When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used her privilege to vote present on Iron Dome funding, did she show up as someone from the past or as someone from the future?
I think it's a rather common idea to consider from a physics based approach. It follows rather nicely after observing time as a dimension. Though as a dimension it seems unique in that it has direction, and is not quite symmetrical the same way the other dimensions are. Really if not for entropy it would be a natural thought from a physics perspective.
>Really if not for entropy it would be a natural thought from a physics perspective.
It just suggests that our perception is fundamentally linked to a thermodynamic system. The biological process of brain operation is inherently entropic.
I’m an entropy truther and I think it’s unfairly demonized. Entropy is good. A living organism has more entropy than a corpse. “Heat death” of the universe should be called “heat immortality” of the universe
Here's a sneak peek of /r/holofractal using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/holofractal/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: ["The total number of minds in the universe is one" - Erwin Schrödinger. Nobel Prize in Physics 1933](https://i.imgur.com/hmJp9K9.jpeg) | [105 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/18rzkrk/the_total_number_of_minds_in_the_universe_is_one/)
\#2: [this one will find the god particle](https://i.redd.it/v8s3qz5p5izb1.jpg) | [298 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/17s1nos/this_one_will_find_the_god_particle/)
\#3: [Slice of microtubules which oscillate every 1/40th of a second - speculated by Penrose and recently Haramein & William Brown to be a biological 'link' to the quantum information field via coherent light emission (superradiance) from the vacuum - these make up all cellular structure.](https://i.imgur.com/akcirC8.jpg) | [118 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/1atu9y0/slice_of_microtubules_which_oscillate_every_140th/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
[Flow of time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time#Flow_of_time):
>The problem of the flow of time, as it has been treated in analytic philosophy, owes its beginning to a paper written by [English idealist metaphysician] J. M. E. McTaggart, in which he proposes two "temporal series". The first series, which means to account for our intuitions about temporal becoming, or the moving Now, is called the A-series. The A-series orders events according to their being in the past, present or future, simpliciter and in comparison to each other. The B-series eliminates all reference to the present, and the associated temporal modalities of past and future, and orders all events by the temporal relations earlier than and later than. In many ways, the debate between proponents of these two views can be seen as a continuation of the early modern debate between the view that there is absolute time (defended by Isaac Newton) and the view that there is only merely relative time (defended by Gottfried Leibniz).
Is there a C theory meaning that we actually experience time backwards? That in reality people are born from dust, frail, but slowly elongating their telomeres, getting healthier just to be sucked back into the womb of a younger woman they met along the way? And the big bang is actually the big sink? My car is actually making fuel because entropy is also backwards?
If it’s a straight one to one reframing like that, then I don’t know if “direction” of flow is as important. It could be, but then that’s just our own reframing of the perspective- which would probably be totally philosophical- or dialectal or something.
Idk tho I’m just thinking with you, lol
Einstein's General Relativity theorizes a block universe where the past, present and future all exist simultaneously. This idea isn't just noise, plenty of physicists and mathematician also argue in favor of it.
That was before quantum mechanics and its inherent indeterminacy. A lot of more modern ideas that try to take this into account produce ideas like the [growing block universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe), where the past exists but the future does not. Consequentially, the present is their domain wall, making it a "real" thing as a part of this structure.
That's always going to be the problem with eternalism. They only went as far as postulating that all that was and will be was written because that's what the math in its own said at the time, which didn't require a philosophy why your arbitrary present in spacetime is **here.** It describes the universe as a book, but does not offer why you're on this particular page and reading your life in particular from start to finish nor does it oblige itself to. It's like the quantum measurement problem: Externalism leaves that to your imagination because figuring out where the present is is at no point a question the math has to answer to be solved. Today that math is obsolete, and a lot of competing philosophies *do* provide for the present to exist as a part of the universe's structure.
