Thanks for posting this. I'm doing research for a short piece of animation which I intend to make on this very topic. However, as I collect the information I'm beginning to wonder if I've already made the film.
I've been working on the idea of taking Special Relativity, and then adding an additional structure to space-time in which any two events will be rendered as "one before the other" or "simultaneous", not depending on reference frame. This isn't meant to override SR's prediction of how different IRFs chronologise events, but act as an additional chronology besides that of the IRFs. I assume for events with lightlike or timelike separation, that this additional structure will agree with all IRFs.
@ScalarPhotonZ The simplest example would be the existence of a "preferred inertial frame" for which this additional structure would be in perfect agreement concerning the chronology of events. But more generally, provided the structure is "sufficiently smooth", at (more-or-less) any event there will exist a "1st-order approx. preferred frame".
@ScalarPhotonZ Let tau be a smooth real-valued function on space-time with tau(A)<tau(B) iff event A is rendered before event B. Then within a given IRF, the velocity of the "preferred frame" at any given event is given by:
the guy with a beard is a total moron. Everything he said is either a straw man or an appeal to consequences.
His thinking is completely fallacious. Who said anything about a brain in a vat?
Also, just because you don't like the potential consequences of a proposition doesn't make it any less likely to be true. Can you imagine telling people from the 1400's it was the earth that revolved around the sun and not the other way around? I'm sure many of them would find the idea very disconcerting.
@Steve2323ZX That is William Lane Craig for you. If an particular idea is not intuitive, it must not be true. If this were the case, we should be able to completely dismiss relativity and quantum mechanics because they are readily intuitive. I have no idea why anyone treats this guy like a serious philosopher.
@Steve2323ZX You do realise that the 'guy with the beard' is Dr William Lane Craig, right? It seems weird that you don't seem to recognise him in this comment, but in other comments you mention him by name.
And Craig's philosophy of time is a perfect example of how belief in God perverts philosophical understanding. Here you have scientists questioning our intuitive sense of time and then you have Craig state, "that's counter-intuitive, so I'll just write it off and damn the reasons that go along with it." The reason he trusts his senses so much is because God has ordained them to him, not that he's a result of natural selection.
@AtheistAltar But I still have to somehow trust the information I get from my senses to do any kind of science, for example, to learn about the law of natural selection. In the twins thought experiment, both twins are still traveling through the fourth dimension into the future, its just that the space twin is travelling through the fourth dimension slower than the earth twin.
@AtheistAltar But I still have to somehow trust the information I get from my senses to do any kind of science, for example, to learn about the law of natural selection. In the twins thought experiment, both twins are still traveling through the fourth dimension into the future, its just that the space twin is travelling through the fourth dimension slower than the earth twin.
AtheistAltar. I still have to somehow trust the information I get from my senses to do any kind of science, for example, to learn about the law of natural selection. In the twins thought experiment, both twins are still traveling through the fourth dimension into the future, its just that the space twin is travelling through the fourth dimension slower than the earth twin.
@AtheistAltar It's funny how you are accusing Craig of having a perverted understanding of philosophy, and then you criticize him for trusting his senses!
You are making plenty of philosophical statements that you have no basis to make, unless you trust your own senses. I think you demonstrate PERFECTLY why atheism perverts the mind.
This nonsense is bred from the same foundation as moral relativism. That worked out really well in Communist China and Russian and the other atheist utopias.
@ebeatworld Well of course there are plenty of philosophical issues that arise from that. In essence, I'm saying Craig is a naive realist due to his faith. You are trying to eek out some performative contradiction, but there is nothing contradictory about an anti-naive realist position per se.
@AtheistAltar I'm not a fan of Craig but please don't make this an atheist vs theist issue. Self-professed atheists are just as capable of fallacious reasoning as anyone. Followers of the cult of Ayn Rand for example.
