Time is an illusion

[SelfSim]

It's a philosophical question that is relevant to both science and philosophy. On some subjects, sometimes, we have to dig deeply to get to the truth.

So you believe the truth exists, eh?

Granted, the world isn't going to stop because few people have bothered to check their assumptions, but it's relevant when assumptions lead to the shaping of culture, which relates to popular opinion, social interactions and discourse. At the least, you have to admit, we have quite a bit of fan fiction surrounding time travel, and it's not that I'm worried about kids getting the wrong idea, it's that people are writing books promulgating science-inspired philosophies for our lives. It shapes our lives one way or another, so, sometimes, the issues that surface in our lives because of unintentional cultural consequences, lead us down various rabbit holes such as this one.

I'm somewhat in agreement with you on all of that. Don't assume those you're presently addressing on this thread differ on that front though.
The common interest these folk share, (I believe), is in developing skills in others for distinguishing pseudo-scientific philosophies from actual science.

 

[TheWhat?]

Sure, whatever. My point is that when physics talks of 'time' it means what clocks measure.

One error here is that Einsteinian relativity is a model to describe & explain what we observe. Time dilation and other observations are consistent with this model. We know it is not a complete model, even of our own observations, let alone reality, whatever that may be. But in the domain where it does accurately fit our observations, we can explore its implications - it may make predictions that turn out to be inconsistent with what we observe, in which case we'll learn something.

Whether it predicts that a single event can have two time coordinates, I seriously doubt, but I would like to see the maths behind that claim.

I may be playing the role of physicalist a little too stringently here, but in my prior example of an astronaut and an observer simultaneously comparing previously synchronized watches, I'm not imagining there being any math in existence that renders either of the differing times to be incorrect or non-meaningful.

The important concept you didn't mention here is relativity - time runs more slowly in an inertial frame moving relative to an observer. All observers see their proper time passing at one second per second, so they always perceive the passage of time to be the same (ignoring perceptual distortions).

It's implied, verbosity not being in the best interest of brevity.

Sure; as above, these are models based on observation. We know that Einstein's model has a limited domain of applicability, and we know that it's extraordinarily accurate within that domain, but it's quite possible that none of the ways of obtaining closed time-like curves are actually possible - perhaps, for example, because they don't account for the effects of quantum mechanics. But if they are possible, they're almost certainly not practical for anything less than a Kardashev type III civilization, maybe not even that.

Fair enough. It's an interesting hypothetical.

 

[TheWhat?]

Well, it's been an interesting chat. I do apologize to everyone for any unneccessary bruises, and I hope you can understand that a more or less equal and oppositional force may be required at times in order to stand one's ground.

I'm unsubbing as this thread is taking too much of my time, assuming it exists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I may be playing the role of physicalist a little too stringently here, but in my prior example of an astronaut and an observer simultaneously comparing previously synchronized watches, I'm not imagining there being any math in existence that renders either of the differing times to be incorrect or non-meaningful.

Sure, assuming the watches are functioning correctly, they will show the elapsed time for astronaut and observer between the two events. It's an observation - I don't see how maths could invalidate it.

It's implied, verbosity not being in the best interest of brevity.

OK, it was ambiguous, so worth clarifying.

 

[partinobodycular]

I may be playing the role of physicalist a little too stringently here, but in my prior example of an astronaut and an observer simultaneously comparing previously synchronized watches, I'm not imagining there being any math in existence that renders either of the differing times to be incorrect or non-meaningful.

As I see it there's a huge conflict between your example, and the concept of a universal "now". That conflict arises from the lack of a universal clock, which your example clearly illustrates. No two observers would ever be able to agree on the amount of time that's elapsed between two events. Even your head and your feet disagree about how much time elapses between events. So obviously it's impossible for separate observers to agree.

And since we can't say definitively how much time exists between events, then how can we say for certain that there actually is time between events?

If one says yes, there must be, then the obvious question is...how much?

 

[sjastro]

Is it too much to ask you to present sincere reason in a discussion rather than a red herring so you can fabricate reason as an ad hominem?

