And, like, what's your personal relationship to time?

Well, I, you know, like, most people, I kind of hate that my time is finite sometimes.

Like, it keeps me up at night sometimes.

But I also kind of love it.

So I'm not one of these people that would want to be immortal.

Like, that concept actually really... uh, bothers me.

Um, and in part it bothers me because of my scientific work, because I, I see so much that the fundamental nature of life is really about what we were talking about earlier.

i think this like this is bringing me to something and i'd love to like try to connect the dots here i loved it was so beautiful before when you said theories are technologies of perception did you did you realize you said that before yeah

Mm-hmm.

So the traditional debate around free will is the underlying laws of physics are deterministic, therefore there's no possibility for it.

So you, like, you really-- And, and that to me is a really interesting intellectual leap that a lot of people have chosen to take because the laws of physics as we understand them now have nothing to do with life.

Uh, like nothing, except for the fact that intelligent living things built experiments to confirm these mathematical relationships describe things outside of them.

Like, that's the only relationship those laws have to living things.

[laughs] And so, and then yet we use that as an inference to say reality is fully deterministic, and there's no possibility of free will.

Um, and so, so that to me is, is missing a lot.

So what do you mean by that?

I don't know if you agree with that, Sarah.

I do.

I just want to pick up on because you're talking about the scaffolding and the contingency.

And so I think to kind of because I think something is in the conversation getting a little muddled.

Like you need to make a distinction between clock time and causal time.

And what Lee and I are talking about causal time.

And so clock time is about the synchronization of physical devices.

Is that where you were going to go?