Is Time an Illusion Created by Consciousness?

[out of whack]

So far I have been talking of change as "the fact that things are not constant". In this respect, change happens in the universe (all that exists) as long as just one thing changes within it. From this point of view, it does not matter if some constant item does not change while other things do. If some constant entity exists, it must still interact with the changing universe in some way. If it did not then it would be immaterial and irrelevant to anything, we could not even claim that it exists so we would not be talking about it. Regardless, one constant entity would not prevent other changes from happening. In other words it would not "stop time" (to use a bad word).

What if we put this unchanging thing in a box. We let an hour pass and then open the box. Even of nothing changed in the box, does that mean time stopped passing inside the box? Does that imply that, when the box is opened, there will be a one hour lag between the time inside the box and the time outside the box?

My point of view is that using the undefined word "time" renders this thought experiment invalid. Efforts to make sense of undefined text are wasted. Since I find "time" meaningless in the absence of change, the experiment sounds like this to me:

We put a constant item in a box, count 3600 swings of the pendulum and open the box. Does it mean that no change happened inside the box? (Yes, the item was constant.) Is there a difference in the extent of change inside and outside the box? (Yes, change happened outside, no change happened inside.)

Simple. Clear.

The problem with this "time" thing is that it is entrenched in popular culture. Time travel in particular is a popular topic. We spend a good deal of our time in impossible fantasies about it. We encounter paradoxes that probably exist only because of an impossible premise: if you see that time is just change then you realize that you can't really travel through "the fact that things are not constant". Furthermore, if you get rid of the notion of time in favor of change, science still works: a second is already defined by a specific number of changes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Except that there is nowhere in the universe - including hard vacuum - that change does not happen. All matter is in a state of change, all energy is in a state of change. Even vacuum has virtual particles.

So your premise describes a situation that does not exist.

Since all that exists has the precondition of change, and change means time, then we're right back to where we started; time is everywhere.

 

[out of whack]

Except that there is nowhere in the universe - including hard vacuum - that change does not happen. All matter is in a state of change, all energy is in a state of change.

I don't really know. Do you have a rationale to support the view that nothing real can ever be constant? I don't see this as essential to the current discussion but I am interested.

So your premise describes a situation that does not exist.

My premise is actually yours, the unchanging item is what you used in your thought experiment. If it is an impossible premise then the experiment is moot on a second count.

Since all that exists has the precondition of change, and change means time, then we're right back to where we started; time is everywhere.

If indeed nothing constant can possibly exist. I would not see a problem with that. My contention was simply that time and change are the same thing, except that the word "change" is more clearly defined than "time". Have you also reached this conclusion by now?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't really know. Do you have a rationale to support the view that nothing real can ever be constant?

It's not that it can or can't be, it's that there simply isn't anything.

Matter, energy and lack of either pretty much sums up the contents of the universe as we know it.

If indeed nothing constant can possibly exist. I would not see a problem with that. My contention was simply that time and change are the same thing, except that the word "change" is more clearly defined than "time". Have you also reached this conclusion by now?

I confess, I'm having trouble defining time as an entity distinct from change.

 

[out of whack]

I confess, I'm having trouble defining time as an entity distinct from change.

My work is done!

 

[octelcogopod]

Alright that's fine out of whack, but what about this.

If time equals change, how do we measure the time it takes for something to get done?
What makes it so that it appears that while all things move and change faster and slower, they all appear to happen in the same *time span*

Granted, we're always measuring after another changing thing, like the pendulum on a clock or day/night time, but does this mean that all change is in essence unrelated to each other?

There are a lot of things that change in the universe, but it all appears coherent, is that our consciousness or maybe because all things are made up of the same primordial entity?

It always take the same amount of time to do something, relative to everything else, or so it appears anyway, which makes me wonder why it's all so rigid in a way.
Maybe a bit off topic this last paragraph but certainly his my point well.

 

[out of whack]

Oops, my work is not done. "How" is a short question that takes a long explanation...

how do we measure the time it takes for something to get done?

Measuring something is done in two steps. First, select some arbitrary unit that exhibits the same property as what you want to measure. Second, see how many times your unit fits in what you want to measure.

