Time doesn't exist

That isn't an argument. You're saying that time doesn't exist because we don't have the every-day technology to re-align atoms into their previous positions, that doesn't mean time exists.

without time, you couldnt think cause no neurons would fire. space would be just 3d with atoms in it but nothing would move. so without time, we dont exist.

what r u talking about m8

Time is the relative perception of our 3-dimensional universe expanding at the speed of light into the 4th spacial dimension.

>without time, you couldnt think cause no neurons would fire. space would be just 3d with atoms in it but nothing would move. so without time, we dont exist.
Nope. Completely incorrect. You're conflating time with the movement of atoms. Time is our perception of that movement, it isn't the movement itself. As I just explained, if an atom moves and then it moves back into its original spot, nothing changed. Therefore, time does not exist, because time is only our human way of relating the change in an atom's position and structure.

hey thats what i igmagined it to be when my head started to understand (interpret) SRT in a intuitive way.

then i came to e=mc^2 with lagrange formalism from the basis you just described.

but yeah, it was robbing me of my sleep.
and was pointless, too.

no, time is not our perception.

you need a phisics course.

also
>Now, let's imagine that the cup magically re-assembled itself. Every last drop of water went right back into the cup, and was in the exact position that it was before it spilled.

thats not possible because of the second law of thermodynamics.

>no, time is not our perception.
>you need a phisics course.
You need to learn how to spell "physics" first. Time is our perception, by definition. Without humans to witness the flow of time, there is no time. As I've stated in multiple instances already, if an item is in one spot, then moves to another spot, and then goes back to its original spot, what changed? Nothing. The only proof that the atom changed is our memory of it changing -- that is time, my friend.

>thats not possible because of the second law of thermodynamics.
It's completely possibly and thermodynamics has nothing to do with it... at all.

K so everything pertaining to our perception of causality is completely tied to the passage of time. So when you start talking about how time is just a human perception, well, that would need to make causality a human perception. So now when you start saying things like "it's all in your head" where you are saying that your brain CAUSES the illusion of time to exist, you run into a problem with circular reasoning. Nothing can be the cause of causality. You are saying that our mind is the cause of causality and that makes everything you are saying not work.

>K so everything pertaining to our perception of causality is completely tied to the passage of time. So when you start talking about how time is just a human perception, well, that would need to make causality a human perception. So now when you start saying things like "it's all in your head" where you are saying that your brain CAUSES the illusion of time to exist, you run into a problem with circular reasoning. Nothing can be the cause of causality. You are saying that our mind is the cause of causality and that makes everything you are saying not work.
You're missing the point entirely. Causality exists whether we exist or not. A happens, B changes. But just because something changes doesn't mean that time exists. The point I originally illustrated is that, if A happens and B changes, but B then reverts to its original position, it never happened, because the only proof that it happened is our own human perception, our memory, of it happening.

>It's completely possibly and thermodynamics has nothing to do with it... at all.

it has. because there is no copletely reversible process.
aka its impossible for the particles of your cup to get into the same state where they were before if the thing was spilled or broken or whatever, because the entropy of the whole system increased.

also when you say the atom goes back to where it was, the rest of the world still is further away in time and thus can perceive the impossible hallucination youre describing, which means the time went by.

try SRT or physics in general and believe this guy

>it has. because there is no copletely reversible process.
aka its impossible for the particles of your cup to get into the same state where they were before if the thing was spilled or broken or whatever, because the entropy of the whole system increased.
It is not impossible. We have the ability, while not widely implemented, to manipulate things on an atomic level. It is not impossible, nor exceedingly difficult, to take an atom, slightly change its position, and then re-position it in the same spot that it was originally in. It is not impossible, it is completely possible and has already been done. Just because we haven't yet figured out how to take an entire complex object like a spilled glass of water and re-position it into its initial form does not mean that it can't be done.

