Rayman Pirate-Community

One of my favourite personal theories is that rocks on Earth may well be life forms that live on such a hugely different time scale we just can't comprehend, that we could never find out that they're actually alive.
Kind of like imagining the Sun and other celestial bodies are in fact alive: they live such an extensive multitude of our own lifetimes, there's no comprehending what "their life" would be like.

If you're having trouble imagining this, try imagining the experience of a mayfly. They are insects famously renowned for living just a single day¹⁾. One day only to fly through the world and find a mate, then finally to lay down and die.
How would a mayfly experience time? Does a second to them feel like a year of our own lives? Do they experience each single moment that much more thoroughly, because they have less time in this world? Or do they experience things at the same time scale as we do, yet are allotted less time to do so?

The fundamental question is: does perception and sense of time scale with the amount of time your species would, on average, have to live a lifetime? Or perhaps, do brains (or 'whatevers', really, if we're going to theorise that rocks are in fact biological entities; we may not be able to point to 'a brain' in such cases) experience time at different paces depending on the amount of processing going on in them?

If you've ever tripped (and I can't imagine you haven't) and actually gone past that short moment in which you can act in a reflex to stop your fall and stumble instead, you may have experienced what I once have: in moments like these, where your body braces itself to protect its existence at all costs, literally every cell in your being seems to focus on just that: survival, and how to achieve it in the split second you are allotted to act. All processing goes towards thinking, making a plan, coming up with a strategy in which to save yourself from that fall after all and live. And while perhaps the fall itself may not be as disastrously terminal as what I outline here, the mechanism in place may still activate.

And when it does, you are in for a treat.

In that split second, you are forced to come up with a plan, one single action that you may perform. You weigh some options, (subconsciously) calculate the probability of your success and then choose out of those options the best course of action and do that.

During this time, you are fully aware. With this heightened alertness, with ultimate focus of all your body to work out a solution to this problem that, when worked out successfully, will mean a continuation of existence (and thus is a must: a no-alternative scenario), you can think clearly and swiftly. You experience that split second as though it were many, living out each instance of every incremental time step to the fullest. Your sense of time is altered: what normally is a moment that disappears in the blink of the eye can be fully fathomed and lived through.

Let me tell you, it is a whole new experience that you cannot completely nor effectively grasp simply by reading this text: if you have never experienced such an encounter, you will probably not be able to relate as well to what I'm outlining here. Then again, hey, maybe you are. All I'm trying to say is: you can *definitely* live your life at a different paces at times, experiencing seconds as though minutes, or hours bleeding away like seconds.

So with this idea of being able to experience the world at a different pace depending on your biology, you may also take a longer time to think things through, or perform any sort of action. Perhaps, then, (and here is my what-if theory) it is possible for seemingly inanimate objects like a rock to actually be alive, but at such an incredibly immeasurably slow rate, that we just can't see it or imagine it to be true.

This is the sort of philosophising I love to do at times, and I know it can get a little "out there", but still I'd wish to share it with you. Maybe it will inspire some nice thoughts in you also: let me know. Let's discuss.

----------
¹⁾= Yes, I know nymphs of mayflies actually live far longer and may even live some years on end, but for the illustration of the theory, it serves as a good illustration.

Not very good when it comes to the profound, but I'm reminded of a recent Red Dwarf episode where they ended up conversing with the universe itself.

It actually makes me think that I always thought that every individual has it's own "time" that nothing goes at the same speed for everyone, some will live the time faster when other slower, although I never actually came to think that a rock could be alive, this is an interesting theory indeed, as for smaller life forms I always wondered how they live time itself, since they're short lived and fast moving I always thought an animal like a dog, actually lived in its own time (good example, cause there are the dog years) this leads me to think that a short lived creature like the mayfly actually experienced seconds as years, perception of time is all a matter of brain, proof that again that what we know or perceive as real could only be an illusion.
I know that thread is about the "inanimate beings" that could be possibly living, but, again, time is a great part of it so I just wanted to give my thought on this.

I sure hope that Rocks aren't alive because if they are I am guilty of drowning the equivalent of Botswana in my affinity towards ricochet.

I'm pretty sure flies and many other animals don't really perceive time at all in the way we think of it.
The smaller an animal is, (usually) the higher its metabolic rate, which is kind of comparable to the frequency of a computer processor. So while they would be able to perceive things that are happening much faster than things we could perceive and would be able to "think" with a higher frequency/speed, they wouldn't be living in slow motion mainly because they wouldn't be thinking about time like humans do.
Personally I see animals as meaty robots that react to their environment and use whatever instincts or reflexes that are hard wired into their nervous systems to process information in a very similar way to a computer. As for a rock being alive, just looking at a rock and seeing how it has no way of sending electronic or chemical signals through its "body" to me is a telling sign that it's not alive in any way.

