Is Time Real? - Philosophy Tube

A general introduction to the philosophy of time, explaining the distinction between A-theory and B-theory.
Metaphysics Playlist: • METAPHYSICS
Facebook: PhilosophyTu...
Twitter: @PhilosopyTube
Email: [e-mail]
That ancient Egyptian axe: imgur.com/VD2kkD9
The Philosophy Tube theme is "Show Your Moves" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
The Comment music is "Pamgea" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)

[@theqwertydiamond]

I was in a rush cooking a roast, but I still found thyme to season it.

[@PhilosophyTube]

eyyyyyyyyyyyy!

[@quantumdave1592]

Balderdash! Hogwash... we are a Dream dreamt long ago but ever persistent so on it goes.

[@willemvandebeek]

"A philosopher is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to."

[@shaquevara]

that's what he said

[@chickenfeed6272]

@@shaquevara Gay.

[@rusirumunasinghe7354]

Just in time.

[@IL-mt4wu]

about time....

[@dhammaboy1203]

As a philospher I’m quite inclined to agree but I’m not so sure my friends see it that way! 🤣

[@laurao6314]

Honestly, revisiting this topic with the production value of the channel now would ✨just be too amazing✨

[@Whimsical_b1sen]

Yessss it’s a must!!!

[@dunja3013]

omg that thing at 4:16 (-ish) is what Douglas Adams talks about when he says that grammar is the biggest problem of time-traveling!

[@hrnekbezucha]

What about being only present? Future is imaginery, just a dream. Something that didn't happen and maybe never will. Past is just a memory. And memory is fallible.

[@sixaethereal5011]

you're onto something there but that's not QUITE accounting for our ability to record present events. yes recordings can be doctored or incomplete in the same way that memories can but there is a theoretical perfect recording and we'd be able to point to that and say "this is an event that was in the present and now it's not"

[@fatimasyed7783]

this is called presentism it's a big thing in the philosophy of time and metaphysics read Prior he talks about it a lot!

[@dennisgalvin2521]

Very true, there's no past or future of time as a holding for things that have happened or are going to happen. We live in dynamic present. and before an event happens it doesn't exist and after it happens it ceases to. With our mind we can see the complete picture and string all the events together with their time measurement and it can appear like a long time but in reality all previous events have ceased to exist and things yet to happen don't exist yet. A little late in replying, I was on this comment section 5 years ago like yourself but it's only of late that I started looking into this presentist view. It's very logical and fits very well with what my Definition of time is. " Time is a system devised for keeping track of the day and year. Time passing is an illusion that was created by the harnessing of our planets rotations for time's invention " Wish I had paid mote attention to your comment earlier. Take care, be safe.

[@PhilosophyTube]

First!

[@derfettegarfield]

In B theory, there is no first! :D

[@PhilosophyTube]

Jakob Beyer Ah but there is! It's in the earliest earlier-than relation to all the others!

[@derfettegarfield]

Philosophy Tube But that's a fairly relative property, isn't it? :D

[@PhilosophyTube]

Jakob Beyer No, see B-theory still has a series of events. It still thinks there is time, just that the present is indexical. So there are still earlier and later events.

[@TotalPhilosophy]

Philosophy Tube Time is just an illusion, so I think you will find that I am first.

[@MisterJohnPadge]

The why I like to think about time is through physics. Einstien's theory gravity basically states that things with mass distort the space-time continuum (like a ball stretching a fishing net). In order to travel "straight" through space-time (as you would if you are not experiencing any force) AND travelling along the "arrow of time" you must then travel at an angle though space towards the object distorting space-time (gravity). So, in a very loose way, gravity is proof of time being real. Maybe? Moving through time is like moving through space in one dimension (kinda, not saying anything about past, present, future here). The interesting thing is the time (like speed for example) is relative. It is possible to move through time at different rates to someone else (based on your relative velocity). So you can effectively travel forward through time for another person's perspective. Not sure if this is relevant enough to the video but I think it's interesting to think about the philosophy of physics. (My favorite :D)

[@radialwellendichtrin]

That field of physics is very interesting. The but time in Einstein's theories isn't really like a spacial dimension. You can't walk back and forwart in time, you can't walk in a "time circle". You don't even have to do anything, to move in time. Aside from background movement like the rotation of the earth and so on (which you can cancel out fairly well) you don't change your position in space without having a velocity. But you do change your position in time no matter what you do. You can sort of meddle with that ongoing of time whith gravity or relativistic speeds. But for any object that has mass at rest, you can't actually stop time. So all that really tells us is that there is a physical property that has influence on the order of things (and that pretty soon leads you into entropy and so on), which we perceive as time.

