|
There is a difference between saying "I don't exactly understand how time works", and saying "time doesn't exist".
I know that i don't understand general relativity. Few people do. You can be skeptic of general relativity (Though afaik most people who are really into theoretical physics are not, so i would trust people who understand things better than i do, instead of claiming that stuff isn't correct just because i don't understand it), but being skeptic of the existence of time is really weird. If there is no time, there never was an Einstein that wrote a paper on general relativity, because there is no such thing as a "was" in a world without time. I am not writing this post, and you are not reading it. Things just are. So if you believe that anything ever happens, if you don't believe that you just moving your mouse to click on something is fake, you believe that time exists. That does not mean that you make any claims to knowing "what" time is. But it certainly exists, because things keep on happening, and without time, they don't.
If you don't believe time exists, you believe that you live in a still image from a movie. But you wouldn't actually believe that either, because there is no time for you to believe anything.
|
The point igne was getting at has less to do with whether or not time is a thing and more about how using words like "exist" poses problems with regards to time that are not present relative to other concepts. Time definitely has its way with us, but to say that it exists just as we do seems troubling given the various ways time seems qualitatively different from the many others things that we'd say exist. This problem of time's being is a central focus point in Heidegger 
|
Ok, that is way too philosopihcal for me.
Is there a different word that better describes something that definitively "is", but doesn't fit your philosophical criteria for existence?
Saying "time doesn't exist" to me means "There is no time".
Also, Heidegger sounds like a dude with way too much time on his hands 
|
On June 07 2017 19:19 farvacola wrote:The point igne was getting at has less to do with whether or not time is a thing and more about how using words like "exist" poses problems with regards to time that are not present relative to other concepts. Time definitely has its way with us, but to say that it exists just as we do seems troubling given the various ways time seems qualitatively different from the many others things that we'd say exist. This problem of time's being is a central focus point in Heidegger
Plenty of other things have a problematic relationship with existence. It's one of the main themes of early 20th century philosophy. xMZ seems to be an anti-realist, a point of view that I feel is completely untenable. The other opinions on time's existence seem closer to an empiricist interpretation.
|
On June 07 2017 19:29 Simberto wrote:Ok, that is way too philosopihcal for me. Is there a different word that better describes something that definitively "is", but doesn't fit your philosophical criteria for existence? Saying "time doesn't exist" to me means "There is no time". Also, Heidegger sounds like a dude with way too much time on his hands
There really isn't a different word aside from "exists" (though maybe just "is" works better anyhow?), which is likely why good philosophy of time tends to be some of the more difficult writing to get through. It also tends to be cross-translated from German/French into English, further complicating matters.
Having read a fair bit of Heidegger some time ago, I think your last point is indeed the case.
Acro: time gets its own special treatment, but yes, many of the big questions in modern philosophy regard those things that language of existence has trouble with. In any case, I think you may be doing the anti-realists a bit dirty by association there 
|
Sounds like a problem with semantics, like every other argument that goes on in the US politics megathread. You would think the human species would understand each other with this thing called language, but no, everyone is confusing the crap out of each other now.
|
From my experience, humans are fucking bad at communicating. It is actually quite amazing how bad they are at it considering they do it nearly constantly. And even worse, they are also really bad at noticing when the communication is not working, AND they are bad at figuring out what the problem in the communication is.
|
Yea that's me and my ex, ugh.
|
On June 07 2017 20:36 riotjune wrote:
Sounds like a problem with semantics, like every other argument that goes on in the US politics megathread. You would think the human species would understand each other with this thing called language, but no, everyone is confusing the crap out of each other now.
Philosophy in general I think. Who was it that said that X%, where X is a shockingly high number, of all philosophy discussions boil down to the definition of a word? It's been cited in this thread several times I think, and for good reasons.
|
lol, which reminds me of the last time I dabbled in philosophy, which was on something about existentialism. Then I gave up mainly because I had no idea what the fuck I was reading.