>also when you say the atom goes back to where it was, the rest of the world still is further away in time and thus can perceive the impossible hallucination youre describing, which means the time went by
And yet again, this is the same logical fallacy you already stated. The "world" doesn't perceive anything, we do. We create time, we perceive time. A rock does not perceive time. If I move a teddy bear from one spot to another, and then back to its original spot, the only proof that this ever happened is a human's memory of it happening. There is no stone tablet sitting out in the universe inscribed with the memory of this teddy bear moving positions. Time is a completely fictional human construct. You are wrong.

and time is not "Our perception", it is a mathematical variable if you want to quantify it.

there is so much wrong with what you keep saying i would kill myself before i explain it all to you throught Veeky Forums.

but my autism is too great so i write this shit down

(its a way of procrastinating)

>not realizing you are nothing more than a Boltzmann brain

Ok so the thing is that time on a cosmic scale actually isn't symmetric. It's not perfectly understood at the moment, but it is looking a lot like the far future of the universe will look nothing like it's beginning. The person you replied to was referring to the principle that the net entropy of the universe should always increase. This is just because of the fact that the universe began in such a low entropy state, it will inevitably tend toward the maximum entropy state. At that point, in the far future, the things you are saying might make a little bit of sense. Currently, the universe is undeniably changing and will keep changing for something like a trillion years or whatever. We could also talk about things like quantum information, which I have a feeling would bring with it all kinds of empirical reasons that what you are saying doesn't work, but I am not an expert in that stuff.

>and time is not "Our perception", it is a mathematical variable if you want to quantify it.
Nope. Incorrect. You can measure the change in an object mathematically, that doesn't mean that time exists. It means your perception of that object's change exists.

>there is so much wrong with what you keep saying i would kill myself before i explain it all to you throught Veeky Forums
Right, because you're a contrarian with no argument and you can't be arsed to back up the shit you talk.

>We have the ability, while not widely implemented, to manipulate things on an atomic level.

no.
its impossible
aka
IMPOSSIBLE

>The "world" doesn't perceive anything, we do.
as soon as a quantum mechanical object is evaluated throught an operator (measurement) the state is defined.
you dont need to "perceive it".
it just needs to be evaluated by a measurement i.e. a makroscopical object acts on it and evaluates the state

again, i base my stuff on relativity, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, whereas you just come up with this shit out of your ass.

>cant be arsed to back it up

>says you

see

hey i just did that,
thanks that youre a sane person not leaving me alone with OP

>no.
>its impossible
>aka
>IMPOSSIBLE
Nothing is impossible. If you think that the manipulation of the world on an atomic level is impossible, you are dense.

>as soon as a quantum mechanical object is evaluated throught an operator (measurement) the state is defined.
you dont need to "perceive it".
it just needs to be evaluated by a measurement i.e. a makroscopical object acts on it and evaluates the state
And yet you fail to realize that we, as humans, are the fucking operator. We define the measurement. Without us, there is no way to measure or define anything. You honestly sound like you're trying to use "big words" that you think mean something they don't, and you haven't a single clue what you're talking about, which might explain your continued use of the non-existent word "throught" and "makroscopical".

I honestly don't get why this is so hard for you to understand.

so what are you, then ?

are we all fucking boltzmanns or what ?

thats highly unlikely.

What do you think we are? Little brains that form out of pudding? Our awareness as a result of random chaotic events is in fact the MOST likely explanation for our existence.

>And yet you fail to realize that we, as humans, are the fucking operator. We define the measurement.

And thats where you are wrong. In fact, i have a Landau Lipschitz right here, disproving you. But what are Books anyways, huh ? facts dont count, only your imagination.

>Nothing is impossible. If you think that the manipulation of the world on an atomic level is impossible, you are dense.

again, its not the manipulation thats impossible.

its a completely reversible process, thats impossible.

hey youre not OP, are you ?

Can you justify the idea without that if statement? What if the system doesn't return to its original state? As many people have already pointed out, the universe as it is currently understood most probably will not return to the state it was in when it began.

Believe it or not, the kinds of ideas you are throwing around do have some mathematical basis that has been thought up before, but the conclusions you are coming to don't seem to work properly. The method of approaching physical systems by talking about "what can be known" or "what can be remembered" is basically synonymous with the concept of "information" in statistical physics. What you are saying is basically that the universe contains a net amount of information equal to zero, which could potentially be used to argue that time isn't a truly real entity. I am sorry to say that your reasoning is not as philosophically subjective as you might want to think, since empirically the net amount of information is not at all zero. If it is true that time does not exist, it is not for the reasons you are saying because what you are saying is empirically false.

so what ?
are you high or sth ?

>And thats where you are wrong. In fact, i have a Landau Lipschitz right here, disproving you. But what are Books anyways, huh ? facts dont count, only your imagination.
Literally your entire argument boils down to "You're wrong because I say so". I've provided a clear-cut argument for why I'm correct. You have not one single thing disproving me. You continue to type misspelled words and cite scientific definitions that don't even mean what you think they mean, and now your fallback argument is to say that "Books" say I'm wrong, so I must be wrong. If you can't provide a coherent argument of your own, you don't have one. You don't get to discredit me just because my argument doesn't fall under the pretenses of what you define as being acceptable. Either your argument is solid or it isn't, and your argument is dog shit because you don't have one.

>
>again, its not the manipulation that's impossible.
>its a completely reversible process, thats impossible.
No it isn't. Putting the dishes away after using and washing them is a simplified version of a very real reversal process. The only difference between putting the dishes away and manipulating a single atom is how great our understanding is. It is not impossible, you are just limited.

>Believe it or not, the kinds of ideas you are throwing around do have some mathematical basis that has been thought up before, but the conclusions you are coming to don't seem to work properly. The method of approaching physical systems by talking about "what can be known" or "what can be remembered" is basically synonymous with the concept of "information" in statistical physics. What you are saying is basically that the universe contains a net amount of information equal to zero, which could potentially be used to argue that time isn't a truly real entity. I am sorry to say that your reasoning is not as philosophically subjective as you might want to think, since empirically the net amount of information is not at all zero. If it is true that time does not exist, it is not for the reasons you are saying because what you are saying is empirically false.
This entire paragraph is literally an amalgam of gobbledygook that contains no semblance of an argument. You're just saying, "no, you're wrong", you're not providing an argument for why I am. As mentioned in the OP, please explain to me, if I move an atom and then revert it to its previous state, what proof is there that this change took place, other than my human memory that it did? There isn't one. Because time doesn't exist. Time is a human's way of relating the change in the atoms around them. If we can revert those atoms to a previous state, time itself has been reverted. If you can't come up with a coherent argument for why this logic isn't sound, your opinion is worthless.

you didnt state any argument.
you just said that quantum mechanics is completely false and we should forget everything what it says, because you said im wrong, and i only stated an empical fact.

i notice youre getting pretty intense and unpilote.

>again, its not the manipulation that's impossible.
>its a completely reversible process, thats impossible.

>No it isn't. Putting the dishes away after using and washing them is a simplified version of a very real reversal process. The only difference between putting the dishes away and manipulating a single atom is how great our understanding is. It is not impossible, you are just limited.

sorry, but read a book on thermodynamics or leave it. its not as easy as to explain in a few sentences thermodynamics and quantum mechs to you.

youre not dumb. youre just not so far ahead in your studys to understand what i am talking about.

but unpolite and closed minded, thats what you are.

theproof is that the thing that TOOK it back to place is ALSO affected by TAKING it back into place.

sorry i thought thats obvious. thats what i mean by no completely reversible process possible.

>you didnt state any argument.
Yes I did. My argument is that time doesn't exist because the only proof of an atom changing is our memory of it changing. This is dead simple logic that you can't seem to comprehend. You keep citing things like "quantum mechanics" but you don't even understand what the fuck you're talking about, you just keep spouting bullshit that you think lends weight to your argument but, in reality, you don't even know what it means.

>i notice youre getting pretty intense and unpilote.
I've noticed that you want me to take your opinions on thermodynamics quantum mechanics seriously but you can't even spell common words.

>sorry, but read a book on thermodynamics or leave it. its not as easy as to explain in a few sentences thermodynamics and quantum mechs to you.
See, there you go again. "Read a book". You don't have an argument. You don't even understand what you're saying right now. You disagree with my argument, so you say "Hey man, you don't know shit, go read what this other guy said, he'll tell you how it is". Pathetic.

>youre not dumb. youre just not so far ahead in your studys to understand what i am talking about.
You're right, I'm not dumb, and I'm much further ahead in my studies than you are.

>but unpolite and closed minded, thats what you are.
Lol....

imho everything we have perceived, perceive and will perceive is a single chain reaction, happening in a single moment but due to inertance and our disability to see past it, things seem to change over time.

yet something changing over time requires an still initial state and this state does physically not exist.

even though a table might look like standing still particles and atoms it's made out of are constantly vibrating and oscillating.

