442 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

 

A clock measures time it does not create it.

 

Time is an illusion.

 

Time is a (human) creation used for our animistic understanding / linear way of thinking. 

 

Clocks are simply devices which implement some sort of consistent and countable repetition. 

 

How do you know it is an illusion?  Miss your bus and you can't say it is an illusion or make it otherwise.  Perhaps your missing the bus is an illusion but if you run your life that way your boss will fire you and your illusion will cause you to lose all your friends.  Time is real not just a clock.  What is measured by it is duration of time.  Seconds go by...........

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Why is there time rather than no time?  If it is an illusion, why is there an illusion rather than no illusion?  That is the question.  Prove it by science.  Why is there science and prove it by science.

[Lewis Carroll]

How do you know it is an illusion?  Miss your bus and you can't say it is an illusion or make it otherwise.  Perhaps your missing the bus is an illusion but if you run your life that way your boss will fire you and your illusion will cause you to lose all your friends.  Time is real not just a clock.  What is measured by it is duration of time.  Seconds go by...........

 

 

 

It's an illusion in that it's a human creation. Time does not exist as some objective force of the universe. Clocks are used to measure the subjective concept of time- it's a convenience not a universal reality.

 

Your bus example misses the point. Yes, a bus arrives at my house each morning at a precise time. But that time is a representation of some sort of consistent and countable repetition (that is now globally agreed upon) that I subjectively bring into existence.

 

Change and Entropy =/= Time

Edited by MajinBrian, 25 July 2014 - 12:22 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

How do you know it is an illusion?  Miss your bus and you can't say it is an illusion or make it otherwise.  Perhaps your missing the bus is an illusion but if you run your life that way your boss will fire you and your illusion will cause you to lose all your friends.  Time is real not just a clock.  What is measured by it is duration of time.  Seconds go by...........

 

 

 

It's an illusion in that it's a human creation. Time does not exist as some objective force of the universe. Clocks are used to measure the subjective concept of time- it's a convenience not a universal reality.

 

Your bus example misses the point. Yes, a bus arrives at my house each morning at a precise time. But that time is a representation of some sort of consistent and countable repetition (that is now globally agreed upon) that I subjectively bring into existence.

 

Change and Entropy =/= Time

 

Again how do You know its an illusion?  Is your illusion an illusion?  If you were not here would time cease to exist?  It is only in your illusion or others as well?  Are you having other illusions such as there being something rather than nothing?  How far does it go?  Since time is an illusion, is change and Enthropy also an illusion?  Is anything real?  What?

Did humans really create this?  How do you know?    What is an Objective force of the Uniiverse?  What is subjective about a clock and how do you measure something that is not there?  If everybody agrees on time is it not real?  Is time like numbers an abstract reality?

[DukeNukem]

SH, you seem to not be able to understand how time might be a total illusion?

This fact is quite revealing.  But it explains a lot.

[DukeNukem]

I'll make it easy for you.  Time is an analog to change.  What we call time is just another way of acknowledging that things change.

 

But, there's no time particle or time field, like with electromagnetism.  Time is 100% intangible.

 

Humans have evolved with a belief in time because it's a super helpful concept and the illusion of it is always present, from day/night cycles, seasonal cycles, births and deaths, and so on.  But this can all be equally explained by the concept of change, thermodynamics, decay, and so on.

 

The universe does not have a clock.  It just exists, and changes thanks to the laws of nature (which do not require time to exist).

[shadowhawk]

SH, you seem to not be able to understand how time might be a total illusion?

This fact is quite revealing.  But it explains a lot.

I am not the one saying that.  Reread the discussion.  Others have been making that claim and I want to know how they know it.  Perhaps you know.
 

[shadowhawk]

I'll make it easy for you.  Time is an analog to change.  What we call time is just another way of acknowledging that things change.

 

But, there's no time particle or time field, like with electromagnetism.  Time is 100% intangible.

 

Humans have evolved with a belief in time because it's a super helpful concept and the illusion of it is always present, from day/night cycles, seasonal cycles, births and deaths, and so on.  But this can all be equally explained by the concept of change, thermodynamics, decay, and so on.

