ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Do Space and Time Really Exist? | Full Debate | Huw Price, Julian Barbour, Michela Massimi
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ย. 2017
- We think of space and time as the structure of the universe. Yet Einstein argued 'space and time are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live'. Philosophers too - Kant and Heidegger no less - saw space and time as the framework of thought not the world. So are space and time just a human fantasy? Huw Price, Julian Barbour, Michela Massimi debate the structure of reality
#physics #einstein #iai #debate #space #time #reality
The IAI offers a host of different platforms where you can watch and debate the big issues that matter:
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-aca...
We also have extensive discussions on our Facebook and Twitter pages: / theinstituteofartandideas
/ iai_tv
/ philosophyforourtimes
Subscribe for more videos and debates!
For more on this debate, watch our exclusive interview with Julian Barbour on the end of time as we know it th-cam.com/video/GoTeGW2csPk/w-d-xo.html
46:46
Ta
I think the potted plant got closest to the truth
Wow, what a debate! I’ve never seen a finer display of interpretative dance. These people literally sat in meek chairs while they danced around the questions coming from a man sitting in a much much more intricate and accommodating chair.
Ha!
Julian Barbour's book, The End Of Time, really is fascinating. If you want to read the best expression of the idea of the non-existence of time then that's the book to read, along with David Deutsch's Fabric Of Reality, which has an entire fascinating chapter(among many others that deal with all kinds of extraordinarily interesting and mind-expanding concepts) dedicated to it.
I tried Huw Price's book on time(can't remember the name) and found it fascinating but frankly beyond me at that point.
The question is not whether space and time exist or not. We all know that they do.
The question is whether they are fundamental or emergent.
Time can be wasted. This video proves it.
Thinking about the definition of things is part of what makes us human. It results in progress. That is never a waste of time.
There are wonderful ideas in this discussion
You are literally watching this on TH-cam. While not excelling in any subjects from your school. Your life has been wasted and this comment proved it!
The branch of mathematics called Category Theory provides a good language for describing some of the issues they are talking about. For example, Barbour's diagrams showing space and time as relationships is an example of the approach in Category Theory, which talks not so much about the "objects" in any particular mathematical or physical theory, but rather the relationships between the objects. In fact, the objects can be defined (up to isomorphism) purely in terms of their interrelationships, so that you don't even need objects at all, only relationships.
QM observations also seems to endorse this.
Wouldn't it be amazingly outstanding that fundamental reality were just relationships and that there's actually no objects at all? Maybe thinking about "things" that may be related is our bigest mistake, rather that our bigest intuition... It's almost impossible to imagine relationships without objects, but it's also likely.
This is idealism in a nutshell.
i wish i was smart enough to understand what that physicist was saying
"What is Time?"
normal person: "I don't know."
professionals: spend 30 mins dodgeing the question.
(I think I'm normal lol)
Time is the constant progression of Reality.
29.5 minutes remaining
@@terkfranks1538 Yeah. At least we tell something we believe is true.
If none of this is real...... Do I really have to pay rent next month.?
No you don't
If you ask God help you with this.
I don't pay Council Tax does that help answer your question!
Unfortunately, yes. In my experience Landlords have no respect for the deeper meaning of life lol
yes, but you have to send it to my account.
I tried that argument with my cockney landlord. He just kept yelling 'Kant!' all the time.
Philosophy is about the question
Physics is about the answer
Don't ask a Philosopher for an answer
Don't ask a physicist to analyze a question
No, philosophy is about make-believe, and physics is about reality.
Head is about thinking and your mouth is about s-u-c-k-i-n-g mah ding dong
Speculations on Space and Time as 'emergent properties':
Space is generated by 'separation' of two or more 'objects'. Time is generated by any 'change' in their relative configuration. To make objects more or less 'separate' would of course constitute 'change'. Thus time and space are surely interrelated or interdependent - but not necessarily identical in 'nature' or origin.
The forces of 'expansion' (in the common sense of the word) of the Universe would drive the generation of space. Separating things apart. 'Dividing' them. The 'diluting' of everything... Towards a 'colder' and 'colder' state. Becoming less and less 'solid'.
The amount of change would determine the 'scale' or 'clock frequency' of Time. The apparent 'direction' of Time would be determined by the order in which multiple changes occur. The 'rules' - the 'cause and effect' - the order of the sequence would be determined by the 'balancing act' of the relevant fundamental forces acting on the 'objects' in the given space. "Gravity/Repulsive gravity"? "Push / Pull"? "Expansion / Attraction"? Something in this 'balancing act' must turn out as 'irreversible'; determining the sequence of 'nows', making time seem '1-directional' and 'logically sequential'. In the context of the whole Universe the 'frequency' and 'direction' of Time seems entirely 'fixed'. In the context of a single photon, to even define 'space and time' would seem 'problematic'.
General Relativity is derived from looking at the very largest of scales. Quantum Mechanics is derived from looking at the tiniest of scales, and its approach is fundamentally different from GR, being 'probabilistic' in nature (which inherently necessitates time). Both of them extrapolating from their point of view - towards the other end. Is it surprising that the 'two ends of the tunnel' don't quite meet up? ... Not really :)
I really don't think there was much content in this discussion.
No memory no time !
Excellent. And, no movement, no time.
Absolutely, let's take it further.... the universe does not have a memory, only brains do. A past event in one location in the universe (which was a "now" there), is a "now" in another location, and the light is the information carrier for the "nows". Only brains can "collect" a sequence of "nows" in one location, compare them, recognize a pattern, and call some of them "past". That's what our brains are made for in this context, discover patterns so that we survive among the dangerous ones.
Conclusion: The universe is "nows" "all the time" (as a whole entity), has therefore no time, and has therefore never begun to exist. There can't be a property (begin) for something non-existing (time). Analogy, an angel is sweet (in our brains) but doesn't exist...
So something existed prior to Big Bang (which must have been changing), something existed prior to that.... etc. No beginning becomes natural and logical , only "nows", "all the time", everywhere (if a space exists). And it can never have been completely non-changing (also a potential means that something is changing), then it couldn't start to change (again).
Tricky question, does this mean that the universe always has existed ?
No night...no time!
No day...no time!
Read my above comment.
This isn't true, because without memory, there still is movement. Its actually - no movement no time.
No memory, no time is like saying, nothing is happening in a factory if you turn off the lights.
Philoshpher is actually always interested in hanging the question, they will basically go round and round and answer nothing. Forget about time they will never answer even 2+2, rather they will reply saying, it depends on what you think of addition
like trying to grind down a great pyramid with an eyelash....it feels like we are getting nowhere, but the pyramid is being gradually reduced.
Philosophers actually try to grapple with 1 + 1= 2 because of this Godel's Incompletenes theorem has been formulated 👆🤓
Does anybody have a mathematically consistent book on time being an emergent property of space and energy
I know of a theory that explains time as an emergent property of our imagination.
There is a difference between sequence and time. Sequence exists, energy exists, but time doesn't. Space, is our brain comparing where something IS compared to where something else IS (the difference is space). Time is where something IS compared to where it WAS (the difference, is time). This is the basis of time. Its an observation of movement. Its our brain noticing something in a different place than it was, and filling in the gap with a concept we decided to call "time". If there was no movement, there would be no time. This "gap" can change depending on the speed of movement. Our sense of time usually has a reference point. If that point changes, our sense of time would change.
Example: Take a video for example. You can speed up the video which would make you intuitively feel like time is moving faster,. This is because the movement of what is happening on screen is faster. You can slow it down and you would feel like time flows slower. But time doesn't change by you simply speeding up a video. Its our observation of movement that changes. In the real world we judge time by clocks (reference points), weather its the sun rising and setting or leaves shuffling in the wind. But all of those things are simply an observation of the movement of energy. If you sped up the cycle of the solar system, "time" would seem to pass faster. "Seem" is the key word.
Time is simply our observation of where something is as opposed to where it was. That's it. Only energy exists. All else is a figment of our imagination.
This is why "time travel" is impossible. For time travel to ever happen, you would have to reverse the movement of every atom in the existing universe/s to the same place it was in this "past" you are trying to get to. That would take more energy than we have at our disposal. And even that wouldn't be going back in time, it would be going forward in time reversing all the movements of every atom backward to the same position where it used to be. It would more accurately be described as recreating the past rather than traveling to the past. The "person" able to do this (if created of this universe) would have to be reversed as well, because he came from a bunch of things that used to be part of other things, and other things wouldn't be able to be restored unless he was also. If someone got away with this, nobody would notice.
This could then lead into a great theological/philosophical debate of an all powerful Deity, and how exactly He would be able to change anything, and everything without us even noticing. He Himself wouldn't change though as He was not created of this universe.
Who said? I did. I thought of this on my own, thinking and reasoning on the matter for a time.
No pun intended.
uni - Single Verse - spoken sentence
"Let there be light" (energy)
Beautiful.
@rent a shill decay is motion of tiny particles. Its all motion. Moving fast isn't going to make you time travel... Because of what time is. Time is the observation of motion. If you were moving rly fast, you would only observed "time" to go by faster, the world wouldn't change any different. Your perception would.
When the use the phrase..."Information cannot be destroyed" to say what is much more accurately put as..."Things that exist, cannot TRULY be made to no longer exist in all ways. shapes and forms."
