Is time just a human construct?

  • Thread starter mangaroosh
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Time
In summary, the conversation revolves around the concept of time and whether it is a measurable force or simply a system of measurement. The speaker believes that time does not actually exist and is a subjective rationalization of mankind. They also question the validity of time dilation as evidence for the existence of time. The other speaker argues that time is not a force and that clocks do not measure time, but rather portray units of time. They also argue that the assumption of time's existence is not valid and can be measured through other methods.
  • #1
mangaroosh
358
0
Hey, I just want to be open about the fact that I have already tried to discuss this in the General Physics Forum, but it was dismissed as more of a philosophical issue, so hopefully this section of the Forum will be more open to the discussion.

Having had a glance through some of the other threads in here, it certainly is not a new idea or notion, but it is one I am trying to get a better understanding of, or at least hear a logically coherent refutation of the issue as I perceive it.

I didn't post this in any of the other threads that appeared relevant to the issue as this query appeared to be more basic, and I did not want to derail any of the threads.

I must apologise in advance, as it is more than likely my own understanding that will be developed by, hopefully, drawing on the undoubtedly vast knowledge base in this forum. I doubt I will be providing any mind-blowing insight for anyone, but hopefully you guys won't mind too much indulging a lay person, with an inquisitive mind.


To get to the crux of the issue as I have so far discussed, I am of the opinion that time is not a measurable force/entity/law of nature, but rather a system of measurement akin to the metric system. More pointedly, that time does not actually exist, but is rather the subjective rationalisation of mankind, based on the misinterpretation of naturally occurring phenomena.

One point that seems to be made in support of the existence of time, as a real force of nature, is time dilation, and the experimental results that verify its validity.

The issue I have with this is that time dilation is based on a self-contained set of assumptions that, upon investigation, appear to be fallacious.

The basic assumptions appear to be:
1. That time exists
2. That a clock measures time


Now the issue that I have is with the assumption that a clock measures the force that is known as time. The example I am most familiar with is the atomic clock, where the microwave emissions of changing electrons are noted as the measurement of the force of time. This however, as far as I can see is a non sequitor. To say that the microwave emissions of changing electrons is a measurement of the force known as time, does not follow logically, and is merely an arbitrary interpretation.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this inquiry.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mangaroosh said:
Hey, I just want to be open about the fact that I have already tried to discuss this in the General Physics Forum, but it was dismissed as more of a philosophical issue, so hopefully this section of the Forum will be more open to the discussion.

Having had a glance through some of the other threads in here, it certainly is not a new idea or notion, but it is one I am trying to get a better understanding of, or at least hear a logically coherent refutation of the issue as I perceive it.

I didn't post this in any of the other threads that appeared relevant to the issue as this query appeared to be more basic, and I did not want to derail any of the threads.

I must apologise in advance, as it is more than likely my own understanding that will be developed by, hopefully, drawing on the undoubtedly vast knowledge base in this forum. I doubt I will be providing any mind-blowing insight for anyone, but hopefully you guys won't mind too much indulging a lay person, with an inquisitive mind.To get to the crux of the issue as I have so far discussed, I am of the opinion that time is not a measurable force/entity/law of nature, but rather a system of measurement akin to the metric system. More pointedly, that time does not actually exist, but is rather the subjective rationalisation of mankind, based on the misinterpretation of naturally occurring phenomena.

One point that seems to be made in support of the existence of time, as a real force of nature, is time dilation, and the experimental results that verify its validity.

The issue I have with this is that time dilation is based on a self-contained set of assumptions that, upon investigation, appear to be fallacious.

The basic assumptions appear to be:
1. That time exists
2. That a clock measures timeNow the issue that I have is with the assumption that a clock measures the force that is known as time. The example I am most familiar with is the atomic clock, where the microwave emissions of changing electrons are noted as the measurement of the force of time. This however, as far as I can see is a non sequitor. To say that the microwave emissions of changing electrons is a measurement of the force known as time, does not follow logically, and is merely an arbitrary interpretation.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this inquiry.

I think you've been misled... time is not a force. A force is defined as something that causes a change in motion F=ma F=mg etc. etc.
Another misled assumption is that clocks are measuring what time is. They aren't measuring 'time' in the way you think. They measure or portray what a second is or a minute or an hour. Other methods of measuring time could be different sizes of pendulums swinging or the moon cycle or the stars.

