Time is an illusion

[TheWhat?]

Your response indicates this since it seems to bear no relevance to anything I said.


There is a flaw in this argument; my post was not about pure mathematics but an example of applied mathematics in physics.
By definition applied mathematics is nowhere near as rigorous as pure mathematics as 'proof' is not the objective.
Approximate solutions to the Navier Stokes equations are used extensively in physics ranging from climate models to how water flows in a pipe but exact solutions is one of the great unsolved problems in pure mathematics with a one million dollar reward to any mathematician who solves it.


Did I mention anywhere in my post about time travel or time dilation?

The subject is time. Are the future and past concretely real, or not? What is meant by "time" and who believes time is illusory: one who thinks change to be illusion, or one who disbelieves that the past or future are concretely real and cannot be traveled to beyond the normal passage of time?

 

[sjastro]

The subject is time. Are the future and past concretely real, or not? What is meant by "time" and who believes time is illusory: one who thinks change to be illusion, or one who disbelieves that the past or future are concretely real and cannot be traveled to beyond the normal passage of time?

I gave my response based on the OP; my response to you is based on you wrote.
I made it perfectly clear I think space-time and time are real and I used examples to support my point.
Your failure to understand the examples conveniently passed off as "not going to try to deconstruct" makes it pointless to engage in counterarguments.

 

[partinobodycular]

In the simplest sense statefulness pertains to a thing that undergoes, experiences or can be changed.

In the stateful interpretation of the physical universe, the difference between now and now + 30 minutes, is found in differences of state, form, configuration, etc. If there is no change of state, there can be no perceptible progression of the passage of time. Progression or reversion through time is achieved only in changes of state.

In the stateless interpretation of the physical universe, the universe cannot be changed. The future exists now, so in some strange mathematical sense, it might be possible that two points along the direction of time might be bridged, though from our perspective, if any object were to cross such a bridge, it would cease to exist relatively, and would "slip out" of the present perceptible state of the universe, even if state transition is but a mere illusion.

This is not what Einstein's relativity requires. Though, with some additions it is a hypothetical possibility known as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge.

It's the fundamental assumptions that may be erroneous and presentism, the stateful interpretation of the physical universe, has never been disproved.

Thanks, that was helpful. But it does leave me scratching my head a bit. To understand why, I took the following quote from the "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy"

God’s relation to each event in a temporal sequence is the same as his relation to any other event. God does not experience the first century before he experiences the twenty-first. Both of these centuries are experienced by God in one “timeless now.” So, while it is true that in the thirteenth century Aquinas prayed for understanding and received it, God’s response to his prayers is not something that also occurred in that century. God, in his timeless state of being, heard Aquinas’ prayers and answered them. He did not first hear them and then answer them. He heard and answered in one timeless moment — in fact, he did so in the same timeless moment that he hears and answers prayers offered in the twenty-first century.
​

Do Christians really believe that this is true? That God sees all of reality in one "timeless now"?

If so, then that leaves me scratching my head...which perspective do you believe is correct...yours or God's?

 

[TheWhat?]

Thanks, that was helpful. But it does leave me scratching my head a bit. To understand why, I took the following quote from the "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy"

God’s relation to each event in a temporal sequence is the same as his relation to any other event. God does not experience the first century before he experiences the twenty-first. Both of these centuries are experienced by God in one “timeless now.” So, while it is true that in the thirteenth century Aquinas prayed for understanding and received it, God’s response to his prayers is not something that also occurred in that century. God, in his timeless state of being, heard Aquinas’ prayers and answered them. He did not first hear them and then answer them. He heard and answered in one timeless moment — in fact, he did so in the same timeless moment that he hears and answers prayers offered in the twenty-first century.
​

Do Christians really believe that this is true? That God sees all of reality in one "timeless now"?

If so, then that leaves scratching my head...which perspective do you believe is correct...yours or God's?

Can you link the source so I can know what I may be agreeing or disagreeing with?

I am not an eternalist, and I don't believe that this reflects the dominant paradigm for physics, philosophy, or religion throughout history.

On a theological spectrum, I interpret Augustine as a presentist, drawing from Aristotle, with presentism being closest to a generalized view of the ancients. I think it's necessary to understand at least a few things that they wrote.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Do Christians really believe that this is true? That God sees all of reality in one "timeless now"?

