A New Theory of Time - Lee Smolin
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Is it possible that time is real, and that the laws of physics are not fixed? Lee Smolin, A C Grayling, Gillian Tett, and Bronwen Maddox explore the implications of such a profound re-think of the natural and social sciences, and consider how it might impact the way we think about surviving the future.
Listen to the podcast of the full event including audience Q&A: www.thersa.org/...
Follow the RSA on Twitter: / thersaorg
Like the RSA on Facebook: / thersaorg
Our events are made possible with the support of our Fellowship. Support us by donating or applying to become a Fellow.
Donate: www.thersa.org/...
Become a Fellow: www.thersa.org/...
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
I once knew a physicist that was working on the idea that time is our awareness of the expansion of space. He passed away before publishing anything. I didn't understand his explanations, but I remember him saying that Einsteins space time is incomplete. That in fact it's "expanding space time". Space and time are different sides of the same thing because space is expanding and creates "quantum holes" which must be filled. The holes being filled created by space expanding is what we feel as time because these "quantum holes" allow us to go from point A to point B in space, or some such craziness that I don't understand. I also remember him saying something about if space didn't expand we could not travel through it. It would be like a solid and there could be no motion, energy or time. He claimed to have the math, but it sounds crazy to me.
Sounds crazy to me also. Maybe you're not explaining it correct.
You're describing what I was thinking about last week almost exactly, while considering the relationship between the expansion of space and the speed of light. The idea might be a waste of time, but I was surprised to see someone else write about it so soon after it just kind of came to me as a curious revelation.
Interesting!
Good point, it got me thinking. I wonder if those "quantum holes" are some how linked to the Laws of Thermodynamics, in respect of entropy which is another way of looking at time. It is interesting that one of the problems of physics in general, was to satisfactorily unify the laws - Unified Field Theory, as Relativity is a concept of the "very big" compared to Quantum Mechanics of the "very small". It is sad that the physicist you knew passed away. He might have been onto something.
I really respect Lee Smolin, he's one of the most unique and insightful minds in theoretical and philosophical physics.
"paradigm shift in cosmology"..... the entertwining of politics/social theory and physics strikes me as one of the most dangerous notions possible.
The term 'paradigm shift' originated in reference to philosophy by Kuhn. In this case Smolin seems to be using that context of the word rather than the political sense.
Exactly. Especially given the advent of AI and Nanotechnology.
Robin Blankenship
Yes. I sense a terrified fellow seeking power through social engineering.
I don’t perceive science here, but rather social engineering.
ruclips.net/video/0JQ1ITqLbKE/видео.html (please watch this)
my favourite thing in the world is to smoke a spliff and watcvh a lee smolin video. Mind=blown. Man.
It took me two hours to sit through this 24 minute video.
Channel your mind so it won't be boring but rather interesting
You're lucky. I fell asleep for 3 hours and it was still running!
😭😭😭
It felt Lee has touched on what is newly emerging as - The Arrow of Energy:
"No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all energy systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future."
Dr. Smolin, like a symphony conductor, disciplines his orchestra of ideas to a cresendo but he forgot his conductor baton and he should have one to occupy his left hand. Regardless, his revelation is music to my ears. The symphony remains unfinished but with agency and novelty we face the danger and opportunity of today's red flag world with a modicum of encouragement. The future is not fixed, we have agency, creativity and force. We find courage in Dr. Smolin's resolve that we have agency over the emergent future, we can impact experience, one person makes a difference. Timeless truth mutates and reverses into the truth of evolution in time. It may be an evolving pattern set of fractal developments expanding previous patterns and rolling out constant variation in an expanding and changing reality. My intuition is that even our precious self is a process, a changing, moving fountain of waves, continually transcending past structure. Thank you Dr. Smolin!
His left hand is fully occupied painting pictures.
@@desdoyle7839 Ah yes, more visual than sonic. Good call!
And very annoying.
How much we want something to be true has no bearing on whether it actually is true.
Do you want that to be true?
@@malcolmdean2303 lol - very clever !
But ‘truth’ is ellusive. e.g. Consider the statement ‘the fastest kangaroo in australia yesterday hopped exactly 20.17 m/s.’ This is either ‘true’ or ‘false’. but you can never prove which. In such cases (MOST CASES) any assumption one makes about the truth of a statement has tremendous social context.
I have no idea what relevance this has. Consider the statement "I will be a friendly person". If I want it to be true, it is much more likely to be true than if I want to be unfriendly. I want to be the first person to make nonstop flight across the Atlantic. Darn, you Charles Lindbergh.
@@jameseames4754 You can find the meaning of "is" in any dictionary.
Long ago I read some thing like this in a Sc Am article "Can Time Go Backwards": Time goes on you say, oh no! Time stays on, we go!!
My view is that there are two types of time. 1. Periodic (clock)time which has at its base a circular argument which cannot be usefully extrapolated on beyond a certain technological point and is a social construct. 2. "Lived time" which encapsulates aging, memory, and history, which animals experience too. Other than that there is the present and a succession of the present. My present is someone else's history (maybe), Seemingly cosmology which contains any assumptions is merely the extrapolation on the effects of radiation encountering reflective surfaces.
