The Illusion of Time

[Lib]

The present moment is the instance in which everything exists.

The DSM-V told me.

Yes!

But if there is no time, there is no present moment, so nothing exists.

I wish I was more familiar with DSM-V, especially in the present moment

 

[Tater]

But if there is no time, there is no present moment, so nothing exists.

I wish I was more familiar with DSM-V, especially in the present moment

That's only if the present moment is included in the process of "time."

 

[Lib]

That's only if the present moment is included in the process of "time."

But the present moment has a history that makes it present. If you were right, there would be no difference between moments whatsoever. 'Time' is just the way to track changes.

 

[Tater]

But the present moment has a history that makes it present. If you were right, there would be no difference between moments whatsoever. 'Time' is just the way to track changes.

If either past, present, or future exist at the same time, then they happen concurrently. Does it make sense that the present "me" exists as the same as the "past" me? Are you the same as you were when younger? Does our impression of history align perfectly with the present?

Whenever we discuss the truth value of concept in the present tense, we tacitly speak of it as though it concerns the present moment. So, does it make logical or linguistic sense to say that time, a linear process that involves past, present, and future, exists in the present moment?

 

[Lib]

If either past, present, or future exist at the same time, then they happen concurrently. Does it make sense that the present "me" exists as the same as the "past" me? Are you the same as you were when younger? Does our impression of history align perfectly with the present?

Whenever we discuss the truth value of concept in the present tense, we tacitly speak of it as though it concerns the present moment. So, does it make logical or linguistic sense to say that time, a linear process that involves past, present, and future, exists in the present moment?

But we use a system for comparison otherwise we are not able to understand changes. Your logic could only apply if everything is random and there are no connections between events which is obviously not true.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

For some reason I thought that time was essentially our three-dimensional universe moving through four-dimensional space. At least that's what my brother used to tell me when we were kids.

 

[Lib]

For some reason I thought that time was essentially our three-dimensional universe moving through four-dimensional space. At least that's what my brother used to tell me when we were kids.

Well, if your brother said so...

 

[Maou]

"Time" is just the 3rd dimensional observation of a whole. We can only see progression of it, because we cannot observe it in the 4th dimension where it is a whole. So only the flow of time is an illusion.

 

[Qlip]

Smoke a joint, put on some Pink Floyd and read this. Physics is a trip nowadays:

This Is Why Understanding Time Is So Hard

...Rovelli went on to challenge our common-sense notion of time, starting with the idea that it ticks everywhere at a uniform rate...

...Rovelli turned next to the idea that time flows in only one direction, from past to future...

...Even the notion that the present is fleeting doesn’t hold up to scrutiny...

 

[Mole]

Natural Selection has given us illusions that fit us to survive and reproduce in our environment.

These illusions are compelling but not true. We have though moved closer to reality with quantum mechanics amf relativity. They are not timo dependent, so leading us to see time as a perceptual ilusion, like the Sun goimg round the Earth.

 

[Mole]

The question is: do we wish to keep trading in illusions or would we prefer to trade in reality?

 

[Lib]

Natural Selection has given us illusions that fit us to survive and reproduce in our environment.

These illusions are compelling but not true. We have though moved closer to reality with quantum mechanics amf relativity. They are not timo dependent, so leading us to see time as a perceptual ilusion, like the Sun goimg round the Earth.

Quantum Entanglement Drives the Arrow of Time, Scientists Say | Quanta Magazine
It is not an illusion. You are having the illusion that the arrow of time doesn't exist. People surviving and reproducing is just as valid and important in terms of thermodynamics as any other event in the universe. Or our emergence and existence is also an illusion to you?

 

[Tater]

But we use a system for comparison otherwise we are not able to understand changes. Your logic could only apply if everything is random and there are no connections between events which is obviously not true.

I think I understand, but clarify the bolded.

Are there any objective connections between events, or are those connections subjectively interpreted?

Does the marriage of time and space contradict quantum mechanics?

 

[Lib]

I think I understand, but clarify the bolded.

Are there any objective connections between events, or are those connections subjectively interpreted?

Does the marriage of time and space contradict quantum mechanics?

First, I'd like to start with the condition that QM doesn't harmonize with relativity, so I personally treat any of these theories as different zoom in and out of reality. All theories use certain simplifications because neither people nor computers are able to get the complete picture - it has too many levels, dimensions if you like, depending on the chosen variables. Thus, we need to keep some variable fixed or their behavior linear to be able to see how the rest are progressing.

Some assumptions of QM contradict... reality. Fx, relativity which states that spacetime substitute space and time, is based on the notion that everything is connected, while QM uses the uncertainty principle that there are random events in the universe.

If we imagine reality as a disordered Rubik's cube, then there are many ways to look at it, and we tend to call one perspective subjective, but none of them is truly subjective because it gives you a correct picture from where you stand. A realistic interpretation/extrapolation would be to understand how your perspective is formed, how it relates to other events - the more events you include the more complete and realistic your picture becomes.

You are welcome to define objective and subjective but I'm convinced that subjective is just an isolated case of objective reality. In fact, the latter wouldn't make any sense if we exclude the former

 

[Mole]

Quantum Entanglement Drives the Arrow of Time, Scientists Say | Quanta Magazine It is not an illusion. You are having the illusion that the arrow of time doesn't exist. People surviving and reproducing is just as valid and important in terms of thermodynamics as any other event in the universe. Or our emergence and existence is also an illusion to you?

For 300,000 years we have had the illusion tsar the Sun goes rond the Earth. This is one plausible illusion among many revealed by evidence and reason.

