Time Doesn’t Exist. All Conceptions of “Beginning” and “End” Are Illusions. Thus, Existence Is Mostly Illusion

[ResidentHell]

Zeno’s Paradox concludes that there is a certain model of casual reasoning that cannot be used to justify the existence of time

Zeno’s Paradox is the main dilemma concerning the existence of time. You can summarize the conclusion of Zeno’s Paradox like this:

The distance between a “beginning” and an “end” can be divided into an unfixed or infinite amount of smaller distances

If each smaller distance must be traversed in order to access the subsequent smaller distance, then:

(1) where there is a “beginning” point of the entire distance, it will be impossible to reach the end point, IF there is an end point​

​

(2) where there is an “end” point of the entire distance, it will be impossible to trace the end point to the beginning point, IF there a beginning point​

The only practical solution to Zeno’s Paradox is to accept that the existence of time cannot be justified through deductive reasoning

This means it is impossible to prove definitively that time exists, such that any conclusions made about the existence of time or any of its components (e.g., beginning, duration / size, end, irreversibility, past, future), will have to involve some degree of assumption or guesswork

As most things are perceived within a restrictive framework of time (e.g., limited time periods, things that are perceived to have a beginning or end), these perceptions must be illusory to some degree, due to the impossibility of proving the existence of time by a certain mode of casual reasoning

Thus, nothing exists. Most of existence is an illusion

The only things in existence that aren’t illusions: Timelessness, the infiniteness of space, and the ability to think

 

[Emba]

Fascinating

 

[based_meme]

Perhaps you've done the work in your head and we're getting the CliffsNotes summary version here in your post, but the reasoning you've provided is insufficient for the strong conclusion you've made ("nothing exists"). You also immediately contradict yourself afterward when you say that most things that exist are illusions (except for the listed three things). If nothing exists, then most things cannot exist as illusions, since that implies that some things (the three things) do exist as real and not illusory.

I think it's safe to say that time itself isn't a physical entity. It does, however, exist as a very useful concept. In physics time is simply a measurement of change between states in a physical system which we've standardized with the unit second. Our perception of time is simply the states of change of our own consciousness that we're conscious of. Since our consciousness can have multiple states (asleep, awake etc.), it means that it change between those states (and also undergo changes within states). We perceive time differently in our waking state than we do in our sleeping state. These perceptions aren't illusory, because what we're perceiving isn't time, but rather the current state of consciousness that is changing.

Since states of change must be separated ordinally, it means that there must be a first state up to the nth state. And since the changes between these states can be measured, the ordinal separation of these states of change can be further broken down discretely using time as the unit, which then give us a more precise measurement of the current state. Thus, Zeno's paradox is circumvented, while maintaining the concept of time in this model of causal reasoning.

 

[ResidentHell]

Perhaps you've done the work in your head and we're getting the CliffsNotes summary version here in your post, but the reasoning you've provided is insufficient for the strong conclusion you've made ("nothing exists"). You also immediately contradict yourself afterward when you say that most things that exist are illusions (except for the listed three things). If nothing exists, then most things cannot exist as illusions, since that implies that some things (the three things) do exist as real and not illusory.

You’re right. The more logical conclusion is meant to be this:

Nothing exists, except timelessness, the infiniteness of space, and the ability to think

Our perception of time is simply the states of change of our own consciousness that we're conscious of

The “states of change” of consciousness are also illusions. They allude to there being a supposed “point” or “interval” that corresponds to the “end” of one conscious state and the “beginning” of another conscious state (e.g., the end of sleep --> the beginning of awake)

We perceive time differently in our waking state than we do in our sleeping state. These perceptions aren't illusory, because what we're perceiving isn't time, but rather the current state of consciousness that is changing.

So when you are “sleeping” in the real world, but “awake” in the dream world, what then are you perceiving?

Seeing how “dreaming” associates with the conscious, the reasonable observation is that it's possible to be “unconscious” in one world (e.g. real world) and “conscious” in another world (e.g. dream world), concurrently

Since states of change must be separated ordinally, it means that there must be a first state up to the nth state.

But “states of change” can be treated as either discrete or continuous. If “states of change” are treated as continuous, it means there can be infinitely many states within the space between the first state and the nth state

since the changes between these states can be measured, the ordinal separation of these states of change can be further broken down discretely using time as the unit

This would only work because you choose to discretely break down the supposed “ordinal separation of these states of change”

Time does not have to be treated as a discrete measurement; it can also be treated as a continuous measurement

If you tried to continuously break down the “separation of these states of change” so that it’s not “ordinally separated” into a limited amount of states --- You’ll never be able to connect the 1st state all the way to the nth state

which then give us a more precise measurement of the current state.

A “more precise measurement” of the current state would only be an approximation. You are using a discrete measure (i.e. ordinally), rather than a continuous measure (with an unfixed amount of separate states inbetween the first state and the nth state)

Thus, Zeno's paradox is circumvented, while maintaining the concept of time in this model of causal reasoning

This may circumvent Zeno’s Paradox, but this is not a solution to Zeno’s Paradox. The measurement of change between states in a physical system would still be an approximation and not an exact measurement if it's a discrete measure

E.g. If you tried to measure the volume of water in a cup, you would only be able to measure it up to the nth decimal point, but not up to the infinity-th decimal point. So there would inevitably be some number in the measurement that is left out

The only way to solve Zeno’s Paradox is to admit that time doesn’t exist, such that the "first stage", the "nth stage", and all other "stages" inbetween the "first stage" and "nth stage", are illusory conceptions

There is still a major inconsisntency in the concept of time, which is shown by Zeno's Paradox

 

[Poopless One]

Dnr

 

[m3nt4Lbl0ck3d]

 

[based_meme]

So when you are “sleeping” in the real world, but “awake” in the dream world, what then are you perceiving?

