"The Flow of time is the most true thing we know. Time is the most real thing we know." Charles Muses once explained that time is the fundamental dimension - a moment in time includes all space while a point of space does not include all time. Therefore time is larger and most fundamental.
Kind of boggles the mind to try and imagine a space in time not having anything to do with time itself. And *when* was this place perceived? “I don’t know who discovered water but it certainly wasn’t the fish.”
Smolin is the most interesting physicist that I know of and I've only been aware of him for just a few years. Each time I listen to one of his lectures or interviews, even if it's one I've seen before, I come away with a new possible perspective. As a non-physicist, my view of time is primitive and while I don't claim that time is an illusion, I see time as a way for humans to calibrate change into a meaningful form. Time is one construct we use to measure change and it is change that is the most real thing in the universe. I intend to keep listening to Smolin and reading his works, because he convinces me that his view has merit that is beyond my current ability to comprhend and that there is much I need to learn in order to develop a better understanding of our world.
Agree...the change is everything...yet it comes from movement so movement is everything...movement happens in time so...time is everything... The big question is,which comes first... Or they all come together first....
@Alex I agree. Motion is the way, or at least one way, that change is effected. Time is measured by motion and when motion stops, time will have stopped, if that is possible.
Is there a word that denotes all the knowledge and laws that we have yet to discover? How much of the world have we discovered? Someone once said "time exist so everything doesn't happen at the same time".
Time did not matter on Earth until plant life started to migrate to the land and rely on the sun for energy (versus areas of heat and cold under the water). Once sunlight became crucial to existence, and procreation of plant life, there had to be an awareness of simplistic time in terms of day and night. As other forms of life evolved, this concept of day and night became more crucial to adaptation, survival, procreation and evolution.
Time I think is an outcome of causation….which is a outcome of motion….so, if there is no motion, there is no time. Imagine a box containing one hydrogen atom and we are a viewer….…as long as the electron is moving about the atom, there is a passing of time as the motion of the electron is a motion that has created a causation that in turn creates a different picture of the atom and we assume time has passed…..if the electron should stop moving altogether(assuming that the proton, neutron etc are also frozen) time for the hydrogen atom does not exist. Even though as an observer of the atom, we continue to experience time as we see that causation in the atom has stopped in our view.
Exactly! I thought the same thing. One reason I listen seriously to Lee Smolin is because I think his work is explicating some of Whitehead's intuitions and thought.
It sounds like, it could very possible that time is God. Like time is the creator of all things. Wow!! Time could be our god and our maker. That would be showing/hiding them selves in plain sight. Or something like that. Basically when we pray, we should be praying and worshiping to TIME. Very well put together speech. This speech just opened something in my mind that made me think about this. And I like it.
And God said, "Let there be light" ......and the light was sent out in time to carry creation and formations. As Arthur Young describes in Reflexive Universe, light has no energy source, does not submit to entropy and changes each time it is perceived. It is time/God's carrier wave. You are correct, sir!
On 13:33, Lee makes a statement that "Quantum mechanics is not deterministic"; in other words, random suggesting that this is fact. This statement supports the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which is fine but it's not fact and is only a theory. Just because a human is unable to know the outcome of a quantum event doesn't prove that true randomness exists. If the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was fact, then no one would be talking about and supporting other theories of quantum mechanics such as Bohmian mechanics (a.k.a. pilot wave theory) or the many-worlds interpretation where both of these interpretations are deterministic and not random.
Moreover, even if true randomness is baked into the laws of quantum mechanics, that doesn't leave the door open for free will. You would not be able to choose the outcome of a quantum probability, and so any thoughts or actions that depend on quantum randomness would be outside of your control. This would set fundamental limits on the predictability of human (and animal) behavior, but it would not mean that the human or animal chose the thought they had or that they chose the action they took.
Since there was no “time” before the Big Bang, I’ve surmised that there was infinite “time” for the initial circumstances needed for Universe was/is inevitable. JMO Does this open the door for God? Yes.
Imagine Time is a force. It’s interaction with matter causes movement. Time is not everywhere all at once nor is it of consistent strength. Perhaps its presence relies on an observer being present. Consciousness is time We are a fundamental force
@@freddiekarlsson5429 I tried to send u a link to an article I posted on reddit on r/time but it failed. If you'd like to look it up it's titled "It's a kind of magic"
If you consider our discoverable universe (as a thought experience) to be an AI system, then space-time is the address in the storage, while matter-energy is analogous with the stored data. In both cases, however, we are missing the point if we are focusing on these arbitrary components (like space-time/address or matter-energy/data) - the point is the common element that won’t change from implementation to implementation (whether it’s a particle, an atom, a molecule, a lipid or amino acid or protein or cells even neuron or nerve or conscious person) and this common element is the purpose of that particular level of complexity from the quasi fundamental things (“who” only want to stably exist) to the most sophisticated of all things we can ever physically experience, our consciousness (“who” only want to know why), or might I rather call consciousness an intelligent self-awareness or even the duality of the capability of and the motivation to evaluate ourselves while looking into the mirror we call our surroundings. I’m currently making this word salad into a functional code (a game application or, rather, a network of players who will potentially be able to act as intelligence donors) that actually works: gradually filling up storage address and stored content (lynobites) storing NOT data, NOT algorithms but actual, tangible intelligence. At least, you will definitely hear about it once I happen to succeed:)
People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. Albert Einstein
Good point! This is a puzzle that he and Munger talk about in their book. Check out the video _The Singular Universe & Reality of Time Roberto Unger Interview | Philosophy Lecture_ for a brief description.
