The Philosophy of Time

[@kombuchad1237]

"Thats cool and all but I was just asking what time it is"

[@eliVII]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIXNaGSJnNB0hqM⌛🧠

[@donaldmcgillavry]

- It's NOW

[@zeroonetime]

0 Time 1 Timing, a b c 1 2 3 010 Creation Evolution-Entropy

[@Dreeev]

This is exactly the kind of videos I want to see in this channel! Great job!

[@Leto85]

It takes time to understand time.

[@dennisgalvin2521]

It does but that's because " time is the time time takes to time time." Dennis De Jong.

[@bentozaful]

Brady: "what time is it?" Professor: "i reckon it's the present"

[@KNVBsakanable]

I need some time

[@zuxxzu]

Interesting, enjoyable and shareable! Thank you. Look forward to more.

[@jampozbear]

Love the Growing block theory of time, really love this one, It does focus on the knowledge of every and each one human in the present moment. The more we know about the past, the more we can predict the future, the bigger the block, our awareness in this exact moment.

[@ericsbuds]

very cool how you did video of the computer in the overall video, brady. I've been trying to imagine how you made it fit so well! it's trippy, like a paradox

[@nostalgia63]

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

[@xanshriekal]

At first the cuts to the timeline were annoying, but then I realized how poetic it was. Very nice.

[@HegelAndy]

I love the idea and incorporation of a film of the film! Great effect!

[@piprod01]

Heya, Jonathan! I think a lot of people are interested in this subject, because of a particular Christian Apologist's Kalam argument for the existence of god, which relies upon an A-theory of time. And he puts forward an alternate interpretation of relativity - a neo-lorentzian interpretation (which includes an absolute moment), and he defends it similar to how you did, it plays to our intuitions. What role should intuitions play, in philosophical argument of time?

[@TheHDreality]

Awesome video and with the authority as the first commenter I'd like to suggest a video on the philosophy of ethnicity and individuality.

[@asktheanswer424]

zen is about enjoying life the fullest, living in the moment, feeling each sensation as much as you can, and spontaneously letting them all meld together to form a beautiful whole, beyond the realm of thought, by grounding ourselves in the senses, we push out ideation and return to the still mind, just feeling, this is zen. opens our eyes to the wonders of what is always around us, prevents us from always seeing something the same way. zen the philosophy of the present moment

[@mSphix]

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” - Richard Feynman

[@afhdfh]

Is this yet another Brady-Channel I stumbled across? WOW! Brady, you're amazing, keeping all this up. I hope you're still getting enough time to sleep and socialize. ;)

[@notator]

I think of time as being a brain strategy for reducing complexity. In physics, the maths has evolved to describe what we observe, at very high and low levels, in recordings made using external apparatus. At the human observation level, time is chunked: a) Music notation consists of dots that carry packets of information. (We also chunk the peaks in the wave-forms displayed in video editors.) b) There is a lower limit to the durations we can observe directly. I think we're a long way from understanding the relation between brains and time... Has a lot to do with memory and AI, of course.

[@enriqueDFTL]

Nope, just watched the Documentary-style show "How the Universe Works" yesterday. They've got some very reputable theoretical physicists explaining concepts. It's very good. It's free on Netflix if you have that. It's the first episode.

[@thepurplekidx]

Thank you.

[@TheJoshy3434]

Please do more videos among this field. I mean more scientific or psychological or very vague philosophy's

[@trigonael]

please upload more to this channel, and also more videos on logic and free will.

[@PrivateAckbar]

Brady can i give you a couple of books for this bloke? When he says he would love to hear air tight useful philosophical arguments I immediately thought of Ludwig Von Mises. You should recommend his books Human Action, Epistemological Problems of Economics, Theory and History, and The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. He'll LOVE the last one. It's an essay on the relationship between logic and positivist applications.

[@QuannanHade]

Time is a multidimensional structure that encompasses all possible values of the physical dimensions. One way to look at it: every possible interaction and outcome already exists, but the version of events you percieve has not been determined. The perceived passage of time is your frame of reference moving through this multi-dimensional time structure, and "viewing" or "experiencing" the particular sequence of combinations that seem to exist at those points. I believe this satisfies most issues.

[@whanaupaitai5334]

If the exact present is simply an iteration of the arrangement of particles in this universe that exists in this instant, then the past - depending on when you choose to focus - is simply a record or description of that iteration. That record or description of the arrangement of particles at that "time" (history) no longer exists in that exact iteration.. that is to say the particles still exist, just no longer existing in that exact arrangement. The same can be said for the future.

[@tommy6564]

i just found my new favorite channel

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

I liked the block theory better than some of the other ones. That's because some of those, especially the moving block, seems to assume the future exists. By that I assume they mean also that the content of the future is decided. This doesn't agree well with the current thinking on quantum mechanics. If you want a simple run down, I've got some videos on the topic.

[@tiagotiagot]

Occam's razor is about the simplicity of the explanation, not of the stuff being explained. It is simpler to say all possibilities exist and we are limited to observing just the possibility we are part of, than to have all sorts of crazy rules about the collapse of possibilities and paranormal-ish interactions between the observer and reality.

[@skuzzbunny]

... while the modern conception of "spacetime" includes a time element at times referred to as a "dimension" to ease comprehension, it is clearly not directly analogous to Euclidean dimensions, and "spacetime" is clearly its own thing, quite different from the original dimensional concept of space. see "Minkowski space".

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

Could the wave particle duality of light be acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer? In this theory the physics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual within our own ref-frame! Time is an emergent property with the future coming into existence photon by photon relative to the actions of the atoms.

[@j.torrez8762]

So, if i watched this same video an hour after you did, would this video not exist and would i then be "creating" it?

[@cinnahum]

Interesting. I've only started to become interested in philosophy. I do need to read more of it.

[@Hythloday71]

this along with quantum mech, and other hypothises describing discrete plank time points to this exact interpretation as I suggest. In fact it is the only way one can make sense of the constancy of the speed of light to my mind. Like a subroutine in a program can only be updated at the native bus frequency maximum. So to do we find the is a maximum rate at which our configurations can occur, and that it is possible to be lower priority subroutine only updated less frequently.

[@simon24h]

Do you do your video editing on a CRT?

[@alb4599]

He's doing a camcorder let's play of his video.

[@thelemur]

You can probably get around this argument, but it just seems to be an quantum mechanical effect to me, that moving an atom at high speeds, influence the speed at which the electron in said atom moves, to conserve momentum. At higher speeds, higher effect. The reduced "internal" speed of the electron in the atom effects the relative local speed of light, thus, reducing the "speed at wich time passes". Does this change WHEN something happend in the universe? Not in my oppinion :)

[@tomtoonotavaiable]

ergo if energy is quantised than time is also or not ?

[@rc23robert]

Does B-Theory of time allow for free will? If a specific future event exists then everything we do in the present must lead to the already existing specific future event.

[@KarlHeinzofWpg]

Interesting use of your editing software as an illustration of presentism. Nice one Centurion, like it like it.

[@TheMohawkNinja]

Okay... time to do some further research on this, because this sounds really interesting.

[@Ronnie7X]

Answering question that no one asks, LIKE A BOSS

[@Ronnie7X]

I'm not against science or knowledge, it's just that I like it to be something practical that we actually benefit from, so if they can work their way around this time theory to make something useful that would be awesome

[@vinayseth1114]

But how would you take continuous genetic changes into account to fit your presentist view?

[@themightyleek]

oooh! I love the philosophy of time! Here's a question, if I have an orange right now, and it doesn't exist in the future. What happens one second later - this orange did not exist previously. It has stopped not existing, and started existing. Is this logically possible?

[@QodeMusic]

What interests me, is how these theories come to be, in the first place. I think a big part of why these theories exist is the fact that the speed of light is such a high velocity the we do not have the brain capacity to "think about it". But it's just a movement. One particle moving from one place to another, the fact that time seems to "slow down" when we approach higher speeds is just the fact the we humans, clocks and electrical circuits are "poorly designed", with a lot of movement in it...

[@pntrend]

Though I do think it didn't really work this time, maybe you could release the interview alone as extended footage...

[@IntrinsicExternality]

At what 'time' did the event happen then?

[@MaraK_dialmformara]

And then there's the C theory, which postulates a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.

[@littlewierd0]

yay!

[@mrkekson]

thats not a theory, thats a working modell :D

[@MaraK_dialmformara]

Yeah, but does it actually work? ;D

[@mrkekson]

just ask the Doctor when next time he visit you, to visit you earler on the same day, you know empirical evidence

[@MaraK_dialmformara]

But you have to tell him that he did visit you earlier. Otherwise you break time.

[@Digiemperor6]

@Whanau Paitai. What if that record of the past exists in your mind??

[@DarkSkay]

When you think of the universe as a computer and concious observers as software programs (agents) running inside this computer, you get an interesting model, which allows you to analyse all sorts of questions in a very structured manner using simple metaphors. - What we call "the present" is the current content of the computer's memory. The steady computation of "reality", means the machine will have to update the state of its memory (particles, energy, spacetime etc.). The result of this update process is what we perceive as (elapsing) time. - The term "exist" can be simply defined as a piece of information which is (resp. was) contained in the computer's memory. - The frequency of this update process is not known. It is not known if there are intervals, between which the state of memory is static, "frozen" (discrete vs. continuous function). - There may be one or several (relativistic or non-relativistic) clock generator(s) built into the computer or coming from outside. The same applies to the clock of each software agent (observer) running inside the computer. - The future can be divided into those memory states reachable by a certain way of computation and those unreachable. Same applies when "undoing" the computation, going from present to past. Better knowledge of the rules governing the machine/software will allow more precise predictions. A few time-unrelated, but interesting questions: - Will the computation ever end? - Are concious observers fully computed inside the universe or is there more to them? - Is it a deterministic machine? / Is there randomness? - Where did the software come from? Does it change over time?

[@codebolt]

DarkSkay Your model is flawed in that it does not take into account the relativity of simultaneity. There is no universal present "state", which events occur simultaneously is entirely dependent on your frame of reference.

[@DarkSkay]

codebolt The model itself does not have to live in a certain frame of reference (after all it creates them). And e.g. the perceptions of simultaneity of the model's agents are irrelevant for the model's consistency. Depending on the concrete model you chose, it can have a privileged access to, interpretation and control of e.g. space, time and particle locations, while the agents inside it (like us) don't. Then again, the model "reality as a computer" is powerful as a metaphor, e.g. "the computer running our world is not located on Saturn" / "software applications have a different 'perception' of the computer, than the operating system". Two simple sentences related to above paragraphs. The deeper the immersion into the philosophical details, the more useful this metaphor seems to become.

[@imode256]

That is actually a well-formed argument, but then one could also argue that time is a measure of iterative change in this movement. Therefore we could say that at any point in time, time has "stopped". Therefore, time has always stopped. This could also be put into "how far down can we measure lengths of time?"

[@jonathanchanyc]

I agree. We are all aware that time passes as we watch the video. Great content nonetheless.

[@pntrend]

Bit harsh! It's good that he's doing all these projects and still finding time to be creative. Thanks Brady :)

[@DeoMachina]

@SebastianMisch I'll try again I guess? I'm saying that time is not simply "a device", this has been proven, and it was done by measuring time in different locations. I've answered all the questions you asked, what makes you think I ignored you?

[@panteraboosh]

Could it not be a list of timelines relative yep each persons perspective and and the line is infant a slope with the point travelling through it

[@zeiitgeist]

Here's my thought: Talk about time without any point references/objects and judge for what it is. Then place objects(behaviour and quality is arbitrary) in your imagined space, ie. why would time slow down when in higher gravity or why would time seem to slow down after traveling through light speed to the observer external to the system. Is space bending [time and distance dilate/contract] or matters interaction in that speed with one another affecting its aging/perceived time passed?

