Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have a simpler theory. The apparent speed of the passage of time is inversely proportion the number of memories being accumulated.

I don't remember what it was like to be a toddler. All I can tell you is "they are sponges" is a common description. It blows me away they can learn how to recognise faces, walk, speak a language in the space of a few years.

As a kid I recall getting bored very easily. I needed a constant stream of stimulation to feed my brain.

As a young adult I recall a friend asking me to look up a telephone book to find the a persons address. I got back to the car and told them the address. "Oh", they said "I must have the spelling wrong, try ...". No problem, I remembered every name and address on the page I've just seen.

But as I grew older, remembering stuff came less easily. Now at over 60, if I put in a situation where I'm forced to remember a while pile of new stuff I feel distinctly uncomfortable, whereas before I was better at it than most.

And during all that time, the passage of time has sped up. Ergo, my theory is I gauge the amount of time that has passed between events X and Y by the number of memories accumulated in the period.



> I have a simpler theory. The apparent speed of the passage of time is inversely proportion the number of memories being accumulated.

I had this same realization. In other words, our internal clock is not like a mechanical, or a quartz watch, with seconds flowing at a constant rate. It's more like a hourglass or a clepsydra, but instead of sand/water, the flow is of bits of information from the world into the brain. As in a hourglass, near the end the flow is weaker (learning is much slower as an adult than as a child), and the same amount of physical time corresponds to much less sand (subjective time).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: