Article 306: More on Time and Space (via YouTube Comments)

Reference: YouTube video: Why Does Time Exist At All? | Sean Carroll | English Subs

.

Statement: Why Does Time Exist at All?

My Response: Time ‘exists’ because it is a human tool. What and enlightened person would address is ‘change’, for example, with regards to backwards time travel, you really want to go back in ‘change’ rather than ‘time’ (since going back in ‘time’ merely requires you to run your timepieces backwards) (meaning an enlightened person would address the key factor, an unenlightened person would not see it and fail).

.

Statement: Universe came from nothing, by just a chance

My Response: Since you are blabbing without thinking, let me help you: ‘Nothing’ cannot be obtained, given infinity (same goes for ‘everything’), since more is ever-possible on smaller and larger scales. Just to add a note on time, ‘living forever’ cannot be reached, given eternity, since you will never ‘reach’ forever — so ‘living forever’ will remain a constant struggle (even for ‘eternal’ beings, which, as you can now see, is a misconception). I call that struggle ‘The Great Struggle’ (it would be a ‘great’ struggle just staying motivated), and eternity renders the universe’s ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ non-existent, too, since eternity is boundless (and ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ represent ‘bounds’). Just to add more paradox to the paradox, ‘infinity’ and ‘eternity’ do not exist in the physical world, since anything in the physical needs bounds to exist, and infinity and eternity are boundless (which is why I call them the ‘Great Nothingnesses’ — in which everything exists) (and to add even more paradox, I have just described ‘everything’, though I can never ‘obtain’ everything)…

.

Statement: I don’t think we will even come close to the answer in this century. Nobody cares. Which is a shame, because the implications of understanding this theory are unbelievable. To actually begin to understand the universe could allow us to actually explore it. Understanding the physics behind the universe could be the key to unlocking our potential.

My Response: Time is a human tool to measure change. Question answered. The real question is, “Why does CHANGE exist?”, and the answer is thermal energy. Now the question is, “Where did thermal energy come from?” and you are into the infinity/eternity paradox…

.

Statement: Time could just be a concept that originated in the brain to try and rationalize why things happen in the present moment instead of all at once or not at all and is not something explicitly tied to the nature of the universe kinda like the concept of infinity. Just speculating for the sake of speculation.

My Response: You are on the right track — time is a human tool to measure change.

.

Statement: Very interesting. The thought that the universe will be reduced to “nothing but empty space” is really thought-provoking if you consider the fact that empty space has energy. Given infinite time this could give rise to the big bang all over again, unless I’m misunderstanding parts of this lecture.

My Response: So the question is “Where did the energy come from?” and you are into the infinity/eternity paradox… although since infinity and eternity are actually ‘nothingnesses’ (since ‘anything’ needs bounds to exist in the physical world (as opposed to an idea in your mind), now the answer is (correctly) that energy came from ‘nothing’ (actually two nothingnesses — infinity and eternity).

.

Statement: Could time be formed by each photon oscillation only occurs once forming an uncertain future relative to the atoms of the periodic table? In such a theory the future in unfolding with each new photon electron coupling or dipole moment relative to our actions! The wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual.

My Response: Time is a human tool. What you are addressing is ‘change’.

.

Statement: Time is just counting of the periods which are generated by real objects e.g. Earth rotations or atomic transitions so if there are not real objects then there is not time.

My Response: What you mean to say is if there is no CHANGE then time stops (until things get going again) — so ‘time’ is ‘relative change’ (to your timepiece, for example). Given infinity, however, time cannot stop — for ‘everything’ cannot be obtained (given infinity), hence there will always be relative change (to ‘something’ out there that your ‘everything’ has not accounted for).

.

Statement: there cant be not big space if globe earth note flat

My Response: A three year old can speak better than that…

.