I wouldn't even consider the fact that time exists as an assumption anyways. Why would you say that time is an assumption? Can you show any other way?
 
  • #3
Sorry! said:
I think you've been misled... time is not a force. A force is defined as something that causes a change in motion F=ma F=mg etc. etc.
Another misled assumption is that clocks are measuring what time is. They aren't measuring 'time' in the way you think. They measure or portray what a second is or a minute or an hour. Other methods of measuring time could be different sizes of pendulums swinging or the moon cycle or the stars.

I wouldn't even consider the fact that time exists as an assumption anyways. Why would you say that time is an assumption? Can you show any other way?


apologies, I am having difficulty in classifying time, or trying to pin down what it actually is, or how it is treated in physics.

what is leading me to this questioning, is the way in which time appears to be dealt with in physics - this could just be a fundamental misunderstanding - but time appears to be given very real qualities, in its bundling together with space, in spacetime. It appears that it is purported to exist as either some external entity/law of nature/etc., however it is labelled it appears that it is treated as a real "thing", that exists, as opposed to a concept that was created in the human mind. This appears to be true in the sense that it is said that gravity can exert influence over time, that time itself can potentially be manipulated.
 
  • #4
mangaroosh said:
apologies, I am having difficulty in classifying time, or trying to pin down what it actually is, or how it is treated in physics.

what is leading me to this questioning, is the way in which time appears to be dealt with in physics - this could just be a fundamental misunderstanding - but time appears to be given very real qualities, in its bundling together with space, in spacetime. It appears that it is purported to exist as either some external entity/law of nature/etc., however it is labelled it appears that it is treated as a real "thing", that exists, as opposed to a concept that was created in the human mind. This appears to be true in the sense that it is said that gravity can exert influence over time, that time itself can potentially be manipulated.

Time does have very real qualities you keep saying 'physical qualities' time is not a spatial dimension it is a temporal dimension. Time is basically what allows motion to take place so if we notice a baseballs movement it occurs in stages the progress of these stages is what we call time... how small you measure these stages or how large is irrelevant. Time also has an apparent direction based on entropy.
 
  • #5
mangaroosh said:
time appears to be given very real qualities, in its bundling together with space, in spacetime. It appears that it is purported to exist as either some external entity/law of nature/etc., however it is labelled it appears that it is treated as a real "thing", that exists, as opposed to a concept that was created in the human mind. This appears to be true in the sense that it is said that gravity can exert influence over time, that time itself can potentially be manipulated.
How is this different from any other physics concept? In other words, is your concern that time is somehow given a different treatment from other physics concepts and you think it should be treated the same, or is your concern that time is not treated differently from other scientific concepts and you think it should be treated differently? Why are you singling out time as opposed to say voltage?
 
  • #6
mangaroosh said:
The basic assumptions appear to be:
1. That time exists
2. That a clock measures time

You do seem to be confused about the nature of modelling here. We are pretty sure something time-like exists about reality. Things change, things move. So then we invent a way to measure change and movement. One way is to treat time as a space-like dimension. This has all sorts of well-known issues - space allows motion in both directions but time seems to move forward only. So other models of change are talked about. But treating time as a space-like dimension has proved very powerful in a general way - indeed, a general relativistic way.

So science would not assume time exists. Science has found certain models of change, motion and development to be effective.
 
  • #7
"Time (and space) are conventions,not experiential realities. What one observes as the passage of time or past time objects/events can only be verified when some change occurs. The only sense of time as actually existing is as the casual sum of changes which is experienced in the 'now'. Thus one may have a memory of past event or object such as ones youth but what one does not have a direct experience of time but only the various signs of ageing, which amounts to a variety of changes. Any physical qualities that one tries to give to time as a reality amounts to some observed change. If there was not any change in something, or relational change between things then there would be not any way to measure time at all. As some changes are regular it possible to make a standard measure known as time. For instance the motion of celestial bodies or the decay of atomic particles. These kinds of changes are regular under 'normal' conditions but when the conditions are altered (under higher energy conditions for instance) then the regularity of change ceases. All that is definitely verifiable comes down to the experience of change which under certain conditions is regular and can be shown to follow certain laws whilst those conditions hold. Time as a conventional reality depends completely on this."

