@smarfling It seems to me that the fossil record is an obvious 'truth teller' for the statement that dinosaurs once existed. It's a lot more complex than the simplicity of 'I'm wearing a shirt', but it's clearly valid nonetheless. I am just assuming that he was trying to explain something quite baroque using a grossly simplified example. No doubt, if given enough time and a patient group of us laymen, he could explain it a lot better.
Time is just a way to measure distance between events.
Why things keep moving?Collisions of materials/energy/other stuff.
If you would have taken 2 objects,put them in a world with no other thing besides those 2,they will just be drawn to each other and compress overtime...Now,if you will cancel material-gravity and collision-based energy,they will just remain in the same spot doing nothing at all,since they are not affected by anything.Therefor,time itself will be irrelevant to those objects.
[1/2] Being restricted to a set of values in a certain dimension allows the possibility of change. Basically, *Dimension underlies the possibility of change* and *Creation implies actual change* But, for example, if you are able to look at a graph of points from -infinity to +infinity given by the function y = x^2 , you would see the entire graph. Being finite perceivers in 4 dimensions gives the illusion of change, but there is never any actual change.
[2/2] This relates to my main point that things did not need to be created, and things (in the grandest scheme) will inherently be static. People often question when "TIME" began. And indeed I say that time could not have a beginning because "beginning" "middle" and "end" are only relations WITHIN the dimension of time.
If our view of time is atomic, a present defined in the infinitesimally small "now", it flies against the subjective experience of a present that is affected by our perception of the past and expectations of the future. The present cannot remain atomic if it is continually affected by what I bring from the past and what I expect in the future.
Ok, so I'm a presentist, nice to know. Time is a conceptual framework for biological entities. In reality there are no before nor after objects, just changes. These changes seem to take time but they just move at their inherrent rate of change. And that looks pretty relative to me.
Bith29 makes a good point with the dinosaurs: their atoms and stuff still float around and we're probably all part ex-dinosaurs.
First off, I'm far too lazy to read the comments below mine and on the previous page, so this's probably already been mentioned, but... For the presentist view, wouldn't bones be...well, the truth-maker for the conclusion that dinosaurs once existed? Although, I suppose I wouldn't know, and if that is an accurate observation, then I'm quite certain it must've been stated previously many times, as, to me, it seems glaringly apparent. (Ps. I'm not a presentist, for the commentarial record.)
I think you may be confusing the evidence for a proposition with the state of affairs that answers to a proposition. Imagine the police are called to a house where there is a body of a man. Upon examining the body the investigators notice a knife plunged into his back. Suppose they reason that a murder took place in the house. On the usual understanding the truth maker for "Someone killed the man at this house" is simply the event involving the person taking the life of the victim at that house
@Bith29 (Continued from below) The evidence for the sentence in quotation marks is the knife in the victim's back and whatever else might provide evidence that a killing took place. The same applies to “Dinosaurs once existed”. The fossils provide the evidence but are not truth makers for the sentence. I hope this helps. Cheers.
Oh and time travel diffenitly not possible, all that exist is now and a little bit ahead of now. Even if string is right or brain is right you could go in to the past just not your past, so if you came back changes made would be in that future not the one you come back to.
I am block person but my block starts at the present and go forward just I little bit, what is that call, or is it new and can I name it. And the reason I take that view because I think time is a force, and is not a tool for measure, and that force is more like a wave so what we do now effects the future to a small extent so can I name it, i can hear you people now name it sh** or how about Dumb and Crazy
if other people in ur place say that discussing the philosophy of time is a conversation killer, then discuss it with me. i am very much interested. anyone of u
I'm a C-theorist, whereby everything was; everything is everything including nothing while everything and nothing already was, already is, nothing changes but our awareness of what was.
...the other has nothing to keep him occupied, neither experiences time similarly! also compare someone who is colourblind vs someone who has full colour definition?) i realise these are only anicdotal explanations but i had to add my 2 pennies lol.
i apologise cos i only came in at the end of this discussion and havent read all the previous posts but really colour only exists in the same way time or anything else- as the way our brain interprits certain electric signals, ie a certain colour is only the perception of a particular wavelength or wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, time is also just the perception of a number of occurences between two other happenings (example, put 2 people in a room, one has a newspaper to read...
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big bowl of wibbly wobbly timey wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
There are physicists who are also philosophers and philosophers who are also physicists. I've met several. The thing is, each discipline is so specialized generally collaboration rather than all-in-one packaging is more common. Philosophers generally DO know what physicists say and they respect that. Nonetheless, physicists can't answer all the questions when which theory is correct largely depends not on empirical result but theoretical consistency.
Guys, this is the 'philosophy' of time. People are talking about this like the philosophy of death is about your heart stopping. They aren't the same thing.
If you don't find philosophy interesting, don't watch it. I personally don't find such topics very interesting. But just because you don't like it, don't dismiss it as bullsh*t.
There was a very strange statement the "truth maker" segment. A presentist would not attempt to say that there WERE dinosaurs because "dinosaurs exist". Not even logically coherent. They would say that there WERE dinosaurs because we can PRESENTLY observer their REMAINS. That is not a modification of truth maker theory, that is just proper languange. It only demonstrates 'truth maker theory' to be an arbitrary limitation on determining the validity of a statement.
If I understand "Presentists" correctly, it isn't defeated by the special theory of relativity any more than the timeline people are defeated by it. Only thing you have to understand is that the present is relative and not absolute. A simple proof of this is that You will read this at different time, depending on who "You" are. I do agree that there isn't a timeline either forward or backwards, only evidence of past events and rough guestimates (which follow murphys law quite well).
@kashgarinn this is a tricky one. the idea is that if you are a presentist, then ONLY things that occupy the 'present moment' exist. the trouble with special relativity is that another observer moving with some relative speed will have events in THEIR present moment which will be in YOUR future. now that observer will say the events in his 'present moment' exist, so events in your future must exist. this violates the tenet of presentism that only things in the present moment exist.
@HubTM Actually no.. things cannot both be in the present and the future. The theory of relativity never says that one persons "present" moment is another persons future moment, only that the time perception is different, so both persons are in the present. example: we both are given a task to stack boxes, we can leave when we're done, one might finish in 2x the time the other finishes, they both are working always in the "present" - same goes for 2 different people, one moving close to "c".
@HubTM Actually no.. things cannot both be in the present and the future. The theory of relativity never says that one persons "present" moment is another persons future moment, only that the time perception is different, so both persons are in the present. example: we both are given a task to stack boxes, we can leave when we're done, one might finish in 2x the time the other finishes, they both are working always in the "present" - same goes for 2 different people, one moving close to "c"
I cant help but think that often is the case that due to the abstraction of language, philosophers fall into the trap using different words to essentially say the same thing rather than form distinct alternative arguments to explain something completely different.
im getting tired of people trying to explain things like time while staying "in the box" so they still have a job when they grow up. its time for people who have great minds and ideas to make a great change. take the first step.
