Love the Growing block theory of time, really love this one, It does focus on the knowledge of every and each one human in the present moment. The more we know about the past, the more we can predict the future, the bigger the block, our awareness in this exact moment.
very cool how you did video of the computer in the overall video, brady. I've been trying to imagine how you made it fit so well! it's trippy, like a paradox
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” - Richard Feynman
Excellent video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive: objective, Imperceptible and measurable.
I think of time as being a brain strategy for reducing complexity. In physics, the maths has evolved to describe what we observe, at very high and low levels, in recordings made using external apparatus. At the human observation level, time is chunked: a) Music notation consists of dots that carry packets of information. (We also chunk the peaks in the wave-forms displayed in video editors.) b) There is a lower limit to the durations we can observe directly. I think we're a long way from understanding the relation between brains and time... Has a lot to do with memory and AI, of course.
Is this yet another Brady-Channel I stumbled across? WOW! Brady, you're amazing, keeping all this up. I hope you're still getting enough time to sleep and socialize. ;)
If the exact present is simply an iteration of the arrangement of particles in this universe that exists in this instant, then the past - depending on when you choose to focus - is simply a record or description of that iteration. That record or description of the arrangement of particles at that "time" (history) no longer exists in that exact iteration.. that is to say the particles still exist, just no longer existing in that exact arrangement. The same can be said for the future.
Nope, just watched the Documentary-style show "How the Universe Works" yesterday. They've got some very reputable theoretical physicists explaining concepts. It's very good. It's free on Netflix if you have that. It's the first episode.
zen is about enjoying life the fullest, living in the moment, feeling each sensation as much as you can, and spontaneously letting them all meld together to form a beautiful whole, beyond the realm of thought, by grounding ourselves in the senses, we push out ideation and return to the still mind, just feeling, this is zen. opens our eyes to the wonders of what is always around us, prevents us from always seeing something the same way. zen the philosophy of the present moment
I liked the block theory better than some of the other ones. That's because some of those, especially the moving block, seems to assume the future exists. By that I assume they mean also that the content of the future is decided. This doesn't agree well with the current thinking on quantum mechanics. If you want a simple run down, I've got some videos on the topic.
Heya, Jonathan! I think a lot of people are interested in this subject, because of a particular Christian Apologist's Kalam argument for the existence of god, which relies upon an A-theory of time. And he puts forward an alternate interpretation of relativity - a neo-lorentzian interpretation (which includes an absolute moment), and he defends it similar to how you did, it plays to our intuitions. What role should intuitions play, in philosophical argument of time?
WAIT, I just remembered something about gravity having an effect on time. I'm not sure how all it all works but how would that affect these philosophies?
If there is present-ism dealing with the time dimension, is there also here-ism dealing with the 3 space dimensions? I.e. the claim that there is no there or elsewhere but only the position I am currently occupying?
saying that a theory is strong because it's intuitive while the other theory is week because it's counter-intuitive is a very week argument. Our intuition is based on our daily experiences and it has nothing special to it to. Quantum theory and even the general and special theory of relativity are in many ways very counter-intuitive, yet this doesn't make them weak in any way.
+Ali Ismail evolutionary pressures have ingrained in our brains a very "real" point of perspective, which is a rather narcissistic one. it's nothing bad with it, because it's just how nature manifested in creating us and our way of seeing/thinking things. this was "programmed" by countless interactions with the environment, from the first primitive nervous system to our current situation. but it's not adequate for seeing the "truth", and some philosophers say that seeing things as they are can never be reached by a limited system; also finite things, such ourselves, can never obtain "a view from nowhere", meaning an impartial and all encompassing view. but nonetheless we are highly puerile when it comes to our doubt of the scientific endeavour; for how many more times must science prove itself before we all recognise it's worth !? it was perfectly clear the earth is round, clear that we are the centre of creation and very different from animals and plants which were solely made for our enjoyment, clear that the sun revolves around us along with all the universe, clear that we live in 3d space that evolves with time... and the new big NO NO the existence of a self-substance. we were thrown of from our high horses so many times but our socially-invented egos still insist on their folk-understanding common sense. today we see the earth being round is such a natural thing, as is evolution, but centuries back we would had convulsed and raged and burned the heretics who would dare say such things. in the same way tomorrow folks would understand the illusion of self in such a natural and benign way that our todays convulsions and depressions would seem infantile
***** you're right about your historical facts, the rest is conjecture without any consistent logic. if a few brilliant individuals realised some things that does't mean humanity was smarter, or as smart as it is today :))
this along with quantum mech, and other hypothises describing discrete plank time points to this exact interpretation as I suggest. In fact it is the only way one can make sense of the constancy of the speed of light to my mind. Like a subroutine in a program can only be updated at the native bus frequency maximum. So to do we find the is a maximum rate at which our configurations can occur, and that it is possible to be lower priority subroutine only updated less frequently.
Well I have two views simingly opposing, but I see them a complementary. The first is the scientific view, time is a dimension (like up or down) but a special one in which you can only move in one direction dictated by the second law of thermodynamics. And that together with some other scientific principles (like constancy of speed of light) explains most of whats happening and creates special theory of relativity. The second is the philosofical view. Time is one of the ways an individual percieves the world around him/her. Like the touch or hearing, you have a sense of time, as the order of which these senations occured. Because of the momentaneous structure of senses, you can only percieve present things, so you only live in the present and, for you, past and future (such as stuff you can't percieve, like what's happening on the other side of the globe) do not exist. So everyone will have a completely different perception of time, based on where they are, and the things that are real and are not from my point of view are different from everyone else's.
Could the wave particle duality of light be acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer? In this theory the physics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual within our own ref-frame! Time is an emergent property with the future coming into existence photon by photon relative to the actions of the atoms.
if you think of the 4 spacial dimensions adding movement as time, an object like a black hole stops dead in direction 4 while still moving in the other 3 spacial dimesions, creating an ever growing gravity well around it. objects in the well but not past the event horizon are 4 directionally distorted, including any clocks with them, they move slower relative to those outside the gravity well.
I would think that telling people you work in nearly any academic field would be a conversation killer. People don't want to talk about ideas or abstract notions. They want to talk about people or things or events. People that talk about ideas are intellectuals, which they inherently believe to be bad people and who they definitely do not want to emulate.
If the reality of subatomic particles being measured in units of Planck time, how can you determine the period representing the present. The truth of the matter both the A , B , theories which support a instance, representing the present are redundant as this period is measured in Planck time intervals of approximately 5.39 × 10 −44 sec.
Does B-Theory of time allow for free will? If a specific future event exists then everything we do in the present must lead to the already existing specific future event.
2:20 I half expected you to say time is like a "Big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff" Partly do to context, and partly due to you reminding me of David Tennant (The accent, the spiky hair, the glasses, etc)
I would have loved to have viewed this, but the irritating camerawork makes it unwatchable. Why is that after all this time, film-makers are still using the irritating jerky style we first saw in NYPD Blues and which lost its novelty after two minutes?
Time is a multidimensional structure that encompasses all possible values of the physical dimensions. One way to look at it: every possible interaction and outcome already exists, but the version of events you percieve has not been determined. The perceived passage of time is your frame of reference moving through this multi-dimensional time structure, and "viewing" or "experiencing" the particular sequence of combinations that seem to exist at those points. I believe this satisfies most issues.
Brady can i give you a couple of books for this bloke? When he says he would love to hear air tight useful philosophical arguments I immediately thought of Ludwig Von Mises. You should recommend his books Human Action, Epistemological Problems of Economics, Theory and History, and The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. He'll LOVE the last one. It's an essay on the relationship between logic and positivist applications.
By the way, I meant that sincerely. It really is one of my favorite subjects. For me, it would be quite a bit more of a conversation maker...than killer.
Occam's razor is about the simplicity of the explanation, not of the stuff being explained. It is simpler to say all possibilities exist and we are limited to observing just the possibility we are part of, than to have all sorts of crazy rules about the collapse of possibilities and paranormal-ish interactions between the observer and reality.
the ultimate comment or answer is in the post from "pillar". Everything becomes right when we take "time" for what it is: just an abstraction. "pillar" , if you are interested in knowing how right you are, google up "quanto-geometry". You will see how for the first time the physical constants such as speed of light, gravity, planck constant, fine structure constant, etc are all derived from first principle (possible only when time is taken out of the equation as an abstraction )
When you think of the universe as a computer and concious observers as software programs (agents) running inside this computer, you get an interesting model, which allows you to analyse all sorts of questions in a very structured manner using simple metaphors. - What we call "the present" is the current content of the computer's memory. The steady computation of "reality", means the machine will have to update the state of its memory (particles, energy, spacetime etc.). The result of this update process is what we perceive as (elapsing) time. - The term "exist" can be simply defined as a piece of information which is (resp. was) contained in the computer's memory. - The frequency of this update process is not known. It is not known if there are intervals, between which the state of memory is static, "frozen" (discrete vs. continuous function). - There may be one or several (relativistic or non-relativistic) clock generator(s) built into the computer or coming from outside. The same applies to the clock of each software agent (observer) running inside the computer. - The future can be divided into those memory states reachable by a certain way of computation and those unreachable. Same applies when "undoing" the computation, going from present to past. Better knowledge of the rules governing the machine/software will allow more precise predictions. A few time-unrelated, but interesting questions: - Will the computation ever end? - Are concious observers fully computed inside the universe or is there more to them? - Is it a deterministic machine? / Is there randomness? - Where did the software come from? Does it change over time?
DarkSkay Your model is flawed in that it does not take into account the relativity of simultaneity. There is no universal present "state", which events occur simultaneously is entirely dependent on your frame of reference.
codebolt The model itself does not have to live in a certain frame of reference (after all it creates them). And e.g. the perceptions of simultaneity of the model's agents are irrelevant for the model's consistency. Depending on the concrete model you chose, it can have a privileged access to, interpretation and control of e.g. space, time and particle locations, while the agents inside it (like us) don't. Then again, the model "reality as a computer" is powerful as a metaphor, e.g. "the computer running our world is not located on Saturn" / "software applications have a different 'perception' of the computer, than the operating system". Two simple sentences related to above paragraphs. The deeper the immersion into the philosophical details, the more useful this metaphor seems to become.
I believe that time and existence is like the unstoppable force and the immovable object argument. The Universe was stuck in a timeless existence and then a time field began to pass through it. All matter was locked in a 308,000 light year wide orb. When the time field hit it, the matter exploded and began to move. Now, it is still moving, but not at the same rate as things are farther apart, meaning the time field looks like a comet, where it is skewed towards the origin. Any objections?
I made a mistake... I said "The of course could represent speeds very close to light speed itself because the graphs would be skewed too much." I meant "TheY of course could NOT represent speeds very close to light speed itself because the graphs would be skewed too much."
I'm not against science or knowledge, it's just that I like it to be something practical that we actually benefit from, so if they can work their way around this time theory to make something useful that would be awesome
There are physicists who are also philosophers and philosophers who are also physicists. I've met several. The thing is, each discipline is so specialized generally collaboration rather than all-in-one packaging is more common. Philosophers generally DO know what physicists say and they respect that. Nonetheless, physicists can't answer all the questions when which theory is correct largely depends not on empirical result but theoretical consistency.
What interests me, is how these theories come to be, in the first place. I think a big part of why these theories exist is the fact that the speed of light is such a high velocity the we do not have the brain capacity to "think about it". But it's just a movement. One particle moving from one place to another, the fact that time seems to "slow down" when we approach higher speeds is just the fact the we humans, clocks and electrical circuits are "poorly designed", with a lot of movement in it...
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of time as a physical process! Based on just two postulates: 1 The quantum w-particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon. 2 Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
Space and time are equivalent. Have you ever heard the phrase in sci-fi "Space-time continuum?" What they're referring to is that space and time are the same thing. Matter's experience of time is related to its motion but matter itself isn't liked to time/space, it just moves through it. So if something adjusts it's speed not only is it moving through space at a different rate but also through time at a different rate. But when gravity is bending space-time it too alters the flow of time.
... while the modern conception of "spacetime" includes a time element at times referred to as a "dimension" to ease comprehension, it is clearly not directly analogous to Euclidean dimensions, and "spacetime" is clearly its own thing, quite different from the original dimensional concept of space. see "Minkowski space".
10 ปีที่แล้ว +1
Did somebody else noticed Temporal Logic stuff on his whiteboard? LTL operators I guess... :)
That is actually a well-formed argument, but then one could also argue that time is a measure of iterative change in this movement. Therefore we could say that at any point in time, time has "stopped". Therefore, time has always stopped. This could also be put into "how far down can we measure lengths of time?"
it is an interesting video but one thing gonna ask before talking with so many ideas, who really creates time or we just simply following the ideas of past,present and future
@SebastianMisch I'll try again I guess? I'm saying that time is not simply "a device", this has been proven, and it was done by measuring time in different locations. I've answered all the questions you asked, what makes you think I ignored you?
Ultimately, it doesn't even matter if time was before, or how long it has been. Regardlessly we "measure" time, the way and from the point that we find suitable for our own purposes. What i'm trying to say is that we we'll not be able to comprehend time unless our consciousness becomes "timeless". Before that, our own subjective perception of time will remain to act as some "brake" to hold us from comprehending what time is.
Is this what high calibre philosophers say? I assumed it was more complicated, I have spent all my time with the fear of someone knowing something that would overwhelm me with thoughts....
another version of presentism, time is the measure of changing relationships among objects. However objects exist in atleast 5 dimensions of spacetime. we can see the effects of this fourth spacial direction around objects like the sun when light bends around it and shows us stars that are behind it. the clock is actually just an set of objects that repeat a motion that is countable and so its not a universal but changes depending on where that clock is relative to what it is measuring.
i dont know either way is the time a standard to measure space or a space is relative standard or time doznt exist its only space or this is two names for single phenomena
oooh! I love the philosophy of time! Here's a question, if I have an orange right now, and it doesn't exist in the future. What happens one second later - this orange did not exist previously. It has stopped not existing, and started existing. Is this logically possible?
You can probably get around this argument, but it just seems to be an quantum mechanical effect to me, that moving an atom at high speeds, influence the speed at which the electron in said atom moves, to conserve momentum. At higher speeds, higher effect. The reduced "internal" speed of the electron in the atom effects the relative local speed of light, thus, reducing the "speed at wich time passes". Does this change WHEN something happend in the universe? Not in my oppinion :)
@badblueman you know, this is the exact argument that i kept coming up with as i was learning the TOR. I suppose you could choose a fundamental time frame, but you'd have to pick one arbitrarily. first thing that comes to mind is the time frame of empty space with one standing still. now thats all fine and dandy when it comes to the occurrence of "events" - u can argue that events actually occur at a present time based on some defined fundamental reference frame....(to be continued)
This is an invitation to see an artist theory of the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. In this theory the wave particle duality of light be acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer! The spontaneous absorption and emission of light is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual within our own ref-frame! Time is an emergent property with the future coming into existence photon by photon relative to the actions of the atoms.
@SebastianMisch @sinprelic By measuring time at two different locations it can be shown that time flows faster in some places that it does others. And the speed of time is related to mass. So time flows faster on earth than it does in space.
Yes. I like to think of time as a concept. As far as existing, its not a materialistic object. However, an idea does not have to pertain in the state of matter to exist.
My theory is just taking the anthropic principle one step further: an oversimplified analogy would be how even though a series of rolls of dice produce random results we still accept as true that 6 comes after 5, which comes after 4, which comes after 3, which comes after 2, which comes after 1. . Time only seems to flow 'cause that is how our brains interpret it. . We should still study the patterns of nature 'cause so far that seems to have been useful, but they aren't the ultimate truth.
Interesting video! This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light & time Based on just two postulates 1 The quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself with the future unfolding photon by photon. 2 Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual
But wait, Einstein didn't really say that simultaneity didn't exist, but that simultaneity was a concept that didn't make sense when different frames of reference were introduced, right? In other words, simultaneity is valid for two observers in the same frame of reference. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
The future in our "time" frame would be a description of the arrangement of particles in the universe that our present iteration would be leading to. The future would be an approximation if predicted from our "time" frame, but would be an accurate description if it is an observation from a past iteration of a more recent iteration. The future is dependent on your frame of reference.
I'm a C-theorist, whereby everything was; everything is everything including nothing while everything and nothing already was, already is, nothing changes but our awareness of what was.
Quickie response: The philosophical implications of time are that your decisions and behavior have consequences. Or, there is cause and effect and your sense of self interacts with cause and effect in such a way that you have experiences of fear/anticipation and regret/pride. No time: no fear/anticipation or regret/pride.
Have you ever considered the possibility that time is the medium through which objects pass through? Objects moving toward the singularity of a black hole will pass through time faster than those outside of its reach.
@sinprelic The numbers are sentence numbers, chronologically: 1) Evidence for this first sentence? 2) So what? You're ignoring my point about you contradicting yourself. 3) I didn't misunderstand at all, science may or may not build on philosophy. What you've misunderstood is that you're going to have to explain the significance of that. 4) I actually want to go into science, specifically physics.
"Thats cool and all but I was just asking what time it is"
th-cam.com/video/nTj71SgkAPA/w-d-xo.html⌛🧠
- It's NOW
0 Time 1 Timing, a b c 1 2 3 010 Creation Evolution-Entropy
Brady: "what time is it?"
Professor: "i reckon it's the present"
I need some time
It takes time to understand time.
It does but that's because " time is the time time takes to time time."
Dennis De Jong.
This is exactly the kind of videos I want to see in this channel! Great job!
At first the cuts to the timeline were annoying, but then I realized how poetic it was. Very nice.
I love the idea and incorporation of a film of the film! Great effect!
Interesting, enjoyable and shareable! Thank you. Look forward to more.
Love the Growing block theory of time, really love this one,
It does focus on the knowledge of every and each one human in the present moment. The more we know about the past, the more we can predict the future, the bigger the block, our awareness in this exact moment.
very cool how you did video of the computer in the overall video, brady. I've been trying to imagine how you made it fit so well! it's trippy, like a paradox
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” - Richard Feynman
Excellent video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive: objective, Imperceptible and measurable.
So, if i watched this same video an hour after you did, would this video not exist and would i then be "creating" it?
I think of time as being a brain strategy for reducing complexity.
In physics, the maths has evolved to describe what we observe, at very high and low levels, in recordings made using external apparatus.
At the human observation level, time is chunked:
a) Music notation consists of dots that carry packets of information. (We also chunk the peaks in the wave-forms displayed in video editors.)
b) There is a lower limit to the durations we can observe directly.
I think we're a long way from understanding the relation between brains and time... Has a lot to do with memory and AI, of course.
FASCINATING thank you
Is this yet another Brady-Channel I stumbled across? WOW! Brady, you're amazing, keeping all this up. I hope you're still getting enough time to sleep and socialize. ;)
If the exact present is simply an iteration of the arrangement of particles in this universe that exists in this instant, then the past - depending on when you choose to focus - is simply a record or description of that iteration. That record or description of the arrangement of particles at that "time" (history) no longer exists in that exact iteration.. that is to say the particles still exist, just no longer existing in that exact arrangement. The same can be said for the future.
Nope, just watched the Documentary-style show "How the Universe Works" yesterday. They've got some very reputable theoretical physicists explaining concepts. It's very good.
It's free on Netflix if you have that. It's the first episode.
Thank you.
zen is about enjoying life the fullest, living in the moment, feeling each sensation as much as you can, and spontaneously letting them all meld together to form a beautiful whole, beyond the realm of thought, by grounding ourselves in the senses, we push out ideation and return to the still mind, just feeling, this is zen. opens our eyes to the wonders of what is always around us, prevents us from always seeing something the same way. zen the philosophy of the present moment
I liked the block theory better than some of the other ones. That's because some of those, especially the moving block, seems to assume the future exists. By that I assume they mean also that the content of the future is decided. This doesn't agree well with the current thinking on quantum mechanics. If you want a simple run down, I've got some videos on the topic.
And then there's the C theory, which postulates a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
yay!
thats not a theory, thats a working modell :D
Yeah, but does it actually work? ;D
just ask the Doctor when next time he visit you, to visit you earler on the same day, you know empirical evidence
But you have to tell him that he did visit you earlier. Otherwise you break time.
Haha, that last part got me!
Thank you, for making me smile. :)
i just found my new favorite channel
Heya, Jonathan!
I think a lot of people are interested in this subject, because of a particular Christian Apologist's Kalam argument for the existence of god, which relies upon an A-theory of time. And he puts forward an alternate interpretation of relativity - a neo-lorentzian interpretation (which includes an absolute moment), and he defends it similar to how you did, it plays to our intuitions.
What role should intuitions play, in philosophical argument of time?
Interesting use of your editing software as an illustration of presentism. Nice one Centurion, like it like it.
You just made my day! ^^
WAIT, I just remembered something about gravity having an effect on time. I'm not sure how all it all works but how would that affect these philosophies?
But how would you take continuous genetic changes into account to fit your presentist view?
Thank you for the video! :-)
please upload more to this channel, and also more videos on logic and free will.
If there is present-ism dealing with the time dimension, is there also here-ism dealing with the 3 space dimensions?
I.e. the claim that there is no there or elsewhere but only the position I am currently occupying?
My modified version does that. It is necessary to comply with relativity and quantum theory as I argue.
saying that a theory is strong because it's intuitive while the other theory is week because it's counter-intuitive is a very week argument. Our intuition is based on our daily experiences and it has nothing special to it to. Quantum theory and even the general and special theory of relativity are in many ways very counter-intuitive, yet this doesn't make them weak in any way.
exactly what i thought and wanted to comment
+Ali Ismail evolutionary pressures have ingrained in our brains a very "real" point of perspective, which is a rather narcissistic one. it's nothing bad with it, because it's just how nature manifested in creating us and our way of seeing/thinking things. this was "programmed" by countless interactions with the environment, from the first primitive nervous system to our current situation. but it's not adequate for seeing the "truth", and some philosophers say that seeing things as they are can never be reached by a limited system; also finite things, such ourselves, can never obtain "a view from nowhere", meaning an impartial and all encompassing view. but nonetheless we are highly puerile when it comes to our doubt of the scientific endeavour; for how many more times must science prove itself before we all recognise it's worth !? it was perfectly clear the earth is round, clear that we are the centre of creation and very different from animals and plants which were solely made for our enjoyment, clear that the sun revolves around us along with all the universe, clear that we live in 3d space that evolves with time... and the new big NO NO the existence of a self-substance. we were thrown of from our high horses so many times but our socially-invented egos still insist on their folk-understanding common sense. today we see the earth being round is such a natural thing, as is evolution, but centuries back we would had convulsed and raged and burned the heretics who would dare say such things. in the same way tomorrow folks would understand the illusion of self in such a natural and benign way that our todays convulsions and depressions would seem infantile
***** you're right about your historical facts, the rest is conjecture without any consistent logic. if a few brilliant individuals realised some things that does't mean humanity was smarter, or as smart as it is today :))
ByRTD yO That is observation and not intuition. Calm down boy.
Allen Walker That’s the point. Temporal change can be observed, its fact.
this along with quantum mech, and other hypothises describing discrete plank time points to this exact interpretation as I suggest. In fact it is the only way one can make sense of the constancy of the speed of light to my mind. Like a subroutine in a program can only be updated at the native bus frequency maximum. So to do we find the is a maximum rate at which our configurations can occur, and that it is possible to be lower priority subroutine only updated less frequently.
Interesting. I've only started to become interested in philosophy. I do need to read more of it.
Awesome video and with the authority as the first commenter I'd like to suggest a video on the philosophy of ethnicity and individuality.
Perhaps more dialogue with Eastern philosophies, which gets largely ignored by western philosophical and academic discussions, might be enlightening.
whoa... well there's something to think about. o_o
thanks for the explanation! :D
Well I have two views simingly opposing, but I see them a complementary.
The first is the scientific view, time is a dimension (like up or down) but a special one in which you can only move in one direction dictated by the second law of thermodynamics. And that together with some other scientific principles (like constancy of speed of light) explains most of whats happening and creates special theory of relativity.
The second is the philosofical view. Time is one of the ways an individual percieves the world around him/her. Like the touch or hearing, you have a sense of time, as the order of which these senations occured. Because of the momentaneous structure of senses, you can only percieve present things, so you only live in the present and, for you, past and future (such as stuff you can't percieve, like what's happening on the other side of the globe) do not exist. So everyone will have a completely different perception of time, based on where they are, and the things that are real and are not from my point of view are different from everyone else's.
Could the wave particle duality of light be acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer? In this theory the physics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual within our own ref-frame! Time is an emergent property with the future coming into existence photon by photon relative to the actions of the atoms.
if you think of the 4 spacial dimensions adding movement as time, an object like a black hole stops dead in direction 4 while still moving in the other 3 spacial dimesions, creating an ever growing gravity well around it. objects in the well but not past the event horizon are 4 directionally distorted, including any clocks with them, they move slower relative to those outside the gravity well.
I would think that telling people you work in nearly any academic field would be a conversation killer. People don't want to talk about ideas or abstract notions. They want to talk about people or things or events. People that talk about ideas are intellectuals, which they inherently believe to be bad people and who they definitely do not want to emulate.
ergo if energy is quantised than time is also or not ?
If the reality of subatomic particles being measured in units of Planck time, how can you determine the period representing the present.
The truth of the matter both the A , B , theories which support a instance, representing the present are redundant as this period is measured in Planck
time intervals of approximately 5.39 × 10 −44 sec.
Please do more videos among this field. I mean more scientific or psychological or very vague philosophy's
Does B-Theory of time allow for free will? If a specific future event exists then everything we do in the present must lead to the already existing specific future event.
2:20
I half expected you to say time is like a "Big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff"
Partly do to context, and partly due to you reminding me of David Tennant (The accent, the spiky hair, the glasses, etc)
Do you do your video editing on a CRT?
He's doing a camcorder let's play of his video.
Okay... time to do some further research on this, because this sounds really interesting.
I would have loved to have viewed this, but the irritating camerawork makes it unwatchable.
Why is that after all this time, film-makers are still using the irritating jerky style we first saw in NYPD Blues and which lost its novelty after two minutes?
just listen to it dude omg how dramatic are you
Those are Brady's form of art
He's ahead of his time
Answering question that no one asks, LIKE A BOSS
Time is a multidimensional structure that encompasses all possible values of the physical dimensions. One way to look at it: every possible interaction and outcome already exists, but the version of events you percieve has not been determined.
The perceived passage of time is your frame of reference moving through this multi-dimensional time structure, and "viewing" or "experiencing" the particular sequence of combinations that seem to exist at those points. I believe this satisfies most issues.
Brady can i give you a couple of books for this bloke? When he says he would love to hear air tight useful philosophical arguments I immediately thought of Ludwig Von Mises. You should recommend his books Human Action, Epistemological Problems of Economics, Theory and History, and The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. He'll LOVE the last one. It's an essay on the relationship between logic and positivist applications.
By the way, I meant that sincerely. It really is one of my favorite subjects. For me, it would be quite a bit more of a conversation maker...than killer.
Occam's razor is about the simplicity of the explanation, not of the stuff being explained.
It is simpler to say all possibilities exist and we are limited to observing just the possibility we are part of, than to have all sorts of crazy rules about the collapse of possibilities and paranormal-ish interactions between the observer and reality.
the ultimate comment or answer is in the post from "pillar". Everything becomes right when we take "time" for what it is: just an abstraction. "pillar" , if you are interested in knowing how right you are, google up "quanto-geometry". You will see how for the first time the physical constants such as speed of light, gravity, planck constant, fine structure constant, etc are all derived from first principle (possible only when time is taken out of the equation as an abstraction
)
At what 'time' did the event happen then?
When you think of the universe as a computer and concious observers as software programs (agents) running inside this computer, you get an interesting model, which allows you to analyse all sorts of questions in a very structured manner using simple metaphors.
- What we call "the present" is the current content of the computer's memory. The steady computation of "reality", means the machine will have to update the state of its memory (particles, energy, spacetime etc.). The result of this update process is what we perceive as (elapsing) time.
- The term "exist" can be simply defined as a piece of information which is (resp. was) contained in the computer's memory.
- The frequency of this update process is not known. It is not known if there are intervals, between which the state of memory is static, "frozen" (discrete vs. continuous function).
- There may be one or several (relativistic or non-relativistic) clock generator(s) built into the computer or coming from outside. The same applies to the clock of each software agent (observer) running inside the computer.
- The future can be divided into those memory states reachable by a certain way of computation and those unreachable. Same applies when "undoing" the computation, going from present to past. Better knowledge of the rules governing the machine/software will allow more precise predictions.
A few time-unrelated, but interesting questions:
- Will the computation ever end?
- Are concious observers fully computed inside the universe or is there more to them?
- Is it a deterministic machine? / Is there randomness?
- Where did the software come from? Does it change over time?
DarkSkay Your model is flawed in that it does not take into account the relativity of simultaneity. There is no universal present "state", which events occur simultaneously is entirely dependent on your frame of reference.
codebolt The model itself does not have to live in a certain frame of reference (after all it creates them). And e.g. the perceptions of simultaneity of the model's agents are irrelevant for the model's consistency.
Depending on the concrete model you chose, it can have a privileged access to, interpretation and control of e.g. space, time and particle locations, while the agents inside it (like us) don't.
Then again, the model "reality as a computer" is powerful as a metaphor, e.g. "the computer running our world is not located on Saturn" / "software applications have a different 'perception' of the computer, than the operating system". Two simple sentences related to above paragraphs.
The deeper the immersion into the philosophical details, the more useful this metaphor seems to become.
Could it not be a list of timelines relative yep each persons perspective and and the line is infant a slope with the point travelling through it
I believe that time and existence is like the unstoppable force and the immovable object argument.
The Universe was stuck in a timeless existence and then a time field began to pass through it. All matter was locked in a 308,000 light year wide orb. When the time field hit it, the matter exploded and began to move. Now, it is still moving, but not at the same rate as things are farther apart, meaning the time field looks like a comet, where it is skewed towards the origin.
Any objections?
This is very interesting and you're very smart :3 Thank you for this Mr. Tallant (ironic last name XD)
@Whanau Paitai. What if that record of the past exists in your mind??
I made a mistake...
I said "The of course could represent speeds very close to light speed itself because the graphs would be skewed too much."
I meant "TheY of course could NOT represent speeds very close to light speed itself because the graphs would be skewed too much."
I'm not against science or knowledge, it's just that I like it to be something practical that we actually benefit from, so if they can work their way around this time theory to make something useful that would be awesome
Liked for the editing.
There are physicists who are also philosophers and philosophers who are also physicists. I've met several. The thing is, each discipline is so specialized generally collaboration rather than all-in-one packaging is more common. Philosophers generally DO know what physicists say and they respect that. Nonetheless, physicists can't answer all the questions when which theory is correct largely depends not on empirical result but theoretical consistency.
What interests me, is how these theories come to be, in the first place. I think a big part of why these theories exist is the fact that the speed of light is such a high velocity the we do not have the brain capacity to "think about it". But it's just a movement. One particle moving from one place to another, the fact that time seems to "slow down" when we approach higher speeds is just the fact the we humans, clocks and electrical circuits are "poorly designed", with a lot of movement in it...
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of time as a physical process!
Based on just two postulates:
1 The quantum w-particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon.
2 Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
Space and time are equivalent. Have you ever heard the phrase in sci-fi "Space-time continuum?" What they're referring to is that space and time are the same thing. Matter's experience of time is related to its motion but matter itself isn't liked to time/space, it just moves through it. So if something adjusts it's speed not only is it moving through space at a different rate but also through time at a different rate. But when gravity is bending space-time it too alters the flow of time.
I agree. We are all aware that time passes as we watch the video. Great content nonetheless.
... while the modern conception of "spacetime" includes a time element at times referred to as a "dimension" to ease comprehension, it is clearly not directly analogous to Euclidean dimensions, and "spacetime" is clearly its own thing, quite different from the original dimensional concept of space. see "Minkowski space".
Did somebody else noticed Temporal Logic stuff on his whiteboard? LTL operators I guess... :)
That is actually a well-formed argument, but then one could also argue that time is a measure of iterative change in this movement. Therefore we could say that at any point in time, time has "stopped". Therefore, time has always stopped. This could also be put into "how far down can we measure lengths of time?"
"Hey, why weren't those explosions simultaneous? Fucking lag."
Bit harsh! It's good that he's doing all these projects and still finding time to be creative. Thanks Brady :)
how fast is time?
Why would whether or not you like a theory have any affect on whether or not you think it is true?
it is an interesting video but one thing gonna ask before talking with so many ideas, who really creates time or we just simply following the ideas of past,present and future
@SebastianMisch I'll try again I guess?
