Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Steve_B did you read the linked article of the original post? The guy has a degree in philosophy, physics, and astronomy and is a professor at Dartmouth. The title "There is No Now" might be a bit 'provocative'/clickbait though to get attention.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@pegembara said:
Scientifically speaking, there is no now for the moment something is experienced eg. seeing a lightning or hearing a thunder, the original event has passed.
Experientially speaking, there is only individual moments of experience. A thought here, a feeling there, a memory appears, then a worry, a smell, a sound, a sight. All there is are fleeting moments.
You shouldn't chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past
is left behind.
The future
is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there,
right there.
Not taken in,
unshaken,
that's how you develop the heart. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.131.than.html
I'd have to disagree. Scientifically, there is no smallest increment in time or distance and a thunder clap could take longer than the next.
We couldn't possibly find the smallest increment without finding the biggest.
1, 2, 3... What is the biggest number?
1/2, 1/3, 1/4... What is the smallest increment?
Fleeting moments don't exist. It is the brain that makes time choppy.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2016
@person said:
I'm not sure I really get where you're coming from as I'm not that familiar with Dzogchen philosophy. Maybe another way to say it is saying there is no now is nihilism, saying you can't find it is Madhyamika.
Ah, like the difference between no self and not-self... No now and not-now, lol.
From the point of view of consciousness, consciousness cannot be destroyed in the same way that an object can be destroyed. With consciousness, one analyzes it into the consciousness that was, the consciousness that is yet to be, and the present consciousness. And with the present consciousness, one investigates it down to the subtlest moment or instant, beyond which it cannot be divided any further, and that is the ultimate truth.
This smallest moment in the Buddhist tradition is said to be the time it takes a finger to snap, divided by 64. That is what is said to be the smallest instant in time; in the Buddhist tradition that is called the limit of time. Through one's analysis, through one's intelligence, one could say that the moment could be divided into hundreds, into thousands, into millions. Of course, that is possible. But in terms of the arising of thoughts, the thought arises in these 64 divisions of a finger snap.
If you take an arrow or a bullet and you shoot it through 100 flower petals, it seems to go through instantaneously; one cannot break down the movement through 100 flower petals. But if one analyzes it, one sees that is has to go through the first flower petal before it goes through the second flower petal, and so forth.
Rinpoche says that previously the scientific position was that the ultimate truth was small atomic particles that could not be divided. He says that he thinks this is very similar, not exactly the same perhaps, but very similar to the Vaibhashika school.
This idea of a smallest moment (or even physical 'atom') is in the abhidharma I think of the Pali Canon. The three baskets are the sutras, the vinaya, and the abhidharma. So actually part of Thanisarro Bhikhus Canon though I am not informed regarding what the Theravadan view on the abhidharma is. That is I don't know if it is regarded as suspect or provisional or limited somehow. I do know that it is part of the 'triple basket' of teachings.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
It's completely arbitrary and it's from an alien culture to mine. The point is that there is a practical smallest bit as relevant to 'arising of thought'. It doesn't matter if 62 or 66 is the number given. A lot of things you might read in Buddhist scriptures are rhetorical to a degree. And that's a huge understatement.
In my link the teacher tries to explain the idea by saying that the 100 flower petals are pierced 'instantaneously' even though it is known that the second petal is pierced in sequence second to the first petal and so on. But practically they are pierced 'instantaneously'.
And I wonder if there is some funny science to small amounts of time like small amounts of matter and space ie 'quantum'.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2016
Yeah, I'll have to stick with a fluid ever-now that is broken into chunks to suit the needs of our brains.
An arbitrary increment only lends credence to this.
If one aspect of the dharma doesn't fit with the rest then something is suspect.
Everything is ultimately non-separation except for time and distance?
Yes but don't reject everything based on the earliest crudest form. I don't believe in the 1/64th time frame and I don't see how it benefits me. But I do find value starting with the cittamatra view 'mind only' from which we get the ever popular idea that duality is a sense of separation between self and experience. This is where it gets interesting to me. And I still am curious what Thanisarro Bhiku or Ajahn Brahm or another very bright mind in the Theravadan tradition would say about the abhidharma (which as I said talks about 'atoms' of matter and consciousness and is part of the 'triple basket').
And I do like your saying that it is our minds (maybe even brains but that's another big discussion ) that divides things up into 'north' and 'south' 'hot' 'cold' 'soon' 'boring' etc...
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
For the military there have been efforts to measure the cognitive pause, the amount of time between an event happening and the arising of a reaction in a human being. If memory serves me right, it is about 0.05 seconds. There are different kinds of reactions, like muscular ones reacting to heat on the skin, or more complex reactions like reacting to a smile with a answering smile, which requires the brain to decode the emotional content of a facial expression.
We can discern finer time gaps as well, for example when observing a display there are people who can visually distinguish between a 100 Hz and a 200 Hz television. That is more in the way of tracking subtle flicker and visual artefacts in a continuous stream of sensation, the time taken to respond to events is pretty constant.
Jeffrey, it doesn't matter where he got his degrees. This is tantamount to saying that "It is true because Aristotle said it is true." Galileo dropped cannonballs at Pisa disproving Aristotle (and got himself locked up for his troubles).
I am familiar with Dr. Gleisner's work, and have read this article and other like reductions. My point, and I'm very sure Dr. Gleisner would agree, is that this isn't science, it's philosophy. It has references to physics and physiology, but does not make any pronouncements in those fields. It's an interesting discussion, but it certainly is not science, just as John Lennon's drawings are not music regardless of how many records he sold.
The central thesis is that perceptually, now can be considered to consist of a time pixel 20 ms in width because that is the approximate resolving power of human visual perception. It does not address alternative pixel widths as might be considered based on, say, auditory or tactile perception. Can you hear a discrepancy of 20 ms, or 200? Can you resolve two taps on your shoulder 20 ms apart? What about on your lips?
