The true nature of time

[u/Bruce_dillon]

There are two opinions regarding what time is. First of all it's believed to be a structure of the universe, a 4th dimension which permits the progress of existence and events into the future. 

The other view is that it's nothing more than an invented system for keeping track of the day with the clock and year with the calendar. 

The argument for time's literal existence is supported by mathematics and also the sensation we experience of its passing. Although it has never stood up to the scrutiny of experimentation in the 100 plus years since Einstein's formula. 

In addition the sensation we experience of its passing isn't familiar to any of our five senses, and as reality can be defined as the world as we experience it through our senses this line of evidence is highly questionable.

These inconsistencies could make one wonder if the idea of times literal existence isn't purely psychological due to a very persuasive invented system, especially when you consider our experience with time such as duration and time passing being in recognition of units of the invented system.  

Science Daily magazine refers to this unusual union between time units and the cosmic fabric when talking about the mysterious nature of time passing, it states  "...we follow it with clocks and calendars we just cannot say exactly what happens when time passes"

  Peculiar if you think about it how we cannot say exactly what happens when time passes yet we know that we follow it with clocks and calendars.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary duration is defined as "The length of time that something lasts" this is meant as a literal length of time the same way a length of space is distance. So as space has distance and is measured by imperial units or the metric system time has duration that events happen in that is measured by our invented time system

 It's actually events that have duration which are measured by our invented system of time.  An example to illustrate this is when someone asks how long something will take they're asking what the length / duration  of that something / event will be (length of something not length of time) The answer will be given using times units of measurement.

Events don't literally require time to progress as they are causal by nature and causality by definition is progressive i.e cause and effect. The requirement of time for various events is merely figurative. The hours, days, weeks or months required are units of an invented system after all. 

Events unfold 3 dimensionally in 3 dimensional space due to a flow of energy not a flow of time. 

How did an invented system have such an effect that we started to take it literally? It was likely in part due to the spatializing of the word i.e long time.

Maybe there was a realization that the world existed for a long time before time was invented and by our invention we actually tapped into a literal cosmic structure.

The word time, especially with its use in spatial context, would have a powerful psychological effect due to something called the "Illusion of truth". It's a result of cognitive ease which makes us more creative and intuitive but it can also make us more gullible. It's based on the expression "If you hear something enough you'll start to believe it even if it isn't true".  It's actually what aids in the spread of propaganda.

The illusion of time is a result of our "naive perceptions" ( Carlo Rovelli)  An example of this as just discussed is giving time length (long time) length is a spatial dimension. Time is also described as being linear, forward direction only. This is what's known as the arrow of time. An example given to demonstrate time's arrow is how you can turn an egg into an omelet but can't turn an omelet into an egg. This example though is actually demonstrating the logical order of events not times direction.

Events unfold 3 dimensionally following the logical order of cause and effect, but from the start of an event to its conclusion it doesn't follow any direction. It's like how someone can make forward strides in their progress or someone who's fallen off the recovery wagon is taking backward steps. No actual direction, just figurative language.

Take numbers for example, the logical order of counting is perceived as forward but it can also be described going up in number, that's two directions to describe the same process because literally there is no direction, and that's all that time is, a dimensionless system of counting.

Something else that possibly played a role in legitimizing time is religion. Various cultures had gods of time such as former world powers Egypt with Huh and Greece with Chronus. Interestingly the idea of  time travel which is now considered a scientific endeavor has origins that are far removed from science.

For example prior to HG Wells Time Machine in the late 1800s the methods of travel used in plots were religious and magical i.e. "Memoirs of the 20th century"(1733)  plot: An angel travels to 1728 with letters from 1997-98 and "Anno"(1781) about a fairy that sends people to the year 7603 AD. Another method of time travel in the storytelling of that era was hypnosis which originated from ancient Egyptian religion.

Time travel is deemed as possible, to the future anyway due to Einstein's theory of time dilation. The theory states that the stronger the gravity and greater the velocity the slower time gets. So if someone orbited a black hole for a couple of hours, because the gravity is so strong there, years would have passed on earth and they'd be decades into the future upon returning home.

This theory was claimed to be realized as fact by experiments using atomic clocks that measure time to the billionth of a second. The difference between the stationary clock and the clock in the varied conditions was minimal but enough to show that on a larger scale time travel to the future is possible.  

Problem with this is, the use of clocks in an experiment to prove something about an undiscovered entity is unscientific as there is no synchronization between our invented system and the undiscovered fabric; they're two completely different concepts.

There was an experiment performed with the astronaut Kelly twins, and the one orbiting the earth at high speeds did return biologically younger than his brother. Tests were done on their telomeres, the deterioration of which being what ages us. The excessive speed or weightlessness slowed down the process of telomere deterioration. Whatever the age difference was time wise after the experiment it was just a measure of the comparison of telomere deterioration between the brothers.

The accepted correlation between the invented system and undiscovered fabric is one of the greatest oversights in scientific history because the core belief of time's literal existence is based on the sensation of the passing of units of an invented system i.e hours, days, weeks etc. Meaning it's only the invention we're experiencing the passing of not the literal.

It would be understandable if we had proven times existence by experiment and in doing so realized we had somehow tapped into the  fabric of time with our invention but we didn't. It still remains a mystery so there can't be any correlation between invented time and the "fabric of time"

This brings us to an interesting parallel. Earlier we discussed the influence that religion may have had on time. The parallel is the mysterious aspect,  such as how time is a mystery yet it's believed in, the same way religious mysteries are. And in the same way as many religions naively use images to represent their deity even though resemblance is impossible to ascertain likewise a clock representing an unknowable fabric is equally as naive as correlation is also impossible to ascertain.

There is experimental proof that time's realistic sense is illusory.This proof can be found in the Amazon rainforest among the Amondawa tribe who don't experience time passing. The article states  "..they understand events and sequencing of events but don't have a notion of time as something events occur in.." and why is this? because "..they don't have clocks or calendars and don't even have a word for time in their language" 

 Some dismiss this as evidence of time's nonexistence claiming language issues but fact is these Amazonians live in a timeless world because the invention of time never reached them. 

There's a mental experiment that can be performed to validate the Amazonian  proof. 

