Is time and motion an illusion?

[outside looking in]

I'm half way through Julian Barbour's book The End of Time and thought it might be interesting to see what others thought about this idea.

The general theme is that both time and motion are illusions, that the "real" universe exists as a collection of static "snapshots" or "timeslices" (or, as Barbour calls them, "Nows"), with each snapshot representing the configuration of the entire universe in what we perceive to be some "instant in time." The illusions of motion and the "flow" of time are artifacts of some very special structures which exist in that collection of configurations... namely, the human brain (and, presumably, the brains of other intelligent and self-aware species).

This idea isn't new by any means, though Barbour seems to have developed the requisite physics that describe such a universe more thouroughly than any before him. Many great philosophers throughout history ( ) have surmised that time must be an illusion. Early in the 20th Century Boltzmann put this idea on reasonably solid footing with his idea that time was inexorably linked to the thermodynamic state of the universe. Of recent physicists/philosophers (other than Barbour), David Deutsche most completely described this worldview and solidly linked it to what in my opinion is the most rational current interpretation of quantum mechanics... the "many worlds" hypothesis (David used the term "multiverse," which I tend to like). David also gave a compelling explanation of why we remember the past and not the future in such a static universe. I assume that Barbour will do the same, as he has hinted in the first half of the book about later discussing the topics of memory and free-will more extensively.

What do you guys think? Can you even conceive of the universe as existing statically without time or motion, and instead both are merely "perceptions" of a complex structure like our brains?

 

[Oz]

Is time and motion an illusion?

Ask someone with constipation

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Yes. No question about it.

That was easy.

 

[outside looking in]

I've had that feeling for years, since reading Deutsche's book The Fabric of Reality, but I think there is a still deeper reality or explanation that hasn't really been discussed yet. What? I have no idea.

I like the multiworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and I like the static time-slice universe, but I think the view that time is just a result of the structure in our brains is missing something very important. I hope that "something" is discovered within my lifetime (which I expect it to be, since I also expect to live well past 100).

BTW hex, I can't help but mention that this static universe view carries with it the necessity that there is no absolute space. Space in this cosmology is just a relative measure of distance between what we call mass, and can only exist in the whole of a "slice" complete with mass and everything. There is no logical sense in which space existed "before" the big bang nor is there any logical sense in which it can exist "after" the universe collapses (if that is indeed its fate, which it appears not to be). Perceived from a perspective "outside" the static time-sliced universe, you would find that there are no configurations that contained nothing but "empty space" (i.e., those slices that would presumably represent the universe "before" the big bang). If the configuration space is empty of matter, then there is nothing to measure relative distances between, and that time-slice simply ceases to exist in any conceivable sense.

 

[IDLEchild]

What do you guys think? Can you even conceive of the universe as existing statically without time or motion, and instead both are merely "perceptions" of a complex structure like our brains?

If such was true than most of known universe would cease to exist. If they are only such complex structures than does the author hint at the truth of what really is the universe?

BTW Bloody good thread.

 

[IDLEchild]

Well so much doesn't make sense about the universe because most of the truth hasn't been revealed yet. I still believe that Cosmology and physics has to evolve to discover the deeper meanings. Time is a excruciatingly tough concept to master so cross your fingers for the truth.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

I just can't do it right now Oli.

You know the ONE thing i hate most about text communication is that it takes an hour to say something that should take a minute. If i start again i'll be here until next week and i'm still resisting the last thread in which we dabated where i hadn't completed my ideas. I will say however that the word necessity is totally relative to both your mathematical and theoretical views on any subject.

Physics is simply not meant for the bb. I will however read everything within this thread with the utmost interest.

 

[outside looking in]

Physics is simply not meant for the bb.

lol, you're right. I usually resist but occasionally when a really interesting topic comes up I'll participate (or in the rare cases, start a thread). I though this was one of those really interesting topics, though sadly I don't have anything really "revolutionary" to contribute.

 

[Dave]

The general theme is that both time and motion are illusions, that the "real" universe exists as a collection of static "snapshots" or "timeslices" (or, as Barbour calls them, "Nows"), with each snapshot representing the configuration of the entire universe in what we perceive to be some "instant in time." The illusions of motion and the "flow" of time are artifacts of some very special structures which exist in that collection of configurations... namely, the human brain (and, presumably, the brains of other intelligent and self-aware species).

forgive me if i over-simplify this. i dont know any physicists or mathmaticians and god knows i am not one either.
time and motion are like a celluloid film strip. individual frames (timeslices) give the illusion of movement and the passage of time when passed through the projector (our brain).

