Does Time Really Exist, or Is It Just an Illusion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Red Leader
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of time, questioning whether it truly exists or is merely an illusion. Participants explore philosophical implications, the concept of 'now,' and the practical utility of time in understanding reality. The conversation touches on theoretical and conceptual aspects rather than strict scientific analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that time may only exist as a practical idea, questioning its linear existence and proposing that only the present moment ('now') truly exists.
  • Another participant argues that time is an abstract concept, similar to numbers or length, and exists as a useful tool for understanding reality.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the philosophical implications of time's existence, suggesting that it may not be suitable for a science forum.
  • A later reply introduces a definition of time as what prevents everything from happening all at once, referencing various philosophical essays on the nature of time.
  • Concerns are raised about the societal implications of viewing time as an illusion, particularly regarding practical matters like pensions and life insurance.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of being aware of time as a concept, suggesting that this awareness can enhance one's experience of the present moment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement, with some supporting the philosophical exploration of time while others argue it strays too far from scientific discourse. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the fundamental nature of time and its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the conversation may not align strictly with physics, highlighting the philosophical nature of the topic. There are unresolved questions about the implications of time as a concept and its practical applications in society.

  • #31
petm1 said:
How about an egg? No observer sees the chick until it hatches does that mean there was nothing inside until the chick is seen? As for "Concrete" my patio with no one watching is still right out side my window, I assume, would it help if you came over to see it yourself? As an observer I may process the signals I receive in my present but I am not making them up, my eyes do not sent out the signals for me to process they receive the signals. I may be a mobile observer in space/time but I am not needed for time nor space to continue.

You're not proving anything. Just dragging it on.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Time is merely a man-made device used to record certain actions that happen throughout the universe.

Deception of time, or in the term you awarded it as "Right now" is a state of consciousness.
 
  • #33
Red Leader said:
Dalespam - there is no geiger counter we can make to prove this
If there can be no experimental evidence as to whether or not the continuity of time is an illusion then there is no scientific reason to prefer your position over the opposite.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Sorry, how does momentum work, it seems to be a property of the past in my minds eye?
 
  • #35
I think the problem with understanding time centers around the fact that we have no real idea as to how fast time moves or if it moves in steps or not. The reason we don't have a way to know these things is because you can't messure time with anything but time so what we really need is an impossible thing but would be really handy in understanding time. Its so impossible it can't be thought of so I have no idea what it even is. Mby we do have it in some form within our awareness but who knows.
 
  • #36
Hello all,

Imo Time does not move but is the source of all motion, motion being a resultant of change, change being a resultant of interactions.

Here’s my take on it…

Time is an infinite energy that fuels and has fuelled all interactions in which change happens. It is available in any and all amounts needed for a given change to happen.

This would be my absolute definition of Time, however, throughout Earth’s history, some of our greatest human minds, conjointly with Nature and mathematics, came to realize and grasp something about cycles and duration as a useful physical quantity, intelligently refining this quantization up to our current most accurately defined standards. At some point, that something was named Time.

Change is always happening as everything in our Universe is continually in interaction, which brings me to the ‘now’ aspect. It is also my opinion that everything is happening in the same moment, the only moment, namely the present.

Of course you can argue till exhaustion that things cannot happen simultaneously at any given moment, but all I’ll respond to that is that in fact they do… but we cannot measure that simultaneity because all our measurements are based on acquisition of some EM signal that travels at the same speed from all sources. Never mind any correction factors.

However, that in no way washes off the fact that everything happens ‘at the same time’. A simple example would be a common time related measurement question that states that “at time t=0 a light signal is emitted from source A, if it takes 54 hours and 22 minutes to reach detector D, how far was the source ?”, I mean, we can read this sort of stuff all over…

In fact what that says is for the answer to be marked ‘correct’, both the emitted signal and the counter start sequence MUST HAPPEN SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is valid for any and all source / detector distance.

On another note, I’ve had this idea about memory of past events which also has an interesting twist to it as it deals with getting FTL information. I’ll wait some more before posting it.

Regards,

VE
 
  • #37
Time is the whole. Space was created "when" energy twisted time into quarters. Three of the parts move in the positive direction outward and one negative or inward, or is it three in the negative and one positive I guess both out looks are describing the same interaction point. In my mind the four dimensions that we think of as separate are but one of time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K