct as other percepts. This would mean such memories are not representational, and thus not subject to the skepticism regarding any potential representational corruption. — Ø implies everything

Ok. I understand your usages. I'm not sure I fully agree. To the extent that nothing is every truly at rest, the distinction between OSE and MSE breaks down. However, I agree the concept is a useful analogy for consciousness as presenting actual temporal extension (versus a vector motion through time, which is what your MSE characterizes, vector motion through space). Since historical pastness is literally embedded in the now (as the shape of the now) it seems to me that past temporal dimension effectively collapses into the now for objects (retrievable as information, depending on knowledge of both particular details and governing laws).

Yes, agreed. But that is merely motion-temporal-extension (MSE). The question is, does consciousness have object-temporal-extension (OSE). In the above comment, I explained the difference. Here I will add another point to differentiate them: — Ø implies everything

Yes. Time is just one way to measure the world. Spatial extension (3D) is timeless & static. But dynamic Motion extension brings in a new vector of time. Motion is a change in Spatial position that requires a fourth arrow for measurement.

In theory, Consciousness could be aware of static existence (object), but in practice our brains are designed to register differences in position (process). That's why our eyes are constantly sweeping the scene to detect meaningful differences in location (motion). So a time interval (change) is more meaningful to living organisms than static location in space. :smile:

To the extent that nothing is every truly at rest, the distinction between OSE and MSE breaks down. — Pantagruel

I would say the restlessness of all things does not matter. In any quantum/instant of time, every object stands still, yet it still has OSE. Unless you propose that its OSE arises from the fact that it will have a new position in the next instant/quantum of time, then you must agree the restlessness of everything is immaterial to the distinction between OSE and MSE.

I'm just not seeing the utility of the distinction. Nothing anywhere stands still. An object in a quantum instant of time has a quantifiable momentum, which is a function of its motion, even if that motion cannot be represented in a zero duration moment.

I'm just not seeing the utility of the distinction. — Pantagruel

In this comment, it seemed like you thought the distinction wasn't there, due to the fact that nothing is at rest. After I explained that it does not matter, you seem to have now moved on to saying there is no utility in the distinction; however, it being a useless distinction does not follow from the restlessness of all things, just like it not being a real distinction does not.

The utility of the distinction lies in pointing out conflations one might have in regards to spatial/temporal extension. The distinction of object- and motion-temporal-extension is very important for consciousness, since the latter is pretty trivial, but the former could be extremely important for epistemology, if ever figured out.

The distinction between the spatial equivalents is important for our ability to draw the aforementioned analogy, and that ability comes at no cost, since the concept makes complete sense despite the restlessness of all things (as I've explained). There may be other such concrete utilities in making the distinction.

So, if you are going to disagree, please explain how the distinction is illusory/useless with all this in mind.

Before I can make up my mind about how I think your O.P. should be answered (as if it even matters [l.o.l.]), allow me please to ask you, what did you mean in the O.P. when you asked "Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time?"

Does your question imply that we can even consider time & thereby designate it in any other way than in the sense of "the awareness of time"? If, & only if, not, then why even ask that question? For, in that case, it's obvious that what we designate by "time" refers only to "the awareness of time," since, by your own admission, it can't even be considered & designated in any other way than that (& so you've answered your own question).

That the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness.

I agree consciousness has what you would call OTE. re. OSE and MSE, an object has dimensions, and it moves through space, yes.

I was reading this repose from Victor Toth on Quora, to the question:
How did the universe expand faster than c during inflationary period? It’s been said that if the universe was in a false vacuum, that it would radiate out at c from a location in space. How is this different?

I think the question is flawed due to the notion of the universe starting from a position IN space but Victors answer, helped improve my understanding of the concepts involved and I think it relates to your musings regarding time. I initially editorialised on what Victor posted to relate it more to your OP, but I then decided to just let you read what victor posted and let you decide which parts you think relate to your musings on time. I did however underline the parts I thought were most important.

Here is Victors response to the emboldened question above:

"The universe did not expand faster than c during the inflationary period.

The universe did not expand slower than c during the inflationary period either.

Cosmic expansion does not have a speed measured in units of length divided by units of time, the way we normally measure speed. Cosmic expansion is measured by the Hubble parameter, which (in the units that are customarily used for this purpose) tells you that, for instance, at the present, two galaxies that are 1 Mpc (megaparsec, approx. 3 million light years) apart, are moving away from each other at a speed of roughly 70 km/s.

Now from this you can infer that there will be galaxies that are 10 Mpc apart, moving away from each other, on average, at 700 km/s. And there will be galaxies that are 10 Gpc (gigaparsec, 1000 Mpc) that are moving away from each other at 700,000 km/s.

Yes, 700,000 km/s. Which is more than twice the vacuum speed of light. Today.