At least the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau I can get behind since they were written in plain English, comparatively speaking.
|
On June 07 2017 20:44 Simberto wrote:
From my experience, humans are fucking bad at communicating. It is actually quite amazing how bad they are at it considering they do it nearly constantly. And even worse, they are also really bad at noticing when the communication is not working, AND they are bad at figuring out what the problem in the communication is.
Sounds like we all have a lot of work left to do with regards to these problems of communication
|
you dudes, i swear ... evolution doesn't go through baubles; you need to break yours.
this has nothing to do with language and its semantics. fucking hell men, i didn't invent it: In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth, held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)."
is really difficult to argue anything in here so i'll leave you with some basic concepts from “Forget time” - Essay written for the FQXi contest on the Nature of Time - Carlo Rovelli (Dated: August 2008) Following a line of research that I have developed for several years, I argue that the best strategy for understanding quantum gravity is to build a picture of the physical world where the notion of time plays no role at all. I summarize here this point of view, explaining why I think that in a fundamental description of nature we must “forget time”, and how this can be done in the classical and in the quantum theory. The idea is to develop a formalism that treats dependent and independent variables on the same footing. In short, I propose to interpret mechanics as a theory of relations between variables, rather than the theory of the evolution of variables in time. ...VII. CONCLUSION
I have presented a certain number of ideas and results:
1. It is possible to formulate classical mechanics in a way in which the time variable is treated on equal footings with the other physical variables, and not singled out as the special independent variable. I have argued that this is the natural formalism for describing general relativistic systems.
2. It is possible to formulate quantum mechanics in the same manner. I think that this may be the effective formalism for quantum gravity.
3. The peculiar properties of the time variable are of thermodynamical origin, and can be captured by the thermal time hypothesis. Within quantum field theory, “time” is the Tomita flow of the statistical state ρ in which the world happens to be, when described in terms of the macroscopic parameters we have chosen.
4. In order to build a quantum theory of gravity the most effective strategy is therefore to forget the notion of time all together, and to define a quantum theory capable of predicting the possible correlations between partial observables.
Before concluding, I must add that the views expressed are far from being entirely original. I have largely drawn from the ideas of numerous scientists, and in particular Bryce DeWitt, John Wheeler, Chris Isham, Abhay Ashtekar, Jorge Pullin, Rodolfo Gambini, Don Marolf, Don Page, Bianca Dittrich, Julian Barbour and Karel Kuchar, William Wootters, Jean-Marie Souriau, Lee Smolin, John Baez, Jonathan Halliwell, Jim Hartle, Alain Connes, and certainly others that I forget here. I have here attempted to combine a coherent view about the problem of time in quantum gravity, starting from what others have understood.
On the other hand, I also see well that the view I present here is far from being uncontroversial. Several authors maintain the idea that the notion of time is irreducible, and cannot be eliminated from fundamental physics. See for instance [26]. I could of course be wrong, but my own expectation is that the notion of time is extremely natural to us, but only in the same manner in which other intuitive ideas are rooted in our intuition because they are features of the small garden in which we are accustomed to living (for instance: absolute simultaneity, absolute velocity, or the idea of a flat Earth and an absolute up and down). Intuition is not a good guide for understanding natural regimes so distant from our daily experience. The best guide is provided by the theories of the world that have proven empirically effective, and therefore summarize the knowledge we have about Nature. In particular, general relativity challenges strongly our intuitive notion of a universal flow of time. I think we must take its lesson seriously. there are more papers, proposals, thesis on this out there so look it up if you want/need 'cause i'm done here. when something supposedly enjoyable becomes a chore, it's not worth it anymore(note: that was supposed to be the first part which i assumed to be at least heard of, then you'd have the oscillations/waves part but fuck that now, lol; it's even more unconventional than that).
|
On June 07 2017 19:29 Simberto wrote:Ok, that is way too philosopihcal for me. Is there a different word that better describes something that definitively "is", but doesn't fit your philosophical criteria for existence? Saying "time doesn't exist" to me means "There is no time". Also, Heidegger sounds like a dude with way too much time on his hands
Let me use an analogy.
