It's a questionable command from Dylan; to not go gently into the night, is to try to avoid what seems right. In the most expensive shopping area in Germany a 'clinic' opened recently where anti-aging professionals use the latest in age-reversal technology to try to slow down those nasty free-radicals in the body. This midlife obsession with holding up the hands of time is awful. How can one fear gracefully aging, topped off by a momentous event - being 'untethered'. After all, it's the chance catch more than a glimpse. People spending all their time thinking about how everyone is dying, should just live.
Thanks Max for posting this, and for another perspective on a favourite poem, BY. I have tended to parse this as "rage against death, because the possibilities of life are so rich and varied" - in other words, very much along the lines of argument already discussed as to how the limiting function of death sets the premium by which we hold life dear.
If chickens laid diamonds we'd all be toothless millionaires
These posts reminded me of a poem that i learned in my AP english class (which remains to this day the only class--and the only teacher--that i believe was worthwhile...), but for the life of me i cannot remember the title, the author, or even a line sufficient to googlize it. perhaps someone can help:
in a nutshell, it was spoken by a lover to his fair maiden, with several stanzas detailing the ways he'd love to spend a thousand years on each part of her body, but the final stanza basically says "but hey, we're short on time, so let's get to the meat and potatoes".
the only thing that came to mind was "time is still a-flying", but it's not Herrick's work that i'm looking for.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in response to Dylan, isn't it wonderful how for each and every perspective so effortlessly and artfully laid out before us, there's another offering a diametrically opposed point of view? i'll submit this, from one of my favorite poets:
The time you won your town the race We chaired you through the market-place; Man and boy stood cheering by, And home we brought you shoulder-high.
To-day, the road all runners come, Shoulder high-high we bring you home, And set you at your threshold down, Townsman of a stiller town.
Smart lad, to slip betimes away From fields where glory does not stay And early though the laurel grows It whithers quicker than the rose.
Eyes the shady night has shut Cannot see the record cut, And silence sounds no worse than cheers After earth has stopped the ears:
Now you will not swell the rout of lads that wore their honours out, Runners whom renown outran And the name died before the man.
So set, before its echos fade, The fleet foot on the sill of shade, And hold to the low lintel up The still-defended challenge-cup.
And round that early-laurelled head Will flock to gaze the strengthless dead, And find unwithered on its curls The garland briefer than a girl's.
~AE Houseman
OTOH, i've always thought that he had his tongue firmly planted in cheek when he wrote this, so maybe it's not so different from _Do Not Go Gentle_ after all.
People spending all their time thinking about how everyone is dying, should just live.
Amen, I say, but judging from the proliferation of self-help books on this subject, and the size of the bank accounts of their authors, I assume many find it hard to do so. which brings to mind Pascal's observation, which I quote here:
"We never keep to the present. We recall the past; we anticipate the future as if we found it too slow in coming and were trying to hurry it up, or we recall the past as if to stay its too rapid flight. We are so unwise that we wander about in times that do not belong to us, and do not think of the one that does; so vain that we dream of times that are not and blindly flee the only one that is. The fact is that the present usually hurts. We thrust it out of sight because it distresses us, and if we find it enjoyable, we are sorry to see it slip away. We try to give it the support of the future, and think how we are going to arrange things over which we have no control for a time we can never be sure of reaching.
Let each of us examine his thoughts; he will find them wholly concerned with the past or the future. We almost never think of the present, and if we think of it, it is only to see what light it throws on our plans for the future. The present is never our end. The past and the present are our means, the future alone our end. Thus we never actually live, but hope to live, and since we are always planning to be happy, it is inevitable that we should never be so."
Pascal was born in 1623 and died after a long illness in 1662.
