Is Time Real?

[Forest_Dump]

Now I see why topics like this can get moved to metaphysics, etc. Perhaps because sometimes the rabbit holes decorated with Greek symbols have no external, independent reference points, they sometimes seem to merge into kinds of mysticism. And I suspect that is also why denizens of these muky depths are among the most sensitive to accusations or even suggestions that they verge on religious dogma or could use some guidance from philosophers. But then again, many philosophers of a certain stripe do seem to come out of physics or math. Peculiar world. I have to remember to avoid these places - there be dragons here.

[ronjanec]

Raj, I am not you, and you are not me... we exist completely independent of each other in the universe

No we don't. The fact that you can recognise you are not me is totally relationally dependent. Your qualities only arise by the interaction of other things. Fundamental particles that pop into existence have no qualities at all until they are "observed", that is interact, with something else.

Don't want to go on and on. Leave you to think about it.

You asked "is time real?", I correctly answered your question within the accepted parameters of what defines "real" in philosophy and science.

I believe you are somewhat familiar with what modern physics has to say about this, but have very little or no understanding of basic metaphysical/ontological principles which is what your question actually involves. Until you understand this better, you will never be able to accept or understand any correct answer to your personal question. Good luck.

[ronjanec]

Now I see why topics like this can get moved to metaphysics, etc. Perhaps because sometimes the rabbit holes decorated with Greek symbols have no external, independent reference points, they sometimes seem to merge into kinds of mysticism. And I suspect that is also why denizens of these muky depths are among the most sensitive to accusations or even suggestions that they verge on religious dogma or could use some guidance from philosophers. But then again, many philosophers of a certain stripe do seem to come out of physics or math. Peculiar world. I have to remember to avoid these places - there be dragons here.

His question is actually a metaphysical/ontological question Forest, and the only proper or correct answers to his question are of the same nature.

[Forest_Dump]

His question is actually a metaphysical/ontological question Forest, and the only proper or correct answers to his question are of the same nature.

I agree or at least it can or should be. But a lot of physicists (more of the amateur stripe, though, I think) don't like that implication. I would go further and say that many get very uncomfortable with anyone attempting to translate their language into a common tongue arguing that something is lost in the translation. But I think this is where a lot of "sciences" are running into trouble these days and getting lost in their own mysticism. I admit that even in my own field (and I myself at times), there can be hostility towards people communicating to the common folk and I am definitely often most comfortable writing within the esoteric jargonese on topics that probably have no meaning for the uninitiated. I would note, however, that "raj" is better than many and is still conversant in english and not just the garble, which is probably why he was runing into trouble with the druids when he first arrived here - I liked some of his posts here.

[rajnz00]

ronjanec wrote:
You asked "is time real?", I correctly answered your question within the accepted parameters of what defines "real" in philosophy and science.

You speak for science do you? All I could read was a definition from Merriam-Webster.

ronjanec wrote:
"Strawman"? The question asked was "is time real?" According to the two definitions I posted here, time is not real because it has no objective existence(not a distinct physical object or thing existing anywhere in the universe), a fact which you appear to be in total agreement with. ???

Sorry Dave, but I prefer going with two established sources for a proper definition of the word "real" than something you just came up with off the top of your head:

They are “established” are they? What was the second “established” source? Or did you mean definition?

And another thing, those definitions you produced, I could count more than two. Funny thing that.

1. Having objective independent existence
2. Actually existing as a thing
3. Occurring in fact
4. Not imagined or supposed.

In other words, according to the definitions you produced, if something occurs in fact, and is not imagined or supposed, then it is real. I’ll go with that.

BTW if you google “What is real”, within inverted commas, so you don’t get hits for “what” and “is” separately, you get 21,800,000 results and for reality, 823,000,000 results. If you have nailed it with Merriam-Webster, those are hundreds of millions of superfluous results. Google could simply refer to you.

When I asked the question, then I was going with the meaning given by Lee Smolin, the opposite of illusion (Occurring in fact; Not imagined or supposed.)

If I pose a question, I should be allowed to explain/ define what I mean, without being told what I am supposed to be meaning, or what I should be meaning, if that’s OK with you.

