Hello again everybody – after being unequivocally beaten to a pulp in my previous discussions on this board I have at long last worked up the courage to have another go at taking part in the fun. Please be gentle!
The idea I’d like to propose for discussion is that our concept of time is ultimately an illusion. My standpoint on this is Buddhist and it is from this perspective that I feel confident about my ‘views’. However, it seems to me that many physicists are still baffled by the relationship between time and consciousness. Physics is not my background and I really don’t want to irritate people by pretending to know more than I do but maybe one of you can clear something up for me. I’ve read a little about these mystifying little entities called ‘positrons’ which seem to have the ability (correct me if I’m wrong) to travel backwards in time and the “transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics” theory. The way I understand this theory is as follows: If we excite an electron here and now, it will send out a photon at the speed of light into the universe. It might travel only a couple of inches or it might travel to the Andromeda Galaxy two million light years away. But wherever it goes, the photon will be absorbed by some other electron which will vibrate in response and send a return signal back to the electron here. If time is the way we commonly perceive it to be it would take four million years for the signal to get back to the sender here from Andromeda, but scientific tests have proven that the return signal is received by the sender at the exact same moment the sender first sends out its signal – the entire transaction takes place simultaneously. So from the viewpoint of a photon going to Andromeda, the journey takes literally no time at all. In other words, to the photon, Andromeda is right here, since it takes no time whatsoever to get there. And the fact that the message is there and here simultaneously makes ‘there’ indistinguishable from ‘here’. So … after all that, and I apologise if I’ve got a bit muddled with the specifics, my question to you is this: Is it conceivable that Time is not something that is ‘moving’ as such in a linear direction, but that all of Time and all of Space is present within the present moment?
And I’ll leave you with this quote to ponder from Albert Einstein “Time is an illusion, albeit a persistent one”
Doesn't it just mean that time is not absolute but is different for different observers, as Einstein seems to have correctly deduced, and Buddha didn't.
Time does not pass when you move at the speed of light, according to Special Relativity. Since only photons move at such speeds, and I am assuming you are not a photon, then time - whatever it might be - passes for you.
The "advanced wave" idea - traceable back to de Broglie, one of the pioneers of Quantum Mechanics - does not violate any principle of physics in as much that all equations are as happy with t < 0 as well as t > 0. Whether that is a deep property of physics, or simply a quirk of the mathematics we use to model the universe, is entirely debatable. It conflicts strongly with experience and - more to the point - the second law of thermodynamics, which basically says that bottles don't unbreak themselves.
Originally posted by Hennery: Doesn't it just mean that time is not absolute but is different for different observers, as Einstein seems to have correctly deduced, and Buddha didn't.
Doesn’t time seem different to every single different observer? Surely time cannot have the ability to alter its speed can it? If its our mental perception that affects this perceived difference then is it possible to experience time without creating a concept of it? What does the passing of time feel like before its been filtered by thoughts?
Originally posted by =Ego: Time does not pass when you move at the speed of light, according to Special Relativity. Since only photons move at such speeds, and I am assuming you are not a photon, then time - whatever it might be - passes for you.
The "advanced wave" idea - traceable back to de Broglie, one of the pioneers of Quantum Mechanics - does not violate any principle of physics in as much that all equations are as happy with t < 0 as well as t > 0. Whether that is a deep property of physics, or simply a quirk of the mathematics we use to model the universe, is entirely debatable. It conflicts strongly with experience and - more to the point - the second law of thermodynamics, which basically says that bottles don't unbreak themselves.