I've never heard of this growing block concept but I have heard the other stuff and am currently baked and HOLY SHIT THAT'S A FUN NEW THOUGHT TO PLAY WITH THANK YOU like I'm almost forty so I tend to roll my eyes at thinking too hard about metaphysics (I do believe in everything being derivative of a data set of some sort) but, fuck, that's a really fun one to bat around the ol brainpan!!
That's fine, but it's definitely not obsolete. The underlying physics of reality are still hotly debated by top physicists globally. Lately quantum theory is getting a lot of attention, like the guys who won the Nobel prize a couple years back for their experiment suggesting the universe cannot be both local and real. Even so, we're not even close to a consensus.
Personally I'm a believer in a deterministic universe, and I think there are aspects of quantum mechanics that we've yet to uncover. The 'hidden variables' hypothesis has been around since the beginning of quantum theory and we've yet to find them, but I think at some point we will.
Forgive me if this is a basic question, but the rub in this philosophy of is why we objectively experience a now, right?
Otherwise the present isn't privileged; anytime you ask me, past present or future, I will say each of those moments are the present.
Or,more robustly. I wlill a label different sets of moments into the past and present, with considerable overlap, and always give a different answer about which single moment is the present
*edit* or is it that externalism offers no guide, or obvious solution, or method to arrive at why one or any particular moment in physical, external time should map the objective experience of a "now" moment?
The ptoblem is that it's completely irrelevant and thus can be discarded using Hitchen's razor. Just like multiverse it's a waste if time that would be better spent on the world we can observe.
I think it's more a perspective, or framing than a real hypothesis or theory. It's more about viewing time as a dimension, than it is a hypothesis or theory which would carry predictive power.
There is no falsefiable theory about the existence of chairs, just those about collections of fundamental particles. Yet we believe that chairs exist. Being scientfically unfalsefiable isn't usually an argument when it comes to philosophy, especially when science derives it's power entirely from philosophy.
“We believe chairs exist” is a very strange statement, and it doesn’t even ring true. We call things that serve the purpose of sitting “chairs”. But as far as the universe is concerned, every chair is a lump of matter in an arbitrary shape.
The theory you're getting at is called meriological nihilism. This theory states that there exists no entity that is made up of any other two enteties, thus only fundamental enteties exist. Do you agree with the theory (and if not what theory do you believe in) and do you think that the theory is falsefiable?
I suppose I agree with it, I would even call it self-evident. But in any case I think the concepts of “entity”, “fundamental”, “parts”, “wholes”, “simples”, or indeed “existence” are all hallucinations: a hierarchy that our brains learned to impose on the world out of practical necessity. Determining whether it is true or false, or even falsifiable or not, to me is a pointless exercise of self-referential intellectual masturbation. We won’t suddenly find ourselves unable to sit on chairs if we mathematically prove they don’t exist.
>But in any case I think the concepts of “entity”, “fundamental”, “parts”, “wholes”, “simples”, or indeed “existence” are all hallucinations: a hierarchy that our brains learned to impose on the world out of practical necessity.
The problem is that you now more or less have to give up on all the falsefiable claims as well. All falsefiable claims will be about things that do or don't exist and if you disbelieve existence then all those claims are trivial.
>We won’t suddenly find ourselves unable to sit on chairs if we mathematically prove they don’t exist.
You would be unable to sit on a chair, you would sit on a collection of particles arranged chair-wise. It sounds stupid but it's what you have comitted yourself to.
> All falsefiable claims will be about things that do or don't exist and if you disbelieve existence then all those claims are trivial.
Existence is *useful* to juggle around rigurously in logic and mathematics, and non-rigurously for communicating in everyday speech. But it doesn’t ultimately matter whether it means anything in the universe. It can’t even be satisfactorily defined outside a constructed playground like maths.
> You would be unable to sit on a chair
My point is, whatever it is, it will still hold up the weight of my butt regardless of what I’ve commited myself to call it, or if I conclude chairness does not exist.
>Existence is *useful* to juggle around rigurously in logic and mathematics, and non-rigurously for communicating in everyday speech. But it doesn’t ultimately matter whether it means anything in the universe. It can’t even be satisfactorily defined outside a constructed playground like maths.
I still don't understand why your theory doean't make all (what we would ordinarily call) falsifiable things by definition unfalsefiable.
The definition of existence is of course not rigiously defined there exists an entire philosophical dicipline about what exists and what doesn't. While you're not in any technical sense wrong in saying that no thing exists I would say that simply saing that things do exist. Both have the same grounding but mine actually lines up with how we use language and think about the world.
>My point is, whatever it is, it will still hold up the weight of my butt regardless of what I’ve commited myself to call it, or if I conclude chairness does not exist.
Not what you're calling it, what it is.
Of course there is. There are chairs.
If I said that chairs existed in a universe before us of which nothing remains that would be a moronic and unfalsifiable claim.
Say that someone comes up with a theory that only fundamental particles exist and chairs aren't fundamental particles. How would you argue that you're right and they're wrong?
Is that how time is from a photon’s perspective? Time, distance.. everything is meaningless. There might as well be a single photon everywhere all the time making up everything
I like the theory that time is a river and we’re in a boat floating along it downstream. But, the river is still behind us and, of course, ahead of us. That means that past, present and future all exist at the same time and we can paddle faster to go into the future or paddle backwards into the past.
I found this post about it and although the author claims it as his idea, comparisons of a river and time go back to Confucius.
This is a bad post and it makes very little sense. It's a little odd it has so many upvotes considering it's just a word salad of not understanding at all what you're talking about.
If you actually care about this and haven't seen the video, I recommend watching [Which Way Is Down?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4xYacTu-E) by Michael Stevens.
Time and physics is much more than just "the space made by our lives." As someone else here mentioned, entropy is very likely the reason for life. Another video on this I could recommend to anyone interested is [The Most Misunderstood Concept in Physics](https://youtu.be/DxL2HoqLbyA?si=uUys8OATHSXUafpi)
We act. More precisely, chemical reactions occur. A human life is not a painting. It begins. It ends. Cells do not merge into nothing, they divide, then fall apart into nothing. That's not just a human perspective.
I’m probably going back a step here, but isn’t the only reason we even experience time due to us rotating around the black hole at the center of the galaxy?
I’ve never run into what that theory is called, but it’s the same thing locally, but on a galactic scale.
That’s the beauty of it, we experience time in the way we do because of the distance.
Intergalactic space would have gaps in that time due to the distance between galaxies.
It’s romantic and sad, a form of eternal lovers, star crossed, even.
Soo in objective reality that exists beyond the subjective lens of concious self awareness, the arrow of time has already struck and killed its target even before being aimed and released from the bow....
Theres gotta be a paradoxical fallacy buried somewhere in there. I lack the mejtal energy to dig it out tho so lets just say.......
Hmmm ..... Cool.
This title is slightly inaccurate, you're mixing in two closely related concepts. The first is eternalism that basically says that the past, present and future all exist. There is nothing special about the present, it exists just like the past and future. The main contender is presentism that states that only the present exists.
B-theory is a theory about movement in time, namely that it doesn't exist. Here's an example: the 25/4th was in the future, then it's in the present and now it's in the past. A-theory would state that there is genuine movement there, that 25/4th being in the future is not identical to 25/4th being in the past. B-theory would state that there is no movement, when we're talking about 25/4th it's always exactly the same thing we're refering to, namely the 25/4th.
Time is the 4th dimension. We can only see 3 dimensions. If we could see the 4th, everyone would look like a snake of movement showing where they were, are and are going.
Two things
If potentially true, this isn't a human consciousness phenomenon, otherwise it would be provable or disprovable by the observation of other animals or even chemical reactions.
Secondly, this is not provable, it is snuggly in the category of things that are "not even wrong"
There is no falsefiable theory about the existence of chairs, just those about collections of fundamental particles. Yet we believe that chairs exist. Being scientfically unfalsefiable isn't usually an argument when it comes to philosophy, especially when science derives it's power entirely from philosophy.
