Time and Memory

[moonbogg]

This has been touched on i'm sure, but i'd like to hear some ideas and thoughts on the subject. My understanding is limited, so i'd like to ask that you forgive my ignorance and fumbling of words should it occur.
Straight to the point. If we had no memory, would time mean anything? Would it even exist? By no memory I mean truly none, without the ability to even have any concept of the previous second. It seems that my concept of time is totally dependent on memory. Ignoring the fact that we might not even be able to function or live without a memory, because it seems necessary to learn and survive, what would it be like without any? I'm not sure you would even realize that you were here. I mean if you had the same mental capacity you have now, but with just no memory, like if I could take it away from you.
When we watch the universe evolve, when we watch a supernova, or when we take notice of the planets revolving around the sun, is that happening just like we think it is? Or is it illusory? I mean, the past only exists in our mind, right? Isn't only the present state of things the only thing that is truly real? Our mind pieces together the past with the present and then does its best to project out into the future. Without the ability to record and play back events, what would the universe look like? Would events be instant and appear static?
Also, outside of the mind of an observer, is the universe born and then dead in an instant? But then again if everything happens in an instant, then there would be no time to record anything into memory. I don't know, memory seems confusing to me. I mean, anything you remember no longer exists. Its all gone, or at least its in another state, even if only slightly different from that state you remember it being in.

 

[Paul98]

This has been touched on i'm sure, but i'd like to hear some ideas and thoughts on the subject. My understanding is limited, so i'd like to ask that you forgive my ignorance and fumbling of words should it occur.
Straight to the point. If we had no memory, would time mean anything? Would it even exist? By no memory I mean truly none, without the ability to even have any concept of the previous second. It seems that my concept of time is totally dependent on memory. Ignoring the fact that we might not even be able to function or live without a memory, because it seems necessary to learn and survive, what would it be like without any? I'm not sure you would even realize that you were here. I mean if you had the same mental capacity you have now, but with just no memory, like if I could take it away from you.
When we watch the universe evolve, when we watch a supernova, or when we take notice of the planets revolving around the sun, is that happening just like we think it is? Or is it illusory? I mean, the past only exists in our mind, right? Isn't only the present state of things the only thing that is truly real? Our mind pieces together the past with the present and then does its best to project out into the future. Without the ability to record and play back events, what would the universe look like? Would events be instant and appear static?
Also, outside of the mind of an observer, is the universe born and then dead in an instant? But then again if everything happens in an instant, then there would be no time to record anything into memory. I don't know, memory seems confusing to me. I mean, anything you remember no longer exists. Its all gone, or at least its in another state, even if only slightly different from that state you remember it being in.

If we had no memory we wouldn't be conscious, time wouldn't matter to you similar to how it worked before you were alive and how it will work after you are dead.

But our perception of time and spacetime are two different things, the former is in our head, the later is very real and has real measurable effects.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If we had no memory, would time mean anything?

To whom? To have meaning requires memory. I can't assign meaning to something with out a concept of something, to have a concept I have to have memory.

It seems that my concept of time is totally dependent on memory.

I think you got that backwards. Memory is totally dependant on your concept of time. I can't for example remember future or present events, only past events.

I mean if you had the same mental capacity you have now, but with just no memory, like if I could take it away from you.

I am my memory. I can't even run a computer with out some sort of memory. I need at least a cache able to store the computations I'm currently doing. There is no thought with out memory.

Its all gone, or at least its in another state, even if only slightly different from that state you remember it being in.

It seems that what you are really asking is does causality exist, and the answer to that is yes. The past does not have to exist now to effect now. We know the past by how it changed the present.

 

[moonbogg]

To whom? To have meaning requires memory. I can't assign meaning to something with out a concept of something, to have a concept I have to have memory.



I think you got that backwards. Memory is totally dependant on your concept of time. I can't for example remember future or present events, only past events.



I am my memory. I can't even run a computer with out some sort of memory. I need at least a cache able to store the computations I'm currently doing. There is no thought with out memory.


It seems that what you are really asking is does causality exist, and the answer to that is yes. The past does not have to exist now to effect now. We know the past by how it changed the present.

