Time is an illusion

[eleos1954]

Good question. Doesn't Scripture only address our bit of the universe?

Yeah .... that's the thing ..... God and His Word is all about relationship with mankind ... with Him, between ourselves .... so time created for us here on planet earth but not to be used outside of that ... or .... does not exist outside of that and is an illusion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It not enough to (subjectively) feel like I am an agent capable of introducing new uncaused causes that emerge from my will alone. I want to actually do it.

But what does that really mean? What decisions do you think you could make that are not a consequence of your genetics, development, and life experiences? If you want to have reasons for the decisions you make, what do you think they should be based on?

For sure randomness doesnt satisfy. There's no "me" in that.

Quite.

It all sounds a bit egoistic. But I think most of us want to belief we can be a genuine origin of events occasionally, even if we'd like the psychic relief that determinism provide.

But how would being a 'genuine origin of events' be different from what I've described? Where would the information and reasons on which you based your decisions come from, if not those sources?

I'm with Isaac Bashevis Singer, “We have to believe in free-will. We've got no choice.”

 

[TheWhat?]

It not enough to (subjectively) feel like I am an agent capable of introducing new uncaused causes that emerge from my will alone. I want to actually do it.

For sure randomness doesnt satisfy. There's no "me" in that.

It all sounds a bit egoistic. But I think most of us want to belief we can be a genuine origin of events occasionally, even if we'd like the psychic relief that determinism provide.

Like the childhood drive to act in ways that intentionally betray rationality. But is it a rebellion against reason or determinism? Both, I think.

We do participate in the origination of events that would not have happened without us, even if determinism is true. Our brains aren't designed to lie to us in that regard. It's the experience of information of potential futures playing a part in that determination, the child acting in irrational ways being a rebellion against reason and determinism, as if to resist some slavery demanded by the mind.

 

[Bradskii]

Also, time on earth is relative. The lifespan of a butterfly is usually measured in days, so the activities it does is severely limited to just being able to mate and perpetuate the species, while the lifespan of a tortoise is measured in hundreds of years, so it appears not to be in a hurry to do anything.

Two mayflies are talking. One says: 'Yeah, things were a lot better back then. But hey, I'm talking 20, 25 minutes ago'.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Rather than illusion, I would say that time is relative. But to what degree is it relative? Is it's definition relative to each planetary system? So for example, in Venus' system, time exists in that she and her moons to molecules rotate, but they rotate in revolution to just each other? Or , perhaps the whole cosmos rotates as a whole affecting the individual parts and visa versa; Thus, making time itself not limited to us, but more complicated and bigger than just what we observe via our own sun, moon, ect. ? And what about interspace, that part of creation that doesn't seem to obey any known physics? How many dimensions are there? It's all very fascinating!

Yeah .... that's the thing ..... God and His Word is all about relationship with mankind ... with Him, between ourselves .... so time created for us here on planet earth but not to be used outside of that ... or .... does not exist outside of that and is an illusion.

 

[Occams Barber]

But you do; things occur as result of your deliberations and choices that wouldn't occur if you didn't exist. It's just that your deliberations and choices are the result of prior events you're largely unaware of.

You evaluate the options, weigh up the consequences, and make your choices. Subjectively they're free choices - you don't know what the outcome will be until you've decided it; objectively, they're the inevitable result of your genetics, development, life experiences, and state of mind at the time (also a result of all that stuff). The importance or weighting you give to various aspects of your deliberations depend on your mood, physiological state, what's on your mind at the time, your beliefs, your preferences, etc. - all themselves dependent on prior events.

You are a unique person, genetically, developmentally, and experientially... if the outcomes of those deliberations were not the result of all those factors, they wouldn't be your choices, would they?

And if we were to allow for some random 'noise' in all of that, the results would be proportionally less your choices, wouldn't they?

I absolutely agree with you if I look at things on a day-to-day behavioural level.

If I go down to a deeper level, I see all things as physics so that even behaviour is ultimately governed by physical laws (which we don't fully know/understand). This means that I accept determinism to the extent that physics is deterministic

While I can't see how things could be otherwise, I admit I have trouble mentally reconciling this view with the apparent freedom of choice we appear to have.

OB

 

[TheWhat?]

