worth to mention to grandfather paradox, that my existence is still perfectly causal on my own timeline, and also there's no reason to assume the present is dependent on the past. sure, the present is the way it is because of the past events, but as the present already exists as it is, it shouldn't need the past anymore to be unchanged.
I'd guess time is relative to our being. If there are 'creatures' that live on other plains of reality I'd guess time doesn't "exist" for them or it works differently, they might even be able to jump around to different periods of time. Nice video
with that last theory, it seems like the model being proposed makes a lot of assumptions that make it fit the idea that time doesn't exist. i think humans have a habit of enforcing binaries or hard definitions on things that don't have them, and usually exist on spectrums. like the a and b proposed, colors, gender expression, morality, mental health, land, etc. and though giving them definitions helps us make sense of the world and talk about it with others, our terms are based on reality and not the other way around. i like the ouroboros concept of time, where the head is the heat death of the universe (and the eating of the tail is the big bounce) and the tail is the big bang. in that idea, different dimensions are different iterations of the circle. so, you could dimension hop if you could time travel far enough, in the metaphor it'd be going into the belly of the snake. though it may not make sense, i think it's cool. live your videos, thinking about stuff like this is my jam.
Time can be explained as a process of energy exchange formed by photon electron interactions. We have photon ∆E=hf electron couplings continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons as an uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future comes into existence. All it takes for this to be logical is for the spontaneous absorption and emission of light waves to precedes absolutely everything that happens in our three-dimensional world.
ive seen a very cool video where the grandfather paradox is possible by putting time not on a line (from past to future) but on a mobious strip :0 sick video :) also, cool video :) i really enjoy watching your videos!
Seconds, minutes, hours, days, mounts, years, decades these all are all constructs that we humans made up. But time itself does exist. According to relativity mass will affect time and the closer you reach the speed of light the slower time goes for you. Both have been observed for example the atomic clocks that the navigation satellites use to stay in sync have to factor this in. Because they don't fly in the same orbit even that slight difference in distance from Earth is enough to get them of out sync because their time ticks slower the closer they are to earth. Another example would be particles that we know the decay rate of have been blasted in an accelerator from our perspective it took longer to decay, meaning their time ticked differently meaning time exists.
7:40 Isn't that kinda like saying space doesn't exist because if I have an object at location (X,Y,Z) and I move it to (X+10,Y,Z) it would have to have gone through intermediate locations. I don't see how that's a problem? I would say time and space are continuous so yes things go through intermediate times/locations.
It's a subtle argument and I don't claim to understand it all, but I'll attempt an explanation. The A-series is changing, so things move from the future and into the past. Any event in time thus has the properties of being in the future (when it's in the future) and in the past (when it's in the past). The counterargument is not that the event is simultaneously in the future and the past, but rather it moves in succession. It was in the future at some moment of past time, and it will be in the past at some moment of future time. But McTaggart argues that these other times that are needed to explain the succession need explaining themselves. And on and on ad infinitum. I do understand your confusion, though. This article section will be much better at explaining than I am: plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTaArgu
This is great, but I feel like you should take more time (heh) to go into more detail. Like you should have defined what the word "series" exactly meant in that context. Other than that, I have a pretty unique view of time, because I don't see how it couldn't work in still frames, like videos do. To get from point A to point B (whether it's in space, time, logical reasoning, or counting), assuming you can't teleport (we'll define teleportation as instantaneous movement from one point to another), well if there's no minimal size limit which you cannot go below or skip over, you can't even move at all. Take any path you want from point A to point B: in this scenario, this path is composed of an infinity of infinitely small points, which means that if you're to take this path to get from A to B, you must go through every point that makes up this path. There are an infinity of them, so take any one of them at random, we'll call it C; you have to reach C before you can reach B from A, right? Well there are also an infinity of points that make up the path between A and C, take any one of them at random and let's call it D. You have to reach D before you reach C, but take point E between A and D, you have to reach E before D, but you have to reach F before E, etc. It goes on forever (and no obviously it doesn't stop at the end of the alphabet lol), and you can't even reach any point at all on the path, let alone B. No matter what step you want to take, there will always be smaller steps that make up that step, and smaller steps that make up those ones, and so you will never move forward at all. On the other hand, if you have a minimal size limit (I'll call it an axiom, though it might not be the correct