[@MisterJohnPadge]

Perhaps I worded it more poorly than I thought. Moving through time is sort of a 'passive' thing, yes. What I was trying to say is that, like you say " you don't change your position in space without having a velocity". But you can obtain a velocity from the perspective of someone else if they start moving relative to you. And this is where i liken it to time. You can move through time at a different rate if someone is moving relative to you. To be honest it's quite late at night and I can't seem to follow your argument. Sorry.

[@radialwellendichtrin]

Dun tay That is an appealing analogy, but I see a problem: When you change your position in space, you change it over time. So you have a non-zero time derivative of your position. You may be at the same location as someone else at time A and then be at a different position at time B. But time doesn't really have that. You can't derive time with time. Time doesn't change over time in a relativistic system, it is just different. That makes me say that there is no movement in time, just different times in different systems. When you compare the different times, you can say that one time is more or less expanded than the other. But that's like saying that one person is 1.7m and another is 1.8m tall. The one person didn't move to 1.8 meters (recently), he just is that height.

[@MisterJohnPadge]

I'm not trying to compare position in space to position in time or Time with time but rather relative position in space to velocity and rate of time travel to velocity. Think time dilation.

[@THUNKShow]

Is it just me, or does McTaggart's paradox boil down to Zeno's paradox? If you're counting on a number line, if you've reached 3, 1 is less than 3 and 5 is greater than 3. But wait! 2 is greater than 1, so you have a greater-than-the-less-than relation, and 4 is less than 5, so you have a less-than-the-greater-than relation, and 6 has a greater-than-the-greater-than relation, which means 4 must have the less-than-the-greater-than-the-greater-than relation...etc. Silly things seem to happen when you try to think about continuums in terms of individual points within those continuums. One interesting thing to note about the cooling pie: we sort of accept the law of increasing entropy as a fact of the universe - that's why we could film the pie cooling and know if we were watching the tape forward or backwards. But as far as we can tell, all events in physics are "time-symmetric;" there's no reason you couldn't run the film backwards and still have a totally valid interaction between particles (a pie that absorbs heat from its surroundings until it's piping hot, then goes into the oven and returns that heat to the burners, etc.). The only reason that there appears to be an arrow of time at all is simply because there are *more* disorganized ways for matter to arrange itself than there are organized ways, so randomly-bouncing particles will *statistically* tend to end up more spread-out and disorganized than they were before. Entropy is purely a function of probability!

[@gamefreak23788]

I know I am a bit late to the comment, but I think Zeno/McTaggart's paradoxes are more a problem of hermeneutical error than a true universal paradox.

[@landonmenne]

This has been my favorite video so far. Thank you for taking the "time" to share these thoughts.

[@cyruslanthier461]

Of course change can't happen in B theory - It's all already "happened." The pie (insofar as it is a thing we can point to "through time") is hot, cold, in the oven, on the windowsill, being baked and eaten. Picture a pool cue in front of you pointing to your right. Spatially, the cue begins on the left fairly thick, tapers off, and ends with a bit of felt - that is it's shape. Temporally, the pie is baked, is warm, cools, and is eaten - that (for lack of a better term) is it's (four-dimensional) shape. Loving this series so far - I'm happy to have lots to catch up on. :)

[@alfredoaran3372]

Loved the "ch-ch-ch-ch-changes" part...I just love David Bowie so much.

[@fesimco4339]

Ooh I have bad news for you...

[@alfredoaran3372]

@@fesimco4339 Oh no...don't tell me Prince died

[@fesimco4339]

@@alfredoaran3372 Hahaha, that killed me.

[@eoghan.5003]

6:38 Olly making an Undertale reference before Undertale was released fills you with determination that time is an illusion

[@sebby96xoxo]

I'm writing a paper on this and I am "dead."

[@AgnamTheGreat]

Never thought that I would see a Perfect Dark reference in a philosophy video. Thank you Olly! :D

[@YonatanZunger]

Looking back at these early videos, they hold up remarkably well. Abigail is a remarkably good teacher.

[@theobgshow]

Your delivery is excellent. Thanks

[@jordanmellor5903]

Really helped me revise for my Being, Becoming and Reality exam so thankyou!

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Jordan Mellor No worries!

[@emilyfishie]

i watched this after watching your essay on identity and whether identity can change and this time theory just made that idea more complicated and interesting :)

[@nickbensema3045]

There's something comforting about all the basic impact-font memes in play in a 2014 philosophy tube video

[@jokey95123]

I was pretty depressed lately and I just found your channel. Thank you :)

[@jessiejames1264]

thank so much for sharing your knowledge. I really appreciate it.