 

The universe does not have a clock.  It just exists, and changes thanks to the laws of nature (which do not require time to exist).

The universe that exists is changing.  Everything that begins to to exist has a cause,  No one said time was a particle.  Where did that come from?  Numbers are not particles either, nor is consciousness.  So...

[Lewis Carroll]

 

I'll make it easy for you.  Time is an analog to change.  What we call time is just another way of acknowledging that things change.

 

But, there's no time particle or time field, like with electromagnetism.  Time is 100% intangible.

 

Humans have evolved with a belief in time because it's a super helpful concept and the illusion of it is always present, from day/night cycles, seasonal cycles, births and deaths, and so on.  But this can all be equally explained by the concept of change, thermodynamics, decay, and so on.

 

The universe does not have a clock.  It just exists, and changes thanks to the laws of nature (which do not require time to exist).

The universe that exists is changing.  Everything that begins to to exist has a cause,  No one said time was a particle.  Where did that come from?  Numbers are not particles either, nor is consciousness.  So...

 

 

 

1. Rather then submit multiple, separate posts, why don't you use the "multiquote" feature?

 

2. Responses like the above cause me to wonder why you respond at all. Your response contains literally nothing of substances. and makes zero sense.

 

"The universe that exists is changing" ... cool? This is something that has already been pointed out.

"Everything that begins to to exist has a cause"... and this is relevant how?

"No one said time was a particle"... thanks for confirming.

"Where did that come from"... where did what come from? Time? It has already been stated many times that time did not come from anywhere. Time was a human creation as a sort of convenience.

"Numbers are not particles either, nor is consciousness"... once again, thanks for confirming.

"So..."... so what?

 

Your post literally adds nothing to the discussion (and this is not the first time). You simply seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. To had to the hassle, your posts make no sense.

[johnross47]

This discussion is fascinating but the topic is actually, "why is there something rather than nothing." I wouldn't personally try to propose a reason; it's not my subject, but I have seen quantum physicists proposing that the vacuum is unstable and that nothing can't exist. Can anybody here comment with authority, or at least, good knowledge of the field?

 

 

[DukeNukem]

This discussion is fascinating but the topic is actually, "why is there something rather than nothing." I wouldn't personally try to propose a reason; it's not my subject, but I have seen quantum physicists proposing that the vacuum is unstable and that nothing can't exist. Can anybody here comment with authority, or at least, good knowledge of the field?

 

In his book on this topic, A Universe From Nothing, there are two useful definitions for nothing:

 

o A perfect vacuum

 

o Not even that.  True absence of anything, including the laws of nature.

 

From a perfect vacuum, it's not too hard to model the appearance of energy and matter from quantum instability.  In fact, it seems inevitable.

 

However, from "true nothingness", an answer doesn't yet to exist.

 

But, there's no reason to believe with certainty that such a thing as true nothingness (or, anti-something) ever "existed."  (It's difficult to word this correctly, because to say that nothingness existed is to say that nothingness IS something, which is not what is being implied here.)  We may one day discover that true nothingness is not possible.  And given that time itself may not exist, that may eliminate the idea/need that if we go far enough back in time we will find a creation-of-something event.  (This is why time is somewhat relevant to the discussion here -- the idea of time's actual existence may be a HUGE player in the eventual answer.)

 

BTW, I'm no expert on this topic, I just read a lot of science books and articles.  Almost daily, in fact.

Edited by DukeNukem, 25 July 2014 - 08:21 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

I'll make it easy for you.  Time is an analog to change.  What we call time is just another way of acknowledging that things change.

 

But, there's no time particle or time field, like with electromagnetism.  Time is 100% intangible.

 

Humans have evolved with a belief in time because it's a super helpful concept and the illusion of it is always present, from day/night cycles, seasonal cycles, births and deaths, and so on.  But this can all be equally explained by the concept of change, thermodynamics, decay, and so on.