What I find refreshing about this new theory is it offers hope. The current mainstream model, that everything already exists ultimately leads to the absurd notion that everything is already fixed in place, which philosophically is fatalism. Fatalism really has no place for God or free will. The universe is living. Quantum mechanics shows us this. Bravo!
I see time as a sequence of states that make it appear to our minds as time.
...and that is why rewinding of time is not possible.
If motion is frozen(all vectors of forces still in force) then 'time' also freezes.
Thus time is a perception not an entity. Time is absolute.
but he says moment to moment!?
I have not read the book, but what I understood from this short introduction is not that Truths are transient, but rather that Truth evolves (i.e., grows) in the presence of time. An example is the idea that the laws of Newtonian physics are eternally true, yet the passage of time has revealed a contradictory set of atomic Truths - which are also eternal. More simply, in a relativistic universe a thing may at the same time be both infinitely large AND infinitely small, depending on your measuring reference. The passage of time reveals new measuring references - and therefore there can be no timeless truths.
The thuth about nature hasnt evolved but rather has our understanding of it as we (Einstein) found a model that would give more precise predictions and descriptions of the universe.
I believe this theory adresses the fabric of time and Reality itself by saying the concept of truth which exist within reality can only exist now because only now is reality
If the laws of nature are evolving, as he postulates, then what becomes of the truism that physical laws must hold true everywhere in the universe? Because of physical laws evolve, they might evolve at different paces, in which case, they wouldn't hold true everywhere. This question is in no way a criticism of Mr. Smolen's ideas. I find his ideas compelling, and I've read his work. I'm just curious what it would mean if he's correct.
Here's a homework assignment for Bob Greene: (1) Determine where in the Galaxy our planet was 15 years ago, relative to its position at present; (2) point SETI equipment in that direction; and (3) listen for radio transmissions dating from Dec. 31, 1999 or thenabouts. If he receives such and verifies them as such, he might build a strong case for his belief that each moment in time exists eternally within Spacetime.
Elementary particles can move from A to B and immediately back to position A without violating the laws of physics. The problem is, at the macro level, the probability that all the extremely huge number of particles will move back to A at the same time is basically 0. Hence time only moves forward for us.
that explains why we don't see things "rewinding" or going backwards in time on the macro level, but it doesn't necessarily explain why we live or experience things moment-to-moment, which is the problem he was trying to tackle. if relativity proposes that time and space act as part of one continuum in the natural world, how come we are able to differentiate our "present" self from our past? why is it that we experience time as a narrative flow of events instead of existing as a simultaneous amalgamation of past, present, and future? how are we able to differentiate now from before? most people are content to say that we are physically constrained to view reality in this way, but he obviously wanted to peer deeper and have a fundamental understanding as to WHAT makes us view reality moment to moment.
I listened to this about 3 months ago and I got lost and abandoned it; here I am again and I just got the central tenant of his proposition which is around 12:35 in the video. For a lay-person that is very satisfying to grasp; mathematics is not sufficient in modelling reality and therefore has to make concessions one of which is that time, in the human-experience-sense is a fallacy. What makes this proposition even more interesting is the propensity for humans for: Dogma, and acceptance of Approximations or indeed complete exclusion, to make theories fit et. al.
Extraordinary lecture. He has nailed several concepts that indicate we are in an evolving universe. Time does appear to one of the few fundamentals. Consciousness is also a fundamental. Superb intellect.
I like how the other guy summarized it all at the end for us laymen
Whether predetermined or not, the future is only available to us when it is in the past.
Thank you - very helpful comment (5 years ago) I am just future past
@@220Phil In a way, yes. The problem, though, is the implication that the future happened. Since we never get to the future, it can’t be our past. It is the potential future that became our past.
My time theory of matter is an attempt at a deeper description of nature by thinking of an elementary particle not as a little point or a little loop of vibrating string but as a moment in time fluctuating at its ultimate extreme levels.
Khalid Masood
The idea is that time is a construct of our consciousness should not be avoided because of fear. The idea has great implications yes but none that would affect us in our experience of our physical world because it exists for us in this existence and has great implications for us regardless of if time is just a limitation/ability of our consciousness. Our world and universe is ours regardless of if it has any implications for anyone else.
Concepts can, at best, create an imperfect mirror of experience.
The comforting concepts of entity and agency have been traditionally used to create man's conceptual universe. Since the symbol is not "that for which it stands", it is the usefulness of the pattern created by the concepts that matters more than the so-called objective truth of a concept. The relative merits of these patterns can be assessed by science. The Buddhists are right in that the only way to apprehend reality directly is "without thought-coverings" (without concepts).
Brilliant! This is called living in the Moment or "CIRCULAR TIME is the First Nations" way. Finally science is getting it! Enjoyed this and to those who are critical of the presenter, "you missed the point,". m
time is the presence of the sun...the absence then return..it shows.this is the morning...it leaves...this is the night...it returns...this is the morning. the sun moves in one direction...therefore...time moves in one direction
The sun is the original hour hand.
You can measure time by rate of decay or entropy. The earth spinning around the sun is a measure of the force of gravity in a vacuum.
Exactly. I would add that time is real, immutable and unidirectional, a fundamental discreet element of natural law, buttressed by observable irreversible biological processes and measurable through observance of repetitive motions of objects in the universe, chemical processes, electrical reactance & capacitive decay etc. A guiding principle of logic: one cannot measure something (with repeatable, recordable, empirical demonstrable cross-referenceable results) and then turn around and claim that it does not exist. ⏳
Don’t confuse the concept of ‘no time’ with the concept of ‘no change’. The first requires one to replace ‘t’ in all physics with relations between the other variables ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’, ‘g’, ‘E’ etc etc. The same outcomes can result.
Our understanding of physics as timeless resides in the brains of temporal human beings. Its the ancient misguided argument concerning determination--that if its all determined then I don't have to do anything. Well, try that and see how it goes.
There's a paradox in Lee Smolin's thinking: if the laws are subject to change and there's no law that is timeless then this law is subject to change too. In other words the law that laws are not timeless should not be timeless too. And that means that the law that laws are not timeless may be timeless which is contradiction.
Oners82 Bankowa Okupacja It seems to me that Lee is proposing a sort of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for physics. Here's a wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
Oners82 I'm using deductive reasoning to claim that inductive reasoning in our universe is either incomplete or inconsistent. If we want to believe that our system of physics is consistent, then well, our laws must be incomplete. Even if we observe a new phenomena of our universe, there will always be potentially more unexpected phenomena.
Are the laws (axioms) of our universe such that it can describe the natural numbers? If yes, is it consistent? If yes, then the laws are incomplete.
Roger Penrose proves Godel is the basis of the asymmetric time since the Big Bang - entropy on Earth from current science based on symmetric math is inverse to the expansion of the universe we observe.
The Law is noncommutative phase as the 5th dimension - so this is well understood in quantum relativity as astrophysicist Paul S. Wesson writes about on de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony. So the noncommutative phase is maintained as quantum entanglement and has phonon energy as spin 1/2 that is noncommutative time-frequency resonance.
Time discovers Truth. You are a "path" of time brought into being from out of the universe. Specifically, you are only able to have your being on the surface of Earth. Have you found the universe within you? By the way, the TRUTH, THE WAY and the Light have been established, yet many do not see the obvious.
Might the "now" moment be how decoherence is expressed in the time dimension of space-time? So, in space we experience solid matter (as opposed to the wave it emerged from) and in time we experience the "now". The implication would be that time is emergent from mass, not fundamental. Also, the arrow of time would therefore be the result of our continuously expanding universe, which in turn "stretches" all matter, which in turn generates a continuous flow of new "now" moments. Another implication of this way of thinking is that entropy is the result of our expanding universe.
He's up there yappin' - they're down there clappin'; Its all about presenting a "rock and roll- bums in seats" speculative entertainment performance package.
there are copies proves this, when I contacted many that time they had no reply, but lately became the owners of all these!
I couldn't stop watching his hand displaying audio spikes
The answer to the question " is there time when there is no activity?" will answer this question. Since we measure time by activity, time just a relative measure of one activity over the other. SO TIME DOES NOT EXIST.
Very important and challenging questions. I don't have an opinion about his claims, but it's certainly fascinating.
Every observation shows that laws and universal constants are constants across time and space.
Time is the measure of the difference from one awareness state to the next one , all things have been but we get concious about them by the time measure
Time t², ψ², c², e² and velocity Eₖ=½mv² geometrical similarity formed out of spherical symmetry
I recently viewed Brian Greene's B-Theory of Time. In it, he claims that time does not flow moment by moment from the future through the present and into the past, but that each moment eternally exists in the universe around us as does space. For instance, a particular one occurring on the night of December 31, 1999. Now my question is this: If this is true, doesn't the audience think we could use an observatory computer to calculate the exact coordinates in the Milky Way of the Earth on a given moment on that date, and venture there, and thereafter revisit it? Of course. But in reality, when we get there, it's not there. Why not? We arrived at the planet's correct spatial coordinates--but not its right TEMPORAL coordinates! To do so, we need to GO BACK IN TIME to that desired moment. That proves the moment we desire to relive resides in the PAST. In conclusion, what we must do from this time forward is no longer philosophize that the flow of time is an illusion, but search with devices like the LHC at CERN for a particle whose function constitutes the physical basis for time.
Clearly, you do not understand the B-Theory.
Could the mathematics of quantum mechanics represent the physics of ‘time’ as a geometrical process with classical physics representing processes over a period of time as in Newton’s differential equations? What we see and feel as ‘time’ is formed by the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy. In such a theory we would have an emergent future unfolding with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment. The wave-particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with! We are always in ‘the moment of now’ in the centre of our own reference frame as an interactive part of this process!
I enjoyed reading your book "A Time Reborn"
I think some here don't understand the value in this new way to think about time. We haven't made very many leaps in physics. Maybe the problem is that we're looking at it from the wrong angle. You don't have to play around with the thought experiment as if it were true. I recommend exploring the idea like you were exploring a new philosophy.
Time is the measurement of whatever sequential changes are occurring in the present. Smolin is saying in effect that everything evolves to change the present.
It's clear that there is some natural progression to the universe, which is the thing we're tempted to call time, but think of it by analogy with an ordered set: there is an infinite set composed of elements (states of the universe) whereby there is a self-referential relation (evolving) among elements. Timeless or temporal is a matter of perspective (the set as a whole vs. from an element of the set)
Good tip. I'll be doing this in the future.
A new theory of time = a new perspective of time(and one of countless perspective)
He mentioned Leibniz and Newton, but he could/should have mentioned Kant. Time and space are a priori categories of the mind: They are "in here," not "out there." Kant writes, e.g, "Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally" (Ak 2: 403).
It isn't vague...he's talking about a meta-framework with which to conceptualize and test physical theory. 'Time Reborn' is a nontechnical popular science book meant to engage the public at large and any academics who may be interested in Smolin's work. He has stated that a more technical treatment of the subject matter is forthcoming in a book set to be released next year. Check out his 'The Trouble with Physics' before reading his latest...
I have a late breaking question. Isn't 'time' just another word or idea for change. Everything is always changing - an electron spins, a cell duplicates, the world turns. So, we perceive this process of ever changing change as linear and measurable with the concept of time. Since I began to write this, everything in the universe has changed, so there is a state that's before, now and after - but not a time for this or a time for that. I'M SURE NO ONE IS STILL LISTENING.
What if time no longer exist or we eliminate the notion of time in space.
Would that help us cross over large portion of space in the universe ?
We currently have time because we die through aging,if we no longer age wouldn`t time become meaningless therefor no longer exist ?
Fundamentally we are all matter,we travel,transform but we do not stop existing .So, no mater what ,we do not die completely we just become something beyond our control and so time doesn`t effect us as we normally look at it .
The notion that everything comes to an end is not real but everything is transformed and reused eventually .
Interesting that Smolin called his argument for Type 2 Naturalism a scientific one, but justified it on the emotional grounds that it would change our attitudes to everyday and long term events, and give us a morale boost.
As for the economic impacts, I don't see the relevance. It's been clear for some time that activity in the market can change the way the market behaves, and that a major mistake economists made was in treating people as rational actors. In that sense, economics got there first...
"Laws of nature evolving" see Rupert Sheldrake, already had this idea, Nature is habitual, not law like
Yes yes! "we all need to learn from each other"
Bayes theorem would be a quite satisfactory point to point out that there are some mathematics at least [and therefore mathematics itself] has the tools to depict time. Apart from this, this guy seems to be on the right track...
the present something that prevents the past and future from flying apart (quote one) or the present is something that prevents the past and future from coming apart at the seems (quote two)
I know for sure what was just before the big bang: "..and now Please welcome.. THE BIG BANG!!!"
I really cant understand his point. Maybe if he described one of the testable hypothesies it would have been a focal point to concretely describe wtf hes talking about. Real shame no-one (neither speaker nor panel) spelled out any details of said experiments.
Hell, id have settled for a thought experiment, starving for context here...
It triggers me when people use that Einstein quote "past, present and future are a persistent illusion." to support the bizarre claim that time itself is an illusion and that Einstein said so.
The only thing meant by that is with respect to the remarkably small differential in speeds we experience, there by placing all of us within the same frame of reference by common measures / perceptions with respect to past, present and future.
He WAS NOT saying that past, present and future are actually illusions themselves, but that the idea them being invariant is an "illusion", and add nothing physically in the "playing out" of causation.
Only sentiment beings have concern of compared measures, physics itself not so much :/
Note also this quote of his is from a letter of condolence he wrote regarding the passing of someone.
It seems that there is no way in which anyone could prove or even beggin to explain how time could be real (if you have some links except this video above i am interested), same with free will. It is bizarre, but it is what it is.. The burden of proof is on believers, always.. even though it is pointless to talk about time and free will not existing, obviously, same with the illusion of self.
me too, when actually time is the realest thing we experience, more real than space.
1GTX1 , our time is unique to Earth. only matters, in its structured frailty, to be as it is here (can't touch it, change it, reverse it, it just is).
Some links that explain how time is real?? smh.....imo the proof is around Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein & Minkowski all had significant contributions to "hammering out" the concept of time.
Uncertain future - nature solved this problem very elegant. Nature maintains highest possible diversity at any given time. This ensures, regardless what the future holds, that existence continues. Unless we adapt this highest principle for our civilization - it's only a matter of time when we'll extinct.
the people at the table seem to hate him? I like him and know his work is crazy..
Everybody talks about Plato but nobody does anything to find out what he turly is about. Plato actually has a position closer to Smolin than the one Grayling states that Plato has. Plato writes dialogues. He doesn't write treatises. When Plato brings in the thoughts and even the characters when appropriate of Heraclitus, Pythagoras, and Parmenides into the form of his dialogue, he again and again comes to points where two of these "opposing" pointviews has no winner. Plato believes in the timeless but he also believes in time as does Smolin. He wouldn't be so focused on how learning and growth takes place in the dialectic process if he didn't. These three speakers in the video could well be part of a fragment of a Platonic dialogue. Schopenhauer told students don't let your teachers read your Kant for you. Similarly, don't let others read your Plato for you.
rossharmonics grayling is referring specifically to positions on mathematical realism that are self-described as neo-platonist or platonist, he is not attributing anything to the texts we call Plato
rossharmonics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Platonism
***** Unfortunately, he does not clarity this. This type of sloppy labeling that seems to have become more common among scholars tends to mislead those who depend on secondary sources and perfer to be misled rather than think.
this is a short talk, not his entire project. no scholar has the ability to establish every bit of context every time they discuss or present their ideas, and they don't need to because they are often speaking to an audience who shares that context, like the philosophers and scientists on the panel in the video. it's not sloppy labeling, or based on second hand sources, he's referring to specific groups of people with whom he is personally engaged in scientific and philosophical discourse.
***** In his Mathematics of Plato's Academy, the late David Fowler talks about the increasing almost Orwellian misrepresentation about Greek mathematical thought among scholars since he first began research in this area. Scholars nowadays often learn to talk beyond what they actually know well in an attempt to seem more authoritative. What makes this disturbing is that misrepresentations spread. I can hardly read Rorarty because he drops names of philosophers left and right but never says anything of interest. I have a completely different experience reading Gadamer. He considers every detail with great care. I also feel this way about Riceour. I never feel that they try to sell a bill of goods but that is exactly how I felt listening to this. The scholars who open my eyes about other philosophers are a special and rare breed and not the majority who enter that field. Someone who knows Plato deeply would never have made the remark on this video.
Hmmm...this is not really any sort of "A New Theory of time" but, is just some meandering thoughts about what may or may not be some sort of generalizations of events as they occur as the flow of time progresses.
His argument seems to be "I don't like the implications of physics", scientists should go away and remake reality till I'm happy with it. To paraphrase a great physicist "the universe doesn't require that you like it"
that's because you haven't listened to him. he has very precise arguments.
Time is not 'real' may mean/imply it is complex, as Einstein realized.
Perhaps its complex nature gives it a fractal nature.
Based on this very brief summary of the book, I take it the proposition put forth is that we must not believe in causal determinism because that will induce hopelessness and inaction regarding the ecological future of the planet. First, a type of relativism seems to be proposed: the physical laws are not timeless, but only valid for a given time (span) and place. This contains the same fallacy as any other relativist position, namely, if there are no absolute laws, then "There are no absolute laws," is not an absolute law either. More importantly, a belief in determinism does not cause a person to stop functioning the way anyone else functions. One does not become will-paralyzed upon adopting belief in determinism. But if we assume the laws of physics will not hold, then how exactly do we plan our strategies and actions to bring about a desired end? If we assume impermanent laws, that would seem to induce the greater feeling of hopelessness and inability to cope. Further, though an academician may be a determinist (Naturalist 1), he will be aware of the problem of induction ("grue" and "bleen") which will prevent him from acting as though he knows absolute laws. I think the basic flaws here are the suggestion that a determinist view of the universe prevents exercise of will, and the failure to recognize that belief in determinism is tempered, as it were, by a good healthy sense of doubt about whether it is true and if so, what its implications are for the individual and collective mind. I also think that lack of action for the environment is based on a too-great faith in science, which is seen as a force so powerful that it will be a sort of deus ex machina which will step in and save the day regardless what we do in the present.
I haven't watched the whole video yet, but my first impression is that it is dangerous to include human social needs into the basis for physical theorizing. Who says the universe cares about human social needs. Anyway, I don't see the need to consider time as real in any absolute sense in order to understand that from the human perspective and in terms of solving human problems it IS real. I'm neither a physicist nor a philosopher, except of the armchair variety, but I solve a lot of these kinds of problems in my own mind with "dual aspect" thinking. Sure, if I were "God", then I could look at the universe as an eternally existing four dimensional space-time block, which of perhaps eliminates the need for me as Creator, but I'm not God. I am stuck here inside the space-time block universe and for all intents and purpose, time is real, only the present exist, the past no longer exists except in terms of the effects past event have in the present, and the future does not yet exist, and hence I need to consider the consequences of my actions to whatever extent I can anticipate them. Where's the problem?
+Tom Paine Hi. He doesn't include human social needs into basis for physical theorizing. He makes an analogy between thinking time as being real both in physics and social sciences, but he doesn't mix the areas. That's very well explain in the book, but I think here, because of the short amount of time of the talk, he summarize too much the information and that leads to confusion.
Maybe you ARE God. Have you considered that? Maybe no one else exists except for you. That would make me a figment of your imagination.
@@imjustpassinthru7779 You're telling me?
Nature has no laws. We humans are just good at recognizing patterns.
Hard fact, we have no idea what time is, all we know is that we are subject to it.
By "time" you mean the flow of time? Because that would be true, that's kinda the whole point with the new models and ideas for experimentation.
can one say that time is entropy?
I would answer yes because I certainly say that on a relatively regular basis. But that doesn't explain either the flow of time or the "illusion" that time has flow, which is why it needs to be clear what we're talking about when we use the word since that's what most people who deny "the reality of time" are really referring to
the problem is there is no evidence of time in physics and laws of nature like electromagnetics, gravity, but obviously there is plenty of it in nature.
