Bas van Fraassen - How Can Space and Time be the Same Thing?

[@tom-kz9pb]

The idea is not so much that space and time are the "same thing", but that they are "meshed together", similar to how the spatial directions of "North" and "West are meshed together. If you are traveling due North, then start to veer NorthWest, you are still making progress in the northerly direction, but more slowly, to the degree that you are also heading West. Similarly, to the degree that you are moving more rapidly through space, you are passing through time more slowly. This parallel is even similar in how Pythagorean theorem comes into play to calculate the change of effective pace.

[@Dhrrhee3e11a76]

This is an extremely intuitive explanation, thank you!

[@odonnelly46]

Yes, and time can be turned into space and vice versa. Similar to energy and matter equivalence.

[@bcn.spain.europe]

Af​@@Dhrrhee3e11a76

[@Levelheadcal]

At plank level, space and time reverse.

[@kennethmalafy503]

Space/ time is a "tool" we created to help us measure and the universe. Neither exists outside of that. These "tools" are great for helping us gain a basic understanding of relationships but that is all you will get. We are at the point in our understanding that we are moving past these basic models and we are being exposed to their limitations.

[@dixsusu]

Its known Chronon Field Theory in full . Maybe you have read of ......

[@terrycallow2979]

I love watching these videos closer to truth been watching these for some years now hoping to understand what the hell they are talking about. It hasn't happend yet!

[@PaulCarr1]

Just read that Van Fraassen was born in 1941. I can't believe he is 82 years old, he is incredibly youthful in manner and appearance.

[@mehridin]

biological age and "objective age" correlate within acceptable rate on average, but some individual's age is so different from other's that "objective age", or simply "a number", is not meaningful.

[@nrm55]

It must have something to do with the nature of time.

[@Benson_Bear]

Van Fraassen is definitely in good shape, but this was filmed in 2012 so he is actually only about 71 here. ETA: Actually looks like it is filmed in 2009 so he would only be 67. He appears in the same room with exactly the same closing and appearance in an episode in season 4.

[@alex-chicago-80]

One of my favorite channels on YT.

[@mabaker]

Absolutely

[@Z-bone64]

As usual, while watching these Closer to Truth videos, I'm sitting here furrowing my brow in a vain attempt to comprehend what they're talking about.

[@greyeyed123]

You just have to understand the relativity of simultaneity and it becomes clear.

[@walley2637]

as a philosopher trying to make a concept clear, he wasn't doing the best job...

[@SaltyDraws]

I thought he was saying that for him, testability is key to any discussion of the nature of space time and therefore only objects and their causal relationships should be the focus. I could be wrong ha ha

[@potato-ld1uj]

Your not alone my friend, these other comments are not helping either.

[@grahamgillard3722]

They are talking a load of rubbish. I’m tired of these experts who can’t explain anything. It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes all over again.

[@KaliFissure]

What GR indicates, but which everyone seems to ignore, is that both time and space are relative to energy density. This is the fundamental dimension. Energy density determines distance and determines distance/speed. A high gravity field is more everyday dense space. And it refracts light proportionally. Gravitational lensing.

[@huepix]

Time is not a dimension. It's a comparison of rates of change. Spacetime is the change in areas of space

[@anywallsocket]

FINALLY, bout the first guest you've had on here with his head on straight. Empiricists are sick of metaphysical blabberings. If you can't test it, it's moot. Really refreshing to see someone without their heads stuck in the idealistic clouds.

[@alexisjardines3384]

Do you really want the truth? Space and time are not independent things. But they are not the same thing as well. The only real thing is motion. Space and time are just moments of motion. (All according to Hegel) By the way, Hegel was not an empiricist.

[@ScottNYC-p8k]

these interviews are fantastic

[@spottery2k]

The issue boils down to a choice in how to think of the universe: If you approach the question thinking that man is the measure of all things, then it is perfectly natural to suppose absolute space and absolute time exist independently of observers, which is also how we tend to think of physical objects, like chairs and coffee cups. However, following the early development of classical physics, we started probing ever finer scales of size and distance, which also meant finer scales of time, until it was realized that you really couldn't talk about one without the other at the macroscopic scale, and that is why scientists routinely discuss "light-years" as a unit of distance. Something very similar happens at the microscopic scale when you start talking about chemistry and transformations. When you start talking about ever finer substances (particles/things) and how they interact (events/waves), you eventually find that you cannot discuss one without the other. space-time duality at the macro scale and wave-particle duality at the micro scale represent boundaries beyond which human understanding no longer applies.

[@milangugl]

Time is intrinsic property of change, of movement. When there is energy in a system that has a difference of potentials, energy starts moving and this process creates time. Time itself is dependant on the medium and some sort of entropy gradient throughout the system which sets its course. Time per se doesnt exist. One moment in time is a picture of the whole system with every single constituent that is connected by some force with every other constituent in that system, it's energetic blueprint of that system in a quant of time ( i'm picturing this quant of time as the smallest portion of time between wo differnt states of system). Sequence of this pictures is defined by the entropy and it defines movement of time or time flow which we can detect. New life, or life per se, is a miracle, because life beats entropy on a smaller scale, an entropy which is the ultimate ruler and killer of everything.

