If time is not 'real' how can we be 'real'?

A current theory of science tells us time isn’t real. How can that be? If time is not real then matter really does not decay. If the entropy of matter is not real, how could matter itself be real? Of course the ancients have been saying that all along! The real world is the ‘spiritual’ world (call it a dimension if you are not comfortable with metaphysical thought). Think about it. How can our reality be real if none of the above is real? Ah the catch 22 is we can not even know if the spiritual world is real until after we die. So this too is in lock step with theology and metaphysical thought as it applies to religion. Could a 'creator being' have designed our universe as an 'proof of concept' for the ultimate test of faith, that is a test of faith that would not require him to ‘collapse the wave function’ and our privacy (neither is guaranteed in the Christian religion) analogically speaking by peeking at our utmost inner thoughts? Faith may (it is) among the most important article in our relationship with God.

Thoughts questions etcs?

reva

 

I've read similar theories and it seems the idea is that it's not time, but perception by our minds to interpret that which has already occurred as "past", that which is continuously occurring as "present" and that which we perceive or expect will happen at some future point to be "future". What I don't get, though, is the interpretation that because our minds must, and do, interpret those three states of being, and we continue to shift from future to present to past as events occur, that there isn't really a dimension of time. The reason I say that is I expect some future event to happen and some measure of duration must occur before that future becomes the present where I experience whether or not that perceived event actually happened as I imagined it would or if some other outcome occurred, and then, almost instantly, it becomes a past event. Our "present" is the shortest duration event in our being, but it happens in a constant state, and in sequence with other events. In order for that sequence, some measure of "time" must occur. Otherwise, all things would have to occur simultaneously if we had no state of time. Or is there more to it that I do not understand?

 

The answer is very simple.

The best definition of time for physics is "the comparison of motion of things, from which one motion must be standard/regular".

Example: the rotation of earth, the orbit of earth, the natural frequent vibration of the atom of Cesium.

All from right above show a regular motion.

You compare the motion of atoms in a decaying apple or, you compare the travel of a car or a planet or a galaxy to a regular motion. Here is how you obtain time.

The bible implies the same. After the setting of the orbits of earth and moon in the fourth day, God says that such motion of the heavenly bodies will be used to set the seasons, like the agricultural seasons. Here is when we read for the first time the mention of this measure, which uses a regular motion compared with the growing of plants, which are seasonal in many cases.

_________________________________________________________________

On the other hand.

The current definitions of time for physics are incomplete, nonsenses, invalid, even, many argue that still is "a mystery".

Lets start with "the mystery".

If you don't know what time is, then how do you know about its existence?

Having that kind of idea about time as a "mystery", you are implying "belief". And science is not about beliefs.

The definitions of time as a magnitude doesn't explain its assumed "flexibility".

You don't hear that because you add lots of air to a balloon, then the measure of volume "dilates", but that is the balloon which inflates.

This is to say, the affected one is always the physical object, while the magnitude/measure still maintains itself regular or standard.

With time, the affected one is the traveling object/energy/particle in one side or, the physical clock showing malfunction by being exposed to a different environment.

The measure time will maintain its standard.

________________________________________________________________

The belief that time is essential part for the existence of the universe is just a myth.

For generations, this absurd idea has been imposed by fanatic scientists who can't recognize that they were and are dead wrong.

The idea is that without time things can't grow or decay or etc..

As stated before, time is obtained when we compare motion of things. This means that the ruler of the existing universe is MOTION.

If motion doesn't exist, if planets, stars, galaxies, light, cosmic powder, etc. move around, then there is no way for us to invent the measure of time. We need to observe a regular motion to use it as a standard.

No PHYSICAL MOTION means no existence of the measure time.

Then, as read in the bible, the universe was created first, the motion of earth and planets and stars was started. Only after the mention of this motion of things, is when the measure time is referred as seasons.

______________________________________________________________

You can relax and enjoy life knowing that we can live without the measure time. Of course, it might be difficult for us to make plans, to set projects, to care about harvesting, and so for, but we can live without "time".

However, we can't live without MOTION.

No motion inside your body means your atoms are not more moving in an independent organic compound but are moved only by inertia of the earth's movement.

