
Where Did Time Come From, and Why Does It Seem to Flow? - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/blog/where-did-time-come-from-and-why-does-it-seem-to-flow
======
sgarrity
I can't quite get a feel for the background and slant of some of these new
web-only publications. I'm thinking of nautil.us and aeon.co in particular.
They are science-focused, but lean toward philosophical topics.

I can't figure out if they are reputable sources that dabble in more abstract
concepts, or if they are some kind of pseudo-science platform for crazy
founders.

~~~
gpvos
I think they're general-interest popular science magazines, with indeed a bit
of an abstract slant.

~~~
nautilus
I'm the "crazy" founder of Nautilus. We are a science magazine, with a
multidisciplinary approach. We want to explore each monthly issue topic from
disciplines within and outside the sciences, like philosophy. But we are
mostly about telling good stories....science with a literary voice.

------
frozenport

        The flow of time is an illusion, and I don’t know very many scientists and philosophers who would disagree with that, to be perfectly honest.
    

Oh humbug! I have seen many proofs that rely on time going in a particular
direction. For example, when solving the wave equation for electromagnetics it
it is customary to discard anticausal solutions.

~~~
noobermin
I'm not sure what he means by "flow of time" but I don't think he meant what
you argued against. I think he's arguing against the notion that time is like
some sort of continuum like a river, or like an axis on a map.

~~~
zorbo
I got the same impression. People are assuming that by 'flow' he means uni-
directional, as in the arrow of time. He is talking about the fact that 'flow'
semantically implies something that moves, but movement itself requires time.
So to say that time flows would be circular reasoning.

------
skywhopper
I'm confused why they spent so much time on the idiom of "flowing" time. It
doesn't literally feel like it's "flowing", that's just a figure of speech, a
metaphor for the fact that in daily life we don't have control over its
direction.

While the implications and meaning of time in a cosmological sense are
certainly interesting, the piece's angle of debunking naive common-sense views
of time is a bit too aggressive. In daily life, the common-sense view of time
is perfectly rational.

Perhaps the audience is physics grad students, I dunno.

~~~
coldtea
> _It doesn 't literally feel like it's "flowing", that's just a figure of
> speech, a metaphor for the fact that in daily life we don't have control
> over its direction._

Huh? The flow of time, and "time passing" is the most universal and common
understanding (and feeling) of time.

~~~
skywhopper
Yes, these are common metaphors. They do not describe the actual perceptual
experience of the passage of time. To get hung up on what metaphors people use
to describe something utterly intangible is silly.

------
bkeroack
Not to plug them or anything, but I found this course on time, entropy,
cosmology, etc. absolutely fascinating:
[http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/mysteries-of-
modern-p...](http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/mysteries-of-modern-
physics-time.html)

I kind of suffered through Physics in undergrad but this makes me wish I took
more as an elective.

------
coldtea
> _Where it’s particularly striking of course is when people respond
> appropriately much faster than the speed of thought. You need only think of
> a piano player or a tennis player to see that the impression that they are
> making a conscious decision—“that ball is coming in this direction; I’d
> better move over here and hit it”—couldn’t possibly be. The time it takes
> for the signals to get to the brain and then through the motor system, back
> to the response, couldn’t work. And yet they still have this overwhelming
> impression that they’re observing the world in real time and are in control.
> I think all of this is pretty fascinating stuff._

I see this repeated to point that "hence we are not really conscious" or not
really in control of ourselves.

But, to me, an obvious answer is that our "thought" is not just the "talk-to-
myself" like thought, but also faster unconscious processes, that still
weights things and combines our memories and "personality" biases in the
decision making, it's just not like an 'inner-dialogue'

------
smutticus
For those interested in understanding why we conceive of time the way we do, I
recommend Philosophy in the Flesh, by Lakoff and Johnson. Chapter 10 deals
with Time.

[http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lakoff-
philosophy.html](http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lakoff-philosophy.html)

------
xioxox
_When you talk about what is the rate of a clock, say, near the surface of a
black hole, it’s going to be quite different from the rate of a clock here on
Earth. So there isn’t even a common time in the entire universe._

Well, isn't there a common time for the entire universe? If we ignore being
near massive objects, then observers travelling with the expansion of the
universe - i.e. those those who don't see a dipole in the cosmic microwave
background (CMB) - then the redshift of the CMB acts as a kind of clock. With
the usual cosmological assumptions of isotropy and homogeneity, then there's a
big clock for everyone to use.

------
colanderman
Thinking about the entropic explanation of the arrow of time in conjunction
with the anthropic principle led me to this fantastic FAQ:
[http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/faq.html](http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/faq.html)
and the idea of Boltzmann Brains:
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/01/...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/01/boltzmanns-
anthropic-brain/#.VFAFCPl4ok0)

------
pmoriarty
_" Suppose I stand up, twirl around a few times, and stop. Then I have the
overwhelming impression that the entire universe is rotating. I feel it to be
rotating—of course I know it’s not."_

According to relativity, isn't the view that the universe is rotating just as
valid as the view that you are rotating? It all depends on your perspective,
and there is no privileged (absolute) vantage point or perspective.