[@cajones9330]

Can everything be happening all at once if its infinite space ?

[@keithmetcalf5548]

That's my guy RLK! Love the Content,as always my Friend 👍👍

[@your_average_joe5781]

Time and Location are connected ✅

[@haydenwalton2766]

is a 'chair' best described as an object or as an event ?

[@your_average_joe5781]

@@haydenwalton2766 yes!

[@haydenwayne3710]

Excellent episode! Thank you, gentlemen.

[@gettaasteroid4650]

In "the Philosophy of Rigorous Science" (1911), "Philosophy," Husserl says, "is essentially a science of true beginning"

[@Ekam-Sat]

Awesome synchronicity. Just left a quote by Evelyn Underhill also from 1911 before I read yours. ♥

[@okabija1]

Time is just a concept, it is easier for us to operate in this space.. we could substitute it with something else if we could have enough power to create another concept..

[@MS-od7je]

Space-time-energy Frequency-vibration-energy Minimal surfaces-geometry

[@derndernit8275]

One aspect is, If you pressed pause on the entire Universe, every single quanta of matter and energy would be at exactly the location in space that it is. At that exact moment in time. If your fingers were magical and infinitely fast, you could un-pause and re-pause as fast as you could. And you could keep doing this. And see each piece of matter, travel it's path over a quantity of space over a quantity of time. In an equal span of space, in an equal span of time, equal and unequal objects may travel differently depending on surrounding and previous circumstances. Time is duration. Space is volume. A car can travel 100 yds in A amount of time. A horse can travel 100 yds in B amount of time. A person running can travel 100 yds in C amount of time. All of these bodies travel depend on mechanical makeup and energy expenditure. Sound waves travel 100 yds of air volume in D amount of time. There is the mechanical make up of the air medium, and the energy expended into the medium to make it wave. Light can travel 100 yds in outer space in E amount of time. There is the mechanical makeup of outer space and the energy expended onto it to make the light wave.

[@stewartquark1661]

At 4:35 this gentleman, had he known, was given an opportunity to blow the whole thing wide open

[@DarwinianUniversal]

Time is a human abstract, it is a system of arbitrary units of measurement. If somebody believes time is a real thing that exists in the world, and imposes effects and cause. Then any ideas that stems from this reasoning will be a fantasy. Time is a convention of measurement, a tool for coordinating and mapping. General Relativity is a coordinate system that employs the units of minutes and meters to define duration and distance. To map where and when objects will depart and arrive. There's a saying. "Dont mistaken the map for being the territory" and so many people including professional scientists believe that time is something real, that is an origin of causes and influence. This is no better than superstition. It distracts them from the true meaning of what General Relativity shows us about the world. What the true influences and causes are. But its hard to school the profoundly confused. They are in awe for the profound mystery of their own confusion. Where in fact the reality is a little more down to earth, but profoundly more useful

[@DarwinianUniversal]

If time is an abstract concept for measurement, and is not real of itself. And therefore cannot be assigned as cause of the properties it is tasked with measuring. then what is the cause and influencing factor of the properties it is tasked with measuring? duration and distance are units required to define velocity and acceleration. And it is natural forces that govern velocities and accelerations. General Relativity takes account of dynamic and interactive forces. GR maps the effect of forces. This is its deepest foundation that goes over everybody's heads

[@duncanwallace7760]

The only think I'd say is that some things are not testable at a point in time, but eventually someone comes up with a clever way of testing it many years later.

[@ioioiotu]

And many km further.

[@dongshengdi773]

​@@ioioiotuLIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE . Fourth smartest man in the World , physicist Edward Witten. At a 1990 cosmology conference, voted as "the smartest living physicist". … I’ve been writing a lot lately about consciousness, the ultimate enigma. I used to think why there is something rather than nothing is the ultimate enigma. But without mind, there might as well be nothing. I think consciousness will remain a mystery. Yes, that's what I tend to believe. I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent. Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness. … LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE . It is interesting to contrast Witten's thoughts with John Horgan's End of Science thesis… The end of science really is the end of the search for final causation. In that sense not just consciousness but many aspects of the world may always remain a mystery. Whether that is emotionally pleasing or disconcerting is an individual choice that each one of us has to make. (Thus, you need to respect other peoples' philosophical beliefs, be it scientific or religious/spiritual). : You should also read , by John Horgan. He makes the case that the era of truly profound scientific revelations about the universe and our place in it is over. Interviewing scientific luminaries such as Stephen Hawking, Francis Crick, and Richard Dawkins, he demonstrates that all the big questions that can be answered have been answered, as science bumps up against fundamental limits. The world cannot give us a “theory of everything,” and modern endeavors such as string theory are “ironic” and “theological” in nature, not scientific, because they are impossible to confirm. : The end of science.

[@crisismanagement]

How about "Closer to the Limits of our Understanding"?

