Can You Imagine a Universe Without Space and Time?

[Curious6]

My personal opinion is that space and time are two inherent characteristics of the Universe and that the Big Bang didn't mark the creation of space and time but perhaps of our own spacetime. Even an empty geometry is a sort of space. I would like to hear other people's insights on this topic.

 

[eNathan]

Im confused on your conclusion...Are you saying the BB united space and time?

 

[Curious6]

What I was trying to say is that the Big Bang theory asserts that at the moment of the Big Bang both time and space were created at that instant. However, I believe that rather than marking the absolute beginning of space and time, this point only marked the beginning of our 4D (or 11D if string theory is right) spacetime, and that a previous space and time have always existed and that this spacetime is infinite. What are your (or any other person reading this) insights on this?

 

[PIT2]

Well here's a quote (i forgot from who):

"Time exists to prevent everything happening all at once; space exists to prevent everything happening at all the same place."

 

[Adrian Baker]

Time and space in OUR universe were created in the big bang. If there is another time and space elsewhere, it is not in our universe and is therefore separate from our existence. As this is the case, you can postulate anything you want to that is 'outside' our Universe. That's fine, but you end up with pointless discussions of the 'how many angels can dance on a pinhead' variety.

 

[Chronos]

Any conceptual universe that has a beginning [i.e., a big bang] has time and spatial components that shrink to zero when you run the movie backwards. I see no way to escape that conclusion given current observational evidence. If time and space preceed a universe, that universe is not background independent, it is merely pasted over a preexisting canvas. That's not a bad idea, but how do you derive any meaningful predictions from it? It might be a great idea, but not scientifically useful.

 

[RAD4921]

The illusion of space and time.

My personal opinion is that space and time are two inherent characteristics of the Universe and that the Big Bang didn't mark the creation of space and time but perhaps of our own spacetime. Even an empty geometry is a sort of space. I would like to hear other people's insights on this topic.

As to whether time exist has been hotly debated for thopusands of years. As to whether space exist flies a little too hard into face of "normal" everyday experience, though I believe both are illusions of the discriminating mind of man. Most of my belifs are based on modern conceots such as time dialation, quantum nonlocality and entanglement.

The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics
by Julian Barbour "Nothing is more mysterious and elusive than time..." (more)
SIPs: relative configuration space, mist intensity, created wave mechanics, static wave function, latent histories (more)




Search inside this book
Share your own customer images List Price: $35.00
Price: $35.00 & This item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. See details
Availability: Usually ships within 2 to 4 weeks from Amazon.com. Sold by Amazon.com.

 

[Picklehead]

I've read that one. Cant say I understood much of it beyond the idea of Nows in what he calls Platonia.

 

[RAD4921]

Illusion

My personal opinion is that space and time are two inherent characteristics of the Universe and that the Big Bang didn't mark the creation of space and time but perhaps of our own spacetime. Even an empty geometry is a sort of space. I would like to hear other people's insights on this topic.

Time and space are illusions.

 

[Curious6]

I don't think it's appropriate to say space and time are illusions. Maybe the true nature of space and time has not been deciphereded yet, and perhaps spacetime is not fundamental, but only emergent at larger scales. However, this does not mean that space and time are illusions, just that their underlying nature is not fully understood yet and that a quantum gravity theory will help to understand it.

 

[Yank]

^^If time and space are illusions, what aren't illusions? What's the difference between illusions and non-illusions? In my opinion that word doesn't even mean anything. If you can perceive something, it exists, and that's all there is to it (again, IMO).

Original question: Nope, can't imagine it. Without time the universe would be frozen in a single instant forever, and without space there would be nothing for time (or anything else) to occupy. The quote by PIT2 pretty much says it all.

 

[Tigron-X]

Time is a measurment of events in a sequence, so to imagine the universe without time would be to imagine a motionless void.

Space is defined by energy moving through different states of value, so to imagine the universe without space would be to imagine a point that is also the encompassing void-(for a lack of a better term).

 

[Tigron-X]

^^If time and space are illusions, what aren't illusions? What's the difference between illusions and non-illusions? In my opinion that word doesn't even mean anything. If you can perceive something, it exists, and that's all there is to it (again, IMO).

Typically, an illusion is an image of a defined source that becomes present by the reflection of light. So to claim that space and time are an illusion, would be basically a claim that both are a mirrored image of some undefined source. It's an invalid statement unless when I look in the mirror I see an illusion of an illusion. That would be cool because then I could walk through a mirror.

