"An Experiment With Time"

  • 7 Replies
  • 6198 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Great Scald

  • *
  • Momurai
  • **
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
« on: November 18, 2013, 05:32:18 pm »
I just finished reading JW Dunne's book An Experiment With Time, which is about the human cognition of time.

I was recommended the book this summer, when I had the privilege of speaking to Gaspar Noé (the director of Irreversible, among other stuff) at a film festival. Noé apparently found it really good, so naturally I had to check it out.

Basically, the theory of the book is that linear time is an illusion. Human consciousness can only experience time as a linear passage from point A to point B, because that's the flawed way our human brains are made to perceive reality. All moments in time are taking place at once, and thus there isn't really a "future" or "past", just in our heads. Dunne's point, basically, is that the universe is deterministic (no such thing as "free will" or "choice") and that every change in existence has already happened/is happening/will happen.

I agree with much of the book, although not all of it. I found some of Dunne's ideas, especially his thing for dreams and deja vus, a bit weird and unconvincing - the book has an odd experiment where he tells the readers to scribble down notes after waking up from a dream, and then make connections between the dream notes and real-life events that happen afterwards. I dunno what to make of this. There's no serious proof that dreams are not just another product of your brain, or that they're somehow disconnected from waking consciousness. Maybe it's got to do with Dunne writing the book in 1927, and neurology has come a long way since, maybe it's just his own beliefs. Still, even with this kooky semi-spiritual stuff, it's a pretty interesting book.

So, gentlemen and Meyna, anyone else read this book? Do you agree with this idea on time or not? What are your own pet theories?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2013, 09:14:08 pm by Auriga »

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2013, 06:11:18 pm »
If thats the case, and time doesn't actually exist, my question would be.. why does everyone experience the same direction of time? How is the sharred illusion justified? I haven't read the book nor have I spent much time thinking about this kind of thing, but that just comes to mind.

Given 6 billion people, shouldn't some of them see time flowing in a different direction than our 'subjective' past to future? A child born with the intellect of a dying man, knowing everything he would know and forgetting it as time goes on? Savant mathematicians and physicists who, at the age of 4 or 5, able to simple "know" and explain string theory because at some point in their non-linear-time life they already solved it?

I guess I could potentially accept that time isn't fundamentally how we, as humans, experience it, but why does everyone (and everything as far as we can tell) experience it so similarly?

I'm a novice though, so I apologize for interrupting more important conversations (that already happened?).
One of the other conditions of possibility.

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2013, 07:43:59 pm »
Quote
Basically, the theory of the book is that linear time is an illusion. Human consciousness can only experience time as a linear passage from point A to point B, because that's the flawed way our human brains are made to perceive reality.

Is he an exception then? If this is how our brains are made to perceive reality, how can he perceive reality differently?

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2013, 08:12:06 pm »
Quote
Basically, the theory of the book is that linear time is an illusion. Human consciousness can only experience time as a linear passage from point A to point B, because that's the flawed way our human brains are made to perceive reality.

Is he an exception then? If this is how our brains are made to perceive reality, how can he perceive reality differently?
Also a good point :P. I guess since time is an illusion he is the only one lucky enough to have seen through the veil?
One of the other conditions of possibility.

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2013, 09:31:05 pm »
Well, I'll definitely be grabbing this book, Auriga, cheers

I'll offer you Time Warped - Claudia Hammond in response.

Given 6 billion people, shouldn't some of them see time flowing in a different direction than our 'subjective' past to future? A child born with the intellect of a dying man, knowing everything he would know and forgetting it as time goes on? Savant mathematicians and physicists who, at the age of 4 or 5, able to simple "know" and explain string theory because at some point in their non-linear-time life they already solved it?

I guess I could potentially accept that time isn't fundamentally how we, as humans, experience it, but why does everyone (and everything as far as we can tell) experience it so similarly?

I'm a novice though, so I apologize for interrupting more important conversations (that already happened?).

You and I have discussed this a little before, Wilshire. I think it was in regards to some people describing their 'subjective timeline' as appearing from right to left, or left to right, based on their cultures reading practices.

The experience of time isn't actually so consensually clear when you actually start asking people about it, though. I will dig up some examples latros.
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

Meyna

  • *
  • Momurai
  • **
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2013, 10:14:51 pm »
What does Dunne say about various objective temporal reference frames ("the universe," etc.) and their relation to perceptual time? Even physicists will concede that there isn't an absolute reference frame. The cosmic microwave background is about as close as one can get.

I would also guess that for most people (with the exception of the consistently mindful), the perceived passage of time will speed up as one ages.
witness

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2014, 07:57:25 pm »
Here is a funny(true?) statement about time. The government created time, so it could control our lives.
The only "time" that exists is daytime and nighttime, and everything in between is the twilight zone.

reichorn

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Suthenti
  • *****
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2014, 05:49:35 pm »
Basically, the theory of the book is that linear time is an illusion... All moments in time are taking place at once, and thus there isn't really a "future" or "past", just in our heads. Dunne's point, basically, is that the universe is deterministic (no such thing as "free will" or "choice") and that every change in existence has already happened/is happening/will happen.

Looks like I've got to read this book, since that nicely sums up the metaphysics of my fantasy series, Three Roses.  (I got it from literalizing Heidegger -- by moving to the 'ontic' level the 'ontological' structures he describes.)