Selecting a unit is a trial and error exercise. What seems suitable at some point can later turn out to lack accuracy. You wouldn't use a rubber band as a unit of length for obvious reasons, a metal ruler is much more consistent. It is still subject to temperature changes, so a wooden ruler may be better. But humidity affects it. The reliability problem arises no matter what unit we pick. Even the kilogram is reported to have lost weight.

Recognizing that nothing is perfect, we fall back on what is most useable, something apparently regular and that does not vary wildly under different conditions of use. In the case of change, a pendulum appears regular under many conditions compared to other changes so clocks were build around it. Atomic clocks use a much more reliable change but even these cannot be considered perfect, just the best we can manufacture.

The second step, taking a measurement, is done by matching what we want to measure against our unit. In the case of length, we would place a ruler as close as possible to the item we want to measure and observe how it fits against it. The device we use as a unit does not measure anything other than itself so it is up to the observer to apply sufficient skill to obtain an accurate match and measurement. In the case of change, we place our clock in the same frame of reference as the event we want to measure and see how it fits against it. If the clock ticks 30 times between the start and end of a race then we have measured the amount of change (aka time) of the race to be 30 clock ticks. If the clock also ticks 30 times between the start and the end of a television commercial then this is also the amount of change that corresponds to this other, separate event. The race involved a change in position whereas the commercial involved a change of images, but both exhibited the common property of change and both could be measured using the same unit.

What makes it so that it appears that while all things move and change faster and slower, they all appear to happen in the same *time span*

I am sorry, I am not clear on what you are asking. The fact that you put *time span* in asterisks gives me a hint that you may not be entirely clear on it either. When this happens, it is sometimes useful to think in terms of length instead of change and reword:

"What makes it so that it appears that while all things are longer or shorter, they all appear to exist in the same *space span*"

...hummm... it didn't help this time.

does this mean that all change is in essence unrelated to each other?

I don't see this as a conclusion. All things are related. A change in some aspect of reality causes another.

There are a lot of things that change in the universe, but it all appears coherent, is that our consciousness or maybe because all things are made up of the same primordial entity?

I think we just interpret it as cause-and-effect relations. It's how our consciousness makes sense of whatever reality is made of. As in "everything is matter and energy" and it all works together. If it didn't then could not make sense of it.

It always take the same amount of time to do something, relative to everything else, or so it appears anyway, which makes me wonder why it's all so rigid in a way.

If things were not consistent then we would never know what will happen next. If there are laws of nature then there must be consistency.

 

[castlegates]

My contention was simply that time and change are the same thing

Have to disagree here completely. Time has nothing to do with change. Time is the nothing that lies between markers. Time does not exist but for the fact that we can sense that which does not exist by way of markers (that which does exist). With the markers, time becomes a unit of measure (one unit of nothing at all). Time cannot be removed by any means whatsoever. It is what's left over should we remove all that does exist. Removing all markers does not make time go away, it just removes tick and tock. Just remember that time is the equivalent of nothing at all, and it all fits into place as an unchanging constant in an everchanging world we live in.

 

[out of whack]

@castlegates:

Your interpretation is imagery, not rationale. Replace the word "time" with "change" and your paragraph works pretty much the same way. If time and change were unrelated then time could pass without change and/or changes could occur without time. But neither is meaningful as you will see if you read the whole discussion.

---

Actually we discussed in details how time requires change but not how change requires time, so let me cover this part right away. If A changed into B and no time passed then A and B would coexist at the same time. But this would make A and B separate cases and not a change from one to the other, so change requires time. Done. (And the time:change equivalence is complete.)

 

[castlegates]

Your interpretation is imagery, not rationale

Time is not a rational entity. So I'm spot on.

Replace the word "time" with "change" and your paragraph works pretty much the same way.

Why would I replace time with something unrelated?

If time and change were unrelated then time could pass without change

Yes time would pass without change (markers). We just wouldn't have any sense of it.

and/or changes could occur without time

No, because time cannot be removed. It is nothing after all.


Time is as simple as this.


