The paradoxes are in the abstract concepts of past present and future, not in reality. We use these abstractions to model reality but we cannot confuse the model with reality nor impose the model over reality. This error is also seen in Zeno’s paradox where infinite but discrete rational numbers are imposed on real life continuous movement.
Well, in the case of McTaggart, the point is precisely that past, present, and future are not objectively real features of the world. And it sounds like you're actually conceding this point. But from this it follows that there can be no genuine objective passage of time, and, as he goes on to argue, no reality of time itself either.
@@Philosophy_Overdose time itself is an abstraction, though it is based on our perception of changing: birth, death and memory. Physicists argue whether time is real or not but I would bet on the negative tough I recognise its practical use.
If the model is abstraction and not real, it follows that all discourses on reality are not real. From there it follows that all thoughts are not real, nor is real any reasoning. But our thoughts and our believes make us suffer or make us happy. How could unreal things create real experiences ? Maybe there are not real, as is time, where all experiences take place.
@@DimitriMissentos Well, we better take our peceptions as real or we would be dead, our thoughts are based on memories of these perceptions that we model to simulate and predict and even act on the perceived reality. These simulations can be wrong, I can overreact and embarass myself ("I thought you were someone else, sorry"); it can act on me as it were real and overtake my emotions (I can get myself deprresed by overthinking a personal problem). So thoughts should and will be real to us besides our own will, but the use of reason can make our thinking work better and better, even create things that change our reality, and even to control better our emotions. But we should always step back and remember that these are just a simulacra that help us to deal with reality. They can be quite close to reality, even infinitesimally close, but not identical.
When we measure time, we compare the rate of change between two things to each other. And in the usual case, the thing that is the same in all comparisons is how many times a quartz crystal vibrates (and that's why some of our clocks have quartz crystals in them). There are of course other ways of measuring time as well, like atomic clocks. So time is the same thing as change. We can clearly experience change, there are few things that we can be equally sure of to exist, and only a few that are more certain than that (definitely one thing more certain is the certainty that there are experiences (although "I" as an individual might not exist), and maybe the rules of logic and math as well). So when philosophers say that time doesn't exist, don't they mean that we haven't figured out a way yet to say exactly what we mean by time, instead of denying our experience that change takes place in the world? So our concepts about time aren't sharp enough?
Long before Magtagert, the philosopher mentioned, came along and argued time is unreal; St. Augustine, in his Confession, talks about about the elusivity of time, particularly Present moment. That part of the book not easy read but it's worth reading the whole book so to understand human existential short life kn light of Eternal Life.
@@MiloMay He was but his famous quote which explains his inability to grasp time goes like this " ask me what time it is I'll tell you; ask me what is time, I can't." In book 9, he was trying to pinpoint the present moment and its analysis is superior to anyone who tried to understand the present moment. I remember reading how much Albert Einstein impressed by St. Augustine's probe what time is. Despite his admiration, we all know how Einstein relatives time as in subjectivize it. Do you think time is objectively exist apart from us or you agree with Einstein?? What's your thought???