 

The universe does not have a clock.  It just exists, and changes thanks to the laws of nature (which do not require time to exist).

The universe that exists is changing.  Everything that begins to to exist has a cause,  No one said time was a particle.  Where did that come from?  Numbers are not particles either, nor is consciousness.  So...

 

 

 

1. Rather then submit multiple, separate posts, why don't you use the "multiquote" feature?

 

2. Responses like the above cause me to wonder why you respond at all. Your response contains literally nothing of substances. and makes zero sense.

 

"The universe that exists is changing" ... cool? This is something that has already been pointed out.

"Everything that begins to to exist has a cause"... and this is relevant how?

"No one said time was a particle"... thanks for confirming.

"Where did that come from"... where did what come from? Time? It has already been stated many times that time did not come from anywhere. Time was a human creation as a sort of convenience.

"Numbers are not particles either, nor is consciousness"... once again, thanks for confirming.

"So..."... so what?

 

Your post literally adds nothing to the discussion (and this is not the first time). You simply seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. To had to the hassle, your posts make no sense.

 

Sorry you can't understand it.  It wasn't addressed to you so I wont explain that the real universe began to exist and the implications to our topic.

[shadowhawk]

 

This discussion is fascinating but the topic is actually, "why is there something rather than nothing." I wouldn't personally try to propose a reason; it's not my subject, but I have seen quantum physicists proposing that the vacuum is unstable and that nothing can't exist. Can anybody here comment with authority, or at least, good knowledge of the field?

 

In his book on this topic, A Universe From Nothing, there are two useful definitions for nothing:

 

o A perfect vacuum

 

o Not even that.  True absence of anything, including the laws of nature.

 

From a perfect vacuum, it's not too hard to model the appearance of energy and matter from quantum instability.  In fact, it seems inevitable.

 

However, from "true nothingness", an answer doesn't yet to exist.

 

But, there's no reason to believe with certainty that such a thing as true nothingness (or, anti-something) ever "existed."  (It's difficult to word this correctly, because to say that nothingness existed is to say that nothingness IS something, which is not what is being implied here.)  We may one day discover that true nothingness is not possible.  And given that time itself may not exist, that may eliminate the idea/need that if we go far enough back in time we will find a creation-of-something event.  (This is why time is somewhat relevant to the discussion here -- the idea of time's actual existence may be a HUGE player in the eventual answer.)

 

BTW, I'm no expert on this topic, I just read a lot of science books and articles.  Almost daily, in fact.

 

Very good.  You have 'REASON TO BELIEVE."  That is what we are after.  We all believe something has always existed.  We also believe what ever begins to exist has a cause and didn't always exist.  The Cosmos begin to exist. so it has a cause.  Why is there something like there is, rather than nothing?  A caused something cannot explain itself.

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 July 2014 - 09:04 PM.

[shifter]

Time is just another dimension which we occupy. It's tangible and all 'relative' but we are limited with our power on it here on this floating rock.

We are born, grow old and die. Every star you see was born will grow old, run out of fuel and die. We live in a linear scale. I'm sure the universe has many scales. I don't think it's correct to say time is not correct or is an illusion. It's another dimension we occupy (perhaps some particles on a particle scale exist outside time or outside the boundaries of time) but we humans very much exist in it and witness it. The 'second', 'minutes', 'hours', etc are MSN made measurements of this scale. Doesn't make it wrong. I'm sure alien civilisations also measure time and do so very differently.

[DukeNukem]

 

 

 

I'll make it easy for you.  Time is an analog to change.  What we call time is just another way of acknowledging that things change.

 

But, there's no time particle or time field, like with electromagnetism.  Time is 100% intangible.

 

Humans have evolved with a belief in time because it's a super helpful concept and the illusion of it is always present, from day/night cycles, seasonal cycles, births and deaths, and so on.  But this can all be equally explained by the concept of change, thermodynamics, decay, and so on.

 

The universe does not have a clock.  It just exists, and changes thanks to the laws of nature (which do not require time to exist).

