Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[Mudhammam]

Math people, math people... tastes like math, talk like people. Math people, math people...

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

I know you will deny the following articles but since time doesn't exist your thesis is full of phooey.


Quantum Theory Proves That Time Does Not Exist

The study of the quantum universe shows us that time does not exist. It shows us that time is a function of relativity only and exists relative to some arbitrary point of reference.

Quantum Theory and non-locality goes something like this; Take two particles, A and B (photons or electrons for example). Pair them, then separate them, and put them on either side of the planet. Stimulate particle A, and particle B will react without any time delay.

In other words both particles act at the same moment in time regardless of distance. This is remarkable right, how can this be? We need to have a physical connection, we need to observe some kind of interconnecting frequency waveform or something, right? This also means we’ve got an interaction between particles happening way beyond the speed of light, right? No I don’t understand this to be accurate.

Quantum Theory Proves That Time Does Not Exist, at the fundamental level in any case. It shows that our concept of time, as thought of as a linear passage of events is totally wide of the mark, in fact there is no mark. Everything exists in an ever present moment. The seeming connection that science is trying to identify is actually consciousness itself. It is that which we are, or at least it is a rudimentary form of that which we are. Time does not actually exist and Quantum Theory proves it.

In science, a “bit” of information is said to have two possible answers. This view of things, i.e everything is either A or B, is inaccurate. Actual reality has an infinite number of answers or possibilities, it has any number of possible outcomes. The future does not exist until we create it. We are the factor, the parameter that decides the outcome whether our conscious mind realises it or not. We can not isolate ourselves from the the universe, we form part of the equation, always.

Scientific American

Mind & Brain »June 2010

Is Time an Illusion?
The concepts of time and change may emerge from a universe that, at root, is utterly static
By Craig Callender
THIS IS A PREVIEW.

As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.

Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.

Robert

[FatAndFaithless]

I know you will deny the following articles

Well, you got that right... I find that a source called "Woken Mind" with a yin yang next to it whose first word is "Quantum" is nearly impossible to take seriously on any matter at all ever.

Quantum mechanics are so complex that even scientists that specialize in quantum mechanics struggle greatly. Anyone that uses quantum mechanics to justify a conclusion is an immdiate non-starter for me, because the odds of vague-Chopra-like-pseudoscience are just so high.

[Mudhammam]

I know you will deny the following articles

Well, you got that right... I find that a source called "Woken Mind" with a yin yang next to it whose first word is "Quantum" is nearly impossible to take seriously on any matter at all ever.

Quantum mechanics are so complex that even scientists that specialize in quantum mechanics struggle greatly. Anyone that uses quantum mechanics to justify a conclusion is an immdiate non-starter for me, because the odds of vague-Chopra-like-pseudoscience are just so high.

There wasn't any "vague-Chopra-like-pseudoscience" in what Robert posted. In fact, many physicists and philosophers have recognized the difficulties that our Newtonian framework of absolute space and absolute time poses for quantum mechanics, and that any theory that incorporates all phenomena must recognize the fundamental and universal division of "an observing part" and "an observed part."

[Alex K]

There wasn't any "vague-Chopra-like-pseudoscience" in what Robert posted. In fact, many physicists and philosophers have recognized the difficulties that our Newtonian framework of absolute space and absolute time poses for quantum mechanics, and that any theory that incorporates all phenomena must recognize the fundamental and universal division of "an observing part" and "an observed part."

I don't understand what you mean by that (bold mine)

[Mudhammam]

There wasn't any "vague-Chopra-like-pseudoscience" in what Robert posted. In fact, many physicists and philosophers have recognized the difficulties that our Newtonian framework of absolute space and absolute time poses for quantum mechanics, and that any theory that incorporates all phenomena must recognize the fundamental and universal division of "an observing part" and "an observed part."

I don't understand what you mean by that (bold mine)

I mean, in QM, there are two fundamentally different ways in which a state function can change: through continuous causal evolution and through collapse at a measurement. Per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the EPR paradox, a sister particle has its position or momentum determined by our measurement of the first, and both have no definite position AND momentum prior to it... I.e. the second is forced into one or the other when we measure for either position or momentum on the first. Of course, there's a lot of speculation about what the wave-function actually represents, but the article Robert posted isn't more drastic as a plausible solution in consideration of the problem, than something like the Everett-DeWitt interpretation.

[Alex K]

I don't understand what you mean by that (bold mine)

I mean, in QM, there are two fundamentally  different ways in which a state function can change: through continuous causal evolution and through collapse at a measurement.  Per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the EPR paradox, a sister particle has its position or momentum determined by our measurement of the first, and both have no definite position AND momentum prior to it... I.e. the second is forced into one or the other when we measure for either position or momentum on the first. Of course, there's a lot of speculation about what the wave-function actually represents, but the article Robert posted isn't more drastic as a plausible solution in consideration of the problem, than something like the Everett-DeWitt interpretation.

Right. So, the Everett-DeWitt interpretation is at least one example that does not require this distinction I'd say.

The distinction between the past being fixed and remembered, the future uncertain and unknowable, may not be written into the laws of physics directly, but I have a strong suspicion that it can be understood as a statistical phenomenon even without quantum effects.

[Mudhammam]

True. But you would have to agree that many don't find that particular interpretation satisfying...

[Alex K]

True. But you would have to a. gree that many don't find that particular interpretation satisfying...

There are some technical issues with how to properly define probabilities and so on, but apart from that, I think many poeple just think it is not parsimonious and therefore don't like it. I disagree, it's still parsimonious because little needs to be added to the existing theory, and to me it is the most natural one because it keeps the continuous evolution intact and doesn't need to keep an artificial looking distinction between observer and system. Of course it is difficult to live with the philosophical consequences.

[Whateverist]

---

I know you will deny the following articles but since time doesn't exist your thesis is full of phooey.


Quantum Theory Proves That Time Does Not Exist

The study of the quantum universe shows us that time does not exist. It shows us that time is a function of relativity only and exists relative to some arbitrary point of reference.

Quantum Theory and non-locality goes something like this; Take two particles, A and B (photons or electrons for example). Pair them, then separate them, and put them on either side of the planet. Stimulate particle A, and particle B will react without any time delay.

In other words both particles act at the same moment in time regardless of distance. This is remarkable right, how can this be? We need to have a physical connection, we need to observe some kind of interconnecting frequency waveform or something, right? This also means we’ve got an interaction between particles happening way beyond the speed of light, right? No I don’t understand this to be accurate.

Quantum Theory Proves That Time Does Not Exist, at the fundamental level in any case. It shows that our concept of time, as thought of as a linear passage of events is totally wide of the mark, in fact there is no mark. Everything exists in an ever present moment. The seeming connection that science is trying to identify is actually consciousness itself. It is that which we are, or at least it is a rudimentary form of that which we are. Time does not actually exist and Quantum Theory proves it.

In science, a “bit” of information is said to have two possible answers. This view of things, i.e everything is either A or B, is inaccurate. Actual reality has an infinite number of answers or possibilities, it has any number of possible outcomes. The future does not exist until we create it. We are the factor, the parameter that decides the outcome whether our conscious mind realises it or not. We can not isolate ourselves from the the universe, we form part of the equation, always.

Scientific American

Mind & Brain »June 2010

Is Time an Illusion?
The concepts of time and change may emerge from a universe that, at root, is utterly static
By Craig Callender
THIS IS A PREVIEW.

As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.

Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.

Robert

---

I enjoyed reading this. But I found the last comment by Robert discordant.

Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.

I don't at all see why the existence of a "perspective" where the experience of subjects is concerned implies fatalism. Am I missing something?