What Is Time? | Professor Sean Carroll Explains Presentism and Eternalism 

total agreement here, no clowns, knowledge counts instead :)

There is an episode of Startalk with Neil Degrasse Tyson of which 4 times him and his host were joking about a certain topic and the poor professor who was being interviewed just stood there like a statue trying to avoid the “joke”. Lol!

Well said. It's like yo yo yo whattup science bitches? Lemme give a shout out to my physics posse.

@Science Revolution what the hell are you talking about?

Love this comment. Helpful. Constructive. Non-repetitive. Straight to the point, allows the creator to know we wanna see it

William Scott not*

String Theory is work in progress. Also, General Relativity it's NOT a complete theory, because it does not explain new factors no seem 100+ years ago.

do you have a particle collider the size of M31? No? No SUSY for you.

😂😂😂

William Scott funny

That's the turtle from Kung Fu Panda right?

great thinking ....🙏🙏🙏

What a great comment I will also read it again yesterday

I just read this comment tomorrow.

JR,,,,,,,,,,YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE SEEN HERE !

😭🤣😭🤣😭

There are 4 part series by Brian Greene - watch that first. Have to understand space first in order to understand time. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dEWupAFtXGU.html

Thanks, like a great song"lotsa info packed into brief time-space; me thinks you may be an acolyte of henry jacobowitz and john bonham😄

Verify every bit of information you conceive

TIME IS THE CAUSE OF GRAVITY ??

Jean Pier Garnier Malet joya 💎 found it! l am sure you enjoy it ! greetings from Santiago Chile 🇨🇱

​@@kn9ioutom i hold to Presentism. I do not believe in time existing as a separate thing from matter, and would say we base time on sequences of change or movements relative to change in another object. Like we base a day on the movement of the sun around the earth. Then we divide that up into 24 parts. Then divide that into smaller parts. Then we set hour glasses to measure it. Then watches that count in a similar manner. But what is that watch originally based on? The movement of the sun and we coordinate that to the movement of the hands or numbers on a watch. But what you do not see is people just setting the watch to a thing called time. Time is not some reference point in of itself. Just like if you asked how tall I am, and I said " 6". "6 what?" " Well I am 6 tall." Time is nothing that can be traveled. You cannot travel to the past. We live in the now. And basically there is matter and the movement and arrangement of it in its current state to the next. And we base time on that

this man knows nothing of time time was invented bye man to make sense of what we do and understand if u go to work at 6.am an finish at 3pm the is how long we are at work the sun rises in the east and sets in the west how long does it take to move from east to west we use a clock mostly are 24 hrs long befor we ad clock we started at sunrise and finished at say midday thats the sun move south at say 12 hrs no such thing as space and time dont exist in nature lol he gets payed for this rubbish

@@roybradshaw4252 time does exist everywhere tho lol. How are you going to say it doesn't exist naturally? Why do animals get older then? Why do things change? This is time in motion. The way we label time however is not natural and really only pertains to humans. We put this label on however so that we are able to better understand the process of time and what it is, so when people are explaining time they are talking about the mechanics of time not the way we describe it, but the way it describes itself.

@@TheForneveralone it is a process that all living things go through its not time its a process witch applies to all things according to how old they are and time was invented bye humans to understand of periods of movement of natural things in the universeif u over work u get tired and hill so you take periods of to rest

@@roybradshaw4252Then what about past present and future bro

past as gone presant is right now and the future as yet to come so time as nothing to do with it u cant say it 7pm if its really 6pm a time that humans have agreed with not found in nature@@shangavik4128

Time travel isn't possible. Time is the rate of change in Energy. The sun is our energy, and "time" moves forward as the energy is released. :) Look at pictures of a Nuclear mushroom cloud... That's Time Travel! The Stem of the cloud is where time moved ahead rapidly......

Amy, you made a few nerds smile, and some other nerds didn't get it.