David Deutsche most completely described this worldview and solidly linked it to what in my opinion is the most rational current interpretation of quantum mechanics... the "many worlds" hypothesis (David used the term "multiverse," which I tend to like). David also gave a compelling explanation of why we remember the past and not the future in such a static universe.

ok...you've whetted my appetite...what is it?

What do you guys think? Can you even conceive of the universe as existing statically without time or motion, and instead both are merely "perceptions" of a complex structure like our brains?

no seems like too easy an answer.
is that book you mentioned readable for lay people like myself?

 

[chcr]

but I think the view that time is just a result of the structure in our brains is missing something very important.

I think that that is the tip to a very large iceberg, OLI.

My problem is, I can sense motion and the passage of time. Until someone comes up with another set of senses, this is an interesting thought experiment but meaningless in the real world. I see it as kind of like the "Am I the only thing that truly exists" question. Interesting to think about, but ultimately pointless.

Well so much doesn't make sense about the universe because most of the truth hasn't been revealed yet. I still believe that Cosmology and physics has to evolve to discover the deeper meanings.

Here's one of those things I don't understand. Why is it necessary that there be a "deeper meaning?" The reason we don't have a better understanding of the universe is largely because we have limited access to the whole universe. You're right about the evolution of physics and cosmology, that's a given as far as I'm concerned. There's a lot more to learn. I just don't understand why so many people are looking for a "deeper meaning." Doesn't your life already have meaning? Just curious, as I say, I really don't understand this concept.

 

[IDLEchild]

Here's one of those things I don't understand. Why is it necessary that there be a "deeper meaning?" The reason we don't have a better understanding of the universe is largely because we have limited access to the whole universe. You're right about the evolution of physics and cosmology, that's a given as far as I'm concerned. There's a lot more to learn. I just don't understand why so many people are looking for a "deeper meaning." Doesn't your life already have meaning? Just curious, as I say, I really don't understand this concept.

Oh darn, i phrased that the wrong way. I meant to say that untill our physics evolves to a higher state of understanding the true workings and nature of a lot of phenomenons in the universe won't be understood. I guess i put down deepper meaning as a term reffering to the quantum happenings of physics and why they occur....so much remains a mystery due to the fact we know very little of what happens and even more little of why it happens.

 

[chcr]

Okay, I'll buy that. I just feel like a lot of people confuse unknown with unknowable, y'know?

 

[outside looking in]

Deutsche's explanation of past oriented memory is tied to the fact that there is only one (or a few perhaps) "quantum configurations" of the universe that can logically be an acceptable "past" for the current quantum configuration, while there are many (an infinite or at least vast number) possible configurations that would acceptably correspond to a "future" state. His suggestion is that perhaps the structure within the human brain can "remember" equally well in either direction, but with one direction containing a truly intractible amount of data to process (the future) it isn't surprising that we only "remember" the past.

Very interesting.

Barbour's explanation is more complicated, and has to do with what he calls "time capsules." These are explained to be "special" configurations of the universe... special in that in that single static instant a sequence is encoded that suggest the flow of time. For example, a static instant or time-slice contains within it the structure of a roll of film which itself consists of a series of individual frames displaying a time-sequenced capturing of an event. He suggests that the structure of our brains consist of frames just like the roll of film (indeed, this seems consistent with the way our memories work). If so, then a single static configuration of the universe might contain the structure of a human brain that itself contains memories of a "time sequence" of events, though those particular memories are frozen in time.

He then posits that the structure of our brain is such that our "perception" is of true motion and true time, while the reality is that this perception arises because of the way our brains store memories.



It's all very interesting, and seems to be more consistent than any other theory of time I've encountered, but it is still ultimately unsatisfying.

 

[chcr]

It's all very interesting, and seems to be more consistent than any other theory of time I've encountered, but it is still ultimately unsatisfying.

I always have to wonder if it's because I don't have the math to fully understand it or just that I have a problem when the line between physics and philosophy starts to blur.

 

[Professur]

Time is an illusion, lunch time doublely so.

 

[Winky]

Proffy yer grave diggin' again.
I know this place is dead but sheesh
these cadaverous posts are utterly grisly.

 

[Professur]

Don't like them, bury them with new posts of your own.

 

[Winky]

At the rate yer goin'
it would take a fleet of dump trucks to
keep these corpus cavernosum from springing back up!
-

 

[Professur]

Then you've got some work ahead of ya, Sunshine.