A moment without duration. A moment without a beginning or end.

 

[TheWhat?]

I gave my response based on the OP; my response to you is based on you wrote.
I made it perfectly clear I think space-time and time are real and I used examples to support my point.
Your failure to understand the examples conveniently passed off as "not going to try to deconstruct" makes it pointless to engage in counterarguments.

Well, suit yourself, but you haven't made a single cogent point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's fine, depending on what you mean by time.

I mean time as used in physics, i.e. what a clock measures.

Except that there exists nothing which renders the coordinate, say t1 = t2 - 30 minutes to be correct, and the other coordinate, say t2 = t1 + 30 minutes to be less correct.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'correct' - there is no absolute reference time to compare against. The clock that has made the longest spatial journey between the two events is less advanced than the other clock because it has experienced less elapsed time. Both clocks show correct reflections of the worldlines they have travelled.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We still run into problems -- at least there is no physical reason to say otherwise -- by assuming that a body at rest is still going places in the direction of the arrow of time, simply because time is passing.

It's just a convenient model for the relationship of objects to the increase in entropy as measured by clocks.

But, it really is not so problematic in my estimation if you consider that Einstein's predictions describe transformations of the physics, the components responsible for what we describe as the passage of time, at a local level, bringing us back to a stateful universe as opposed to one that is stateless with time itself being a traversible dimension.

I don't understand this.

In other words, to arrive at the ToE, in the long run, an overhaul of QM may not be needed so much as an overhaul of Einstein's relativity.

AIUI, current thinking is that GR must be integrated into QM to provide a theory of quantum gravity. The approach that makes the most sense to me is that if the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical (as the evidence suggests), then rather than trying to quantize gravity in the tradition of quantizing classical fields, we should try to derive GR from QM.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Without observations, without the discovery of a wormhole allowing a direct observation into another time within a stateless universe, that time is a dimension remains a baseless assertion.

That the speed at which information may be propagated has an upper limit, implies that change can only happen so fast, producing "time dilation", similar to a doppler effect relative to the motion of some body, which can affect the perceived passage of time relative to the perspective of an observer, implying that the classical physics descriptive of change and the passage of time can be transformed, explains the difference between the recorded time of the formerly synchronized watch of an astronaut who traveled closer to the speed of light and the watch of an observer on earth.

That the astronaut simply took a shortcut through a traversible dimension, arriving at a location that has two distinct, yet correct time coordinates, is irrational on every front.

It's well-accepted that there are solutions of Einstein's equations that allow the warping of spacetime such that wormhole-style travel between otherwise distant spatial locations is theoretically possible. The problems appear to be that it would take enormous amounts of energy, and attempted traversal of the wormhole would destabilise it leading to its collapse - unless exotic (negative energy) matter was available to keep it open.

Other solutions allow closed time-like curves, suggesting that a limited form of time travel is theoretically possible.

E.T.A. I just discovered that one of the wormhole problems may not be one after all: Wormholes may be stable after all, new theory suggests | Live Science.

 

[partinobodycular]

...there is no absolute reference time to compare against.

Just wondering, but couldn't the big bang be used as a universal reference point? Such that any sufficiently advanced being, anywhere in the universe, would agree that the BB occurred 13.8 bya.

 

[partinobodycular]

Can you link the source so I can know what I may be agreeing or disagreeing with?

Sure. But I'm confident that this is a common Christian understanding of the nature of God...that He exists in a "timeless now". So, if you disagree with this source I'm sure that I can find numerous others echoing the same claim.

God and Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[TheWhat?]

I mean time as used in physics, i.e. what a clock measures.

Physics doesn't define time. The definition isn't buried in the math. It assumes its existence. For a definition of time we need to turn to a philosophy of time.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'correct' - there is no absolute reference time to compare against. The clock that has made the longest spatial journey between the two events is less advanced than the other clock because it has experienced less elapsed time. Both clocks show correct reflections of the worldlines they have travelled.

Feel free to clarify where necessary but the basic logic for a perspective using Einstein's relativity as a basis for a philosophy of time appears to be as follows:

• Time is assumed to be a dimension within a spacetime coordinate system, because it is convenient to do so for one's calculations
  
• The math proceeding from the assumptions predicts time dilation
• We assume that what the math says is correct because time dilation is observable
• Because we have assumed that what the math says is correct, we assume time must be a dimension in reality, implying that time is traversible in reality, which in turn implies that there exists pasts or futures which can be traveled to (eternalism)
  
• The math results in a possible situation wherein a single location in our spacetime coordinate system has at least two distinct time coordinates

Usually, in a multi-dimensional coordinate system, this would be impossible. Consistency is key, especially for a coordinate system.