But pixel width can be reduced to zero without disturbing the conventional concept of now. For example, if I have started eating dinner but not yet finished, then I am at dinner now. Now can be a time frame 20 ms wide, or zero, it doesn't matter. At the other end of the spectrum, now might be very, very wide and still be valid. Rather than describe here briefly the work of the Long Now foundation, I would simply suggest you look them up. Very different realm from Dr. Gleisner's, and probably of some cultural interest to many Buddhists.
Oh ok. I responded as I did because I wasn't sure if you had read the article. But it sounds like you are quite familiar and were challenging the notion of science disproving 'now'. To be fair though @person did not say it was a scientific result in his OP rather he said it would be fun to argue the counter 'now is all that is here' from our Buddhist perspective. And I do realize that pegembara did mention science but to be fair to pegembara he made statements that seem reasonable like when you hear thunder that is actually after the lighting strike. And though the light might be almost the time of the strike we know that light takes time to travel and that in some events like observing quasars from the early universe that the light we are seeing 'is not the same time as the quasar'.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2016
@Jeffrey said:
Yes but don't reject everything based on the earliest crudest form. I don't believe in the 1/64th time frame and I don't see how it benefits me. But I do find value starting with the cittamatra view 'mind only' from which we get the ever popular idea that duality is a sense of separation between self and experience. This is where it gets interesting to me. And I still am curious what Thanisarro Bhiku or Ajahn Brahm or another very bright mind in the Theravadan tradition would say about the abhidharma (which as I said talks about 'atoms' of matter and consciousness and is part of the 'triple basket').
I don't reject anything based on affiliation of sects but on affiliation with the 4NTs and logic.
I do prefer the more positive side to the dharma though and instead of seeing duality as some sort of painful trap I see it as a tool of expression.
The individual self is an expression of whatever we call Buddhanature/the Tao/absolute truth (which would include subjectivity) and without it there is no exploration.
As you quoted, nirvana and samsara are not two.
Neither is an individual self and any supposed "other".
Neither is this moment and a supposed "next".
To create the future the moment is shaped, not replaced.
This is why it is best to be mindful of what we are doing now.
Trying to separate the moment into many begs the question of an impossible first.
I don't reject anything based on affiliation of sects but on affiliation with the 4NTs.
I do prefer the more positive side to the dharma though and instead of seeing duality as some sort of painful trap I see it as a tool of expression.
I find the notion of a painful trap as related to the 4NTs to be honest. I do agree the self is an expression of Buddhanature. It depends what you mean in nirvana and samsara are not two.... I mean affliction of the poisons is not the same as liberation... but probably there are some quotations where something sensible is said...And actually neither an individual self or any supposed "other" actually makes me think of the Shentong view which my teacher is quite interested in (her doctoral thesis 'The Buddha Within' is all of the polemics of the shentong view (empty of other)... but there is quite a lot to read and think about these ideas in the link I linked to which is from my teachers teacher which explains why it is so important to me. And that link relates only to a portion of 1 single chapter (out of 40) that talks about the dharma.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2016
I mean that sufferings cause is the obscuration of Nirvana.
However, my main point is that positing separate moments is to imply an original cause or moment.
Even if this time/space bubble began at the big bang, the big bang still has a cause which implies a bigger timeline we can't see.
Yes I think you are actually right on with many things you have said and they sound very much like things I have heard from my teacher. I am kind of surprised you have come to a lot of the same ideas independently. One of her favorite things to talk about is actually related to a 'line' in geometry. In geometry a line is a collection of points. She doesn't mention equations but the line is an equation such as y=x which makes a line with slope of 1 that passes through the point x=0 y=0. But the points on a line are dimensionless. They have no width. So how do they connect into a line? I haven't penetrated the mystery totally of why my teacher is so interested but I do kind of get a connection between the geometry of a line and how something is created out of dimensionless points. I make an analogy here between dimensionless and 'empty', but as I say I don't totally get what my teacher is saying or why she is so intrigued by the example of a geometric line and the points that make it up.
With the big bang I think that the problem of saying it had a cause is that at an early point in the bang there is so much matter and mass in such a small space that we don't have an understanding of the physics in that condition. That makes it hard to make guesses at what preceded the big bang.
To the OT, first thanks for the link. A well written and concise article on the nature of how we perceive time. I don't see any discrepancy between what he's saying and our Buddhist view of how the mind works. He points out that, because of the slight delay in our senses processing and sending information to the brain and the brain reacting to that, our conscious minds are actually lagging behind a tiny bit. Then he also points out that there is a threshold built into our minds where a difference in time is too small for us to notice so we normally are fooled into thinking we're experiencing the world as it happens. Someone sticks you with a pin, you feel pain, and you can't perceive the slight delay between the event and when the brain gets the nerve impulses. Our consciousness actually lives in the past, slightly, confusing it for the present.
But Buddhism would say that is true, but still there is just "now" even if our consciousness of it and our reaction to it is slightly delayed. There is just "now" even if this "now" is a moving point and not something that can itself exist as an independent object. A point on a line has no length of it's own. It's just a point.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Cinorjer said:
To the OT, first thanks for the link. A well written and concise article on the nature of how we perceive time. I don't see any discrepancy between what he's saying and our Buddhist view of how the mind works. He points out that, because of the slight delay in our senses processing and sending information to the brain and the brain reacting to that, our conscious minds are actually lagging behind a tiny bit. Then he also points out that there is a threshold built into our minds where a difference in time is too small for us to notice so we normally are fooled into thinking we're experiencing the world as it happens. Someone sticks you with a pin, you feel pain, and you can't perceive the slight delay between the event and when the brain gets the nerve impulses. Our consciousness actually lives in the past, slightly, confusing it for the present.