As for experiencing time at different time scales, I can't remember feeling that way myself but I imagine the reason we see it as taking longer is because of the way we remember it.
If you imagine our brains perceiving things at a certain rate, say 100 perceptions a second, and then when you are about to trip your body burns up more energy in order to let you process things at 200 perceptions a second, that would let you think twice as fast and react to your trip. However, your brain is only supposed to run at 100 perceptions a second so when you think back and remember what happened, your brain plays it back in your head at 100 perceptions per second so it seems like it's twice as slow.
Obviously the mind doesn't work on a basis as simple as a refresh rate or FPS, but it's just an analogy. That's how I imagine things can seem slower or to run at different time scales when you think back and remember them.

Not to be a kill-joy, but no, rocks are definitely not alive. Per definition, life has to be based on DNA, which rocks are not.

Stars being alive is an interesting theory, considering that all the elements in the universe are emitted by stars (don't quote me on that) and all life that we know of is essentially made of "stardust". You could say that all life derives from stars in that regard. If we look at Earth, it only took ~400 million years for some of these ingredients to chemically react in a way that life was created. Now, most stars are way older than that (our own sun is a couple billion years old, for instance), so one would assume that the probability for a similar process to occur here is quite high (seeing how stars are the origin of all these elements). That being said, I can definitely see where you're coming from with your idea.

Though personally, I find that hard to believe. Just take another look at our own planet: for life to exist in a place, a lot of requirements must be met. Among various other problems, the biggest I see is the temperature. Both the inside and the outside of a star are way too hot for any known organism to live there. Plus, there's no food etc. It may very well be possible that there's some "other kind" of life, something entirely different from us earthlings, but I'm not sure whether that was the question you had in mind.

As for the time thing: Time is considered to be the fourth dimension. I'm assuming everyone knows what 3D is; in math, you are taught that there's x-, y- and z-Axis, and those put together form a 3-dimensional room. "Time" is an additional axis which is perpendicular to all 3 other axises; as such, "time" is nothing but part of a room (the problem being that our minds are too weak to imagine anything like that). From my perspective, it makes sense to assume that time as a 4-dimensional room works the same as 3D. For example, just like someone who is small would find an object to be further away than someone twice the size, one who's "time" was smaller would find time to pass by quicker then someone with more time. This may be a rather confusing point of view, but I hope I could get my point across

Maz wrote:From my perspective, it makes sense to assume that time as a 4-dimensional room works the same as 3D. For example, just like someone who is small would find an object to be further away than someone twice the size, one who's "time" was smaller would find time to pass by quicker then someone with more time

I think there's a bit of confusion here between the 4th spatial dimension, which is a hypothetical 4th orthogonal direction in space that allows for 4D geometry (e.g. the tesseract) and the so-called 4th dimension that is time. While time can be imagined as orthogonal to the 3 spatial dimensions, I think the analogy breaks down here and can't really be used to describe the relation between distance and size

This is a quote from the Wikipedia page on "dimensions":

In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.

So to pinpoint the location of an object in our world, you need to know its x, y and z dimensions, but also when it was there. When using the location of an object in calculations, it makes sense to add its time as a 4th dimension (x, y, z, t). It doesn't make sense to use that "t" dimension as a 4th spatial dimension however, as time is not a spatial dimension.

Maz wrote:someone who is small would find an object to be further away than someone twice the size

They would? I can't really see how that's the case, if I was twice my size I would still think something a metre away was a metre away. The only reason short people would see the world as "bigger" is because their point of view is lower down.

Maz wrote:one who's "time" was smaller would find time to pass by quicker then someone with more time

I struggle to see what you mean when you say an object who's "time" is smaller or someone with "more time", but again, time couldn't be compared to how we view space because time is not a spatial dimension.

Maz wrote:Not to be a kill-joy, but no, rocks are definitely not alive. Per definition, life has to be based on DNA, which rocks are not.

Of course, the only reason that definition exists is because DNA is the only thing we've discovered that does life stuff. Since we don't really have any idea what consciousness (what it is "to be alive") is, we don't know whether DNA is necessary in order to create it.

Given however that consciousness seems directly proportionate to activity, I think we can safely say that rocks are not conscious.

Ambidextroid wrote:

Maz wrote:someone who is small would find an object to be further away than someone twice the size

They would? I can't really see how that's the case, if I was twice my size I would still think something a metre away was a metre away.

Not unless you either had a point of reference or your eyes were the same distance apart and the same size as they are at your regular size.

Adsolution wrote:Not unless you either had a point of reference or your eyes were the same distance apart and the same size as they are at your regular size.