Statement: Something about the entropy argument doesn’t seem like it’s correct. The idea of entropy seems like a human invention, not something that the universe actually cares about, and it really doesn’t seem to have anything to do with time imho. Entropy increasing appears to be a law, but it’s not a law, it’s just the effect of how vibrating atoms transfer kinetic energy in a set volume of space; increasing the volume of space increases entropy and decreasing the volume of space then decreases entropy. Time is simply emergent from the fact that matter is changed by energy and it follows a set of universal laws when this interaction occurs (and also that we have memory). we don’t remember the future because it hasn’t occurred yet and can’t be fully known because of chaos and randomness, and we can’t form a memory without certain events happening in a certain order. The universe does create an apple pie from random fluctuations, as long as you remember that human beings are the ‘random fluctuations’ that must occur to create an apple pie. I like Sean Carroll, seems like a deep and complex thinker, but sometimes I feel like he’s just confusing himself and the audience; mix that with being an implied authority on the subject and you get an audience that walks away mystified but no better off than before.

My Response: IF entropy ‘changes’, then ‘time’ (a tool for measuring change) is possible (but you need someone to observe it). So that is how entropy is involved with ‘time’ — though ‘change’. Gravity (curved space) is the ‘Great Regenerator’, condensing (crushing) energy back into matter… But speaking of ‘condensing’, perhaps temperature plays a part — matter is energy in a high-temperature-range state, and (it would seem) energy can only exist above absolute zero (which cannot be obtained)… but if energy could ‘bounce’ against absolute zero (get cold enough) it could ‘condense’ back into matter… now where this cycle ‘began’ becomes the question, since, given infinity, there is no ‘beginning’, infinity being boundless… so the best we can do is address the ‘known’ universe, which had a ‘local’ beginning…

Gravity (curved space) is the ‘Great Regenerator’, condensing (crushing) energy back into matter…

But speaking of ‘condensing’, perhaps temperature plays a part — matter is energy in a high-temperature-range state, and (it would seem) energy can only exist above absolute zero (which cannot be obtained)… but if energy could ‘bounce’ against absolute zero (get cold enough) it could ‘condense’ back into matter… now where this cycle ‘began’ becomes the question, since, given infinity, there is no ‘beginning’, infinity being boundless… so the best we can do is address the ‘known’ universe, which had a ‘local’ beginning…

.

Statement: Love this fiction stuff. Sounds awesome. Wish it was science.

My Response: The video was on the wrong track right from the start — ‘Time’ is not the issue (since it is a human construct to measure change) (and that is how it ‘exists’ pffft, obvious), ‘Change’ is the issue… meaning, if you are talking about ‘traveling back in time’ you are missing the point (and you will fail) — what you REALLY want to do is go back in ‘Change’…

.

Statement: So very interseting….would love to attend one of thes talks

My Response: Make sure it isn’t a Tedx talk (most of those are garbage)…

.

Statement: The universe needs time so change to happen.

My Response: You have it backwards, mate.

.

Statement: that moment you realize your way to stoned to comprehend any of this lol

My Response: That would be halfway through reading the title…

.

Statement: The problem with this is that it is circular logic. Claiming that time exists because of entropy depends on the fact that a quantum state has a given chance to change, in a given amount of _time_. All entropy shows is why time appears to be directional. Take a perfect heat death universse for example. Quantum uncertainty dictates fluctuations, thus change over time, yet the entropy overall will remain unchanged. For every subpopulation one might find that shows slight changes in entropy, one could equally find a subpopulation which does not show a change in entropy. Time exists, yet doesnt exist, at the same time depending on entropy within the same parent system. Contradiction. Ergo, time exists seperate of the change of quantum states, but is instead more deeply connected to the fundamental nature of ANY quantum state having the inherent (not locally allowed) ability to change.

My Response: The video misses the core of the relationship, and takes a too-narrow view — because rather than ‘entropy’ it should have used ‘change’ in general. No change, time takes a break (since time is relative — between two changing phenomenon), but ‘no change’ cannot happen in the universe given infinity, where there will always be ‘something out there beyond your considered bounds’ and relative to your singular changing phenomenon (be it your entire known universe) which has ‘stopped’…

.