No motion inside the solar system means that planets are moved as a static whole with the Sun inside the motion of our galaxy.

No motion of our galaxy means... etc. etc. etc.

Motion rules the universe.

With all my respect.

CarlosLeBaron.

 

It isn't an actual scientific theory. this hypothesis is more correctly classified as science philosophy since it at this stage the hypothesis cannot be proven or observed. Its like the multiverse hypothesis.

I agree with SMDBill that our perception of "time" as serial establishes the limits of our factual understanding.

 

Could you elaborate on this? There are ideas about the world which call into question our perception of time, but I can't think of any serious ones that say that time isn't real.

 

So relative motion dictates time on earth and our solar system but becomes less coherent at galactic distances.

Time is still a useful medium and may as well exist for all practical intents and purposes.

 

I understand what you are saying, however I was referencing 'time' as in theoretical physics not intuitive time. In the science world one is represented as a upper case 'T' and the other as a lower case 't' in formulas, scientific notation etc. That said the idea that our brain interprets the past as the present occurred to me some time ago, and it does that in several modes. Just the time it takes our brain interpret a light signal from our eyes changing reflected light to a series of nerve signals that our brain can understand as a event, of for example a bird landing etc, forces us to think of the bird landing is the present moment. (in reality the universe has moved on a maybe a fraction of second or more into the future). This is true because after light hits our retina at 186,000 mps the image is converted into nerve pulses and sent via the optic nerve to our brain for processing at about hundreds of miles per hour!). So again what we see is not really 'real' its the past.

the using sub sonic nerve impulses forces us to think the past as the present

Please clarify. How could you 'expect some future event to happen' ? Do you mean if you are thinking about upcoming events of the next day? Or do you mean you anticipate events in the next second etc? If its the latter I do not beleive we can anticipate the thousands of possible casual events that will happen each second etc.

True, I think you and I are on the same page with most issues but we are simply describing it differently! Do you think that time itself is real? Or is it our perception of an event that is not real? I beleive the latter. The event was real when it happened however by the time we experience it with any of our senses and our brain tells us what it is its no longer real but rather it is a past event. Anyway I think the reason our brains are set up to understand non-reality as reality is because if our nerve impulses moved at light speed instead of order of magnitudes slower, our reality would be so garbled and our bodies unable to cope that our species or any flesh and blood species would not be able to survive. How in the world does a brain evolve something like creating non-reality from reality ?

Lastly I was saying in my thread that reality itself due to time not being real can not be 'real', if researchers are correct about non-intuitive time being a falsehood. Here is the a couple of books that got me interested in coming to terms of the unreality of atom based matter etc;

(1)
A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein
www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700861p.pdf
‎
(2) It's About Time: Understanding Einstein's Relativity by N. David Mermin

Thanks for your reply!

reva

 

I understand your reply and your disdain with the arrogant aspects of some science types and the general science establishment at large. I am a reverend and I too am oftentimes arrogant and uppity, even not nice, but I am working on it! So since I love pure R&D science and other science like anything to do with exploring the universe and last but not least I recognize the fact that applied science makes our (sadly mostly the 1st world only) lives more comfortable I have no problems living with its warts.

All that said I think we are speaking about two different things ie 'Intuitive' vs 'scientific' time. I should also say that its not only time that skews our perception of reality, its also other things which seek to conspire against what we think is real or reality. For example as I pointed out the speed of our nerve impulses which can be 2mph to about 390 mph compared to the speed of light can really screw with reality!
reva

 

Hi Swensson! As usual your reply will take some time to answer unless you would like to read a page about Kurt Godels reason for saying time is not real. He was the greatest logistian of the 20th century and Einstein walking bud at Princeton. He also worked with big E fleshing out his theories. Anyway here is a good source and answers your question. As I re read my thread I see some serious flaws in my reasoning and hope to address them soon, hey it was written at 4am!