[Scott Mayers]

Raj, I am not you, and you are not me... we exist completely independent of each other in the universe

No we don't. The fact that you can recognise you are not me is totally relationally dependent. Your qualities only arise by the interaction of other things. Fundamental particles that pop into existence have no qualities at all until they are "observed", that is interact, with something else.

Don't want to go on and on. Leave you to think about it.

I understand you but then you must define what is NOT 'observed' by contrast. I'm guessing that you bias space as not being a 'something' that deserves to be considered capable of observing. If you did think space is qualified, then the term 'observed' just begs "exists" and why I raise my question to you.

Note that this is my contention with the interpretation in QM that ALL probabilities exist in the space between two slits prior to being 'collapsed' as one single reality at the back wall. There it begs that the "space" (assume a vacuum even) is still unreal there.

[rajnz00]

Scott, I addressed this question on my thread in Physics.

I am reproducing it below:

How I look at it is, we cannot extrapolate the results of the double slit experiment to the macro-world. Particles in isolation, like single photons, cannot have any properties until they are “observed”, that is “measured” or interacted with. Thus, before “measurement” they can have any property at all, such as position or spin. Because the measuring “instrument”, an electron or photon, is comparable in size to the particle being measured, it alters its state, by the act of “measurement”. It needs to be way smaller, example pressure gauge and tire. We can see the probability curve becomes exponentially narrower as the number of particles in the interaction increases.

I think the most ridiculous interpretation is the “many worlds” interpretation. The particle splits into every conceivable state and so does the human observer. We just happen to observe one of the states, in one of the universes. How convenient. No proof necessary, or possible. Moreover, it violates Newton’s ubiquitous 3rd law. The reaction should be EQUAL and opposite. A small photon shattering me into an infinite number of identical pieces seems to be a bit extravagant.

And an “observation” is merely an interaction. It does not need a conscious human to interpret it. That is merely an added, superfluous layer. So Einstein was right, (and Niels Bohr was wrong). The moon exists even if no one is looking at it. It is being “observed” by the photons of the sun, stars and cosmic rays.


Measurement is any interaction. Thus when the photon is "measured" / interacted with it is "observed". That essentially what an observation is, not seeing something and jotting down the results, which is the common English usage.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott, I addressed this question on my thread in Physics.

I am reproducing it below:

How I look at it is, we cannot extrapolate the results of the double slit experiment to the macro-world. Particles in isolation, like single photons, cannot have any properties until they are “observed”, that is “measured” or interacted with. Thus, before “measurement” they can have any property at all, such as position or spin. Because the measuring “instrument”, an electron or photon, is comparable in size to the particle being measured, it alters its state, by the act of “measurement”. It needs to be way smaller, example pressure gauge and tire. We can see the probability curve becomes exponentially narrower as the number of particles in the interaction increases.

I think the most ridiculous interpretation is the “many worlds” interpretation. The particle splits into every conceivable state and so does the human observer. We just happen to observe one of the states, in one of the universes. How convenient. No proof necessary, or possible. Moreover, it violates Newton’s ubiquitous 3rd law. The reaction should be EQUAL and opposite. A small photon shattering me into an infinite number of identical pieces seems to be a bit extravagant.

And an “observation” is merely an interaction. It does not need a conscious human to interpret it. That is merely an added, superfluous layer. So Einstein was right, (and Niels Bohr was wrong). The moon exists even if no one is looking at it. It is being “observed” by the photons of the sun, stars and cosmic rays.


Measurement is any interaction. Thus when the photon is "measured" / interacted with it is "observed". That essentially what an observation is, not seeing something and jotting down the results, which is the common English usage.

This does NOT answer the question in the least. I asked if you believe that 'observed' is about even a reaction by matter, does not space without concern of matter itself 'matter'? Does NOT the space, especially in your anti-Multi-world belief, suggest that you deem space itself as 'unreal'?

You can't have it both. If you deem the space between matter as 'real', then this must count as an 'observation' because those probability-waves would be considered to be 'true' IN THAT SPACE (non-Multi-world versions). The reality should collapse upon the light being created from the source because it is in that same space. So you'd HAVE to be assuming space is something UNREAL!!

