Is Time an Illusion Created by Consciousness?

[Cale Carter]

Hmm all this is interesting.

I have read the banter back and forth.

I am working with the premise that time is not an illusion but is a quantity just like the other three dimensions.

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...


This was not created in our heads, the fact that we must be present at that location is dictated by fact, not by idea.


My background is in philosophy and not Physics, and my grasp of them is still in the growing stages..

My opinion

Time is made up of Mass and a velocity that is allways less than C.

If you have a given area where there is no mass of any kind and no movement of any kind time does not exist in that given area.

I do not like the word Change is required.. because that requires an observer to change and an observer is not required.

Time is a construct of mass and any velocity of mass (as long as that velocity does not exceed the speed of light.)

T=M+(c-x)

Where

T = Time
M = Mass
C = Speed of light
X = unknown modifyer to the velocity of C

Forgive me I am working on english and scientific notation at the same time.

I appreciate your reply and learning from your wisdom.

 

[rewebster]

I have read the banter back and forth.

I am working with the premise that time is not an illusion but is a quantity just like the other three dimensions.

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...


This was not created in our heads, the fact that we must be present at that location is dictated by fact, not by idea.


My background is in philosophy and not Physics, and my grasp of them is still in the growing stages..

My opinion

Time is made up of Mass and a velocity that is allways less than C.

If you have a given area where there is no mass of any kind and no movement of any kind time does not exist in that given area.

I do not like the word Change is required.. because that requires an observer to change and an observer is not required.

Time is a construct of mass and any velocity of mass (as long as that velocity does not exceed the speed of light.)

T=M+(c-x)

Where

T = Time
M = Mass
C = Speed of light
X = unknown modifyer to the velocity of C

Forgive me I am working on english and scientific notation at the same time.

I appreciate your reply and learning from your wisdom.

It sounds like you're trying to mix Newtonian time and Relativity time. To me, they are in different realms.

 

[jdg812]

Time does not exist. Only movement. Our brains interperet change as time.

My opinion is:
Time exists.
Flow of time in our brains exists as well.

May be there are other creatures exist, different from human, that have other flow of time, opposite to ours in direction, or discrete, or integral reception of time or whatever they wish.

But WE have no choice. We linked to OUR flow of time and cannot escape from our flow of time. For us this flow of time is the only possible reality. All other concepts of time are possible for other forms of existence, but those concepts are not relevant to our form of existence.

 

[Cale Carter]

Time must exist

Without using time how can one pinpoint the location of anything in the Universe?

Someone who thinks time is only a creation of the mind please tell me the location of anything... without using time.

 

[Evo]

Without using time how can one pinpoint the location of anything in the Universe?

Someone who thinks time is only a creation of the mind please tell me the location of anything... without using time.

Coordinates which pinpoint an object on Earth don't use time. Think GPS, for example. I can post latitude and longitude coordinates, for example, nothing whatsoever to do with time.

 

[Cale Carter]

Coordinates which pinpoint an object on Earth don't use time. Think GPS, for example. I can post latitude and longitude coordinates, for example, nothing whatsoever to do with time.

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree with Cale Carter. The "ruler" that we use to define length is tied very closely to the speed of light. This in turn requires the existence of both space AND time. We know this to be the case because in Special Relativity, we can no longer simply define coordinates. This is no longer sufficient to locate an object and will not describe completely the dynamics of that object. That is why the 4-coordinate that includes time must be defined.

This consideration is what is typically missing when people argue about time. They seem to forget that whatever they say about time, the same fate will be suffered by space as well. Yet, no one seems to be picking on space.

If the speed of light "c" is one of the fundamental constant of our universe, and there are many indication that it is, then it is obvious that the concept of time must exist and be on the same level as the concept of space. If not, space is undefined.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Agreed.

I was wondering what you had to have to have Time.. what it was made up of.

My first thought was that time requires mass and velocity to be present.

If you have no mass and velocity there is no time.. or time does not pass.

I am sorry as english is not my best language..

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)?


Perhaps this is philosophy instead of physic?

I am thanking you.

and

Without using time how can one pinpoint the location of anything in the Universe?
Someone who thinks time is only a creation of the mind please tell me the location of anything... without using time.

I still think you're mixing up Newtonian and relativity a little too much for this. Time, I believe, doesn't need velocity.

 

[Cale Carter]

and

I still think you're mixing up Newtonian and relativity a little too much for this. Time, I believe, doesn't need velocity.

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.

 

[out of whack]

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.

You say that velocity is required for time. But change (of position) is required for velocity.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[out of whack]

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).

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

 

[rewebster]

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?

 

[DaveC426913]

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".

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Cale Carter]

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.

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... :)

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[Cale Carter]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Cale Carter]

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.

Realtive to the Earth's surface.. they move slightly... relative to the moon on the other hand...

 

[Evo]

Realtive to the Earth's surface.. they move slightly... relative to the moon on the other hand...

Yes, but the DOD adjusts for it.

 

[rewebster]

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.

 

[Cale Carter]

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.

 

[drewterry]

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.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

" 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.

⚛​

 

[DaveC426913]

... 'time' would have to 'stop' (as anything has to when it changes direction)...

Really? I can't make a U-turn without stopping?

 

[Cale Carter]

Really? I can't make a U-turn without stopping?

I must agree that a curve would solve this problem...