It has a bit off-theme but i wanted to ask someone smart :D
So my friend says that if we look in the stars we see the past. His argument is that light travels and the time passes by until it comes to us so we don' look the star as it is now rather but the star as was it before. I disagree with him because then everything we look is "look in the past" everything we see is light and there is some time that passes by until it come to our eyes.
yes everything you see is in the past, however, light travels at such short distances as a mile in only 5.3x10^-6 seconds far faster than you can perceive though technically in the past. The same way you see fireworks explode or a lightning bolt before you hear it.
Well this makes for an interesting thought exercise, but I find it hard to seriously consider anything in this video as a valid scientific description of time.
I strongly dispute the idea that 'the man on the street' (whoever he is) would automatically agree with the bald statement "Dinosaurs do not exist". Most people would heavily qualify it, saying things like "they do exist in museums, once they existed as living creatures". You'd get a whole range of answers.
Anyway, I prefer the Bowie hypothesis, that Time in effect "flexes like a whore, falls wa*king to the floor..."
Time is nothing more than a concept required to communicate our observation of motion. Measured time (a clock) is what Relativity uses; absolute time is what Newton used. These brain farts only demonstrate that intellectual morons can turn the simple into the most complex bull crap.
Perception of time is what really ruins our attempts to understand how it works. Depending on what you are doing you may experience bradypsychia or tachypsychia. It's all relative to how your hypothalamus categorizes the data your brain receives. So when we try to intellectualize time we are too heavily influence by our perception of it. That's why we need an impartial bystander to explain how it really works. I don't trust an explanation based on something other than science and logic
I think a lot of people are interested in this subject, because of a particular Christian Apologist's Kalam argument for the existence of god, which relies upon an A-theory of time. And he puts forward an alternate interpretation of relativity - a neo-lorentzian interpretation (which includes an absolute moment), and he defends it similar to how you did, it plays to our intuitions.
What role should intuitions play, in philosophical argument of time?
I never particularly liked special relitivity. Simultanaiety is objective... Not in the grander frame of reference - the entire universe. All frames of reference, can be thought of as a smaller subset of frames of reference, or larger frames of reference, which are all moving relatively.
You can probably get around this argument, but it just seems to be an quantum mechanical effect to me, that moving an atom at high speeds, influence the speed at which the electron in said atom moves, to conserve momentum. At higher speeds, higher effect. The reduced "internal" speed of the electron in the atom effects the relative local speed of light, thus, reducing the "speed at wich time passes".
Does this change WHEN something happend in the universe? Not in my oppinion :)
Does B-Theory of time allow for free will? If a specific future event exists then everything we do in the present must lead to the already existing specific future event.
Yes, due to the effects of quantum physics / chaos theory causal determinism breaks down..
However classical libertarian free will, is incompatible with the facts obtained by neurologists. You can still believe in neo-compatibilistic free will. plato.stanford\.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it." -- Omar Khayyam (Edward Fitgerald translation)
time is a dimention of movement, and it seems that time and velocity is somehow either the same thing or interlinked, but when discussing things that are real and not real, it gets confusing, because we've already established the fact that the reality we see is only a constructed illusion in the brain and we don't really know what is out there in the world, and we shouldn't assume there is a world out there at all, these assumptions may hinder our proggress to solve these problems
i'm fairly well read in physics, and this philosophy sounds like a load of waffle when you compare it to current knowledge in quantum physics/relativity. also, i'm studying cognition, and to me, biologically, i think it makes most sense to say that time is a useful concept to the brain and to an animal. it is in our nature to perceive things in time frames, but it is important to realize time is only an invention of our minds to facilitate the perceived reality in which we are forced into.
@sinprelic Well, i'm engaged in nothing like you are, but, you seem like what you have written is taken for truth. So i say one big maybe. It just may be that time is invention of our minds. I mean, it's just the same as with all things. People thought that fire is made by some other, higher being until we came to realize that fire was before us, and that we can make it by ourselves. So, if you think about it, time may have been before us, or we just invented it as an abstract in our mind.
Ultimately, it doesn't even matter if time was before, or how long it has been. Regardlessly we "measure" time, the way and from the point that we find suitable for our own purposes. What i'm trying to say is that we we'll not be able to comprehend time unless our consciousness becomes "timeless". Before that, our own subjective perception of time will remain to act as some "brake" to hold us from comprehending what time is.
"time is only an invention of our minds to facilitate the perceived reality in which we are forced into." What a load of new age rubbish. Are you seriously claiming that without a mind to perceive it time itself does not exist. If so it's time to put down the hippy cool-aid and hit those physics books again.
@sinprelic I don't see how time is an "invention" of our brain. If you're in a room and you want to see it's future state, you can't. If you want to see how it was in the past, you cannot observe that directly. Seems pretty straight forward.
@aluisious your first sentence - you are disproving my point by saying that we cant will ourselves to see the future. we cant will ourselves, because we dont have complete control. the reason why we probably cant see the future is because we dont have free will, but restricted will to what our psyche can percieve. hence my reply.
@sinprelic I don't agree that it's a problem of will, or perception, or anything like that. It's a physical impossibility. Say that in the future, a red ball will bounce through the window. You can't perceive it now because the information doesn't exist yet. There are no photons coming from the red ball in the room, and there are no mechanical waves in the air from the bounce. Whether your mind is able to perceive the event is irrelevant because there is no event to perceive.
@aluisious you just basically grossly ignored and then oversimplified modern scientific knowledge. our minds are so crude and narrowly-perceiving that we wouldn't be able to perceive true reality. we only have this manufactured perception. want an example? color doesn't exist. time doesn't exist on its own. space doesn't exist on its own. if you were to fall over the event horizon in a black hole, you wouldn't be able to see the past and the future (as one should) because of your crude brain.
@sinprelic I didn't ignore or oversimplify anything. You have made no logical argument, you just made a bald assertion with nothing to back it up. Ironic for a philosophical argument.
Claiming that "color doesn't exist" is rediculous, besides. I have no interest in your lazy mystical inclinations so don't bother.
@aluisious sorry i cannot help you then. i'm a scientist. philosophy for me is a load of waffle. you are stuck with the same knowledge people had 100,000 years ago, but you are still musing over things like color, time and perception. we've figured it out decades ago :<
@FingerMyFinger time is more intricate than tape, my friend. it's best you read some introductory papers on current knowledge in the general/special relativities. intriguing!
