Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

TIme May Be An Illusion After All...

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 2:34:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation in physics combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics very well. However, it predicts that there is no ontological change, and no temporal becoming:

"In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe..." https://medium.com...]

To account for the apparent change that we seem to experience in an ontologically static universe, it must be an emergent 'illusion' relative to observers. Well, a recent experiment confirms this theory's unique predictions:

"Today, Ekaterina Moreva at the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) in Turin, Italy, and a few pals have performed the first experimental test of Page and Wootters" ideas ('that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict'). And they confirm that time is indeed an emergent phenomenon for "internal" observers but absent for external ones." [https://medium.com...]

Here is the actual paper which shows the results: [http://arxiv.org...]

This suggests that temporal becoming, fundamentally, doesn't exist; strongly confirming the predictions of the The Wheeler-DeWitt equation of a static reality.
--
Physicists discovered a mathematical object resembling a multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions, which suggests that space and time are illusions:

"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality." [https://www.simonsfoundation.org...]

Arkani-Hamed describes explains:

"In a sense, we would see that change arises from the structure of the object...But it"s not from the object changing. The object is basically timeless." - Arkani-Hamed

This idea (that predicts a static reality) seems revolutionary:

"The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling... You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before." - Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University

"It's a better formulation that makes you think about everything in a completely different way." - David Skinner, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge University

The simplest answer is usually correct (Occam's Razor), especially to this degree; we should take it seriously. This is just clue that leads us to the notion that temporal becoming may be an illusion.
--
Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, on its face, seems to predict that space and time are illusions:

"The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein [http://www.brainyquote.com...]

If the space-time interpretation (where space and time are interwoven) of Special Relativity is true, then this supports the idea of ontologically static time. As it turns out, the spacetime vortex predicted by Relativity was confirmed.

NASA scientists discovered the space-time vortex predicted by Einstein's theories of Relativity [http://science.nasa.gov...], seemingly showing that the space-time interpretation (where bodies with mass bend the fabric of space-time) of Relativity is true over a view in which space and time are not interwoven and there is no fabric to bend (and thus, no vortex).

Perhaps time is an illusion. Do the clues point in that direction?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 2:50:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 2:34:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation in physics combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics very well. However, it predicts that there is no ontological change, and no temporal becoming:

"In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe..." https://medium.com...]

No go away, that's it. I give up.

IT"S ALL OVER PEOPLE
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 8:45:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 2:34:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation in physics combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics very well. However, it predicts that there is no ontological change, and no temporal becoming:

"In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe..." https://medium.com...]

To account for the apparent change that we seem to experience in an ontologically static universe, it must be an emergent 'illusion' relative to observers. Well, a recent experiment confirms this theory's unique predictions:

"Today, Ekaterina Moreva at the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) in Turin, Italy, and a few pals have performed the first experimental test of Page and Wootters" ideas ('that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict'). And they confirm that time is indeed an emergent phenomenon for "internal" observers but absent for external ones." [https://medium.com...]

Here is the actual paper which shows the results: [http://arxiv.org...]

This suggests that temporal becoming, fundamentally, doesn't exist; strongly confirming the predictions of the The Wheeler-DeWitt equation of a static reality.
--
Physicists discovered a mathematical object resembling a multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions, which suggests that space and time are illusions:

"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality." [https://www.simonsfoundation.org...]

Arkani-Hamed describes explains:

"In a sense, we would see that change arises from the structure of the object...But it"s not from the object changing. The object is basically timeless." - Arkani-Hamed

This idea (that predicts a static reality) seems revolutionary:

"The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling... You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before." - Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University

"It's a better formulation that makes you think about everything in a completely different way." - David Skinner, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge University

The simplest answer is usually correct (Occam's Razor), especially to this degree; we should take it seriously. This is just clue that leads us to the notion that temporal becoming may be an illusion.
--
Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, on its face, seems to predict that space and time are illusions:

"The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein [http://www.brainyquote.com...]

If the space-time interpretation (where space and time are interwoven) of Special Relativity is true, then this supports the idea of ontologically static time. As it turns out, the spacetime vortex predicted by Relativity was confirmed.

