What is Time? Stephen Wolfram’s Groundbreaking New Theory

[@DrBrianKeating]

*How do you define time? Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list for your chance to win a genuine meteorite. And please consider subscribing to the channel* too 😊

[@ScrewdriverTUNING]

Can I ask why wiki says astronomy is based in pseudoscience ????????????

[@joespurway2678]

3 it always has been. (1÷11)(1÷12)

[@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu]

Yes, real time is computational iterations, pseudo time is inverse Planck radiation flux speed (real time = computational iteration, pseudo time = velocity differentials within the fundamental movements of energy). General relativistic time is not real time, it's 1/EnergySpeed of a Planck units internal flux speed causing curvature in the alignments of stationary angular quanta, lesser internal energy speed = time dilation of the 1st order, while the 2nd order time dilation (general relativistic time dilation) is the curvature in angular quantum alignments do to differential Planck lengths (the second order curvature, which increases the amount of bisector reflections that decrease Planck radiation transfer rates (gravity waves = Planck length differential and flux speed differential transfer, electromagnetic waves = wobble transfer). These 2 forces are derived from the bisector reflections of inverse directional momentum on local intersect, the only things needed to compute (average velocity field speed * local bisector reflections * volume * iterations) which is a hard thing to do without a brain that can reason and cancel out contradictions and run fast and efficient volumetric simulations in the visual cortex. The brain really is better at this, because the universe is growing in complexity by dividing Planck lengths to form more. As the number of (super nova decrease * average power) decreases, less angular quanta form, because angular quanta formation require bisector reflections of inverse directional momentum (Planck length divisions). I realize now, that it's not black hole mergers, it's the super nova that increase Planck density the most. Check it, you lose gravitational power gradient during black hole merger (you diffuse Planck length differentials into a gravity wave, proportional to the loss of mass of a black hole, therefore less sharper gravitational gradient, lesser power differential between dark energy and the black holes gravity field do to the gravity wave diffusion). As the number of supernova decrease (gama ray electromagnetic radiation), there is less energy to divide Planck lengths, decreasing the dark energy power growth factor (not the dark energy power, but the power growth factor), while black hole mergers have a lesser mass product and therefore lesser gravity gradient. I just realized something, as you get closer to a black hole, you own electromagnetic radiation will blue shift because your plank masses decrease (you diffuse Planck radiation as you fall, and the electromagnetic radiation will have more effect on you, your own radiation kills you do to blue shift). When your quantum vortices shrink (same number, but smaller energy lengths), the electromagnetic wobbles will be more violent in comparison, and that's what kills you when you enter a black hole, as Planck radiation flux speed and length slows to a crawl, quantized mass will break down do to that larger effect of the electromagnetic wobbles you carry will you become more powerful comparatively to that shrinkage.

[@daseinbellen]

I would say, that the time we use in everyday life and science is derived from primordial time or temporality which is ecstatic temporality; ecstatic temporality is, my always being projecting, what I can be or do (this is the future), it's also my always having been, even when I have no choice but must take up a way (thrownness) and thus projecting and having been together are a making presence. Making presence can also be called Disclosedness which can be Authentic or Inauthentic: from this primordial time we get "with-in-timeness" or derived time, of course this is the ontology of Martin Heidegger. And before you start calling me names, I am a 72 year old Negro with a associate degree in Nursing, so I am retired and never really cared about academia.

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

Consciousness is easily defined and obvious. Time is things change in an order. This is not hard and it is not revolutionary.' The oddity is simply that the rate that time ticks is different between for different locations and movements. My question is what happens to the Planck length, that distance of Heisenberg uncertainty in terms of Relativity.

[@marshalmcdonald7476]

Then there is that ol' definition--time is nature's way of prohibiting everything from happening all at once. I like that one.

[@justinhunt3141]

I think the point he is making is that from an outside perspective it is quite possible the entire course of our universe could happen in the blink of an eye. But for us living in the universe we experience it step by step. Time is all relative -> emergent.

[@erikdaigle9212]

@@marshalmcdonald7476 that's not true though. I can take one of two atomic clocks down a 2000 foot mine for a few hours. When I return to the surface my cave clock is behind ever so slightly. When applied across the galaxy then a universe it gets weirder and weirder.

[@erikdaigle9212]

I could potentially see you fly your spaceship into an astroid a thousand years before it happens, but I would never be able to warn you. In your time you have no idea a thousand years from now your going to fly into said astroid. That's why time is messed.

[@imankhandaker6103]

All at once - assumes the flow of time. Isn't this circular reasoning? Or at least empty metaphor?

[@erikdaigle9212]

@@imankhandaker6103 supposedly higher conscious levels "seeing" time is the first or second.

[@reporeport]

i literally love stephen wolfram, so glad to see him doing the circuit again

[@250txc]

Known or unknown to U, U love boot lickin' also .

[@shimtest]

thanks for having Wolfram on. his ideas are compelling, he is a trained physicist , but his ideas are too often ignored

[@cperez1000]

@@250txc, why?

[@brendawilliams8062]

Well towards the end at the part we all live in a yellow submarine. I think this story is way over my capabilities

[@250txc]

@@brendawilliams8062 Most if not all is just 1 guys ideas ... No way to prove much if any part of his string of words... Being over ones' capabilities is not a sign of anything real in many cases... This string of words is nothing I'd want to understand or waste time on ..

[@KeldonA]

Stephen is incredible. Everything he says is so above my paygrade, yet he explains it in a way that you can at least follow and appreciate.

[@TheCollinkljacky]

I m glad someone with fame and title finally calls out this set of logic about time in a professio al manner. That's the rigid way to speculate some unknown in the universe in a serious manner. I respect this physicist a lot.

[@brendawilliams8062]

I do too I just question how you explain Turin on a curved red shift

[@TheCollinkljacky]

​@brendawilliams8062 I don't have explanation of that. In fact I don't care if he's correct or not, because I just simply think we need more people to dig into the problem of time in different ways other than saying things like "time doesn't exist".

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@TheCollinkljacky looks to me like a hydrogen problem. Everything experiences change and it’s hard enough figuring out breakfast tomorrow.

[@TylerKoz]

When it comes to time... the best time to plant an apple tree is 20 years ago, and the 2nd best time is NOW!

[@crowlsyong]

true. i challenge us to both plant a native fruit tree in the next year. i'll check back on this comment on December 3rd 2025 and we can report our results.