@@tigerstudios not correct as you suggest the rate of change in energy is constant. and also suggest that every sun creates its own time because all suns release energy. Time slows when i move fast through space, or go further away from a gravitation pull of the planet. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENERGY RELEASED from the sun - we already know time is related to SPACE

@@reddevilsunited7780 Time slows in an accelerated frame or gravitational field (equivalent). So you have it backward. But that doesn't challenge the point you were ultimately making.

Michael R You are so wrong, where did you learn that?

Absolutely, right from the beginning. The subject or body of knowledge is NOT absolute, the way we understand totally changes the knowledge. Is that another accepted subject of study in philosophy?

and Rogan says DeGrasse is a much better explainer

Except for that one time where he used the stupid term "proper time", and confused the kid in the video explaining relativity to a child, a teen, a student and a professor.

@@TheShootist Yes, Neil is cool, too. But he needs to be careful. The #metoo stuff is for real. Word on the street is that he's putting moves on women in his circle. Wrong. Don't try to get p***y from your employees. That's immoral and unethical.

@@room111photography5 better to act a man than a mouse.

How'd you do bro? -truly interested😊

My motto is "procrastinate now",

Hope that project went well g 😂

Can you tell me how you arrived at that number??

BINGO

Only if TIME were man made, unless you're describing a concept of time that living beings have experienced and expressed over a period of Time 🕎🕛🤴🔱⚓🌊🐬🚀🌌

But sean must not stop growing in his philosophy because what one sees is what one sees.

Brian Freeman I don’t think u learned anything

Fred Alan Wolf has an answer. See clip on RU-vid: "Is time travel possible?"

i don't think time is a priori . imagine a place where is no phenomenon, no movement , no chemical changes , no matter , just space and time . is there time in such situation ? there is no change to measure so there is no time. time is present because there is change and time is measure of that change ,

I like the thought you put into this. I read what you wrote and thought myself what if we were one dimensional creatures within the time field. Space has 3 dimensions that we can experience, why couldnt time also have 3 dimensions that arent apparent to us. A one space dimensional being would see items appear and disappear within their point of space and it would be normal, just like we see the future appear and the past disappear as normal. Just a thought I had when I read your comment.

This makes me feel so uncomfy right now :I I already have a hard time dealing with all the embarassing moments through out my life XD and still I love the idea of Eternalism somehow...

Fml. 😂🤦‍♂️

Oh dear!

Well, in that case you were also always going to do those emparrassing things anyway, so nobody can actually blame you for it

@@pinesyeet Trrrrue.

Be Honest #Now !!!

@@aussieragdoll_tnls932 746 for me because of 17:11 error. And that's just one thing.

Communicators

@@ophiolatreia93 (^.^)

This guy went one place above Brian Cox in my top 5

Insidious Vidz That is true, but professors can learn. Oppenheimer was a lousy teacher at first, but ended up one of the best.

What does he mean when he says the past, the present and the future are all equally real? In the past he was a small boy. Is he saying that the small boy still exists? In the future he will be an old man, if he lives that long; is he saying that the old man exists now? If not what makes the past and the future as real as the present?

@@matthewphilip1977 he means everything that occupies space must travel through space time. If time didn’t exist nothing could move or decay, likewise time is a real construct that flows all particles through it