NASA scientists discovered the space-time vortex predicted by Einstein's theories of Relativity [http://science.nasa.gov...], seemingly showing that the space-time interpretation (where bodies with mass bend the fabric of space-time) of Relativity is true over a view in which space and time are not interwoven and there is no fabric to bend (and thus, no vortex).

Perhaps time is an illusion. Do the clues point in that direction?

I was reading about that experiment. Is it technically proper to say that it is an illusion? The experiment demonstrated that from outside the system, there is no time and everything is static, but inside the system it clearly exists as measured by the how polarized the photons became.

Take it from a practical sense, if you were outside our universe looking in, there is no time. It seems to me that it again is an issue of reference point. If something exists at one reference point and it does not exist in another, I think it is erroneous to automatically assume the reference point where it does not exist trumps the reference point where it does exist.

On another note, I read another article that the next generation of atomic clocks will be sensitive enough to measure the time difference from one's feet to his head due to the earth's time dilation.

I guess if it really mattered that our heads age faster than our feet, evolution would have put our brains in our feet. :)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 10:56:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 8:45:31 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 2:34:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation in physics combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics very well. However, it predicts that there is no ontological change, and no temporal becoming:

"In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe..." https://medium.com...]

To account for the apparent change that we seem to experience in an ontologically static universe, it must be an emergent 'illusion' relative to observers. Well, a recent experiment confirms this theory's unique predictions:

"Today, Ekaterina Moreva at the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) in Turin, Italy, and a few pals have performed the first experimental test of Page and Wootters" ideas ('that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict'). And they confirm that time is indeed an emergent phenomenon for "internal" observers but absent for external ones." [https://medium.com...]

Here is the actual paper which shows the results: [http://arxiv.org...]

This suggests that temporal becoming, fundamentally, doesn't exist; strongly confirming the predictions of the The Wheeler-DeWitt equation of a static reality.
--
Physicists discovered a mathematical object resembling a multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions, which suggests that space and time are illusions:

"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality." [https://www.simonsfoundation.org...]

Arkani-Hamed describes explains:

"In a sense, we would see that change arises from the structure of the object...But it"s not from the object changing. The object is basically timeless." - Arkani-Hamed

This idea (that predicts a static reality) seems revolutionary:

"The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling... You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before." - Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University

"It's a better formulation that makes you think about everything in a completely different way." - David Skinner, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge University

The simplest answer is usually correct (Occam's Razor), especially to this degree; we should take it seriously. This is just clue that leads us to the notion that temporal becoming may be an illusion.
--
Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, on its face, seems to predict that space and time are illusions:

"The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein [http://www.brainyquote.com...]

If the space-time interpretation (where space and time are interwoven) of Special Relativity is true, then this supports the idea of ontologically static time. As it turns out, the spacetime vortex predicted by Relativity was confirmed.

NASA scientists discovered the space-time vortex predicted by Einstein's theories of Relativity [http://science.nasa.gov...], seemingly showing that the space-time interpretation (where bodies with mass bend the fabric of space-time) of Relativity is true over a view in which space and time are not interwoven and there is no fabric to bend (and thus, no vortex).

Perhaps time is an illusion. Do the clues point in that direction?

I was reading about that experiment. Is it technically proper to say that it is an illusion? The experiment demonstrated that from outside the system, there is no time and everything is static, but inside the system it clearly exists as measured by the how polarized the photons became.

Yes, I believe it does suggest that time is an illusion. This is because if there is an outside observer who sees the entire universe; he also sees the future (the real picture). For us, the future hasn't happened yet. This suggests that the timelessness is fundamental, but our experience of time is not and is an emergent illusion.


Take it from a practical sense, if you were outside our universe looking in, there is no time. It seems to me that it again is an issue of reference point. If something exists at one reference point and it does not exist in another, I think it is erroneous to automatically assume the reference point where it does not exist trumps the reference point where it does exist.

On another note, I read another article that the next generation of atomic clocks will be sensitive enough to measure the time difference from one's feet to his head due to the earth's time dilation.

I guess if it really mattered that our heads age faster than our feet, evolution would have put our brains in our feet. :)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 11:07:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 8:45:31 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 2:34:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation in physics combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics very well. However, it predicts that there is no ontological change, and no temporal becoming:

"In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe..." https://medium.com...]

To account for the apparent change that we seem to experience in an ontologically static universe, it must be an emergent 'illusion' relative to observers. Well, a recent experiment confirms this theory's unique predictions:

"Today, Ekaterina Moreva at the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) in Turin, Italy, and a few pals have performed the first experimental test of Page and Wootters" ideas ('that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict'). And they confirm that time is indeed an emergent phenomenon for "internal" observers but absent for external ones." [https://medium.com...]

Here is the actual paper which shows the results: [http://arxiv.org...]

This suggests that temporal becoming, fundamentally, doesn't exist; strongly confirming the predictions of the The Wheeler-DeWitt equation of a static reality.
--
Physicists discovered a mathematical object resembling a multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions, which suggests that space and time are illusions:

"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality." [https://www.simonsfoundation.org...]

Arkani-Hamed describes explains:

"In a sense, we would see that change arises from the structure of the object...But it"s not from the object changing. The object is basically timeless." - Arkani-Hamed

This idea (that predicts a static reality) seems revolutionary:

"The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling... You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before." - Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University

"It's a better formulation that makes you think about everything in a completely different way." - David Skinner, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge University

The simplest answer is usually correct (Occam's Razor), especially to this degree; we should take it seriously. This is just clue that leads us to the notion that temporal becoming may be an illusion.
--
Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, on its face, seems to predict that space and time are illusions:

"The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein [http://www.brainyquote.com...]

If the space-time interpretation (where space and time are interwoven) of Special Relativity is true, then this supports the idea of ontologically static time. As it turns out, the spacetime vortex predicted by Relativity was confirmed.

NASA scientists discovered the space-time vortex predicted by Einstein's theories of Relativity [http://science.nasa.gov...], seemingly showing that the space-time interpretation (where bodies with mass bend the fabric of space-time) of Relativity is true over a view in which space and time are not interwoven and there is no fabric to bend (and thus, no vortex).

Perhaps time is an illusion. Do the clues point in that direction?

I was reading about that experiment. Is it technically proper to say that it is an illusion? The experiment demonstrated that from outside the system, there is no time and everything is static, but inside the system it clearly exists as measured by the how polarized the photons became.

Take it from a practical sense, if you were outside our universe looking in, there is no time. It seems to me that it again is an issue of reference point. If something exists at one reference point and it does not exist in another, I think it is erroneous to automatically assume the reference point where it does not exist trumps the reference point where it does exist.

On another note, I read another article that the next generation of atomic clocks will be sensitive enough to measure the time difference from one's feet to his head due to the earth's time dilation.

I guess if it really mattered that our heads age faster than our feet, evolution would have put our brains in our feet. :)

Basically, if an outside observer sees an unchanging universe, but an inside observer sees a changing one; only one of them can be right ontologically (ontologically, the universe is either timeless or not). Since the timelessness aspect is more fundamental (time starts to break down at the Planck Scale), it makes more sense to think of time as the illusion.

"Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality." [http://discovermagazine.com...]

Since the timelessness is more fundamental than the emergent property (time), and only one of them can be ontologically correct, this suggests that time is the illusion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 11:32:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The universe is either timeless or not regardless of reference frames on an ontological level. Thus, either timelessness or time is an illusion, with the other being actually true. However, since time is the emergent property (making timelessness fundamental), then this suggests that time is the illusion. Especially considering the fact that an outside observer would have a complete view of all points of the universe. However, we only experience what we view as the "present", when really this observer would be able to look at all of our deaths, even though to us, they haven't happened yet.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 4:55:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 11:32:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The universe is either timeless or not regardless of reference frames on an ontological level. Thus, either timelessness or time is an illusion, with the other being actually true. However, since time is the emergent property (making timelessness fundamental), then this suggests that time is the illusion. Especially considering the fact that an outside observer would have a complete view of all points of the universe. However, we only experience what we view as the "present", when really this observer would be able to look at all of our deaths, even though to us, they haven't happened yet.