Rather than illusion, I would say that time is relative. But to what degree is it relative? Is it's definition relative to each planetary system? So for example, in Venus' system, time exists in that she and her moons to molecules rotate, but they rotate in revolution to just each other? Or , perhaps the whole cosmos rotates as a whole affecting the individual parts and visa versa; Thus, making time itself not limited to us, but more complicated and bigger than just what we observe via our own sun, moon, ect. ? And what about interspace, that part of creation that doesn't seem to obey any known physics? How many dimensions are there? It's all very fascinating!

It's relative to the observer. You know the old time traveler's thought experiment: an astronaut traveling closer to the speed of light will experience time differently than observers on earth. But, there's a caveat: if that astronaut returns, a comparison of formerly synchronized watches will reveal two distinct times at the same location, which indicate two distinct locations in space-time, at the same location, at the same time.

So, assuming a model that integrates space and time, relativity seems to lead to a paradox.

Regardless, I think it's more expedient to interpret the universe as stateful, and relativity doesn't require that any astronaut slip "out of state," to cease to exist, relatively speaking, no matter how fast, slow or awkwardly he travels, and regardless of the state of his watch.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Nice! I like it

It's relative to the observer. You know the old time traveler's paradox: an astronaut traveling closer to the speed of light will experience time differently than observers on earth. But, there's a caveat: if that astronaut returns, a comparison of formerly synchronized watches will reveal two distinct times at the same location, which indicate two distinct locations in space-time, at the same location, at the same time.

So, assuming a model that integrates space and time, relativity seems to lead to a paradox.

Regardless, I think it's more expedient to interpret the universe as stateful, and relativity doesn't require that any astronaut slip "out of state," to cease to exist, relatively speaking, no matter how fast, slow or awkwardly he travels, and regardless of the state of his watch.

 

[lsume]

True but relative isn't the same as illusionary. Is it?

No it is not. I studied time for many years and it is different at the top of your head than your feet when standing. God created time and man doesn’t seem to know how to live without it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I thought eternity is called eternity because it is God's life and we participate in it?

I don't see that in the Bible anywhere.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I absolutely agree with you if I look at things on a day-to-day behavioural level.

If I go down to a deeper level, I see all things as physics so that even behaviour is ultimately governed by physical laws (which we don't fully know/understand). This means that I accept determinism to the extent that physics is deterministic

While I can't see how things could be otherwise, I admit I have trouble mentally reconciling this view with the apparent freedom of choice we appear to have.

I agree - but that's inevitable, the illusion of dualism. We don't include our mental selves as part of the state of the world (deterministic or not) because it doesn't feel like that - our thoughts feel separate from the world, partly because we have little or no insight into their origins - they pop into our awareness from an inaccessible subconscious, and our sense of agency makes us feel like independent entities that act on the world, rather than an integral part of a world interacting with itself.

This sense of the separation of our mental selves from the state of the world is shown best in the definition of free will as the ability to choose differently in a given situation. For example, people may say that in a particular situation they had the choice of vanilla or chocolate ice-cream, and they chose the vanilla ice-cream; but because they have free will they could have chosen the chocolate ice-cream in those circumstances.

But if you ask them what would cause them choose the chocolate ice-cream in identical circumstances instead of vanilla, they will explain it in terms of some difference in their mental state; e.g. preference, mood, recent experience, etc. But this means the circumstances are not identical - they're just not including their mental state in the circumstances. And if they thought it through, they'd realise that their mental state, e.g. mood, preference, recent experience, etc., couldn't be different unless prior circumstances had also been different.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's relative to the observer. You know the old time traveler's thought experiment: an astronaut traveling closer to the speed of light will experience time differently than observers on earth. But, there's a caveat: if that astronaut returns, a comparison of formerly synchronized watches will reveal two distinct times at the same location, which indicate two distinct locations in space-time, at the same location, at the same time.

So, assuming a model that integrates space and time, relativity seems to lead to a paradox.

Regardless, I think it's more expedient to interpret the universe as stateful, and relativity doesn't require that any astronaut slip "out of state," to cease to exist, relatively speaking, no matter how fast, slow or awkwardly he travels, and regardless of the state of his watch.

