Why do lots of people think time isn't real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dremmer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perception and reality of time, exploring whether time is a fundamental aspect of the universe or a human construct. Participants engage with philosophical implications, scientific theories, and psychological perspectives related to the concept of time.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Philosophical exploration
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the belief in time's non-reality may stem from a misunderstanding or foolishness among people.
  • One viewpoint posits that we perceive time through change, with memory playing a crucial role in this perception, referencing Julian Barbour's "The End of Time."
  • Another participant argues that while time is perceived through change, the converse—that we perceive change through the passage of time—is not accurate, as we cannot directly perceive time's passage.
  • A perspective is offered that time, like other concepts such as velocity and mass, is a human-created construct that simplifies the understanding of physical concepts, implying that nature itself does not recognize these quantities.
  • Some participants mention that time may be as real as space, but could also be an emergent property of a deeper reality, referencing theories like Penrose's twistor theory.
  • Several comments express frustration with the frequency of discussions about the nature of time, suggesting that the topic may not be suitable for a physics-focused forum.
  • There is a suggestion that the question of time's reality may be more psychological than physical in nature.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of time, with no consensus reached. Some see time as a fundamental aspect of reality, while others argue it is a construct. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the philosophical and psychological dimensions of the question, indicating that the discussion may lack a clear scientific framework. There are also references to specific theories and philosophical arguments that are not universally accepted.

Dremmer
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Why do you think that's the case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn't know it WAS the case. Why do you think it's the case? Take all the time you want to answer.
 
Perhaps because there are lots of foolish people?
 
We perceive time by change. Memory is changes in your brain. Given a shuffled sequence of snapshots of the universe, your own state included, you would always perceive them in the 'right' order. So there does not appear to be any need for an actual passage of time. What does matter is that adjacent states exist with consistent relationships. See e.g. Julian Barbour's "The End of Time"

Another reason is that quantum mechanics can be formulated in a manner in which time does not feature.

No doubt there are other arguments. Several philosophers down the millennia have said similar, St Augustine for one.
 
We perceive time by change.
I suppose we could add another aspect philisophically speaking and say the converse is aslo true - We perceive change by the passage of time.
 
I believe that whether something is real or not depends on your perspective. Humans created the concept of time in order to make the understanding of physical concepts easier.But nature doesn't "know" what time , velocity,mass etc are so for nature these quantities are imaginary.

It's just like the question : Does God exist ? Well i can't say yes or no but , from the peoples point of view yes it exists, it exists in their minds.No one can say if it exists beyond that.
 
I don't think that the belief that time is not real (or at least not fundamental) is foolish, although a lot of fools believe that time is not real.

Time is as real as space. But maybe all of spacetime is some kind of emergent reality which we perceive on top of a universe with a different geometry. I just got finished reading Penrose's _A Road To Reality_, so twistor theory is on my mind. In this theory, the space of events on spacetime is not fundamental, and it is instead the null intervals that make up points in the fundamental space.
 
256bits said:
I suppose we could add another aspect philisophically speaking and say the converse is aslo true - We perceive change by the passage of time.

Not really. We cannot perceive the passage of time directly. We only perceive it by change, and we only perceive change by virtue of memory.
 
Ohhh nooooo, not another "what is time" thread! :cry:

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3106
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
jtbell said:
Ohhh nooooo, not another "what is time" thread! :cry:

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3106

I agree. I think it's time a mod called time-out on these pesky time posts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
The question as posed is not a physics question, but rather a psychology question.
 
  • #12
Agreed. This is not physics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 142 ·
5
Replies
142
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K