i keep coming back to this interview. when are we going to get the latest one you did with deutsch? you are a great podcaster. i like the questions you presented him with.
I've noticed that when a person says that something is "caused", they mean that there is one thing that made it happen, but this isn't how nature works. When an event happens in nature, there are countless inputs, and anyone identifying a "cause" is just stating an opinion. Only an agent can cause something to happen since they have a preferred outcome and "make it happen." Your brain is a natural object, so it doesn't have any "causes," but as an agent, it can be the cause of something happening.
And my favorite: When forty winters shall besiege thy brow And dig deep trenches in thy beauty’s field, Thy youth’s proud livery, so gazed on now, Will be a tattered weed, of small worth held. Then being asked where all thy beauty lies- Where all the treasure of thy lusty days- To say within thine own deep-sunken eyes Were an all-eating shame and thriftless praise. How much more praise deserved thy beauty’s use If thou couldst answer "This fair child of mine Shall sum my count and make my old excuse", Proving his beauty by succession thine. This were to be new made when thou art old, And see thy blood warm when thou feel’st it cold.
Sorry guys I'm only a lay person, but wasn't Newton's theory refuted by Einstein's theory?.. Like, why didn't anyone ask Julian Barbour about Mercury's orbit? (My level of understanding is: that Mercury's orbit can not be predicted by Newtown's theory and Einstein's can.. therefore Einstein's refutation) (I also stopped watching with 30mins left so if it was brought up I'd love to see it.) I was just surprised that people still practiced an old, refuted theory.. P.s I understand that alternative theories to General Relativity are still very useful to continually solve current/future problems.
It is not a natural law. You need it to interact with your environment but the universe doesn’t need it. Your 3-D brain needs it to maintain your consciousness, but the universe doesn’t give a F about your needs.
The title alone makes me lose the desire to watch this crap. The title shows in a special way that people have a big problem with language. People have a problem recognizing what time is and that they have a problem with language is shown exceptionally well by the title of this video. People have a problem recognizing how reality presents itself and a title like this confirms that in its own way.
It's really simple People disagree about free will, cos they have different definitions of it. Someone claims they have free will, but their definition of it doesnt look so FREE to another person. Kierkegaard already solved it. "Life Can Only Be Understood Backwards, But It Must Be Lived Forwards" . Meaning, when you look at your past assume a 100 % deterministic mindset. Examine the reasons, the whys, the whole cause & effect, dont waste your time on explaining your actions, failures or triumphs with a simple "Cos I choosed so". When you look at your future, switch gears a go with a 100% free will mindset. You gonna see options, possibilities & oportunities, because you avoid falling into the deterministic mental trap "I did it for 10 years, so I cant change nothing". The future is set in stone cos it's cause & effect after all, but the CATCH is , you dont know with choice is inevitable, UNTIL THAT CHOICE IS DONE. So you always gonna FEEL like you can make a different choice, like you have free will... even if from a perspective of an objective all knowing observer, you are as deterministic as a Rube Goldberg machine.
yes, some free will exists. It is an expression of our inner (biological and mental) life. It is an opportunity to satisfy your needs, to create, to think, to plan and to stick to a plan. Yes, we often overestimate our freedom. However, the presence of freedom cannot be denied. Strong anomalous internal or external influences when we can no longer control the situation at all compared to being normal can only show the limits of our freedom and confirm their presence because we can compare the behaviour of a person who does not have self-control and a person who has self-control.
"We have a need for the phrase free will when discussing murder/crime" - no, we have the word "intentionality". We don't need magical words for non-magical phenomenon when we already have appropriate words available.
You as a human don't have the computing capability, capacity nor the need to perceive reality as is, only enough to survive in it. Just because we perceive a transference of time, doesn't mean the universe operates that way. Our role as a specialized observer can be overwhelmingly influential on what we think the universe actually is.
You can place a clock on the floor and another a little higher on a table. Gravity make the clock on the table Togo faster than the one on the floor. SO is time an illusion ? Naaa
I am reminded of a quote from the late Christopher Hitchens (directed towards right wing pundit Sean Hannity): "You strike me as a person who's never heard any of the argements against your position, ever,." Mr. Deutsch is an admitable man, but here he is fighting wind mills.
