This has got to be my favorite of your vlogs. This alone deserves a TED talk--I was very impressed by not only your scientific relations, but also how poetic you made it all sound! Awesome video Nerdwriter :)
Thank you for posting this. You managed to put into words one of the most baffling and, in a way, because of its weird impossibility, troubling thoughts I've ever had. I admire your coherence in the face of something that is too complex to even think about. Time, man. What is it?
I love thinking about time. A friend of mine did his thesis on the fact that time is a man-made construct and brought it up to me once. Ever since then I've been fascinated with how time exists and how we let it control and contribute to our lives, so thank you very much for provoking some new thoughts about it.
I just wanna say your video was really inspiring. After years of military service I thought my curiosity was dead, but you woke something inside me. Thank you and keep up the good work:)
I love your vlogs. Not only do you talk about things that interest me, the way you talk about them and explain them is almost mezmerising. Please, never stop doing these...
not kidding, I was laying down at 11pm last night and thought of this prior to ever seeing the video. the evolution of consciousness comes from the recognition of patterns that complete a past and give us recognizable characters we can use to predict the future. In this we are allowed to place ourselves and can then formulate an independent place for our consciousness or as you put it, our mind. amazing that i thought this while falling asleep, woke up this morning and watched this... totally had a Bader Meinhoff with the video.
I had to watch this one twice! You are very articulate and clear and informative, but I had to stretch my imagination around in ways it isn't used to! Very cool. Thank you!
Just wanted to say I feel extremely lucky to have stumbled upon your videos. It isn't frequent to find a well produced, intelligent VLOG with relatively few views (compared to the big channels). Keep the videos coming, they are fantastic!
Your vlogs are perfect in every way possible. Keep up the good work! I can't wait to be 18 and starting to contribute and donate to help you make more videos and raise awareness
I see time as a mental construct we created, it does not really really exist. At least not the way we think to perceive it. People love to think of time either as line (common modern view), as a cycle (many mythological approaches often based on the cycles like days and moon phases and tieds and such things), or as multidimensional (with parallel timelines and such things based on some quantum physics interpretations). But I see time as a point itself, so it has no beginning or end, we just have the current moment, the past and future are just things that exists in our minds, but not outside it. The current moment is always in motion, and the entropy and such themodynamic properties are real, but our perception is blurring our understanding of time, since we project the ideas of an past or future in our heads to the outside world, just like people projected the cycles of nature once too unto reality eager to find answers we just made up ourselves.
+Drudenfusz “Have you also learned that secret from the river; that there is no such thing as time?" That the river is everywhere at the same time, at the source and at the mouth, at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the current, in the ocean and in the mountains, everywhere and that the present only exists for it, not the shadow of the past nor the shadow of the future.” ― Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha
Tommy Raferty Even though I had read that book, it was not what lead to my view about time. But nevertheless nice that you thought of the book and mention it here!
+Drudenfusz I'm not sure I can agree with you there. 'Time' may not exist in the way we perceive it, but it most definitely exists. We gave it a name/symbol because of the sole fact that it exists in some way. The word 'time' was thought up to explain that feeling of progression/movement. That it was like this, then it was like that. Of course, if we are to believe science then we already know that time doesn't actually pass and that the past, present, and future supposedly exist simultaneously (if I'm understanding Einstein correctly). Continuing with Einstein, it's also theorized that time is like the opposite side of space, as if they were on a coin. They're part of the same fabric, but take on different roles. They function the same but in opposite capacities. So if we are to split existence/presence into its dimensions, the three dimensions of space and the dimension of time, then it might be more accurate to say that we move through time, rather than time passing. Time is the human concept of movement, progression, and change. It's the universe's variable of space's transition, which can only be experienced through a linear perception. But just because it can only be perceived linearly shouldn't mean that it's unreal. It may be a mental construct, but that doesn't make it 'unreal': only that it's a flawed interpretation. If we perceive it, then it exists in some way. At least, that's my two cents on the topic.