I feel like this philosophical problem is a problem because the philosophy here isn't kept up with the science. To note, what I propose below is not based on "the truth" (no one has it) but on the best knowledge that we have as of now and based on the problems that it can solve that we are currently puzzled by. The "present" can be defined as the meaningfully measurable interval between two Planck time on the two directions of a light cone from the frame of reference with the "object" as a point of origin (in Einstein's general relativity) and in a local region of the light cone with a Planck length in three spatial dimensions. To unpack this: I really don't want to explain "frame of reference", please just google it. A light cone describes all the possible events that can be causally connected to you, where "you" is at the center of the two cones. It describes the causal possibilities of all events taken from the point of view of special relativity with c being the speed limit of causality. "Past" and "future" can be defined respectively by the two cones. Graphics for visualization in the link below. "Time" in physics "travels" in one direction only, as far as we know. These two cones "shape" what a frame of reference with the point of origin on you can reasonably describe. For some preliminary understanding of light cones from the philosophical perspective: plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/lightcone.html (personally speaking, some of the things said in here is questionable, but it suffices as a starting point). The idea of "the present" is only physically accessible to us and, more importantly, all possible physical phenomena can only occur at the smallest length of time that is the Planck time over the distance of a Planck length/distance (to be explained later). The time of Planck time is 5.391247 × 10^-44 "seconds" according to scientifically rigorous established conventions (the arguments you can read for yourself, I'll just start from this number). So the "physically meaningful present" (the present where all causal phenomena will actually matter) is time-mark (in a reference frame) +/- Planck time. This is the physically meaningful present (from now on the "physical present"). Why is Planck time such a significant time unit? For two reasons: if we do physics (other science can also do it but might be "impractical") at the scale of the Planck units, then all other units will be "naturalized" in the sense that anthropocentric arbitrariness from the system of units will be eliminated (measurements such as "meter" or "second" are historical artifacts of a science long gone) and because it unifies two areas of fundamental physics: quantum mechanics and Einsteinian general relativity. 1) Although the SI unit system has gone pretty far in eliminating anthropocentric arbitrariness, it still retains certain elements of the old system. Many of these units were actually redefined to fit in some general theoretical framework that we have and to fit in our already established conventions (and this is important). Scientists are trying to define and refine, thus redefine, the unit system so that all the basic units will be defined according to objective physical processes and laws. However, it is still a problem because the system still produces a pretty arbitrary value for cosmological constants. The speed of light is 299 something meters per second. It's a pretty arbitrary number. What "law" determines this number? The meter and second were *predefined* in electromagnetic theory before they were used to calculate light speed. So, scientists have come up with a system where these various cosmological constants would have a neat value of "1". This is what the Planck unit-system produces. But this is still pretty pointless, until you understand the second reason why the Planck unit system is preferred in this case, if we want to precisely define "the present". 2) General relativity describes spacetime and the interactions of objects at the macro-level while quantum mechanics describes interactions of particles in a "wave-function of probability" in a different system of spacetime. In general relativity, things are "deterministic", in quantum mechanics, things are "indeterministic" ("probabilistic") even accounted for sources of errors in measurements. But general relativity postulates that gravity works at all levels as long as it has mass. But at the level of quantum mechanics, there arises an incompatibility. We need a theory of "interaction in spacetime at a smallest scale physically possible". We need a theory of quantum gravity: one of the hardest and most challenging problem for modern physics of all branches. If quantum gravity can be correctly theorized and experimented, then our understanding of the quantum AND the non-quantum world will have to be rewritten. We may even be able to solve problems plaguing cosmologists such as black holes and the Big Bang. And you guessed it, Planck units would be the fundamental units of quantum gravity. Planck time is the smallest scale of time where a physical (causal) interaction can take place. It is calculated using the values from the many giants in physics: the Gravitational constant G (general relativity and Newtonian gravity), Reduced Planck constant h or more precisely Dirac constant ħ (quantum mechanics), speed of light in a vacuum c (special relativity), Boltzmann's constant kB or k (statistical mechanics and thermodynamics) and the Coulomb constant ke or k (electrostatics). Planck time is calculated by taking the square root of ħG/c^5 (see the connection between the constants and theories? gravitational constant for GR, speed of light for SR and ħ for quantum mechanics). For further study, without it being too convoluted than this comment already: www.space.com/what-is-the-planck-time. This is a pretty damn good way to solve these paradoxes. However, some caveats must be made: the universe is not made of "Planck units". These are UNITS, not physical laws of nature. The Planck units measure the PHYSICALLY MEANINGFUL and POSSIBLE causal phenomena. We don't move "one Planck time at time" over time. We, most likely, move continuously. The Planck units are important for the reason of unifying the most important theories about the universe and they are UNITS. This is a proposal for a UNIT OF THE PRESENT. The Planck unit is important also in that it turns some other units into "1". Special and general relativity of physics which have been tested rigorously assert that all frames of reference are equally valid (please learn what frame of reference is by now) and this is inconsistent with an actual "minimal length/time in the universe". This is a unit for PHYSICALLY MEANINGFUL causal connections. We cannot accurately measure or calculate causal phenomena that occur at a time interval smaller than a Planck time at a distance shorter than a Planck length. This is what it means. Its importance is in the unification of two greatest theories, they are not "pixels" of the universe. For example, Zeno's paradoxes are transformed into the problems of instantaneous speed, where we can solve by taking the derivative of the s(t) equation describing change in position over time. As presented in Zeno's paradox with the arrow where an object at t = 1 isn't really "moving" but standing still in that frame but in the next t+1, it moves the a certain distance and we can't figure out how to calculate the instantaneous speed of this object until calculus comes around. The ingenious application of calculus and the history of physics testifies to this method of solving "philosophical problems" using a bit of science and mathematics. In reality, the speedometer of cops use light measures instantaneous speed of moving vehicles using this principle. Electromagnetic wave or light is the fastest thing there is in space and always moving at the speed limit of causality itself, taking into account special relativity where the faster you are, the more time elapses for you to travel a further distance in such a way that you can never exceed the speed of light if you have mass. The speedometer measures your instantaneous speed by calculating the differences in the time elapsed and the distance traveled by the signal coming back after bouncing off of the object. To read more on how the speed gun works here: www.neltronics.com.au/how-does-a-speed-camera-or-radar-gun-work/#:~:text=The%20LIDAR%20gun%20clocks%20the,measure%20change%20in%20wave%20frequency.
