Time Dilation and Subjectivity
If someone were traveling close to the speed of light relative to me, special relativity says their physical processes would appear slowed down from my frame — movements, reactions, even neural activity. That part makes sense when thinking about observable behavior.
But here’s the part I’m stuck on conceptually:
Suppose I could somehow observe their inner mental activity directly. Imagine they’re playing a song in their head — hearing it internally the way we all do when we imagine music. From my frame, would that mental “song” appear stretched out in time? Would it unfold more slowly to an outside observer, similar to time dilation effects? And would anything like a Doppler-style distortion apply, or would it just be a slower-tempo version of the same internal experience?
I’m trying to understand how (or whether) relativity meaningfully applies to subjective mental events like imagined music, not just external physical actions.
But here’s the part I’m stuck on conceptually:
Suppose I could somehow observe their inner mental activity directly. Imagine they’re playing a song in their head — hearing it internally the way we all do when we imagine music. From my frame, would that mental “song” appear stretched out in time? Would it unfold more slowly to an outside observer, similar to time dilation effects? And would anything like a Doppler-style distortion apply, or would it just be a slower-tempo version of the same internal experience?
I’m trying to understand how (or whether) relativity meaningfully applies to subjective mental events like imagined music, not just external physical actions.
Comments (44)
That's true, the "Speed" of light isn't actually a speed, but rather a constant.
Speeds are additive, me jogging 10 miles an hour on an airplane that's traveling 400 miles an hour makes my total speed 410 mph relative to some point on Earth.
Light on the other hand is a constant. If you flash a light while jogging 10 mph on an airplane going 400 mph, the speed the light travels is actually still just c (the constant of light) -410 mph (to adjust for the base speed relative to the constant) light is more of a structural limit than a speed.
Quoting RogueAIYes. That's dilation, a coordinate effect. It means that from their frame, your mental song would be stretched out. 'Appear' is a loaded word since Doppler is relevant to appearances, but not relevant to time dilation. To cancel this out, I'm assuming this speedy person being observed is moving tangentially to your location.
There are no outside observers, at least not in the sense of outside of spacetime.
If he's moving directly towards you, Doppler effect is stronger than dilation, and his process would appear to be faster than yours. This has fooled even professional astronomers who have measured objects moving towards us to appear to be reducing the distance to us at a rate greater than c. That's Doppler effect.
Imagined music is just another process that takes time, same as say watching a clock. Humans are in no way special in how relativity treats any observed process.
Quoting DifferentiatingEggIt is expressed as a speed (not a velicity, which is frame dependent, even for light). Yes, it's a constant, and relativity theory posits (without proof) that light moves at this speed relative to any inertial frame. Note 'inertial': It can moves at different speed relative to non-inertial frames, so say light sent to the moon and back (they have reflectors up there for that) does so at slightly faster than c as measured by us.
True under Newtonian physics, but not relativity. The speeds you mention are so slow that it's really close to 410, but not exactly.
This is flat out wrong, in any frame. It moves locally at c relative to you, the plane, or the ground.
What does "normal" mean? That it flows at its normal 1 second per second rate?
I'm pretending we have a God's-eye view outside of space-time.
If mental processes are independent of neural processes then they ought to be unaffected by the relativity of velocities. If they are not independent of neural states then they ought to be affected. Under the affect of psychedelics time dilation is a common experience, but that is an altering of the subjective sense of time.
Quoting RogueAI
The idea of someone observing someone else's subjective sense of time makes no sense.
Normal means what the first postulate of relativity means: All the normal laws apply in any inertial frame, which means there cannot be a local test for your motion. So regardless of where you are or how you're moving, everything appears 'normal' to you. Yes, time phenomenally appears to flow at its normal 1 second per second, for everybody.
Quoting RogueAI
Since time is part of the universe (and not something that contains the universe), the God view isn't in time at all, and thus there is no perception of change anywhere. Also, since light cannot leave the universe, none of it gets to this god, so it isn't especially a 'view' in the sense that we have one.
Quoting JanusI think the sort of dualism you suggest here is incompatible with relativity theory, which blatantly says that you can't tell if you're 'moving fast'. For instance, relativity says that if you fall into a large black hole, you cannot tell when you've crossed the event horizon. What you're suggesting is more like the experience of your body stopping as all physical processes come to a halt as the EH is approached. This would falsify all of 20th century physics, requiring a 3rd interpretation. Not even the absolutists predict that experience, regardless of one's philosophy of mind.