This sounds like a direct violation of relativity theory, except that it is not.Relativity theory does not tell you that distant things, measured in your local reference frame, cannot appear to move faster than light in your choice of coordinates. What they cannot do is move faster than a ray of light at the same place where they are. And you don’t even need cosmology for this. Here on the good Earth, because of the Earth’s gravitational field, clocks tick ever so slightly slower than in deep space. So in principle, it is possible to set up an experiment in interplanetary space that involves a ray of light. Observed from the Earth, that ray of light will appear to travel from point A to point B ever so slightly faster than 299,792,458 m/s. Moreover, high-energy massive particles, chasing that ray of light, may also appear faster than 299,792,458 m/s as measured in our Earthbound reference frame. Does this mean that they are faster than light? Nope: They are still slower than the ray of light at their location. We measure them to be faster than the nominal speed of light because we are using our local coordinate system to describe distant events at places where the gravitational field differs from the field at our location.

So back to inflation. It is not about “faster than c”. It is about how the rate of expansion, characterized by the Hubble-parameter, changes over time.

Imagine things flying apart at a constant speed. Today, a galaxy is 1 Mpc away from us, moving at 70 km/s. Roughly 14 billion years from now, that galaxy will be 2 Mpc away from us, still moving at 70 km/s. So that means that 14 billion years hence, in this universe, the Hubble parameter will have decreased from 70 km/s/Mpc to 70 km/s/(2 Mpc) = 35 km/s/Mpc.

Now imagine in turn a universe in which the Hubble parameter is constant. Today, a galaxy is 1 Mpc away from us moving at 70 km/s. That means that when it gets to 2 Mpc billions of years from now, it will be moving at 140 km/s. At 3 Mpc, its speed will be 210 km/s. And so on. It is accelerating.

That’s what cosmic inflation means: accelerating expansion. The mechanism behind this inflation is a field that is a relativistic medium with very large, negative pressure. You may have seen the Newtonian field equation for gravitation, ∇2U=4πGρ.
Without going into details, this equation tells us that the gravitational field, U,
is determined by the density of matter, ρ.
Except that it’s not the full picture. When there is substantial pressure, a version of this equation with relativistic corrections replaces ρ
with ρ+3p. When p is large and negative, ρ+3p is negative.
If a region of space is dominated by such a medium, its gravitational effect on distant things will be repulsive. Pushing things apart. Accelerating them.

And that’s how inflation supposedly took place: the presence of a field with large negative pressure caused stuff everywhere in the universe to be pushed away from other stuff everywhere else, accelerating the rate of expansion. Eventually, this medium is supposed to have vanished, in a phase transition or something, so it is no longer doing its thing. (And this is one of the sticking points of inflation and the reason why some researchers are skeptical about the whole concept.) But if there was indeed a period of time in the early universe dominated by such a medium, every time distances between things doubled, on average, the rate of expansion doubled, too. This exponential period in the expansion of the universe is what we call the “inflationary epoch”."

It seems to me, that any notion of a personal 'awareness of time,' must be perceived with a description of expansion/inflation/ relative reference frames, such as Victors in mind. 'It's all relative.'

Yes. The universe appears to us as fractured into many different-discrete relativistic frames. Trying to correlate between those frames gives rise to apparent contradictions or aporias. Undoubtedly different mechanisms dominated in the very early universe. Probably beyond our ability to simulate, since they involved very large scale gravity wells.

That the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

Okay. So, that leads to another question, which I've noted in my original comment:

... then why even ask that question (in your O.P., i.e., "Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time?")? For, in that case, it's obvious that what we designate by "time" refers only to "the awareness of time," since, by your own admission, it can't even be considered & designated in any other way than that (& so you've answered your own question [from the O.P.]). — ItIsWhatItIs

For, in that case, it's obvious that what we designate by "time" refers only to "the awareness of time," since, by your own admission, it can't even be considered & designated in any other way than that (& so you've answered your own question)." — ItIsWhatItIs

It's a question that is likewise asked of objective reality in general. Perhaps the experience of time offers avenues of conceptualizing this overlapping of the subjective and objective, in the context of the varying depths of consciousness of the "now" for example. There are material events that can be seen as consciousness-like in the sense of likewise being "temporally-inflated." Complex adaptive systems that rely on cyclical mechanisms, for example. The ontology of such systems is seemingly more trans-temporal than that of basic objects. Although, at the atomic level, cyclicality and resonance are also in evidence.

One question that is occurring to me - given that time is passing more slowly now at the surface of the sun than for us, does this mean that there is in some real sense an ever-increasing temporal gradient between here and there? Relativistic time-dilation has an "event manifestation" if you visualize an astronaut leaving and returning to earth, which acts as an "anchor time frame." But gravitational time-dilation is ongoing. So it seems more akin to an increasing "temporal stress."

Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. — Pantagruel

I believe this generally true. The same thing was believed by Heraclitus 2,500 years ago! :smile:

However, this does not apply to us as beings, and esp. the mind, since most of the time we live "in the past" (remembering, contemplating, affected by and stuck on incidents, etc.) and sometimes also "in the future" (dreaming, wishing, etc.) In fact, whenever we are thinking --anything-- we don't live in the present, now. To live in the present, we must be just aware --perceive, observe, etc.-- the environment. That is be part of "the ongoing now" of the Universe that you talked about.

Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

I believe that in way this is also true. Time does not actually exist. It is a concept and something we have created to help us explain, describe and measure change and movement.

to help us explain, describe and measure change and movement. — Alkis Piskas

TIme is certainly flux

It seems to me, that any notion of a personal 'awareness of time,' must be perceived with a description of expansion/inflation/ relative reference frames, such as Victors in mind. 'It's all relative.' — universeness

:up: Toth is a fine expositor. So are Muller and Fernee.

Yeah, I think Quora has a good number of contributors who have a career background in science.

Time does not actually exist. — Alkis Piskas

A bit convoluted. To exist possibly means to persist through a duration of time. Can something exist in only an instant of time? The blink of an eye, then gone? Could we detect such an occurrence?

To exist possibly means to persist through a duration of time. — jgill

First of all, "duration of time" is a pleonasm or a self-referential expresssion (however you want to look at it), since duration already refers to a length of time. The same applies to "a period of tme" or "interval of time". They are all self-referential expressions. I know these expressions are commonly used. But better avoid this, at least in this place, isn't that right?

So, right. For something to exist, it must persist for some length of time. This is about the same as if we say "For a javelin throw to be valid, the javelin must go across some distance." Does that "distance" --or any distance for that matter-- actually exist? Of course not. Both time and distance are dimensions. They aer both used for description and measurement purposes. They do not actually exist.

Can something exist in only an instant of time? — jgill

Yes, if you set a length for that "instant", however small it may be. E.g. a soap bubble pops up after a few of seconds. It does exist for that length of time.
Otherwise, there's no absolute present. That would require an instant of zero-length. Which is absurd of course. So, we have to set a length for an instant, however small that may be. Which makes "present" a relative thing.

TIme is certainly flux — Pantagruel

Right. This is why I mentioned Heractlitus. :smile: ("Everything flows")

To exist possibly means to persist through a duration of time. Can something exist in only an instant of time? The blink of an eye, then gone? Could we detect such an occurrence? — jgill

Quantum fluctuations?

So, we have to set a length for an instant, however small that may be. Which makes "present" a relative thing. — Alkis Piskas

In physics, Planck time is posited as the smallest duration possible. From wiki:

The Planck time is the length of time at which no smaller meaningful length can be validly measured due to the indeterminacy expressed in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Theoretically, this is the shortest time measurement that is possible. Planck time is roughly ${10^{−43}}$seconds. However, to date, the smallest time interval that was measured was ${10^{−21}}$ seconds, a "zeptosecond." One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length.

Does that "distance" --or any distance for that matter-- actually exist? Of course not. Both time and distance are dimensions. They aer both used for description and measurement purposes. They do not actually exist. — Alkis Piskas

Are you suggesting that a dimension does not have a physical existence?
Any reference to a space dimension has direction and extent, does it not? Just like any reference to a notion of a dimension of time, has a direction and a duration. Planck time has an associated Planck length, and afaik, anything smaller than a Plank length takes you into the physics of black holes.

In physics, Planck time is posited as the smallest duration possible — universeness

Hi! Long time no see!
Yes, I know that. It's too short for me to grasp it! :grin:

Are you suggesting that a dimension does not have a physical existence? — universeness

Isn't it quite evident I do? :smile:
A dimension refers to a physical existence. Itself is not either physical or existent.

Any reference to a space dimension has direction and extent, does it not? — universeness

This is exacely what I'm saying: "a reference to".
A concept refers to something that exists or not. Itself does not exist. (In the strict sense, of course. Because the verb "exist" can be used figuratively in all sorts of ways.)

Hi Alkis! People have in the past, exclaimed 'long time no see! or long time no hear!' to me before, and I am never sure if their 'happy state,' indicates that my absence from their life, has been a joy or a curse. :lol:

It seems to me that you are stating that the labels that we choose to use for a real existent such as 'distance,' dimension or 'time,' fall short.

A concept refers to something that exists or not. Itself does not exist. (In the strict sense, of course. Because the verb "exist" can be used figuratively in all sorts of ways.) — Alkis Piskas

Does the path you are on, not currently terminate at cogito ergo sum?
Otherwise, what do you conceptualise, as existing, between dimensionless point coordinates, you observe over a duration in spacetime, say, from an agreed reference/origin point, (0,0,0,0) using centimeters and seconds, coordinates:
(2cm, 3cm, 4cm, 0sec) and
(4cm, 5cm, 6cm, 1sec) ?

I would insist that 'space or spacetime' or 'distance' or 'extent' exists between those two dimensionless coordinates, do you perceive of such differently?