@sinprelic That's why this is PhilosophyFile, not sixtysymbols or nottinghamscience. In other words, your argument is not invalid, but simply irrelevant.
@wreynolds1995 please explain. if you are saying that my way of thinking about the problem is incorrect, then point me to it. i am known to hate philosophy (even though i studied it in college) but i am curious whether you think science does not belong within the realms of philosophy! philosophers have posed very interesting questions, but not answered a single one - in the long history of both eastern and western philosophy. im just trying to bring some scientific sanity into this waffle!
@sinprelic The science waffle is for the science channels, and the philosophy waffle is for the philosophy channels. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong by posting what you posted here and not elsewhere, it's just that what you essentially done is come onto a video about philosophy, which itself recognises the incongruousness of philosophy and theoretical physics, and tried to criticise the video using theoretical physics (proven or no). Seems a tad pointless, to me.
@wreynolds1995 why is it incongruous? science only adds to the knowledge and supposition base that we use to make arguments. philosophy should incorporate things that we know are true (or perhaps know that aren't true) and use these bits and pieces advantageously, not distance itself from them. you are telling me is that these are two separate domains!? remember, science is a philosophy in itself, but merely a philosophy that has utility and application. i think there is no incongruity here.
@sinprelic So wait, you said yourself that this is all "philosophical waffle" and that you're trying to add in some "scientific sanity", and yet you also say that science and philosophy are not at all ever incongruous? Do you even realise how you have contradicted yourself there? If the science is the sanity and the philosophy i just waffle, then of course the two are incongruous. Also, if philosophy builds on science, why is a view mentioned in this video that contradicts special relativity?
@wreynolds1995 you are trying too hard to argue for an argument's sake. yes, science is a subset of philosophy. it is however an identified subset, and clearly in the context i said it in, i identify it as its own field of study, quite different from that of the rhetoric and academics of philosophy (which it definitely is). you also misunderstood when i said that science builds on philosophy, *not the other way around*. you sound like you dropped science because of its academic requirements :-(
@sinprelic The numbers are sentence numbers, chronologically: 1) Evidence for this first sentence? 2) So what? You're ignoring my point about you contradicting yourself. 3) I didn't misunderstand at all, science may or may not build on philosophy. What you've misunderstood is that you're going to have to explain the significance of that. 4) I actually want to go into science, specifically physics.
@wreynolds1995 where is the problem? you obviously have not taken philosophy or science at college level. i wish you a nice start, because that is the greatest leap of understanding you will experience in your academia. perhaps you think science and physics cannot give us any input on time. perhaps you think this input can be freely ignored at any time "for the sake of rhetoric". but you have not changed anything: the fact remains that we know enough about 'time' to say YOU ARE WRONG.
@sinprelic I never said you were wrong. I said your argument was in fact NOT invalid, but simply irrelevant. Go back to my first comment, you'll see:
@sinprelic That's why this is PhilosophyFile, not sixtysymbols or nottinghamscience. In other words, your argument is not invalid, but simply irrelevant.
That's pretty interesting! However, I was thinking during the whole video... What's the point of this man's job? What does he mean by "doing research"? Basically, what does he do? Just think and report about his thinking or what?
There goes WLC's KCA causal argument down the drain. I'm glad this guy is intellectually honest by not omitting the incompatibility with special relativity.
We all knew that non-naturalistic philosophers can't distinguish reality from fantasy.
Too bad you didn't ask how the A-theory of time scaled up towards the quantum theories of time. Better ask a physicist next time about quantum theories of time.
I don't see the problem with The Truthmaker: If presentism says that only 'present' object exist, then why does it have to prove that dinasours existed in the PAST? There is no such thing as past in presentism... Thus is "Dinasaurs don't exist" actually a true statement if you are only refeering to the EXACT presence. Fossiles do exist, as we've discovered many of them, but in reality living dinasaurs aren't around anymore, therefor is the truthmaker not invalid.
In the quantum theory of time, it is an illusion, created by the movement of matter i.e. photons. Without moving (anti)matter you can't build a clock.
@DeoMachina what can be proven exactly? whtat did they measure? i believe its that the faster you move the shorter distances become. it's called length contraction. the second part of the puzzle is just the fact that if we "measure time" we actually measure distances. this is often explained with a thought experiment involving a clock that is driven by beams of light.
@SebastianMisch@sinprelic By measuring time at two different locations it can be shown that time flows faster in some places that it does others. And the speed of time is related to mass. So time flows faster on earth than it does in space.
I'm saying that time is not simply "a device", this has been proven, and it was done by measuring time in different locations. I've answered all the questions you asked, what makes you think I ignored you?
@DeoMachina first of all in physics you can never ever prove any theory. you can make experiments and find out that your theory correctly predicted your results but you cant prove the correctness of the whole theory. second of all yes i explained what time is and how it is measured. i found a paper for this satellite-thing and they indeed send beams of light along a long distance and measured relativistic effects. this can simply be explain by length contraction. just look it up on wikipedia.
I like philosophy very much. But sometimes, like in this case, it just seems like most problems are fundamentally unanswerable illusions of perception and interpretation. Which is cool and all ...but still. I have the feeling that for every counter-argument an answer could be contrived for any theory A,B presentism... I think any final answers (whatever that would mean for philosophy) like in this case should come from empirical science.
I don't understand the relativity destroying the "presentist" argument at all. So what, if "moving object" sees events happening at different times than the "static object".
We're not talking "time perception" defining time, we're talking about actual time defined by the changes in the universe... aren't we?
If you define "seeing" events at times A,B,C and how they relate as simply physical events...there are no problems with presentism.
Same with the truth-maker. Fossils make dinosaurs exist.
@badblueman he didnt dive into at all but one of the real pillars if relativity is that there is no ACTUAL time reference frame, everything is "relative", so the discrepancies in perception are actually a fundamental property of nature.
his argument is correct, although he did not describe the theory of relativity as well as he should have. the observer doesn't "SEE" the events occuring at separate times....they events actually do occur at separate times in that reference frame. the most important point in understanding the Theory of Relativity is that no single reference frame is correct - they all are. The events occur at the same time, and at the same time, they occur at different times.