[@Organixsfx]

Why postulate that space would impact time? Isn't it easier to assume that the travelling speed effects the internal processes of an object, the same processes we use to measure time?

[@tiagotiagot]

Here is somthing that perhaps would help us get on the same page on this matter: How do you refute the Anthropic Principle?

[@Organixsfx]

Why would past and future be indistinguishable in that state?

[@whanaupaitai5334]

The future in our "time" frame would be a description of the arrangement of particles in the universe that our present iteration would be leading to. The future would be an approximation if predicted from our "time" frame, but would be an accurate description if it is an observation from a past iteration of a more recent iteration. The future is dependent on your frame of reference.

[@jeroen79]

If there is present-ism dealing with the time dimension, is there also here-ism dealing with the 3 space dimensions? I.e. the claim that there is no there or elsewhere but only the position I am currently occupying?

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

My modified version does that. It is necessary to comply with relativity and quantum theory as I argue.

[@Windy2468]

WAIT, I just remembered something about gravity having an effect on time. I'm not sure how all it all works but how would that affect these philosophies?

[@DickJohnson3434]

cont... different points with different inertial frames of reference will disagree about what constitutes the present, past and future. You should have read further down the page because there is a nice graphical representation. The of course could represent speeds very close to light speed itself because the graphs would be skewed too much. Of course all that assumes a reference point within space time. An external view would reveal all space-time, not just a multitude of hyper surfaces.

[@LeonhardEuler1]

Why would whether or not you like a theory have any affect on whether or not you think it is true?

[@shonesurendran5337]

Perhaps more dialogue with Eastern philosophies, which gets largely ignored by western philosophical and academic discussions, might be enlightening.

[@tzzoutzzou4059]

the ultimate comment or answer is in the post from "pillar". Everything becomes right when we take "time" for what it is: just an abstraction. "pillar" , if you are interested in knowing how right you are, google up "quanto-geometry". You will see how for the first time the physical constants such as speed of light, gravity, planck constant, fine structure constant, etc are all derived from first principle (possible only when time is taken out of the equation as an abstraction )

[@JuiceBoxWizard]

2:20 I half expected you to say time is like a "Big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff" Partly do to context, and partly due to you reminding me of David Tennant (The accent, the spiky hair, the glasses, etc)

[@tiagotiagot]

Would you care to elaborate on that?

[@Jmelchor831]

how fast is time?

[@Biochemguy]

Time dilation predicted by special relativity, and quantified by the Lorentz-gamma factor if I remember fight, is a change in the relative rate at which time progresses. If you're going half the speed of light then time progresses half as quickly from your perspective as compared to another persons at a non-moving relative frame. One second to a person standing still is 2 seconds to you on your rocket going half the speed of light. So time in some ways does have a rate.

[@Organixsfx]

Yes you're correct and the reason is that I don't understand how we can know that space impacts time instead of the velocity or some other factor? It sounds strange to me. I thought that I had some partial understanding of timedilatation but obviously I don't. I need to study some physics.:)

[@a1b2c3z44]

If you wanted to make a model of time and space, you would have to put an axis that is perpendicular to all others (length, height, width)... Ofcorse that is not an easy thing to do, I don't know if it is even possible.

[@Organixsfx]

Do you wish to elaborate on that?:)

[@PheetusFia]

There are physicists who are also philosophers and philosophers who are also physicists. I've met several. The thing is, each discipline is so specialized generally collaboration rather than all-in-one packaging is more common. Philosophers generally DO know what physicists say and they respect that. Nonetheless, physicists can't answer all the questions when which theory is correct largely depends not on empirical result but theoretical consistency.

[@LyraSitting]

Why would it mean the video doesn't exist.. the video is currently being stored on a server somewhere

[@sbhyunn]

why is the video constantly looking at the time frame for the video! so annoying..

[@boshlad2642]

Because it's a visual representation of "time", derp! :P

[@zachboi13]

I believe that time and existence is like the unstoppable force and the immovable object argument. The Universe was stuck in a timeless existence and then a time field began to pass through it. All matter was locked in a 308,000 light year wide orb. When the time field hit it, the matter exploded and began to move. Now, it is still moving, but not at the same rate as things are farther apart, meaning the time field looks like a comet, where it is skewed towards the origin. Any objections?