Statement: He has forgotten a basic axiomatic fact… ex nihilo nihil fit

My Response: Which is an erroneous statement (understandably — since the ancient Greeks had a weak grasp of reality). The statement should be “ex nihilo omnia fit”. Here is my argument: Infinity is boundless (by definition). To exist in the physical world, a phenomenon need ‘bounds’ (in this, thoughts (ideas and concepts) are not classified as ‘physical objects’). Hence infinity does not exist in the physical world, hence ‘infinity’ is ‘nothing’, in which ‘everything’ exists… in space, that is — eternity is the changelessness in which all change takes place. (argument concluded).

.

Statement:

The stars, who dwell on heaven’s exalted stage,

Baffle the wise diviners of our age;

Take heed, hold fast the rope of mother wit,

These augurs all distrust their own presage.

They who by genius, and by power of brain,

The rank of man’s enlighteners attain,

Not even they emerge from this dark night,

But tell their dreams, and fall asleep again.

My Response: It has yet to be determined if stars are ‘who’ — so you are merely speculating (or being creatively poetic, where no actual meaning is intended)…

.

Statement: TIME is not an entity, it’s an Idea of comparison of how fast something changes.

My Response: Very good — surprising how the video missed that point… time is a human tool to measure change — so when people talk of ‘traveling back in time’, all they have to do is run their timepieces backwards. What they really wanted to do is go back in ‘change’ (and which is why they failed)…

.

Statement: I think Time does not exist. It is just an illusion and we have just taken it as a convention thing.

My Response: It is a human tool to measure change… so it does exist — people just have a tendency to confuse themselves (like the video)…

.

Statement: Time doesn’t exist it’s an illusion. It’s a number and all numbers are conceptual.

My Response: Time is not an illusion — it exists — it is a human tool to measure change. As for numbers, they are meaningless in themselves, since they are mere symbols that can represent anything. For example 1+1≠2 when the 1’s represent parents and the answer represents their offspring (of which there may be more or less than two)…

.

Statement: Interesting video. However, there is one thing that bugs me with his theory… The likelihood of a specific person randomly coming together to existence in an empty space is much lower than the one where the same person comes to be here on Earth where the conditions are better. Let alone the fact that physical laws prohibit it from happening unless there is a counterforce, which there isn’t in empty space. Let’s use his own example. If you are in a room filled with oxygen, the odds of all the air compressing into one corner, leaving all the people in the room to suffocate, is zero. Because physical laws will disperse the air all over the room, because of the high force compressed air makes.

My Response: That would be “much much” (to the google power) lower… (a human coming together in empty space)… in fact, the odds are the same on earth, since humans do not ‘come together’ spontaneously out of trillions of trillions of atoms, but they grow through a ‘process’ (meaning no ‘process’, no human, given the astronomically low odds of spontaneity)… But your gas law observation is also a factor… unless the ‘space’ being considered is where matter is condensing (via gravity/curved space), and you have enough atoms available in that space for the (astronomically low) possibility of trillions upon trillions of atoms arranging themselves, by chance, into a full-grown human…

.

Statement: Space-time is a liquid. Black holes are simply whirlpools that can occur often when something heavy is dropped into a body of water and sinks, or a result of the currents of gravity. Galaxies and planets are merely following the stream, and we attract each other because of our density, like particles in a body of water because we have buoyancy. Though there is no surface of the universe for us to float on top of, because there is only the body of liquid. There is no up or down in space. The “surface” is therefore the collection of particles in an area, like the birth of a planet. Gravitational waves and gravity distort our view of distant stars and galaxies, just like water distorts light, because space is a liquid. A super liquid. And if the universe is expanding, is someone filling a tub, or is the universe being stretched on top of another surface? Like another universe.

My Response: Your analogy is flawed, but you are on the right track — instead of saying space-time is a liquid’ you really mean ‘space-time is a fluid’ (since all liquids are fluids, but not all fluids are liquids)… what you are really grasping for is an underlying ‘fabric’ to facilitate ‘change’… so you could have said ‘space-time is a fabric’ (we are speaking of language, after all)… if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, you would be speaking with mathematics (where the numbers have specific meanings) and not with words (which are vague and nebulous, and always open to different interpretations)…

.