@Steve2323ZX You'll have to read my comment again, then. I said I have reason to believe that Craig, due to his initial acceptance of theism, will not question his naive realist stance on the philosophy of time because he thinks that his senses are informed of some divine reality or wisdom. I never said atheists are all smart and theists are all dumb, I'm just saying that when it comes to this issue, Craig is suffering from a systemic bias.
@Steve2323ZX This really isn't about theism vs atheism. It's just that Dr Craig is a special case because we know he supports the Kalam argument completely, and that argument requires a very conventional definition of time due to it's chain of causality. So when examining the nature of time, it would be pretty weird if Dr Craig veered from that totally conventional interpretation.
Having said that, AtheistAltar's comment makes perfect sense to me.
Craig: "why would anyone believe that our experience of temporal becomming is an illusion?" probably it never occurs to him that REAL scientists consider something based on whether it could be true, not based on how it makes us feel...
@HerrVonManstein Consider this: If the past present and future all exist simultaneously then so called real scientist are wrong about evolution, considering that in reality biological life existed before it evolved! So everything past present and future just came into being all at once, or has always existed infinitely. So man and dinosaur not only existed at the same time but in reality still do and always will. So what do you think and feel about that?
This is most of the episode. Taken from a series of short philosophy vids called "the examined life." Do amazon search for "examined life dvd" and you will find the set. This episode is called "is time real?"
Thanks for posting this. I'm doing research for a short piece of animation which I intend to make on this very topic. However, as I collect the information I'm beginning to wonder if I've already made the film.
RobertoStampini 2 months ago
I've been working on the idea of taking Special Relativity, and then adding an additional structure to space-time in which any two events will be rendered as "one before the other" or "simultaneous", not depending on reference frame. This isn't meant to override SR's prediction of how different IRFs chronologise events, but act as an additional chronology besides that of the IRFs. I assume for events with lightlike or timelike separation, that this additional structure will agree with all IRFs.
ScalarPhotonZ 5 months ago
@ScalarPhotonZ The simplest example would be the existence of a "preferred inertial frame" for which this additional structure would be in perfect agreement concerning the chronology of events. But more generally, provided the structure is "sufficiently smooth", at (more-or-less) any event there will exist a "1st-order approx. preferred frame".
ScalarPhotonZ 5 months ago
@ScalarPhotonZ Let tau be a smooth real-valued function on space-time with tau(A)<tau(B) iff event A is rendered before event B. Then within a given IRF, the velocity of the "preferred frame" at any given event is given by:
u = -c^2 * (grad tau) / (partial dtau/dt)
ScalarPhotonZ 5 months ago
i heard a fart at 1:07
Chaos2285 5 months ago
the guy with a beard is a total moron. Everything he said is either a straw man or an appeal to consequences.
His thinking is completely fallacious. Who said anything about a brain in a vat?
Also, just because you don't like the potential consequences of a proposition doesn't make it any less likely to be true. Can you imagine telling people from the 1400's it was the earth that revolved around the sun and not the other way around? I'm sure many of them would find the idea very disconcerting.
Steve2323ZX 6 months ago
@Steve2323ZX That is William Lane Craig for you. If an particular idea is not intuitive, it must not be true. If this were the case, we should be able to completely dismiss relativity and quantum mechanics because they are readily intuitive. I have no idea why anyone treats this guy like a serious philosopher.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@Steve2323ZX You do realise that the 'guy with the beard' is Dr William Lane Craig, right? It seems weird that you don't seem to recognise him in this comment, but in other comments you mention him by name.
Yeah, I know, 5 month old comment. I don't care.
kanojo1969 1 week ago
@kanojo1969 I don't remember. The comment was written 5 months ago
Steve2323ZX 1 week ago
Interesting video. I like it.