[@RobertoStampini]

Great video, very instructive. I'm not sure if this has been raised before, below. However, you don't appear to offer a defintion of "the present" .

[@Christophe_L]

But wait, Einstein didn't really say that simultaneity didn't exist, but that simultaneity was a concept that didn't make sense when different frames of reference were introduced, right? In other words, simultaneity is valid for two observers in the same frame of reference. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[@HubTM]

@kashgarinn this is a tricky one. the idea is that if you are a presentist, then ONLY things that occupy the 'present moment' exist. the trouble with special relativity is that another observer moving with some relative speed will have events in THEIR present moment which will be in YOUR future. now that observer will say the events in his 'present moment' exist, so events in your future must exist. this violates the tenet of presentism that only things in the present moment exist.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

This was the subject of my thesis in 2003. I argued, among many other things, that the sum over histories approach to quantum mechanics with a modified presentism solves the truth maker problem. Though professionally I went in a different direction (I considered becoming a philosophy professor), maybe I should send my paper to this professor and see what he thinks.

[@pepsis1987]

Ultimately, it doesn't even matter if time was before, or how long it has been. Regardlessly we "measure" time, the way and from the point that we find suitable for our own purposes. What i'm trying to say is that we we'll not be able to comprehend time unless our consciousness becomes "timeless". Before that, our own subjective perception of time will remain to act as some "brake" to hold us from comprehending what time is.

[@juraj89]

what about not having only a "point" in time, but in both in time and space? in that case there would not be such an contradiction with STR

[@marvinaligan4396]

it is an interesting video but one thing gonna ask before talking with so many ideas, who really creates time or we just simply following the ideas of past,present and future

[@markIOP123]

If the reality of subatomic particles being measured in units of Planck time, how can you determine the period representing the present. The truth of the matter both the A , B , theories which support a instance, representing the present are redundant as this period is measured in Planck time intervals of approximately 5.39 × 10 −44 sec.

[@Windy2468]

I thought "color" was just the name we gave to anything falling within that part of the waves/radiation meter thing that the human eye can detect... and that "red" is defined by certain boundaries within that spectrum part. I know what you're saying about the speed and time thing but I still don't get how the red and color serves as a good simile for that... :S

[@TheBinaryUniverse]

Cont'd, If we regard time as quantised, and we can show that this is indeed the case, then varying time rates between different Frames Of Reference inevitably means that the quantum "moments" become displaced from one another due either to speed or to gravitational red shift. The realities within each FOR become separated from each other and we lose simultaneity. I don't see a conflict with this and the idea of presentism, we just need to apply presentism only within one FOR at a time.

[@aai2962]

saying that a theory is strong because it's intuitive while the other theory is week because it's counter-intuitive is a very week argument. Our intuition is based on our daily experiences and it has nothing special to it to. Quantum theory and even the general and special theory of relativity are in many ways very counter-intuitive, yet this doesn't make them weak in any way.

[@endlessduck1642]

exactly what i thought and wanted to comment

[@luckyyuri]

+Ali Ismail evolutionary pressures have ingrained in our brains a very "real" point of perspective, which is a rather narcissistic one. it's nothing bad with it, because it's just how nature manifested in creating us and our way of seeing/thinking things. this was "programmed" by countless interactions with the environment, from the first primitive nervous system to our current situation. but it's not adequate for seeing the "truth", and some philosophers say that seeing things as they are can never be reached by a limited system; also finite things, such ourselves, can never obtain "a view from nowhere", meaning an impartial and all encompassing view. but nonetheless we are highly puerile when it comes to our doubt of the scientific endeavour; for how many more times must science prove itself before we all recognise it's worth !? it was perfectly clear the earth is round, clear that we are the centre of creation and very different from animals and plants which were solely made for our enjoyment, clear that the sun revolves around us along with all the universe, clear that we live in 3d space that evolves with time... and the new big NO NO the existence of a self-substance. we were thrown of from our high horses so many times but our socially-invented egos still insist on their folk-understanding common sense. today we see the earth being round is such a natural thing, as is evolution, but centuries back we would had convulsed and raged and burned the heretics who would dare say such things. in the same way tomorrow folks would understand the illusion of self in such a natural and benign way that our todays convulsions and depressions would seem infantile

