Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is time "real"?

Real as in that it has laws and such that are not merely relative. For example, morality is technically an illusion/concept created by man; there aren't any "laws" of morality, and it's not like as if morality is the 5th dimension or anything. If it weren't for humans, morality would not "exist".

So what about time? Is time just a concept describing...well...stuff happening? If so, then time travel would be impossible, since there would be no "time" as a dimension.

time is just the duration between events, so time is totally dependent on matter and/or energy.

no matter/energy interactions or movement, nothing to gauge the passage of time, or to be more clear there wouldn't be events for time to exist.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Is time "real"?

Real as in that it has laws and such that are not merely relative.
albert"Zeit ist nicht absolut."

It is real as you and me.
You can feel, touch, taste and see it thus it is real my friend.

Time is really my friend too. We play poker ever other Friday.

We give time meaning. Time is merely the way we humans measure growth and decay.

Time does exist. That is how things age and grow old. That is how stars burn out. All that happens with time. If time did not exist then everything would remain the same and constant. Nothing would change.

But time would.

Time is just a figment of your imagination.

In fact, it could be hiding somewhere in your basement.

Or maybe, it's right beside you as of this moment.

Who knows? It could even be your mom.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Time does exist. That is how things age and grow old. That is how stars burn out. All that happens with time. If time did not exist then everything would remain the same and constant. Nothing would change.

But time would. That's exactly what people say though. If time is just the 4th dimension, everything stays the same. That we only perceive in a linearly moving fashion doesn't make it not so.

Time is relative, which means it depends on your vantage point. To us time appears to be moving as we observe the change in matter.

But go to somewhere without the gravity well of matter then it might be a different experience.

If it is an illusion, it's an illusion that we have not yet been able to see through. It definitely governs everything that we are and know, however, I really believe that it could be possible to manipulate it. How? I have no idea.

Time as a dimension, an entity not per se the linear calendar based progression of time but the space-time is definitely real. Time has been seen to slow down as a result of speed as well as gravity as they are all linked within physical nature. Time exists as matter does and in a similar capacity though it does not extend in merely one direction but many as does any object in real space.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Time is relative, which means it depends on your vantage point. To us time appears to be moving as we observe the change in matter.

But go to somewhere without the gravity well of matter then it might be a different experience.


Yeah, but thats a cop out response because everything is relative

Time is the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

Time in and of itself does not exist other than as a human system of measurment. The measurment of the progression of events I.E. one revolution of the Earth on it's axis.

Time is based on change. The only way you can observe time is to observe change. That's the way it was designed. It's a measurement tool. It is as physically real as the words "length," "weight," or "area"

Take away change and time would stop. Time only exists because the earth moves around the sun at a constant rate. if this rate was inconsistent, there would be no way to measure time and we would have a very different grasp of the concept of time.

Time is based on change. Hence the expression, "Time is money."

"time", or rather the human construct of the passage of instants which seem to flow as a single continuous stream is a byproduct of our brain.

Whatever it is outside of that, in "Theory of Relativity" terms or whatever is pretty much insignificant to how we understand it.

Brain activity = passage of time.

It's just a word, people.

its a construct, but I see where you are going

broadz

Real time, as in "12:30", or "that took me 30 minutes to do!" is an illusion. simple and flat. BUT the illusion is signafying something real, that we replace with "Time"
so, in reality... "TIME" is a illusion that we use to represent the flow of things.

time as a dimension is REAL as proven by reletivity.

the ARROW of time however is a perceptual illusion{i.e. the perception that its FLOWING from past to future}

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.

It depends on your definition of "time".

True, but if that's the case, then what is the ultimate definition of time, or is time only subjected to personal opinion then? What do you think?

they say at absolute zero, all motion and even energy itself freezes that there would be no time...

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
they say at absolute zero, all motion and even energy itself freezes that there would be no time...

even at absolute zero theres still particle movement...so stop putting
dumbo-sauce on your chicken

Originally posted by magicturtle
even at absolute zero theres still particle movement...so stop putting
dumbo-sauce on your chicken did you read the part i said "They Said" its not comming from me, its what i learned in 12th grade

Time is made up.

Time is real, why else would they make watches? Damn, you dummies ask alot of stupid questions. I hate to see how you learn your youngins.

"Time" is an idea that we humans have created to measure the difference between events so it is not real. But it also does exist as without the passage of time nothing would happen.

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.

are length and width an illusion?

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

Description is probably the closest word. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, years and so on aren't strictly real, what they do is describe the effects of lack of simultaneity (time).

Originally posted by inimalist
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

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 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. 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.

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.

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.

Illusion

As Bill Hicks said' There is no future, there is only this moment'

Close thread now please

Originally posted by Deano
Illusion

As Bill Hicks said' There is no future, there is only this moment'

Close thread now please

But is this moment the same moment as the one you were talking about? Also, if you send a guy out on a space ship at near the speed of light for 20 years here on Earth. When he returns he will be younger then a person how stayed behind. How can this moment, that is the same moment at all times, have good clocks that do not agree with each other?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.

actually, and I tried to point this out way before in this thread, but our perception of time is much different than any "real" or physical spacetime.

while time perception is complex, it is currently assumed that time is represented as a sequence of neurological activity. this is the "time" we percieve. we literally have no sensory systems that might access the time we are talking about in this thread

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, and I tried to point this out way before in this thread, but our perception of time is much different than any "real" or physical spacetime.

while time perception is complex, it is currently assumed that time is represented as a sequence of neurological activity. this is the "time" we percieve. we literally have no sensory systems that might access the time we are talking about in this thread

Ya, it is all in our head.

For a long time (no pun intended) I believed that time did not exist, because of this problem. However, I've learned more about entropy sense then, and now I have concluded that the comparison of good clocks has something real to it. Perhaps it is a waveform that we cannot observe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But is this moment the same moment as the one you were talking about? Also, if you send a guy out on a space ship at near the speed of light for 20 years here on Earth. When he returns he will be younger then a person how stayed behind. How can this moment, that is the same moment at all times, have good clocks that do not agree with each other?

we cant interact with the past. the past is just a thought in your head that you experience in the present

the present is also just a thought that you experience in your head a few hundred milliseconds in the past

Originally posted by Deano
Yes but whatever happened to the egg happened in the present. whatever will happen to the egg will still happen in the present. The idea of past and future is in our heads. Its merely a thought therefore illusion.

Believe me i understand what you are saying. This topic can get confusing!

However, there is a big difference between the present when the egg was broken and the present now. The total amount of entropy in the universe is higher now (this present) then in the past (the lower entropy present). Entropy will continue to rise, and there will be less usable energy in the universe in the future. If the entropy in the universe was at equilibrium, then what you are saying would be true, but it is not. I used to believe as you do, but I have seen the error of my ways.