8 ms·

When they built up this physical theory, they assumed things about time, like that one thing happens after another, countless -- well -- countless times. There

When they built up this physical theory, they assumed things about time, like that one thing happens after another, countless -- well -- countless times. There is no way to not do that. So it's pointless to say "time is an illusion". It's a basic category of thought. But whatever to get hype for your paper, I guess...

coldtea 2y ago
That's a facile dismissal if I ever saw one. You can "assume things about time" while writing a paper (including when it's due for sunmission), while still investigating whether the object of those assumptions has some fundamental properties, or whether it is just an emergent phenomenon from more fundamental things with no specific substance to it. Same way we can assume things about color, but still come to the conclusion that the qualia of color are just manufactured in our brain, and that the reality behind color, as far as the universe is concerned, is electromagnetic radiation at various frequences.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > That's a facile dismissal Not really. The paper referenced in this article basically says "time" for a quantum system emerges from entanglement between that system and a clock. What is a clock? A system that, um, keeps time. Circular reasoning.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >What is a clock? A system that, um, keeps time In colloquial use, a clock is just a set of rotating gears with some spring - or some other such contraption - from sun dials to hourglasses and quartz. It might be used for measuring time, but it's existance as a device is not based self-referentially to the concept of time anymore than a drinking glass is based on the concept of liquids to exists. What's more, in this case the "clock" is just an example of an oscillator.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > existance as a device is not based self-referentially to the concept of time Its existence as an object is not, but its definition as a clock is. Basically the article is defining time in terms of...something that's defined as keeping time. Which, as I said, is circular.
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        Well Detective Larson, you've come right to the scene for investigation, but the chalk lines hold no clues. If you step away from the blackboard, and go downstairs to the basement where the physical labs are, two doors down from Dr. Frankenstein's lab, you'll find some high-frequency operators who've got an atomic clock. Mrs. Frankenstein will show you the way ;) Yes, they're using the matter itself as a clock. Who does that? What kind of universe is it anyway when nobody's ever needed any other kind of clock since the beginning of . . . time? Oh wait . . .
      - coldtea 2y ago
        >Basically the article is defining time in terms of...something that's defined as keeping time. No, it's defining it as something that oscillates (literally: an oscillator). Nothing about the concept of time, calendar or otherwise. The analysis is that the flow of time we experience and the properties of time are an emergent property of this kind of physical behaviors existing.
        vintermann 2y ago
        > oscillates Try to explain what "oscillation" is without reference to the concept of time.
        coldtea 2y ago
        The explanation not being possible without referencing the concept of time is not the same as time itself being a prerequisite as opposed to a product of the oscillation. Time is a kantian a priori for us, so we can reference nothing without the concept of time anyway. Our experience of time, and our concept of time, is not the same as time. Similar to how we can say (and some physics theories do) that the universe is a holographic set of static object where everything exists at once, and time and movement is just an illusion of our perception (like the colors we see is an mental thing, and the raw fact is "just" electromagnetic radiation). In that case oscillation can be a property/structure of things in this static "all moments exist timeless at once", but for us it's still appears as movement in time, and when we describe it we only have this intuitive perception of it. In general, don't try to beat down advanced physics, QM, etc with appeals to "common sense" logic, it's only merely better than "if Earth is round why don't those in the bottom part fall off".
blueprint 2y ago
ok but what does it mean for anything to "happen"?
- kfrzcode 2y ago
  I highly recommend listening to Alan Watts speak on this topic; his lecture "We as Organism" is quite compelling, if non-scientific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMGbjvBXSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMGbjvBXSE
  - nico 2y ago
    Thank you. Not familiar with this lecture, but I love how eloquent Alan Watts was And it’s also great that he credits a lot of his insights to ancient Asian cultures. Essentially explaining that naturally, humans rediscover the nature of the universe, without the need for any special or modern technology, but rather through direct experience of the world
    - kfrzcode 2y ago
      There are many hours of his talks that range from silly to esoteric to outright transcendent, poetry-like explorations and observations of the human condition Highly prescient as well.
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        >Highly prescient as well. This was already widely recognized as each talk was originally being given. Kind of stream-of-consciousness if you think about it. Or if your head's a blank.
  - lodovic 2y ago
    Having to listen to a 53 minute monologue is too much, especially with the expectation that I won't agree as the podcast is subjective and non-scientific. Could you perhaps provide at least a recap when referring to someone else?
nico 2y ago
> So it's pointless to say "time is an illusion". It's a basic category of thought If you think it’s pointless, it’s going to be pointless to you whether it’s true or not However, to give an alternative point of view. If you can model time differently and provide some predictions or enable some technology, then having a different understanding of time might be very useful. Even if we still need to use time in the models And that’s been the case with general relativity. For a long time, and for many physical phenomena, Newton laws and models are just fine. But relativity has enabled a lot of better technologies and finer understanding of some things, through re-defining how we model time

coldtea 2y ago

That's a facile dismissal if I ever saw one. You can "assume things about time" while writing a paper (including when it's due for sunmission), while still investigating whether the object of those assumptions has some fundamental properties, or whether it is just an emergent phenomenon from more fundamental things with no specific substance to it. Same way we can assume things about color, but still come to the conclusion that the qualia of color are just manufactured in our brain, and that the reality behind color, as far as the universe is concerned, is electromagnetic radiation at various frequences.

