Is Motion an Illusion? Exploring the Universe's Dimensionless Nature

  • Thread starter RAD4921
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Motion
In summary, the discussion touches on the concept of time being an illusion and how it relates to motion. Some philosophers debate the existence of time, while others argue that time is a measurement that is related to motion. The idea of a dimensionless universe is also brought up, with some questioning how one could explore such a concept. Additionally, the perception of motion is discussed and how it can be an illusion. This is related to how our brain processes different features, such as motion, in separate areas.
  • #1
RAD4921
347
1
I am not talking about Zeno's paradox. Many philosophers debate the existence of time. Watches and clocks measure motion , so motion has something to do with time. So if time is an illusion then so is motion. I have no problem with this because I believe the universe is dimensionless.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
By any reasonable definition of dimension, the universe is certainly not dimensionless (by the way, does anyone know a simple experiment to empirically determine the number of (macroscopic) spatial dimensions? I was just wondering about that). As far as the ontological status of time, it helps in calculations, so as far as physics is concerned, time is no less real than space or mass. Of course, we don't know if any of these are really real, but I at least, have a hard time understanding what really real could even mean.
 
  • #3
Time

StatusX said:
By any reasonable definition of dimension, the universe is certainly not dimensionless (by the way, does anyone know a simple experiment to empirically determine the number of (macroscopic) spatial dimensions? I was just wondering about that). As far as the ontological status of time, it helps in calculations, so as far as physics is concerned, time is no less real than space or mass. Of course, we don't know if any of these are really real, but I at least, have a hard time understanding what really real could even mean.

As far as I know dimensions only exist in geometry and like mathematics and maybe even consciousness "It is out there or in here?" I agree with a lot you said. Time is a measurement which makes me question the validity of it.
 
  • #4
You're denying the existence of dimensions? But you need dimensions to move or change in any way, so you can't be a non-dimensional thing.
 
  • #5
RAD4921 said:
Watches and clocks measure motion , so motion has something to do with time. So if time is an illusion then so is motion. I have no problem with this because I believe the universe is dimensionless.


Then the question becomes how does one explore the concept of a dimensionless Universe? This would mean we can be at anyplace at anytime (sorry time is irrelevant now) a complete singularity...!
 
  • #6
A dimension is only a way of mapping out a set of coordinates.
 
  • #7
Without dimensions and time there could be no motion, it would have definition. The reverse holds true, if spatial motion exists, then so must time and at least one spatial dimension. So time actually does exist (but only in proportion to energy measurements, due to QT).
 
  • #8
life could however exist as the expression of one singular thought from a degree of "life" greater than ours. almost analogous to a story book, and the person reading the story book. that we're being read. and that's all there is.

Maybe!
 
  • #9
RAD4921 said:
I am not talking about Zeno's paradox. Many philosophers debate the existence of time. Watches and clocks measure motion , so motion has something to do with time. So if time is an illusion then so is motion. I have no problem with this because I believe the universe is dimensionless.

My belief:

Time is a manifestation of a trajectory between stable states (like a vase falling off a table representing the whole of cosmic history). Our perception of time is a trajectory from the pre-existence to whatever final state the universe is evolving to. Yea, the wave equation ain't the electron. You guys just bring up interesting things here. I'm going back on the other side of the track now.
 
  • #10
RAD4921 said:
As far as I know dimensions only exist in geometry and like mathematics and maybe even consciousness "It is out there or in here?" I agree with a lot you said. Time is a measurement which makes me question the validity of it.
I am really replying to the thread starting question (Is motion an illusion?), but chose to do so here so I could invite RAD4921 (and others) to come and participate in the thread that got moved from "generat philosophy" to the branch about mathematics and philosophy - Thread called: Time does NOT exist - Math Proof

It is easy to show that perception of motion is an illusion, or at least sometimes is. In psychology there is a well-know effect, called the "waterfall effect" where a stationary object is perceived as moving. From a neurophysicological POV it is easily explained, and closely related to the fact that long stairing at a red spot and then looking at a white wall will cause you to perceive a green spot on the wall.