I don't doubt causality. I don't believe in magical thinking. But I do think that time and our perception of it is anything but intuitive when analyzed. At least is has me completely confused.
In order to get a good grasp of it i'd have to quit my job, go back to school, find a few extra IQ points somewhere, get a PHD, and then in 10 years maybe i'd have a better idea of whats going on. But, no thanks to all that. I'll do the best I can to grasp it from where I stand, which is where I just was. I mean AM.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't doubt causality.

You can't question time with out questioning causality.
Time is just a measurment of causality.

 

[moonbogg]

You can't question time with out questioning causality.
Time is just a measurment of causality.

Why not? You don't think people can try to understand the nature of time and what it is without doubting causality?

 

[Eureka]

I don't doubt causality. I don't believe in magical thinking. But I do think that time and our perception of it is anything but intuitive when analyzed. At least is has me completely confused.
In order to get a good grasp of it i'd have to quit my job, go back to school, find a few extra IQ points somewhere, get a PHD, and then in 10 years maybe i'd have a better idea of whats going on. But, no thanks to all that. I'll do the best I can to grasp it from where I stand, which is where I just was. I mean AM.

I think you should just go back and take a few courses on calculus and relativity. MIT should have these for free online.

Even if it doesn't directly answer your questions, working the numbers should give you a better feel for things.

The point SMOGZINN is trying to say is that time is something we construct to understand our universe. We can only assume that causality exists, that initial conditions affect current conditions. Time is just a metric for it. Time isn't something special, it's just a way to keep track of conditions.

 

[Via]

The idea of time without memory is so abstract that I don't believe the human brain can process it completely.

It's like asking a human to completely grasp and understand infinity.

 

[Eureka]

The idea of time without memory is so abstract that I don't believe the human brain can process it completely.

It's like asking a human to completely grasp and understand infinity.

Why not? Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen. A decent example would be to watch a bunch of marbles on the floor. The marbles have absolutely no idea of where they are (or even self-realization), but if you roll them they have different positions at different times.

You can try to meditate on a timeless world and whatnot, but it's meaningless because unless we want to assume that each person has a different view of the world, we have to assume that the universe is constant and equal for everyone. And pragmatically, that's meaningless.

I think a lot of people who ponder these types of questions get caught up in this ethereal concept of time without realizing what it is: a tool to get consensus for measuring the observable universe. We must agree that the universe exists the way it does, and then we agree on a time standard so that we can all observe it the same way. To argue about time is to assume the universe is different for every person.

 

[Via]

But try to visualize yourself as a being that has no concept of memory. It's impossible, because every strand of your consciousness is connected by memory.

The very act of grasping the concept of time without memory requires time and memory. It's an invalid equation.

 

[Eureka]

But try to visualize yourself as a being that has no concept of memory. It's impossible, because every strand of your consciousness is connected by memory.

The very act of grasping the concept of time without memory requires time and memory. It's an invalid equation.

Of course, because a person without memory doesn't grasp concepts. Time is a construct of memory.

We can assume that time doesn't exist and we actually don't have any real memory, and that only the current moment exist. That each moment in life is like a photograph. But for us to have any kind of meaningful discussion, we need to at least have some series of photographs that is connected by some relation, which we determine as time.

We must assume the universe has some sort of memory or causality. Imagining a world without time or memory is easy because then we assume the world doesn't exist. You're right in that it's an invalid equation. Which is why this discussion is kind of circular. We're discussing something that can't be discussed.

 

[moonbogg]

Why not? Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen. A decent example would be to watch a bunch of marbles on the floor. The marbles have absolutely no idea of where they are (or even self-realization), but if you roll them they have different positions at different times.

You can try to meditate on a timeless world and whatnot, but it's meaningless because unless we want to assume that each person has a different view of the world, we have to assume that the universe is constant and equal for everyone. And pragmatically, that's meaningless.