@tupaclives96 The other guy said the same as you. But it's hard to drop the presentist concept. I know, I presume, that time is only measurable as perceived change, but why could that not be just an illusion from the set laws of the universe. Why can't all the relativistic effects and different time frames be happening at a present time on some fundamental time frame. You don't have to remind me that this is an awfully religious-looking contrived answer...you don't have to take it seriously.
you know, this is the exact argument that i kept coming up with as i was learning the TOR. I suppose you could choose a fundamental time frame, but you'd have to pick one arbitrarily. first thing that comes to mind is the time frame of empty space with one standing still. now thats all fine and dandy when it comes to the occurrence of "events" - u can argue that events actually occur at a present time based on some defined fundamental reference frame....(to be continued)
...all other observations are skewed versions of reality. However its not just observations that are affected by relativity - its the actual passage of time. chemical reactions, biological cycles, and everything else you could possibly think of change with reference frame. if you could travel as fast as you wanted and end up at the same spot, you could outlive the earth and the sun. one year of your time could be millions of years in a fundamental time frame..(to be continued)
@tupaclives96 Yeah, ok. I guess the problem I have is really simple.
A timeline goes from the past to the future and is made of a "present slice". If this is what time is represents, then an inability to pinpoint this present because of TOR, is not a defeater to presentism. Especially because we don't see time travel. Spaceships don't "visit" an actual future. They wait for it to come, no? :P
That is the crux of my problem. Nothing breaks through the present to prove a future or past exist.
so the only way to keep the presentist argument alive would be by arguing that every reference frame passes through the same timeline at a different rate and as a different "point" on the timeline.
@tupaclives96 A spaceship going crazy, going "at speed c" around the Earth won't travel into the future. It's present will be slow relatively to the present on the Earth, but that doesn't disprove the existence of the present. It just proves the existence of relativity; and an inability to actually break through this present moment, to actually stop existing IN the present, and go into a FUTURE present, is why I can't seem to drop my presentism.
If a star 60 light years away goes Supernova and I observe it today, I know the event of the Supernova happened 60 years ago even though the event of my observation happen today. They are 2 seperate events that represent the a single event. Event of cause and event of observation.
I like the Growing Block Theory the best probably because it follows my intuition the closest and also there is nothing to say that the "block" can't distort to account for special relativity.
I hate people who make philosophical statements for a shock value. If you say "Dinosaurs don't exist" it means that you are expecting a negative feedback. If you had said "Dinosaurs did exist" or "Dinosaur bones do exist" instead, it would be much clearer. You really should be clear just to set things straight, to avoid misunderstandings.
Time makes more sense if you accept a Prime Mover.
Does an insect that lives for a season experience time
like humans?
If there is a creator, who is to say, his creation wasn't
download completely. All occurances and all quantum
possibilities. Then I guess time is the organizing
factor. Placing all 'the beads' in the correct place
within the 'necklace'!
fntime 2 days ago
Why wouldn't existing dinosaur fossils count as a defense for presentists?
smarfling 2 weeks ago
@smarfling It seems to me that the fossil record is an obvious 'truth teller' for the statement that dinosaurs once existed. It's a lot more complex than the simplicity of 'I'm wearing a shirt', but it's clearly valid nonetheless. I am just assuming that he was trying to explain something quite baroque using a grossly simplified example. No doubt, if given enough time and a patient group of us laymen, he could explain it a lot better.
kanojo1969 2 weeks ago
Great video, very instructive. I'm not sure if this has been raised before, below. However, you don't appear to offer a defintion of "the present" .
RobertoStampini 3 months ago
Comment removed
PhilosophyAnimation 3 months ago
Time is just a way to measure distance between events.
Why things keep moving?Collisions of materials/energy/other stuff.
If you would have taken 2 objects,put them in a world with no other thing besides those 2,they will just be drawn to each other and compress overtime...Now,if you will cancel material-gravity and collision-based energy,they will just remain in the same spot doing nothing at all,since they are not affected by anything.Therefor,time itself will be irrelevant to those objects.
Wharwulif 4 months ago
@Wharwulif That sounds like what happened before the Big Bang!
What if Time is the organizing component of reality.
If all time, past, present and future were download all at once,
would not it need an organizing principle or an 'organizer'?
Think of a film library with thousands of reels with images.
While in the library laying there doing nothing, within each
reel, would there be time, or must the reel be shown.
If the Prime Mover dreams of creation, is there time?
fntime 3 months ago
[1/2] Being restricted to a set of values in a certain dimension allows the possibility of change. Basically, *Dimension underlies the possibility of change* and *Creation implies actual change* But, for example, if you are able to look at a graph of points from -infinity to +infinity given by the function y = x^2 , you would see the entire graph. Being finite perceivers in 4 dimensions gives the illusion of change, but there is never any actual change.
Th0ughtGazer 4 months ago
[2/2] This relates to my main point that things did not need to be created, and things (in the grandest scheme) will inherently be static. People often question when "TIME" began. And indeed I say that time could not have a beginning because "beginning" "middle" and "end" are only relations WITHIN the dimension of time.
Th0ughtGazer 4 months ago
If our view of time is atomic, a present defined in the infinitesimally small "now", it flies against the subjective experience of a present that is affected by our perception of the past and expectations of the future. The present cannot remain atomic if it is continually affected by what I bring from the past and what I expect in the future.
theDrGreg1 4 months ago
Ok, so I'm a presentist, nice to know. Time is a conceptual framework for biological entities. In reality there are no before nor after objects, just changes. These changes seem to take time but they just move at their inherrent rate of change. And that looks pretty relative to me.
Bith29 makes a good point with the dinosaurs: their atoms and stuff still float around and we're probably all part ex-dinosaurs.
ultraconform 4 months ago
First off, I'm far too lazy to read the comments below mine and on the previous page, so this's probably already been mentioned, but... For the presentist view, wouldn't bones be...well, the truth-maker for the conclusion that dinosaurs once existed? Although, I suppose I wouldn't know, and if that is an accurate observation, then I'm quite certain it must've been stated previously many times, as, to me, it seems glaringly apparent. (Ps. I'm not a presentist, for the commentarial record.)
Bith29 5 months ago
I think you may be confusing the evidence for a proposition with the state of affairs that answers to a proposition. Imagine the police are called to a house where there is a body of a man. Upon examining the body the investigators notice a knife plunged into his back. Suppose they reason that a murder took place in the house. On the usual understanding the truth maker for "Someone killed the man at this house" is simply the event involving the person taking the life of the victim at that house
selfishreplicator 2 months ago
@Bith29 (Continued from below) The evidence for the sentence in quotation marks is the knife in the victim's back and whatever else might provide evidence that a killing took place. The same applies to “Dinosaurs once existed”. The fossils provide the evidence but are not truth makers for the sentence. I hope this helps. Cheers.
selfishreplicator 2 months ago
Oh and time travel diffenitly not possible, all that exist is now and a little bit ahead of now. Even if string is right or brain is right you could go in to the past just not your past, so if you came back changes made would be in that future not the one you come back to.