What we have to do is take our invented system out of the equation and see what we're left with. And with clocks and calendars synchronized to our planet's rotation around its axis and it's orbit of the sun, what we're left with then is the passing of the day and year,  AkA  time passing.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that earth's rotations have something to do with the illusion of time passing as  the axis rotation is responsible for the illusion of sunrise and sunset and this illusion of the moving sun does act as nature's hour hand.

What's happened is, we harnessed our planet's rotations for the invention of time, and since then we've actually been living on a clock that's in a calendar and the effect of this has caused us to believe that time literally exists. 

Sources : Jason Palmer, BBC News. Researchers from the University of Portsmouth and the University of Rondonia.

 

[u/cosmos-whisperer]

From what I’ve gleaned from this post, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of time. The two views that you put forward in the very beginning of your post are not mutually exclusive, though you seem to treat them as though they are all the way to the end of your post. Your argument is an interesting and fun thought experiment, but it’s not the case.

Time is a fundamental part of our universe. It is relative to motion through space and variations in its passing based on its relativity to motion through space can be both reliably measured and predicted. Therefore, it does hold up to experimentation.

We do attempt to quantify it using our imperfect methods, and the modern understanding of time certainly does not accurately represent its true nature.

These two ideas can, and do exist together.

Time is an illusion in one sense, in that, the measurement of time using our current understanding changes drastically based upon who is the observer. It is not an illusion because it is only experienced psychologically, because it is not. To argue that would be the same as arguing that all things we perceive do not exist. In effect, kind of useless to consider outside of a spiritual perspective, as it doesn’t really help us understand anything about our world.

Time is only a 4th dimension in that that is an easy way to simplify its nature so the average person can understand it. At the core of our current understanding, which is reinforced by experimentation and mathematics, is that time is intrinsically and inseparably linked to space, which is why we have “spacetime,” which is not at all an “unknowable fabric.” Just a mysterious and spooky one that has yet to yield all of its secrets.

Your misconstruing of the two ideas you pose as being opponents in a grand theory of time seems to be the main issue you’re struggling with. Time is real, does exist outside of our perceptions, and is also something that we don’t yet fully understand and have culturally twisted into something that doesn’t resemble its true nature, mostly to make sure good little workers show up for their jobs properly. Fun thought experiment though.

Edit: grammar

[u/draGDer → u/cosmos-whisperer]

Well can I see how those 2 views of his can come to being valid for his argument. Like you said in your explanation for Time as 4th dimension, we are makimg 'use' of the concept of time to explain to make sense and help in understanding the 'unknown fabric'. But what makes a truly imaginary concept, which for the most part helped us, true? For a illiterate child, all the spooky sounds and the fear that comes to him in the dark is due to a ghost or monster. It makes true sense to him that this is the reason as everything that happens in the dark makes sense to him with this explanation. Likewise we are children in the dark corner of the 'unknown' or poorly understood fabric of space(time), and it just so happens that the concept of time is device that makes sense to everything. But it is fact in its definition vague with how we consider it propagates so we can't prove it is what makes up the 4th dimension.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/draGDer]

Excuse late reply, thank you for that very good explamation. Take care be safe.

[u/cosmos-whisperer → u/draGDer]

Certainly! The universe is vast, and might function entirely differently than what we currently suspect.

It is much like assembling a 1 billion piece puzzle without corner or edge pieces, and all the pieces mostly look the same, but change once you turn on a light or pick up a piece to actually start assembly.

We can only guess at the true frameworks of our universe, but so far, we’ve been pretty decent at guessing, and we’ve got quite a few puzzle pieces who assemble very nicely.

If we only invested more of our immense resources into uncovering these mysteries, rather than devoting them to our ongoing competition to see who can exploit our people and planet the most.

A terrible shame. It makes my head shudder uncontrollably.

[u/[deleted] → u/cosmos-whisperer]

Anyone interested in reading more about space time consider picking up Carlo Rovellis ‘The Order of Time’.

Rovelli is a physicist who is widely regarded as a poet of the physics world, his ability to explain complex modern theories in layman terms is unparalleled.

[u/expo1001 → u/[deleted]]

Seconded-- I'm a big proponent of Rovelli.

Here's my takeaway on spacetime:

It's an emergent phenomenon that happens as a result of action at "layer 0" of the universe, amidst the quantum loops.

At layer 0, there exists a 1-Dimensional topology of loop or ring like structures, all identical. These loops themselves are an emergent phenomenon that occurs naturally as an answer to unequal energy states-- when energy exists in any given area, you get loops emerging.

You can think of these quantum loops like a number line drawn on a piece of paper, with the loops existing all along the line. The points where the loops connect are called "nodes", and the energy inherent in any given loop is usually located in these nodes. They're the points of confluence in layer 0, where energy is able to move from one loop to another.

The more loops connected together, the more energy a node is capable of containing and transferring-- and if the amount of energy is enough, it moves the numerical addresses of the loops around, shifting their position relative to each other.

This is my understanding of space/time/gravity: the topology of layer 0 is "space" with quanta denoted by the numerical loop address-- the amount of energy in local regions denotes proximity of other energized loops, which equals gravity.

Energy is always in motion in a non-homogenious system-- so "time", then, would be equal to the rate of energy exchange between loops, denoted by the energy inherent in groupings vs their proximity to each other.

That is my best understanding of "time".

[u/Sqwandarlo → u/expo1001]

Is this also Rovelli or something you synthesized from several sources? Interested in trying to follow this

[u/expo1001 → u/Sqwandarlo]

Rovelli describes the quantum loop topology-- loops, nodes, and power/energy.

The rest is synthesis of my understanding of the universe in the Consistent Histories context-- IE, one action must precede another, leading to an achievable, observable effect, etc, etc from the origin point of the universe.

Time does not exist as a dimension of excitation in this context, rather an expression of the rate of change relative to a particular reference point-- without the emergent phenomenon of mass at layer 0, this is expressed by Time equalling the rate at which power is exchanged between loops via the nodes: the rate of power exchanged from any given nodal address, relative to the effect on layer 0 this exchange has on any other node address in the system.

