Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (9348.21)
    @Fan
    I guess in that respect, a region of slowed time can have height width and depth, and also duration, since "slowed time in a specific region" isn't a dimension in itself, only a set of parameters for pre-existing dimensions.
  2.  (9348.22)
    I guess the fucker is that when a lot of people talk about time, they mean "the sequential nature of my perception of reality", which remains unaltered in a region of "slow time" since we're talking about relativistic frames-of-reference, not actual personal experience.

    For someone passing through such a region, they wouldn't feel like they'd spent longer in it, everything else would seem to go faster instead.

    The things that seem to speed up or slow down our perception of time passing probably have nothing to do with how fast time in our region of space is passing as measured from a different frame of reference.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeJan 1st 2011 edited
     (9348.23)
    @Paul D et al -

    Paul pretty much called it above - time is our experience of sequence or duration, not a *thing*. For a serious treatment of this, the existentialists are always good, but the classic expression in Continental philosophy is Henri Bergson's notion of time as duration. It is a special kind of dimension for humans, because we participate in it serially or sequentially, rather than being able to perceive it from a parallel angle (as it were) as one might raise up above a table to take in the entire flat surface:

    [Bergson presents a metaphor] of two spools, one unrolling to represent the continuous flow of ageing as one feels oneself moving toward the end of one's life span, the other a thread rolling into a ball to represent the continuous growth of memory as a person's past follows him/her. Indeed, for Bergson, consciousness equals memory. No two moments are identical, for the one will always contain the memory left it by the other. Therefore, a person might only experience two identical moments if he/she had no memory; but, Bergson says, that person's consciousness would thus be in a constant state of death and rebirth, which he identifies with unconsciousness.

    The image of two spools is imperfect, however, as it involves the image of a homogeneous and therefore commensurable thread, whereas, according to Bergson, no two moments can be the same, and hence the Duration is heterogeneous. Bergson then presents the image of a spectrum of a thousand gradually changing shades with a line of feeling running through them, this line being both affected by and maintaining each of the shades it passes through. Yet even this image is inaccurate and incomplete, for it represents the Duration as a fixed and complete spectrum with all the shades spatially juxtaposed to one another, whereas there is no juxtaposition within the Duration, which is in reality incomplete and continuously growing, with the states not beginning or ending, but intermingling with one another.


    So yeah, it is important to consider that for any serious speculation, time *is* an attribute, it does not *have* attributes. Height does not have width; width does not have depth, and all of these are experienced by us as duration or perceived objectively as a sequence of seconds. This does not make Time a thing, unless one is just sitting around passing the bong around and just wants to indulge in some idle mind-blowing about timey-wimey stuff.
  3.  (9348.24)
    @Finagle
    Yeah, that's what I was clumsily trying to get at, thanks :D
    A dimension (be it time or space) is just an axis used to label observed effects. Literally a ruler of human invention, placed across reality for the purpose of measurement. The 4 familiar dimensions describe our every-day world perfectly adequately - in the same way that the primary colours can mix to make any conceivable colour. So any extra dimensions (if they even exist) are outside the realm of our direct experience, and have to be sidled up to at 90 degrees and tentatively poked with carefully constructed mathematical language in order to be understood, instead of being seen and understood intuitively (no matter WHAT you've been smoking).