@@steveflorida8699 You're hitting on an interesting problem here that people refer to as "collapse of the wave function". I probably don't need to tell you about the how particles have certain properties (most intuitively for this case "position") that have a probabilistic tendency. This "probability distribution" of how a particle exists in the different positions is actually an objective probability: it tells us about the real probabilities that a SINGLE particle can land on. When we make a "measurement" (think of it as an interaction, really), then the "particle" has a definite position, definite enough that we can objectively say "it is here, and not there". The problem arises that all these other probabilities must become 0 immediately (the "particle" must cease to be possible to exist in all those places instantaneously). This is what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". The probabilities are spread out in space, but they all become 0 the moment the "measurement" (interaction) occurs. This process would need to occur instantaneously, breaking Einstein's postulate that the speed limit of causality (also the speed of light in vacuum) would be broken. Keep in mind however that the particles themselves NEVER travel faster than the speed of light if they have mass. It is the probability distribution "update" that must move instantaneously. The "hidden-variables" theory was actually postulated to overcome this problem, because if the "probability" just represents our lack of knowledge about some underlying variables (processes or mechanisms or structures), then there is no "instantaneous collapse" (just a simple updating of information).
Why does a brother traveling in spacetime at a greater velocity, then returns decades later to earth 🌎🌍 is physically younger than his twin brother who stayed on planet earth?
@@renthearchangel9479 you mentioned objects with Mass do not exceed the speed of light. Is there a scientific probability, that there are Massless objects exceeding the speed of light?
You could use the same logic for the number "3". It is not a sliver of a number the is not less than 3 or more than 3. So I guess it cannot exist. If you don't like that analogy, think of a mouse moving from position 0 to 1 in 1 second. If time was an illusion, since there is a 1-1 correspondence with time and space in this case, is space an illusion too?
There is a category error being made here. The past, present and future are not "time", they are the by products of humans thinking about time. We are always mistaking the byproducts of human thought for things in the world. They are things in the world, but not the type of thing that so many imagine them to be. 1:08
The present cannot have any “thickness”, it must be without any extension in time. For whatever is extended in time is divisible into parts of distinct times and thus parts which are themselves non-simultaneous and thus not present.
@@sanyopoweraid1 Sure. So a basic description would be of the present as a process. Then, it's just the process of the future becoming the past. The future becomes the past through the present, and that involves the present coming to be, which is the future being called forth into being from nothingness, and also the present disappearing, which is the passing over into the non-existence of the past.
All of this ignores the relativity of time and the ridiculous immensity of space which, given the relativity of time, will have almost every moment of history exist somewhere in it for someone to observe. Napoleon crossing the alps is an ever present moment somewhere or another. Given the vastness of space, there will always be a place from which this event of history can be observed if observation is attempted. Therefore the past, present and future simultaneously exist with same degree of reality;not everywhere at once, but somewhere here and somewhere there for each and every single moment that ever existed.
You'll be able to observe all of earth's history somewhere but that doesn't mean it's happening. For us here, something happens basically at the same time we see it but that doesn't mean what we see is always happening right now
Psychedelics have delivered the same message for centuries... Here's a notion: keep the audio but replace the video with psychonauts dressed in hippy threads... Same meaning but it will be hard to take them seriously. The new hippies ought to learn about 'set and setting' to get their message across: academic locations, backgrounds of books, uniforms of suits and ties...
