Time: Real or Illusory?

[Mal12345]

Is time itself real or illusory?

 

[sprinkles]

I'd say it definitely has aspects of both.

Time is relative, such that depending on your frame of reference, things can actually appear to happen in a different order. If events are causally linked though, then cause and effect are preserved in all frames of reference. For example, if you push a button on your flashlight and it turns on, the button push will come before the light turning on everywhere. Nowhere does the light come on before you pushed the button.

 

[Mal12345]

There's a difference between saying that causality is preserved and saying that the order in the event is preserved, as you said in the non-causal part. So I suspect there is some equivocation in your argument.

Either way, the order or the causality is governed by physical law, whereas an illusion is not.

 

[WALMART]

if the universe is digital, time is an illusion.

should the universe prove to be analog, time will be concrete.




i'd prefer to believe the former.

 

[Mal12345]

if the universe is digital, time is an illusion.

should the universe prove to be analog, time will be concrete.

i'd prefer to believe the former.

Given your false alternatives. But of course it would be difficult to see time as concrete - i.e., physically real.

 

[WALMART]

Given your false alternatives. But of course it would be difficult to see time as concrete - i.e., physically real.

not for me, i see it rather well.


though i'm stuck at about the same place einstein was, regarding a geometrically analog universe.




hence my preference for a quantum, timeless universe.

 

[Qlip]

If I can't touch it, it's not real. Like, dragons, God and the number on my bank account.

 

[Mal12345]

not for me, i see it rather well.

Then where is it? (Mathematics is conceptual so it doesn't count as concrete.)

though i'm stuck at about the same place einstein was, regarding a geometrically analog universe.

hence my preference for a quantum, timeless universe.

So for you, time is real yet it doesn't exist?

 

[Mal12345]

If I can't touch it, it's not real. Like, dragons, God and the number on my bank account.

So "can't touch it" = illusory?

 

[Qlip]

So "can't touch it" = illusory?

I'm just musing. Iis illusory the opposite of real? Can something be illusory and completely relevant simultaneously, if so does that mean it's real? Are you asking if there is some sort of time particle?

 

[RaptorWizard]

Time is the most real thing in the Universe because the only constant factor is change.

 

[WALMART]

[MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION]



much as geometry is conceptual, so is time, in the einsteinian framework of space/time. i envision the concrete as being something conceptual (a given to a system, a constant of sorts). geometry gives rise to time ('proven' by special relativity). time 'exists' when time does not 'exist', since time is inherent in the system, something concrete.

... ironically? this is einstein's quandary, imo. i'd liken it to the 'goddunnit' argument of biology, it's nature sabotages itself for affirmation.



in a quantum framework, time exists as something that can be measured by 'entropy' (yay buzzwords). since time can be measured empirically in this framework, it ironically does not exist. hey, it even solves the problem of geometry. blame is placed on discrete packets of matter.... the problem of time and space are solved, in this framework.

although it gives rise to the shittiest question: what happens when i go smaller?













i'm in no way a physicist of any kind, so be gentle in your critique.

 

[sprinkles]

There's a difference between saying that causality is preserved and saying that the order in the event is preserved, as you said in the non-causal part. So I suspect there is some equivocation in your argument.

Either way, the order or the causality is governed by physical law, whereas an illusion is not.

What? I don't understand what you're getting at. Explain?

Otherwise, if you have all the answers then why bother asking the question.

 

[Mal12345]

Time is the most real thing in the Universe because the only constant factor is change.

"Constant factor is change." Can you see the contradiction in that?

 

[Mal12345]

What? I don't understand what you're getting at. Explain?

Otherwise, if you have all the answers then why bother asking the question.

There are some interesting possibilities for reflection in these questions. I just wanted you to clarify your point because it sounds equivocal.

In your premise (1), you talk about the order of events - but in a non-causal context.

In your premise (2), you neglected to mention order of events - but this time the context was causality.

