Is Time An Illusion?

[swansont]

Does your head hurt as much as mine right now?

 

I just had a Pan-Galactic gargle blaster, so ... yes!

[Daecon]

... but I can't resist. A friend of a friend has an autistic son (20 something) who, while he can't hold down a job due to his autism, is socially and mentally functional enough to do many things, including using public transportation. My friend met this guy and says he has a very interesting point of view on most mundane subjects. Time in particular is something he doesn't see the way we do and he's often perplexed with how others view time. He can read a clock but almost never relates things in terms of time.

 

The anecdote involves this guy meeting his mother downtown for lunch. They were to meet at noon at a certain place. The mother arrived early and got a call shortly after from her son at their home number (caller ID verified). He had forgotten which restaurant they were going to meet at. She reminded him, and also chided him that he would be late. He assured her he would be there at noon. She told him that the bus would take half an hour and it was already 11:50am. He told her he would get there at noon as promised.

 

She got creepy chills when he showed up 10 minutes later at noon. When she asked if he took the bus he said no. He also denied riding with anyone. When she asked him how he got there he couldn't explain it. He says he didn't walk but it was "like that". His mother claims he is a poor liar and anyone can tell when he's making something up. To this day they haven't figured out how he could have done this. She herself takes 20 minutes by car in traffic. Even on a Sunday with little traffic you can't get there in 10 minutes.

 

So if time is subjective and situational perception can be vary among individuals, does someone who has a non-standard view of time affect time differently or just perceive that they affect it differently? Does your head hurt as much as mine right now?

 

*hums The Twilight Zone music*

[D H]

I agree with you position about something being fundamental, it may be a bit reductionist but really if you cant answer for what is true fundamental I think it hurts anything else really in regards to understanding.

I think you completely misunderstood my post. I am not arguing that time is an illusion. I am arguing that it is very real.

 

What is truly fundamental are those the things for which we have no viable scientific explanation. Time and space are currently axiomatic (aka fundamental) in physics. To me it seems that New Scientist has made the jump from a conjecture that states time is not fundamental to the position that time is an illusion. This is an untenable jump for several reasons.

 

First, it is predicated on an unproven conjecture. Deriving big sweeping sensationalistic conclusions from an unproven conjecture is, well, stupid. Even worse, the conjecture is, IMHO, wrong. The thermal time hypothesis makes the analogy that if we perfect knew the state of every atom/molecule in a collection of gas that temperature would not exist. We would instead have a massive, time-varying state model. Moreover, if we knew the state of every atom/molecule in a gas, even time wouldn't exist. Just because we know the state of every atom/molecule in a collection does not mean that higher level abstractions such as temperature (and possibly, time) have no meaning and do not exist. It just means they are high-level abstractions. A hot frying pot still burns even though temperature is merely a composite measure of the random kinetic energy of the metal atoms that comprise the frying pan.

 

Even worse, the conjecture is inherently unprovable. There simply is no way to perfectly know the state of one atom/molecule in a collection of gas. I will grant that this is possible for the sake of argument. Even granting this, we could never, ever have perfect knowledge of every one of the 6*10²⁶ atom/molecule that comprise a typical collection of gas. The thermal time hypothesis is not only not right, its not even wrong.

[dichotomy]

It’s not an illusion, although it may be a delusion; it’s just an abstract concept, is it not?

 

It’s interesting, I can understand aging, decomposition, seasons arriving and departing, a candle burning out, cycles of life and death and the movement of physical objects from A to B. But I think that time is nothing more than another useful abstract concept for measuring those things. Time is a tape measure for those things, but not real in itself, just as a millimeter is just a designated size that took someone’s fancy, it’s not real by itself, just a handy abstract measurement tool, until proven otherwise.

 

Time to ME is simply that which stops Everything happening at once. so by That parameter I judge time to be quite real.

Isn't it physics, sans time, that does that? A rock can only roll down a hill as fast as physical variables allow it to - shape, weight, texture, gravity, weather, obstructions, etc? Time as a REAL energy, matter or force doesn't have to be there at all?

[foodchain]

I think you completely misunderstood my post. I am not arguing that time is an illusion. I am arguing that it is very real.

 

What is truly fundamental are those the things for which we have no viable scientific explanation. Time and space are currently axiomatic (aka fundamental) in physics. To me it seems that New Scientist has made the jump from a conjecture that states time is not fundamental to the position that time is an illusion. This is an untenable jump for several reasons.

