• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time Isn't Real

The next time that I have an important appointment I will show up two weeks later because time isn't real.
 
Things just happen. The universe just means everything that there is, it doesn't refer to a force or a power. We call everything that physically exists the universe. That's all it is.


I guess that's why physicists search for a 'theory of everything' because the universe is believed to have sprung from one singular source?
 
The next time that I have an important appointment I will show up two weeks later because time isn't real.


The passing of events is real but our concept of measuring them is a human construct.

Oh, you didn't want a serious response, you simply want to tard up my thread. (n)
 
I guess that's why physicists search for a 'theory of everything' because the universe is believed to have sprung from one singular source?


Ummm... They are not in conflict with one another......
 
Ummm... They are not in conflict with one another......

No shit? devildavid said: "The universe just means everything that there is, it doesn't refer to a force or a power." Physicists believe there is a primal force behind all the other forms of energy that make up the universe. That does conflict with his statement.


Which is, in essence, a difference without a distinction.

That's because you don't understand that the human measurement of time is an abstract idea, while the passing of events is an objective fact.
 
The passing of events is real but our concept of measuring them is a human construct.

Oh, you didn't want a serious response, you simply want to tard up my thread. (n)

His point is simple: something

If you cede that something allows a physical body to change from one state for another, then arguing about whether we call it "time" or something else is semantics that gets us nowhere. And I don't see how someone could insist that physical bodies do not change from one state to another. Without the whatever-it-is that we supposedly mis-named "time", you wouldn't have been able to post this thread let alone respond to a post in it.

There is time. It's just not the universal absolute time people believed before Einstein.
 
His point is simple: something

If you cede that something allows a physical body to change from one state for another, then arguing about whether we call it "time" or something else is semantics that gets us nowhere. And I don't see how someone could insist that physical bodies do not change from one state to another. Without the whatever-it-is that we supposedly mis-named "time", you wouldn't have been able to post this thread let alone respond to a post in it.

There is time. It's just not the universal absolute time people believed before Einstein.

Change is real and time is a measurement of change. So, our concept of time is based on real events. Reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. But our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality.

At our level, each of those events looks like the interaction of particles at a particular position and time, but time and space themselves really only manifest out of their interactions and the web of causality between them.

Even Einstein’s relativistic space-time is an elastic manifold that contorts so that local times differ depending on one’s relative speed or proximity to a mass.

Established physics theories deconstruct our common-sense ideas. Einstein showed us that time is just a fourth dimension and that we live in a 'block universe' where there is nothing special about ‘past’, ‘present’ and ‘future.’

 
Change is real and time is a measurement of change. So, our concept of time is based on real events. Reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. But our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality.

At our level, each of those events looks like the interaction of particles at a particular position and time, but time and space themselves really only manifest out of their interactions and the web of causality between them.

Even Einstein’s relativistic space-time is an elastic manifold that contorts so that local times differ depending on one’s relative speed or proximity to a mass.

Established physics theories deconstruct our common-sense ideas. Einstein showed us that time is just a fourth dimension and that we live in a 'block universe' where there is nothing special about ‘past’, ‘present’ and ‘future.’


Hold on now, Rovelli's work - which I have and upon which that article is about - doesn't argue that time does not exist. It's an argument that time does not exist as a thing-in-itself, which is how we thought of it for most of human history. It's an argument that time is an emergent property of the operation of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.

Another example of emergent qualities is mass. There is no such thing as mass in itself (see: philosophical meaning of an object "in itself"). Instead, mass is an emergent property of energy. This is what Einstein meant when he said "mass is a measure of the energy content of an object"; e=mc^2 isn't an equation about converting mass to energy. It's an equation describing how to measure the energy content of an object.



In both cases, I suppose it's true in a more simplistic sense to say "time and mass do not exist". But that's not really it. It's that neither is a thing that exists in an absolute sense, as a thing-in-itself. They are both emergent properties of larger systems. So they do exist in a real sense.
 
Things just happen. The universe just means everything that there is, it doesn't refer to a force or a power. We call everything that physically exists the universe. That's all it is.

In other word you agree with grip, it makes no sense.
 
Hold on now, Rovelli's work - which I have and upon which that article is about - doesn't argue that time does not exist. It's an argument that time does not exist as a thing-in-itself, which is how we thought of it for most of human history. It's an argument that time is an emergent property of the operation of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.

Another example of emergent qualities is mass. There is no such thing as mass in itself (see: philosophical meaning of an object "in itself"). Instead, mass is an emergent property of energy. This is what Einstein meant when he said "mass is a measure of the energy content of an object"; e=mc^2 isn't an equation about converting mass to energy. It's an equation describing how to measure the energy content of an object.



In both cases, I suppose it's true in a more simplistic sense to say "time and mass do not exist". But that's not really it. It's that neither is a thing that exists in an absolute sense, as a thing-in-itself. They are both emergent properties of larger systems. So they do exist in a real sense.

Why say "mass is an emergent property of energy" rather than "mass is a property of energy"? or "energy is a property of mass"?

The term "emergent" implies causality, but energy does not cause mass.
 
I don't argue that time exists per se, merely that the distinction between past, present, and future is an illusion.

I agree that time and energy are emergent properties but e=mc2, on the most basic level, says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable, they are different forms of the same thing.

Time does not exist as a thing-in-itself and is different than mass though through the human consciousness time does exist, it's just not a physical part of reality.
 
Last edited:
People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

Completely with convincing signs of aging like grey hair and arthritis. Now I am relieved that is just an illusion!
 
Completely with convincing signs of aging like grey hair and arthritis. Now I am relieved that is just an illusion!


What you're describing is change, not time. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades are constructed increments measuring the distance between events.
 
What you're describing is change, not time. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades are constructed increments measuring the distance between events.

I better start rowing my boat because ---- life is but a dream! ;-)
 
No shit? devildavid said: "The universe just means everything that there is, it doesn't refer to a force or a power." Physicists believe there is a primal force behind all the other forms of energy that make up the universe. That does conflict with his statement.




That's because you don't understand that the human measurement of time is an abstract idea, while the passing of events is an objective fact.
]

Item 1:

Item 2: See my previous statement in this regard.
What you're describing is change, not time. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades are constructed increments measuring the distance between events.


So what? Is there a point here?
 
I guess that's why physicists search for a 'theory of everything' because the universe is believed to have sprung from one singular source?
What does that have to do with the actual meaning of the word universe? It still just means everything that there is; it doesn't mean a force or a power.
 
No shit? devildavid said: "The universe just means everything that there is, it doesn't refer to a force or a power." Physicists believe there is a primal force behind all the other forms of energy that make up the universe. That does conflict with his statement.




That's because you don't understand that the human measurement of time is an abstract idea, while the passing of events is an objective fact.

Physicists believe that? Really? I didn't know there was a physicist's belief system. Physicists study all the forces in the universe. They have said nothing about what you call a "primal force" behind all the other forms of energy.
 
Albert Einstein once wrote: People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

Time is like one continuous film of snapshots in succession with a beginning and end. Our lives occur somewhere in this incredibly long movie with a starting point and finish. Like this film, theoretically, time can be run backward or forwards but since it's the result of causality, it appears to expand, or run, in one direction.

The human senses are the projector and our minds are the screen. We see reality as a moving series of images because that's the way nature evolved us to adapt to our environment. Though our senses record the elements from their micro-level, our brains translate the experiences on mostly a classical macro-level. In other words, we taste, smell, hear, feel, and see things as larger singular objects, or the sum of the parts as a whole. We don't see individual particles but rather our eyes transfer electromagnetic waves as reflected or absorbed light.

The way sound doesn't exist without an ear to hear it, only the potential for noise does as vibrations in the air. So awareness of time takes a sentient being. Though trees are alive, they are not aware of anything. Time, as humans perceive it, is partially a result of our memories and consciousness. Similar to our senses, it doesn't exist separately from biological creatures, only its potential does.

We don't perceive reality as it really exists. Our perception is a limited and altered view of energy at work and time in motion.
interesting
 
Change is real and time is a measurement of change. So, our concept of time is based on real events. Reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. But our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality.

At our level, each of those events looks like the interaction of particles at a particular position and time, but time and space themselves really only manifest out of their interactions and the web of causality between them.

Even Einstein’s relativistic space-time is an elastic manifold that contorts so that local times differ depending on one’s relative speed or proximity to a mass.

Established physics theories deconstruct our common-sense ideas. Einstein showed us that time is just a fourth dimension and that we live in a 'block universe' where there is nothing special about ‘past’, ‘present’ and ‘future.’


Time is not a measurement of change.
 
Albert Einstein once wrote: People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

Time is like one continuous film of snapshots in succession with a beginning and end. Our lives occur somewhere in this incredibly long movie with a starting point and finish. Like this film, theoretically, time can be run backward or forwards but since it's the result of causality, it appears to expand, or run, in one direction.

The human senses are the projector and our minds are the screen. We see reality as a moving series of images because that's the way nature evolved us to adapt to our environment. Though our senses record the elements from their micro-level, our brains translate the experiences on mostly a classical macro-level. In other words, we taste, smell, hear, feel, and see things as larger singular objects, or the sum of the parts as a whole. We don't see individual particles but rather our eyes transfer electromagnetic waves as reflected or absorbed light.

The way sound doesn't exist without an ear to hear it, only the potential for noise does as vibrations in the air. So awareness of time takes a sentient being. Though trees are alive, they are not aware of anything. Time, as humans perceive it, is partially a result of our memories and consciousness. Similar to our senses, it doesn't exist separately from biological creatures, only its potential does.

We don't perceive reality as it really exists. Our perception is a limited and altered view of energy at work and time in motion.
Entropy is real.
 
Physicists believe that? Really? I didn't know there was a physicist's belief system. Physicists study all the forces in the universe. They have said nothing about what you call a "primal force" behind all the other forms of energy.

Before the short period of cosmic inflation, cosmologists believe that all matter in the universe was squeezed into a space much smaller than an atom. Cosmologists further believe that the universe was extremely dense and hot, and interactions between particles were governed by a single force. In other words, the four fundamental forces (strong nuclear, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and gravitational) merge into one at these energies. How and why this “unity” breaks down at lower energies is an important unsolved problem in physics.



Time is not a measurement of change.

Time is a quantity needed to change something, and change is necessarily temporal.
 
Back
Top Bottom