PeterJ

It wouldn't make any difference what science is striving for. I was not putting forward a criticism of science. A scientist has no need to take any notice of metaphysical conjectures. They can just say, so what? They already do. Metaphysics, or an examination of the foundations of analysis, shows that our everyday ideas about time must be incorrect. Physics takes no notice. Why should it? Hermann Weyl was respectable physicist, but his metaphysics is ignored in physics. It is not physics. Materialism can be falsified in logic. So what? What difference does that make in physics? I would agree that as individuals we would be crazy to say "so what?" to the results of metaphysics, But in physics, strictly speaking, we cannot do anything else. Or so physicists usually argue. I don't believe that this is a sensible strategy for acquiring knowledge but I can see the argument. Physics is not metaphysics. We would have to put them both together to sort out the reality of time, and this is not a physicist's job or even their area of expertise. It's surprising that a thread discussing explanations of time was not immediately moved to philosophy.

I find myself continually agreeing with Swansont. The argument against the reality of time can only come to life when we start exploring the consequences. To simply state that time is unreal makes our position clear, but it is uninteresting unless we can show that we can incorporate this hypothesis into a sensible metaphysical (therefore general) theory. As it happens we can, but the point remains true even if we cannot. If someone says time is unreal we can always say - so what?

Exactly right Swansont, it seems to me. Either we take time for granted or we venture into metaphysics. This is precisely the point Weyl makes in regard to the continuum. Time as a series of locations is a perfectly adequate idea for physics and the only idea that would work. If it does not work in metaphysics then this need be of no interest in physics. I'm surprised it is not of more interest to physicists on their days off, but the definition of these things puts time beyond the reach of physics as a discipline. For a fundamental theory of time or anything else we would have to return to first principles. We would have to return all the way to the arguments of Parmenides and Zeno.

I mostly agree Fred. But only as long as you do the same reduction for the phenomena that depend on time. It all goes wrong if we say that time is unreal but that motion and change is real. In this respect I agree with Swansont's objections.

Hoola - For some reason I cannot quote your post. I thought it was very interesting and made sense, as much as any information theory does. I have no idea whether your suggestion would count as a scientific hypothesis. David Chalmers seems to think so, but it sounds as if Swansont has an objection. Among its proponents would be the Buddha and Lao-tzu, so if it is a scientific hypothesis this would be strange. ps. That was a most surprising ps. I agree of course. .

Nice idea but I don't think this solves the problem, If time were not a phenomenon then we wouldn't be talking about it. Of course, it might be an imaginary phenomenon. All these words cause problems. To me the questions is whether time must be reduced for a fundamental theory. I would say yes. Thus time would not be an independently existing phenomenon but a relative one, like space. Afaik this would be an uncontentious view in physics.

The idea that a physical phenomenon like a toe could exist while time does not, is so incoherent that it does not seem worth refuting it. The word 'exist' is presumably what is causing the problem here.

That seems incoherent to me Fred. Your toe cannot really exist unless time really exists. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Some of the problem here may be caused by trying to maintain the reality of space while trying to do the opposite for time. Philosophies that argue for the unreality of time do so also for space, change, motion, life, death, intentional consciousness and everything else. It's all or nothing. The idea would be that time and space can be reduced, but only at an ultimate level. As long an we have not reduced the objects and subjects that occupy time and space then clearly time and space cannot be reduced. They would all reduce to Tao. But only as a final step for a theory. At any level of emergence time and space would be a necessary phenomenon. For this reason the idea that time is not real can never make sense in physics. The claim is prior to physics. It can be ignored. As long as there is a physical object time may as well be real. We can stand in the middle of the road, but we cannot prove that the road is not a figment of our imagination.

Oops. I mentioned Brouwer above but meant Bergson. Sorry about that.

It's called 'Das Kontinuum'. You might find a useful article on it by John Bell if you google. Weyl was a supporter of Brouwer's philosophy, whose position is quite clear, so you could also check him out. I did not decide that time must be dealt with by metaphysics and not physics. It's just the definition of these things. As far as I can see your strategy does not eliminate time from the equations but simply renames it. But don't argue with me. Argue with Weyl.

Time is dealt with in philosophy, specifically metaphysics. It is not dealt with by physics. So we don't have much choice about which forum heading time should be under, and it isn't this one. Not sure what you mean 'the beginning set out'. Spencer Brown sets it out mathematically in his 'Laws of Form', and in a manner that is exactly consistent with Weyl's analysis. Philosophy does not tie itself in knots. But yes, philosophers often do. Often they ignore people like Brown and Weyl, and the result is many unsophisticated discussions about time.

John - Sorry.for boring you. I hadn't realised that you're just messing about here. I think you should make this clear before leading people like me into wasting their time talking to you. I'll move on, as I prefer thoughtful conversations.

Weyl's view is quite simple, albeit that it would have profound implications. He draws a firm distinction between the continuum of empiricism and experience, and that of mathematics and extended space-time. His proposal is that the former is a true continuum, and that the latter is a construction of reason that, if it were real, if it really did model space-time, would be irrational. This is much more interesting as a metaphysical result than a mathematical one, but it does have a mathematical justification. I think he could be read as saying that mathematics cannot describe Reality. But I daren't say too much off-the-cuff to a mathematician. I quote at length from Weyl in a recent article, trying to clarify his view. If you like I can PM a link to it. I won't unless invited.

Okay John. You are not being asked to believe that you can comprehend the intimate ideas of any God, or that you need to kneel and put your hands together. You don't have to believe anything at all. The kind of prayer I mentioned is the kind the monk Evagrios is speaking of when he says 'Never try to see a form a shape when praying'. All words and thoughts are forms. It might be worth checking out the Jesus prayer. This is the kind of prayer that Mohammed endorses when he says 'A hours' contemplation is worth a years' worship'. Elsewhere I think he says it's worth more than seven years worship. It can also be called contemplation or meditation. You would not be communicating with another being, you'd be rediscovering yourself. Of course, a lot of prayer in not like this. Many people imagine a God in the sky and pray in all sorts of ways to that. But the idea and meaning of prayer would encompasses a wide range of practices. including many that have nothing to do with Gods and Christmas presents.

Studiot - Sorry for the delay. No, I can't write down the Weyl tensor, and don't know what it is. But it is irrelevant. Weyl does not suggest we have to abandon mathematics or our ordinary view of time. He just points out that this cannot be the end of the story. .

If you're talking about prayer as the delivery of some sort of Christmas wish-list, then pray for anything you like. Prayer at its most profound is not 'about' anything, but is communion, so the question would not arise. .

It's okay Tar, If I try to say more we'll just argue. I'll just note that reincarnation is a superstition as far as I'm concerned, and it certainly is not necessary to mysticism. I'm not even quite sure who endorses it. And the Vedas are clear - there is no consciousness after death. As I said, your objections are good but they are well wide of the mark. See you about.

That's fine TAR. This is exactly what is taught, that we already are enlightened, or that the we all have 'Buddha-nature'. Or, that we are sparks of the Divine and can never cease to be so. This is what Imam Ali was saying. It is what all of mysticism claims. As you say, if all is in all, then there are no real divisions or separations, no true categories or distinctions. So why fear death? Because having an intellectual belief that we are Napoleon is not the same thing as being Napoleon. Rather, it is madness. It is this madness that the practices of mysticism are designed to cure. If we fear death, then according to the 'perennial' philosophy it would be because we have forgotten who we are. Nothing more complicated than that. Our vision is clouded with the dust of a myriad of mental phenomena and we have become too entangled in the physical world. We think we are puny beings, individual egos blinking helplessly in and out of existence, and to the extent that we believe this, this is what we are. And so of course we fear death. Mysticism says that it is possible to wake up from this state, like Neo in the Matrix, and see the truth. By becoming that truth, the truth of what we are, we overcome not just death but also life. We would be correcting an error of perception, not changing ourselves from a mortal to an immortal being, a feat that God himself could not achieve for sound mathematical reasons,.. I have you down as someone who has not yet tried to understand mysticism, but who would be very sympathetic to it if you ever did. Your objections would be very good if only mysticism did actually have the faults that you ascribe to it, and it seems to me that making good objections is an excellent way to investigate it, at least if we are too sceptical to try it out. I spent tem years looking for telling objections and never found one. Later I realised that this was a forgone conclusion since Its doctrine is unfalsifiable, but the exercise was very valuable. But to make a start you'd have to stop dismissing it so casually. You state that in your opinion certain things are baseless, imaginary, made up. In this case. your opinion forming system operates more efficiently than the combined intellects of a few billion other human beings, including a few tens of thousands of great scholars, sages and prophets, and the perennial philosophy is wrong after all. Does this not strike you as a rather arrogant thing to believe?

Your question about ultimate beginnings is not scientific but philosophical. Still, philosophers are mad as well. Your answer may well be correct as far as it goes, but note that the same logical approach you take to 'something/nothing' works for 'beginning/no-beginning'.

Imam Ali, immediate successor to the Prophet Mohammed, writes 'Dost thou think thyself a puny being, when with thee the universe is enfolded'. So I don't understand your criticism. It's like asking Andy Murray, when he won Wimbledon, why he didn't immediately teach the rest of us how to win it, and accusing him of keeping it a secret. There are lots of reasons to doubt the teachings of the sages if we do not share their knowledge, but what they teach cannot be reduced to absurdity. You talk about the universe being infinitely large, the Dalai Lama talks about the world in a single atom. This is because you reify space and time. If you do this then, yes, the teaching would not make sense.

What an unambitious approach to knowledge you choose to take. It seems to derive from a few unnecessary assumptions But each to his own.

Nice post Tar. And a great point about love. But loss of life is not a matter to fear for everyone. In general the sages and prophets either laugh at it or are unconcerned. Some seem almost gleeful when contemplating their departure from this temporal world. The methods and practices of religion would be pointless if they did not lead to an understanding of life and death, for how can a person be truly happy while they still fear death?

YahYa. It is clear from your OP that you are speaking about one very particular religion, and one very particular interpretation of it. To extend this argument to the whole of religion is crazy. It leads you to say that religion promotes creationism when this is clearly not the case. It's would be like someone dismissing physics because they disagree with the views of certain physicists. It's would be a major error. To dismiss a theory you first have to get to know it.

I am not a theist, so my experience with it is probably irrelevant. But yes, those things I mentioned are 'tied' to religion, as you say. I didn't mean to be rude to anyone by what I said. But we don't look at what high school students or amateurs do in order to define science, we look at what senior scientists do. With religion we tend to look at what lay people do., and unsurprisingly we end up with a vast spectrum of views on religion. The thing is, even if a lot of people turn to religion purely out of fear, the search for consolation or whatever, this would have no bearing on what religion is or what it has to say. Unless we know this, then our views on why people become religious are going to be all about psychology and sociology, and have little relevance to religion itself. If lots of people turn to religion for inadequate or muddled reasons, then what does this tell us about religion. Not a lot, it seems to me.