4 ms·

Article: Spacetime is an illusion! Time isn't real! Reality: The details of time diverge a bit from common understanding. The author has an emotional reaction t

Article: Spacetime is an illusion! Time isn't real! Reality: The details of time diverge a bit from common understanding. The author has an emotional reaction to this. Who else dislikes this sort of pop-science writing? It seems to care more about evoking some mystical and philosophical idea of the universe than effectively communicating the science.

GW150914 8y ago
I despise it, and it seems to have become all that Aeon is capable of. If I wanted to hear what a stoned Physics 101 student thought, I’d ask them. Good science isn’t necessarily sexy, it may not make for profitable clickbait, but it’s very rewarding. @Westoncb: Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
- westoncb 8y ago
  Hmm... It's not from Aeon, and the author is a practicing theoretical physicist who also does work in history and philosophy of science—so about as well-suited to the topic at hand as you could get.
danharaj 8y ago
I'm sure for someone who has devoted his career to understanding spacetime, Rovelli's enthusiasm for the subject at least borders mysticism. The science of quantum gravity is wide open.
- sidlls 8y ago
  I devoted decades of my life to it and I never associated it with the borderline mysticism present in this article. It's all vectors, tensors, fields and operators, and the data which support certain models or provide avenues to yet more questions by exposing deficiencies and gaps. There's nothing deeper about it than that, except what we choose to apply for our own emotional satisfaction (which isn't unimportant, but certainly shouldn't be mistaken for truth in the world of physics).
sixstringbudha 8y ago
>It seems to care more about evoking some mystical and philosophical idea of the universe What is wrong about mystical, philosophical idea of the universe? I like mystical, philosophical idea of the universe.
- Koshkin 8y ago
  Nothing wrong, just not science.
  - sixstringbudha 8y ago
    Everything was "not science" before it became "science". So what is your point?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Koshkin 8y ago
      ...if a thing is not a science, it is not necessarily bad. For example, love is not a science. So, if something is said not to be a science, it does not mean that there is something wrong with it; it just means that it is not a science. --R. Feynman
      - sixstringbudha 8y ago
        Did quoting R.Feynman was part of your plan? Because I don't see no other point for your original comment other than to eventually quote R.Feynman. A: I like x B: I don't like x A: Why? B: Because it is not science A: Why is that bad? B: It is not. Because R.Feynman said blah blah blah... A: ??
- dgut 8y ago
  Nothing wrong about it per se. Just don't try to mask it as or "soften" the principles of science.
westoncb 8y ago
I have a strong distaste for science popularizations that misrepresent results to make things seem more fun or exciting or whatever—but this isn't that. This is more a presentation of a physicist's worldview, giving some background on the physics which made it that way. > Reality: The details of time diverge a bit from common understanding. I think you may be underestimating the divergence a bit. The author is hardly alone in finding general relativity's implications on time to be of profound philosophical importance, for instance.
lisper 8y ago
You may find this a little more to your liking: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
goombastic 8y ago
>Who else dislikes this sort of pop-science writing? I love pop science writing. The thing is that this easy imagination helps a lot of people access hitherto unknowable principles of science. If you are science oriented or enquiry minded but do not have a background in the extreme detail required to access the specific subject/topic, you would have very likely never learnt anything about it given the arcane approach road to it. Popular science writing makes those spaces accessible, marks the roads, explains the possibilities and allows one to think through those abstractions. Then if you are sufficiently interested, you actually get into the hairy details of the actual science. But for most of us who are actually just traveling and understanding, this sort of writing gives us a grip of the "lay of the land." I look at such writing as maps of knowledge, not the actual thing, but sufficiently detailed and made interesting to give people a sense of where they are. It's a jungle gym for the thinking mind.

GW150914 8y ago

I despise it, and it seems to have become all that Aeon is capable of. If I wanted to hear what a stoned Physics 101 student thought, I’d ask them. Good science isn’t necessarily sexy, it may not make for profitable clickbait, but it’s very rewarding. @Westoncb: Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

westoncb 8y ago
Hmm... It's not from Aeon, and the author is a practicing theoretical physicist who also does work in history and philosophy of science—so about as well-suited to the topic at hand as you could get.

danharaj 8y ago

I'm sure for someone who has devoted his career to understanding spacetime, Rovelli's enthusiasm for the subject at least borders mysticism. The science of quantum gravity is wide open.

sidlls 8y ago
I devoted decades of my life to it and I never associated it with the borderline mysticism present in this article. It's all vectors, tensors, fields and operators, and the data which support certain models or provide avenues to yet more questions by exposing deficiencies and gaps. There's nothing deeper about it than that, except what we choose to apply for our own emotional satisfaction (which isn't unimportant, but certainly shouldn't be mistaken for truth in the world of physics).

sixstringbudha 8y ago

>It seems to care more about evoking some mystical and philosophical idea of the universe What is wrong about mystical, philosophical idea of the universe? I like mystical, philosophical idea of the universe.

Koshkin 8y ago
Nothing wrong, just not science.
- sixstringbudha 8y ago
  Everything was "not science" before it became "science". So what is your point?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    ...if a thing is not a science, it is not necessarily bad. For example, love is not a science. So, if something is said not to be a science, it does not mean that there is something wrong with it; it just means that it is not a science. --R. Feynman
    - sixstringbudha 8y ago
      Did quoting R.Feynman was part of your plan? Because I don't see no other point for your original comment other than to eventually quote R.Feynman. A: I like x B: I don't like x A: Why? B: Because it is not science A: Why is that bad? B: It is not. Because R.Feynman said blah blah blah... A: ??
dgut 8y ago
Nothing wrong about it per se. Just don't try to mask it as or "soften" the principles of science.

westoncb 8y ago

I have a strong distaste for science popularizations that misrepresent results to make things seem more fun or exciting or whatever—but this isn't that. This is more a presentation of a physicist's worldview, giving some background on the physics which made it that way. > Reality: The details of time diverge a bit from common understanding. I think you may be underestimating the divergence a bit. The author is hardly alone in finding general relativity's implications on time to be of profound philosophical importance, for instance.

lisper 8y ago

You may find this a little more to your liking: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...

goombastic 8y ago

>Who else dislikes this sort of pop-science writing? I love pop science writing. The thing is that this easy imagination helps a lot of people access hitherto unknowable principles of science. If you are science oriented or enquiry minded but do not have a background in the extreme detail required to access the specific subject/topic, you would have very likely never learnt anything about it given the arcane approach road to it. Popular science writing makes those spaces accessible, marks the roads, explains the possibilities and allows one to think through those abstractions. Then if you are sufficiently interested, you actually get into the hairy details of the actual science. But for most of us who are actually just traveling and understanding, this sort of writing gives us a grip of the "lay of the land." I look at such writing as maps of knowledge, not the actual thing, but sufficiently detailed and made interesting to give people a sense of where they are. It's a jungle gym for the thinking mind.