You're perceiving what your brain is doing to let you perceive things. If you dream, your sense of time is always going to be warped. A lot of things are perceived in a very short amount of "time" in dream states, because your brain is free to a lot of work from processing the stimuli throughout the day. If your brain is doing less work, the passage of time feels very differently, hence why "time flies when you're having fun," but moves like a snail when you're bored. If you don't dream, the perceived time between the moment you fall asleep and when you wake up will be very brief. With anesthesia it's practically non-existent.

A similar effect happens when you're under the influence of powerful drugs (psychedelics or otherwise).

But “states of change” can be treated as either discrete or continuous. If “states of change” are treated as continuous, it means there can be infinitely many states within the space between the first state and the nth state

This would only work because you choose to discretely break down the supposed “ordinal separation of these states of change”

Time does not have to be treated as a discrete measurement; it can also be treated as a continuous measurement

If you tried to continuously break down the “separation of these states of change” so that it’s not “ordinally separated” into a limited amount of states --- You’ll never be able to connect the 1st state all the way to the nth state

The only illusion here is the granularity when attempting to apply the concept of infinity (ever increasing continuousness at ever increasing smaller scales) on a discrete reality.

A “more precise measurement” of the current state would only be an approximation. You are using a discrete measure (i.e. ordinally), rather than a continuous measure (with an unfixed amount of separate states inbetween the first state and the nth state)


This may circumvent Zeno’s Paradox, but this is not a solution to Zeno’s Paradox. The measurement of change between states in a physical system would still be an approximation and not an exact measurement if it's a discrete measure

The real world doesn't have infinitesimals, else we'd never be able to reach from point A to point B in a physical space. But yes, we use the concept of it to make useful approximations for things that are difficult to measure precisely. Enter: Calculus.

Zeno's paradox is an imaginary problem. What he did would be like finding a flaw in the way in which magic works in Tolkien's universe. It's an interesting problem, nonetheless, as it generated a lot of thought which spawned very useful tools in the real world.

E.g. If you tried to measure the volume of water in a cup, you would only be able to measure it up to the nth decimal point, but not up to the infinity-th decimal point. So there would inevitably be some number in the measurement that is left out

That level of granularity is not practically relevant. How precise you need to go depends on your goal (industrial or laboratory chemistry vs a diet plan that says "drink x cups of water"). The measurement is just a standard we use. Just because we can't measure it using a continuous scale that goes to infinity, doesn't mean that there's an infinite amount of water (Zeno's paradox applied to discrete objects, instead of space/time), or conversely, no water at all and it's all an illusion. Whatever precision you use in your measurement, there is, in fact, some finite amount of water in the cup.

The only way to solve Zeno’s Paradox is to admit that time doesn’t exist, such that the "first stage", the "nth stage", and all other "stages" inbetween the "first stage" and "nth stage", are illusory conceptions


There is still a major inconsisntency in the concept of time, which is shown by Zeno's Paradox

If you say so.

 

[ResidentHell]

That level of granularity is not practically relevant. How precise you need to go depends on your goal

My argument is not about the "practical relevance of the level of granularity"

My argument is that Zeno's Paradox is unsolvable without having to admit that time doesn't exist

Yes, there are ways to circumvent Zeno's Paradox in practice, as stated. But circumvention ≠ solution

The circumvention of Zeno's Paradox only allows you to prevent contradictions from emerging in whatever measure system you're using

But my argument is specifically about the solvability of Zeno's Paradox

The issue with Zeno's Paradox isn't about the divisibility of change, but the divisibility of distances

Although velocity (rate of change) is a property of mechanics that can be divided, change itself is not a divisible property



I've amended the conclusion to Zeno's Paradox. The dilemma is not about time; it is about space

The only solution to Zeno's Paradox is recognizing that space / distance has never, and will never, be bounded

Moreover, space is fundamentally boundless, to the degree that any perceived limitation or boundary in space, would be illusion

 

[based_meme]

My argument is not about the "practical relevance of the level of granularity"

My argument is that Zeno's Paradox is unsolvable without having to admit that time doesn't exist

Yes, there are ways to circumvent Zeno's Paradox in practice, as stated. But circumvention ≠ solution

The circumvention of Zeno's Paradox only allows you to prevent contradictions from emerging in whatever measure system you're using

But my argument is specifically about the solvability of Zeno's Paradox

But I've already acknowledged and conceded that time doesn't exist, which, as I said earlier, makes Zeno's paradox an imaginary problem (or a problem in an imaginary world, or a problem with an imaginary aspect/property in the real world - however you want to characterize it).

It's not a problem in the sense that it has a solution. It's like the trolley problem - there exists no solution (or no fixed solution).

The issue with Zeno's Paradox isn't about the divisibility of change, but the divisibility of distances

I didn't say that it was. I'm saying that time is a useful concept to allow for the divisibility of things like states (not change itself), distance, and practically everything else in the real world.

Although velocity (rate of change) is a property of mechanics that can be divided, change itself is not a divisible property

You've misunderstood what I'm saying, brocel. It's the state that is divisible. The divisibility shows the degree of change.

I've amended the conclusion to Zeno's Paradox. The dilemma is not about time; it is about space

The only solution to Zeno's Paradox is recognizing that space / distance has never, and will never, be bounded

Moreover, space is fundamentally boundless, to the degree that any perceived limitation or boundary in space, would be illusion

You should narrow your focus and try reformulating your main argument.