Statement: Time is nature’s way of preventing everything from happening at once. Wise up.

My Response: Time is nature’s way of man creating a tool to measure change. What you said is an example of ‘imagination gone wrong’… i.e. it was not ‘wise’… consider: if everything happened at once (which it could in theory), change would be over instantly, and time would take a break until something got going again… there is another flaw in your statement — ‘everything’ which cannot be attained (given infinity).

.

Statement: Time is a prerequisite for change. Therefore time is more fundamental than entropy. Time must occur everywhere, it’s both a local and global requirement. Entropy only occurs macroscopically and statistically, it is a consequence of quite arbitrarily choosing a macroscopic ordering parameter, which then, over time, will decrease over time in the direction of less ordering. A lone Hydrogen atom, electron bound to proton, does not seem to be subject to entropy increase, other than its position and momentum becoming less defined over time due to the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship, which seems to be an increase of entropy:-) Also vacuum fluctuations will interfere with the state of the electron and at a certain point eject it even. Quantum entropy… fascinating!

My Response: You have it backwards — change is a prerequisite for time (time being a mere tool to track change). Example: When people say they want to ‘go back in time’, all they have to do is run their timepieces backwards. What they REALLY want to do is go back in CHANGE, which is what the video is really referring to, but instead makes the mistake of using only one specific example (entropy)… as for entropy representing ‘less order’, that is also wrong — for some structures are in a higher entropy state when they are ordered… also a hydrogen atom, meaning both the proton and electron, are subject to entropy — they will both ‘disappear’ eventually (return to energy) (in trillions of trillions of years)…

.

Statement: I wish that when Americans have something important to share, that they would talk at pace whereby we can assimilate and come to understand. Please remember, that you are allowed to use grammar. This facilitates pace, breathing, and allows understanding. Thanks.

My Response: Your problem is that you are watching a video — which has many distractions (audio and visual)… the good part is that there is a ‘rewind’ feature (it’s right there, at the bottom of the video) so you can go back over a passage (much like reading), which serves even the most ponderous of minds…

.

Statement: “The Big Bang”…. the dumbest theory of all-time

My Response: A person can sit half comatose in an armchair with a beer and dismiss anything out of ignorance… as for the Big Bang theory, it is the reigning theory, like it or not… until someone comes up with a better model (and who knows, it could be a person half comatose in an armchair with a beer who has dismissed everything out of ignorance)… unless you were just trolling (50–50 chance)…

.

Statement: So if we are just one universe in a multiverse, and at least ours is expanding, could we then expand right into the next one? What if our universe finally touched the next one? Would it be made of the same sort of space as ours? If not, what would happen? Or if a universe of only black holes and emptiness collided with ours, oh who knows? I guess I am picturing a multiverse that is really just a series of separate big bangs all occurring in the same three dimensional emptiness that we inhabit, each expanding until they hit the next. I thought perhaps I was going somewhere profound with this, but as I lie here falling asleep, the thought seems to have eluded me. Goodnight.

My Response: All your scenarios are possible, within a limited imagination range — for example, you did not consider (and they are seldom considered in multiverse scenarios) ‘nested universes’ — such as universes within our subatomic spaces (universes within universes — of different quantum sizes)… this is where our universe is within an atom of a shoe in the next higher-up quantum-sized universe… (I say ‘quantum sized’ because any matter/energy between those ‘allowable’ sizes would have gravitated toward the adjacent larger or smaller state (this is to explain why we do not see intermediate-sized universes bobbing around before our eyes)…

Also consider the distances between universes — if we use two adjacent stars in our galaxy as an indicator (lets use our sun and Proxima Centauri), then if two adjacent universes were the size of a pea, the other universe would be around 120 miles (around 200 kilometers) away (like our sun and Proxima Centauri). That is a LOT of empty space, and it makes for very small odds of two universes coming into contact (the same odds as two peas 120 miles apart hitting one another). This also makes for long trips to another universe (on the same quantum-size plane — to ‘travel’ to a nested universe you would need to ‘travel in size’).

