4 ms·

As a physicist, all this talk about the "meaning of time" (which has been going on for centuries and in the modern form for decades) seems completely meaningles

As a physicist, all this talk about the "meaning of time" (which has been going on for centuries and in the modern form for decades) seems completely meaningless. This article, as far as I can discern, makes no scientific claims or arguments and has no measurable consequences. I guess it might be good material for drunken conversations if you like passing time that way, but I don't really see any other use for it.

pdimitar 9y ago
Agreed. During such a drunken conversation I'd simply say "so when a car hits me because I misjudged the right moment to cross over, the pain is only in my head and it doesn't exist?" and would laugh. That's exactly how much value I see in this article. It says absolutely nothing of substance. It doesn't even have philosophical value.
- johnchristopher 9y ago
  > During such a drunken conversation I'd simply say "so when a car hits me because I misjudged the right moment to cross over, the pain is only in my head and it doesn't exist?" and would laugh. Well. The physical pain would indeed only exist in your head and your head only :). /pour me another.
  - pdimitar 9y ago
    Touche. /winks and raises a glass.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >During such a drunken conversation I'd simply say "so when a car hits me because I misjudged the right moment to cross over, the pain is only in my head and it doesn't exist?" and would laugh. Repeating a tired millennia old argument that crudely stops any inquiring talk for anything that's not directly measurable (and/or doesn't translate into money or some direct benefit)... But while the grandparent started with "As a physicist", as if this conveys the consensus among physicists, they forgot to mention that many physicists (including celebrated physicists) are indeed very interested in the meaning and the philosophy behind physics concepts, and there have been excellent forays into such matter, without going into BS Chopra territory.
  - pdimitar 9y ago
    I am very interested myself and I am not a physicist. ;) However, this particular discussion (in the article) is indeed very old and nothing productive ever came out of it, I think. It's almost like asking "what's the meaning of it all?" Something I'd be interested in reading would be a theory in how the human brain "slows down" time when we're in severe pain, or what known quantum effects might contribute to time dilation caused by us without going to a black hole. Etc. You know, something that is still not a solved problem but has an attached practical question to it, instead of "what if time only exists because we're designed to perceive it?", which really says nothing at all. All of this is an opinion of course.
  - keldaris 9y ago
    > while the grandparent started with "As a physicist", as if this conveys the consensus among physicists, they forgot to mention that many physicists (including celebrated physicists) are indeed very interested in the meaning and the philosophy behind physics concepts I wasn't trying to convey any "consensus" among physicists, merely make abundantly clear that the specific article in question does not appear to contain any discernible novel scientific or philosophical content. You're perfectly right in saying that plenty of great physicists are indeed interested in the philosophy of science (though many more are not), and that's fine. This article and the ideas it represents aren't a part of that.

pdimitar 9y ago

Agreed. During such a drunken conversation I'd simply say "so when a car hits me because I misjudged the right moment to cross over, the pain is only in my head and it doesn't exist?" and would laugh. That's exactly how much value I see in this article. It says absolutely nothing of substance. It doesn't even have philosophical value.

johnchristopher 9y ago
> During such a drunken conversation I'd simply say "so when a car hits me because I misjudged the right moment to cross over, the pain is only in my head and it doesn't exist?" and would laugh. Well. The physical pain would indeed only exist in your head and your head only :). /pour me another.
- pdimitar 9y ago
  Touche. /winks and raises a glass.
coldtea 9y ago
>During such a drunken conversation I'd simply say "so when a car hits me because I misjudged the right moment to cross over, the pain is only in my head and it doesn't exist?" and would laugh. Repeating a tired millennia old argument that crudely stops any inquiring talk for anything that's not directly measurable (and/or doesn't translate into money or some direct benefit)... But while the grandparent started with "As a physicist", as if this conveys the consensus among physicists, they forgot to mention that many physicists (including celebrated physicists) are indeed very interested in the meaning and the philosophy behind physics concepts, and there have been excellent forays into such matter, without going into BS Chopra territory.
- pdimitar 9y ago
  I am very interested myself and I am not a physicist. ;) However, this particular discussion (in the article) is indeed very old and nothing productive ever came out of it, I think. It's almost like asking "what's the meaning of it all?" Something I'd be interested in reading would be a theory in how the human brain "slows down" time when we're in severe pain, or what known quantum effects might contribute to time dilation caused by us without going to a black hole. Etc. You know, something that is still not a solved problem but has an attached practical question to it, instead of "what if time only exists because we're designed to perceive it?", which really says nothing at all. All of this is an opinion of course.
- keldaris 9y ago
  > while the grandparent started with "As a physicist", as if this conveys the consensus among physicists, they forgot to mention that many physicists (including celebrated physicists) are indeed very interested in the meaning and the philosophy behind physics concepts I wasn't trying to convey any "consensus" among physicists, merely make abundantly clear that the specific article in question does not appear to contain any discernible novel scientific or philosophical content. You're perfectly right in saying that plenty of great physicists are indeed interested in the philosophy of science (though many more are not), and that's fine. This article and the ideas it represents aren't a part of that.