Time seems to be the movement through space.
I have a simple explanation.
Quantum level processes are reversible and linear. When process breaks symmetry it becomes irreversible and becomes the relativistic realm where process is non-linear. This is why time is a vector going in one direction.
Can anyone who's read the book tell me if this just completely subverts his previous claims that time (and space) are emergent properties of a fundamental theory that takes neither as dependents?
I'm not sure what he means by real. Has he just done a complete 180? Or is this still consistent with loop theory and junk?
1+1=2 is an abstract concept we use to categorize our experiences.
Everyone complaining about Lee, read his book, the trouble with physics. It’s a great read trying to unite physics rather than concentrating on one field like string theory. He suggests some amazing ideas and is one of the best physics books I’ve read for the layman. Unless you could hold a conversation with him, show the guy some respect.
O=Outcome
E= Experience
R= Response
Over the course of this cognitive equation that has no begging or end and can be self repeating in the fractal nature of reality.
[O=E+R]=Belief
for the correct, yes I said correct, scientific & philosophical understanding of time (which has a precisely reciprocal relationship to space - that is, time is 3 dimensional) please see any number of works by Dewey Larson P.hd. His "Structure of the Physical Universe" is a classic volume.
I lol'ed at this. There is no hope for modern physics. :(
The most intelligent statement made on and in this video.
Such blatant garbage, makes me sick to think they get away with this bullshit.
@@undernetjack Way to keep an open mind! lol You must be a dirty liberal.
@@tonyjackson4099 I see how you may be confused, my comment in this thread was after a rather lengthy diatribe I posted in the main comments section, so this comment here is out of context. If you care to read that other one , you will see that your conclusion is wrong, but, based on the one liner I posted here, I see your point. No, I am not affiliated with any political leaning. Truth in science, common sense, yes, paid research leading to political propaganda, not so much. Climate science is more like a religious dogma than science these days. If you do not point to man as being the only cause for climate change, then you cannot get published nor funded, so it is hard to blame them for trying to make a living, however they must be held accountable, as they harm the public trust, just like bad cops and crooked politicians. If you want a more complete answer about why and how climate science went so wrong, try the Suspicious Observers channel. They go to great lengths to hold scientists accountable for publishing truth over fiction. Yes, I get the mainstream agenda, pollution=Bad. However, we are not even a close second to the real driver of natural events on this world. The sun has a trillion times more to do with it, and climate science refuses to include any of its influence in their models. It's like doing research on oceanic conditions and ignoring the salt content.... The real reason they don't look at the sun is a genuine conspiracy theory proven as true crime. Very sad, and very nefarious. For example, what did the astronauts go to the Moon to look for? Geologic evidence of the Sun misbehaving. They found more than they bargained for. Glass rocks and spherules with fission tracks, transuranic elements, etc., all leading to the conclusion that we are toast. Do you think they want Anyone looking at the Sun? No, because then we would panic, and that would hamper their plans. Building deep underground , interconnected shelters and stockpiling them, and so on. They do not want to lose control if the truth gets out. Every 10-12,000 years, the Sun goes boom and we get a reset that makes what they are calling " the great reset" look like a pimple in the whole of a human's life cycle. You can stick your head in the sand, write me off as a nutcase, ignore me, or go looking to verify what I have said. I warn you though, the truth is far worse than the little I have hinted at here, and you may just want to take the blue pill on this one, Neo... good luck fellow human.
Changing time as in cause and effect and timelessness as in mathematics are opposites united to complete reality.
Definitely i prefer, widely, the Julian Barbour idea of time. This is not a paradigm change, he is using time concept exactly in the way that Newton does: as an absolute framework, Julian Barbour already talked about how Leibniz attack this topic. And the concept of time as an illusion means that scientist are confusing the nature of time with the perception of time, that is a psychology issue more than a phisics issue.
The idea of the "evolution" of nature laws is very interesting.
better to read his books..great writer, interesting thinker
The core is harmonic regularity, the outer darkness, random noise, we are in the space between them, every engine takes advantage of a difference. These two extreems are woven into each other, the eternal now is the processing of meaning.
To so test Greene's time theory, first determine the "direction" the Milky Way rotates by sending a robotic exploration ship an appreciable distance beyond the galactic edge and observe it for a sufficient length of time. (Another way is to see which way it turns relative to a set of fixed reference points outside it--other galaxies--over time.) Secondly, find Earth's position within the Galaxy. (All we have now are artist conceptions.) Third, calculate where in it Earth, relative to its present location, Earth was at Time d (the date you desire to revisit). Fourth, in order to obtain the vast resolution needed to see Earth as it was at Time d, construct a radio or other telescope whose effective composite diameter was that of, say, Earth's orbit--by positioning the t-scopes equidistantly from each other within that orbit. Fifthly, aim at the position in Spacetime the planet wads at Time d--and start recording.
#Gerard van Reekum Smolin's use of the word "universe" there is a question of definition - he is defining "the universe" as "the one thing that cannot be caused by or explained by something external to it". This may or may not coincide with what others call "the universe", but he has defined his use of it, and it is not a definition unique to himself, in fact it goes back at least to Spinoza.
