Time as an illusion?

[ribonuge]

This is a philosophical question (but feel free to use science to explain your point.)

The concept of time- Past, present and future. We exist in the present, we have existed in the past and we may exist in the future.

If the present is the only one materially real, are the future and the past just ideas in our minds? You may say you have captured a photograph in the past and it is still there, but you are always experiencing that photograph in the present. Everything is experienced in the present, you live nowhere but the present so does that mean past and future are just imaginary?

Is focusing on anything but the present a delusion in itself?

You may want to watch the video below to give a broader understanding of what I am getting at. Just ignore the mentions about god and the land of the dead.

Spoiler

 

[cynicalandbored]

It's kinda impossible to discuss the nature of time without getting sciency... The past existed, and we experienced it, so it was real. The present exists and we are experiencing it, so it's real. The future will probably exist, and we may experience some of it as long as we're around long enough, so it's real. The idea of one o' clock is an illusion, because it's a completely arbitrary time that we've made up so we can have lunch at that kinda thing, but without getting all sciency that's the only way I can describe past and future being as real as the present.

 

[Cody211282]

Is focusing on anything but the present a delusion in itself?

No because our actions will decide what happens in the future and you can learn a lot from the past, so someone who just says "I live in the present I don't care about anything else!" is a fool.

 

[Dr Ampersand]

Past- A bunch of claims that say how you're reading this on your computer right now.
Present-The real deal
Future- A calculated prediction, not a concrete prediction though.

 

[TimeLord]

Yes, and lunchtime doubly so.

Yay for Ford reference

OT: Time is not an illusion, for I can travel through it...

 

[ribonuge]

It's kinda impossible to discuss the nature of time without getting sciency... The past existed, and we experienced it, so it was real. The present exists and we are experiencing it, so it's real. The future will probably exist, and we may experience some of it as long as we're around long enough, so it's real. The idea of one o' clock is an illusion, because it's a completely arbitrary time that we've made up so we can have lunch at that kinda thing, but without getting all sciency that's the only way I can describe past and future being as real as the present.

To elaborate, could it be possible that we live in an instantaneous moment. My point is, past and future were once present so does that mean that they are not what we think they are? Do we use them as a convenience in order to keep things relevant in our minds, for structure and order. Referral points I suppose is what I am getting at.

We do in reality live only in the present in a particular time and space but we do also have an ability to transcend this immediacy. In reality we live in the constant present and yet we bind ourselves to the future, to live in an imaginary state of anticipation. "What will I do tommorow?" etc.

I am going to remove the part about science to breed more discussion.

 

[Deacon Cole]

I believe it was St Augustine who, when considering how we measure time, decided that neither the past nor the future exist and the present goes from being the future to the past so quickly that it has no length. Therefore, when we measure time we measure the impression time makes on our minds.

Thus I do not think it is a delusion to think of the past or the future. Without them, the present has no context and would then be meaningless. Especially since the present does not last long enough to do anything without relying on the past and the future.

but it might be fitly said, "There are three times; a present of things past, a present of things present, and a present of things future." For these three do somehow exist in the soul, and otherwise I see them not: present of things past, memory; present of things present, sight; present of things future, expectation.

I didn't find the video particularly interesting.

 

[cynicalandbored]

I am going to remove the part about science to breed more discussion.

Now's my time to shine. We live in a 3-dimensional world, or so the theory goes. Assuming that time's the fourth dimension, then all we beings living in the 3rd dimension can only perceive cross-sections of time at any given moment. That is, we can only see the exact frame that we're existing in, right here, right now. Given the nature of the human brain, we can imagine the future, and remember the past, so for us time is mostly reference points, yes. However, once we stop existing in one moment and move on to the next, the moment we just left doesn't stop existing, nor does the moment we've moved into spring into being. The past remains real, and every possible future already exists from a 4th dimensional perspective.

This video might help actually. I watched it years ago, and it's probably much clearer than what I'm saying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw&feature=related

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I am not getting into this dumb argument all over again [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.81869-an-arguement-I-had-with-my-friend]. ¬_¬

Time is real and unreal. It is a distance between two points, what lies between them is real. Time isn't "real" as in a solid object but the concept is real enough.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

The way I see it...Time...doesn't measure itself in the way we do (hours, minutes, etc.), so if Time TRAVEL were possible, pin-pointed Time Travel would be even more difficult.