I have no answer to your statement though

>theproof is that the thing that TOOK it back to place is ALSO affected by TAKING it back into place.
This is literally complete horse shit. The only proof that an atom changed if it reverts to its original position is OUR MEMORY OF IT CHANGING. You're essentially saying "the proof of the thing changing... is that it changed". No, that isn't proof. The reason you can cite it as proof is because you, as a human, are able to PERCEIVE IT CHANGING. If you did not exist, if you could not PERCEIVE, then there is no proof of it changing.

You are right, these things shouldn't be argued from authority. The problem with saying "we are the fucking operator" is that it breaks quantum mechanics as a predictive model. The only reason we take the implications of quantum mechanics seriously is because it has been so successful in predicting natural phenomenon. However, if you make the assumption that wave function collapse requires a conscious observer, the theory no longer correctly predicts experiment. We use quantum mechanics to explain phenomena for which there is no conscious observer present, yet we also suppose that wave functions collapse anyways. If we insist that consciousness must be there to observe the state for the wavefunction to collapse, then it doesn't work anymore. So you should either accept that consciousness has nothing to do with physics like everyone else, or you must believe that quantum mechanics just isn't a consistent theory and doesn't properly describe reality. No other opinion is consistent.

>but you can't even spell common words.
>and I'm much further ahead in my studies than you are.

and still you didnt understand quantum mechs

here is my argument, which you long for.

If you do the double slit experiment and you shoot a photon at it, the wave function of the electron collapses and the probability does, as a result, too. this means, we get a change in the measured distribution of the electrons.

now, the photon is the thing evaluating the state of the electron. you can already think of this as a interaction between the macroscopical world, because throught the photon the electron left information behind.

not the fact, that a human sees the measurement, but the fact that the photon interacts with the electron causes the wavefunction to collapse.

thats why youre wrong.

oh and yeah, do you know what entropy is ?

2 Explanations:
>Time exists, so that's why we have a perception of the past
or
>Time doesn't exist, yet we all have the same idea of past occurrences by the mechanism of fuck knows
Tell me which is less retarded, OP

i never argued from authority, i just said i dont fucking want to hold a LECTURE for him.

If he doesnt understand what i mean, its ok.

but he is disrespectful.

This isn't very hard to understand. If I draw a picture of something, does that mean it happened? No, it doesn't. When something "happens" in our universe, our brain draws a picture of it, and stores it as a memory. Now, that event may have occurred in a particular "time", but since time doesn't exist, just because something "happened" during that time doesn't mean that it exists right now.

So the problem here really is the "if" that you keep coming back to. The answer to your question is "nothing". As you say, there is no proof that anything happened except in your memory. That isn't the issue with your post, the issue is that your conclusion does not follow from this concept. If a state returns exactly to its initial state, then the state is said to contain no information, which is an identical statement to what you were saying. When a system contains no information, as you say, the concept of time is basically meaningless. Your argument seems to be that, since the universe contains no information, then time is meaningless and cannot really exist. What I was trying to tell you in the previous post is that we can determine empirically how much information is contained in the universe and it is not zero.

>and still you didnt understand quantum mechs
I understands them perfectly well, you don't.

>here is my argument, which you long for.
Well, it is nice to provide an argument when you're telling someone they're wrong, huh?

>>>that whole bullshit argument
Yep, just like I thought, a load of crock. The example you've just given, the change in the measured distribution, it is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on our human observation. I restate, once more, if this changed, and then reverted, what proof of the change would exist? None whatsoever. That is the critical flaw in your argument that you cannot seem to bypass.

>What I was trying to tell you in the previous post is that we can determine empirically how much information is contained in the universe and it is not zero.
well, you do that, and i give you a billion Dollars.

Youre right you still could make that argument, i just thought you will understand if i give this example.

ill try to work out another example for you.

>so what are you, then ?
i'm a boltzmann brain, obviously.

>are we all fucking boltzmanns or what ? thats highly unlikely.
i agree that it's quite unlikely for you all to be boltzmanns. in all likelihood, i'm the only boltzmann here. you don't even really exist. and neither will i, one instant from now.