[@ParkerGaron]

Damn lol

[@chester-chickfunt900]

Time most assuredly is directly tied to spatial coordinates. Time cannot exist without space. And vice versa. Maybe certain types of unknown gravities (e.g. black holes) break this rule. But here on the terrain, as Janice Joplin used to say, time and space are two sides of the same coin.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I've learned from a great teacher that space isn't a thing; it hasn't any properties or attributes; anything without an attribute doesn't exist. People think space itself is an attribute, and so I await the dissertation of this principle of which space is an attribute of. Space is like a shadow: it isn't a thing itself, but a lack of something(light), and too, coldness is not an attribute or quality of this 'lack' of something. Space is a lack of something and not a thing, nor has an attribute. Space does entail an antecedent and the question of how this has arisen... but persons don't want to discuss Metaphysics. Space is synonymous to shadow. Time is dependent on mass and magnitude, cyclical natures, dynamics, procession, change, life & death that is measurable; what of space is measurable. If space makes existence possible then shadows make light possible - and this is erroneous. Even if space and time are the same thing, neither are a thing of existence - unreal.

[@pjaworek6793]

"Space has no properties", like gravity waves flowing through it or virtual particles that transmit/pass along energy and other effects?

[@mack8488]

Space is needed for EVERYTHING to exist in

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@mack8488what then is this 'in', that is it's very position, that is 'in' space, and the reason behind which you circumscribe 'space' as a place or region, that all existential things are placed 'in' and exist in? You have to prove that space is an attribute first so it can be considered a thing, and explain how it is a place for things of existence. 'A shadow needs to exist for light to exist in' Relativity is no exception. Nor a default belief. Relativity is only a notion. What is the substance and principle?

[@Appleblade]

Space has 'spreadoutness' or extension (or just is extension that makes extended things possible and is an attribute of them). Vision is the only sense that entails spacial awareness, but once you've seen anything, you've also 'seen' space (it matters not whether it was hallucinated, dreamt, or 'real' space), and it's an immediate inference that 2 dimensional space is infinite in all (outward) directions (as it is impossible to imagine a limit to space once you distinguish it from the visual objects 'in' it) and then perhaps an hallucination is required to see its 3rd dimension... and then to apply the concept of identity and see that 3rd dimension as infinite, too. Although Aristotle (& others) think space (or a spatial object) is infinitely divisible, I can make no sense of that. But outward from any point, I think it's obvious space, once seen, compels belief that it is infinite in all directions. People confuse the fact that we can't perceive space without objects in space with the idea that space can't exist without a spatial object in it. They get this backward (Kant as well); nothing spatial can exist without space first (obviously), and seeing actualities entails their unique prior possibilities... the reality of the things that permit them to be (Plato's Forms do this, historically).

[@johndiss]

I think your point may be along the lines of gradients. Think in terms of temperature or velocity. You seem very close to realizing it.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

time (quantum) at E / c becomes space (classical) at c ? light (photon in electromagnetic wave) develops when time is E / c?

[@chiptowers1]

Fraassen just said it when he was explaining an event/somehting in the past, he said " at the time". That would mean at the/that time an event/something happened in that space at that time. So that would mean Space and Time are the same thing.

[@CMVMic]

I like this guy. My personal opinion is that physics provides us with a model to describe reality but reality is ontologically independent, it is prior to measurement and doesnt depend on it. So space is simply the accumulation of the smallest points of substances (energy), and time is simply change. In space, if a ball is spinning, how do we know it is spinning unless it is in relation to something else. Thus, a thing can change independent of measurement. Einsteinian view of spacetime is a good way to measure and describe reality. So he is right, physics only gets you so far. Philosophy gets you past it. The claim that empiricism is the best way to determine reality is also a philosophical claim. Space is not a container or an emergent dimension, it is inherent to substances, The universe is simply one big substance spread out in different densities. The first instance of change was the result of this totality of energy being unstable static and unified in its initial dense state/form. The Universe is curved and the Poincare Recurrence theorem allows for a causal feedback loop which will be compatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Space isnt expanding, condensed energy is accumulating through the Universe. When we pass our hand through the air it is like nothing is there but there is and when we go through space, it is like nothing is there but there is. Substance monism connects all things.

[@simonhibbs887]

The point he was making is that empiricism is not about determining reality, it’s only about describing it. IMHO he is correct, science does not give us explanations of the ‘fundamental’ phenomena. It can explain higher order phenomena in terms of lower order phenomena, so temperature in terms of particle motion, but when you get down to bedrock concepts it can only describe. I say this as a physicalist, it’s not a problem with physicalism, it’s just the reality of the situation. I think the same limitation applies to any approach to knowledge.

[@CMVMic]

@@simonhibbs887 Yes, I am agreeing with him in that regard. Empiricism is used to determine metaphysical possibilities or atleast provide descriptions and useful measurements of an objective reality. I am also a physicalist, however, I am not too sure what you mean by the same limitation applies to any approach to knowledge. Can you elaborate?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@CMVMic It’s a common criticism of science that it doesn’t explain reality, but only describes it. I think that is true. However I don’t think there is any approach to obtaining knowledge that can be any more than descriptive. So it’s not just a limitation of science, it’s a limitation of human inquiry generally. For example some people believe they receive absolute knowledge of eternal truth by divine revelation or enlightenment. I believe some people have such experiences (though others are transparent charlatans), but however they may feel about it, there is no actual way for them or us to know if they are correct or not. I would just note the fact that of those that seem the most credible in having actually had such experiences, their supposed absolute revelations of eternal truth generally directly contradict each other.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

If space is revolving it is creating time in its evolutions. The sphere of eternity slowly revolving around a cosmic center creating time in its wake.

