From your linked article:

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]."

The fact that it is not purely objective doesn't make it an illusion. I agree that time is in some sense mind-dependent, but it's not unreal on that account, nor merely a psychological trait.

Time isn't an illusion. It may not be what it seems, but that does not render it an illusion.

In the block universe there remains a distinction between how things are at one time and how things are at another.

What exactly do you mean by "time" here, and furthermore what are you referring to when you talk of it being an illusion? The article you linked brought up a variety of opinions on what it could mean, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't from what I understand of it, but I am not sure which one you're talking about here.

In the block universe there remains a distinction between how things are at one time and how things are at another. — Banno

Yes, but the same could be said of a diary. The fundamental question is, does the existence of historical information necessitate an ontological distinction between past and future? or do we merely record information in a linear fashion for convenience?

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.

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. But if the universe is a closed and bounded system, then the history of the universe doesn't have an external back-up. In which case, the block universe is objectively false and is merely a diary. For any change to the present state of the universe necessarily entails the deletion of historical information, meaning that history isn't static, time isn't a line from past to future and causality doesn't have a direction.

What?

does the existence of historical information necessitate an ontological distinction between past and future? — 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.

do we merely record information in a linear fashion for convenience? — sime

Well, yes. Except the "merely" here does nothing useful. We do record information in a linear fashion for convenience.

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

But you know it existed, ex hypothesi, so, so what? The information was there, and in the past, and hence time exists.

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

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".

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

Are the tenses of past, present and future reflective of distinct physical relations or substances, as the block universe advocates suggest?

According to the block universe in which the past, present and future are ontologically distinct, how is historical information even possible? 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. In which case, how can such appearances, whether taken individually or collectively, obtain historical significance?

How can the study of physics, which begs the ability to observe history, whether directly or indirectly, be even justified in relation to this block universe understanding, which seems to tacitly insist that all "historical evidence" can speak only of it's moment of existence?

Perhaps one could appeal to the existence of some form of information preserving causality, by which the present always "contains" the past, but that would imply physics to be mere religion, given that any supposed experimental confirmation of such a theory would be question begging. Plus it flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which permits different potential histories of the universe to arrive at the same state in the future.

Ok the subject of “Time” is a very broad subject, is like describing the Ocean as just water. And my thought maybe off topic on what I read but is just a thought I am sharing. You can take it with a grain of salt if you like.

...

First let me just say we take time for granted a lot is like a fish living in the ocean and not realizing it's in water.

When I think of Time, I see a linear plane and perceived reality as instance of frames being observed. And taking in account and how it takes 200msec for light to hit your eye to observe these frames and there will be a longer time lapse the farther away you are. Thats what makes time so deceiving is that you are always observing the past never the present.

This discrepancy is a big deal because you have to acknowledge that there will always be a sort of gap in our observation.

Now you are wondering how does this relate to the question.

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.

And if there is no cross reference to prove it's existence how can you validate it.

Time makes us perceive our Universe as Plane.

But without Time it is perceived as singularity or a point.

I am playing with a thought here.... Are we living in a singularity Universe and not a Plane Universe ?

If that is the case, can someone pass the salt the Universe is too plane.... LOL!

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

Don’t know if this post will be of help, and it will come out from the left field. But it intends to illustrate that space and time being contingent on mind in general does not logically dispel objective space and time as being illusions.

First off, space too can be deemed interrelated with mind. For example, directionality (up/down; left/right; forward/backward) is observer relative and hence observer dependent, as can also be said of proximity/furtherance. One cannot have an observer sans observer-relative directionality. When two or more observers interact, that directionality which is commonly shared among all observers simultaneously becomes a fourth-person spatial configuration, pertaining to no individual observer, one that remains despite possible deviations from it by individuals. As a concrete example of this, 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. Nevertheless, within this pseudo-interpretation, objective space is itself the construct of a multiplicity of interacting observers. In such interpretation of space, objective (fourth-person) space would nevertheless be real to all observers, despite being the product of a multiplicity of observers.

The same can be conceived for time: that which occurs before I act/react and that which occurs as a consequence of my action/reaction would entail a before and after relative to the present moment of the action/reaction I engage in. Two or more observers interacting will then entail a commonly held before and after relative to all, a common time that emerges from all relevant observers; an objective (fourth-person) time that will occur despite possible deviations from it by individual observers. Here, again, objective time could become construed to be observer-dependent and yet utterly real, rather than illusory.

In short, whether or not time is deemed contingent on mind, it can nevertheless yet be objectively real. And, hence, not illusory.

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

Let me connect these thoughts with our previous conversation in which I associated the self-identity of a form with Cartesian substance as res extentia(which
led to your remark that I apparently didn’t want to engage seriously in the discussion). It was actually Husserl and Heidegger who who traced modern
science to the mathematization of nature , which proceeded by taking pragmatically constructed shapes and turning them into idealized geometrical abstractions. Objective space emerged from this idealization, a mathematical form supposedly existing independent of all observer perspectives.

