What Is Time? (The Philosopher's Zone)

[@44yyBBaakk]

Thanks for the dialog. What about Kant and his categories of mind, including Time, Space and Causality? And how does Kant's understanding of Time (as a part of Apriori human perception) goes against Space-Time of Enstein, which is described as a physical phenomena? Is the solution here to distinguish perceptial time (how we feel) and real time (interactions compared to speed of light)?

[@lonelycubicle]

If there was a drug that did not allow any memories (short term or long term) or think about the future, would the guest think that would break the illusion of time flowing and be a more “accurate” view? Had something kinda like that happen once and found it really unpleasant.

[@lonelycubicle]

@@numbersix8919 Thanks, interesting, but really disliked it … must be an awful disease

[@thesayerofing]

I forget where I heard it but it has been mentioned that there isn't quite a clear relationship with the present; and colloquially the present must be referring to the near past.

[@jamalleshaun746]

Hi. I am a big fan of ‘process philosophy’ and I was wondering is this philosophical paradigm in metaphysics (and other branches of philosophy) incompatible with “The Block Universe?” If this view of time is indeed incompatible with process philosophy, then is the “Growing Block/Salami” theory of time compatible with process philosophy or is only presentism compatible with process philosophy? Thank you.

[@sociedadhistoriayeconomia]

I think Whitehead tells something about presentism in the first chapter of "Process and Reality" but I don't recall, go check it out, but that's the theory that goes with process philosophy if I remember correctly.

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

I was wondering: if there are genuine possible futures (the future is open and not closed) that the universe might take; or, in other words, if what we do (or what happens) in the present can affect or change what path the future can take when it undergoes its transformation from potentiality to actuality, does that undermine eternalism/the block universe? The reason why I ask is because eternalism is making the claim that all moments in time already exist due to time being like a fixed, rigid, static and unchanging ice block (rather than time being like a river). Since that is the case, as I said earlier, if there are possible futures (or infinitely potential possibilities for how the future unfolds), then would this undermine eternalism? Essentially, does the concept of an open future possessing genuine novelty refute eternalism? If so, why? Thanks 👍🏻

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

What about the shrinking block theory of time (which says only the present and future exist)

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

Yeah, that's not exactly a popular view.

[@dmitryalexandersamoilov]

Haha, the completionist view, very cool

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

Is it possible to somehow combine and synthesise the *growing block theory of time* and the *block universe?* I ask because I believe change is a real mind-independent phenomena and things are always evolving, in flux and part of an ever evolving process. However, I also believe Einstein’s relativity supports the notion of the block universe

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

Well, there's something called the moving spotlight view. It is basically the block view but with an objective moving present. It's not really a popular view though. For one thing, it's not clear that it fits any better with relativity theory than any of the other dynamic views which require an objective present moment.

[@keziahNjiraini-nh2rh]

Same particles different arrangements flux of the same particles, however what the prospect of no time and nothingness, do some yoga #Sadhguru😊😊😊 or wait for the Resurgence #matrix

[@Robinson8491]

I wonder of the poem at the end, was Citizen Kane's rosebud concept inspired by TS Elliots "rosegarden" on time?

[@yp77738yp77739]

Head hurts in a wholly unsatisfying manner, we understand so little of the important whats, how’s and whys.

[@rdsmith8031]

Time is fire in which we burn. Star Trek.

[@1ntrcnnctr608]

as fire permeates all other elements, this actually is kinda true…from “biophotons” to “supernova” - a spectrum of temperature or inside & outside of the same realm. ”frozen in time” comes to mind here.

[@투명질감]

"If the speed of light is constant, the speed of light and the car is 1 and time 1 has passed. At this time, if you do not know your movement, time 1 is 1. At this time, if you know your movement, time 1 is 2. In other words, when you know, the light knows. This is the time." copy uniontera

[@Mahinaking]

That blew my mind wide open. That’s such a concept. Like life is what you make it.

[@Yazan8565]

What's your view of time?

[@tonicalloway7227]

But what about when we cross time zones?..where does that fall in this bowl of technical semantics..surely we're time traveling aren't we?..and are we that much different in time and age?..

[@martincorona5641]

Well, times zones were put upon human convenience since we need them for commerce. So, the globe's 360° were divided by 24 to come up with 15° time zone. But those time values do not exist in nature only in our heads. So, perhaps we are time travellers, but only in our heads.

[@KrunoslavStifter]

Time is what prevents all happening at once.

[@martincorona5641]

I agree, but only from your own perspective. From different observers in the universe all could be happening at the same time.