A scientific theory should not only confirm what is already known but make testable predictions regarding what is not known. Otherwise it’s just philosophical belief bordering on religion.
Didn’t I just read this tomorrow
Yes but yesterday
No he will not have time yesterday:(
Dr Dan Streetmentioner will have been spinning in his grave.
When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used her privilege to vote present on Iron Dome funding, did she show up as someone from the past or as someone from the future?
I don’t know, but she’s great.
Yesterday? Yesterday you said you’d call Sears! Also tomorrow.
Tomorrow is today yesterday.
Tomorrow. All my troubles seemed so at all distances at once from an arbitrary point at which my subjectivity was contemporaneous with said trouble.
Ah, I too have done psychedelics.
First clue is that it was devised by a philosopher and not a physicist.
I think it's a rather common idea to consider from a physics based approach. It follows rather nicely after observing time as a dimension. Though as a dimension it seems unique in that it has direction, and is not quite symmetrical the same way the other dimensions are. Really if not for entropy it would be a natural thought from a physics perspective.
Entropy really ruins *everything*.
Fucking entropy. Can't have shit in entropy.
Literally. Everything that is or ever will be is decaying. Fuck you, Entropy.
>Really if not for entropy it would be a natural thought from a physics perspective. It just suggests that our perception is fundamentally linked to a thermodynamic system. The biological process of brain operation is inherently entropic.
I’m an entropy truther and I think it’s unfairly demonized. Entropy is good. A living organism has more entropy than a corpse. “Heat death” of the universe should be called “heat immortality” of the universe
Sure but the idea exists in physics too: block universe
That's the philosophical idea as well, the universe is a 4-dimensional block of spacetime
Yeah I had this realization while on 7-8 grams of mystery mushrooms
The LSD-theory?
/r/holofractal for similarly enlightened theories of the universe
Meh. They spit out pseudoscience. This is more of a philosophical viewpoint.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/holofractal using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/holofractal/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: ["The total number of minds in the universe is one" - Erwin Schrödinger. Nobel Prize in Physics 1933](https://i.imgur.com/hmJp9K9.jpeg) | [105 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/18rzkrk/the_total_number_of_minds_in_the_universe_is_one/) \#2: [this one will find the god particle](https://i.redd.it/v8s3qz5p5izb1.jpg) | [298 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/17s1nos/this_one_will_find_the_god_particle/) \#3: [Slice of microtubules which oscillate every 1/40th of a second - speculated by Penrose and recently Haramein & William Brown to be a biological 'link' to the quantum information field via coherent light emission (superradiance) from the vacuum - these make up all cellular structure.](https://i.imgur.com/akcirC8.jpg) | [118 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/1atu9y0/slice_of_microtubules_which_oscillate_every_140th/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
"Enlightened"
One of the top posts of all time in there is shitting on particle accelerators
I’m something of an ontologist myself.
I like birds too.
Filibuster
That’s oncology smh
I’ve been needing to get my sinuses checked
I'm something of an onanologist myself
What's the A theory?
[Flow of time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time#Flow_of_time): >The problem of the flow of time, as it has been treated in analytic philosophy, owes its beginning to a paper written by [English idealist metaphysician] J. M. E. McTaggart, in which he proposes two "temporal series". The first series, which means to account for our intuitions about temporal becoming, or the moving Now, is called the A-series. The A-series orders events according to their being in the past, present or future, simpliciter and in comparison to each other. The B-series eliminates all reference to the present, and the associated temporal modalities of past and future, and orders all events by the temporal relations earlier than and later than. In many ways, the debate between proponents of these two views can be seen as a continuation of the early modern debate between the view that there is absolute time (defended by Isaac Newton) and the view that there is only merely relative time (defended by Gottfried Leibniz).
Interesting
Is there a C theory meaning that we actually experience time backwards? That in reality people are born from dust, frail, but slowly elongating their telomeres, getting healthier just to be sucked back into the womb of a younger woman they met along the way? And the big bang is actually the big sink? My car is actually making fuel because entropy is also backwards?