You would be right in assuming I am not a photon but I’m afraid that’s probably as far as my physics knowledge is prepared to take me – I always was more of an arty sort of person than science and maths. I’m sure you are absolutely correct in everything you’ve written but the one point I think is interesting is your assertion that “it conflicts strongly with experience”. Direct experience is free of the constraints of time, there is never a moment to be experienced outside the immediate moment of right now, right here. Nothing can be experienced outside of this instant so our concept of time cannot be anything more than a mental projection. I’m not denying the validity of this mental projection (because that would be to deny the world) but I think it is precisely this mental projection that makes it our concept of time relative rather than absolute – and perhaps it is possible that our mental projections are not the full picture. Direct awareness of the present moment without a subject/object perceiver/perceived seems to transcend the concept of time doesn’t it? Even if you really do think what I’m saying is delusional and a load of airy-fairy nonsense – don’t you think it could be worth a tiny bit of effort to try and experience the ‘timeless’ for yourself?
The idea I’d like to propose for discussion is that our concept of time is ultimately an illusion. My standpoint on this is Buddhist and it is from this perspective that I feel confident about my ‘views’. However, it seems to me that many physicists are still baffled by the relationship between time and consciousness. Physics is not my background and I really don’t want to irritate people by pretending to know more than I do but maybe one of you can clear something up for me. I’ve read a little about these mystifying little entities called ‘positrons’ which seem to have the ability (correct me if I’m wrong) to travel backwards in time and the “transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics” theory. The way I understand this theory is as follows: If we excite an electron here and now, it will send out a photon at the speed of light into the universe. It might travel only a couple of inches or it might travel to the Andromeda Galaxy two million light years away. But wherever it goes, the photon will be absorbed by some other electron which will vibrate in response and send a return signal back to the electron here. If time is the way we commonly perceive it to be it would take four million years for the signal to get back to the sender here from Andromeda, but scientific tests have proven that the return signal is received by the sender at the exact same moment the sender first sends out its signal – the entire transaction takes place simultaneously. So from the viewpoint of a photon going to Andromeda, the journey takes literally no time at all. In other words, to the photon, Andromeda is right here, since it takes no time whatsoever to get there. And the fact that the message is there and here simultaneously makes ‘there’ indistinguishable from ‘here’. So … after all that, and I apologise if I’ve got a bit muddled with the specifics, my question to you is this: Is it conceivable that Time is not something that is ‘moving’ as such in a linear direction, but that all of Time and all of Space is present within the present moment?
I think what you're referring to might be the EPR paradox which Einstein felt showed that quantum mechanics was flawed because it suggested signals could travel instantaneously, conflicting with his own relativity. There was an argument between Bohr and Einstein over this, and most people reckon Bohr won. There is action at a distance, everything is linked to everything else in a very Buddhist kind of way, but this doesn't conflict with relativity or causality because you can't actually send information instantaneously.
I'm not sure what you mean by time being an illusion. I think the directionality of time is linked to consciousness - for most of these equations in physics it doesn't matter if time is running backwards or forwards, but for us it does seem to matter, and unlike in the spatial dimensions we can't move about at will. But does the fact that something is linked to consciousness mean it's an illusion? I guess that depends how you define illusion.
I’m sure you are absolutely correct in everything you’ve written but the one point I think is interesting is your assertion that “it conflicts strongly with experience”. Direct experience is free of the constraints of time, there is never a moment to be experienced outside the immediate moment of right now, right here.
As Einstein demonstrated, there is nothing that can be pointed to as "right now" that everyone can agree on. Besides: ever been to the cinema? Pictures flick by at the rate of 24 per second, yet the experience is of continuous motion. Our senses have temporal resolution as well as spatial, and this makes the cognition of our world blobby. In general, signals in the nerves are quite slow. It takes about 1/10th of a second to recognise our mother, a vital task from our evolutionary heritage. So we're generally behind reality in perception. It's worse than this though. The work of Benjamin Libet has demonstrated that we are generally aware of making choices only after they have been enacted. So it would appear that time is very much implicated in cognition.
Airy-fairy and deluded? Well, maybe. Hopefully you just need a shove in the right direction. Whatever that might be
Doesn’t time seem different to every single different observer? Surely time cannot have the ability to alter its speed can it?
Firstly, "speed" is the wrong word to use with regard to the passage of time. "Speed" is a technical term meaning a change of position with time.