Isn't that so? And if it is so, how can this physicist be ignorant of this?

[Update: Oops. I missed the "and stop" bit. That's what I get for reading HN
while I'm half asleep. Sorry!]

~~~
davtbaum
No, I think the point is that your mind interprets the universe as spinning
when you stop twirling. This is just an interpretation, as is the flow of
time.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Semantics makes that idea meaningless. "Interpreting" implies time flowing, so
its circular.

------
leepowers
_And the other thing people contemplate: They think denying the flow of time
is denying time asymmetry of the world. Of course events in the world follow a
directional sequence. Drop an egg on the floor and it breaks. You don’t see
eggs assembling themselves. Buildings fall down after earthquakes; they don’t
rise up from heaps of rubble._

"Events occurring in sequence" is the same thing as "the flow of time", in my
understanding at least. What else does "the flow of time" refer to? I fear
there's a subtle point being made that I don't quite grasp.

------
robotic
I read the book and watched the documentary, "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by
Brian Greene.

He gave a good explanation of time. Right before the big bang, the universe
was in a 'perfectly' ordered state. Since the big bang the universe has become
less and less 'perfect'. What we think of as Time is really just things
getting less and less organized.

[1]
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000XUDGV2?btkr=1](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000XUDGV2?btkr=1)

------
salimmadjd
The question that's always in my mind is if the perception of the flow of time
is really just entropy. As long as state A is different than state B we have a
perception of time.

~~~
lucio
I concur. But not just for entropy, for all movements. Time is a human
construction to order sequences of events.

All our "time" measures are based on cyclics _movements_.

Make yourself a question, if _ALL_ movement stop (include atoms), will time
pass? will the arrow of time advance?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sure. In a cold vacuum with no atoms at all, those conditions are satisfied
(no movement of any kind). But the vacuum continues to generate particle pairs
and annihilate them; EM radiation continues to propagate. All on a strict
clock.

~~~
lucio
if radiation propagate, there are movement. Imagine if even particle
generation and radiation propagation stops.

~~~
wyager
Your premise doesn't make any sense. Those things cannot possibly occur.

It is generally not useful to consider the consequence of falsehoods.

~~~
dllthomas
It is often useful to consider the consequence falsehoods.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment)

I think this one runs some risk of begging the question, though, so unless we
make it significantly more precise we're unlikely to get anything useful out
of it.

~~~
wyager
Thought experiments generally consider the consequence of something that
_could_ be true.

~~~
dllthomas
I don't think that's true, depending partly on how we define "could", but
we're getting off into the weeds. In this case, we're trying to understand
aspects of the laws of physics; getting at the consequences if they differed
subtly could be tremendously useful - akin to a proof by contradiction.

~~~
wyager
> getting at the consequences if they differed subtly could be tremendously
> useful

Sure, but that doesn't describe "What if radiation and quantum noise stopped
moving?". That's just a dumb question. We can't really derive anything
interesting from its consideration. It's along the lines of "What if you
dropped a rock and it didn't fall?" What if?

~~~
dllthomas
If you dropped a rock and it didn't fall, you could infer that probably either
you are outside an appreciable gravitational field or there's some force
counteracting the gravitational field you're in.

In any event, I agree that the question is not likely to be useful, but as I
said I think that is because it subtly begs the question in a way that isn't
likely to be clear without it being stated quite a bit more formally.

 _" That's just a dumb question."_

While "there are no dumb questions" is an overstatement, I think your tone
throughout this has been unnecessarily hostile (not toward _me_ , mind you).
You could have done more to educate, you chose to abuse, and in a way that
stepped into inaccuracy to boot.

~~~
wyager
>If you dropped a rock and it didn't fall, you could infer that probably
either you are outside an appreciable gravitational field or there's some
force counteracting the gravitational field you're in.

Perhaps my example was not appropriate, because I described something that
_could_ happen (which is what might allow us to have a useful thought
experiment). I couldn't think of anything to match the irrelevance or off-
basedness of the radiation-stopping question.

>You could have done more to educate, you chose to abuse

"Abuse" is quite hyperbolic in this situation. And you're right, I could have
done more to educate, but I also don't have infinite time to give helpful and
constructive corrections to every stupid comment on the internet. Sometimes
you just make it clear that the comment is stupid, so no one else accidentally
takes it as reasonable, and leave.

~~~
dllthomas
_' "Abuse" is quite hyperbolic in this situation.'_

I certainly didn't mean it in its strongest sense.

 _" I also don't have infinite time to give helpful and constructive
corrections to every stupid comment on the internet."_

But you have time to give poor responses. I suggest you reorganize your time.

 _" Sometimes you just make it clear that the comment is stupid, so no one
else accidentally takes it as reasonable, and leave."_

I don't think that's what it tells people. You didn't explain, in a useful
way, _why_ it was unreasonable. So all people know is 1) someone on the
internet thinks this comment sucks (which is almost tautological), and 2)
comments are more likely to be met with negativity than assistance (which is
harmful to our community).

------
igammarays
_Where it’s particularly striking of course is when people respond
appropriately much faster than the speed of thought. You need only think of a
piano player or a tennis player to see that the impression that they are
making a conscious decision—“that ball is coming in this direction; I’d better
move over here and hit it”—couldn’t possibly be._

If it isn't conscious thought and motor signals, then what is it?