What is the art of seeing? The mature mind has no comparison. Time ,space and the center. The ideal, the concept of "what is". Need to live it; but is man capable? How to listen? Are your feelings and emotions the cause of violence?Thought, intelligence, and the immeasurable. Different meanings of space. The space we think and act from; the space that thought has built? How is one to have immeasurable space. To carry our burden and yet seek freedom. Thought that does not divide itself is moving in experiencing. The meaning of intelligence. Harmony: mind, heart soul organism. "Thought of time, intelligence, is not time."Intelligence and the immeasurable. " Living in a little corner of a distorted field."You cannot understand through a frament"the little corner".The beauty of seeing. A mysterious flower, a taste, a smell.
@@jonathanthompson4734 I felt when Craig appeared, what was till then sounding scientific and philosophical suddenly became a religious topic. It is better to have a seperate video of Craig's thoughts than to insert him stealthily.
@@girishm5880 a religious philosopher is still an expert on philosophy. It's hardly the case that his religion infects the statements he made about time; you can believe or disbelieve this statements about time regardless of whether or not you believe or disbelieve his statements about Christianity.
@@jonathanthompson4734 Whether beleiving Craig or not is beside the point. In a secular discussion, out of nowhere, he appearing, a Christian preacher and voicing his thoughts - that to me came as orchestrated. I welcome Craig as a religious philosopher as much as I welcome any other religious philosophers. But that can be a seperate program from secular discussions.
@@girishm5880 but this is a secular discussion. He didn't mention something outside the secular domain. A religious philosopher is just as valuable as an atheist one on time. God forbid the producer of the clip offers a variety of (then) contemporary opinions on the topic!
Even a pre-teen with enough effort would understand this video. The fact you call it word games means only that you are comfortable being "dumm" yourself.
@@dionysianapollomarx I must be thick as sticks then, can you epxlain what 1:23 onwards means in simple terms, regarding "the thickness" of time? Thank you
@@tcrijwanachoudhuryIt is so easy to explicate,yet difficult not to fall into the pit of convoluting the matter and letting you even further befuddled.In order to facilitate a brief and helpful explanation,I will illustrate it with a waveform.Think of time as a waveform from a djing console.There are beats,and bars and phrases.The realistic association with time can be made arbitrarily,as the precise linking of past,present,future with beats,bars, and phrases won’t really replicate the temporal notion.Though,every single moment the time signature in the waveform moves each single beat,the passed beat is a past,the beat to be passed is a future,and the chronologic indicator is a present. Upon visualising it,the past and future are and aren’t,as momentarily they become gone and so is present.Every second first is a present and then a past,but before being a present was a future.Moreover,they all exist within rather indistinguishable boundaries,that render present as “thin”,and past-future as inexistent.
I didn't expect to see William Craig at the end lol
@@IntellectuallySuperior2U he believes what he says, so how is he a charlatan?
@@IntellectuallySuperior2U how so ?
The paradoxes are in the abstract concepts of past present and future, not in reality. We use these abstractions to model reality but we cannot confuse the model with reality nor impose the model over reality. This error is also seen in Zeno’s paradox where infinite but discrete rational numbers are imposed on real life continuous movement.
Well, in the case of McTaggart, the point is precisely that past, present, and future are not objectively real features of the world. And it sounds like you're actually conceding this point. But from this it follows that there can be no genuine objective passage of time, and, as he goes on to argue, no reality of time itself either.
@@Philosophy_Overdose time itself is an abstraction, though it is based on our perception of changing: birth, death and memory. Physicists argue whether time is real or not but I would bet on the negative tough I recognise its practical use.
If the model is abstraction and not real, it follows that all discourses on reality are not real.
From there it follows that all thoughts are not real, nor is real any reasoning. But our thoughts and our believes make us suffer or make us happy.
How could unreal things create real experiences ?
Maybe there are not real, as is time, where all experiences take place.
