Is Time an Illusion Created by Consciousness?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lengds
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time Zero
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of time and its relationship to consciousness, movement, and change. Participants explore whether time exists independently of observers, the implications of change as a fundamental concept, and the role of perception in understanding time. The conversation touches on theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical aspects of time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that time does not exist independently and that only movement and change are real, with time being a construct of human perception.
  • Others argue that without an observer, changes in position of particles do not imply the existence of time, raising questions about the nature of reality without consciousness.
  • A participant proposes a thought experiment involving the observation of a bowling ball to illustrate that mass, size, and movement are relative and depend on the presence of other objects.
  • Some participants express that the concept of time is redundant and that clocks measure change rather than time itself.
  • There is a contention about whether time can exist without change, with some asserting that time can pass even in the absence of change, while others challenge this notion.
  • A later reply emphasizes the importance of defining "change" as a more fundamental concept than "time," suggesting that the measurement of time is inherently tied to observable changes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the existence and nature of time. There is no consensus on whether time exists independently of observers or if it is merely a construct of consciousness. The discussion remains unresolved with various interpretations and hypotheses presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the definitions of time and change, suggesting that the lack of agreement on these terms complicates the discussion. Some arguments depend on the assumptions about the role of observers in measuring time and change.

  • #151
Cale Carter said:
This is true.. but the GPS coord your stateing ASSUME that your talking about now.


Go to any GPS point you wish and tell me the coord.

If I go there when your there I will find you.

If I go there 300 years ago.. I wont.

Location assumes present time unless otherwise stated.

Your includeing time as a default in your coord.
We weren't talking about where *I* am at any given time. You said to give you a location. The latitude and longitude coordinates would send you to the same spot now and it would send you to the same spot 300 years ago. Your original post just asked for location, now you're talking about something different.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Evo said:
We weren't talking about where *I* am at any given time. You said to give you a location. The latitude and longitude coordinates would send you to the same spot now and it would send you to the same spot 300 years ago. Your original post just asked for location, now you're talking about something different.
Well to be fair, those are coordinates within a previously agreed-upon framework that hugely curtails them.

The framework presupposes
- "only on the Earth's surface"
- "wrt Earth's frame of reference moving within the larger cosmos"
- "now"

In other words GPS alone is not sufficient without these further coordinate qualifiers.
 
  • #153
DaveC426913 said:
Well to be fair, those are coordinates within a previously agreed-upon framework that hugely curtails them.

The framework presupposes
- "only on the Earth's surface"
- "wrt Earth's frame of reference moving within the larger cosmos"
- "now"

In other words GPS alone is not sufficient without these further coordinate qualifiers.
I agree. My original answer stated "on earth". Forget GPS, I think that confuses things, just use latitude and longitude. I was just coming back at the poster's challenge
please tell me the location of anything... without using time.

Cale said
For example.. if I tell you to meet me at X degrees longitude and Y degrees Latitude at 1,000 feet above sea level and we will talk...That would not be enough information to determine the meeting location without us being at the location at the same time.

It would be the same effect as me not telling you one of the other coords...
That's not correct, the information given is enough to determine the meeting location, you just haven't set a time to meet.
 
  • #154
Evo said:
I was just coming back at the poster's challenge
please tell me the location of anything... without using time.
The key word must be "of anything" in this challenge. Giving a position is not enough, you must give the position of some "thing". And since everything keeps changing position within the universe then you need to state the time as well as the spatial coordinates, otherwise the thing in question will not be there anymore (or yet).
 
  • #155
out of whack said:
The key word must be "of anything" in this challenge. Giving a position is not enough, you must give the position of some "thing". And since everything keeps changing position within the universe then you need to state the time as well as the spatial coordinates, otherwise the thing in question will not be there anymore (or yet).
Since I stated the latitude and longitude were on earth, that is sufficient information to find the location. I work with latitude and longitude all day mapping circuits, I don't need time to make my calculations. Now if he had said "tell me the location of an object in space", then time would be needed for a reference.
 
  • #156
Evo said:
Since I stated the latitude and longitude were on earth, that is sufficient information to find the location. I work with latitude and longitude all day mapping circuits, I don't need time to make my calculations. Now if he had said "tell me the location of an object in space", then time would be needed for a reference.

There are 2 aspects to this:

1. A location on Earth IS a location is space. If one has an origin on alpha centauri, then all four space-time coordinates need to be specify.