Seano299 The thing is that time is not always perceived linear, look at all the mythologies which talk about time as being a loop or cycle, or at the medieval view that the world is not really changing at all, or the proposed multitime dimensions by some qantum phsycists. There are plenty of different ways to look at it, and einstein also doesn't proposed a line or that time is the opposite to space, but that is just another diimension like space that will have effects on it if you play with the other dimenion via the use of mass. And that is my point, time doesn't exist on its own, but we only perceive chance, whether it be progress, evolution, entropy or what have you, those things all exist, and we attribute them to the concept of time which might not exist in itself. Sure, maybe it is there, but we have no prove of it directly existing, we have only some processes we put together under the umbrella of the idea of time.
What I mean by it being perceived linearly is that our experience exists in the present, aware of the exact moment the world goes from this second to the next. We do not perceive all of life (past, present, and future) in one moment, but in the constant progression of this state to that state. A lot of physics seems to be dominated by opposing binaries that only have a loose line, and that one can easily switch to the other (for example, Einstein postulated that as something approaches the speed of light, its mass increases as energy stops converting to velocity and instead steps over that line of opposition into its reverse). The theory of relativity as a whole is heavily based around the relation of space and time and how the universe exists how it does as the result of said relationship. That's where the whole idea of wormholes come from. It's the root of that whole idea of people stopping right before cross the event horizon of a black hole (less actually stopping and more being perceived as stopping by an observer). If temporality wasn't connected to space itself, then that would not happen. There was an experiment done, the details of it escaping me now (I may just look it up after this), where they tested out the effects gravitation had on the passage of time, finding that at a point of lower gravity, the clock/time was actually slower. It's taken as evidence (not proof, however) of time's existence beyond our perception and its link with space and gravitation (which is, in itself, just another result of the workings of space and time).
I have to hand it to you, another amazing vlog clocked up. Yup, on the face of it, you can tick this one off and gear up for the next one - don't spring into it too fast, though, you can unwind after this strike.
No lie I wrote a theorem last year about how our mind was the fifth dimension and my reasoning is because space, time and knowledge are all infinite but you have the details that connected each dimension to the next that I gave up trying to find...truly awesome video man and I completely agree...obviously haha.
I really like the Taoist concept of the eternal now. The future and past - you think of them in the present moment, and that's where they exist. This is the flow.
mindsplosion! I often have to watch your videos more than once to full understand your argument. really good stuff. I love the part on symbolic reality.
I read an interesting perspective on time as Einstein related it to the three other dimensions of space. It explained how time slows down the faster you go like this: "We are all moving at the speed of light when we are sitting on the couch. When we get up and change the energy to say, go to the bathroom, we translate the energy we are spending sitting in time to energy of momentum of moving through the other three dimensions. That is why time passes quicker on earth than astronauts at .99c"
Interestingly enough, similar topics have recently been of discussion of multiple philosophy classes. The developments of vocal articulation, rapidly followed by behavioural modernity, happened about 35,000 years ago, while anatomical modernity predated it significantly. Also, Hesiod's "Theogony" mentions the creation of Chaos [hay-oss] amidst nothing, made by no one, and which created everything. An emergent phenomenon, if you will. :)
I know they're a bigger channel than you, but can you try to do a collaboration with Kurzgesagt (In a nutshell)? I'd love to hear you explain something awesome with their animation team.
Perfect timing (!) - I'm reading Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss and matters like this are the whole reason I'm reading it. Thanks for a fantastic explanation!
I'm not sure if I agree with the idea, that it's a defining characteristic of thoughts to proceed sequentially. That's maybe our subjective experience of them, our stream of consciousness, but I tink it's rather likely, that at the neural level these processes, that to us seem so easily distinguishable (the flow of thoughts) are actually correlated in time, in a rather weird manner- that is, not at all like: C comes after B comes after A... You could say this is another level of emergence- from neurons to subjective experience, but I think the one is just a coarser level of description, one we use for everyday communication- and it's just how things "naturally" appear to us: like a vase doesn't appear to be composed of electrons and nuclei, because we have neither the sensory nor cognitive capabilities to perceive them, our brain has only a limited capability to perceive and describe it's own processes, so our thoughts don't appear to us to be as complex as they actually are. This "limited" ability is in itself a bit miraculous, and can of course be expanded by reflection and research. - A great video though, really made me think.
