Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

iai.tv

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#151

Post by lisper »

pvitz wrote: post #127
lisper wrote: post #4

> We have first order knowledge of things No, we don't. We only have first-order knowledge of our perceptions of things. And quantum mechanics shows us that those perceptions can be radically different from the underlying reality. Of course, Einstein can be forgiven for making this mistake because he didn't know about the Bell inequality and the subsequent experiments, so it is understandable that he would cling to t…

Einstein knew the works of Schopenhauer quite well and for sure didn't make this mistake. Furthermore, most of the Physicists back then were most likely influenced by Kant or Mach (Einstein called himself his student in letters to him).

Einstein knew the works of Bach quite well too. That doesn't mean that Bach had anything meaningful to contribute to our understanding of the world (except insofar as figuring out how to write good music is such a contribution).

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#152

Post by mikhailfranco »

vintermann wrote: post #131
CreateAccntAgn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is incomplete in that it cannot replace older ideas of time in all contexts. It is perfectly valid/complete for use in scientific contexts. But the general population's use the idea of time for other purposes as well where Einsteins purely Relativistic formulation cannot be a stand in replacement is how I read it.

There is a distance-free notion of time which predates, and necessarily predates, all experimental theories of time. This is (loosely after Kant): * Every thing that happens, happens at a time. Let's call those things "events" from now on. It's nonsense to claim that a thing happened, but never (at any point in time) happened. * Every event happens in a place. It's nonsense to say that a thing happened, but nowhere h…

Points 1,2,4 imply absolute Newtonian space and time. They are completely and utterly wrong.

Einstein showed us this more than 100 years ago - please keep up.

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#153

Post by mikhailfranco »

whatshisface wrote: post #59
mannykannot wrote: post #58

> Q: In one of your talks you mention that the correct way to understand Einstein’s revolution is not as a theoretical, but as a technological revolution. Can you explain what you mean by that? > A: ...A very interesting question is why and how Einstein’s work was able to shed its mundane origins and parade itself as theoretical, cosmological and universal. The "mundane origins" here are Einstein's uses of the mostly…

Science doesn't have a conflict with philosophy, knowledge in any form has a conflict with people who can write an entire book without learning anything about their subject.

Yes, Bergson is not only completely wrong, but lazily and proudly wrong.

He is either:

- an early proto-Post-Modernist, who denies anything they don't advocate can be true;

- an early woo-quantum-consciousness connector of mysteries, all mysteries are each other's explanations.

Would, perhaps, Mr Bergson be a French philosopher?

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#154

Post by lisper »

dventimi wrote: post #136
lisper wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's also a scientist.

What distinguishes a scientist from a philosopher?

A scientist follows the scientific method, i.e. they advance testable hypotheses and compare their predictions with the data. A philosopher writes deep-sounding but ultimately meaningless drivel like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#155

Post by lisper »

johnnyworker wrote: post #139
lisper wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science is a tool. More precisely, it's a method to make and improve and gauge tools. But those tools can't ask questions (we didn't somehow put there first), they cannot judge. They can tell you if something is fair according to your parameters and heuristics, but they know nothing of the inherent value in being fair, they can't answer "should I be fair?", and the same for everything else that actually matters. An…

> We cannot somehow derive some universal standard of "fairness" because no such thing exists. And we don't need philosophers to tell us that. But you're doing it right now? I agree and would like to subscribe to your philosophy newsletter ^^ Kidding aside, I have to think of this talk by Erich Fromm, "Psychology for non-psychologists", where he starts off with saying there everybody is a bit of a psychologist, other…

> But you're doing it right now?

Sorry, what exactly is the "it" that am I doing right now (or was doing right then)?

> everybody is a bit of a psychologist

Sure. So?

> The same with what you just said and philosophy in general

Sure. So? Everyone is a bit of an amateur everything. That doesn't mean that everything that people do can be meaningfully elevated to the level of a profession.