[@willmistretta]

That was fascinating and all, but I'll still admit to subscribing for that sweet Perfect Dark reference.

[@evanvoyageur2977]

Oh this too! Is one of my favourite subjects to think about

[@benniewanders4388]

The real issue with B theory is that it doesn't account for randomness - "entropy increases over time" introduces a random degree of deviation from any "ideal" prediction that (per Schrodinger) CANNOT be accounted for. That means that, essentially, if you cut a single slice of time that encapsulates all space, there's a.... manydimensional 'cone' of futures and pasts extending from it. For each 'tick' of time, countably many (but a very, very large number) of random deviations happen to the subatomic particles that make up the universe as we understand it, and those deviations add up into larger and larger diversions of possibility. Likewise, the further you go into the past, the less information is preserved about WHICH past lead to our chosen slice - and you can never, ever discern the truth, and it literally doesn't even matter either, because all of those pasts had the exact same result. This implies that the present exists within an unbelievably massive matrix of possible Presents, some of which are linked together by being valid pasts/futures for each other, and that time is the order (not accounting for direction) in which those frames are arrayed.

[@GraceSanders]

just found this channel- love it

[@NavrasNeo]

I wanna hear more about time next week! :)

[@jonahdunch4056]

This reminds me a lot of your episode on Kant. It seems to me that time is a synthetic a priori concept. It's a fundamental part of the way a human being processes experience, and it can only be "proven" by accepting that it exists in the first place. The example with space outlined in the Kant video shows that one can go about demonstrating the existence of space by pointing out the difference between Point A and Point B, but that in order to do that one needs to already accept and understand the concept of space. I'd say that the same is true with time: one can demonstrate its apparent existence by pointing out the difference between Date A and Date B, but you need time to point out that difference in the first place, because time, like space or numbers, is so intrinsic to human experience that it can't be proven or disproven using, well, human experience. McTaggart was onto this in his critique of A-theory. However, just because something (like time and other synthetic a prioris) can't be proven to exist, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that one can't know if it exists or not. Another thing is that McTaggart's original complaint with B-theory regarding change raises the question of what change actually is. Recognizing Leibniz's Law, a thing that changes over time doesn't retain its identity, since it acquires new properties, including a new position in time. McTaggart's complaint seems to rest on the idea that change is a real, definable feature of an object, whereas it seems to me that change is just a subjective way of comparing two things with different identities, while recognizing the transformative effects of time that exist in either theory.

[@StreetSquad99]

Great episode! Please do Resource Curse!

[@mariesoullier]

I find it hard to talk about time philosophically without it ending up a discussion about physics. Things like the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, special relativity, etc have given reasonably solid answers as to most of the fundamental questions about the nature of time. The modern philosophical questions seem to be more about the subjective human experience of time rather than the actual nature of time itself and even then the personal experience area is very much intertwined with biology and neuroscience.

[@brendanotoole5871]

subed the moment i saw the premise of your channel. south park reference at the end made my whole day, i wish i could sub twice.

[@PhilosophyTube]

Brendan O'Toole Hah, that's really kind of you! Welcome!

[@TotalPhilosophy]

Can I please place a vote for 'Does time pass?'. Also, you might want to create a voting website soon for when you get big and won't be able to count all the votes in the comments!

[@matthargroves7221]

I know the book 1984 is talked allot about on this channel but i think its a good example of what their describing. The book was written in the past about a future point in time that is now in the past. But the book can still be described as futuristic, in that it describes a society that from a present perspective could be in our future. Love when they make Bowie references!

[@ViewtifulSam]

I find it intriguing that one would discard B-theory for the sake of the "lack of change" argument alone. Why is it so important to preserve a particular notion of change? What if change is simply defined as the variation of state of a given object through different "places" in time? This reminds me of something from mathematics. Nowadays nearly everywhere a function will be defined as a triple consisting of the domain (a set of elements), the co-domain (also a set of elements, possibly the same as the domain), and a set of pairs that defines which element of the co-domain corresponds to each element of the domain, which is often called the "graph". In this sense, a function is merely a list of points -- a table. It seems some people don't like this idea of functions being "static" objects because it doesn't capture the idea that a function takes an input and returns an output. A function should be something that eats a thing, transforms it, and then spits another thing. So considering functions as being mere tables would kill this notion of change or transformation. Maybe McTaggart's objection do B-theory goes along these lines? Maybe he'd like to think of time itself as an agent instead of a table that informs the state of the universe at each point?