pdonis 2y ago
> That's a facile dismissal Not really. The paper referenced in this article basically says "time" for a quantum system emerges from entanglement between that system and a clock. What is a clock? A system that, um, keeps time. Circular reasoning.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >What is a clock? A system that, um, keeps time In colloquial use, a clock is just a set of rotating gears with some spring - or some other such contraption - from sun dials to hourglasses and quartz. It might be used for measuring time, but it's existance as a device is not based self-referentially to the concept of time anymore than a drinking glass is based on the concept of liquids to exists. What's more, in this case the "clock" is just an example of an oscillator.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > existance as a device is not based self-referentially to the concept of time Its existence as an object is not, but its definition as a clock is. Basically the article is defining time in terms of...something that's defined as keeping time. Which, as I said, is circular.
    - fuzzfactor 2y ago
      Well Detective Larson, you've come right to the scene for investigation, but the chalk lines hold no clues. If you step away from the blackboard, and go downstairs to the basement where the physical labs are, two doors down from Dr. Frankenstein's lab, you'll find some high-frequency operators who've got an atomic clock. Mrs. Frankenstein will show you the way ;) Yes, they're using the matter itself as a clock. Who does that? What kind of universe is it anyway when nobody's ever needed any other kind of clock since the beginning of . . . time? Oh wait . . .
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >Basically the article is defining time in terms of...something that's defined as keeping time. No, it's defining it as something that oscillates (literally: an oscillator). Nothing about the concept of time, calendar or otherwise. The analysis is that the flow of time we experience and the properties of time are an emergent property of this kind of physical behaviors existing.
      - vintermann 2y ago
        > oscillates Try to explain what "oscillation" is without reference to the concept of time.
        coldtea 2y ago
        The explanation not being possible without referencing the concept of time is not the same as time itself being a prerequisite as opposed to a product of the oscillation. Time is a kantian a priori for us, so we can reference nothing without the concept of time anyway. Our experience of time, and our concept of time, is not the same as time. Similar to how we can say (and some physics theories do) that the universe is a holographic set of static object where everything exists at once, and time and movement is just an illusion of our perception (like the colors we see is an mental thing, and the raw fact is "just" electromagnetic radiation). In that case oscillation can be a property/structure of things in this static "all moments exist timeless at once", but for us it's still appears as movement in time, and when we describe it we only have this intuitive perception of it. In general, don't try to beat down advanced physics, QM, etc with appeals to "common sense" logic, it's only merely better than "if Earth is round why don't those in the bottom part fall off".

blueprint 2y ago

ok but what does it mean for anything to "happen"?

kfrzcode 2y ago
I highly recommend listening to Alan Watts speak on this topic; his lecture "We as Organism" is quite compelling, if non-scientific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMGbjvBXSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMGbjvBXSE
- nico 2y ago
  Thank you. Not familiar with this lecture, but I love how eloquent Alan Watts was And it’s also great that he credits a lot of his insights to ancient Asian cultures. Essentially explaining that naturally, humans rediscover the nature of the universe, without the need for any special or modern technology, but rather through direct experience of the world
  - kfrzcode 2y ago
    There are many hours of his talks that range from silly to esoteric to outright transcendent, poetry-like explorations and observations of the human condition Highly prescient as well.
    - fuzzfactor 2y ago
      >Highly prescient as well. This was already widely recognized as each talk was originally being given. Kind of stream-of-consciousness if you think about it. Or if your head's a blank.
- lodovic 2y ago
  Having to listen to a 53 minute monologue is too much, especially with the expectation that I won't agree as the podcast is subjective and non-scientific. Could you perhaps provide at least a recap when referring to someone else?

nico 2y ago

> So it's pointless to say "time is an illusion". It's a basic category of thought If you think it’s pointless, it’s going to be pointless to you whether it’s true or not However, to give an alternative point of view. If you can model time differently and provide some predictions or enable some technology, then having a different understanding of time might be very useful. Even if we still need to use time in the models And that’s been the case with general relativity. For a long time, and for many physical phenomena, Newton laws and models are just fine. But relativity has enabled a lot of better technologies and finer understanding of some things, through re-defining how we model time