Playing the victim card in order to accuse me of ad hom attacks and to do so publicly is a personal attack.

That's the subject, and I didn't create the thread. You have presented none which show that the future exists, now. If that's incorrect, here's my second request: where is the observation that shows that anything in the future exists, now?

Why don’t you try reading my posts as I have addressed your requests, they are both logical fallacies based on argumentum ad ignorantiam.

To makes things clearer here is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[sjastro]

And just so that you can't say I'm totally ignoring you, I'm not disregarding Einstein's relativity.

He predicted time dilation, and it was observed.

But still, as I've demonstrated earlier, this can't be interpreted as disproving presentism -- which, in case you're not aware, assumes a stateful universe and is very close to if not descriptive of a paradigm underlying Aristotle's philosophy of time, causality, etc.

But since none of the observations you have mentioned, never mind the fact that you've presented no useful argumentation, can possibly go any further than an observation of time dilation in proving that presentism is false, and thus implying that things future exist now, we're still lacking needed observation to show that the future exists now.

Of course I didn’t provide “useful argumentation” because as I pointed out in my last post your requests are based on logical fallacies.

Even ignoring this inconvenient fact, time dilation is not very useful to your discussion as it only involves local scales where special relativity is applicable; the issue is on a cosmological scale.
The obvious question to be asked is how far into the future is considered the future?
Assuming the logical answer it doesn’t matter, you run into a problem called the universe’s event horizon which is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future.
Currently the distance to this horizon is around 16 billion light years and beyond this horizon the future of the universe is unknown.

The universe’s event horizon complements the logical fallacies of your argument as the future is unknown making any speculation let alone firm predictions about the future pointless.
This highlights the pitfalls of conflating physics with philosophy.

 

[TheWhat?]

@sjastro

Despite your admitted libel and lack of argumentation, I'm going to let it slide and I hope you have a good day.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Despite your admitted libel

He admitted to nothing. He corrected your terminology.

 

[sjastro]

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.

There is in fact a "universal clock" which measures cosmological time.
Since the universe expands this clock moves with the Hubble flow or in other words is surfing on space-time expansion.
It measures the time elapsed since the BB.
This universal clock is not like a clock which moves in space-time and is therefore not subject to special relativity time dilation.
Furthermore the clock is located away from masses or high energy density regions in the universe and is not affected by time dilation according to general relativity.

Cosmological time forms the basis of the FLRW metric which is the maths behind BB cosmology and is an exact solution of Einstein's field equations.
Albert was probably peeved off with the idea of cosmological time as it is basically a reintroduction of Newton's concept of absolute time.

The cosmological time t=0 can be set for when the BB occurred or for the present cosmological time.
This latter scenario is consistent with lookback time.
Since the speed of light has a finite velocity and information cannot travel faster than the speed of light we see the universe in its past.
The idea that the present is like the future, or it isn't, requires information from the future which is not only impossible but also a breeding ground for the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Petros2015]

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

There's a good vid on it here that I've watched many times

but... I think there's a hole in it
Einstein believed in a static universe, not an expanding one
So, I'm not sure the alien at 5:30 can really EVER bike toward the man at the gas station. Unless he can do so faster than the universe is expanding him away from the man. Which is probably pretty fast, and accelerating(?) over time which is fairly bizzare if that's correct

What this means is that the past IS fixed.
But not the future.
You can think of yourself like a Lense
You focus the possibilities of the future
Into the fact of the past
Which everyone in the Universe needs to live with

 

[Petros2015]

which is fairly bizzare if that's correct

And would be absolutely hilarious if it was because one alien was trying very very hard to bike towards another

 

[partinobodycular]

There is in fact a "universal clock" which measures cosmological time.
Since the universe expands this clock moves with the Hubble flow or in other words is surfing on space-time expansion.
It measures the time elapsed since the BB.
This universal clock is not like a clock which moves in space-time and is therefore not subject to special relativity time dilation.
Furthermore the clock is located away from masses or high energy density regions in the universe and is not affected by time dilation according to general relativity.