13sam31 5 months ago
I am block person but my block starts at the present and go forward just I little bit, what is that call, or is it new and can I name it. And the reason I take that view because I think time is a force, and is not a tool for measure, and that force is more like a wave so what we do now effects the future to a small extent so can I name it, i can hear you people now name it sh** or how about Dumb and Crazy
13sam31 5 months ago
if other people in ur place say that discussing the philosophy of time is a conversation killer, then discuss it with me. i am very much interested. anyone of u
curtleyambrose100 5 months ago
I'm a C-theorist, whereby everything was; everything is everything including nothing while everything and nothing already was, already is, nothing changes but our awareness of what was.
tonyfalca 5 months ago
...the other has nothing to keep him occupied, neither experiences time similarly! also compare someone who is colourblind vs someone who has full colour definition?) i realise these are only anicdotal explanations but i had to add my 2 pennies lol.
1 glove!!!
BigGreezyJake 5 months ago
i apologise cos i only came in at the end of this discussion and havent read all the previous posts but really colour only exists in the same way time or anything else- as the way our brain interprits certain electric signals, ie a certain colour is only the perception of a particular wavelength or wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, time is also just the perception of a number of occurences between two other happenings (example, put 2 people in a room, one has a newspaper to read...
BigGreezyJake 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Time is a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.
xChiyukix 6 months ago
Comment removed
xChiyukix 6 months ago
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big bowl of wibbly wobbly timey wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
sh0ck3r48 6 months ago 15
Fucking annoying camera work.
FatPlus1 6 months ago
There are physicists who are also philosophers and philosophers who are also physicists. I've met several. The thing is, each discipline is so specialized generally collaboration rather than all-in-one packaging is more common. Philosophers generally DO know what physicists say and they respect that. Nonetheless, physicists can't answer all the questions when which theory is correct largely depends not on empirical result but theoretical consistency.
PheetusFia 6 months ago 4
I figured this was more of a question for physicists... shouldn't that be obvious?
xNickTheBrickx 6 months ago
Guys, this is the 'philosophy' of time. People are talking about this like the philosophy of death is about your heart stopping. They aren't the same thing.
If you don't find philosophy interesting, don't watch it. I personally don't find such topics very interesting. But just because you don't like it, don't dismiss it as bullsh*t.
spankthereasoner 6 months ago 2
"Why can't the presentist modify the special theory of relativity?"
Well, perhaps because the presentist is making up nonsense, whereas physicists make theories that are tested in the real world.
aluisious 6 months ago
If inference is invalid, then so is the vast majority of our experiences.
sd19791 6 months ago
There was a very strange statement the "truth maker" segment. A presentist would not attempt to say that there WERE dinosaurs because "dinosaurs exist". Not even logically coherent. They would say that there WERE dinosaurs because we can PRESENTLY observer their REMAINS. That is not a modification of truth maker theory, that is just proper languange. It only demonstrates 'truth maker theory' to be an arbitrary limitation on determining the validity of a statement.
sd19791 6 months ago
If I understand "Presentists" correctly, it isn't defeated by the special theory of relativity any more than the timeline people are defeated by it. Only thing you have to understand is that the present is relative and not absolute. A simple proof of this is that You will read this at different time, depending on who "You" are. I do agree that there isn't a timeline either forward or backwards, only evidence of past events and rough guestimates (which follow murphys law quite well).
kashgarinn 6 months ago
@kashgarinn this is a tricky one. the idea is that if you are a presentist, then ONLY things that occupy the 'present moment' exist. the trouble with special relativity is that another observer moving with some relative speed will have events in THEIR present moment which will be in YOUR future. now that observer will say the events in his 'present moment' exist, so events in your future must exist. this violates the tenet of presentism that only things in the present moment exist.
HubTM 6 months ago 2
@HubTM Actually no.. things cannot both be in the present and the future. The theory of relativity never says that one persons "present" moment is another persons future moment, only that the time perception is different, so both persons are in the present. example: we both are given a task to stack boxes, we can leave when we're done, one might finish in 2x the time the other finishes, they both are working always in the "present" - same goes for 2 different people, one moving close to "c".
kashgarinn 5 months ago
@kashgarinn it does say that. it entails that your future already exists. look up minkowski spacetime.
HubTM 4 months ago
@HubTM Actually no.. things cannot both be in the present and the future. The theory of relativity never says that one persons "present" moment is another persons future moment, only that the time perception is different, so both persons are in the present. example: we both are given a task to stack boxes, we can leave when we're done, one might finish in 2x the time the other finishes, they both are working always in the "present" - same goes for 2 different people, one moving close to "c"
kashgarinn 5 months ago
At first the cuts to the timeline were annoying, but then I realized how poetic it was. Very nice.
xanshriekal 6 months ago
He reminds me of a clever Richard Hammond.
Horton094 6 months ago
@Horton094 Reminds me of a boring Richard Hammond.
aluisious 6 months ago
why does it keep going back to the video editing software?! so annoying
turkishdisco2 6 months ago
i hate this kind of shit, no matter what anyone thinks about time it doesn't fucking change how time works.
vinnybyrne09 6 months ago
I'm sorry, you guys are a bit too smart for me, I have no clue what your saying. :( Maybe when I get older.
DutchKid121 6 months ago
I cant help but think that often is the case that due to the abstraction of language, philosophers fall into the trap using different words to essentially say the same thing rather than form distinct alternative arguments to explain something completely different.
Ziggletooth 6 months ago
im getting tired of people trying to explain things like time while staying "in the box" so they still have a job when they grow up. its time for people who have great minds and ideas to make a great change. take the first step.
boondok19999 6 months ago
Can I ask you a question?
It has a bit off-theme but i wanted to ask someone smart :D
So my friend says that if we look in the stars we see the past. His argument is that light travels and the time passes by until it comes to us so we don' look the star as it is now rather but the star as was it before. I disagree with him because then everything we look is "look in the past" everything we see is light and there is some time that passes by until it come to our eyes.
napolitanka12 6 months ago
@napolitanka12 the fact that everything you see has essentially already happened shouldn't make you doubt it - the universe is causal!
Fhuaran 6 months ago
@napolitanka12
yes everything you see is in the past, however, light travels at such short distances as a mile in only 5.3x10^-6 seconds far faster than you can perceive though technically in the past. The same way you see fireworks explode or a lightning bolt before you hear it.
Berelore 6 months ago
This proves to me that physicists are far more competent philosophers than philosophers are.
jamma246 6 months ago
Time is just a label we put on the moment of particles, it is just a concept not a "thing". This sounds like bullshit.
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 6 months ago
Well this makes for an interesting thought exercise, but I find it hard to seriously consider anything in this video as a valid scientific description of time.
