# If time is an illusion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351 "2005-01-12T05:33:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/21 "2005-01-13T19:15:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, no, but neither does M theory. Yet. I have already agreed that it might never, in which case, as I have also already agreed, it will not be a strictly _scientific_ theory. > [@](#): > > I couldn’t agree more. M theory was and is constructed precisely because of the arbitrary nature of string theory, which proposed several kinds of strings, only some of which explained anything in “our” universe, with no ‘reason’ to choose those particular types. I would agree that the proposed answers to the question “Why do we see only 3 dimensions of space and one of time?” might well struggle to be characterised as legitimate science. Like I said, let’s see how it develops. > [@](#): > > Nothing is predicted about time from relativity, except that it varies according to the circumstances of the observer. There’s nothing about any timelessness or eternity or original singularity. How would you describe the reference frame of the photon or within the event horizon? > [@](#): > > I don’t feel comfortable calling that “timelessness”. Is it “distancelessness” when you travel 1 mile in no time? I don’t even know what that means. Well, clearly, in those situations this thing we are calling ‘time’ takes on utterly different meanings. I’m quite happy saying that a photon experiences timelessness - if it sticks in your craw, so be it. > [@](#): > > The whole brouhaha about a Theory of Everything in general, and string theory in particular, is that General Relativity does not hold in the circumstance you describe. As I have been saying, neither does our current descriptions of this thing called ‘time’. I do not understand why you consider it _necessary_ for time to continue back past zero: I’m saying it need not be the case and, if so, one might as well consider the state of the universe between -infinity and zero as exactly the same. Do you consider it necessary for the size of the universe to continue shrinking until it is less than zero? > [@](#): > > Something is needed (and nothing exists) to explain the physics of the nascent universe. The only thing that would be truly inexplicable would be a nothing-to-something transition. Are you proposing such a nonsense? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/22 "2005-01-13T22:26:52Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Yet. I have already agreed that it might never, in which case, as I have also already agreed, it will not be a strictly _scientific_ theory. Well, okay. It must just be I. It seems to me that you keep talking about it as though it _were_ a scientific theory. > [@](#): > > M theory was and is constructed precisely because of the arbitrary nature of string theory, which proposed several kinds of strings, only some of which explained anything in “our” universe, with no ‘reason’ to choose those particular types. I would agree that the proposed answers to the question “Why do we see only 3 dimensions of space and one of time?” might well struggle to be characterised as legitimate science. Like I said, let’s see how it develops. I have no problem with invisible dimensions. A dimension is nothing more than a variable. This equation has one dimension: 3X = 2. This equation has two: 3XY = 2. This one has three: 3XYZ = 2. And so on. I’m not bothered if there are only four variables that I can solve. It just means that the solutions for the remaining variables are unreducible. My understanding is that M theory emerged when a variable was introduced that allowed for a circular (or closed) string. This 11th dimension solved all the known anamolies in the various competing string theories. M theory is still string theory, just as algebra is still math. > [@](#): > > How would you describe the reference frame of the photon or within the event horizon? I’m afraid the math for general relativity is beyond my abilities, but I would describe the reference frame of a photon using what you and I have already discussed. If T - X(V/C[sup]2[/sup]) = T’√(1-(V[sup]2[/sup]/C[sup]2[/sup])), then setting V equivalent to C, T = X/C, where C ≠ 0. So, if reference frame R has a velocity of C relative to reference frame R’, then all events in R are along the X axis (the “bottom” of the right triangle) and along axes parallel to it. So, relative to itself, R experiences clock motion (eventons). But since a photon does not have a rest speed (rather, its rest speed is C), then the relation between R and R is the same as the relation between R and R’. (Interestingly, this implies a modal axiom, \<\>A -\> A, because the relation is Unique: wRv&wRu) -\> v=u.) That means that a photonic reference frame makes no distinction among past, present, and future, and cannot be aware of any photon outside R. From R’, it appears that R has lost cause and effect, but it does not appear that way from R. That’s because all events occur within R simultaneously. > [@](#): > > Well, clearly, in those situations this thing we are calling ‘time’ takes on utterly different meanings. I’m quite happy saying that a photon experiences timelessness - if it sticks in your craw, so be it. Nah. I’ve far too much respect for you to be craw-sticky about your views. I don’t mind calling it what you call it so long as you and I and anyone tuning in knows what we mean. > [@](#): > > As I have been saying, neither does our current descriptions of this thing called ‘time’. I do not understand why you consider it _necessary_ for time to continue back past zero: I’m saying it need not be the case and, if so, one might as well consider the state of the universe between -infinity and zero as exactly the same. Do you consider it necessary for the size of the universe to continue shrinking until it is less than zero? No, not at all. I’m just saying that whether it does (or not) has nothing to do with any scientific theory. > [@](#): > > The only thing that would be truly inexplicable would be a nothing-to-something transition. Are you proposing such a nonsense? Not scientifically, to be sure. Nothingness implies the lack of any mechanism by which something may arise. But then, nothing at all scientific can be said about the nascent universe, or about singularities in general. ---
**Author:** ![trillich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f07891/32.png) [@trillich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trillich)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/23 "2005-01-14T03:03:27Z")
Dimensions depend on the situation you’re addressing. Space is three-dimensional (north/south, east/west, up/down or x, y, z). Time is one-dimensional (past/future). Matter has one dimension (got more/got less). Energy has one dimension (got more/got less). Map coordinates are a two-dimensional problem; on a sphere they’d be three-dimensional. My north-american telephone number is an eleven-dimensional problem: one for each digit. Or, a three-dimensional problem: area code, exchange, number (with a leading 1 by default). The economy of a small burg in Zaire has many dimensions. Doris’s back surgery has many variables, many scales, many ranges, many dimensions. The universe has them ALL. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/24 "2005-01-14T10:19:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, okay. It must just be I. It seems to me that you keep talking about it as though it _were_ a scientific theory. It is scientific insofar as its state of ongoing construction is precisely the same as Relativity was in the early 20th Century - was Relativity a ‘scientific’ theory before it was confirmed by observation? Not strictly, no. It was a description, in mathematical language, of the _how-it-is_ of the universe based on and consistent with the theories which were most _definitely_ scientific. M Theory is the same: it is an incomplete physical model whose observable consequences are as yet unknown. Now, like I said, even the simple Standard Model has us absolutely straining at our engineering leash to confirm its most important features by observation: bookies offer only 6/1 of the Higgs boson and 500/1 of gravity waves being detected by 2010 even after billions of dollars have been spent thereon. What if the most important aspects of the explanation for how our universe has 3 dimensions of space and one of time, after decades or centuries of humanity’s most fiendishly cunning attempts to rig up the necessary apparatus, are simply **unconfirmed by observation**? “Ha ha! Look!” would cry the critics, especially those of a theistic persuasion, “They’re as credulous a cult as Xenu-believing Scientologists!” Even _some_ evidence supporting that explanation would probably be like showing a single archaeopteryx tail bone to a Young Earth Creationist: “What? You’re basing a supposedly scientific theory just on _that_? That could mean _anything_!” At this point, yes, all we would have would be our opinions. We would have to look around us and plump for either _that_ explanation or another one, based solely on which neuropsychological configuration induced by each one made us happiest. The one I considered _closest_ to, most _consistent_ with, those strictly scientific theories, would be my choice. Personally, I rejoice that I live at such in _exciting_ period - how dull to live when it’s all been “worked out” (and how _depressing_ to find that the favoured explanation could not be confirmed after all)! If a solely physical universe existed over all time, there is no law that an explanation for its _how-it-is_ must be confirmable by observation (nor even _understanable_) by 3 dimensional, temporal configurations of matter having senses and memory existing somewhere within it. Indeed, it is a constant source of wonder and joy to me that we’ve got as far as we have. > [@](#): > > M theory is still string theory, just as algebra is still math. Well, OK, although I’d phrase is that string theory is a subset of M theory rather than the other way around. It holds that the fourth through eleventh (or more, sine 11 is a ather arbitrary number in physics: one of my lecturers opined that the answer is always 0, 1 or infinity!) spatial dimensions are “rolled up too small to see” in this region of the universe, just as our third dimension might be in the two-dimension region. It may be that this has observable consequences down at those tiny near-Planck scales, maybe not. Like I said, it’s like passionately watching a footy match knowing that you might lose. > [@](#): > > Nah. I’ve far too much respect for you to be craw-sticky about your views. I don’t mind calling it what you call it so long as you and I and anyone tuning in knows what we mean…I’m just saying that whether it does (or not) has nothing to do with any scientific theory. And I try to answer your respectful queries with the good grace they deserve. Time is contingent on _change_. How can something infinitely small change - it can surely only get _bigger_? Hence, if t\>0 is the only change that can be made, I suggest that no change is possible for t\<0, and that one might as well consider the universe as staying exactly the same for times of -infinity to 0: that it is _timeless_ except for the region where time is meaningful. Is the hypothesis that an infinitely small thing can only get bigger a “scientific” one? No, it is a **tautology**. As with all logical or mathematical statements, we can never be sure that we are applying them to reality, to the _how-it-is_, correctly. But Relativity states that time and space are related: this gives us _confidence_ in our approach to the problem. > [@](#): > > But then, nothing at all scientific can be said about the nascent universe, or about singularities in general. Just on that last point: you do not consider the study of black holes to be science? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/25 "2005-01-14T11:57:27Z")
