I can understand where Ninurta is coming from with his explanation and to actually attempt to grab a concept of
what time really is and being a creature of the tactile world, we do -as Ninurta said, always-always fail due to
'looking' at how we exist in time and yet cannot grasp it.
To the average person, the past can only exist in the form of memories. True, we can see the effects via the
passage of time, such as cave drawings and the lines on our faces, but specific points in our past tend to be
only accessed from our mind having the ability to 'visualise' a moment from our past.
That's why such outlandish stories like the John Titor account struggle to work, his vague explanations of how he
travelled back through time did attempt to offer the idea that every action now at this moment creates a time-line
and therefore, an uncountable amount of possibilities become available.
The only viable comment -in my opinion, for Titor's explanation is that if one looks back on their individual past
and recalls an event or incident, technically speaking, and I only mean this in the same linear-thinking that Ninurta
mentions, there would be a link between that event and where one is in the present due to that event.
But what is that link...? What is it made of or what qualities does is still hold that we can somehow approach and
possibly utilise?
Strangely, our brain holds the key. I too believe that the past, the present and the future reside together as a set
of information formed from physical actions and mental processes. Our limited perceptions that are based on our
surroundings, our self-accepted place in our reality and what we can imagine corralled with a rationality, create
memories that are also bound by those self-imposed rules.
For many, ruminations on such a complicated puzzle forces the suggestion that time doesn't actually exist and in
a way they're sort-of correct. It doesn't exist if we look at it under the titles of past, present and future, that's linear
-thinking again and won't get you far.
It's the contents of that make up those places in the passage of time or continuation of events that determine how
we view what is time. We call them memories. I would suggest that if a true time-machine was ever created, the
'device' that causes it to arrive at a physical place at a particular instance in time, must have a human-like brain
somehow attached.
I know that this suggestion may sound silly, but moving through time is partially connected to the 'If A Tree Falls
And There's No One There, Does It Make A Sound' conundrum. If a memory wasn't formed by any entity capable
of creating a recollection, then how do you know it happened and more complexing, did it happen?!
And you can't travel back in time to something that never happened. That's called imagination and entirely different
chat!
Albert Einstein should have been kicked in the balls for not explaining his theory of relativity fully to the layman, the
smiling German accidentally hinted via diagrams that the past and future could be somehow accessed, when in reality
he was talking about light travel.
Light is effected by gravity and since the observer -namely us, can see how light -or the carrier of information that
uses time to travel to the observer, is effected from the space it travels in and the gravity-creating forces within
that space, we come to accept that 'spacetime' proves access to time is possible.
The down-side is that the observer also effects the results of that movement of information-carrying light!
So we're really no further forward if we perceive time in the manner that theoretical physicists attempt to and that's
the problem we have. We've become complacent with vaguely accepting these scientific rules of the arrow of time
(past behind us and future ahead). Light does carry information, but it is information borne of an instant and can
only reside in the moment-it-happened-reality the instant or event became real.
There's a fair argument to be made that if you travelled faster than light and waited on the edge of the ever-moving
universe, the information in the light that eventually caught-up with you could be classified as that you're time-travelling,
but you're not going to the incident that occurred, the incident is merely coming to you.
Is that still valid...? I don't know and it still doesn't assist in how we could travel forward in time to a point where something
will or could happen.
If my past is a caveman's future, are the only significant relevance in the distance between the caveman's possible
imaginations of the future and my factual knowledge of the past, are simply me and the caveman?!
If so and for that tiny minuscule timeline between us, the only two factors are us and hence, understanding the passage
of time is also connected to our respective consciousness.
The past can be accessed right now via your or I remembering an incident and ergo, it becomes present. The will
to unleash a present-day desire can cause a real outcome in the future and that is travelling forward in time.
And it all initially happens in our heads where you can hear sounds without the use of ears, see occurrences without
using your eyes and smell aromas without your nose.
(By the way, that was why I designed Boy In A Dress like that in the first place!)