Then I'd have to ask you HOW you interpret "THAT WHICH IS BETWEEN ANY TWO MATERIAL OBSERVERS" is 'unreal' but then could even SPEAK about what it does. If it is 'unreal' it is NOT THERE and so the whole of space is filled completely WITH matter. And if this is 'true', then even this still has to be considered an 'observer' by your assumed definition. The ONLY possible 'rational' way to accept a quantum theory superposition of states IN THE SAME WORLD require you to repair that contradiction by other world interpretations.

So, is "space" real to you?

[rajnz00]

Yes space is real. But it is grainy, discrete, not continuous. So when quantum fluctuations happen, there could be moments before the particle interacts with anything. It is only defined after interaction. Rather like you being truly alone in the universe. You will have lost "your bearings". You won't know if you are a human, an elephant or an insect.

[Scott Mayers]

Yes space is real. But it is grainy, discrete, not continuous. So when quantum fluctuations happen, there could be moments before the particle interacts with anything. It is only defined after interaction. Rather like you being truly alone in the universe. You will have lost "your bearings". You won't know if you are a human, an elephant or an insect.

Whether space is or is not discrete doesn't matter. I'm asking that if you assert even ANY meaning to 'space', given you just granted it 'real', would this or would this NOT qualify as an 'observer' of the kind you are referring to as anything that 'interacts' with something?

Given that you assert it 'real', if you then still hold that it is nevertheless not a something that 'interacts', what is your definition of the space (with or without) matter?

[ronjanec]

Raj,

Are Leprechauns "real"? No? Why not? Because they really don't exist anywhere in the universe despite superstitious people just talking about them because of silly old legends and fables? Or in other words, "they" are not "real", because "they" have no distinct object or thing existence existing anywhere in the universe(objective existence) independent of silly people just talking about "them"? Again, the main difference between what is "real", and what is "illusion", involves "objective existence" actually being present somewhere or not.

You keep complaining about the definitions that I posted here that define the word "real", when they actually define this to a "tee"(like in the example that I just posted), and can also be used in many other different examples when determining what is "real" and what is "illusion" in science and philosophy.

You do realize that these same definitions involved countless hours of work and agreement by many different people, and are generally accepted by most people(scientists included) as being very accurate definitively?

[rajnz00]

Scott - an "observer" is anything that interacts with anything else. And it's mutual. Not something that passively stands around separate from the "observed".

When you "observe" a rock, the rock "observes" you.

Your question "what is your definition of the space (with or without) matter?" is meaningless. Matter is not separate from space. Space is part of matter and matter is part of space. This is the idea of General Relativity. Not something through which matter moves, as Newton conceptualised.

I feel you are wanting to say something and perhaps what I have said does not go well with you. If so what is it? How do you visualise things?

[rajnz00]

ronjanec,

Closely tied to the question Is Time Real? is the question Is the flow of time from the present into the past real?

Could you answer the question - does my time actually flow into the past? Did my birth occur before my first birthday? Will I die after I am born? Are these facts? or are they just illusions?

If your answer to the questions are Yes they are facts, then you are saying Time is real.

If you answer No they are illusions, then you are saying Time is not real.

Those are my definitions. If you don't like them, there is nothing I can do.

[Scott Mayers]

rajnz00,

A formal definition is of the form:

"Symbol/Word" is a (Generic class type of thing) that (differs from other Specific things of the same class)
[and such species must be 'exhausted' jointly of all possible kinds there]

So to define 'real time', can you define this with better clarity?

Your definitions cannot be formal as you laid out earlier because they lack the formal structure, and beg what is real recursively in your first instance by asserting it as something that 'exists'. [Def. (1)] "Illusions" are also just an opinion unestablished and so cannot be of the definition without begging it is.

In Def. (2), you claim it 'unidirectional'. This is a perspective, not a 'truth' or there would be no such thing as a past.

Def. (3) just reiterates (2) by example. If X has order, it -X is just a reversed order and MUST exist too.