Makes me think of Permutation City. Not a great book but interesting ideas in it including how we'd experience time differently without our human physical minds, existing only in a digital form. But I don't know that the mind really does work in a way inherently different from life. I tend to think of things in terms of entropy. I think life, time, morality and memory all make more sense when viewed from that system. To me memory or our minds seem to be like life: just another localised attempt to keep entropy from increasing (and inevitably failing-- keen readers might see the connection to morality and religions here). It may be that we replay our memories and experience through the dimension of time but it's still an outside force affecting us, just as it is with DNA/life. Our minds (and language) just add another layer to the permanence life strives for.
For a great psychological/neuroscience perspective on the relation between the brain, mind, and time, consider checking out The Continuity of Mind by Michael Spivey. It's technical, but it really provides some cool insights and the later chapters have some pretty interesting philosophical discussion.
Ha. I wouldn't be a true nerd if I let that one slip! Also thanks for the audience interaction. I usually don't get that with the other channels that are too big.
I was having a hard time with a personal writing project and I've been looking for solutions. Your video has just given me the missing link I desired. Thanks for the inspiration. Keep drinking the java. Your brother in Nerdom, MichaelScottNOW
Kind of a round-about way, with a bit of fluff thrown in, that because the defining feature of minds is that they occur in space and time, it is almost certainly impossible to use those very minds to conceive of non-time and non-space. I think the most effective phrase here was that you can't use a ruler to measure the absence of space. Thus similarly absurd is the concept of considering "before time", since 'before' is a concept of time itself.
Have you read a paper by David Chalmers called The Hard Problem of Consciousness? He similarly discusses how the mind cannot be explained purely in physical terms. I would love to hear your opinion on it!! (Also, as a philosophy student, I thoroughly love your videos - this one deserves more attention, it's mind-blowing stuff)
I think there are two 'times' which we're talking about here - one is the time which you ended on, that is what we can comprehend; the other is the scientific time which is tied to space, known as spacetime. The latter is a function of space, and vice versa, because when you drag Newtonian physics, and most of Einsteinian physics, into the mix, then things do have an order. Thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, relativity, all is measured through spacetime. There's more but alas, I have no space.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that space & time is first pertinent for life. Composition of matter is changed over time. And while such compositions are the essential basis of life itself, it's matter's differentiation that is a subject of time and not the life that is emerged. Matter is definitely effected by time, at least in regards to position and composition, unless you're talking on a different plane. Likewise, you take the neurological properties of what the mind is reduced to (if you believe in that of course), and there are many constructs for how we recognize things in an objective manner. Still though, yeah. As I'm typing this, I see time as not only an essential phenomenon for the mind, but an integral one. I'll read this when I"m sober, probably.
I think it's need to continue of a thoughts of a future about where we going in terms of exponential growth, technological singularity and a transcension hypothesis. Make a video about this.
Correct me if I am wrong, you gave a reason to why we cant imagine something without time at all, on similar grounds brain is built up from matter as well, but we can imagine a void.. cant we?
After watching Arrival and reading The Story of your Life, what do you think about time and our minds? And Sapir-Whorf's theory? Sorry if my english looks terrible but is not my native language. Saludos!
Hey, amazing vlogs. Just thinking it would be great if you could cite some references. What books you read that support your vlog so we can go on and do some more reading on the subject. Cheers and keep on vlogging! :)
Wow... you're vidoes are always amazing :) But as this being one of the things I am most interested in, here is my comments on it: Insted of asking what was it BEFORE time (or outside space, for that matter) You should ask what is it that is not time and space? And the space one is tricky, but taking away time isn't that hard. Think of it as a room, a room that is empty of all variation. No changes happen, no time passes. this is the state of light, or something non.linear. :)
Very interesting. I feel like it's a little bit unfair to say that time and space didn't come into the picture together until life. The complexity of planets, suns, solar systems, galaxies, nebulae, etc. is derived through time (and they have 'life cycles' as we do). I do think that there is something particularly special about life, but I don't think life was the first thing to bring about complexity through time. That complexity is inherently brought about by the fundamental forces of nature.
when i'm watching your channel i am completely, entirely speechless, but i would love if there were more videos on Science and Literature. Please do Think about it. Thank you..