[@klausfrezza917]

It is strange that a professor of philosophy did not mention Kant who in the Critic of Pure Reason clearly explains that time and space are A priori intuitions of our mind, and as such space-time has no material existence at all, and the absolute time and space of Newton are false as space-time is also inmaterial. This has been the fundamental discovery of Kant. The so called curvature of space-time is a mistake since what has no materiality can not be curved. That is why we still don’t know what gravity really is.

[@Ekam-Sat]

"Here, then, stands the newly awakened self: aware, for the first time, of reality, responding to that reality by deep movements of (both) love and of awe." - Evelyn Underhill

[@stephenkagan]

Do we need to examine our definitions of what is Time?

[@supamatta9207]

I always thought gravity particles was a bad idea. But if you have a radiation string that accumulates pressure through time, you need an expansionary force and a particle would be involved.

[@donaldkeyes-yp9en]

Gives precedence to " I am he that inhabits eternity"

[@blob2092]

time is seconds. For example, 1 second, 2 second, 3 second etc. We can also visualise it like this: 1 2 3. That is time. But between the number are spaces. That is space itself. If space don’t exist al the numbers, the seconds ,would be at the same time: 123. This only happens in the wormhole where the space is small by tremendous gravity. This is what Einsteins said when he invented e=mc2. So time need the space to exist, space needs time to exist. Except the wormhole, where there is the strong gravity.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

space of photon at speed of light (c) is time of electromagnetic wave at E / c?

[@mykrahmaan3408]

It is not abstract SPACE and TIME that need to be united, but PHYSICS and MATHEMATICS by identifying DIGITS as a unique type of particles with the 4 basic arithmetic operations (+ ÷ × -) as the only LAWS OF MOTION that rule their interactions, thus also eradicating the idealistic mechanism of providing "waves" apparent physical existence using mathematical formulae for describing practically verifiable phenomena. Only tangible MATTER exists, which include all our thoughts too. Perceivable universe of phenomena is 100% matter, from which it is possible to deduce existence of space with fixed Cartecian system of centers of generation of matter, as necessary, practically verifiable, assumption for sustenance of life function eternally.

[@r2c3]

7:17 since our understanding has changed overtime in small but significant values, then its absolute nature might be rightfully contested 🤔

[@quantumkath]

One entity. Space-time-energy-matter. The other STEM.

[@flux9433]

😂😂

[@Mentaculus42]

Considering that matter is just a direct consequence / variation of energy ⇔ ENERGYSPACETIME ¿¡?!

[@lonesom]

W. Somerset Maugham.."I don't think about the past, the everlasting present is all that matters". This statement sums it up. Without the "present", there is no place in which space can exist. The present is where it's at, bro. It's not science, it just "is". We're not smart enough to break it down into a scientific explanation simply because there isn't one.

[@charleswood2182]

The empirical reason hypothesized space-time is wrong is because quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance is instantaneous, as pointed out in EPR and empirically verified later. Such an event takes place outside of our conventional notion of time as flowing. As yet there is no rational explanation of entanglement's instantaneity, and it is rational to say then that there is no such thing as space-time because entanglement violates our notion of time, where time cannot instantly flow. The idea of space-time was dead in the water upon empirical verification of instantaneity in spooky action at a distance. There is no reason any longer to taut the idea of space-time as valid and that idea can be ignored in one's quest for the truth. To not ignore that fact is to get further from the truth, not closer.

[@alejandrosaez1772]

Mind creates a map (the theory or concept) and believes it to be a territory, a perception of a "thing" out there like space, matter, etc in the "universe"

[@John777Revelation]

"How Can Space and Time be the Same Thing?" "Space and Time" or Space-Time are Information within a construct which follow pre-established Universal Laws as Space-Time unfolds into existence.

[@BU_IDo]

I am often amazed that very few humans are able to comprehend things like this. Why aren’t these things intuitive to most of us? Are the people who easily follow the science and reasoning here showing signs of human evolution and the rest of us stuck in ape mode?

[@theotormon]

It's intuitive to you because you spend time thinking about it because you are interested in it. Other people are interested in other things and probably grok new ideas in their chosen paradigm more easily than you would.

[@poqqery8950]

Honestly, this stuff sounds so alien to people because people never experience anything physically moving fast enough (close to light speed) for relativistic effects to ever be seen. The closest most people will get to seeing relativistic effects is GPS, which relies on general relativity to function correctly. More than that, the simple answer why this stuff is hard to grasp is that the vast majority of people just do not know the mathematics involved. To anyone learning special and general relativity from its mathematical basis in geometry, there is nothing weird going on. All of the apparently non-intuitive behaviour of relativity just falls out naturally from the mathematics in the same way the "intuitive" results do from traditional mechanics people are familiar with. There are no strange paradoxes to anyone learning it from its mathematical foundations.