LlamaTheory 6 months ago
I strongly dispute the idea that 'the man on the street' (whoever he is) would automatically agree with the bald statement "Dinosaurs do not exist". Most people would heavily qualify it, saying things like "they do exist in museums, once they existed as living creatures". You'd get a whole range of answers.
Anyway, I prefer the Bowie hypothesis, that Time in effect "flexes like a whore, falls wa*king to the floor..."
SuperTruth77 6 months ago 2
9:18 Yes just look at your watch :)
but We can perdict the future, a liitle bit, e.g. in a 10 minutes time the bus will arrive
Films4You 6 months ago
this guy sounds smart, too bad he wasted his time studying that is useless
adamjwal 6 months ago
Time is nothing more than a concept required to communicate our observation of motion. Measured time (a clock) is what Relativity uses; absolute time is what Newton used. These brain farts only demonstrate that intellectual morons can turn the simple into the most complex bull crap.
MsWanderer1 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrMichaelEdie 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrMichaelEdie 6 months ago
4:00 :D
InstntMashedPotatoes 6 months ago
Perception of time is what really ruins our attempts to understand how it works. Depending on what you are doing you may experience bradypsychia or tachypsychia. It's all relative to how your hypothalamus categorizes the data your brain receives. So when we try to intellectualize time we are too heavily influence by our perception of it. That's why we need an impartial bystander to explain how it really works. I don't trust an explanation based on something other than science and logic
billiondollardan 6 months ago
1 or 10 trillions seconds in the past are both as far away from me as 1 to 10 trillion seconds in the future are close to me
demented669 6 months ago
Heya, Jonathan!
I think a lot of people are interested in this subject, because of a particular Christian Apologist's Kalam argument for the existence of god, which relies upon an A-theory of time. And he puts forward an alternate interpretation of relativity - a neo-lorentzian interpretation (which includes an absolute moment), and he defends it similar to how you did, it plays to our intuitions.
What role should intuitions play, in philosophical argument of time?
piprod01 6 months ago
Does this comment exist?
TheClassyCoconut 6 months ago
I never particularly liked special relitivity. Simultanaiety is objective... Not in the grander frame of reference - the entire universe. All frames of reference, can be thought of as a smaller subset of frames of reference, or larger frames of reference, which are all moving relatively.
thelemur 6 months ago
You can probably get around this argument, but it just seems to be an quantum mechanical effect to me, that moving an atom at high speeds, influence the speed at which the electron in said atom moves, to conserve momentum. At higher speeds, higher effect. The reduced "internal" speed of the electron in the atom effects the relative local speed of light, thus, reducing the "speed at wich time passes".
Does this change WHEN something happend in the universe? Not in my oppinion :)
thelemur 6 months ago
I subscribe to the Langolierian school of thought.
generay08 6 months ago
If the Twentieth Century taught us anything it is that we do not have perceptive rights on reality.
Are philosophers still considering the human capabilities of perception and thinking as a basis for understanding reality?
laxr5rs 6 months ago
Does B-Theory of time allow for free will? If a specific future event exists then everything we do in the present must lead to the already existing specific future event.
rc23robert 6 months ago
@rc23robert
Yes, due to the effects of quantum physics / chaos theory causal determinism breaks down..
However classical libertarian free will, is incompatible with the facts obtained by neurologists. You can still believe in neo-compatibilistic free will. plato.stanford\.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
AlainG80 6 months ago
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it." -- Omar Khayyam (Edward Fitgerald translation)
michaelg47 6 months ago
So can a presentist ever be late for a meeting?
DaithiDublin 6 months ago
Its simple Time=Money
stsrawmos 6 months ago
time is a dimention of movement, and it seems that time and velocity is somehow either the same thing or interlinked, but when discussing things that are real and not real, it gets confusing, because we've already established the fact that the reality we see is only a constructed illusion in the brain and we don't really know what is out there in the world, and we shouldn't assume there is a world out there at all, these assumptions may hinder our proggress to solve these problems
Zee96969696 6 months ago
good video, but the comments are better
tupaclives96 6 months ago
Whaaa>?
OhhSoulz 6 months ago
ime loop!Help, I'm stuck in a t
Every1Tubes 6 months ago
time is simply that which we use to mark the our passage through the universe, nothing else keeps it but us.
elocoetam 6 months ago
i'm fairly well read in physics, and this philosophy sounds like a load of waffle when you compare it to current knowledge in quantum physics/relativity. also, i'm studying cognition, and to me, biologically, i think it makes most sense to say that time is a useful concept to the brain and to an animal. it is in our nature to perceive things in time frames, but it is important to realize time is only an invention of our minds to facilitate the perceived reality in which we are forced into.
sinprelic 6 months ago 24
@sinprelic Well, i'm engaged in nothing like you are, but, you seem like what you have written is taken for truth. So i say one big maybe. It just may be that time is invention of our minds. I mean, it's just the same as with all things. People thought that fire is made by some other, higher being until we came to realize that fire was before us, and that we can make it by ourselves. So, if you think about it, time may have been before us, or we just invented it as an abstract in our mind.
pepsis1987 6 months ago
Ultimately, it doesn't even matter if time was before, or how long it has been. Regardlessly we "measure" time, the way and from the point that we find suitable for our own purposes. What i'm trying to say is that we we'll not be able to comprehend time unless our consciousness becomes "timeless". Before that, our own subjective perception of time will remain to act as some "brake" to hold us from comprehending what time is.
pepsis1987 6 months ago
@sinprelic Once upon a Time stopped everything from happening all at once.
supermassvanity 6 months ago
@sinprelic Yeah, this video has made me doubt the modern relevance of philosophy unfortunately
Fhuaran 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sinprelic
"time is only an invention of our minds to facilitate the perceived reality in which we are forced into." What a load of new age rubbish. Are you seriously claiming that without a mind to perceive it time itself does not exist. If so it's time to put down the hippy cool-aid and hit those physics books again.
Berelore 6 months ago
@sinprelic I don't see how time is an "invention" of our brain. If you're in a room and you want to see it's future state, you can't. If you want to see how it was in the past, you cannot observe that directly. Seems pretty straight forward.
aluisious 6 months ago
@aluisious do you understand that free will doesnt exist? we can't will our brains to just WORK DIFFERENTLY.
sinprelic 6 months ago
@sinprelic That's irrelevant to what I said.
aluisious 6 months ago
@aluisious your first sentence - you are disproving my point by saying that we cant will ourselves to see the future. we cant will ourselves, because we dont have complete control. the reason why we probably cant see the future is because we dont have free will, but restricted will to what our psyche can percieve. hence my reply.
sinprelic 6 months ago
@sinprelic I don't agree that it's a problem of will, or perception, or anything like that. It's a physical impossibility. Say that in the future, a red ball will bounce through the window. You can't perceive it now because the information doesn't exist yet. There are no photons coming from the red ball in the room, and there are no mechanical waves in the air from the bounce. Whether your mind is able to perceive the event is irrelevant because there is no event to perceive.
aluisious 6 months ago
@aluisious you just basically grossly ignored and then oversimplified modern scientific knowledge. our minds are so crude and narrowly-perceiving that we wouldn't be able to perceive true reality. we only have this manufactured perception. want an example? color doesn't exist. time doesn't exist on its own. space doesn't exist on its own. if you were to fall over the event horizon in a black hole, you wouldn't be able to see the past and the future (as one should) because of your crude brain.
sinprelic 6 months ago
@sinprelic I didn't ignore or oversimplify anything. You have made no logical argument, you just made a bald assertion with nothing to back it up. Ironic for a philosophical argument.
Claiming that "color doesn't exist" is rediculous, besides. I have no interest in your lazy mystical inclinations so don't bother.
aluisious 6 months ago
@aluisious sorry i cannot help you then. i'm a scientist. philosophy for me is a load of waffle. you are stuck with the same knowledge people had 100,000 years ago, but you are still musing over things like color, time and perception. we've figured it out decades ago :<
sinprelic 6 months ago
Comment removed
FingerMyFinger 6 months ago
@sinprelic so turning back time or stopping time isnt possible?
FingerMyFinger 6 months ago
@FingerMyFinger time is more intricate than tape, my friend. it's best you read some introductory papers on current knowledge in the general/special relativities. intriguing!
sinprelic 6 months ago
@sinprelic That's why this is PhilosophyFile, not sixtysymbols or nottinghamscience. In other words, your argument is not invalid, but simply irrelevant.
wreynolds1995 5 months ago
@wreynolds1995 please explain. if you are saying that my way of thinking about the problem is incorrect, then point me to it. i am known to hate philosophy (even though i studied it in college) but i am curious whether you think science does not belong within the realms of philosophy! philosophers have posed very interesting questions, but not answered a single one - in the long history of both eastern and western philosophy. im just trying to bring some scientific sanity into this waffle!
sinprelic 5 months ago
@sinprelic The science waffle is for the science channels, and the philosophy waffle is for the philosophy channels. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong by posting what you posted here and not elsewhere, it's just that what you essentially done is come onto a video about philosophy, which itself recognises the incongruousness of philosophy and theoretical physics, and tried to criticise the video using theoretical physics (proven or no). Seems a tad pointless, to me.
wreynolds1995 5 months ago
@wreynolds1995 why is it incongruous? science only adds to the knowledge and supposition base that we use to make arguments. philosophy should incorporate things that we know are true (or perhaps know that aren't true) and use these bits and pieces advantageously, not distance itself from them. you are telling me is that these are two separate domains!? remember, science is a philosophy in itself, but merely a philosophy that has utility and application. i think there is no incongruity here.
sinprelic 5 months ago
@sinprelic So wait, you said yourself that this is all "philosophical waffle" and that you're trying to add in some "scientific sanity", and yet you also say that science and philosophy are not at all ever incongruous? Do you even realise how you have contradicted yourself there? If the science is the sanity and the philosophy i just waffle, then of course the two are incongruous. Also, if philosophy builds on science, why is a view mentioned in this video that contradicts special relativity?
wreynolds1995 5 months ago
@wreynolds1995 you are trying too hard to argue for an argument's sake. yes, science is a subset of philosophy. it is however an identified subset, and clearly in the context i said it in, i identify it as its own field of study, quite different from that of the rhetoric and academics of philosophy (which it definitely is). you also misunderstood when i said that science builds on philosophy, *not the other way around*. you sound like you dropped science because of its academic requirements :-(
sinprelic 5 months ago
@sinprelic The numbers are sentence numbers, chronologically: 1) Evidence for this first sentence? 2) So what? You're ignoring my point about you contradicting yourself. 3) I didn't misunderstand at all, science may or may not build on philosophy. What you've misunderstood is that you're going to have to explain the significance of that. 4) I actually want to go into science, specifically physics.
wreynolds1995 5 months ago
@wreynolds1995 where is the problem? you obviously have not taken philosophy or science at college level. i wish you a nice start, because that is the greatest leap of understanding you will experience in your academia. perhaps you think science and physics cannot give us any input on time. perhaps you think this input can be freely ignored at any time "for the sake of rhetoric". but you have not changed anything: the fact remains that we know enough about 'time' to say YOU ARE WRONG.
sinprelic 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sinprelic I never said you were wrong. I said your argument was in fact NOT invalid, but simply irrelevant. Go back to my first comment, you'll see:
@sinprelic That's why this is PhilosophyFile, not sixtysymbols or nottinghamscience. In other words, your argument is not invalid, but simply irrelevant.
wreynolds1995 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sinprelic I never said you were wrong. I said your argument was in fact NOT invalid, but simply irrelevant. Go back to my first comment, you'll see:
"That's why this is PhilosophyFile, not sixtysymbols or nottinghamscience. In other words, your argument is not invalid, but simply irrelevant."
wreynolds1995 5 months ago
what about not having only a "point" in time, but in both in time and space? in that case there would not be such an contradiction with STR
juraj89 6 months ago
How about this: "If anything *can* exist it will exist - regardless of any point in time"
Maybe more along the lines of the philosophy of existence or perhaps just gibberish. It's a question I thought about for a while.
XonWechtvt 6 months ago
My Head Hurts.
luigi90900 6 months ago
That's pretty interesting! However, I was thinking during the whole video... What's the point of this man's job? What does he mean by "doing research"? Basically, what does he do? Just think and report about his thinking or what?
jerommeke69 6 months ago 2
There goes WLC's KCA causal argument down the drain. I'm glad this guy is intellectually honest by not omitting the incompatibility with special relativity.
We all knew that non-naturalistic philosophers can't distinguish reality from fantasy.
Too bad you didn't ask how the A-theory of time scaled up towards the quantum theories of time. Better ask a physicist next time about quantum theories of time.
AlainG80 6 months ago 10
I don't like A. Just a personal unreflected opinion :)
MewesK 6 months ago
I don't see the problem with The Truthmaker: If presentism says that only 'present' object exist, then why does it have to prove that dinasours existed in the PAST? There is no such thing as past in presentism... Thus is "Dinasaurs don't exist" actually a true statement if you are only refeering to the EXACT presence. Fossiles do exist, as we've discovered many of them, but in reality living dinasaurs aren't around anymore, therefor is the truthmaker not invalid.
Anyway, interesting discussion!