But Buddhism would say that is true, but still there is just "now" even if our consciousness of it and our reaction to it is slightly delayed. There is just "now" even if this "now" is a moving point and not something that can itself exist as an independent object. A point on a line has no length of it's own. It's just a point.
Thanks for bringing this up, the majority of the article is talking about something other than the direction the thread has taken. That our perception of now isn't the same now that is occurring in the world, that our perception of the world is on a sort of tape delay.
It seemed like at the end though he was making a mathematical point about now not existing.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited April 2016
@Jeffrey I think I understand why you took offense to my post. I think you were making an argument about the primordial ground of being and I was just talking about time. My understanding of the primordial ground is that it transcends time, space or concepts and, maybe I'm off here, but you were equating more closely to something akin to Spinoza's God where rather than being transcendent it is the totality of existence. So for me the big ball of wibbley-wobbley timey-wimey was just about conventional time not the primordial ground, to which beginning and end don't apply.
I don't really know a lot about the primordial ground. It came to me because I transcribed a dharma talk about 'truth' where my teacher birdwalked a bit and mentioned the primordial ground at one point where she was pointing out that a feature of truth is that it is finely organized. I am not sure but I would guess that she is teaching something traditional rather than her own ideas because usually when there is a list of X things (in this case four) that list came from a scripture and the teacher is then explaining away the list.
Anyhow the primordial ground is something I personally always thought of as a big blob of nothing so that's how it's (the associations of ideas) organized in my brain. I could look back at the talk and try to figure out what she was saying about the primordial ground. But I do know that the idea of truth relayed by my guru is that it has four qualities: flux or 'non-stasis', emotional or in other words there is someone looking for the truth as in a sentient being and that being has a reaction to the truth, finely divided and organized (as I have been talking about), and finally that things come into and out of focus or manifest/non-manifest. So my teacher was talking about truth and the search for truth in this talk I transcribed but in her birdwalk discussing the 4 qualities she talked about primordial ground which as organized in my brain I think of primordial ground as a big vague blob even though that is surely a wrong idea of mine.
You did correctly sense I took some offense but that was because I didn't realize that your video was a tribute to your liking of Doctor Who. I thought you were mocking my silly notions about time as perhaps overly complicated or whatever flaw(that I got from reading and listening to dharma talks of gurus I have heard and am interested in). I did not recognize what the video was from. For me the only thing I remember of Dr Who is that they play the song for the fans at Detroit Pistons basketball games.
The author is a theoretical physicist, so there is a lot of postulating in that field, yes? Using a lot of math to try to explain abstract topics? He's well-published and well-educated and is a professor at Dartmouth. The article is actually really interesting. Of course, credentials don't always make all of their theories and articles valid. Dr. Oz, is, after all, well-educated.
Seems like a great paradox to me. 'Now' is all we really have. The past exists in our memories, and the future exists in what we hope for or foresee. But, as we can see, we don't really experience 'now' in the way we think we do.
I disagree with the article.
To me it's saying because everything we observe is over a period of time like a time frame that it has to have a past and a future of sorts in order for us to perceive.
But he's ignoring the the fact the NOW, or the present is all there is, everything we perceive is from the present. If you say now at 12:00:00 then by the time you say it it's no longer now..but the I think the real NOW is all there ever is, Things move and perceive in the present, even when thinking about the past and future when it happens it happens in the NOW, you can't go back 1 day and change the way you think in the past or the future, if you change the way you think you do it from the NOW. And all thoughts about future and past also happens in the NOW...now is a constant, it's not 12:00:00 noon now but it is in the NOW that we notice the time is 12:00:00 noon.
I could be wrong, but i am unable to deny that everything happens now, and that everything else is just perceived thoughts from/in the NOW.
^^^ Wot right now? Actually now I come to think of it, you are exactly right ...
1
Fosdickin its eye are mirrored far off mountainsAlaska, USAVeteran
This business largely boils down to how we define "now". The author is defining it as a hypothetical absolute, and claims that it does not exist because we cannot experience or perceive it - it is, for us, an abstraction. Do abstractions exist? Depends on how we define "exist" - and so on ad nauseum.
What we perceive is the "relative now", and that is the only now that has any relevance or meaning to us guys on the street, or on the zafu for that matter. Language is fuzzy, we don't have enough words, cannot have enough words, to convey experience, let alone "reality". But physicists, shoot, that's their job and they have to keep trying - their efforts have great value, even where the practical upshot is no more than the reduction of our massive collective hubris.
Why is 'relative now' the only now that matters to a guy on the street? Or do you mean a guy on the street as a homeless guy? Does that guy study Buddhist scriptures? Is it assumed that if someone uses a zafu they are as in Zen tradition emphasizing their meditation practice over reading or hearing or scholarship and analysis?
This information isn't anything new or earth shattering. Years ago I learned of this "sensory lag" that results in all of us "living in the past." It's simple, really: when we touch a table, there is a sensory lag between the moment we touched the table and the moment we "know" we've touched the table. That lag would be the time it takes for the synapses to fire and transmit the nerve impulses to the brain, and then process the act as touch. So yes, in a real sense we are all existing in the past :-)
Also coming from a computer programming background I have to strongly disagree because in MySQL, there is a NOW() function but there is not YESTERDAY() or TOMORROW() function.
Zero / the empty set is a mathematical convenience.
A time interval of zero duration would equate to the cessation of the universe - not so convenient.
Mixing philosophies of matters outside of investigation with philosophies of matters capable of investigation results in anomalies such as infinity, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, quantum field, membranes etc etc.
Zero could be good in a sci-fi movie "don't set the interval to zero!" (Like don't cross the streams in ghostbusters or don't will anything into non-existence in the belgariad series of books)
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Don't get me started on infinity.
