Huw Price, professor of philosophy at Cambridge University, claims that the three basic properties of time come not from the physical world but from our mental states: A present moment that is special; some kind of flow or passage; and an absolute direction.
"What physics gives us," Price said, "is the so-called 'block universe,' where time is just part of a four-dimensional space-time … and space-time itself is not fundamental but emerges out of some deeper structure."
We sense an "arrow" or direction of time, and even of causation, he said, because our minds add a "subjective ingredient" to reality, "so that we are projecting onto the world the temporal perspective that we have as agents [in this environment]."
In the block universe there remains a distinction between how things are at one time and how things are at another. — Banno
does the existence of historical information necessitate an ontological distinction between past and future? — sime
do we merely record information in a linear fashion for convenience? — sime
Consider your hard-disk. If you wipe your hard disk, then as far as your hard-drive is concerned the information that you had previously stored on your hard-disk not only does not exist, but it never existed. — sime
I don't see why. My old laptop was long since recycled into plastic bottles and tin cans, but it makes sense to tlk of the information that was on it, even if that information no longer "persists".The meaning of "the information that was on your hard-drive" only makes sense as a reference to information that continues to persist in another medium. — sime
Well, yes; if you have historical information then by that very fact you have a distinction between past and present... not at all sure what "ontological" is doing there, since the sentence works better without it. — Banno
I am asking the question what if reality is not linear, a plane. And we exist in a singularity and our perspective is merely psychological. And Time is merely conceptual a form of metric system. Not an actual element of reality. — SteveMinjares
that the sky is objectively above the earth can be appraised to so be due to such a reason. Now, I take this to be hinting at a possible metaphysical interpretation of space in large, rather than expounding on how space in general can be construed to be contingent on observers. — javra
whether or not time is deemed contingent on mind, it can nevertheless yet be objectively real. — javra
If time is an illusion does that mean reality is a matter of psychological perspective. And in search of evidence or scientific truth is merely arbitrary — SteveMinjares
For this view seems to imply that appearances in a given frame of reference at time t can speak only of what exists at time t. I — sime
So answering the question, if time is real or not will be a game changer in how you will interpret evidence, truth and science. — SteveMinjares
Since I haven't seen no evidence that Time exist other than our similar experience about it. — SteveMinjares
And how neurological disorders like “Dyschronometria” can warp the prescription of time. — SteveMinjares
There’s no set of arguments that can establish that time is an illusion. Data is required. — Wheatley
But if time is deemed a psychological trait and not something of physics will that undermine all scientific discoveries and knowledge? — SteveMinjares
but to give substance to our measurements of duration, we must assume that there is actually something being measured. — Metaphysician Undercover
But isn't what is being measured simply the changes that take place in the relation objects have to one another? — Apollodorus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.