Time is like the measuring of changes between distance and events spawning from a sigularity; and consciousness is the recording of the disorder as it flows. Entropy must continue so the record is stored in created consciousness (example :a cell carrying out a function. The cell each time coded to make less mistakes than the last. Like learning to not destroy itself after continual repeated failures) by dark energy and the information is then evolved and replicated so that the samething does not infinity repeat. My perspective on the reality of the universe for everyone is different and subjective to that organism\being ,for an example. Scientist states that viruses, bacterias or cells are examples of living organisms that even live in our bodies and they carry out functions. Human beings also carry out functions; but we look at cells and viruses as a lesser life form of life. If there are advance or higher forms of life, they can also measure us human beings and state also that we are a lower form of life just as human beings may observe an ant as a lower form of life. However, because of this an ant may not be important to us, but if you try to squash an insect it will try to flee and preserve it's life thus means it's life must mean something to itself; but not to us. Even blood cells defend themselves when under a threat just as we do, but is the life of one blood cell important to us? Is the life of a human being urgent to a tree which is also a living organism. Human beings are the main cost for the destruction of trees whichin they've been here before we we're in existence. So are trees a higher life form than us? A more advance and higher life form may look at a tree and say this tree is much more important than a human being because it sustains life on this planet but human beings destroy the planet with human helping technology (depending on their perspective). All of this said humans may not be as prominent as we think If we remember the laws of physics breaks down on a quantum level. There are lengths like the plank length that are so small that it can be compared to the scale of the universe. So doesn't this mean that being that small you are in a universe of its own , within another observable universe but only observable by our knowledge by humans. If this is so then there must be other places the laws of physics break down also. If it does for the extremely small why not for the extremely big? Who is big and small anyways? We are small to our planet but our planet is small to our sun. This can go on and on. We are the size of a universe to an atom in our body ,thus means also we are big. However, this happens to everything everywhere. If there is space that has particles, those particles may be within an atom, trillions of atoms are in a cell (more than stars in our solar system) whichin cells are IN our blood ( 37 trillion cells). Our blood in our organs and muscles which is within our bodies. Our bodies may be within a house which is within a constituency, which is within a town, which is within a city/state/island which is within a country which is in a continent which is within a planet, which is within a solar system, within a galaxy, within A super cluster, which is within Galactic walls which is within the Cosmic web . "Everything is 'WITHIN' " which The Cosmic web itself is 'within' The Universe WHICH is 'within' a bubble or phenomenon that we cannot see. "Everything is within" something. Hold just a minute here though! We cannot see someone waving at us from an airplane. We only see the construct of the landscape, not the entities within them. Or an ant from the top of a sky scrapper, neither can we see blood cells attacking viruses n vice versa. Which is evidence just because we cannot see oxygen or detect an atom WITHIN does not mean its not there. The human eye cannot see U V rays or even oxygen and we are surrounded by it. So this means the Laws of physics as we KNOW it only applies to our subjective and objective reality. If u step back and look at the universe . We will only see the Cosmic Web of everything. Which seems to be all touching and connecting. Not until we zoom In does things seem to seperate. Just like a cell that make up our skin. Or a dog standing on an island. From far we only see the landscape , but as we zoom in other entities become observable. Inturn becoming a noticeable part of your reality. Things like Dark matter plays not with Morden physics and we cannot see it but it must exist because of the forces that pulls galaxies together and dark energy pushing entropy without the universe collapsing. However back to the Cosmic web. From a far everything is connected, but if u go close or zoom more is revealed within. The universe itself may be 'within' a muti-verse , another unverse, a blackhole, a quantum computer simulation or even apart of another living organism body that seems infinity large. But as we are universal size to an atom the universe can be a drop in the ocean or space to a greater being which most earthly beings cannot fathom or even believe because it is beyond preposterous. Even if your human eyes can go in front of it is to large or small to amke out. You cant see a mountain top from the exact bottom. It is to high in the clouds. Thus u cannot see the universe from one end to the other. The universe legs may be to long (just a joke ) .Somewhat though these are very much what it seems for the great reality. As laws of physics break down at quantum levels, entanglments, singularities and so on. There are dimensions that we cannot see and cannot detect things like :(earthly terms, but they seem to have more meanings) Super positions, past , future, the unconscious, concious thought, different colors of light , pure and dark energy etc. Please excuse my long reply , but this is just a brief explanation of not an objective or subjective reality. Which is infallible, but of the asubjective existence which seems verisimilitude.

Too bad he promotes gay propaganda. Didn't do it in this vid though

​@@Gian-niwhat

Hahaha He's got a noble character? Based on what? Your intuition? Your long friendship? What an odd damn thing to say.

How in the hell can you know anything about his character, is he yor friend?

must be the gold ring….