term, you'll see why), you can't skip it, but you can take each one at a time in order to move forward. It's interesting to note that traveling the distance of one axiom would technically fit the definition I made for teleportation, that is, instantaneous movement from one point to another. This also happens in math, when you're counting. We actually do "teleport" all the time when we're doing math, because we're not really bound by the numbers as they're theoretical, but when you're counting, you can't. For example: count from 0 to 10. Easy, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, boom. I think we'd all agree that you couldn't go 0, 1, 2, _6,_ 7, 8, 9, 10, that'd be cheating, or "teleporting." Well it works because we're using the "axiom" of whole numbers. Now try to count from 0 to 10 but by going through every single possible decimal. Okay, 0, 0.0000000000000000000000... 0? 0. 0000000000... and eventually a 1 at the end? The next number is 0.000...1, with an infinite amount of 0s, but that number is theoretically equal to 0. See, you can't even begin to move with no axiom. In logial reasoning, even when it's going about your day without even thinking about it, there are things that you just accept to be true without ever putting them in question. These are axioms, and without them, you wouldn't be able to reach any conclusions at all. I mean if you think about it, I'd argue that you can't even really prove anything to be true. Well what does it mean to prove something? It means showing that it is undeniably true without any doubts. The thing is, you can always keep asking to prove one's proofs, forever. Children figure this out pretty quickly when they keep asking "why?" at every explanation their parents give them (and then they learn pretty quickly that it's annoying and rather pointless). Even the simplest things, like 2+2=4, can't be proven, because you can always doubt, but it's so obvious that seemingly every thinking mind agrees on it; that's why we use the phrase "beyond _reasonable_ doubt." Now, don't get me wrong, of course I believe that 2+2=4, but I don't think it can be "proven" in the absolute sense of the word. Hell, it's not even "objectively true," because the universe doesn't ask that question in the first place, we do. Things that are incredibly obvious like this are axioms, and you wouldn't be able to reason without them. Say for a second that you're not sure whether 2×2=4. Well, by the way I think at least, which is probably pretty similar in this case to almost everyone else, I need to know that 2+2=4 to reach the conclusion that 2×2=4. Why? Well what does 2×2 mean? It means that you have two groups of 2, and what you do with those two groups is that you add them together to get the result, which leaves us with 2+2. If I don't assume that 2+2=4, my conclusion can't be that 2×2=4. Or let's say you're driving a car on the highway, well you're not going to go question whether what you're perceiving is real or not, because you'll probably get in an accident if you do so. Oh what's that? You were just dreaming. Well, that happens, but it doesn't change the fact that it would have been too dangerous to question it in any case. I in fact literally had a dream that something horrible happened, and that I wish I could just wake up like you do after a bad dream to escape it, but that I knew I couldn't because I knew I wasn't dreaming. Turns out I was, and none of it was real and it was all good, but I really had no way of knowing, and it seemed then just as real as what I perceive does now, even if I would probably know now, as I'm awake, if I saw my dream from then, that it was not real. How do I know I'm not going to wake up now and it seem obvious to me that writing this comment was just an absurd dream? Either way, this whole axiom business has some pretty serious physical implications. It would mean that there is a minimal size limit in space (there is, it's Planck length), and also in time, whatever time is. How would you get from midday to midnight if there were no smallest time limit? Well there is, it's Planck time. Doesn't this imply, though, that time is a collection of frames of the universe that change from one to the other, like the frames of a video or film, but in 3D? And if that's the case, wouldn't each frame just be a still, timeless image of everything that exists in one moment? Each individual frame of the universe would then be the only existing frame from its own perspective, and every other frame of time would just be purely hypothetical. This actually ties in pretty well with Last Thursdayism, the thought experiment in which the entire universe, along with all of its information, movement, historical records and all, was created last Thursday. It seems absurd, but if the universe is created exactly the way that it is now, with all its implications of how the past was, what's stopping that from being the case? Well, if the universe is at any point a still frame which just exists, this would be the case of every single individual frame of it. Maybe there are different possible ways particles could move, and not just on deterministic one, which might explain true randomness and uncertainty in Quantum physics, with wave function collapse and Schrodinger's cat and all that. Probably not, but it could be fun to think about.
I think of time as a dimension. My length width and height make up my physical body and take up space in the universe. I think time is just another dimension in that my body is where it is at the time that it's there. That was a weird sentence, I know, but it's the only way I know how to explain it. 1:51 Wait, just because your perception of something changed doesn't mean that the thing actually changed. A tall building looked at from a distance will look shorter than when seen up close. That doesn't mean that the height of the building changed as you approached it.