The universe that exists is changing.  Everything that begins to to exist has a cause,  No one said time was a particle.  Where did that come from?  Numbers are not particles either, nor is consciousness.  So...

 

 

 

1. Rather then submit multiple, separate posts, why don't you use the "multiquote" feature?

 

2. Responses like the above cause me to wonder why you respond at all. Your response contains literally nothing of substances. and makes zero sense.

 

"The universe that exists is changing" ... cool? This is something that has already been pointed out.

"Everything that begins to to exist has a cause"... and this is relevant how?

"No one said time was a particle"... thanks for confirming.

"Where did that come from"... where did what come from? Time? It has already been stated many times that time did not come from anywhere. Time was a human creation as a sort of convenience.

"Numbers are not particles either, nor is consciousness"... once again, thanks for confirming.

"So..."... so what?

 

Your post literally adds nothing to the discussion (and this is not the first time). You simply seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. To had to the hassle, your posts make no sense.

 

Sorry you can't understand it.  It wasn't addressed to you so I wont explain that the real universe began to exist and the implications to our topic.

 

 

It was addressed to me, and I 100% echo Majin's comments.

[DukeNukem]

 

 

This discussion is fascinating but the topic is actually, "why is there something rather than nothing." I wouldn't personally try to propose a reason; it's not my subject, but I have seen quantum physicists proposing that the vacuum is unstable and that nothing can't exist. Can anybody here comment with authority, or at least, good knowledge of the field?

 

In his book on this topic, A Universe From Nothing, there are two useful definitions for nothing:

 

o A perfect vacuum

 

o Not even that.  True absence of anything, including the laws of nature.

 

From a perfect vacuum, it's not too hard to model the appearance of energy and matter from quantum instability.  In fact, it seems inevitable.

 

However, from "true nothingness", an answer doesn't yet to exist.

 

But, there's no reason to believe with certainty that such a thing as true nothingness (or, anti-something) ever "existed."  (It's difficult to word this correctly, because to say that nothingness existed is to say that nothingness IS something, which is not what is being implied here.)  We may one day discover that true nothingness is not possible.  And given that time itself may not exist, that may eliminate the idea/need that if we go far enough back in time we will find a creation-of-something event.  (This is why time is somewhat relevant to the discussion here -- the idea of time's actual existence may be a HUGE player in the eventual answer.)

 

BTW, I'm no expert on this topic, I just read a lot of science books and articles.  Almost daily, in fact.

 

Very good.  You have 'REASON TO BELIEVE."  That is what we are after.  We all believe something has always existed.  We also believe what ever begins to exist has a cause and didn't always exist.  The Cosmos begin to exist. so it has a cause.  Why is there something like there is, rather than nothing?  A caused something cannot explain itself.

 

 

Your wordplay gimmicks are getting old, SH.  You think you have a mastery to torturously twist things in your favor, but based on evidence -- not faith -- you always fail where you think you've succeeded.

The LAST thing I would believe in is that a god magically caused any of this, because then I'd need to explain where such a magical god would come from.  Claiming gods are from an external dimension is not an reasonable answer, it merely shifts my question to be:  In that other external dimension, where did these gods come from?

The idea that gods came first is laughably illogical, and calling a spade a spade, downright stupid.

[shadowhawk]

DukeNukem:

Your wordplay gimmicks are getting old, SH.  You think you have a mastery to torturously twist things in your favor, but based on evidence -- not faith -- you always fail where you think you've succeeded.

The LAST thing I would believe in is that a god magically caused any of this, because then I'd need to explain where such a magical god would come from.  Claiming gods are from an external dimension is not an reasonable answer, it merely shifts my question to be:  In that other external dimension, where did these gods come from?

The idea that gods came first is laughably illogical, and calling a spade a spade, downright stupid.

 

Same old name calling.  No argument presented by you here.  And you claim you have evidence !  OK where?  I know you don't believe in God.  You, not I brought God up.  Rage on and believe what you want.  You are twisting my words, not the other way around.

 

I said:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Everything in the cosmos begin to exist.

Therefore the cosmos has a cause.

