[Opinion] I think that what we call time is merely our perception of the universe unravelling

[Zineth-Pagnae]

Time is not a illusion but rather the foundational experience of being in a universe as it progresses in its existence. It is the best we can do to perceive the universe evolve. What we call the arrow of time is also the vector of universal expansion, or put differently, the arrow of time is a growing topology and the shape of time is the shape of this topology. The current instantiation of such a shape is the present. Each sentient organism capable of experiencing the universe evolve is thus able to experience space-time from a particular point of view, defined by its biology and/or technology. Under this scope, being aware of time is the foundational experience of just... being.

Post automatically merged: Monday at 8:08 PM

We are time

 

[RoccoR]

RE: I think that what we call time is merely our perception of the universe unravelling
SUBTOPIC:
et al,

(COMMENT)

When we speak of space-time, we think of it in two dimensions, not three dimensions.

But what does it look like if you look at it if you revolve the space-time disk 90º or 180º? The entire equation would have to be adjusted and the dimple of the example would be drawn on top.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SkullTraill]

It is not "growing" because growth (or any kind of change) is an emergent property of time itself. The topology of a 4D spacetime (I.E. if time was a spatial dimension) would be completely static and unmoving. For it to change would require a further temporal dimension.

No, we are not time. Time is an intrinsic property of the universe whether temporal (perceived, non-deterministic) or spatial (deterministic). It doesn't require any sentience or sapience to exist.

 

[Zineth-Pagnae]

RE: I think that what we call time is merely our perception of the universe unravelling
SUBTOPIC:
et al,

(COMMENT)

When we speak of space-time, we think of it in two dimensions, not three dimensions.

But what does it look like if you look at it if you revolve the space-time disk 90º or 180º? The entire equation would have to be adjusted and the dimple of the example would be drawn on top.

Most Respectfully,
R

That´s a great thought experiment, but I don´t think such equation would vary at its core. The values may be inverted but the same rules would apply. Up, down, right or left being referential. Useful when given within a certain context. But, can we objectively say that there is an above of the universe, and a below of the universe? Are those labels not arbitrary and relative identifiers? Useful within a certain framework.

Post automatically merged: Today at 12:45 AM

It is not "growing" because growth (or any kind of change) is an emergent property of time itself. The topology of a 4D spacetime (I.E. if time was a spatial dimension) would be completely static and unmoving. For it to change would require a further temporal dimension.

No, we are not time. Time is an intrinsic property of the universe whether temporal (perceived, non-deterministic) or spatial (deterministic). It doesn't require any sentience or sapience to exist.

Interesting take. I agree with you in that change is crucial for time to make any sense, in fact, change seems to be its sense. I also agree in that sapience is not a necessary condition for the existence of time. But if we account time to be fundamental to the universe, and us as part of such universe, and change as seemingly relevant and intrinsic to us as to the rest of what´s around, then maybe it is the case that we are partially part of that universal metamorphosis we call time. I'm not suggesting we are the entirety of time, but rather that, given our condition, we may be part of it, akin to the way a pixel makes part of a tv screen.