I try not to bring days-old threads back to the top, but I am now starting my real catching-up, and I have to say that I think this is one of the best threads we've ever had. I loved it all, from Dr. Bill's contrived quotations, to peoples' opinions, to the wonderful citations! To Brandon: of course time exists, if the earth does! Geez--all you have to do is observe changes all around you, in organic life, and geology, too! To tsuwm: what would or could time be, if not linear? (Please Send Private if you're ready for this thread to end.)
what would or could time be, if not linear? Spatial. And I don't care if the OED does say "spatial as opposed to time" ... what do they know, anyway, except what we tell them. If time isn't spatial then why do authors and scientist talk about the space-time continuum and doors to other times and space portals and E =MC squared and all that stuff? Huh? Huh?
>I found a bunch of contrived definitions... >some of those are not so contrived ... For another example, "quiddity". Some Gilbert and Sullivan song (can anyone help me recall which one?) rhymes it with avidity and rapidity. I wonder if quiddity was a word in ordinary use in those days, one the then-audience would recognize.
Quiddity is in my dictionary, but no date given. I am sure however that it is much older than Gilbert & Sullivan.
Two of the words you quote are in G&S "Patience"
BUNTHORNE To stuff his conversation full of quibble and of quiddity, To dine on chops and roly-poly pudding with avidity-- He'd better clear away with all convenient
quasihemidemisemicentury, on the other hand....(1/16 century, per wwh's definition) British musicians call an 8th note a "quaver". I undersatnd the terms for shorter notes (1/16th, 1/32nd, 1/64th, and 1/128th) are semiquaver, demisemiquaver, hemisimidemiquaver, and quasihemidemisemiquaver (whew). So the last would be 1/16th of a quaver. (Edit: which fits right into our "time" subject.)
what would or could time be, if not linear? Spatial. And I don't care if the OED does say "spatial as opposed to time" ... what do they know, anyway, except what we tell them. If time isn't spatial then why do authors and scientist talk about the space-time continuum and doors to other times and space portals and E =MC squared and all that stuff? Huh? Huh?
the space-time continuum refers to the four "standard" dimensions; i.e., the three dimensions of space plus time, but. there appear to be "discontinuities" in the space-time continuum, such as the origin of space-time (the Big Bang, if you like). one explanation for this comes from Stephen Hawking (see 'A Brief History of Time') in the form of "imaginary time", which flows at right angles to ordinary time! http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm
On Sunday last, we sang in church that great classic hymn with words by Isaac Watts with the stanzas, A thousand ages in thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun. Time, like an ever-rolling stream, Bears all its sons away; They fly, forgotten, as a dream Dies at the opening day. There was originally asnother stanza, now always omitted, between these two: The busy tribes of flesh and blood With all their lives and cares Are carried downwards by thy flood, And lost in following years.
An interesting conceit in this poetry, that it is Time that takes us off this mortal coil, rather than Death, or, eschewing abstraction, sickness, accident, or homicide or the instruments of the same. A rather deep metaphysical device, this transference of the agency of Death to Time.
Raising you one D, how about this expression, at once more down to earth and still theologically and metaphysically challenging, by Dr. Donne:
Death be not proud, though some have called thee Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not soe, For, those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill mee. From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee, Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow, And soonest our best men with thee doe goe, Rest of their bones and soules deliverie. Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men, And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell, And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well, And better than thy stroake; why swell'st thou then? One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally, And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.
Philosophy aside, would you agree with me that the 8th line of this is a masterpiece? It's one of my favorite lines in all literature.
or if you'd like a graphic explaination about time-- and the big bang, try this.. long url has been deleted-- see tsumw post below for a shorter url to same url.... oh no, that's going to make the threads go wide...ok, I'll leave it up for a day or two, and then ditch it.
this thread may have set some sort of standard for staying on topic...
First I read straying in place of "staying".
But more seriously: To ask whether time exists is to ask for begging the question, since existence can hardly be considered without implying time (and vice versa). And time approaches linearity, like all continuously differentiable functions, at the infinitesimally short limit. Where human age is concerned, I favor logarithmic time.
since existence can hardly be considered without implying time (and vice versa).
Surely this is not so?
