Channel your mind so it won't be boring but rather interesting

You're lucky. I fell asleep for 3 hours and it was still running!

😭😭😭

Sounds crazy to me also. Maybe you're not explaining it correct.

You're describing what I was thinking about last week almost exactly, while considering the relationship between the expansion of space and the speed of light. The idea might be a waste of time, but I was surprised to see someone else write about it so soon after it just kind of came to me as a curious revelation.

Interesting!

Good point, it got me thinking. I wonder if those "quantum holes" are some how linked to the Laws of Thermodynamics, in respect of entropy which is another way of looking at time. It is interesting that one of the problems of physics in general, was to satisfactorily unify the laws - Unified Field Theory, as Relativity is a concept of the "very big" compared to Quantum Mechanics of the "very small". It is sad that the physicist you knew passed away. He might have been onto something.

The term 'paradigm shift' originated in reference to philosophy by Kuhn. In this case Smolin seems to be using that context of the word rather than the political sense.

Exactly. Especially given the advent of AI and Nanotechnology.

Robin Blankenship Yes. I sense a terrified fellow seeking power through social engineering.

I don’t perceive science here, but rather social engineering.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZrCBZKyF1rLGe3k.html (please watch this)

Do you want that to be true?

@@malcolmdean2303 lol - very clever !

But ‘truth’ is ellusive. e.g. Consider the statement ‘the fastest kangaroo in australia yesterday hopped exactly 20.17 m/s.’ This is either ‘true’ or ‘false’. but you can never prove which. In such cases (MOST CASES) any assumption one makes about the truth of a statement has tremendous social context.

I have no idea what relevance this has. Consider the statement "I will be a friendly person". If I want it to be true, it is much more likely to be true than if I want to be unfriendly. I want to be the first person to make nonstop flight across the Atlantic. Darn, you Charles Lindbergh.

@@jameseames4754 You can find the meaning of "is" in any dictionary.

His left hand is fully occupied painting pictures.

@@desdoyle7839 Ah yes, more visual than sonic. Good call!

And very annoying.

The thuth about nature hasnt evolved but rather has our understanding of it as we (Einstein) found a model that would give more precise predictions and descriptions of the universe. I believe this theory adresses the fabric of time and Reality itself by saying the concept of truth which exist within reality can only exist now because only now is reality

Thank you - very helpful comment (5 years ago) I am just future past

@@220Phil In a way, yes. The problem, though, is the implication that the future happened. Since we never get to the future, it can’t be our past. It is the potential future that became our past.

that explains why we don't see things "rewinding" or going backwards in time on the macro level, but it doesn't necessarily explain why we live or experience things moment-to-moment, which is the problem he was trying to tackle. if relativity proposes that time and space act as part of one continuum in the natural world, how come we are able to differentiate our "present" self from our past? why is it that we experience time as a narrative flow of events instead of existing as a simultaneous amalgamation of past, present, and future? how are we able to differentiate now from before? most people are content to say that we are physically constrained to view reality in this way, but he obviously wanted to peer deeper and have a fundamental understanding as to WHAT makes us view reality moment to moment.

Exactly. I would add that time is real, immutable and unidirectional, a fundamental discreet element of natural law, buttressed by observable irreversible biological processes and measurable through observance of repetitive motions of objects in the universe, chemical processes, electrical reactance & capacitive decay etc. A guiding principle of logic: one cannot measure something (with repeatable, recordable, empirical demonstrable cross-referenceable results) and then turn around and claim that it does not exist. ⏳

Clearly, you do not understand the B-Theory.

That is just a fallacy of equivocation with the term law.

Oners82 Bankowa Okupacja It seems to me that Lee is proposing a sort of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for physics. Here's a wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Jae Kwon Godel's Incompleteness Theorems (plural) have no relevance to physics. Don't confuse the problem of induction with the limitations of deductive systems.

Oners82 I'm using deductive reasoning to claim that inductive reasoning in our universe is either incomplete or inconsistent. If we want to believe that our system of physics is consistent, then well, our laws must be incomplete. Even if we observe a new phenomena of our universe, there will always be potentially more unexpected phenomena. Are the laws (axioms) of our universe such that it can describe the natural numbers? If yes, is it consistent? If yes, then the laws are incomplete.

Jae Kwon "If we want to believe that our system of physics is consistent, then well, our laws must be incomplete." That does not follow at all. They could be consistent and complete, there is nothing to prohibit that. You are attempting to apply deductive restraint to empirical observation when it simply doesn't apply. "Are the laws (axioms) of our universe such that it can describe the natural numbers?" First off that is a false analogy, laws are not equivalent to axioms. And second I really don't even understand the question, you have it entirely backwards. Laws don't describe numbers, numbers describe the laws. I think your implication is that numbers are directly derived from nature, and since math is incomplete, so is physics. The problem is that your assumption is completely false, math is not derived from nature and this is demonstrable.

