Weather Forecast / Current Conditions

Time exists. Why would it not? On our planet, everything possesses a definitive beginning and an end; a start and a finish. Time is present simply so that we might better utilize the fleeting moments we are granted in this life.

In the vastness of space, however, things function quite differently. If one were to travel at the speed of light, would time not appear to pass more slowly for them than it does for us? It seems counterintuitive to my own understanding, yet I have heard that it is a scientifically proven reality.

It would probably pass much faster. Time flies when you're busy with things like alarms and everything else, so the clock just seems to spin quicker 🙂

taurus said:Space works a bit differently out there. If someone were traveling at the speed of light, time would move slower for them than it does for us. It doesn't make much sense to me personally, but from what I've heard, it’s scientifically proven.

It actually makes perfect sense, provided one takes the time to study the logic Einstein applied. You can arrive at that conclusion through pure reasoning; honestly, all it requires is a basic high school education, or something in that ballpark...

Reading through all your posts, I feel like Pandora’s take on this is actually the most coherent thing anyone's said so far—though, honestly, who knows if it's actually right. 🙂 I’ve been spiraling a bit thinking about this whole universe concept, and I wanted to throw a question out there for Pandora (and everyone else, obviously): where does our consciousness fit into this mess? Like, our drive to actually *do* things, or life itself... if the entirety of space and time within our perceived dimension is just strictly defined by some dry, rigid higher-dimensional geometry, does that mean our whole lives are basically just predetermined paths through time? Are we nothing more than four-dimensional geometric shapes moving through a void? Maybe that sounds a bit out there, but once you start looking at the logic, the question kind of forces itself on you, doesn't it?

Harry said:Reading through everyone's posts here, I find myself thinking that Pandora’s take on this particular question makes the most sense—though, granted, that doesn't necessarily make it correct. 🙂 I've been dwelling on the concept of such a universe lately, and it leaves me with a question for Pandora (though others are certainly welcome to weigh in): Where does our consciousness fit into all of this? Our drive to act, the essence of life itself... if the entirety of time and space within our perceived dimension is strictly defined by nothing more than dry, rigid geometry, then are our lives merely four-dimensional geometric constructs stretched across time? Perhaps that sounds foolish, but the question seems to impose itself logically.

Personally, I don't feel that question imposes itself at all. If something exists outside the flow of time, then we are talking about our thoughts, and by extension, our very lives. We might be able to explain the world surrounding us through geometry and mathematics, but that holds no bearing on our actual consciousness regarding it.

I’m pretty sure none of you have ever even been close to this thing before... we’re talking about the so-called Sheffus "trans" Saleus. Honestly, she's pretty revolting to look at—you’d definitely need a strong stomach just to get within arm's length. A defining trait of this species is their diet; they basically survive on food waste pulled straight from the sewers. So far, the only specimen we've managed to catch is sterile (after a surgical amputation).

I mean, sure, all that holds water, but my issue is that Pandora keeps insisting that time doesn't actually "flow"—it’s just this byproduct of our total inability to wrap our heads around higher geometries (or at least, that's how I read it). If you follow that logic, then our consciousness—you know, the actual essence of who we are, separate from how we perceive things—would manifest in three dimensions in that exact same way... Look, I'm not saying that theory is gospel, I'm just wondering how we'd even begin to define life within a construct like that (assuming time is really just us failing to perceive a higher spatial dimension). Would being "timeless" basically just mean existing in an infinitely high dimension?

This is quite compelling.

The interdependence of space and time is perhaps most intuitively demonstrated through an example—be it practical or purely geometric:

Essentially, the premise holds that time is integrated into space, and vice versa:

Consider this question: what does Earth look like in its orbit around the Sun when you account for its spatial coordinates but set the time coordinate to zero?

The answer: roughly speaking, it is a sphere.

Now, consider this: how does Earth appear in its orbit around the Sun if you include its spatial coordinates along with a time coordinate of 365 days?

The answer: crudely put, it becomes a torus.

It is a shape resembling a tire—essentially a tube looped back upon itself.

As one can see, once you introduce the temporal coordinate, the spatial representation changes entirely. One should recall long-exposure photography. A single day's exposure of the sky with the Sun present would render the Sun as a streak of light across the firmament, rather than a simple circle.