Novelty = proof of FW? No, it isn't. Human action is a combination of genes and the environment, neither of which we, as individuals, have any control over. Peter Strawson wrote an essay on this in the early 1960s. It's conclusions were: FW is an illusion but one that every human on the planet believes in, behaving as if it really exists. Therefore, what does it matter whether it exists in reality or not? I think it does matter but that is another argument.
Free will is only possible through transcendence out of the skinnerian level of existence you identified with previously. A choice is not a choice unless you can expose your reasoning, and it is not a free choice until you can trace a second order reasoning that justified your lower level logic. Simple example, you get mad at someone. First you think autimatically it's their fault. In argument, you must consider maybe it's my fault. Go beyond fault, you see both people are stressed and hungry, nobody chose anger. But now both can choose to shut up, accept faults and remove blame accusations, and go eat a burger together
Yes, a decision is a cascade of functions across many layers of intent and expected outcomes. Explaining the full mechanistic cascade of a decision does not invalidate the decision. Humans have mechanistic intent and the ability to deploy that intent relative to the capacity of there being (physical access to the world, state of knowledge on the system etc.). Whether we are ok with defining that as "free will" or not is semantic and probably not very important.
free will is possible through our possibility to think, to plan and do with YOUR reasoning, when not another person forced, or when you are not a very special state of mind. Yes, when you get mad free will is less, but this example only shows, that what when you NOT mad you can do otherwise, you can do not automatically .
Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size. This is why we can't move in time. Why they had to invent the pseudo scalar. To avoid calling it a compactified dimension. But it is. As per limit theorem, this creates limits. Lambda and event horizon. This also forces conservation since it's a closed system. And limit theorem also says that the closure is between the limits. That maxima touches minima. Matter, neutrons, falls into event horizons. Neutrons fall out in deep voids where the quantum basement is lowest and easiest easiest to penetrate. They decay into amorphous monatomic hydrogen, proton electron soup, Dark matter. The decay from neutron 0.6fm³ to 1m3 of amorphous hydrogen gas is a volume increase of around 10⁴⁵. Expansion. Dark energy. And then it stabilizes and coalesces and falls towards an event horizon Loop
I also don't agree with him, but that doesn't warrant talking about him in such a manner. He spoke to the best of his knowledge, there's no need to suddenly be all high and mighty.
Absolute nonsense. Free will is incompatible with a universe that has order and laws. Even if most of physics is worng, the universe can only be either deterministic or probibalistic, and both of these only two possible scenarios has no room in it for the concept of "free will".
Most philosophers know too little of physics, and therefore argue over abstractions that don't or cannot map to reality and could be ruled out. Once we lose reality as a baseline constraint, we lose one important source of criticism which is valuable for being able to rule out certain conjectures and therfore help advance the field. I don't really think lowly of philosphers for not having cross domain knowledge. I think this is a criticism of our institutional approach to education and domain boundaries. Hopefully that will improve.
There is no entity free to produce a novelty that has no referent to the past that produced that entity. Just go look at the progression of aesthetic motifs in Western Civilization. It was a development. In the ancient Western World, they didn't suddenly start producing motifs from China. Everything was ultimately derived from Mesopotamia. Asserting Free Will is a position that leads to a pit of confusion and complicity in oppression.
He is saying that humans have mechanistic intent and the ability to deploy that intent relative to the capacity of their being (physical access to the world, state of knowledge on the system etc.). That intent changes the universe and therefore it Exists. Whether we are ok with defining that as "free will" or not is semantic and probably not very important.
@@movieswewantit is important. Changing the meaning of free will to “partially free partial will” is dumb. The whole point of denying free will is in saying that absolute free will doesn’t and cannot exist. No one denies that they make choices and feel as though they have some will. As Schopenhauer says, “you can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want.”
@@giuoco Every educated person has known that "absolute freewill" (defined as the ability to physically deploy a decision from processes that don't exist within this universe) isn't how animals function for centuries. So yeah if we are talking about making decisions from outside the universe somehow then that isn't a thing. But thats hardly interesting, we've known that for centuries.