It's not that there are two different spacetime locations in the same spacetime location (usually called an 'event'), it's that the traveller has experienced less elapsed time than the observers on Earth, i.e. his journey between the two events was subjectively quicker, so he will have aged less and his clock will show that less time has passed for him.

It may be counterintuitive that the longest route between two events has the shortest subjective elapsed time, but it's not a paradox.

 

[durangodawood]

But what does that really mean? What decisions do you think you could make that are not a consequence of your genetics, development, and life experiences? If you want to have reasons for the decisions you make, what do you think they should be based on?....

I want to be a project built from genetics, development, and life experiences, but which is more than the sum of those parts. I want to be an emergent entity with the "rules" of my operation not entirely deducible from antecedent components.

 

[eleos1954]

Rather than illusion, I would say that time is relative. But to what degree is it relative? Is it's definition relative to each planetary system? So for example, in Venus' system, time exists in that she and her moons to molecules rotate, but they rotate in revolution to just each other? Or , perhaps the whole cosmos rotates as a whole affecting the individual parts and visa versa; Thus, making time itself not limited to us, but more complicated and bigger than just what we observe via our own sun, moon, ect. ? And what about interspace, that part of creation that doesn't seem to obey any known physics? How many dimensions are there? It's all very fascinating!

Yes ... it is interesting ....

So, what I ponder is .... God created time for the earth for specific reason(s) .... but outside of the earth .... there is no time .... which if the theory that the universe is expanding continuously is true .... then anything outside of earth is eternity ... and that "earth time" does not apply to it. Eternity has no time - it is timeless.

Genesis says God created the moon and sun and the earth and He set the planets in motion to create seasons, day, and night. (applies to earth .... not the universe).

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Yes ... it is interesting ....

So, what I ponder is .... God created time for the earth for specific reason(s) .... but outside of the earth .... there is no time .... which if the theory that the universe is expanding continuously is true .... then anything outside of earth is eternity ... and that "earth time" does not apply to it. Eternity has no time - it is timeless.

Genesis says God created the moon and sun and the earth and He set the planets in motion to create seasons, day, and night. (applies to earth .... not the universe).

What about the stars which would include planets, perhaps an indefinite number of them?

 

[eleos1954]

What about the stars which would include planets, perhaps an indefinite number of them?

sure ... like I said if the universe is continuously expanding (without end) ... then it would include all those. Hard for us to comprehend the universe really .... it is so massive.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

sure ... like I said if the universe is continuously expanding (without end) ... then it would include all those. Hard for us to comprehend the universe really .... it is so massive.

I see! How lovely!

 

[eleos1954]

I see! How lovely!

The other thing .... if everything outside of earth is eternity .... and time is restricted to the earth (when God created it for mankind - specific purposes) .... then the "young earth" becomes a reality.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Ooh! It does!

The other thing .... if everything outside of earth is eternity .... and time is restricted to the earth (when God created it for mankind - specific purposes) .... then the "young earth" becomes a reality.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree - but that's inevitable, the illusion of dualism. We don't include our mental selves as part of the state of the world (deterministic or not) because it doesn't feel like that - our thoughts feel separate from the world, partly because we have little or no insight into their origins - they pop into our awareness from an inaccessible subconscious, and our sense of agency makes us feel like independent entities that act on the world, rather than an integral part of a world interacting with itself.

This sense of the separation of our mental selves from the state of the world is shown best in the definition of free will as the ability to choose differently in a given situation. For example, people may say that in a particular situation they had the choice of vanilla or chocolate ice-cream, and they chose the vanilla ice-cream; but because they have free will they could have chosen the chocolate ice-cream in those circumstances.

But if you ask them what would cause them choose the chocolate ice-cream in identical circumstances instead of vanilla, they will explain it in terms of some difference in their mental state; e.g. preference, mood, recent experience, etc. But this means the circumstances are not identical - they're just not including their mental state in the circumstances. And if they thought it through, they'd realise that their mental state, e.g. mood, preference, recent experience, etc., couldn't be different unless prior circumstances had also been different.

Exactly right! The number of times I have tried to explain that...it's a constant source of frustration that people don't get it. I'm just so pleased that someone else does (my wife just asked me what I was grinning at).