I grant that one can't have either premise outside of a temporal context. But your implicit context is that of SR in which order and sequence are relative to a framework. I don't think a framework should be confused with a viewing subject per se, such as you, me, or Einstein. And that at least you're talking about something objectively determined, which is time. The speed of light shouldn't have anything to do with this.

 

[sprinkles]

I'm just musing. Iis illusory the opposite of real? Can something be illusory and completely relevant simultaneously, if so does that mean it's real? Are you asking if there is some sort of time particle?

Yes something can be illusory and relevant at the same time, such as relative velocity.

For example the fact that you think you're sitting still even though necessarily you have a velocity that might be 70,000 miles per hour or whatever. If an observer could sit in space without being drawn up by gravity, and watch earth pass by like some kind of space ship, they would conclude that it and everything on it is moving very fast!

The fact that you're sitting still is not really and illusion though. You really are - relatively. Your velocity is closely matched with that of the planet so there appears to be no velocity relative to your environment, and there really is practically no velocity relative to your environment unless you start moving around.

So we can say that we're driving a car around at 60 mph and really mean it because 60mph is the difference in relative velocity.

 

[Mal12345]

[MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION]

i envision the concrete as being something conceptual. much as geometry is conceptual, so is time, in this framework. geometry gives rise to time ('proven' by special relativity). it 'exists' when it does not 'exist'.

... ironically? this is einstein's quandary, imo.



in a quantum framework, time exists as something that can be measured by 'entropy' (pretty hot word when discussing quantum physics). since time can be measured empirically in this framework, it ironically does not exist. hey, it even solves the problem of geometry. blame is placed on discrete packets of matter.... the problem is solved, in this framework.

i'm in no way a physicist of any kind, so be gentle in your critique.

No worries! I'm not asking a physicist type of question. As far as I can tell, you say that time is conceptual. You equivocate over "concrete" and "conceptual," but no matter. I don't know if physicists consider Einsteinian space/time geometry to be real. Perhaps some do and some don't. At the very least it is a framework for discussion that has a powerful basis in experiment. And I'm not certain that you've made up your own mind about it.

 

[Mal12345]

I'm just musing. Iis illusory the opposite of real? Can something be illusory and completely relevant simultaneously, if so does that mean it's real? Are you asking if there is some sort of time particle?

That could be. I don't know. Is illusory the opposite of real (or relevant)?

We speak of time only in the context of motion: sequence, order of events of real objects. The hands moving around a clock (represented digitally these days but the representation comes from our viewing of the physical motion of objects).

So if you take away the objects, what do you have left? A vacuum? Then what happened to time? I'm eliminating gravitational effects originating from outside this framework.

 

[sprinkles]

That could be. I don't know. Is illusory the opposite of real (or relevant)?

We speak of time only in the context of motion: sequence, order of events of real objects. The hands moving around a clock (represented digitally these days but the representation comes from our viewing of the physical motion of objects).

So if you take away the objects, what do you have left? A vacuum? Then what happened to time? I'm eliminating gravitational effects originating from outside this framework.

In a vacuum with absolutely no objects there would be no apparent time. But we also would not be there to observe this lack of apparent time.

Is time really a thing completely unto itself? I say no. It's a metric, like size, or velocity. If there's a vacuum of nothing then there's also no apparent size or velocity either, because relative things depend on stuff being there.

 

[sprinkles]

There are some interesting possibilities for reflection in these questions. I just wanted you to clarify your point because it sounds equivocal.

In your premise (1), you talk about the order of events - but in a non-causal context.

In your premise (2), you neglected to mention order of events - but this time the context was causality.

I grant that one can't have either premise outside of a temporal context. But your implicit context is that of SR in which order and sequence are relative to a framework. I don't think a framework should be confused with a viewing subject per se, such as you, me, or Einstein. And that at least you're talking about something objectively determined, which is time. The speed of light shouldn't have anything to do with this.

The speed of light does have something to do with this because speed is merely distance divided by time. No time, no speed.