User Controls
Is Time An Illusion?
-
2017-03-31 at 1:30 PM UTC
-
2017-03-31 at 1:47 PM UTC
-
2017-03-31 at 3:13 PM UTC
-
2017-03-31 at 3:22 PM UTCthis is a troll thread. OP isnt intelligent enough to phatom such complex topic as time and its derivatives ...
troll.
troll-troll-troll.
trolley troll troll
trolley troll.
trooooooooolllllllllllll. -
2017-03-31 at 6:01 PM UTC>people actually think we atent travelibg time
Yeah nah ur a cunt -
2017-04-01 at 3:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I will later. Either way, its relative to something. It exists.
Basically they synced two atomic clocks, put one in a KC 130, one o the earth, took off with the KC 130, flew nonstop around the earth, and landed back where they took off from and where the stationary automobile clock was located. The clock on the ground had advanced faster than the clock that was in motion. So if time can be manipulated by motion it is not a constant. Does that mean time as we understand it is just a construct to explain something beyond our ability to comprehend? -
2017-04-01 at 4:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Darth Beaver Basically they synced two atomic clocks, put one in a KC 130, one o the earth, took off with the KC 130, flew nonstop around the earth, and landed back where they took off from and where the stationary automobile clock was located. The clock on the ground had advanced faster than the clock that was in motion. So if time can be manipulated by motion it is not a constant. Does that mean time as we understand it is just a construct to explain something beyond our ability to comprehend?
I guess I think of this as sort of the same concept as the 'Do Rainbows Exist Objectively' question. Cases can be made for both sides and they are both correct respective to their own technicalities. Illusions do exist. We can't touch or see or taste time but it is a measurement and thus I personally feel it isn't an illusion any more so than inches or feet or quarts are illusions. This certainly isn't my strong suit and I'm more or less talking out of my ass, for what it's worth. If time is manipulated by motion at a constant or consistent rate than would it not still remain a constant, aka with the correct mathematical formula we will know the speed of time no matter we are relative to Earth? -
2017-04-01 at 1:36 PM UTCEarth could vanish but the phenomenon observed in that experiment would still occur. The faster an object travels the more time slows down.
I'm not going to pretend to know the math. So in part I'm sort of talking out of my ass also. But for the sake of discussion let's say if I traveled at half the speed of light that time slowed to 50% if it's normal rate of "passage" compared to someone or something stationary. If I traveled in a giant circle for 50 years at that speed when I returned you would have aged 50 years while I would have only aged 25.
I also wonder if you travel fast enough of time would simply stop or even faster would you experience time backwards? -
2017-04-01 at 2:41 PM UTCDid someone just finish watching Arrival?
-
2017-04-01 at 2:43 PM UTCTinne
-
2017-04-02 at 3:46 AM UTC
-
2017-04-02 at 3:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by Darth Beaver Basically they synced two atomic clocks, put one in a KC 130, one o the earth, took off with the KC 130, flew nonstop around the earth, and landed back where they took off from and where the stationary automobile clock was located. The clock on the ground had advanced faster than the clock that was in motion. So if time can be manipulated by motion it is not a constant.
Observing physical effects of time seem like a pretty good argument for it having at least some ontological status beyond mere illusion. The idea that we have an imperfect perception of it seems trivial in the same way as saying "you can see things which are actually illusions". Doesn't make sight or light an illusion, it makes human perception imperfect.Does that mean time as we understand it is just a construct to explain something beyond our ability to comprehend?
Who is "we" and how do they understand time?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-04-02 at 3:57 AM UTCP.S. Benny, stop shitposting, this isn't a general forum.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-04-02 at 7:17 AM UTCI kind of feel that everything that isn't naturally occurring is "made up" more or less. A tree is naturally occuring..while a log cabin isn't. I suppose time isn't really concrete even though it can be measured. We all know the feeling of waiting for something that we know is going to happen in 8 hours and that time goes extremely fast or extremely slow relative to how pleasant or unpleasant we believe that event is going to be.
So yes...I suppose my answer is yes it's pretty much an illusion. -
2017-04-02 at 7:38 AM UTCI've wondered about this from a religious perspective. We all obviously have a beginning, but supposedly not an end if we go to heaven (somewhat plausible). Time is therefore linear and simply never ending. But God on the other hand, has no beginning OR end. How does time work when there is no beginning?
-
2017-04-02 at 8:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by RestStop I kind of feel that everything that isn't naturally occurring is "made up" more or less. A tree is naturally occuring..while a log cabin isn't. I suppose time isn't really concrete even though it can be measured.
How does something being "naturally occurring" relate to it being "concrete"? Why are either qualities the criteria for something not being an illusion? While our perception of time may be idiosyncratic so are our other senses. We'd say colors (or at least the wavelength of light a thing reflects) aren't "made up" and are entirely natural even though its perception can be abstract and difficult to talk about in a direct sense. -
2017-04-02 at 8:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny How does something being "naturally occurring" relate to it being "concrete"? Why are either qualities the criteria for something not being an illusion? While our perception of time may be idiosyncratic so are our other senses. We'd say colors (or at least the wavelength of light a thing reflects) aren't "made up" and are entirely natural even though its perception can be abstract and difficult to talk about in a direct sense.
Naturally occuring isn't enterchangable with being "concrete". I didn't mean my last post to hint that it was. What I mean is..concrete as in "solid" which I really mean indisputable measurements(60 seconds are in a minute and this is considered "fact" and thus indisputable)..naturally occuring meaning more like mankind had no hand in it's creation but again if a person planted a particular tree then my claim is rendered completely false. -
2017-04-02 at 8:52 AM UTCClearly there is a entirely human-constructed and arbitrary culture of time, things like dates, measures, etc. But it seems like there's an underlying physical element of time as well. Physical phenomena seem to be variable over some non-spacial dimension which we measure after-the-fact. Indeed the very notion of "phenomenon" seems to have an implicitly temporal facet.
In fact qualities I think you'd agree are natural, things like size, mass, etc. are measured by arbitrary means but we generally agree are "real" and non-illusory, at least under normal conditions.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-04-02 at 8:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Clearly there is a entirely human-constructed and arbitrary culture of time, things like dates, measures, etc. But it seems like there's an underlying physical element of time as well. Physical phenomena seem to be variable over some non-spacial dimension which we measure after-the-fact. Indeed the very notion of "phenomenon" seems to have an implicitly temporal facet.
In fact qualities I think you'd agree are natural, things like size, mass, etc. are measured by arbitrary means but we generally agree are "real" and non-illusory, at least under normal conditions.
Yes. Yes this was the jist of the point more or less. You admittedly had a way of putting it more eloquently and intelligently tho. You get a thanks lil mister. -
2017-04-02 at 9:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny How does something being "naturally occurring" relate to it being "concrete"? Why are either qualities the criteria for something not being an illusion? While our perception of time may be idiosyncratic so are our other senses. We'd say colors (or at least the wavelength of light a thing reflects) aren't "made up" and are entirely natural even though its perception can be abstract and difficult to talk about in a direct sense.
All things that the human perception brings from the noumenal into the phenomenal is in a way an "illusion". We have some impressions of the "real" world that nature honestly does not give a fuck about. Our descriptions of the world operate in a purely arbitrary space. It's like a kid trying to draw the Last Supper in the mud with a stick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory
