This is something I always ask myself.
Things age of course, but it's not "time" that is forcing people and other things to age. "Time" doesn't jump inside your body and force your appearance to change.
We use time as a way of measuring the rate of change. Are numbers on a clock the real reason for today being Thursday, and yesterday being Wednesday? Just because numbers changed from 11:59 to 12:00? I think our perception of time is based on the fact that we created months, days and years based on the earth's cycle around the sun. We view time as more of a numerical thing, than a universal occurance.
I feel that time actually is merely a classification for an actual "force"........you see if you were to perhaps control space but not time then when you teleport to lets say New York......you will be thrown off of the earth more than likely....because if you control one without the other then depending on the time the place you want to go it may not be there do to the fact earth rotates....
so you may find your self popping into space on accident.
as for clocks i believe they generate this "illusion" so to speak....
so in turn yes i believe in "time" but i believe it's not actually measured by a clock and is in fact made into an illusion by clocks.
Originally posted by inimalist
are length and width an illusion?
Space-time, as a Newtonian grid, is not interchangeable with the comparison of good clocks. In other words, the idea that a clock tells time, and that time is interchangeable with space-time is an incorrect idea. I think that is what he means by an illusion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Space-time, as a Newtonian grid, is not interchangeable with the comparison of good clocks. In other words, the idea that a clock tells time, and that time is interchangeable with space-time is an incorrect idea. I think that is what he means by an illusion.
few, if anyone, is refering to the concept of 4 dimensional space time when they speak of time though
even then, like a ruler measures arbitrarily and anthropically defined units, a clock does represent the specific measure of a defined period of "time" as defined by that clock's relative motion blah blah blah.
illusion isn't the right word, if we need to even approach the issue in that way. it is a construct. it is the operationalization of part of the universe for human understanding. it exists because we invented it, but it is certainly there
Originally posted by inimalist
few, if anyone, is refering to the concept of 4 dimensional space time when they speak of time thougheven then, like a ruler measures arbitrarily and anthropically defined units, a clock does represent the specific measure of a defined period of "time" as defined by that clock's relative motion blah blah blah.
illusion isn't the right word, if we need to even approach the issue in that way. it is a construct. it is the operationalization of part of the universe for human understanding. it exists because we invented it, but it is certainly there
I think most people don't understand the distinction, but they have run across the idea of space-time as described by Relativity. The conclusion, based on a of lack of information, and a good portion of science fiction influence, is that there is some kind of illusion going on. I agree that illusion is not the right word, but I can bridge the gap.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI was thinking: the illusion of time as, fundamentally, a smooth, unbroken sequence of events, when--via quantum mechanics--physical reality is discontinuous. To perceive that discontinuity--instead of "time"--perhaps we'd have to see an event's wavefunction, instead of only the event's most probable outcome.
Space-time, as a Newtonian grid, is not interchangeable with the comparison of good clocks. In other words, the idea that a clock tells time, and that time is interchangeable with space-time is an incorrect idea. I think that is what he means by an illusion.
For Newtonian creatures in a Newtonian world, time is real. I believe the tree makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it. But at the quantum foundation of the physical world, where things may or may not happen, such one-dimensional/one-way sequencing does not appear to apply.
Basically, time appears to have no quantum roots, yet it is Newtonianly consequential.
Originally posted by Mindship
I was thinking: the illusion of time as, fundamentally, a smooth, unbroken sequence of events, when--via quantum mechanics--physical reality is discontinuous. To perceive that discontinuity--instead of "time"--perhaps we'd have to see an event's wavefunction, instead of only the event's most probable outcome.For Newtonian creatures in a Newtonian world, time is real. I believe the tree makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it. But at the quantum foundation of the physical world, where things may or may not happen, such one-dimensional/one-way sequencing does not appear to apply.
Basically, time appears to have no quantum roots, yet it is Newtonianly consequential.
That is why the two are not interchangeable. It's like time is really two different things that we "flatlanders" can only perceive as one. However, the wavefunction of time would have to fall outside of our "light cone", otherwise we would "observe it", and you know what happens then.