 

[Gaijin]

i say that there is no such thing as time, only space and matter. what we se as "time" is really our brain relating the increase in enthalpy(decay/ randimization) of matter to an easy to understand form of past, present and future. see rant in "The past IS real" thread

so therefore, sure a universe could exist without "time" if there was no enthalpy or decay, but without space, i can't even begin to think about an alternative to space and matter.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Well here's a quote (i forgot from who):

"Time exists to prevent everything happening all at once; space exists to prevent everything happening at all the same place."

And they both failed, miserably.

 

[Tournesol]

i say that there is no such thing as time, only space and matter. what we se as "time" is really our brain relating the increase in enthalpy(decay/ randimization) of matter .

Increase with respect to what ? How do you know it is not decreasing or staying the same ?

(Yes, there is a scientific law that says entropy increases , but its a law that assumes there is some reality to time).

 

[Dr.Yes]

And they both failed, miserably.

Let me clarify.

Time and space are tools we have fashioned and used to survive. We created them with our brain which needs benchmarks and predictable sequences to support the body which in turn supports the brain. If our brain were to see the universe as it really is, which is a large simultaneous event, happening all at the same time in the same place, the survival of our species would be very short lived.

Therefore, time and space certainly serve as survival tools that keep our brains from overloading on a simultaneous surge of information but, time and space have not changed the nature of the quantum universe. And in that way, time and space have both failed miserably in their bid to 'organize' the universe.

 

[Tournesol]

If our brain were to see the universe as it really is, which is a large simultaneous event, happening all at the same time in the same place, the survival of our species would be very short lived.

Or it would be vastly enhanced, because we wouldbe able to know the
future. (Actually, it owuldn't make any difference: if the future is fixed, out survival, or lack of it, is predetermined).

Therefore, time and space certainly serve as survival tools that keep our brains from overloading on a simultaneous surge of information but, time and space have not changed the nature of the quantum universe. .

And the quantum universe isn't a mental construct ?

 

[beasirius]

Some one covered this is passing, but should time proceed in only one direction? Of the four (fully known) dimensions, why is time's progression always from the present to the future. It is not a necessity didacted by the equations...Why should the arrow of time, therefore, alway go only forward? Also, is space-time the same in other multi-verses? Lisa Randall, the Harvard physicist and cosmologist, speaks of other bizarre possibilities for spacetime within other dimensions and enfolded multiverses. Her book is called Warped Passages...Good read!

 

[Dr.Yes]

And the quantum universe isn't a mental construct ?

In philosophy there are different levels of thought. On one level all constructs are mental constructs because humans have a brain that creates mental constructs out of the stimulus it receives (for the most part).

On another level there are certain universal quantifications and qualifications that, for the most part, are experienced by all humans. Since we are humans, that is significant to us. But what we construct with our brains is really only usefull to us in that it has arranged an overwhelming amount of stimulus in such a manner as to allow the brain's host organism to sustain a conscious awareness of its environment.

Even amongst individual humans certain mental constructs differ and vary to such a degree as to be unrecognizable from one individual to the next. But, there are other constructs that appear to be universal... (disregarding a 4% percentage of error in calculations.)

One of those constructs that verges on being a universal experience is the physical condition. Most humans agree on the various conditions that describe a physical universe. So, their mental construct carries more "gravity" than the mental construct that belongs only to one person. More people will believe a mental contruct that is centred around a widely experienced one.

A quantum state is, eventually, experienced by us as a mental construct.

I don't know if you know this but you see the world upside down due to the lenses in your eyes.

Your brain inspects your environment and that information tells the brain that it should turn the image its getting from your eye's lenses right-side-up.

I am more that confident that a similar function is going on with the brain and how it deals with the quantum state. It tells the rest of its host body that "there is space and there is time, so, relax", when in reality (concerning quantum reality) everything is happening here and now.

 

[Tournesol]

One of those constructs that verges on being a universal experience is the physical condition.

Including time. People can keep appointments , so they must agree on a basic
concept of time.

A quantum state is, eventually, experienced by us as a mental construct.

You seem to be using "quantum" to indicate rality in the raw, which is most odd.

I am more that confident that a similar function is going on with the brain and how it deals with the quantum state. It tells the rest of its host body that "there is space and there is time, so, relax", when in reality (concerning quantum reality) everything is happening here and now.

You haven't really explained why.

 

[Dr.Yes]

I think its odd you'd write the words "rality in the raw". If you mean reality in the raw, that's still a weird and unattainable mental construct, for this individual.

Please explain raw reality.

I don't have to explain why everything is happening here and now. It just is.

It's obvious. Its a matter of potentiality. There is a whole mechanism to excavating the relative universe and revealing the quantum sub-strata that makes it all possible.

Suffice to say that what you see with your eyes, smell, feel, sense and so on is being organized, quantified and utilized by your brain so that a) you keep your brain working and b) you make it to the fridge for more beer.

