The Illusion of Time

[Lib]

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.

Oh, Camus, the person who (mis)uses irony when he can't understand what's happening around him, instead of moving ahead and acknowledging that his truth has little contribution to the overall truth.

So you don't believe that the position and synaptic impulses are objective? All that exists is embodiment of the truth because otherwise it wouldn't have existed. Subjective is a local truth. A broken mirror doesn't defy the laws of physics when it presents to you a distorted image, quite the contrary, it presents to you how those laws work. As I tried to say, truth has many dimensions but would be different if we exclude one part of it - the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. I get it, complexity makes people insecure - instead of trying to see the whole, they prefer to call it absurd and go with the little reason they have left.

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

That was a very interesting article which only solidifies my point - that everything is interrelated!!!!

What you fail to understand is that if we consider connection between events, expressed probabiliticaly or deterministically, every event we observe exists, in the way it exists, in the context of the overall state of entropy - that's what makes one moment different from the previous one. It suggest a flow of energy/events. Entaglement is due to energy potential, in other words it's defined by conservation of energy. So if an event happened in another spacetime, which is both influenced by and influencing the event in our spacetime, it still is due to the states of entropy that interrelate both spacetimes. The universe is not locally symmetrical, which means that there is a flow of change throughout the universe, and we call this time, spacetime!

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

Oh, I wished...

 

[Lib]

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.

I only meant to say, in a very clumsy way, that the difference between two phenomena is not an illusion, it's a representation of physical laws which give rise to asymmetry, and thus justify the use of terms as 'time'. Progression itself is 'time'.

 

[Mole]

I believe it is because Mole said so.

Quite so.

 

[Mole]

This thread was sparked by the book The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli, an Italian physicist, that is a best seller.

 

[Forever]

[MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION]

I am fascinated by your knowledge.

 

[Mole]

We can use others as means rather than ends, and in the same way we can perceive time as useful to us, or we can perceive time for its own sake. It is the difference between our illusion of time and the reality of time.

So time is not an illusion, rather it is time, Jim, but not as we know it. Click on it's earth jim but not as we know it .

So when we are in survival mode or reproducing mode, we are only interested in those things and people who are of use to us. And when we are in Enlightenment mode, we are interested in people and things for their own sake, and not just how they can be of use to us.

Carlo Ronelli is a man of the Western Enlightenment of the 18th century, and he has explored time for its own sake, for its reality rather than our illusion of time. It is based in scientific facts, and it is his gift to us in his book The Order of Time.

 

[Lib]

[MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION]

I am fascinated by your knowledge.

Well, thank you. I thought that everybody knew about these stuff

 

[Mole]

Physics shows us there is no universal now. And we perceive the illusion of a universal now because we can't see beyond he distance travelled by light in one tenth of a second.

This is the reason for most of our illusions: our perceptions are parochial.

Yet we are vain enough to trust our perceptions. Yet time and time again, over hundreds of years, science has shown our perceptions are illusions, caused by a partial view of the universe.

 

[Lib]

Physics shows us there is no universal now. And we perceive the illusion of a universal now because we can't see beyond he distance travelled by light in one tenth of a second.

This is the reason for most of our illusions: our perceptions are parochial.

Yet we are vain enough to trust our perceptions. Yet time and time again, over hundreds of years, science has shown our perceptions are illusions, caused by a partial view of the universe.

What is not vain to trust? Would you say gravitational acceleration in earth atmosphere is an illusion because you perceive it?

 

[Mole]

What is not vain to trust? Would you say gravitational acceleration in earth atmosphere is an illusion because you perceive it?

Of course gravity is an illusion. We know the reality is the curvature of time and space.

Our illusion is that gravity pulls on us, when the reality is that mass curves space.

The reality and illusion are two different things. The illusion works for us as long as we are limited to the surface of the Earth, but once we are going around the Earth in a satellite, the illusion no longer works, and the reality is the equations of Relativity.

 

[Mole]

What is not vain to trust?

So much of what we know is an illusion: from gravity, to time, to the movement of the Sun around the Earth. So we are vain to trust our perceptions. The real world is quite different from our daily world of illusion. The educated know this, and the uneducated trust their perceptions.

 

[Lib]

So much of what we know is an illusion: from gravity, to time, to the movement of the Sun around the Earth. So we are vain to trust our perceptions. The real world is quite different from our daily world of illusion. The educated know this, and the uneducated trust their perceptions.

Our daily world is part of the real world.

 

[Mole]

Our daily world is part of the real world.

I suspect you have no interest in The Order of Time and you have come here to troll.

 

[Lib]

I suspect you have no interest in The Order of Time and you have come here to troll.

Well, obviously in this forum sharing one's opinion backed by logic and facts is the very definition of trolling.

I don't find the order of time as interesting as you do since I've heard most of the theories explained there but I have a question for you:
How is it possible to have asymmetry on marco scale and symmetry on quantum level? Where is the asymmetry coming from?

 

[Mole]

Well, obviously in this forum sharing one's opinion backed by logic and facts is the very definition of trolling. I don't find the order of time as interesting as you do since I've heard most of the theories explained there but I have a question for you: How is it possible to have asymmetry on marco scale and symmetry on quantum level? Where is the asymmetry coming from?

It comes from The Uncertainty Principle, the blurring of our perception of the Universe.

 

[Lib]

It comes from The Uncertainty Principle, the blurring of our perception of the Universe.

That makes no sense at all.

 

[Mole]

That makes no sense at all.

If you were to read The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli, it would make sense, and perhaps you might abandon trolling.

 

[Lib]

If you were to read The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli, it would make sense, and perhaps you might abandon trolling.

The thread title isn't about advertising a book, but to discuss whether time is an illusion. You should have formulated in in another way. Your book cannot answer my questions so I have no interest in it. Bye, bye

 

[Mole]

Possibly it is important to repeat it it is our perception of time that is an illusion. Time itself is real, and we.can measure it with astounding accuracy, with atomic clocks or spinning neutron stars.

 

[AOA]

So why is time flying by so quickly?