@@DimitriMissentos Well, we better take our peceptions as real or we would be dead, our thoughts are based on memories of these perceptions that we model to simulate and predict and even act on the perceived reality. These simulations can be wrong, I can overreact and embarass myself ("I thought you were someone else, sorry"); it can act on me as it were real and overtake my emotions (I can get myself deprresed by overthinking a personal problem). So thoughts should and will be real to us besides our own will, but the use of reason can make our thinking work better and better, even create things that change our reality, and even to control better our emotions. But we should always step back and remember that these are just a simulacra that help us to deal with reality. They can be quite close to reality, even infinitesimally close, but not identical.
Please post the whole video! Thanks
When we measure time, we compare the rate of change between two things to each other. And in the usual case, the thing that is the same in all comparisons is how many times a quartz crystal vibrates (and that's why some of our clocks have quartz crystals in them). There are of course other ways of measuring time as well, like atomic clocks. So time is the same thing as change. We can clearly experience change, there are few things that we can be equally sure of to exist, and only a few that are more certain than that (definitely one thing more certain is the certainty that there are experiences (although "I" as an individual might not exist), and maybe the rules of logic and math as well).
So when philosophers say that time doesn't exist, don't they mean that we haven't figured out a way yet to say exactly what we mean by time, instead of denying our experience that change takes place in the world? So our concepts about time aren't sharp enough?
What's this from? I want to watch the entire version?
2:14 - momentarily caught in the infinitely small space between past and present.
Long before Magtagert, the philosopher mentioned, came along and argued time is unreal; St. Augustine, in his Confession, talks about about the elusivity of time, particularly Present moment. That part of the book not easy read but it's worth reading the whole book so to understand human existential short life kn light of Eternal Life.
I thought Augustine was a Presentist towards time, no?
@@MiloMay
He was but his famous quote which explains his inability to grasp time goes like this " ask me what time it is I'll tell you; ask me what is time, I can't." In book 9, he was trying to pinpoint the present moment and its analysis is superior to anyone who tried to understand the present moment. I remember reading how much Albert Einstein impressed by St. Augustine's probe what time is. Despite his admiration, we all know how Einstein relatives time as in subjectivize it. Do you think time is objectively exist apart from us or you agree with Einstein?? What's your thought???
Beautiful video clip!
Where can we find the whole video and what is the name of the guy who explains the time?
Where is this from
Our brains or thinking, see time in a linear way. Even contemplating the now
Really, time is a concept. Alien to what ever "time" is.
Who's the redhead?
I feel like this philosophical problem is a problem because the philosophy here isn't kept up with the science. To note, what I propose below is not based on "the truth" (no one has it) but on the best knowledge that we have as of now and based on the problems that it can solve that we are currently puzzled by.
The "present" can be defined as the meaningfully measurable interval between two Planck time on the two directions of a light cone from the frame of reference with the "object" as a point of origin (in Einstein's general relativity) and in a local region of the light cone with a Planck length in three spatial dimensions.
To unpack this:
I really don't want to explain "frame of reference", please just google it.
A light cone describes all the possible events that can be causally connected to you, where "you" is at the center of the two cones. It describes the causal possibilities of all events taken from the point of view of special relativity with c being the speed limit of causality. "Past" and "future" can be defined respectively by the two cones. Graphics for visualization in the link below. "Time" in physics "travels" in one direction only, as far as we know. These two cones "shape" what a frame of reference with the point of origin on you can reasonably describe.
For some preliminary understanding of light cones from the philosophical perspective: plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/lightcone.html (personally speaking, some of the things said in here is questionable, but it suffices as a starting point).
The idea of "the present" is only physically accessible to us and, more importantly, all possible physical phenomena can only occur at the smallest length of time that is the Planck time over the distance of a Planck length/distance (to be explained later). The time of Planck time is 5.391247 × 10^-44 "seconds" according to scientifically rigorous established conventions (the arguments you can read for yourself, I'll just start from this number). So the "physically meaningful present" (the present where all causal phenomena will actually matter) is time-mark (in a reference frame) +/- Planck time. This is the physically meaningful present (from now on the "physical present").
Why is Planck time such a significant time unit? For two reasons: if we do physics (other science can also do it but might be "impractical") at the scale of the Planck units, then all other units will be "naturalized" in the sense that anthropocentric arbitrariness from the system of units will be eliminated (measurements such as "meter" or "second" are historical artifacts of a science long gone) and because it unifies two areas of fundamental physics: quantum mechanics and Einsteinian general relativity.