My answer to Tournesol's question "Can you imagine a universe without space or time?" is yes. Furthermore, I'm trying to point out that we are living (t)here now!

 

[Tournesol]

I think its odd you'd write the words "rality in the raw". If you mean reality in the raw, that's still a weird and unattainable mental construct, for this individual.

Is it ? You say the universe seems spatio-temporal to us, but really isn't.
That is a statement about reality-in-the raw -- about how things are and not just about how they seem.

I don't have to explain why everything is happening here and now. It just is.

"P just is" is not an argument for P.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Is it ? You say the universe seems spatio-temporal to us, but really isn't.
That is a statement about reality-in-the raw -- about how things are and not just about how they seem.

I think we'd have to agree upon a definition of reality before we can continue this one.

"P just is" is not an argument for P.

Who's arguing?

I'd like to suggest that you view the documentary "What the bleep do we know?" as a reference to my answer to your question. You'll find that in most those interviews many physicists and philosophers support my view that this universe exists without time or space. That state is one reality out of a potentially infinite number of realities that humans can and do experience.

www.whatthebleep.com

 

[Tournesol]

Is that the same WTB that has been widely condemned as nonsense on this board ?

 

[Dr.Yes]

Is that the same WTB that has been widely condemned as nonsense on this board ?

Potentially.

 

[NorthJet]

Thank you for the good read folks, I have enjoyed it thus far.

Can You Imagine a Universe Without Space and Time?

Short answer? No. I have my reasons for thinking this, here is something I wote that is open to criticism:

Time is the only thing that I know that starts and stops in the same instant.
There is no such thing as present time,
Only the past and future working concurrently
It is the very nucleus of existence,
With the weight of uncertainty on the other side,
and
The weight of perception and experience on the other.
Our reality is so multi-faceted, that it starts on the near side of our feelings and ends on the far side of our thoughts and dreams.
Suffice to say that,
Life, meaning, and time all coexist to create the reality we have come to know.
That perhaps life and time are one in the same,
That you can not have one without the other.
Meaning, is our enzyme to discover, learn, fail, and prove…
To love and hate.
If time goes somewhere, where does it come from?
Perhaps it is not directional at all, perhaps it is a constant….
Cyclical and intangible in nature.
Much like our lives? Both being non-linear?
Then why have both been projected as linear entities? Something to be graphed or counted or predicted.
Maybe it is an all inclusive function,
Where we are subject to laws of our surroundings, and not vice versa.
Where meaning is actually the recognition and the understanding of these observations.
I think I have recognized, with the exception of one thing…
If I can not remember anything before being born, it is possible that it has happened and will happen within the same moment?
So maybe,
Life is the only thing I know that starts and stops in the same instant.

 

[sneez]

Only past and future ?

Past is only due to the brain (memory) so we cannot even talk about past.

Future is ony directly related to the past. Meaning without memory we would only life present and future would never come since there was no past.

So actually its only present that exists. how about that :D

The mind perceives the world as OBJECTS in the dimensions of SPACE and TIME.

An object is anything that can be measured in the dimension of space and time – space and time are not objects - no human being understands the extent of space or time.

The mind can only perceive concrete objects. Abstract objects are ideas extracted from the interaction of concrete objects.

Already we have understood that without mind there is no memory and without memory there is no mind. What would be the use of consciousness that we can not remembered?

Therefore, the essence of the mind is what we vaguely understand as space. Objects are not contained in space; instead, they are measured in space. Space is a meaning rather than a physical reality.
Time also is not a physical reality – it is a meaning giving existence by memory.

 

[NorthJet]

Well, nicely said.
But this would only be true if life, time, space, and memory were all a linear functions. They could be a cyclical movement which continuously repeats itself in sequences; therefore the 'present' could be the mind making sense of the past/future (sanity) and absolute chaos shift, which all happens as natural as breathing does. :P
This mind and memory are subject to the laws of the world and can only percieve what we consider our own limitations. Time itself could be a measurement of space; space between two objects or space between two dates.
It is all interesting to think about, thanks for the debate!

 

[Canute]

I'm with Dr. Yes. Time and space serve to separate events and objects in certain frames of reference but not in all of them. There is one observer-perspective from which everything does happen all at once in the same place. (And, after all, if something is nonlocal then it is everywhere at once at all times with some finite probability).

Physicists have not yet shown that time and space exist except as concepts, so it seems that the scientific evidence leaves us free to speculate. But in all the mystical religions spacetime is not fundamental (not exactly illusions but no more than appearances) so if science can show that spacetime is fundamental then they will put an end to Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, Christian mysticism and the rest. My prediction is that this is never going to happen, and that it is impossible to scientifically prove that spacetime is fundamental.