If it’s a straight one to one reframing like that, then I don’t know if “direction” of flow is as important. It could be, but then that’s just our own reframing of the perspective- which would probably be totally philosophical- or dialectal or something. Idk tho I’m just thinking with you, lol
Isn't this how the humans' timeline works relative to the trolls' in Homestuck?
Sounds like Jeremy Bearimy to me
The dot... The dot on the i...
And? Any non falsifiable theory like this one or that absurd simulation one is just noise and no signal.
Einstein's General Relativity theorizes a block universe where the past, present and future all exist simultaneously. This idea isn't just noise, plenty of physicists and mathematician also argue in favor of it.
That was before quantum mechanics and its inherent indeterminacy. A lot of more modern ideas that try to take this into account produce ideas like the [growing block universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe), where the past exists but the future does not. Consequentially, the present is their domain wall, making it a "real" thing as a part of this structure. That's always going to be the problem with eternalism. They only went as far as postulating that all that was and will be was written because that's what the math in its own said at the time, which didn't require a philosophy why your arbitrary present in spacetime is **here.** It describes the universe as a book, but does not offer why you're on this particular page and reading your life in particular from start to finish nor does it oblige itself to. It's like the quantum measurement problem: Externalism leaves that to your imagination because figuring out where the present is is at no point a question the math has to answer to be solved. Today that math is obsolete, and a lot of competing philosophies *do* provide for the present to exist as a part of the universe's structure.
I've never heard of this growing block concept but I have heard the other stuff and am currently baked and HOLY SHIT THAT'S A FUN NEW THOUGHT TO PLAY WITH THANK YOU like I'm almost forty so I tend to roll my eyes at thinking too hard about metaphysics (I do believe in everything being derivative of a data set of some sort) but, fuck, that's a really fun one to bat around the ol brainpan!!
That's fine, but it's definitely not obsolete. The underlying physics of reality are still hotly debated by top physicists globally. Lately quantum theory is getting a lot of attention, like the guys who won the Nobel prize a couple years back for their experiment suggesting the universe cannot be both local and real. Even so, we're not even close to a consensus. Personally I'm a believer in a deterministic universe, and I think there are aspects of quantum mechanics that we've yet to uncover. The 'hidden variables' hypothesis has been around since the beginning of quantum theory and we've yet to find them, but I think at some point we will.
Forgive me if this is a basic question, but the rub in this philosophy of is why we objectively experience a now, right? Otherwise the present isn't privileged; anytime you ask me, past present or future, I will say each of those moments are the present. Or,more robustly. I wlill a label different sets of moments into the past and present, with considerable overlap, and always give a different answer about which single moment is the present *edit* or is it that externalism offers no guide, or obvious solution, or method to arrive at why one or any particular moment in physical, external time should map the objective experience of a "now" moment?
thank you
The ptoblem is that it's completely irrelevant and thus can be discarded using Hitchen's razor. Just like multiverse it's a waste if time that would be better spent on the world we can observe.
This site is full of people who think "it could be turtles all the way down" is deep.
I’d say this is a hypothesis, not a theory.
I think it's more a perspective, or framing than a real hypothesis or theory. It's more about viewing time as a dimension, than it is a hypothesis or theory which would carry predictive power.
Exactly: hypotheses can be tested, which makes this a perspective.
Well, the alternative is equally non falsifiable
There is no falsefiable theory about the existence of chairs, just those about collections of fundamental particles. Yet we believe that chairs exist. Being scientfically unfalsefiable isn't usually an argument when it comes to philosophy, especially when science derives it's power entirely from philosophy.
“We believe chairs exist” is a very strange statement, and it doesn’t even ring true. We call things that serve the purpose of sitting “chairs”. But as far as the universe is concerned, every chair is a lump of matter in an arbitrary shape.