Def. (4) is begging specifically that time is universally unique to each point in space. I assume you only interpret what is real to be locally interpreted in kind to Special Relativity. That is pre-assigning the result of a theory to define what in it is an assumption it depends upon. I won't extend concern to Einstein's definition. But even his definitions are only conditionally defined for use of his theory.

Defs. (5) and (6) beg a meaning to 'existence'. You speak in these of the past and future but technically only our present moment can be 'felt', including the sense that we have a history. So discriminating that the future is NOT real while the past is is also begging your uni-directional assumptions in (2) and (3).

[Scott Mayers]

Scott - an "observer" is anything that interacts with anything else. And it's mutual. Not something that passively stands around separate from the "observed".

When you "observe" a rock, the rock "observes" you.

Your question "what is your definition of the space (with or without) matter?" is meaningless. Matter is not separate from space. Space is part of matter and matter is part of space. This is the idea of General Relativity. Not something through which matter moves, as Newton conceptualised.

I feel you are wanting to say something and perhaps what I have said does not go well with you. If so what is it? How do you visualise things?

I'm not in disagreement with your understanding of a rock. Now you are still avoiding explaining how "space" too is not of this property consistently.

If matter is a form of space (which I agree to), then the nature of space is logically equivalent to being 'real' as the matter.

If what you define as the act of "observation" as anything that 'interacts', this is an exchange of some kind of information. To space without matter in its form, does not the mere 'existence of anything even traveling through space without "change" count as "existing"? That is, if we imagine a rock moving in an ideal absolutely empty space, does the rock exist or STOP existing because it is not interacting with other matter?

I am arguing not to offend you (nor are taking sides for another) but to try to determine your clarity on the issue of 'reality'. If we only deem interactions as true for observing, it has to either abandon space as a 'reality' or treat ALL things as real for merely BEING in and of space.

Then, to what you mentioned about supporting the non-Multi-world theory, there would be a loss of conservation of information if you have one single photon become multiple things in the same space but collapse to become one again just by hitting the wall in the slit experiment. Information would 'increase' as 'real' yet the space it occupies is unreal; OR the space is 'real' but then the information in it would have to be 'unreal' (or elsewhere). If both are real, then the 'observer' is the very space everywhere the photon is initially 'fired' from and so should be defaulted to be collapsed for being observed throughout its path from beginning to end.

Can you see the problem I'm seeing?

[ronjanec]

ronjanec,

Closely tied to the question Is Time Real? is the question Is the flow of time from the present into the past real?

Could you answer the question - does my time actually flow into the past? Did my birth occur before my first birthday? Will I die after I am born? Are these facts? or are they just illusions?

If your answer to the questions are Yes they are facts, then you are saying Time is real.

If you answer No they are illusions, then you are saying Time is not real.

Those are my definitions. If you don't like them, there is nothing I can do.

I have seen you talk about this earlier in the thread Raj, and was not sure what you were actually trying to say or mean here. I again do not agree that "time" actually "flows" in any way shape or form in the universe because "time" again has no object or thing existence existing anywhere in the same universe. Again, man's timekeeping system just keeps operating and recording the results(called time existing) in what man now calls the present, from it's previous operation in what man now calls the past.

I am in effect saying that without man and his timekeeping system existing, time and spacetime would not exist in any way shape or form in the universe. Both are just inventions of man and are not naturally occurring(I have had a number of threads here over the years discussing this in much greater detail)

[rajnz00]

"if we imagine a rock moving in an ideal absolutely empty space"

There is no "ideal absolutely empty space". It is teeming with "stuff". Matter, energy. The rock is a macroscopic object. It cannot move either in space or time without being observed and observing. Whether a grain of sand or the moon, they are constantly being observed and observing, that is interacting. Hence they have properties, which arise because of a vast number of interactions, which are constantly taking place. Hence the illusion stated earlier that you exist intrinsically by yourself.

It's the old Newtonian concept of a vast empty space through which objects like the moon travel. His equations are still amazingly accurate, but his concepts of absolute space and absolute time are as false as the geocentric system.

Matter is not "a form of space ", it is an integral part of space. Matter and space are real, but concepts can be illusions. Such as the concept of the sun, planets and stars moving around the Earth. They certainly appear to be doing so, but it is an illusion.