In cosmology, astronomers must invariably incorporate the time coordinate to accurately describe the appearance of the Universe.

Alright, look, I guess you could plot a graph like that for pretty much any object out there—including ourselves. But here’s where things get messy: planets follow strict physical laws, whereas we, and honestly every other living thing, seem to operate on some entirely different set of principles, even if we are technically bound by physics. It makes me wonder, though... could these two entities—say, our own bodies and a planet—be tossed into the same cosmic soup if we were looking at it through the lens of some multi-dimensional reality? Is this whole distinction we see down here just an illusion, assuming every single temporal process, including the entire span of our lives, can be explained away by timeless space?

Richard Howard2 said:The question doesn't even apply to me. If it doesn't involve the flow of time, we're talking about thoughts—and by extension, our lives. You can map out the physical world with geometry and math, sure, but that’s a different matter entirely from our consciousness.

Richard... you're making a mistake here, and a costly one, if you think the world around us is disconnected from consciousness. Math and geometry are products of consciousness itself. Think on that.😉

rapidjackal7 said:The logic holds, though I believe Rachel Bishop argues that time doesn't actually "flow." Instead, she suggests it’s merely a symptom of our inability to grasp higher geometries. If we follow that thread—that our consciousness manifests in three dimensions in much the same way—how would one even define life within such a rigid framework? If time is just a failure to perceive a higher spatial dimension, does "timelessness" simply imply an infinitely high dimension?

That is my take on it. 😉

Hey Rachel Bishop, glad you finally popped up in here. I’d actually love it if you could dive a bit deeper into what life is really like in your corner of the universe... We've been playing around with some pretty wild theories lately regarding the intersection of the living and non-living worlds, specifically how space and time tie into everything—maybe there's a way to start pulling those threads together from there.

rapidjackal7 said:Hey Rachel Bishop, glad you checked in. I’d appreciate more details on what life is actually like in your corner of the universe...

Hey... hey... hey...🙂
I'll get to it tomorrow. Once I've slept and had a double espresso...😉

rapidjackal7 said:Fine, I get where you're coming from. You could plot a graph like that for any object—including ourselves—but there’s a catch. Planets follow strict physical laws, whereas we, along with all other living organisms (even if we operate within those same laws), seem to follow a different set of principles. It makes me wonder: could these two entities—say, our bodies and a planet—be cast into the same cosmic soup within some higher-dimensional reality? Is this perceived distinction just an illusion at our current level of existence, provided every temporal process, including our very lives, can be explained through timeless space?

You're mistaken. Our bodies move according to physical laws just as much as anything else. Every single movement we make can be defined as a physically determined motion, dictated by the anatomical capabilities of our biology. A bodily movement begins with a conscious or unconscious decision, which itself can be reduced to a chemical reaction triggering specific substances to activate muscles for movement. There isn't a single thing in existence that doesn't obey physical laws. Remember that.

Rachel Bishop said:Richard Howard2... you are making a massive mistake—to your own detriment—by claiming the world around us is disconnected from our consciousness. Geometry and mathematics are PRODUCTS of consciousness, so perhaps give that some thought.😉

I have spent a good deal of time ruminating on this over the last three or four years, and I have come to the conclusion that it simply isn't the case. To be precise: while geometry and mathematics may not exist independently of our thoughts, things in the physical realm move in ways that are "mathematical" and "geometric."

Mathematics and geometry are merely concepts that define a framework for thought, yet through your own lack of insight, you are mistakenly equating them with the subject of thought itself.

This specific framework has proven to be the only one capable of explaining our environment; it exists in its current form precisely because it emerged from the behavior of our surroundings. Is it a human invention? No, it is not.

Richard Howard2 said:Spent the last few years overthinking this. Concluded it isn't true. Geometry and math don't exist outside our own minds. Yet, everything in the physical world moves according to those rules regardless. A strange paradox.

Mathematics and geometry. Mere definitions. Just more ways to quantify the inevitable decline. Thought process.And you, by your own mistake and sheer ignorance, equate them with... A matter for contemplation.

