Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
SarathW
Posts: 14714
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by SarathW »

Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

i hope not off topic:
Albert Einstein wrote:
  • ... the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Besso
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
SarathW
Posts: 14714
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by SarathW »

What is the basis to say that past, present, and future an illusion?
Which means there should be something outside the past, present, and future.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5344
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by Kim OHara »

Putting problematic words between * * to show they are problematic ...

There is a long-running debate in physics about whether time exists in the way we think it does. Some scientists believe that it is *really* similar to the three spatial dimensions, and the fact that we can travel freely in the spatial dimensions but not in the time dimension is due to a peculiarity of our biological existence.
If they are right, all times *really* exist at once, and if we were built differently we could travel to 1966 as easily as we can travel to Mumbai. The downside of this theory, as far as we're concerned, is that it means there is no such thing as free will: if the universe of 10 pm on June 17, 2021 already exists, all the billions of human decisions between *now* and *then* are already made, or could never have been made in any way except the way they *will be* made.

:reading: (warning: this stuff may make your head hurt!)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... verse.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalis ... y_of_time)

:namaste:
Kim
santa100
Posts: 4422
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by santa100 »

Kim OHara wrote:The downside of this theory, as far as we're concerned, is that it means there is no such thing as free will: if the universe of 10 pm on June 17, 2021 already exists, all the billions of human decisions between *now* and *then* are already made, or could never have been made in any way except the way they *will be* made.
Free will is still very much involved. The multiverse theory kinda takes care of that "no free will" issue. There's a bit of a quantum fuzziness at the macro scale involved in the sense that it's no longer a single space-time universe, but a multitude of different space-time possibilities, all equally valid and existing, ready to "coalesce" corresponded to the specific humans' decision made at the moment. It sure sounds very sci-fi but also quite interesting. Griff, a 5th dimensional being in the movie MIB 3 did a pretty good job explaining it.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by SDC »

SarathW wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:43 am Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?
Hi Sarath, just keep in mind the guidelines of connections to other paths. Perhaps you can find a way to connect this with Theravada?
Dan74
Posts: 3482
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by Dan74 »

Kim OHara wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:12 am Putting problematic words between * * to show they are problematic ...

There is a long-running debate in physics about whether time exists in the way we think it does. Some scientists believe that it is *really* similar to the three spatial dimensions, and the fact that we can travel freely in the spatial dimensions but not in the time dimension is due to a peculiarity of our biological existence.
If they are right, all times *really* exist at once, and if we were built differently we could travel to 1966 as easily as we can travel to Mumbai. The downside of this theory, as far as we're concerned, is that it means there is no such thing as free will: if the universe of 10 pm on June 17, 2021 already exists, all the billions of human decisions between *now* and *then* are already made, or could never have been made in any way except the way they *will be* made.

:reading: (warning: this stuff may make your head hurt!)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... verse.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalis ... y_of_time)

:namaste:
Kim
I don't think it's just the peculiarity of our biological existence, since everything else we observe (with possible exception of some fundamental particles) appears to be moving forward in time as well.

To reply to the OP, as a non-physicist, my understanding is that it's not that the reality is not subject to time, but as Kim said, physical laws treat time just like another spatial dimension. Why we appear to only be able to move forward is probably driven by entropy, but I could be (and very likely am) wrong.
_/|\_
SarathW
Posts: 14714
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by SarathW »

SDC wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:39 pm
SarathW wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:43 am Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?
Hi Sarath, just keep in mind the guidelines of connections to other paths. Perhaps you can find a way to connect this with Theravada?
Thanks, SDC
The way I understand Anicca is the word for time in Buddhism.
What if there is a dimension nothing changes.
If there is nothing change there is no time.
Is Nibbana the Buddha's word for the dimension without time?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by Sherab »

SarathW wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:48 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:39 pm
SarathW wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:43 am Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?
Hi Sarath, just keep in mind the guidelines of connections to other paths. Perhaps you can find a way to connect this with Theravada?
Thanks, SDC
The way I understand Anicca is the word for time in Buddhism.
What if there is a dimension nothing changes.
If there is nothing change there is no time.
Is Nibbana the Buddha's word for the dimension without time?
Ven Nanavira said that DO is structural. Logically, that should be no different from temporal DO with time removed from it.

Einstein relativity says that all frame of references are equally valid. The question is whether the frame of reference of a photon is valid. If it is valid, then there is a frame of reference where there is no time.

Roger Penrose conformal cyclic cosmology (not popular with most scientists) argues that at the end of the universe, only photons exist. If so, then, only a photon's frame of reference exists at the end of the universe. But in the frame of reference of a photon, there is no time, and by extension, no space. (Not relevant to the thread here, but interestingly, if neither time nor distance applies in the photon frame of reference, it is possible to argue that the end of a universe is no different from the initial point of a big bang of a universe.)
chownah
Posts: 8984
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by chownah »

Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?......there are a really lot of scientists in the world and some of them are psychotic.....if you listen long enough you will here some "scientist" say just about everything you can imagine.....