So the concept of time and its flow into the past can be real, or it can be an illusion.

The statement The flow of time is real falls within the realm of science because it can be falsified.

[rajnz00]

man's timekeeping system just keeps operating and recording the results(called time existing) in what man now calls the present, from it's previous operation in what man now calls the past.

That makes no sense.

Do you have a watch/ clock on your hand/ in your house? What is it recording? What did your watch record from yesterday till now? Let me make it simpler, what did it record from the time you sent your last message till the time you are reading this message? (how much time? And what happened during that time for you?)

without man and his timekeeping system existing, time and spacetime would not exist in any way shape or form in the universe. Both are just inventions of man and are not naturally occurring

Pardon me, but that is bs. Man is superfluous to objects in the universe, so are his timekeeping systems. They are observing and being observed. (Interactions). Every object has its own history. It's continuing interactions. And those events are ordered.

[ronjanec]

man's timekeeping system just keeps operating and recording the results(called time existing) in what man now calls the present, from it's previous operation in what man now calls the past.

That makes no sense.

Do you have a watch/ clock on your hand/ in your house? What is it recording? What did your watch record from yesterday till now? Let me make it simpler, what did it record from the time you sent your last message till the time you are reading this message? (how much time? And what happened during that time for you?)

without man and his timekeeping system existing, time and spacetime would not exist in any way shape or form in the universe. Both are just inventions of man and are not naturally occurring

Pardon me, but that is bs. Man is superfluous to objects in the universe, so are his timekeeping systems. They are observing and being observed. (Interactions). Every object has its own history. It's continuing interactions. And those events are ordered.

I said the timekeeping system keeps operating and recording Raj: We keep a very detailed record of all the time that has previously passed by a number of different methods...a simple calendar being one example.

It's not "bs" Raj, but you lost me with your explanation in the second paragraph of why you are saying that this is not true?

[rajnz00]

Talk later

[Scott Mayers]

"if we imagine a rock moving in an ideal absolutely empty space"

There is no "ideal absolutely empty space". It is teeming with "stuff". Matter, energy.

Agree to the 'realistic' factor. I used an ideal absolute to be sure that you don't contradict yourself by saying, "It is teeming with "stuff". Matter, energy." [ ;) ] If space is completely filled with matter/energy, then you can't differentiate between what is 'interacting' or not when such interaction should occur everywhere that such energy or mass occupies.

The rock is a macroscopic object. It cannot move either in space or time without being observed and observing. Whether a grain of sand or the moon, they are constantly being observed and observing, that is interacting. Hence they have properties, which arise because of a vast number of interactions, which are constantly taking place.

I'm confused. I already KNOW that a rock is macroscopic.

But even Einstein mentioned that the moon doesn't stop existing just because we aren't looking at it NOT because he didn't recognize something MIGHT be different in some way from that to the microscopic. If you are assuming the atomic/quantum sizes have 'weirdness' in contrast that enable them to break the rules when I don't already agree, we can't agree to this as a justification without establishing that as 'true' first.

However, the interpretation of the weirdness is only a 'fair' interpretation if AT LEAST assuming that the space in between the slits and the wall have superposition of something (masses/energy). That is, you'd have to be trusting that all points between the source of the light to the slits to the wall at least HOLD all possibilities LITERALLY in that space. The "interaction" of each point though is still established and so each point in space 'observes'. So what makes the wall any more 'special' as an observer than the spaces in between? Why do all options of a photon's path exist everywhere but collapse at the wall only?

Hence the illusion stated earlier that you exist intrinsically by yourself.

I missed how you brought this up before. Are you arguing for a 'solipsistic' belief?

It's the old Newtonian concept of a vast empty space through which objects like the moon travel. His equations are still amazingly accurate, but his concepts of absolute space and absolute time are as false as the geocentric system.

I disagree. But even given some interpretation of space 'lacking address' by some fixed background, then this reverts to a non-existing (unreal) space. This was used by Einstein to contravene dealing with the question of the ether and its confusing interpretation of it being real or not as a 'specific medium'.

