Do you think time is real?

It all depends on your believes as so far the time itself isn't that known yet, not sure if everyone even believe for time being the 4th dimension value.

I'd say that it might depends on what theory you're agreeing with, for example there is a theory that we live in simulation, as you've probably played a video game, you might have different routes and time spent through gameplay but the future events are already known/written in the code. If you believe in that, than the answer will be option B, that one or multiple determined versions of future are already decided with no other options to change it. If you disagree with such stuff than most likely it will be option A. Or maybe there is an option C, D, E... which we still have no knowledge about it.

I ain't that knowledgable on physics or other similar sciences to even make a larger thought process on that so that's all I can say, it all depends on what you'd rather believe in or agree with, as long as there aren't any objective facts confirming or denying specific theories/hypothesis etc.

@Zettaiken

"time isn't that known yet"? Nonsense. Time has been "known" as long as we have had consciousness, and we've been forced to grapple with its presence since. If what you mean is that "our current forefront fields of inquiry, namely physics, have no coherent standardised conception of time" then that's a different notion, as it says more about the insufficiency of the perspective being employed than the issue in of itself. You say there are "no objective facts", but we're constantly living within the fact, at every instant, and the fact is time. Unless you're going to tell me that there's "no objective fact" for your consciousness existing, because the experience of your consciousness has no validity beyond its own perception of itself, right?

Your elaboration of the video game analogy opens up the discussion in a great way, as it allows us to consider the implications this has for free will; which to most people is a more interesting implication of these discussions. A lot of people think of free fill as the ability to make a choice, to have agency, but to what end? If in half of all possible universes you save a person from death, and in half of them you don't, is that really freedom? Or would freedom really be saving them 100% of the time? I think it's the latter - freedom isn't just about making any choice, but making the right choice, and I think a true solution to the problem of time would recognise that.

It's a fucking stupid thing to waste time thinking about. You can't arrive at a conclusive answer, and neither can top level physicists.
From a practical perspective, time is real and questioning it doesn't bring any benefit to your life. It doesn't matter if the laws of physics are deterministic (= future is already set in stone, time could be an illusion) or probabilistic/random (= future is uncertain, time is flowing). We can't confirm or deny either of those theories, and it makes no difference to our everyday lives. What we can be certain of, however, is that free will doesn't exist, as we're just pieces of matter in a world controlled by the laws of physics. We are puppets on strings, and those strings are attached to the laws of physics, therefore we have no free will. Even if those laws are probabilistic, it still doesn't give us free will, because we are not the ones determining the probabilistic outcome of quantum physics.

@BigBoyAdvance

Was content to let this sad state of affairs brew by itself, and generally drying paint deserves more attention than these perspectives, but this extremely demented opinion is so ubiquitous that I cannot help myself. You probably won't pay adequate attention to anything written below, and more power to you for exercising the last drop of agency you can hope for, but if you're interested in pulling yourself out of the shit and piss sandcastle you've built for yourself, then you're welcome:

"You can't arrive at a conclusive answer, and neither can top level physicists." - Are you denying the existence of inductive knowledge? If you bothered to educate yourself on Logic on even a surface level, or perhaps arrived at intuitive conclusions by yourself, you'd feel the shame deserved of such a sad opinion. Holistic explanations for phenomena do not have to make reference only to states present within that phenomena, this is obvious if you observed literally any rational process your brain engages in. The theory I expanded above was developed by a mathematician, physicist, and Harvard professor during the early 20th century called A. F. Whitehead, who also realised the limitations of deferring knowledge of transcendent phenomena to immanent states. It all depends on your definition of "conclusive", by which your probably mean "deductive": If all your knowledge is dependant on observable variables, and not actual internal coherency, then you can be persuaded of anything as long as someone procures the "evidence" for it. If one day someone tinted the sky green in your depressing little corner of the world, and no one else was there, on what grounds would you prove that the sky in fact should not be green? You'd have nothing, because useful genetic terminals like you have internalised that no meaningful information can be gleamed from actually engaging in your supposed rational thinking skills.

