3 ms·
This phrase has always annoyed me. And if time isn’t an illusion, how does that come across differently than if it is?
by Xcelerate 2y ago
This phrase has always annoyed me. And if time isn’t an illusion, how does that come across differently than if it is?
- jc6 2y ago[flagged]
- nightowl_games 2y agoI agree. As a metaphysical ponderer, I often consider how "illusion" is fundamental to our understanding of science. Consider this: all physical laws and theories are verified through human experience on a time scale, ie: under these conditions, you will observe this result. There is always an observer and at least two points in time. Time, and observation of it, is the ground truth of all physical laws, of our very experience of the universe.
- wordpad 2y agoYou can also prove things by deriving it mathematically, without need for any observation. Some things can even be counter intuitive like relativity and quantum physics.
- nightowl_games 2y agoEven in your mathematical derivations, there is an implied observer and time line. Ie: "Using these axioms, performing these operations, you will observe this result". (Precondition, action, result)
- keefle 2y agoValid point, but then I wouldn't consider classical mathematics to be a science
- coldtea 2y agoTo you personally in everyday life, or in general? Because they're concerned with the latter.
- bbwbsb 2y agoA notion is an illusion when it appears to be experientially necessary but models without its structure consistently outperform models with said structure at predicting outcomes.
- fsmv 2y agoIllusion is just the word they try to use to explain what emergence is. I don't think illusion really fits all that well though because illusion implies it's somehow not real and that's not what emergence is about. Emergent things are real (in the sense of Dan Dennett's real patterns) just not fundamental.