@ Ted Bates. Gee wiz Ted, you were practically shot without a trial for thanking someone and adding a personal compliment born out of gratitude and how YOU perceived the man's character based on his presentation! It's obvious you ought to be flogged immediately for LEAPING to such conclusions! 😶 I thought I'd chose the only emoji I've ever seen that portrays NO emotions. Hope I'm not flogged along side the likes of you Ted! 🤣🤣🤣 I hope that emoji was the appropriate one that expresses my view on the way you were fired upon. Good on you Ted for saying what you did and I say that because I appreciate your commending the presenter and for your humility in saying you can go nuts sometimes making sense of this sometimes very puzzling subject. That was a bit long toothed BUT there you have it. Over a year has gone by since your comment but if you look to your left and down at about a 30% angle you might be able to see me waving to you on that space/time graph 😁! Cya!

He reminds me of an algebra instructor students lined up early to get for the semester. Even I got through the class with a good grade. However, I can't remember much, if any, of what I "learned".

We all are given a short time to find something or someone. Some find it right away while others never find that something or someone but we all have a chance.

@ *Ted Bates* The chance being the quantum mechanical probability of the shrodinger’s cat.

except that one infinitely dense speck, no?

@andrew gallovich i think that's the entire debate, whether space/time is primal or not. I see both sides, they both make good points but theyre also both severely lacking in evidence. Its mostly just philosophy anyways

Space matter and energy exist. Time does not. Time is only a perception. It is a measurement we take of the energy and matter in space. Very simple.

@@stevenash9282 Infinite Density = Absence of Matter

Time is like the measuring of changes between distance and events spawning from a sigularity; and consciousness is the recording of the disorder as it flows. Entropy must continue so the record is stored in created consciousness (example :a cell carrying out a function. The cell each time coded to make less mistakes than the last. Like learning to not destroy itself after continual repeated failures) by dark energy and the information is then evolved and replicated so that the samething does not infinity repeat. My perspective on the reality of the universe for everyone is different and subjective to that organism\being ,for an example. Scientist states that viruses, bacterias or cells are examples of living organisms that even live in our bodies and they carry out functions. Human beings also carry out functions; but we look at cells and viruses as a lesser life form of life. If there are advance or higher forms of life, they can also measure us human beings and state also that we are a lower form of life just as human beings may observe an ant as a lower form of life. However, because of this an ant may not be important to us, but if you try to squash an insect it will try to flee and preserve it's life thus means it's life must mean something to itself; but not to us. Even blood cells defend themselves when under a threat just as we do, but is the life of one blood cell important to us? Is the life of a human being urgent to a tree which is also a living organism. Human beings are the main cost for the destruction of trees whichin they've been here before we we're in existence. So are trees a higher life form than us? A more advance and higher life form may look at a tree and say this tree is much more important than a human being because it sustains life on this planet but human beings destroy the planet with human helping technology (depending on their perspective). All of this said humans may not be as prominent as we think If we remember the laws of physics breaks down on a quantum level. There are lengths like the plank length that are so small that it can be compared to the scale of the universe. So doesn't this mean that being that small you are in a universe of its own , within another observable universe but only observable by our knowledge by humans. If this is so then there must be other places the laws of physics break down also. If it does for the extremely small why not for the extremely big? Who is big and small anyways? We are small to our planet but our planet is small to our sun. This can go on and on. We are the size of a universe to an atom in our body ,thus means also we are big. However, this happens to everything everywhere. If there is space that has particles, those particles may be within an atom, trillions of atoms are in a cell (more than stars in our solar system) whichin cells are IN our blood ( 37 trillion cells). Our blood in our organs and muscles which is within our bodies. Our bodies may be within a house which is within a constituency, which is within a town, which is within a city/state/island which is within a country which is in a continent which is within a planet, which is within a solar system, within a galaxy, within A super cluster, which is within Galactic walls which is within the Cosmic web . "Everything is 'WITHIN' " which The Cosmic web itself is 'within' The Universe WHICH is 'within' a bubble or phenomenon that we cannot see. "Everything is within" something. Hold just a minute here though! We cannot see someone waving at us from an airplane. We only see the construct of the landscape, not the entities within them. Or an ant from the top of a sky scrapper, neither can we see blood cells attacking viruses n vice versa. Which is evidence just because we cannot see oxygen or detect an atom WITHIN does not mean its not there. The human eye cannot see U V rays or even oxygen and we are surrounded by it. So this means the Laws of physics as we KNOW it only applies to our subjective and objective reality. If u step back and look at the universe . We will only see the Cosmic Web of everything. Which seems to be all touching and connecting. Not until we zoom In does things seem to seperate. Just like a cell that make up our skin. Or a dog standing on an island. From far we only see the landscape , but as we zoom in other entities become observable. Inturn becoming a noticeable part of your reality. Things like Dark matter plays not with Morden physics and we cannot see it but it must exist because of the forces that pulls galaxies together and dark energy pushing entropy without the universe collapsing. However back to the Cosmic web. From a far everything is connected, but if u go close or zoom more is revealed within. The universe itself may be 'within' a muti-verse , another unverse, a blackhole, a quantum computer simulation or even apart of another living organism body that seems infinity large. But as we are universal size to an atom the universe can be a drop in the ocean or space to a greater being which most earthly beings cannot fathom or even believe because it is beyond preposterous. Even if your human eyes can go in front of it is to large or small to amke out. You cant see a mountain top from the exact bottom. It is to high in the clouds. Thus u cannot see the universe from one end to the other. The universe legs may be to long (just a joke ) .Somewhat though these are very much what it seems for the great reality. As laws of physics break down at quantum levels, entanglments, singularities and so on. There are dimensions that we cannot see and cannot detect things like :(earthly terms, but they seem to have more meanings) Super positions, past , future, the unconscious, concious thought, different colors of light , pure and dark energy etc. Please excuse my long reply , but this is just a brief explanation of not an objective or subjective reality. Which is infallible, but of the asubjective existence which seems verisimilitude.