I agree, but based my reply on an assumption of mental states being in sync with (if not just being) neural states. If they're two different things that got out of sync, there would be a test for absolute motion. Your arms would be hard to move. You'd not be able to understand speech. You'd probably die if your mental states are in any way involved in life support, like say choosing to eat.
Example: Right now you're moving at ~0.997 c relative to some muon, which is part of the reason you can get to that muon before it decays in only a couple mircoseconds. This insane speed does not affect your mental abilities at all. You don't notice.
Quoting DifferentiatingEggThat's not how time dilation works.
Light moves locally at c relative to anything. So to compute light relative to the ground in your frame in the plane, you'd have to use the velocity addition formula:
sum = (v+w) / (1 + vw/c²) where v is c and w is 410
c + 410 ./ (1 + 410/c) = c
I didn't even need to bother with units to do that.
This was my initial thought. But, funnily enough, I also went straight to psychedelic experience to note that this is perhaps simple illusion. That said, I can't see a way to litigate that. It's possible that if subjective experience isn't 1:1 eiwth neural activity that psychedelics invoke a similar effect to close-to-light-speed travel.
Time dilation is possible within mental level. You can even travel to the past in your mental world using your own memory and imagination. But it is impossible to do so in external physical world.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Quoting noAxioms
Yes, I agree that dualism is unsupportable. If we were traveling at speed close to c, aging of our bodies and all its physical processes would, according to the theory, greatly slow down. If our minds were independent of, and unaffected by, physical processes, and proceeding at their "normal" rate, then our subjective experience of mental processes would, presumably, seem vastly speeded up, which seems absurd.
Not possible thing to do. The premise is false. Not accepted.
Quoting RogueAI
No.
Why not? it's like when you play a 45 at 33 1/3.
Replayed songs are physical - the speed of the motor regulates it. Unless you change the speed of the record player or digital sampling speed (in case the music is replayed digitally), the song doesn't appear stretched in time.
You can hear the song stretched in time in your mind, if your imagination can do it. But you cannot access the other folks mind, hence you wouldn't know what song is being played in his/her mind.
isn't the firing of neurons, which constitutes the playing of the song in the mind, something physical as well? It doesn't happen at the speed of light, because it occurs through a physical medium. So wouldn't time dilation slow down that activity?
Quoting Corvus
Consider, you could have an analyzing system hooked up to the person's brain. The person tells you i am playing Social Distortion's "I was Wrong" in my mind, and you observe the corresponding neural activity. Then, whenever you see an exact replication of that physical activity you know the person plays that song. From a different frame of reference, would time dilation apply? You might see the same activity slowed down.
But let's say your neural activity was slowed down, either through temperature or chemical or some interference. Does that mean the song playing in your head would slow down too, like "when you play a 45 at 33 1/3"? I don't think it works like that.
This only invites confusion, I am afraid. At any given time, we are moving at a speed close to c in some reference frame. And, at that same time, we are not moving at all in some other reference frame. A key aspect of the subjective experience that no one would deny is that it has a point of view that is collocated with the body. That gives it a reference frame - specifically, the comoving reference frame (aka the proper frame), in which there cannot be any time dilation effects on our own body (unless said body is being violently torn apart!)
The problem is we don't know if the firing of neurons are the playing of the songs in the mind. If they are, still we don't know which neurons and what type of firing are related to the song playing, in what manner and ways.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Again, there is no concrete evidence or working details proving the observed neural activity is the person's playing the song. Isn't it your imagination which links the neural activity to the song in your friend's mind? It is possible to imagine it of course, but it is not demonstrable or provable with intelligible evidence, is it?
From their frame of reference it's you who is traveling close to the speed of light. Are your thought processes slowed in respect to the movement of your body?
What your thought experiment shows is a misunderstanding of the issue. You continue to suppose some frame of reference that is stationary in an absolute sense.
I was attempting to point to the absurdity of thinking that the bodily processes could be slowed down while the mental processes continued at the "normal" speed, which is also to point to the absurdity of thinking that the mental processes could be independence of the bodily. It would save wasted time if people read more carefully.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Quoting Janus
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Janus
Quoting Janus
Nothing has a traveling speed. Speed is relative to something else. Every object is stationary in its own frame. Earth is traveling at near c relative to the object I mentioned in my prior post, and yet you don't experience time running slow, which would be a violation of the first premise of relativity, and also a violation of the premises (whatever they are) of an absolutist interpretation such as LET.