"From a practical perspective... questioning it doesn't bring any benefit to your life." Maybe if you have the self-awareness of a worm and only formulate your worldview, decisions and feelings on nothing but material particulars; and indeed from the way you speak of yourself it certainly comes off that way. I'm sure you're very content with that and aren't constantly teetering on the edge of having your worldview raped by whatever inexplicable phenomena comes your way. The structure of reality seems quite important to me, and it brings value to my life and that of those around me by exploring these questions. If you were born for tilling soil however, then that cannot be helped.

"it makes no difference to our everyday lives." When Nicholas Copernicus' posthumous calculations were published, they didn't reflect the actual observable phenomena, as he didn't account for elliptical orbits and thought them circular. It wasn't until much later when Kepler made the orbital adjustment that the evidence lined up with the heliocentric model - Yet it wasn't Kepler's calculations which started an intellectual revolution, it was Copernicus'. The world around us and our perception of it exist together, not separately. If you think that the implications of cosmologies do not touch "everyday life" you are woefully naïve. The limp-wristed nihilistic homosexuality you bleed onto my screen: do you think that is possible within a worldview which lacks the alienation implied by the Copernican model? All these sigh-inducing groans of "we are purely heckin' apes on a rock in space" and the malaise that accompanies them - does that influence your everyday life, worm? But let's think in the bigger picture: people who actually make decisions in this world, unlike you, have the necessary neural capacity to make these connections and their worldview will influence the aforementioned decisions. Do you think your pathetic lifestyle would be possible if those above you hadn't succumbed to this garbage perspective long before you?

"What we can be certain of, however, is that free will doesn't exist" I thought you were denying the certainty of inductive knowledge? Nothing is certain, right? We could be living in the matrix dude!!!!1 Grow a pair of testicles and start thinking for yourself.

"and those strings are attached to the laws of physics" Picking on this statement because your dogmatisation of the "laws of physics" is too good to ignore. According to most cosmological models, gravity is presumed to be a constant, yet we have no way of proving that deductively. The reason you're not falling through your cum-encrusted chair right now is because of entities falling in and out of existence, out of a field of indeterminacy who's qualities we cannot measure, stimulate subatomic particles in such a way as to generate mass when they interact. You can abstract this in as much complex maths as you want, but this is basically where our understanding ends. Does that sound like an unshakeable law to you, never to be rewritten? Please do not look up quantum entanglement or you might have an aneurysm.

"it still doesn't give us free will, because we are not the ones determining the probabilistic outcome of quantum physics." Going to take a gamble here and assume the friction caused in your skull upon reading the following won't completely incapacitate you: Most quantum physicists disagree; I assume you've heard of Schrodinger's cat or is that a blind spot for you also? We currently have no complete theory of consciousness, and no way to account materially for corresponding phenomena - one pretty sensible proposition, espoused by the very same people who developed quantum physics, is that whatever unmeasurable force is responsible for quantum uncertainty is also responsible for consciousness. This opens the door very widely to the possibility of those uncertainties being subject to some will, force, whatever you want to call it, that is not mechanistic. There is no experimental ground on which you can dismiss how consciousness influences quantum uncertainty, so your only defence is essentially a philosophical one - born of the mechanistic Newtonian cosmology that physics itself has long grown out of, but predictable pedestrians like you haven't. You will always, without fail, be sympathetic to whatever viewpoint denies as much agency as possible, because the pain of realising you are responsible for your reprehensible position in life is too great to bare. Anything which simplifies reality, to the point where it merely resembles a trinket made of cogs (you being one of them), is inherently appealing to your shrivelled brain because the notion of there being a logic beyond logic, beyond mere clockwork, is too vast, too incomprehensible. You are conscious, supposedly, yet you spend your time trying to prove that you're not. Pathetic.

@TibetanJazz666 Stopped reading after the 1st strawman argument you made.

@BigBoyAdvance And just like that, back into the dirt you burrow like a good little worm. If only the world was as simple as your dirt...

@TibetanJazz666 Little baby can't refute another person's argument without reducing it to an easily debunkable strawman first. Boohoo.