Cosmological time forms the basis of the FLRW metric which is the maths behind BB cosmology and is an exact solution of Einstein's field equations.
Albert was probably peeved off with the idea of cosmological time as it is basically a reintroduction of Newton's concept of absolute time.

The cosmological time t=0 can be set for when the BB occurred or for the present cosmological time.
This latter scenario is consistent with lookback time.
Since the speed of light has a finite velocity and information cannot travel faster than the speed of light we see the universe in its past.
The idea that the present is like the future, or it isn't, requires information from the future which is not only impossible but also a breeding ground for the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Thanks

 

[partinobodycular]

The idea that the present is like the future, or it isn't, requires information from the future which is not only impossible but also a breeding ground for the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Sorry sjastro, but I have to question that statement. If determinism is true, then doesn't all the information about the future exist right now?

 

[eleos1954]

There's a good vid on it here that I've watched many times

but... I think there's a hole in it
Einstein believed in a static universe, not an expanding one
So, I'm not sure the alien at 5:30 can really EVER bike toward the man at the gas station. Unless he can do so faster than the universe is expanding him away from the man. Which is probably pretty fast, and accelerating(?) over time which is fairly bizzare if that's correct

What this means is that the past IS fixed.
But not the future.
You can think of yourself like a Lense
You focus the possibilities of the future
Into the fact of the past
Which everyone in the Universe needs to live with

Einstein's conversion from a belief in a static to an expanding universe. Summary: Albert Einstein accepted the modern cosmological view that the universe is expanding long after many of his contemporaries. Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static.

so ... that theory (expanding universe) does indeed theorize that eternity exists .... difficult to wrap our minds around because planet earth is subject to time.

Psalms 115:16

New International Version
The highest heavens belong to the LORD (the cosmos, no time, eternal, but the earth (time exists because God created it for the earth) he has given to mankind.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's a good vid on it here that I've watched many times

but... I think there's a hole in it
Einstein believed in a static universe, not an expanding one
So, I'm not sure the alien at 5:30 can really EVER bike toward the man at the gas station. Unless he can do so faster than the universe is expanding him away from the man. Which is probably pretty fast, and accelerating(?) over time which is fairly bizzare if that's correct

What this means is that the past IS fixed.
But not the future.
You can think of yourself like a Lense
You focus the possibilities of the future
Into the fact of the past
Which everyone in the Universe needs to live with

I don't think that changes the principle inferred from the relativity of simultaneity. In practice, it doesn't make sense to talk of a shared now with remote aliens on the other side of the universe because there's no way to share it - even at the speed of light, information takes a long time to traverse that distance. A 'shared now' is just a local approximation.

 

[Petros2015]

even at the speed of light, information takes a long time to traverse that distance. A 'shared now' is just a local approximation.

Yes, in a sense we are our own Now, but we only ever experience the past of others (or reality).
If you and I are and standing in a room 10' apart from one another, it still takes some time for the light to travel between us. I only ever see you in the past, you only ever see me in the past. I only feel a physical wound in the past (though I may imagine one in the future) It makes little practical difference at non-cosmological distances or speed, but it's there.

 

[sjastro]

Sorry sjastro, but I have to question that statement. If determinism is true, then doesn't all the information about the future exist right now?

Our universe is expanding where the recessional velocity of an object is proportional to its distance from the observer.
Very distant objects exceed the speed of light.
Beyond the universe's particle horizon photons emitted from the object can no longer reach the observer and the object becomes causally disconnected from the observer.
If a photon is emitted now, it will travel a certain (comoving) distance before it reaches a particle horizon of the future universe.
This distance is known as the event horizon beyond which the observer is casually disconnected from any event beyond this horizon.
The determinism argument doesn't work as it is based on cause and effect which disappears beyond the event horizon.

Different types of cosmological horizons can be found in this video.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The determinism argument doesn't work as it is based on cause and effect which disappears beyond the event horizon.

What about locally?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The determinism argument doesn't work as it is based on cause and effect which disappears beyond the event horizon.

But determinism doesn't require everything to be causally connected, just that every event is the consequence of prior events.