Time
Time, as we experience it, is merely the result of our four-dimensional universe, which is a singular object (among perhaps others… think – multiverse) with what we might call the past, present and future existing simultaneously as a long undulation, passing through three dimensional space.
So, our universe, with everything that has, is and will happen, is a singular four-dimensional object passing through a three-dimensional membrane. We experience three-dimensional cross-sections of this object that we consider to be the “present.” This is much in the same way that a 2-dimensional being would experience only 2-dimensional cross-sections of a 3-dimensional object passing through its 2-dimensional membrane.
Why did I type this? Because I happen to reside in the four-dimensional object in which I was going to type this.
Hey there!
There is an issue with the whole ‘present’ being a 3-d cross section through 4-D space time…
Think about the simultaneity thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity). Which event precedes another depends on the frame of reference; that means that the 3-d brane of simultaneity for one observer is totally different in shape for that of another observer in a different location and/or moving at a different speed. Thus there is no superior ‘present’, but millions of intersecting branes. A better model of the 4-D space-time continuum, is a model that thinks of space time as a rope, with each particle of matter being a fibre in that rope creating a path through time. The fibres are attached to one another where they touch (a particle-particle interaction) but when they are apart you cannot ascribe simultaneity to them just because they are at the same position along the length of the rope… Why? The only relationship they have is through actual contacts, and the passing of time is simply the sequence of events of the contacts. The amount of time between events is completely indeterminable (and irrelevant) because time is defined as the sequence of events.
Anyway, that’s just my two cents worth…
i wish i could say that i was dreading someone pointing this out, but in fact, i was not. i’ve given this concept much thought, and i’ve even created a diagram and explanation that i hope will suffice in revealing the flaw in your line of reasoning. you jump from a problem in observing when events occur to a problem in when events occur. observation doesn’t affect temporal events
(and if you plan to bring up quantum physics, prepare to get butt-hurt. it suffices to say that the devices we use to measure the position and velocity of subatomic particles are, in fact, surprisingly???, made out of subatomic particles and, as a result, interact with and affect them. so to close this up quick, until we can create a measuring device inside of a universe where everything is made out of atoms that isn’t made out of atoms, well, we won’t be able to know the position and velocity of an electron at the same time)
http://i.imgur.com/lQCg3.png