[@TylerKoz]

@@crowlsyong Sounds like a plan. I'll mark my calendar.

[@Musicalcode313]

I've always viewed it like this, perhaps because of being a programmer. I just imagine the plank time as the clock speed of the universe. A photon updates the next fastest and anything else updates when it needs to for example a plant might receive updated information slower than us resulting in a perception of the world that is different than say a photon that only need respect the plank time or a animal that relies on that information to survive. but does not need to be updated as fast as the rest. So in some way i describe time as a measurement update speed of the observer relative to the plank time.

[@sigurdurgislason115]

@@Musicalcode313 HI have the way if understanding time as you have and this is how entanglement is possible. One of the hardest thing for children to learn is time and that is because they are calibrating the universal clock tick to human standards.

[@waterkingdavid]

Aristotle reincarnated! I love his ceaseless childlike passionate energy. It's pure love. Apparently Mozart said every note of his was an expression of love. I get that sense from Wolfram's work.

[@juliemarty1952]

I love how dryly he says the answer will be 42. I barely even noticed. Now I need to reexamine my life and check for any other references I missed.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

He has a lot of experience. ^.^

[@MrTeapots]

It is interesting to note that just before referencing 42 (the meaning of life) he referenced "rule 34". Are the two related?

[@ThomasBeek]

​@@maharajjinkb7824You are explaining a joke that everybody already gets.

[@ThomasBeek]

​@@MrTeapots🧐 curious. Please let us know if you find out.

[@sebolddaniel]

It has been awhile since I read Douglas Adams

[@doglabdogtraining-gus.8873]

Brian , please we need a second part of this conversation , thank you, great as always.

[@darocazaranchi2659]

What happend first or were all three instantaneous? 1-Time. 2-Space. 3-Big Bang.

[@Srvelis82]

When it comes to GR and QM I am definitely computationally bounded.

[@WinrichNaujoks]

So he finally figured out what time is. Now he just needs to figure out a way to explain it to me in a way I can understand it.

[@brendawilliams8062]

I believe it’s looking like maybe many worlds configuration

[@BasedHawaiian]

Instead of strings, space. Motion is computational time through space.

[@backseatsamurai]

A series of individual, distinct moments, chained together so we can perceive and make sense of them.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@WinrichNaujoks professor Wolfram is smart enough to see and know more than most. If he’s got a xerox copied per space time. Then he’s got a xerox on a space time

[@garyfrancis6193]

That could take some time.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@03:15 Mr.Wolfram says, we can go back in space but we cannot go back in time. Actually, we cannot go back in space either; remember Heraclitus - No man ever steps in the same river twice? It's not only that the river is not the same river, the man is not the same man either.

[@stegemme]

what has happened creates memory which can be physically substantiated in many different ways. What is to happened does not have this function. If Heraclitus where able to observe himself back when he was in the river he would see the same thing as it occurred, it is time that prevents Heraclitus from doing so.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Yea that's actually his thing. It's just without context. "pure motion" isn't a thing as he would state often about the topic. Pure motion meaning that we believe we are always made of the same thing as we move around, but in actuality at each successive moment, are made of different atoms of space. Like a vortex in a fluid, the vortex is made of different water molecules at each successive moment, but the vortex maintains its identity as it moves along. Time is a different idea from space in the sense that the two are not alike concepts. Time in Wolframs model is basically non-existent. Things just "update whenever they want to update" and in the limit of this idea all things just exist as the "Ruliad" which is independent of a notion of time (a sort of platonic, eternal abstraction). When things get updated is based on the observers imbedded in this abstraction. But the idea is that the process of a computation is not a dimension you can go backwards on, it is this unfolding of a string of causality (the string of causality is from all the imbedded observers partaking in the updating of relationships of space atoms)...and this is why it is an inexorable forward process for us...why we expierence this eternal platonic abstraction only as "moving forward in time" it has to do with us observers and our finite limitations. At base level, space is also an abstraction and so in the end it does have the same ontology but the character of how we perceive it is just different. It's easier in explanation for new people to just skip the ruliad idea (for now, but its super important) and just describe space and time as separate things, so I understand wolframs paraphrasing of the concept so that people aren't thrown into "the ruliad" immediately. cheers,

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@stegemme Memories are (re)created in the present. They are not "past", they are present. Present, Past and Future are all created by mental activity of the mind right now. Outside of mind, Time, Past, Present, Future are nowhere to be found. They are no different than South and North - mere mental "things" with existence borrowed for only a moment from the mind.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@NightmareCourtPictures "Atoms of space" is complete nonsense. Space is absence - absence of contact between a sense organ and its objects, or absence of obstacles. Space is what you see when there is absolutely nothing. Space is what you see between two objects - nothing. Saying that space exists is saying that nothing exists. Saying that there are atoms of nothing is gobbledygook of a delusional mind.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@NightmareCourtPictures atoms of space are a ridiculous concept.

[@tommysullivan]

This is I think the best wolfram explanation of wolfram physics yet! He’s right in that I and a lot of us do recognize these concepts as obvious

[@charlesreid9337]

Your second sentence sounds a lot like a diagnostic symptom of dunning kreuger

[@branimirsalevic5092]

Let me guess, you're a computer geek?

[@tommysullivan]

@@charlesreid9337 and your sentence sounds like an unprovoked insult? Thanks for contributing

[@Quidisi]

Love S.Wolfram, but the bigger mystery is the thermos. It keeps the hot stuff, hot. It keeps the cold stuff, cold. But... How do it know?!!

[@gojoe36]

Time is tied to space....vibration is time and it can't vibrate with no space to move in. For time to stop every known thing would have to stop moving. The distance something moves is TIME

[@RodrigoRojasMoraleda]

Here we go, challenging my understanding with Wolfram once more!

[@juandavidgilwiedman]

Its a little out of reach to me

[@RodrigoRojasMoraleda]

​@@juandavidgilwiedman There's no need to feel discouraged; it's just another Wolfram model-unmeasurable, yet nearly self-consistent.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Brian thank you for having sincere conversations with my pop Wolfman. Brian knew thy Friend kind of love. Before came to dwell with thee!

[@dimitargueorguiev9088]

Time and Consciousness are indeed the biggest enigmas which nobody so far was able to define/describe comprehensively.