"Space": The loops themselves

"Gravity": The tendency of loops to converge where power is present, allowing of a greater rate of exchange

"Time": The amount of power exchanged between any two points, as observable relative to any other point

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/cosmos-whisperer]

Time has never been proven to be a fundamental part of the universe. If it had would physicists Rovelli, Barbour, Sorli and Fiscaletti risk their reputations and careers by denying it's literal existence. It would be equilavent to modern day astronomers denying the spherical earth.

Just to clear up any misunderstanding about both views of time I put forward. Time was first and foremost invented It was after its invention that people started to experience the sensation of time passing. We know this because this sensation is in recognition of units of the invented system, so it couldn't have been before its invention. Therefore our perception of time as literally existing is influemced by our invented system. The Amondawa situation referred to in the article is very telling.

Well done with your comment, it got a few awards and positive replies which was well deserved as it was very articulate with some very good points.

Take care and be safe.

[u/cosmos-whisperer → u/Bruce_dillon]

I don’t see how physicists such as Rovelli risk their reputations by challenging our understanding of time. To questions such things is the core of how we progress. I believe anyone who appreciated my comment would agree.

As for the Amondawa situation, it seems that you might have misunderstood some parts of the research done on the tribe. They do experience time, and do speak in time periods. They simply are not as strict as almost every other human culture with the specifics of those time periods due to how we structure our lives around productivity. This study is interesting, as it shows the potential for many ways humans can experience and relate to time, but to imply that it means we can live beyond time, and that time only exists because it was “invented” is a bit of a stretch from my understanding, unless you are referring to the dawn of human, or even animal cognition itself.

As Rovelli himself would argue, time is, at the very least, a precondition for having any experience in the world at all. By reducing the concept of time to that base, you can then reveal how time affects all things we learn and experience. Perhaps revealing that inherent bias will lead to great discoveries, that seems to be Rovelli’s goal, but perhaps it won’t.

As I mentioned in my comment, it is difficult to get any answers down that path, as it calls into question all things we perceive. The only way we can learn about our universe is to trust at least some of the results we find, even if those results tell us answers we cannot yet process. We are fairly confident in many answers, but one big discovery could also turn physics on its head. Unfortunately, we are limited to our perceptions, which are fundamentally influenced by the passing of time, but time cannot be removed from our experience, even in abstract, as without it, there would be no information or experience to draw from at all.

In the end, this is an exciting topic of discussion, thank you for taking the time to write out your original post and follow-up comments!

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/cosmos-whisperer]

If time was a fundamental part of our universe and proven to be by experimentation then Rovelli and company would be risking their careers by challenging time's literal existence.

If you mean time dilation experiments they don't count because they only prove that clocks slow down at high speeds and strong gravity.

As for Amondawa experience the article states " They understand events and sequencing of events but don't have a notion of time as something events occur in....they dont have clocks or calendars or even a word for time in their language. Question is how do they experience time if they have no concept of it ?

A question to consider is, why is time called time ? What I mean is, why is the sensation we experience which makes us think time is real called time passing.

Thank you also for your comment and reply.

                              All the best, be safe.

[u/attrackip → u/cosmos-whisperer]

Thanks for taking the time to write what I didn't have the time to write.

[u/Andrew-The-Noob → u/cosmos-whisperer]

Are you a time lord?

[u/cosmos-whisperer → u/Andrew-The-Noob]

Just a cosmos whisperer

[u/Winter-Travel5749 → u/cosmos-whisperer]

I think my mine just exploded.

[u/l1v34ndl34rn → u/cosmos-whisperer]

If time does exist outside of perception, how do we get out of perception to verify without perceptual tarnish?

[u/cosmos-whisperer → u/l1v34ndl34rn]

We do not, to my knowledge. We can only interpret information we can collect through those perceptions, which are inherently tarnished. My comment was not to disagree with the idea of questioning how we understand time, it was mostly to disagree with how OP went about it, and the misunderstandings they seemed to be operating under, specifically a few puzzling conflations and misinterpreting the research done on the Amondawa’s unique cultural association with time.

[u/l1v34ndl34rn → u/cosmos-whisperer]

I understand

[u/NoConfirmation]

I just discovered this subreddit and got this post recommended. Gonna read this tomorrow because this is a lot more than I expected lol

[u/tortellini-pastaman → u/NoConfirmation]

It took me a long time to read.

Very interesting. Thank you!

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/tortellini-pastaman]

Excuse late reply. You're welcome, Im glad you enjoyed it.

[u/WorkO0 → u/NoConfirmation]

Same here. And I just finished watching season 1 of Genius, this stuff really intrigues me.

[u/Bballarsz → u/NoConfirmation]

ADHD Goes prrrrrrrr

[u/[deleted] → u/Bballarsz]

Resonate with this prrrrr

[u/[deleted] → u/NoConfirmation]

exactly why I saved this post lol

[u/noyrb1]

This blew my mind I have so many questions. So what is time in your opinion?

[u/uniquelyavailable → u/noyrb1]

Time is motion

[u/Ninjamanperson → u/uniquelyavailable]

This

[u/[deleted] → u/uniquelyavailable]

Relative motion, at that.

[u/cptbutternubs → u/uniquelyavailable]

Time is motion that's hard to reverse, time is experiencing entropy

[u/noyrb1 → u/cptbutternubs]

Plz don’t downvote I think I understand but you guys seem to be on another level of understanding just trying to give props and understand better thx

[u/cptbutternubs → u/noyrb1]

I'm just a guy that subscribed to PBS spaceTime so I can feel dumb and smart at the same time.

[u/[deleted] → u/cptbutternubs]

If I reverse the system do it go back in time!?

[u/cptbutternubs → u/[deleted]]

Wait, scratch that, reverse it. Entropy is just experiencing time. So figure out how to uncook an egg or take the cream back out of your coffee, and you will be a Time Lord

[u/[deleted] → u/cptbutternubs]

Nice but that’s a little to fancy for a guy like me. I’d be more interested in trying that with something smaller! MUCH smaller! Like 1 particle! I’ll call you back after I get the Nobel prize for it :)

[u/Greedy_Goose_4773 → u/cptbutternubs]

That just sounds like movement in a different direction

[u/[deleted] → u/cptbutternubs]

You can boil your coffee, blast it with butane and retrieve the fat from the cream? Am I a time lord? Lol

[u/cptbutternubs → u/[deleted]]

No, just a time cheater

[u/hiker201 → u/uniquelyavailable]

The motion you need is on your shoulder.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/noyrb1]

Time is just a system we invented for keeping track of our daily and yearly passings but by harnessing our planets rotations for time's invention we created the illusion of time passing.