That's a matter of how our eyes and brains work rather than an inherent property of spacetime. And I would think if your eyes were further apart your brain would adapt and be able to perceive depth as it should, hence why people with naturally different eye distances still have accurate depth perception.

Ambidextroid wrote: They would? I can't really see how that's the case, if I was twice my size I would still think something a metre away was a metre away. The only reason short people would see the world as "bigger" is because their point of view is lower down.

Example: If an object is 1 meter away from you and your arm is 1 meter long, that object is within reach. If your arm is only half that size, the object is out of reach. Of course, the distance is 1 meter no matter what, but one person can reach and the other cannot, thus for the second person the object would seem further away.

I will have to look into the matter of time again... I was often told that time is the same as the 4th room dimension (well, as "often" as it gets). Could you provide a source for me to confirm that this is not the case?

Ambidextroid wrote: I struggle to see what you mean when you say an object who's "time" is smaller or someone with "more time", but again, time couldn't be compared to how we view space because time is not a spatial dimension.

No matter if time is a spacial dimension or not, it's too complex for human minds to comprehend, like I said in my previous post. If it's not the kind of 4D I thought it was, then that's that, but it was just supposed to be an analogy. Unfortunately, I can't give you a reasonable comparison.

Edit: Actually, let's try this:
Let's use maths again, but this time, we're only looking at 2 dimensions. Assume we start at (0,0), then go to (0,1), then to (1,1) and finally to (1,0). Now someone else just goes from (0,0) straight to (1,0). In the end, the way passed in the direction of x was the same, but the absolute values of both routes differ (3 for the first and 1 for the second one). So while both options lead to the same point, one takes longer to get there.
We could now imagine "x" being one's lifetime. Let's compare humans with... let's just say dogs. A human can easily get 80 years old, but a dog will probably die at the age of 15. In this example, the dog's time would be described by the first graph while the human's time would be described by the second one. Even though 80 years would still be 80 years, it would take the dog way longer to get there. The absolute value of 80 years would be reached after ~27 years for the dog, while at the same time the human time's aboslute value of 27 would - obviously - be reached after only 27 years. So the dog's 80 years passed in 27 because he took a longer route.

I realize that this is most likely a mathematically retarded comparison, but it's the best explanaition about what I meant that I can give you, sorry =/

Maz wrote: Example: If an object is 1 meter away from you and your arm is 1 meter long, that object is within reach. If your arm is only half that size, the object is out of reach. Of course, the distance is 1 meter no matter what, but one person can reach and the other cannot, thus for the second person the object would seem further away.

But what if you're small and just have long arms? While your statement may be partially true, it has nothing to do with a relation between spacetime and size, just something unique to humans.

Maz wrote:I will have to look into the matter of time again... I was often told that time is the same as the 4th room dimension (well, as "often" as it gets). Could you provide a source for me to confirm that this is not the case?

All I can give you is the Wikipedia article on the 4th spatial dimension, which says nothing about time. When typing "4th dimension" into Wikipedia, you can see both 4D space and spacetime appear as entirely separate articles:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension

Maz wrote: Let's use maths again, but this time, we're only looking at 2 dimensions. Assume we start at (0,0), then go to (0,1), then to (1,1) and finally to (1,0). Now someone else just goes from (0,0) straight to (1,0). In the end, the way passed in the direction of x was the same, but the absolute values of both routes differ (3 for the first and 1 for the second one). So while both options lead to the same point, one takes longer to get there.
We could now imagine "x" being one's lifetime. Let's compare humans with... let's just say dogs. A human can easily get 80 years old, but a dog will probably die at the age of 15. In this example, the dog's time would be described by the first graph while the human's time would be described by the second one. Even though 80 years would still be 80 years, it would take the dog way longer to get there. The absolute value of 80 years would be reached after ~27 years for the dog, while at the same time the human time's aboslute value of 27 would - obviously - be reached after only 27 years. So the dog's 80 years passed in 27 because he took a longer route.

The day an animal dies is arbitrary, and has nothing to do with the laws of the universe. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that time is different for creatures of varying size in the same way that objects look bigger even you're smaller. An object's size can at least be measured scientifically, whereas an objects size can't just be measured by its "lifespan" as then all inanimate objects couldn't be measured in this way at all. And tortoises, for example, are small creatures that live famously long lives, so there is no real pattern there.

If you are just using lifespan as a way of comparing how fast/slow the world feels, rather than an actual scientific measurement, then that has more to do with your metabolic rate than your lifespan. While metabolic rate is usually higher for smaller creatures, this isn't always the case and is just a feature of evolution.