[@julianadeau4885]

I'm not really sure... I always saw Time as fixed, but merely that it was our immediate perception of time that changed. And that as our perception of Time changed, so did our reality to express the necessary change. I came to this concept primarily because I would have prophetic dreams on occasion, which would eventually come true. This always made me feel like I was occupying the Past, Present and Future simultaneously, and that it is only my perceptions whilst in a dream state, had expanded to include memories of the future and past. Of course, I realized that this would have profound implications upon the notion of Free Will. How can we have Free Will when the Past, Present and Future are all occuring simultaneously? Well, the movie "Inception" handled this question quite brilliantly... and it quite matched my own reasoning on the matter, namely that while we have Free Will in most regards, there are moments in the timeline where an individual must be in the right place at the time to perform a certain action (or to endure the result thereof). Ever find yourself in a situation where you were doing something you knew you shouldn't and despite all your efforts to alter your disastrous course, you are powerless to stop yourself? Well, that's what I like to call the Hands of the Fates upon you. While my metaphors are obviously couched in Polytheist Religiosity, it is an adequate method of describing the concept as I've come to understand it. This, of course, has further implications with the concepts of the Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design, but I don't really want to get into that right now as it's 3am, I'm tired and I want to go to bed... as another metaphor for the original question regarding time, I cite Doctor Who, who claims that Time is a little bit of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey and that it is the mind that perceives it as linear. Perhaps, as someone who's an Aspie, who are often blessed (and cursed) with non-linear thinking, I am gifted with the ability to perceive time not in the linear, but as wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey...

[@RyanGatts]

PHYSICS TO THE RESCUE! Time exists (or at least something like time exists). It is the direction in which entropy is increasing (in that way there is futurity and pastness; the future has greater entropy than the past and all more future events will have more entropy). Time is almost exactly the same as space in this respect; you can only move forward through it. Specifically, you can only move through either at the sum total of the speed of light and moving faster through one makes you move slower through the other.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Nice video!!! We can have an A theory of ‘time’ if Quantum Mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a process of continuous energy exchange formed by the spontaneous absorption and emission of light. With the future coming into existence with each new photon electron coupling or dipole moment relative to the atoms of the periodic table. Therefore because we are made of atoms we have a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions! This is within an infinite number of reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence. We are all in the center of our own reference frame in 'the moment of now' being able to look back in time at the beauty of the stars!

[@saeedbaig4249]

+An artist theory on the physics of 'Time' as a physical process. Quantum Atom Theory I don't know what that means... but it sounded beautiful so here's a like!

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

@@saeedbaig4249 Thanks!!! It is Beautiful!

[@asimpledevice]

was that a perfect dark reference in the beginning? awesome.

[@EverydayEmira]

I'd like to hear more about time next week.

[@grade8william]

All 'time' is is the progression of millions of plank frames passing so fast that we see them as smooth running events, in the same way a film is simply a complementation of still images, but we perceive them as a continuous stream of moving objects.

[@docpepperclassic]

I would love to keep talking about time, because this episode was super-fascinating. However, a discussion on resources (basically a philosophical approach to economics) gets my vote in the end. But please return to the subject of "time" somewhere in the future-presentness.

[@emma12569]

gunna write my dissertation on this stuff, fascinating

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

It has been some time since I read McTaggart's famous paper, but I do remember that he argued for the unreality of time rather convincingly. Even now, I am not certain whether his ideas on time are indeed anchored in a classical model of the universe or whether it was a prelude to the complications that would soon arise from physics. For whereas a B-series seems to obscure the apparent flow of events from future, to present, to past, A-series would definitely struggle to resolve issues such simultaneity paradoxes from special relativity. Both series would struggle with the find that QM is incompatible with "local realism" (but of course the former is not a theory of space and time in the way that GR is). Also, I do not have any recollection of McTaggart making a serious attempt of explaining temporal properties in terms of the B series. On the other hands, the fact that the A series takes temporal properties (of past, present and future) as a fundamental premise hardly constitutes an explanation of how these properties come about, but only renders the problem into a problem of fundamentals. In any case, I think that A-theories seem to conflate the issue of "what constitutes temporal order" with that of "why time passes". Also the fact that time cannot be analysed unless its existence is assumed is quite unconvincing: all specific object and even most properties of the world cannot be known in the absence of sense data; it could be that time can also not be spoken of a priori (after all, we cannot show the existence of physical space from reason alone - does that mean that spatial properties are "unreal"?). Now, the modern cynic may be ponder: once the 'natural philosophy', i.e. physics, of time is explained and once the phychology and neurophysiology of time perception is addressed, will anything be left for philosophers of time to address? I would probably propose the following question: "are mental properties also mental properties?" As the issue is so relevant, I would prefer to see the video on "does time pass" next.

