Comments: Why Is It Always Now?

You're freaking me out, Spork. Are you suggesting that there are an infinite number of me's and and infinite number of you's, one for each moment in time -- whatever a "moment" is? And that right "now" one of the me's and one of the you's are sitting in your bedroom on Garfield in 1979 writing and recording Joe Reed tunes? Excellent. It's a nice thought but I'm too linear to wrap my mind around it.

Holy shit -- I just looked to the right and happened to see "Message for Freedom's Slave." Sorry for being away so long. I'll get right on it. (YOU lost stuff??? But you're "The Archivist!" If The Archivist loses stuff, all is lost!)

Posted by at December 23, 2004 12:11 AM

Oops. Neglected to identify myself in the last comment.

Posted by Freedom's Slave at December 23, 2004 12:12 AM

*bang*

My head just exploded.

Posted by david at December 23, 2004 02:27 AM
Are you suggesting that there are an infinite number of me's and and infinite number of you's, one for each moment in time -- whatever a "moment" is? And that right "now" one of the me's and one of the you's are sitting in your bedroom on Garfield in 1979 writing and recording Joe Reed tunes?

Slave, Yes. No. Sorta. You were right to put the word "now" in quotes. 1776, 1941 and 2004, by definition, are not happening at the same time. But they all happening. "Now" is always now and all the now's are equally "now"! Read it again, you'll wrap yer mind around it. Just think outside the clocks!

David, here's some duct tape! :D

Posted by Tuning Spork at December 23, 2004 09:32 PM

Ow.
My brain hurts NOW.

*giggle*
*hugs ya*

Posted by Stevie at December 23, 2004 10:13 PM

At least three of me think you're full of crap, but I think the rest of me's believe you're on to something here.

Posted by Ted at December 23, 2004 11:34 PM

Sudennly Spaceballs comes to mind...

Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: SOON.

Posted by Squire Trelane at December 23, 2004 11:37 PM

I'm glad someone was ~dumb~ enough to post something like this - one of my favorite conundrums. What makes it a favorite is that any number of possibilities open, none of which are provable, so what's the harm in liking one or more?

What if "dimensional" means that without prior "dimensions" a single dimension exists in much the same way that a 1 dimensional point exists? What if time, without relation to any other "dimension" is, itself, a point. Our perceptions are related to other "dimensionalities" or dimensional characteristics and therefore we see the "point" proceeding through our dimensionalities as the parade, when in fact the point "knows" all about itself. In other words, we paint the point with our "space-time continuum" (what a GREAT phrase...rolls of the Dell guy's tongue like he knows what it means), but everything that it is exists at the point that it exists (great circular nonsense here...). Can you see what I'm trying to say (through the verbal masturbation)?

Basically, we paint the point as a series of occurrences, a line, when in fact it may just be a point.

My head hurts...need to get back to programming now...

Posted by Tommy at December 27, 2004 01:19 PM

Tommy,
First off, just to be nit-picky ;), a line is 1-dimensional, a plane is 2-dimensional and a cube, sphere, pyramid etc, are 3-dimentional. So, time being a point would make it non-dimensional. But, time, being a dimension, is a line.

Other than that, what you said actually makes sense in that a moment in time is as non-dimensional as a point in space. That's also, I think, how most people think of it on a day to day basis. We see time as a line with moments and dates as points along that line. In our heads the line exists apart from the nowness of the points. It's only when we try to understand time as a dimension that we forget that we naturally see it that way, and start to think of it as a point without a line.

I haven't read a whole lot of books that even address the nature of time (other than how it's effected by gravitational fields and accelerations of bodies). But, I suspect that most theoretical physicists don't seriously consider that all moments of time exist equally as "now", i.e., that bombs are falling on Pearl Harbor.

I'm gonna pursue this idea some more, though, not just because it's an interesting one, but because I think it might actually help to clear up some mysteries about space-time/matter-energy's playground: gravity. And then I shall win the Nobel Prize for physics, mwah hah hah hah!

Posted by Tuning Spork at December 27, 2004 08:15 PM

Thanks for the reply (and the correction). Sometimes I get ahead of myself. A point only exists in relation to itself, whereas a line exists as a series of points. If (to get stupid about it), we were to "rotate" the line 90 degrees about its midpoint, we would have the totality of the line present in a single discernable point.

Again, thanks!

Posted by Tommy at December 28, 2004 03:44 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?