Is time necessarily linear? Or is it commonly thought of as linear

>>3133393

It's necessarily linear FOR US. Time, like space, is relative to your frame of reference.

>>3133393
Time is cyclic, thus samsara. Day and night, the four seasons, birth and death all occur in a cycle. Hell even a clock is a circle for a reason.

>>3133393
Time as a concept for which we describe our world is linear. Time as a universal concept doesn't have to be linear. The whole notion of linearity or non-linearity depends on the observer state.

>>3133393
Time is either branching of linear. Free will has noting to do with it, it's a meme anyway.

>>3133393

God gave us free will therefore He designed a universe that has linear time.

The Lord Himself is timeless though.

It's a coil

>>3133422
This, unless we can somehow learn to access higher dimensions of time, time is linear, just like space is linear for a 1d(or 2d if you count time) being.

>>3133393
It's most certainly a human concept, although not likely to be unique to humans, it may be that it's a concept among most sapient lifeforms.

At the speed of light there’s no time to cover any distance, but there’s also no distance to cover. From the perspective of a photon it is simultaneously created and destroyed in the same instance of time.

It may also be that the arrow of time is a human construct as well. There exists no fundamental reason for time to have any direction associated with it (past / present) and all physical processes which occur moving from past to present are equally capable of moving from present to past without violating any laws.

>>3133393
Time has no directionality, this is pure autism completely divorced from reality.

Don't believe me? Just point with your finger in the direction time "flows" in.

>>3134068
time flows forward
checkmate fingerboy

>>3134080
yeah but if I showed you a video of a pendulum swinging back and forth, you wouldn't be able to tell me if the video was in reverse or not because forward in time or backward in time is not something you can even see

>>3134091
i could tell because of the wear and tear of the metal and by the air currents and the inertia

File: 1500841549549.jpg (152KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1024x1024px

>>3133393
An event in time either happened or will happen, there is no present. Presentism is to think that only things that changed are in the past, so if a car remains the same for years, it is in the present. The illusion of time is the illusion of a present that is neither past nor future. Am I wrong?

>>3134109
frictionless pendulum in a vacuum how bout now?

>>3134109
That's kind of the point though, you can only use clues to tell you what direction time is moving but you still can't point to it.

>>3134140
>An event in time either happened or will happen, there is no present.
>Am I wrong?
Yes, because you're trying to take a view of time where there isn't a present but are also implicitly referring to a present by dividing events into "either happened" or "will happen."
By analogy, imagine a long line of rocks on the ground. You can look at it a couple different ways. One way you can look at it is from the perspective of one of those rocks. From this rocks perspective, there is such a thing as "rocks in front" and "rocks behind." Alternatively, you can look at it from an impartially spaced bird's eye view. From this detached perspective, there is no such thing as "rocks in front" or "rocks behind." You can't have it both ways. If you say there are "rocks in front," it raises the question "in front of what?" If you say there are "rocks behind" it raises the question "behind what?" When you make reference to these relative positional terms, you implicitly refer to a thing these positional terms are relative to. When you make reference to relative temporal terms like "happened" or "will happen," you implicitly refer to a present these temporal terms are relative to.

time is experienced logarithmically

the older you get, the shorter a given unit of time feels.

>>3135477
That would be true if you always judge duration relative to the fraction it constitutes of the total time you've lived so far. I don't think you necessarily always judge duration like that. I've been putting noodles in the microwave for 7 minutes each day for the past 15 years or so since I graduated high school and I always know when to get up and stop the microwave a few seconds before it'd start beeping even though using your system of duration assessment I should've started over-waiting and hearing the beep at some point as that 7 minutes became a progressively smaller fraction of my total lived time.