I am able to imagine an entity that ceases to exist at the identical point at which it is created. It would have existed for no time whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that it did not exist Such an entity might, perhaps, find it necessary to invent time in order to make sense of its situation, but such an invention could only be a convention, without real existence, or real meaning outside the experience of the entity.
an entity that ceases to exist at the identical point at which it is created I don't think I can agree with this. If something exists, it is. And if something is, then there has to be a time in which it exists, no matter how brief. The situation you imagine may certainly be possible, but from my understanding, knowledge, and beliefs, I don't think you can say that something ceases to exist, unless it has already in fact existed.
here's a theory, and it's my theory: before the big bang there was no time (actually, there was virtually nothing). the big bang happened in no time at all. time started with the big bang and has been expanding (but you can't tell because everything is relative to the obvious observer) as the universe expands to fill the big void (see New Yorker link below). one day the universe will begin to contract and time (as we know it) will stop (this will also be the beginning of the end of the universe as we know it). that's the theory, and it's my theory. the fact that it makes no sense is a moot point and totally begs the question; ask a quantum mechanic.
Actually it make as much sense as anything about the subject-- it sounds like you read the article in NYTimes science section yesterday-- (or came to NY and saw the show at the planeterium) i have done both, and the only meaning i find to time is either -- I am on time or late..
so time is, must be, three dimentional or else how could i , a three dimentional being, be on time!
Jackie: If something exists, it is. And if something is, then there has to be a time in which it exists, no matter how brief.
My whole point is that, if something exists, it is. My hypothesis is something that comes into existence and ceases to exist at exactly the same point. The very fact that one can postulate the fact that it comes into being, and them ceases to be is a clear statement of its existence. But time isn't part of my hypothesis! I see no reason why time has to be part of it. If so, how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? The very fact that this question is, in practical terms, unanswerable* is part of the reason why I am prepared to accept the possibility that time does not realy exist.
(*name any amount of time, and you can always halve it!)
one day the universe will begin to contract and time (as we know it) will stop
tsuwm - I think I buy your theory, but I wanted to be sure how you meant the above. Following your description, I see time beginning after that big ol' bang, and expanding as the universe does. But does time stop when the universe begins contracting, or does time just begin to contract at that point, only stopping when we get to the final Big Squeeze? If time stops when the universe begins contracting, when does the contraction happen?
[flashback alert] when does the contraction happen? how far apart are the contractions? how long do they last? Hey - maybe it's all just one very, very long birthing process - but what's being born?
And after the Big Squeeze, where the hell are we all going to find parking spaces?
I've always been wary of Western Civilization's perspective on the existence of time. I'm not sure it exists or not. If it does exist, I'm not sure its linear (some people, while looking across their flat fields, figured the Earth was flat, too). But I do have a much surer sense (within myself, mind you; I've got no empirical support to provide) that if something has a beginning, it *must have an ending. The only things eternal, I figure, are things that always have been. Something cannot begin existence and then last forever. If time began, it surely will end. If time is forever, it must have existed forever.
(I feel the same about my own existence; I (my soul) was created at birth and will cease to exist sometime in the future OR I've always been around but, like everyone else, have a lousy memory of my pre-birth existence. As an optimist, I prefer the latter idea.)
But time isn't part of my hypothesis! I see no reason why time has to be part of it. If so, how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? The very fact that this question is, in practical terms, unanswerable* is part of the reason why I am prepared to accept the possibility that time does not realy exist.
AUGH! The question "how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? " isn't unanswerable! Just because we may not be able to measure it or name it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! Mercy-- if we based our theory on that, we'd have to say that anything shorter than the shortest duration we have a name and measuring capability for, doesn't exist! That is-- let's say that a second was the shortest amount of time that we have named and measured. Would we then say that any length of time shorter than a second does not exist? Given what we know now, no! So, I am extrapolating that, down beyond what we know of measuring time today.
And besides, if time truly isn't part of your hypothesis, then there is no need to have asked that question.
I still say that if something exists, it exists in a period of time. And that goes for tsuwm's Before the Big Bang theory, too: there was something there, that all of these celestial (isn't that a lovely word?) bodies were formed from. So, I think there was time, then, and probably also changes of some kind, that marked the passage of time. Even if it was nothing more than all the little electrons and quarks and things moving in their little orbits, something happened.