That could go on forever.
6
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Zero said:
Zero / the empty set is a mathematical convenience.
A time interval of zero duration would equate to the cessation of the universe - not so convenient.
Mixing philosophies of matters outside of investigation with philosophies of matters capable of investigation results in anomalies such as infinity, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, quantum field, membranes etc etc.
Quite the conundrum, Now can't be zero time but neither can it be pinned down to a specific fragment of time. What else is there?
@pegembara said:
Scientifically speaking, there is no now for the moment something is experienced eg. seeing a lightning or hearing a thunder, the original event has passed.
Experientially speaking, there is only individual moments of experience. A thought here, a feeling there, a memory appears, then a worry, a smell, a sound, a sight. All there is are fleeting moments.
I'd have to disagree. Scientifically, there is no smallest increment in time or distance and a thunder clap could take longer than the next.
We couldn't possibly find the smallest increment without finding the biggest.
1, 2, 3... What is the biggest number?
1/2, 1/3, 1/4... What is the smallest increment?
Fleeting moments don't exist. It is the brain that makes time choppy.
Yes, they do in my experience. Doesn't matter what the scientist or anyone else say.
Only thing is there isn't actually a present moment which is a new age concept which wasn't actually taught by the Buddha which is to cling to nothing whatsoever whether past, present or future.
Being in the here and now. The Buddha does not give teachings to be here and now. Buddhist scholars have very freely translated ditthe dhamme as here and now. Ditthe means view and dhamme refers to dharma, namely all objects (in the mind and in the world, past, present or future), the teachings and truth. The Buddha did not give any kind of self entity or adopt a substance view to the present moment. Ditthe dhamma can also mean seeing with regard to the dharma.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@pegembara said:
Scientifically speaking, there is no now for the moment something is experienced eg. seeing a lightning or hearing a thunder, the original event has passed.
Experientially speaking, there is only individual moments of experience. A thought here, a feeling there, a memory appears, then a worry, a smell, a sound, a sight. All there is are fleeting moments.
I'd have to disagree. Scientifically, there is no smallest increment in time or distance and a thunder clap could take longer than the next.
We couldn't possibly find the smallest increment without finding the biggest.
1, 2, 3... What is the biggest number?
1/2, 1/3, 1/4... What is the smallest increment?
Fleeting moments don't exist. It is the brain that makes time choppy.
Yes, they do in my experience. Doesn't matter what the scientist or anyone else say.
Then why claim science shows there is no now?
Only thing is there isn't actually a present moment which is a new age concept which wasn't actually taught by the Buddha which is to cling to nothing whatsoever whether past, present or future.
No, it is not a new age concept that now is all there is. To me it is only logical.
Being in the here and now. The Buddha does not give teachings to be here and now. Buddhist scholars have very freely translated ditthe dhamme as here and now. Ditthe means view and dhamme refers to dharma, namely all objects (in the mind and in the world, past, present or future), the teachings and truth. The Buddha did not give any kind of self entity or adopt a substance view to the present moment. Ditthe dhamma can also mean seeing with regard to the dharma.
That doesn't actually prove anything, sorry. All it does is incorporate the past, present and future as if they are the same thing which is what I am saying.
Nobody is saying to attach and cling to the now so that point is moot. this moment is constantly changing and we can't cling if we tried. Trying to cling to any arbitrary and subjective moment is either living in the past or planning/fearing the future and not attaching to now.
If form is not separate except as an illusory tool then neither is time. You can not have distance without time and you can not have separate moments without implying a first moment.
If you don't care what science reveals then don't make scientific claims that can be shot down so easily.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Ok. Let me just say this:.
When the Buddha spoke of Mindfulness and being aware of the present moment, I very, very much doubt that he had as firm a grasp on Science, Physics Quantum stuff or any other scientific methodology being discussed here.
So, I think - FWIW - that we're over-thinking it here.
I don't believe that when the Buddha taught Mindfulness, he meant us to split the atom and reduce matters to such infinitesimal microscopic detail.
I think he wanted his followers to just be mindful within the space of their own breath...
Science be damned. Just 'be'.
For goodness' sake, let's not re-invent the damn wheel, here....
I am not sure it matters whether "now" exists as anything or not..but
"Now" is just an English word used to describe our consciousness of this present
moment of what we can see, hear, smell, taste, feel and think.
Mostly....
It is an idea of an existence between the past and it's future,
where identity tries to prop up it's imaginary fiefdom, amidst reality's chaos.
Fleeting moments don't exist. It is the brain that makes time choppy.
Yes, they do in my experience. Doesn't matter what the scientist or anyone else say.
Then why claim science shows there is no now?
You have not read or understood the op(there is no now) which was my point exactly which is okay. In terms of my experience fleeting moment exists. Don't matter what you say!
Only thing is there isn't actually a present moment which is a new age concept which wasn't actually taught by the Buddha which is to cling to nothing whatsoever whether past, present or future.
No, it is not a new age concept that now is all there is. To me it is only logical.
Point to me the now. It is gone even before my words reach your ears.
There really is no now. Not the way I see it. Only fleeting moments that arise and passes. Fleeting moments are fleeting/ungraspable.
Nobody is saying to attach and cling to the now so that point is moot. this moment is constantly changing and we can't cling if we tried. Trying to cling to any arbitrary and subjective moment is either living in the past or planning/fearing the future and not attaching to now.
This moment is constantly changing - which means the now is actually ungraspable ie. there is no now.
If form is not separate except as an illusory tool then neither is time. You can not have distance without time and you can not have separate moments without implying a first moment.
If you don't care what science reveals then don't make scientific claims that can be shot down so easily.
As @federica said, if you want to end dukkha, the Dhamma is your refuge. Science doesn't have the answer.