It seems that there is no way in which anyone could prove or even beggin to explain how time could be real (if you have some links except this video above i am interested), same with free will. It is bizarre, but it is what it is.. The burden of proof is on believers, always.. even though it is pointless to talk about time and free will not existing, obviously, same with the illusion of self.

me too, when actually time is the realest thing we experience, more real than space.

1GTX1 , our time is unique to Earth. only matters, in its structured frailty, to be as it is here (can't touch it, change it, reverse it, it just is).

Some links that explain how time is real?? smh.....imo the proof is around Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein & Minkowski all had significant contributions to "hammering out" the concept of time.

thrilling compared to reading your comment

that's because you haven't listened to him. he has very precise arguments.

+Gary Vardon He said that nothing exists outside of the natural world, and he also says there isn't even the realm of the soul. He denigrates the existence of God, which I find untenable.

The most intelligent statement made on and in this video.

Such blatant garbage, makes me sick to think they get away with this bullshit.

@@undernetjack Way to keep an open mind! lol You must be a dirty liberal.

@@tonyjackson4099 I see how you may be confused, my comment in this thread was after a rather lengthy diatribe I posted in the main comments section, so this comment here is out of context. If you care to read that other one , you will see that your conclusion is wrong, but, based on the one liner I posted here, I see your point. No, I am not affiliated with any political leaning. Truth in science, common sense, yes, paid research leading to political propaganda, not so much. Climate science is more like a religious dogma than science these days. If you do not point to man as being the only cause for climate change, then you cannot get published nor funded, so it is hard to blame them for trying to make a living, however they must be held accountable, as they harm the public trust, just like bad cops and crooked politicians. If you want a more complete answer about why and how climate science went so wrong, try the Suspicious Observers channel. They go to great lengths to hold scientists accountable for publishing truth over fiction. Yes, I get the mainstream agenda, pollution=Bad. However, we are not even a close second to the real driver of natural events on this world. The sun has a trillion times more to do with it, and climate science refuses to include any of its influence in their models. It's like doing research on oceanic conditions and ignoring the salt content.... The real reason they don't look at the sun is a genuine conspiracy theory proven as true crime. Very sad, and very nefarious. For example, what did the astronauts go to the Moon to look for? Geologic evidence of the Sun misbehaving. They found more than they bargained for. Glass rocks and spherules with fission tracks, transuranic elements, etc., all leading to the conclusion that we are toast. Do you think they want Anyone looking at the Sun? No, because then we would panic, and that would hamper their plans. Building deep underground , interconnected shelters and stockpiling them, and so on. They do not want to lose control if the truth gets out. Every 10-12,000 years, the Sun goes boom and we get a reset that makes what they are calling " the great reset" look like a pimple in the whole of a human's life cycle. You can stick your head in the sand, write me off as a nutcase, ignore me, or go looking to verify what I have said. I warn you though, the truth is far worse than the little I have hinted at here, and you may just want to take the blue pill on this one, Neo... good luck fellow human.

By "time" you mean the flow of time? Because that would be true, that's kinda the whole point with the new models and ideas for experimentation.

can one say that time is entropy?

I would answer yes because I certainly say that on a relatively regular basis. But that doesn't explain either the flow of time or the "illusion" that time has flow, which is why it needs to be clear what we're talking about when we use the word since that's what most people who deny "the reality of time" are really referring to

the problem is there is no evidence of time in physics and laws of nature like electromagnetics, gravity, but obviously there is plenty of it in nature.

Time seems to be the movement through space.

Watch the video at 1.5x speed and the problem is solved.

Thank to Canda to give position and confidence to some US useless scientists that are discarded

Are you 5 years old? Go watch a cartoon

@@looseunit9180 Hey emptyhead If I find a presentation boring ,uninspiring and it actually turns me of a subject that I love, I’m going to express that fact , unfortunately five year olds can’t tell us they are bored when they encounter a bad teacher , but I can , as for idiots like you who don’t seem to recognise mediocracy when it’s in the your face , maybe it’s you who should be watching cartoons

El wrongo! That's such a self centered perspective. And, it's totally inaccurate. Conciouness is a profound phenomenon. But time goes about it's business, irregardless of what we do or think

Shane Johns per formative contradiction

Sure, what you are describing sounds very much to me like the indigenous view of time. Buts it's still I think somewhat problematic. Hense, the epilogue in Smolin's book. Doesn't the eternal timeless universe also help to justify the creation of strong AI, even when we still know so little about the human brain (see the failures of the Human Brain Project), as we view math more real than anything? And some might say by much of science rejecting the Now, it also helps to justify eschatological worldviews too. AGW is the elephant in the room here...

+Ian Miller How can you ever prove something is 'random" - maybe there's some underlying reason for this "randomness" that we haven't discovered. This is the way Einstein looked at things - "God doesn't play dice"

+Eric Starmer There may well be causes. For example, tossing a coin. Which way it lands actually depends on the coin's attitude and angular momentum at the point of impact, but since people cannot compute that from watching the coin in the air, the results appear random.

Check out Paul and predestination in Romans as to the "probability" concept...all is already in place. determined and only playing out through the means of TIME= the means- then the END will come...Be watchful all you speculators!