> "a philosopher" would be doing it full time and for money

Yes, exactly. Everyone is an amateur philosopher just as everyone is (say) an amateur thumb-sucker at some point in their lives. That doesn't mean that there ought to be an elite cadre of thumb suckers who get paid to do it.

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#156

Post by Nevermark »

tsimionescu wrote: post #150
Nevermark wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there is always a 1D time aspect, which is always different than a 3D space aspect. But relative to two observers traveling in different directions at relativistic speeds, the way time is observed to be oriented in a space time region (where the two observers directions of motions are not parallel) is different. Different to the point that orders of events (their observed direction of time) can be completely fli…

But only upto some limit. Events that are timelike separated are always perceived to happen in the same order by any two observers. It's only events that happen farther away in space than in time from each other that can be perceived in different orders. So, I don't think the relativity of simultaneity hurts the notion of an arrow of time that much. You don't get a single universal arrow of time, but there are still…

You are right, the trade off between space & time has limits.

And that limit is just another form of the “speed limit” of light.

But it is interesting that within that limit, space & time can be traded against each other.

All time delta’s can be traded to space delta’s (simultanaity), but no space delta, bring 3D can ever be fully traded for time.

Two events at different locations can never be made to appear at the same location, unless you could travel at the speed of light, which we can’t.

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#157

Post by vintermann »

mikhailfranco wrote: post #152
vintermann wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a distance-free notion of time which predates, and necessarily predates, all experimental theories of time. This is (loosely after Kant): * Every thing that happens, happens at a time. Let's call those things "events" from now on. It's nonsense to claim that a thing happened, but never (at any point in time) happened. * Every event happens in a place. It's nonsense to say that a thing happened, but nowhere h…

Points 1,2,4 imply absolute Newtonian space and time. They are completely and utterly wrong. Einstein showed us this more than 100 years ago - please keep up.

Please read again, and try to understand!

The points do not imply Newtonian physics, or any kind of physics at all, because they assert only a ordering relation on events. They put no measure on those things, and certainly no absolute measure.

You clearly also did not understand the problem of trying to do experiments, or even to learn from experience at all without assuming these things.

Really, how much clearer could I have made those things?

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#158

Post by bee_rider »

mellosouls wrote: post #61
bee_rider wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s scientism?

It has a couple of definitions but the relevant one here is a blinkered, complacent over-confident belief in the power of science to explain everything, often accompanied by an ignorant dismissal of philosophy. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Well, that seems like a very silly belief system to have.

That said I can’t imagine having a good faith discussion about it; there’s nobody to defend the idea, because obviously nobody believes that they have a blinkered, over-confident belief in anything. They just think the domain of problems that their method can address is larger than the domain you think it has, I guess.

I guess I can’t imagine the mindset that would “see how the sausage is made” in science, and think that method was going to solve the universe. Everyone is aware that we’re becoming increasingly over-focused on tiny little niches.

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#159

Post by gus_massa »

_8j50 wrote: post #142
lmm wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? That doesn't explain anything. What rules is the "simulation" following? If it's not following any, how come reality behaves so consistently in most respects?

Simulation theory is not my invention, actual scientists have tested it and theorized with strong evidence. I would answer your question but not worth the downvotes like my original comment.

I don't remember any evidence supporting the simulation theory. Do you have a link?

Re: Time Doesn’t Belong to Physics – When Bergson met Einstein

#160

Post by dventimi »

lisper wrote: post #154
dventimi wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What distinguishes a scientist from a philosopher?

A scientist follows the scientific method, i.e. they advance testable hypotheses and compare their predictions with the data. A philosopher writes deep-sounding but ultimately meaningless drivel like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus

Which comically was criticized by its own author here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations

It's not lost on me that Tractatus was warmly received by philosophers, but Investigations got a frostier reception from the same group. I especially enjoyed Russell's snippy quote. Ol Ludwig struck a nerve, did he, Bert?

Post reply on HN