4 ms·

That's a bad article not really worth reading. The author either did not understand what he is talking about or did a quite bad job communicating the ideas. The

That's a bad article not really worth reading. The author either did not understand what he is talking about or did a quite bad job communicating the ideas. There are huge gaps in the article and you won't be any wiser after reading it.

jmkni 9y ago
Want to fill us in?
- danbruc 9y ago
  I can not, I am just an interested layman. I know enough to recognize the article as badly written, I know not enough to provide something better. I can not even point you to further resource because frankly I was unable to figure out what the central idea of the discussed research was supposed to be. At best I can suggest to try to read the actual paper but I didn't myself.
roywiggins 9y ago
It seems that way to me as well. I'm not a physicist but it seemed to do a very bad job yoking the research in question to the larger question of time. The research seems simple enough- gravity alone can't explain decoherence, and decoherence is a way that quantum mechanics is granted an arrow of time (other quantum processes can be run backwards indistinguishably). But the whole "time doesn't exist without an observer and observers create time" just seems to be begging the question. An observer with a brain has an arrow of time, because otherwise the brain doesn't have a past and can't make memories- how can you make a memory without an arrow of time? Observation seems to be an irreversible process. But brains are made of stuff, that stuff obeys the laws of physics, so where do observers come from in this theory?
coldtea 9y ago
So, like this comment? Which doesn't give any counter-argument at all...
- danbruc 9y ago
  Those are two different things, a badly written article failing to communicate a theory well on the one hand and and a bad theory on the other hand. I wrote the comment because of the former so that people coming to the comments first can decide to not read the article if they believe my comment. And while I tend to dismiss the idea of time being fundamentally linked to brains because of what I know and don't know about the inner workings of the universe, I did not express any opinion about the theory itself because the article left me pretty clueless what exactly the theory is and I also did not dig any further, for example read the actual paper.

jmkni 9y ago

Want to fill us in?

danbruc 9y ago
I can not, I am just an interested layman. I know enough to recognize the article as badly written, I know not enough to provide something better. I can not even point you to further resource because frankly I was unable to figure out what the central idea of the discussed research was supposed to be. At best I can suggest to try to read the actual paper but I didn't myself.

roywiggins 9y ago

It seems that way to me as well. I'm not a physicist but it seemed to do a very bad job yoking the research in question to the larger question of time. The research seems simple enough- gravity alone can't explain decoherence, and decoherence is a way that quantum mechanics is granted an arrow of time (other quantum processes can be run backwards indistinguishably). But the whole "time doesn't exist without an observer and observers create time" just seems to be begging the question. An observer with a brain has an arrow of time, because otherwise the brain doesn't have a past and can't make memories- how can you make a memory without an arrow of time? Observation seems to be an irreversible process. But brains are made of stuff, that stuff obeys the laws of physics, so where do observers come from in this theory?

coldtea 9y ago

So, like this comment? Which doesn't give any counter-argument at all...

danbruc 9y ago
Those are two different things, a badly written article failing to communicate a theory well on the one hand and and a bad theory on the other hand. I wrote the comment because of the former so that people coming to the comments first can decide to not read the article if they believe my comment. And while I tend to dismiss the idea of time being fundamentally linked to brains because of what I know and don't know about the inner workings of the universe, I did not express any opinion about the theory itself because the article left me pretty clueless what exactly the theory is and I also did not dig any further, for example read the actual paper.