What I was trying to tell you in the previous post is that we can determine empirically how much information is contained in the universe and it is not zero.
Except this "information" that you claim the universe holds is just a measurement. It doesn't mean anything. There is no information. Information, much like time, is a human construct that we use as a metric of change and difference.

Look I'm not trying to start a fuss or anything but you really should look into this stuff on you're own a little bit. You are sarcastically offering me a billion dollars for something that scientists have already done, maybe look it up?

>Time doesn't exist.
>I've spent many years thinking about this issue

Ok so if you have two cavities and you shoot randomly a photon ant the passing electron that will pass a slit, the photon will give a which way information for the electron.
in this case, the wave function collapses, and we get ni interference.

this means the which way information is the factor that destroys our probability distribution.

To now assume that observing the measurement in order for it to be true is equivalent to the question if you do exist, which is a strange philosophical one and not a physical question.

i think, therefore i am. if you say you dont know if you exist, then it would be logical to say nothing exists if you dont look at it.

this has nothing to do with the outcome of this expiriment, thought. the which way information is given ONLY in a world that does EXIST.

Or where am i wrong ?

so how much information is there ? 1000 ?

low quality bait

Information is normally measured in bits but you can use other units. The reasoning that you would typically see is to divide everything into subsystems that have zero mutual entropy, which is easier to do, then you only need to show that one of those subsystems has a nonzero amount of information to prove nonzero information for the whole system. So in practice you could do something like, I dunno, the earth and a star outside of the observable universe? Those two systems have zero mutual entropy, and the earth is a highly complex evolving system and simply doesn't have zero information. You are showing a lot of ignorance about this subject so i get the feeling that this is all going over your head, but you asked.

you cant even measure how much information is in the air around you, and you say you can for the entire universe.

you mean the guy estimated something, as in how much "calculation" would be needed for the universe to get here.

but its an estimate, not a measured quantity.

time is just the measurement of progression but the rate of progression can be changed depending of some factors such as gravity and speed

I didn't say you could quantify all of the information in the universe, I said that you can demonstrate that it can't be zero. And I never implied that just some guy did this once, it's not a famous result or anything. This kind of question comes up a lot, and anyone who knows anything about statistical physics should be able to perform this reasoning. Heuristically, if just comes down to the fact that the universe is a large collection of basically independent processes that do not repeat themselves. Once again, non of this actually goes against the idea that time is an illusion. That is a philosophical question. It goes against your argument, which is based on statements about the way the universe works that are simply not true.

>estimate
>not a measured quantity

Do you not know how science works? All measurements are estimates. Where I come from, we take off mad credit when students show that level of misunderstanding in their lab reports. In fact, you can measure the information in the air around you. Yes, it will be an estimate with error bars. No, the uncertainty in that measurement will not overlap with zero.

Sure, but then don't try to use those concepts to support that claim. I am using the word "information" because that is the formal mathematical word that you would use to describe the situation presented in the OP. OP said that time doesn't exist because you can never prove that a perfectly cyclical system ever evolved in the first place. This is synonymous with saying that there is zero information in the system. So if the argument is "zero information == no such thing as time", then don't complain when I start talking to you about information this information that. My whole point is that the universe does not have a net amount of information equal to zero, so the argument doesn't work. If you are so attached to the idea that all these quantifications that scientists use are just human constructs with no real analogue, then come up with a different fucking argument that doesn't rely on statements that aren't fucking true.

that took you years? The real redpill is that nothing intrinsically exists, and everything is in my head. I can only assert and verify my own existence -- everything else cannot be proven to be other than my own perception.

t = d/v, 0 < v ≤ c

Time is the second property of spacial propogation.

You cannot prove you are not a highly complex data structure that coalesced arbitrarily to have the simulative data of consciousness and existence.

But that's like the same thing anyways. I was actually thinking about this earlier, even if my thoughts are simulated or being directed by an algorithm, they are still thoughts that I am aware of. Even if my awareness is simulated, it still exists. It really just boils back down to "I think, therefore I am".
Or more like this
Things exist > Things exist
Things pseudo-exist > Things exist
Thoughts exist > I exist
Thoughts pseudo-exist > I exist

>I perceive time, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality
colors also don't exist yet almost all of us see them
your wall of text is wholly unnecessary

>nothing changed

But we live in a world with more than one singular atom, so the relative position of other objects would certainly have changed without moving back to their original positions as well.