OML same 😂😂😂

🤣🤣🤣

golden86 “You cannot enter the same river twice, because it is not the same river or the man.” Heraclitus.

Great quote about time. Still, time and dimensiions are physical allusions created by our brain. A more realistic model of the world is to consider it from the perspective of patterns of energy. The solar system, for example, is a stable space-time pattern of energy. Consider it, for example, as a single material object., like an atom or a clock. But time is not an independent entity, it does not exist without spatial movement (like Sean moving his hands). What we misinterpret as "real" time, e.g. the passage of time, depends on our memory - it is a psychological process. We compare our "present" with our memories automatically, and realize they are not the same. Our brain generates the concept of time to account for the psychological discrepancy - it is generated by our brain to explain why we are not now where were a few seconds ago.

@@thomassoliton1482 the last bit of your comment is rather poignant.

Mindstorms44 Firesign Theater: "How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?"

golden86 the presupposes the natural phenomenology of time.

Baf Lange I wonder why every time I hear one ask a question 😂

Like why does my snot taste good?

weshard1 no seven year old have asked me this.

Jordan dynamite drop in Monty, that school really paying off

phaz jordan Would you?!

Think about what it would mean for "moving forward in time" to just be shorthand for "traveling along the gravitationally induced curvature of spacetime". That would insinuate that time, itself, is actually created in discreet quantities by gravitational fields, and the more gravity there is, the more time there is. I.E. you get close to a singularity, you have to literally travel through more time to get anywhere. While it makes sense and seems to track with (at least my own understanding of how GR works), I think there is something fundamentally broken about that causal relationship. IMO, gravity does not cause time or spacetime curvature, it's the other way around - Time causes the curvature of space, which we call "gravity". I know it sounds like the same thing, but I think the distinction is important. I personally think Time is literally the only fundamental force in the universe, and all others are emergent phenomena. Anybody else wanna throw in an opinion/argument here?