Depends on your philosophical viewpoints on the nature of the external world! For an idealist (who thinks that all that exists are ideas inside the mind and that there's no such thing as the external world), then the size and shape of the building would literally change! So, for those who believe that the mind structures and organizes the universe, psychedelics would literally change the structure and organization of the universe! Hopefully this answers your question :)
"Time is a tool you can put on the wall and wear it on your rist. The past is far behind us, the future doesn't exist." - Tony the clock in Don't hug me I'm scared 2 - TIME
Do some people think there is a time particle or what? Time is nothing. Time is just a measurement of change in the environment around us relative to where we are.
What do you mean by consider Time? Like just thinking about it in general, or consider that it wins a prize? Time is a good unknown to think about, and I am curious as to what you consider nonsense?
C'mon now, I am beyond the state of NUCLEAR Physicist... To write this equation out For most that don't have attention spands more than 14.2 sec. Would be Like saying ->> that way Is backwards! Entropy is the only real Time* 🙃
Me explaining to the police officer who pulled me over for going 95 in a school zone how time doesn’t and therefore I could not be speeding:
PSA: *do not use philosophy to kill children*
@@mystiverse Gonk :]
worth to mention to grandfather paradox, that my existence is still perfectly causal on my own timeline, and also there's no reason to assume the present is dependent on the past. sure, the present is the way it is because of the past events, but as the present already exists as it is, it shouldn't need the past anymore to be unchanged.
Good point! It might also be possible if one went back in time and killed one's grandfather in a different timeline or something similar. Well said!
This was really interesting, btw your editing is insane these days!
I'd guess time is relative to our being. If there are 'creatures' that live on other plains of reality I'd guess time doesn't "exist" for them or it works differently, they might even be able to jump around to different periods of time. Nice video
I would agree!
Is the universe 3 space dimensions and .5 time dimensions or are humans?
with that last theory, it seems like the model being proposed makes a lot of assumptions that make it fit the idea that time doesn't exist. i think humans have a habit of enforcing binaries or hard definitions on things that don't have them, and usually exist on spectrums. like the a and b proposed, colors, gender expression, morality, mental health, land, etc. and though giving them definitions helps us make sense of the world and talk about it with others, our terms are based on reality and not the other way around. i like the ouroboros concept of time, where the head is the heat death of the universe (and the eating of the tail is the big bounce) and the tail is the big bang. in that idea, different dimensions are different iterations of the circle. so, you could dimension hop if you could time travel far enough, in the metaphor it'd be going into the belly of the snake. though it may not make sense, i think it's cool. live your videos, thinking about stuff like this is my jam.
Keep killing it, love the videos, the editing and the subject matter!
Thanks dude!
Time can be explained as a process of energy exchange formed by photon electron interactions. We have photon ∆E=hf electron couplings continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons as an uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future comes into existence. All it takes for this to be logical is for the spontaneous absorption and emission of light waves to precedes absolutely everything that happens in our three-dimensional world.
Good video! I find Kant's categories of the mind quite interesting.
it's a good day today cuz mystiverse uploaded
ive seen a very cool video where the grandfather paradox is possible by putting time not on a line (from past to future) but on a mobious strip :0
sick video :)
also, cool video :)
i really enjoy watching your videos!
Educational with some clever humor and puns. Love this vid mate!
Seconds, minutes, hours, days, mounts, years, decades these all are all constructs that we humans made up. But time itself does exist.
According to relativity mass will affect time and the closer you reach the speed of light the slower time goes for you. Both have been observed for example the atomic clocks that the navigation satellites use to stay in sync have to factor this in. Because they don't fly in the same orbit even that slight difference in distance from Earth is enough to get them of out sync because their time ticks slower the closer they are to earth.
Another example would be particles that we know the decay rate of have been blasted in an accelerator from our perspective it took longer to decay, meaning their time ticked differently meaning time exists.
Some of the graphics in this video look like they’re straight from the tv series DARK. It’s about time travel and can highly recommend it.
Great show!
"perhaps Kant picked to many of the wrong kind of mushrooms" 🤣
thanks for helping me cope not having studied for my finals yet
There's still time 👀
7:40
Isn't that kinda like saying space doesn't exist because if I have an object at location (X,Y,Z) and I move it to (X+10,Y,Z) it would have to have gone through intermediate locations. I don't see how that's a problem? I would say time and space are continuous so yes things go through intermediate times/locations.