As for other universes being composed of different atomic particles — perhaps, for such factors may be determined by the nature (size?) of that universe’s Big Bang… but then our ‘local group’ of universes (on the same quantum-sized plane, remember) may be composed of the same material, which would make for ‘compatible’ universes, if they ever did meet…

.

Statement: I can’t believe how refreshing it is when someone speaks the truth and makes their personal agenda abundantly clear: Here are the facts and this is what I make of them. — So simple, but so brilliant. I enjoyed this video a lot. I disagree only with the very end, the speaker’s multiverse assumption. To me it only adds needless complexity and explains nothing of importance. Unless it is true, and the Multiverse is needlessly complex- in which case I’d be very interested to learn the truth all the same. Thank you for sharing it.

My Response: Not to get too serious here, but you should be more than just ‘interested’ — such knowledge is critical to the continued survival of life — meaning there are ever-broader (and smaller) threats to life out there that we still do not know about… even if you were an ‘eternal being’ (which is impossible, given eternity — you can only continue to struggle to exist), you would not ‘know everything’ (infinity renders ‘everything’ unattainable), and hence your struggle would be to ever-increase your bounds of security in a harsh and deadly universe (and ‘harsh and deadly’ is the prudent assumption to make about the universe), and remember, the vastness of space itself is a ‘deadly; factor when resources are an issue (the required resources may be fatally distant)…

.

Statement: Oh goodie, another person who talks like a kindergarten teacher. Dosesnt know anything but loves to hear himself talk. Blah, blah, blah

My Response: The problem may be an impenetrable skull that only hears ‘blah blah blah’…

.

Statement: No, that is wrong. An apple pie cannot exist in an environment that is not like our universe so our universe has to exist first. Even if it is much more likely for an apple pie to form from randomness than it is for our universe to form, the pie CANNOT exist in an environment that isn’t suitable for it so all those times where it would had form would be meaningless.

My Response: It is not more likely for an apple pie to form than a universe, for several reasons:

1. because an apple pie requires intelligence, and a universe does not (I am going with current verified knowledge)…

2. another point is that there may be more universes than universes with intelligence in them (perhaps intelligence is rare), with a result of more possibilities of universes with no apple pies than universes with apple pies…

3. and then consider the ‘apple’ — since it is not a standard state of matter (a reasonable assumption), apples may only exist in our universe… making it more likely for a universe to exist than an apple pie…

4. then there is the classification issue — perhaps ‘apple pie’ can be defined in broader terms, which takes into account the environmental differences of universes…

.

Statement: how do we know the universe is expanding instead of it being us just shrinking

My Response: Good point… but then (thinking about it) we’d have to be shrinking faster than the speed of light (the rate of space expansion)… maybe it is just a convenience — to use ourselves as the ‘steady state standard’ since EVERYTHING may be changing in size (in your scenario)…

.

Statement: Insane Quarrel oops I meant Sean Carrol has waded through all the jargon discovered by others with nothing original to say and most importantly he has failed to answer the most fundamental questions about the nature of time which are -

1) What is time?

2) Is time a force mediated by a particle?

3) Is time an illusion?

4) Is time a convention?

5) Is time an operation of the mind quantizing motion and events in space?

My Response: I see you have 15 replies already, but I will give you mine without looking (if my answers are the same as theirs, so be it)…

1) What is time? Time is a human mental tool for tracking change.

2) No, time is not a force, since time is just a mental tool used by humans.

3) No, time is not an illusion, since it is an actual mental tool used by humans. If your mind is clouded, however, you may not perceive time clearly, which is akin to perceiving an illusion…

4) Yes, time is a convention, or, more accurately, a conventional ‘tool’ (used by humans).