I think a lot of people who ponder these types of questions get caught up in this ethereal concept of time without realizing what it is: a tool to get consensus for measuring the observable universe. We must agree that the universe exists the way it does, and then we agree on a time standard so that we can all observe it the same way. To argue about time is to assume the universe is different for every person.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Its a tool that we use to describe change, but at what increment of time does that change actually take place? It is plank time? So the universe is one snap shot followed by another, by one unit of plank time? If that's the case, then the universe is digital? What happens between snap shots of plank time? Theres just nothing there? As if we instantly skip from one instant to the next?
I think if you could somehow observe without memory, then the universe would look like a fixed object with past, present and future all coexisting.

 

[Paul98]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Its a tool that we use to describe change, but at what increment of time does that change actually take place? It is plank time? So the universe is one snap shot followed by another, by one unit of plank time? If that's the case, then the universe is digital? What happens between snap shots of plank time? Theres just nothing there? As if we instantly skip from one instant to the next?
I think if you could somehow observe without memory, then the universe would look like a fixed object with past, present and future all coexisting.

The universe wouldn't look like anything, it would look like what your eyes see in that moment nothing else. You wouldn't see them all coexisting because your eyes would only see the light that hits your eyes at that moment, you wouldn't be conscious of anything you wouldn't move you might as well be a tree.

But really what does this discussion about having memory or not really have to do with anything?

Time isn't static, depending on relative speed, and where objects are in a gravitational field the rate of time changes. What we think of as happening now, may have already happened or not happened yet for another frame of reference. These different frames and different now's are all equally real. This may mean that all of time already exists. If you are on the 10th story of a building your time is running faster than someone who is on the ground floor.

Though for you or for anyone their own clock will still tick at 1 second per second.

 

[Paul98]

If you then look at quantum mechanics you end up with a stranger view on time, even the idea of cause and effect ends up on it's head. Two people may not agree on what was the cause and what was the effect, even the idea of cause and effect may not make sense. Having something happen seems to cause something that has already happened to change...

 

[Eureka]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Its a tool that we use to describe change, but at what increment of time does that change actually take place? It is plank time? So the universe is one snap shot followed by another, by one unit of plank time? If that's the case, then the universe is digital? What happens between snap shots of plank time? Theres just nothing there? As if we instantly skip from one instant to the next?
I think if you could somehow observe without memory, then the universe would look like a fixed object with past, present and future all coexisting.

That's the subject of research and we haven't quite gotten there. I think I remember some theory about how the universe is actually discrete.

Read Flatland, if you haven't already. If you were an order higher than our current state of living, I think you would see the entire universe as one solid object. But if you had no memory, you wouldn't see anything but the instantaneous moment.

 

[moonbogg]

That's the subject of research and we haven't quite gotten there. I think I remember some theory about how the universe is actually discrete.

Read Flatland, if you haven't already. If you were an order higher than our current state of living, I think you would see the entire universe as one solid object. But if you had no memory, you wouldn't see anything but the instantaneous moment.

If you were an order of existence above time, then you wouldn't need memory since memory is tied to time and changing of events. I think if you could observe without memory, the universe would look like a static object.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think your question can only be answered in an altered state of consciousness. So first you must ask whether such a state of altered consciousness exists. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven is perhaps a prayer to enter such a state, when ones will and the Will of God are the same. In such a state perhaps the universe is but an act of will and all that is, is, because you wish it. If such a state were possible is seems to me one would be the alpha and omega of creation and the universe would exist as love. But how would such a state be known. It would require Fana and Baqa, it seems to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.mysticsaint.info/2012/09/sufi-master-uwais-qarni-asked.html

I thought this was rather nice:

The Great Mystic Saint, Uwais Qarni, may God be pleased with him, was once asked, "How do you feel?"


He said, "LIKE ONE WHO HAS ARISEN IN THE MORNING AND DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER HE WILL BE DEAD IN THE EVENING."

The other man said, "But this is the situation of all men."

Uwais, the mad lover said, "YES, BUT HOW MANY OF THEM FEEL IT?"

Commentary: Now many things have to be understood.


First, when Uwais said, "LIKE ONE WHO HAS ARISEN IN THE MORNING AND DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER HE WILL BE DEAD IN THE EVENING," he is saying many things. It is a very pregnant statement. You will have to go deep into it.