For those of scientific bend. From the OP no less.
“Now” is not only a cognitive illusion but also a mathematical trick, related to how we define space and time quantitatively. One way of seeing this is to recognize that the notion of “present,” as sandwiched between past and future, is simply a useful hoax. After all, if the present is a moment in time without duration, it can’t exist.
@thegoldeneternity we all know what being in the present is and as you say it is partly letting the discursive mind patterns mindful space to settle and dissolve ...
... and now back to endless cycling ...
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2016
Here it comes and there it goes... What's in between nobody knows.
It's a fine line between the tool and the art of expression and we are lucky enough to walk it if we are mindful enough.
@pegembara, I did read the article but was mostly interested in the claim it led to.
We will have to simply agree to disagree. If the moment is constantly changing and not being replaced with new moments then you are really saying the same thing I am now.
The only reason I mentioned science was because you brought it up but I see little science behind what the o/p actually suggests.
If he is talking about a moment in between the past and the future then sure it doesn't exist because it is all the same moment and the future only exists as probability.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2016
@Jeffrey said:
Steve_B did you read the linked article of the original post? The guy has a degree in philosophy, physics, and astronomy and is a professor at Dartmouth. The title "There is No Now" might be a bit 'provocative'/clickbait though to get attention.
There was physics being talked about but no real science behind the idea that the now is a separate moment between moments.
I think he even said it's our brains that chops up time into manageable chunks and so although he is on to something when he says in reality there are no chunks, he gets it wrong when he says that means there is no now in my view.
He does not seem to consider that it means that now is all there really is.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
He does not seem to consider that it means that now is all there really is.
It seems like that is an option. If now can't be non existent and it can't be pinned down and quantified saying that now is all there is sounds reasonable.
Past "nows" have seemingly led up to this now and this now will inevitably lead to future nows but where are those past and future nows NOW?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
He does not seem to consider that it means that now is all there really is.
It seems like that is an option. If now can't be non existent and it can't be pinned down and quantified saying that now is all there is sounds reasonable.
Past "nows" have seemingly led up to this now and this now will inevitably lead to future nows but where are those past and future nows NOW?
I'm going off on a tangent here so please forgive my musing if there is nothing of value.
I think being finite beings moving forward in time we aren't privy to seeing the past clearly but when I picture the timeline it is like veins in a leaf with the stem being the big bang.
Breaking it down to the classical past, present and future fragmentation, I see the past as being set with no means of changing with the future as possibility and probability. Now is where potential ripens to fruition and sets the timeline but once it is set, it's set for good.
If it were possible to go back in time I don't think changing anything would affect the timeline we came from but would only create a fork and an alternate timeline.
“NOW” is food for thought, so I’ll tell you what I think
NOW is when body & mind flow together in sync
They normally flow out of sync, when ‘thought’ is on the scene
Either worried about the future, or what has already been
The fixed world that we ‘think’ we experience, is in a constant state of change
And the five aggregates that make up one self, must also rearrange
So there really is no NOW to be found amongst this state of flux
I suppose this is a good thing (to take onboard) … especially when life sucks !
Now is the present from the past to give to the future...The past is always giving the futurepresents (presence) "Now" ain't that the truth....
Here's some visual entertainment to stimulate the senses, just imagine this karmically driven fluctuating layered consciousness (awareness) being both the drawer/artist and the drawing in the flipbook consciousness of the rapidly changing "Now" ...Enjoy
Now you see me (there is a now/self )...Now you don't (there is no now/self ) !
Comments
Steve_B did you read the linked article of the original post? The guy has a degree in philosophy, physics, and astronomy and is a professor at Dartmouth. The title "There is No Now" might be a bit 'provocative'/clickbait though to get attention.
I'd have to disagree. Scientifically, there is no smallest increment in time or distance and a thunder clap could take longer than the next.
We couldn't possibly find the smallest increment without finding the biggest.
1, 2, 3... What is the biggest number?
1/2, 1/3, 1/4... What is the smallest increment?
Fleeting moments don't exist. It is the brain that makes time choppy.
Ah, like the difference between no self and not-self... No now and not-now, lol.
David some of the early Buddhist schools had an idea of a practical (to arising of thought) smallest unit of time.
from the link on the two truths (as seen by the Karma Kagyu) I gave before http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/buddhism/cul/cul03.php:
This idea of a smallest moment (or even physical 'atom') is in the abhidharma I think of the Pali Canon. The three baskets are the sutras, the vinaya, and the abhidharma. So actually part of Thanisarro Bhikhus Canon though I am not informed regarding what the Theravadan view on the abhidharma is. That is I don't know if it is regarded as suspect or provisional or limited somehow. I do know that it is part of the 'triple basket' of teachings.
The time it takes a finger to snap divided by 64?
Where did they come up with that?
Seems legit.
It's completely arbitrary and it's from an alien culture to mine. The point is that there is a practical smallest bit as relevant to 'arising of thought'. It doesn't matter if 62 or 66 is the number given. A lot of things you might read in Buddhist scriptures are rhetorical to a degree. And that's a huge understatement.
In my link the teacher tries to explain the idea by saying that the 100 flower petals are pierced 'instantaneously' even though it is known that the second petal is pierced in sequence second to the first petal and so on. But practically they are pierced 'instantaneously'.
And I wonder if there is some funny science to small amounts of time like small amounts of matter and space ie 'quantum'.
Yeah, I'll have to stick with a fluid ever-now that is broken into chunks to suit the needs of our brains.
An arbitrary increment only lends credence to this.
If one aspect of the dharma doesn't fit with the rest then something is suspect.
Everything is ultimately non-separation except for time and distance?