2. When you specify a length under terrestrial conditions, there is an implicit assumption of the "instantaneous" motion of light. You can see both ends of your measuring device, such as a ruler, simultaneously, and thus, there's nothing in your measurement in which the speed of light needs to be considered. However, it is still an assumption on our part. A "length" that is involved in your ability to specify a location anywhere (even 12 feet from you) is highly dependent on the speed of light. It is the only way "space" is defined. Thus, if the "speed" of light is involved, then inevitably, it means that both space AND time are involved, because that is the only way that "c" can be defined and given measurable value.

It is only when we forget that it takes light some time to go from one location to another, do we get this classical notion that we can define or measure things without an influence in the time coordinate.

Zz.
 
  • #157
Cale Carter said:
Not only do I believe that it needs matter and velocity, it needs velocity less or equal to the speed of light.


In an absolute state of 0 velocity time cannot be present.

Please understand I am not suggesting that change is required for time to be present..in fact the inverse is true. Time must be present for change to take place.


As for the limitation of speeds that are faster than C referenced above... Anything that exceeds the speed of light will no longer be in this time/space continuum.

Before I go farther, what do you think time is?

and are you thinking about all this in terms of relativity?
 
  • #158
Evo said:
Since I stated the latitude and longitude were on earth, that is sufficient information to find the location.
Give me the location of the CD case in the back seat of my car.

Latitude and longitude coords are insufficient without a further specification of "now".
 
  • #159
DaveC426913 said:
Give me the location of the CD case in the back seat of my car.

Latitude and longitude coords are insufficient without a further specification of "now".
If I gave you my address would you be unable to find me unless I specified "now"? My house doesn't move around much.

I know what you're trying to say. "Now" is naturally assumed when you are talking to someone. I think we also assume that we are on Earth as our measurement of time is rather meaningless on another planet.

When a moving object is being tracked by GPS time isn't used. The GPS device is pinged at certain intervals and the latitude and longitude recorded. When you chart out those pinged coordinates, then you can "see" the device moving. The device doesn't send the satellite it's time. So for a lot of practical applications, you do not need to add time to get location, even if the object is moving.

I know you're saying that if the object is moving, obviously it will be in different positions at different times and if you tell me you will be at a certain coordinate at a certain time then hopefully you'll show up when I get there. Even if you don't show up at that time, I can still find the location, it's not like it will vanish. It seems you're discussing finding an obect at a certain location and I'm talking about finding the location itself. I don't know if I'm being clear, obviously not. :frown:
 
Last edited:
  • #160
As to long and Lat being suffcient

This is not sufficient even if we just consider the earth.

The Earth has had radical changes over time.. the size and shape have all changed making todays longitude and Latitude coord. different from the same coord. if I tried to us them 100 million years ago could you gaurantee that I would be in the exact same location? The logical answer is no. once again I humbly submit that Time is required and assumed in your location description.





rewebster said:
Before I go farther, what do you think time is?

and are you thinking about all this in terms of relativity?

Time is an infinite dimension and an equal part of the four-dimensional region in which all known matter exists.


I have another stupid idea about light but I will save that for another discussion... :)
 
  • #161
Cale Carter said:
As to long and Lat being suffcient

This is not sufficient even if we just consider the earth.

The Earth has had radical changes over time.. the size and shape have all changed making todays longitude and Latitude coord. different from the same coord. if I tried to us them 100 million years ago could you gaurantee that I would be in the exact same location? The logical answer is no. once again I humbly submit that Time is required and assumed in your location description.
But since we can't time travel, isn't that being a bit ludicrous? Sure we can sit here all day saying "what if". What if you gave me latitude, longitude and time, say tomorrow at 2pm CST, and that location was impacted by a meteor tonight?

I think Zz summed things up rather neatly in his last post. I'm going to go with his explanation.
 
Last edited:
  • #162
Evo said:
When a moving object is being tracked by GPS time isn't used.
Right. We're demonstrating that to specify an object's location, you must either specify a time coordinate or you stick to an agreed-upon time coodinate (such as "now").

Note that this is not merely splitting hairs. Like GPS, Google maps can provide you a location and also does not provide a time coordinate. But unlike GPS you cannot assume a specific time. Some of the pictures there are months or years old.

You would have been able to pinpoint the location of the CD case in the back of my car using Google maps (yes, you actually can! [ 43.601257N 79.500066W ] it's even pointing at the back seat, driver's side), but that is where it was the day the photo was taken.
 
  • #163
Evo said:
But since we can't time travel, isn't that being a bit ludicrous? Sure we can sit here all day saying "what if". What if you gave me latitude, longitude and time, say tomorrow at 2pm CST, and that location was impacted by a meteor tonight?


Time is an infinite dimension and an equal part of the four-dimensional region in which all known matter exists.


I have another stupid idea about light but I will save that for another discussion... :)
[/QUOTE]


We can't currently time travel.
Paradox's aside.. I believe true time travel is possible.

Backward and forward.. I even have a theory on that.. but once again its another discussion.
 
  • #164
DaveC426913 said:
Right. We're demonstrating that to specify an object's location, you must either specify a time coordinate or you stick to an agreed-upon time coodinate (such as "now").

Note that this is not merely splitting hairs. Like GPS, Google maps can provide you a location and also does not provide a time coordinate. But unlike GPS you cannot assume a specific time. Some of the pictures there are months or years old.

You would have been able to pinpoint the location of the CD case in the back of my car using Google maps (yes, you actually can! [ 43.601257N 79.500066W ] it's even pointing at the back seat, driver's side), but that is where it was the day the photo was taken.
Yep, and GPS is always showing you the past, whether it's 30 seconds or 5 minutes, you only know the last pinged location. You know where it was but you don't know where it is.
 
  • #165
Actually, GPS systems do need to know the time. There is a time-dilation correction that has to be built into GPS systems due to gravity (the GPS satellites are not in the same gravitational field as the object on earth). So there has to be corrections built into the signal that goes in between the satellites and GPS systems, or else it will go VERY wrong in just a few minutes.

So yes, there's time factor involved here.

Zz.
 
  • #166
ZapperZ said:
Actually, GPS systems do need to know the time. There is a time-dilation correction that has to be built into GPS systems due to gravity (the GPS satellites are not in the same gravitational field as the object on earth). So there has to be corrections built into the signal that goes in between the satellites and GPS systems, or else it will go VERY wrong in just a few minutes.

So yes, there's time factor involved here.

Zz.
Yes, they need to synch, so yes even though the recievers aren't sending their time to the satellites, they are constantly resynching themselves to match the satellites.

If you want to get more detailed, time (elapsed time, not what time it is) is used to calculate distance between the device and the satellites which will give the coordinates.

There is also cell tower triangulation that can be used, but it's not quite as accurate. This is what Google maps use.

edit: Speak of the devil, a client just e-mailed me another list of 579 latitude and longitude coordinates and wants me to get him the signal strength and location of the closest cell tower for each one and I don't have to use time in order to determine the locations because I have a map. The cell towers don't move around much either. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #167
Evo said:
Yes, they need to synch, so yes even though the recievers aren't sending their time to the satellites, they are constantly resynching themselves to match the satellites.

If you want to get more detailed, time (elapsed time, not what time it is) is used to calculate distance between the device and the satellites which will give the coordinates.

There is also cell tower triangulation that can be used, but it's not quite as accurate. This is what Google maps use.

edit: Speak of the devil, a client just e-mailed me another list of 579 latitude and longitude coordinates and wants me to get him the signal strength and location of the closest cell tower for each one and I don't have to use time in order to determine the locations because I have a map. The cell towers don't move around much either. :wink:

Realtive to the Earth's surface.. they move slightly... relative to the moon on the other hand...
 
  • #168
Cale Carter said:
Realtive to the Earth's surface.. they move slightly... relative to the moon on the other hand...
Yes, but the DOD adjusts for it.
 
  • #169
Cale Carter said:
We can't currently time travel.
Paradox's aside.. I believe true time travel is possible.

Backward and forward.. I even have a theory on that.. but once again its another discussion.

Here, I believe is one flaw in your logic. If --IF---there is time travel, that means that 'time' would have to 'stop' (as anything has to when it changes direction)--and if 'time' stopped, your idea that:

" If there is no mass present there is no time.
If that mass has no velocity (or velocity exceeds the speed of light) there is no time.


Time requires mass and velocity (c-x)?"


then, mass would cease to exist, as time 'stopped'.


Of course, all of this 'time zero' , 'time stopping' is more fantasy to me than even hypothetical--so its all a 'thought experiment' anyway, then.
 
Last edited:
  • #170
rewebster said:
Here, I believe is one flaw in your logic. If --IF---there is time travel, that means that 'time' would have to 'stop' (as anything has to when it changes direction)--and if 'time' stopped, your idea that:

" If there is no mass present there is no time.
If that mass has no velocity (or velocity exceeds the speed of light) there is no time.Time requires mass and velocity (c-x)?"then, mass would cease to exist, as time 'stopped'.Of course, all of this 'time zero' , 'time stopping' is more fantasy to me than even hypothetical--so its all a 'thought experiment' anyway, then.
Actually I had the same thought.. but it is not as troublesome as one might think.

The problem started with the fact that it is impossible to jump from one point in time either forward or backward. It would require infinite energy (among other things) and this cannot be achieved.