[@ThomasBeek]

That is, unless you take into account the Vedas, first written down 5,000 years ago in the Sanskrit language. At that time they were a completely developed philosophy. They just appeared as this thought out series of both experiential knowledge, mystical experience, and thought experiments, including much work in theoretical and applied physics. The Veda describes individuated consciousness as *atma*, an atom of consciousness. These are classified as distinct from and at the same time partaking identically in the substance of, Brahman (also sometimes described as the paramatma). So consciousness is a feature of the spiritual energy. A higher energy than matter and atoms of it are embedded within the material energy and they represent themselves through the mechanisms of the material bodies that they inhabit as consciousness. But the atma also supplies life because when a soul inhabits a body, the body can stay alive and grow and change, etc. Once the soul leaves the body, the body immediately dies and decays.

[@brendawilliams8062]

A strong minded Turin I guess put different Turin test in each of those

[@valentinmalinov8424]

The answer to these "Enigmas" is not very difficult to comprehend if you have correct Physics on your table. I have explain them in my book.

[@randytighe7150]

Stephen Wolfram is one of the most fascinating people in science to listen to, for me, despite not having a sufficiently deep mathematical background to follow a lot of his arguments.

[@Seekthetruth3000]

Space-Time is too complex. Good guest and interview.

[@kricketflyd111]

Theology describes time and dark matter.

[@julioguardado]

I think the "universe as a state machine with simple rules and time being a by-product" theory has occurred to everyone who has studied computer science. The problem is no one has laid out the rules that lead to our the irreducibility we observe. I hope Wolfram can come up with something that's tangible.

[@alansheahan6286]

Isn’t this just an elaborate version of Superdeterminism, except the focus is on predictability? The supreme model of causality is Superdeterminism, which was championed by Spinoza and Einstein, where everything that happens is entirely caused by prior events. Predictability is at the heart of all scientific models, but surely our ability to predict is irrelevant when describing what is actually happening at the fundamental level. This is because whatever is happening down there ‘has’ to be caused. I can’t see why scientists are so averse to the idea of a deterministic universe. I believe it’s people’s stubbornness to believe in free will is the problem. I say we have free will in 3 dimensions but not in 4 dimensions. Free will in 3 dimensions is just the conventional understanding of what we mean by free will. But imagine winding the movie of the universe backwards in time to a point where you made a particular decision i.e. go back to that time point as you were then, where you and the universe are identical in every aspect. Will you choose the same option upon revisiting that decision? The answer has to be a resounding yes with 100% certainty. This is because the reasons for your choice originally are identical to the reasons the second time around. By incorporating the extra dimension of time into the model, by going back in time, we clearly see that our choices are fixed in 4 dimensions. This shows that all of our choices are simply part of the causal chain of all events in the universe. Nothing else is possible except what actually does happen imo. Quantum Mechanics (QM) has probability and randomness at its core. These are just statistical techniques used to help predict outcomes at the subatomic level. Randomness is nothing more than ‘lack of information’. The more information we have about a system, the less random it appears. For some scientists to infer that at that fundamental level it’s just ‘pure’ randomness down there is shocking. This would imply that subatomic events are uncaused, which is completely ridiculous. Just because we are forbidden to predict with 100% accuracy due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle shouldn’t mean we disregard any model of the universe that doesn’t incorporate QM

[@DH-rj2kv]

Those questions cannot be decided by science since we lack any functional method of observation or measurement. Mathematically we can come up with a million models, but as long as they do not allow for any testability it is all self-referential thought exercise.

[@Robinson8491]

You answered your own question: observation and experiments. You say: "(QM are) just statistical techniques used to help predict outcomes at the subatomic level". This is your interpretation. It just happens to be a very unscientific one.

[@alansheahan6286]

@@Robinson8491 And your interpretation of my interpretation is exactly that 😜

[@mysticone1798]

Sounds more like a denial of Superdeterminism. He stated that we can't simply jump from one point in time to predict the state of a system at a future point in time, but that we rather have to go "through" the steps in "time" in order to see what happens as every point. That's what he meant by "computational irreducibility".

[@Robinson8491]

@@alansheahan6286 the problem with smoothing out the clearly observable problems of the measurement problem is that we might miss some very future important scientific innovations. If we brush over these 'small statistical details' that go against superdeterminism, we will miss the great signpost that leads us to a new correct understanding of space and time possibly. Are you so sure space and time are they way you understand they are currently? That is why you are unconsciously pushing for superdeterminism imo, because you assume how all other factors in physical theory function, of which space and time are essential ones! Why couldn't they be the problem for instance? You are closing off avenues for investigation by plugging the hole with superdeterminism, even though the problem might be foundational!

[@AlexthunderGnum]

When I observe an internal combustion motor working, I observe it in its own relative TIME. That is the time of the motor going through different states (and strokes). When I describe how the motor works I use reference of TIME to the sequence of states my motor going through, which is detached from my own time. In a sense, the time of the motor is different to my own time until me and the motor are together in the same time. That is not always the case though. Which is my point - there may be endless number of TIMES that are not necessarily connected to each other, or connected indirectly.

[@johnb8854]

*Time is a human attempt to measure the Rate of Change in things...*

[@humanaugmented2525]

manipulate reverse flip increase decrease cease

[@onlyguitar1001]

Okay but define "rate" in this context without a preconceived notion of time. You could say it's the speed at which things change but speed in this context is defined as events/unit time. True statement, but it's like saying time is what clocks measure. If that's what you were going for then I'm truly sorry for being a tool :)

[@drbuckley1]

If nothing changes in a system, does time stop?

[@robertanderson5092]

No. Only too much change causes time to stop.

[@kylelochlann5053]

So before the evolution of human, time didn't exist, or are you saying that there humans at the Big Bang singularity to make time come into existence?

[@rd9831]

Time is spaced out space. Space is timed out times.

[@ricdesouza1]

mind blowing-if we take his Ruliad concept then he says that all time already exists in this ruliad simultaneously. We are computationally bound so we aren't able to see beyond that particular observation point.

[@patinho5589]

That’s right. “In the now, and by now”

[@crypticnomad]

I don’t think that is quite right. It might be more accurate to think of the Ruliad as a symbolic space rather than an ontologically "real" entity. All possible rules, computations, and patterns exist within that space in a "potential" manner, similar to the concept of electric potential. In the same way, the Ruliad could represent potential outcomes dependent on initial conditions and computational rules, where only a specific subset of those outcomes is observable to us based on our computational and perceptual limitations. To illustrate this, consider the idea of an image-based Library of Babel. A low-resolution implementation of this concept has been online since 2015. Within that protocol, every possible combination of low-resolution pixels exists, including images of me typing this comment with every set of words I could ever use-or never use-as well as pictures of everyone who could, or couldn’t, will, or won’t read this comment. To clarify, I’m not suggesting this exists in actual, physical reality but rather that it demonstrates a computational or algorithmic reality relevant to humans. This limited slice of potentiality within the algorithm offers a useful analogy for understanding the Ruliad. Furthermore, the Ruliad includes all possible perspectives by definition, meaning its full scope is inherently inaccessible to any single observer. This highlights that what we perceive is a constrained projection of the broader computational space.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

@@crypticnomad He's correct. The Ruliad "is the universe" and therefor it is ontologically real. It's just that what is real is also pure abstraction. In this way you are also correct : We can not observe this entire object; we are constrained because in order to experience causality (space and time) which is necessary to make observation, we have to be finite. The key point of wolframs model is that there is no difference between what is real, what is abstract, what exists and doesn't exist. the only thing that exists, is the Ruliad. What we interpret as real is based on us observers imbedded inside this object and what we take away from it.

[@crypticnomad]

@@NightmareCourtPicturesI don’t see how making bold ontological assumptions based on symbolic reasoning is logically valid. The reason the Ruliad couldn’t be “objective reality” or reality as a whole is that it is a concept born out of human symbolic reasoning. We cannot step outside these symbolic systems to verify their accuracy without using yet more symbols, leading to an infinite regress. Therefore, making bold ontological statements is fundamentally different from saying, “this is a framework for describing our world.” Claiming that “this set of symbols exactly describes the world” can never be a fully factually accurate statement because of the inherent limitations of symbolic systems (e.g., Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and Tarski’s undefinability theorem). At best, we can say, “Given this specific set of symbols and observers like us who understand them, they will see these correlations between the input symbols and output symbols in this specific situation.” This is a very different statement from saying, “these symbols exactly describe the world.”

[@DeadKingIsDead]

dark algorythms and dark structure ^^ - also: A river doesn't "simulate" flowing-it is the flow. Similarly, base reality doesn't "simulate" itself-it is the analog computation.

[@pompousprick6143]

"time" is the most commonly used noun in the English language. The last time I watched this video was the first time in a long time I truly felt the time spent was worth my time, but not this time.

[@flynnoflenniken7402]

I've wondered to myself sometimes if the reason time "slows down" when either moving really fast or when there's a lot of mass in one place could be because it's something like when a video game starts to lag because the hardware running the game is struggling to keep up with the demands being placed on it by the game, but I don't know a lot about physics beyond what was taught to everyone in high school.

[@Sokofeather]

There's exactly that kind of resource of some sort being used. I've always thought the same with relative time passing, you're exerting some kind of energy to either move through space or time

[@erikdaigle9212]

@@Sokofeather ok factor this in. All of Humanity gets a message no secret that says build as many space ships we'll be there 2000 years from now to the date. Who would believe it even 50 years later?

[@phillipcoetzer8186]

Well it seems that the processing speed can create the speed limit of light but the processing power can limit how much happens at the same instance in time time One of the reasons I don't brush aside the simulation theory The other is draw distance ... a photon being a particle when observed and a wave when not observed in the two slit experiment.

[@stevedv629]

I was hoping he would explain how his theory accounts for this, but halfway through he hasn’t yet… he does have a very interesting take on quantum mechanics and why it appears random, and also what the nature of time is, which is basically just cause and effect, cause and effect, a computation based on some rules…but he doesn’t explain why this happens at different rates based on relative speed and gravitational fields.

[@kylelochlann5053]

That's not what happens in relativity, where it's fundamental that all clocks tick at the same rate, everywhere, and under all circumstances of motion and orientation (Local Position Invariance and Local Lorentz Invariance, respectively). Differences in elapsed clock time correspond to differences in the space-time distance traveled. For example in the twin paradox the traveling twin (in the 1911 Langevin version) travels a shorter spacetime distance than the stay-at-home twin. In the gravitational case, the integral over the world-line (its spacetime length) is shorter where gravity is greater. Nowhere in relativity is there any "time slowing down" or "clocks running slow", which is a poetic way to talk about the lengths along time-like curves.

[@AB-wf8ek]

1:00:47 I love how he seamlessly transitions into talking about his farts in relationship to a discussion about space time

[@virgiliustancu9293]

I understand somehow his theoretical model, but when I try to imagine in practice.... I just can't understand how could be.

[@BertWald-wp9pz]

I am always amazed how clearly Stephen Wolfram manages to explain complicated things. Always worth listening to. Thanks for this interview.

[@stephcint13]

My own definition of time: propagation of causality.

[@coder-x7440]

Exactly !

[@coder-x7440]

In fact, the speed of light can be entirely replaced with the speed of causality. The double slit experiment can be interpreted in causal terms where the behavior of photons are used as an instrument to witness causality and its behavior.

[@araaraaura1887]

@coder-x7440 That's why the speed of light in equations is abbreviated as "c".

[@v1kt0u5]

chains of events' relative measurements

[@sshreddderr9409]

thats different words for change.

[@Stephen-vu2gk]

Imperfections in crystal lattices are an interesting analogy. Substitutions, interstitials, voids, dislocations, etc. they aren’t necessarily physical objects, but they have energy. They can’t exist outside the lattice but they can move through it and their properties are conserved. Seems totally plausible that standard model particles can correspond with different types of topological defects in a hyper-graph.

[@classicalmechanic8914]

Stephen is more open minded than most physicists because he works in private sector. In private sector there are always consequences if you are wrong. Academics mostly don't face consequences for their wrong theories therefore they keep repeating their mistakes.

[@smlanka4u]

The theory of everything that I developed (Binary Physics) is based on the continuation of absolute moments.

[@marshalmcdonald7476]

VERY good point.

[@MusicTheoryTree]

@@smlanka4u do you have published papers?

[@44point5]

Failure for private sector senior executives means promotion and pay increases or golden handshakes and directorships.

[@smlanka4u]

@@MusicTheoryTree, Not much. But the preprint is readable.