.....and.....if talking about "scientists" who might ponder if there is a reality not subject to time then you are talking about theoretical scientists and for theoretical scientists any question is acceptable for consideration so I'm pretty sure that SOME scientists have considered whether such a "reality" (scientists don't talk about "realities") MIGHT exist but I don't think that any good scientist would say that they DO exist unless there was some experiiment or observation which would in some way substantiate their wild musings.

Asking "do scientists say blah blah blah" is like saying "do buddhists say blah blah blah"......it doesn't necessarilly have anything to do with anything reasonable or that is supported in any way.

There isn't any recognizable group called "scientists"....I wish people would stop talking as if there was such a group and then wanting to believe or disbelieve in what that imaginary consensus is reported to have said.
chownah
Spiny Norman
Posts: 7619
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by Spiny Norman »

SarathW wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:43 am Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?
I'm not aware of any clear evidence for this theory. Meanwhile the fabric of the cosmos is called "space-time", there is the "Arrow of time" linked to entropy, and also the speed of light as an astronomical constant (velocity = distance/time).
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by Sherab »

chownah wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:07 am Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?......there are a really lot of scientists in the world and some of them are psychotic.....if you listen long enough you will here some "scientist" say just about everything you can imagine.....

.....and.....if talking about "scientists" who might ponder if there is a reality not subject to time then you are talking about theoretical scientists and for theoretical scientists any question is acceptable for consideration so I'm pretty sure that SOME scientists have considered whether such a "reality" (scientists don't talk about "realities") MIGHT exist but I don't think that any good scientist would say that they DO exist unless there was some experiiment or observation which would in some way substantiate their wild musings.

Asking "do scientists say blah blah blah" is like saying "do buddhists say blah blah blah"......it doesn't necessarilly have anything to do with anything reasonable or that is supported in any way.

There isn't any recognizable group called "scientists"....I wish people would stop talking as if there was such a group and then wanting to believe or disbelieve in what that imaginary consensus is reported to have said.
chownah
Perhaps, you may want to consider listening to Nima Arkani Hamed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTx98PUW6lE
You can start at 18:30
User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by Pseudobabble »

SarathW wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:48 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:39 pm
SarathW wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:43 am Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?
Hi Sarath, just keep in mind the guidelines of connections to other paths. Perhaps you can find a way to connect this with Theravada?
Thanks, SDC
The way I understand Anicca is the word for time in Buddhism.
What if there is a dimension nothing changes.
If there is nothing change there is no time.
Is Nibbana the Buddha's word for the dimension without time?
You got it. Time is an illusion created by movement and memory.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
Spiny Norman
Posts: 7619
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Pseudobabble wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:56 am
SarathW wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:48 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:39 pm

Hi Sarath, just keep in mind the guidelines of connections to other paths. Perhaps you can find a way to connect this with Theravada?
Thanks, SDC
The way I understand Anicca is the word for time in Buddhism.
What if there is a dimension nothing changes.
If there is nothing change there is no time.
Is Nibbana the Buddha's word for the dimension without time?
You got it. Time is an illusion created by movement and memory.
Don't you ever look at clocks? :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 8984
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?

Post by chownah »

Sherab wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:02 am
chownah wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:07 am Do scientists say there is a reality not subject to time?......there are a really lot of scientists in the world and some of them are psychotic.....if you listen long enough you will here some "scientist" say just about everything you can imagine.....

.....and.....if talking about "scientists" who might ponder if there is a reality not subject to time then you are talking about theoretical scientists and for theoretical scientists any question is acceptable for consideration so I'm pretty sure that SOME scientists have considered whether such a "reality" (scientists don't talk about "realities") MIGHT exist but I don't think that any good scientist would say that they DO exist unless there was some experiiment or observation which would in some way substantiate their wild musings.

Asking "do scientists say blah blah blah" is like saying "do buddhists say blah blah blah"......it doesn't necessarilly have anything to do with anything reasonable or that is supported in any way.

There isn't any recognizable group called "scientists"....I wish people would stop talking as if there was such a group and then wanting to believe or disbelieve in what that imaginary consensus is reported to have said.
chownah
Perhaps, you may want to consider listening to Nima Arkani Hamed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTx98PUW6lE
You can start at 18:30
So....I started at 18:30 and watched for ten minutes......he is soooo cute.....but in the ten minutes he talked he didn't really say very much about the existence of a reality not subject to time.

I've listened to philosophical cosmologists before and he is just another example although he is very cute which probably makes people more interested in what he says but really it is just about the same. These theroetical people talk about the universes they imagine as if they really exist (outside of their minds I mean) while there is absolutely no evidence that they do.....they talk about the failure or the expected imenent failure of existing theories as if that supported the existence of some of their imaginary theories for which there is not evidence of exitence.

If I didn't listen long enough then please advise me of what it was that you wanted me to see in that what I saw was pretty much the same old same oh that you get from theoretic cosmologist philosophers.
chownah
Post Reply