Both can be a reality. Since the universe is not outside of itself and it would be impossible for it to be outside of itself it has time. Ontologically, both are realities that can exist because they cannot both exist at the same time when measured from the same perspective.

Secondly, time does not break down on the Planck scale. Relativity and space time break down at the quantum level. The study you posted can be interpreted that time is a manifestation of entanglement and when you are outside the system (not entangled) there is no time. It might just provide the key to reconcile relativity with quantum.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 5:13:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 4:55:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 11:32:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The universe is either timeless or not regardless of reference frames on an ontological level. Thus, either timelessness or time is an illusion, with the other being actually true. However, since time is the emergent property (making timelessness fundamental), then this suggests that time is the illusion. Especially considering the fact that an outside observer would have a complete view of all points of the universe. However, we only experience what we view as the "present", when really this observer would be able to look at all of our deaths, even though to us, they haven't happened yet.

Both can be a reality. Since the universe is not outside of itself and it would be impossible for it to be outside of itself it has time. Ontologically, both are realities that can exist because they cannot both exist at the same time when measured from the same perspective.

Only if you want to throw away logic. Either the universe is:

(i) Timeless

(ii) Not timeless (there is time)

Saying that the universe is both ontologically timeless and not timeless is like talking about a married bachelor or a perfectly spherical cube. Thus, it is only coherent to talk about the universe being ontologically timeless, or not. Since the timelessness is fundamental (time is the emergent property), then this suggests that time is an illusion.

It is also a cleaner ontology, why assume two ontological realities? Occam's Razor would favor time being an illusion.


Secondly, time does not break down on the Planck scale. Relativity and space time break down at the quantum level. The study you posted can be interpreted that time is a manifestation of entanglement and when you are outside the system (not entangled) there is no time.

No. It says on the other website that this confirms the Wheeler-Dewitt's equations predictions of a timeless universe [https://medium.com...].

The study clearly implies that time is an illusion.

Here is the NewScientist.Com title of the same experiment:

**Entangled Toy Universe Shows Time May Be An Illusion**

"Time is an illusion" at least in a toy model of the universe made of two The experiment shows that what we perceive as the passage of time might emerge from the strange property of quantum entanglement. The finding could assist in solving the long-standing problem of how to unify modern physics."

The "outside observer" was just a conceptual analysis. The experiment clearly implies time is an illusion (at least for photons, which is still a big clue), with it being an emergent effect only for internal observers, with it not playing a fundamental role.

I'm not saying anything is conclusively proved (what really is in science?), just that this is a nice piece of evidence in that direction.

It might just provide the key to reconcile relativity with quantum.

Of course.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 5:14:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 4:55:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 11:32:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The universe is either timeless or not regardless of reference frames on an ontological level. Thus, either timelessness or time is an illusion, with the other being actually true. However, since time is the emergent property (making timelessness fundamental), then this suggests that time is the illusion. Especially considering the fact that an outside observer would have a complete view of all points of the universe. However, we only experience what we view as the "present", when really this observer would be able to look at all of our deaths, even though to us, they haven't happened yet.

Both can be a reality. Since the universe is not outside of itself and it would be impossible for it to be outside of itself it has time. Ontologically, both are realities that can exist because they cannot both exist at the same time when measured from the same perspective.

Secondly, time does not break down on the Planck scale. Relativity and space time break down at the quantum level. The study you posted can be interpreted that time is a manifestation of entanglement and when you are outside the system (not entangled) there is no time. It might just provide the key to reconcile relativity with quantum.

I forgot the NewScientist link:

http://www.newscientist.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 5:20:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
(Correction)

"Time is an illusion - at least in a toy model of the universe made of two particles of light. The experiment shows that what we perceive as the passage of time might emerge from the strange property of quantum entanglement. The finding could assist in solving the long-standing problem of how to unify modern physics."[http://www.newscientist.com...]
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 6:12:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 5:13:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 4:55:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 11:32:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The universe is either timeless or not regardless of reference frames on an ontological level. Thus, either timelessness or time is an illusion, with the other being actually true. However, since time is the emergent property (making timelessness fundamental), then this suggests that time is the illusion. Especially considering the fact that an outside observer would have a complete view of all points of the universe. However, we only experience what we view as the "present", when really this observer would be able to look at all of our deaths, even though to us, they haven't happened yet.