Time and Causation in Gödel's Universe
publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Time.pdf
‎John L. Bell. In 1949 the great logician Kurt Gödel constructed the first
mathematical models of the universe in which travel into the past is, in theory at
least, possible. ... of time fail to exist in his universe has any consequences for the
universe ...
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...frUBC0&usg=AFQjCNFgLU52KUzg0I6JOuF20E9ISf06nA

I hope you enjoy it, perhaps the reason I so admire Godel was mathematically gifted theist in a den of meta-physicist hating vienna circle wolves. How I would have liked to been a fly on the wall during a few selected moments.

reva

 

Hi Jonsa. Well the word 'theory' isn't very accurate, IMO, its definition is more subjective than objective. I know that will elicit some probably venomous comment but its just my opinion. As for time being 'serial' I beleive you mean linear with points representing events etc, while being an intuitive explanation I cant agree. As I said there is definably an arrow of time, even though there shouldn't be according to physicists. I agree with many physicists etc that time is related to cereal lol. No really, try this analogy of how I visualize non linear time. Imagine a multi-grained loaf of bread with little rye seeds and other grains interspersed throughout the loaf. Now cut it with a sharp knife. The loaf is the universe start to finish and the grains in the slices are events in time. The slices could be envisioned as units of time. The past future and present all together. In that way even time travel which has been proven as possible and time dilation as a fact by many empirical experiments using atomic clocks and other precision instruments all agree with each other.
reva

 

I agree time is a useful tool for describing our weird journey through the universe called life. reva

 

Time isn't real, it's simply the way we organize events in order to understand cause and effect.

 

I'm vaguely familiar with the ideas, but I wouldn't say it indicates that time "isn't real", only that it doesn't work in the way humans instinctually think of it, and that fact is already pretty widely established.

 

You must expand with such term "medium".

Are you implying "medium" as an existing entity which acts as intermediary between other existing entities or, you are implying "medium" the woman who call the spirits.

When is about time, there is no existing entity, so your "medium" applies only to ghosts, far away from science. Lol.

Time is just a measure.

 

If you base your knowledge on books which are nothing but fantasies, then your knowledge is a waste.

Check in any of those books who, when, where, time has been perceived.

You will see that there is no mention oat all of a definition of time that supplies enough information to consider it physically real, perceptible and less to verify its assumed motion or flowing in order to compare it with its dilatation after speed of bodies.

In science, you must fiorst verify if the instrument you use for measurements is accurate. So far clocks are nothing but devices doing click click click.

Clocks can't measure any passage or dilatation of time. The only thing clocks will do is click click click, and when they are affected by a different environment clocks will do click.... click.... click... this is to say, their calibration will malfunction.

I have no idea how much you have been brainwashed, or if you are part of the big campaign to keep people misinformed of reality and keep selling crap ideas as sound science.

Einstein was a poor idiot when he thought that time dilates. He messed up. He is not the genius that people think he is. He was a poor idiot with a great imagination but with a mind crossing the limits of the absurd. Einstein was a complete fraud.

You might admire him, but in reality he was a poor idiot, and I have repeated it three times, because eventually by repetition of this phrase, your brain will be finally cleaned out of such poor philosophy called Relativity.

Fanatics due to a silly but proud ethnic inheritance defending Einstein are funny, they will start hundr4eds of threads defending their hero. Unfortunately, their hero was a poor idiot:Time doesn't exist physically, the whole Relativity is just garbage.

I have the feeling that you have opened this thread solely to defend Einstein and continue with the propaganda about him.

 

While gardening this summer my arms became infected with a poison ivy rash. Alas and alackaday I know that I am real. Scratch, scratch, scratch.

 

OK.

I will clarify to you what the speed of light means.

You send a spaceship to the Moon. You send a light beam to the Moon.

You have two different speeds. The spaceship will take days to arrive to the Moon. The light beam will take seconds in arriving to the Moon.

So what?

Look, the light beam has reached the Moon and such means nothing but a faster speed.

The spaceship arrives to the Moon and, if the light beam still is sent from earth, then they can meet. But, if the light beam is expired, the spaceship will arrive after and no light beam will be present.

Lets play further. A superluminal beam faster than light arrives before the light beam.

Any thing in particular that will cause some weird effect?

No.

A faster light over another is just a light arriving before the another.

Simple.

If someone things about time traveling to the past or future, or similar because one light is faster than another, we know that such is mere fantasy because no extraordinarily physical consequence happens when light arrives before a spaceship.

As you can see, the whole idea of time as physically existing, time as capable to be reversed, time as dilating, all those ideas are just infantile imaginations.

