Is Time an Illusion or a Fundamental Reality?

[campal]

sometimes i wunder if time really exists. just because you can use it to callculate projectil motion or whatever, is it actually a physical issue or is it just the human way to deal with a situation? do you know what i mean? what if clocks can tell your passage from the past to now but nothing actually happened in physics, only things that can age have, from diferent forms of decay. if time is not real then time travel would not be possible and a lot of the physics equations would be wrong...E=MC^(2)?

 

[rewebster]

what time is it RIGHT NOW?











or RIGHT NOW?



etc.

 

[campal]

if the clock was never invented you wouldn't know either. so is time a human misconception? if humans never died, would we have come to the same conclusion that there is such a thing as time?

 

[binzing]

The idea of time as in like 6 o'clock is a human invention yes. Time as in from the Big Bang till now, and the change therein are natural.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The idea of time as in like 6 o'clock is a human invention yes. Time as in from the Big Bang till now, and the change therein are natural.

I think he/she means time as a 'temporal dimension' which is supposedly necessary for those changes to occur.

 

[rewebster]

"Time has come Today"


there is no place to run

 

[russ_watters]

if the clock was never invented you wouldn't know either. so is time a human misconception?

Humans did not invent the clock, the clock is a naturally occurring tool that humans have merely enhanced. All we did was recognize clocks in nature for what they were.

Time is not an invention, it is a discovery. You need to learn the difference. It's the essence of science: we're not inventing the laws of nature, just discovering them. Ie, if we hadn't figured out gravity, we would still be goverened by it.

if humans never died, would we have come to the same conclusion that there is such a thing as time?

Quite certainly no. Dying has nothing to do with anything - humans are still smart enough to recognize periodic motion when they see it (ie, the sun rising daily).

We get this question a lot and I've never understood this prejudice against time. Perhaps you could explain it to me. Why didn't you ask: 'If the ruler was never invented, would length exist?' It's the same question.

 

[tiny-tim]

'If the ruler was never invented, would length exist?' It's the same question.

Hi russ!

But I can put a ruler in my pocket, and carry it around.

I can't put a second in my pocket.

(and if you find a way of doing it, I'll just reply: "but it won't be the same second!" )

 

[GeorginaS]

tiny-tim you're not comparing like-things. A concrete object, such as a ruler, is not comparable as an example to an intangible concept of unit measure such as a second.

The question you'd want to pose in a fair comparison is whether or not you can place like-measurement instruments in your pocket. Ergo: can you put a watch in your pocket and carry it around the same as a ruler? And, of course, the answer is "yes".

If you want to fairly compare trying to carry a second in your pocket to something related to measurement, then you'd ask if you could also carry an inch around in your pocket.

Compare like ideas or objects to frame a reasonable argument. Apples to apples and etc.

 

[tiny-tim]

do you have a second?

Hi GeorginaS!

Aren't you begging the question … or even conceding it …

if time really exists … is it actually a physical issue … ?

tiny-tim you're not comparing like-things. A concrete object, such as a ruler, is not comparable as an example to an intangible concept of unit measure such as a second.

You're agreeing with me that length is "concrete" but time is "intangible" … which is the point that campal was raising and I was following.

If time is intangible, does it "really exist", or is it something like the centre of mass of a body, which is "just the human way to deal with a situation"?

In that sense, length (or weight) exists, but time doesn't.

The question you'd want to pose in a fair comparison is whether or not you can place like-measurement instruments in your pocket. Ergo: can you put a watch in your pocket and carry it around the same as a ruler? And, of course, the answer is "yes".

If you want to fairly compare trying to carry a second in your pocket to something related to measurement, then you'd ask if you could also carry an inch around in your pocket.

A ruler has two characteristics: it's both a measurer and a measurement (and so is a weight).

If I have a foot rule, then I not only have a way of measuring something three feet long, say … I also have a foot!

But if I have a clock, I only have a way of measuring seconds … I do not have a second!

Compare like ideas or objects to frame a reasonable argument. Apples to apples and etc.