It's a subtle argument and I don't claim to understand it all, but I'll attempt an explanation. The A-series is changing, so things move from the future and into the past. Any event in time thus has the properties of being in the future (when it's in the future) and in the past (when it's in the past). The counterargument is not that the event is simultaneously in the future and the past, but rather it moves in succession. It was in the future at some moment of past time, and it will be in the past at some moment of future time. But McTaggart argues that these other times that are needed to explain the succession need explaining themselves. And on and on ad infinitum.
I do understand your confusion, though. This article section will be much better at explaining than I am: plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTaArgu
I _kant_ believe the quality of this video.
4:53
Going to 2122 would still be possible, you can't go _back_ in time, but going to the future doesn't break backwards causation.
Good catch... I'll add a note.
Time is our inability to perceive one dimension as whole rather as one point
This is great, but I feel like you should take more time (heh) to go into more detail. Like you should have defined what the word "series" exactly meant in that context.
Other than that, I have a pretty unique view of time, because I don't see how it couldn't work in still frames, like videos do.
To get from point A to point B (whether it's in space, time, logical reasoning, or counting), assuming you can't teleport (we'll define teleportation as instantaneous movement from one point to another), well if there's no minimal size limit which you cannot go below or skip over, you can't even move at all. Take any path you want from point A to point B: in this scenario, this path is composed of an infinity of infinitely small points, which means that if you're to take this path to get from A to B, you must go through every point that makes up this path. There are an infinity of them, so take any one of them at random, we'll call it C; you have to reach C before you can reach B from A, right? Well there are also an infinity of points that make up the path between A and C, take any one of them at random and let's call it D. You have to reach D before you reach C, but take point E between A and D, you have to reach E before D, but you have to reach F before E, etc. It goes on forever (and no obviously it doesn't stop at the end of the alphabet lol), and you can't even reach any point at all on the path, let alone B. No matter what step you want to take, there will always be smaller steps that make up that step, and smaller steps that make up those ones, and so you will never move forward at all.
On the other hand, if you have a minimal size limit (I'll call it an axiom, though it might not be the correct term, you'll see why), you can't skip it, but you can take each one at a time in order to move forward. It's interesting to note that traveling the distance of one axiom would technically fit the definition I made for teleportation, that is, instantaneous movement from one point to another.
This also happens in math, when you're counting. We actually do "teleport" all the time when we're doing math, because we're not really bound by the numbers as they're theoretical, but when you're counting, you can't. For example: count from 0 to 10. Easy, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, boom. I think we'd all agree that you couldn't go 0, 1, 2, _6,_ 7, 8, 9, 10, that'd be cheating, or "teleporting." Well it works because we're using the "axiom" of whole numbers. Now try to count from 0 to 10 but by going through every single possible decimal. Okay, 0, 0.0000000000000000000000... 0? 0. 0000000000... and eventually a 1 at the end? The next number is 0.000...1, with an infinite amount of 0s, but that number is theoretically equal to 0. See, you can't even begin to move with no axiom.
In logial reasoning, even when it's going about your day without even thinking about it, there are things that you just accept to be true without ever putting them in question. These are axioms, and without them, you wouldn't be able to reach any conclusions at all. I mean if you think about it, I'd argue that you can't even really prove anything to be true. Well what does it mean to prove something? It means showing that it is undeniably true without any doubts. The thing is, you can always keep asking to prove one's proofs, forever. Children figure this out pretty quickly when they keep asking "why?" at every explanation their parents give them (and then they learn pretty quickly that it's annoying and rather pointless). Even the simplest things, like 2+2=4, can't be proven, because you can always doubt, but it's so obvious that seemingly every thinking mind agrees on it; that's why we use the phrase "beyond _reasonable_ doubt." Now, don't get me wrong, of course I believe that 2+2=4, but I don't think it can be "proven" in the absolute sense of the word. Hell, it's not even "objectively true," because the universe doesn't ask that question in the first place, we do.
Things that are incredibly obvious like this are axioms, and you wouldn't be able to reason without them. Say for a second that you're not sure whether 2×2=4. Well, by the way I think at least, which is probably pretty similar in this case to almost everyone else, I need to know that 2+2=4 to reach the conclusion that 2×2=4. Why? Well what does 2×2 mean? It means that you have two groups of 2, and what you do with those two groups is that you add them together to get the result, which leaves us with 2+2. If I don't assume that 2+2=4, my conclusion can't be that 2×2=4.