Reality is for some perhaps a simulation or "information" or a hologram or a block universe.. In the end for me, something exist first of all as "idea". A (non existing) simple particle is merely a closed center of force and force is described mathematically but what it "really" is, is hard to say. Perhaps it's all about ideas in the mind of the creator, this reality. Then follows that even time and distance are products of the imagination of a cosmic brain. This explanation of reality is somewhat satisfying. The problem is only then what role we have here then. Are we pieces of that brain who have been 'erased" to forget where we came from ? But for what purpose? So the cosmos is then explained but not we.
Whatever happened to a straightforward answer instead of a discussion on it where everyone has a different version?
I was about to explain my definition of the term ‘ Aether ‘ , but then , I was thinking what's the point . Heraclitus said it all , and no one understood a word he said . so stating a coincidentia oppositorum is doing little more than saying " hey man , I know what coincidentia oppositorum means ." Counter Space is unknowable . It's an assumption , but an assumption that is a pretty safe bet . I mean the lights , the LED screen you read this on are all attributes of counter space ( the unknowable ) . I will take this pragmatically understood electrical engineering 1.01 theory one step further to explain consciousness as an attribute of a counter space or Aether of my mind . This reality , consciousness , memories , attributed to mind Aether discerning itself from Earth’s Aether. I get filtered through the low band width brain functions that are too confining and thus confusing to understand their true nature by most people because of cultural distraction , responsibilities to their decisions , or just plain old coronu believing laziness . I’m not saying that I know the true nature of my mind, no , the amount of information is too much , and would destroy the gray mush in my skull bucket . Matter is separate from my mind , and maybe comes from Earth's counter space or Aether Maybe there is a cosmic Aether too , and where the Earth Aether moves through the cosmic aether , this is the cause of time , history , and duality (beginning , end ).
History is a wake caused from Earth either moving through the cosmic either , or the cosmic aether flowing over the earth , ( a fish does not swim , but it is swum.) , and me being partly earth , and my mind's , there is a similar 'History' effect on myself that binds my mind to memories that are bound to a certain period in History . History has no cause to exist other than this aetherial flow , and emulsification . It's a fractal theory , and can use the same formulas to explain electricity , or consciousness , and everything in between. This also via reduction leads to me being comfortable that counter spacial existence is required to be much more 'real ', or at least more of a 'pure' reality than this one of mixed attributes . This is nevertheless still based on at least one assumption except for the first statement of my logic which is that my mind is existing as aware , and confused , and is all I can say I'm sure exists without needing an assumption to say that you exist as a separate mind from my own . And This is when I stop because why would I waste time on trying to know what's unknowable ? Knowledge is not worth much more than delusion , if knowledge does not become Wisdom , knowledge will become a delusion , and one that seems fun to entertain. Na, meen ?
Get me on the show and I will explain time and space without beating around the bush
Why don't you explain it now?
Michela Massimi was infuriatingly woolly and vague. The section where the host tried to pin her down was frankly embarrassing - and I'm convinced that bringing up Kant does nothing but make constructive discussion more difficult.
I think she was good for introducing the fact -- which they all expanded on -- that we have to make sure we're clear on the difference between epistemology (what we know -- or think we know -- and how we know it) versus ontology (what exists, what "the world [outside of our perception of it] is like").
"The Future is a concept, it does not exist. There is no such thing as Tomorrow. There Never will be, because TIME is always NOW.
That's the one thing we discover when we stop talking to ourselves and stop Thinking. We fond there is only PRESENT, on an ETERNAL NOW." - Alan Watts
so, memories are a fiction?
@@HarryNicNicholas, Correct. They no longer exist.
Everything that exists always exists in the eternal now.
Memories may be "false" but will correspond to a different part of reality which we believe is our past. So how false is that really ?
Why does it take a philosopher 2000 words to say what a physicist says in 2?
Why isnt Dr Who in this conversation? If anyone can talk about time surely its him.
he was at some point in the past.
There is even a Dr Who episode that goes by the same name as Julian Barbour's book :)
yes the eternal moment of now
I like that.....pinched! 🤯🍄🤪👀
Kant said this, that, and the other. Jeez lady, are you capable of an independent thought?
Right! like give us YOUR perspective
@@phiosopher8712 She Kant.
Why can't physicists also do that? Can't physicists not talk about Isaac Newton's absolute conception of time and Albert Einstein's relativity of time? And be independent and make their own? Philosophers also do that. They attributed it to philosophers just like a physicist would do
The molecules formally known as Julian, have left the building :)
I question the spatial distribution of the panelist...does anyone have a short answer?
It does seem sexist.
Why are the comments very ignorant and dismissive that a clear conceptual analysis for the underpinnings of time is much as important as mathematical formalism of space and time?
Space is the 3-dimensional distances between matter, and time is the rate of change of matter, So only matter and energy exist. Matter is condensed energy, and energy is diffused matter. They differ only by their frequencies , wavelengths and wave numbers.