Movieswewant said basically everything I would have said in reply to you but I think this recent video by KaneB called “Metaphysics and Observation” is relevant to this conversation.
@@movieswewant you have a severe lack of historical perspective. To apply the term “every educated person” to the past centuries is unbelievably daft. You can’t standardise that for the previous centuries. This is debate older than science. Secondly, it is you who’s playing a language game. By adding “intent” and “changing the world” you’re oversimplifying and obfuscating the real issue. The Isai is that intent doesn’t exist… what does intent mean? Where does intent come from? You feel like you have intent but really that’s just an illusion, you’re being dictated by either a deterministic framework or a deterministic + randomised one (if you fancy throwing quantum indeterminism in the mix). Either way, intent is almost the same thing as free will.. so it’s a circular argument. You’re essentially saying, I have free will because I feel like I have free will (intent) and I can make changes to the world… Also the changes rarely coincide with intent. The world usually comes in the way. Your own brain comes in the way. Someone may have BPD or some neurological condition or a tumour that severely affects their “intentions”. Do you think they don’t have free will? Do you think someone who is hypnotised acted with free will? These are just Semitic games to feel better about yourself and assert “free will”. The lack of engagement with philosophical and neurological ideas is startling.
Free will is our ability to create knowledge and make decisions without duress, making us simultaneously culpable for our actions. Its the creation of knowledge that results in a wider array of novelty. Unlike animals governed solely by DNA or a very limited mental model in terms of knowlege creation, humans can generate new behaviors through mental processes where the adoption of knowledge can have unpredictable impacts. We have / beleive we have, agency over knowledge created in our minds, leading to actions we recognize as our choice. This self-generated knowledge and resulting behavior, like deciding to go to the shop based on store hours (knowledge we hold which was assumably recognised by us to be freely adopted), demonstrate our free will and culpability.
@@axel1million at what level of abstraction are you seeking an explaination? Just what is anything? What is spaghetti bolegnese? Is it a tasty meal? Or a very specialised collection of subatomic particles? The "we" or "us" is the same thing I am referring to in a pragmatic sense where "we" feel like we have autonomy and agency over every day decisions. If you are asking whether that is a collection of atoms or particles I'd say yes it's based in Physics fundamentally but that's not the domain that offers useful explainations of what's going on with conciousness. That domain is higher up where this behaviour emerges - at the level of computation / information, "software" etc. We don't understand how it works at that level... one day we might.
@@Wouldntyouliketoknow2 Yeah, like I haven't thought of all that already! Is there one example of anything in nature that can act independently of the laws of physics? No, the human brain does not possess any special subatomic particles, so where does all this 'emergent behaviour' stuff come from?
@@axel1million Emergence is everywhere. If you look at the world in a purely materialistic sense all you would see are huge swathes / configurations or sometimes just individual particles. Each of these would not be violating any laws of physics. You could use the laws to understand how particles behaved at this level of abstraction. Some of these configurations would appear to flock together though. Let's imagine a configuration that was actually a "person". All you see at this level are trillions of particles each behaving in accordance with the laws of physics but at this level you cannot explain for example, why everyday at 8am this configuration moves to a specific location. The explanatory power of physical laws to do with how fundamental particles behave is not sufficient to yield the explainations for behaviours which only "emerge" at a much higher level of abstraction. The explainations can only be reached at a level of referring to people; hunger; and kitchen tables. Those are all equally real and physical entities. The things we see in the world to do with people and tables are only possible due to these behaviours that emerge as lower level details (physical particles) congregate into higher level configurations with new explanatory properties that shield us from the low level details and complexity. Like "hunger" etc. Together these new properties add novelty to the world, they don't detract. The details are still always there, they just aren't always useful for understanding things that can only really understood by referring to higher level properties.
Comaptibilism is simply acknowledging that humans have Intent and the ability to deploy that intent. That intent changes the universe and therefore it Exists. Whether you want to call that free will or not is semantic and doesn't really matter.