As I understand it the way out of this for M-theory seems to be the 'hypothesis of duality'. This says that theories that are background dependent and theories which are background independent are both required to account for the state of the universe, and that the two types of theory refer to the same thing but capture opposite aspects of it. If this is so then M-theory is strong evidence for the 'mystical' view of spacetime, which says exactly this.

But it also says that we cannot imagine the absence of space and time. Rather, we have to experience it directly, non-conceptually, or 'immaterially' as Evagrios puts it.

 

[metacristi]

My personal opinion is that space and time are two inherent characteristics of the Universe and that the Big Bang didn't mark the creation of space and time but perhaps of our own spacetime. Even an empty geometry is a sort of space. I would like to hear other people's insights on this topic.

The idea that our universe appeared from a state of empty geometry is not at all new (it seem to be 'hinted' by GR). But it's very difficult to imagine what would mean the existence of 'something' without any sort of space and time, usually this empty geometry is identified by many (Guth is one of them) with the absolute nothingness of philosophers. Not to mention that GR postulates its own demise at the moment of Big Bang...The idea that something can exist outside a spacetime structure (not necessary ours) is rather speculative, at least from what we know now, though by no means absurd. I've already touched this subject here.

 

[Tournesol]

There is one observer-perspective from which everything does happen all at once in the same place. (And, after all, if something is nonlocal then it is everywhere at once at all times with some finite probability).

Which is what ?

Physicists have not yet shown that time and space exist except as concepts,

You can measure them , so they can't be "just concepts".

 

[SteveRives]

My personal opinion is that space and time are two inherent characteristics of the Universe and that the Big Bang didn't mark the creation of space and time but perhaps of our own spacetime. Even an empty geometry is a sort of space. I would like to hear other people's insights on this topic.

You assume time is a thing.

"run" is not a thing, it is a description of what I do when I try to loose weight.

"time" is how we describe the relationship of events. It is not a thing (or if it is, I have never heard of it being put on a table and cut open).

For example: when we experiment with "time", as in sending an atomic clock on a fast ride and then comparing it to a stationary clock, what we are observing is the relationship of moving atoms to stationary atoms.

Steve Rives

 

[Canute]

You can measure them , so they can't be "just concepts".

This doesn't seem to be an objection so much as a reason for finding the idea counterintuitive. So far, at least, the evidence allows the possibility.

 

[Tournesol]

I know of no such evidence. Space and time may be secondary of epihenomenal in some way, but that is far from being non-existent. Heat is an epiphenomenon of molecular rmotion, but that does not make it "just a concept"

 

[Canute]

Well, I tend to take my cues from physicists themseves. Here is Lee Smolin.

"When we imagine we are seeing into an infinite three-dimensional space, we are falling for a fallacy in which we substitute what we actually see for an intellectual construct. This is not only a mystical vision, it is wrong."

Lee Smolin
Three Roads to Quantum Gravity
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000 (64)

Smolin completely misunderstands the mystical view, which is to think we are seeing into an infinite three-dimensional space is irrational, but the idea that spacetime is a conceptual construct he seeems to be ok with.

 

[Tournesol]

Maybe he was just objecting to infinity.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Maybe he was just objecting to infinity.

Yes. It is the idea of infinity that he thinks is just an intellectual construction, that is wrongly identified with perceptual vagueness at very large distances.

 

[Gold Barz]

Did my post get deleted in here? because I swear to god I posted in here

 

[Canute]

Well, perhaps that's what Smolin meant, I'm no physicist, but this is not the impression I get from his words. It seems to me he argues that spacetime is, or may not be, fundamental. Here he is again -

"Time is but a measure of change - it has no other meaning. Neither space nor time has any existence outside the system of evolving relationships that comprise the universe. Physicists refer to this feature of relativity as background independence." (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (24))

Also, if it is only the idea of infinity that Smolin doesn't like then it follows that, for him, spacetime exists but is not infinite. Where is the evidence to justify this view? I haven't seen any, Smolin doesn't give any, and I doubt that he would just adopt an ad hoc hypothesis.

Also, what did Mlodinow mean by this?

" But its strangest aspect is this: in M-theory, space and time, in some fundamental sense, do not exist."

Leonard Mlodinow
‘Euclid’s Window’ (258)

 

[Tournesol]

"Time is but a measure of change - it has no other meaning. Neither space nor time has any existence outside the system of evolving relationships that comprise the universe. Physicists refer to this feature of relativity as background independence." (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (24))

That doesn't mean S&T don't exist at all, it means they don't exist beyond the relationships between material bodies; all that means is they are secondary or epiphenonemal.

" But its strangest aspect is this: in M-theory, space and time, in some fundamental sense, do not exist."

