What I find extremely interesting is how the dialogue of each person relates to my thoughts or my process at this point. Different speeds in time I have experienced to a standstill yet had an awareness of self very scary that that situation can happen yet If it did not I would not believe in some of what they are talking about. Only from my perspective of course.
Tim should get a Nobel Prize for playing nice, among other things. Did the guy on the right really say he has been thinking about what it would be like to “stop time for 10,000 years”? How does he think he is going to measure a length of time (regardless of magnitude) if time is stopped? These multi-disciplinary panels have very little value in my opinion, at least in part because the disciplines use the same words to mean different things so that the panelists talk past each other. The difference between the conscious and the subconscious may be very meaningful for neurologists, but meaningless from the perspective of physics. Whether someone’s body responds to a stimulus “consciously” or due to the involuntary nervous system has no bearing on the physics question.
All I can say is "thank God for Tim Maudlin!" Seriously, Davies is so stuck on the mathematical representations (like most physicists) that he misses the deeper issue. Maudlin keeps trying to help him (and the rest) to see it. Davies' own statements about the bouncing Universes, that "nothing happens" or "it's all just there at once", are so revealing, and yet he doesn't see the contradiction. The same goes for Eagleman. He keeps relating our subjective experience of time to the objective one, but doesn't realize that the whole point is *there is an objective one!!* We may not be getting the flow of time right in our experience, but even this idea of being incorrect implies that there is a correct way that time is flowing. Bottom line: This is the reason why philosophers like Maudlin are so important, and why physics will be *severely* handicapped until the physicists and philosophers start talking more.
+Mentat1231 Philosophers so want to be relevant in this space; they're not. Maybe they will be one day, but before that happens they are going to have to be as conversant with mathematics as Quantum Physicists, which is the *language* of Quantum Mechanics. There is simply no way around this requirement. Quantum mechanics is completely counter-intuitive. Even Feynman said that is someone said they "understood" QM, that there were exaggerating. Frankly, the only philosopher whose opinion I would have liked to hear on QM would be Wittgenstein. W's insights were so often counter-intuitive, massively so. It would be fun to hear what he thinks. Maybe he did comment on QM, but I have never seen anything written or said by W on QM.
jsphotos Tim Maudlin studied physics at Yale. I'd say he's pretty "conversant". Just listen to one of his lectures sometime, or, better yet, read his book on Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity (including an appendix which gives a primer on the mathematics of QM). There have been perfectly intuitive theories that replicate the exact experimental results of QM for almost a century. deBroglie/Bohm style theories, for example. They were out of fashion when Feynman made his statements, but so what?. I don't know why people quote Feynman like he's some sort of high priest of science anyway... in science, we shouldn't bow to authorities or judge positions based on sound-bytes. In any case, the Copenhagen Interpretation, which was popular for so long, has deep philosophical (i.e. explanatory) problems. And that's really my point. When you have several different approaches that yield the same experimental predictions (in QM's case, I can think of at least 8 such approaches), then you need to adjudicate based on explanatory virtues which are in the toolkit of the *philosopher* (e.g. explanatory scope, power, and parsimony, etc). You don't just pick the least intuitive one because it would be coolest or because Feynman insisted QM had to be counter-intuitive.
At 09:00 David is speaking, uninterested in Raissa. At 15:16 David is bored to death waiting for Raissa to finish. At 15:42 David understands that he can do Raissa after the discussion.
"How fast does time move? One second per second. It doesn't tell us anything..." In one statement, Paul Davies removes himself from consideration as an expert on the subject of Time, in my opinion. Atoms rely of Time. They have electrons that rotate. Rotation is motion, and motion is measurable in time. Motion is a result of time, and certainly not an illusion. I just don't get Paul Davies.
+Pillbox07 "I just don't get Paul Davies." You think that electrons rotate around atoms? That they are in orbit around the nucleus? Read up on the old quantum theory , that was one thing wrong with it. Electrons in orbit would radiate, loose energy and spiral into the nucleus. It's not stable. Atoms in their ground state satisfy a time independent Schrodinger equation and don't need time to describe them at all. I agree time isn't an illusion but it isn't because "atoms rely on time" in the sense you describe.
