There is no way to not do that.
So it's pointless to say "time is an illusion". It's a basic category of thought.
But whatever to get hype for your paper, I guess...
You can "assume things about time" while writing a paper (including when it's due for sunmission), while still investigating whether the object of those assumptions has some fundamental properties, or whether it is just an emergent phenomenon from more fundamental things with no specific substance to it.
Same way we can assume things about color, but still come to the conclusion that the qualia of color are just manufactured in our brain, and that the reality behind color, as far as the universe is concerned, is electromagnetic radiation at various frequences.
Not really. The paper referenced in this article basically says "time" for a quantum system emerges from entanglement between that system and a clock. What is a clock? A system that, um, keeps time. Circular reasoning.
In colloquial use, a clock is just a set of rotating gears with some spring - or some other such contraption - from sun dials to hourglasses and quartz. It might be used for measuring time, but it's existance as a device is not based self-referentially to the concept of time anymore than a drinking glass is based on the concept of liquids to exists. What's more, in this case the "clock" is just an example of an oscillator.
Its existence as an object is not, but its definition as a clock is. Basically the article is defining time in terms of...something that's defined as keeping time. Which, as I said, is circular.
No, it's defining it as something that oscillates (literally: an oscillator). Nothing about the concept of time, calendar or otherwise.
The analysis is that the flow of time we experience and the properties of time are an emergent property of this kind of physical behaviors existing.
Try to explain what "oscillation" is without reference to the concept of time.
Time is a kantian a priori for us, so we can reference nothing without the concept of time anyway. Our experience of time, and our concept of time, is not the same as time.
Similar to how we can say (and some physics theories do) that the universe is a holographic set of static object where everything exists at once, and time and movement is just an illusion of our perception (like the colors we see is an mental thing, and the raw fact is "just" electromagnetic radiation).
In that case oscillation can be a property/structure of things in this static "all moments exist timeless at once", but for us it's still appears as movement in time, and when we describe it we only have this intuitive perception of it.
In general, don't try to beat down advanced physics, QM, etc with appeals to "common sense" logic, it's only merely better than "if Earth is round why don't those in the bottom part fall off".
Exactly. That's what I said. I just didn't want to drag Kant explicitly into it for various reasons.
So if you've read Kant, you understand that time is impossible to say whether it's an attribute of the world, or an attribute of us. In particular, claiming to have empirical evidence of one or the other is nonsense - yet it's what this physics paper does, at least in its clickbaity title.
> In general, don't try to beat down advanced physics, QM, etc with appeals to "common sense" logic
Don't be condescending just because you've taken physics courses. Basic category errors is something everyone's entitled to call out, you don't even have to have read Kant to understand it.
Yes, they're using the matter itself as a clock. Who does that?
What kind of universe is it anyway when nobody's ever needed any other kind of clock since the beginning of . . . time? Oh wait . . .
If you think it’s pointless, it’s going to be pointless to you whether it’s true or not
However, to give an alternative point of view. If you can model time differently and provide some predictions or enable some technology, then having a different understanding of time might be very useful. Even if we still need to use time in the models
And that’s been the case with general relativity. For a long time, and for many physical phenomena, Newton laws and models are just fine. But relativity has enabled a lot of better technologies and finer understanding of some things, through re-defining how we model time
Alan Watts, in his lecture "We as Organism," eloquently explores the interconnectedness of life and consciousness. He likens living beings to the flame of a candle, a continuous flow of energy and activity, rather than static entities. Watts argues that our consciousness often overlooks the constant, harmonious processes of life, focusing instead on potential disruptions. This myopic view leads us to identify with our ego, the troubleshooter, rather than our complete organism. He emphasizes that our bodies, like candle flames or whirlpools, are patterns of the cosmos, ever-changing yet recognizable. Watts challenges the common Western notion of life as a brief flash between two darknesses, urging us to see life as a complex, continuous dance, where there is no dancer, only the dancing.http://www.buddhism.org/bodhi-dharmas-bloodstream-sermon/
who Zen now calls the first patriarch, but who was kicked out by many people while he was alive.
perhaps we shouldn't be so arrogant to think we're somehow immune now? but it's natural for people not to know how much more profound enlightenment is when they haven't encountered the real dharma yet.
One of the problems with following teachings that aren't right is the risk of losing oneself. It's a fact that many people spoke words under the name of Buddha, like Watts. So how on earth can we pretend that he has not introduced any % of falsehood to the right teaching while he passes it down? The alternative is that Watts is pretending to supreme enlightenment, which I have not heard of him having done.
My question as to what it means for things to happen pertains specifically to the original article talking about the meaning of "time". Instead what we've got is absolute ambiguity that amounts to "don't worry about it, just chill". That sounds like self-loss to me. Self-loss starts with loss of consciousness. That can happen when people learn the degenerated truth (it's like a rotten apple for a consciousness, shall we say).
and Watts doesn't say much in answer my question - but rather guided people towards self-loss (after which he didn't have to worry about answering questions)
What does it mean for something to "happen"? it goes back to the reason why the OP article suggests state evolution by time emerges from entanglement.
@emmaluciaev1938 8 months ago
What ???? This is pure quantum physics He is a true genius And he is also funny, a rare alignment of the stars
22 Reply @Agent_Paul 6 months ago
Sophisticated man, but he played it cool. A mystic but never announced himself
2 Reply
And it’s also great that he credits a lot of his insights to ancient Asian cultures. Essentially explaining that naturally, humans rediscover the nature of the universe, without the need for any special or modern technology, but rather through direct experience of the world
Highly prescient as well.
This was already widely recognized as each talk was originally being given.
Kind of stream-of-consciousness if you think about it.
Or if your head's a blank.