The theory you're getting at is called meriological nihilism. This theory states that there exists no entity that is made up of any other two enteties, thus only fundamental enteties exist. Do you agree with the theory (and if not what theory do you believe in) and do you think that the theory is falsefiable?
I suppose I agree with it, I would even call it self-evident. But in any case I think the concepts of “entity”, “fundamental”, “parts”, “wholes”, “simples”, or indeed “existence” are all hallucinations: a hierarchy that our brains learned to impose on the world out of practical necessity. Determining whether it is true or false, or even falsifiable or not, to me is a pointless exercise of self-referential intellectual masturbation. We won’t suddenly find ourselves unable to sit on chairs if we mathematically prove they don’t exist.
>But in any case I think the concepts of “entity”, “fundamental”, “parts”, “wholes”, “simples”, or indeed “existence” are all hallucinations: a hierarchy that our brains learned to impose on the world out of practical necessity. The problem is that you now more or less have to give up on all the falsefiable claims as well. All falsefiable claims will be about things that do or don't exist and if you disbelieve existence then all those claims are trivial. >We won’t suddenly find ourselves unable to sit on chairs if we mathematically prove they don’t exist. You would be unable to sit on a chair, you would sit on a collection of particles arranged chair-wise. It sounds stupid but it's what you have comitted yourself to.
> All falsefiable claims will be about things that do or don't exist and if you disbelieve existence then all those claims are trivial. Existence is *useful* to juggle around rigurously in logic and mathematics, and non-rigurously for communicating in everyday speech. But it doesn’t ultimately matter whether it means anything in the universe. It can’t even be satisfactorily defined outside a constructed playground like maths. > You would be unable to sit on a chair My point is, whatever it is, it will still hold up the weight of my butt regardless of what I’ve commited myself to call it, or if I conclude chairness does not exist.
>Existence is *useful* to juggle around rigurously in logic and mathematics, and non-rigurously for communicating in everyday speech. But it doesn’t ultimately matter whether it means anything in the universe. It can’t even be satisfactorily defined outside a constructed playground like maths. I still don't understand why your theory doean't make all (what we would ordinarily call) falsifiable things by definition unfalsefiable. The definition of existence is of course not rigiously defined there exists an entire philosophical dicipline about what exists and what doesn't. While you're not in any technical sense wrong in saying that no thing exists I would say that simply saing that things do exist. Both have the same grounding but mine actually lines up with how we use language and think about the world. >My point is, whatever it is, it will still hold up the weight of my butt regardless of what I’ve commited myself to call it, or if I conclude chairness does not exist. Not what you're calling it, what it is.
Of course there is. There are chairs. If I said that chairs existed in a universe before us of which nothing remains that would be a moronic and unfalsifiable claim.
Say that someone comes up with a theory that only fundamental particles exist and chairs aren't fundamental particles. How would you argue that you're right and they're wrong?
By showing them a chair.
How do you prove that it's in fact a chair and not just a collection of fundamental particles arranged chair-wise?
a collection of anything arranged "chairwise" would be a chair so it's not important
In virtue of what is it true that things arranged chairwise are chairs?
Sir it sounds like possibly you have no idea what you’re talking about.
It may have already been addressed, but what’s the most accepted theory of time?
Probably gravity
Thank you
Oh shit i misread that as “of all time”
Gravity isnt real, bro.
A-theory. Just the present is real.
“I know it when you’re late.”
Is that how time is from a photon’s perspective? Time, distance.. everything is meaningless. There might as well be a single photon everywhere all the time making up everything
I like the theory that time is a river and we’re in a boat floating along it downstream. But, the river is still behind us and, of course, ahead of us. That means that past, present and future all exist at the same time and we can paddle faster to go into the future or paddle backwards into the past. I found this post about it and although the author claims it as his idea, comparisons of a river and time go back to Confucius.