Husserl, in Ideas II, says duration is a property of transcendent (real) spatial ‘things’, and real
spatial objects are presumed to exist in the pure mathematical ideality of geometric space-time..
“Every thingly being is temporally extended; it has its duration, and with its duration it is fit within Objective time in a strict manner. Thus with its duration it has a fixed place in the one world-time, which is a universal form of existence for all thinghood.”

“A true object in the sense of logic is an object which is absolutely identical "with itself," that is, which is, absolutely identically, what it is; or, to express it in another way: an object is through its determinations, its quiddities [Weisheiten], its predicates, and it is identical if these quiddities are identical as belonging to it or when their belonging absolutely excludes their
not belonging. Purely mathematical thinking is related to possible objects which are thought determinately determinately through ideal-"exact" mathematical (limit-) concepts…”

“In his view of the world from the perspective of geometry, the perspective of what appears to
the senses and is mathematizable, Galileo abstracts from the subjects as persons leading a personal life; he abstracts from all cultural properties which are attached to things in human praxis. The result of this abstraction is the things purely as bodies; but these are taken as concrete real objects, the totality of which makes up a world which becomes the subject matter of research. One can truly say that the idea of nature as a really self-enclosed world of bodies first emerges with Galileo. A consequence of this, along with mathematization, which was too quickly taken for granted, is [the idea of] a self-enclosed natural causality in which every occurrence is determined unequivocally and in advance. Clearly the way is thus prepared for dualism, which appears immediately afterward in Descartes. In general we must realize that the conception of the new idea of "nature" as an encapsuled, really and theoretically self-enclosed world of bodies soon brings about a complete transformation of the idea of the world in general. The world splits, so to speak, into two worlds: nature and the psychic world, although the latter, because of the way in which it is related to nature, does not achieve the status of an independent world.”

Heidegger says:

“Descartes does not allow the kind of being of innerworldly beings to present itself, but rather prescribes to the world, so to speak, its "true" being on the basis of an idea of being (being = constant objective presence) the source of which has not been revealed and the
justification of which has not been demonstrated. Thus it is not primarily his dependence upon a science, mathematics, which just happens to be especially esteemed, that detennines his ontology of the world, rather his ontology is determined by a basic ontological orientation toward being as constant objective presence, which mathematical knowledge is exceptionally well
suited to grasp.*“

I still can get over that the possibility of time being a smoke screen due to how the brain interpretation.

For instance the fly experience time differently than we do, seeing reality in slow motion. That shows we are all experiencing different flavors of time.

So peer validation may not be unreliable since your perception of time may differ to mind.

Like the old saying is your color red the same as mind?

https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/flies-perceive-time.php

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

I don't really get how you arrive at the second sentence from the first. Let me put it this way: What is the basis you cite for the claim that time is an illusion? Scientific evidence, right? So if scientific evidence is effectively meaningless, the claim doesn't hold up.

What the article is telling you is not that time isn't real, but that our perception of time isn't real: that the _arrow_ of time is an illusion. Time still exists in the same way space does. The thing at fault here is precisely the thing you give primacy to.

Anyway, to the point... The arrow of time isn't a uniquely psychological construct. Even without minds, there is an arrow of time due to thermodynamics: due to the initial conditions of the universe, things tend naturally toward disorder, since there are more attainable disordered than ordered states.

When you learn something about the past (in a way you can't learn about the future), you are increasing the order of a complex system that, like everything else in the universe, is inclined toward disorder. That might seem like a faff; in fact it is vital. Imagine a universe in which things could just spontaneously order. You might have a memory today that you didn't have yesterday that is uncaused by your own past. You can imagine that "knowing" anything would be impossible if information was spontaneous and uncaused. So entropy is essential in having any kind of relationship with the world outside ourselves, indeed for life itself (since life is similarly battling against and dependent upon entropy for its existence). Far from the solipsism you suggest, our sense of time is intricately bound up with the details of the objective universe that science illuminates (as it has illuminated for you the illusory nature of that sense of time).

Time might the the activity of minds interacting in the society of their species. Physics makes sense to a degree even if time can only be between like minds.

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

That's not right. from a given point in spacetime in the block, some things will be to the left, some to the right, some tot he past, and some to the future.

Ok I guess I’ll stop sugar coating my words cause it sound like gibberish. So I’ll get straight to the point.

Physics is depended on the existence of time without time, laws of physics falls apart.

Since I haven't seen no evidence that Time exist other than our similar experience about it.

How do you validate it?

I know gravity exist, I know energy exist. We have mechanical process recorded to prove it's existence. Like origin, process, end cycle of these fundamental elements. (Beginning, Middle, End)

But Time does not have any of these, we just take it for granted it exist just because we all experience it.

If you can’t validate Time as a element of reality, shouldn’t we conclude is purely conceptual.

Physics will than have a serious weakness if Time is omitted from the equation. You than find your self asking, “How do you calculate an apple falling from a tree without time?”

The fly example was just proving a point that the faster you process light to the brain, the slower time moves.