One thing keeps coming back to me as I watch these videos. You have a stack of books. Within that stack is a book about the new deal. Atop that stack is a hat reminiscent of the one FDR wore. I must know. IS this intentional?
The other day, my mom told me that she felt like dogs don't have a sense of time like we do. Whenever we leave our dog alone, say, for an entire day, a few hours, or just half an hour, she seems to greet us like "OMG I THOUGHT YOU WERE NEVER COMING BACK, PLEASE LOVE ME." I've never read up on any studies about animals and time, so I'm curious about this.
This means that time travel especially to the past events is impossible. Essentially we or anything/one living in our universe cannot even imagine about "things" which can take a shortcut to the past. Have you seen the episode in Star Trek: Next Generation, where somehow Wil Wheaton's character can somehow travel at speed faster than light only by the "power" of his mind? I somehow wish our thoughts could, but then remember even neurotransmitters are time dependent. Any thoughts?
You are right there, but he described something different. He spoke of a breaking point in the causal chain which would make it impossible to predict the behavior of that ant colony, aka. making it impossible to simulate. But this is not true, if you go on a deep enough level you can easily simulate the behavior of an ant colony and therefore predict their behavior. To our knowledge there is no causal breaking point in the whole universe which would make predictions impossible.
Have I never noticed things in the background of Nerdwriter videos changing before? Or is this on purpose in this video because its about time and things happening in sequence? I had to pause the video at 4:55
I understand the argument, but I have to say that if you're going to say that Matter is a function of Space and Life is a function of Space (Matter) and Time, then certainly Mind must be a function of Space and Time, since it seems, to me, that it's a function of Life and Time. Unless you're a Dualist don't don't see the mind as the result of the complex system that is the brain, that is.
Is darwinian evolution truly emergent? Surely something like it is happening on other planets, so if you had enough information about how molecules interact and grow in stable climates you could probably deduce the overall principles. Consciousness is still not logically supervenient on physical observations of the world, so that one in not doubting.
M McManus well, if you really did understand all the rules of the universe (and had a really big computer) you could, apart from Schröedinger, predict everything in the future - including human decisions, the mind. Your mind is, at least from a purely scientific standpoint, nothing but your own perception of the stuff, that goes on in your brain, and your brain is nothing but chemicals. What I think he meant, and what I think it means to be emergent, is that you couldn't reasonably expect to conclude fx that evolution only by knowing that live exists - it isn't reasonable to expect, that anyone will ever understand the universe completely.
"brain is nothing but chemicals". Sounds a bit loaded there. I find a lot of science fans like to employ this denigrating mood/tone/attitude. It would be like saying "a symphony is just a bunch of horse hair scratching cat guts, and people blowing spitty air at different pressures." Technically that is true, but the attitude is clearly more about you seeming tough minded than it is about the symphony. It ignores how unbelievable it is that when all these sounds come together in just the right way, you can get something so much bigger than the sum of the parts - truly sublime music. But I digress. Nevertheless, consciousness is still not logically supervenient on physical observations - it is a dead end of explanation - just like gravity, the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism.
M McManus We don't know these things yet, but that doesn't change the fact, that I (personally) believe, that we could understand them - in theory. It's true, I am being very technical by saying these things. But the technicallyties is what matters in this case
I disagree with the big computer predicting everything. The chaotic inverted pendulum is a simple example of unstable system which lead to believe in random at some level. Study of birds learning the adult songs showed that the brain goes thru a phase of random exploration. Even the most attentive chick has no choice but trying a modified version of the ancestral song. Then, the song is adjusted to maximize the attraction of listeners. If any subtle change in the gene makes the ladies prefer a different style, the new generation will discover it thanks to this anti-conformist young brain. Consciousness can not be explained by proton and neutron, no more than the music by the horse hair and cat guts. Talking about vibrating molecule still does not help. However, understanding how the cochlea convert sound to frequency and automatically merge the same notes no matter the octave, this crucial information suddenly explain a big part of the orchestra. Next step, understanding how neurons connected in long chains and a second layer can pin point peaks of action potential and, a third layer using a synchronizing pulse to inhibit/activate an array of neuron, act like one of many clocks triggering a data buffer in a computer (think about a fast shutter in a camera), thus taking snapshot of the major frequency and all harmonics on each part of a music or speech, it become clear that the output on the third layer encode the vocal tract position or the timbre of the musical instrument. Similar analysis of the visual system show how the image in the retina become encoded as stream of color, object and relative location. Consciousness is located in the brain, of course, since all our mental performances reside there. The exact location depend on which definition of consciousness we select. The consciousness that we share with all mammals, that focused, purposeful energy that we all spend to find food, sexual partner, etc, it is a negative feedback loop which force most neuron to trigger action potential at a specific rate. That means, no matter if we are listening or looking or touching something, most brain area are required to do some work. If we heard an unfamiliar sound, the visual area is on duty to scan the immediate visual field and also to generate a list of likely objects which match the sound that we are paying attention to. Conversely, if we are reading, the brain area specialized for sound is not allowed to rest. It has to generate the internal voice converting written text to speech, then that speech is decoded back to concept, exactly like it would if somebody was talking to us. If we isolate our self in a dark room with padded walls, there is no part of the brain which will use this void to take a nap. As long as we are awake, we will talk to our self, think about scenes, make every brain area work, forcing each one to deliver a steady stream of action potential. For people who know computers, particularly at time where there was no "sleep" instruction, you may remember the surprise to discover that the processor always execute instructions. If you finished your program, you had to release the CPU to the operating system or force it to do nothing by creating an empty loop. Similarly, a brain just can not stop thinking. If not stimulated by direct sense organ, the brain will keep busy by revising previous events, searching solutions to open questions and use the answers to continue investigating with the help of newly found answers. The stream of though is a feedback system where an output is used as input to the same system or input to another. For example, thinking about "what is the name of that guy" may require thinking about the date and location where I talked to him. Once the context is in place, the memory may finally find the name. Now, this name can be used to trigger another search. For example:now I remember having seen that name on the electoral list on the street where my mother live. So, maybe he lives close to her. Some days later, talking to mom, that name jump to your attention : it is like "an app" that you installed in your phone to make it alert you, you made a notice in your brain, like a conditional breakpoint, saying:"if talk to mom, ask her if she knows that guy... with the name you saw on the electoral list. Now, waiting for an opportunity to speak, as she rarely shut-up, you have the phrase prepared. Silence of 1 second? Mom, do you know somebody with the name xyz? Sure, you were friend with his son, you know, always teasing your sister. Wow, thanks mom. This guy is suddenly much closer to you than you ever imagined. Now, if we take the definition of consciousness as "the spirit we share with all human, global awareness of mother Earth, then science can not explain it. This consciousness is beyond any scientific experiment. It is not tied to brain chemistry. It lives on no matter if your self would die today.
Yeah I think the mind or consciousness can't be explained by science but I do think some people can have an absence of any form of thought for a split second or for some for a longer time and that's meditation, where the mind focuses but doesn't think.
The more I think the more this bothers me. Firstly, this universe is subject to time irrelevant of life, Big bang, matter expansion, planets, life etc. I think that emergent phenomena is a mechanism for us to try and make it easier to understand what came before the big bang (or expalin some chaotic event). Time may have been of little relevance then, but to us it becomes very difficult to understand that concept as we are so bound by time as individuals.
how do you have a deterministic universe and that things like evolution/life could not be predicted ? I guess emergence means one set of rules cannot be derived from another set of rules, which is not the same thing as a break/discontinuity in causality.