Why is there something rather than nothing

You brought up belief.  You believe there is no God.

 

God therefore is part of this discussion brought up by you.

 

Do you believe that everything we know of (something) has a cause and when you answer give reasons for your belief.

I do agree, calling a spade a spade for no reason may be stupid.  What was your reason?

 

[shadowhawk]

Numbers, time, consciousness and  other like things exist but are not illusions.

[shadowhawk]

“Time is certainly a very complex topic in physics, but there is no real doubt among physicists that time does really, truly exist ... they're just divided a bit on what causes this existence.”

Time is caused.
 http://physics.about...estimeexist.htm
 

[johnross47]

Time is just another dimension which we occupy. It's tangible and all 'relative' but we are limited with our power on it here on this floating rock.

We are born, grow old and die. Every star you see was born will grow old, run out of fuel and die. We live in a linear scale. I'm sure the universe has many scales. I don't think it's correct to say time is not correct or is an illusion. It's another dimension we occupy (perhaps some particles on a particle scale exist outside time or outside the boundaries of time) but we humans very much exist in it and witness it. The 'second', 'minutes', 'hours', etc are MSN made measurements of this scale. Doesn't make it wrong. I'm sure alien civilisations also measure time and do so very differently.

I can't see the applicability of the idea of correctness,to time; but it is an illusion in the sense that it does not exist as a force or as particle; it's just a mathematical expression of our awareness of change, generated by memory. The expression of the idea and its measurement depend on comparing numbers of changes in different things, as several people have more eloquently said above. It's just a succession of infinitesimally thinly sliced moments of existence. At the next instant the past is gone. The future has not yet happened. This is why time travel cannot work; there is only now. Total persistence is an illusion that contributes to the time illusion; you look at a table or the house across the street and think that they are exactly as they were a moment ago, but the matter they are composed of will have altered, even if only in a very slight way. Just like your body. Each thought, beat of your heart, conversion of one molecule into another, changes you into a new state. The previous state is gone and will never come back. There is no going back, only constant change to a new state.

[johnross47]

 

This discussion is fascinating but the topic is actually, "why is there something rather than nothing." I wouldn't personally try to propose a reason; it's not my subject, but I have seen quantum physicists proposing that the vacuum is unstable and that nothing can't exist. Can anybody here comment with authority, or at least, good knowledge of the field?

 

In his book on this topic, A Universe From Nothing, there are two useful definitions for nothing:

 

o A perfect vacuum

 

o Not even that.  True absence of anything, including the laws of nature.

 

From a perfect vacuum, it's not too hard to model the appearance of energy and matter from quantum instability.  In fact, it seems inevitable.

 

However, from "true nothingness", an answer doesn't yet to exist.

 

But, there's no reason to believe with certainty that such a thing as true nothingness (or, anti-something) ever "existed."  (It's difficult to word this correctly, because to say that nothingness existed is to say that nothingness IS something, which is not what is being implied here.)  We may one day discover that true nothingness is not possible.  And given that time itself may not exist, that may eliminate the idea/need that if we go far enough back in time we will find a creation-of-something event.  (This is why time is somewhat relevant to the discussion here -- the idea of time's actual existence may be a HUGE player in the eventual answer.)

 

BTW, I'm no expert on this topic, I just read a lot of science books and articles.  Almost daily, in fact.

 

I think the problem of  saying "It's difficult to word this correctly, because to say that nothingness existed is to say that nothingness IS something, " is purely linguistic. If you don't define nothingness as a thing, but as a state of affairs, then to say that such a state of affairs existed is perfectly reasonable.

[shadowhawk]

So "nothing" does not mean nothing anymore.  Just redefine it.  That has been done before.

[johnross47]

So "nothing" does not mean nothing anymore.  Just redefine it.  That has been done before.

 

This has indeed been done before and you're now as you were then. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really incapable of grasping these ideas? I realise that they undermine your beliefs but surely you can't hide forever behind a wall of derision and misconstruction.

[addx]

 

 

 

Not really, you moved from one city to the next while a clock needle moved 360 degrees.