[@slickwillie9526]

I think time is the refresh cycle of the simulation. You can almost outrun it, but not quite.

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

Space and Time are both scales

[@Two_But_Not_Two]

A coin has two sides.

[@rmcgraw7943]

Without time, you would be incapable to differentiating spatial objects, as they would have no duration that differed between anything else. Without space, time could not be apprehended, as there would be no objects that exemplified temporal features, like spatial objects do. One without the other, for the sake of human reality, can not be considered as mutually exclusive emergence features of our human existence. Conceptually, abstractly, mathematically, we can address each independently, but from a physical/physics point of view, they are interlaced and dependent upon each other to enable each other’s influence upon our reality to exude their own influence upon our human spacetime reality.

[@NondescriptMammal]

They are only the "same thing" in an abstract mathematical coordinate system used to model their relationships. They are not the same thing in reality, and I thought any serious physicist understood this. Mathematics does not define reality, it describes it, and any mathematical construction that represents reality is always necessarily an abstraction of it. Whatever happened to physics as a hard, empirical science? Why are we so willing to blur the lines between hard facts and speculative interpretations nowadays?

[@stellarwind1946]

Except you can move backwards in space.

[@xXxTeenSplayer]

You can move a negative amount of meters?

[@xenphoton5833]

Can you really though?

[@johndiss]

We can only move in circles with spacetime.

[@poqqery8950]

I don't see why people are saying "but can you really move backwards in space?" Of course you can. That's exactly what moving backwards as opposed to forwards is (up to how "forwards" is defined). It's just moving along the negative direction of an axis corresponding to distance, there is nothing strange about it. It is also possible mathematically in some solutions to general relativity to move backwards in time, but they are mostly infeasible in reality according to our current understanding of the universe. Doing so requires things like a rotating universe and measurements of our universe seem to show it is not rotating.

[@stellarwind1946]

@@xXxTeenSplayeryes

[@pathologicalphilosophy1959]

Here’s the deal Reality is alive and breathes light. Light folds into things and things unfold back into light. Time folds into space and space unfolds back into time. Hahaha

[@davecurry8305]

If time collapses everything is local.

[@MrHenkfromHolland]

Bas van Faassen sounds Dutch to me. Born in Goes in the Netherlands. See his story on Wikipedia 😊

[@luvr381]

So if time is a dimension of space, then all time exists as a continuum that we experience as a wave of awareness. Wouldn't that mean that history is predetermined and we have no free will?

[@robertsouth6971]

There's nothing wrong with empiricism. There's nothing wrong with metaphysics. What is important is labeling things correctly.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

We said no to newtons absolute space but then we pretend it is when correlating time as if it was absolute Longitude and latitude time is very different notions. Become of non locality this isn't going to work thus the measurement crisis all over the place. Epochs are still the best way to talk about the world . The record of man made time and our history has been alienated in society just because of this .

[@Naidu-k8m]

Space is partly human construct. Time to humans is totally varied from natural systems. Until we look at this one important factor, we always miss a beat when trying to decipher nature's time structure. Our artificialised lives causes that effect.

[@DuaneCowell]

Ricky Lake?

[@stewartbrands]

People and objects cannot not move relative to each other.

[@usmanshahid8277]

It’s pretty obvious that our view of space/time is held back hy our current technological development. And that until we can actively work in space we won’t really understand space/time. It’s like if you put all the worlds populous in 1000 ad to work towards flying. Well you need a motor you need energy like gasoline and most importantly you need the metallurgy that can make aluminum that’s lightweight and strong enough. Without those things it doesn’t matter how smart you are or how bad you “ want it” it’s just not going to happen. Let alone commercial airplanes. Things happen deterministically and though it sounded like a Debbie downer thing to say it means that utilizing the science we have today and materials today and discussing things we can do today is the most effective way to actually solve questions like how are space/time related - when it comes it will be obvious. I love this channel but I wish he’d blunt 50% of conversations towards people working on stuff that’s being tested that’s how we move the ball forward this channel is 100% theory (which btw is totally cool) just a thought. This is a special channel

[@wolwerine777]

What if spacetime is not a thing?

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Without all the relativistic stuff, it is quite easy. If you want to meet somebody, you need x,y,z coördinates and a time.

[@odonnelly46]

Yes, but the time you meet can be in my present, my brother's past, and my sister's future, all three cases being true.

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...Please if I may point out, only man tracks time out of all creation. To what end, tracking time/space flows as a Turbulent Flow, which has Vortices and Eddie's which creates various unknowns and/or uncertainties making major unplanned incidents,respectfully, Chuck, captivus brevis, Blessings...

[@dr.pushpinderk.8242]

Rather than scientists, authentic spiritualists can give more simple and understandable explanation to this query. The visible or physical universe or realm of existence is made up of five fundamental elements ie earth, water, air, fire and the space. Amongst these elements, space is most subtler and fundamental. Time is invisible core of this visible universe, because every entity of the universe is dependent on time. Even the space depends on time, because it takes time for its expansion. Since space is infinite, so it appears to merge with time at the infinity. And hence space and time can be taken to be the same in existential terms.