 

First, it is predicated on an unproven conjecture. Deriving big sweeping sensationalistic conclusions from an unproven conjecture is, well, stupid. Even worse, the conjecture is, IMHO, wrong. The thermal time hypothesis makes the analogy that if we perfect knew the state of every atom/molecule in a collection of gas that temperature would not exist. We would instead have a massive, time-varying state model. Moreover, if we knew the state of every atom/molecule in a gas, even time wouldn't exist. Just because we know the state of every atom/molecule in a collection does not mean that higher level abstractions such as temperature (and possibly, time) have no meaning and do not exist. It just means they are high-level abstractions. A hot frying pot still burns even though temperature is merely a composite measure of the random kinetic energy of the metal atoms that comprise the frying pan.

 

Even worse, the conjecture is inherently unprovable. There simply is no way to perfectly know the state of one atom/molecule in a collection of gas. I will grant that this is possible for the sake of argument. Even granting this, we could never, ever have perfect knowledge of every one of the 6*10²⁶ atom/molecule that comprise a typical collection of gas. The thermal time hypothesis is not only not right, its not even wrong.

 

I simply don’t get how the dimensions of the concept even matter. Say you are trying to record the difference of shape of some part of an amorphous putty, or even the entire putty, you still are recording difference in time, so what is the point. Also, I don’t think the uncertainty principal would allow someone to have absolute precision in regards to understanding of every point like entity or what not in the universe all at once, I also think that goes against general relativity pretty much.

 

My point in my first post was simply that time might be little more then a composite term for the dynamic reality of say the physical universe, not much anything more, yet with various issues in physics, like general relativity, which produces a much higher order understanding of things then I can currently grasp as much as I would like points to time being more then that, more so in conjecture with say gravity and the warping of spacetime.

[D H]

Foodchain, you are still misunderstanding me. We are in complete agreement. I am arguing against the concepts laid out in that New Scientist article, not for them. Time is not an illusion. It is very real.

[bassist_13]

I found an article in a magazine called "New Scientist" and in this certain issue it talked about how time itself is not real, but merly a measurement of all the things in the universe, or at least this is how I understood it as. My interpretation of it was that verything within the universe would vast to measure, so time was just a way of measuring everything at once.

 

Also, I am a little confused at what entropy is?

Could you please explain it to me.

[D H]

I addressed this very article in posts #17 and 28. To sum things up, even granting that time is not "fundamental" does not mean it is not "real". Temperature and entropy are not a fundamental properties; they are merely emergent properties of more fundamental things. BFD. The burn one receives from touching a hot frying pan is not an illusion. That we know very well how two accurate clocks will when one is placed in orbit is not an illusion.

 

To bring the analogy closer to home: Chemistry is an emergent property of more fundamental physical laws. Monocellular life is an emergent property of chemistry. Complex, multicellular life forms are an emergent property of primitive single-celled life. Finally, intelligence is an emergent property of life. That your thoughts are many levels of abstraction removed from simple physics does not mean your thoughts are an illusion.

 

Moreover, I am not wont to even grant the authors of this paper their basic premises. One cannot have perfect knowledge of the state (position and momentum) of even one atom. This is the uncertainty principle. The very concepts starts with a flawed premise. Garbage in, garbage out.

[falcon9393]

i hope time isnt an illusion... when u say time is an illusion i think of the matrix for some reason maybe because in the matrix time isnt real.

 

"Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them". ~Dion Boucicault

[thedarkshade]

The concept of time in philosophy is one of the most important, and in the last century it has awaken a great interest on the field of physics too.

 

Time began somehow! That is true! But it began in a genetic aspect, and that makes the words "before" "until" "right before" completely meaningless when we refer to how time began.

 

So what the hell is time?

 

Well, I guess we'd all like to know, is that it's just far too complicated. It surely is not eternal as it began at one point and will end at some point. In philosophy time is part of the subjective idealism. That means time exists as long as there is something that can feel time. In other words, the existence of time is depended from the observer. But don't get me wrong here, it's not like we can see it, we just feel it, have a concept for it and move through it and space too. Now moving through time is why time can't be considered as a flow, since we use time to measure the flow. We can't use time to measure time (check iNow's sign...). So time cannot exist if there is nothing that flows through time. Think of time without space or matter or energy. These four are the main basic words of everything. Time matter space energy! Take one out and none of them makes sense!

 

One of the definitions that I personally like is that time is a mind dimension. It's something that is in us, because we feel it. I actually can see no other rational view of it! We remember the past since it lies in our memories, we feel the present due to our perceptibility, and think for future due to our expectations. It's all a minds works, honestly!

 

But yet, I'd go with iNow's signature. Time is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition! A fancy way to dismiss the possibility of a definition!

[Edtharan]

One of the definitions that I personally like is that time is a mind dimension. It's something that is in us, because we feel it. I actually can see no other rational view of it! We remember the past since it lies in our memories, we feel the present due to our perceptibility, and think for future due to our expectations. It's all a minds works, honestly!