Again, not existing in a fundamental sense is not the same as not existing
simpliciter. And if these results have been arrived at empirically S&T cannot
be "just concepts" -- they must have some real-world content.

 

[Canute]

That doesn't mean S&T don't exist at all, it means they don't exist beyond the relationships between material bodies; all that means is they are secondary or epiphenonemal.

Thank you. That's all I suggested. If you look I did not say that they didn't exist but that they were conceptual constructs. Brian Greene says the same in his book. He writes that physicist sometimes sum up this possibility by saying that spacetime may be an illusion. By 'illusion' is meant non-fundamental. For a metaphor he cites the smell of roses. He speaks of spacetime's impending departure from deep physical law. As far as I can see what I wrote earlier is scientifically uncontentious.

Again, not existing in a fundamental sense is not the same as not existing simpliciter.

Of course.

And if these results have been arrived at empirically S&T cannot be "just concepts" -- they must have some real-world content.

I'm not sure I understand this bit. Naturally space and time have some real world content if you call the world in spacetime the real world. It's tautologically true. But epiphenomena are not real in the same sense as that upon which they are epiphenomenal. Isn't that what we mean when we call something epiphenomenal? It's certainly what's meant by it in philosophy of mind. What is most real must be that to which everything reduces, and may be that to which space and time reduce, if they are not fundamental.

The question was: Can we imagine a world without space and time? Kant and Greene say no and I'd agree. I was merely pointing out that it does not necessarily follow from this that space and time are anything more than concepts and noting that some physicists speculate that this is exactly what they are, and suggest that we may be naive to think otherwise. They may be wrong of course, but it's not an ad hoc hypothesis, an unscientific idea or in any way contrary to the scientific evidence, or any other evidence come to that. I think you might be objecting to something I didn't say.

Canute

 

[Ubern0va]

My personal opinion is that space and time are two inherent characteristics of the Universe and that the Big Bang didn't mark the creation of space and time but perhaps of our own spacetime. Even an empty geometry is a sort of space. I would like to hear other people's insights on this topic.

This has plagued me for a while now. My brain wants to explode at the very thought of this concept. This is similar to a post that I replied to eariler where I stated that such a concept is incomprehensible to the human mind. It's like attempting to describe and define sight to a person who's been blind since birth.

What's bothered me even more is the fact that there is no conceiveable answer for why pure non-existance (of which you speak) transformed into existence as we know it (space, time, nothingness, etc...). Our being on this Earth seems irrational, illogical,and thus impossible.

The only thing that keeps me sane is knowing that it had to occur somehow, otherewise I wouldn't be here to reply to this post. :)

 

[Canute]

Perhaps you're right and there is no conceivable answer, and perhaps this is why mystics insist that it is necessary to transcend the conceptual to know the answer. If you assume that the non-existent became the existent, that Being comes from non-Being as philosophers often put it, then your brain may well explode, for it makes no sense. But it is not actually necessary to make this assumption. In the mystical view what is fundamental exists in a stronger sense, is more real, than our phenomenal universe (even though there is a sense in which it does not exist). A metaphor would be our dreams, for we do not usually scratch our heads over the origins of our dream-worlds, obviously we dream them up. This is directly connected to the non-fundamental nature of space and time, for if they are not fundamental then something else is, and by definition it must be capable of existing in the absence of temporality or spatial extension. Perhaps the fifth dimension proposed by Theodor Kaluza is something like what this is, from a scientific perspective.

 

[Tournesol]

Thank you. That's all I suggested. If you look I did not say that they didn't exist but that they were conceptual constructs.

Meanign what ? That they were literally created by us ? Or meaning that
we cannot recognise them without first having the construct ? Or that
they are "just concepts" in the sense that unicorns are ?

Brian Greene says the same in his book. He writes that physicist sometimes sum up this possibility by saying that spacetime may be an illusion. By 'illusion' is meant non-fundamental.

Well, those two words just aren't equivalent. Epiphenomenal means
non-fundamental. Waves are an epiphenomenon of water, but they
are not illusions. Mirages are illusions, but they are not epiphenomena.

For a metaphor he cites the smell of roses.

What's illusory about that ?

I'm not sure I understand this bit. Naturally space and time have some real world content if you call the world in spacetime the real world. It's tautologically true. But epiphenomena are not real in the same sense as that upon which they are epiphenomenal.

Nor are they imaginary or illusory.

The question was: Can we imagine a world without space and time? Kant and Greene say no and I'd agree. I was merely pointing out that it does not necessarily follow from this that space and time are anything more than concepts

But if something is "just a concept" in the way unicorns are, it can very readily be imagined away.

and noting that some physicists speculate that this is exactly what they are,

The level of exactitude is just the problem. "illusion" , "epiphenomenon" ,
"intellectual construct" all mean different things.

