tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post2448875781908774473..comments2024-03-11T13:47:03.621-05:00Comments on Physics and Physicists: Time Is An Illusion?ZapperZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-2833786410360304462020-09-19T15:59:12.765-05:002020-09-19T15:59:12.765-05:00Could it be that humans can only perceive so much ...Could it be that humans can only perceive so much at one time. If we were able to process at a much higher capacity, would our “time” begin to slow?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15498552316506150567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-58494011979318996342016-07-23T22:54:42.407-05:002016-07-23T22:54:42.407-05:00I just found this article while searching for ammu...I just found this article while searching for ammunition to convince a friend. Then I clicked on the banner and was delighted to see the site is still active! Looking forward to reading more!Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16247934044199851445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-85577412989443312792013-09-13T07:25:35.254-05:002013-09-13T07:25:35.254-05:00If we go by what you said and space doesn't ex...If we go by what you said and space doesn't exist, then asking if all mass is at "one location" is meaningless. This is because, for it to be at one location, there must be a "LOCATION" in the first place, i.e. you know that point in space where this is located. That makes it self-contradictory!<br /><br />Zz.ZapperZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-67273692608116200772013-09-13T07:21:29.990-05:002013-09-13T07:21:29.990-05:00Is space different to matter? If lenght or space w...Is space different to matter? If lenght or space were to no longer exist at this moment, then would all of matter exist in one location?, If time were to no longer exist in this moment would all that occurs at this moment, occur at this moment? <br /><br />Im sure theres a good reason why this aint true...Zz?Adam Brickleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01396058932831422318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-24353353422800920312013-08-05T12:23:33.152-05:002013-08-05T12:23:33.152-05:00I'm not sure how "underpinning" can ...I'm not sure how "underpinning" can be different from "affecting," but the fact is that randomness anywhere in our will-forming and enacting machinery breaks the causal links between our characters, desires, decisions and actions. If "underpinning" means that the random stuff happens in the causal chain before our bodies, brains and characters are formed, that's just another factor involved in the formation of persons. From the perspective of free-will, it doesn't matter how a person came to be the person they are. All that matters is that the person forms volitions, and that at least some of those volitions result in actions that are willed by the person rather than coerced by outside forces.Squiptryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14747172428247137169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-71055840957191935962013-08-04T22:35:39.015-05:002013-08-04T22:35:39.015-05:00But back to the topic - in our known universe, tim...But back to the topic - in our known universe, time exists because of distance, as shown by t=d/v (or v=d/t). Try getting somewhere in no time at all! Oh but then there's those darn electron spin experiments where the spin information appears to do just that. Hmmm.Wallyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10981489632838052909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-59570533035830639852013-08-04T22:25:30.495-05:002013-08-04T22:25:30.495-05:00Squiptryx, what you said made me laugh, because ho...Squiptryx, what you said made me laugh, because how could I miss something so obvious. But I didn't say our actions occurred at random. I said randomness must underpin a truly free will. Meaning it would have to be a component of it. The will comes before the actions, and many other mental processes are occurring between the will and the actions. If the will doesn't have a random component then the will must be predictable and therefore is not free will. We could all be zombies in a giant video game built for a creators pleasure. <br />Now I'm supposed to prove I'm not a robot by entering the captcha again...<br />Wallyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10981489632838052909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-43287030029573182242013-08-04T21:14:30.804-05:002013-08-04T21:14:30.804-05:00True randomness cannot underpin free will. If your...True randomness cannot underpin free will. If your ctions occur at random, then they are not ac tions that you willed.Squiptryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14747172428247137169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-59911382193999381382013-08-04T20:36:18.821-05:002013-08-04T20:36:18.821-05:00John, you seem to be indicating that you believe w...John, you seem to be indicating that you believe we live in a created universe and that we have free will. I think we have free will. But for this free will to be completely independant of a creator, it must be underpinned by true randomness i.e where even an "all-knowing" creator/architect cannot predict an outcome (BTW, this would make him not all-knowing). The existence of true randomness would confirm Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, which underpins the Hartle-Hawking theory that it is possible for the big-bang to have been triggered by a random fluctuation at the quantum level. This then removes the need for the universe to be an artifact of such a creator (as Hawking has pointed out). Too much reductionism for you? Or just one thing leading to another? On the other hand, if the universe is algorithmic (like a watch) and randomness is only apparent (i.e based on our lack of knowledge of the underlying conditions), then it is more likely the universe is a created artifact, but along with that, our will must therefore be predictable to an all-knowing architect.