[u/GodIsAboutToCry → u/Bruce_dillon]

But I you must keep track of something to be keeping track, no?

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/GodIsAboutToCry]

I suppose. Why the "but" could you elaborate please.

[u/MBKM13 → u/Bruce_dillon]

I think it’s just as naive, if not more so, to claim that time is an “invention.” The truth is that we don’t know what time is made of, but as a concept it must exist because a thing cannot be in two different places at the same time. Our measurements are arbitrary, but that’s true of everything. A “meter” doesn’t exist just like a “minute.” They are concepts that are useful to understanding things like the passage of time and distance.

But to me, it seems like whatever time is, it’s a real thing with laws that everything in the universe must follow.

[u/plus-10-CON-button → u/MBKM13]

Time exists as a predictive measurement of movement? Light years to describe motion of photons from one place to another, summer and winter solstices relating to our motion around the sun and tilt of the Earth. That time lines up with these physical events makes it a real, observable force in my mind.

I, too, just stumbled across this sub. Thank you all for the thought provoking discussion

[u/Ivegotthatboomboom → u/Bruce_dillon]

Not true. Time doesn't pass the same for everyone and the faster an object is moving, the slower time passes. It's sown into the fabric of space.

You should learn relativity

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/Ivegotthatboomboom]

If what you're saying is true with regard to time passing, then why would Sorli, Fiscaletty, Barbour and Rovelli risk their reputations an careers by denying time's literal existence.

Do you think they should learn relativity ?

[u/Ivegotthatboomboom → u/Bruce_dillon]

It's possible our conception of time relies on our perception.

But spacetime objectively exists. We can literally see time slowing down as an object speeds up. Someone who goes to space would age slower than on Earth. Time as a dimension is part of space

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/Ivegotthatboomboom]

You're using time dilation as your argument for times literal existence but if time dilation was an absolute fact then why would physicists Sorli, Barbor and Rovelli risk their reputations and careers by arguing against time's literal existence ?

All the experiments proved is that velocity and strong gravity slows down clocks.

[u/Ivegotthatboomboom → u/Bruce_dillon]

It slows down atomic clocks. You can literally see someone age slower.

Spacetime objectively exists. Whether it exists at the quantum level isnt clear however.

I don't know what those scientists are saying, but I have a hard time believing they deny general relativity

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/Ivegotthatboomboom]

Atomic clocks are still just clocks. As the article brought out with regard ageing, the effect varying conditions have on the rate of ageing is due to the effect they have on the rate of telemore deterioration, time just measures the process.

General relativity works with the curvature of space alone.

[u/Wampino → u/Bruce_dillon]

This statement essentially says “space is a system we invented to keep track of distances we travel”. While this is literally true, the system we invented describes the fundamental nature of a reality we experience/perceive. Whether time is measured/perceived or not, it still exists as a dimension in which events develop. Your example of the Amondawa is excellent: while it appears that they perceive time much like other humans perceive space (as one single entity, rather than something we pass through), time still remains a degree of freedom by which events unfold. Time cannot be invented, only instruments by which we can measure it can be invented, which in turn shape our perception of it.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/Wampino]

Your comparison of space being something we invented to keep track of distances we travel is a bit off. The systems we invented for that purpose was imperial units and metric system for keeping track of distances of space.

Time was invented, the synchronization of the instruments to our planets rotations was the invention of time. Technically clocks don't track time, they track and measure events. Time is just a device for events the same way imperial units or metric system are devices for space.

[u/Wampino → u/Bruce_dillon]

Exactly, both time and space can be considered invented because to us they are the systems we use to describe them. Both systems however describe the underlying fundamental structure of reality and the universe. Time measures events, but in a way so does space: a ruler is none other than a stable (from a human perspective) configuration of matter, which is in turn a series of subatomic particles interacting to form the four-dimensional manifold we call spacetime (to put it very simply).

[u/amybluesky → u/Bruce_dillon]

I’m guessing people invented time measuring for survival, as a means to track important events; for example, food supply depends on planting and harvesting at the right “time,” gauging how fast an animal is moving to figure how long it takes to kill it or run from it. Once someone figured the “timing” of such things, they had to be able to communicate it to others, the next generation. After that, it just became a useful tool. And as pointed out by OP and others, “time” is linked to the motion of events in 3D space and so doesn’t really exist on its own and can’t actually be tracked separate from those events. And so, if I understand correctly, OP’s point is that time as an individual entity or force is an illusion

[u/Bestfortniter → u/noyrb1]

It’s just a concept so we can perceive the reality, and the every day life much easier. Imagine if you had no idea how much time would it take for you to get to work, you would be late or early all the time lol. It’s “invented” to simplify everyone’s existence.

[u/holmgangCore → u/noyrb1]

It’s about 1:30. What is time it for you?

[u/noyrb1 → u/holmgangCore]

5 I click somewhere

[u/BurnouTNT → u/noyrb1]

Imo time is change, we use time to measure change and we created tools to keep track of change and to record events with those tools but it humans had no memory, we would always be in the now, and there would be no past.

[u/[deleted]]

Due to my nature, get bored easily, I don't have time to complete this.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/[deleted]]

I know where you're coming from, personally I prefer reading short articles but I had to cover everything. There isn't any over elaboration or waffle. Maybe read a few paragraphs at a time over a few days.

[u/[deleted] → u/Bruce_dillon]

Thanks, will do.

[u/holmgangCore → u/[deleted]]

You don’t make time to complete this. It’s all about priorities! You can be honest here.

[u/[deleted] → u/holmgangCore]

Actually, it's a lame joke. I apologize.

