Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

'There is no time' - Wired magazine

  1. Aug 1, 2005 #1

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 1, 2005 #2
    Humm....I'm not sure what to say. Regardless, it takes alot of gutts for somebody who has not even completed college to come out and say that Hawking is wrong.
     
  4. Aug 1, 2005 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    or stupidity...

    One journal said that he didn't have a basic understanding of calculus, thats what made me kinda laugh. I really don't know if i should continue to read Wired if this stuff turns out to be as stupid as it seems and it gets published.
     
  5. Aug 1, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Most people who make such statements never finished college. :biggrin:
     
  6. Aug 1, 2005 #5

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So whats your take on this ivan :D

    Who are these "time theorists"?
     
  7. Aug 1, 2005 #6
    Why are people, including recognized physicsts like David Deutsch, even taking interest in this guy? There must have been a spark of some sort that sets him apart from other so called "time theorists" and others with similar claims. I'm not saying I think theres anything to this guy.
     
  8. Aug 2, 2005 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have no idea as yet. I plan to read up a little when I have more time and a working brain [~1.5 hrs of sleep last night]. But if DD is interested, then I'm interested.
     
  9. Aug 3, 2005 #8
    True.

    But so was a lowly patent clerk once judged.

    Not making comparisons, just pointing out some biases.

    At the very least he's thinking outside of the box.

    More people should do that.
     
  10. Aug 3, 2005 #9

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If it makes any sense....

    Otherwise, it shouldn't be taking up magazine space :P
     
  11. Aug 3, 2005 #10

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    LOL!

    That lowly patent clerk had just completed a PhD in physics at one of the better universites in the world. This is not even similar to the topic of this thread.

    If you have no idea where the box is, how can you think outside of it?
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2005
  12. Aug 3, 2005 #11
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  13. Aug 3, 2005 #12
    I don't know if Lynd is right or not, but I agree that he isn't saying anything new. Let's give Parmenides some credit here. There is nothing shocking or new about saying some aspect (or all) of reality is an illusion, even though such talk still makes me squirm.
     
  14. Aug 3, 2005 #13

    jma2001

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Interesting web site you have there! But, is there an About page somewhere that tells a little about yourself and your background? I generally like to know something about an author before I spend a lot of time reading his or her articles.
     
  15. Aug 3, 2005 #14
    No, I've been meaning to do such a page, but haven't got round to it yet. But I take your point, so I'll try to give it higher priority.
     
  16. Aug 3, 2005 #15
    I don't think Lynds ideas make any sense. He says there is no time, only sequences of events. How can "sequences" take place in any medium but time?
     
  17. Aug 3, 2005 #16
    I'm not sure that the 'sequences of events' are really part of Lynds' philosophy, this seems to be just the summary of the writer of the Wired article. They seem more like Julian Barbour's idea, which I think is the opposite of Lynds - I'm not surprised that the two fell out.
     
  18. Aug 3, 2005 #17
    Right, I can picture Parmenides and Zeno mulling over a similiar question only to determine that, well, sequences don't take place. But, maybe he thinks all sequences of events have already occurred, and our consciousness creates 'time', or the illusory sequence aspect of reality.
     
  19. Aug 3, 2005 #18
    If this is the case, then the only other idea he seems to be proposing to respond to is that time isn't quantized, that it is a smooth, continuous flow. I don't find that to be objectionable. As far as I know physics doesn't assert the existence of any quanta of time.
     
  20. Aug 3, 2005 #19
    I've done alot of thinking about this. It seems that if our consciousness were analagous to a record player "playing" a pre-existing recording, it would still be playing it over time. The events it is watching may, indeed, all exist all at once, but the observation of them, in sequence, still has to take place over time.
     
  21. Aug 3, 2005 #20

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The real question of this thread is can you have succession of events without time?. I think you can.

    Consider the causal sets approach to quantum gravity or the causal dynamic triangulations approach. Both of these take cause to be prior to time. That if one event causes another, then the second one is later in time than the first is a theorem, or an emppirical discovery for them.
     
  22. Aug 3, 2005 #21
    This may be naive of me, but how do we define time if not for a sequence of events? ie. If there were no sequence of events would this not be analagous to time standing still?
     
  23. Aug 3, 2005 #22
    Without knowing anything about either of these, I still notice they are refered to by the term "approach". What this suggests to me is that these are probably "means of analysis" which yield information that is of use in some way shape or form, but whose premises needn't have any literal reality for them to be effective.

    On the other hand, If I knew more about them, it could be they are claiming to be literal, factual descriptions.

    In the latter case, there is still the human perception of sequence in time, which, as far as I can tell, has to actually take place over time.
     
  24. Aug 4, 2005 #23

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is true for everything in physics. All theories are just models which may or may not have any essential truth beyond their ability to predict that which is observed.

    Even if we finally identify a theory of everything, we can never know if it's really "true". We can only know if it works or not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2005
  25. Aug 4, 2005 #24

    Art

    User Avatar

    Here's a quote I found from New Scientist 6th Dec 2003 which seems to better explain Lynds redefinement of time,

     
  26. Aug 4, 2005 #25
    Thanks for digging that up, Art, but that quote just confused me more about what he is trying to say.

    "It is perfectly meaningful to state that two events may be separated by a certain duration, while denying that time mysteriously flows from one event to the other."

    If you're sensitive to language, notice the syntactically hinky use of the word "duration." The sentence ends up not having any meaning I can fathom.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook