3 ms·

> 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 t

by 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".
    - vintermann 2y ago
      > Time is a kantian a priori for us Exactly. That's what I said. I just didn't want to drag Kant explicitly into it for various reasons. So if you've read Kant, you understand that time is impossible to say whether it's an attribute of the world, or an attribute of us. In particular, claiming to have empirical evidence of one or the other is nonsense - yet it's what this physics paper does, at least in its clickbaity title. > In general, don't try to beat down advanced physics, QM, etc with appeals to "common sense" logic Don't be condescending just because you've taken physics courses. Basic category errors is something everyone's entitled to call out, you don't even have to have read Kant to understand it.

by pdonis 2y ago

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".
  - vintermann 2y ago
    > Time is a kantian a priori for us Exactly. That's what I said. I just didn't want to drag Kant explicitly into it for various reasons. So if you've read Kant, you understand that time is impossible to say whether it's an attribute of the world, or an attribute of us. In particular, claiming to have empirical evidence of one or the other is nonsense - yet it's what this physics paper does, at least in its clickbaity title. > In general, don't try to beat down advanced physics, QM, etc with appeals to "common sense" logic Don't be condescending just because you've taken physics courses. Basic category errors is something everyone's entitled to call out, you don't even have to have read Kant to understand it.