Let me clarify that this isn't what I think Einstein was up to. He began with certain assumptions as any physicist and mathematician must. What his math is saying is not that time travel is possible, but that two observers in different inertial frames of reference can and will experience the flow of time differently, though we still must turn to a philosophy of time to define time.

It's just a convenient model for the relationship of objects to the increase in entropy as measured by clocks.

I don't understand this.

I presume you're familiar with transformations such as Fourier transforms.

Special Relativity has two postulates, the first being "the laws of physics are invariant in all inertial frames of reference". If what it is that would be perceived as the passage of time as governed by the laws of physics is occurring more slowly in one inertial frame of reference than another, and those laws of physics are invariant within each inertial frame of reference, this implies a transformation of certain functions responsible for what it is that we perceive as the passage of time.

I don't think Einstein was so quick to jump onto an eternalism bandwagon, though I'm sure he must have thought about it.

AIUI, current thinking is that GR must be integrated into QM to provide a theory of quantum gravity. The approach that makes the most sense to me is that if the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical (as the evidence suggests), then rather than trying to quantize gravity in the tradition of quantizing classical fields, we should try to derive GR from QM.

Still the use of spacetime as a postulate (eternalism) for QM would seem to result in some strange circular logic if QM is used to establish spacetime. If we can arrive at classical physics from QM, I don't think it will be too problematic to solve if the idea of a stateless, eternalistic universe is disregarded in favor of the stateful universe of QM. It would be more consistent at the least.

It's well-accepted that there are solutions of Einstein's equations that allow the warping of spacetime such that wormhole-style travel between otherwise distant spatial locations is theoretically possible. The problems appear to be that it would take enormous amounts of energy, and attempted traversal of the wormhole would destabilise it leading to its collapse - unless exotic (negative energy) matter was available to keep it open.

Other solutions allow closed time-like curves, suggesting that a limited form of time travel is theoretically possible.

See my post #111 for Godel's response to his solutions for Einstein's equations. A solution doesn't imply reality. Anyone can cook up any system we want and there is no guarantee that it will be congruous with the world of the senses.

 

[TheWhat?]

Sure. But I'm confident that this is a common Christian understanding of the nature of God...that He exists in a "timeless now". So, if you disagree with this source I'm sure that I can find numerous others echoing the same claim.

God and Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The article's underlying philosophy of time is woefully unclear, as is not too uncommon.

But off the top of my head, I have problems with the idea that God is subject to some eternal knowledge of time, and am much more inclined to consider that knowledge, that is, what is knowable about the universe and the passage of time, itself must be subject to an omnipotent creator.

 

[partinobodycular]

The article's underlying philosophy of time is woefully unclear, as is not too uncommon.

I agree, that's not an uncommon problem, especially when it comes to God's relationship with time, and physical reality. Does He perceive change in it or not? Does "now" exist for God differently than yesterday or tomorrow do?

But off the top of my head, I have problems with the idea that God is subject to some eternal knowledge of time, and am much more inclined to consider that knowledge, that is, what is knowable about the universe and the passage of time, itself must be subject to an omnipotent creator.

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but that too sounds woefully unclear. I assume it means that God has no perception of the passage of time, but rather He possesses the knowledge of all events, past, present, and future. So for God they exist as one "timeless now".

But that still begs the question, for God is any one point in time any more "real" than any other point in time?

If not, if there's no difference between them, then either all of them are real, or none of them are real. And what does one even mean by "real"? Why should I presume that my concept of "real" is superior to God's concept of real?

Alas, the very subject does lend itself to being woefully unclear.

 

[TheWhat?]

I agree, that's not an uncommon problem, especially when it comes to God's relationship with time, and physical reality. Does He perceive change in it or not? Does "now" exist for God differently than yesterday or tomorrow do?


I hope you don't mind me saying so, but that too sounds woefully unclear. I assume it means that God has no perception of the passage of time, but rather He possesses the knowledge of all events, past, present, and future. So for God they exist as one "timeless now".