[@karakukantsume]

That's interesting, present is prevent, time has superior solidarity at each "prevence". What a stand-up is what time prevents no uplifting more than feet, time also prevents sleeping from standing, time also prevents nerve impulses elevate, time also prevents bloodflow pumping on top of this ship, time also prevents all meeting at where is once, what is once?

[@KrunoslavStifter]

@@martincorona5641 Who or what would be these different observers in the universe that you speak of?

[@1ntrcnnctr608]

@@martincorona5641 had the same thought when listening to this

[@divertissementmonas]

The Growing Salami - A past is constructed (using "just evidence") to explain the present and create a future - seems to be what happens. Perhaps Salvador Dali was onto something with his painting 'The Persistence of Memory" :-)

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

No, the past isn't constructed by present evidence on the growing salami view. That would be a version of presentism, which denies the reality of the past. And that's why it can seem that the only thing that can make our statements about the past true is our present evidence (because the past has ceased to exist and no longer is real, so there's nothing "there" that we could be referring to, which could make our judgments true, except our current evidence for the past at present). But yeah, it can be difficult to get one's head around all these different ontological views about time, which is precisely why I made that image for the video lol

[@divertissementmonas]

@@Philosophy_Overdose Thank you for clarifying. I will need to listen to it again, particularly the part when they were talking about 'the status of the past'. That was when the anit-realist past was mentioned. I see now that is of course, presentism. The diagaram provides a good visual guide to the different views BTW.

[@RobRoss]

The growing block makes no sense. It’s just a special form of Presentism. And General Relativity tells us that “now” is a relative concept and observers in different reference frames can’t agree on what “now” is. The block universe is compatible with General Relativity but Presentism/Growing Block are not. So I lean towards The Block Universe for that reason.

[@RobRoss]

I don’t see a problem with Caesar’s statement as being true. His “now” is different than our “now”. In the Block Universe, “now” is just where you put your origin point on a set of arbitrary coordinates. That point can be moved to any point in the block, and you can then talk about “before” and “after” relative to that arbitrary coordinate system. Of course, this doesn’t address the mystery of how is it we experience a “now” at this particular point. How are we “moving” through this block? If it all exists eternally, what makes this moment we are subjectively experiencing different from what is behind us and what is ahead of us in this block? That part breaks my brain :)

[@paulhaube]

Time does is not real (exist not) since no one can kick it or it does not bump into us - it is in our mind and as an impression or a feeling or fiction or a construct to make sense of existence. In the cosmos, everything is simultaneously past, present and future: motion flux, change. Humans, being limited in capacity and understanding, define time as a measurement and direction like they move about on Earth. As i write these words, I was moving fast and everywhere, cosmically.

[@AlbertAlbertB.]

This guy is nuts.

[@guldenaydin9918]

⌛🪐⏳💊

[@Eudaimonist]

Rejecting causality sounds rather Humean.

[@AlbertAlbertB.]

He doesn't. He only says it can't be observed.

[@azaraniichan]

Human life does not happen in time, but rather is time itself

[@1ntrcnnctr608]

interesting

[@azaraniichan]

@@1ntrcnnctr608 that's not me that's Heidegger, and he knows a thing or two about time, he practically invented the stuff

[@1ntrcnnctr608]

@@azaraniichan it comes all from the Mind

[@zeroonetime]

Time is creative human thinking. 0~1 Time -Timing. God/Time/Thought manifest.

[@keziahNjiraini-nh2rh]

Hold on is it today or yesterday or the future,tell me so that I come dressed appropriately 😊😊😊

[@yingyang1008]

Obviously doesn't exist - which instantly highlights the insanity of Einstein's theory of relativity

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

What's insane is believing that relativity theory is fundamentally flawed or false.

[@yingyang1008]

@@Philosophy_Overdose All Einstein did was prove that certain clocks would be poor time keepers under certain conditions - not that time itself would slow down Time is a human construct, or perhaps one could argue a way that we measure entropy But it certainly doesn't exist in the childish sense that Einstein pretends it does for his mumbo jumbo thought experiments

[@yingyang1008]

@@FroggyTheGroggy Time doesn't exist - it's a human concept It doesn't speed up or slow down If you want to believe in insanity like space time then go right ahead

[@yingyang1008]

Sure - as I said above, all Einstein proved is that clocks don't measure 'time' and are poor time keepers under certain conditions Time itself doesn't speed up or slow down

[@yingyang1008]

@@FroggyTheGroggy I don't believe time can speed up or slow down, as I believe it's a human abstract concept That's not trolling, that's me having a different opinion to you If you want to believe that clocks measure 'time' then go right ahead - I personally believe that to be insane

[@aussiebeermoney1167]

your mum