[@kindoflame]

Hey, I was just about to bring up Special Relativity.

[@intentionallyblank2082]

What it time is just a measurement of change. Things appear in the past because of the increase in entropy.

[@Garland41]

I don't know if you still look at old videos (going to ignore the now newness of this video) but what do you mean by 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc order stuff?

[@MugishaMosesK]

I learnt so much in such a short space of time without understanding anything.

[@nostalgia63]

Good video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive: objective, Imperceptible and measurable.

[@brookeabeles1943]

Do you think the metaphysics of properties is interesting? Love this video - one of my favorite areas of metaphysics too. Just having a harder time getting into other metaphysical areas

[@danielwaters6001]

Big bang until end of time is just one moment.

[@alihammadshah]

Is there a 'change' which is non temporal? In quantum mechanics a qubit can be in two states at once - does this count as non-temporal?

[@iamclarity]

It's all so circular. In fact, it makes me view time as existing (if it exists) on, in, or as some type of wheel or round object. What are the implications of that?

[@JonSebastianF]

I am very curious where Einstein's theory of general relativity fits into this debate. Is that just another B-theory or does it support the concept of time being "illusory" or "not a real feature of the universe"?

[@TheRealKriptik]

so how does ageing come into this ? I thought time was measured by our perception of existing so while we age we are seeing a past present and future diffrence

[@timeformegaman]

The Arnold clip did me in. Subscribed.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Russell Gragilla Welcome!

[@bhscklardie]

If anti particles move in the opposite direction in time, what exactly is the right direction in time? since we have no frame of reference other than our own, time could actually be going in reverse and our reality actually happens backwards. Is time 1 dimensional, only being able to move forward and backwards or is there a sideways dimension of time

[@Seraphobe]

Well, B theory and determinism seem to fit together very well and neither of them seem to fit with anything else than each other. While A theory... time changes over time? Does it even mean anything? Am I missing some essential part of A theory?

[@charlessloboda-bolton3135]

change could be described in B-theory terms as the object moving through time; the properties of the object don't change, but they move through time, which affects their properties, just as moving from one place to another affects the properties of an object spatially... or have i just described A-theory? not sure... anyway, excited to watch ore of your videos!

[@jayanuraga8785]

still don't get it why B theory is invalid ._. ,, time must have the properties of changes.. why ?

[@sixaethereal5011]

Olly has a different video on this, where he explains how one of the greek philosophers stated that time IS change. he also restates the A and B theories in a slightly different way

[@km1dash6]

McTaggart also assumed the A-series and the B-series are mutually exclusive, but it could be that both of these theories are incomplete pictures of time, and together they form a complete picture.

[@calebcamrud4648]

So I'm like, 2 months late to this, but I just started watching this channel today and I must say, it's very good. In the context of time I would have to agree with the B theorists. The idea that change cannot occur because of this seems simply illogical. Yes, there would be a pie with the property of being hot and a pie with the property of being cool, along with a pie at every point of time with a temperature relative to those points. The smallest amount of time that can create "change" in the universe being a Planck time, I would suggest that the universe is a series of slides of our three dimensional (or extra dimensional) world strung together like the frames of a video, with each frame at each Planck time. At this point it really just matters what one's definition of "change" is. There may not be a completely smooth procession of time, but the pie would still gradually cool.

[@wushish]

I believe that in physics there is a concept called the arrow of time. The basic idea is that time itself has a given direction only because of entropy. Many of the concepts in physics work equally well going backwards in time as they do going forwards. But the arrow of time and entropy dictate that you can't unbreak and egg. Time is also often described as another dimension. A temporal dimension. And the spatial analogue for time is a line. Each point on the line has its own unique properties, but is directly related to the other points around it. I feel like treating time as simply a line (not necessarily with direction) addresses the problems in A and B theory. Maybe i'm completely wrong though?

[@GMCiaramella]

I would enjoy further discussion on time, this video was entertaining in it's timey whimeyness... :)

[@StreetSquad99]

I think a flaw (if it is) in McTaggart's argument is that we need to be able to give full definition of time in order to check if time really exists. However, I do not think we need to give full definition of time but we can simply point to our experience of senses (as John Locke did). In other words, we can experience time as events pass by. Therefore, time exists but we may not be able to give full definition of time as McTaggart "proved".