Both can be a reality. Since the universe is not outside of itself and it would be impossible for it to be outside of itself it has time. Ontologically, both are realities that can exist because they cannot both exist at the same time when measured from the same perspective.

Only if you want to throw away logic. Either the universe is:

(i) Timeless

(ii) Not timeless (there is time)

Saying that the universe is both ontologically timeless and not timeless is like talking about a married bachelor or a perfectly spherical cube. Thus, it is only coherent to talk about the universe being ontologically timeless, or not. Since the timelessness is fundamental (time is the emergent property), then this suggests that time is an illusion.

No body is saying the universe is both timeless and not timeless. I am saying IN the universe it is not timeless and OUTSIDE the universe it is timeless. Time is only an illusion if you are outside the universe. It is a reality inside the universe. "Illusion" is the completely incorrect word. Science reporters often use spectacular words that overstep the experiment. I am arguing that is the case because ontologically there can be time inside the system and no time outside the system all at the same time or non-time. lol

It is also a cleaner ontology, why assume two ontological realities? Occam's Razor would favor time being an illusion.


Secondly, time does not break down on the Planck scale. Relativity and space time break down at the quantum level. The study you posted can be interpreted that time is a manifestation of entanglement and when you are outside the system (not entangled) there is no time.

No. It says on the other website that this confirms the Wheeler-Dewitt's equations predictions of a timeless universe [https://medium.com...].

The study clearly implies that time is an illusion.

Here is the NewScientist.Com title of the same experiment:

**Entangled Toy Universe Shows Time May Be An Illusion**

"Time is an illusion" at least in a toy model of the universe made of two The experiment shows that what we perceive as the passage of time might emerge from the strange property of quantum entanglement. The finding could assist in solving the long-standing problem of how to unify modern physics."

The "outside observer" was just a conceptual analysis. The experiment clearly implies time is an illusion (at least for photons, which is still a big clue), with it being an emergent effect only for internal observers, with it not playing a fundamental role.

I'm not saying anything is conclusively proved (what really is in science?), just that this is a nice piece of evidence in that direction.

It might just provide the key to reconcile relativity with quantum.

Of course.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 6:24:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 6:12:18 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 5:13:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 4:55:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 11:32:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The universe is either timeless or not regardless of reference frames on an ontological level. Thus, either timelessness or time is an illusion, with the other being actually true. However, since time is the emergent property (making timelessness fundamental), then this suggests that time is the illusion. Especially considering the fact that an outside observer would have a complete view of all points of the universe. However, we only experience what we view as the "present", when really this observer would be able to look at all of our deaths, even though to us, they haven't happened yet.

Both can be a reality. Since the universe is not outside of itself and it would be impossible for it to be outside of itself it has time. Ontologically, both are realities that can exist because they cannot both exist at the same time when measured from the same perspective.

Only if you want to throw away logic. Either the universe is:

(i) Timeless

(ii) Not timeless (there is time)

Saying that the universe is both ontologically timeless and not timeless is like talking about a married bachelor or a perfectly spherical cube. Thus, it is only coherent to talk about the universe being ontologically timeless, or not. Since the timelessness is fundamental (time is the emergent property), then this suggests that time is an illusion.

No body is saying the universe is both timeless and not timeless. I am saying IN the universe it is not timeless and OUTSIDE the universe it is timeless.

So you don't believe that quantum mechanics is a part of our universe? If time emerges from quantum entanglement, then this implies that quantum entanglement is timeless.

Time is only an illusion if you are outside the universe. It is a reality inside the universe.

You mean it could be a reality. You haven't ruled out that it is an illusion. Also, the observer outside it would be able to see my death, when I haven't experienced it yet. How can the time aspect be real?

"Illusion" is the completely incorrect word. Science reporters often use spectacular words that overstep the experiment. I am arguing that is the case because ontologically there can be time inside the system and no time outside the system all at the same time or non-time. lol

The experiment doesn't say that there is no time outside the system, it says that the universe itself would be timeless (not just outside).