5) Yes, now you are on the right track, but rather than ‘operation of the mind’ (which creates undue mysticism and philosophical obfuscation) you can simply say ‘tool’ (though it is a ‘mental’ tool).

.

Statement: Why does everything have to have an explanation?

My Response: To secure life in a harsh and deadly universe — any other philosophy is a philosophy of passive death.

.

Statement: Why is there anything at all? God’s grace.

My Response: Bad answer.

.

Statement: They strain and they try, but the obvious First Uncaused Cause calls out loudly: it’s GOD. But of course, they will invent ad infinitum scenarios, infinitely more presposterous than any ancient religious myth.

My Response: Your answer is narrowly anthropomorphic.

.

Statement: All those billions of works this guy is talking about have no meaning is you have not experienced anything! So it’s all mental games…

My Response: Put things in a survival perspective, and it is no longer just mental games…

.

Statement: Disagree, you will not get apple pie through randomness before the core atoms and molecules that make up apple, apple trees and earth itself. Not happening and historically nothing similar has happened.

My Response: You are referring to an apple pie that came together through processes (the earth forming, apple trees evolving, and humans evolving to create the pie), the apple pie the video is referring to is a chance spontaneous combining of trillions upon trillions of atoms into a fully-baked pie… (small chance indeed, but never zero)…

.

Statement: How come in an expanding Universe lights in sky that we’re told are stars are still in the Exact same position as THOUSANDS of yrs ago? Exact same position!

Reply: Chris, Who told you this? They lied but you still believed them. Here are two images overlaid, of the north stars area images taken 112 years apart. https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/photo/113627436988241172523/6375933980413734098

My Response: Thanks for straightening the child-mind out — you saved me the time and energy expenditure…

.

Statement: Lol these theories are absurd. “If you could wait long enough (millions/billions/trillions+ years) eventually an apple pie will form in front of you.” smh

My Response: Not so fast — there is still the ‘chance’ (which also is not ‘zero’) that it will never happen… (unlucky you)…

.

Statement: Time is like the wake of a ship spreading out in either direction with the bow being now this moment. It is a happening, a process. There never has been or will be anything but this moment and in this way, I don’t think time exists except for in man’s attempt to quantify reality, its a social construct.

My Response: You are right (though nebulous) — time is a tool to measure change. If you want to ‘travel back in time’, for example, all you have to do is make your timepiece run backwards. What you really want to do is travel back in ‘change’. As for there only being ‘this moment’ — that is just poetic hogwash — we have, and learn from, history, and we can accurately project many things into the future. The animal mind is stuck in ‘the moment’, the human mind has transcended its boundaries. Quantifying reality is just a small part of understanding reality, which is needed in order to secure life on a broader plane in a harsh and deadly universe (which affects your individual survival). I detect a passive attitude in your comment (the passiveness derived from misguided popular mindsets, no doubt), which is nothing more than a philosophy of passive death. You need my Philosophy of Universal Survival (for the Space Age)…

.

Statement: The modern physics is based on LIGHT: Relativity was from Michelson-Morley experiment; and the Big-bang theory is from Doppler effect. So basically all of them are derived from the idea of the mechanical wave of light. But how much do we understand about the light? Little! We don’t know the nature of electric / magnetic field, nor do we understand the nature of light. Is it a mechanic wave, like water wave? Definitely not! But why the modern physics which is derived from theories that are based on a mechanic wave model of light is believed to be true? We have already accepted that light can be a particle whose energy is a function of its frequency. So how much are we sure that the energy of light, after a long journey through space, remains unchanged? What if it shifts in the course of the journey bit by bit, and then a red- shift is observed? On the other hand, for the universe has no reason to have a special point where a Big bang occurred, it’s more logical that the universe is uniform instead of expanding.

My Response: That has already been debated (for many decades now) — and the Red Shift and the Big Bang theory won… time to move on to a new topic…

.

Statement: Question: When cosmologists speak of the size of the big bang, what exactly are they comparing it to?