 

[Canute]

Meanign what ? That they were literally created by us ? Or meaning that
we cannot recognise them without first having the construct ? Or that
they are "just concepts" in the sense that unicorns are ?

This seems a matter of interpretation and of ones particular view of the universe. In some views spacetime are 'illusions' in all these senses (E.g. Spencer Brown and Eddington), Probably the meaning needs to be clarified when it is used to separate out these meanings. Einstein wrote "The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before it can find them in things." I imagine he meant that the construct comes before the object. (I'm not making the argument here that he's right, by the way, but he might be).

On the specific issue of time, by implication space and time, Greene quotes a conversation with AE.

"Einstein said that the problem of the now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter for painful but inevitable resignation.

This resignation leaves open a pivotal question: Is science unable to grasp a fundamental quality of time that the human mind embraces as readily as the lungs take in air, or does the human mind impose on time a quality of its own making, one that is artificial and that hence does not show up in the laws of physics?"

... Past, present and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent."

Brian Greene
The Fabric of the Cosmos
Penguin, 2003 (132/139)

The last para. gives precisely the mystical view, a view with which Einstein had some sympathy.

Well, those two words just aren't equivalent. Epiphenomenal means
non-fundamental. Waves are an epiphenomenon of water, but they
are not illusions. Mirages are illusions, but they are not epiphenomena.

I'd say illusions are by definition epiphenomena but maybe that's splitting hairs. Greene makes clear his use of the term 'illusion' above. When the term is used by Buddhists to refer to spacetime the same misunderstandings arise. They mean what Greene means. I think I generally agree with you that it is misleading to call spacetime an illusion, but 'epiphenomenon' is a recent term not available to earlier writers. 'Mere appearances' is another option.

One mystic puts it like this.

"Time and Space, according to the metaphysician, have only a conceptual and not a real existence; but since all things and not these only are forms assumed by Conscious-Being in its own consciousness, the distinction is of no great importance. Time and Space are that one Conscious-Being viewing itself in extension, subjectively as Time, objectively as Space."

Sri Aurobindo
The Life Divine (1939)

In other words, space and time do exist as appearances, just as our everyday experiences tell us, but only as appearances. Lee Smolin puts it as:

"Neither space nor time has any existence outside the system of evolving relationships that comprise the universe."

The level of exactitude is just the problem. "illusion" , "epiphenomenon" ,
"intellectual construct" all mean different things.

Yes, I agree. Words can be very imprecise. 'Illusion' is often used to mean 'epiphenomenal', as the Einstein quotes show, and while an epiphenomenon is, scientifically speaking, not necessarily a conceptual construct, a conceptual construct is necessarily an illusion, in ontological terms. Perhaps one could refer to Neo's fictional Matrix-world, in which spacetime is an illusion, an epiphenomenon and a conceptual construct all at the same, er, time. (It's interesting to wonder what physicists in that world make of their universe. They'd have to have some weird theories).

Does that clear up our differences?

Canute

 

[Tournesol]

This seems a matter of interpretation and of ones particular view of the universe. In some views spacetime are 'illusions' in all these senses (E.g. Spencer Brown and Eddington), Probably the meaning needs to be clarified when it is used to separate out these meanings. Einstein wrote "The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before it can find them in things." I imagine he meant that the construct comes before the object. (I'm not making the argument here that he's right, by the way, but he might be).

Even if it is the case that we need a concept of something before recognising it (a position sometimes called Neo-Kantianism), there is still a difference
between concepts which are just concepts, and concepts which latch onto
observable reality.

On the specific issue of time, by implication space and time, Greene quotes a conversation with AE.

This resignation leaves open a pivotal question: Is science unable to grasp a fundamental quality of time that the human mind embraces as readily as the lungs take in air, or does the human mind impose on time a quality of its own making, one that is artificial and that hence does not show up in the laws of physics?"

If humans are embedded in the physical universe, how can they come
up with physically unaccountable ideas and feelings ?

... Past, present and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent."

But illusions require a mechanism, some kind of smoke and mirrors to
supprt them. Does the mechanism, the human mind, stand outside the physcial universe. If so physics is not complete. But if it is not complete,
then there is no reason to suppose passing-time is an illusion ITFP.

I'd say illusions are by definition epiphenomena but maybe that's splitting hairs.

I would say they are by defintion not. When you see a wave, what you are seeig is not illusory.

In other words, space and time do exist as appearances, just as our everyday experiences tell us, but only as appearances.

IOW everything is mere appearance...compared to a higher reality.
But you need to establish the existence of the Higher Reality in order
to draw the conclusion of appearance. On their own terms, space and tiem are real.