Is this right?
 
  • #8
dirkgently said:
"The only sense of time as actually existing is as the casual sum of changes which is experienced in the 'now'.

From the cognitive neuroscience point of view, awareness is anticipatory. Or what philosophers might call intentional. So we don't even naturally experience the now. We are oriented towards what is coming next (based on accumulated prior experience).

We can make attempts to catch the "now" - focus on some fleeting event. But it takes about a third of a second to achieve such a state of attention (about something that has already happened, like the flash of a light). And we have to suppress awareness of events to either side of that instant.

So our experiencing of time is quite complicated. And remembering itself is just anticipation - rousing an expectation of "what it would have been like to be back at that place".
 
  • #9
Time exists simply because there is an entity called time which we associate with our concept of reality. It is actually quite absurd to doubt that time exists in this sense. Also, the concept of time is implemented in our very language. We even use it unconsciously.
 
  • #10
apeiron said:
From the cognitive neuroscience point of view, awareness is anticipatory. Or what philosophers might call intentional. So we don't even naturally experience the now. We are oriented towards what is coming next (based on accumulated prior experience).

We can make attempts to catch the "now" - focus on some fleeting event. But it takes about a third of a second to achieve such a state of attention (about something that has already happened, like the flash of a light). And we have to suppress awareness of events to either side of that instant.

So our experiencing of time is quite complicated. And remembering itself is just anticipation - rousing an expectation of "what it would have been like to be back at that place".

yes that accords with my experience - there is an intentional aspect of the cognition of change is always present in any experience. But I don't think that it is even possible to a have a direct experience of the 'now' aside from this intentional aspect which as you say is anticipatory based on previous experiences of change.This has important implications for how we relate to the 'changiness' of phenomena - especially to do with how shape our experience through that intentional function.
 
  • #11
How does the time-energy uncertainity come in here? Is time analogues to position and energy analogues to momentum like the quantum uncertainty principle? Is measuring position in quantum mechanics like measuring time in general relativity? What is the time of quantum mechanics?
 
  • #12
Time is the measurement of change. There is change, therefore time exists. So we can say it is independent of observation.
 
  • #13
It's 3:05 am. I go to work in 12 hours. I just hope time is correct so that I am not late.
 
  • #14
dirkgently said:
yes that accords with my experience - there is an intentional aspect of the cognition of change is always present in any experience. But I don't think that it is even possible to a have a direct experience of the 'now' aside from this intentional aspect which as you say is anticipatory based on previous experiences of change.This has important implications for how we relate to the 'changiness' of phenomena - especially to do with how shape our experience through that intentional function.

Yes, when modeling the evolution of a system over time, you can point an arbitrary time co-ordinate and describe the state. However, time is a constant forward moving flow, the point is more so a useful abstraction then an absolute physical reality.
 
  • #15
Time does not exist in our head. Concepts of time does. Time is a dimension of our universe, and as such, does exist outside of our minds. If it was just an idea in our head, then why can't we move backwards in time? Why can we only remember the past, and not the future? If its not real, then what separates cause from effect?
Just as we measure gravity in man-made terms, we measure time in man-made terms. Gravity and time are real, and have a relationship. If time was not real, then how can it be effected by gravity? You can look at gravitational time dilation, and space-time.
 
  • #16
Freeman Dyson said:
How does the time-energy uncertainity come in here? Is time analogues to position and energy analogues to momentum like the quantum uncertainty principle? Is measuring position in quantum mechanics like measuring time in general relativity? What is the time of quantum mechanics?

The two could be seen as reflections of particle vs waves descriptions. So there is the uncertainty of particles in terms of the locations and motions or kinetic energy of point-like objects. And then the uncertainty related to a wavelength view where the more narrow the temporal window of obervation, the more uncertain becomes the number of cycles contained within that temporal expanse.

QM occurs in time - the wavefunction evolves in time. And is also collapsed at some point in time.

Where things get really interesting though is the experimental evidence for retrocausality - quantum eraser, hopefully Cramer's planned new experiment, etc. So QM, if taken seriously, must change our conception of time as a simple "motion" from a past to a future "location".

Time could be treated as an extrinsic dimension in the Newtonian model, and an intrinsic dimension in GR, but another kind of model would be demanded as a result of accepting retrocausality.
 
