Husserl wrote "The Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness." One thing it demonstrates clearly is that "time" is a phenomenon of consciousness, not of of physics.
The physics in it is the consciousness of movement, and then of difference in the lengths of those phenomenons, such as a star moving across the sky versus a caterpillar walking up a tree.
Since "time" is a phenomenon of consciousness, it cannot be manipulated outside of consciousness, in the empirical world.
However, we know that the pictures taken by the Hubble Telescope are of events that happened millions or billions of year ago. So if we were able to invent a means of transportation that would get us to one of those events in a second, would that be considered time travel? Nothing would have changed in the universe except your placement in it; yet you would instantly be at an even which in your original placement had already passed a long time ago.
But transportation to a place in the universe where something happened in a different "time" when compared to the relationship of Earth to "place X" is not the same as travelling back to yesterday.
If travelling back to yesterday becomes possible, then once again it is merely moving your own physical and mental existence from one place to another. What makes yesterday on earth different from what is photographed by the Hubble? Nothing at all, except the Hubble cannot see that close up.
So if you can go in the blink of an eye to what the Hubble sees, yet you have merely moved materially through a long distance of space, then why is that different from moving materially back to yesterday?And if that becomes possible, is it possible to move materially to an unknown place when that "place" (tomorrow) has not yet happened?
We could conceivably create a transportation device that would move us materially across the universe faster than the speed of light. To return to yesterday, we would have to invent a "Hubble" that can see yesterday on Earth by the same means. It would simply be a "closeup" shot.
But how are we to see tomorrow?Such a form of travel, to what Hubble sees, is not time travel, because time is a phenomenon of consciousness, not of physics.
If love is just chemical then if i reproduce the same chemical in someones brain can I literally make them fall in love with anybody?
A: That is the "deterministic" (or worse, the "fatalistic") explanation of emotions. Emotions, consciousness, soul, free will, conscience, etc are not "just" chemicals or snynapses or whatever science declares it to be.
Science is not wrong, except in its metaphysical classification of these events as being "just" chemical, or "merely" bio-physiology at work.
Metaphysics is the art of constructing explanations for everything that exists. For example, the description of a "table" is metaphysical, while the table itself is physical. Every word except personal pro-nouns, in every language, represents a metaphysical concept. Deterministic science dismisses the metaphysical description of conscious and bio-physiological events as anything more than the stark scientific (physics) description.
However, "love" and all the rest of that is obviously much more than the sum of its total bio-physiological activity. It has metaphysical meaning for all of us that encompasses not only the recognition that love is a reaction to something, but that since we don't all love the same things, there must be a relation between the bio-physiology and the metaphysics we each, individually, hold.
Your metaphysics may be somewhat or extremely different than mine, and different from someone else. Sometimes we do not even recognize the metaphysics of another person; in other words, he and we seem to be talking about two different things when in fact we are talking about two different things--his metaphysical evaluation describes "love" as bio-physiology, while yours and mine describes it as "a pleasurable emotion that gives us confirmation that something is important enough to value beyond "like."
Since love is an individual response by one person to the value system he/she subscribes to, it would be impossible to make someone love what you want them to love through the introduction of a "love chemical"--at least not without inciting within them a neurosis having to do with the conflict between what you have forced them to love, and what they actually value enough to love
What is this moment call "now?"?
Epistemologically, it is the only moment in existence. The old play on words is correct: "Yesterday is gone, and tomorrow will never come."
Time is a construct of the mind that allows it to string together all the moments of "now" into something cohesive and having the charcteristic of endlessness, yet because of the construct we can remember prior moments of now.
"Time is a measurement of motion; as such, it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe, when you define a standard—such as the motion of the earth around the sun. If you take that as a unit, you can say: 'This person has a certain relationship to that motion; he has existed for three revolutions; he is three years old.' But when you get to the universe as a whole, obviously no standard is applicable. You cannot get outside the universe. The universe is eternal in the literal sense: non-temporal, out of time." Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), question period, Lecture 2
"The idea of an infinitely small amount of length or temporal duration has validity only as a mathematical device useful for making certain calculations, not as a description of components of reality. Reality does not contain either points or instants (in the mathematical sense)." Harry Binswanger “Q & A Department: Identity and Motion,” The Objectivist Forum, Dec. 1981, 13.
The brain has a "clock speed", which works virtually the same way as a computer. It has been estimated that our minds can absorb approximately 10 "moments" each second, and it is these moments we string together for the illusion that time is continuous (whereas it is actually motion that is continuous.) Time, as stated above, is a relationship to motion. But we do not comprehend each of those 10 moments each second; sometimes we don't even comprehend "seconds" because when something extraordinary or at least eventful and consciousness-filling happens, we say "time flies." An hour can go by in what feels like minutes.So the moment we call now is only the moment you are in and only when you realize you are in it. It can be as short as your mind can comprehend, or as long as your mind is consumed in an interest.
What constitutes beauty in your eyes?
When we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we are talking about metaphysical values. Generally, our species appreciates that beautiful sunset, a great play or movie, a job well done, heros, birth, and the "eternal" over the "transient" because of metaphysical value judgments we make.
Metaphysics, "in the formation of a sense of life, [which has since come to be called a "world view"] is the term important. It is a concept that belongs to the realm of values, since it implies an answer to the question: Important—to whom? Yet its meaning is different from that of moral values. Important does not necessarily mean 'good.' It means 'a quality, character or standing such as to entitle to attention or consideration' (The American College Dictionary).
“Important—in its essential meaning, as distinguished from its more limited and superficial uses—is a metaphysical term. It pertains to that aspect of metaphysics which serves as a bridge between metaphysics and ethics: to a fundamental view of man’s nature."
Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life—or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?" Ayn Rand, various sources http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaph...