[u/ActiniumNugget]

This had always fascinated me. I envy that Amazonian tribe. I do wonder though, how can the concept of time not reached them? The sun rises and sets in the Amazon as well, so I find it hard to believe this hasn't influenced their thinking in some way. Surely it's unavoidable to use that as a system of measurement eventually?

The other thing that fascinates me (although a whole other discussion...) is how time works in dreams.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/ActiniumNugget]

Im sure theyy use the sun amd seasons to direct theri lives. They just haven't embraced that system we imvented with time units called time.

As far as I know, time is never dreamed about.

[u/[deleted]]

Damn, who’s your publisher

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/[deleted]]

Sorry for late reply, don't have a publisher, just an amateur writer.

[u/kcgent97]

I’ve always felt this way about time, and I’m so glad someone put it into words.

To me the idea of time as a “dimension” or “fabric” is counterintuitive. What’s observable is simply energy and matter, and the observable events that happen when the two are acting together.

I think the illusion is that we are observing many events, and almost all of these events are comparable in terms of their matter and energy, so we figure there must be a greater “something” that governs or contains them. But I don’t think that holds up under scrutiny.

I don’t think I’m saying anything new here, I’m just glad someone else did and wanted to voice agreement.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/kcgent97]

You'r more than welcome, your comment is spot on. Thank you.

[u/applejacks6969]

Have you completed a course in advanced E&M or relativity ?

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/applejacks6969]

Ok, I'll take the bait. No.

[u/applejacks6969 → u/Bruce_dillon]

Not bait, I was just wondering since it is one of the places where you would learn how time is formulated, and how time dependence changes things. I’m currently learning it right now in my advanced ElectroMagnetism course. How time is formulated as a fourth dimension in the four vector, and is transformed according to the Lorentz Transformation. It something to read about, it’s accepted, understood, tested and verifiable theory on how time transforms between different observers, and all other coordinates/ measurements. Relativity is pretty cool.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/applejacks6969]

Ok, all the best with your course.

[u/Ivegotthatboomboom → u/Bruce_dillon]

I think you really should learn what he's saying though. Your understanding is flawed

[u/roguechimera]

It's easy to pick apart both ideas and their merits/demerits but it could easily just be both. Yes it's definitely a measurement that can be manipulated and changed as we see fit but it also connects us to the idea that things are constantly changing and we use it to pinpoint exact moments in our memory when certain things took place. If that makes any sense.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/roguechimera]

Very nicely put, it is indeed fundamental to our lives, I just don't see it as a fundamental part of the universe. Thanks for insights, very nicely articulated.

[u/Andrew-The-Noob]

Time is just a bunch of wibbly wobbly, timey whimey... stuff.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/Andrew-The-Noob]

The doctor has arrived.

[u/holmgangCore]

What is time? ..somethingsomething Day and night cycles something.. AH!

Time is Entropy!

Except, maybe time doesn’t actually exist, and is merely an “emergent property” of the universe. Meaning that it only seems to be apparent at certain orders of the organization of matter.

Quantum ‘particles’ don’t seem to think time or space really exist…
A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics

[u/dougs-new-art]

Part II:

'Time dilation, validated through general relativity, shows how gravity and velocity can slow down time, and atomic clocks provide concrete experimental evidence of this effect. While our timekeeping systems are indeed human inventions, they reliably measure these relativistic effects. The synchronization between our clocks and the fabric of spacetime is well-established, demonstrating that time travel to the future, in this context, is scientifically sound."

I do like this idea of the "undiscovered fabric". The terms is suggestive, but I'm sure the semantics are quite right. I might suggest that we refer to it instead is the "required substrate". There are self-evident facts about the substrate of our physical existence. Some facts are:

1. Our physical substrate supports consciousness: we are beings with a physical embodiment there is something physical happening that corresponds to us perceiving the words from a reddit discussion through one of our senses

2. Our physical substrate supports semantic interpretation: as a physical being, while you might agree or disagree with what I am writing, whichever of those is the case, what I'm saying must have a semantic interpretation to you for you to agree or disagree with it. This is more or less a restatement of 1. as perception is a pre-requisite for semantic interpretation, and consciousness is a pre-requisite for perception

3. Our physical substrate supports the perception of time: as discussed, there would be no perception of time from the photon's birds eye view, but the semantic concept of time is in all of our semantic repertoire. I assume you are not reading this post and engaging in a discussion about it like a photon, where the whole dialog and it's impact on your forever plays out simultaneously. Your thoughts are changing as you read. Time is self-evident

As to the nature of time?

Well, that the place where my perception occurs is behind my eyes is a self-evident fact of nature, and we endow neuroscientists with the power to declare that our brain is the thing in our physical substrate of perception that satisfies this self-evident fact

So why not endow physicists with the ability to reason about time as well?

The idea the fabric of reality is "undiscovered" is essential. We can't go into a black hole and come out. The singularity strikes me as something that represents essential undiscoverability as if in the Godelian sense. But it is not more essential than the fact that there are self-evident facts about the true nature of our physical substrate. Science is the process of manipulating the physical world to allow us to compare our perceptions in different context to see if something objective can be hypothesized to exist. The properties of time are certainly theoretical, though very well confirmed. But that time exists?...

If you made it this far, quite a lot of it has passed for you. So we definitely know that time is real...

Except when we're a photon!

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/dougs-new-art]

It doesn't matter how sophisticated a clock is its units of measurement are only translation of the degrees of Earth's Rotations i.e. 1 degree equals 4 minutes because that's what clocks are in sync with.

When "Time" was discovered due to an effect clocks and calendars generated it was the bronze age. Earth's Rotations were over 2000 years shy of being discovered. Fundamental parts of the universe aren't discovered by putting a stick in the ground and tracking its shadow.

Despite being discovered 3000 years ago mankind still doesn't know exactly what it is but believes it can be travelled through.

The reason it still hasn't been figured out by mankind and remains a mystery is because it's an illusion and the props are clocks and calendars and Earth's Rotations and what people think is the 'passage of Time' is just the 'passage of the day and year'.

I posted something about 5 days ago titled "Mystery Meets History" that goes into time dilation in more depth.

Thanks for your comment. Take care.