10000000001000100000001010001010100000000000001000000000100000000001
Where time is zero and the markers for time are represented by one in the line above. Think of the ones as events, and that which is in between those events is depicted as a non-event.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.
---

 

[out of whack]

10000000001000100000001010001010100000000000001000000000100000000001

Since the 0's represent nothing, non-events, let me pare your idea to its meaningful components: "11111111111". Your intervening sequences of 0's are redundant. If they represent nothing then you can remove them without loss of meaning. You could have inserted any other redundant symbol that represented any meaningless concept you can imagine that also does nothing, with the same result.

Now since there is little sense in talking about things that don't matter. Let's return to what does matter. What matters is the difference between events. This difference is called change. Change is observable when a clock ticks, something most people call time. I have shown how these two concepts are equivalent and the word "time" is redundant. You have not objected to any of it either.

Of course I could now take this redundant "time" word, redefine it as something meaningless and start inserting this nothing here and there with no actual effect. But I fail to see any point in doing that.

 

[castlegates]

Your intervening sequences of 0's are redundant.

I don't really have to put a 0, or 0's in between the ones, but on a message board a sequence of 0's can show various lengths of time. It's an example.

If they represent nothing then you can remove them without loss of meaning.

That would be correct, because a series like this 1111111111111111 has the same meaning, albeit less understandable on a message board.

You could have inserted any other redundant symbol that represented any meaningless concept you can imagine that also does nothing, with the same result.

I sure could, but it would certainly muddy up the waters on a message board.

Now since there is little sense in talking about things that don't matter. Let's return to what does matter. What matters is the difference between events.

Exactly

This difference is called change. Change is observable when a clock ticks, something most people call time.

Time is not observed, what is observed is a quantity, that quantity is one.

Of course I could now take this redundant "time" word, redefine it as something meaningless and start inserting this nothing here and there with no actual effect. But I fail to see any point in doing that.

Time is not something that can be inserted, for it is everywhere apparent. That's like being in the middle of a lake, underwater I might add, and saying you're going to insert water into the equation. In our universe ... you are swimming in a sea of nothing, wherein quantities of one show up from time to time. The tick and tock of a clock is a perfect example of ones butted up against nothing.

 

[out of whack]

Time is not observed, what is observed is a quantity, that quantity is one.

When I observe the difference between two states what I observe is a change, not a quantity, and certainly not 1 specifically.

Time is not something that can be inserted, for it is everywhere apparent. That's like being in the middle of a lake, underwater I might add, and saying you're going to insert water into the equation. In our universe ... you are swimming in a sea of nothing, wherein quantities of one show up from time to time. The tick and tock of a clock is a perfect example of ones butted up against nothing.

This is more imagery again, not rationale. You offer nothing to substantiate what you imagine. Piling up the examples will not make it true.

 

[castlegates]

When I observe the difference between two states what I observe is a change, not a quantity, and certainly not 1 specifically.

The only difference to be noted is non-existence butted up against existence. These are the only two states available in this universe. This is the universe stripped naked to the bare essentials. All things observable come to you in ones ( no acceptions), and they can only come to you one at a time, time being the nothing between those observables.

This is more imagery again, not rationale. You offer nothing to substantiate what you imagine. Piling up the examples will not make it true.

Apparently you wish to compare apples and oranges, notice a difference, and call that time. I'm not the least bit swayed by this.

 

[JoeDawg]

The only difference to be noted is non-existence butted up against existence. These are the only two states available in this universe. This is the universe stripped naked to the bare essentials. All things observable come to you in ones ( no acceptions), and they can only come to you one at a time, time being the nothing between those observables.

If all you can observe is 'ones' how can you claim the universe has two states?

This sounds like a crackpot theory, rather than a philosophical stance.

I'm not going to go so far as say time is equal to change, I think that is an unjustified equivocation, but what you have said here seems confused and incoherent.

 

[out of whack]

I'm not going to go so far as say time is equal to change, I think that is an unjustified equivocation

Hi JoeDawg. I didn't know I equivocated, or that my conclusion was unjustified. I explained why the concept of time implies the concept of change. I also explained why the concept of change implies the concept of time. Then I concluded from this double implication that both concepts are equivalent. I'm interested to hear objections on any part of my presentation.