 

 

 

Now you simply replace "clock needle moving 360 degrees" with "1 hour" and voila, you have "time".

 

You can equaly replace your drive from city to city with "1 hour" and say it the other way around: that the clock needle takes "one drive from one city to the next" to complete 360 degrees rotation.

 

Can you see that "time" is just an exchange currency in a way required to express intensity of motion in a dualistic fashion (meters per second).

 

Because in our typical human frame of reference relative speeds are low, the dualism makes math easier and intuitively fits with how we experience the world.

 

But, if you are a photon, time and space are completely interchangeable. You can express any "distance" to an object with a single dimension, time or space. You can say that it takes light one second to get there or 300 000 meters to get there. And you've said a completely identical thing.

 

 

 

There are plenty of articles and books that talk about this...

 

 

Newsflash: Time May Not Exist

http://discovermagaz.../jun/in-no-time

 

 

Is Time an Illusion?
http://www.scientifi...me-an-illusion/

 

 

There is No Such Thing As Time
http://www.popsci.co...such-thing-time

 

 

Admittedly, it's a super hard concept to wrap your head around, and people who do not get it will of course throw out examples like miles-per-hour and memory and radiation decay and other examples that they sincerely believe support the idea that time is a fundamental feature to nature.

 

I seem to share a similar view as the two of you (Duke and adxx)

 

Have either of you heard of Robert Lanza or his theory of Biocentrism?

 

 

 

nope, ill read up

[shadowhawk]

 

A clock measures time it does not create it.

 

 

It doesn't measure time. It just rotates at an observed steady pace. 

 

 

And what is measured (not observed) Time.  The clock on the other hand may be observed.  That is why we have clocks which are measuring time.  We can see the instrument of measurement and that is why we created it..
 

[shadowhawk]

 

So "nothing" does not mean nothing anymore.  Just redefine it.  That has been done before.

 

This has indeed been done before and you're now as you were then. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really incapable of grasping these ideas? I realise that they undermine your beliefs but surely you can't hide forever behind a wall of derision and misconstruction.

 

Nothing but your typical name calling but I see you also have NO EVIDENCE.  You did this before?  Yes many, many times. and I have noted it.
 

[johnross47]

 

 

So "nothing" does not mean nothing anymore.  Just redefine it.  That has been done before.

 

This has indeed been done before and you're now as you were then. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really incapable of grasping these ideas? I realise that they undermine your beliefs but surely you can't hide forever behind a wall of derision and misconstruction.

 

Nothing but your typical name calling but I see you also have NO EVIDENCE.  You did this before?  Yes many, many times. and I have noted it.
 

Why can't you let other  people have an interesting discussion without making every topic about you?  You have no evidence to support your insistence that time exists. You are simply refusing to apply rational thought to the question. To say that time exists because clocks measure just proves that you have ignored all the points made so far about what is really being measured. Instead of demanding evidence try addressing these points. I'm not going to quote them all for you; it's easy to read back over this fairly short discussion and as a master of logic you are presumably competent to pick out the important points from the general background. If you can't do that then why not just leave the rest of us in peace?

 

 

[johnross47]

If we take time out of our description of the universe we are left with, why do things move. My perception is that all change is movement. Does the movement come from the instability that gave rise to stuff and things?

[Duchykins]

I've never understood why theists ever thought 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is a question that is supposed to stump atheists.

Most theists believe their respective gods are uncreated and have always existed. 'Why does this god exist rather than not exist?' is a more appropriate question they should be asking themselves. Of course the answer to that question will vary with each theist.

[Duchykins]

“Time is certainly a very complex topic in physics, but there is no real doubt among physicists that time does really, truly exist ... they're just divided a bit on what causes this existence.”

Time is caused.
http://physics.about...estimeexist.htm

Let's all say time is caused.

So what?

It's not like that is an argument against infinite regress. There is no contradiction in the generic structure of an infinite regress.

BUT

Let's all say infinite regress is impossible.

So what?

It's not like that is an argument against a natural cause.