I think that if anything changes, that is indication that time has passed. Hmm--I was going to say that if a true vacuum existed, then perhaps there wouldn't be time inside it. But as far as the Big Bang theory goes, all this mass couldn't have suddenly sprung into being from a vacuum! It just couldn't have. But since I can't quite get my mind around the concept of a universe that contains a vacuum, with...something...affecting it from outside, let me go here: let's say that scientists have created a perfect vacuum inside a container. Is there time inside that container? I say yes! If light falls on it, and changes with the turning of the earth, that's a change inside the container. Okay, let's say the container is opaque: what about changes in temperature, or in whatever the container is resting on? Gravity shouldn't affect the vacuum, but changes in temperature might, if they affect the container by altering its size slightly.
I don't think we can stop time. Not today, but possibly in the distant future. I don't think time will ever run backward, though it may eventually become possible for humans to travel back through it. Whew, what an exercise! Cool discussion!
yes, but it wasn't spatial, and it follows there was no time. it was pure energy. this is where Einstein led us, but even he didn't want to believe it -- he introduced a cosmic fudge factor... the "greatest blunder" of his scientific career.
In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.
Hyla hectors But does time stop when the universe begins contracting, or does time just begin to contract at that point, only stopping when we get to the final Big Squeeze?
the Big Crunch could be very messy, so time may well stop when the contraction starts. parking will be the least of our concerns at that point.
Pure energy only = no time. ? Okay, that I might concede, L.
The "Big Crunch": do you reckon that everything, every last little particle of anything, will be---what? Swallowed by black holes? Turned into what is labeled as dark matter, but which may not be matter as we know it at all?
Your word 'crunch' to me implies some kind of impact/implosion--though to sure it could be followed by an explosion. I'd always entertained the notion that eventually most of the spacial bodies will explode, without necessarily having had a collision.
Ok, I'm coming in a little late because I just got to this thread, but here's my thoughts.
I think time is a concept, just as distance is. The measurement of both are human creations. We don't know what is at both ends of time and we don't know what's way out there. They are both infinite continuums and our measurements give them some sense of sanity. Time is measured by events. Sometime happens and it takes a certain amount of "time" so we can compare that measurement to other events. As long as something is happening, there is time. That's why when something takes a long time, it seems relative because you don't have smaller intervals with which to measure it. It's the same for travelling long distances. You can't really tell the difference between 1000 km and 10000 km without something else to measure it. Using a meter to measure something is just like using a minute. You can say that there is a meter between this and this in the same way that you can say that there is a minute between that and that. They are both events in their respective dimensions. A meter is an event that measures distance, a minute is an event that measures time.
As for there being no time before the Big Bang, I guess I can agree with that, until we determine what was there before. With the universe being as big as it is, it's fully possible that there are other galaxy clusters just like our "universe" farther away than we can perceive. And who says there wasn't anything in this locality long before the Big Bang. The matter for the Bang had to get here somehow. Saying that it just appeared is just as futile as saying that some god just materialized from nothing and created everything. Both are against the laws of physics.
I don't really think there will be an end to time either. Right now the current speculation to the end of the universe is not a big crunch, but just a continued expansion until everything is so far apart it's like it's not there at all. Time had a feature about this a few months ago. As T.S. Eliot said: "This is the way the world ends, and not with a bang, but a wimper." This doesn't necessarily mark the end of time though, because a planet floating away is still something happening.
I'm not really sure how much of this makes sense, because I'm not totally sure what I'm trying to say, but there it is anyway.
Brandon notes the possibility that Ive always been around but ... have a lousy memory of my pre-birth existence. Since JazzO quoted T.S. Eliot, let me supply an elegant passage which bears out Brandon's idea perfectly:
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The soul that rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home. - Wm. Wordsworth from Intimations of Immortality
BTW, I don't believe Ive ever seen so large a number of posts on one thread in a single day. Kudos to tsuwm for introducing it.
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
.