But wehat we percieve and what actually occurs are two different (but related) things. Just becuase we "experience" time does not mean that time is like that.

 

Just because we "remember" the past does not mena that Time is a mental construct. Our sense of time flowing could very well be a mental construct, but this does not mean that time has to flow.

 

This is what I meant in my post. That our perception of time mught be an illusion, but time itself can stll be real.

 

As an example. We percieve colour in 3 types (red, gree and blue). But doe sthis mena that the electromagnetic spectrum (or even the bit we see) is broken up into those colours? No, if fact we find that ther eis a seamless transition between all three colour (red to green and green to blue) and there is no fundamental speeration of these wavelength groupings. It is onlu our perception of them that makes us think there is actually a seperation between them.

 

Ah, but time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

 

But, it does make sense. Time (as a perception) is an illusion. Lunchtime (an artificial seperation of our perception - a perception of a perception if you will) doubly so.

 

Did he know something the rest of us didn't...

[Zelos]

If time was just how we viewed the universe, and it didn't have an effect in "real" life, it wouldn't be an illusion by your definition. It would be the norm for how we interpret it.

 

As to the subjective nature of time, I was thinking this might be a, for lack of a better word, illusion, but not in the nature that it isn't the norm. Just that the way our brains store information it appears subjective. What I mean to say is that the "speeding up" and slowing down of time might be caused by our memory.

 

When we record more data on whats happening around us, usually this increased memory storage is caused by adrenaline I think it was, if you ever saw that one study on rats where the one that was injected with adrenaline could remember it's way through a maze better.

But anyway, the increased data storage might make us, when we think back on the moment, think that time was going slower, when in actuality it just had a higher data storage per second ratio. Or something like that.

 

I should probably arrange this speculation so it's a bit easier to understand, but I'm too lazy for something like that.

EDIT: There, I spaced it out a bit.

[thedarkshade]

But wehat we percieve and what actually occurs are two different (but related) things. Just becuase we "experience" time does not mean that time is like that.

 

Just because we "remember" the past does not mena that Time is a mental construct. Our sense of time flowing could very well be a mental construct, but this does not mean that time has to flow.

 

This is what I meant in my post. That our perception of time mught be an illusion, but time itself can stll be real.

There is always a dose of skepticism about everything, and time surely provides such a field that you can describe it in any way you want. But what I'm trying to say with this?

 

Well, first of all, if we don't have a scientific definition of what time is, or that there is nothing that can show how time is like and how it works (since it's subjective), then the concepts of time is still deeply within philosophy. And in philosophy you don't take things for granted! You make thing the way you think it's the most rational!

 

I believe your definition of what time is seems smarter to you then it does to me, and the other way around too. But yet, these are only personal opinions that deal with such a mysterious concept like time. There have been many many views through the history trying to explain what time is, but yet they only explain how the author understood the concept of time.

"Time is the number of movements" - Aristotle

"Time is a movable figure or eternity" - Plato

"Time is a mind dimension" - St. Augustine

 

All of the above try to explain what time really is, but never fully do it! Why! Well, because it's a subjective phenomenon whose existence is directly depended from the observer. There is always something that is not yet clear about time, no matter how deep you try to think of it! Why do we remember the past? Why don't we see the future rather then remembering the past? Why do we use second, and hours, and years to measure the time, when there is nothing absolute which would support our views? After all, why the hell we care about what time is? Or is it on human nature always to seek for more, and try to understand the reality around?

 

I understand what you are trying to say Edtharan, but when dealing with stuff like time, it's better only to express our personal opinions or the views we agree with and try not to give a strict definition to something which itself is a true mystery! I hope you understand!

 

Cheers,

Shade

[dichotomy]

That test that is done with two super accurate atomic clocks. (A) One that is left on the ground, and B) one that is flown around the world at super sonic speeds.

(B) gives the result of being slightly behind (A) in time. This is supposed to give proof of time slowing down at high speeds.

Is there other theories that go against this theory? Can physical forces like gravity, magnetism, or whatever, be what is truly behind the clock slowing down?

[D H]

The GPS needs to have extremely precise timing information in the signals broadcast the GPS satellites to make the system as accurate as it is. The satellites need to carry atomic clocks to achieve this accuracy. Moreover, both the special relativistic and general relativistic effects on timing need to be taken into account. The system does just that.

 

We would see marked errors in GPS outputs if the timing effects were even marginally different from what relativity predicts. The difference between "truth" and the theories of relativity must be quite small, as the GPS is both a good demonstrator of and test against the theories.

[swansont]

Can physical forces like gravity, magnetism, or whatever, be what is truly behind the clock slowing down?