Illusion' is often used to mean 'epiphenomenal', as the Einstein quotes show, and while an epiphenomenon is, scientifically speaking, not necessarily a conceptual construct, a conceptual construct is necessarily an illusion, in ontological terms.

I don't think that follows at all.

 

[Doctordick]

There are none so blind as those who will not see!

...Greene quotes a conversation with AE.

"Einstein said that the problem of the now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter for painful but inevitable resignation.

It isn't that science cannot grasp the issue but rather that, due to Newton's mechanistic picture of the universe (which is almost universally accepted), they do not see the necessity of the "now".

What they fail to comprehend is that their mental image of the universe (by the way, "the universe" means "everything") is not based on what the universe is but is based, instead, on what they know of the universe. Since what they know is not fixed, they need a way of expressing a change in what they know and the human mind has created the concept "now". Newton's mechanistic picture make the underlying assumption that the future is a direct consequence of the past and there is no boundary of significance between the two and that picture is simply wrong!

... Is science unable to grasp a fundamental quality of time that the human mind embraces as readily as the lungs take in air, or does the human mind impose on time a quality of its own making, one that is artificial and that hence does not show up in the laws of physics?"

But it does show up in physics; in the form of the "collapse of the wave function". The issue is not that it does not show up but rather that the scientists don't comprehend "why" the difference is necessary; why the boundary must exist.

... Past, present and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent."

Well, I would certainly agree with him there and I would furthermore suggest that it is time that physicists took the trouble to consider the consequences that flaw in their perspective.

Perhaps one could refer to Neo's fictional Matrix-world, in which spacetime is an illusion, an epiphenomenon and a conceptual construct all at the same, er, time. (It's interesting to wonder what physicists in that world make of their universe. They'd have to have some weird theories).

Why does it have to be mystical? Can't one simply look at the possibilities rationally?

If one concludes that their world view is a consequence of two important kinds of information, the intuitive kind we believe to be true without support (what I have called "squirrel thought" and what mathematicians set forth in their logic as "axioms") and what can be deduced from those beliefs (the logical kind we can prove must follow from the axioms and consistency), then there is only one other factor which can possibly bear on the validity of that world view. And that is the connection between the expectations flowing from that world view (the future) and the actual results (the past). This is the importance of "now".

Any attempt to make "now" an insignificant aspect of physics simply destroys the ability of physics to portray reality.

If humans are embedded in the physical universe, how can they come up with physically unaccountable ideas and feelings?

Don't you have the question a little bit backwards? Shouldn't the question instead be, "how in the world can they account for the ideas and feelings which arise from being embedded in the physical universe?"

But illusions require a mechanism, some kind of smoke and mirrors to supprt them. Does the mechanism, the human mind, stand outside the physcial universe. If so physics is not complete. But if it is not complete, then there is no reason to suppose passing-time is an illusion ITFP.

Illusions require nothing but thought itself together with a lack of definitive information. What kind of smoke and mirrors support the illusion that the Earth is flat?

I would say they are by defintion not. When you see a wave, what you are seeig is not illusory.

Everything you "see" is an illusion. There is a big difference between what is actually out there and what you "see". You are using the vagueness of the English language to smear these very different issues into the appearance of being one issue.

IOW everything is mere appearance...compared to a higher reality.
But you need to establish the existence of the Higher Reality in order
to draw the conclusion of appearance.

Again, I am of the opinion that you the issues backwards here. It is the issue of the nature of "the Higher Reality" which is to be established from the "appearances" which are available to us. We have utterly nothing to go on except the universe, as it appears to us.

Illusion' is often used to mean 'epiphenomenal', as the Einstein quotes show, and while an epiphenomenon is, scientifically speaking, not necessarily a conceptual construct, a conceptual construct is necessarily an illusion, in ontological terms.

I am afraid that here I have to agree with Canute.

On their own terms, space and tiem are real.

What you are really saying is that the terms are labels for aspects of reality (the universe) which you feel are necessary to any explanation of the universe. I would agree that so long as you are not "all knowing" you are absolutely correct; however, I think your perspective on the issue is erroneous.

Have fun – Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity.

 

[Tournesol]

Illusions require nothing but thought itself together with a lack of definitive information. What kind of smoke and mirrors support the illusion that the Earth is flat?

Illusions (unlike concpetual errors) require perceptual content. In the
case of the world, the issue is that you can only see a small part of the service.

Everything you "see" is an illusion.

Nope. An illusion is not a mere appearance, it is a misinterpreted appearance.

There is a big difference between what is actually out there and what you "see".

Yes, but that does not mean I misinterpret all my qualia.