You are completely debunked by even special relativity. You can't talk about spatial distances without mentioning time because of the relativity of simultenaity. What you call space is not the space of another moving observer.
Further, you are very very wrong about energy. Energy is just a property of matter, not an independent entity. In physics, energy is always associated to a system made up of matter (when I say matter I count fields as matter too, since at a fundamental level every matter is made up of auantum fields). Energy is the generator of time translations, both in quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. This is why the concept of energy alone is nonsense.
Only time and energy exist, matter is the interaction between them.
I would say neither time space or matter exists, only energy. All else that is observed is the behavior of this energy.
Thanks for the heads up
Problem is today's age of internet everyone thinks competent enough to think they can tackle the big questions
I get the feeling they are talking through their hat and they are no closer to universal realities than your average Joe in the street.😀
Man, these scientists are slippery critters.
I strongly disagree with "Friday afternoon" existing independently of our concepts
This has been disappointing. Not a debate, and a bad display of scientific objectivity.
Time and space exists independently of us. All of nature and all living organisms observed or not, draw oxygen into their lungs slowly burning, and the river will carve the stone as it goes by.
We are bound by the order of matter, as we are one in structure.
What we perceive is very different, on one side this is how we've evolved, and we have limits,, the orher side, our ability to break the boundaries of time and space, Love, longing, dreams, imagination. We can feel the Love in this monent for an uncle who is in another country, or long for your late grandfather's kind words. Emotions that are as strong and real connecting here with far, and now with then. Imagination and dreams are preferable to go the other way, towards the future.
And no mathematics can prove it right or wrong since no mathematics can calculate what I feel while standing on a beach gazing over the strong salt smell of the sea towards the east, my home.
Universal time and space exists,, simultaneously everywhere,
We are wired to perceive time and space.
And we can travel with our thoughts, to where and when..
This is naive realism.
Space and Time is just two words concepts, an expressions of a particular empirical experience in a certain language.
Physicist likes to define further complex expressions ..............general population experience it daily as existence in a moment.
In Chinese, which is pictorials expressions,
Time, 时, an inch in a day.
Space, 空, labor under a roof.
This gives them something to keep them busy and talk about.
The guy with dark shirt and glasses said absolutely nothing.. he created his own jargon of evasiveness!
Too bad they did not have Martin Heidegger on that panel.
Absolute time does not exist but relative time most definitely does.
Time is a variable (t) that is inversely proportional to the speed of light (c). It is the root cause of time-dilation, which is why time (t) is relative to velocity. It is also a measure of frequency because light (electromagnetic energy) needs time to propagate wavelengths and frequencies, otherwise there would be no energy and no light; it is also the reason why 'c' cannot be infinite. Time is therefore a measure of frequency. Earth's clock-time, using the rotation and orbit of the earth as units of time, has absolutely no meaning elsewhere in the universe and it is highly inaccurate. Which is why we frequently add leap-years (and, sometimes, even seconds to years) to readjust earth-time. Earth-time is a very poor substitute for universal time. It would be fair to say that earth-time doesn't really exist because it pretends to be absolute. Universal time (the correct time) is relative.
Conciousness is the only empirical datum we have. Conciousness is fundamental. Everything is an experience in conciousness. Science is the study of how we experience information, not of things out there independent of observation.
Not complicated. Time is a measuring stick for events. It is like temperature, pressure, etc
What experiment will destroy realistic interpretations of quantum physics?
I love Julian Barbour! I'm not half smart enough to understand half of what he says, but I can tell he is saying new, deep, profound, and important things.
Except he's got it wrong, fundamentally.
Even after seeing this video Time and 'Space were as great a mystery as before. Perhaps Mankind will never be able to unveil this nature's secret.
The reason time remains a mystery is because it's an illusion. Having scientists trying to figure it out is like having dentists attempt to make breakthroughs in neuroscience, it's magicians that should be discussing this issue. There was an article posted on reddit r/time a month ago titled "Defining time" that explains time in this manner. Worth a look. With regard space I don't have a problem with it, there's distance, a distance of space.? If it's not a distance of space then what's it a distance of? Duration on the other hand is considered to be "of time", but you could argue that it's "of an event" so which is it?
So what do we call the unoccupied portion between the physical you and the physical me? Or how do we call that portion I physically fit myself in and that portion you separately fit yourself in physically? If it isn't space, then what is it? Is it all in the mind and not at all existing outside of the mind?
Hilary your body language was a master class in misogyny.
Michela doesn't know what she is talking about. She needs to read more. Julian is the star of the show.
one more case where the future results of experimental physics will cause many tears of both joy and sorrow ;-)
I find the idea of our perception as possibly "unreal" interesting. It implies that some entity can ever know the ultimate nature of the universe, space and time. Perhaps all perceptions, excepting those made by drunken, stupid or insane observers, are "real" but not unique? Any reality, among many possible others, is in the demonstrable, coherent and consistent idea of the theory/theorist, within a given paradigm, and it's a matter of cogent intuition or otherwise? Observable phenomena doesn't really exhaust the idea of "nature": not regarding the ultimate nature of human beings even, and certainly not concerning space, time and the universe.
er, silly question here, is there quantum "stuff" between electrons and protons in an atom? i mean is there string or "nothing"?
Quarks are the 'suspect,strange particles inside every proton'...
The 'stuff' between the particles is fields, which have properties, e.g. a speed limit, etc..The electron is a wave in the electron field, the quark, a wave in the quark field.
These esoteric musings are going to go nowheres unless they come to terms with the fact that we are threefold beings physical spiritual and unutterable.... And I can prove this position beyond any reasonable doubt
Doubtful
Omar khayyam said"I know the boundries of science. i know the ups and downs of the world.one more thing tha i know is the all of that is nothing but a blow in the wind"....
Does CHANGE unify time and space or space and time? Define change?
Space and Time are two parts of the same thing. It's referred to a lot of times as Space Time
But does change exist ? No time, no change. Maybe it's just all difference
Another outstanding example of the value of philosophy (none at all). If you want to learn about time watch the scientists discuss it, they actually have opinions.
😢
Time, as we experience it, is our mind's way of ordering events; however, on a cosmic level, time is an actual thing in the same way as gravity is. I'm unsure of it's actual function though, aside from sequencing events. I am sure it holds a deeper role though.
If time does not act as we perceive it, then does that mean that everything all happened at once? But since that is impossible for us to comprehend, we see it as we do?
@@jeffjones3040 That is an actual scientific theory, that the past and future don't exist, except in our minds, that all events happen at the same instant, ie in the "present" and our minds utilise time in order to separate and catalouge those events. I don't think the human mind is capable of even beggining to comprehend the meaning and workings of time.
@@AntoinMhicArtain Imagine the universe without time.
If it was realized
could any difference be noticed?
Now imagine the universe without movement.
We'd definitely see a difference
(if we were in a bubble in which movement continued).
@@jeffjones3040 It's not just impossible fir us to comprehend it's impossible for everything to happen all at once because of physical laws i.e. matter unable to occupy multiple places at once and multiple objects unable to occupy the same space at once.
Say you tap the surface of water then even a small movement create ripples. But water is made of molecules which are heavy. But now you tap on sound the ripples travel much faster and you can visualize how a small disturbance work. Now imagine tapping light. Just like nothing it is so complicated and echoes travel millions of miles. So the effect of ripples depends on medium and how fast they curve in space. Image tapping empty space almost nothing. Curvatures are extremely fast and very small region. Time is the first curvature of empty space. So space is determined by time. But time is just an instance like a dot. Space time ends in a dot. There are two things involved in a dot disturbance one is phase velocity and the other group velocity and the difference create the universe and multiverse expansion. This small difference is time created and half is space created. Why half. Say you take a sphere and give a velocity at surface then twice is the curvature at the middle.
History once said that space was the firmament but we sent rockets to the moon. Time used to be, "it's time to get up or time to go to bed." Then someone created a clock. So either space and time exists or science has been the greatest hoax ever pulled off by man.
What does the chaotic synch between the gut and the brain represent, moreover what the vibe then equal too in reality space? for the end of the vid.
How do you think
Pure ,biological, marine, computer etc science.
I am a doctor of medicine and while seeing the video , I asked my grandson what the time is, he looked at the electronic clock and said 6. 47 pm and I waited for one minute and asked him again, he said 6. 48 pm ,and when I asked him what is the difference, he spontaneously answered DISTANCE .I was awestruck.Can distance be space or time?
Your grandson is right by the way.
Well, you can’t travel through space without moving through time and vice versa.
you should consider philosopher of science William lane craig on this topic
Space is the volume in which all things exist, and distance is a measure between points in space. Time is the measure between events that occur within space. This stuff is intuitive, and it doesn't take PhDs yammering on to explain what we all already know.
Well dang, it's sure lucky for us you happen to peruse by this video to clear up all the confusion. And while I don't feel I'm qualified to give you an expert answer on this, I can say simply that are describing different things thatn what the debate is about.
@@ericgraham8150 well I sure am lucky you happened to peruse by my comment.
@@Smashy360 We are BOTH so friggin lucky!
Me wondering why weight wasn’t mentioned as though space and time have any fundamental relationship. In fact, within a framework of a curvature of some sort, space is better related to weight than to “time” or better put “PERIOD”.
But Goodluck to fantasy physicists and their consumers
Coming soon: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Space and time are constructs weaved into the system. That's how and where the game is played.
Ok,space and time are concepts,but the persons who are appearing in these two concepts most be also conceptual .
@@derealise How can conciousness be outside time and space,it IS time and space,or it appears astime and space.The only thing that's outside time-space is timelesness .You see,life is total impersonal,there's no self behind this words neither is there a self behind your words .That's why i call all these non-dual teachers jokers.
@@derealise Yes,but there's no one experiencing anything,so how can we talk about experiences at all?It's very common to say that conciousness is experiencing everything,but how do we know that there's something like conciousness ?When i ask you if you're concious,you will say yes,but what is the knower of conciousness?
@@derealise To me,life is just living itself.
@@derealise When that so-called self falls away,you see that there's no such thing as experiencing,it's all made up by the mind.Let's take for example feelings.Without thinking ,how can you say that you feel something?It's just an appearance of energy ,then the mind or the self comes and claimes it,, labels it and calls it his experience,because it has a beginning,middle,and end.When that self falls away,there's no claiming thus no experience.But this is no matter of being right or wrong,i totaly accept your way of thinking .
Space and time exist or else we would not exist no body and no mind! Even if we have life after death there has to be a vessel that holds this allows containment
I like what Lee Smolin says...time and space exist seperately but work together..their fundamental.
Philosophy vis Physics. Physics are fundamental where Philosophy is within the mind. Consider that all people have never existed except for one "mind". With the people gone, then the remaining fact is that every particle, in the observable and unobservable universe, at any instant, has a relationship with each other and for which the relationship for the next moment can be mathematically deduced. The moment first considered is the NOW and once that moment has gone that moment cannot be returned to unless we were to magically return all the particles to the previous mathematical relationship. As julian Barber shows "time" is a relationship of particles in constant motion. The time that Philosohpy imagines is within our mind only and is reinforced by the human invention of time which is one year being equal to a distance travelled by people on Earth. However, the parts we have to set our "time", the sun the moon and the plants came into existence and will disappear leaving no yardstick. Now , superimpose a person in its complete form in moving particles onto the changing moment. The person will simpley be part of the Universe and can be understood as a picture, followed by another picture and so on and, only by the person having a memory, is any past understood and through our intelligence we can see and understand t the rocks all around us have "changed" over the billions and billions of miles travelled by OUR particles
Quit yapping and have a real job
First of all our mind doesn't interact directly with matter. Secondly it interacts with part of matter in kind of non-analog way. My conclusion is simple that space and time is reduced very abstract representation of ultimate reality in order to survive human in nature. What does science is adopting animal mind to some repited facts to make better understanding of mind's construction of space-time continuum. If we be able to reflect our mind's process into quantum level then we can say we understand realm as it is.
One more thought: the material from which human made had 13.8 billion years old. So u and me as old as the universe itself.
All process in reality is infinite combination of basic plastic matter temporary reflecting powers, energy and information. We cannot imagine more than this for now.
@@theway5258 There's no proof that it's 13.8 billion years old.
There is a fundamental flaw in this debate, no consideration been given to Backward Time. There are a number of Arxiv papers utilising this concept, also Feynman said that Antimatter was really Matter subject to his form of time. From a scientific perspective Big Bang needs to be changed to allow for the survival of antimatter not it's mutual destruction. (Hence Dark Matter = Antimatter on a large scale, having survived destruction via a cosmic mechanism of the Alternate Quantum Phase). Hence you cannot have a proper debate on time without consideration of Backward Time. Another interesting conclusion would be in the Time + Backward Time universe is that Universal Entropy is constant.
Furthermore Kramer(Kramer's Theorem etc, also known as the Vilna Gaon in Jewish circles) held that there is no such thing as philosophy in either the physical or metaphysical realms. One should be able to understand physical issues with clarity in the knowledge that G-D created everything and set a framework of physical laws within which the integrity of matter etc is preserved(For our benefit) In fact all things exist within G-D. Thus Philosophy is ultimately useless, once you accept that the universe exists and functions according to his will.
Much of the answers are epistemological in nature but to regard space and time as mere epistemological preclude the existence of space and time before conscious beings began to exist in our universe?? Space and time are Ontic but relative values!! Our physical universe by its very nature is comprised of relative values throughout?? Absoluteness is synonymous with singleness, with a value that is a single invariant value in every case, but our universe is comprised of various reference frames which leads to relativity?? If you had one point you have a single reference frame, if you introduce a second and third reference frame then you have three different ways to see your world which makes the view from each vantage relative!! The only invariant in our world is the existence of spacetime itself which would be necessary because spacetime defines our universe, it is the framework of our universe!! So, it all falls in place imagine a pool of water with a few balls bobbing about, in such a pool there is nothing absolute about the individual balls in constant flux but the only invariant would be the boundaries of the pool, the pool walls which act as framework for the pool without which there would be no pool!! Space and time are modalities of one single entity. Space and time are inversely proportional values existing in one entity spacetime!!