[@علي-ش7ث8ب]

Destiny is a matter of faith.

[@NickGhale]

Destiny is a girl’s name

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@NickGhale *"Destiny is a girl’s name"* ... Especially if you get her pregnant.

[@mack8488]

@@NickGhale faith is a girls name too

[@mack8488]

If you have faith you dont worry about destiny

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@mack8488 *"If you have faith you dont worry about destiny"* ... You do if she's pregnant!

[@scottswan9292]

Time is what makes clocks work, that's all it is.

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

Space and time are related by a certain metric that kind of forces a conservation principle on the two together. If you say that to a physicist who specializes in Relativity, the physicist will probably say that the formulation isn't true. But it is almost true. If you have all time, then you have no space, and vise versa. In between that, you have various proportions of space and time that when manipulated by this metric that add up to a fixed quantity. It looks like and behaves very much like the extended Pythagorean Theorem, where the invariant quantity is the square of the hypotenuse. That is the fact that encompasses space-time. That is why it is treated as one thing instead of two. But how do we visualize such a thing? Well, we realize that it has something to do with motion, and motion has something to do with relative motion. It also has something to do with mass. Consider a square grid with time rising vertically and space flowing horizontally. Then when there is more space than time, the mass moves a great distance to the right but a small "distance" up; when there is more time than space, the mass moves a great "distance" up but a small distance to the right. But an object travelling at the speed of light will travel along the horizontal axis only; an object standing still will travel along the vertical axis only. Again, we have described a fact about space-time, but we haven't visualized space-time. And the usual way to picture it is as a rubber sheet that can be deformed by matter. But that doesn't show you how the metric is involved in this. A metric is simply the method to be used to measure the "distance" between two points in space-time. So, as long as you are willing to consult the metric when you try to compare distances, this visualization will do fine.

[@ernestod.gonzalez2967]

In the same way that water and the flow of water are the same thing.....are they?

[@S3RAVA3LM]

8:36 This man speaks of metaphysics not being attractive like physics or empiricism is. I see Bas believes phsyics and metaphysics are two different things - it's literally cutting the attribute off from Principle. It is insane! Metaphysics discusses and most importantly, comprehends & recollects the very essence of all existence; the very Beauty of all beautiful existence; the very being of all life; the very substrata of all harmony and natures... Bas dropped the ball.

[@wthomas5697]

So you think some sort of emotional reaction is the point? Sorry, not buying.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@wthomas5697 check mate: you have to explain the Intellect, recollection, realization and nature, and how such is merely an emotional reaction ? Difference is I never cut the Principle off from attribute. Bas did. Bas is who thinks only what his sense perception organs grasp, and when he conceieves from sensation & limited mentation is what's real. That's an emotional reactions.

[@wthomas5697]

What seems apparent to me is that you are espousing some grandiose idea that encompasses existence itself whereas it's only a notion, fueled by emotion. Nothing more, nothing less. @@S3RAVA3LM

[@simonhibbs887]

The problem with that view is that some metaphysical views can be definitively falsified by evidence. So it’s not that metaphysics always beats science. There are some metaphysical views that are incompatible with each other, and evidence in the world, and therefore science, cannot arbitrate. However there are other metaphysical views, which make claims about the world, that can be disproven. They may describe possible worlds, but not this one. So there’s a dialogue between metaphysics and reality where each can illuminate the other.

[@blijebij]

They are labels that describe phenomena within one reality.

[@PuBearsticks]

Could you be more vague? I'm not sure you zoomed out far enough

[@blijebij]

@@PuBearsticks What so you think my message is with this?

[@ReginaJune]

I don’t know how to explain it, I think Roger Penrose can…. I think of it a little bit like knitting- the space of the object increases with time…. Maybe a plant is a better analogy seed seedling plant?

[@wthomas5697]

It's pretty easy to understand how time could not exist without space and vice versa.

[@josh_majr]

If space occurred at one instance and someone asked "when did space occur?" How would you give an answer? I don't believe you can have either without the other.

[@wthomas5697]

Since time is acknowledgement of change, space is necessary for it to occur. Likewise, space is required for change to happen. "When" is relative. So there's no true answer to your question. @@josh_majr

[@ParkerGaron]

You can have time without space just not the other way around.

[@wthomas5697]

I don't see how. If you don't have space, you don't have change. @@ParkerGaron

[@lordbunbury]

Change in space is time. There is no time if there is no change in space. You could say that there is also no change in space without time, but time is a measurement of what space does. What space does is not a measurement of time.

[@yasirpanezai5690]

Einstein said you can go in space and not time and in time but not space

[@walterlavallee3992]

I like how most of these people in the comments are act like they know more then this guy and Einstein like yeah space, and time are part of the same thing they’re intimately connected Einstein himself realize that

[@odenwalt]

Space-time is not a thing. Space and time on a chart or diagram is not a representation of reality. I would like to add physicists confuse the measurement with what they are measuring.