ZiqqiPH 6 months ago
There is no time. Time is a device invented by humans to help understand the world, like complex numbers. There is only kausality.
SebastianMisch 6 months ago
@SebastianMisch No, it's a real thing. Theory of relativity etc. (Which can be proven with satellites FYI)
DeoMachina 6 months ago
@DeoMachina
In the quantum theory of time, it is an illusion, created by the movement of matter i.e. photons. Without moving (anti)matter you can't build a clock.
scientificamerican/.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80
very interesting
tupaclives96 6 months ago
@DeoMachina what can be proven exactly? whtat did they measure? i believe its that the faster you move the shorter distances become. it's called length contraction. the second part of the puzzle is just the fact that if we "measure time" we actually measure distances. this is often explained with a thought experiment involving a clock that is driven by beams of light.
SebastianMisch 6 months ago
@SebastianMisch @sinprelic By measuring time at two different locations it can be shown that time flows faster in some places that it does others. And the speed of time is related to mass. So time flows faster on earth than it does in space.
DeoMachina 6 months ago
@DeoMachina oh please dont just repeat yourself, ignoring my comment - or just dont reply to me.
SebastianMisch 6 months ago
@SebastianMisch I'll try again I guess?
I'm saying that time is not simply "a device", this has been proven, and it was done by measuring time in different locations. I've answered all the questions you asked, what makes you think I ignored you?
DeoMachina 6 months ago
@DeoMachina first of all in physics you can never ever prove any theory. you can make experiments and find out that your theory correctly predicted your results but you cant prove the correctness of the whole theory. second of all yes i explained what time is and how it is measured. i found a paper for this satellite-thing and they indeed send beams of light along a long distance and measured relativistic effects. this can simply be explain by length contraction. just look it up on wikipedia.
SebastianMisch 6 months ago
I like philosophy very much. But sometimes, like in this case, it just seems like most problems are fundamentally unanswerable illusions of perception and interpretation. Which is cool and all ...but still. I have the feeling that for every counter-argument an answer could be contrived for any theory A,B presentism... I think any final answers (whatever that would mean for philosophy) like in this case should come from empirical science.
badblueman 6 months ago
Comment removed
badblueman 6 months ago
I don't understand the relativity destroying the "presentist" argument at all. So what, if "moving object" sees events happening at different times than the "static object".
We're not talking "time perception" defining time, we're talking about actual time defined by the changes in the universe... aren't we?
If you define "seeing" events at times A,B,C and how they relate as simply physical events...there are no problems with presentism.
Same with the truth-maker. Fossils make dinosaurs exist.
badblueman 6 months ago 2
@badblueman he didnt dive into at all but one of the real pillars if relativity is that there is no ACTUAL time reference frame, everything is "relative", so the discrepancies in perception are actually a fundamental property of nature.
charlielloydboyd 6 months ago 2
@badblueman
his argument is correct, although he did not describe the theory of relativity as well as he should have. the observer doesn't "SEE" the events occuring at separate times....they events actually do occur at separate times in that reference frame. the most important point in understanding the Theory of Relativity is that no single reference frame is correct - they all are. The events occur at the same time, and at the same time, they occur at different times.
tupaclives96 6 months ago
@tupaclives96 The other guy said the same as you. But it's hard to drop the presentist concept. I know, I presume, that time is only measurable as perceived change, but why could that not be just an illusion from the set laws of the universe. Why can't all the relativistic effects and different time frames be happening at a present time on some fundamental time frame. You don't have to remind me that this is an awfully religious-looking contrived answer...you don't have to take it seriously.
badblueman 6 months ago
@badblueman
you know, this is the exact argument that i kept coming up with as i was learning the TOR. I suppose you could choose a fundamental time frame, but you'd have to pick one arbitrarily. first thing that comes to mind is the time frame of empty space with one standing still. now thats all fine and dandy when it comes to the occurrence of "events" - u can argue that events actually occur at a present time based on some defined fundamental reference frame....(to be continued)
tupaclives96 6 months ago
@badblueman
...all other observations are skewed versions of reality. However its not just observations that are affected by relativity - its the actual passage of time. chemical reactions, biological cycles, and everything else you could possibly think of change with reference frame. if you could travel as fast as you wanted and end up at the same spot, you could outlive the earth and the sun. one year of your time could be millions of years in a fundamental time frame..(to be continued)
tupaclives96 6 months ago
@tupaclives96 Yeah, ok. I guess the problem I have is really simple.
A timeline goes from the past to the future and is made of a "present slice". If this is what time is represents, then an inability to pinpoint this present because of TOR, is not a defeater to presentism. Especially because we don't see time travel. Spaceships don't "visit" an actual future. They wait for it to come, no? :P
That is the crux of my problem. Nothing breaks through the present to prove a future or past exist.
badblueman 6 months ago
so the only way to keep the presentist argument alive would be by arguing that every reference frame passes through the same timeline at a different rate and as a different "point" on the timeline.
tupaclives96 6 months ago
@tupaclives96 A spaceship going crazy, going "at speed c" around the Earth won't travel into the future. It's present will be slow relatively to the present on the Earth, but that doesn't disprove the existence of the present. It just proves the existence of relativity; and an inability to actually break through this present moment, to actually stop existing IN the present, and go into a FUTURE present, is why I can't seem to drop my presentism.
If you see something wrong please criticize. Thy!
badblueman 6 months ago
If a star 60 light years away goes Supernova and I observe it today, I know the event of the Supernova happened 60 years ago even though the event of my observation happen today. They are 2 seperate events that represent the a single event. Event of cause and event of observation.
GideonHectorMcLean 6 months ago
Interesting, enjoyable and shareable! Thank you. Look forward to more.
zuxxzu 6 months ago
at the end of the game, why does time run so fast to a loosing team, and it goes so slow to a winning?
dovlaBass 6 months ago
Nice Jonathan!
edpayasugo 6 months ago
do you where a watch??? o brady your so funny!
eaturfeet653 6 months ago
I like the Growing Block Theory the best probably because it follows my intuition the closest and also there is nothing to say that the "block" can't distort to account for special relativity.
Alfalotter 6 months ago
This is exactly the kind of videos I want to see in this channel! Great job!
Dreeev 6 months ago
I hate people who make philosophical statements for a shock value. If you say "Dinosaurs don't exist" it means that you are expecting a negative feedback. If you had said "Dinosaurs did exist" or "Dinosaur bones do exist" instead, it would be much clearer. You really should be clear just to set things straight, to avoid misunderstandings.
pililibach 6 months ago
ask the doctor
Shloerful 6 months ago
Awesome video and with the authority as the first commenter I'd like to suggest a video on the philosophy of ethnicity and individuality.
TheHDreality 6 months ago