# -10

A completely new way of thinking about time.

Our universe exists in a 2 dimensional matrix which we call space-time. It consists of a spatial dimension, interlinked with a temporal dimension. The word 'time' is a term describing temporal motion. So we 'move' through the spatial dimension and we 'time' through the temporal dimension.

Motion through the spatial dimension is measured in inches, meters, kilometers, light years, etc. Motion through the temporal dimension is measured in seconds, hours, days, years, etc. The speed at which we time through the temporal dimension is called our temporal velocity.

We only time in one direction. Towards the future. So the future is a temporal location, towards which we 'time'. The past is a temporal location which we have already occupied.

Because the two dimensions are interlinked, our spatial velocity is inversely proportional to our temporal velocity. The faster we move, the slower we time. Timing, however, is not just for humans. Everything in the universe, besides mass less particles, times.

To us it feels as though time is something that passes, but it's like seeing trees pass the window of a moving train. It's our temporal motion which causes the illusion of time passing. You can think of a clock as a temporal odometer. It measures how far we time. So tape measures measure spatial distances and clocks measure temporal distances.

Velocity is the relationship between moving and timing.

This is a work in progress, but feel free to comment.

New Comment

That's an interesting take. I would be curious how gravity fits in being the curvature of spacetime. I would also be curious as to why space can be moved about freely, but time is moving only forward and at the same time velocity.

Gravity, as far as I can tell, affects our temporal velocity. Even though we aren't moving when we are on the ground, we would be moving at a certain spatial velocity if the ground wasn't preventing us. Think of it as potential spatial velocity. Stronger gravity, slower temporal velocity.

Well our temporal velocity isn't constant and the spatial dimension has 3 plains. The temporal dimension only has one. As for why we only time in one direction, I assume it has it's origin in the Big Bang. There is no resistance to out forwards momentum and no way to change direction.

This sounds very much to me like how time is dealt with in the standard model of physics, which leads to two questions. How, if at all, do you see this as different from the standard model (I'm guessing you think it is because you say "A completely new way of thinking about time." but I don't see any evidence of this)? And why then, if time is a dimension like this (and does not just, say, have a projection along a dimension that makes it easy to reason about in certain situations), does causality only flow in a single direction?

The word 'time' is a term describing temporal motion. So we 'move' through the spatial dimension and we 'time' through the temporal dimension.

You specifically call it a "temporal dimension".

The speed at which we time through the temporal dimension is called our temporal velocity.
We only time in one direction. Towards the future. So the future is a temporal location, towards which we 'time'. The past is a temporal location which we have already occupied.
Because the two dimensions are interlinked, our spatial velocity is inversely proportional to our temporal velocity. The faster we move, the slower we time. Timing, however, is not just for humans. Everything in the universe, besides mass less particles, times.

This further reads to me like you are exactly describing it as a dimension. If you mean something else you are not conveying it to me (and I doubt this is me being thick since I studied at least enough physics to be able to publish on quantum information theory). That last paragraph I quoted especially sounds like you are gesturing at relativity, a theory worked out over 100 years ago, which is why I asked what about your model is different, because I read your post and I can't tell.

Call what a temporal dimension?

I said we 'move' through the spatial dimension and we 'time' through the temporal dimension. Did I say a move is a dimension? The temporal dimension is the time scape through which we time. Time is a verb.

Understand?

Okay, so if I squint really hard maybe you are proposing a functional theory of time and just explaining it in a way that is not clear? For example, does this post about logical time comport with your model?

Saying "time is a verb" still doesn't say much, unfortunately, because lots of folks have known for quite some time that time as we normally think of it is an after-the-fact construction and not metaphysically basic. That is, it seems that our notion of time arises from how we perceive and remember events and is an expression of causality, that is whatever the fundamental way it is that the world changes from one state to another. If so, this is again not revolutionary, although maybe you are just unfamiliar; I can off the top of my head think of the likes of Dogen, Husserl, and Merleau-Ponty saying similar things, and I'm certain these ideas have a recorded exploration back at least 2000 where they were explored in Indian philosophy (though I can't remember the names attributed to those works now).

If that's not the case I'd really like to know, but you are giving us frustrating little to try to understand whatever you think your big idea is (hence, I suspect, the many downvotes you are receiving).

That's better. You're making sure you understand what I'm saying before dismissing it.

Time is a term describing motion. A specific type of motion. I'm talking about temporal motion. Motion from one moment to the next. Time doesn't move. We don't move through time. We time. Time is not a dimension.

You're just repeating yourself and still not offering an explanation of your theory, just some vague glimpses of it. I've tried twice now to ask specific questions that you could have answered to provide clarification, and rather than engage with them directly you chose either to presume I didn't read what you wrote or restate what you originally said in fewer words. LW it's about curiosity and inquiry among other things, and if that's not the spirit in which you've come here I won't continue to engage with you and will encourage others to do the same.

I'm not interested in explaining something so obvious. dqups1 got it immediately. I'm sure some other people will too.