[@merodobson]

Correct. Time is not a mere variable in some mathematical equations. It is the essence of progression. Time is the mold in which matter is formed.

[@sshreddderr9409]

time is a measurement of change. its an abstract concept, not a physical thing. the mold in which matter forms is space. you could say that the mold of space is time, in the sense that space is a fluid and it is perceived because of its equilibrium being disturbed and it changing to regain it. if space was at rest everywhere, time and space would seize to exist because there is no reference anymore, so you could not determine a difference between a second and a million years, a nanometer or a billion light years.

[@abcabc-m1q]

I would posit that time arises from the biological processes of the brain i.e. we experience time because of the biochemical changes that are occuring in our grey matter. A crude analogy would be a DVD that is being played. Without the DVD player, the concept of time is moot and is irrelevant to the disc on its own. When the disc is being played in a player, time manifests as observable changes in the displayed content. Once the player stops, time from the perspective of the disc ceases. In a sense, both the DVD player and the brain produce the linear phenomenon of time because of their physical nature. Man has always thought of time as the driver of these changes when the converse actually applies: these changes produce the phenomenon of time, not the other way around.

[@FlintBeastgood]

A good way to put it.

[@TerriblePerfection]

@@abcabc-m1q I think Donald Hoffmann would agree with that, as do I. Time is an experience that arises from our limited senses, and reality is whatever we say it is from that perspective, so it's both, or potentially (?), correct and incorrect simultaneously.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

"these changes produce the phenomenon of time" The word "change" already encodes the concept of something changing with time, so the definition is circular.

[@TerriblePerfection]

@denysvlasenko1865 But if there's nothing but change, or reaction, continuously unfolding, where is the break that allows measurement? Only by an observer, no?

[@CeroAshura]

This quickly turned into "if the pope pooped in the woods" kinda thinking. What about more fundamental changes like particle decay.

[@tonywestbrook9876]

Good. Brian getting back on track. This is where you shine and of course, your brilliant guests.

[@elfeiin]

I'll go one step further: we can't stay still in time because we never stay still in space.

[@michaelweaver4439]

@@elfeiin but we can’t stand still because there is no absolute lack of motion, because we have no origin point - everything is relative.

[@FAK_CHEKR]

@@michaelweaver4439 Motion is fundamental? Entropy and time are derived from motion.

[@coyotesayswhat]

I often thought time was something that we are selves invented due to the fact that we're traveling at different speeds in different directions at the same moment we didn't have time we would throw up.

[@BboyKeny]

​@@FAK_CHEKRI guess it is for observers like us.

[@EricMartinez-q3t]

The process of computation itself is not intrinsic. The question is why is time, not what is time? It's a loop paradox that can never be answered because you have to understand a future without limits..

[@JungleJargon]

Time is the slow motion of instantaneous.

[@jimheaven]

That seems correct. To light, the speed of light is instantaneous. Time and distance is irrelevant to them….zooming around nowhere…. in no time…. If there is no time and distance between photons, why do we experience time and distance by simply going ‘slower’ than light that in fact isn’t travelling any distance in any time at all?

[@JungleJargon]

@ We travel in time and distance because of gravity.

[@lawrencejwinkler]

This is the description of evolution. Biological and combinatorial development of molecules.

[@NeoCyrus777]

Every word I've ever heard this man say either ends up with me thinking either "Yeah, of course, and?" or "What is he even saying?".

[@wwkk4964]

Such as?

[@javiersoto5223]

Same.

[@PGB55]

Same. I think it's a combination of things. Mainly theories of everything are like a$$holes. Everyone's got one. And each one has a lot to explain. And it's simply too hard to cover so much when each topic is a lifetime of research all by itself. He's also not able to or not willing to dumb it down, and it may be made true there is no way to simplify it further. It's just complicated.

[@tw0ey3dm4n]

Well, actually... Here it is... So you have to... Well, that's uhh, you know...

[@X-boomer]

@@javiersoto5223🎉😂😂😢😂🎉😂😅😂😂🎉🎉😅🎉😅😂🎉😅😊😂😂😅😂🎉😂😅😂🎉🎉😂😅😂🎉❤😂😅🎉🎉😊🎉😂😂🎉😊😅😂😊🎉😢❤❤😂😂❤🎉🎉😂🎉😅🎉🎉🎉😂😊😊😅😂😅🎉😅😅😊😂😅😂❤😂😂😂🎉❤😊🎉🎉😂😂😊🎉❤😂😊😂🎉❤🎉🎉😂🎉😂😊🎉😂😂🎉❤😂🎉🎉😂😊🎉❤😂😂❤😊😂🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😂🎉😂❤😢❤🎉😊😂🎉😂🎉🎉😂😅😂🎉😂😊😂🎉😅❤😂🎉❤😂😊🎉😂🎉😂😂🎉😅😅🎉😂 55:50

[@mevenstien]

✨️🙂✨️ Thank you, You're the closest (not all the way) to what I'm thinking that youtube has offered. You almost restore my hope for mankind. Thank you. ✨️🙂✨️

[@DrBrianKeating]

Wow, thank you

[@JungleJargon]

Time and distance are both directly correlated to massive amounts of matter. Outside of a galaxy there’s no matter to slow down time or contract distance. That’s why the spaces between galaxies don’t appear to be populated with stars because the distance is expanded and time runs faster.

[@RoaringMrmanH2]

Sounds like he's describing time as DP problem (need to compute the previous steps for the next step) Also: Matter → Data: Both are the fundamental "stuff" being manipulated. Energy → Power: Energy fuels physical processes; power drives computation. Laws of Nature → Code: Rules that govern behavior. Time → Processor: Executes to the code and moves to the next state. We're essentially trying to decompile an executable by trying to understand the universe. We're in a simulation O__o

[@AlexthunderGnum]

Another point is that space as we know it is actually time. When we say "how far..." we actually mean "how long it takes to...". There is no distance between objects without time. It is time that defines how far object are from each other. Change of that time changes the distance. We used to imagine the space around us as some 3D model, but that is just a reconstruction made from our perception. And the perception is really just time, no distance. We don't observe distance directly, we observe only time and parallax angles between colored spots that we see simultaneously. From that perception we construct "reality 3D model" in our minds, don't we. So, before we ask the question - "what time is", we should ask - "what space is", assuming that time we can directly feel while space we can't.

[@fjanson2468]

Likewise, time is movement. If nothing moves or changes, is there time?