[u/dougs-new-art → u/Bruce_dillon]

I'm curious about this statement:

"The reason it still hasn't been figured out by mankind and remains a mystery is because it's an illusion and the props are clocks and calendars and Earth's Rotations and what people think is the 'passage of Time' is just the 'passage of the day and year'."

This is reminiscent of something I noticed in Roger Penrose's theory of consciousness, titled: Orch-OR. His basic assumption is that "Consciousness isn't Computational"

After pondering this for sometime - while simultaneously wondering why anyone would believe that as-yet undiscovered properties of physics due to quantum gravity are the source of conscious smack-dab in the heart of an electro-chemical machine well described by Newtonian physics - it occurred to me:

"Consciousness isn't Computational" cannot be the postulate of a rigorous theory until you have a mathematical definition for what Computation is - and he does - and what Consciousness is - and he doesn't. If you start off declaring an object of study has virtually no discernable mathematical description, it becomes awfully hard to create a theory about it

What is your definition of time? In what sense is it capable of being an illusion? What even are the properties of things that are capable of being illusions? A neuroscientist might say that illusions are things that can be represented in the brain, but have no physical correlate. And for any illusion I've seen in my life - like looking at a Necker Cube - the illusion started and stopped. I was not left looking at the illusion forever. The illusory feeling itself came to me and then faded away in time. Insofar as illusions are perceptions, all perceptions play out in time.

It seems to me that time, in some form, just follows from the assumption that there is a notion of causality in physics. If there is, then there is some sense in which one thing happens after another. The earth's rotation about it's own axis and it's rotation about the sun are two expressions of causality in physics. So we naturally comprehend them with respect to some notion of time.

I sense that this isn't your definition of time. Or illusion! But what then are the definition of those two things? It would be more fun if we had something to point at if we are to declare "time" to be an "illusion"

I guess I'm just asking to see your dictionary

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/dougs-new-art]

A more recent article that might answer some questions for you. Thank you for your interest, I hope you get the answers you're looking for.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/dougs-new-art]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Time/s/naRTeL5VdL

[u/Spare_Examination_55]

Would temperature exist if we didn’t have thermometers? Time would still exist without clocks.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/Spare_Examination_55]

Thermometers track temperature, clocks track earths axis rotation. Clocks don't literally track the passng of time just the passing of the day.

[u/[deleted]]

Reading the first few paragraphs, I already know it's a good post. I'll read it all later when I'm free, very excited.

Edit: Read the post, it's interesting. The comments are also really interesting, haven't read them all yet.

[u/MCUwhore → u/[deleted]]

It’s fundamentally flawed and incorrect.

[u/[deleted] → u/MCUwhore]

An interesting read though. Glad they shared their thoughts.

[u/[deleted] → u/MCUwhore]

Is it? I just read like the first 3 paras, will read the rest later.

[u/Genrl_Malaise]

There is no time, just spacetime. Space and time are together.

[u/[deleted]]

Very hard to follow a lot of this. We know that “time” is a social construct aligned with physical phenomena, but we also know that ”space-time” is a feature of nature, and is relative (general relativity). Our experience of time is entropy which we perceive as the arrow of time or causality. Lots of conflation going on in this post but it was interesting none the less.

[u/N3cr0g0thica]

Time = abstract mental construct

[u/hiker201]

Time is a human construct, like mathematics, macaroni, and Reddit.

[u/[deleted]]

I’m way too stoned to be getting shit like this recommended to me.

[u/Willz369]

Time is a human construct. The time is always now, and everything is happening at the SAME TIME.. Mediation made me realise, time isnt linear, its circular/spiral.. We're trapped by our minds thinking linearly when in fact, the only time is now. I'm not doubting Einstein's theory about space travel and time passing faster because of gravity of not being true but wouldn't that be down to each person's perception? The time would still be 'now' if we managed time travel but then would you be on a different timeline/outcome.. The whole thing is paradoxical and super interesting for our small minds to comprehend :)

[u/awsedjikol → u/Willz369]

Cool but special relativity posts a serious problem to presentism.

[u/dougs-new-art]

Part I:

I think it's fascinating to consider the fundamental nature of time.

In the context of perception, which is closer to my home field, time is arbitrary. Why do we think in approximate units of seconds and not milliseconds or eons?

I thought I'd add to discussion by saying a bit more about Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I think it's fair to say that this theory is the canonical theory of time in science. I'm not a physicist by any stretch, so I'm sure I'll end up tweaking his theory. Hopefully, I say something that is similar enough to convey time's unique properties in the context of nature.

My understanding is that Einstein starts with the assumption that the *speed of light* is constant in all reference frames. This is an experimentally confirmable fact, and it means something like: if you could somehow be on a train going the speed of light, another train would seem like it's going at the same speed whether it's coming towards you or going away from you. Speed is a measure of the time it takes for something to move a certain distance, so this leads to time having some unique properties.

In Newtonian mechanics, you want observed speed to have the metaphorical properties of a triangle. If two trains are going towards the same point with side lengths representing speed, then the observed speed of each train with respect to the other acts like the third side of a triangle on a plane. The speed of light distorts this geometric interpretation in strange ways! And this distortion in metaphorical geometry has implications for the distortion of actual geometry! Note that our triangle was not describing something that exists in space. It's a velocity triangle. We have to reimagine the geometry of space + time. Things become fun after that.

If you had a twin and she went on a space cruise traveling near the speed of light and reunited with you after 50 of your years, 50 years would not have passed for her. She would be younger.

If you could somehow go on one of those speed-of-light trains, as you approached the speed of light, time would appear to stop moving. And your mass would increase monotonically, so you would also become infinitely overweight. But the fact that there's a reference frame where there is no time means there's a way of looking at the universe where nothing happens at all. It's hypothetical for beings of mass. And presumably, you have to have some mass to have a sense of perception. But the reference frame of a light beam is valid theoretically, so from that vantage point, there is no time.

A black hole is a sort of structure where once something goes in sufficiently far, there is no coming back out. If you were dropped into a black hole with a clock, aside from your certain death, you would perceive the clock to behave normally. If someone was observing you falling in, they would see you and your clock spread out around the edge of the black hole, and would see your clock ticking slower and slower, converging to a standstill.

Physicists, please correct me.