Time is a measure of change. No Change = No Time. Imagine a universe with one Newtonian point particle. There is no time in that universe because change is impossible. To discuss time further is pointless.
What is going on with this kid that causes world famous physicists to hijack the channel of a high school student with 1200 followers who, presumably, have no special training or even interest in theoretical physics?
Scientific Methods for Further Investigation To substantiate the proposed perspective that time is a construct of consciousness, it is essential to employ scientific methods that can empirically explore the relationship between time perception and cognitive processes. Below are some research methods that could be used: Time as a Construct of Consciousness Time Distortion Study: Conduct experiments to assess how different activities and emotional states influence the subjective experience of time. For example, participants could be asked to estimate the passage of time while engaging in tasks that vary in complexity and emotional intensity. The results would provide insight into how consciousness shapes our perception of time (Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889). Brain Imaging Study: Use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and other neuroimaging techniques to explore the brain regions associated with time perception. By examining how these regions are activated during different tasks, researchers can gain a better understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying the construct of time in consciousness (Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889). Time and Light: A Visual Analogy Manipulation of Speed of Light: Experiment with optical techniques to explore the effects of light speed on time perception. For example, researchers could simulate scenarios where the speed of light is artificially slowed down or sped up, and observe how this affects participants' perception of time. These experiments could provide further evidence for the idea that time is a perceptual construct rather than a physical dimension (Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905). Quantum Entanglement: Investigate whether quantum entanglement, which allows for instantaneous connections between particles across vast distances, might offer insights into non-local observations of past events. By exploring the relationship between quantum mechanics and time perception, researchers could uncover new ways of understanding time as a construct of consciousness (Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018). Time in the Organization of Events Temporal Cognition Study: Examine how temporal reasoning impacts task performance in different contexts. Participants could be asked to solve problems or complete tasks that require a strong sense of temporal order, and their performance could be measured against their ability to accurately perceive and organize time. This research would help to clarify the role of time as a cognitive tool for organizing experiences (McTaggart, The Unreality of Time, 1908). Event Scheduling Study: Observe how different scheduling scenarios affect performance and accuracy in various tasks. By manipulating the order and timing of events, researchers can explore how changes in perceived time influence decision-making, planning, and execution. This research would provide further evidence for the idea that time is a mental construct used to organize and manage events (McTaggart, The Unreality of Time, 1908). CONCLUSION I argued for a reconceptualization of time as a construct of human consciousness rather than a fundamental dimension of the universe. By integrating philosophical insights from Kant in Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and Bergson in Time and Free Will (1889) with modern scientific theories from Barbour in The End of Time (1999) and Rovelli in The Order of Time (2018), it has presented a new perspective on time that challenges traditional notions and invites further exploration. According to this view, time is not an external reality that exists independently of our perception but a cognitive framework that helps us organize and make sense of our experiences. This reconceptualization has significant implications for our understanding of reality and our place within it. If time is indeed a construct of consciousness, then our experience of the world is deeply influenced by the way our minds perceive and organize time (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781; Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018). This perspective invites us to reconsider the nature of reality and to explore the ways in which consciousness shapes our experience of the temporal world. By pursuing further research in this area, we can gain new insights into the nature of time and the role it plays in our understanding of the universe (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781; Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018).