Understanding the premise that it is impossible to jump from one point in this time space continuum to another.. one must then come to the conclusion that one must remove oneself from this time space to an alternative time space and then one will be able to insert oneself back into a chosen point in this continuum.Removed from this time space continuum, matter in this continuum would no longer "exist" in the time space continuum the traver was had then move into.. .. but the matter would not cease to exist in this time space continuum it would just be "out of synch" so to speak with the traveler.

The key is not a jump from here to the past or the future.. but a jump from here to another time space continuum and then into a chosen point in this present continuum.

The rabbit hole is deeper.. but I do not wish to monopolize your forum, as I am most likely the most unlearned among you.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • #171
Time is matter changing in motion.

At any given moment, time is finite infinity: within infinite distance in space are all possible infinities contained in the finite moment of singularity.

finite Energy of each moment E=MC^2;
with no loss or gain from moment to moment, E=E always conserved;
the accumulated changes of which we see as infinite matter over infinite space which we call time.
 
  • #172
drewterry said:
At any given moment, time is finite infinity: within infinite distance in space are all possible infinities contained in the finite moment of singularity.

If you look further up the thread there is considerable discussion over whether there can really be said to exist discrete ‘finite’ moments like this, due to effects of relativity.
⚛​
 
Last edited:
  • #173
rewebster said:
" If there is no mass present there is no time.
If that mass has no velocity (or velocity exceeds the speed of light) there is no time.Time requires mass and velocity (c-x)?"then, mass would cease to exist, as time 'stopped'.

Velocity is the derivative of change in distance, so yes it can't be calculated within a single ‘moment’. But it can be calculated instantaneously for a single ‘moment’, this is basic calculus.
⚛​
 
  • #174
rewebster said:
... 'time' would have to 'stop' (as anything has to when it changes direction)...
Really? I can't make a U-turn without stopping?
 
  • #175
DaveC426913 said:
Really? I can't make a U-turn without stopping?

I must agree that a curve would solve this problem...
 
  • #176
Jumping in quite randomly here, I have something (most likely asinine) to say:

I believe time is an illusion simply for the fact that the universe is only ever one one state. Any state it "was in before" no longer exists. In fact the "longer" in the previous sentence is nonsensical. The universe was and is only ever in one state.

That state contains in it motion and change.

The reason time seems to exist is consciousness. Consciousness changes the state of the universe so as to create a "picture" of a "previous" state, i.e. a memory.

This is like a car leaving a skid mark. When consciousness observes the skid mark it infers the existence of a past to account for its creation. In fact, the skid mark does not mean that a past existed, it is merely a manifestation the one state of the universe. It exists wholly in the present, as does its observation.

Say someone watches a bomb explode. After it explodes the thought goes as such: "All that I see now is rubble. I remember an unexploded bomb. Therefore it was unexploded in the past and is exploded now. Therefore time has passed"

In reality, it did not. Your brain simply makes an imprint of the unexploded bomb in your mind, and this image exists as part of the universe's one state. As the bomb explodes, your brain takes a continuous set of images and retains them. It then compares the "past" and "present" images, which all actually exist in the present, the one state of the universe, and infers the existence past. All that happens with the bomb and your brain is wholly in one state. Your brain simply manipulates the one state so as to allow itself to infer time.

Yet another analogy: just like flipping the pages of a notepad with pictures on them quickly can create an illusion of motion, so can observing relevant memories, all in the present, can create the illusion of time. All the pages exist at the same moment, just like memories, but clever manipulation can crate the illusion of change.

All we know of the "past" we infer from the present. all memory and all thought is in the present. It is merely the "positioning" of objects and thoughts in the present that allows consciousness to infer the past and extrapolate the "future".

I really hope the above makes some sense.
 
  • #177
As i see it time is a manifestation of events.. events are caused by change (movements, oscillations,) or any form of energy transfer between any two points in space that are not in the same place.
 
  • #178
johan01 said:
As i see it time is a manifestation of events.. events are caused by change (movements, oscillations,) or any form of energy transfer between any two points in space that are not in the same place.
It might be that time was the initial force which created our Universe, and since then, things keep changing, moving, oscillating (e.g. time made electrons rotate around nucleus).

So, time, as observed now, appears to be a manifestation of events, while it was the primary cause for events to take place.
 
  • #179
Evgeny Naumov said:
Jumping in quite randomly here, I have something (most likely asinine) to say:

I believe time is an illusion simply for the fact that the universe is only ever one one state. Any state it "was in before" no longer exists. In fact the "longer" in the previous sentence is nonsensical. The universe was and is only ever in one state.