It is also a cleaner ontology, why assume two ontological realities? Occam's Razor would favor time being an illusion.


Secondly, time does not break down on the Planck scale. Relativity and space time break down at the quantum level. The study you posted can be interpreted that time is a manifestation of entanglement and when you are outside the system (not entangled) there is no time.

No. It says on the other website that this confirms the Wheeler-Dewitt's equations predictions of a timeless universe [https://medium.com...].

The study clearly implies that time is an illusion.

Here is the NewScientist.Com title of the same experiment:

**Entangled Toy Universe Shows Time May Be An Illusion**

"Time is an illusion" at least in a toy model of the universe made of two The experiment shows that what we perceive as the passage of time might emerge from the strange property of quantum entanglement. The finding could assist in solving the long-standing problem of how to unify modern physics."

The "outside observer" was just a conceptual analysis. The experiment clearly implies time is an illusion (at least for photons, which is still a big clue), with it being an emergent effect only for internal observers, with it not playing a fundamental role.

I'm not saying anything is conclusively proved (what really is in science?), just that this is a nice piece of evidence in that direction.

It might just provide the key to reconcile relativity with quantum.

Of course.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 8:41:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 6:25:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
(Correction)

*So you don't believe that quantum mechanics is a part of our universe (or more specifically, inside)?

I'm not certain why you would be asking that. The experiment shows that an observer inside the system experiences time as it can be empirically measured by the change in polarization of of the entangled particles. In effect the observer becomes entangled when they directly observe the polarization. It appears time is related to the nature of entanglement. That however does not mean it is an illusion.

Notice the observer outside the system that does not experience time is NOT entangled with the matter in the system, which which is achieved by deriving the polarization via state tomography. Since it is not directly measured the observer does not become part of the system.

Here is the actual paper. Not once did I read the word illusion. http://arxiv.org...

Interesting enough, two particles have been entangled that were not in existence at the same time, which would indicate entanglement can transcend time, but it also appears to bring forth time as well. It is the absence of entanglement that seems to be a timeless state, but the timeless and non timeless state don't have to have one be more real or less real. Both can be realities that are dependent upon how the observation happens.

It should be noted too, the external observation experiences no time therefore they can not see past, present, future. Past, present, future do not exist when observing from the external view point. You can't piece the together the change in polarization observed from the internal viewpoint because those changes in state (time) do not exist in the external observation.

At least that is my story and I'm sticking to it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 9:05:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 8:41:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 6:25:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
(Correction)

*So you don't believe that quantum mechanics is a part of our universe (or more specifically, inside)?

I'm not certain why you would be asking that.

Because you said that everything in the universe is temporal, or dependent on time. However, if time emerges from entanglement, and entanglement exists within the universe; then entanglement must be fundamentally timeless. As physicist Anton Zeilinger says:

" In a certain sense, quantum events are independent from space and time." - Anton Zeilinger

The experiment shows that an observer inside the system experiences time as it can be empirically measured by the change in polarization of of the entangled particles.

I know.

In effect the observer becomes entangled when they directly observe the polarization. It appears time is related to the nature of entanglement. That however does not mean it is an illusion.

Fair, but it doesn't mean it isn't either. It at least shows that time is emergent, and not fundamental, even if it doesn't show it is an illusion.




Notice the observer outside the system that does not experience time is NOT entangled with the matter in the system, which which is achieved by deriving the polarization via state tomography. Since it is not directly measured the observer does not become part of the system.

Ok.


Here is the actual paper. Not once did I read the word illusion. http://arxiv.org...

I never said the paper did say that.


Interesting enough, two particles have been entangled that were not in existence at the same time

I know:

http://www.extremetech.com...

, which would indicate entanglement can transcend time

We are on the same page there. Time is at least emergent, and not fundamental.

, but it also appears to bring forth time as well.

The appearance of time at least.

It is the absence of entanglement that seems to be a timeless state, but the timeless and non timeless state don't have to have one be more real or less real. Both can be realities that are dependent upon how the observation happens.

But X cannot be both timeless, and not (Law of Non-Contradiction). Isn't that contradictory?