[@luckyyuri]

***** you're right about your historical facts, the rest is conjecture without any consistent logic. if a few brilliant individuals realised some things that does't mean humanity was smarter, or as smart as it is today :))

[@endlessduck1642]

ByRTD yO That is observation and not intuition. Calm down boy.

[@I_Am_Midnight-i]

Allen Walker That’s the point. Temporal change can be observed, its fact.

[@MountainHawkPYL]

Have you ever considered the possibility that time is the medium through which objects pass through? Objects moving toward the singularity of a black hole will pass through time faster than those outside of its reach.

[@Organixsfx]

You might be correct but it gives all the more reason for philosophers to engage in the debate because we have an inutitve notion of time as something absolute and separate from matter. What you suggest is that time and matter(in motion) are two sides of the same coin, which makes Einsteins theory of relativity not as contraintuitive as suggested. It 's just a question of definition. The conclusion would be that "absolute time" if it even exists, is something we can't ever measure.

[@Ziggletooth]

I cant help but think that often is the case that due to the abstraction of language, philosophers fall into the trap using different words to essentially say the same thing rather than form distinct alternative arguments to explain something completely different.

[@JUICEPPL1]

Yes. I like to think of time as a concept. As far as existing, its not a materialistic object. However, an idea does not have to pertain in the state of matter to exist.

[@PierceWorthyTV]

2:11 is that Professor Snape?

[@tupaclives96]

@badblueman you know, this is the exact argument that i kept coming up with as i was learning the TOR. I suppose you could choose a fundamental time frame, but you'd have to pick one arbitrarily. first thing that comes to mind is the time frame of empty space with one standing still. now thats all fine and dandy when it comes to the occurrence of "events" - u can argue that events actually occur at a present time based on some defined fundamental reference frame....(to be continued)

[@BoldrepublicRadioShow]

FASCINATING thank you

[@michaelg47]

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it." -- Omar Khayyam (Edward Fitgerald translation)

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

Interesting video! This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light & time Based on just two postulates 1 The quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself with the future unfolding photon by photon. 2 Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual

[@SunHunter27]

Liked for the editing.

[@joebazooks]

I'm a C-theorist, whereby everything was; everything is everything including nothing while everything and nothing already was, already is, nothing changes but our awareness of what was.

[@TheSwircle987]

By the way, I meant that sincerely. It really is one of my favorite subjects. For me, it would be quite a bit more of a conversation maker...than killer.

[@Organixsfx]

But how can we know that Newton was wrong because we can only measure time as matter in motion? So if the travelling speed has an effect on the objects matter how can we know that timedilatation is a result of space and not velocity/energy?

[@DarkMoonDroid]

Quickie response: The philosophical implications of time are that your decisions and behavior have consequences. Or, there is cause and effect and your sense of self interacts with cause and effect in such a way that you have experiences of fear/anticipation and regret/pride. No time: no fear/anticipation or regret/pride.

[@wolfgangeldridge4089]

Space and time are equivalent. Have you ever heard the phrase in sci-fi "Space-time continuum?" What they're referring to is that space and time are the same thing. Matter's experience of time is related to its motion but matter itself isn't liked to time/space, it just moves through it. So if something adjusts it's speed not only is it moving through space at a different rate but also through time at a different rate. But when gravity is bending space-time it too alters the flow of time.

[@sinprelic]

@wreynolds1995 please explain. if you are saying that my way of thinking about the problem is incorrect, then point me to it. i am known to hate philosophy (even though i studied it in college) but i am curious whether you think science does not belong within the realms of philosophy! philosophers have posed very interesting questions, but not answered a single one - in the long history of both eastern and western philosophy. im just trying to bring some scientific sanity into this waffle!