Yes but don't reject everything based on the earliest crudest form. I don't believe in the 1/64th time frame and I don't see how it benefits me. But I do find value starting with the cittamatra view 'mind only' from which we get the ever popular idea that duality is a sense of separation between self and experience. This is where it gets interesting to me. And I still am curious what Thanisarro Bhiku or Ajahn Brahm or another very bright mind in the Theravadan tradition would say about the abhidharma (which as I said talks about 'atoms' of matter and consciousness and is part of the 'triple basket').
And I do like your saying that it is our minds (maybe even brains but that's another big discussion
) that divides things up into 'north' and 'south' 'hot' 'cold' 'soon' 'boring' etc...
For the military there have been efforts to measure the cognitive pause, the amount of time between an event happening and the arising of a reaction in a human being. If memory serves me right, it is about 0.05 seconds. There are different kinds of reactions, like muscular ones reacting to heat on the skin, or more complex reactions like reacting to a smile with a answering smile, which requires the brain to decode the emotional content of a facial expression.
We can discern finer time gaps as well, for example when observing a display there are people who can visually distinguish between a 100 Hz and a 200 Hz television. That is more in the way of tracking subtle flicker and visual artefacts in a continuous stream of sensation, the time taken to respond to events is pretty constant.
Jeffrey, it doesn't matter where he got his degrees. This is tantamount to saying that "It is true because Aristotle said it is true." Galileo dropped cannonballs at Pisa disproving Aristotle (and got himself locked up for his troubles).
I am familiar with Dr. Gleisner's work, and have read this article and other like reductions. My point, and I'm very sure Dr. Gleisner would agree, is that this isn't science, it's philosophy. It has references to physics and physiology, but does not make any pronouncements in those fields. It's an interesting discussion, but it certainly is not science, just as John Lennon's drawings are not music regardless of how many records he sold.
The central thesis is that perceptually, now can be considered to consist of a time pixel 20 ms in width because that is the approximate resolving power of human visual perception. It does not address alternative pixel widths as might be considered based on, say, auditory or tactile perception. Can you hear a discrepancy of 20 ms, or 200? Can you resolve two taps on your shoulder 20 ms apart? What about on your lips?
But pixel width can be reduced to zero without disturbing the conventional concept of now. For example, if I have started eating dinner but not yet finished, then I am at dinner now. Now can be a time frame 20 ms wide, or zero, it doesn't matter. At the other end of the spectrum, now might be very, very wide and still be valid. Rather than describe here briefly the work of the Long Now foundation, I would simply suggest you look them up. Very different realm from Dr. Gleisner's, and probably of some cultural interest to many Buddhists.
Oh ok. I responded as I did because I wasn't sure if you had read the article. But it sounds like you are quite familiar and were challenging the notion of science disproving 'now'. To be fair though @person did not say it was a scientific result in his OP rather he said it would be fun to argue the counter 'now is all that is here' from our Buddhist perspective. And I do realize that pegembara did mention science but to be fair to pegembara he made statements that seem reasonable like when you hear thunder that is actually after the lighting strike. And though the light might be almost the time of the strike we know that light takes time to travel and that in some events like observing quasars from the early universe that the light we are seeing 'is not the same time as the quasar'.
I don't reject anything based on affiliation of sects but on affiliation with the 4NTs and logic.
I do prefer the more positive side to the dharma though and instead of seeing duality as some sort of painful trap I see it as a tool of expression.
The individual self is an expression of whatever we call Buddhanature/the Tao/absolute truth (which would include subjectivity) and without it there is no exploration.
As you quoted, nirvana and samsara are not two.
Neither is an individual self and any supposed "other".
Neither is this moment and a supposed "next".
To create the future the moment is shaped, not replaced.
This is why it is best to be mindful of what we are doing now.
Trying to separate the moment into many begs the question of an impossible first.
I find the notion of a painful trap as related to the 4NTs to be honest. I do agree the self is an expression of Buddhanature. It depends what you mean in nirvana and samsara are not two.... I mean affliction of the poisons is not the same as liberation... but probably there are some quotations where something sensible is said...And actually neither an individual self or any supposed "other" actually makes me think of the Shentong view which my teacher is quite interested in (her doctoral thesis 'The Buddha Within' is all of the polemics of the shentong view (empty of other)... but there is quite a lot to read and think about these ideas in the link I linked to which is from my teachers teacher which explains why it is so important to me. And that link relates only to a portion of 1 single chapter (out of 40) that talks about the dharma.
I mean that sufferings cause is the obscuration of Nirvana.
However, my main point is that positing separate moments is to imply an original cause or moment.
Even if this time/space bubble began at the big bang, the big bang still has a cause which implies a bigger timeline we can't see.
Yes I think you are actually right on with many things you have said and they sound very much like things I have heard from my teacher. I am kind of surprised you have come to a lot of the same ideas independently. One of her favorite things to talk about is actually related to a 'line' in geometry. In geometry a line is a collection of points. She doesn't mention equations but the line is an equation such as y=x which makes a line with slope of 1 that passes through the point x=0 y=0. But the points on a line are dimensionless. They have no width. So how do they connect into a line? I haven't penetrated the mystery totally of why my teacher is so interested but I do kind of get a connection between the geometry of a line and how something is created out of dimensionless points. I make an analogy here between dimensionless and 'empty', but as I say I don't totally get what my teacher is saying or why she is so intrigued by the example of a geometric line and the points that make it up.
With the big bang I think that the problem of saying it had a cause is that at an early point in the bang there is so much matter and mass in such a small space that we don't have an understanding of the physics in that condition. That makes it hard to make guesses at what preceded the big bang.