It should be noted too, the external observation experiences no time therefore they can not see past, present, future. Past, present, future do not exist when observing from the external view point. You can't piece the together the change in polarization observed from the internal viewpoint because those changes in state (time) do not exist in the external observation.

At least that is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Cool.
kawaii_crazy
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 12:05:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
ure right, time may be an illusion
"Being called weird is like being called Limited Edition. Meaning you're something people don't see that often." -Ashley Purdy

Please help raise money for a Christmas gift for airmax (although he is Jewish, as YYW pointed out). He is in desperate need of a new laptop, and he has done so much for this site; he certainly deserves one. :)
http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 7:06:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 11:07:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 8:45:31 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 2:34:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation in physics combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics very well. However, it predicts that there is no ontological change, and no temporal becoming:

"In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe..." https://medium.com...]

To account for the apparent change that we seem to experience in an ontologically static universe, it must be an emergent 'illusion' relative to observers. Well, a recent experiment confirms this theory's unique predictions:

"Today, Ekaterina Moreva at the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) in Turin, Italy, and a few pals have performed the first experimental test of Page and Wootters" ideas ('that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict'). And they confirm that time is indeed an emergent phenomenon for "internal" observers but absent for external ones." [https://medium.com...]

Here is the actual paper which shows the results: [http://arxiv.org...]

This suggests that temporal becoming, fundamentally, doesn't exist; strongly confirming the predictions of the The Wheeler-DeWitt equation of a static reality.
--
Physicists discovered a mathematical object resembling a multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions, which suggests that space and time are illusions:

"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality." [https://www.simonsfoundation.org...]

Arkani-Hamed describes explains:

"In a sense, we would see that change arises from the structure of the object...But it"s not from the object changing. The object is basically timeless." - Arkani-Hamed

This idea (that predicts a static reality) seems revolutionary:

"The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling... You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before." - Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University

"It's a better formulation that makes you think about everything in a completely different way." - David Skinner, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge University

The simplest answer is usually correct (Occam's Razor), especially to this degree; we should take it seriously. This is just clue that leads us to the notion that temporal becoming may be an illusion.
--
Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, on its face, seems to predict that space and time are illusions:

"The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein [http://www.brainyquote.com...]

If the space-time interpretation (where space and time are interwoven) of Special Relativity is true, then this supports the idea of ontologically static time. As it turns out, the spacetime vortex predicted by Relativity was confirmed.

NASA scientists discovered the space-time vortex predicted by Einstein's theories of Relativity [http://science.nasa.gov...], seemingly showing that the space-time interpretation (where bodies with mass bend the fabric of space-time) of Relativity is true over a view in which space and time are not interwoven and there is no fabric to bend (and thus, no vortex).

Perhaps time is an illusion. Do the clues point in that direction?

I was reading about that experiment. Is it technically proper to say that it is an illusion? The experiment demonstrated that from outside the system, there is no time and everything is static, but inside the system it clearly exists as measured by the how polarized the photons became.

Take it from a practical sense, if you were outside our universe looking in, there is no time. It seems to me that it again is an issue of reference point. If something exists at one reference point and it does not exist in another, I think it is erroneous to automatically assume the reference point where it does not exist trumps the reference point where it does exist.

On another note, I read another article that the next generation of atomic clocks will be sensitive enough to measure the time difference from one's feet to his head due to the earth's time dilation.

I guess if it really mattered that our heads age faster than our feet, evolution would have put our brains in our feet. :)

Basically, if an outside observer sees an unchanging universe, but an inside observer sees a changing one; only one of them can be right ontologically (ontologically, the universe is either timeless or not). Since the timelessness aspect is more fundamental (time starts to break down at the Planck Scale), it makes more sense to think of time as the illusion.

For an atheist, that is a very religious perspective.

You are saying the view from outside of the universe, from God's perspective, is ontologically fundamental, it makes more sense to recognize that the experience of humans is subordinate to the true reality of God, the physical world we experience and study is merely an illusion, what is most real is a transcendent realm beyond the spatial and temporal illusions of Man.


"Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality." [http://discovermagazine.com...]