  • #17
apeiron said:
The two could be seen as reflections of particle vs waves descriptions. So there is the uncertainty of particles in terms of the locations and motions or kinetic energy of point-like objects. And then the uncertainty related to a wavelength view where the more narrow the temporal window of obervation, the more uncertain becomes the number of cycles contained within that temporal expanse.

QM occurs in time - the wavefunction evolves in time. And is also collapsed at some point in time.

Where things get really interesting though is the experimental evidence for retrocausality - quantum eraser, hopefully Cramer's planned new experiment, etc. So QM, if taken seriously, must change our conception of time as a simple "motion" from a past to a future "location".

Time could be treated as an extrinsic dimension in the Newtonian model, and an intrinsic dimension in GR, but another kind of model would be demanded as a result of accepting retrocausality.

thanks apeiron. I was worried that would be a really stupid question.
 
  • #18
the_awesome said:
Time does not exist in our head. Concepts of time does. Time is a dimension of our universe, and as such, does exist outside of our minds. If it was just an idea in our head, then why can't we move backwards in time? Why can we only remember the past, and not the future? If its not real, then what separates cause from effect?
Just as we measure gravity in man-made terms, we measure time in man-made terms. Gravity and time are real, and have a relationship. If time was not real, then how can it be effected by gravity? You can look at gravitational time dilation, and space-time.

Everything "exists in our heads" if I must speak your language. Time is a structure in which our minds interpret perceptions. The thing-in-itself have no spatial or temporal properties. Time does not "exist" independent of the mind. The temporal construct is however necessary for human experience, and thus it is naturally firmly implemented in our language.
 
  • #19
Jarle said:
Everything "exists in our heads" if I must speak your language. Time is a structure in which our minds interpret perceptions. The thing-in-itself have no spatial or temporal properties. Time does not "exist" independent of the mind. The temporal construct is however necessary for human experience, and thus it is naturally firmly implemented in our language.
Time is a measurement of change, so it certainly exists outside of our minds. To say that everything exists in our heads is just baloney, yes it is true to some extent, but you have to remember that things exist without observation.

The rules that describe nature seem to be mathematical. This is not a result of the fact that observation is the judge, and it is not a characteristic necessity of science that it be mathematical. Nature in short, is mathematical.
Remember
- The laws are not the observations
 
  • #20
the_awesome said:
Time is a measurement of change, so it certainly exists outside of our minds. To say that everything exists in our heads is just baloney, yes it is true to some extent, but you have to remember that things exist without observation.

The rules that describe nature seem to be mathematical. This is not a result of the fact that observation is the judge, and it is not a characteristic necessity of science that it be mathematical. Nature in short, is mathematical.
Remember
- The laws are not the observations

Is it baloney? Yes, time is incorporated in the meaning of change, and we can indeed measure it with respect to the concept of quantity. How does this imply in any way that it "exists" outside our minds? You say things exist without observation. Does it really make sense to say that? It is actually the very act of observing a thing that makes it senseful to talk about its existence.

Yes, nature is mathematical, but for diametrically different reasons than what you might think. Mathematics is twisted and formed to apply to nature, thus nature is "mathematical" in the same sense as mathematics is "natural".

The natural laws are deliberately over-simplified principles to aid our understanding of natural processes. Natural laws in general does (deliberately) not take the overall complexity of natural processes in account, but captures the essential parts which we can make use of.
 
  • #21
Jarle said:
Is it baloney? How does this imply in any way that it "exists" outside our minds? You say things exist without observation. Does it really make sense to say that? It is actually the very act of observing a thing that makes it senseful to talk about its existence.
Okay let me ask you a question. If there were no humans on Earth - all not existing. Then would the world still exist? The simple answer is YES. You could also refer to the animals on earth. THEY know that they exist, and they know that their environment exists.
In fact, they'd probably be very happy if we didn't exist.
 
  • #22
the_awesome said:
Okay let me ask you a question. If there were no humans on Earth - all not existing. Then would the world still exist? The simple answer is YES. You could also refer to the animals on earth. THEY know that they exist, and they know that their environment exists.
In fact, they'd probably be very happy if we didn't exist.