~~~
Xeoncross
We might assume it is faster than the speed of thought. Our mind works with
and without our help. The same as our breathing.

For example, our mind processes thousands (or millions) of signals coming from
our senses without us needing to "think" about it.

~~~
coldtea
This dichotomy implies a dualism, as if there's a clear cut "I" and then
there's "my mind". In fact, our mind is us, and it working 'without us
knowing' is just 'it working without verbalization of our thoughts' which is a
different thing I'd say.

------
dominotw
I highly recommend this BBC documentary Illusion of Time non youtube.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BjGWLJNPcA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BjGWLJNPcA)

~~~
Shaytown
I found this BBC documentary to be such an engaging piece. It challenges our
perception of time. It is difficult to reconcile it with everyday demands of
referring to a clock to guide our progression through the day.

I highly recommend this documentary as well. Thanks for posting it, I will be
listening to it again today.

------
zorbo
I think everybody here is trying way too hard to apply advanced physics to
what basically amounts to nothing more than a fluff philosophy article.

------
ragecore
"For example, there are famous experiments in which people apparently make
free decisions at certain moments and yet it’s found that the decision was
actually made a little bit earlier, but their own perception of time and their
actions within time have been sort of edited after the event"

This would also be the only way to simulate consciousness in AI. Makes total
sense. We're AI.

------
talles
Anyone else kept remembering H. G. Well's _The Time Machine_ while reading the
article?

~~~
coldtea
The only connection is they both talk about time -- which the article shares
with 100,000 other time travel stories.

------
Xeoncross
Does time exist outside of space/matter?

Isn't time (like darkness) merely a description of a state of space / matter?

 _It was /wasn't here, now it's here?_

~~~
mkempe
Time, like space, is a relational concept -- e.g. the motion of an entity
relative to the motion of another, and the position of an entity relative to
that of another. Observe that we measure time in terms of the repetitive
motion of chosen entities.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But very cold entities - almost not moving. The latest 'atomic' clock uses
"spin-polarized, ultracold atomic ytterbium". Its not the particle motion per
se that's being measured; its fields around the particle, right? Not at all
relative motion.

~~~
mkempe
Yes, these electronic transitions are a form of motion, too. Change is not
limited to mechanics.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sure; but to define time as motion, and motion as time, is circular and not
very useful. It doesn't explain anything.

------
madeofpalk
Maybe time's just a construct of human perception, an illusion created by...

------
pmoriarty
_" Of course events in the world follow a directional sequence. Drop an egg on
the floor and it breaks. You don’t see eggs assembling themselves."_

The operative phrase here being "you don't see". Of course, seeing is a matter
of perception and perspective. It could very well be that time is flowing
"backwards" and eggs are in fact reassembling themselves, but we are just
perceiving time in reverse.

You know, when I hear physicists try to tackle philosophical problems, it's
usually kind of embarrassing. These guys are rarely trained in philosophy and
are out of their depth.

As Feinman famously said to his own students, _" Shut up and calculate."_

I wish more physicists would follow his advice, and leave philosophy to
philosophers.

~~~
MadManE
Shame on you. Nobody should be discouraged from trying to dabble in things
that aren't their field.

Having the background of being extremely well-trained in one field gives a
different perspective than the typical "echo-chamber" of the elite in any
specialty.

If you know something they don't, why not try to start a dialog instead of
criticizing and dismissing?

~~~
pmoriarty
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but I only criticize because they're often given
a soapbox (such as in this article) due to the perception that they are
specially endowed with the power of "explaining how the world is" to us mere
mortals.

Well, that wouldn't be so bad if they stuck to explaining the results of their
experiments, but when they stray from that on to philosophical subjects,
they're really no more suited to talking about that than any other non-
philosophically trained layman.

It might help if they toned down the rhetoric a bit and make it clear that
they're speaking about something that they have no training in.

On the other hand, I suppose I should be grateful that they're exposing the
general public to ideas they might not have otherwise thought about, even if
they do so clumsily and their conclusions are highly suspect.

~~~
MadManE
I would contend that having a high degree of education in anything develops
certain thinking abilities that are widely transferable. At some point, they
transform from being a "layman" into being an "amateur philosopher" simply by
virtue of these transferable thinking skills.

Of course being an amateur doesn't lend a high degree of credibility, but
certainly more than the average Joe.