[@AlexthunderGnum]

@@fjanson2468 Agreed. When we measure "how long nothing has been moving?" we typically mean - "how much movement has been achieved elsewhere". So we always time things relative to other things motion.

[@kylelochlann5053]

@@fjanson2468 Does the frozen matter also vanish from existence?

[@fjanson2468]

@@kylelochlann5053 Frozen mater, even Einstein condensate is still atomically vibrating, therefor moving.

[@fjanson2468]

I guess as long as a single electron orbits an atom somewhere, there is time.

[@robertanderson5092]

Time is how much slower than light we are traveling.

[@maggyfrog]

it's still pretty strange to think of either space or time as quite separate from the other. it's not really possible for one to exist without the other.

[@vanessa1569]

Due to inflation, not of the cosmic sort, I’ve have to revive my needlework skills. It was nice to have Mr Wolfram in my ear as I stitched away ✌

[@JC-justchillin]

Excellent you can get moolah from needlework, I have not gotten there yet. Instead, I do boring data work while listening to fascinating ideas in science and philosophy. Wolfram is my latest fave.

[@samkarvonen8803]

The chief handicap of most debates on the nature of time amongst physicists is the reduction of a fundamental philosophical concept into less fundamental terms of physics. It's also apparent in Wolfram's treatment of time. Let us consider the following philosophical/ontological definition of time in axiomatic/fundamental terms: Time is the property of reality to last. The property of lasting logically ranges between an infinitesimal instance to infinity (eternity). Since nothing would exist if it didn't last even for an infinitesimal instance, time is a necessary sub-property of the more fundamental property of 'existence'. The notion of 'reversibility of time', under the foregoing fundamental ontological terms, is thereby absurd and meaningless since it would imply a property of 'reverse lasting'/ 'delasting' and, by extension, 'non-existing' as a positive or active property. Whereas the logical negation of the positive/active property of 'lasting' is 'ceasing to last' / 'not lasting'. Not ''reverse-lasting' or 'de-lasting'. Time as a subjective experience is merely the artifact of an observer experiencing this property of reality lasting. This experience has the quality of an irreversibly forward flow of 'now' which is preceded by the past and followed by the future. Implications of the above fundamental definition of time on physics: Physical time (time in physics) is the property of space lasting. As a result everything within space -- matter, energy, bodies of mass, gravity, forces and interactions -- also has a state in time such that it has a state before, present and in the future in relation to an observation at any point in time. Since space itself lasts, therefore its property of time renders it more fully and precisely describable as spacetime. The fundamental absurdity of reversibility of time articulated above under the philosophical definition of time applies, by way of deductive reasoning, to physics as well.

[@sshreddderr9409]

you are talking about time as a perceived thing. time in physics ultimately just refers to change, not its perception. time reversal is logical in that sense. an oscillating motion would qualify as time moving backwards, but it would still be perceived as normal time.

[@samkarvonen8803]

If you read carefully, time was *not* at all articulated as just a perceived thing but a fact of reality, namely 'the property of a thing lasting'. We can of course 'perceive' this fact but our perception of it is not the fundamental definition of time. It's a deeper concept, perfectly applicable to physics. And quite self-evident at that. 'Change' is *not* synonymous with 'time' but always occurs 'in time'. But so does an unchanging object occur 'in time' if it has any permanence / property of lasting, even for a fleeting moment. A claim of synonymity between 'time' and 'change' perpetrates Frankena's definist fallacy whereby two properties are claimed synonymous as a brute fact despite appearing different.

[@sshreddderr9409]

@@samkarvonen8803 this is just a different wording I guess. Something lasting is an emergent attribute of change. Without change, there is no lasting or not lasting, because lasting implies that something can change. One way or another, it is the process of change that is at its core. In the case of this video, it is clear that he also meant exactly that. He just framed it as rules being applied. If you strip it of all specifics, applying the rules is just change being induced. Unlike him, I tend to think that it isn't the application of rules that defines time, it's the change that they induce, because of you apply rules that don't change anything, there is nothing, so it can't be the application of rules, it has to be stated as the notion of change itself, or at most application of rules that cause change. There is no such thing as permanence. Everything material is a harmonic standing wave in a super fluid that fills space. Everything is moving , meaning that it's changing constantly, but it appears to be permanent because it's a very fast standing oscillation. Something that does not move, does not exist physically, because all there is is a fluid in motion. Any wave impulse can affect things. If there is no impulse, no pressure imbalance, there is nothing, not philosophically nothing, but physically nothing. That's also why zero kelvin cannot exist, and why getting something to 0 kelvin mathematically makes things disappear. This is not a mistake, it's caused by the fact that a fluid medium in motion is the substrate of reality. That's also where the connection of time and space comes in, if the universe was at 0 kelvin, there would be no motion, no time, and no space, because there would be no reference or difference because there would be no change.

[@samkarvonen8803]

Theoretically something can exist (and thereby last) without changing, so change is definitely not *more* fundamental as a term/property than lasting. Permanence in this context doesn't mean existing forever but just having a property of lasting, even for a moment. Change is a state of a thing being different at a point in time from a previous point in time, and therefore time is the more fundamental property while change is emergent. Even that changed thing (say, entity, object) lasted all the while during the change, but it's state only changed. Think about it carefully and you'll find yourself agreeing. Now we're having proper discussion on ontological fundamentals.

[@snarkyboojum]

Deutsch would agree, “going from what we observe in the world to deduce the underlying laws…. that doesn’t really work”. Spot on.

[@openleft4214]

Where's part 2 is been two hours already Im going through wolfram withdrawals.

[@notanemoprog]

Tell me about it.

[@mandogundam5779]

Science fan but not a scientist here. After watching Wolfram videos for the millionth time lol, think I finally am starting to get this. In a way time is considered a "side effect" of the universes computational processes. Making us "computationally aware" beings from a universal persepective. I would assume something big and/or highly unexpected, but not improbable must have happened to allow our level of conciouness to form in this universe. Maybey we are making a connection to something higher than our daily lives after all that allows for our awareness of the entire universe, despite having never actually been anywhere but earth🤯 (again I am not a scientist)

[@OliverSmith-j6d]

So time is the clock speed of the the computer that runs the simulation we live in

[@jimroth7927]

Not impossible. However, it is likely that Wolfram's idea would still correctly describe the more fundamental reality, that the computer simulating us lives in.

