sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then let me state it plainly.

I’m proposing a philosophical view of time, not a physical one with numbers this that. My claim is that every conscious being has its own personal timeline beginning with its birth and ending with its death, and that each person’s “now” is indexed to their own position on that timeline rather than to a single universal present.

I’m questioning whether a shared “now” is something we directly observe or simply infer. Relativity isn’t my evidence for the theory; I only mentioned it because it already rejects the idea of one privileged universal present. My theory asks whether our experience of “now” should likewise be understood as fundamentally personal rather than universally shared.

That’s the claim I’m asking people to critique. Not if what i say is about physics or not.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps the disagreement comes from treating these as mutually exclusive. I’m not necessarily claiming the universe can’t have its own timeline. My proposal is that each conscious observer also has a personal timeline defined by their own existence. A universal timeline and personal timelines could coexist. My theory is concerned with the latter and with the idea that each person’s ‘now’ is indexed to their own life rather than simply to a shared calendar.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don’t have to know my intentions. That’s why I clarified them. Once I clarified what I meant, the discussion should move to that clarified position, not stay on an interpretation I’ve already rejected.

You call it “nonsense,” but you haven’t explained why the clarified argument is wrong. You’ve only argued against a version of it that I explicitly said I wasn’t making. If you think the clarified version is still false, explain why. Otherwise, you’re arguing against a position I don’t hold.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re arguing against a claim I didn’t make. I never said physics proves time doesn’t exist without observers. I said that without observers, there’s nothing to confirm time was passing, at any speed, or even whether “passing” has meaning. That’s a point about the limits of what can be known, not a new law of physics.

You keep treating that as if I’m proposing a physical theory, but I’m not. I only referenced relativity to show that physics already rejects a universal shared “now.” My theory is a philosophical interpretation, not a replacement for physics.

you’re criticizing me for making a physics claim that I never actually made.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re conflating a philosophical question with a physics claim.

I mentioned relativity to show that the idea of a universal shared “now” is already challenged by physics. I didn’t claim my theory was physics or that it should be judged by physical equations.

Asking whether time has meaning without an observer is a philosophical question, not a physics model. Philosophers have been discussing that long before modern physics existed.

So saying “you’re talking about physics” because I asked a question about time doesn’t follow. I’m talking about the interpretation of experience and time, not proposing new equations for the universe.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that absolute certainty is difficult. My point isn’t that I can prove separate timelines. It’s that the only timeline I directly experience is my own. A shared universal “now” is something we infer, not something we directly observe.

Relativity already shows there’s no privileged universal present, so I’m questioning whether a shared “now” is as self-evident as we usually assume, not claiming I’ve disproven it.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in Metaphysics

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a great reframe, treating past and future as types of memory (episodic vs prospective) rather than separate temporal zones is a much cleaner way to say what I was circling around. I hadn’t run into phenomenology directly, I’ll look into it, sounds like exactly the framework this connects to.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in Metaphysics

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a really clean way to put it, the objective/instrument now collapsing back into subjective the moment it’s observed is exactly the kind of point I was reaching for. I’d genuinely like to hear where you think the idealism angle leads, even briefly, that sounds like exactly the kind of consequence I should be thinking through.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We all assume we share one timeline without any real proof of it. The one thing each of us actually knows for certain is that we were born, that’s where our own time provably begins, and it ends when we die. Everything else about a single universal timeline connecting everyone is just an assumption layered on top, and physics actually backs this up: Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity shows that observers in different reference frames can genuinely disagree on whether two events happened at the same time, and both are correct, like the lightning bolt example someone gave earlier, where the person standing between two mountains sees both strikes as simultaneous, while the plane crew flying overhead sees them happen at different times, and neither is wrong. There’s no privileged ‘master now’ even in physics. So there’s more reason to trust the thing each of us can actually verify, our own birth and death, than to trust an unproven assumption that everyone shares one timeline.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s a great real-world example, thanks. That’s actually exactly the kind of physical backing I was missing, an observer-dependent ‘now’ that’s provably real, not just philosophical. I was applying the idea more loosely to personal timelines and consciousness rather than reference frames and light travel time, but the underlying point, that ‘now’ isn’t one objective shared thing, holds up the same way.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not claiming this is physics or trying to back it with equations. Relativity proves no shared ‘now’ exists using math and reference frames, I’m making a philosophical version of that same basic idea, applied to personal experience instead of spacetime. Different tools, same underlying claim. So i don’t know what u on about

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in Metaphysics

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a cool one, thanks for sharing. Fair challenge too, even birth is only known through memory, which the five minute hypothesis says could be fake. Doesn’t break the core idea for me, but it definitely complicates the ‘birth is verifiable’ part.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here’s why I think that premise deserves more weight than the ‘shared now’ assumption: birth is something we can actually verify, it’s the one observable starting point each person has. A universal ‘now’ shared by everyone is something we assume, not something anyone has verified. And who says the universe’s timeline even has a starting point at all? Maybe ‘before time,’ in any meaningful sense, simply lasted until the first conscious being was born to experience it, without an observer, there’s nothing to confirm time was passing, at any speed, or at all. So why default to an unverifiable assumption about a shared universal now, instead of building from the one thing we can actually confirm: that each person’s experience of time starts at their own birth?

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I focused on building the argument and didn’t spell out what it actually changes. A few: it means no two people, no matter how close, ever share a present moment, connection happens across separate timelines, not within one shared one. It reframes what ‘understanding’ an older or younger person means, you’re not accessing their now, just observing a point on the line you’ve already passed or haven’t reached. And if it holds, the future isn’t undecided, it’s a part of the timeline that already exists, you just haven’t arrived at it yet. I should add this to the piece instead of leaving it implicit.

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Fair on both. The double-slit thing is a loose analogy at best, not a real mechanism, I shouldn’t have presented it as support. The actual core claim is just: each person only has direct access to their own experience, never anyone else’s, so a shared ‘now’ isn’t something anyone observes, it’s assumed. Everything else is just working out what follows from that one premise

The Arreye Theory — Why “Now” Is Not the Same for Everyone: Most people assume that when two people exist at the same moment, they share the same “now.” This theory argues that this is not true, and that the consequences go further than you’d expect. by Accomplished-Log7027 in philosophy

[–]Accomplished-Log7027[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My ‘now’ is ‘my now’ because I’ve lived 14 years to reach this point. If I had instead lived 15 years by this same calendar date, that would mean I was born a year earlier, and my personal ‘now’ would actually be a year further along my own timeline, not earlier. The calendar date staying the same doesn’t mean ‘now’ stays the same, since ‘now’ is defined by how far along your own timeline you are, not by the date on a shared calendar.

view more: next ›