Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 195 posts

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#31

Post by jatsign »

JdeBP wrote: post #25
jatsign wrote: post #12

Even a skeptic philosopher, who would say most things can't be proven beyond the self, would probably agree that one of the things we have direct experience of is change.

"How can I tell that the past isn't a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind?" -- The Man In The Shack, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy

True, but that's why I said "probably agree". You can be a solipsist and disagree with the existence of time, but that doesn't seem to be a very useful philosophy.

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#32

Post by 7373737373 »

barking wrote: post #26
7373737373 wrote: post #4

The word 'illusion' should be removed from every dictionary. It's one completely unspecific, indeterminate and misleading word and most subjects or patterns of discourse in which it appears have the same properties. The title of this post also reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime Just searching for "* is an illusion" returns - consciousness - choice - spacetime - the world - physical reality - certaint…

What would magicians do without illusions, mere tricks, that's what. Shame on you.

The association of the word with mystery in particular doesn't help to bring clarity in discussions with a scientific context. If I said "semiconductors are an illusion", "programming is an illusion" etc. it doesn't contribute any information. It just confuses.

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#33

Post by egjerlow »

hunta2097 wrote: post #28
egjerlow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would we need to 'feel' anything from the inside? We could operate perfectly well as 'machines' without having this 'feeling'. Also, consciousness isn't a feeling. It is what makes it possible at all to have a subjective experience of feelings in the first place. And that is mind-blowing the more you think of it.

Why are you thinking? You are anticipating various scales of "the future", using memories of past events. As computers try to anticipate the future more, they may also start to "experience" things.

That's one of the uses of thinking, yes, but it's hardly the only one, unless by some procrustean method you force all my thoughts to 'really' be about the future. In which case I'd say the statement is close to devoid of meaning.

Furthermore, thinking and consciousness is not the same thing.

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#34

Post by Falling3 »

zikzak wrote: post #10
hunta2097 wrote: post #5

I live by a couple of (vaguely related) principles: a) Consciousness is just your brain trying to anticipate the future. b) Your brain compresses (normalises?) repetition in memories. So even if day to day events happen at normal speed, the years seem to fly by when you reflect on them. If your life seems to be flying-by then maybe you need more novelty.

This is true. You also need to take into account how each day is a smaller and smaller percentage of your life which might be why kids think summer vacation lasts forever but it flys by for parents.

This explanation comes up frequently in these discussions. It makes a certain amount of sense on its face, but is there any evidence that this actually affects our perception of time?

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#35

Post by lisper »

simonh wrote: post #30
lisper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Illusion" is perfectly well defined: it is a perception that does not correspond to any objective reality outside your brain.

The problem is, that just punts the issue down to what is considered objective reality. If that's in contention, as in this specific case, then referring to things as illusory can be ambiguous. I happen to disagree with the comment you are responding to, but I do accept that the term illusion is often used ambiguously, especially in relation to notions of objective and subjective reality.

Yes, that's true, but it's not because "illusion" is not well-defined. It is, and claiming that time is an illusion is a perfectly coherent claim. It might be a controversial claim, and its truth might be difficult to resolve. But it's not ill-posed.

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#36

Post by kaffeemitsahne »

egjerlow wrote: post #13
hunta2097 wrote: post #5

I live by a couple of (vaguely related) principles: a) Consciousness is just your brain trying to anticipate the future. b) Your brain compresses (normalises?) repetition in memories. So even if day to day events happen at normal speed, the years seem to fly by when you reflect on them. If your life seems to be flying-by then maybe you need more novelty.

Why would your brain need consciousness to anticipate the future? A computer, which has no consciousness, would be able to do the same.

> A computer, which has no consciousness

[citation needed]

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#37

Post by davebryand »

vinceguidry wrote: post #21
7373737373 wrote: post #4

The word 'illusion' should be removed from every dictionary. It's one completely unspecific, indeterminate and misleading word and most subjects or patterns of discourse in which it appears have the same properties. The title of this post also reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime Just searching for "* is an illusion" returns - consciousness - choice - spacetime - the world - physical reality - certaint…

Illusion can be tricky to understand, but not impossible. It means that the referent is not the same as the representation. When something isn't an illusion, it means the referent is the same as the representation. We have different words for different kinds of illusion. I can show you an actual, physical chair, or a picture of a chair. The first is not an illusion, while the second is. You watch a real television sh…

An enlightened yogi, Hindi, or Buddhist would say that the physical chair is also an illusion.

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#38

Post by Falling3 »

lisper wrote: post #14
7373737373 wrote: post #4

The word 'illusion' should be removed from every dictionary. It's one completely unspecific, indeterminate and misleading word and most subjects or patterns of discourse in which it appears have the same properties. The title of this post also reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime Just searching for "* is an illusion" returns - consciousness - choice - spacetime - the world - physical reality - certaint…

"Illusion" is perfectly well defined: it is a perception that does not correspond to any objective reality outside your brain.

No, that's the definition of a hallucination. Illusions are misinterpretation's of objective reality by the brain (and I agree that's not a well-defined thing).

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#39

Post by Nasrudith »

GuB-42 wrote: post #16
rc_mob wrote: post #2

Time is just a measurement that we haven’t quite nailed down the definition of yet.

We have a very precise definition of time: a second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom". It is used in a lot of physical equations which are very accurate at describing the universe as we observe it. There are some philosophical questions regarding time. Questions about the arrow of tim…

Of course relativity also complicates things with time as well. Whose second? Even if you have two different caesium-133 atoms monitored, one on earth and one on a satellite they won't rise at the same rate although both are defined the same.

I guess the real "illusion" would be that if there is truly nothing to be a frame of reference there is nothing for time to "flow" relative to.

Re: Why the Flow of Time Is an Illusion

#40

Post by egjerlow »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #27
egjerlow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would we need to 'feel' anything from the inside? We could operate perfectly well as 'machines' without having this 'feeling'. Also, consciousness isn't a feeling. It is what makes it possible at all to have a subjective experience of feelings in the first place. And that is mind-blowing the more you think of it.

Consciousness is the algorithm. What you call "consciousness" is how the computational processes that are you see themselves. It could work differently, but for some reasons it doesn't, and we don't understand the reasons.

Well, that's a bold claim, and it doesn't really say anything substantial, in my opinion. What does it mean to see yourself? Are the electrical impulses of your brain somehow registering themselves and then reflecting them to yet another part of the brain which.. does what exactly?

Believing that consciousness can be explained in terms of material processes is certainly a valid belief, but it is just that: a belief. Believing that a certain configuration of atoms, no matter how involved, can give rise to subjective experience is not far from believing in some kind of magic.

And before you retort that a lot of phenomena in nature are 'emergent', I will say:all those phenomena are ultimately explicable in terms of their basic atomic constituents. Consciousness is qualitatively different. You cannot start with the experience of being hungry and then somehow explain the whole process from your stomach being empty to that qualitative experience and how it feels for you.

Post reply on HN