To pursue your analogy, if I have an apple that weighs a pound, then I have a pound. If I have an apple that is an inch across, then I have an inch.

But if I have an apple … even if it's the bob of a pendulum (well, you have heard of bobbing for apples, haven't you? ) … then I don't have a second.

 

[NoTime]

Hi russ!

But I can put a ruler in my pocket, and carry it around.

I can't put a second in my pocket.

(and if you find a way of doing it, I'll just reply: "but it won't be the same second!" )

By the same token, you can put a clock in your pocket.
A ruler defines a centimeter just as a clock defines a second.

Length and Time are just different facets of the underlying concept of measurement.

 

[GeorginaS]

Hi GeorginaS!

Aren't you begging the question … or even conceding it …



You're agreeing with me that length is "concrete" but time is "intangible" … which is the point that campal was raising and I was following.

I'm not conceding or agreeing with anything you're saying and, further, you're mischaracterising what I wrote. I don't know if you're playing around or if you're being serious. However, I said that a "ruler" is concrete, not that "length" is. I said that a "watch" is concrete, not that a "second" is. I compared concrete to concrete and intangible to intangible. You conflated the two and furthermore twisted what I said.

So.

 

[binzing]

You're agreeing with me that length is "concrete" but time is "intangible" … which is the point that campal

No she's saying your trying to make the analogy of a ruler to a second and time to an inch.

 

[edward]

It's time to go.

 

[Danger]

you'd ask if you could also carry an inch around in your pocket.

Maybe he does, which would explain why he's here instead of out on a date.

 

[Kurdt]

An article I like about time that might interest people here by philosophy professor Brad Dowden.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/time.htm

 

[rewebster]

well, there's 'rulers' , too, of a different variety, like Bush, who some people do have in their pocket, too.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I love how rewebster avoids Russ' response.

 

[russ_watters]

But I can put a ruler in my pocket, and carry it around.

I can't put a second in my pocket.

Georgina was right, but only got halfway there with the explanation. You are not comparing like things - a "ruler" is a device and a "second" is a unit. Ie:

Unit: second
Device to measure it: watch

Unit: meter
Device to measure it: tape measure

As you can see, you can quite easly carry either measuring device with you.

(and if you find a way of doing it, I'll just reply: "but it won't be the same second!" )

Similarly, a tape measure that could only mesure one object and then be spent would be quite useless. Fortunately, stopwatches have reset buttons and tape measures are spring-loaded, so both can be used over and over again.

In any case, yes, time and length are not exactly the same. Time has the property that it flows. But so what? That doesn't make it any less real or useful as a dimension.

 

[MrPickle]

Software's intangible but it still exists.

 

[kingdomof]

The idea of something existing is a unique subjective feeling that is limited to one's self. Nothing is truly knowable and objectivity unable to be understood. However, generalizations and assumptions are the basis of knowledge and are based off the principle of faith. Time as one can perceive it is not time as another one can perceive it. In short, time is as real and discernible as one may make it to be. Time exists in the mind and nowhere else.

 

[tiny-tim]

yay St Augustine of Hippo!

Hi russ!

In any case, yes, time and length are not exactly the same.

At last!

Yes, there is no question that there is a qualititive difference between time and distance (or weight).

The question is whether that difference matters.

In particular, does that difference mean that in some sense length and weight exist, but time does not, and is merely a useful concept? ​

Time has the property that it flows.

I think I disagree with that.

Isn't time the "background" against which everything else flows?

(and how does that make time any more "real" than the aether? )

But so what? That doesn't make it any less real or useful as a dimension.

"real" and "useful", of course, aren't the same thing.

I suggest that just because time is a useful concept, that doesn't mean that it is, or describes, something which exists.

Finally, why are so many people so sure they know what time is? I agree with St Augustine, who thought it was a lot more complicated than it seems (http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augconfessions/bk11.html" ): ​

For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who even in thought can comprehend it, even to the pronouncing of a word concerning it? But what in speaking do we refer to more familiarly and knowingly than time? And certainly we understand when we speak of it; we understand also when we hear it spoken of by another. What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.