When you speak of a world in the absence of human beings, are you not thinking of the world in the sense you are now? How does this make sense unless you are assuming your own perspective of an objective mind-independent world? The world is the manifestation of perception. Perception is obviously dependent on the perceiver, thus the world exists for the individual iff the individual is aware of it.
 
  • #23
Jarle said:
When you speak of a world in the absence of human beings, are you not thinking of the world in the sense you are now? How does this make sense unless you are assuming your own perspective of an objective mind-independent world? The world is the manifestation of perception. Perception is obviously dependent on the perceiver, thus the world exists for the individual iff the individual is aware of it.
Sorry but I don't have that belief. How do you know that Pluto exists? Have you yourself observed pluto in anyway? Or have you just been told that it exists?
 
  • #24
the_awesome said:
Sorry but I don't have that belief. How do you know that Pluto exists? Have you yourself observed pluto in anyway? Or have you just been told that it exists?

Well we've been able to observe different forms of data which shows that Pluto exists. I would change Jarles word of 'observe' to simply perceive... some people may argue semantics over the word observe, so :smile:.

However, that doesn't mean that when no one is observing Pluto that it ceases to exist.
 
  • #25
Sorry! said:
However, that doesn't mean that when no one is observing Pluto that it ceases to exist.
Exactly, it's there whether we know it is or not. It's simple logic
 
  • #26
double post
 
  • #27
the_awesome said:
Sorry but I don't have that belief. How do you know that Pluto exists? Have you yourself observed pluto in anyway? Or have you just been told that it exists?

Belief? It is the rejection of the belief in an objective world. It is not me who are doing wishful thinking.

Perception is not restricted to direct perception. I "perceive" Pluto because its existence is held in our community. If I had never heard of Pluto, it would be meaningless for me to say "Pluto exist".

"Ceasing to exist" is only absurd in the realist perspective. It is only absurd if you are believing in the objective world independent of mind. "Ceasing to exist" does not mean the same if you are rejecting this perspective. That pluto "cease to exist" means that "our perception of pluto ceases".
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Jarle said:
Belief? It is the rejection of the belief in an objective world. It is not me who are doing wishful thinking.

Perception is not restricted to direct perception. I "perceive" Pluto because its existence is held in our community. If I had never heard of Pluto, it would be meaningless for me to say "Pluto exist".

"Ceasing to exist" is only absurd in the realist perspective. It is only absurd if you are believing in the objective world independent of mind. "Ceasing to exist" does not mean the same if you are rejecting this perspective. That pluto "cease to exist" means that "our perception of pluto ceases".

Yes this is true Jarle everything you have written I agree with. However just because our perception of Pluto ceases to exist does not necessarily mean that Pluto ceases to exist. It's hard to explain it I guess but I believe things do exist outside of our minds continuously regardless of our perceptions. We give them names and apply laws to them etc. but at a more fundamental level of reality than we understand through our perception things are really there.
 
  • #29
Sorry! said:
Yes this is true Jarle everything you have written I agree with. However just because our perception of Pluto ceases to exist does not necessarily mean that Pluto ceases to exist. It's hard to explain it I guess but I believe things do exist outside of our minds continuously regardless of our perceptions. We give them names and apply laws to them etc. but at a more fundamental level of reality than we understand through our perception things are really there.

I can agree with that there is some externality which we must accept, but I also think you will see that we can not impose any structure whatsoever on this "world". However, calling it external or outside our mind is misleading as they (necessarily) have nothing to do with what we associate with the words "external" and "outside". (actually it is something we must remain silent of - words are useless and meaningless detached from experience)

So, the more or less literal picture of that we are closed inside our minds in an external world is wrong. It suffers from the imposition of spatial and temporal structure to the "external world".

"That" which we perceive as Pluto has no properties whatsoever. It is misleading to call "it" "that" ("it" is no object!), and grotesquely misleading to call "it" "Pluto".
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Jarle said:
I can agree with that there is some externality which we must accept, but I also think you will see that we can not impose any structure whatsoever on this "world". However, calling it external or outside our mind is misleading as they (necessarily) have nothing to do with what we associate with the words "external" and "outside". (actually it is something we must remain silent of - words are useless and meaningless detached from experience)

So, the more or less literal picture of that we are closed inside our minds in an external world is wrong. It suffers from the imposition of spatial and temporal structure to the "external world".

