# data[].attributes.body
While its hard to say which one is more correct, I find statement B to be more t. The mind and consciousness behave very inconsistently. Professor Carr's notion about the inconsistancy between time and consciousness is very bizarre. While objects in the universe experience the same rate of time while being at rest in their reference frame, the mind does not. The flow of time for the mind can vary even when at rest. Consciousness seems to be able to defy the laws of relativity at times.

# data[].attributes.body
“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

― Albert Einstein

# data[].attributes.body
I find Prof. Carr's statement most agreeable. The bottom line is that through the study of our sciences we learn to understand the basic physical laws of our universe and their associated physical constants, but how far back can we believe these laws and constants had physical existence? Does it make sense to believe that these constants and laws existed before our universe even existed? Before matter itself? It seems apparent that in order for these laws to manifest the creation of the universe, they must have existed in some primary frame; the frame of consciousness.

# data[].attributes.body
I guess i would have to go with statement B.Time is an very abstract concept. One definition of Time is "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future". I guess that implies some sort of consciousness. I don't know for sure though.

# data[].attributes.body
“The arrow of time obscures memory of both past and future circumstance with innumerable fallacies, the least trivial of which is perception.”
― Ashim Shanker, Only the Deplorable

# data[].attributes.body
I must claim in all honesty I side with Professor Hooft. Although I do agree with Professor Carr that time and consciousness are not well understood, I do not believe psychological time must have meaning. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which necessarily calls for irreversible processes, dictates the arrow of time; that is, due to a large ensemble of irreversible processes, the past, present and future look different. As such, because our thoughts arise out of electrical impulses, those neurons in action are subject to such laws of thermodynamics (and QM). It's our very own nature to ask what happened before the Big Bang - however, I do not believe that whatever happened (if anything) must make any sense to us, precisely because we are confined to our nature, in the very same way that we may seem as a god to a two dimensional being that is confined to two dimensions of space. However, despite our perceptive limitations in space and time we can think about higher dimensional space - and Stephen Hawking has expanded time to complex time, where time has both real and imaginary dimensions; perhaps there exist higher dimensions of time as well even if we cannot perceive them. Interestingly, Professor Carr brings up higher dimensional General Relativity. Attempts to unify classical gravitation and the electromagnetic field yield a 5 dimensional spacetime. However, this idea has been largely ignored due to the limitations of our four dimensional space time (in order to bring unification we have made the problem more difficult, and we had a hard time detecting gravitational waves as it is), and the mainstream interest lying in unifying gravity with quantum field theory. Professor Carr is correct that time has different meaning in quantum systems and in non-Lorentzian spacetime; but even then, both QM and GR are localized theories. Unless the deBroglie-Bohm (or any other deterministic and nonlocal) interpretation of QM is the sole correct interpretation, I do not believe physical time and "psychological" time need be related.

# data[].attributes.body
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." (The Doctor, 2007)

“Why do you delay,” says he, “Why are you idle? Unless you seize the day, it flees.” Even though you seize it, it still will flee; therefore you must vie with time’s swiftness in the speed of using it, and, as from a torrent that rushes by and will not always flow, you must drink quickly. And, too, the utterance of the bard is most admirably worded to cast censure upon infinite delay, in that he says, not “the fairest age,” but “the fairest day.” (Seneca, On The Shortness Of Life)

# data[].attributes.body
"If time travel is possible, where are all the tourists from the future."

-Steven Hawking

# data[].attributes.body
“You may delay, but time will not.”
-Benjamin Franklin

# data[].attributes.body
"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, in and of itself and of its own nature, without reference to anything external, flows uniformly and by another name is called duration. Relative, apparent, and common time is any sensible and external measure (precise or imprecise) of duration by means of motion; such as a measure—for example, an hour, a day, a month, a year—is commonly used instead of true time."
-Sir Isaac Newton

# data[].attributes.body
Time travel used to be thought of as just science fiction
, but Einstein's general theory of relativity allows for the possibility that we could warp space-time so much that you could go off in a rocket and return before you set out.
-Stephen Hawking

# data[].attributes.body
"Imaginary time is a new dimension, at right angles to ordinary, real time." Stephen Hawking

# data[].attributes.body
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once" - Albert Einstein

# data[].attributes.body
Try to realize it's all within yourself no-one else can make you change
And to see you're really only very small,
And life flows on within and without you

-The Beatles

https://vimeo.com/42590181

# data[].attributes.body
“We have begun to contemplate our origins: starstuff pondering the stars; organized assemblages of ten billion billion billion atoms considering the evolution of atoms; tracing the long journey by which, here at least, consciousness arose.”