[@skausage]

Got the Barbara Walters filter on this one

[@peterdamen2161]

How Can Space and Time be the Same Thing? It cannot. Therefore Einstein was wrong and general relative is a flawed theory.

[@dixsusu]

Its known as Chronon Field Theory .

[@tedgrant2]

They are not the same. It's just as daft as saying my height is the same as my shoe size

[@dr_IkjyotSinghKohli]

The problem is in RLK's very question. Space and time are not the same thing, as they are not separate entities, there is just ONE entity: called spacetime. Every "event" in our universe at least is described 4 coordinates, 3 spatial and one "time". This leads to the pseudo-Riemannian manifold that underlies GR (and SR as well). RLK asking this question implies that he is still very much a Newtonian thinker.

[@NondescriptMammal]

"Spacetime" is strictly an abstract mathematical coordinate system, not a physical entity.

[@dr_IkjyotSinghKohli]

@@NondescriptMammal Not according to Einstein's field equations :) And no, it is not just a “coordinate system”.

[@mandelbot5318]

@@dr_IkjyotSinghKohli Bear in mind that RLK is asking questions on behalf of his audience. ‘Space’ and ‘time’ are commonly discussed separately, and bring with them their own sets of questions. By analogy, I can ask the question ‘Are Superman and Clark Kent the same person?’ without being guilty of misunderstanding. There is only one entity (Kal-El, if you like), but Clark Kent and Superman nevertheless appear to have different properties, and can meaningfully be talked about separately. (‘Is Clark good at his job as a reporter?’ makes sense even though it’s not his ‘real’ job as Superman.) In the same way we can ask questions about space and questions about time, and even ask about the relationship between the two, without demonstrating a misunderstanding.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@dr_IkjyotSinghKohli Einstein himself made it clear that he did not believe that spacetime represented a physical entity.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@dr_IkjyotSinghKohli What else is it but a coordinate system? It combines the x,y,z of space with the t of time, for the sole purpose of making the field equations more elegant. The field equations could just as easily have been constructed with space and time treated as separate mathematical entities, with the exact same results.

[@stewartquark1661]

Someone came up with spacetime so I say what the heck, how about drywet?

[@JungleJargon]

Nice illustration! Now if we can get people to see that there is little to no gravity to slow down light between galaxies until the light enters into a galaxy where time slows down and distance contracts, slowing down the speed of light. This is the reason superluminal motion is perceived to be seven times the speed of light since our measures of time and distance are being projected into outer space where time runs faster and the measure of distance is much larger relative to ours. Of course nothing ever exceeds the speed of light. It’s that the assumed measures of time and distance are off. Another little secret of general relativity is that the speed of light is NOT constant because the measures of time and distance are not constant throughout the universe. Looking at a galaxy is not like looking at a cat or dog where the measures of time and distance are constant because they are not constant from here to outer space between galaxies. The measures of time and distance appear to be constant or flat to us locally but they are not flat over great distances, especially outside of galaxies and in between galaxies.

[@jamesconner8275]

I don't understand why philosophers stick their nones in physics in which they don't have a good understanding. The set of their relevance continues to shrink as the sciences advance.

[@dr_shrinker]

Instead of the expanding universe, what if we are shrinking matter? 😅 That’s what she said!!

[@Ekam-Sat]

All is flux by design.... Genesis 2:18.

[@victorjcano]

I’ve often thought that myself. I guess all things are relative.

[@Ekam-Sat]

Correct. Happy Thanksgiving brother.@@victorjcano

[@victorjcano]

@@Ekam-Sat if time in space or infinite, then time and distance are meaningless, because there is no reference

[@Ekam-Sat]

Yes you can go very deep Victor. I personally prefer to keep it simple. The meaning of life is love. Blessings and be well. Glad you are here. @@victorjcano

[@briantenneson6812]

Does anyone believe space equals time?

[@jamesblank2024]

Do physicists really ask this question? Or is this just a KZbin topic? Nobody asks if momentum and energy are the same thing, nor magnetic vector and electric scalar potentials, and those are four vectors.

[@SandipChitale]

