The debate "Time is an illusion" was started by
May 27, 2015, 12:53 am.
35 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 17 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Damn3d posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, I_Voyager posted 1 argument, bearunter posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Damn3d, toughgamerjerry, jj_jaim, WordSpeller, Aswathi, PsychDave, DarkAngelAnarchist, Ashik, Amanurl, raz, DanielleR123, drama, thatjonathanguy, JMP9940, sabrina, hollieg and 19 visitors agree.
jedty, Sosocratese, I_Voyager, soullesschicken, sdiop, KimUri, bearunter, DavidStuff777, Hanif_abdat, rishab and 7 visitors disagree.
The analogy of time to a meter is flawed. Time is not a unit, it is a concept. A more apt analogy would be a second or minute to a meter as both are units of measuring their respective dimensions.
While I agree that the dimension of time is not an illusion, our experience and perception of it is. An illusion is "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses." I can think of many situations where our perception of time is not accurate to reality. Sitting down to read for a few minutes and noticing that hours had passed, waiting for someone to arrive and thinking far more time had passed than had, or many others. These experiences of time are not rightly sensed, and are therefore illusions.
Even in the same situation, two people experience time differently based on their mindset. An example would be people going to a movie. One is enthralled and doesn't notice time passing, the other is bored and time seems to crawl. Time itself has not changed but the perception of it has.
for example time can be a measurement of any action that takes place and for time to be the illusion then so must the action for time cannot represent something that it obviously does this is like saying metres are illusions time is just a measurement of what are selves endure.
time is not an illusion but a medium that we perceive many things to run through
Simply because gravity can bend spacetime, doesn't mean that space and time are not intrinsically connected and interchangeable. It's the whole basis of the standard model. The real issue we often have with this concept is that our idea of time and the now is somewhat disjointed from the reality of nature.
We see the moon, however we don't see the moon as it is now we see it as it was 1.5 minutes ago, we see the sun 8.5 minutes in the past, we see stars years in the past. Space and time are simply two sides of the same coin.
What you say definitively makes sense, but our perception of time is an illusion. It can be played with (time flies when having fun, a watched pot never boils, etc) and manipulated (high speed travel dilates time). So while I don't think time itself is an illusion, our experience of it is.
I have to add that time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so.
Not sure I follow everything you're saying, but I think I got the jist of it. Thank You.
I don't know man. I've read a lot of physics theories about time and space. A lot of them are just clever ideas. I think it's far more probable that spacetime bleed out of matter when matter is divisible. Consider how spacetime fails approaching an event horizon of a black hole. Energy of a significant amount of mass (or density or whatever term you use to describe "compressed into a singularity-like entity") is no longer bound by the laws of spacetime. Instead, spacetime becomes enslaved by the force of the mass. Imagine if all that matter formed a single point, a true singularity. I imagine in relation to it, spacetime would be totally warped around that single point. All time in no space, all matter with no motion or dimension. More likely a specific variable-state there-in. At least it would take all time to accomplish little or no motion. If that singularity ruptured though and the matter was released into a hot dense state it would likely relinquish its grip on spacetime and it would bleed out suddenly and expansively (inflation). This sequential state couldn't co-exist with itself I should think unless every moment of time exists in some M-theory cosmic brane thang. Which is hard for me to comprehend because it seems unnecessary to explain the motion of matter in time. What's more likely to me is that if a singularity had a set amount of matter in it, a unit like "1" which represents the maximum state of energy in the universe at the first moment, there would be a mathematical equation which explains the progression of energy loss in its own void. Every moment would merely be a part in the calculation from "1" to "0".
But would that make our universe a valid computer whose sole end-game is to compute a single cosmic binary value?
I'm more interested in what's going on in dimensions smaller than planck time/space. I think what we're missing in understanding our universe is the possibility of other stuffs and physics besides ours.
If time is an illusion, then so is space. The two are interchangeable in physics.
I was reading an interesting article about British Physicist Julian Barbour, who argues that time isn't real.
He claims that all that exist are 'Nows'. Each arrangement of the universe is a now. Much like the pages of a book, each now exists simultaneously, without time. For example, the you picking up your phone is different from the you reading this text. His claim is that each arrangement already exists, but what we consider to be the passage of time is actually just the coexistence of all these nows, put in a step by step fashion, independent of each other.
What do you all think about his idea? I am still attempting to comprehend his theory, but if anyone else had any thoughts, please do post.
Article : http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time