A brief segment of time..

[Filip Sandor]

I have heard the arguement that "time is an illusion" a lot and I've come to do some of my own strange thinking on this...

Here is a thought experiment along the lines of the theory that time doesn't exist:

Take one "frame" of time and call it reality A.

Take another frame of "time" and call it reality B.

At the time of their existence, each "frame" constitutes a single and complete reality (since neither the future or the past actually exist).

When reality A exists, reality B does not exist and vice versa, respectively.

However, basic logic dictates that if an entire reality does not exist in the first place then it defies existence all together (ie. if there is nothing there can't be something); therefore, in order for realities A and B to exist at all they must must both exist independantly of our perception of their apparent existence or lack of existence, which ultimately renders our perception to be wrong and time to be an illusion.

What are your thoughts on time...? Does time exist? Is our interpretation of time an illusion or is time itself the illusion?

[Marquis de Carabas]

When you say "frame of time," are you referring to some speculative indivisible unit of time?

[The GM]

Perhaps it's just our perception of time that changes, much like our perception of reality changes.
Time or reality don't really give a crap about what we perceive though...unless you think that time and reality are entities that actually have their own perceptions.
Heh.

[uruk]

What definition of time are you going by?

The reality in time reference A is Identical to the reality in frame reference B there is just a temporal differential that separates them.
The objects in refrence frame A are the same objects in refrence frame B. The objects have not ceased to exist. The frame of reference becomes a metaphysical concept (if I'm using the word correctly) meaning that the reference now only exists in our memory or as an abstract concept. Hmmm.... so I guess in this fashion past and future are just illusion. Something which requires memory and speculation (a mind) to exist. The present is all that is real and is being experianced and stored as it happens.

Going by this ad-hoc reasoning, time is a human concept used to deal with physical phenomena happening and being experianced by a conciousness (which itself is a physical phenomena) and percieved as being sequencetial. No wait!...Oww...my head hurts.

Time is a old guy with a beard and a hourglass and let's leave it at that.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
When you say "frame of time," are you referring to some speculative indivisible unit of time?

Well I guess the most logical assumption would be to view it as a single 'point' or 'snapshot' since anything more than that would obviously constitute an unkown number of different possible states.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Although your frames A and B each represent an entire reality, it should be noted that they represent the same reality. The law of conservation tells us that the only real difference between A and B will be in the arrangement of everything. What is included in "everything" will be constant.

So, I guess I'd just call time a measure of change.

[Filip Sandor]

As if the concept of non-existing realities isn't confusing enough already... just consider the fact that time is relative in different circumstances. So time is really different for everybody, yet, at the same time (no pun intended :)) everybody actually perceives real time!! :wink8:

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
As if the concept of non-existing realities isn't confusing enough already... just consider the fact that time is relative in different circumstances. So in reality, time is different for everybody, yet, at the same time (no pun intended :)) everybody actually perceives real time!! :wink8:
That doesn't really bug me. Much the same could be said of space. If you and I are both looking at the same object, it is impossible we have the same view of it. It's different for everyone.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
That doesn't really bug me. Much the same could be said of space. If you and I are both looking at the same object, it is impossible we have the same view of it. It's different for everyone.

Likewise... if you are drugged and put to sleep, only to wake up tied to a chair in a rotating room, you won't have a clue weather it is the room that is rotating or you. :)

Enstein used a similar example to illustrate gravity. The idea was the if you were stuck inside a train car and it was accellerating in one direction, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between gravity and accelleration.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
As if the concept of non-existing realities isn't confusing enough already... just consider the fact that time is relative in different circumstances. So time is really different for everybody, yet, at the same time (no pun intended :)) everybody actually perceives real time!! :wink8:

It also doesn't mean that either Time or Space is at all discontinuous.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Piscivore
It also doesn't mean that either Time or Space is at all discontinuous.

My thoughts exactly Piscivore.

My current 'pet theory' is that reality has no duration - more specifically, it has no age because age has to be calculated in discrete units, which at best, seem very unlikely to exist.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by uruk
What definition of time are you going by?

The reality in time reference A is Identical to the reality in frame reference B there is just a temporal differential that separates them.
The objects in refrence frame A are the same objects in refrence frame B. The objects have not ceased to exist. The frame of reference becomes a metaphysical concept (if I'm using the word correctly) meaning that the reference now only exists in our memory or as an abstract concept. Hmmm.... so I guess in this fashion past and future are just illusion. Something which requires memory and speculation (a mind) to exist. The present is all that is real and is being experianced and stored as it happens.

Going by this ad-hoc reasoning, time is a human concept used to deal with physical phenomena happening and being experianced by a conciousness (which itself is a physical phenomena) and percieved as being sequencetial. No wait!...Oww...my head hurts.

Time is a old guy with a beard and a hourglass and let's leave it at that.

I think I like your last definition of time the best. :)

[scribble]

"Zeit ist das, was man an der Uhr abliest."


"Time is what is measured by a clock."

-Albert Einstein.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
My thoughts exactly Piscivore.

My current 'pet theory' is that reality has no duration - more specifically, it has no age because age has to be calculated in discrete units, which at best, seem very unlikely to exist.

Whoa, nelly, I didn't say anything like that.

You are making an error here, in that you are confusing "discrete" with "discontinuous". Of course we have discrete units- hours, minutes, seconds, years, days, etc. They are not discontinuous because any one of these units can be sub-divided into infinity, and they are applied arbitrarily to the timeline at no set point.

These units are conceptual, so they have no physical "reality"- but that's far from being able to claim "they don't exist".

I suggest getting a cat. Theories make poor pets.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Whoa, nelly, I didn't say anything like that.

You are making an error here, in that you are confusing "discrete" with "discontinuous". Of course we have discrete units- hours, minutes, seconds, years, days, etc. They are not discontinuous because any one of these units can be sub-divided into infinity, and they are applied arbitrarily to the timeline at no set point.

These units are conceptual, so they have no physical "reality"- but that's far from being able to claim "they don't exist".

I suggest getting a cat. Theories make poor pets.

That's why I called it my pet theory and not Piscivore's pet theory... and I already have a cat... he's white.. and he exists in my mind only! My real cat is my mom's now, he has a much better home out in the suburbs than here in the big city so I'm happy for him! :)

....hmmm :v:

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
What are your thoughts on time...? Does time exist? Is our interpretation of time an illusion or is time itself the illusion?

It certainly does. If things change, they must change with respect to something else. Things can change without moving. Therefore we need time as a reference against which things can change.

[kuroyume0161]

Not only does time exist (i.e.: changes in states), but there is a definite 'arrow of time' in every case except at quantum levels. This is, with respect to your thread title, something that theoretical physicists (like Stephen Hawking) have been working on explaining for some time.

[Zombified]

The basic equations of classical mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics (relativist or not) are all reversible and symmetrical with respect to time.

Irreversibility enters in two places. First, statistical mechanics, where you've got irreversible processes that increase entropy. The conventional everyday experience of irreversibility is due to this. Second, measurements in quantum mechanics are irreversible (they change the state in a way not governed by the Schrodinger equation). This (and how it relates to thermodynamic irreversibility) are subjects of research and controversy.

I'm with scribble: time is what you measure with clocks. In other words, an operational definition that is concerned with epistomology, not ontology. But I know that doesn't satisfy everybody...