![เปิดใจ “ต้นหอม ศกุนตลา” หลังโดนพาดพิงธุรกิจที่เคยทำ และผลกระทบทำถูกปลดฟ้าผ่า! | แฉ 24 ต.ค.67 [2/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vCi5OIqlxaE/mqdefault.jpg)
What I find extremely interesting is how the dialogue of each person relates to my thoughts or my process at this point. Different speeds in time I have experienced to a standstill yet had an awareness of self very scary that that situation can happen yet If it did not I would not believe in some of what they are talking about. Only from my perspective of course.
Tim should get a Nobel Prize for playing nice, among other things. Did the guy on the right really say he has been thinking about what it would be like to “stop time for 10,000 years”? How does he think he is going to measure a length of time (regardless of magnitude) if time is stopped?
These multi-disciplinary panels have very little value in my opinion, at least in part because the disciplines use the same words to mean different things so that the panelists talk past each other. The difference between the conscious and the subconscious may be very meaningful for neurologists, but meaningless from the perspective of physics. Whether someone’s body responds to a stimulus “consciously” or due to the involuntary nervous system has no bearing on the physics question.
smooth editing..
All I can say is "thank God for Tim Maudlin!" Seriously, Davies is so stuck on the mathematical representations (like most physicists) that he misses the deeper issue. Maudlin keeps trying to help him (and the rest) to see it. Davies' own statements about the bouncing Universes, that "nothing happens" or "it's all just there at once", are so revealing, and yet he doesn't see the contradiction. The same goes for Eagleman. He keeps relating our subjective experience of time to the objective one, but doesn't realize that the whole point is *there is an objective one!!* We may not be getting the flow of time right in our experience, but even this idea of being incorrect implies that there is a correct way that time is flowing.
Bottom line: This is the reason why philosophers like Maudlin are so important, and why physics will be *severely* handicapped until the physicists and philosophers start talking more.
+Mentat1231 Philosophers so want to be relevant in this space; they're not. Maybe they will be one day, but before that happens they are going to have to be as conversant with mathematics as Quantum Physicists, which is the *language* of Quantum Mechanics. There is simply no way around this requirement.
Quantum mechanics is completely counter-intuitive. Even Feynman said that is someone said they "understood" QM, that there were exaggerating. Frankly, the only philosopher whose opinion I would have liked to hear on QM would be Wittgenstein. W's insights were so often counter-intuitive, massively so. It would be fun to hear what he thinks. Maybe he did comment on QM, but I have never seen anything written or said by W on QM.
jsphotos
Tim Maudlin studied physics at Yale. I'd say he's pretty "conversant". Just listen to one of his lectures sometime, or, better yet, read his book on Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity (including an appendix which gives a primer on the mathematics of QM).
There have been perfectly intuitive theories that replicate the exact experimental results of QM for almost a century. deBroglie/Bohm style theories, for example. They were out of fashion when Feynman made his statements, but so what?. I don't know why people quote Feynman like he's some sort of high priest of science anyway... in science, we shouldn't bow to authorities or judge positions based on sound-bytes. In any case, the Copenhagen Interpretation, which was popular for so long, has deep philosophical (i.e. explanatory) problems. And that's really my point. When you have several different approaches that yield the same experimental predictions (in QM's case, I can think of at least 8 such approaches), then you need to adjudicate based on explanatory virtues which are in the toolkit of the *philosopher* (e.g. explanatory scope, power, and parsimony, etc). You don't just pick the least intuitive one because it would be coolest or because Feynman insisted QM had to be counter-intuitive.
Time is a piece of wax.
cant hear well :(
At 09:00 David is speaking, uninterested in Raissa.
At 15:16 David is bored to death waiting for Raissa to finish.
At 15:42 David understands that he can do Raissa after the discussion.
falling on a termite....
Terrible sound.
"How fast does time move? One second per second. It doesn't tell us anything..." In one statement, Paul Davies removes himself from consideration as an expert on the subject of Time, in my opinion.
Atoms rely of Time. They have electrons that rotate. Rotation is motion, and motion is measurable in time. Motion is a result of time, and certainly not an illusion.
I just don't get Paul Davies.
+Pillbox07 "I just don't get Paul Davies."
You think that electrons rotate around atoms? That they are in orbit around the nucleus? Read up on the old quantum theory , that was one thing wrong with it. Electrons in orbit would radiate, loose energy and spiral into the nucleus. It's not stable. Atoms in their ground state satisfy a time independent Schrodinger equation and don't need time to describe them at all. I agree time isn't an illusion but it isn't because "atoms rely on time" in the sense you describe.