Date: 2/09/2017 15:24:37
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 1112700
Subject: Philosophical Time

“According to some of the latest physics, time isn’t exactly what we think it is. In fact, it may not even exist at all!
When our best scientific theories sound crazy, can philosophers help science make better sense of time?”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-09-02/three-ideas-about-time-that-will-bend-your-mind/8831480

There’s a link in that article to the Philosopher’s Zone where it is discussed.
Worth a look if you’ve got the time.

Reply Quote

Date: 2/09/2017 15:29:34
From: roughbarked
ID: 1112701
Subject: re: Philosophical Time

Peak Warming Man said:


“According to some of the latest physics, time isn’t exactly what we think it is. In fact, it may not even exist at all!
When our best scientific theories sound crazy, can philosophers help science make better sense of time?”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-09-02/three-ideas-about-time-that-will-bend-your-mind/8831480

There’s a link in that article to the Philosopher’s Zone where it is discussed.
Worth a look if you’ve got the time.

I’m afraid that it may not even exist, this time I might have to look.

Reply Quote

Date: 2/09/2017 15:58:41
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1112704
Subject: re: Philosophical Time

“But according to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, who writes on the philosophy of physics, the idea of time as an illusion is wrong.

“It’s based on a false extrapolation of a system of modelling little bits of the universe to the universe as a whole,” Dr Smolin said at a 2013 lecture at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

“We end up with a lot of wackiness because we’re doing something dumb.”

Now that looks interesting. The link is a lecture 1:15 long though. Have to look another time.

To my mind, statements such as “time/consciousness/what we perceive are just illusions” make no sense.

What we perceive is our reality.

Reply Quote

Date: 2/09/2017 16:28:46
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1112710
Subject: re: Philosophical Time

The Rev Dodgson said:


“But according to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, who writes on the philosophy of physics, the idea of time as an illusion is wrong.

“It’s based on a false extrapolation of a system of modelling little bits of the universe to the universe as a whole,” Dr Smolin said at a 2013 lecture at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

“We end up with a lot of wackiness because we’re doing something dumb.”

Now that looks interesting. The link is a lecture 1:15 long though. Have to look another time.

To my mind, statements such as “time/consciousness/what we perceive are just illusions” make no sense.

What we perceive is our reality.

Yes it’s another case of physicists demanding that the mathematics is more real than reality.

Reply Quote

Date: 2/09/2017 16:49:54
From: transition
ID: 1112722
Subject: re: Philosophical Time

there’s a hint of what time is in the pendulum of a clock, and how strange is that.

motion, change (physical things) and such are the references used.

i’d like to add some mystery, but can’t see any.

Reply Quote

Date: 2/09/2017 17:32:57
From: btm
ID: 1112742
Subject: re: Philosophical Time

I’ve thought for a long t— er… for a while that our perception and understanding of time is flawed, but I’ve been led to these conclusions by purely physical considerations.

The EPR paradox is a gedanken experiment involving two entangled particles; when they’re far enough apart for communication between them to take some non-trivial time, one entangled quantity of one of them (eg, position) is measured with high precision. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle then says that the error in that particle’s velocity (in this case) becomes so large that measurements of it give wildly inaccurate results. In symbols, Δx . Δp ≥ ℏ/2, but only for the measured particle. If the other particle’s velocity is measured with the same precision, and at the same time as the position of the first, it’s possible to deduce both the velocity and position of both particles to a high precision, in violation of HUP. SR says that information can’t be communicated faster than light, so the only ways for this to be possible are (a) hidden variables — that is, there are some variables that we don’t (and can’t) know about that describe the quantum state (this was EPR’s preferred solution), (b) many-worlds — measuring one particle causes the universe to split into two almost identical universes, with the measured states in one of each universe, or © time works differently to what we expect (considered unphysical at the time.) While it is impossible to conduct this actual experiment (since the experimenter would have to know in advance where the particles were for the measurement, and thus would have to know their positions and velocities in advance, it’s been shown that Bell’s Inequality actually describes an equivalent experiment that can be (and has been) performed.

In the philosophy of science, there’s an idea that things only happen if they’re observed to happen (so the moon doesn’t exist if no-one’s looking at it.) Since photons only exhibit their existence when their energy is absorbed, it can be (and has been) argued that photons only actually exist when they’re destroyed. So a virtual particle is emitted, tracing the path the photon would take, until it meets something to absorb it, at which point it sends a message back in time and the actual photon is emitted (possibly many billions of years lated.)

If Young’s double slit experiment is conducted with single photons, the interference pattern is seen, unless the slit the photon passes through is observed, in which case the interference pattern is destroyed and an image of the two slits is displayed. It makes no difference when the observation is made. Even if the particle is allowed to impinge on the screen, and the observation of which slit it passed through is then made, the interference pattern is destroyed.

This last is a specific case of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment, in which the behaviour of a particle is chosen by the experimenter after the particle has made its choice.

All of these together suggest to me that our understanding of time is flawed.

Reply Quote

Date: 3/09/2017 14:33:34
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1113069
Subject: re: Philosophical Time

> Time can move backwards
> There’s no such thing as an absolute ‘now’
> Double slit and Wheeler’s delayed choice.

All those are familiar and at least 40 years old.

> Time is an illusion (lunchtime doubly so) So-called “quantum gravity” theories try to bring together theories of quantum mechanics and relativity. Still a work in progress, these theories suggest time is not a fundamental building block of the physical world.

Which quantum gravity theory?! In all the quantum gravity theories that I know (including superstrings, supergravity, causal dynamical triangulation, and quantum loop gravity) time is a fundamental building block of the physical world.

Reply Quote

Date: 3/09/2017 15:00:44
From: transition
ID: 1113082
Subject: re: Philosophical Time

it’s all the conforming physics, of the and across various scales that results in time.

there’s probably non-conforming physics too, but that’s a complete elsewhere, detached, intangible from this universe, or dimensions. Conjecturable though.

Reply Quote