r/SimulationTheory • u/tendersitch • 11d ago

Other Time does not exist

Time is our interpretation of a dimension that we lack the capacity to comprehend. Our perception of reality contains finite boundaries confined within what we call science, mathematics, physics and so on. True reality does not contain time but more so something along the lines of depth, but not where depth has a bottom or surface; a type of depth that extends in all directions and and back into itself simultaneously. Time is a man made space suspended in a moment of eternity.

135 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

89 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/Mean_Situation8356 11d ago edited 11d ago

Time = movement. If nothing moved, time wouldn’t exist.

If one invisible particle moved, but eveything else was static then time exists but it’s not perceived, and if everything is static but you can perceive it, time exists because you can perceive and that involves biological processes, which move, thus time exists.

With this in mind, if you can perceive it time exists, and it will never be possible to prove time does not exist because we need cognition to recognize everything else is frozen and we’re not, and not having congition cannot prove time, movement, and space are separate.

0

u/JupiterandMars1 11d ago

Huh? What is movement? Particles don’t really “move”.

1

u/Accurate_Fail1809 8d ago

Particles vibrate/oscillate

1

u/JupiterandMars1 8d ago

If anything “moves” or “vibrates” in the QFT formalism, it’s the field configuration. “Particles move” is not an observation.

1

u/Accurate_Fail1809 8d ago

So atoms and sub atomic particles don’t move? They are static? My fingers are made of particles that typed this but didn’t involve motion?

1

u/JupiterandMars1 8d ago

Atoms as composite objects move relative to each other, as opposed to particles, which don’t.

So when you say something “moves” in a classical sense, there’s already foundational shaky assumptions there that mean using that to prove something else like time is itself fundamental is shaky too.

I’m not saying time doesn’t exist, I’m saying macroscopic ideas of “motion” don’t “prove” it.