Motion is one of the many "features" separtated out for evey object in the field of view. (If memory serves me correctly it is processed in a part of the brain caled V5, but it may be color that is process there.) The fact that many different features are processed in well separated neural tissue, is why I developed a non standard theory of visual perception. (No cognitive scientist has the slightest idea how we perceive unified objects as these "features" never are reassembled in one place in the brain. See thread I started on Free Will ("What price Free will")

You can google "Waterfall effect AND fatigue" and should get good infro on how and why motion is sometimes an illusion, but basically the idea is:

Suppose you have programmed a computer to continiously display a set of horizontal black and white bars moving down on the monitor, New ones appearing at the top as old ones disapear at the bottom. The way the motion feature is detected is that in V5? there are different cells that respond to both each specific direction of motion and to each specific speed of motion.

If you look too long at one speed bars moving in one direction they become tired (fatigued, just like looking at the red spot too long). These cells are associated with their complement, which is not excited by the down going pattern of horizontal bars. Thus when the bars on the monitor stop moving, the balance between these two specific sets of "motion detectors" is not with equal activity.

You will easly see that no new bars are being introduced at the bottom of the screen but simultaneously you will have the strong perception that the bars are steadily moving up. After a minute or so, this peception will fade as the fatigued "down cells" recover. If you hunt around in the net, you should be able to down load a program that will run the "waterfall effect" for you. (at east one was out there about 10 years ago.)

It is a really strange sensation to preceive motion while looking at something that is not moving. - In my book that proves motion can be an illusion.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
To Billy T

Thanks for the invite to the thread. It sounds interesting but you failed to post the thread link so I cannot go there. thanks RAD
 

1. Is motion really an illusion?

There is currently no clear consensus among scientists about whether motion is fundamentally an illusion or not. Some theories, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, suggest that motion is relative and depends on the observer's frame of reference. Other theories, like quantum mechanics, propose that motion is an inherent property of particles. More research and evidence are needed to fully understand the nature of motion.

2. How can we explore the universe's dimensionless nature?

One way to explore the universe's dimensionless nature is through experiments and observations using advanced technology such as telescopes, particle accelerators, and spacecraft. Scientists also use mathematical models and theories to understand the fundamental laws of the universe, including the concept of dimensionlessness. Collaborative efforts between different fields of science, such as physics, astronomy, and mathematics, are also crucial in exploring this complex topic.

3. What does it mean for something to be dimensionless?

Something that is dimensionless does not have a measurable size or physical dimension. In the context of the universe, it refers to the idea that there may be fundamental properties or laws that exist beyond our traditional understanding of dimensions. This concept challenges our current understanding of the physical world and requires further exploration and research.

4. How does the concept of dimensionlessness relate to motion?

The concept of dimensionlessness is closely related to motion in the sense that it suggests that the fundamental properties of the universe, including motion, may not be constrained by traditional physical dimensions. This means that the nature of motion may be more complex and mysterious than we currently understand, and it may require new theories and models to fully grasp its true nature.

5. What implications does the idea of dimensionlessness have for our understanding of the universe?

The idea of dimensionlessness has significant implications for our understanding of the universe. It challenges our traditional concepts of time, space, and motion, and suggests that there may be fundamental properties and laws that exist beyond our current understanding. Exploring this concept could potentially lead to new breakthroughs in science and a deeper understanding of the universe's nature and origins.

Similar threads

Is there time? Or is it just an illusion?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
747
Naturalness: dimensionless ratios
    • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K
B Is A Universe w/o Mass Possible? Exploring Time & Matter
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
B How does mechanical motion start at the deepest, smallest level?
    • Other Physics Topics
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
I Question about length contraction
    • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
I Twin Paradox Time Dilation in Positively Curved Universe
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
1K
Kinematics, curvilinear motion (a couple of questions)
    • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
30
Views
499
I Arguments leading to the speed of light as a dimensionless constant
    • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
64
Views
3K
Does causality exist in a block universe?
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
877
Insights Does the Block Universe of Physics Mean Time is an Illusion?
    • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
56
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top