Matter is not "a form of space ", it is an integral part of space. Matter and space are real, but concepts can be illusions. Such as the concept of the sun, planets and stars moving around the Earth. They certainly appear to be doing so, but it is an illusion.

Now you are sounding like one making horoscopes:

"You are strong but have weak moments. When you love, it is true but can hate just as often those things you also love the most. Matter and space are real, but concepts [like 'matter and space'] are illusions."

I'm just being rhetorical to show how it appears to me, not to what you think. I'm only inferring from you that you interpret a literal HUMAN OBSERVER as what qualifies as that which determines reality rather than the effect of interaction of matter and/or energy because, as I've argued, space is both real and not real in some weird way if it can hold and not hold certain truths simultaneously about what is in it. If space is real, it has to be interactive with what is in it. In fact even the Copenhagen interpretation treats the superpositions OF all the photon's possible positions as affecting each other and why it creates that interference pattern. So why is this not an 'observation' at each point in all those points that should 'collapse' for interacting there?

I think the definitions need to be revised to make better sense of all of this. I already hold that an inconsistent logic must 'originate' reality. But I don't hold that it is 'true' IN our particular contingent reality without resolution that makes things UNWEIRD.

[TheVat]

This is not a science discussion. Moved it to Metaphysics.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi all,

1. Is Time Real?
2. Does Time Exist?

I say Yes to (1) and No to (2).

Despite Ron's objection to my earlier definition for "Real".. it is still a subjective definition based on the constancy of Multiple Observers. The Universe spins around the Earth was "Real" for most of our History.

I've given the concept of "Time" much consideration for quite awhile. A Flash of Insight (epiphany) occurred several years ago that brought on the conclusion that "Time" can't "Exist".

I've never been able to fully articulate this insight (though I've tried) but I resolved my own dilemma between the "Reality of Time" and the "Existence of Time" that Gödel, Einstein and others have found.

That "Time" is an "Illusion".. like the "Universe spinning around the Earth". The Illusion is "Real" by subjective definition but "Time" as we think it is.. doesn't Exist.

The equations of general relativity, having superseded Newton's account of gravitation, provide one of the great successes of twentieth-century physics. In 1949, Gödel discovered unexpected solutions to these equations corresponding to universes in which no universal temporal ordering is possible. A hypothetical inhabitant of such a universe could, in principle, travel to his own past. Yourgrau argues that because time fails to exist in these Gödel universes, and because the differences between such universes and our own are accidental, time can't exist in our world either.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7038/full/435019a.html

Our persistence in believing "Time is Real" is what causes so many to be uncomfortable with Quantum Mechanics. My solution was to realize "Time" is actually "Distance" literally (as already pointed out previously). That the Planck Length and the Planck Interval only differ in Scale but are essentially the same exact thing.

Does anyone want to debate that "Time is Real" and "Time Exists" are synonymous statements?

Thanks Biv, for moving this thread to Metaphysics.

Back later.. I am at work now.. so can only do a drop-by now and then.. lol.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

[rajnz00]

ronjanec:

the definitions that I posted here that define the word "real", when they actually define this to a "tee"

Good for you. As I said, you should tell Google and save those hundreds of millions of other hits.

the main difference between what is "real", and what is "illusion", involves "objective existence" actually being present somewhere or not.

Your conceptions are simplistic, and unscientific in the extreme and abysmally wrong. What exactly do you mean by “objective existence”? You haven’t defined it, but I take it you mean “actually being present somewhere or not”. Like perhaps a rock you can hold in your hand? That would be real for you? What about energy? What is the “objective existence” of that by your definition? Can you point to where it is “actually present”? That’s about 96% of the Universe.

Special Relativity has shown that matter and energy are equivalent. Over 4 million tons of matter you could hold in your hand is being converted to energy every second, in the sun alone. What about electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields? Are they illusions? Where are they “actually present” as per your definition? On the other hand people, (BadgerJelly), have said that gravity is real because you can feel the pull of it on you, but that is an illusion, as shown by General Relativity, much like the apparent movement of the sun about the earth.

without man and his timekeeping system existing, time and spacetime would not exist in any way shape or form in the universe. Both are just inventions of man and are not naturally occurring.

