4 ms·

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 inv

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".

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".