Yes! Time is gravity made physical!

Say what?! 😂😂😂

Thank you , David!

Time is like the measuring of changes between distance and events spawning from a sigularity; and consciousness is the recording of the disorder as it flows. Entropy must continue so the record is stored in created consciousness (example :a cell carrying out a function. The cell each time coded to make less mistakes than the last. Like learning to not destroy itself after continual repeated failures) by dark energy and the information is then evolved and replicated so that the samething does not infinity repeat. My perspective on the reality of the universe for everyone is different and subjective to that organism\being ,for an example. Scientist states that viruses, bacterias or cells are examples of living organisms that even live in our bodies and they carry out functions. Human beings also carry out functions; but we look at cells and viruses as a lesser life form of life. If there are advance or higher forms of life, they can also measure us human beings and state also that we are a lower form of life just as human beings may observe an ant as a lower form of life. However, because of this an ant may not be important to us, but if you try to squash an insect it will try to flee and preserve it's life thus means it's life must mean something to itself; but not to us. Even blood cells defend themselves when under a threat just as we do, but is the life of one blood cell important to us? Is the life of a human being urgent to a tree which is also a living organism. Human beings are the main cost for the destruction of trees whichin they've been here before we we're in existence. So are trees a higher life form than us? A more advance and higher life form may look at a tree and say this tree is much more important than a human being because it sustains life on this planet but human beings destroy the planet with human helping technology (depending on their perspective). All of this said humans may not be as prominent as we think If we remember the laws of physics breaks down on a quantum level. There are lengths like the plank length that are so small that it can be compared to the scale of the universe. So doesn't this mean that being that small you are in a universe of its own , within another observable universe but only observable by our knowledge by humans. If this is so then there must be other places the laws of physics break down also. If it does for the extremely small why not for the extremely big? Who is big and small anyways? We are small to our planet but our planet is small to our sun. This can go on and on. We are the size of a universe to an atom in our body ,thus means also we are big. However, this happens to everything everywhere. If there is space that has particles, those particles may be within an atom, trillions of atoms are in a cell (more than stars in our solar system) whichin cells are IN our blood ( 37 trillion cells). Our blood in our organs and muscles which is within our bodies. Our bodies may be within a house which is within a constituency, which is within a town, which is within a city/state/island which is within a country which is in a continent which is within a planet, which is within a solar system, within a galaxy, within A super cluster, which is within Galactic walls which is within the Cosmic web . "Everything is 'WITHIN' " which The Cosmic web itself is 'within' The Universe WHICH is 'within' a bubble or phenomenon that we cannot see. "Everything is within" something. Hold just a minute here though! We cannot see someone waving at us from an airplane. We only see the construct of the landscape, not the entities within them. Or an ant from the top of a sky scrapper, neither can we see blood cells attacking viruses n vice versa. Which is evidence just because we cannot see oxygen or detect an atom WITHIN does not mean its not there. The human eye cannot see U V rays or even oxygen and we are surrounded by it. So this means the Laws of physics as we KNOW it only applies to our subjective and objective reality. If u step back and look at the universe . We will only see the Cosmic Web of everything. Which seems to be all touching and connecting. Not until we zoom In does things seem to seperate. Just like a cell that make up our skin. Or a dog standing on an island. From far we only see the landscape , but as we zoom in other entities become observable. Inturn becoming a noticeable part of your reality. Things like Dark matter plays not with Morden physics and we cannot see it but it must exist because of the forces that pulls galaxies together and dark energy pushing entropy without the universe collapsing. However back to the Cosmic web. From a far everything is connected, but if u go close or zoom more is revealed within. The universe itself may be 'within' a muti-verse , another unverse, a blackhole, a quantum computer simulation or even apart of another living organism body that seems infinity large. But as we are universal size to an atom the universe can be a drop in the ocean or space to a greater being which most earthly beings cannot fathom or even believe because it is beyond preposterous. Even if your human eyes can go in front of it is to large or small to amke out. You cant see a mountain top from the exact bottom. It is to high in the clouds. Thus u cannot see the universe from one end to the other. The universe legs may be to long (just a joke ) .Somewhat though these are very much what it seems for the great reality. As laws of physics break down at quantum levels, entanglments, singularities and so on. There are dimensions that we cannot see and cannot detect things like :(earthly terms, but they seem to have more meanings) Super positions, past , future, the unconscious, concious thought, different colors of light , pure and dark energy etc. Please excuse my long reply , but this is just a brief explanation of not an objective or subjective reality. Which is infallible, but of the asubjective existence which seems verisimilitude.

