• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When is Now?

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
But we *know* through actual measurements that this model actually says something about reality. We *know* simultaneity depends on relative motion and on gravity.
I don't dispute that models say something about reality, but they are not that reality, they are a conceptual representation, that's what I'm saying.

And I would ask if you would say the same about space: does it only exist as a proxy? Something that we use rulers and other measuring devices to reveal regularities, but all measuring something that doesn't actually exist?

Is there an 'absolute here'? And why is that seen as such a different question than the existence of an 'absolute now'?

And a meter stick shows that the universal absolute here was present and continued for 100 centimeters? or, if you want, a wave on the water gives regularity over a distance in a similar way to the pendulum giving regularity over time.

But, again, that is different than whether simultaneity is absolute. We know it is not.

No, space does not exist as a proxy, it is real as an entity you can see, look at the sky. And you can see objects that have spatial shapes, look at a rock. Close your eyes and you can still easily visualize space. But you can not see time, there is not an entity to see, you can only see a proxy for time such as a the regular movement of stars or pendulums.

So the pendulum swings back and forth, or the sand flows through the calibrated hour glass, and we are measuring the universal 'now' continuing to exist. The concept of time was created by the human mind as a proxy for the continuation of universal now,, the concept of space is a real entity, not a proxy.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't dispute that models say something about reality, but they are not that reality, they are a conceptual representation, that's what I'm saying.

The same is true of any use of language.

No, space does not exist as a proxy, it is real as an entity you can see, look at the sky. And you can see objects that have spatial shapes, look at a rock. Close your eyes and you can still easily visualize space. But you can not see time, there is not an entity to see, you can only see a proxy for time such as a the regular movement of stars or pendulums.

I never see space. I see objects in space. The space itself is a proxy for the lack of objects. Or as a place to put the objects.

So the pendulum swings back and forth, or the sand flows through the calibrated hour glass, and we are measuring the universal 'now' continuing to exist. The concept of time was created by the human mind as a proxy for the continuation of universal now,, the concept of space is a real entity, not a proxy.

And I say time exists just as much as space. And, once again, we *know* the simultaneity is relative, not absolute. So what does this 'universal now' mean? it certainly isn't 'universal'.

I disagree that the concept of time was created by humans. it is just as much a part of the fabric of the universe as space is
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
The same is true of any use of language.
We agree.

I never see space. I see objects in space. The space itself is a proxy for the lack of objects. Or as a place to put the objects.
You are getting desperate, look at the sky and see space, move and you are moving in space. As for space being a substitute in place of an absence of objects, or as a place to put objects, you are being silly, there is no empty space anywhere in the universe, it always already contains something.

And I say time exists just as much as space. And, once again, we *know* the simultaneity is relative, not absolute. So what does this 'universal now' mean? it certainly isn't 'universal'.
I agree that time as a proxy measurement of the continuation of 'now' exists, but space exists as a real entity. You see the difference is one is real and the other is a proxy. Space can be seen, time can not.

Universal now is that which continues to exist.

I disagree that the concept of time was created by humans. it is just as much a part of the fabric of the universe as space is
The continuation of the universal now exists, and is a part of the fabric of the universe, as is space, but whereas space can be directly seen, the continuation of the universal now needs a proxy to stand for that continuation of universal now, such as a sun dial, a pendulum, etc., that is seen.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
So it would seem we cannot know if absolute time exists for the universe or not. Only that the mathematical model of the universe used in physics doesn't require it to exist for accuracy.
It seems to be more like the laws of physics require that absolute time and space don't exist.

Good thread, btw.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
We agree.

You are getting desperate, look at the sky and see space, move and you are moving in space. As for space being a substitute in place of an absence of objects, or as a place to put objects, you are being silly, there is no empty space anywhere in the universe, it always already contains something.

And there is always time. Any time you move, you are moving through time. You never see 'space', only objects *in* space. You never see 'time' only objects moving through time.

I agree that time as a proxy measurement of the continuation of 'now' exists, but space exists as a real entity. You see the difference is one is real and the other is a proxy. Space can be seen, time can not.

Universal now is that which continues to exist.

And my point is that there is no 'universal now'. The term 'now' is always relative.

The continuation of the universal now exists, and is a part of the fabric of the universe, as is space, but whereas space can be directly seen, the continuation of the universal now needs a proxy to stand for that continuation of universal now, such as a sun dial, a pendulum, etc., that is seen.