4. Time in the Organization of Events. Another argument in favor of time as a construct of consciousness is its role in organizing events. Without time, our experiences would be disjointed and chaotic, lacking the order and coherence necessary for understanding and decision-making (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781; Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889). Time allows us to sequence events, understand causality, and predict future outcomes (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781; Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889). It is a cognitive tool that helps us make sense of the world by providing a framework within which events can be organized and understood (McTaggart, The Unreality of Time, 1908). John McTaggart’s argument on the unreality of time further supports this perspective. In his paper The Unreality of Time, McTaggart argues that time is not a real entity but a mental construct that helps us make sense of change (McTaggart, 1908). According to McTaggart, time is a way of organizing our experiences into a coherent sequence, but it does not exist independently of our perception (McTaggart, The Unreality of Time, 1908). This idea aligns with the view that time is a construct of consciousness, rather than a fundamental dimension of the universe (McTaggart, The Unreality of Time, 1908). By organizing events into a temporal framework, time enables us to understand the flow of history, predict future outcomes, and plan for contingencies. It is a cognitive tool that helps us navigate the complexity of the world, allowing us to make sense of the past, present, and future (McTaggart, The Unreality of Time, 1908). Without time, our experiences would be disjointed and chaotic, lacking the order and coherence necessary for understanding and decision-making (McTaggart, The Unreality of Time, 1908). DISCUSSION The idea that time is a construct of consciousness has significant implications for our understanding of reality. If time is not an external dimension but a mental framework, then our experience of the world is deeply influenced by the way our minds perceive and organize time. This perspective challenges the traditional view of time as a fundamental aspect of the universe and invites us to reconsider the nature of reality itself (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781; Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018; McTaggart, The Unreality of Time, 1908). By reconceiving time as a construct of consciousness, we open up new avenues for exploring the relationship between mind and reality. This perspective suggests that our understanding of the world is not purely objective but is shaped by the cognitive tools we use to make sense of it, including time (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781; Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889). It also raises important questions about the nature of consciousness and its role in shaping our perception of reality. If time is a product of consciousness, then our experience of the world is deeply subjective, influenced by our mental states, emotions, and attention (Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999). This view also has practical implications for fields such as neuroscience, psychology, and physics. By studying the ways in which consciousness shapes our perception of time, we can gain new insights into the nature of the mind and the mechanisms underlying temporal cognition. This research could lead to new approaches to understanding mental health, cognitive development, and the treatment of conditions such as anxiety and depression, which are often characterized by distortions in time perception (Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889). Furthermore, this perspective invites us to reconsider the nature of time in the context of modern physics. If time is a construct of consciousness, then our understanding of the universe may be fundamentally limited by our cognitive capacities. This idea aligns with recent developments in quantum mechanics and relativity, which suggest that time is not an absolute dimension but a relative one, dependent on the observer's position and velocity (Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018). By exploring the relationship between time and consciousness, we may uncover new ways of understanding the universe and our place within it (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781; Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018).
One of the deepest and most persistent questions: the nature of time, challenging a long-standing view that considers time to be an intrinsic dimension of the physical universe, proposing that, instead, it is basically a construction of human consciousness, or a mental scheme in which we locate our various experiences to understand the world around us. The philosophies of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Henri Bergson's Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness find expressions in modern theories of time. In this paper, it shall be contrasted with the modern scientific theories of Julian Barbour's The End of Time and Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time. It implies that time is inextricably linked with perception and consciousness, as opposed to being a fully independent kind of physical reality. It is an invitation to reconceptualize the relationship of our humanity to reality and how the mind works in forging experience within the temporal world. For centuries, time lay at the very core of how we defined the universe. Traditionally, it had been held to be a fundamental dimension on par with space, operating together to form the structure of reality. Such thinking was brought to further cementation by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity-On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, in 1905-that proclaims time and space were interwoven into a single continuum known as spacetime. This is a framework where time is an independent dimension and exists by itself physically, regardless of human perception, as postulated by Einstein in 1905. I will present a different paradigm, that in which time should not be taken to be something in the universe but rather something constructed in human consciousness. That is, there is a challenge thrown to the most conventional notion of time formation; rather, it is a cognitive framework in which experience is set up and impressed upon our understanding. Unlike an external dimension that we simply pass through, time is supposed to be a mental construct that follows from our conscious experience. This is not a totally new view, but recent currents both in philosophy and science consider creating a perspective worth re-visiting. Rethinking time as such can give fresh perspectives on the nature of reality and what part consciousness plays in the making of the world. 