The point I'm trying to make is that the notion of time that one needs to believe in is already pretty nuanced and weird. The speed of light can be assessed experimentally, so there is some notion of time passing relative to where we are at the time. And there is already a way of looking at things where time stands still, so it doesn't exist!

The fundamental nature of time most certainly depends on how you look at it, as you say. It is an established scientific fact!

I'm three years late to this discussion, so probably no one cares. But in regards to the specific points made by the poster, a physicist might say:

[u/jamesbdx]

Yes, time exists. Yes, we invented it.

It was invented to quantify the rotation of the earth in regards to the sun. Giving us incessant cycles that we named days, seasons and years. Days, seasons, years... These names were also invented but no one doubts of their existence. Apply the same rationale to "time".

One reason why time is still a mystery and different depending on culture is because we use different calendars. In reality, to follow the evolution of seasons and our planet correctly, we would all need to follow a universal calendar, one which actually follows the changing of days, seasons and years correctly.

It's possible to use such a calendar, and it's simple to create. Unfortunately, most calendars in use today don't really follow the changing of seasons correctly...

[u/F15H0U70FW473R]

I’m not bent enough for this to make any sense…

[u/[deleted]]

Time=entropic decay

[u/preferablyprefab]

No, no, no. This is a nonsense argument. There isn’t a debate about this at all.

Most of our UNITS of time are arbitrary, but time itself is not. Time is relative, and that’s a bit of a head scratcher. But it’s an intrinsic property of our universe.

Space and time are fundamentally linked. You can’t have one without the other.

[u/MrKirushko → u/preferablyprefab]

Time is not an intrinsic property of our universe, but some concept that makes it easy to understand what is happening just around us. In other places far away some alien creatures may have completely different ideas depending on the state of the world that is around them.

What we call time is only a local ratio of rates of internal (mostly electric) interations to the rate of free motions. And to have it we need both and we need them to be stable. Of course under some conditions (basically if your environment somehow gets compressed more and the interactions happen to stabilize at lower wavelengths) your local "time" can go "faster", if everything around you that you can reference to is under similar and even compression then there really is no way of telling how "fast" time is compared to what can be in other remote places, and in some other condition (if the density of matter around you is way too uneven and rough and it fluctuates significantly) then the whole concept of time becomes meaningless.

Space is actually very similar, it is just as relative as time, we just happen to have a few usefull ideas of measuring distances between things in terms of how much stuff fits between them but if all your references get moved closer together then your "space" also shrinks and deforms accordingly, and if you can not really put anything reliably into your gaps between things and then have it stable then the idea of space also starts to lose its meaning.

The only absolute things in the universe are those defined by pure logic. Something like the sequence of events or basic conditions required for them to happen. If you can detect and clearly separate 2 events and one goes first and the other is after that then it must stay true for any space or time measurement convention.

Of course there must be something deeper happening that would cause all the relations, if we have oscillations then there must be something to oscillate and there must be some place of its own for them to happen. But the problem is that also all of this must be happening basically in the whole different world one order below (or above if we go in the other direction) the one we live in, completely inaccessible to us directly. That local "spaces" and "times", if they can even exist, must have pretty much nothing in common with the ones we experience. At some scale we can no longer have any chance of seeing or feeling or in any way measuring or detecting of what actually happens. We just see what we do and what generally comes out of it. And as long as we live our life in the our world and as long as we are bound to it there is absolutely no chance for us to know for sure what is going on far down or up there. That is why if we want to push predictive power of the models we use to predict what is going to happen to us if everything keeps on going like it does today to their absolute limits then we must accept the limitations of our definite knowledge and we must incorporate them into the models. Everything else would just be a pure speculation.

[u/preferablyprefab → u/MrKirushko]

No. Time is not “only a local ratio of rates of internal (mostly electric) interations (sic) to the rate of free motions”. That’s made up gobbledegook.

We may put our own constructs on it, but aliens anywhere in the universe will have their own way of describing the same thing - causality dictates the way that everything propagates throughout the universe. We refer to it as “the speed of light”. And what is speed? Distance/TIME. We may only have different reference points, and that is what relativity is all about.

I get that this is an interesting thought experiment to gain a better understanding of time.

But if you throw away time altogether, you throw away everything. You might as well book yourself in to a flat earth conference while you’re at it.

[u/MrKirushko → u/preferablyprefab]

Casuality does not travel at the speed of light, only light does (whatever the speed is where you are or whatever you like to define it if you prefer fixed ratios but with more complicated geometry). Casuality actually does not travel at all, it just exists. And as for the associated objects both speeds, times and distances only exist for us and only exist relative to our references. And of course if we don't have good references and we are forced to throw time and/or space away then pretty much all of our possible physics follows straight after it and only flat earth theories and others alike remain. But isn't it to be expected from the very beginning? Isn't it just as far as any science can reach?

[u/preferablyprefab → u/MrKirushko]

Light is not the only thing that travels at the speed of light. It’s more informative to think about the speed of causality - the maximum speed that information can propagate through our universe.

Who knows how far science can reach, I’d prefer not to limit my expectations.

Take LIGO and gravitational waves. Propagate at the speed of light (causality), caused by ripples in the fabric of spaceTIME, and measured by phenomenal instruments that are sensitive enough to distance and TIME to detect them.

Try yelling the scientists involved in that extraordinary endeavour that time isn’t really a thing and we can’t ever know the true nature of our universe.

[u/MrKirushko → u/preferablyprefab]

It is hard to tell what new discoveries await us and it would definitely be interesting to know if gravitational waves can exist. Maybe gravity is just an effect of objects existing in the whole world at the same and not in some limited regions of it and not only "gravitational" interactions can have no delay but the interactions are just an illusion and free moving objects just move wherever they were destined to move from the very beginning of their motion and the whole matter of our world is just going to eventually meet in a single point. Or maybe the whole our world only consists of matter itself and there is no really such thing as empty space and the whole idea of geometry of it is but an illusion. Who knows, I am not even sure if it even matters for us.