That model is the only one capable of explaining our reality. It exists precisely because it was forged from the behavior of our environment. This isn't some human invention. It isn't.

Imagine that. A nature model perfectly mirroring a thought pattern? It’s absurd. Perhaps it's time, Richard Howard2, to reconsider this strange coincidence.🙄

Rachel Bishop said:Just imagine... that a model of nature would somehow perfectly align with a model of thought? It’s high time, Richard Howard2, that you reconsider this bizarre coincidence.🙄

Good grief, who am I even talking to here? If this doesn't click for you now, then you're truly a lost cause:

Let's try this again, using preschooler logic:

ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR >>> HUMAN OBSERVATION >>> RECOGNIZING PATTERNS IN THAT BEHAVIOR >>> CONSTRUCTING A COGNITIVE MODEL TO MATCH THOSE PATTERNS >>> MATH AND LOGIC

Is it clear enough now? How much more obvious can I possibly make this?

Bobba Fett said:Good grief. I don't know who I'm even talking to. If this doesn't click for you now, it never will. You're a lost cause.

Fine. Let's try explaining this like we're in preschool:

ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR >>> HUMAN OBSERVATION >>> IDENTIFYING PATTERNS IN THAT BEHAVIOR >>> DEVELOPING A COGNITIVE MODEL TO MATCH >>> MATHEMATICS AND LOGIC

Is that clear enough? How much more obvious can I make it?

Fine then... if you're going to be stubborn about it, let's go with your logic.
Does your little "chain" imply the environment itself acts mathematically? Because if so... how does sophisticated math emerge from mindless matter?
According to your own words, the environment behaves mathematically, which we only realize once we've "built" a mathematical mental model. Does that mean the environment is "intelligent"—perhaps even smarter than us? I'd love to see you explain that.🙄

Pandora said:Fine, let's play it your way... if you're going to be so insistent, then fine. Let's assume you're right.
Does your little "chain of logic" imply that the environment behaves according to mathematical principles? Because if it does... where exactly is this supposed "intelligence" coming from within such mindless matter?
By your own definition, the surroundings behave mathematically—something we supposedly only discovered once we "constructed" a mathematical model of thought. Does that mean the environment is "intelligent," or perhaps even "smarter" than we are? I'd love to see you try to explain that.🙄

Alright, I am seriously considering walking away from this debate with you. But, just so you don't think I'm a coward running away from your "superior" arguments, I'm going to dismantle yours quite easily:

You seem to have some genuine trouble with basic deduction, don't you? Don't be embarrassed; you can admit it...

Generally speaking, first off, the attribute of being "smart" is something created exclusively for humans. In what possible sense do you think nature functions or doesn't function "smartly"?

We all know that an apple is an apple, and that has nothing to do with intelligence. Just because two apples aren't three apples doesn't mean nature is being clever.

Just imagine for a second that nature were actually stupid. Like, you're walking down the street in New York and suddenly you just float away... that sounds more like something out of Monty Python to me.

Nature simply is what it is; it has nothing to do with intellect. Intelligence is merely when you manage to map all conscious behavior onto a universal model—that is, realizing everything boils down to a few fundamental rules. That is how we created mathematics.

Mathematics does not exist out there in our environment! Mathematics is merely a method of our own thinking. So HOW CAN YOU EVEN QUESTION WHETHER NATURE FOLLOWS MATHEMATICS? Mathematics is a language used by our brains to describe the behavior of nature to ourselves. It arose from natural behavior; it isn't that nature knows math and chooses to follow it—even someone with a severe cognitive impairment would realize that!

Oh, goodness, my apologies if I offended you, but I am truly fascinated by how some people struggle so profoundly with logic and simple reasoning...

Bobba Fett said:.

Just try to wrap your head around the idea that nature could actually be that glitchy. Like, imagine you’re just strolling down a sidewalk in Chicago or something, minding your own business, and suddenly you just... drift off into the sky? Honestly, that sounds more like some ridiculous sketch from > than actual reality.

I think I read somewhere—pretty sure it was in something by >—that if you look at the laws governing extremely large numbers, the universe basically behaves this way. It means that if you just stay out walking long enough, eventually, physics might just decide to let go and you'd spontaneously float away. Crazy, right?