Secondly, time doesn't "seem" different to every observer. It "is" different. Einstein's big idea in relativity was to keep the speed of light constant for all observers (as Maxwell had already predicted for electromagnetic radiation) and to dispose of the idea that either distance or time is an invariant.
But does the fact that something is linked to consciousness mean it's an illusion? I guess that depends how you define illusion.
My head is beginning to hurt! I’m afraid this is getting far too scientific for me … its my fault, I knew I’d end up regretting starting this. I just wanted to find a way to get all you science nuts into a philosophical discussion about Buddhism without having the mickey ripped out of me – but you can’t argue science with philosophy … something I always seem to forget. Basically, in simple terms, what I was trying to get at is this: ultimately clock time as I like to call it is a mental construct – past and future exist only in our minds. Would you agree with that? I’ll assume you do (a dangerous assumption I know!). To any entity travelling through time the only ‘reality’ of the movement of time is the present moment – it’s the only thing we can ‘know’ to be real because we are directly experiencing it. You can’t directly experience the past or the future – those are all filtered through thoughts. But how many of us can say we are totally conscious of the present moment? I’d suggest that 99.9% of the time 99.9% of us never actually experience this present moment in pure form – it is always conditioned by our concept of past and future, all our actions seem to be a means to an end, we’re always thinking of the end point or perhaps the starting point. But what happens if you stop thinking about that and simply become aware of this moment? This moment is ultimately timeless.
As Einstein demonstrated, there is nothing that can be pointed to as "right now" that everyone can agree on.
Why not? Surely ‘right now’ is the only thing that anyone can be sure about? Right now is the only point we know to be real as it’s the only point we can become directly aware of. Nothing exists outside of right now. Yes fine, in five minutes time I will be able to look back at this moment now and think “what was I saying, why am I even trying I’m just making an idiot of myself” but that’s just a thought or a reflection. Five minutes ago cannot exist right now – its merely my mind’s interpretation of five minutes ago. The only thing anyone can ever be sure of is the present moment – so it puzzles me that so many people have such a problem with remaining in the present for longer than a millisecond.
quote:
Airy-fairy and deluded? Well, maybe. Hopefully you just need a shove in the right direction. Whatever that might be
Firstly, "speed" is the wrong word to use with regard to the passage of time. "Speed" is a technical term meaning a change of position with time.
Secondly, time doesn't "seem" different to every observer. It "is" different. Einstein's big idea in relativity was to keep the speed of light constant for all observers (as Maxwell had already predicted for electromagnetic radiation) and to dispose of the idea that either distance or time is an invariant.
I apologise for my appalling lack of scientific understanding – I gave up on physics way before GSCE level. I’m afraid I don’t have the mental capacity to respond to this in any meaningful way. So if time is different to every observer, what happens when you take the observing party away?
Originally posted by NowPower: So if time is different to every observer, what happens when you take the observing party away?
I've never been to an observing party, so I wouldn't know.
I do know that if you put an accurate clock in a departures lounge, and place a similar clock showing an identical time in a suitcase and send it to Adelaide and back, the clock in the departures lounge will, when reunited with its partner, be showing a later time.
The experiment has been done, and that is the result.
So when you talk about absolute time it would be helpful if you were to do so through your hat, just to help make your position clear.
So when you talk about absolute time it would be helpful if you were to do so through your hat, just to help make your position clear.
I'm sorry Hennery, have i offended you in some way? If i have then i do apologise - but i'd be grateful if you'd let me know exactly what i've done to invite your hostility so as to avoid doing it again.
So when you talk about absolute time it would be helpful if you were to do so through your hat, just to help make your position clear.
I'm sorry Hennery, have i offended you in some way? If i have then i do apologise - but i'd be grateful if you'd let me know exactly what i've done to invite your hostility so as to avoid doing it again.
Originally posted by NowPower: Hello again everybody – after being unequivocally beaten to a pulp in my previous discussions on this board I have at long last worked up the courage to have another go at taking part in the fun. Please be gentle!