My Response: Good one… but there is an answer: it is ‘compared’ to our current base units of time, space, and the physical world. So they will give size (and all other parameters) in our current basic units, which are adequate until we run into something that is so big (or small) that it renders the units inadequate… so the short answer is the size is ‘compared’ to base units of measurement, and not relative to another Big Bang…

.

Statement: “Time “ does not exist. It is a fiction of our perception. It is a by product of “matter” And can only exist as such. We perceive “time” as the movement of “matter” whether it be a clock or the movement of the stars and planets and the oscillation of atoms. If there were no matter then there could be no time.

My Response: You are partially right and partially wrong: Time exists — it is a measuring tool to measure change. But you are right (in a hazy way) in that ‘time’ is not a physical property, but it is not a ‘fiction’, it is a measuring tool (so slap the clueless people who think time is fiction)… as for matter and time — you are wrong there — time also measures changes in energy (even if there were no matter)… so time can exist without matter. As for perceiving time, just perceive it as a tool that measures change (of either matter or energy)… meaning time is nothing mysterious (and most people think, including the video)…

.

Statement: Unrelated: What if fine tuning is right? not in that the universe was created by a jewish bloke in a robe, but in a more evolutionary way. What if the different parameters that allow for life to exist were fined tuned by a grander natural structure, much like plants and animals evolve to adapt. Could the universe be a being in a space much bigger than it? I mean, if the cells in our body were conscious they’d think of us as their universe, right? Maybe it’s the desert heat, but think about it.

My Response: The ‘finely tuned’ question can only be answered when we know one thing: which came first, life or the universe. If life came first, then the universe was fine-tuned for it (or it was ‘just right’, like a Goldilocks universe where the temperature of the porridge was ‘just right’). If the universe came first, then life merely figured out (by blind chance) how to exist in it.

.

Statement: Because otherwise everything would be static. What we call “time” is a result of movement and change. If you could force everything to a complete standstill, it would be the same as stopping time. Time doesn’t exist without movement and change.

My Response: Your notion of time is wrong. ‘Time’ is a tool for measuring change — it is not a property of matter and energy, change is, time is a tool to quantify it. With no movement or change, then time can take a vacation. The only way time will not exist is if there are no higher consciousnesses to observe time, then ‘time’, though change will still continue — just unobserved and unquantified).

.

Statement: The Universe is a representation of that state which we call Love.

My Response: Love is an emotion, and emotions are used to affect outcomes (to manipulate things). Your statement is derived from the misguided popular mindset.

.

Statement: first of all..there’s no past and no future, only the present…the past is a human idea to explain memory in the brain…like writing data on a hard drive would be the past, simply a concept, and for the future, it can be two things, desire or fear….time is simply the velocity of particules in the density of the fabric of space (like the viscosity of space)

My Response: Without a past and a future, your words would not exist…

.

Statement: What he says about the air in a room being concentrated in just one part of that room if you wait forever for it to happen is just not true. The pressure difference would immediately bring them back evenly distributed.

My Response: The oxygen in a room was a bad analogy, and the video missed another point — that the odds of it NEVER occurring are also not zero, meaning it may never occur…

.

Statement: He is just explaining you what it is mentioned in Hindu Vedic Scriptures in different terminology. This was already stated some thousands of years earlier and passed on to generations and it’s still new to scientific world. There is much more than what he is talking in the Vedas which would definitely take a billion more years for scientific world to decode.

My Response: The Vedas were vague speculations made by primitive minds that had little knowledge of reality — there is nothing to decode in them other than make-believe.

.

Statement: my possible answer to a problem: when every black hole evaporates — the universe forgets that it existed and then it suddenly remembers again :”ha! i was there” and at once kabooom! Voilà- a new big bang

simple enough

My Response: That the universe has a brain to forget and remember is still to be determined… the only simple thing about your statement is its erroneous (but imaginative) simple-mindedness…

.

.

.

.

.

.

Copyright 2018 by Wayne P. Biro
aka Numi Who
All Rights Reserved by Wayne P. Biro

.

.