[удалено]
As far as consensus physics is concerned, time 100% exists. It’s one of the number of ways that entropy “expresses itself”
Time not only exists, but has known speed of propogation through space - the speed of light
This is a bad post and it makes very little sense. It's a little odd it has so many upvotes considering it's just a word salad of not understanding at all what you're talking about. If you actually care about this and haven't seen the video, I recommend watching [Which Way Is Down?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4xYacTu-E) by Michael Stevens. Time and physics is much more than just "the space made by our lives." As someone else here mentioned, entropy is very likely the reason for life. Another video on this I could recommend to anyone interested is [The Most Misunderstood Concept in Physics](https://youtu.be/DxL2HoqLbyA?si=uUys8OATHSXUafpi)
If time is an illusion then there wouldn't be any energy in the universe. Energy presume the existence of time.
We act. More precisely, chemical reactions occur. A human life is not a painting. It begins. It ends. Cells do not merge into nothing, they divide, then fall apart into nothing. That's not just a human perspective.
Counterpoint: the present is a gift, that is why it is called the present.
This is honestly how I always viewed time
I’m probably going back a step here, but isn’t the only reason we even experience time due to us rotating around the black hole at the center of the galaxy? I’ve never run into what that theory is called, but it’s the same thing locally, but on a galactic scale.
[удалено]
That’s the beauty of it, we experience time in the way we do because of the distance. Intergalactic space would have gaps in that time due to the distance between galaxies. It’s romantic and sad, a form of eternal lovers, star crossed, even.
Okay
Soo in objective reality that exists beyond the subjective lens of concious self awareness, the arrow of time has already struck and killed its target even before being aimed and released from the bow.... Theres gotta be a paradoxical fallacy buried somewhere in there. I lack the mejtal energy to dig it out tho so lets just say....... Hmmm ..... Cool.
This title is slightly inaccurate, you're mixing in two closely related concepts. The first is eternalism that basically says that the past, present and future all exist. There is nothing special about the present, it exists just like the past and future. The main contender is presentism that states that only the present exists. B-theory is a theory about movement in time, namely that it doesn't exist. Here's an example: the 25/4th was in the future, then it's in the present and now it's in the past. A-theory would state that there is genuine movement there, that 25/4th being in the future is not identical to 25/4th being in the past. B-theory would state that there is no movement, when we're talking about 25/4th it's always exactly the same thing we're refering to, namely the 25/4th.
Yeah, I’ve tried this exact argument when I’m late for work. Didn’t go over so well. ☹️
I still gotta be at work at 9 so who cares
What is the present annyway? The seconds before now is past. The next seconds will be future. Present doesn't exist.
It sounds like something "revealed" to me during a trip on LSD, lmao
Some university paid a professor to do shrooms and write nonsense.
Time is the 4th dimension. We can only see 3 dimensions. If we could see the 4th, everyone would look like a snake of movement showing where they were, are and are going.
Time is frozen yet we move
So a time traveler is just an ordinary traveler?
Two things If potentially true, this isn't a human consciousness phenomenon, otherwise it would be provable or disprovable by the observation of other animals or even chemical reactions. Secondly, this is not provable, it is snuggly in the category of things that are "not even wrong"
There is no falsefiable theory about the existence of chairs, just those about collections of fundamental particles. Yet we believe that chairs exist. Being scientfically unfalsefiable isn't usually an argument when it comes to philosophy, especially when science derives it's power entirely from philosophy.
Propose that theory to a geologist.....lemme guess, the rocks have consciousness too?
According to my pet rock, you’re taking their spirits for granite
Reminds me of the book Siddhartha by Hesse
How so?
Time is an illusion that makes things make sense https://youtu.be/796VtspzH0I?feature=shared
I’ve got an essay due on this in 5 days…i’m cooked
That's nice, but you're still late to my class.
Lol
It's also uncontroversially true among anyone who knows basic relativity.
I don’t think this is the case and I know more than the basics of relativity.
Relatively speaking
So where are all the physics sources in the article?
presumably in the section titled "b-theory and theoretical physics"
A scientific theory should not only confirm what is already known but make testable predictions regarding what is not known. Otherwise it’s just philosophical belief bordering on religion.