No doubt time is used as a measure of motion, but it is also identically the awareness and feeling of motion ? The strange thing is that we use time to measure motion -- as in 65 miles per hour. But we also use motion to measure time -- one year is the time it takes for the earth to travel around the sun. Which is the more fundamental concept, time or motion ? Either way, time seems independent of any awareness or feeling. Surely, it is conceivable that there was a time before any conscious or sentient being existed. I'm not saying Aristotle is wrong, I'm just saying it doesn't really answer the question, 'What is time ?' by defining it in terms of measurement, motion, awareness or feeling.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 good point, Time is quite undefinable. It's mostly deduced, induced or somehow derived using perception of external motion and internal motion/events and memory.
Nice effort. It's a good topic. Your text is a bit flowery, something with straight up rational writing is more appropriate to the topic, imo. Around the same time as Heraclitus we have Parmenides and his student Zeno, who challenged Heraclitus's ideas, basically stating that time and change are illusions. Zeno wrote some paradoxes to demo this. Aristotle refuted Zeno's paradoxes but emphasized that Time is dependent on Motion and vice versa. Plato thought, through the voice of Timaeus, that Time was part of creation. This theory has come back now with questions about Time before the Big Bang, or was created by the Big Bang. The new wave of experimental science of the 15th century refuted Aristotle's ideas about gravity, and we get new thoughts about time, space and motion, culminating with Newton who treated time/space as an absolute frame or reference, and infinite. Kant wrote about time/space in the context of idealism vs realism, resulting in his theory that it is the wiring of our minds that cause us to perceive space/time the way we do. No one took up the question again until Henri Bergson in 1889 with his book "Time and Free Will, which refuted the new wave of scientific materialism of the 19th century. He differentiated between authentic time i.e. “Duration” and the counted time of the scientists/mathematicians. He inspired Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Deleuze and many others.
Yes, because it takes time for the light of the stars and galaxies to travel to our eyes and brains. But it also takes time, although much less time, for the sights and sounds of things here on earth to reach us, including those that are most near to us even now -like a computer or phone, for example. Indeed, if you take this reflection to its extreme consequence, there is nothing really present to us but our own personal existence. More succinctly, nothing is present to us but ourselves at each and every moment.
1. A compendium of wrongheaded thinking. The comments here only add to it (albeit from smaller minds). 2. What is time? It is a measurement system that we use to track change -- the change of the arrangement of atoms in the universe (or your area of interest). The past is composed of past arrangement sof atoms. The present is the present arrangement of atoms. The future will be composed of future arrangements of atoms. 3. If you want to visit the past, you do not want to engage in backwards time travel -- that is a wrongheaded notion. If you want to go back in time, run your clock backwards. You want to go back in the arrangement of atoms in the universe (or, easier, your small area of interest). There are three ways: a.) push atoms backwards; b.) calculate it; c.) work from an atomic snapshot. The problem with pushing atoms backwards is that it destroys things in the present, so you are left with either calculating it or working from a snapshot.
We mistake entropic change, for time. We mistake memory for the past and anticipation for the future. In fact all we really have is one, eternal now. Time is fixed, it is objects that flow. The present DOESN'T slip immediately away to anywhere! Those are just words we have learnt to repeat. Look for yourself and see! The present is the most fixed and stable thing in this objective world on fire with entropic flux. This is valid. If not, show me, please. 😐
What is the difference between time and change? Consciousness is awareness of sameness and change only. Not time. Time is the inference that between our awareness of sameness and change there is a relationship. A continuous “reality” coinciding with our existence.
Time can be explained as a process of energy exchange formed by photon electron interactions. We have photon ∆E=hf electron couplings continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons as an uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future comes into existence. All it takes for this to be logical is for the spontaneous absorption and emission of light waves to precedes absolutely everything that happens in our three-dimensional world.
He misses Heidegger's understanding of time. Heidegger spoke of temporality, as opposed to clock time, and that our Being, is time (temporality) embodied. Thus, time (temporality) has spatiality, and thus, the nature or ontology of our Being, acknowledges (even requires) our relationship to all entities. The narrator is sadly imposing his own view on Heidegger.