Hi NowPower You got the illusion right. I feel that your fear of having a bad time stems from your apologising for your Buddhist philosophy. Life is about choices and you are only willing to make a choice in favour of Buddhism if the scientistic give you support. This is not going to happen.
Welcome back. Don't worry too much about getting toasted last time you were here, it happens to everyone. As long as you learnt something from it...?
First off, you are correct, in a way, that time does not actually behave the way that we experience it. It's not that "now" is all that exists, it is that time is relative.
Consider the following.
You are asked to referee a duel between two people. They will stand at opposite ends of an empty train carriage, you are on a station platform watching the train go by. A firework goes off in the middle of the carriage, and when each opponent sees the light from it they can fire.
Now, think carefully. What happens?
The light from the flare has to travel half the distance of the carriage to reach each contender, so they see the light at the same time and fire at the same moment, correct?
But you're the referee. What you see is the carriage moving as the light travels to the contenders. The person at the back is moving towards the light, so sees the light first and shoots first.
So who is correct? The contenders both think they fired at the same time, and the referee thinks one shot first.
The answer is both viewpoints are correct, because the time elapsed is relative to your motion.
quote:
Originally posted by NowPower: My head is beginning to hurt! I’m afraid this is getting far too scientific for me … its my fault, I knew I’d end up regretting starting this. I just wanted to find a way to get all you science nuts into a philosophical discussion about Buddhism without having the p*** ripped out of me
I've highlighted the bits of this that leapt out at me, let me explain why.
Firstly, it is difficult and sciency. There's no avoiding that. If you want to discuss relativity it's going to be a sciency discussion.
Secondly, you should google Mortons Demon, and be very careful about finding snippets of knowledge that seem, to the layperson, to support your view and ignoring all others.
But does the fact that something is linked to consciousness mean it's an illusion? I guess that depends how you define illusion.
My head is beginning to hurt! I’m afraid this is getting far too scientific for me … its my fault, I knew I’d end up regretting starting this.
Just think of the present moment, then you won't have any regrets.
quote:
I just wanted to find a way to get all you science nuts into a philosophical discussion about Buddhism without having the mickey ripped out of me – but you can’t argue science with philosophy … something I always seem to forget. Basically, in simple terms, what I was trying to get at is this: ultimately clock time as I like to call it is a mental construct – past and future exist only in our minds. Would you agree with that? I’ll assume you do (a dangerous assumption I know!). To any entity travelling through time the only ‘reality’ of the movement of time is the present moment – it’s the only thing we can ‘know’ to be real because we are directly experiencing it. You can’t directly experience the past or the future – those are all filtered through thoughts. But how many of us can say we are totally conscious of the present moment?
I can remember being conscious of the present moment once, in my youth.
quote:
I’d suggest that 99.9% of the time 99.9% of us never actually experience this present moment in pure form – it is always conditioned by our concept of past and future, all our actions seem to be a means to an end, we’re always thinking of the end point or perhaps the starting point. But what happens if you stop thinking about that and simply become aware of this moment? This moment is ultimately timeless.
I guess if you didn't remember the past then the concept of time flowing would disappear. If it was the future we r emembered and the past was unknown (a clairvoyant amnesiac) then time would appear to be going backwards. And if you remembered both past and future time would just be a dimension like space that you could move about at will perhaps (Slaughterhouse 5).
So the direction in which time appears to flow depends on what we remember?
I don't know. I have a headache at the moment, but I think there are very close links with Buddhist (as well as Hindu and Taoist) philosophies and modern physics (read Fritjof Capra's the Tao of Physics last year).
But the idea of an illusion? It implies something unreal. I've heard Buddhists say reality is an illusion, and I've heard of physicists virtually saying the same thing (and other physicists arguing with them) - but is it just our way of categorizing / measuring things that's illusory?
Tee hee – I shall have to borrow that excuse for when my boss returns my typing to me covered in red corrections!
