DOES TIME EXIST?

Craig Tilton

First, an introduction from Morgan Freeman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw6hS_gy9MY

In the following presentation, we will explore a number of topics including;

The time on your clockThe perception of timeWhat affects the passing of time

Eventually establishing a conclusion about if time exists or if time is just in your mind.

Introduction  

Time on ClocksWhen time is mentioned, most people immediately think about their clocks. However, the time displayed on your clock is not the real time. From now on, the time on your clocks will be referred to as physical time.

Physical TimePhysical time simply provides our society a dimension to coordinate events. Being a social race, meetings and interactions between others are vital. Therefore, we need one single time that we can all agree on.

Physical time is not how much time has passed for an individual, rather the amount of time that has passed collectively.

Physical TimePhysical time provides a common ground for scientists to compare measurements, knowing they each used the same “time”.

However, physical time is only a rationalization of how much time has passed.

But what do others have to say about time?

Newton [1]

Newton suggested that time is absolute.

One second would be the same no matter where the individual is or what the individual is doing.

Manuel Velasquez [6]

“Time seems especially mysterious because it seems to flow or move ever onward past us or with us. Sometimes it seems like an unstoppable river continuously flowing…”

These two men believe that time is consistent from person to person. Every person experiences time the same way and time is ever flowing.

(We will examine the topic of individual experience of time when we talk about the perception of time.)

McTaggart [6]

McTaggart believed that time was a fixed line of events and did not flow.

The fixed line of events must exist because the “past”, “present”, and “future” are incompatible with one another. (They cannot exist simultaneously)

The views of McTaggart and Velasquez are also known as the A and B theories of time.

The first two minutes of this video can you give you an idea of the theories if you are still having trouble understanding them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw6hS_gy9MY

Einstein [1]

Einstein was able to prove scientifically through his famous theory of relativity that massive objects cause a distortion of time.

Simply, an individual experiences time differently depending on where they are.

Einstein [5]

This picture shows how time would differ depending on how far away an individual is from Earth.

Einstein proved with science that time can be different from one individual to another.

However, we can extend this theory that time differs by exploring the perception of time.

Aristotle [4] Aristotle said, “Whether, if soul did not exist, time would exist or not, is a question that may fairly be asked; for if there cannot be someone to count there cannot be anything to be counted.”

Kant [4][1]

Kant wrote, “we do not perceive time objectively as a physical thing; that it is simply a pure form of sensible intuition.”

Kant’s work was also summarized as “Kant: Time is a mental construct.”

Both of these famed philosophers believed that time was not a physical, absolute object, rather they believed that time had to be perceived.

The time that we perceive will be called psychological time.

Psychological TimePsychological time is based on an individuals perception of the duration of any given event.

While physical time measures the collective time that has passed (as a society), psychological time is the amount of time that an individual feels has passed.

Each person experiences, or perceives, time differently.

Psychological time is an individual’s perception of duration.

Perception of TimeThere are a variety of studies and examples we can explore in order to prove that time is being perceived.

Theoretical Example 1Suppose that you and three friends are in four separate rooms. There are no windows, clocks, plants, technology, or anything. The rooms are absolutely empty and you are each told to leave after one hour has passed.

Here the physical time elapsed is exactly one hour.

Theoretical Example 1Odds are, you and your friends will emerge at different times.

This result occurs because each individuals’ time is not constant or universal. Therefore it is almost impossible to all perceive the duration of events the exact same way.

Theoretical Example 2Let us examine a more common experience. On Christmas Eve, each child goes to bed. Obviously overcome with excitement, the child stares at their ceiling, wide-eyed and awaiting the arrival of their gifts. The physical time of the night is exactly eight hours. Yet, as the child stares at the ceiling for what they believe is an hour, only ten physical minutes have elapsed.

Theoretical SummaryIn both of these examples, the experience of time is dependent on the individual. Time exists in the observer’s mind and is dependent on their current state.

Therefore, time must depend on the individual.

