The first (well put) six minutes say that time is self-defined as detailed(?) existence of QM becoming features like space-BB. Then illustration of this illustration gets complex because it's reverse reduction. It isn't necessary to imagine that a complex context is a requirement of existence, only that complexity is built up from simplicity. Complex-compounding resonance is the natural cause-effect of QM-TIME "bubbles".
and the only reason it can be said (in my weird mind) that we maintain a level of energy is because we are so incapable of being creating a situation for the photons to do work (a job) and so most gets lost as heat (turbulence from our state in life) I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I think you would be closer to understanding if you thought of the rate of entropy either increasing or decreasing (like our instantaneous velocity towards or away from electronic quilibrium, does that make sense
and the important thing is to remember it is literally in laymens terms, a bunch of strung together but distinct different orbits. And if you want to know, as in really honestly and in full disclosure know the truth, it can only be known as a whole orbit in whatever unit in time you want it to be. (3 years ago, now, 3 years in the future) or (yesterday, today, tomorrow) (but every set as it's own set) and strung together mankinds fu**ed up linear view.
and by that I mean, our planet rock is in a phase that only takes from the sun (and to a certain extent, we only take from our planet while physically living) I am for the most part anti-philosophist because of the need for arguing by in some ways philosophy is the only way to communicate and understanding in terms that are understandable or coherent. But it is hard, nearly impossible to compare the amount of energy shown by the sun and describe it in terms of what our world gives back.....
I liked the ideas presented (esp your nod to time as opposed to space as nothing riles me more than intelligent physicists claiming time does not exist) But some of your semantics I have trouble with. Everyone knows the law of thermos, but I think what you meant is how insignificant the amount of energy the earth and all of ways to be chemically and physically affected by photons that hit us compared to what gets shown (shined) to us. We don't really give anything back from this side of pendlum
we know the future, we can remember it (it is not hard for us to see a couple of seconds or minutes into the future. And as far as the past goes, until it comes from your journal and your are practiced and understanding and knowing yourself and practiced and identifying and recognizing your feelings. I would be skeptical of the past. History is missing Herstory and is NOT Ourstory. Believing what got recorded in books is about as accurate as one's view it's equivalent mirrord day in future
that is really the only way the future and the past and the now can be viewed with any certainty; as an orbit that for each past, present and future does not dilineate or stray from it's orbit path. So ten years ago can not be understood in a way that is truthful without also remembering ten years in to the future and remember that we are viewing it from time zero (like the Mayans) the here and now is time zero
and what I mean by that is (in my mind, which most view as crazy) the history that is believed as fact and would be considered mainstream, if you are talking about history 300 years ago, what most people believe as factual past is just as fuzzy (if not more) than our memory of the 300 years into the future. And I know it doesn't make sense, and I have ended friendships and relationships with people who constantly insist I am insane.....but
no living being will ever known the whole truth until they are wholy honest. I say these things in the name of peace and understanding and NOT to argue and claim I am right and everyone else is wrong. My view is just one crazy opinion. And what I think I know, is in no way shape or form "fun" Amen
Minute 15: at Age of universe = 1 googol: only empty space. No black holes, no mass, no radiation. How can entropy be high then? Entropy of what, if there will be no states? Obviously the entropy of nothing will be zero. That's why everything can start all over again. Cyclical universe voila. Thank me later. It's just one of those situations in which math suggests a wrong answer (sorry Prof. Tegmark!). Entropy's domain of validity simply fades away in the distant future.
The first (well put) six minutes say that time is self-defined as detailed(?) existence of QM becoming features like space-BB. Then illustration of this illustration gets complex because it's reverse reduction. It isn't necessary to imagine that a complex context is a requirement of existence, only that complexity is built up from simplicity. Complex-compounding resonance is the natural cause-effect of QM-TIME "bubbles".
awesome talk, once again
Was this on a cruise ship?
Why am I not at this place hanging out with these people at that moment in time
and the only reason it can be said (in my weird mind) that we maintain a level of energy is because we are so incapable of being creating a situation for the photons to do work (a job) and so most gets lost as heat (turbulence from our state in life)
I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I think you would be closer to understanding if you thought of the rate of entropy either increasing or decreasing (like our instantaneous velocity towards or away from electronic quilibrium, does that make sense
and the important thing is to remember it is literally in laymens terms, a bunch of strung together but distinct different orbits. And if you want to know, as in really honestly and in full disclosure know the truth, it can only be known as a whole orbit in whatever unit in time you want it to be. (3 years ago, now, 3 years in the future) or (yesterday, today, tomorrow) (but every set as it's own set) and strung together mankinds fu**ed up linear view.
and by that I mean, our planet rock is in a phase that only takes from the sun (and to a certain extent, we only take from our planet while physically living) I am for the most part anti-philosophist because of the need for arguing by in some ways philosophy is the only way to communicate and understanding in terms that are understandable or coherent. But it is hard, nearly impossible to compare the amount of energy shown by the sun and describe it in terms of what our world gives back.....
I liked the ideas presented (esp your nod to time as opposed to space as nothing riles me more than intelligent physicists claiming time does not exist) But some of your semantics I have trouble with. Everyone knows the law of thermos, but I think what you meant is how insignificant the amount of energy the earth and all of ways to be chemically and physically affected by photons that hit us compared to what gets shown (shined) to us. We don't really give anything back from this side of pendlum
Is this Sabine Hossenfelder? 10:53
And Max Tegmark in the back
we know the future, we can remember it (it is not hard for us to see a couple of seconds or minutes into the future. And as far as the past goes, until it comes from your journal and your are practiced and understanding and knowing yourself and practiced and identifying and recognizing your feelings. I would be skeptical of the past.
History is missing Herstory and is NOT Ourstory. Believing what got recorded in books is about as accurate as one's view it's equivalent mirrord day in future
that is really the only way the future and the past and the now can be viewed with any certainty; as an orbit that for each past, present and future does not dilineate or stray from it's orbit path. So ten years ago can not be understood in a way that is truthful without also remembering ten years in to the future and remember that we are viewing it from time zero (like the Mayans) the here and now is time zero
and what I mean by that is (in my mind, which most view as crazy) the history that is believed as fact and would be considered mainstream, if you are talking about history 300 years ago, what most people believe as factual past is just as fuzzy (if not more) than our memory of the 300 years into the future. And I know it doesn't make sense, and I have ended friendships and relationships with people who constantly insist I am insane.....but
no living being will ever known the whole truth until they are wholy honest.
I say these things in the name of peace and understanding and NOT to argue and claim I am right and everyone else is wrong. My view is just one crazy opinion. And what I think I know, is in no way shape or form "fun"
Amen
Minute 15: at Age of universe = 1 googol: only empty space. No black holes, no mass, no radiation. How can entropy be high then? Entropy of what, if there will be no states? Obviously the entropy of nothing will be zero. That's why everything can start all over again. Cyclical universe voila. Thank me later.
It's just one of those situations in which math suggests a wrong answer (sorry Prof. Tegmark!).
Entropy's domain of validity simply fades away in the distant future.