Sentient Some things about black holes are scientific, because they are testable: like the event horizon, for example. But what is at the center of a black hole is anybody’s guess. Regarding the infinitely small, and the idea that it has only one course of action — i.e., to get bigger — that’s a mistake, I believe, on two levels: (1) it can just stay the same, and (2) there are many infinities of various sizes. That aside, I don’t really know of anyone reputable who has insisted that the fetal universe was _infinitely_ small, though someone may exist. And bottom line, no one knows anyway. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/26 "2005-01-14T12:37:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Some things about black holes are scientific, because they are testable: like the event horizon, for example. But what is at the center of a black hole is anybody’s guess. And if a model holding that a [singularity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity) is the only future within the event horizon also predicted consequences observable _at or outside_ the event horizon, would it be ‘scientific’? > [@](#): > > Regarding the infinitely small, and the idea that it has only one course of action — i.e., to get bigger — that’s a mistake, I believe, on two levels: (1) it can just stay the same _ie._ adopt a state of timelessness, > [@](#): > > and (2) there are many infinities of various sizes. The universe could not be smaller than zero. From the universe being atom-sized, say, its size could change in both directions. Thus at [t=10[sup]-33[/sup]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Grand_Unification_Epoch) seconds, there _is_ scope to move further back in time. I am saying that at t=0 there is _no more scope_, that change could only occur in _one_ direction. In the other direction, one might as well _indeed_ consider it to “just stay the same”. > [@](#): > > That aside, I don’t really know of anyone reputable who has insisted that the fetal universe was infinitely small, though someone may exist. Well, that debate is just how small the universe _could_ get before it must simply stay the same. I’d suggest that this was mere detail, to be settled upon in the coming decades and centuries. > [@](#): > > And bottom line, no one knows anyway. Agreed, friend, but you already know, though not for certain, that no one really knows _anything_ for certain. All we have is our senses, memories and the Belief-o-Meter attached to them. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/27 "2005-01-14T14:36:18Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And if a model holding that a [singularity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity) is the only future within the event horizon also predicted consequences observable _at or outside_ the event horizon, would it be ‘scientific’? Well, a model and a theory are two different things, but I understand that’s not what you’re getting at. But keep in mind that some predictions are analytic, and not scientific, in nature. For example, given the true proposition that Bob always wears red shirts on Friday and the true proposition that today is Friday, a reasonable prediction can be made about Bob. What science would do is set up a test, hypothesizing that Bob will be wearing a red shirt, and then measuring the color of his shirt when he arrives. > [@](#): > > _ie._ adopt a state of timelessness, Yes, but …ugh!.. that word. Again, by “timeless” in this case we simply mean a reference frame in which all events are simultaneous — X/C, where C ≠ 0. > [@](#): > > The universe could not be smaller than zero. From the universe being atom-sized, say, its size could change in both directions. Thus at [t=10[sup]-33[/sup]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Grand_Unification_Epoch) seconds, there _is_ scope to move further back in time. I am saying that at t=0 there is _no more scope_, that change could only occur in _one_ direction. In the other direction, one might as well _indeed_ consider it to “just stay the same”. Well, but if it’s zero size, then it isn’t there, is it? If it’s larger than zero, then it has three potentials with respect to a change in size: bigger, smaller, same. > [@](#): > > Well, that debate is just how small the universe _could_ get before it must simply stay the same. I’d suggest that this was mere detail, to be settled upon in the coming decades and centuries. I quite imagine there will be much more to settle than that. As an epistemology, science has the wonderful property that it raises as many questions as it answers. > [@](#): > > Agreed, friend, but you already know, though not for certain, that no one really knows _anything_ for certain. All we have is our senses, memories and the Belief-o-Meter attached to them. 🙂 Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/28 "2005-01-14T14:45:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, by “timeless” in this case we simply mean a reference frame in which all events are simultaneous — X/C, where C ≠ 0. Hmm, I’m not sure _I_ quite mean it like that: I mean that time is contingent on _change_, _ie._ that there are only different configurations of the universe and a transition between two different configuration is what we call ‘time’. If there is no _change_ in the configuration, the word ‘time’ has no meaning. > [@](#): > > I quite imagine there will be much more to settle than that. It would be a rather boring otherwise! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/29 "2005-01-14T16:53:25Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Hmm, I’m not sure _I_ quite mean it like that: I mean that time is contingent on _change_, _ie._ that there are only different configurations of the universe and a transition between two different configuration is what we call ‘time’. If there is no _change_ in the configuration, the word ‘time’ has no meaning. > It would be a rather boring otherwise! What about a nonconfigural system? I mean, in a photonic reference frame, coordinates are meaningless. Event A cannot happen either before or after event B, they must happen at the same time — _but that is not to say that there are no events_. I’m afraid that now we’ll have to very precisely define what we mean by “change”. If we mean there can be no events, then there we are contradicting the math. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351/30 "2005-01-17T09:29:39Z")
> [@](#): > > What about a nonconfigural system? I mean, in a photonic reference frame, coordinates are meaningless. Event A cannot happen either before or after event B, they must happen at the same time — but that is not to say that there are no events. Precisely: the events _exist_ - there is no _transition_. > [@](#): > > I’m afraid that now we’ll have to very precisely define what we mean by “change”. A difference in the configuration of the universe, in whole or in part. Special Relativity would have configurations in some reference frames changing but observing no change in other reference frames. If a configuration of the universe is identical for an amount of time, time cannot be said to have passed. There is no difference between the \* timed but unchanging\* and the _timeless_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-time-is-an-illusion/284351.md?page=1)