What you are arguing might make sense if everything wasn't constantly moving and was anywhere even close to what you could call its original position.

Unfalsifiable hyphothesis much?
Gonna take the ol' popper's razor there

Cant go back into the same position because of no cloning theorem ergo time still passed?

That's a very anthropocentric view of reality using a ridiculous hypothetical for proof. You wasted your years deluding yourself if you really think this is true.

>Time doesn't exist. Anonymous 06/03/17(Sat)16:13:13

I actually agree OP. The sun does not need time to rise, it just does. Time does not exist as something that can be observed and does not exist in any way before the moment our human creation (the clock) starts ticking. Things just do not depend upon any invisible force called time to move or change. It's honestly as simple as first it's here and then it's there. Time exists because we created it as a tool that makes it easier for us to keep track of change and movement in the environment, but one should not believe that time is in actuality something that exists naturally by itself.

>Solipsism
Please fuck off.

This post end the thread.

The past not only existed, it continues to exist, as does the future.

As you physically move through the universe your rate of time changes relative to the rest of the universe. The faster you go, the slower your time is relative to others.

Therefor, your time, over long distances, may intersect with the past, or future, of another area of the universe, depending on your momentum relative to that locale. Ergo, the past and future must always exist. It is merely our limited perception that only allows us to see our local slice and remember our past slices.

youtube.com/watch?v=H1WfFkp4puw

...and were it otherwise, your GPS would offsetting by about a thousand miles a week, as the satellites that make up the GPS network have those same SR calculation adjustments built into them to compensate for the difference in speed.

>imagine x happens
>then imagine y happens
If time doesn't exist then how is x happening after y? Or are you arguing they are actually both happening simultaneously? The water is both within and without the cup at the same "time" (except not at the same time, because time isn't real)

This entire thread is laden with circular logic, in which you use time language to argue against time. I think a lot of it has to do with that you don't seem to have a well defined concept of what time even is, because you're arguing that cause and effect can still exist, things can still happen before or after one another, but that somehow time doesn't exist.

It almost seems as if your defining time as "humans' perception of the chain of causality" and then saying that if humans didn't exist neither would time.

I completely agree with your statement. The present, its just our brain being aware with the environment, the past are just our memories and the future is just our imagination. Time is merely an illusion and is affected by our state of awareness.

gravity causes time dilation so time has to be a real thing qed

I agreed with OP since time is an artificial unit that human defined, firstly based on the movement of the sun to the emission of fission material. When all the cells of an old man went back to its previous state and position continuously, we can say he is time-traveling back to when he was a sperm and egg. So time is indeed the comparison between the changes of everything to the change of the reference item. A day means "during the sun move up and down and up again, I have ..." and you are the one who fill the comparison.

>what proof is there that this change took place

radioactive decay? I really don't know how to explain to you that irreversible actions can denote time without getting a response of "but what if you reversed the irreversible action"

Time does exist period.
time is the fourth dimension evrything will be impossible without it is the same as space you can move on space but you move with time that is on our current location but for example in a black hole this reverses you move trought time and space moves along

Actually time is only modeled as a dimension in GR and to claim that time actually is a dimension like space would be to claim that GR is a descriptive model just as much as a predictive model which is something most physicists tend to agree with but can never be demonstrated empirically by the way don't you hate reading comments that don't have comments or periods it's fucking exhausting learn to write Jesus Christ.

This is you

Time is the measure towards entropy.

Succinct and to the point
Kudos

>It is not impossible, nor exceedingly difficult, to take an atom, slightly change its position, and then re-position it in the same spot that it was originally in.

Except it very much is because the atom is not the same atom as before. Its closer to entropy, thus different.

In effect, the atom may be in the same place, but it is not the same atom as before. Get that atom to absolute zero, then you could talk.

lmao

>quark changes from the state it was in previously
there you go op, that's time

appreciated

With this logic, you dont exist to future generations so you can go ahead and kill yourself.

UNLESS of course you'd like to leave some mark of your current self for FUTURE person(s) to appreciate.

> using past tense of "build"
> denying a past exists

confirmed idiot

I understand you OP.
I was having similar thoughts recently.