Some article talking about that: [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7#:~:text=According%20to%20theoretical%20physicist%20Carlo,of%20a%20universally%20ticking%20clock](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7#:~:text=According%20to%20theoretical%20physicist%20Carlo,of%20a%20universally%20ticking%20clock).
I really don’t understand how time can be an illusion. I mean that I know that what I’ve done before is done and I can’t change it.
So how can we say that time is an illusion?
​
thanks
In: 0
Whole thing appears to be one of those “Let me present something in the most misleading and ~~borderline~~ downright inaccurate way possible”.
The whole thing reads like a pop sci article, which it *is*. Pop sci articles love doing that.
If the actual scientist’s actual claims are like those of the article, then they are very controversial at best and more than likely just very wrong. Either that or a terrible abuse of the English language and meanings of words.
The Order of Time presents a theory called loop quantum gravity. In this theory, space and time are not fundamental components of the universe, but emerge out of more fundamental structures when appropriate mechanics are at play.
This is not an accepted physical theory, it’s one of several possibilities for physics beyond standard quantum field theory. The book got mixed reviews on technicality, but it’s probably not a terrible source if you want to learn more.
The article is saying that the *flow* of time is an illusion.
Saying “I’m moving from my childhood into my old age” is like saying “Interstate 80 is moving from San Francisco to New York”. Interstate 80 is not actually moving, it just happens to be extended across multiple locations, such that it exists in both San Francisco and New York. Likewise, you’re extended across multiple times, such that you exist in both your childhood and your old age.
Latest Answers