[@patinho5589]

The energy is the ONE ENERGY. The thing doing all the computations.

[@anthonycarbone3826]

The problem is everything is moving through both space and time. Nothing in space is stationary and everything is in motion just as time is in motion.

[@lloydharris8766]

How do you determine that itself is in motion and not a measurements of it?

[@johnsilfen70]

From an objects own reference frame it is always at rest if not accelerating. It is everything else that is moving. There are no reference velocity that defines what is stand still. Rotations do have a reference for no rotation, but not for objects which does not accelerate.

[@couldntfindafreename]

You can tell the time this podcast was recorded at from the arrangements of decoration on the shelf behind Stephen.

[@chadriffs]

Time then in relation to an observer is consciousness dependent or perception based and relativity is breakdancing all over that. Our body, emotions and intellect have different speeds of perception and functionality too which is easily observable. When spin creates mass and a 3-fold form (this not that), time (now not then) and consciousness (here not there) arises and is differentiated from EM which is a dualistic type of energy that cannot hold its form and can switch back and forth. Time then is an emergent factor of direction/growth that occurs when matter becomes 3.

[@MrLuumpy]

" When spin creates mass" LMAO What? 🤣

[@keaaufarmer]

I remember doing a physics lab as part of my undergraduate program in physics in the late 80s where we were modeling the surface charge on a surface of a conductor using a spreadsheet where individual cells in the spreadsheet represented portions of the conductor and there were rules defining how cells affected their neighbors each iteration of the calculation. Given a lot of iterations the system would “converge” to the solution of the charge distribution. In many ways what Steven is talking about here reminds me of that.

[@thewetcoast]

An excellent presentation on understanding time. 18:45 - the fundamental challenge of understanding time: we exist in time, even our rational process is bound by time, and its very difficult to transcend time to try explaining it (28:00). 23:00 - the concept of defining time in terms of "events" may bring us closer to an understanding of time: measuring one event against another. 53:00 - dark matter? necessary in a universe where gravity is the primary force, but regarded as a mathematical construct in a plasma/electric universe. 1:14:00 - science is in need of a paradigm shift!

[@davidrowewtl6811]

We will look back on Stephen's breakthroughs as strides by giants. Thank you for bringing us a ringside seat.

[@JayneSiroshton]

YES!!! we are living on this plane within this structure and when we are no longer bounded we can see that there is no time. Thank you for confirming this with your own words Stephen

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Time to go Into the Impossible! ^.^

[@visionscaper]

Another question: what (physically) defines the “causal graph”?

[@bariole]

It seem to me (after watching two YT interviews, which makes me an expert) that Mr. Wolfram has virtually the same definition of time as Julian Barbour. Both of them are talking about time as "observation" of everchanging pattern. An emerging property of system derived from a system state.

[@JC-justchillin]

Thanks for the reference!

[@TonyMountjoy]

I agree with Wolfram. All that is, is that which is/was productive.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

1:47 honestly people are so goofy. Time is literally hist “difference”, that’s it. So space has differences but is revealed over the variables which is time. We look at the variables and reflect structure with it to share understanding. Space IS, and time is DIFFERENCE. So a dimensions or measurement of a space and time means respecting it and sharing with it, not denial because that’s a misunderstanding. Imagine trying to move but denying all the negatives and those are connected to the positives so you can’t really go anywhere you want because you don’t see the positives or differences behind the others, interference patterns.

[@Skank_and_Gutterboy]

I'm reminded of the conversation from the movie Volunteers: Drug Lord: "Remember, time is money." Tom Hanks: "I thought you said opium is money." Drug Lord: "Money is money." Tom Hanks: "Uh, what's time again?"

[@smashu2]

If entangled particles are connected by wormholes, this could provide a way to explain the instantaneous connection between particles over vast distances, as seen in quantum entanglement. Here’s how it could fit into your theory: Wormholes as computational shortcuts: If time is the result of computation, entangled particles might be linked through wormholes, which act like shortcuts in the computational process. This would allow information to be shared instantaneously, bypassing the normal constraints of spacetime and time dilation. Instantaneous computation: The connection between the particles through a wormhole might allow them to "sync" their states instantaneously, which would explain why changes in one particle affect the other instantly, regardless of distance. This could be a type of computational parallelism-two particles might be executing the same computational process through different paths. Quantum information: If wormholes are used to link entangled particles, this could suggest that the information encoded in one particle could be transferred through the wormhole to the other, bypassing traditional space-time constraints.

[@Jay-eb7ik]

So I'm not the same person I was a moment ago? Computation builds us every moment and a sense of self is just the persistence of memory? Scary.. but liberating.

[@alquinn8576]

u should read Reasons and Persons if u interested in that

[@Jay-eb7ik]

@@alquinn8576 will do! thank you.

[@daveulmer]

Once you understand how life works you will understand why it takes time.

[@SkyDarmos]

42 trillion years is the true age of the universe. It is a funny coincidence.

[@b43xoit]

There should be whole curricula on observer theory.

[@JC-justchillin]

At least a whole podcast

[@Mikael-z3z]

My take is that if time stands still at the speed of light - then our perception time is the difference from no speed to the speed of light confined in the spacetime inertia that defines our space within our Universe affected by entropy…

[@kylelochlann5053]

Time doesn't stand still for a photon, time is undefined for a photon.

[@Mikael-z3z]

Maybe then because electromagnetism is no longer defined at the speed og light - the closer to the speed of light the less definition - the farther u get - the more defined experience of time because of gravity - i know this sounds a bit relativistic hmm

[@conspansion]

Time is a geometric scaling rate of reality itself

[@picksalot1]

Existence is the Noumenon. The Phenomenon is called Time. Entropy is the mechanism that produces Time in the form of change in the Universe. Past, Present, and Future are the ways people relate to the experience of change in the space between their ears. If Entry is zero, Time stands still.

[@FAK_CHEKR]

There can be motion without a change in entropy. But there cannot be a change in entropy without motion. Entropy changes, and time, are derived from motion.

[@larry-d5k5q]

Our time is running out.