[@MarkoTManninen]

It takes two to Tango. Compare two things stable changing, it doest matter if they move, alter, resize etc, referring point can be a constant flow of water collected on bowl for example, requirement is that they must be repeatable and measurable, and there you have time invented, calculable and useful. More profound question is why some change takes a place irreversible?

[@benjaminjosephonelove9786]

Recently I watched for the second time the video about space and Time by Chuck Mistler on KZbin and, in there physics apparently makes it very crystal clear that time is a physical property of space. That’s why physicist referred to space and time always as one entity, The space-time continuum. Furthermore they have proven that as you speed up your movement through space you change the passage of time as recorded by atomic clocks. So I’ve been thoroughly persuaded that time is a very physical part of the material universe. Even though it seems counterintuitive to think of time as a physical property because we invented clocks to measure the passage of time, in reality as far as I understand the space-time continuum, as we change either our speed that we’re moving through space or the gravitational force of the area space that we’re moving through our physical real passage of time changes from observer to observer. Based on their speed that they’re moving and the amount of gravity they’re moving through. Have the philosopher Taking this into account?

[@anotheralex6678]

Why isn't McTaggart's paradox thought of as a good argument anymore? What are the responses to it? Thanks

[@sourcedrop7624]

I think time is a spatial dimension that is already laid out and life is a wave of energy moving through that ocean. Present is a central part of the wave, which is moving along the time spatial dimension. Past is what the wave has already washed over. Future is nondeterministic potential directions within the deterministic physical spaces.

[@injustanotherguy]

This time paradox sounds a lot like Zena's paradox with the turtle racing achileas. Can it not be resolved in a similar manner without invoking infinite regression?

[@tessarnold7597]

ok, coming late to this. But, aside from A-theory or B-theory, what do you think about the difference between the posits of Presentism, Growing Block theory, and Eternalism? Or the idea that if Time is a coordinate plane - as in Eternalism - then Time doesn't move so much as we move through it? Or, how Presentism coincides with our perceptions of Time? And how Growing Block theory is just fekkin' ridiculous on its face?

[@DwalinDroden]

I am inclined to like the B theory explanations. In response to McTaggert's concern about change, I think I would say that it is akin to Hume's ideas about free-will. While it doesn't exist as we intuitively think about it, it is qualitatively equivalent for us. While the pie is both hot and cold at different times, our being locked in a progression of time means that we will experience a change.

[@rationalMexican]

I'm a physics grad student, and I thought of a couple of questions: First, from relativity: the idea of "right now, but over there" is meaningless, since the rate of passage of time changes depending on where you are and how you're moving. Do philosophies of time take this into account? Second, from thermodinamics: the arrow of time points in the direction of increasing entropy. Again, do philosophers think about this also?

[@goatorr]

If materialist determinism is correct (and assuming I understand it correctly), it implies that the given state of the universe at a given "time" is but one of an infinite set of solutions to mathematical equations. In an abstract mathematical sense, all solutions "exist simultaneously" in that they are all elements of the same infinite set ("the range of the function"). So how to address time? Perhaps we are traveling through that set according to a certain path, the motion of which we perceive as "time". Each point on this path is one of the solutions provided by the universe function, and they are further related by virtue of being solutions to the "path" function within. They could theoretically share certain spatial orientations of matter in common, allowing us to see motion (which we perceive relative to time). Or not.

[@hckytwn3192]

Quantum mechanics explains this. Reality doesn’t exist outside of observation. Reality is just a set of probabilities until you observe it. If you have observed something, it’s in the past. If you are observing something it’s in the present. The future is a set of probabilities of what you *could* observe. Events themselves aren’t past, present and future, but your observations are... and since you, the observer change, so can your observations.

[@TheJas-vr2vr]

How does the physical concept of space-time affect the philosophy of time?

[@deamon91]

I lately thought about the perception of Time and How to manipulate it. Like when you are bored, it seems like Time doesnt pass at all, and when you are in the State of Flow Hours fly by. Any usefull Information you could Help me with? :D

[@steveharrison76]

Seems to me that time only exists because it is perceived. We anticipate a future and remember a past, but they aren’t actually things. So the points go to Schrodinger, really.

[@PoseidonProduction]

What if Both universes exist at the same time? By that I mean what if they work together to create one another? Universe B treats time as if it is in one place, allowing it to exist at multiple times. While Universe A treats time as a river that flows without having the ability to exist in multiple forms at once. What if time flows but goes on at the same time? With "Here" only be relative to the being. Flowing like A but being held together by B?