Hence 25 hours, a life span to a fly could be perceived as a 100 years to an insect.

And to further prove that point maybe...

Light is a medium used to carry information and how our brains process the information interprets how fast or slow an instant of time flows.

That is why a fly perceives time slower than us due to it's sensory I/O evolution.

I am merely proposing a possibility, that if “Time” is abstract and not a physical reality. How will that effect the scientific community and how we will perceive physics?

Until the origin of time is discovered I have to conclude that time is not real and it is a cognitive trait not physical.

I suspect the image of a space/time "block" is just as misleading as the image of the Earth sinking into a kind of mesh representing how mass deforms space. Right along side of the notion of our consciousness "collapsing" a wave function. All are attempts to make palatable mysteries of reality that may be most accurately representable by mathematical structures.

All knowledge is probable but science is accurate however much we are in an illusion. Time is a philosophical concept but physicists use it in a geometrical way. If we were cave men we could ask whether science works. But in this age we know it does because science has gone far far far beyond what could be pure luck. Is there a fairy fooling us? Science doesn't care about those questions

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

It will also determine whether or not your GPS system works.

Since I haven't seen no evidence that Time exist other than our similar experience about it. — SteveMinjares

Seriously?

Love the double negative.

Banno- I’m always the type to consider the ludicrous as a possibility.

This idea came to from research on “critical flicker fusion frequency” on animals.

And I am just trying to bridge the two ideas. And to me there is more proof to support “Time” as conceptual than that of physics stand point. And could possibly be explained as a trait of biology or psychological.

Gregory - not questioning if Science works I am questioning the threshold where physics becomes inadequate because the rules changes.

And I am simply asking that uncomfortable question, and thinking outside the box.

Because Science tends to follow a very ridged straight line, always following the status quo.

I am merely asking the question why it has to be this way. Why not try it that way and see what happens and just for a moment assume time is an illusion. Try to calculate an equation without it. And see what happens.

If it's nonsense, it's nonsense nothing gain nothing lost.

All discoveries start by challenging conventional thought by asking “what if?”

Click on the arrow at the bottom of someone's post to reply to it. Or use the "@" button to add someone's name as a link, and to let them know you have posted.

I still don't know what to make of the double negative.

@Banno sorry, I don't go on here much unless I have a nagging idea I want to expelled from my head.

To recap, this thought came to me when reading research on “critical flicker fusion frequency” and how animals perceive reality in slow motion based on there metabolic rate.

And how neurological disorders like “Dyschronometria” can warp the prescription of time.

Leading me to believe that “Time” is not an attribute of physics but of psychology.

Since I am struggling to correlate the events that leads to the creation of time or causing time to continuously produce Itself.

It leads me to believe that adding time to an equation is just a psychological reference point to help perceive your own reality. And not an element of reality. Like gravity or energy.

“Time” is just in the eye of the beholder.

And how neurological disorders like “Dyschronometria” can warp the prescription of time. — SteveMinjares

Think on this for a bit. How do we tell that someone cannot tell how long a time has passed? Only by having some independent way of measuring how much time has passed.

If time is in the eye of the beholder, no one can have Dyschronometria.

@Banno the eye of the beholder is in reference to this article on “ Evaluation of Critical Flicker-Fusion Frequency Measurement Methods for the Investigation of Visual Temporal Resolution” - by
Auria Eisen-Enosh, Nairouz Farah, […]Yossi Mandel

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15034-z

There’s no set of arguments that can establish that time is an illusion. Data is required.

There’s no set of arguments that can establish that time is an illusion. Data is required. — Wheatley

But is there any hard proof that can establish that time in not an illusion?

But if time is deemed a psychological trait and not something of physics will that undermine all scientific discoveries and knowledge? — SteveMinjares

It possibly undermines at least some of the findings of science.

Time is usually defined as "the continued sequence of existence and events". But this doesn't actually explain what time really is.

It seems that what it can be reduced to is the perception of change or movement. And it is a well-known fact that change/movement is perceived or experienced differently by different observers.

So, time may well be an illusion. The question is, whose illusion is it?

Is it (a) the illusion of the individual, (b) a collective illusion, or (c) a hierarchy of illusions within one all-encompassing illusion?

I think it might be useful for you to distinguish the two principal senses of "time", as Aristotle did.

First, "time" is primarily used to signify a measurement. So we say how long something takes by referring to a unit of measurement, hours, minutes, seconds, etc., In this sense, "time" refers to a measurement of duration, and from this usage we derive "velocity" and all sorts of concepts of physics.

In a secondary sense, "time" refers to the thing measured. This use of "time" is a little bit more difficult to grasp, but to give substance to our measurements of duration, we must assume that there is actually something being measured. We might call this the passing of time, or something like that.,

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?

But isn't what is being measured simply the changes that take place in the relation objects have to one another? — Apollodorus

No, what is being measured is the passing of time, which is better described as the rate of such changes. The "rate" requires relations between changes themselves, not relations between objects, but relations between changes..