The statement 'a man steps in the same river twice' is only meaningful if there is a man and a river. But a man by definition is something that lives beyond a single moment, and a river by definition is something that flows constantly. So, once you take-away the passing of time, you take-away the meaningfulness of the statement. It is not false, it is just meaningless. In order for it to be true or false, it would have to first be meaningful. If there is a man, and if there is a river, then it becomes a real possibility that he might or might not step into the same river twice. He might step into the river once, and step into it again, thus making the statement true; or, he might only step into the river once, withdraw his foot, and never step into it again, in which case the statement would be false. But to say a man cannot step into the same river twice because neither one endures is nonsense, for stepping itself is something that requires time, as does the existence of the man and the river. Take-away the passing of time, and you take-away the context in which the statement is meaningful. This kind of word-play belongs in Wonderland with the White Rabbit and the Mad Hatter, and it is mere sophistry to take Heraclitus literally. Of course, it can be maintained that Heraclitus is just using a metaphor here. Now, strangely, his point seems to be akin to that of Parmenides and Zeno -- who are supposed to be his polar opposites. Time, motion and change are not real for Parmenides and Zeno because Being simply exists and it is the only thing that exists, thus there is nothing else for it to become, or to change into, (and, as they would have it), time itself must be illusion, for time is simply a kind of change, but change is, (as we have seen in their theory) impossible. Now, Heraclitus, in contrast, is supposed to believe that change is the only reality, and Being (or permanence) is only an illusion. But, as the first paragraph above demonstrates, without endurance (meaning existence over a period of time), there is nothing in existence in the first place that can possibly change. In other words, Heraclitus' notion of 'pure change' is absurd ! No less absurd is Parmenides and Zeno's idea of 'absolute permanence'. 'Permanence' itself is only meaningful in the context of the passing of time. So, both positions turn-out to be a denial of time, motion, real change, and real permanence, and even real existence in any form whatsoever. Which is to say, they are both utter nonsense !
Good observation but the fact that we can count seconds, minutes, etc., doesn't mean there's anything more there than our counts. The counted timeline is a virtual reality. Try looking at your immediate experience, what do you observe? It's like money - - it's only real because we all agree that it's real.
Are memories real? Is the future real? I believe it’s a no to both questions. There is only now. There is power in presence and mindfulness. Theory: Time was the apple eve chose over God. To know the lie of time, created death.
Time is the awareness, feeling and measure of motion, of things that are before and after. Thanks Aristotle!
No doubt time is used as a measure of motion, but it is also identically the awareness and feeling of motion ? The strange thing is that we use time to measure motion -- as in 65 miles per hour. But we also use motion to measure time -- one year is the time it takes for the earth to travel around the sun. Which is the more fundamental concept, time or motion ? Either way, time seems independent of any awareness or feeling. Surely, it is conceivable that there was a time before any conscious or sentient being existed. I'm not saying Aristotle is wrong, I'm just saying it doesn't really answer the question, 'What is time ?' by defining it in terms of measurement, motion, awareness or feeling.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 good point, Time is quite undefinable. It's mostly deduced, induced or somehow derived using perception of external motion and internal motion/events and memory.
A philosophy of history is incomplete without a consideration of the philosophy of time.
Please never stop making videos. You are doing great💪✨️
thank you so much, please check out my newest one on despair 🙏
You’re all over thinking it. Time simply does not exist.
You can deny its existence but not its power.
Nice effort. It's a good topic. Your text is a bit flowery, something with straight up rational writing is more appropriate to the topic, imo. Around the same time as Heraclitus we have Parmenides and his student Zeno, who challenged Heraclitus's ideas, basically stating that time and change are illusions. Zeno wrote some paradoxes to demo this. Aristotle refuted Zeno's paradoxes but emphasized that Time is dependent on Motion and vice versa. Plato thought, through the voice of Timaeus, that Time was part of creation. This theory has come back now with questions about Time before the Big Bang, or was created by the Big Bang. The new wave of experimental science of the 15th century refuted Aristotle's ideas about gravity, and we get new thoughts about time, space and motion, culminating with Newton who treated time/space as an absolute frame or reference, and infinite. Kant wrote about time/space in the context of idealism vs realism, resulting in his theory that it is the wiring of our minds that cause us to perceive space/time the way we do. No one took up the question again until Henri Bergson in 1889 with his book "Time and Free Will, which refuted the new wave of scientific materialism of the 19th century. He differentiated between authentic time i.e. “Duration” and the counted time of the scientists/mathematicians. He inspired Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Deleuze and many others.
Thanks for the info!
Yes, this essay really lacks a section on Bergson.
There is only one type of time : ETERNITY . Our existence offers only a little taste of the eternity that we call time.
When we look up at the night sky we are looking into the past.
Yes, because it takes time for the light of the stars and galaxies to travel to our eyes and brains. But it also takes time, although much less time, for the sights and sounds of things here on earth to reach us, including those that are most near to us even now -like a computer or phone, for example. Indeed, if you take this reflection to its extreme consequence, there is nothing really present to us but our own personal existence. More succinctly, nothing is present to us but ourselves at each and every moment.
That's what the theoretical physicists want you to believe.
When I look at your sister, I see into the future.
Amazing content! Very precise and well spoken! Keep it up!
Have a great day!
Thanks so much!😇
Great videos on your channel
Thank you!🙏
Does anyone know the artist at 3:53?
Fantastic exposition and revelation of intricate dimension and experience of authentic time.
1. A compendium of wrongheaded thinking. The comments here only add to it (albeit from smaller minds).
2. What is time? It is a measurement system that we use to track change -- the change of the arrangement of atoms in the universe (or your area of interest). The past is composed of past arrangement sof atoms. The present is the present arrangement of atoms. The future will be composed of future arrangements of atoms.