SophisticCat and Banno got it right:
Quoting SophistiCat
Quoting Banno
Quoting Corvus
Not directly, sure, but you still have indirect access. Supposedly a person could be doing the Macarena dance to the music playing only in their mind. Positing that they would not be in sync is preposterous (try it). So given correlation, yes, you have indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Under certain dualist views, the firing of neurons does not constitute mental song playing. They're correlated, but supposedly not causal.
Them getting out of sync due to dilation would violate that correlation.
Quoting CorvusIt really doesn't matter. All neural activity is subject to physical time treatment of relativity.
Quoting Janus
Quoting Janus
Under property dualism, mental activity is just a different property of normal matter, which is subject to relativistic effects. Under substance dualism, where the substance is something in the vicinity of the being experienced, it moves, and thus the same rules apply. So what does that leave? If the mind is totally external to the universe (BiV for instance, several forms of 'souls', etc), the mind is external to the universe, and works more like a moving spotlight in that which it experiences. But such a view is necessarily either solipsistic or epiphenomenal since one cannot stay in sync with other minds. Contradictions abound, but not under most forms of dualism.
Quoting DifferentiatingEggThis violates all the premises of relativity, which states that you experience the same flow of time regardless of your motion, which is always by definition stationary in one's own frame.
Quoting DifferentiatingEggI'm suspecting you don't know the difference between speed and velocity since the statement makes no sense.
Quoting Janus
Again, the ship is always stationary in its own frame, and while inertial, it is the Earth inhabitants that age more slowly. The reason it works out is because the ship is not always inertial, so it takes a shorter path (intervals as integrated along all the relevant worldlines) through spacetime than does Earth.
Quoting RogueAI
Such an observation would be mediated by a signal from observed to observer. That signal is either subject to the Lorentz transformation, in which case the time dilation takes effect, or it isn't, in which case there is an absolute frame of reference.
So 's hypothesis does assume an absolute reference frame in presuming frame-independent access to temporal structure. It adopts a privileged temporal standpoint.
Unless I am mistaken, the theory says that if you traveled at the speed of light to some distant star and then returned, those on Earth would have aged much more than you. In that scenario Earth is the stationary, "normal" frame and the starship the one at great speed relative to it.
Quoting noAxioms
It is merely a conceptual matter. If traveling at speed close to c slows down bodily processes relative to those who remain on Earth and mind were completely independent of matter then presumably the slowing down would not apply to the mental processes. It is a ridiculous conversation anyway because mental processes cannot be independent of bodily processes. Also no one has ever, or probably ever will be able to, do the experiment.
Quoting noAxioms
It is very simple?do you believe that if someone could travel in a vessel at near light speeds and returned to earth in say twenty years that they would have aged more or less than those on Earth? I believe the standard view is that the traveler would have aged much less.
The twin paradox is a result of the relative acceleration of the traveler. The OP is only asking about inertial frames of reference. You are adding an unhelpful complication.
Quoting RogueAI
Their physical processes cannot be observed from my frame until they return. Then I would see that their physical processes had been much slower than mine as evidenced by their relative youthfulness? assuming, that is, the correctness of the theory.
The other question as to the speed of their mental processes could not possibly be established other than, if at all, by asking them. Also, the idea that their mental processes "movements, reactions, even neural activity" could be slowed down relative to Earthers, while their mental processes could remain the same speed as the Earthers' just seems absurd.
If their mental processes remained the same while their physical processes (although seeming normal to them) were slowed down, then presumably, as I said already, their mental processes would seem speeded up to them. That just seems impossible. So, I think that question is really a non-question.
So I have been addressing the question and your claim that I am adding an unhelpful complication seems completely unfounded.
Watch them on TV.
Good point (how did I miss that?), but the video data from them would presumably be slowed down too relative to us. So the question then is whether their physical movements would would look slowed down to us or look normal. I can't answer that.
It would appear slowed down.
That's what he equations say, and what empirical observation supports.