I'm saying that time is not simply "a device", this has been proven, and it was done by measuring time in different locations. I've answered all the questions you asked, what makes you think I ignored you?
Ultimately, it doesn't even matter if time was before, or how long it has been. Regardlessly we "measure" time, the way and from the point that we find suitable for our own purposes. What i'm trying to say is that we we'll not be able to comprehend time unless our consciousness becomes "timeless". Before that, our own subjective perception of time will remain to act as some "brake" to hold us from comprehending what time is.
Is this what high calibre philosophers say? I assumed it was more complicated, I have spent all my time with the fear of someone knowing something that would overwhelm me with thoughts....
another version of presentism, time is the measure of changing relationships among objects. However objects exist in atleast 5 dimensions of spacetime. we can see the effects of this fourth spacial direction around objects like the sun when light bends around it and shows us stars that are behind it. the clock is actually just an set of objects that repeat a motion that is countable and so its not a universal but changes depending on where that clock is relative to what it is measuring.
Why would past and future be indistinguishable in that state?
Though I do think it didn't really work this time, maybe you could release the interview alone as extended footage...
i dont know either way is the time a standard to measure space or a space is relative standard or time doznt exist its only space or this is two names for single phenomena
oooh! I love the philosophy of time!
Here's a question, if I have an orange right now, and it doesn't exist in the future. What happens one second later - this orange did not exist previously. It has stopped not existing, and started existing. Is this logically possible?
You can probably get around this argument, but it just seems to be an quantum mechanical effect to me, that moving an atom at high speeds, influence the speed at which the electron in said atom moves, to conserve momentum. At higher speeds, higher effect. The reduced "internal" speed of the electron in the atom effects the relative local speed of light, thus, reducing the "speed at wich time passes".
Does this change WHEN something happend in the universe? Not in my oppinion :)
why is the video constantly looking at the time frame for the video! so annoying..
Because it's a visual representation of "time", derp! :P
@badblueman
you know, this is the exact argument that i kept coming up with as i was learning the TOR. I suppose you could choose a fundamental time frame, but you'd have to pick one arbitrarily. first thing that comes to mind is the time frame of empty space with one standing still. now thats all fine and dandy when it comes to the occurrence of "events" - u can argue that events actually occur at a present time based on some defined fundamental reference frame....(to be continued)
This is an invitation to see an artist theory of the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. In this theory the wave particle duality of light be acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer! The spontaneous absorption and emission of light is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual within our own ref-frame! Time is an emergent property with the future coming into existence photon by photon relative to the actions of the atoms.
@SebastianMisch @sinprelic By measuring time at two different locations it can be shown that time flows faster in some places that it does others. And the speed of time is related to mass. So time flows faster on earth than it does in space.
Yes. I like to think of time as a concept.
As far as existing, its not a materialistic object.
However, an idea does not have to pertain in the state of matter to exist.
My theory is just taking the anthropic principle one step further: an oversimplified analogy would be how even though a series of rolls of dice produce random results we still accept as true that 6 comes after 5, which comes after 4, which comes after 3, which comes after 2, which comes after 1.
.
Time only seems to flow 'cause that is how our brains interpret it.
.
We should still study the patterns of nature 'cause so far that seems to have been useful, but they aren't the ultimate truth.
Interesting video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light & time
Based on just two postulates
1 The quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself with the future unfolding photon by photon.
2 Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual
But wait, Einstein didn't really say that simultaneity didn't exist, but that simultaneity was a concept that didn't make sense when different frames of reference were introduced, right? In other words, simultaneity is valid for two observers in the same frame of reference. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
The future in our "time" frame would be a description of the arrangement of particles in the universe that our present iteration would be leading to. The future would be an approximation if predicted from our "time" frame, but would be an accurate description if it is an observation from a past iteration of a more recent iteration. The future is dependent on your frame of reference.
I'm a C-theorist, whereby everything was; everything is everything including nothing while everything and nothing already was, already is, nothing changes but our awareness of what was.
Quickie response:
The philosophical implications of time are that your decisions and behavior have consequences. Or, there is cause and effect and your sense of self interacts with cause and effect in such a way that you have experiences of fear/anticipation and regret/pride.
No time: no fear/anticipation or regret/pride.
Have you ever considered the possibility that time is the medium through which objects pass through? Objects moving toward the singularity of a black hole will pass through time faster than those outside of its reach.
@sinprelic The numbers are sentence numbers, chronologically: 1) Evidence for this first sentence? 2) So what? You're ignoring my point about you contradicting yourself. 3) I didn't misunderstand at all, science may or may not build on philosophy. What you've misunderstood is that you're going to have to explain the significance of that. 4) I actually want to go into science, specifically physics.
“Time and tide wait for no man”