Good question👌 Bearing in mind I am not a educated person, I am simply stating my opinion to add to the debate 🙈 Mr Einstein, Niels Bore, Richard feynman and others accept the theory of general relativity as a good (ish) model of how things work. Please look to them for an educated answer. That said 😁 Imagine the pre-Big Bang cosmos is a 28 (arbitory number) dimensional construct, in which all points are the same point (therefore no size and infinite size). Something within the construct changed ( I have seen a suggestion the speed of light could have changed slightly), triggering entropic deconstruction, triggering the big bang and our universe came into existence. Puff and there was light as the gods might have said 😁 We now know that the universe after the Big Bang was not uniform, areas of more and less energy. Further, when we look at distant objects we can see there are variations in the speed of light that must be taken into account in our observations. This suggests (to me) that the fabric of our universe has ripples like water, but in energy density. A Galaxy, for example, has an effect (we call Gravity) that is Inversely proportional to its energy density (mass). To go back to your question: Say we had two spaceships parked next to each other and each of us had a super accurate clock (our way of defining the changing state of the universe at our location). Then you sped off at close to the speed of light and I stayed still for a period of one year relative to me. We know from experiment that our clocks would show a difference when you came back to my location and speed. The rate of change of the universe was slower for you at high speed. Inside your space ship everything would seem ‘normal’ but outside it the rate of change would be different relative to the local energy density. If it were possible for me to look through the window of your spaceship, while your are travelling at high speed, I would ‘observe’ the interior as being stationary. You would observe the universe changing at a dizzying rate.

I would agree sir.

I am wondering now what is even the (theoretical ) difference between moving through adjacent parallel universes ( like in the string multiverse) and moving through time. There is a clear direction but that could be the result of having always more worlds with more entropy to step into. A straight line is even not needed since the trajectory will always be logical. I admit that this idea is perhaps contradicted by the smooth, non discrete nature of time. And the question might come up if moving through space then, can also not be seen as a movement through adjacent parallel universes.

If I did understand presentism right, then "now" is when you "freeze" all movement in the entire universe, and then you call this moment "now". When there is some change or in this exemplification, when you "unfreeze" the universe and "freeze" it again (after something has moved) you get the new "now" and the moment before is just a memory. Contrary to the theory of eternalism, in which the past and future exist simultaneously but at another place of time because you see time as a dimension. But in both cases, you will never experience the past or the future, because the future is just a prediction or in the case of eternalism, something that happens at another place in time and the past is either just a memory or sth that happens at another place in time as you are. Therefore, the past doesn't stop because the past always was or is at another place in time and the future will never begin because it will ever be the prediction or another place of time. We are at the same time neither in the future nor in the past. We are always in the now.

I have a similar question about existence and non-existence.

So if you stand still then time doesn't elapse?

It is impossible to 'stand still' in this universe. You are always on the move relative to another observer, and that means on the move through time as well as space.

@@spyrosspyrou5809 Please help me understand if I got the point correctly. I am not a physicist nor very well educated on such issues. I am just trying to understand the basics... Time is not fundamental since it is created due to the expansion of the universe? Time was born with the big bang and for as long as the space created expands, we experience a linear progression of time towards a specific direction? So Is time a byproduct of space creation?

@@kdawgg83 impossible to stand still. Where could you find a place where you are standing still?