 

[JoeDawg]

Hi JoeDawg. I didn't know I equivocated, or that my conclusion was unjustified. I explained why the concept of time implies the concept of change. I also explained why the concept of change implies the concept of time. Then I concluded from this double implication that both concepts are equivalent. I'm interested to hear objections on any part of my presentation.

Time is a complex concept. It involves comparing states of one thing with another. Its not just about change but how the change in state of one thing relates to another. Time also has an apparent direction, at least in the way we perceive it. And all we can honestly talk about is how we perceive it. Change is a simpler concept. You are trying to reduce something we don't understand to something simple, but the fact is, its something we don't understand.

Its certainly an interesting discussion, I just think the conclusion is premature, likely incorrect and ultimately unsupportable.

 

[friend]

Hi JoeDawg. I didn't know I equivocated, or that my conclusion was unjustified. I explained why the concept of time implies the concept of change. I also explained why the concept of change implies the concept of time. Then I concluded from this double implication that both concepts are equivalent. I'm interested to hear objections on any part of my presentation.

You might notice that time exist simply because of the observation of change. But that does not enable you to measure time. In order to measure time, you need to see how some things change with respect to how other things change. We have the tick and tock of a clock to compare how fast other things change. But what if there were only the tick and tock? Then we would not be able to measure time. For we would not know whether it was just our perception as to whether there was equal time between every tick of the clock. Some ticks might actually have more time between them. How would you know unless there were other processes (changes) to compare it with? So you need more than the universe coming out of non-existence to measure time. There has to be an expansion rate of the universe with respect to which the rate of other processes are measured. Expansion alone can not be measured without other things in the universe happening in order to compare expansion rate with some other process, and visa versa.

 

[out of whack]

Time is a complex concept. It involves comparing states of one thing with another.

But "comparing states of one thing with another" is essentially observing changes.

Its not just about change but how the change in state of one thing relates to another. Time also has an apparent direction, at least in the way we perceive it. And all we can honestly talk about is how we perceive it.

Given a set of states, they can either be perceived in a particular order or not. If they are not then we have chaos. But what we perceive instead is an order that allows us to described changes with rules and equations. We perceive an ordered set of states. Would you give a name to "the fact that the set of states is in some order"? Would you call this fact time? Or would you instead call this fact the natural order, the laws of nature? Something else?

Change is a simpler concept. You are trying to reduce something we don't understand to something simple, but the fact is, its something we don't understand.

That's not exactly what I am trying to do. I am trying to clarify language. I don't think we really fail to understand changes and how they happen. Our science uses units and measurements of all sorts, and one of them is a unit of change: the second. This unit is defined using a certain amount of something that changes, therefore it is essentially a change unit. I have not found any use for the word "time" so far, although the "order of changing states" might be something that can make use of the term.

You might notice that time exist simply because of the observation of change. But that does not enable you to measure time. In order to measure time, you need to see how some things change with respect to how other things change.

Actually what I measure is change, as described in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1540137&postcount=37".

But what if there were only the tick and tock? Then we would not be able to measure time.

Or equivalently, we would not be able to measure change.

For we would not know whether it was just our perception as to whether there was equal time between every tick of the clock. Some ticks might actually have more time between them. How would you know unless there were other processes (changes) to compare it with?

Indeed we would know nothing of this mysterious "time" quality. It would be immaterial if there were more or less of "some other property other than change" included between a tick and a tock. The only relevant information would be the change from tick to tock, and even then it would only be relevant to itself and nothing else.

So you need more than the universe coming out of non-existence to measure time. There has to be an expansion rate of the universe with respect to which the rate of other processes are measured. Expansion alone can not be measured without other things in the universe happening in order to compare expansion rate with some other process, and visa versa.

Or equivalently you need more than the universe coming out of non-existence to measure change.

You would need a standard changing device that you can use to compare against (measure) other changes.

 

[JoeDawg]

But "comparing states of one thing with another" is essentially observing changes.