Once again, the word dimension causes confusion. For a lay person, a dimension means a space dimension with units of length e.g. meters and in which one can freely go forward and backward. Lay people can think of 3 dimensions of space height, length and width of a cube. But when physicists say dimension, they mean independent parameter with its own units and meaning of positive and negative values. And thus even though physicists call time a dimension, they do not mean time dimension is a space like dimension. That is clear when one thinks of special geometry of spacetime called Minkowski spacetime which is different than Euclidean spacetime. The equivalent formula for distance between events in Minkowski spacetime has a negative sign in it, unlike the Pythagoras theorem for distance in Euclidean space has all positive signs. Thus Minkowski spacetime has hyperbolic geometry. And that negative sign tells us that time dimension is not like the other three space dimensions. So the correct way to think of spacetime is not 4D spacetime but 1 time dimension + 3 space dimensions. Thus time is not like space. And the answer to the video question is "not exactly". In fact Tim Maudlin complains about this issue - that physicists make a mistake when they ignore the directionality of time dimension and try to treat it like a space dimension. In fact he is developing a new kind of geometry in which directionality of time dimension is not ignored but a key aspect of it. And this is why I say "not exactly" above. Time is a dimension in the sense physicists use the word dimension for it and so is space a dimension. But qualitatively they are different. The use of word dimension is more like a degree of freedom. And this is the reason why one cannot travel backward in time. Because if you look at the Minkowski spacetime geometry, if one wants to travel from future light cone to past light cone one will have to cross the chasm of what is called the spacelike part of the geometry which is not possible because of the maximum speed limit of speed of light C. In fact in physics, there is a field of dimensional analysis and in that dimensions of all kinds are analyzed. And those are not only space dimensions. So in some sense, depending on the context, even the temperature, pressure and volume are dimensions of a phase space. But we do not confuse temperature dimension with space dimension because temperature has unit of degree Kelvin and not meters. So does time, which has a unit of seconds and not meters. Having said that time is more closer to space because of the context of spacetime and SR and GR. Based on this time and space are not and cannot be exactly same things. The confusion is similar to confusion caused by the word "observer" in the context of quantum mechanics and wave function collapse. The modern meaning of the word "observer" in quantum physics is any system outside of the quantum system that interacts and destroys the quantum state. It is true that original Copenhagen gang may have used the word as a stand in for a conscious entity like a scientists in the lab doing a experiment. And that is how a lay person thinks when they hear the word "observer". But that is no longer true. Even a video camera or any measuring instrument recoding/measuring a quantum state is considered an "observer" and thus "consciousness" is not a requirement for wave function collapse. But the woo woo (Deepak Chopra) crowd loves the confusion-laden word "observer" so that they can talk about how even physics is not complete without consciousness etc woo woo stuff. The use of "god particle" for Higgs boson was similar, a confusion causing, but profit making intentional mistake by publishers. Same is true for "god gene".

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"But when physicists say dimension, the mean independent parameter with its own units and meaning of positive and negative values."* ... So, what makes their obfuscated definition the correct one? If I have a 6" cube of something, then I have six sides of 6"-square, 2-dimensional rectangles assembled together into a 3-dimensional structure. Easy-peasy! ... Where does the _"independent parameter with its own units and meaning of positive and negative values"_ come into play with my 6" cube?

[@your_average_joe5781]

Yeah so.... what are you saying 😅

[@SandipChitale]

@@your_average_joe5781 Read my comment (updated) above. I am saying "time and space are not and cannot be exactly same things."

[@SandipChitale]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I am saying time has unit of seconds and not meters. And the negative time may be meaningless.

[@poqqery8950]

​​​​​​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCThere is nothing obfuscated about the definition. That is the standardized, rigorous and general definition of a "dimension" used by mathematicians and physicists alike. It just so happens that the kind of "dimension" people usually think of in everyday life is a spatial dimension. What you described is a specific example of three spatial dimensions with three independent parameters corresponding to axes of your cube, nothing more (and even that is not general; you could just as easily have picked any coordinate system rotated to the one you described and that too would be equally valid). You just gave an applied example of the rigorous, general definition he was talking about.

[@maxcosta1986]

Like time and space yesterday dose not exist today one hour ago doesn’t pause or comes back

[@MrSmegfish]

Miasmic Quantumn Compression.

[@IamKlaus007]

What exactly does 'the concept of time' mean in the moment of the 'here and now'? The preceding moment no longer exists and the 'future' moment cannot exist until the here and now moment is dead. The universes physicality is subject to it own set of rules. Very little to do with our humanistic subjective theories, if at all. We currently live in a galaxy that exists as a 'living entity' (as ALL galaxies are 'living entities') therefore, it will eventually die according to universal laws. If every living thing can become extinct, then why not humans? Are we really so arrogant as to believe we can live forever? There are people who believe we can. However, the thing that most obliterates delusion....is actuality.

[@DuaneCowell]

Space and time are not the same, time has been stretched 6 jerry springers

[@boonraypipatchol7295]

Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge, Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.

[@mikel4879]

The suficient minimum dimensions a volumetric realm can be defined is 3. The so-called "time", which exists only as an artificiality created by the way your brain works, in REALITY it doesn't exist at all. "Space" by ITSELF? What's "space" by ITSELF in REALITY?😏

[@lunam7249]

that doesnt explain why a 6000yo pyramid "looks" old, i.e. time is very real...even if humans were not here to "see" or "expirience" it

[@stewartquark1661]

I write a book that mentions space and time as they are relevant to the general topic of it Using essences of space and time I predicted that a certain church in my hometown would be destroyed by fire. Shortly thereafter, it was

[@pjaworek6793]

I'm possibly missing the point but spacetime is real not metaphysical. He says it's not real, why he's not famous?

[@plekkchand]

They can't.

[@mack8488]

So its time space ánd movement...

[@harvey1126]

Perhaps the answer lies outside the box of thought. “I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens. I've been knocking from the inside.” ― Rumi

[@virtuous8]

wait.. without space there wont be time ?