 

[russ_watters]

I think I disagree with that.

Isn't time the "background" against which everything else flows?

Whatever. I don't know that that is a significant difference. If you think it is, you need to explain why.

(and how does that make time any more "real" than the aether? )

It's pretty simple: you can detect the flow of time (or the motion of objects through time, as you seem to prefer).

"real" and "useful", of course, aren't the same thing.

Aren't they? The reason the ether isn't thought to exist is that theories that postulate its existence provide no added value/usefulness. Theories that require time to exist work. Devices designed to measure this thing -- presupposing it exists -- work. You need to explain yourself. You need to actually make an argument. Explain how a device can measure something if that something doesn't exist.

I suggest that just because time is a useful concept, that doesn't mean that it is, or describes, something which exists.

Suggesting it doesn't make it so. You need to make an argument for why I can measure this "something" if it doesn't exist. Ie, how could it be that I can measure time but it doesn't exist? I can also measure length -- does it exist? Why? We agree that there is a difference, but you have not made an argument for why the difference means that time does not exist.

Finally, why are so many people so sure they know what time is? I agree with St Augustine, who thought it was a lot more complicated than it seems...

Right, and he ought to know!

Tim, near as I can tell, you have only made one direct argument that time doesn't exist, and that was your first argument -- and it incorrectly compared an object to a dimension. The rest of your points have all been nitpicking differences between the time dimension and the space dimensions. But you have not made an argument for why the difference means that time doesn't exist. Ie, a car and a computer are different - does that mean the computer doesn't exist?

 

[russ_watters]

Wait, I think I may have figured out your objection. Your first argument was about a ruler. A ruler is something you can see and touch. Time is not a physical object. (the ether, if it existed, would be a physical "object"). Is that why you say it can't exist?

 

[tiny-tim]

Time has the property that it flows.

If you mean time as a dimension, you might as well say "space has the property that it moves."

If you mean time as a measurement, it doesn't flow.

Explain how a device can measure something if that something doesn't exist.

That's begging the question … by saying it measures "something", you already presume that that something exists.

The question is: if a device gives a reading, does that reading (measurement) automatically represent something that is real (as opposed to being an "intangible concept")?

You need to actually make an argument.

No … I'm perfectly entitled to ask a question … especially since, as a disciple of St Augustine of Hippo, I disclaim any personal ability to answer it!

We agree that there is a difference, but you have not made an argument for why the difference means that time does not exist.
…
But you have not made an argument for why the difference means that time doesn't exist

I do not claim that the difference means that time does not exist.

I claim that the difference means that your proof by analogy is incomplete.

Looking back, I see that I haven't stated my personal position on this.

My personal position is that the question whether time is real (or exists) (a) is arguable either way and (b) probably doesn't matter.

But if someone else wants to state that time isn't real, then I think that's a perfectly reasonable position, and I disagree with anyone who says that it's definitely wrong! ​

 

[russ_watters]

If you mean time as a dimension, you might as well say "space has the property that it moves."

If you mean time as a measurement, it doesn't flow.

You're right - it is really that objects move through both.

That's begging the question … by saying it measures "something", you already presume that that something exists.

Certainly - but only if your measurement succeeds! The Michelson Morley experiment, for example, attempted to detect the ether by measuring its affect on light. This attempt failed, thus the ether was not proven to exist.

Clocks successfully measure time, therefore clocks prove time exists. Jut like rulers and distance.

This is, btw, a fundamental requirement of science. If it isn't true, then there are no rules to be found, we're just puppets of God, and science is a lost cause.

The question is: if a device gives a reading, does that reading (measurement) automatically represent something that is real (as opposed to being an "intangible concept")?

I say yes, obviously - you would appear to say no, but you haven't really. Are you going to make an argument for that? Including, of course, the why?

No … I'm perfectly entitled to ask a question … especially since, as a disciple of St Augustine of Hippo, I disclaim any personal ability to answer it!