The trick to answer this -I believe in my humble opinion, resides between where we dangle earrings from!
what time really is and being a creature of the tactile world, we do -as Ninurta said, always-always fail due to
'looking' at how we exist in time and yet cannot grasp it.
To the average person, the past can only exist in the form of memories. True, we can see the effects via the
passage of time, such as cave drawings and the lines on our faces, but specific points in our past tend to be
only accessed from our mind having the ability to 'visualise' a moment from our past.
That's why such outlandish stories like the John Titor account struggle to work, his vague explanations of how he
travelled back through time did attempt to offer the idea that every action now at this moment creates a time-line
and therefore, an uncountable amount of possibilities become available.
The only viable comment -in my opinion, for Titor's explanation is that if one looks back on their individual past
and recalls an event or incident, technically speaking, and I only mean this in the same linear-thinking that Ninurta
mentions, there would be a link between that event and where one is in the present due to that event.
But what is that link...? What is it made of or what qualities does is still hold that we can somehow approach and
possibly utilise?
Strangely, our brain holds the key. I too believe that the past, the present and the future reside together as a set
of information formed from physical actions and mental processes. Our limited perceptions that are based on our
surroundings, our self-accepted place in our reality and what we can imagine corralled with a rationality, create
memories that are also bound by those self-imposed rules.
For many, ruminations on such a complicated puzzle forces the suggestion that time doesn't actually exist and in
a way they're sort-of correct. It doesn't exist if we look at it under the titles of past, present and future, that's linear
-thinking again and won't get you far.
It's the contents of that make up those places in the passage of time or continuation of events that determine how
we view what is time. We call them memories. I would suggest that if a true time-machine was ever created, the
'device' that causes it to arrive at a physical place at a particular instance in time, must have a human-like brain
somehow attached.
I know that this suggestion may sound silly, but moving through time is partially connected to the 'If A Tree Falls
And There's No One There, Does It Make A Sound' conundrum. If a memory wasn't formed by any entity capable
of creating a recollection, then how do you know it happened and more complexing, did it happen?!
And you can't travel back in time to something that never happened. That's called imagination and entirely different
chat!
Albert Einstein should have been kicked in the balls for not explaining his theory of relativity fully to the layman, the
smiling German accidentally hinted via diagrams that the past and future could be somehow accessed, when in reality
he was talking about light travel.
Light is effected by gravity and since the observer -namely us, can see how light -or the carrier of information that
uses time to travel to the observer, is effected from the space it travels in and the gravity-creating forces within
that space, we come to accept that 'spacetime' proves access to time is possible.
The down-side is that the observer also effects the results of that movement of information-carrying light!
So we're really no further forward if we perceive time in the manner that theoretical physicists attempt to and that's
the problem we have. We've become complacent with vaguely accepting these scientific rules of the arrow of time
(past behind us and future ahead). Light does carry information, but it is information borne of an instant and can
only reside in the moment-it-happened-reality the instant or event became real.
There's a fair argument to be made that if you travelled faster than light and waited on the edge of the ever-moving
universe, the information in the light that eventually caught-up with you could be classified as that you're time-travelling,
but you're not going to the incident that occurred, the incident is merely coming to you.
Is that still valid...? I don't know and it still doesn't assist in how we could travel forward in time to a point where something
will or could happen.
If my past is a caveman's future, are the only significant relevance in the distance between the caveman's possible
imaginations of the future and my factual knowledge of the past, are simply me and the caveman?!
If so and for that tiny minuscule timeline between us, the only two factors are us and hence, understanding the passage
of time is also connected to our respective consciousness.
The past can be accessed right now via your or I remembering an incident and ergo, it becomes present. The will
to unleash a present-day desire can cause a real outcome in the future and that is travelling forward in time.
And it all initially happens in our heads where you can hear sounds without the use of ears, see occurrences without
using your eyes and smell aromas without your nose.
(By the way, that was why I designed Boy In A Dress like that in the first place!)
The trick to answer this -I believe in my humble opinion, resides between where we dangle earrings from!
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.