Like I said, you are oversimplifying. Now you are equating comparing and observing. One can do either or both. And make many observations about time:

Measuring time involves an arbitrary selected standard created from an initial observation, a conscious agent, and things to measure.
Our experience of time is different. Its simply an observed sequence to events via cause and effect. (includes the problem of induction...)
Relative time... ala Einstein... shows us that our experience of time may differ from that of another conscious agent. And that, although it appears different, it can be thought of like a dimension of space.
The arrow of time only goes in one direction, so it is not just change of state, but involves a very specific kind of change, ie entropy.

I certainly think this is a worthy discussion, but you seem to be intent on limiting it beyond what is reasonable. Time is not so simple and we don't have a clear understanding of it yet.

 

[out of whack]

Like I said, you are oversimplifying.

That's not impossible. If I am ignoring essentials aspects that change alone cannot account for then you will be able to point them out and I will be able to address them as I will do right now.

Now you are equating comparing and observing.

You said the concept of time involves comparing states of one thing with another. I equated comparing states with observing a change because when you compare states, you see a difference and when you observe a change, you see the same difference. I thought it was being clear in the context that what your concept of time involves is simply the observation of a change from one state to the other.

Measuring time involves an arbitrary selected standard created from an initial observation, a conscious agent, and things to measure.

I discussed this in post #37.

Our experience of time is different. Its simply an observed sequence to events via cause and effect.

This observed sequence describes changes using rules of cause and effect. We have rules and we have the changes they describe, which is sufficient. No other concept is required.

Relative time... ala Einstein... shows us that our experience of time may differ from that of another conscious agent. And that, although it appears different, it can be thought of like a dimension of space.

I discussed this in post #18.

The arrow of time only goes in one direction, so it is not just change of state, but involves a very specific kind of change, ie entropy.

You didn't address my last comment on this. If changes didn't happen in accordance to specific rules then we would have chaos. Instead, the order that we observe indicates that one state changes into a new state according to certain rules (that scientists attempt to discover), entropy being one aspect of this. The direction of the arrow you speak of matches an increase of entropy, and of course the reverse direction matches a decrease. All of this is change of course, or a difference between states if you prefer, or the fact that things are not constant as I usually say.

I certainly think this is a worthy discussion, but you seem to be intent on limiting it beyond what is reasonable.

I don't think am not ignoring objections or brushing them aside, I hope to address them all. If in the process I show that some elusive concept is not required to our understanding of reality where change itself is sufficient well, this is the point, isn't it. It seems that we can directly describe all changes in relation to each other, including the ticks of a clock.

IMPORTANT EDIT: ...and if it seem to you that I did brush something aside that you considered important then please bring it back and ask for further discussion about it! Like most mortals I am able to overlook things.

Time is not so simple and we don't have a clear understanding of it yet.

What is not so simple is the word itself. It remains ill-defined because it does not correspond to a meaningful or necessary concept. If this obscure time thing magically stopped but change continued business as usual then nobody would notice because clocks would go on ticking, planets would keep orbiting and debates about it would continue.

 

[JoeDawg]

What is not so simple is the word itself. It remains ill-defined because it does not correspond to a meaningful or necessary concept. If this obscure time thing magically stopped but change continued business as usual then nobody would notice because clocks would go on ticking, planets would keep orbiting and debates about it would continue.

You made some interesting points, but ultimately while 'change' is certainly a part of any understanding of 'time', it may even be an essential element, that doesn't mean it is equivalent to time. Your argument seems to center around an inability to separate the two... but that doesn't mean time is nothing more than 'change'. And what is 'change' really? If time is like a space dimension then a 'change' in time is like the difference between blue and violet. Its simply in a different place on a spectrum. Just because violet always follows blue, doesn't mean blue causes violet, nor that any 'change' is happening, it could be that it just appears that way because of times arrow.

And I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just saying we don't really know.

Your theory of time is as valid as any other, but based on what I read, I still think its incomplete.

 

[Hillary88]

But time can pass even if there is no change.

No...the time would be changing

 

[DaveC426913]

... while 'change' is certainly a part of any understanding of 'time', it may even be an essential element, that doesn't mean it is equivalent to time. Your argument seems to center around an inability to separate the two... but that doesn't mean time is nothing more than 'change'.