<br />But you seem to want it both ways. Can you explain how these positions are not at odds.<br />Wallyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10981489632838052909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-15646751979448687332013-08-01T16:23:49.940-05:002013-08-01T16:23:49.940-05:00There is no casual explanation for anything in the...There is no casual explanation for anything in the universe if Time is not real. You cant draw a block of Time and disregard everything that has transpired in that block. You cant say there is no time and then tell me what the speed of light is or describe how the universe transpired 13byo. This is just confused.<br /><br />If people want to disregard what they fundamentally know to be true because of the reductionism of putting reality to paper that is up to them. but it is ultimately self deluding.<br /><br />This subject is closely related to denying freewill--which must be used in forming any coherent thought. Not a single word--its inflection, pitch, tone, percussion, and speed can be uttered without the choice to carry each of those out--let alone forming logical opinions.<br /><br />When we allow reductionism to overrule what we know as fact there has to be a biased reason. That reason is almost always atheism.<br /><br />If you think it doesnt dictate how supposed rational people can believe essentially in magic(the popping into existence of a lego building world against all probability) then not only look at Einsteins fudging at Relativity to force the UV static to avoid a beginning--but his comments to the wife of his friend that because Time wasn't real his friend wasn't really dead--thats not illusion--its delusion.<br />John Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-54038007343401299532012-08-15T19:59:59.418-05:002012-08-15T19:59:59.418-05:00
Is nice to find lots of people that think the sam...<br />Is nice to find lots of people that think the same as one, even more ifsome are physics PhD like Julian Barbour.<br />I see time clocks similar to cars kilometer counters, an event counter of a moving object.<br />They are not an ilussion, because they exist, but they are man made inventions.<br />Both (time cloks and km counters) can not go back wards, and can not jump forward to any value we want, <br />as we can do with spacial position coordinates (X,Y,Z) of any object.<br />I never heard of someone saying that the km counting of a car being considered a 4th dimention,<br />or say that the past and future kilometers of the cars exist someway in paralel universes, etc.<br />Pablo Thomassethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11504760160141652433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-47402872360133650592012-03-07T13:26:28.894-06:002012-03-07T13:26:28.894-06:00Sorry, but that is utterly dumb.
F=ma has no phys...Sorry, but that is utterly dumb.<br /><br />F=ma has no physical attribute. It is only a concept, an idea. Yet, you USE it!<br /><br />Besides, what physical laws or rule that says that something with no physical attribute cannot exist? You've made up your OWN rest of rules and then applying it to your liking. The world doesn't revolve around you, nor does it abide by YOUR rules.<br /><br />Zz.ZapperZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-59698715760114071492012-03-07T13:21:20.371-06:002012-03-07T13:21:20.371-06:00time has no phsical attributes therfore in physics...time has no phsical attributes therfore in physics it doesnt exist;)paul burtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17603133484093507729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-46391524497609390502012-03-07T13:17:58.761-06:002012-03-07T13:17:58.761-06:00What is "not understood"?
Note that you...What is "not understood"?<br /><br />Note that you DEPEND your life on us knowing how to quantify time. How do you think your GPS work? How do you think we get correct timing on your electronics?<br /><br />It is silly to say that we don't understand time. We DO! Time not being a solid object has nothing to do with us being able to understand it nor not. F=ma is not an object either! It is a theoretical concept. Yet, we build bridges and buildings with it.<br /><br />Your reasoning for us not to discuss it is faulty. If you claim we don't understand it, then you should be USING it. But yet you do!<br /><br />Zz.ZapperZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-90985577508812905332012-03-07T13:14:16.388-06:002012-03-07T13:14:16.388-06:00How can the mind understand something it cant see,...How can the mind understand something it cant see, hear, taste or smell.All it can do is measure the effects.the rest is imagination wether it be physics or philosophy.when we fully understand the cause of time we will find the answer.all anyone is doing here is arguing different opinions of something that isnt understood.HOW CLEVER IS THAT !!!!paul burtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17603133484093507729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-12159831631419023252012-03-06T06:17:14.432-06:002012-03-06T06:17:14.432-06:00No. How about reading MORE of this blog before you...No. How about reading MORE of this blog before you say that?<br /><br />For example, read my series of posts on "Imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen"? Your complaint has been addressed in there! There is a difference between making wild speculation BASED ON IGNORANCE, versus intelligent speculation that is done in science. Once you can tell the difference, then come back and tell me you still hold what you just asked me.