First he is saying that a Sufi lives moment by moment; he does not bother about what is going to happen the next moment. He has no plan for the next moment. A Sufi has no future. This moment is all. She or he lives in it, s/he lives totally in it, because there is nowhere else to go. You cannot live totally in the moment if you have a future – a part of your being will be flowing towards the future, naturally.


If you have a past you cannot live in the present – part of your mind will be flowing towards the past. You will become fragmented. The major part of your being will remain hanging somewhere in the past and the remaining greater part will have already moved somewhere in future. Nothing will he left for the present. And the present is so small, so atomic, that you can miss it very easily. People are missing it. People have pasts and people have futures, people don’t have any present.


The Sufi lives in the present. To live in the present the basic need is to withdraw yourself from the past, to withdraw yourself from the future. Then there comes a concentration of energies, then this small moment becomes luminous, you pour your total energy into it – then there is joy and benediction. If you are miserable it is only because you live in the past and in the future. A miserable man has past and future, a man who lives in bliss has only the moment, this moment. He lives in the now.

 

[sm625]

Consciousness exists in a sea of memory. If consciousness were a fish, memories would be the tank.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

http://www.mysticsaint.info/2012/09/sufi-master-uwais-qarni-asked.html

I thought this was rather nice:

The Great Mystic Saint, Uwais Qarni, may God be pleased with him, was once asked, "How do you feel?"


He said, "LIKE ONE WHO HAS ARISEN IN THE MORNING AND DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER HE WILL BE DEAD IN THE EVENING."

The other man said, "But this is the situation of all men."

Uwais, the mad lover said, "YES, BUT HOW MANY OF THEM FEEL IT?"

Commentary: Now many things have to be understood.


First, when Uwais said, "LIKE ONE WHO HAS ARISEN IN THE MORNING AND DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER HE WILL BE DEAD IN THE EVENING," he is saying many things. It is a very pregnant statement. You will have to go deep into it.


First he is saying that a Sufi lives moment by moment; he does not bother about what is going to happen the next moment. He has no plan for the next moment. A Sufi has no future. This moment is all. She or he lives in it, s/he lives totally in it, because there is nowhere else to go. You cannot live totally in the moment if you have a future

 

[moonbogg]

I've enjoyed the responses. There was a time when I took pride in my skepticism. I felt that I was better than others because I discovered the truth that the gods people worshiped do not exist. I had destroyed the thing that they held closest to their hearts, and I felt liberated that I had begun to shed away my own ignorance in this respect.
I found myself clinging only to things that are considered factual or known, disregarding all other possibilities and mocking those who dared to dream wildly. Then I discovered that my new found intellectual freedom was no freedom at all. I discovered that I had entered a new state of close mindedness, a brand new self induced state of ignorance.
Now I dare to dream and ask the silly questions, tossing the factual aside if it gets in the way of my daring ideas, should I have the audacity to speak about them passionately. Once in a while others insult these crazy ideas because they are not based on facts or what is known, but finally I have reached a point where I can see well enough through my own ignorance so as to not be adversely affected, or handicapped by the ignorance of others.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Now I dare to dream and ask the silly questions, tossing the factual aside if it gets in the way of my daring ideas, should I have the audacity to speak about them passionately.

I understand what you are saying, but you have to dream while holding on to factual reality.
What you are doing in this thread is asking 'what if a square had three sides?' and when someone answers 'it would be a triangle' you are saying, 'No, not a triangle a Square with 3 sides!'
Asking strange questions are good, but they have to at least make sense.

 

[moonbogg]

I understand what you are saying, but you have to dream while holding on to factual reality.
What you are doing in this thread is asking 'what if a square had three sides?' and when someone answers 'it would be a triangle' you are saying, 'No, not a triangle a Square with 3 sides!'
Asking strange questions are good, but they have to at least make sense.

I agree with that completely. I tried to give a disclaimer at the beginning of the thread, lol. It was sort of a "Warning! Potential BS inbound!" Being straight up wrong is OK though, no biggie, at least with something like this. Its still fun. Also, I learned that bad ideas tend to lead to good ones. So by asking about this topic it may have lead others to refine the idea and produce something of more value, and some people did offer some interesting ideas in response at least.