That state contains in it motion and change.

The reason time seems to exist is consciousness. Consciousness changes the state of the universe so as to create a "picture" of a "previous" state, i.e. a memory.

This is like a car leaving a skid mark. When consciousness observes the skid mark it infers the existence of a past to account for its creation. In fact, the skid mark does not mean that a past existed, it is merely a manifestation the one state of the universe. It exists wholly in the present, as does its observation.

Say someone watches a bomb explode. After it explodes the thought goes as such: "All that I see now is rubble. I remember an unexploded bomb. Therefore it was unexploded in the past and is exploded now. Therefore time has passed"

In reality, it did not. Your brain simply makes an imprint of the unexploded bomb in your mind, and this image exists as part of the universe's one state. As the bomb explodes, your brain takes a continuous set of images and retains them. It then compares the "past" and "present" images, which all actually exist in the present, the one state of the universe, and infers the existence past. All that happens with the bomb and your brain is wholly in one state. Your brain simply manipulates the one state so as to allow itself to infer time.

Yet another analogy: just like flipping the pages of a notepad with pictures on them quickly can create an illusion of motion, so can observing relevant memories, all in the present, can create the illusion of time. All the pages exist at the same moment, just like memories, but clever manipulation can crate the illusion of change.

All we know of the "past" we infer from the present. all memory and all thought is in the present. It is merely the "positioning" of objects and thoughts in the present that allows consciousness to infer the past and extrapolate the "future".

I really hope the above makes some sense.

Whether you are correct or not, I must say that your post was very well-written and probably the best possible way to succinctly describe your side's viewpoint.

I happen to share your viewpoint, being a skeptic. I don't believe in the tooth fairy and I don't believe in 'time', but I'm willing to alter my view given some compelling evidence.
 
  • #180
Evgeny Naumov said:
Jumping in quite randomly here, I have something (most likely asinine) to say:

I believe time is an illusion simply for the fact that the universe is only ever one one state. Any state it "was in before" no longer exists. In fact the "longer" in the previous sentence is nonsensical. The universe was and is only ever in one state.

That state contains in it motion and change.

The reason time seems to exist is consciousness. Consciousness changes the state of the universe so as to create a "picture" of a "previous" state, i.e. a memory.

This is like a car leaving a skid mark. When consciousness observes the skid mark it infers the existence of a past to account for its creation. In fact, the skid mark does not mean that a past existed, it is merely a manifestation the one state of the universe. It exists wholly in the present, as does its observation.

Say someone watches a bomb explode. After it explodes the thought goes as such: "All that I see now is rubble. I remember an unexploded bomb. Therefore it was unexploded in the past and is exploded now. Therefore time has passed"

In reality, it did not. Your brain simply makes an imprint of the unexploded bomb in your mind, and this image exists as part of the universe's one state. As the bomb explodes, your brain takes a continuous set of images and retains them. It then compares the "past" and "present" images, which all actually exist in the present, the one state of the universe, and infers the existence past. All that happens with the bomb and your brain is wholly in one state. Your brain simply manipulates the one state so as to allow itself to infer time.

Yet another analogy: just like flipping the pages of a notepad with pictures on them quickly can create an illusion of motion, so can observing relevant memories, all in the present, can create the illusion of time. All the pages exist at the same moment, just like memories, but clever manipulation can crate the illusion of change.

All we know of the "past" we infer from the present. all memory and all thought is in the present. It is merely the "positioning" of objects and thoughts in the present that allows consciousness to infer the past and extrapolate the "future".

I really hope the above makes some sense.

This makes sense as long as conscious/awareness does not exist in the universe. Now conscious/awareness does exist and we call our perception of change (etc..) "time". And if calling "something" a name makes the "something" exist... then time does exist (especially in the brains of over 5 billion people).

For example "coffee" was never "instant" until someone freeze-dried it... now there is "instant coffee" and it exists where it once never did.

Come to think of it... was coffee "coffee" before anyone tasted it?? Perhaps not... perhaps it was simply the reproductive end of the life cycle of a plant in northern Africa

This is how your proposal appears to me and how it seems that it could be falsified.
 

Similar threads

Is there time? Or is it just an illusion?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
High School The M paradox
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
714
Is zero of nothing nothing? If so, would you write units for nothing?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Graduate Does a truly static "Block Universe" allign with "experience" aspect?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
208
Undergrad Cosmological principle about space and time
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Is Time Dependent on Consciousness and Awareness?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
High School Need help with understanding time travel
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad Higher Dimensional Time Implications?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Does energy currency make sense?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K