If you reject determinism then that implies that events happen without a full set of causal antecedents. AKA magic. So whilst it may be that future states of the universe are not implicit in it's past states, some explanation is needed as to how that might be feasible.
As of now the lead theory is probability wave collapse based on decoherence leading to a mostly deterministic world.
More decoherence is the more determinism. But determinism is not and cannot ever be ontologically certain (because of godel and well the probabilistic nature of waveform collapse).
Rather, it is an idea (or illusion if you fancy the word) that we have faith in because it works very well and makes sense in most cases.
In-finite Possibilities... all at the same Time and... at the instantaneous Speed of Time.... The power of Change as the Magical 010 Timing phenomenon.
Random events do not equal pink elephants suddenly appearing out of nowhere. Our belief in causality is based entirely on induction by enumeration, and if random events only happen to fundamental particles then we would have a sample size of 0 observations to base it on. It could be as simple as a particle moving slightly differently than it otherwise would. Particles suddenly moving for no causal reason sounds like a pretty good description of the big bang to me. If 4-dimensional entropy does exist at the sub-atomic level then causality would become an emergent property of the universe, but because we are not sub-atomic and we go through time relatively linearly (which they would have no reason to) we may never actually see a random event happen. I'm going to have to grab Smolin's book to see the ideas for experimentation though because I always figured the flaw with this model is that without access to backwards time travel it'd be impossible to test.
(and the idea that we can't be certain of causality dates even further back to Hume, it's just not important in situations where we have a decent sample size of observations to work with, but particle physics is not one of those situations)
Its time for the rebirth of common sense.
francesco tammaro so then what is "common sense"?
common sense is a relative term that uses past occurrences that could be predicted for the current situation.
francesco tammaro how can something be common sense and relative? wouldn't relativity denote a conditional predication in experience? The objectivity that a term like "common sense" attempts to insinuate belighs your inference friend.
Alpha Omega My opinion Relativity does not use good sense and sound judgment . The spinning of the Earth is not relative to the motion of the Sun.
Obe of Einstein's quote, 'I never used rational thinking for any of my discoveries' clearly stares no common sense is being applied. Now we are stuck with Imagination because of the lack of common sense being applied.
Maybe time is simply a sequence of system interactions. The systems may be somewhat predictable, but the interactions are not.
The more theories everyone has, the more likely one will be right. My theory is that we are not just connected to everything but in fact, for a very short period of our perception of time, from miniscule moment to miniscule moment, we are everything.
I base this is on my intuative perception of the uncertainty principle and quantum entanglement.If you combine all the information of the Universe or Multiverse in a random but static form and allow information states to combine in an infinite number of ways you get a form of information that is YOU.You also get a rock, a star and a Galaxy, all of which form an information position that changes and we interpret the change in these positions as a flow of time. How can this be ? If I'm me, how can I also be the flower I'm looking at. We know particles have a spin connection where distance is unlimited (Einstein called spooky action) and we know particles can be in more than one place at once at the quantum level but this is not apparent at the macro level. I believe entanglement does indeed happen at the level of general relativity but we simply cannot percieve it with our brains.Another way to explain this difficult concept is to imagine our Universe is a hologram, a theory that is also gaining scientific acceptance. If you peer at a certain angle through the hologram you see a fish, move your sight ever so slightly and you see Earth, move your line of site a bit further and you see you. Now consider you are the information that forms the vision This also explains why we feel at one with the ocean and beach as we walk along the shore. I think it is also a driver to the common feeling of spirituality.
I break insurmountable ideas into the smallest possible form. Time is nothing more than a measurement, a yardstick measuring distance to me. Math is the same and involved in both, as well as itself. We invented all of those out of convenience. I believe that fundamentally this is the best we can do until we either evolve further, or come into contact with a species that already has transcended that barrier.
Hey, you Aspie! You are awesome. And it's me too! But even if it wasn't, you're still amazing and wonderful. Let 's be Aspies together! ☺️
Time is a compact dimension. There are not some possible closed timeline loops. Time is a closed timeline loop. We move from past onto the cusp of the future only to constantly have the carpet pulled out from beneath our feet and here we are in the present again. Time is a eternal 5.34 x 10^-44 seconds long.
Yes - what he says is wrong. The plank lenght is a scale which is so small that you cant measure it. The uncertainty principle would make it impossible to mease it as far as we know. But nowhere does it say that the plank lenght is the smalest lenght there is. Electrons for example have a 10^-20 times smaller gravitational length then the plank length.
many concepts changed only lately like time concept, self-concept...
you can check, no one talked about this before 1996 actually even before 2007,
this is provable of course.
many old men became smart suddenlly!
To make the claim that 1+1=2 is a member of an "infinite class of timeless things" seems to me to presume that there are in fact, 2 identical things and, there is some process, other than finite cognition thought that would add these things. Although we discover relationships in the world, there's no necessity that precludes or excludes perception. I suppose this might be restated as an anthropic principle. The point I'm making is that identity is a construct.
Time is a measure of progress. Time has wave properties. The wave properties of time is evident by the quanta of photons due to interference and pervasive in nature. Temperature has a direct affect on how things progress through time.
