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

161–170 of 179 posts

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

#161

Post by gus_massa »

vintermann wrote: post #157
mikhailfranco wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cou…

>> * Every thing that happens, happens at a time.

What is a "time"? Is it a number? A string like "uyeuhwydyjghafjhbhsjahsgg"? Some opaque object? Is it possible to compre the "time" of two different events? If there are two different events, did they happen at the same "time" or at different "time"?

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

#162

Post by gus_massa »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #146
robertlagrant wrote: post #12

> Bergson emphasised the cultural and technological context in which Einstein formulated relativity and argued that a theory of time that relies on clocks but doesn’t understand their history and significance, is incomplete This is hard to get on board with. A theory of time is incomplete without a history of clocks? Have I misunderstood?

I think most people can relate to sometimes feeling like their experience of time is incongruent with objective clock time. We're educated and socialized to believe that it is our perception that is incorrect, because the clock is right. Some philosophers and other types of scholars would question whether we should cede all sense of reality to that which can be objectively measured. You might say that there's no one…

This is like claiming that there is no physical temperature because "hot" water for a bathtub is different from "hot" water for a tea (and different from "hot" air during a summer day).

Perhaps we should use two different word for the "perceived time" and for the "clock time". The good days, when I go to sleep all the night appears to go away in an instant, but it isn't. It's more useful to have a physical defined "clock time" and then explain why the brain is bad estimating durations using the "perceived time".

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

#163

Post by vintermann »

gus_massa wrote: post #161
vintermann wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cou…

>> * Every thing that happens, happens at a time. What is a "time"? Is it a number? A string like "uyeuhwydyjghafjhbhsjahsgg"? Some opaque object? Is it possible to compre the "time" of two different events? If there are two different events, did they happen at the same "time" or at different "time"?

Come on! I make a serious effort to be precise here, and you just don't seem to give a damn.

Time is a word, and I'm trying to establish the absolute minimum common sense rules for using that word. Obviously we have to use other words to do that, words like "event", "cause" and "order" (note, not "object"). But that's OK, the point is to explain what we mean by these words in relation to each other.

To answer your questions explicitly:

* Time, in this philosophical, pre-experimental sense, is not a number. It does not have anything like a unit or scale. It's certainly not a gobbeldygook string.

* You can only order the time of two events, and only if one is in the set of causes of the other (or the causes of causes etc. Talking about an ordering implies that, I hope you agree.) If an event A has two causes B and C, all we can say for sure is that the times of B and C are ordered before the time of A, because that's what we mean by these words, time, cause and event.

* No, you can never say for sure that something happened at the same time. You can maybe order the times, if they are in a causal chain - in that case it makes no sense to say they're equal. If they are not in a causal chain with each other, you can say nothing about their order (or equality). We know nothing about the order of B and C.

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

#164

Post by _8j50 »

gus_massa wrote: post #159
_8j50 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I wouldn't say empirical evidence but here is one of many that keeps popping up in popsci news: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live...

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

#165

Post by gus_massa »

vintermann wrote: post #163
gus_massa wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> * Every thing that happens, happens at a time. What is a "time"? Is it a number? A string like "uyeuhwydyjghafjhbhsjahsgg"? Some opaque object? Is it possible to compre the "time" of two different events? If there are two different events, did they happen at the same "time" or at different "time"?

Come on! I make a serious effort to be precise here, and you just don't seem to give a damn. Time is a word , and I'm trying to establish the absolute minimum common sense rules for using that word. Obviously we have to use other words to do that, words like "event", "cause" and "order" (note, not "object"). But that's OK, the point is to explain what we mean by these words in relation to each other. To answer your q…

So the idea is to assign a different "time" to each event. It's very different from physics, because physics assigns the "same" time to multiple events.

In Newtonian Mechanics, everyone agree to assign the same time to the same collection of events.

In Special Relativity, the same time is assigned to different collections of events by different observers.

In General Relativity, it's more complicated.

Back to your original comment

>>> *Every event happens in a place.

Does each event get a different place, of places can be shared between events?

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

#166

Post by pvitz »

lisper wrote: post #151
pvitz wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

However, we are not talking about Bach, but about Einstein's knowledge of epistemology and that he certainly was well versed in that subject and didn't make such a basic mistake as you alluded to.

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

#167

Post by conquistadog »

robertlagrant wrote: post #12

> Bergson emphasised the cultural and technological context in which Einstein formulated relativity and argued that a theory of time that relies on clocks but doesn’t understand their history and significance, is incomplete This is hard to get on board with. A theory of time is incomplete without a history of clocks? Have I misunderstood?

There is only one "now", is there not? All else is perception of speed.

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

#168

Post by lisper »

pvitz wrote: post #166
lisper wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

However, we are not talking about Bach, but about Einstein's knowledge of epistemology and that he certainly was well versed in that subject and didn't make such a basic mistake as you alluded to.

What I was alluding to was Einstein's belief that the EPR paradox was evidence that QM was incomplete. He was wrong about that, but can be forgiven because he didn't know about Bell and Aspect.

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

#169

Post by tonfreed »

robertlagrant wrote: post #12

> Bergson emphasised the cultural and technological context in which Einstein formulated relativity and argued that a theory of time that relies on clocks but doesn’t understand their history and significance, is incomplete This is hard to get on board with. A theory of time is incomplete without a history of clocks? Have I misunderstood?

Philosophers are a special breed.

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

#170

Post by gus_massa »

_8j50 wrote: post #164
gus_massa wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wouldn't say empirical evidence but here is one of many that keeps popping up in popsci news: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live...

That sounds good, but after reading it carefully it makes no sense. It was posted in April 1 2021.
Post reply on HN