Check with the bible.

God created man. Man disobeyed God.

You don't see God "reversing time" I order to re-start again the creation of man.

Even God reveals that what is done is done. The only way to change something is by changing it with some new action or event, but never reversing time, because God has specified already that time is just a measure.

In this subject about time, the bible is 100% accurate while science is filled with lots of clowns who play in a circus of superfluous theories which are good for nothing.

God can't be wrong with this.

____________________________________________________________________________

And about your intuitive time.

What can you understand about time without any proof or evidence?

I will be glad to read your insight.

 

I experienced that reality some weeks ago, I knew I was real and that my reality was a truth.

I learned one more time that truth hurts and itches...

 

Medium - as "a way of doing something". Measure or whatever.

Use a dictionary next time.

 

There is no doubt that the term "theory" is misapplied by many, since it has multiple meanings. However when the modifier "scientific" is used, it has a very specific definition that requires stringent criteria to be met.

Since serial and linear can be synonyms in this regard, I have no quibble.

Your posted hypothesis requires a philosophical leap wrt time outwith of our limited perceptions.
Time dilation was predicted by Einstein and later proven by observation.
It isn't evidence to support the hypothesis, it is evidence that the concept of space/time is correct.

 

Close your eyes and try to fall asleep with a glass full of ice cubes on the table, when you open your eyes look at the glass to see how much water is in the bottom. The ice has melted because of time, this is a theory based on observation. Now do it again but for only 2 seconds. The ice did not melt due to a lack of cosmic vibrations being in effect because things only vibrate when we open our eyes. This is hypothesis based on imagination.

 

Time is how changes are measured...if there are no changes time stands still.

We're organic life. We have a beginning...we were conceived...and we have an end...we die.

Our lifetime is thus a series of changes from when we first began as embryos.

These changes are also known as entropy, and according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics closed systems move from order to disorder unless energy is taken from another system to slow the disorder.

For example we drink water and eat food. We take energy from those systems to slow down the disorder within our system. The overall energy of the system as a whole, our Universe, does not change it only changes forms...this is the law of conservation of energy. The process of aging, as we grow older...is a form of entropy. From our conception to about age 25, we're actually ahead of the curve, we move into an increasingly ordered state, but eventually our bodies no longer process the energies received from other systems as efficiently as they use to. From about age 25 on, we're moving into an increasingly disordered state. We're dying basically, some slower than others, some faster than others.

Time is a measurement of entropy...of change. As organic entities, change is of course inevitable, so for us the measurement of this entropy is relevant. Time matters to us, in other words.

 

One man spent 30 years figuring out a better understanding of time. He concluded that time seems sequential because events happen in series, but each new slice of time is actually a separate reality page of what has changed compared to the page before. The pages, however, are not bound together like in a book. Rather, they are all scattered about. Maybe it's a lot like the data on a hard drive that has not been defragmented. Every chunk of data has its continuation linked to the location of the next chunk by pointers.

Time is the product of a being undergoing the process of experiencing. We note nonliving things having undergone expected changes spanning the durations when we were not observing them, but we have to experience them again to make such determinations. Thus, supposedly, all time is known time. Maybe that's why they say that there is no real time. However, as has been implied, assuming that the nonliving things did not actually experience incremental changes consistent with the effects of time is counterintuitive.

Consciousness is the key. A larger consciousness is at work beyond our individuated consciousnesses. Thus saying that there is no real time is like saying that there is no larger consciousness! Hardline science is overdue to own up to its shortsightedness.

 

Other than seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, etc., what is a 'slice of time'? To be able to take or make a slice of time, one must know what 'time' itself really is. Without knowing what 'time' really is, all subsequent discussions about time are circular arguments, as they all resort back to the initial question... what is 'time'? So far, I have only seen subjective renderings of what members are perceiving as "time". Does 'time' have substance wherein it can be analyzed by the scientific community? It would seem that 'time' is the twin brother of 'God'.... Father Time....

 

There is a concept of Planck time which is considered the smallest unit of time. It is very small, but I don't have the appropriate book with me here that cites it. Clock speed is also a relevant issue. Various types and states of atoms and molecules vibrate at different rates; hence time is inherent in matter.