@@spyrosspyrou5809 Also, the element of entropy

I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think the answer, atleast how we experience it, is that it's floating. When you think about it, an absolute current moment is the same as the absolute middle point of a wheel. It exists, but it's not possible to get to it with anything other than math. A rotating wheel will have a point in the middle of it with 0 width, depth and height that everything else rotates around. As an example of the current moment, try putting on a song and try to distiguish certain points as moments. It won't work, the moment will be what you just heard over a very small timeframe that isn't 0.

@@pinesyeet Thank you for your reply. If I understand what you are expressing, we need to consider the interaction of two different things, namely what the physical reality of time is, AND how our brain perceives time. Presumably the underlying physical reality of time could theoretically be measured accurately with the proper instrumentation, but our brain may distort the perception of that reality to a lesser or greater degree. To see this more clearly, we can use the well-studied model of how the brain extensively processes a real image (and also the amount of time it takes the brain to do so, according to "The Human Brain Book, "it takes about half a second for us to see an object consciously").

@@barryzeeberg3672 Yes I think you're on the right track. Without saying for certain, I can imagine that if our brains suddenly worked twice as fast, time would seem to slow down around us while we felt normal (if that makes sense). In this case, a moment for this double speed person measured by a normal speed person would be half as long. This leads me to believe, again without certainty, that time and moments only has its size because of how we perceive it. If we went outside our universe and looked at it while we turned time faster and faster towards infinitely fast, it would seem like every moment that happens goes towards being 1. What we know from experience is that with the time constant, this isn't exactly true, as we have moments happening after each other. What you can say then by looking at our universe is "ok, then moments are just like a stack of paper on top of each other", but that isn't practically true either since we don't experience going from a still-frame to the next, but rather have fading back-end of the moment that becomes the past and gaining front-end of the moment that becomes the present. This leads me to believe that moments are a fluid thing, atleast for all intents and purposes how we perceive it.

Perhaps even before you think.:)

Very true, all they do is regurgitate what's already been said.

I believe you can come to scientific discoveries simply by thinking. Using logic and reason will get you much more if used correctly than hundreds of thousands of experiments. This is the ways of the old. People don't discover things in this way anymore. Well not all people.

Nothing small about your mind. You have everything you need in it.

tiredness correlation with day/night time cycle

I don’t know if “process” is the best word to use to describe time for this theory

I also like them, but I like Michio kaku better. Even if he has flaws at politics, I agree with Kaku on science and philosophy.

Feynman was a different Time.

Leonard Susskind and Juan Maldacena are my favorite current physicists. Sean is pretty cool too though.

Jim Al-Khalili is my favourite. Some of his BBC documentaries are epic. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KFS4oiVDeBI.html He's best on his own. In his element (pun intended) I skip the ones that incorporate 'the public'. Can imagine a BBC committee coming up with that idea.

@@alexisjanetcook1477 #metoo . Athough he was never accused of rape. Calling every unpolite touch "rape" is degrading the pain and misery real rape victims have to go through.

Hi Bruno, thank you so much for your kind feedback! We truly pride ourselves on our professors and the depth of our content and are very glad you're enjoying our offerings. Thanks for being a fan!

@@Wondrium that's really my pleasure .

Ask yourself: "How do I experience time?" On any view time is a wholly subjective experience. What else could it be but a word that conveys one or another experience? Rather obviously " the universe" - like any other universal, is imaginary in that it cannot be directly immediately personally experienced *A* "the universe" which is a vague unfocused idea - and no more than an idea

why did they have to make the background so tasteless? just a white room or a green screen with post-production images (PBS Space time style) would have been much better than this outdated school director's office

The setting, the cameras, the feeling that his movement and gestures were choreographed totally distracted me from anything interesting he had to say.

good thing the other 75000 people that watched this dont care.

You guys seem to complain about the silliest things

Are you suggesting that intuition, anticipation and experience have nothing to do with playing the game of tennis?

Wow

Thanks, Wesley! We appreciate your feedback.