 

No, because there is more weirdness to it that cements relativity as being the correct answer.

 

It matters if you go east or west. None of those forces can explain this, as far as I am aware — they experience similar gravity, magnetism, and whatever. Only their speed and the gravitational potential matter. Atomic clocks are well-shielded against electromagnetic perturbations anyway, and different types of clocks see the same shift.

[Zelos]

It might become easier to think of if you imagine a 2 spatial dimensional universe instead of 3.

 

Also, not really a valid point or anything, but about test with the two atomic clocks, maybe the moving one being behind the other one is a result of lag and poor lag correction measures? That's assuming this is all a simulation. Not a valid point, but it is kinda interesting to ponder on.

[dichotomy]

No, because there is more weirdness to it that cements relativity as being the correct answer.

 

It matters if you go east or west. None of those forces can explain this, as far as I am aware — they experience similar gravity, magnetism, and whatever. Only their speed and the gravitational potential matter. Atomic clocks are well-shielded against electromagnetic perturbations anyway, and different types of clocks see the same shift.

 

Ok, could high speeds affect the accuracy of the clocks accuracy workings (mechanics, electronics) and thus be not really measuring time per se, but be measuring a clocks ineffectiveness to operate accurately at extremely high speeds?

[Observer]

We talked about this in an ethics class. (Ok so what right). But the question so of struck me as a philosophical question when I first read it.

 

I suppose you can say it is and is not an illusion based on who you ask.

 

One perspective is that time can be measured, in minutes, seconds, days, years, so it can not be an illusion.

 

Yet in my Sociology class we talked about how every choice is made for us. So someone came up with the idea of measuring time, and everyone decided to follow. That is one person's perspective of time, that everyone else adapted to.

 

The ethical perspective: Really, we are only living in the very moment we are in right now. The past is not time, it was time. It already happend. The future is not time, because it has not happened yet. Who is to say that time will not just stop in the very next moment? That the end of everything will not be that next moment.

 

Alright stop me if I'm getting confusing....That's what I get for not sticking to my roots in science though.

 

Still I have to go with my clear cut science methods, time is NOT an illusion. Maybe how its thought of and measured is, but for such an abstract idea, we need something consistant to view time as.

[Zelos]

Time is just another dimension. It's just one that we perceive as different. Like I was saying, it's easier to visualize with 2 spatial dimensions. Imagine a 2D plane in 1 state. Time is stopped. It's like a photograph of the entire 2D universe, so to speak.

Then stacked directly above that is another "snapshot" of that same 2D universe, except ever so minutely different. These "stacks" of 2D universes are basically "snapshots" of every possible state that timeline of that universe will go through. The beings in the 2D universe can't perceive the next "snapshot". Hm... It's a bit half baked, but I don't have the non-laziness required to smooth out the wrinkles. But it would be exactly the same thing except in 3 spatial dimensions for us.

[swansont]

Ok, could high speeds affect the accuracy of the clocks accuracy workings (mechanics, electronics) and thus be not really measuring time per se, but be measuring a clocks ineffectiveness to operate accurately at extremely high speeds?

 

You don't need extremely high speeds to see it, and you can see the effect no matter who is moving (one implication of relativity is that you can't be sure who is moving and who is at rest). And it all works for more than one type of clock.

[dichotomy]

You don't need extremely high speeds to see it,

 

The experiment I heard about did require a high speed jet to fly one clock around the world, and this to only register fractions of a second differences between clocks. What is the slowest speed that results in differences in time?

 

and you can see the effect no matter who is moving

I'm not sure what this means? I thought the experiments with satellites and jets show that the high speed moving clock is the clock that is effected?

 

And it all works for more than one type of clock.

 

So, both mechanical and electronic clocks are effected in the exact same way. Say they are both .2 of a second behind the ground clocks? Is this the type of result?

 

Before I forget, thank you Swansont for the info you provide here.

[stevo247]

Time is the way that we measure change.

[iNow]

Ok, could high speeds affect the accuracy of the clocks accuracy workings (mechanics, electronics) and thus be not really measuring time per se, but be measuring a clocks ineffectiveness to operate accurately at extremely high speeds?

 

This is an interesting thought, dichotomy, however, over 100 years doing thousands of different experiments, many done in different ways by different people using different methods... have ALL shown... it's not some property of the clock itself that causes these differences, but instead some fundamental property of the universe.

 

 

So... there's no need to call Casio or Tag Heuer and suggest they make some change to "fix" the issue of relativity.

[D H]

I thought the experiments with satellites and jets show that the high speed moving clock is the clock that is effected?

Motion is relative. From the POV of the clock on the jet it is the clock fixed to the surface of the Earth that is moving at high speed.