There was no "beginning". Creation is NOW. WE, and everything else, channel Consciousness from Source, in real Time. Consciousness builds our reality in real time. That process is what we perceive as the passing of Time. Creation is Time.
This is an invitation to see a theory where light is both a wave and a particle, with a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π, future continuously unfolding in relation to the electron probability cloud of atoms and the wavelength of light. In this theory, the wave-particle duality of light and matter (electrons) creates a blank canvas that we (atoms) can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. This interaction is represented by a constant of action in space and time, mathematically denoted as the Planck constant h/2π. This concept is supported by the fact that light photon energy ∆E=hf is continuous exchange into the kinetic energy Eₖ=½mv² of matter, in the form of electrons.
LAW: I used to think, this word is more fundamental in Physics. I used to feel, if “God” had ordained Laws, then He wouldn’t violate them ever (within or outside the range the Laws are meant for), He would be the last Magician, or even, there would be no magic. 2. There can be scale-dependent Law. Similarly of course, laws encountered in physics, chemistry, biology, geology, et seq. 3. Why we are finding it difficult to easily-explain the physical availability of space and time? If we can think we are easily explaing mass, energy, and even charge (and Temperature?)
What if : Time is a "thing" absorbed? "Time fat"= old. What if : Time becomes Space, mass/energy? What if : Time IS "everything happening all at once", Space, mass/energy, emerge as change occurs. Space, in between the actual mass of our physical forms, is vast. Is it always the same Space? What if : Space and Time pass though/into us instead of the opposite? What if: We are animals chasing laser-pointer dots?
It is in Time that we experience and discuss things such as abstractions. Has the past not given unto us the present, how long will we live in the future before realizing we're already there? Everyone has plans, but realizing that this creation has a CREATOR, His plans for HIS creation supercede every other plan🕎🕎🕐🕐🌅🌅🤴🤴⚓⚓🔱🔱🌊🌊🐬🐬🚀🚀🌌🌌
I have never thought about the reality of time before but as a pastor these are some questions that are approached daily in the “God’s sovereignty vs human responsibility” debate. I have a question for those who have some experience with this: Is he saying that time is either a single line (____________) and therefore existing or that time is an unrelated series of events one after the other (…………..) and therefore does not exist?
Well.. Its continuuous in absolute, but your consciousness isnt.. Your brain modulates your perception of time, while time of object in our absence keep on orbiting/moving/colliding in a continuous flow.. Maybe quantized at some fine level for a given "dimensión" I guess?
Is it possible to have various predetermined outcomes
2 года назад
I believe...Time is: A measure of change in the entire existing universe, caused by the motion of matter/energy/space expansion in relation to itself. Because time is founded in motion, time is relative to speed. Time and space are the same in that space itself is expanding, thus moving, movement is change, and time is simply a measurement of that change. So time is as real as space and it’s motion of expansion. Not so difficult to understand really.
If there be no time then reality would be Muti-verse. Would mean that every moment is the same moment but in a different dimension. In which unlimited dimensions. (the multiverse.) It is too difficult to make sense of photons must travel for them to show up here. If they were here every moment, then it would never be dark. Only if we in fact hallucinate dark or hallucinate light. Not a very responsible theory. The problem is that you can get into a green car and drive down a wet street anytime you feel the need to hallucinate such. Meaning, what is the proof for not hallucinating reality that we claim?
..time is the measurement of motion, without motion we would have no time...if you were able to go to the "future" you would be limited by space how much future you could experience and therefore narrowed.... motion can be entropic and therefore "most" of the future is entropic...
real or illusion ? not an intellegent question. Time is an abstraction, from motion and change - that is how both Aristotle and thermodynamics understand 'time'. So how do we understand the time of cosmology (eg 'time dilation' or 'spacetime') in energy terms. That seems to be the adequate question (?)
V Friedlander There is another possible conceptualisation of time... Time is as real as is all subjective experience. That is time like space is a property of life activity. It is a necessary product of the world changing activities of organisms to reproduce themselves and to produce offspring. This being the case, there is no contradiction between the argument that time is not a relevant feature of the inanimate universe, yet very much a relevant property of life. It does, of course raise some interesting questions regarding the relations between the timeless inanimate and volatile life. timeless
Is there a way to interpret the host's parting remarks to mean anything other than: "your talk was terrible, I don't think they got any of that, I'll come by on monday to help you with your presentation skills"?
i know, i thought that was extremely rude and unprofessional also. Lee Smolin gave a very good and interesting talk. If the host didn't understand it, then he's the stupid one, not Lee Smolin he's a scientist.