I have no idea even how to make sense of what you wrote here. I don't even know what you mean by the term 'universal now', given that there seems to be no such thing. At any point of space time, there is 'here' and 'now'. But neither are universal. other points of spacetime have different 'here' and different 'now'.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
And there is always time. Any time you move, you are moving through time. You never see 'space', only objects *in* space. You never see 'time' only objects moving through time.
You see space, and you see through space, and you see objects in space. And you also are aware that space is full of stuff, dark energy, em radiation, dark matter, atoms and molecules, etc..

You don't see time, you see a rock sitting there, and as you observe it, it continues to exist sitting there. Good gracious me, am I seeing this rock moving through time? So I get a pendulum swinging at one swing per second and after 60 swings, I as a scientist deduce the rock has travelled through one minute of time.

Nonsense, the rock doesn't do anything except continue to exist, how can you claim it is moving through time. As I say, time does not exist as a real entity, it is a human concept that uses a proxy to 'measure' finite periods of the continuing now.

And my point is that there is no 'universal now'. The term 'now' is always relative.

I have no idea even how to make sense of what you wrote here. I don't even know what you mean by the term 'universal now', given that there seems to be no such thing. At any point of space time, there is 'here' and 'now'. But neither are universal. other points of spacetime have different 'here' and different 'now'.I have no idea even how to make sense of what you wrote here. I don't even know what you mean by the term 'universal now', given that there seems to be no such thing. At any point of space time, there is 'here' and 'now'. But neither are universal. other points of spacetime have different 'here' and different 'now'.

And my point is that my explanation above about the rock continuing to exist can be expressed a number of ways, one is to say that that when you first observe the rock, that 'now' moment of "Oh I am looking at the rock right NOW", the state of the rock in that now doesn't change, it doesn't move. You can look at it again and say "I am looking at the rock again right NOW", and you think that the second time you look at it is a different NOW to the first time, and I am explaining to you that there was no gap, no change in the state of the rock between the two human conceived different moments in time, it never did anything other than continue to exist, From the rock's perspective, it was one long NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOW from the first time you looked at to the second.

So now to the universal now, from the first NOW of the existence of this Universe to the present NOW, of this Universe, there has been no gap, no cessation of being the Universe, changes yes, but its existence no, an unbroken universal presence, and that is what I am referring to as the universal now.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Spacetime is a mathematical model, a concept, it represents reality but it is not reality, That is where many scientists go wrong, they get so involved in mental models that they forget that the models are only a mental representation of something actually real. It is as though Michael Angelo began to think his sculptures were equal to that which was sculptured.

Now because there is no such thing as absolute now in the mathematical models, you imagine that reality itself, existence itself, has not an absolute now. How can existence itself, change its rate of its continuing to exist. There is no time per say, man observes some regular aspect of reality, planets stars, pendulums, oscillations, etc. as a proxy measurement of the passage of the continuation of existence, whatever the form.

Now I am not saying that our senses don't create the impression of 'time', I say the creation of a measurement of rate of change around us using stars and pendulums were great inventions. But beyond this, there is only the absolute now always being now, that creates the impression of a flow from past to future, only because of an observer..

The pendulum swings 60 times at the rate of one second per swing, it means the universal now was present and continued to be present for 60 swings of the pendulum.

I haven't really looked into the idea of "space" much. Been more focused on time.

The problem I see with time, that time is a measurement of change. However they are using change (the frequency of some oscillation) to measure change.
Einstein shows us "change" i.e. time is relative.

These oscillations work as long as the frame of reference, everything measure is moving at the same speed relative to each other. If the observers/detectors are moving at different speeds relative to each other, These oscillations are no longer a reliable measurement of change between the frame references.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
I haven't really looked into the idea of "space" much. Been more focused on time.

The problem I see with time, that time is a measurement of change. However they are using change (the frequency of some oscillation) to measure change.
Einstein shows us "change" i.e. time is relative.

These oscillations work as long as the frame of reference, everything measure is moving at the same speed relative to each other. If the observers/detectors are moving at different speeds relative to each other, These oscillations are no longer a reliable measurement of change between the frame references.
The measurement of time as used by mankind is a measurement of a finite duration of the never ending continuation of existence using a proxy, that's all I'm saying. There is an unbroken universal presence, its form changes but it forever remains the universal presence. So our human proxy for measuring existence existing are our clocks which calculate finite periods of 'time' by counting its own self generated finite 'pulses'. So long as we have a common frame of reference as we apply our time measurements, it works well, but we must also remember there actually is no real time entity.
 
Last edited:

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Well, we have to assume, I think there exists absolute time in the universe. Otherwise there'd be no point in relativity. We couldn't talk about events happening at the same time in different parts of the universe.


I don't think we can, can we? We know that time passes at different rates dependent on nearness to objects of great mass, and dependent on motion. Therefore there is no universal privileged moment we can point to and define as "now". Events occur in time, but each in it's own time. There is no now on earth which is equivalent to now on Epsilon Eridani b.