Or let's say you're driving a car on the highway, well you're not going to go question whether what you're perceiving is real or not, because you'll probably get in an accident if you do so. Oh what's that? You were just dreaming. Well, that happens, but it doesn't change the fact that it would have been too dangerous to question it in any case. I in fact literally had a dream that something horrible happened, and that I wish I could just wake up like you do after a bad dream to escape it, but that I knew I couldn't because I knew I wasn't dreaming. Turns out I was, and none of it was real and it was all good, but I really had no way of knowing, and it seemed then just as real as what I perceive does now, even if I would probably know now, as I'm awake, if I saw my dream from then, that it was not real. How do I know I'm not going to wake up now and it seem obvious to me that writing this comment was just an absurd dream?
Either way, this whole axiom business has some pretty serious physical implications. It would mean that there is a minimal size limit in space (there is, it's Planck length), and also in time, whatever time is. How would you get from midday to midnight if there were no smallest time limit? Well there is, it's Planck time. Doesn't this imply, though, that time is a collection of frames of the universe that change from one to the other, like the frames of a video or film, but in 3D? And if that's the case, wouldn't each frame just be a still, timeless image of everything that exists in one moment? Each individual frame of the universe would then be the only existing frame from its own perspective, and every other frame of time would just be purely hypothetical.
This actually ties in pretty well with Last Thursdayism, the thought experiment in which the entire universe, along with all of its information, movement, historical records and all, was created last Thursday. It seems absurd, but if the universe is created exactly the way that it is now, with all its implications of how the past was, what's stopping that from being the case? Well, if the universe is at any point a still frame which just exists, this would be the case of every single individual frame of it.
Maybe there are different possible ways particles could move, and not just on deterministic one, which might explain true randomness and uncertainty in Quantum physics, with wave function collapse and Schrodinger's cat and all that. Probably not, but it could be fun to think about.
This guy sure puts nice music into his videos
I asked Infinity for the "time"...
It replied, "Now"...
I think of time as a dimension. My length width and height make up my physical body and take up space in the universe. I think time is just another dimension in that my body is where it is at the time that it's there. That was a weird sentence, I know, but it's the only way I know how to explain it.
1:51 Wait, just because your perception of something changed doesn't mean that the thing actually changed. A tall building looked at from a distance will look shorter than when seen up close. That doesn't mean that the height of the building changed as you approached it.
Depends on your philosophical viewpoints on the nature of the external world! For an idealist (who thinks that all that exists are ideas inside the mind and that there's no such thing as the external world), then the size and shape of the building would literally change! So, for those who believe that the mind structures and organizes the universe, psychedelics would literally change the structure and organization of the universe! Hopefully this answers your question :)
Very interesting and surprisingly entertaining.
Happy to surprise you!
We've been waiting
thx for uploading
"Time is a tool you can put on the wall and wear it on your rist.
The past is far behind us, the future doesn't exist."
- Tony the clock in Don't hug me I'm scared 2 - TIME
VERY interesting concepts
As much as I don't like metaphysics, it does have a tendency to be rather interesting.
@@mystiverse can you tell me how the universe was created????
A superintelligent fridge, of course!
@@mystiverse I dig the way you think 😂😂😆. So you admit it was created not formed from nothing????
Do some people think there is a time particle or what? Time is nothing. Time is just a measurement of change in the environment around us relative to where we are.
The question is, if time doesn't exist, when does it not exist?
From what does time emit?
You've been listening to the clockwork elves too much
"Time doesn't really exist"
The video: *9 minutes long*
See 6:00
When you try and consider time without considering space you end up with nonsense.
What do you mean by consider Time? Like just thinking about it in general, or consider that it wins a prize? Time is a good unknown to think about, and I am curious as to what you consider nonsense?
"TIME"
Is~
Entropy *
C'mon now,
I am beyond the state of
NUCLEAR Physicist...
To write this equation out
For most that don't have attention spands more than 14.2 sec. Would be
Like saying ->> that way
Is backwards!
Entropy is the only real
Time*
🙃
Is the Kugelblitz a reference to umbrella academy?
Why Shostakovich?
What would the world be without time?
Pretty still, I imagine!
Time is entropy
Eggs
Or you can say you don’t know. Waste of my …. Oh.
It is time to buy more drugs
Time is not conscious
4th viewer :)