1.Time as a Construct of Consciousness. I argue that time does not have a basic physical dimension and in fact is a mental creation. This idea, however, emanates from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who mentioned in his Critique of Pure Reason that time and space are forms of human intuition through which it organizes sensory experiences (Kant, 1781). Kant holds that time and space do not, at bottom, characterize the external world. Instead, they are the conditions under which we register perceptions of the world. That is to say, they become like the lenses through which we view reality-that is, they set the shape for our experiences but do not have an existence independent of them. This was further developed by Henri Bergson in his Time and Free Will through the differentiation of two kinds of time: mathematical time, which is quantifiable and spatial, and la durée, or lived time, which is qualitative and continuous. Bergson held the view that true time is subjective and fluid, flowable in a different way in every consciousness. Unlike mathematical time, la durée is a flow, continuous, indivisible, and therefore reflective of the continuum that characterizes human experience. This view of time as a product of consciousness means that, ultimately, our experience of it is a product of mental states, emotions, and attention. When deeply involved in an activity, time seems to pass by fast; when bored or very anxious, it crawls along (Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889). This subjective quality of time, therefore, gives evidence of its being a creation of consciousness and does not exist as an objective reality outside our minds (Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889). 2.Time and Light: A Visual Analogy. To further illustrate the concept of time as a construct of consciousness, consider the analogy of a tape recorder. Imagine that time is like a tape that records the events of the universe. If time travel were possible, it might resemble running the tape in reverse to view past events. However, just as running a tape backward does not change the past but merely replays it, time travel would not allow us to alter the past. Instead, it would enable us to observe past events from a different perspective, much like watching a movie reel in reverse (Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018). The comparison clearly shows that time is more of a perception than a tangible aspect that can be altered. From this standpoint time isn't a route we can freely navigate back and forth on; instead it's a series of moments that our minds arrange into a cohesive story (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781; Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018). This viewpoint is reinforced by Einsteins theory of relativity which suggests that time is constrained by the speed of light as outlined in his work On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Relativity posits that light travels at the speed through which information can be conveyed and therefore our perception of time is influenced by the pace at which light moves (Einstein 1905). The limit is an implication of time dimensionality. It is relative; it depends on the position and velocity of the observer. According to Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905, when we travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, our personal experience of time will seem to pass slower. This phenomenon is called time dilation. This effect, which has been confirmed by many experiments, indicates that time is not something given and independent but a value variable depending on the reference frame of the observer. This variability goes on supporting the very idea that time is not something like a basic physical dimension, but more a construct of consciousness, created by ways of perceiving and experiencing.(Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018). 3.Time as Not a Fundamental Physical Dimension. The theory of relativity is deeply imbued with the traditionalist view of time as a basic constituent dimension of the universe. Time is combined with space to create a single continuum: spacetime. According to Einstein, in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, time and space are combined into one continuum called spacetime. In this framework, time is the fourth dimension among three spatial dimensions, and as such, it has the same validity as space itself. The view had already been confirmed by empirical evidence from direct observations of time dilation for high-speed particles and strong gravitational fields, for example, as cited in Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905. However, this paper argues that time is not a fundamental physical dimension but a phenomenon perceived by conscious beings (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781; Bergson, Time and Free Will, 1889; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018). The effects of time dilation, for example, can be understood as differences in perceived time due to relative motion or gravitational influence, rather than as intrinsic properties of the universe (Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905; Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018). In other words, time dilation is a reflection of how our consciousness perceives time under different conditions, rather than a fundamental feature of reality (Barbour, The End of Time, 1999; Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018). It is further supported by some of the very latest theories of physics, which hold the idea that time could be emergent rather than a primary dimension. Julian Barbour has suggested in The End of Time that time is an illusion; it is what our minds created to make sense of change. In his The End of Time, Barbour proposed that this universe consists of a series of static snapshots or "Nows." Time is only the appearance of change from one snapshot to another. This view assumes that time is not a flowing continuum, but something created by our minds and a way of putting sense into a coherent narrative of experience as formulated by Barbour, 1999. A similar view comes from a popular science book by Carlo Rovelli, The order of time. According to Rovelli time is not one of the fundamental aspects of being but a mere secondary fallout from others' ways of perceiving the world (Rovelli, 2018). He proceeds to show that the way events interact makes time rather than claiming that it is a basic aspect of the universe. This is commensurate with the view that time is a construct of consciousness, molded by the way events experienced by us are organized and interpreted by our mind (Rovelli, The Order of Time, 2018).