@@billytrack Why would Lee want to 'throw me a beating for my cheek' (never heard that before) when I pointed out his host was rude to him? You should at least have cast the HOST in the role of the potential beater because my comment was aimed at him. Other than that, it was one of the lamest attempts at an insult I've read in a while.
Ich habe schon Ihre Meinungen in solche Texte erklärt , es ist mir Ihre Meinung nicht etwas Neues . und kann ich Ihnen noch mehr Kenntnisse davon erzählen
Agree, time is a real, physical process of evolution of any system. If you're hopeful of a new theory as you say, then why don't you read my book;- The Binary Universe - A Theory of Time. I already sent you a copy but got no response so you'll have to buy another.
Imagine, in the context of the current state of discourse in the U.S., someone standing up in the back with a sign which says, "You Can Take My Watch When You Pry It From My Cold Dead Fingers" and another yelling "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY RULER!". Then a guy wearing a Make Relativity Great Again hat attacks both of them with an alarm clock and the auditorium breaks into chaos. Campus Police arrive but are met by people from the Flat Earth Society squirting bear spray at them. Then Mr. Smolin is whisked away by private security to a secure location. CNN arrives on the scene.......
public lecture tends to be shallow, scratching just on the surface, and propaganda-like. we really wanna hear how these people work into these issues, what methodology they use, what reasoning they have done, and where are the provings......more interested in the workings and know-hows.
You are a good example to see that scientists are not really good to understand the nature things, but just do the math and get the right results! Saying time is real is like saying God is real without any justification but invoking to human emotions and novelties.
His conception that the answer to wether time is an illusion or not will tell us if humans have more or less freedom depends on the idea that humans, or any living things, have free will at all, which I dont believe theres any substantial evidence for. I also dont like this idea that whatever we determine in physics will give more or less 'hope' or 'inspiration' to socio-political problems. The inquiry into how things work should be separate to how we want to run our society, with the latters decisions being informed by how things work
Your point number 1 is nonsense: If people didn't sometimes act freely, we would have to take your statement here as coerced or merely instinctive, (unless you're using 'have free will' in some newly invented sense, which is uninteresting), so that statement is either false or something we should all ignore. Your point number 2 is hopelessly naive: Our conceptions of the world are always informed by, and in turn always inform, our cultural and political landscape. A cursory reading of the history of science and natural philosophy, and just the history/anthropology of ideas in general, will corroborate this.
@@mikegoldthwaite4331 everything can be explained by humans and other living beings with so called free will being biological computers. You make decisions, your brain takes in information, processes and decides, you dont make choices. Big difference
With all due respect, Prof. Smolin seems to confuse "laws of nature" with "human perceptions of nature." I believe there is an absolute truth about the universe and its operations. These are "laws of nature." I also believe more of these laws are undiscovered than discovered. Human perceptions evolve (change) with the passage of time but truth does not. The following quote resonates with me. “Science comes to a stop at the frontiers of logic, but nature does not - she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory.” Carl Gustav Jung, The Collected Words of C. G. Jung, Volume 16 - Practice of Psychotherapy, paragraph 524.
I believe what Jung said is true, but science is concerned with learning all we can learn. Saying that there are things that can't be learned doesn't change what the scientist does. Science has made life less miserable for countless people and makes life more interesting for countless more.
to me the concept of a “law” is still a human perception derived from being exposed to a patriarchical hierarchical culture, where rules and laws are described by those who claim their power through violence and oppression. Some power has to govern the law or else it is fallacious. The term law to me is therefore not objective enough and I wish we could construct a language that doesn’t refer to anything but itself to explain Nature. Like a Universal Onomatopoeia.
He is well aware of the dangers you speak of. And still says what he says. He knows what happens when you bring emotions, hope, existentialism, and philosophy in general to a 'scientific' audience. And yet he did it anyway...
I liked Smolin's response. He possesses the humility to question his own ability to express his views, even though his views are strongly held. Bill Nye would have stomped his foot and called the host a bigot.
I've read his book. He never explains or defines what he means by time being real... His other books are great but here he has lost all rigor in his arguments.
Did you expect him to read his book to the audience? Let's be real. Smolin wants to sell books. That's how he puts food on the table and pays rent and utilities.
The either/or question he starts with is constructed on assumptions... as though these are THE two ways to think of time and there are only two. I can't trust anything he says after this.
What do you think about the possibility that he's aware that there might be other ways to think of time but is only mentioning the two most popular or (that he thinks are) most reasonable? Especially since this is only a 20 minute lecture given to a non-specialist audience on a topic that took him and his co-author 550 pages to explain. Respect!
I know this: That was 18-minutes I'll never get back. "Time is real." Who knew? I imagine that this guy has done some very impressive work in terms of theoretical physics and perhaps cosmology. But this talk most certainly wasn't it.