<br /><br />Zz.ZapperZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-10856256983936672922012-03-05T23:04:52.214-06:002012-03-05T23:04:52.214-06:00It seems to me that anything you would not agree w...It seems to me that anything you would not agree with would be Crackpottery. How can science make advancement if you never consider (out of the box) ideas?Groove Talking...https://www.blogger.com/profile/06896090027902892249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-30838080949382553682011-02-14T15:39:00.438-06:002011-02-14T15:39:00.438-06:00Andrei, The traditional view of time is not an ill...Andrei, The traditional view of time is not an illusion. It's not exactly correct, but the difference between different observers' time-experiences is so small as to be negligible under all circumstances. It's true that if you drive your Maserati to the next town and back at 90mph you will experience less time than I will while I wait for you with a cappuccino and a good book, but the difference will be undetectable without a pair of atomic clocks. Neither of us will be experiencing an illusion. Relativity does not imply that our ability to sort events into past, present and future is an illusion. Events we experience as past really are past. Present ones are present while they happen, and the future is composed of events that will happen but haven't happened yet. Where's the illusion there? What event we experience as being in the past is really in the future? For Relativity to imply that something is an illusion it has to imply that something that appears to be X is really Y. What is your X and Y here?Squiptryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14747172428247137169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-86996645490150545752011-02-14T13:30:11.856-06:002011-02-14T13:30:11.856-06:00The greatest and most basic principle of relativit...The greatest and most basic principle of relativity is that space-time is relative.<br /><br />Since space-time is relative and what we percieve as reality is actualy space-time in some form or another. Then we can say everything is relative(including our own thoughts opinions and ideas).<br /><br />So the good thing that comes out of all this discussion ( which has lasted for almost 4 years now)is that : Time itself is not an illusion but our traditional view of it IS. <br /><br />The fact that we think we know what past present and future is, is an illusion such as the theory of relativity proved with the fact that space-time depends on the inertial frame of the observer.<br /><br />Of course this can be aplied to space as well and everything in existence for that matter.<br /><br />This puts the socratic quote : "I know that I know nothing" in a whole new light.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12572537573220645882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-2866633208480576942011-01-05T13:16:21.958-06:002011-01-05T13:16:21.958-06:00That makes no sense. Change that to space and I ca...That makes no sense. Change that to space and I can make the IDENTICAL ARGUMENT. So now, based on your logic, space doesn't exist either, because what does a "ruler" measure.<br /><br />You are confusing measurement apparatus with the quantity itself.<br /><br />Zz.ZapperZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-7892213437622479042011-01-05T11:43:25.035-06:002011-01-05T11:43:25.035-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00762188861452035517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-78594930559696089162010-05-04T13:50:07.690-05:002010-05-04T13:50:07.690-05:00For a _philosophical_ perspective, I wrote this as...For a _philosophical_ perspective, I wrote this as a follow-up essay prompt for one of my students who included the phrase "time is an illusion" in his paper about determinism. http://www.madwizard.com/timeillusion.htm <br /><br />Although I don't clearly separate "time as a dimension" from "time as flow of events across the time dimension", I think the prompt basically questions the bases of both versions of the "time is an illusion" myth.Squiptryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14747172428247137169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-27663323690651211552010-05-03T21:30:45.899-05:002010-05-03T21:30:45.899-05:00Or perhaps people should DEFINE what an ILLUSION i...Or perhaps people should DEFINE what an ILLUSION is and see if "time" fits into it. Time is not an illusion in the same sense as a mirage. It would be utterly silly to make them the same. You don't use a mirage as a physical basis of many phenomena. Yet, you do with time, especially when a phenomenon exhibit broken time reversal symmetry.<br /><br />People throw out all of these statements without bothering to make physical definition of such a thing, much less, physical justification for such statements.<br /><br />Zz.ZapperZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-29683798023040540022010-05-03T15:31:49.946-05:002010-05-03T15:31:49.946-05:00perhaps we should be focusing on space-time as the...perhaps we should be focusing on space-time as there is no such thing as just time. this may help in understanding the illusion aspect of time, which is a valid consideration and should not be treated lightly.Mr Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11387146979513118866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-84759101748060243592010-05-02T20:24:15.763-05:002010-05-02T20:24:15.763-05:00To put it more succinctly, philosophers do not say...To put it more succinctly, philosophers do <i>not</i> say that time is an illusion. People who lack the ability to reason carefully say that. With some notable exceptions, philosophers tend to be people selected for their ability to reason carefully and to understand the meaning of that they are saying.Squiptryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14747172428247137169noreply@blogger.com