In the middle ages people were being cured from many ailments drinking from sources of holy water. People then took what they observed (empirical data) and concluded that holy water cures ailments. As time passed and our understanding of quarantine zones and water quality improved during the early modern era, we now know that those sources of holy water were simply more pottable than most people's access to water (which were usually in the same rivers they shat in), so now we get to observe the same empirical data (people getting cured from holy water) and come to a new conclusion, that water was cleaner and replaced more often.
Now lets look at the concept of time. We look at empirical data (like clocks) and we take note of how often it repeats a pattern in correlation with a differently observed object. Does the correlation between those two objects prove that time exists, or is that simply the placeholder for something more compleat once we have more knowledge in the future?
|
On June 07 2017 17:41 Simberto wrote:
Time is the thing that things happen in. Without time, nothing happens, because there are no changes, because there is no dimension for those changes to happen in.
That does not require me to be able to measure it. (It does, however, imply that i should be able to find a way to measure time by observing how processes happen)
I am quite certain that some things that are theoretically impossible to measure still exist. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle clearly demonstrates that. Just because you can't measure the position and the momentum of an electron simulatneously does not mean that one of those does not exist, that makes no sense whatsoever.
But without time, i can't measure anything, because nothing ever changes, everything is stationary and eternal without time. (Eternal isn't a really good word here, because eternity implies the existence of time, but i can't find a better one to describe what i want to say. Thinking of a world without time is hard, and the results are kind of absurd. Which makes me wonder how you would come to believe that time doesn't exist)
the nunc stans
|
On June 07 2017 23:07 xM(Z wrote:you dudes, i swear ... evolution doesn't go through baubles; you need to break yours. this has nothing to do with language and its semantics. fucking hell men, i didn't invent it: Show nested quote +In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth, held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." is really difficult to argue anything in here so i'll leave you with some basic concepts from “Forget time” - Essay written for the FQXi contest on the Nature of Time - Carlo Rovelli (Dated: August 2008) Show nested quote +Following a line of research that I have developed for several years, I argue that the best strategy for understanding quantum gravity is to build a picture of the physical world where the notion of time plays no role at all. I summarize here this point of view, explaining why I think that in a fundamental description of nature we must “forget time”, and how this can be done in the classical and in the quantum theory. The idea is to develop a formalism that treats dependent and independent variables on the same footing. In short, I propose to interpret mechanics as a theory of relations between variables, rather than the theory of the evolution of variables in time. ... Show nested quote +VII. CONCLUSION
I have presented a certain number of ideas and results:
1. It is possible to formulate classical mechanics in a way in which the time variable is treated on equal footings with the other physical variables, and not singled out as the special independent variable. I have argued that this is the natural formalism for describing general relativistic systems.
2. It is possible to formulate quantum mechanics in the same manner. I think that this may be the effective formalism for quantum gravity.
3. The peculiar properties of the time variable are of thermodynamical origin, and can be captured by the thermal time hypothesis. Within quantum field theory, “time” is the Tomita flow of the statistical state ρ in which the world happens to be, when described in terms of the macroscopic parameters we have chosen.
4. In order to build a quantum theory of gravity the most effective strategy is therefore to forget the notion of time all together, and to define a quantum theory capable of predicting the possible correlations between partial observables.
Before concluding, I must add that the views expressed are far from being entirely original. I have largely drawn from the ideas of numerous scientists, and in particular Bryce DeWitt, John Wheeler, Chris Isham, Abhay Ashtekar, Jorge Pullin, Rodolfo Gambini, Don Marolf, Don Page, Bianca Dittrich, Julian Barbour and Karel Kuchar, William Wootters, Jean-Marie Souriau, Lee Smolin, John Baez, Jonathan Halliwell, Jim Hartle, Alain Connes, and certainly others that I forget here. I have here attempted to combine a coherent view about the problem of time in quantum gravity, starting from what others have understood.