Without time neither Special nor General Relativity would work. Example Special Relativity, (c dT)^2 = (c dt)^2 - (dx)^2 , man or his timekeeping systems don’t figure in these theories or equations, except in the experiments which have confirmed them over and over again.

I said the timekeeping system keeps operating and recording Raj: We keep a very detailed record of all the time that has previously passed by a number of different methods...a simple calendar being one example.

I am totally flabbergasted by your statement. The passing of time is a reality, according to Merriam-Webster, if it occurs in fact and is not imagined. Do you think the only reason you age is because of that blasted calendar you hang on your wall? What about your dog who can’t read it? If you took the calendar off, would the fossil evidence of past life disappear? the dinosaurs? the birth of the solar system? the big bang? All caused by your calendar and watch?

Ask yourself did your last birthday occur before the one before that and before your birth? Are these facts? If they are, and not your imagination, why is the passage of time not real? Are they caused by man’s timekeeping system? Or is it something intrinsic?

[rajnz00]

"Matter is not "a form of space ", it is an integral part of space. Matter and space are real, but concepts can be illusions. Such as the concept of the sun, planets and stars moving around the Earth. They certainly appear to be doing so, but it is an illusion."

Scott Mayers:

Now you are sounding like one making horoscopes:

Because I said that matter is an integral part of space? You need to study GR. Or that the sun appears to move around the Earth and we appear to be at the centre of the universe? You are sounding like a city person who has never seen a sunrise or sunset or watched the stars at night. You need to go camping and watch the sky lying down. You appear to be at the centre of it.

[rajnz00]

This is not a science discussion. Moved it to Metaphysics.

I disagree. Lee Smolin says that Time is "real", so does Richard Muller and Sean Carroll said "The origin of the universe and the arrow of time are major unsolved problems in our understanding of the natural world. But there is every reason to expect that they will someday be understood using the laws of physics. The quest to answer these questions helps make it all meaningful.

All of these have impeccable scientific credentials.

However, be as it may, I intend to discuss this in a scientific manner. I admit I have been distracted by an unnecessarily long discussion on the definition of "real". I should have chosen another title like the one I had about the arrow of time. But I'll run with it. If it's good enough for Richard Muller and Lee Smolin, it's good enough for me.

[BadgerJelly]

Just watched the first few minutes of Lee Smolin talk.

I guess Husserl is very, very, very far from being irrelevant today if Lee Smolin is asking questions that direcy relate to everything set out by phenomenology.

Also, soemmof hus very first few words echo what I have been saying about how our scientific attitude effects us (even the non-scientists).

[TheVat]

This is not a science discussion. Moved it to Metaphysics.

I disagree. Lee Smolin says that Time is "real", so does Richard Muller and Sean Carroll said "The origin of the universe and the arrow of time are major unsolved problems in our understanding of the natural world. But there is every reason to expect that they will someday be understood using the laws of physics. The quest to answer these questions helps make it all meaningful.

All of these have impeccable scientific credentials.

However, be as it may, I intend to discuss this in a scientific manner. I admit I have been distracted by an unnecessarily long discussion on the definition of "real". I should have chosen another title like the one I had about the arrow of time. But I'll run with it. If it's good enough for Richard Muller and Lee Smolin, it's good enough for me.

Your approach has been mainly scientific. Other members, not so much. I moved it more because of their meanderings, not yours. No worries, metaphysics is a popular forum here, so your thread will not be overlooked or languish in obscurity. Smolin's book on time reborn is well worth reading. I read it some years ago, and would like to go back and have another look.

[rajnz00]

Hi Dave,

There is selective memory and then selective beliefs, with selective quotes.

Does anyone want to debate that "Time is Real" and "Time Exists" are synonymous statements?

They are as per my definition. Defined as such - so no debate.

That "Time" is an "Illusion".. like the "Universe spinning around the Earth". The Illusion is "Real" by subjective definition but "Time" as we think it is.. doesn't Exist.

And then you go on to paste an excerpt from an article that doesn't support your claim. In fact just the opposite.

