Philosophy Online Forum  
11/12/10 @ 00:04 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] |   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My Time Lapse Relativity Theory  (Read 751 times)
RJThinksAlot
Newbie
*
Offline

Posts: 3


« on: 13/05/10 @ 19:55 »

This is a theory I posted on my blog, but I want to post it here to see what you guys think. The follow up to it can be found on my blog: www.rjthinksalot.blogspot.com

 When I was in 4th, or 5th grade I finally put together another one of my theories. I was supposed to be trying to go to sleep but I couldn't for some reason. I had a dog, one of the small kind. He could easily fit on my twin bed. He was laying there asleep on my bed. I sat watching him sleep for like an hour or so. All the while this theory is trying to put itself together in my head.

        Eventually, like a half an hour later my dog was still asleep and I figured out one of my favorite theories. I know what it's like for me when I go to sleep, and usually it's the same for people I ask about there sleep. When I go to sleep, it takes like 30min for me to be fully asleep. Now aside for a couple of dreams which can take anywhere from 40sec to an hour (for this example we will go with the 40sec one) when I go to sleep it's like snap, I'm then awake in the next morning. I have never even remembered when I truly fell asleep. Whenever I lay in my bed, sure I'm tired, but I close my eyes and what seems like 15-30min later I'm awake again and it's morning.

        Now for this theory we are going to assume that my dog had the same sleeping expierence I have most of the time. If you (the reader) disagree and beleive dogs do not have the same experience, that's ok I don't disagree with you. You may very well be correct in thinking that, so if you do think that dogs do not have the same sleeping experience then by all means please use a human falling asleep for this theory in place of the dog, it really doesn't matter I'm just stating my original finding of the theory.

        Anyway. My dog has been asleep for say 2 hours now, all the while i've been awake watching him and thinking. So again, say it only seems like 15-30min before he wakes up into the next day, like it does for alot of people. I hope you've caught what I've been saying now but if not thatsw ok, I can help you out. Basicly, if you think about it, to the dog he has only been asleep for about 30mins, in reality he slept 10 hours and awoke in the next day. But if I've been watching him for 2 hours does that mean I was left in the day before, while his conciousness went forward into the next morning? The reason for thinking this is that the time lapse in our brains doesn't match up. Say I was to stay up all night and watch him. Below I will show two lines comparing how much time me and my dog are aware of before the next day comes.

        It's like this: each - equals 15min of relative time lapses
                             RJ    ----------------------------------------- Next day
                          Dog     -- next day

      Now say I stayed in the same place on my bed for the whole ten hours untill my dog awakes. So wait, it took me ten hours for the dog to wake up, but to the dog he woke up 9 1/2 hours ago. Wtf? See what I'm saying? He was in the next day before me. It took him 30min to lapse the time of 10 hours, yet since I stayed awake the whole ten hours does that mean he left me behind. And if so who is the dog I'm looking at. Some readers may be thinking the same thing a few people in real life told me when I suggested this theory to them. They said to me "There is no way he could be in the future compared to you because that would be time travel and that is impossible". The first thing I say to that is that I'm not talking about time travel in this theory. The second thing I would say to that is time is relative. Meaning that just because I watched him for ten hours doesn't mean that it made him have to hold back and wait. For example mothers often watch their children sleep. Say a mother watches a child sleep for 3 hours (some mother huh?) and to the child it only seems like 15min have past to awake. Just because the mother watches her child sleep does NOT mean that that child felt that he was asleep for another 3hours. If the reader hasn't got what I'm saying yet, i'll try and explain it once more. To the dog it only took 30mins for 10 hours to pass, while it took me 10 hours for 10 hours to pass. So if this theory is correct that means that by hour 4 passed of me watching the dog sleep, the dog would have allready been in the next day and so would I. But wait? Me be in the next day? I thought I just said I was still watching the dog sleep at the 4 hour mark. Just because I watched him sleep doesn't mean I'm going to disappear from his world. When the child wakes up in the morning his mother is still there doing whatever. It's not like he woke up with his mother nowhere to be found just because his mother decided to watch him for awhile in his sleep. Now this brings up a whole new variable. Before I go onto this new variable I want to make sure that the reader understands the last part of the theory. Dogs in the next day, but to me, I'm still watching him sleep.

          Some of the readers may be thinking "Well you can't be two places or times at once" that may or may not be true. But my previous sleep theory above (which from now on I'm going to call the Theory of Time Lapse Relativity, or TTLR) proves otherwise. Now I haven't perfected this next part of the theory. There could be a few explanations as to how there could be two of me, one that exists in my Relative time, and one that exists in my dogs relative time.

I would love some oppinions. Most people I explain the theory to don't understand it. But what it means basicly is that time is not relative to one timeline but relative to each instance of counsiousness. It also could lead on to some other sub theories of dimensions but I will only go on more about that if people want me to. Just see if you like this first.
Logged
Gareth Southwell
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 257


WWW
« Reply #1 on: 14/05/10 @ 19:34 »

I don't completely understand your argument either! But I think it is because you are confusing two senses of time: let's call them (a) objective time, and (b) phenomenal time. Now, objective time is simply what the clock says. So, assuming it's working correctly, the clock will mark the passage of time the same for everyone who uses that clock (or others synchronised with it). So, if we live in the same country, and our clocks are synchronised, then it is 10 o'clock where you are and where I am (for instance).

However, there is also phenomenal time - or, the experience (the phenomena) of the passage of time. This is obviously related to consciousness, so, depending on what I'm doing, time can go slowly or quickly, or can even skip ahead. You're waiting for a train, which is delayed, whilst I am having a good time with friends; for you, time moves slowly, whilst for me it moves quickly (I don't notice it passing so much).

Now, let's apply this to your argument. When you are awake, and the dog isn't, you are experiencing time but the dog isn't. This doesn't affect objective time, only phenomenal time (which is subjective, and so only applies to you). Therefore, there is no conflict or paradox involved in different people experiencing time differently - whether because they are bored, having fun, asleep, unconscious - whatever!

There are arguments that some philosophers use to prove that time doesn't exist, which involves trying to show that what we think of as objective time is really on phenomenal time, but I don't think this is what you're trying to say here.
Logged

This site is 100% free. To support it, you can Buy Books, Buy Art, Advertise, or Pay for Tutoring. For questions, please visit the FAQs.
Pages: [1] |   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: