Can time be stopped? For time to go into reverse would it not have to come to a stop first? Entropy times only mission. But if the arrow of time creates the chaos of entropy, and they say that planets were formed by debris over time coalescing, That would indicate that gravity out weighs time or has a larger effect on matter than time does? One of the few things the entire population of the world actually agrees upon us time,. Without societies would collapse,. Time people think they can save it, donate it, use it as a reward and a punishment, waste it, lose track of it, kill it, trade it, etc.. but the reality is, Time is non renewable and each thing is allotted only a certain amount,. When it's gone so are you,

I’ve had deja vu while having conversations with certain people. That’s the weirdest feeling of all. But part of the Bible explains it. What’s been done, will be done again. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after. Deja vu is merely a memory that is remembered, as long as you are living and breathing, you are experiencing your life as a living biological self.

Please do the night vermin/ human evolution, and the donner party episode, great stuff

CANNIBAL EDITION!!! Also the night vermin series needs to be looked into again, get up with gutsick gibbon here on youtube and do some more human evolution stuff!!!!

I feel like most of these theories are consequences of the arrow of time and not the cause. I always find every explanation for why time moves only forward to be very strange. They seem to be based on biases that only exist because we are part of that reality

There is one more, and and deeper notion about the arrow of time in fundamental physics, and has to do with the spread of quamtum entaglememt...

None of these explanations seem to explain the real cause of why time only moves forwards. All of those theories really just sound like circle loop observations to me. Just small variations of "Things happen over time, therefore time moves forwards" Entropy increases as time moves forwards, so therefore time moves forwards. Causes happen before effects when time moves forwards, therefore time moves forwards. As time moves forwards, you gain more memories of the past so therefore time moves forwards. Wave functions collapse after observations when time moves forwards so therefore time moves forwards. Very unsatisfying! Isn't it the case that IF time moved backwards, entropy would decrease? I think you should not try to explain why that can not happen by just observing that it doesn't happen while you move forwards in time.

Nr. 2 is actually not true, quantum physics proves that some effect can precede cause and black holes are not radiative, but reverse, they suck matter and energy in, so they don't expand.

Sorry to be so nit picky but... We cannot change the future. We can change what we think the future will be - but even that change is imagined. The future doesn't exist from our perspective, so any action of will that you do is an unfolding of the present moment. Also, if you take Einstein seriously, then the future already exists - we are simply not privy to it. No matter how you look at it, there is no changing of a future because any future you imagine is just that - what you imagine, because like you said we don't remember the future - it's unknown.

🤔 Our reality is not 3 dimensional. It's 4 dimensional. Because of time. 3 dimensional thinking is Newtonian. Since Einstein upgraded our understanding in physics, maybe we should upgrade our language in communication about physics. Just a thought. On that note, there aren't a few theories as to why time flows only one direction, since they haven't been sufficiently corroborated. And as such, we have a few hypotheses as to why time moves in only one direction. More precise communication with the correct terminology will make you a far better teacher as well as make your students far better at learning and able to critically think.

The basic principle of the universe is repeatlessness. Nothing exists twice. This A is not this A and you are already a different person by the time you finish reading this.

Never knew of the radiative arrow, thanks great explanation why time travel is Sci fiction. Ignoring black holes time/space anomaly and string theory of multiverses

It's not time that goes in one direction, it's us.

Our physical Reality, Stuff-side, is a Motion-Ocean, Time is the Shadow of Motion. Time do Only exist in the Consciousness, of Living Beings.

Energy doesn’t have an arrow to follow because the atom doesn’t die out… it’s going and going and… where is the entropy of the atom?

Time is not a dimension. It is the scaffolding that information participates on. That scaffolding can either be positive (expanding) or negative (contacting). Positive information participates on positive scaffolding and negative information participates on negative scaffolding. Negative information manifests when positive information passes into a black hole and crosses its time horizon, subsequent to passing the event horizon. This negative information is what some people refer to as dark matter or dark energy. It cannot be directly observed or detected because it only shares the same coordinates as we do for an instant too short to be measured. That intersection creates the reality we perceive.

David Hume.

Wild story!

The window must only break when the rock hits it except when Chuck Norris think's about breaking the window with a rock in which case the window will break before the rock hits it!

These days I tend toward idealism. I think mind is fundamental in the world, and the physical world arises from the activity of mind rather than mind arising from physical processes. And time goes the way it does because of how we form memories. Consider events A, B, and C that occur in that order. What does it mean to say that? Well, it means that when it's all said and done we have a memory of a) none of the events having happened, b) event A having happened but not B or C, c) events A and B having happened but not C, and finally d) events A, B, and C all having happened. We have no memory of B having happened but not A or C, and so on. I think that's all there is to it. And that process, being "of mind," is entirely OUTSIDE of the perceptions which we call the physical world. The fact that the microscopic laws of physics (which are really just math relations we use to model the behavior of our perceptions) can run equally well both ways is of no relevance at all. Our memories define the arrow of time. People may balk at the idea of "mind" cooking up a physical world. But I'll remind you that exactly that happens every time you dream, or when you hallucinate if you ever have. We don't regard those things as part of reality because later when we converse with other people we realize that we and we alone had that experience - it wasn't something shared by others. Reality is that set of perceptions that we have JOINTLY, or that we can readily believe could have been had jointly, if others had been present. There are even clinical cases of patients with dissociative personality disorder who had dreams in which multiple of their dissociated personalities were present. When interviewed later, each dissociated alter remembered that dream from their own point of view. So the patient's mind cooked up a physical world in which multiple separate conscious entities participated. It seems quite plausible to me that that's what the physical world is. I'll also remind you that ultimately all we have to base our science on is our perceptions. Science has no access to anything beyond those perceptions, and cannot truly know their origins. We cannot, in any way, PROVE that there "really is" an objective physical world out there, entirely separate from us and our minds, that forms the basis of our perceptions. The idealist proposal is absolutely just as plausible. Perhaps more so. Also, we know for a fact that each of us thinks, feels, and exercises free will. That's what minds do. So, if the "rest of the world" outside of all of us is in fact the residue (the non-dissociated portion) of a universal mind, then it's reasonable to suppose that quantum randomness is simply the exercise of free will by that mind. One unified mechanism then explains an awful lot. Furthermore, the idea that we are all part of a single universal consciousness offers a basis for Jung's collective unconscious, for instincts, and for many other things. Finally, one might ask why, if this is all so, we perceive the particular physical world we perceive. Why THESE laws of physics, etc. I'll refer you to the marvelous paper by Christian Baumgarten - "How To (Un-) Quantum Mechanics." In this paper Baumgarten provides a completely generic model of reality - flexible enough to model ANYTHING, including a universal mind, and demonstrates that simply by demanding the existence of a single conserved quantity the laws of physics as we know them are then REQUIRED mathematical consequences. In this case they'd just be the dynamics of some portion of the mental activity of the universal consciousness, but they'd nonetheless follow all the right patterns and the idea that they'd lead to the perceptions we wind up having is not that far-fetched. On the surface this all sounds flaky and far-fetched, but it's actually not. Especially given that we KNOW minds exist and that they feel, think, and exercise free will, and we KNOW that minds can create the perceptions of a physical world. And that we KNOW modern science has utterly and completely failed to provide a model for HOW mind can emerge from physics. If you find yourself put off by these thoughts, I invite you to spend some time considering them. Ask yourself if they're REALLY preposterous, or is it more that you've just taught yourself to reject anything that doesn't neatly fit into the mainstream view. Finally, consider that the idea of minds as fundamental is really no more "out there" than the idea of quantum fields as fundamental. No one explains what a quantum field actually is - they're simply postulated, along with the rules for their behavior. We're asked to simply accept these things, on the basis of the fact that we wind up making good predictions if we do. Well, idealism can motivate and explain all the same scientific data. You KNOW your own mind exists.

Time is simply the vibrational rate of a particle. A particle cant suddenly stop and vibrate in the other direction. To reverse time all particles and waves would have to change direction.

Yes. I've set all my GFs clocks to 15min in the past so we're always on time

Entropy *TEND* to increase, it's not a fatality. After a very long period of time, there is a good chance that entropy decreases again significantly. Which means that with time, usable energy can be "created" again. It would have been nice to mention that.

classy video!!!

Time and entropy only go in one direction for a reason. Time may be an emergent from entropy.

if you blieve the ufo scientists time goes all over the place

According to Relativity, if information can propagate faster than light, then it could be bounced off a moving body and arrive before it was sent. We present a paper just peer reviewed and accepted by the EM journal IRECAP for publication. The experiment shows an EM pulse transmitted across space with no observable time delay. EM theory is also presented showing this is expected. This experiment proves information can be transmitted instantaneously across space. So is time travel possible? This experiment shows that the speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Time and space are absolute. Only the present exists, the past is gone, and the future is yet to be. So time travel is not possible! Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *KZbin presentation of above arguments: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZazlX1tq7iErLM *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

time = relative duration You can't go back in time because you don't reverse a duration...it's just a duration. Let's stop the nonsense. Sorry Einstein. However you can increase or reduce a relative duration. Time dilation. We create a framework for time by using a repeated, consistent, cyclic action/interaction with respect to the system(s) around it. For example: we use one complete rotation of the earth on it's own axis as 1 day. we use one complete orbit of earth around the sun as a year. We use the spin of a particle or atom to give us a higher degree of accuracy and consistency. etc. All are relative duration's. Relative with respect to the systems, interactions and duration's we compare them with. I could elaborate further. I think it's unnecessary at this point. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. It would give me more knowledge. Don C.