1) Although the SI unit system has gone pretty far in eliminating anthropocentric arbitrariness, it still retains certain elements of the old system. Many of these units were actually redefined to fit in some general theoretical framework that we have and to fit in our already established conventions (and this is important). Scientists are trying to define and refine, thus redefine, the unit system so that all the basic units will be defined according to objective physical processes and laws. However, it is still a problem because the system still produces a pretty arbitrary value for cosmological constants. The speed of light is 299 something meters per second. It's a pretty arbitrary number. What "law" determines this number? The meter and second were *predefined* in electromagnetic theory before they were used to calculate light speed. So, scientists have come up with a system where these various cosmological constants would have a neat value of "1". This is what the Planck unit-system produces. But this is still pretty pointless, until you understand the second reason why the Planck unit system is preferred in this case, if we want to precisely define "the present".
2) General relativity describes spacetime and the interactions of objects at the macro-level while quantum mechanics describes interactions of particles in a "wave-function of probability" in a different system of spacetime. In general relativity, things are "deterministic", in quantum mechanics, things are "indeterministic" ("probabilistic") even accounted for sources of errors in measurements. But general relativity postulates that gravity works at all levels as long as it has mass. But at the level of quantum mechanics, there arises an incompatibility. We need a theory of "interaction in spacetime at a smallest scale physically possible". We need a theory of quantum gravity: one of the hardest and most challenging problem for modern physics of all branches. If quantum gravity can be correctly theorized and experimented, then our understanding of the quantum AND the non-quantum world will have to be rewritten. We may even be able to solve problems plaguing cosmologists such as black holes and the Big Bang. And you guessed it, Planck units would be the fundamental units of quantum gravity. Planck time is the smallest scale of time where a physical (causal) interaction can take place. It is calculated using the values from the many giants in physics: the Gravitational constant G (general relativity and Newtonian gravity), Reduced Planck constant h or more precisely Dirac constant ħ (quantum mechanics), speed of light in a vacuum c (special relativity), Boltzmann's constant kB or k (statistical mechanics and thermodynamics) and the Coulomb constant ke or k (electrostatics).
Planck time is calculated by taking the square root of ħG/c^5 (see the connection between the constants and theories? gravitational constant for GR, speed of light for SR and ħ for quantum mechanics).
For further study, without it being too convoluted than this comment already: www.space.com/what-is-the-planck-time.
This is a pretty damn good way to solve these paradoxes. However, some caveats must be made: the universe is not made of "Planck units". These are UNITS, not physical laws of nature. The Planck units measure the PHYSICALLY MEANINGFUL and POSSIBLE causal phenomena. We don't move "one Planck time at time" over time. We, most likely, move continuously. The Planck units are important for the reason of unifying the most important theories about the universe and they are UNITS. This is a proposal for a UNIT OF THE PRESENT. The Planck unit is important also in that it turns some other units into "1". Special and general relativity of physics which have been tested rigorously assert that all frames of reference are equally valid (please learn what frame of reference is by now) and this is inconsistent with an actual "minimal length/time in the universe". This is a unit for PHYSICALLY MEANINGFUL causal connections. We cannot accurately measure or calculate causal phenomena that occur at a time interval smaller than a Planck time at a distance shorter than a Planck length. This is what it means. Its importance is in the unification of two greatest theories, they are not "pixels" of the universe.
For example, Zeno's paradoxes are transformed into the problems of instantaneous speed, where we can solve by taking the derivative of the s(t) equation describing change in position over time. As presented in Zeno's paradox with the arrow where an object at t = 1 isn't really "moving" but standing still in that frame but in the next t+1, it moves the a certain distance and we can't figure out how to calculate the instantaneous speed of this object until calculus comes around. The ingenious application of calculus and the history of physics testifies to this method of solving "philosophical problems" using a bit of science and mathematics. In reality, the speedometer of cops use light measures instantaneous speed of moving vehicles using this principle. Electromagnetic wave or light is the fastest thing there is in space and always moving at the speed limit of causality itself, taking into account special relativity where the faster you are, the more time elapses for you to travel a further distance in such a way that you can never exceed the speed of light if you have mass. The speedometer measures your instantaneous speed by calculating the differences in the time elapsed and the distance traveled by the signal coming back after bouncing off of the object. To read more on how the speed gun works here: www.neltronics.com.au/how-does-a-speed-camera-or-radar-gun-work/#:~:text=The%20LIDAR%20gun%20clocks%20the,measure%20change%20in%20wave%20frequency.