Illusion is defended here because our raisin d'etre Is an illusion. Yes mbti is an illusion revealed by psychometrics. And to defend such an illusion againnst evidence and reaso is the sign of a cult.

 

[ducks]

In exactly the same way that the Sun going around the Earth is an illusion.

yeah...maybe...time might just be an uncountable set (set theory) and there may not be elementary particles, but infinite worlds within worlds. But that would make "everything" an illusion. And really that would just mean there is no past or future because an infinite time could pass in any moment. The concept of before and after becomes hazy. Even though from our limited perspective it may appear that things have certain consistency or progression. I think Einstein understood this.


There's a quote from Einstein

"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Letter to Besso's family (March 1955) following the death of Michele Besso, as quoted in Disturbing the Universe (1979) by Freeman Dyson Ch. 17 "A Distant Mirror", p. 193 - Albert Einstein - Wikiquote​

Life is like a dream and once it ends we go back to the collective void from whence we came, where all time is an instant. So maybe we are just individual dreams for the void.

 

[Lib]

For 300,000 years we have had the illusion tsar the Sun goes rond the Earth. This is one plausible illusion among many revealed by evidence and reason.

Illusion is defended here because our raisin d'etre Is an illusion. Yes mbti is an illusion revealed by psychometrics. And to defend such an illusion againnst evidence and reaso is the sign of a cult.

So it's not about time. I see.

Mbti is an attempt to find cognitive patterns among people, it's a perfectly innocent idea that encourages self-reflection or some sort of role play, if you like. What's wrong about that?

 

[Lib]

yeah...maybe...time might just be an uncountable set (set theory) and there may not be elementary particles, but infinite worlds within worlds. But that would make "everything" an illusion. And really that would just mean there is no past or future because an infinite time could pass in any moment. The concept of before and after becomes hazy. Even though from our limited perspective it may appear that things have certain consistency or progression. I think Einstein understood this.


There's a quote from Einstein

"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Letter to Besso's family (March 1955) following the death of Michele Besso, as quoted in Disturbing the Universe (1979) by Freeman Dyson Ch. 17 "A Distant Mirror", p. 193 - Albert Einstein - Wikiquote​

Life is like a dream and once it ends we go back to the collective void from whence we came, where all time is an instant. So maybe we are just individual dreams for the void.

Do you guys notice that this thread is in the science, not in the philosophy section? What is an illusion anyway?

Set theory doesn't invalidate the irreversibility of entropy, the same way it doesn't invalidate the river flow in one direction due to potential energy.

 

[Tater]

First, I'd like to start with the condition that QM doesn't harmonize with relativity, so I personally treat any of these theories as different zoom in and out of reality. All theories use certain simplifications because neither people nor computers are able to get the complete picture - it has too many levels, dimensions if you like, depending on the chosen variables. Thus, we need to keep some variable fixed or their behavior linear to be able to see how the rest are progressing.

Some assumptions of QM contradict... reality. Fx, relativity which states that spacetime substitute space and time, is based on the notion that everything is connected, while QM uses the uncertainty principle that there are random events in the universe.

If we imagine reality as a disordered Rubik's cube, then there are many ways to look at it, and we tend to call one perspective subjective, but none of them is truly subjective because it gives you a correct picture from where you stand. A realistic interpretation/extrapolation would be to understand how your perspective is formed, how it relates to other events - the more events you include the more complete and realistic your picture becomes.

You are welcome to define objective and subjective but I'm convinced that subjective is just an isolated case of objective reality. In fact, the latter wouldn't make any sense if we exclude the former

Generally, I define subjective and objective almost as Cartesian would. The subjective is "immaterial" and consists of psychological phenomenon like thinking, feeling, perceptions, schemas, and arguably the subconscious. "Objective" denotes the material world. However, as you may have guessed from our previous discussion, I'm not a Cartesian, since I regard the subjective world with an "as-if" attitude. Ie. with a sense of irony like Camus did. The issue I take with conflating the two definitions is that while I think some objective phenomena amount to subjective phenomena, such as synaptic impulses, those synaptic impulses are experienced differently depending on your point of view. We could objectively observe them in a scientific setting, or experience them by simply thinking, so it doesn't make sense to define both things the same way, since they appear as independent of each other. Moreover, the implication made by conflating the two is that if all subjective contents are objective, then subjective beliefs are infallible - which, I'm sure you have noticed, doesn't stand up to scrutiny under an intellectualist definition of truth - that is, that truth serves as a depiction of what is, rather than the thing itself. Beliefs and perceptions only mirror the objective world, so to say that they are objective implies that they always match reality. So, now I suspect that we may have differing attitudes about the truth. Would I be correct to think that you view the "truth" as the thing itself? It seems to be that way, given your view on reality.

If reality only exists in the present, then it doesn't necessarily contradict the probabilistic aspects of QM. In some sense, the fact that entanglement happens at all through what we call "time" affirms the idea that reality exists only in the present, since particles interact as though they exist in the same time frame: You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time | Aeon Ideas (This is kind of reaching, but I'm interested to hear your input.)

Do you guys notice that this thread is in the science, not in the philosophy section? What is an illusion anyway?

(Lol. btw, I'm starting to understand your logic. )

 

[ducks]

Do you guys notice that this thread is in the science, not in the philosophy section? What is an illusion anyway?

Set theory doesn't invalidate the irreversibility of entropy, the same way it doesn't invalidate the river flow in one direction due to potential energy.

yeah i never said it did...

I think I put forth what I consider an illusion pretty well.

offended?? I don't understand why...that's fine though. I don't even know why I'm on this forum. periodic curiosity I guess. well cya.