[@uazuazu]

If someone is moving at 0.5c, it looks to us like they're going slow. But equally it looks to them like we're going slow. It is called relativity for a reason. So how does that fit with his intuition that going faster uses more GHz, leaving less GHz to progress time? I'm not sure that part adds up. I remember reading Carlo Rovelli about quantum gravity, and I was disappointed that he didn't talk about how that theory handles relativity, because it is absolutely vital for the concept to work. The rest certainly makes sense to me. If a "particle of space" is allowed only 6 neighbours at any moment, and particles of space constantly connect and reconnect to form the lowest energy state with a suitably defined "energy" function, then they will naturally form a 3D "fabric of space". Then tune 6 up and down, and they will dynamically form 2.5D or 3.1D or whatever. This part definitely works from my point of view. But making this work and be compatible with relativity is the huge outstanding problem for me.

[@patinho5589]

If we leave the rather at 0.5c and go for a trip and comeback.. the people on the earth will have aged by loads .. and we won’t have. Apparently. So our time passage has slowed.. ask theirs hasn’t. I get what you mean that each side is moving 0.5c relative to the other. I don’t know how to resolve that with the story in my first paragraph. I might talk to chat gpt about it later

[@patinho5589]

It’s the twin paradox. Chat gpt just told me. It is resolved apparently because the person leaving rather has to accelerate to turn around, to come back to earth breaking the symmetry. As an aside. With that acceleration it’s equivalent to experiencing lots of gravity I think.

[@uazuazu]

@@patinho5589 Yes, this can all be made sense of within relativity, it is all consistent. You are travelling through the space-time continuum at different "angles" relative to each other. But in relativity there is no preferred frame of reference. However in quantum gravity, there is a preferred frame, where all the space "particles" are not moving significantly. There is a contradiction still to be resolved. If I'm travelling at 0.5c, am I passing over still space particles at 0.5c, or are all the space "particles" travelling along with me at 0.5c? If so, how do they interact with the other space particles not travelling at 0.5c? The maths around relativity is very well developed and repeatedly confirmed experimentally -- to the point that we predicted gravitational waves and gravitational lensing and clock drift in GPS satellites and so on. Quantum gravity needs to explain all of this. Right now it just seems like a cute idea, although very attractive.

[@1013fly]

I love the part where Steven low key says he farted.. "releasing a scent" 😅

[@maksimyasko2092]

Mr Wolfram builds an informational dynamic MODEL of reality and states that it IS a reality itself.

[@tinman1955]

There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was much faster than light She departed one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night

[@JC-justchillin]

Here for the science limericks!

[@MikeFuller-d4d]

There is just one thing I don't understand here... Everything!!

[@stripey7303]

This engineer says it was difficult to adapt to the idea that you could get something complicated out of a simple set of rules. He's apparently never heard of natural selection.

[@michaeld9379]

Consciousness and observation in general is also important in psychiatry. If we could understand subjective experiences objectively, we can have more targeted medications to help improve psychiatric/mental health symptoms.

[@fantasy_foexig1116]

6:00 Another Example i instantly yhought of was Conways Game of Life wich has a pretty simple ruleset yet produces astonishing results. I saw Video form AlphaPeohnix exlpaining all the details about it and there definetly are some reletions there .

[@123100ozzy]

bold statements from a man out of experimental range

[@4thpdespanolo]

“So what is time?” “Well, I started researching cellular automata..”

[@pepe6666]

he's the man! i love how he's getting better and better at explaining this. im finally starting to understand ... i think.

[@mikeprice5838]

@8:05 "the answer is 42"

[@smashu2]

In your computational theory of time, gravity could be understood as a result of the complexity and resource demands of the system performing computations within spacetime. Here’s one possible way to integrate gravity into your framework: Gravity as Computational Load: Mass and Computation: The presence of mass (or energy) in a region of spacetime increases the computational load of the system. When mass is present, the computational steps required to manage the system’s interactions-such as the paths of particles or the flow of energy-become more complex. As a result, the rate of time slows down in areas of higher mass because the system is processing more steps at once. Curvature as Computational Resource Allocation: Gravity in Einstein's relativity is the curvature of spacetime. In your theory, this curvature could represent areas of spacetime where computational resources are concentrated. The higher the mass, the greater the need for computation in that region, leading to more complex calculations and causing spacetime to bend around massive objects. This is why objects near large masses, like stars or black holes, experience time differently-more steps need to be processed in that area of space. Gravity as a Computation "Network": Mass as a Node: Massive objects could be seen as "nodes" in a computational network that influence the distribution of time and computational resources across spacetime. The more mass, the more computational “weight” is added, requiring more steps and slowing down time in its vicinity. Gravitational Influence: When a particle or object moves near a massive body, it essentially navigates through a more complex computational field. The more massive the object, the more intricate the computations become in that region, which affects the object's path (or trajectory), making it bend towards the massive body. Spacetime as a Computational Fabric: Gravity could be viewed as the way spacetime itself adjusts to allocate resources for these computations. In a sense, the curved spacetime of general relativity is the result of computational optimization around massive objects-ensuring that all steps are processed correctly, even as time slows down near large masses. Quantum Gravity: If we apply this theory at the quantum scale, gravity could emerge as the result of interactions between particles that involve more computational complexity. Tiny particles may experience gravity as the system performs more computational steps to track their interactions, leading to a smooth emergence of gravitational effects when viewed at larger scales.

[@mitchellhayman381]

This man is incredible. Smartest most creative person alive possibly

[@street_struggle7]

All signal no noise. What a humbling discussion. We thought we knew something and then it all blows up to be so much more complicated. Of course it is, its the universe.

[@TheVRRacer]

Time is the ultimate expression of Causality. Action-Reaction or Cause-Effect. Effect that is the cause for a new effect. So Cause-Effect/Cause-Effect. Causality moves in one direction.

[@ManicMuli]

Unfortunately that's easy way above my paygrade as an engineer. The main takeaways are: 1) everything might be already computed 2) we're moving along in this data block because we're experiencing time in the direction of a certain time vector 3) there might be / there possibly were more dimensions than we're experiencing 4) we need a new approach in science which is more focused on algorithmic solutions which can yield more insight into emergent properties of matter and space 5) space might be quantized and a few more.... Fascinating .... Grab the low hanging fruits now and keep us posted ...

[@kevin02mulder]

the human dimension consist of 1/3 of the pie :) but 2/3 are physically present in the realm of beginnings and ending. behold the human brain does interact with it. aprox 30 seconds in the future for you

[@danstar455]

Rahma a chemistry professor: What could we be talking about? Heat!!!