It only takes one psychiatrist to change a light bulb, but first, the light bulb must want to change.
Could it be that time and space exist, they are just relative to us!
Well, they always show up at Thanksgiving or Christmas for dinner...
If you think of the Geometry of just two Observers in Special Relativity = Pretty Extraordinary ~ ~ Then just even try to imagine, all of the extraordinary Geometry that would be required for every possible Observer ( what ever an Observer is ( ? ? ? ) ~ ~ ) in General / All Relativity in the Universe = = I don’t think the human mind could even contemplate that.
The flowers the light over the two guys head the proximity to the flowers to the people on the white background
Well, after all, They don't really know nothing about time.
Abstract thought is good but this is going into ludicrous speed.
Imagine knowing every single aspect of human behaviour in real time in every single house flat and business etc etc etc then Imagine that in leisure time and remaining in one place the home I guess some people do not get it I t real time metraverse and universe
If I ever heard any babble it is this Huw Price guy my dear lord how convoluted confusion
The general aspect of time and space is simply both are just an infinate ongoing state of spiritual existance that we are a part of.
Without life to experience and rationalize these, neither would exist.
So, why try to make time and space more mysterious than they are?
If we had the answers - we wouldn't be looking for them.
The minute you abandon naive realism, which you have to do once its appreciated that the sky is not 'really' the qualia of blue that is consciously perceived, you are inescapably in a Kantian rabbit hole heading towards space and time not being real. There is simply no way out of this. You cannot argue that our vision is just neuronal activity going on in the back of the brain and presenting itself via illusory qualia.....and in the same breath argue that you are somehow having a direct one-to-one perception of the world. Space and time are clearly qualia too !
If all the ¨nows¨ are there at once as Barbour said at 35:02, doesn´t that mean that we are passing through the equivalent of predetermined frames of a movie or weighted probabilities of experiences whose total possible outcomes have already been predetermined.
But if every moment is “now”, how could there be predetermined frames, as you put it? If every moment is now, doesn’t that mean there’s no past
and no future?
He saying that, in a very particular sense, time is only an illusion. All that exists is a bunch of pictures, each one of which you could *call* a "now". Since there is no time (he is saying), it doesn't make sense to say that every moment exists at the same time. It doesn't make sense to say that every moment exists "right now", i.e. at *this* "now", because *this* "now" is merely one of the many "nows". The illusion (or perception) of time, he is saying, is because if you look at any particular "now", there is another one which is *almost* exactly like it, and then another one which is almost exactly like *that*, and then another one which is almost exactly like *that*, etc., etc., etc. Like he says, if you took a piece of movie film and chopped it up into its individual frames, merely by examining the similarities between the frames you could put it back together properly, thereby restoring (the illusion of) the passage of time. So there is at least the illusion of past and future.
Personally, I think that this is just a *possible* way to look at time, which does at least show that time is *not necessarily* real. Whether it's the "correct" way (i.e. the way "the world really is" -- whatever that means), I have no idea.
You have the impression that you are passing through, but the multitude of yous along the path are mistaken. You are all there together each in your own part of the now moment. Some apparently earlier in the sequence, some later, but in actuality all there together.
Scale and Relativity are the contrast and value of the Cosmos, for every point in reality, these determine all characteristics held within, all this pandering about Time and Space is just humoring the conceptions about the words generally used to describe concepts which are inherent to the Cosmos.
Interviewer:what do you think about space and time
Scientist:what Newton thought about space and time is..
Who else thinks that ourbrains are getting lazy
the space bar isn't seeing much action i can tell you that.
@@HarryNicNicholas ....space isn't getting much time....
Maybe science is to stuck in the past and mainstream scientists in general are to egotistical therefore very critical and judgemental.....I suppose it is one of the most insecure of professions to undertake....if one had even mentioned consciousness 10 yrs ago it spelled trouble,write a paper on it and your career could have been done with overnight....too many narratives wrongly being upheld and peers were desperately protecting a paradigm.... fortunately times are a changing and there is time and space for alternatives
Mine got more active.
Even photographs of the past only exist in the present as we view them; THE PAST EXIST ALWAYS BUT AT DIFFERENT LEVEL AS YOU KNOW STILL GENERATIONS PASSED PYRAMIDS EXIST NOW TOO , LIKE that all past is recorded or embeded in some energy form
Need Nima Arkani-Hamed on this panel
Does a simulated universe require coded spacetime?
There may be computational systems that our minds can not yet even imagine...
The answer is - Nobody knows.
