[sbuttgereit]

I think I like Tim Maudlin's approach to the question. Time isn't all that mysterious: it's simply fundamental meaning it cannot be explained has being the sum of some things more fundamental. The argument is that's where the difficulty lies for many is they want to express time as though it's a composite, and it just isn't. So the best you can do is explain time by referencing those other aspects of existence which incorporate time.

Here's a much longer take from Tim Maudlin, "Tim Maudlin: A Masterclass on the Philosophy of Time" (https://youtu.be/3riyyEmWwoY?si=9aI-bETWcNpdjMW9), Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at NYU and Founder and Director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics. The podcast is Robinson Erhardt's.

[grebc]

I like Tim, his arguments come across as an honest attempt to answer real questions. I feel as if the current crop of physicists look down on things that appear too simplistic.

Their math give an answer with artefacts they can’t match to reality so they keep probing the outliers of these absolutely bonkers ideas, and rabbit holes keep getting deeper & weirder.

Time doesn’t exist. Do the people writing this garbage live in a vacuum? Is it AI slop?

[luc4sdreyer]

> Time doesn’t exist. Do the people writing this garbage live in a vacuum? Is it AI slop?

Maybe don't dismiss an idea as garbage before trying to understand it.

One of the ideas here is that time is an emergent phenomenon, like how temperature and gas pressure seem real at a macroscopic level, but disappear once you look closer. They simply describe the average kinetic energy of all the molecules in the area.

The _hypothesis_ is that time could be similar.