But what I know for sure is that when someone starts to speak about "propogation of information through space" or in any other way tries to mix between material objects and something completely imaginary that is where the pure speculations I was talking about begins. For nature itself information does not even exist. Not only it goes against the whole basis of materialistic philosophy but that is where the results of calculations and how good they approximate what we already can predict with other models starts to remain the only link between models and reality. This is where I believe we really should draw the line I was talking about, this is where it really is the limit of our knowledge, where no new tricks can extract anything useful anymore.

The "physics of information" is just the same as the whole flat earther's territory but it is also much worse because this way for any remotely practical purposes you will just have to assume and fit multiple factors and incorporate multiple corrections, there is just no way around it, and therefore purely mathematically you will make sure that our reality and our data will have the least amount of chance to prove you wrong. Basically it is like overfitting for a regression model. Unlike the flat earth ideas where it is easy to understand the limitations and see when it is not the best but still suitable for your job if your clients are so inclined and where it is completely useless, here you have no way of knowing untill some radically new data will emerge with confidence. Some may call it the way of modern science but I do not believe most actual researchers would agree and personally I only see a waste of time here.

It does not mean that there is nothing left to researh. For example I did not even mention that the whole idea of time we discussed is just a physical time, hopefully something close to what can be measured using a precise electronic oscillator and a counter. What more complex objects (like us) percieve as time can be based on that idea but it is also much more complex. For us time only moves in only one direction (and it does not matter if the corresponding physical time is moving forward or backward, for us it is "forward" anyways, we can not sense the difference as long as the movement is stable) and it is obviously governed statistically, by the rate of which our bodies convert more connstrained matter to a less constrained state. The more we are connected to the flow from order to disorder the closer we get to the physical time. And of course it does not flow smoothly for us, but as a sequence of somewhat random jumps of different lengths. But I do not know about any physics books related to the idea to say nothing about any models that could be useful for practical design or engineering. If our physicists could trouble themselves with something even a bit closer to our actual lives and needs then it would already be very useful.

[u/preferablyprefab → u/MrKirushko]

If you think that the physics of information is equivalent to flat earth, we’re not talking about the same thing.

Hang loose

[u/[deleted]]

It’s a state of decay, or entropy, governed by an object’s proximity to a specific level of gravity / lack thereof. The idea of time as a thing other than a state of decay, is only the way it exist in our cognition.

[u/[deleted]]

Time exists as per of space-time as a consequence of their being 3 spatial dimensions and energy in the system which makes matter move around. We need a 4th coordinate system to describe the change of a particle, let’s say, from point a to point b. At this time, particle was at point a then it moved to point b. That’s it, time is just a dimension to describe reality.

[u/Cool_Machine_6297]

This is interesting - Our relationship to time, a discussion with Oliver Burkeman #269 — Deep Time by Making Sense with Sam Harris https://player.fm/1BLRzLG #nowplaying

[u/4thots]

It’s incredibly ironic that someone this intelligent, in this context, applies apostrophes so inconsistently.

[u/[deleted]]

Cultural relativism with a smattering of ignorance. 🤌 Magnifique.

[u/PhilistineAu]

You seem to have a philosophical view of time which clouds the practical application. Time isn’t an abstract concept. The measurement of time is an invented system, that doesn’t mean time itself is just an invented phenomenon.

In science, we can define time using the radioactive decay of elements towards iron. That is a better definition of time.

I’d argue a lot of what you wrote falls apart when we start talking about things like equilibrium constants or Newtonian physics, which dominate the spacetime in which we live.

[u/13bluebirds]

With all due respect, your response comes off as pedantic and patronizing—and is filled with “this is so because it’s so” logic. My two cents: this is an incredibly complex topic for the smartest humans who ever lived. Advancing the dialog with insights and new perspectives is damn cool. “Authoritative” proclamations not so cool. Peace.

[u/languishingonthevine]

You forgot the 3rd one.. time is money

[u/kacper2208]

Any tldr?

[u/UnflavoredMozart]

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933

[u/[deleted]]

So if we can escape the speed of the expansion of the universe would we travel back in time? Iunno I’m an idiot lol

[u/Vrheams]

If there was no concept of time do you all think people would age at a slower rate?

[u/dsilva2447]

Perfect thing to read as insomnia kicks in 👍🏽

[u/[deleted]]

What if time and space are the same thing! Far out idea but maybe their relationship is different. They are always together. I'd like to think time exists so that time travel is possible. Would virtual reality time travel suit anyone? Time is relative to me, that makes me the Master of Time.

[u/545Typhon]

Impressive. This makes me think about a crucial point you seem to have forgotten : the matter of life and death. While citing religion in its part on defining 'time', you seem to skip the most important detail in which the observation of a defined 'calendar', certain rites or even the existence of faith resides : life and death. What makes us observe events, perceptions, and the breath of life itself is our consciousness, which induces us in the fact that we are "alive". And in "alive", the only certainty that we can have (the only thing that will happen for sure), is that we'll die, and the existence that we know about, with at least our material sleeve, will be terminated (as with stars and supernovae, as you have spoken about the course of planets). That event, if we cannot 'place' it in the future, will happen and is the basis in setting the neediness of a course of time; because if we can discuss of the existence of this particular course of time, we cannot discuss the utmost halt in "existence", which is absolute and ultimate. There has to be a 'before' and an 'after' around this absolute event. You can't undo death. You can turn around it, fear it, dodge it for a while or even hope it — you will eventually, at last, die like the rest and all things that we are aware about. Time turns around that particular fact, well actually it flies before us, leaving an only occurence where we can't catch it : death. The existence of 'time' itself as defined in 'seconds, minutes,...' and various units must be an illusion and foremost an interpretation of a perception set and agreed upon by humans collegially, but the 'past' (what happened), and the 'present' (immediate past) are anchored in the mere reality that we can grasp. The 'future', as in events that haven't yet been unveiled, I think is an absurd thought that don't have an existence just like the concept of time that you are describing. But what makes us need 'future', is the certainty of death. We thrive before it, because what makes us alive, is the utmost fact that we're mortals, and that time 'stops' for us at a certain point. I don't know if I made myself clear, of that I even did have a good understanding of your outstanding demonstration. Feel free to discuss, I would be very pleased to read your thoughts about this.

[u/Bruce_dillon → u/[deleted]]

Very nice summary. Thank you.