Yep, got it, the world we exist in isn't real, time and space are merely human constructs that are transcended by the one true and ultimate reality.

Since the timelessness is more fundamental than the emergent property (time), and only one of them can be ontologically correct, this suggests that time is the illusion.

Yes, there is a fundamental reality that transcends our human reality, our reality is merely an illusion, the true reality is a timeless realm in which we live and move and have our being.

Amazing,I once was lost but now I'm found....thank you.

Are we supposed to tithe or do some kind of ritual now?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 7:39:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 11:32:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The universe is either timeless or not regardless of reference frames on an ontological level.

That doesn"t logically follow from what we have learned from Quantum Physics and General Relativity, you are applying the Newtonian frame of reference to these theories where it just doesn"t apply.

Thus, either timelessness or time is an illusion, with the other being actually true.

Oh pulease, that is like saying that according to quantum mechanics, a photon is either a wave or a particle, one must be an illusion.

However, since time is the emergent property (making timelessness fundamental), then this suggests that time is the illusion.

Yeah, and since green is both blue and yellow, and yet, neither blue nor yellow, the color green must be an illusion too.

Especially considering the fact that an outside observer would have a complete view of all points of the universe.

Yeah, yeah, God see"s all, he sees a little sparrow fall, God knoweth all things, and all that"got it.

However, we only experience what we view as the "present", when really this observer would be able to look at all of our deaths, even though to us, they haven't happened yet.

Yes, we are mere humans, what we experience is an illusion, but the one true reality, the absolute point of view of a greater being that looks upon the universe from outside of it, from on high, to Him, all is known, past, present, and future are all laid bare to He who transcends time and space.

Got it"thanks for enlightening us.

Perhaps you should have put this thread in the religion forum.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 1:23:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 7:06:54 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/2/2014 11:07:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 8:45:31 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/2/2014 2:34:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


For an atheist, that is a very religious perspective.

Not at all. It is a conditional statement "If" there was an outside observer, that doesn't mean there actually has to be. Look up conditional logic; "if x" =/= "x"


You are saying the view from outside of the universe, from God's perspective, is ontologically fundamental, it makes more sense to recognize that the experience of humans is subordinate to the true reality of God, the physical world we experience and study is merely an illusion, what is most real is a transcendent realm beyond the spatial and temporal illusions of Man.

Nope, that is not what I said at all. Are you sidewalker, or straw-man?


"Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality." [http://discovermagazine.com...]

Yep, got it, the world we exist in isn't real, time and space are merely human constructs that are transcended by the one true and ultimate reality.

Probably.


Since the timelessness is more fundamental than the emergent property (time), and only one of them can be ontologically correct, this suggests that time is the illusion.

Yes, there is a fundamental reality that transcends our human reality, our reality is merely an illusion, the true reality is a timeless realm in which we live and move and have our being.

Amazing,I once was lost but now I'm found....thank you.

Are we supposed to tithe or do some kind of ritual now?

Do whatever you want. Why should I care?

That doesn"t logically follow from what we have learned from Quantum Physics and General Relativity, you are applying the Newtonian frame of reference to these theories where it just doesn"t apply.

How so? This is just a bare-assertion.

Oh pulease, that is like saying that according to quantum mechanics, a photon is either a wave or a particle, one must be an illusion.

Nope. Nothing like that.

Yeah, and since green is both blue and yellow, and yet, neither blue nor yellow, the color green must be an illusion too.

False-analogy.

Yeah, yeah, God see"s all, he sees a little sparrow fall, God knoweth all things, and all that"got it.

That's not what I said. I suggest taking up a reading course.

Yes, we are mere humans, what we experience is an illusion, but the one true reality, the absolute point of view of a greater being that looks upon the universe from outside of it, from on high, to Him, all is known, past, present, and future are all laid bare to He who transcends time and space.

No. If there is this being, he would see a static universe. That doesn't mean there has to be.

"if x" =/ "x"

So, nothing I am saying really has any religious implications.

Got it"thanks for enlightening us.

Perhaps you should have put this thread in the religion forum.

This has nothing to do with religion, I am citing science experiments lol You are funny...