This is where I stop too. I'm not prepared to say they're equivalent but, being unable define a difference between the two, the counter-argument is indefensible.

 

[DaveC426913]

No...the time would be changing

That is a circular argument. We are trying to determine what's different other than time. Until we do, we have no way of separating 'time' and 'change'.

 

[out of whack]

I'm not prepared to say they're equivalent but, being unable define a difference between the two, the counter-argument is indefensible.

We are trying to determine what's different other than time. Until we do, we have no way of separating 'time' and 'change'.

I'm not dissatisfied with this position. Most people first assume that there is time on one side and change on the other, then try to work out a connection between the two. My approach was to acknowledge change first because it is undeniable. Then I tried to see if we needed an additional concept in order to make sense of reality at least as much as we already do. I ended up with a redundant word.

But hope is not lost for time lovers. If someone can identify something that requires a concept greater than change in order to account for something then we will have an available word for it. Something that comes to mind is the creation of the universe itself, for those who believe in creation. One problem is to explain what time was doing during the eternity that came before there was change. But there may be other angles to the question.

 

[Oerg]

This is where I stop too. I'm not prepared to say they're equivalent but, being unable define a difference between the two, the counter-argument is indefensible.

Well, I guess that depends on how we define time. We can define time to be totally independent on change because as mentioned, there can be no universe without change, so there can be no counter argument/

We measure time in terms of changes in this universe, like the swing of a pendulum.In the change of a swing of a pendulum, many other changes might have taken place, and yet, only a fraction of certain changes have taken place. We measure time by changes, but that does not necessarily mean that time is change.

Time, as I have defined for myself as above, is a totally different entity that I only measure by changes for convenience as long as I do not define time as change.

 

[JoeDawg]

My approach was to acknowledge change first because it is undeniable.

No, change of states is something we observe. That is far from being undeniable. We observe lots of things that are illusory, ie not what they appear.

Do the words in a book change when we read them? No. Change in this sense may not occur at all, it might all be an illusion created by consciousness. What is consciousness? I don't know. Neither do you. And there is enough QM stuff implying all kinds of things about 'observation'... and its effects, to make me have my doubts. The math is beyond me, but your conclusions seem premature and unsupported.

The problem with measuring a 'change in state' is that we need to use some other change of state as a yard stick. So does change really happen, or is it a function of our attempt and way of measuring?

Our experience of time is something different than just change, because it involves the comparison of different changes via consciousness, and the latter is something we don't really know much about.

Is time an illusion? I don't know.

Once again I think you oversimplify. But I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop.

 

[out of whack]

On the contrary JoeDawg, I think you are over-complicating. I could bet you a million dollars (which I conveniently don't have) against a penny that change happens. If I am right, I will be a penny richer! If I am wrong then it's not a problem at all and I will not lose my million because that would be a change, which would make me right and earn me a penny. It's a bet I cannot lose.EDIT: ...well yeah, since I don't have that million there would be no change... but you get the idea.

 

[octelcogopod]

OK let's say for arguments sake that change = time = motion.
I mean what's the difference here between something changing and something moving, in any sense of the word.
If nothing was moving would change stop?

Regardless, motion may equal time, but it's peculiar why things are moving to begin with, and why something even exists. (but i won't get into that here)
It seems to me that ultimately for anything to get moving, so to speak, it would need something more than just one 'unit' of itself.
For instance if there is a primordial unit.
If there only was one primordial unit then even if it moved nobody could tell right because only it existed.

So two questions arise
1. Do we always need more than one unit to have time?
Or is time something inherent in the very existence OF something?
I mean, if you think about it. Let's say we have ONE unit of primordial soup, only one.
Nothing else exists. Now imagine that existence is temporal, even if it's just one unit it must also have some kind of temporal dimension.

There is a change from when it didn't exist to when it did exist, you can't deny this change, but if time is change, time didn't exist before the unit existed, nor does it exist after it is created, because only one thing changed, namely the existence itself.

So I'm wondering what this means.