[@natsumenatsume8708]

I think time is more A than B, because I think what we really mean by time is continuity. Some people say entropy, but I think that leads to a faulty reasoning. When the universe reaches maximum entropy, there will still be photons, which travel at the speed of light, and as long as light speed exists, potential for time to exist is still in force, because if something was to start traveling at the speed of light, time would have to slow down for them not to outpace the photons and hence "go back in time". But photons themselves don't experience time, every event is instantaneous, so if photons are the only things that exist in maximum entropy, no-one is around to observe time and if there was, you could that the universe then isn't in maximum entropy. I honestly don't have the slightest clue.

[@MrJimbissle]

Are 'we' really still looking at time thru the lenz you described? Why not look at it the same way we look at other 1 dimensional things [lines]? I am at this point. There is left and right directions from me and the spot I am occuping. Even if I am moving along it. The discussion becomes much simpler and ideas clearer.

[@xmessenger6127]

perhaps only the present is the illusion. Past flips to future as it crosses an axis. Is the axis illusory or how we come to understand the present?

[@lewisturner6880]

Time in my mind and the names given to it (past present and future) are but names to describe the state of being of a person , action and/or item. It is but a chain of states that a being has to go through to be considered to exist/had existed or will exist. Eg: before one can be in the present a person must of experienced his past to make him or her to be where they are. And before a person can become the future he must move through the present. However, I have noticed (particularly because I study etymology in my spare time) that languages adapt to tenses. Like English has the three tenses already spoken about (past present future) but languages such as Bosnian and Bulgarian have 7 tenses. By tenses I'm talking about how a word can be used. (I'm not fluent in either of those languages I would like to add. I only know this stuff through friends from both countries) Eg : you don't say "I will walked the dog' you say "I will walk the dog". So, could it be that the issue of time is a linguistic issue or if not even that but a grammar issue?

[@christianforbes6579]

Dumb question here Could time be thought of as analogous to potential kinetic energy? As a rock perched atop a hill has potential energy, it expends kinetic energy when it rolls down the hill, and its energy is exhausted when it comes to rest at the bottom of the hill? Is there any sense to wondering if there's such things as 'potential time' in the future, kinetic time is the present, and depleted time in the past?

[@sonicpsycho13]

What you describe sounds similar to the definition of time being the tendency toward increased universal entropy. Time passes as the chaotic motion of particles increases and their potential to do work decreases. Now consider this: There's an empty part of space with no particles in it, does time pass inside that space?

[@brynbstn]

Is A theory basically Newtonian Time? Seems so. I'm not sure if B theory is Kantian Time, i.e. 'time is an internal framework of the mind with which we organize sense experience'. Or is B theory more like "Presentism", which you cover in another video? I agree that contemplating change is fascinating, and is (or should be) a cornerstone of metaphysical inquiry, and it's odd that it was not discussed more in the history of philosophy, or that Time in general was not discussed more. It's obviously one of the most beguiling problems in metaphysics. I think any philosophy of time needs to distinguish between the measurement of change (Newtonian time) and what we Experience. In terms of experience, I believe there is A) awareness of the here and now, B) a different awareness of prior nows (that diminishes as you go back) and C) no awareness of the future (or if we do it's extremely subtle - - I have had experiences of premonition)

[@bejakyeah]

if time involves change then may be time could be derived from change. maybe?

[@muhammadwaseemmullah2799]

if we see time as infinite, do the contradictions still stand?

[@timothysingleton7195]

Intresting

[@0cards0]

how come we would see a spaceship that flying at high speeds in slow motion but we dont see light in slow motion? or are we?

[@lucarioshows]

There is no time, matter changes places and gains or loses energy and the human mind takes these into account. then the brain creates time to show "when" it happens but really energy just exists.

[@mickeynotmouse]

lucarioshows it takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds for the sunlight to reach your eyes. when you look up at the sun, what are you looking at? it's the past. it's 8 minutes and 20 seconds ago

[@AndronePro]

mickeynotmouse What is a minute? Or a second? They aren't inherent objects. They're concepts we've created to describe how many events (In the case of a second, a cesium atom oscillating about nine billion times.) can occur before any event that you are 'timing'. Those particles from the 'past' are not from 8 minutes and 20 seconds ago they are quite a bit older than that. The concept of time itself, I think, arises because the universe is in motion and change occurs, the fact that all events do not occur simultaneously doesn't mean there is time, it just means space exists and not everything has the same velocity. With nothing other than the present moment, motion, and a human brain capable of remembering the order of events we can explain this illusion.