Turn the light on
10:05 - 10:22
Well, hmmmm , I think of a question that I heard awhile ago. Does a tree that falls in a forest make a sound if no one is there to experience it.
I think you need to define what you mean by "sound". Since the rarification and compression of air is called a sound wave, to me this implies that sound is defined external to anyone's experience; and since I can come up with no method by which this would be prevented simply by there being no individual to hear any sound, locally, this makes me feel very confident that sound will exist. It simply won't be experienced by anyone. Of course, if language was improved one might not try to use the same word for the interpretation that a brain makes regarding experiencing something, and the cause of the phenomenon being experienced.
@@WideCuriosity I think it's more of a philosophical question rather than a direct physical question. I don't think anyone will argue the physical aspect .
I for the life of me can't understand why people have such a hard time swallowing paradoxes. We live in a sea of paradoxes, they bookstop almost every aspect of our existence (and they correspond, Maldecena 98). Space and time only exist within our minds; space and time exist independent of ourselves. Both are true, get over it...
apparently, they agree that there is no time for their hair.
haha.
@@unibomberbear6708, They look like they slept on a park bench.
time is a set of boundaries encapsulating experiences. No boundaries = no time
Is this a different way of saying that time emerges when two different Observers are in the same light cone?
As Tesla stated many years ago when Einstein was proposing these ideas... Space cannot be "anything". Space can not be "curved" and have an effect on mass, and at the same time, be empty and frictionless. It contains matter, but the space between is only electromagnetic potential. Gravity is emergent and comes from electromagnetic potential, more specifically, dielectric acceleration. The same process that causes two magnets to accelerate towards a mutual pressure point created anywhere within space. Ken Wheeler has expanded on this a great deal, and after a few years of studying his ideas, and abandoning the current held beliefs, I think he's on the correct path towards actually advancing physics and unifying our current models which fall apart when we try to apply them to both the micro and macro scales of reality.
The micro and macro are not separate, for the micro is a reflection of the macro and vice versa.
For this people space is an object.
For this people time is an object.
For this people spacetime is an object.
What is an object?
@@abcdefghijklmnopeqrstuvwxy7295 how you can control time, space and ‘spacetime’???
Sorry, but what you propose is not applicable as definition of “object”.
@@abcdefghijklmnopeqrstuvwxy7295 you are wrong! Because you do not know what it is ‘time’ , i.e. you do not have a definition for ‘time’, a definition to use in physics of course.
Time is what prevents everything from happening at once-Wheeler.
Space is the order of relationship of facts, arranged sequentially.
Simultaneity and sequential pair of Hegel's 'unity of opposites', defines unity of Einstein's spacetime.
Past and future are opposites that vanishes at 'now', when spacetime loses all physical significance and transforms into our mental objects.
Physicists believe when space and time are quantized (if they ever will be) then only the mathematics of physical reality be complete. Time is real and space is complex, leading Einstein to replace c with ic to correctly deduce GR- NAHIN in 'An Imaginary Tale'. In 1702 Leibniz declared about the imaginary number i as 'an elegant and wonderful resource of DIVINE INTELLECT, an unnatural birth of thought, almost an amphibium between being and non-being' [implying Max Tegmark's 'mind of god', entangling man and god-SMNH].
The "DIVINE INTELLECT" thanks you, I'm sure, Naimul, for the all caps SHOUT OUT... He (It?) may have been feeling, temporarily, a little insecure or something, and thus, probably appreciates your much needed, [in Western tradition, at least] categorically imperative attention.
@@frederickj.7136 The western tradition holds accident or luck got us here (not at all convincing) and are in denial that even atheists think of intelligent design all the time and often wonder how we are genetically programmed to seek him/her/it out. The answer could easily found if you seek how we win millions of lotteries over billions of years, in a row.
I wonder what drives the western imperative attention and why?
You can't separate space and time. They are part of the same thing, Space Time. I like your definition of space, but don't think I agree with your definition of what time is... I would argue that our BRAIN is actually what turns 'time' into a sequential process of how we currently experience it
THERE IS NEVER "ART" ON THIS CHANNEL.
Scientists and low level science philosophers (I don't recall any reputed philosopher, Ziizek is half philosopher , half redudndant self-promoter). 95% "hard" scientists, the rest mediocre philosophers, very few sociologists, no artists.
Why the name? I resent when institutions are so pretentious, disregarding and ignoring entire fields of human activity.
First male speaker says time has two definitions but Physicists meaning for time does not include past present and future , he actually gives no definition , just what it is not
That's simple because we don't know what time actually is, only what it isn't!
@@AntoinMhicArtain It's a construct - without the linking of each and every moment into a man made timeline - what do we have? - life just goes on moment to moment
If humans didn't exist will we still have space and time?