To the OT, first thanks for the link. A well written and concise article on the nature of how we perceive time. I don't see any discrepancy between what he's saying and our Buddhist view of how the mind works. He points out that, because of the slight delay in our senses processing and sending information to the brain and the brain reacting to that, our conscious minds are actually lagging behind a tiny bit. Then he also points out that there is a threshold built into our minds where a difference in time is too small for us to notice so we normally are fooled into thinking we're experiencing the world as it happens. Someone sticks you with a pin, you feel pain, and you can't perceive the slight delay between the event and when the brain gets the nerve impulses. Our consciousness actually lives in the past, slightly, confusing it for the present.
But Buddhism would say that is true, but still there is just "now" even if our consciousness of it and our reaction to it is slightly delayed. There is just "now" even if this "now" is a moving point and not something that can itself exist as an independent object. A point on a line has no length of it's own. It's just a point.
Thanks for bringing this up, the majority of the article is talking about something other than the direction the thread has taken. That our perception of now isn't the same now that is occurring in the world, that our perception of the world is on a sort of tape delay.
It seemed like at the end though he was making a mathematical point about now not existing.
@Jeffrey I think I understand why you took offense to my post. I think you were making an argument about the primordial ground of being and I was just talking about time. My understanding of the primordial ground is that it transcends time, space or concepts and, maybe I'm off here, but you were equating more closely to something akin to Spinoza's God where rather than being transcendent it is the totality of existence. So for me the big ball of wibbley-wobbley timey-wimey was just about conventional time not the primordial ground, to which beginning and end don't apply.
I don't really know a lot about the primordial ground. It came to me because I transcribed a dharma talk about 'truth' where my teacher birdwalked a bit and mentioned the primordial ground at one point where she was pointing out that a feature of truth is that it is finely organized. I am not sure but I would guess that she is teaching something traditional rather than her own ideas because usually when there is a list of X things (in this case four) that list came from a scripture and the teacher is then explaining away the list.
Anyhow the primordial ground is something I personally always thought of as a big blob of nothing so that's how it's (the associations of ideas) organized in my brain. I could look back at the talk and try to figure out what she was saying about the primordial ground. But I do know that the idea of truth relayed by my guru is that it has four qualities: flux or 'non-stasis', emotional or in other words there is someone looking for the truth as in a sentient being and that being has a reaction to the truth, finely divided and organized (as I have been talking about), and finally that things come into and out of focus or manifest/non-manifest. So my teacher was talking about truth and the search for truth in this talk I transcribed but in her birdwalk discussing the 4 qualities she talked about primordial ground which as organized in my brain I think of primordial ground as a big vague blob even though that is surely a wrong idea of mine.
You did correctly sense I took some offense but that was because I didn't realize that your video was a tribute to your liking of Doctor Who. I thought you were mocking my silly notions about time as perhaps overly complicated or whatever flaw(that I got from reading and listening to dharma talks of gurus I have heard and am interested in). I did not recognize what the video was from. For me the only thing I remember of Dr Who is that they play the song for the fans at Detroit Pistons basketball games.
The author is a theoretical physicist, so there is a lot of postulating in that field, yes? Using a lot of math to try to explain abstract topics? He's well-published and well-educated and is a professor at Dartmouth. The article is actually really interesting. Of course, credentials don't always make all of their theories and articles valid. Dr. Oz, is, after all, well-educated.
Seems like a great paradox to me. 'Now' is all we really have. The past exists in our memories, and the future exists in what we hope for or foresee. But, as we can see, we don't really experience 'now' in the way we think we do.
Weird.
I disagree with the article.
To me it's saying because everything we observe is over a period of time like a time frame that it has to have a past and a future of sorts in order for us to perceive.
But he's ignoring the the fact the NOW, or the present is all there is, everything we perceive is from the present. If you say now at 12:00:00 then by the time you say it it's no longer now..but the I think the real NOW is all there ever is, Things move and perceive in the present, even when thinking about the past and future when it happens it happens in the NOW, you can't go back 1 day and change the way you think in the past or the future, if you change the way you think you do it from the NOW. And all thoughts about future and past also happens in the NOW...now is a constant, it's not 12:00:00 noon now but it is in the NOW that we notice the time is 12:00:00 noon.
I could be wrong, but i am unable to deny that everything happens now, and that everything else is just perceived thoughts from/in the NOW.
Now is most important. It's our best glimpse at reality. Let's do our best with what we have.
^^^ Wot right now? Actually now I come to think of it, you are exactly right ...
This business largely boils down to how we define "now". The author is defining it as a hypothetical absolute, and claims that it does not exist because we cannot experience or perceive it - it is, for us, an abstraction. Do abstractions exist? Depends on how we define "exist" - and so on ad nauseum.
What we perceive is the "relative now", and that is the only now that has any relevance or meaning to us guys on the street, or on the zafu for that matter. Language is fuzzy, we don't have enough words, cannot have enough words, to convey experience, let alone "reality". But physicists, shoot, that's their job and they have to keep trying - their efforts have great value, even where the practical upshot is no more than the reduction of our massive collective hubris.
Why is 'relative now' the only now that matters to a guy on the street? Or do you mean a guy on the street as a homeless guy? Does that guy study Buddhist scriptures? Is it assumed that if someone uses a zafu they are as in Zen tradition emphasizing their meditation practice over reading or hearing or scholarship and analysis?
This information isn't anything new or earth shattering. Years ago I learned of this "sensory lag" that results in all of us "living in the past." It's simple, really: when we touch a table, there is a sensory lag between the moment we touched the table and the moment we "know" we've touched the table. That lag would be the time it takes for the synapses to fire and transmit the nerve impulses to the brain, and then process the act as touch. So yes, in a real sense we are all existing in the past :-)
Also coming from a computer programming background I have to strongly disagree because in MySQL, there is a NOW() function but there is not YESTERDAY() or TOMORROW() function.
Zero / the empty set is a mathematical convenience.
A time interval of zero duration would equate to the cessation of the universe - not so convenient.