Martin Davis:

The equations of general relativity, having superseded Newton's account of gravitation, provide one of the great successes of twentieth-century physics. In 1949, Gödel discovered unexpected solutions to these equations corresponding to universes in which no universal temporal ordering is possible. A hypothetical inhabitant of such a universe could, in principle, travel to his own past. Yourgrau argues that because time fails to exist in these Gödel universes, and because the differences between such universes and our own are accidental, time can't exist in our world either. I doubt that many readers would be convinced by this argument.

Of course. The argument is absurd.

Martin Davis:

When his wife was hospitalized, Gödel literally starved himself to death, unwilling to eat anything not prepared by her. Referring to his sad end, Goldstein makes the untoward suggestion that he might have imagined that he was living in an actual Gödel universe in which he could look forward to an eternal recurrence

In other words he had gone potty poor chap.

Our persistence in believing "Time is Real" is what causes so many to be uncomfortable with Quantum Mechanics.

That is just trying to enlist quantum mechanics for your argument, with a false assertion. The discomfort people (like Einstein) have with Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with time being real, but by the probabilistic nature of matter at the fundamental level. It makes the future indeterministic, unlike GR, and in fact brings back the reality of time.

My solution was to realize "Time" is actually "Distance" literally (as already pointed out previously).

Yeah but you never told me how we would get velocity or momentum without time.

Thanks Biv, for moving this thread to Metaphysics.

Yeah I guess. Like plonking me into a loony bin. But at least I get freedom of speech.

Regards
Raj

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi all,

Having read some of Smolin's views, I admit he is interesting and on occasion has the right ideas. But.. almost everything he writes about "Time" demonstrates Cognitive Dissonance regarding "Time".

"More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics."

"I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it stands."

"All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly."

His problem is that he can't step back and understand what others are describing as "Time" or rather "Timelessness". He tries very hard to translate others ideas into his own paradigm of "Time". When he fails, it is easier to declare them wrong.. never quite understanding why he is wrong.

In the Paradigm that "Time" is actually "Distance" he would/should realize that he gets to keep all his cherished notions. Events do happen in Sequence.. like Milestones along a Road. But they are spaced by actual "Distance" not "Time".. as he perceives "Time".

Anyway, I'm not impressed with this person as he consistently attacks the Ideas of others using arguments that display his continuous attempts to fit their ideas into his personal view of Reality. That's Cognitive Dissonance.. plain and simple.

Is "Time" real? Sure it is.. as a Common Perception. But that Perception is a common "Persistent Illusion".. Like the Sun arcing across the Sky. Obviously, that is Subjectively Real too. But the Objective Reality is that the Earth Spins to create this illusion.

Raj:

Einstein help do major work in Quantum Mechanics. He had issues with Indeterminacy (dice) and Wave Collapse in Entanglement exceeding his Speed of Light limitation.

Yes, Gödel was Anorexic. Does that diminish his Genius?

They are as per my definition. Defined as such - so no debate.

Wow.. Subjective Reality and Objective Reality are quite different.. despite your personal stance.

When I watch a Movie on the Big Screen.. I see action and motion (Subjective Time).. not a bunch of still frames flashed in Sequence (Objective Time).

I've worn yours (and Smolin's) Shoes years ago. Until I figured out what Objective Time actually was. Now your shoes don't fit me anymore...lol.

Yeah but you never told me how we would get velocity or momentum without time.

Yes I have. You need New Blank Space-Time Layers for Matter to Evolve onto/into so they do not conflict with their previous Geometry. A bit like seeing a series of Movie Frames as being distinct separate progressions. If you try to merge several frames into just one frame.. you get a mess if motion in the frames is involved. Get it? Each new Layer of 4D Space-Time added to the 4D Surface of the Universe makes the Universe resemble a Movie with distinct frames in order. The most Current Frame is "Now".

There is no Motion in each single frame.. it's the progression that provides Motion and Time. If you stop the projector, then "Time" freezes or locks in place. This is why I have said that if the Universe stopped Expanding.. "Time", as we perceive it, would also stop.

No one is asking you to accept this viewpoint.. but understanding it without trying to force fit it into your Model of the Universe/Reality would be a great step forward.

Richard Muller has also suggested ideas along these above lines:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.07975



Best regards
Dave :^)