Keep in mind that time dilation is a coordinate effect, not something observed. So yes, the OP's request about observing this other person, while not totally off topic, lacks enough details to answer. Something moving relative to me can appear to be running faster as well as slower, as evidenced by blue shift of objects approaching. Determination of the dilation of the object in question is something computed, not something observed.
Yes, a signal would be required to observe anything.
.A Lorentz transformation transforms coordinates of specific events from one inertial coordinate system to a different one. Not sure what you intend by trying to apply that to a signal instead of a set of events. It can be done.
Quoting JanusAs pointed out, this is kind of irrelevant to the OP. Earth need not be the normal frame. The calculation can be done relative to any frame of choice without changing the answer (the relative ages of the twins at reunion), which is frame invariant. This is not dilation (a coordinate effect), but differential aging, a physical effect. The OP is asking coordinate questions, dilation of thoughts due to motion relative to some observer.
That depends if the mind has a location or not. I gave an example of where it didn't.
I gave an example of where it was.
[/quote]It is very simple?do you believe that if someone could travel in a vessel at near light speeds and returned to earth in say twenty years that they would have aged more or less than those on Earth?.[/quote]I indicated no such thing. I was talking about dilation of Earth people relative to the ship. I was not talking about differential aging, which again is frame invariant.
Quoting Banno
Acceleration isn't relative, and differential aging is not a function of acceleration. It can be done without any acceleration at all. In the end, it is best described as due to lengths (intervals) of the various worldlines through Minkowskian spacetime, which is no more remarkable than two people taking different routes to grandma's house and finding their odometers not matching upon reunion. It's only unintuitive because spacetime isn't Euclidean.
Quoting RogueAIThey would BE slowed down in your frame. How they appear to you is an entirely different matter, and depends on more than just speed.
Yes, neural activity slows down with the physical activity. Anything else would falsify the last 1.5 centuries of physics.
You're more on target than pretty much anybody, especially since you give frame references when specifying a speed, and almost nobody else does.
The proof: you are traveling at near light speed relative to some frame of reference, yet you do not experience any difficulty.
End of thread.
What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate with philosophical language?
Quoting noAxioms
The only way you can have access to person's music playing in their mind is let them sing out the tune, or play the instrument the tune in their mind in front of you. Your claim that indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind is possible sounds like some black magic or telepathy stuff.
The only way you could demonstrate your access (be it direct or indirect) to a person's song playing in his/her mind would be, if you could tell what song the person is playing without him/her telling you anything about the song, and if you could sing along the song in the person's mind as it plays along.
I think you are still confused about reference frames. Time dilation is an observer effect. If you are traveling at a constant speed of 0.99c relative to Earth, nothing interesting is happening to your body or your mind, as far as you are concerned. Your body and your mind cannot possibly get out of sync, unless your mind was somehow left behind on Earth when your body took off on a rocket ship. But as long as you are staring at the world through your eyes, you will observe everything as the theory of relativity describes. Metaphysics of mind is a red herring here. You can assume reductive physicalism or Cartesian dualism - and it won't make a wit of difference.
Quoting noAxioms
Blah blah blah, try coming with something worth a shit?
:meh:
An emission establishes a boundary of influence that expands and shrinks depend on the quantum of strength behind the emission.
Consequently Emissions of Light aren't movements...
When we say “light moves”, we smuggle in grammar metaphysics of being and unity: substance, identity, and temporal persistence.
All three fail.
Furthermore...
“Light moves” implies light exists before its effect, then acts, then continues to exist while acting (grammar psychology of a doer doing). But lighy has no proper time, no internal persistence, no "self" that carries across moments.
Thus saying "Light moves" is merely, as Nietzsche would detail this failure of reasoning: "the original sin of reason."
The immortal unreason that freezes becoming and multiplicity into being and unity.
I can safely assume that he and you think sound moves too.
Or perhaps you're simplifying your language to get a basic fucking point across without having to delve into the various fucking details that make it seem like light moves so you just say light moves. That Axiom wanted to jump a homie for oversimplification in language then be a complete jackass about it after I admitted poor expression.
Well guess what, I'll rub it in his face that he lies to himself through grammar psychology, especially about the manner he fashions himself in: noAxioms. The same game, I just know how to play it better...
Earth may not be the "normal" frame (although it certainly is for us). The fact remains, however that, if the theory is correct, the twin who traveled at near light speed will have aged less than the one who remained on Earth.