There is a profound difference between "being entertaining" and "being NOT painful to hear."
Watch the video at 1.5x speed and the problem is solved.
I want to know if the line I see has been put there--not by me-- in my last posting represents an underline--denoting emphasis as if to express interest in what I therein proposed--or a lineout--denoting disapproval.
It is counter intuitive, often it is used to denote something of value but to deny as sort of a quip. Springing a proposal that is either obvious or peculiar.
Truth is timeless.
How on earth do these guys make a really interesting subject into something so drab
Thank to Canda to give position and confidence to some US useless scientists that are discarded
Are you 5 years old? Go watch a cartoon
@@looseunit9180
Hey emptyhead
If I find a presentation boring ,uninspiring and it actually turns me of a subject that I love, I’m going to express that fact , unfortunately five year olds can’t tell us they are bored when they encounter a bad teacher , but I can , as for idiots like you who don’t seem to recognise mediocracy when it’s in the your face , maybe it’s you who should be watching cartoons
It's a good thing that this is testable, and as far as we can see the laws are constant. And we can see a loooong way back.
Time is a human construct which has been determined by the our unique position in the universe. Day/Night, phases of the moon, the seasons, tides, growth, etc. Outside of our world Time does Not Exist. Only Change. So Time is Change!
I see a lot of folks here giving grief to Smolin for his ideas, to those of you I say this - read his books. His public speaking is a 5, but his writing is a 10. I havent yet read his latest book, but "the trouble with physics", and his postulate of cosmic natural selection through black hole formation are some of the most brilliant and original musings on theoretical physics you will find anywhere.
There is no circular reasoning in anything this man comes up with. Everything he promotes makes firm predictions, follows irrefutable logic, and most importantly, is 100% falsifiable.
He gets shunned as a charlatan by some string thoerists, as if he were insulting their religion, when all he has done is correctly assert that strong theory is unfalsifiable, messy, and hasnt produced any new breakthroughs on its own merit, for the past 25 years, despite having garnered the vast majority of grants, doctorates, and public attention during that time.
I understand that string theory is beautiful, but so was the copernican sacred geometry, and all that did was suck in great minds for a hundred years until it was finally proven to be false.
String thoery shouldnt be abandoned, nobody is saying that, but we've hit the limit of what good we can draw from it, which is essentially nothing but self assured circular math. Its time to stop ignoring other promising theories in favor of what essentially amounts to scientific dogma.
There are huge problems with our best theories right now. Quantum mechanics is brilliant, but messy, and doesnt account for time or gravity, and relativity is also brilliant, but has holes. Its predictions on the grandest scales, requiring the addition of exotic and invisible "dark" matter and energy to fit your observations with our math. Math which also breaks down into incomprehensible infinities at quantum scales.
Im not sure many will make this connection, but in his opening, Smolin noted that expanding a fixed frame model into the infinity of the universe is a methid that has been proven unreliable.
Like string theorists of today, newtons math works well on small scales, being the logical fellow he was, he rationalized that his flat geometry of space could be expanded to any frame of reference, and his predictions would hold. They didnt. Scientists observed strange patterns in the orbit of mercury, which didnt fit with newtons predictions, so they invented complicated "fixes" to force observation to match newtonian mechanics. Until Einstein came along and uprooted newtonian mechanics by showing that flat geometry only works up to a certain scale, and replaced it with a new outlandish theory, curved spacetime geometry, that worked on scales so large that newton couldnt have even imagined them, and in which his physics fell apart.
All smolin is saying is that we find ourselves on the brink of just such a transformative epoch.
The predictions of relativity are breaking down on scales much larger than einstein had access to, as well as on the tiniest of scales, and quantum mechanics is incredible but has too many working parts, and the forces involved are inexplicably arbitrary. String theory is an attempt to unify two incomplete theories, and as such it inherits the problems of both, along with the added bonus of being impossible to disprove, and of not making any predictions which cant already be made and explained using current theories. It might be true, its a really clever idea, but in its current form, its only a little more useful to science than the bible, and is proving to be defended by its propinents in a similarly dogmatic way.
What do you have new to share Mr. Lee Smolin?
Wyrzucili mnie z pracy,pozostałe pracę zostały zamknięte ze względu na epidemie .Gdy wychodzę na zakupy straszą mnie chorobą i duszą .Duszą mnie z resztą cały czas .ONI przekazują że otoczenie córkojebcy liczy cicho na moją śmierć ,mając nadzieję że koronowirus rozwiąże za nich sprawę .W przypadku wywołania sztucznej astmy to łatwiejsze gdyż płuca z trudem się oczyszczają.Generalnie robią to samo co w przypadku pandemii, nie podejmują żadnych działań pozytywnych tylko jeszcze dodatkowo szkodzą .Tak samo jak w przypadku pandemii nie słuchają opinii innych ludzi .Przez ich głupotę i szaleństwo władzy ,umierają teraz ich rodacy ..a im ciągle jest mało .Nie opłaca się im (według nich samych ) wierzyć w ICH ostrzeżenia.
ONI przekazują,że nic mnie nie będzie,że muszę żyć .