By "knowledge" in this context I mean something that is knowable, assuming God knows all that is knowable. It means simply that a creator creates what is knowable about the creation. If it were not so, what is knowable would be uncreated, and concerning that which is knowable about creation, if it were uncreated, it implies creation is in some sense uncreated. Therefore, to avoid contradiction, that God is omnipotent creator requires creation, including that which is knowable about creation, to be created and subject to its creator.

But that still begs the question, for God is any one point in time any more "real" than any other point in time?

If we assume an Aristotelian view of time and reality inclusive of potentiality and actuality, then yes, what has not been realized is not real in the same sense as that which has been realized.

If not, if there's no difference between them, then either all of them are real, or none of them are real. And what does one even mean by "real"? Why should I presume that my concept of "real" is superior to God's concept of real?

Alas, the very subject does lend itself to being woefully unclear.

Well, to a presentist it is simply that all that is present, tangible, physical, concrete, etc., is real. We can consider that potentiality, possibilities, etc., in an abstract sense are real also, but things that only potentially exist have not been realized.

 

[partinobodycular]

By "knowledge" in this context I mean something that is knowable, assuming God knows all that is knowable.

But couldn't I, at least in some sense, claim that I possess such knowledge?

If reality is deterministic, then doesn't the present contain all the knowledge necessary to create both the past and the future? And can't I narrow it down even further than that, such that my existence necessitates the existence of other things, which in turn necessitate the existence of still further things, and so on, and so on, until from my existence alone I can extrapolate the existence of everything else? Past, present, and future.

So in some sense, if reality is deterministic, then I possess the knowledge necessary to create everything that ever has or will exist.

So to argue for the need of a transcendent creator one must first argue as to why that knowledge can't be said to exist in reality itself.

As an aside, it's this argument that holds out the possibility of solipsism...that my existence is all that's required to necessitate the existence of everything else. Not that I hold this to be true, but neither do I dismiss the possibility out of hand.

 

[TheWhat?]

But couldn't I, at least in some sense, claim that I possess such knowledge?

Things that are knowable about the universe may be knowable to you as well, though you are limited.

If reality is deterministic, then doesn't the present contain all the knowledge necessary to create both the past and the future?

So, yes, presentism does seem to me to re-approach a deterministic reality similar to eternalism, but it remains fundamentally different in that it does not recognize the existence of future points in the direction of time. There is still no place in spacetime to go to that doesn't yet exist.

And can't I narrow it down even further than that, such that my existence necessitates the existence of other things, which in turn necessitate the existence of still further things, and so on, and so on, until from my existence alone I can extrapolate the existence of everything else? Past, present, and future.

So in some sense, if reality is deterministic, then I possess the knowledge necessary to create everything that ever has or will exist.

I'm not sure that your existence necessitates the existence of anything else, so much as your awareness of things necessitates the awareness of your own existence.

So to argue for the need of a transcendent creator one must first argue as to why that knowledge can't be said to exist in reality itself.

As an aside, it's this argument that holds out the possibility of solipsism...that my existence is all that's required to necessitate the existence of everything else. Not that I hold this to be true, but neither do I dismiss the possibility out of hand.

I'm not trying to justify the necessity of the existence of a Creator. For that, following from causality, the necessity of a Prime Mover, etc., is a classical approach to take. Godel's proof may be useful as well. I'm far more empirical -- my awareness of God necessitates that I am aware He exists.

What you're saying does sound like a variation of the Cogito that I've found useful against solipsism: in as much as you can be certain that you are reading the product of a mind comparatively intelligent to your own, and that that mind is not your mind, then you can be certain that another mind has at least at some point existed beyond your own. From there it follows that an objective reality must also exist.

 

[TedT]

So there is this theory/concept that time is an illusion

All time is merely the measurement of change. Time only does not exist when there is absolutely no movement, no change of anything, anywhere.

 

[eleos1954]

One can not measure the cosmos .... it is continuously expanding. It can't be measured.

 

[atpollard]

So there is this theory/concept that time is an illusion .... have been reading about it a bit. (you can google it)

so... am curious .... IF true how does that impact your current beliefs in regard to formation of the universe (regardless what that is)?

I'm not saying true or false .... I'm putting forward IF true.

What are your thoughts about it?

My thought is: the theory of the non-existence of time is empirically self-contradictory … so I will go to work Monday morning.