Could the probabilistic measurements in quantum mechanics be, that particles/waves could be traveling/moving faster than the speed of 🚨 light?
@@steveflorida8699 You're hitting on an interesting problem here that people refer to as "collapse of the wave function". I probably don't need to tell you about the how particles have certain properties (most intuitively for this case "position") that have a probabilistic tendency. This "probability distribution" of how a particle exists in the different positions is actually an objective probability: it tells us about the real probabilities that a SINGLE particle can land on. When we make a "measurement" (think of it as an interaction, really), then the "particle" has a definite position, definite enough that we can objectively say "it is here, and not there". The problem arises that all these other probabilities must become 0 immediately (the "particle" must cease to be possible to exist in all those places instantaneously). This is what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". The probabilities are spread out in space, but they all become 0 the moment the "measurement" (interaction) occurs. This process would need to occur instantaneously, breaking Einstein's postulate that the speed limit of causality (also the speed of light in vacuum) would be broken.
Keep in mind however that the particles themselves NEVER travel faster than the speed of light if they have mass. It is the probability distribution "update" that must move instantaneously.
The "hidden-variables" theory was actually postulated to overcome this problem, because if the "probability" just represents our lack of knowledge about some underlying variables (processes or mechanisms or structures), then there is no "instantaneous collapse" (just a simple updating of information).
Why does a brother traveling in spacetime at a greater velocity, then returns decades later to earth 🌎🌍 is physically younger than his twin brother who stayed on planet earth?
@@steveflorida8699 I appreciate that you're asking questions and I can probably answer some of them, but why are you asking ME lol?
@@renthearchangel9479 you mentioned objects with Mass do not exceed the speed of light. Is there a scientific probability, that there are Massless objects exceeding the speed of light?
Probably The Examined Life, 1998.
You could use the same logic for the number "3". It is not a sliver of a number the is not less than 3 or more than 3. So I guess it cannot exist. If you don't like that analogy, think of a mouse moving from position 0 to 1 in 1 second. If time was an illusion, since there is a 1-1 correspondence with time and space in this case, is space an illusion too?
The sensible solution is that the present is everything.
more on TIME, please... fill the syringe all the way, PO!... really make my eyes roll back into my chemically euphoric headbone!!
If time is not real, I want my money back. I am not enthusiastic for a conversation whether my money was/is real.
Ah good ol' bearded craig
@@IntellectuallySuperior2U What makes you say that?
There is a category error being made here. The past, present and future are not "time", they are the by products of humans thinking about time.
We are always mistaking the byproducts of human thought for things in the world.
They are things in the world, but not the type of thing that so many imagine them
to be. 1:08
because time is unreal
Sorry how is the present nothing?
try to grab it, measure it, describe it
@@nicholasburch2122 Ok I think I can at least describe it. Now what?
@@Irisceresjuno Describe it, please. Let's see where the description will take us.
The present cannot have any “thickness”, it must be without any extension in time. For whatever is extended in time is divisible into parts of distinct times and thus parts which are themselves non-simultaneous and thus not present.
@@sanyopoweraid1 Sure. So a basic description would be of the present as a process. Then, it's just the process of the future becoming the past. The future becomes the past through the present, and that involves the present coming to be, which is the future being called forth into being from nothingness, and also the present disappearing, which is the passing over into the non-existence of the past.
Time is information
The only thing that makes time real is the dash on the grave stone. We eat the earth and in the end she eats us. The sun is nice.
All of this ignores the relativity of time and the ridiculous immensity of space which, given the relativity of time, will have almost every moment of history exist somewhere in it for someone to observe.
Napoleon crossing the alps is an ever present moment somewhere or another. Given the vastness of space, there will always be a place from which this event of history can be observed if observation is attempted. Therefore the past, present and future simultaneously exist with same degree of reality;not everywhere at once, but somewhere here and somewhere there for each and every single moment that ever existed.