As regards the question When is Now?, we must ask ourselves if a moment can be identified, and if it can be measured. If time is granular, and we move through a succession of infinitely tiny but ultimately measurable moments, we can theoretically point to such a moment and all it now. But if we flowing through time in an uninterrupted motion, infinitely reducible, then there is no tangible moment; now in this scenario has no substance.
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I don't think we can, can we? We know that time passes at different rates dependent on nearness to objects of great mass, and dependent on motion. Therefore there is no universal privileged moment we can point to and define as "now". Events occur in time, but each in it's own time. There is no now on earth which is equivalent to now on Epsilon Eridani b.

As regards the question When is Now?, we must ask ourselves if a moment can be identified, and if it can be measured. If time is granular, and we move through a succession of infinitely tiny but ultimately measurable moments, we can theoretically point to such a moment and all it now. But if we flowing through time in an uninterrupted motion, infinitely reducible, then there is no tangible moment; now in this scenario has no substance.

I suspect the problem is to realize that "now" has no time duration so wouldn't be affected by relativity.
Also the problem of time is that it is a measurement of change which is used to measure change.
We know the rate of change is relative so using change to measure change in different frames of reference is flawed.
This does not rule out that an absolute now exists throughout the universe. Only that our current method of measurement is incapable on making this determination.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I suspect the problem is to realize that "now" has no time duration so wouldn't be affected by relativity.
Also the problem of time is that it is a measurement of change which is used to measure change.
We know the rate of change is relative so using change to measure change in different frames of reference is flawed.
This does not rule out that an absolute now exists throughout the universe. Only that our current method of measurement is incapable on making this determination.


So if now has no time duration, it is effectively outside of time.

We use units of time to measure change, as we use units of space to measure distance; but what exactly is the precise nature of time and space, eludes us I think.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
So if now has no time duration, it is effectively outside of time.

We use units of time to measure change, as we use units of space to measure distance; but what exactly is the precise nature of time and space, eludes us I think.
Now is continuous, not like a clock that measures time in discrete moments such as seconds, microseconds, years, etc. Universal existence continues to exist, never ceases existing, it is always in the now. What is understood by time is that continuation of existence.

So when we say we are measuring temperature, we are actually measuring heat. When we say we are measuring sound volume, we are actually measuring audio frequency air pressure. When we say we are measuring aircraft altitude, we are actually measuring atmospheric pressure. Etc., etc. In each case there is an entity being measured, heat, sound air pressure, atmospheric pressure.

So what are we measuring when we say we are measuring time, what is the entity being measured?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Now is continuous, not like a clock that measures time in discrete moments such as seconds, microseconds, years, etc. Universal existence continues to exist, never ceases existing, it is always in the now. What is understood by time is that continuation of existence.

So when we say we are measuring temperature, we are actually measuring heat. When we say we are measuring sound volume, we are actually measuring audio frequency air pressure. When we say we are measuring aircraft altitude, we are actually measuring atmospheric pressure. Etc., etc. In each case there is an entity being measured, heat, sound air pressure, atmospheric pressure.

So what are we measuring when we say we are measuring time, what is the entity being measured?


Ah. But if time progresses as you suggest, if a moment is that indivisible continuation of existence, then we run into Zeno’s paradox of the arrow.

At any point on an arrow’s trajectory, there is a halfway point in time between where it is now, and where it is destined to be when it’s flight is finished. If the progression of time is an unbroken, infinitely divisible flow, there is always a halfway point in time to be passed; in which case the arrow can never arrive at it’s destination - it never comes to earth because it never passes the halfway point in time between it’s current and final position. Unless time is granular, and a nano second can be broken down to it’s smallest part, in which case this part is the point at which the arrow reaches it’s destination.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Ah. But if time progresses as you suggest, if a moment is that indivisible continuation of existence, then we run into Zeno’s paradox of the arrow.

At any point on an arrow’s trajectory, there is a halfway point in time between where it is now, and where it is destined to be when it’s flight is finished. If the progression of time is an unbroken, infinitely divisible flow, there is always a halfway point in time to be passed; in which case the arrow can never arrive at it’s destination - it never comes to earth because it never passes the halfway point in time between it’s current and final position. Unless time is granular, and a nano second can be broken down to it’s smallest part, in which case this part is the point at which the arrow reaches it’s destination.
But the ancients knew this and so when they aimed their arrow and drew back on the bow, they actually aimed at an imaginary point on the back of the target, so they foiled the paradox. They probably learned it from the eternal universal now.
 
Top