LMOH1 1 year ago
And Craig's philosophy of time is a perfect example of how belief in God perverts philosophical understanding. Here you have scientists questioning our intuitive sense of time and then you have Craig state, "that's counter-intuitive, so I'll just write it off and damn the reasons that go along with it." The reason he trusts his senses so much is because God has ordained them to him, not that he's a result of natural selection.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
@AtheistAltar But I still have to somehow trust the information I get from my senses to do any kind of science, for example, to learn about the law of natural selection. In the twins thought experiment, both twins are still traveling through the fourth dimension into the future, its just that the space twin is travelling through the fourth dimension slower than the earth twin.
Sewblon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AtheistAltar But I still have to somehow trust the information I get from my senses to do any kind of science, for example, to learn about the law of natural selection. In the twins thought experiment, both twins are still traveling through the fourth dimension into the future, its just that the space twin is travelling through the fourth dimension slower than the earth twin.
Sewblon 1 year ago
AtheistAltar. I still have to somehow trust the information I get from my senses to do any kind of science, for example, to learn about the law of natural selection. In the twins thought experiment, both twins are still traveling through the fourth dimension into the future, its just that the space twin is travelling through the fourth dimension slower than the earth twin.
Sewblon 1 year ago
@AtheistAltar It's funny how you are accusing Craig of having a perverted understanding of philosophy, and then you criticize him for trusting his senses!
You are making plenty of philosophical statements that you have no basis to make, unless you trust your own senses. I think you demonstrate PERFECTLY why atheism perverts the mind.
This nonsense is bred from the same foundation as moral relativism. That worked out really well in Communist China and Russian and the other atheist utopias.
ebeatworld 9 months ago
@ebeatworld Well of course there are plenty of philosophical issues that arise from that. In essence, I'm saying Craig is a naive realist due to his faith. You are trying to eek out some performative contradiction, but there is nothing contradictory about an anti-naive realist position per se.
AtheistAltar 9 months ago
@AtheistAltar I'm not a fan of Craig but please don't make this an atheist vs theist issue. Self-professed atheists are just as capable of fallacious reasoning as anyone. Followers of the cult of Ayn Rand for example.
Steve2323ZX 6 months ago
@Steve2323ZX You'll have to read my comment again, then. I said I have reason to believe that Craig, due to his initial acceptance of theism, will not question his naive realist stance on the philosophy of time because he thinks that his senses are informed of some divine reality or wisdom. I never said atheists are all smart and theists are all dumb, I'm just saying that when it comes to this issue, Craig is suffering from a systemic bias.
AtheistAltar 6 months ago
@Steve2323ZX This really isn't about theism vs atheism. It's just that Dr Craig is a special case because we know he supports the Kalam argument completely, and that argument requires a very conventional definition of time due to it's chain of causality. So when examining the nature of time, it would be pretty weird if Dr Craig veered from that totally conventional interpretation.
Having said that, AtheistAltar's comment makes perfect sense to me.
kanojo1969 1 week ago
Craig: "why would anyone believe that our experience of temporal becomming is an illusion?" probably it never occurs to him that REAL scientists consider something based on whether it could be true, not based on how it makes us feel...
HerrVonManstein 1 year ago
@HerrVonManstein Consider this: If the past present and future all exist simultaneously then so called real scientist are wrong about evolution, considering that in reality biological life existed before it evolved! So everything past present and future just came into being all at once, or has always existed infinitely. So man and dinosaur not only existed at the same time but in reality still do and always will. So what do you think and feel about that?
Krydan2167 11 months ago
Craig fails to address what happens to meaning of the notion of an illusion in such a context.
coolioto 2 years ago
I think I have less intuitive faith in an external world than I do in the passage of time.
strawberrries 2 years ago
This is very interesting. Thanks for uploading it.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've been waiting for Craig to say, "[da, da, da, da] and that is why god exists." He is a real dummy.
canaanav 2 years ago
Very interesting. Is this a fragment of a longer documentary, or there are only these three parts?
gigi4123 2 years ago
This is most of the episode. Taken from a series of short philosophy vids called "the examined life." Do amazon search for "examined life dvd" and you will find the set. This episode is called "is time real?"
semperadlucem 2 years ago
Thanks!
gigi4123 2 years ago