It's true that in general animals with a fast heartbeat tend to have shorter lives and animals with a slower heartbeat have longer lives, but that's more down to the mechanics of how much beating a heart can actually do rather than any deeper relation to time itself. Your idea is a nice one though and what you say about perception is probably true.
Personally I think time is more of a pyschological construct than a real thing in and of itself.
Like an abstract , like love ? While we cannot hold it in our hands we see its effects .
What about space ? is it a pyschological construct we designed to determine positions of objects in a system in relation to each other ?
I agree with slight change...We do not see present , because of the delay we see near past.
The time that is required for our senses to perceive makes the perceived reality already past, because it is not instant.
About the existence of time...
It is relative but does exist, time is not an illusion, without it you would not be able to post this question at all, or perhaps you never did.
Time is an effect in which events take place, it is measured by observing change to a referent object.
This is just my opinion, I am not that arrogant to assume that I am right.
Now that's really good. I believe in a 'Now' that contains past, present and future, which only exists/existed for an instant and which we are able to perceive in a super-slow motion, a kind of suspended animation. The Universe has been and gone and we exist in its echo.
Came across this a while ago. It's an interesting read, even if you don't get the maths (which I don't) - the Nature of Time - Julian Barbour
A further quote from the article
- Ernst Mach
Do you believe, as the physics in the above piece implies, that the past and the future are just as real as the present? I had a previous discussion with you where I inferred you didn't think so.
I wouldn't be inclined to accept all of the theory, or at least as I understand it from this:
I do think it is a step in the right direction, however. If it is acknowledged that time is abstracted from change, then the notion of moment to moment snapshots existing can be examined.
The document presents the picture where all the snapshots or "configurations" exist. The set of all these configurations is called a configuration space. Each location in this space corresponds to a different snapshot. Time, as well as "change", is derived from the curves in this space that minimises the action. So even change would not be fundamental, but a derivation of the structure of all the snapshots. Neither time nor change is fundamental.
You seem to be suppose something different. You are supposing that only one snapshot represents the "present" and all other snapshots of the past and future don't exist any more, or haven't existed yet. But "present" is relative to different frames of reference. What is the present for me, can encompass the past, present, and future for you. In other words, there are many different ways to take a snapshot, and there is no snapshot that is more real than any other. The notion of change is no more fundamental than the notion of time.
I think we can drop the idea of snapshots altogether, they are superfluous and probably just a hangover from the subconscious attachment to the notion of time being existential.
If you imagine the movement of the planets, in our solar system, around the sun - and take it as a microscosmic model of the universe - where do the snapshots come into play? Is what we see as the movement of the planets just a series of snapshots on a roll of film? What is the process of transition from one snapshot to another? Why is that even necessary, why can't the planets themselves exist and move around the sun, without the need for there to be an infinite number of snapshots of them.
There is no true snapshot of the "present". Say you are sitting on a park bench, and I am walking down the street at a couple of kilometres per hour. From my perspective, a star in Andromeda might be about to go supernova. From your perspective, the star may have already gone supernova. Your present contains my some of my past, present and future, and vice versa. I must stress that this is not due to light reaching you before or after me. Your snapshot is intrinsically different to mine. So there cannot be only a single snapshot.
Although I am arguing against the notion of snapshots, your use of it here is very helpful as an explanatory aid.
I think we can differntiate between what people perceive in the present and the present itself. On that basis I think it might be more accurate to say that no individual's perspective is a true snapshot of the present, as opposed to their not being one.
If we imagine the universe going about it's usual course of events and then suddenly pausing, granted, each individual may have a different perception of things, but that just means they have a different perception in that moment. The actual state of the universe would represent the "true snapshot".
The issue of why people perceive things differently is incidental, but I still have trouble seeing why it is that the distance light has to travel doesn't have a material effect. Taking the example of the Andromedan star, we know that the light is travelling outwards. If I am closer to the star then the light reaches me first, and you second, meaning that each light quantum (or photon, or whatever the correct term is) will pass me first, before it passes you. That way, I will "see" each quantum of light first.
If the star goes supernova, then the resultant light will pass me before it passes you, meaning that I will see it first. No?
If you and I were sitting on park benches, with you closer to the star, the light from the supernova would reach you before me. We would do a quick calculation, taking into account the finite speed of light and our respective proximities to the star, and conclude that the star went supernova at some time we both agree on. But if I was walking, and let's say I was still further from the star, and we took into account the same considerations, we would both disagree on when the star went supernova. Your "present" would be different to mine. Similarly, let's say I was passing you at the exact moment the light reached us, so that we both detected the supernova at the same time. We would still disagree on when it occurred.
I cannot stress enough that it is not an aberration due to light. The absence of a single, correct present is evident even after we take into account the finite speed of light.