You'll be able to observe all of earth's history somewhere but that doesn't mean it's happening. For us here, something happens basically at the same time we see it but that doesn't mean what we see is always happening right now
Read Heidegger
oh, you think you know heidehher? name every being and time right now
@@jonathanthompson4734 Well, first of all, we must understand that being is not a being.
@@sanyopoweraid1 It was a meme
@@jonathanthompson4734 haha thanks for making me laugh. Seriously though, dude is a genius and being and time awakened me from my dogmatic slumber
@@lukepipa2570 I've heard fascinating things. Will certainly read his work
so i guess it comes down to asking oneself: was jesus a puppy?
Psychedelics have delivered the same message for centuries... Here's a notion: keep the audio but replace the video with psychonauts dressed in hippy threads... Same meaning but it will be hard to take them seriously. The new hippies ought to learn about 'set and setting' to get their message across: academic locations, backgrounds of books, uniforms of suits and ties...
Time is definitionly relative.
Sometimes philosophers go up their own arsehole.
"What is time?"... Its what we measure with a clock.
What is the art of seeing? The mature mind has no comparison. Time ,space and the center. The ideal, the concept of "what is". Need to live it; but is man capable? How to listen? Are your feelings and emotions the cause of violence?Thought, intelligence, and the immeasurable. Different meanings of space. The space we think and act from; the space that thought has built? How is one to have immeasurable space. To carry our burden and yet seek freedom. Thought that does not divide itself is moving in experiencing. The meaning of intelligence. Harmony: mind, heart soul organism. "Thought of time, intelligence, is not time."Intelligence and the immeasurable. " Living in a little corner of a distorted field."You cannot understand through a frament"the little corner".The beauty of seeing. A mysterious flower, a taste, a smell.
This is just philosophical rhetoric. The truth is that nobody has the slightest idea what time really is and probably never know.
Wonderful...until William Craig appears...
What's wrong with craig?
@@jonathanthompson4734 I felt when Craig appeared, what was till then sounding scientific and philosophical suddenly became a religious topic.
It is better to have a seperate video of Craig's thoughts than to insert him stealthily.
@@girishm5880 a religious philosopher is still an expert on philosophy. It's hardly the case that his religion infects the statements he made about time; you can believe or disbelieve this statements about time regardless of whether or not you believe or disbelieve his statements about Christianity.
@@jonathanthompson4734 Whether beleiving Craig or not is beside the point. In a secular discussion, out of nowhere, he appearing, a Christian preacher and voicing his thoughts - that to me came as orchestrated.
I welcome Craig as a religious philosopher as much as I welcome any other religious philosophers. But that can be a seperate program from secular discussions.
@@girishm5880 but this is a secular discussion. He didn't mention something outside the secular domain. A religious philosopher is just as valuable as an atheist one on time. God forbid the producer of the clip offers a variety of (then) contemporary opinions on the topic!
Word games. Philosophers r dumm.
Even a pre-teen with enough effort would understand this video. The fact you call it word games means only that you are comfortable being "dumm" yourself.
@@TheWorldTeacher any askers?
@@dionysianapollomarx I must be thick as sticks then, can you epxlain what 1:23 onwards means in simple terms, regarding "the thickness" of time?
Thank you
@@tcrijwanachoudhuryIt is so easy to explicate,yet difficult not to fall into the pit of convoluting the matter and letting you even further befuddled.In order to facilitate a brief and helpful explanation,I will illustrate it with a waveform.Think of time as a waveform from a djing console.There are beats,and bars and phrases.The realistic association with time can be made arbitrarily,as the precise linking of past,present,future with beats,bars, and phrases won’t really replicate the temporal notion.Though,every single moment the time signature in the waveform moves each single beat,the passed beat is a past,the beat to be passed is a future,and the chronologic indicator is a present.
Upon visualising it,the past and future are and aren’t,as momentarily they become gone and so is present.Every second first is a present and then a past,but before being a present was a future.Moreover,they all exist within rather indistinguishable boundaries,that render present as “thin”,and past-future as inexistent.
Y’all are thinking too hard about this. Just go with it . 😎