That's a cop-out and you know it. Argument via inuendo gets no one anywhere. You make claims -- you need to provide an argument for them. That's how science, philosophy, polite conversation, and this forum work.

I do not claim that the difference means that time does not exist.

I claim that the difference means that your proof by analogy is incomplete.

Fine - you still need to substantiate that claim! You only made one actual effort at that, tim, and it was in your first post. And it was quite clearly wrong (which you haven't acknowledged, or even attempted to argue, btw).

Looking back, I see that I haven't stated my personal position on this.

My personal position is that the question whether time is real (or exists) (a) is arguable either way and (b) probably doesn't matter.

But if someone else wants to state that time isn't real, then I think that's a perfectly reasonable position, and I disagree with anyone who says that it's definitely wrong! ​

There's the cop-out, tim. Saying "it is a perfectly reasonable position" is a claim that therefore requires you to provide arguments that time isn't real. If you can't do that, then you don't really have any basis for saying that it is a perfectly reasonable position. So far, all you have done is provide one incorrect argument for it.

And as dutifully as you keep responding to my posts, every time you respond, you cut out the part where I point out your error. Every time. Please respond to that point!

[edit] Actually, I take it back: you made two incorrect analogies, not one. You also incorrectly compared time with the ether. And you declined to respond to that point, too.

 

[russ_watters]

Btw, you keep mentioning St. Augustine, as if his views are relevant here. And I've ignored it because it is a non sequitur. But this is GD and I'm curious: why would you look to someone who was utterly ignorant of science (having died a thousand years before it was invented and 1500 years before the nature of time was discovered) for advice on matters of science? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Incidentally, it would appear that he was of the mind to leave science to the scientists, not to try to gain scientific knowledge through scripture or philosophical musing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation

 

[rewebster]

St. Augustine is in a different time zone

 

[tiny-tim]

hippocampus

Hi rewebster!

St. Augustine is in a different time zone

Yes … the University of Hippo … all his best thinking was done in the Hippocampus!

… why would you look to someone who was utterly ignorant of science (having died a thousand years before it was invented and 1500 years before the nature of time was discovered) for advice on matters of science?

Hi russ!

If by your new-fangled word "science", you mean natural philosophy, then I was under the impression that it was well-developed by the time of the ancient Greeks, about a thousand years before St Augustine.

And since clocks were invented well before that, surely by your own argument …

Clocks successfully measure time, therefore clocks prove time exists.

… the existence of time was well-known also?

Incidentally, it would appear that he was of the mind to leave science to the scientists, not to try to gain scientific knowledge through scripture or philosophical musing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation

Well … I read that as saying that he had a high regard for science, and considered that it took precedence over the Bible.

But if by "science", you actually mean science, then I fail to see what a discussion about the nature of time has to do with science … surely it is a matter of philosophy? ​

If time is a matter of science, then why aren't you claiming "so-and-so discovered it", and why isn't it named after him?

(hmm … time has run out … or maybe I've run out … or mabye we've both run out, but I've run faster than time has … anyway, I'll have to reply to your post #26 later. )

 

[rewebster]

Hi rewebster!


Yes … the University of Hippo … all his best thinking was done in the Hippocampus!


Hi russ!

If by your new-fangled word "science", you mean natural philosophy, then I was under the impression that it was well-developed by the time of the ancient Greeks, about a thousand years before St Augustine.

And since clocks were invented well before that, surely by your own argument …

… the existence of time was well-known also?


Well … I read that as saying that he had a high regard for science, and considered that it took precedence over the Bible.

But if by "science", you actually mean science, then I fail to see what a discussion about the nature of time has to do with science … surely it is a matter of philosophy? ​

If time is a matter of science, then why aren't you claiming "so-and-so discovered it", and why isn't it named after him?

(hmm … time has run out … or maybe I've run out … or mabye we've both run out, but I've run faster than time has … anyway, I'll have to reply to your post #26 later. )

Timeus of Sumeria 1877 BCE