"That" which we perceive as Pluto has no properties whatsoever. It is misleading to call "it" "that" ("it" is no object!), and grotesquely misleading to call "it" "Pluto".

I agree but I don't think this logic requires that which we call Pluto to cease to exist when it stop being 'known' (in a sense... or perceived etc.) as Pluto.

This is off topic though :P
 
  • #31
Sorry! said:
I agree but I don't think this logic requires that which we call Pluto to cease to exist when it stop being 'known' (in a sense... or perceived etc.) as Pluto.

This is off topic though :P

This is certainly not off topic! You are right, but this is because existence in the realist sense is (hopelessly) entangled in our language. However, we can use logic and words while being aware of the meaning of the context in which they are being used.
 
  • #32
Jarle said:
This is certainly not off topic! You are right, but this is because existence in the realist sense is (hopelessly) entangled in our language. However, we can use logic and words while being aware of the meaning of the context in which they are being used.

This is true and as long as we understand that when we use terminology to define that which 'exists' we accept that it exists in reality as we perceive it and not make assumptions about that which 'actually exists' (as in it exists in the way we perceive).

So time does exist in reality because that's the only meaningful way we can 'know' of it. (This last sentence I'm having difficulties wording lol)
 
  • #33
There is a book on this whole subject by a physicist named Julian Barbour called "The End of Time." His conclusion I believe (I have yet to read the book, so I am going by memory of the description) is that time is just a concept created by humans, but that it isn't any actual thing that exists.
 
  • #34
I read that book. He was making an case for time not existing in the classical sense. I don't fully understand what he was thinking but it seemed like he was trying to say that things don't change as in the world is static but the perspective on that world does change. So its like looking at a puzzle of millions of peices scattered across space but instead of just looking at it one way instead we are looking at it from many different ways. Although the book wasn't very good in my opinion and the way he worded things left lots of room for guess work on the part of the reader imo.
 
  • #35
I also read that book completely and was very dissapointed. I had expected that he would actually propose a coherent scientific theory without the use of time or at least show how one could be developed, which he did not. Instead, his whole book was simply an exposition on how Mach's principle applied to time.
 
<h2>1. What is the concept of time?</h2><p>The concept of time is a fundamental aspect of our existence that allows us to measure the duration of events and the intervals between them. It is often described as the progression of events from the past, through the present, and into the future.</p><h2>2. Is time a human invention?</h2><p>The concept of time is a human invention, as it is a way for us to make sense of the world and organize our lives. However, the passing of time is a natural phenomenon that exists independent of human perception.</p><h2>3. How do different cultures perceive time?</h2><p>Different cultures have different ways of perceiving and measuring time. Some cultures view time as cyclical and circular, while others see it as linear and constantly moving forward. Some cultures also place a greater emphasis on the present moment, while others focus on the past or future.</p><h2>4. Can time be manipulated or controlled?</h2><p>While humans have created ways to measure and track time, we do not have the ability to manipulate or control it. Time is a constant force that moves forward at a consistent rate, and we are subject to its passing just like any other living being or object.</p><h2>5. Is time a physical or abstract concept?</h2><p>The concept of time is both physical and abstract. While we can physically measure time using clocks and calendars, it is also a subjective experience that can be influenced by factors such as perception, memory, and emotions.</p>

1. What is the concept of time?

The concept of time is a fundamental aspect of our existence that allows us to measure the duration of events and the intervals between them. It is often described as the progression of events from the past, through the present, and into the future.

2. Is time a human invention?

The concept of time is a human invention, as it is a way for us to make sense of the world and organize our lives. However, the passing of time is a natural phenomenon that exists independent of human perception.

3. How do different cultures perceive time?

Different cultures have different ways of perceiving and measuring time. Some cultures view time as cyclical and circular, while others see it as linear and constantly moving forward. Some cultures also place a greater emphasis on the present moment, while others focus on the past or future.

4. Can time be manipulated or controlled?

While humans have created ways to measure and track time, we do not have the ability to manipulate or control it. Time is a constant force that moves forward at a consistent rate, and we are subject to its passing just like any other living being or object.

5. Is time a physical or abstract concept?

The concept of time is both physical and abstract. While we can physically measure time using clocks and calendars, it is also a subjective experience that can be influenced by factors such as perception, memory, and emotions.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
709
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
95
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
912
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
70
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
998
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top