On the other hand, I also see well that the view I present here is far from being uncontroversial. Several authors maintain the idea that the notion of time is irreducible, and cannot be eliminated from fundamental physics. See for instance [26]. I could of course be wrong, but my own expectation is that the notion of time is extremely natural to us, but only in the same manner in which other intuitive ideas are rooted in our intuition because they are features of the small garden in which we are accustomed to living (for instance: absolute simultaneity, absolute velocity, or the idea of a flat Earth and an absolute up and down). Intuition is not a good guide for understanding natural regimes so distant from our daily experience. The best guide is provided by the theories of the world that have proven empirically effective, and therefore summarize the knowledge we have about Nature. In particular, general relativity challenges strongly our intuitive notion of a universal flow of time. I think we must take its lesson seriously. there are more papers, proposals, thesis on this out there so look it up if you want/need 'cause i'm done here. when something supposedly enjoyable becomes a chore, it's not worth it anymore(note: that was supposed to be the first part which i assumed to be at least heard of, then you'd have the oscillations/waves part but fuck that now, lol; it's even more unconventional than that).
I don't think I could possibly think of a better rebuttal than this:
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1884/does-thermal-time-hypothesis-finally-resolve-zenos-paradox
and in particular:
A few general rules of thumb: 1) getting your philosophy from a physicist is akin to getting your physics from a philosopher; 2) Forbes magazine is not a good source for physics or philosophy: 3) if it has the word "Quantum" in it, it can usually be safely ignored.
GGWP
|
The Note belongs to the next to last section of the last chapter ("Temporality and Within-Time-ness as the Source of the Ordinary Conception of Time"). Time is usually considered as that in which beings are produced. Within-time-ness, intratemporality, is taken to be the homogenous medium in which the movement of daily existence is reckoned and organized. This homogeneity of the temporal medium becomes the effect of a "leveling off of primordial time" (Nivellierung der ursprünglichen Zeit), and constitutes a world time more objective than the object and more subjective than the subject. In affirming that history—falls into time (… fällt die Entwicklung der Geschichte in die Zeit), is not Hegel thinking in terms of the vulgar concept of time? Heidegger claims to be in agreement with Hegel on this proposition in its "results" (im Resultat), and to the extent that it concerns the temporality of Dasein and the co-belonging that links Dasein to world time (p. 457). But Heidegger agrees only with the proposition in its results, and Hegel himself has taught us that results are nothing without their becoming, outside the locus which assigns to them an itinerary or a method. Now, Heidegger wants to show in what way his project of fundamental ontology displaces the meaning of this result, thus making the Hegelian proposition appear as the "most radical" formulation of the vulgar concept of time. He is concerned not with "criticizing" Hegel but with sharpening the difference between fundamental ontology and classical or vulgar ontology, and with doing so by restoring the radicality of a formulation "which has received too little attention" and by showing this formulation to be at work and at the center of the most profound, the most critical, and the most encompassing thought of metaphysics.
|
On June 07 2017 21:33 riotjune wrote:
lol, which reminds me of the last time I dabbled in philosophy, which was on something about existentialism. Then I gave up mainly because I had no idea what the fuck I was reading.
At least the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau I can get behind since they were written in plain English, comparatively speaking.
My observation is that the harder a concept is to understand and the more it's wrapped in complicated, long-winding terms, the less it includes any valuable information, once you made the effort to read it in detail. Not only in philosophy.
|
when did this happen to you?
|
In most cases philosophy can be understood as giant glass towers sitting on shakey foundations. Zeno's paradoxes for instance is an interesting mental diversion for those who aren't mathematically grounded and simply a solvable expression for those who are. Other times, philosophy doesn't follow reality, as it has no need to do so.
|
oh reality is very well understood
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