- Carl Sagan

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with argument 'B'. 'A' is too reductionist. I seems like they are making the same mistake as scientists in the 18th century who tried to compare the body to a steam engine. In the essay "Science Mind and Limits of Understanding", Chomsky argues in favor of Mysterianism, which believes that since humans are part of the natural world, we naturally have cognitive limits. This may include the limit to understanding consciousness. Chomsky gives a warning to reductionists in his statement, "Chemical laws never would be reducible to physical laws, as physics was then understood. After physics underwent radical changes, with the quantum-theoretic revolution, the new physics was unified with a virtually unchanged chemistry, but there was never reduction in the anticipated sense. There may be some lessons here for neuroscience and philosophy of mind." Some scientists have instead thought of consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe. As Chomsky says about Darwin, "in his early notebooks, wrote that there is no need to regard thought, "a secretion of the brain," as "more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter"."

# data[].attributes.body
Argument A assumes the human brain is no different from a man-made computer with an operating temperature and therefore time is a byproduct of the "causality structure" built into relativity and quantum theory. Argument B states time and consciousness are actually poorly understood by the realm of science and physical time and psychological time can be very different things. I tend to side with Argument B because calling the brain a computer I believe is very wrong. Yes they are similar because humans used their brains to create a computing system but there are still so many things a computer can't do that a brain can do naturally. Humans can walk but they would like to move faster so they create a vehicle. Humans can think so they create a computing system to help them think faster. To say this computing system is actually another "human brain" as if that person's brain underwent mitosis and divided like a cell is preposterous. Computers only do what a human programs it to do and can't have feelings/emotions and can't exercise free-will or simply factor polynomials... As far as time... It is a perception of the human brain... we humans interpreted it as a physical construct now incorporate into our every day life including our creations. If the universe is truly infinite (I believe it to be) then time is irrelevant... No beginning and no end so who cares about the in between other then the lives we choose to lead.

# data[].attributes.body
“It's being here now that's important. There's no past and there's no future. Time is a very misleading thing. All there is ever, is the now. We can gain experience from the past, but we can't relive it; and we can hope for the future, but we don't know if there is one.”

― George Harrison

OR!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From the 1973 album "The Dark Side of the Moon".

# data[].attributes.body
The long unmeasured pulse of time moves everything. There is nothing hidden that it cannot bring to light, nothing once known that may not become unknown. Nothing is impossible.
-Sophocles

# data[].attributes.body
Truth was the only daughter of time - Leonardo da Vinci

# data[].attributes.body
Only God is out of time of space and time. He can see the past, present, and future simultaneously. May we continue to gain insight into the universe as long as we do not lose the perspective that God is sovereign. Therefore I am in support of both A and B as long as B does not transcend the confines of who God is as revealed in the Bible.

# data[].attributes.body
The inseparability of time and space emerged in connection with electrodynamics, or the law of propagation of light. ... With the discovery of the relativity of simultaneity, space and time were merged in a single continuum in a way similar to that in which the three dimensions of space had previously merged into a single continuum. Physical space was thus extended to a four dimensional space which also included the dimension of time. The four dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is just as rigid and absolute as Newton's space. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

# data[].attributes.body
"Imaginary time is a new dimension, at right angles to ordinary, real time. "
Stephen Hawking

# data[].attributes.body
Argument A provides the best philosophy about time. We are products of atoms, molecules, and the physical laws of nature. All of these events that surround us are always changing in space that don't appear at the same time. This means that there is a objective time physics have yet to connect. If time were just subjective to the observer, then we can't fully observe an event since we wouldn't know what time it actually took place. We will just know that it did at some point, but I believe "God does not play with dice" ~ Albert Einstein. At some level we should time should be objective. However, argument B brings up an important point about time being subjective. Based on our own systems, we have created a time system that is relative to us, and centered our lives around. This is to say, relative to us our psychological time is an important factor to understand, but this doesn't mean that there is an objective time that can connect theories into one. Argument B also fails because it assumes that consciousness is real and a fundamental feature of the universe, when we don't completely understand consciousness. I think it'll be safe to assume consciousness is subjective since it subjective effects us. An inanimate object, like a rock will not experience consciousness, yet does time effect it? I think argument B is saying if there is no conscious observer then there is no point on whether time effects the rock or not. In order to give it meaning, we would have to take into account psychological time to give it relative meaning to us. Argument B argues a subjective time is the only thing that exist, which is an assumption fallacy, when time is not fully understood yet.

# data[].attributes.body
"Time and space are finite in extent, but they don't have any boundary or edge. They would be like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions." Stephen Hawking

# data[].attributes.body
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.  - Albert Einstein

# data[].attributes.body
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute — and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity."
- Albert Einstein