Ambidextroid wrote: But what if you're small and just have long arms? While your statement may be partially true, it has nothing to do with a relation between spacetime and size, just something unique to humans.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding going on here. I was under the (appearently wrong) assumption that time was the 4th spacial dimension, so I used a 3D example to help visualize my point. This has nothing to do with time, I was merely explaining how I think size could influence one's perception of a 3-dimensional room.
On that note, I don't understand the point of your question. Even if you're small, that doesn't change the fact that you can grab an object which is within a 1-meter-radius from you if only your arms are long enough. The body size doesn't change that.
Granted, things would be different in a different scenario where your grab range is irrelevant and instead the body size would be more important. But that was my point: Depending on the size of something, things can be seen differently depending on certain situations.

Ambidextroid wrote: All I can give you is the Wikipedia article on the 4th spatial dimension, which says nothing about time. When typing "4th dimension" into Wikipedia, you can see both 4D space and spacetime appear as entirely separate articles:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension

Much appreciated!

Ambidextroid wrote: The day an animal dies is arbitrary, and has nothing to do with the laws of the universe. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that time is different for creatures of varying size in the same way that objects look bigger even you're smaller. An object's size can at least be measured scientifically, whereas an objects size can't just be measured by its "lifespan" as then all inanimate objects couldn't be measured in this way at all. And tortoises, for example, are small creatures that live famously long lives, so there is no real pattern there.

If you are just using lifespan as a way of comparing how fast/slow the world feels, rather than an actual scientific measurement, then that has more to do with your metabolic rate than your lifespan. While metabolic rate is usually higher for smaller creatures, this isn't always the case and is just a feature of evolution.

Again, I'm not claiming that my weird analogy is scientifically correct. I was just trying to say that many different routes may lead to the same point, and that MAYBE time could work similarly to that. Using the lifespan as a means of measurements was once again supposed to just help visualize what I was trying to say, because (remember: weak mind, can't to imagine anything related to time) it is hard to come up with a way to measure "time". To do that, you'd have to sit down and work out a 100% accurate definition of what time actually is - something which I can't do. I picked one thing that can actually be measured somewhat reliably, i.e. the longest lifespan to be expected from animals. That's all there's to it.
I could come up with even more absurd comparisons, but that would probably be taking it too far.

Time does indeed work differently to a spacial dimension. Distance in 4D space would be given by Pythagoras' theorem: sqrt(w² + x² + y² + z²) but "distance" in spacetime involves the expression (c²t² – x² – y² – z²). Note the minuses. I don't have enough background to say how exactly that's used, but it does make it clear that it's a different kettle of fish.

Anyway, I didn't know that life required DNA by definition. I seem to recall RONER being the characteristics required, but I don't remember what they all stood for. I know the first two are Reproduction and Organization, the latter of which may mean involvement of cells that use DNA, but not necessarily. As for rocks, well, do they reproduce at all? I suppose a case could be made, but I'm not sure how.

I seem to recall reading recently that an ant perceives the air as much more viscous than we do, because of its much shorter length scale. So taking that into consideration it's not that big an ask to carry x times its own weight. I don't know how relevant that is, but it's interesting.

Maz wrote:Not to be a kill-joy, but no, rocks are definitely not alive. Per definition, life has to be based on DNA, which rocks are not.

Maybe I need to remind you you're speaking to a microbiologist here.
But yes, one who is very much into theorycrafting and philosophising over matters that probably are a bit "out there". Pretty much, I meant to pose the thesis that, indeed, as you too suggest

It may very well be possible that there's some "other kind" of life, something entirely different from us earthlings

and create a discussion based on that premise, trying not to hold on to our commonplace definitions of "what life exactly is" and attempting to explain the fact that we wouldn't recognise these other lifeforms, because of our vastly differing scales of lifetime: they should live on such an immeasurably extensive thread of time, that we simply cannot comprehend their existence; each 'second' of their experience would be our blinking instant of appearing as a species on this Earth and disappearing from it again into the sands of time.
The interesting thing is that you point out this possibility also:

For example, just like someone who is small would find an object to be further away than someone twice the size, one who's "time" was smaller would find time to pass by quicker then someone with more time.

PluMGMK wrote:I seem to recall reading recently that an ant perceives the air as much more viscous than we do, because of its much shorter length scale. So taking that into consideration it's not that big an ask to carry x times its own weight. I don't know how relevant that is, but it's interesting.

Interesting indeed, especially considering it highlights the possibility of experiencing the world in different ways depending on your own proportions/the exact nature of your own presence within that world.
Would you happen to recall where you learnt this information? I'd love to see also.

I do believe it was on Quora, at https://www.quora.com/How-did-most-inse ... 3%A4ggholm
The bit about viscosity is actually just a footnote to the answer, but the whole thing is quite interesting.