Interesting subject , I had listened to The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli on Audio book . It still makes me pause When i think about it .

Well, entropy is overated. Gravity counterbalance entropy... Many scientists claim entropy flow only toward disorder, but it's a simplistic view, take water for example, if it loose energy it cristalize in an orderly fashion. There are many example like this. Also the big bang likely never happened, redshift is very likely cause by a relative speed of light ( look for VSL), it's more related to optics and refraction. This way you don't need expansion and dark energy, light is just time dilated. I think terminology is what is confusing, like saying time is the forth dimension. It is mathematically to calculate motion, but it's not a physical dimension. In the end Time is just a the units of measure of a sequence, and it's flow is relative to the observer point of view, affected by gravity.. or relative speed between two clocks. That being said I gave this response because I think you cannot talk about time without talking about the speed of light, that is effectively the frame of referance.

The hard part is cmb grand unified singularity of all diciplines horizon paradoxes.. These galaxies and cambrian shouldn't be stressed These nureal nodes really helps give me some more confidence in my insight ( imo) Since my ancestors eccentric movements was basically being psycholo anylized and anthromorphized by newton, to dacarte and hamiltonian I think I can compress a very hard x/z while on the photon scales while my brain is more y axis. Even deal with granting deterministic time on such subjective plank length complexities of vacuum energy etc etc etc. Watching snow on my TV at 12:01 midnight after the national anthem when all 3 channels went silent for the night sparked a billion dreams about the cmb . Lol Idk tho, and I'm not a fan of the methusela equation of lazy light trying to save it with monds if it came to that either.. I'd like to know before I go even if we learned we can never know it would be more setting I think. Lol

I always learn so much from you!!

great explanation!

😍😍😍

Awesome as always!

Love your drawings and the way you teach things!! Great KZbin channel!

😮

Crazy misdirection! I still don’t get it haha

莫爸～～～～🤣🩷🩷🩷

What's your background? This channel is all over the place. You have no channel description.

Not black is not for even 1 raven. This is logically equivalent to All ravens are black. What you said is not logically sound. Note that the opposite of all, is "not all", or equivalently "not for even 1"and "at least one not" because not"at least one not" is "all." . I assume you are not trying to trick people. (Don't do that with logic and math as an educator) "All" in this case part of the thing "all ravens" so to negate it we say "not for at least one raven" I assure you you are wrong. By your logic. If i make something of wombats i prove that all extrasolar planets aren't made of wombats. This is ridiculous sounding. But making something of wombats that is not an extrasolar planet doesn't prove all extrasolar planets not to be made of wombats. Like if i say "all tables are made of atoms". If i make a chair out of atoms, this doesn't prove all tables aren't atoms. Just as finding a chair that isn't atoms doesn't help confirm "all tables are atoms" either. Reading the comment section here is not surprising. 😅 Logic doesn't always come easy

G.E. Moore's _Here is a hand_ might be a bit easier to accept than the Raven Paradox

The History of Being Human might be my favourite podcast of all time. It's wonderful to experience you in a new format!

As a black person, it might be a bit hard 😀

"All ravens are black" is confirmed by, for example, finding a red fire hydrant. Is it self-contradictory? No. But I would argue that it is a paradox in the strictest sense you wish to define the term. It is interesting, though, that finding a red fire hydrant also confirms that ravens are blue, green, brown, etc. -- any color of raven besides red is confirmed by finding a red fire hydrant.

Interesting. This is certainly counterintuitive, but I'm not sure it is a paradox?

I wouldn't say that finding nonblack thing that is not a raven is a "confirming instance" since all it proves is that ravens can be black but not necessarily black... it definitely is one step closer but you'd need to exhaust all things in the universe to prove the original statement, and if it takes an infinite amount of sampling to prove something, then a positive sample is no confirmation-- its basically useless lol not arguing with the logic, just arguing with use of the term 'Confirming' (sorry I was a physics major in college, not a math or philosophy student...)

My takeaway from this is that finding a black raven doesn’t hold that much weight to begin with. You can spend 100 lifetimes only finding black ravens. And if a single white raven exists somewhere, all of those confirming instances led me to the wrong conclusion. This is an important idea for considering the bias inherent to our geographical and social bubbles.

No fallacy here. It only works if the first statement is a fact. And the first statement is not the same as "All black things are ravens." Not, what happens if my 5 year old draws a raven and uses a yellow crayola? She says it is a raven, and draws other birds in other colors. Is it a raven?

Yes, the false equivalency is that a positive confirming instance is equal to a negative confirming instance. In the same way as seeing a purple raven is a completely different event than seeing a black raven.