Mixing philosophies of matters outside of investigation with philosophies of matters capable of investigation results in anomalies such as infinity, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, quantum field, membranes etc etc.
Zero could be good in a sci-fi movie "don't set the interval to zero!" (Like don't cross the streams in ghostbusters or don't will anything into non-existence in the belgariad series of books)
And now back to the future ...
2020
http://opcoa.st/0csHb
To Infinity and Beyond ...
http://opcoa.st/0csPy
Time for a sit down ...
Don't get me started on infinity.
That could go on forever.
Quite the conundrum, Now can't be zero time but neither can it be pinned down to a specific fragment of time. What else is there?
Yes, they do in my experience. Doesn't matter what the scientist or anyone else say.
Only thing is there isn't actually a present moment which is a new age concept which wasn't actually taught by the Buddha which is to cling to nothing whatsoever whether past, present or future.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=T3JzcCviNDk
Then why claim science shows there is no now?
No, it is not a new age concept that now is all there is. To me it is only logical.
That doesn't actually prove anything, sorry. All it does is incorporate the past, present and future as if they are the same thing which is what I am saying.
Nobody is saying to attach and cling to the now so that point is moot. this moment is constantly changing and we can't cling if we tried. Trying to cling to any arbitrary and subjective moment is either living in the past or planning/fearing the future and not attaching to now.
If form is not separate except as an illusory tool then neither is time. You can not have distance without time and you can not have separate moments without implying a first moment.
If you don't care what science reveals then don't make scientific claims that can be shot down so easily.
M-Theory seems to be quite sexy at the moment. Thoughts on superstrings + loop quantum gravity and an interesting 'Theories of Everything Mapped'.
Ok. Let me just say this:.
When the Buddha spoke of Mindfulness and being aware of the present moment, I very, very much doubt that he had as firm a grasp on Science, Physics Quantum stuff or any other scientific methodology being discussed here.
So, I think - FWIW - that we're over-thinking it here.
I don't believe that when the Buddha taught Mindfulness, he meant us to split the atom and reduce matters to such infinitesimal microscopic detail.
I think he wanted his followers to just be mindful within the space of their own breath...
Science be damned. Just 'be'.
For goodness' sake, let's not re-invent the damn wheel, here....
I am not sure it matters whether "now" exists as anything or not..but
"Now" is just an English word used to describe our consciousness of this present
moment of what we can see, hear, smell, taste, feel and think.
Mostly....
It is an idea of an existence between the past and it's future,
where identity tries to prop up it's imaginary fiefdom, amidst reality's chaos.
You have not read or understood the op(there is no now) which was my point exactly which is okay. In terms of my experience fleeting moment exists. Don't matter what you say!
Point to me the now. It is gone even before my words reach your ears.
There really is no now. Not the way I see it. Only fleeting moments that arise and passes. Fleeting moments are fleeting/ungraspable.
This moment is constantly changing - which means the now is actually ungraspable ie. there is no now.
As @federica said, if you want to end dukkha, the Dhamma is your refuge. Science doesn't have the answer.
For those of scientific bend. From the OP no less.
Perhaps being in the moment is always being willing to let "now" go. Let it fall behind you. Darn it. It already has. And again. Just let it.
@thegoldeneternity we all know what being in the present is and as you say it is partly letting the discursive mind patterns mindful space to settle and dissolve ...
... and now back to endless cycling ...
Here it comes and there it goes... What's in between nobody knows.
It's a fine line between the tool and the art of expression and we are lucky enough to walk it if we are mindful enough.
@pegembara, I did read the article but was mostly interested in the claim it led to.
We will have to simply agree to disagree. If the moment is constantly changing and not being replaced with new moments then you are really saying the same thing I am now.
The only reason I mentioned science was because you brought it up but I see little science behind what the o/p actually suggests.
If he is talking about a moment in between the past and the future then sure it doesn't exist because it is all the same moment and the future only exists as probability.
There was physics being talked about but no real science behind the idea that the now is a separate moment between moments.
I think he even said it's our brains that chops up time into manageable chunks and so although he is on to something when he says in reality there are no chunks, he gets it wrong when he says that means there is no now in my view.
He does not seem to consider that it means that now is all there really is.
It seems like that is an option. If now can't be non existent and it can't be pinned down and quantified saying that now is all there is sounds reasonable.
Past "nows" have seemingly led up to this now and this now will inevitably lead to future nows but where are those past and future nows NOW?
I'm going off on a tangent here so please forgive my musing if there is nothing of value.
I think being finite beings moving forward in time we aren't privy to seeing the past clearly but when I picture the timeline it is like veins in a leaf with the stem being the big bang.
Breaking it down to the classical past, present and future fragmentation, I see the past as being set with no means of changing with the future as possibility and probability. Now is where potential ripens to fruition and sets the timeline but once it is set, it's set for good.
If it were possible to go back in time I don't think changing anything would affect the timeline we came from but would only create a fork and an alternate timeline.
“NOW” is food for thought, so I’ll tell you what I think
NOW is when body & mind flow together in sync
They normally flow out of sync, when ‘thought’ is on the scene
Either worried about the future, or what has already been
The fixed world that we ‘think’ we experience, is in a constant state of change
And the five aggregates that make up one self, must also rearrange
So there really is no NOW to be found amongst this state of flux
I suppose this is a good thing (to take onboard) … especially when life sucks !
Now is the present from the past to give to the future...The past is always giving the future presents (presence) "Now" ain't that the truth....
Here's some visual entertainment to stimulate the senses, just imagine this karmically driven fluctuating layered consciousness (awareness) being both the drawer/artist and the drawing in the flipbook consciousness of the rapidly changing "Now" ...Enjoy
Now you see me (there is a now/self )...Now you don't (there is no now/self ) !
It pays to Never Overly Worry about things....