3. If you want to visit the past, you do not want to engage in backwards time travel -- that is a wrongheaded notion. If you want to go back in time, run your clock backwards. You want to go back in the arrangement of atoms in the universe (or, easier, your small area of interest). There are three ways: a.) push atoms backwards; b.) calculate it; c.) work from an atomic snapshot. The problem with pushing atoms backwards is that it destroys things in the present, so you are left with either calculating it or working from a snapshot.
keep making videos, love your content 👍👍👍
🙏😇Thankyou very much!
Keep it up 😊 amazing
Thank you so much 🙏
We mistake entropic change, for time. We mistake memory for the past and anticipation for the future. In fact all we really have is one, eternal now. Time is fixed, it is objects that flow. The present DOESN'T slip immediately away to anywhere! Those are just words we have learnt to repeat. Look for yourself and see! The present is the most fixed and stable thing in this objective world on fire with entropic flux. This is valid. If not, show me, please. 😐
What is the difference between time and change? Consciousness is awareness of sameness and change only. Not time. Time is the inference that between our awareness of sameness and change there is a relationship. A continuous “reality” coinciding with our existence.
Great video. Would Augustine of Hippo be categorized as part of "phenomenologist" line of thinkers then?
Definitely not, since the term refers to historical developments starting with Husserl
How can you comprehend any fundamental concept, when a fundamental concept is itself the means by which you comprehend ?
Time is an illusion.
Istg I wrote my own theory bout time and thought of making a UA-cam video, next day this came to my feed.
Hahaha, you should make one then! I'm sure it's gonna be awesome.
Please do!
In my opinion, time is the creative activity of God.
We all participate in it.
Time can be explained as a process of energy exchange formed by photon electron interactions. We have photon ∆E=hf electron couplings continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons as an uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future comes into existence. All it takes for this to be logical is for the spontaneous absorption and emission of light waves to precedes absolutely everything that happens in our three-dimensional world.
He misses Heidegger's understanding of time. Heidegger spoke of temporality, as opposed to clock time, and that our Being, is time (temporality) embodied. Thus, time (temporality) has spatiality, and thus, the nature or ontology of our Being, acknowledges (even requires) our relationship to all entities. The narrator is sadly imposing his own view on Heidegger.
I think about gravity a lot.
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
The statement 'a man steps in the same river twice' is only meaningful if there is a man and a river. But a man by definition is something that lives beyond a single moment, and a river by definition is something that flows constantly. So, once you take-away the passing of time, you take-away the meaningfulness of the statement. It is not false, it is just meaningless. In order for it to be true or false, it would have to first be meaningful. If there is a man, and if there is a river, then it becomes a real possibility that he might or might not step into the same river twice. He might step into the river once, and step into it again, thus making the statement true; or, he might only step into the river once, withdraw his foot, and never step into it again, in which case the statement would be false. But to say a man cannot step into the same river twice because neither one endures is nonsense, for stepping itself is something that requires time, as does the existence of the man and the river. Take-away the passing of time, and you take-away the context in which the statement is meaningful. This kind of word-play belongs in Wonderland with the White Rabbit and the Mad Hatter, and it is mere sophistry to take Heraclitus literally.
Of course, it can be maintained that Heraclitus is just using a metaphor here. Now, strangely, his point seems to be akin to that of Parmenides and Zeno -- who are supposed to be his polar opposites. Time, motion and change are not real for Parmenides and Zeno because Being simply exists and it is the only thing that exists, thus there is nothing else for it to become, or to change into, (and, as they would have it), time itself must be illusion, for time is simply a kind of change, but change is, (as we have seen in their theory) impossible. Now, Heraclitus, in contrast, is supposed to believe that change is the only reality, and Being (or permanence) is only an illusion. But, as the first paragraph above demonstrates, without endurance (meaning existence over a period of time), there is nothing in existence in the first place that can possibly change. In other words, Heraclitus' notion of 'pure change' is absurd ! No less absurd is Parmenides and Zeno's idea of 'absolute permanence'. 'Permanence' itself is only meaningful in the context of the passing of time. So, both positions turn-out to be a denial of time, motion, real change, and real permanence, and even real existence in any form whatsoever. Which is to say, they are both utter nonsense !
So many experts of time here and all are dated by a time of posting.
Good observation but the fact that we can count seconds, minutes, etc., doesn't mean there's anything more there than our counts. The counted timeline is a virtual reality. Try looking at your immediate experience, what do you observe? It's like money - - it's only real because we all agree that it's real.
Wouw you need more attention if you keep going
thankyou, please check out my newer videos
Are memories real? Is the future real? I believe it’s a no to both questions. There is only now. There is power in presence and mindfulness. Theory: Time was the apple eve chose over God. To know the lie of time, created death.
Please cut the incessant music.
Try Infinity Squared.
T.E.N. The Eternal Now 010 dimensions