[@AndronePro]

lucarioshows Succinct

[@lucarioshows]

Sorry I forgot to mention that this was just my opinion, oops.

[@0cards0]

Anthony Evans why would we see a spaceship that flying at high speeds in slow motion but we dont see light in slow motion?

[@PokeProfSunny]

Ends video with "you're gonna have a bad time" looks at upload date... months before Undertale came out... what could this mean??

[@JohnDoe-nm2hs]

As I understand it currently, time is simply motion. At the subatomic level the building blocks of atoms (quarks, electrons etc) are in constant motion, this causes change in atoms and therefore in all matter as a consequence (which includes us, the chair we're sitting on, and so on). The rate at which this motion occurs is time, and physicists have proven that by showing that time is slower in a space shuttle orbiting the Earth than on Earth's surface (by a very small margin), meaning it's not a fixed rate but rather bound by motion and gravity. Even when you are sitting still the quarks and electrons etc of your atoms are in constant motion, so time still moves on, you cannot stop it unless you can stop the motion of all of the quarks and electrons in your body. If you stop this motion, then you stop time. Why this motion exists is, I think, still a mystery though (energy and heat are also based on motion of particles). So time is not what we thought it was in the past, it's not some mystical force, it appears to simply be motion of the smallest "building blocks" that make up our atoms. However why does the motion work this way? That I think is simply due to the way our Universe is "built" at the most fundamental level, if we imagine an infinite sea of possibilities then naturally we exist where our reality has manifested in this way. This is also a very good argument in my opinion for time "existing" in another dimension, f.ex. the 4th dimension, meaning the future and past exist in the 4th dimension much like a string of cloth exists in the 3rd dimension, it's a "thing" that is made up of many parts which are connected in a higher dimension. The weirdest part is our conscious experience, what is causing our consciousness to move from point A to B within this Universe, that's something which is fascinating and may involve a mechanism which is beyond simply motion of quarks and electrons. But even if there is something "more" to consciousness than motion of quarks, atoms and electrons, it still is likely bound to this motion since our thoughts appear to be bound by chemical reactions in the brain and not by a metaphysical entity, although that still doesn't disprove the possibility that a metaphysical entity may be attached to this physical entity (our brain) in some way that is not measurable by a physical device and therefore cannot be measured by a human. Ultimately I think the human race will never find the "ultimate truth" since there is always room for questions and possibilities that cannot be disproved by measurement or experimentation, no matter how far our understanding improves.

[@cephalopad]

Both the 'A theory' and the 'B theory' of time seem to assume that time is a state of affairs that exists completely divorced from how we experience it. As a person who believes that the arguments of phenomenology (and David Hume) cannot be dismissed, I think there is something to be said for the view that we cannot extract our own subjective involvement in temporal and spatial observations from the observations themselves.

[@bobrolander4344]

Maybe there is an uncertainty principle between A- and B- theory. All a matter of perspective, a matter of which experiment is done.

[@theohaegele9011]

"Today is the shadow of tomorrow, today is the present future of yesterday, yesterday is the shadow of today..." - Quasimoto

[@Patrick33194]

i was about to ask a question but i don't have time

[@TbaofTalent87]

Time is a measure of quantitative experience when it comes to science. It's interesting that that paradox has similarities to Zeno's Arrow Paradox.

[@gofar5185]

time to living entities is reincarnation (buddhism and yoga)... universal time of air water earth heat is different to the time of living entities (plants animals humans) bodies...

[@martinreid2352]

it makes me wonder how much of our reasoning and logic is based off of a bias towards the existence of time, and how much of our intuitive thinking is informed by it as well... For instance, the principle that if things happen a certain way consistently in the past, they will always occur that way in the future: is this fundamental principle in empirical science relevant at all in a time-less reality?

[@dekippiesip]

What about the theory of relativity? That refutes the A theory as well since the relativity of simultaneaty clearly violates a strict distinction between pas, present and future. When it comes to B theory, it sounds a bit like space-time as a whole. Personally I think a good way to look at time is by essentially seeing the universe from the big bang to today as 1 integrated 4 dimensional structure. Determinism as a concept is also worth studying within this context, since in a way B theory seems to imply determinism.

[@Nicko2604]

Second! the resource curse.

[@magnus1498]

More time videos!!

[@mysteryman040896]

For the longest "time" I thought I'd developed this B-theory solely. I assumed because there was no rational grounding for any of this so surely this is an original thought. Nope, like almost every other thought I've had it's been thought of before