Still not convinced? Here are some actual case studies.

Thayer and Schiff Case Study [4]

In one study done by Thayer and Schiff (1975), participants were asked to stare at another person for a given amount of time and then estimate the amount of time that had passed. The person (whom the participants were staring at) was either scowling or smiling.

Thayer and Schiff Result [4] The result of the Thayer and Schiff case study was that time estimates were significantly longer when the face was scowling than when the face was smiling.

Thayer and SchiffUnder the assumption that a scowl is less pleasant than a smile, the experiment proves that less time seems to elapse in a pleasant environment than an unpleasant one.

Going along with the proverb, “time flies when you’re having fun,” the experiment proves that an environment can affect the amount of time perceived.

The fact that different participants perceived the amount of time elapsed differently suggests that people experience time differently.

Cahoon and Edmonds Case Study [4]

In another case study, Cahoon and Edmonds (1980) had two groups of participants that were unaware they were participating in a time study. The first group was told to call the experimenter when water for coffee began to boil. The other group, the control, were not given any instructions. (although there was still a pot of boiling water).

Cahoon and Edmonds Result [4]

The group that was watching the water boil had significantly longer estimates of the elapsed time than the group given no instructions.

Cahoon and EdmondsDue to the fact that individuals subjected to a boring event (watching water boil) caused their perception of time to be significantly different from individuals who were not subjected to that boring event, the perception of time is directly impacted by the environment.

Furthermore, the differences in the perception of time between the two groups suggests time is not absolute.

My Case Study 1In my first case study, I had ten participants. One at a time I had them wait exactly one minute. After, I asked them to estimate the amount of time that had elapsed.

My Case Study 1 ResultsParticipant Estimated Time (in seconds)

A 120B 45C 90D 60E 90F 180G 30H 60I 150J 120

My Case Study 2In my second (informal) case study, I asked a few classmates how long a particular class felt. The class was 1 hour and 15 minutes.

My Case Study 2 ResultsEach classmate said vastly different time estimates than the others. No two estimates were the same and no estimate was the actual physical time that had elapsed.

My Case StudiesIn each of my two case studies, they were simple yet they proved a solid point; that each individual experiences duration differently.

Each individual perceived the amount that had elapsed differently than the others and differently from the physical time that had elapsed.

All Case StudiesBut what do all these case studies

prove?

All of the four case studies explored are consistent with the fact that: An individual’s perception of duration differs from physical time and from all other individuals’ perceptions.

My OpinionSimply, time exists only in our minds. Similar to the views of Berkeley (that objects exist only in our mind), time cannot be a concrete entity.

Physical time, or the collective time, only exists as a series of numbers that was invented by man to make our lives easier.

The true time, however, (psychological time) is the time that is meaningful to each individual because it is how much time we feel has elapsed.

My OpinionOne could say that time is only real to each individual. Similarly, a dream is only real to the individual that experiences it and we say that those dreams do not exist. They are very real to a person, embedded in their subconscious as a very real experience, but as a society we do not accept dreams as reality.

The time in our mind, which is the only true reality, does not exist anywhere but in your own mind. Time can only be real to an individual and cannot exist outside of the mind.

Does Time Exist?Yes and No.

Time does exist, but only in each person’s mind. And it is different from mind to mind.

The time on your clock is just a bunch of numbers.

The real time is just your personal perception of duration.

Works Cited1.Redd, Nola T. "Einstein's Theory of General Relativity." Space.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html>.

2.Dowden, Bradley. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Time . California State University, 11 Aug. 2001. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/#H2>.

3.Rose, Margaret. "Second (s or Sec)." What Is ? N.p., Mar. 2011. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/second-s-or-sec>.

4.Foley, Hugh. "Time Perception." Time Perception. Pearson Education, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://www.skidmore.edu/~hfoley/Time.htm>.

5. Greene, B. The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011. Print.

6. Velasquez, Manuel. "Is Time Real." Philosophy: A Text With Readings. 11th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 196-203. Print.