You are using the vagueness of the English language to smear these very different issues into the appearance of being one issue.

Completley back-to-front. I am drawing distinction others are ignoring.

Again, I am of the opinion that you the issues backwards here. It is the issue of the nature of "the Higher Reality" which is to be established from the "appearances" which are available to us.

I am talking about the Higher Reality claimed by mystics like Aurobindo,
which supposedly beyond both (ordinary) appearances, and the 'ordinary' reality
behind appearances, which is accepted by everybody except solipsists.
The mystics' claim is that ordinary reality is itself mere appearance relative to Higer Reality.

 

[Canute]

This is a bit of a clash of paradigms I think. Doctordick and I seem to be in agreement, but I can see that this view appears paradoxical in important ways. It is a complete denial of naive realism.

However, according to physicists it is possible, on the evidence, that spacetime is not fundamental, so let's assume for the moment that it is not. In this case there is something (although it cannot be a 'thing' in any ordinary sense) that can exist in the complete absence of spacetime, and is thus able to give rise to spacetime. This is not particularly scientifically contentious so far.

But the scientific notion of the non-fundamentality of spacetime is poorly thought through in my opinion. If spacetime is not fundamantal then what is fundamental has no spatial or temporal extension. It is no good calling it a field of gravity or somesuch, for according to physics, as far as I can tell, the action of gravity requires that space and time exists. We must bite the bullet I feel. If something is beyond spacetime then it is beyond physics. In this case the view that spacetime is not fundamental is transcendentalism, not just a slight adjustment to our current theories of physics, and paradigmatic metaphysical issues are raised, such as Doctordick's point about the 'now'.

One such issue is the 'realness' of the everyday phenomenal universe experienced by human beings. If this universe is epiphenomenal then there is a reductionist sense in which it is not real, or at least not as real as what is fundamental. The question is, does this mean that the spacetime-dependent universe and the phenomena it contains are made out of what is fundamental, (which on our assumption here exists 'outside' spacetime), and is thus ontologically grounded, epihenomenal but nevertheless still real, still substantial, like a piano or kitchen table seems to be, or does it mean that only what is fundamental is really real, and all the rest are the conceptual creations of what is fundamental, aka 'mere appearances'.

We can't answer this question scientifically yet, but both views have a large number of supporters. However there are some logical issues that can be explored. If some substance beyond space and time is what everything is made out of, then by reduction everything that is made out of it is beyond space and time. This seems to me logically incoherent. The other option, that space and time and all that exists within them are mere appearances seems less problematic. It is a wildly counterintuitive idea to many people, but then so are many of the theories of modern physics. Clearly we are trying to figure out a world that is very strange, and certainly nothing like how it appears to our physical senses.

Illusions (unlike concpetual errors) require perceptual content. In the case of the world, the issue is that you can only see a small part of the service.

Do dreams require perceptual content? Is a person born with no physical senses necessarily unable to conceive of anything? I feel all that is required for an illusion is the ability to conceptualise.

Nope. An illusion is not a mere appearance, it is a misinterpreted appearance.

I see what you mean. But all appearances are interpretations, theory-laden mental constructs and thus, in principle at least, may all be misinterpretations. The suggestion here is that it is not necessary for an appearance to have physical substance, not that appearances have no cause but rather that all appearances and all 'appearancees' have only a relative existence, and reduce to what is absolute.

Yes, but that does not mean I misinterpret all my qualia.

By the time you have a 'qualia' most of the interpretative work has been done by normally automatic and normally subconscious processes. All our brains have for raw material are electro-chemical substances and activities, so goodness knows what's actually 'out there'. We have to constuct what's out there by an act of pure imagination.

I am talking about the Higher Reality claimed by mystics like Aurobindo,
which supposedly beyond both (ordinary) appearances, and the 'ordinary' reality behind appearances, which is accepted by everybody except solipsists.
The mystics' claim is that ordinary reality is itself mere appearance relative to Higer Reality.

That seems a fair summary. But I'm not sure all physicists would agree with you that there is an 'ordinary' reality midway between appearances and 'higher reality', except in our minds, which themselves may by just part of this intermediate 'ordinary reality'.

I mentioned Schrodinger and Eddington earlier, and they at least would not agree. Eddington in particular is clear on this. In his view 'ordinary reality' is an illusion of the human mind. I say this just to confirm that this view is not contrary to the scientific evidence. Physics has not yet proved that anything it studies is really there. Indeed, from the unfalsifiability of solipsism we know it is impossible to do this. One has to wonder why.

Damn, written too much again. Sorry. It's an interesting discussion. I'm trying to address your objections properly, but it's difficult to do without drifting into areas that would get the thread shut down.

Cheers
canute