[MD] Time

[David Morey]

Hi Ant

Yes I am aware of this, fits with Bergson's thinking on time, but it is quite clear Smolin is doing something new, so I think it is wrong to see it in the terms you suggest. Smolin is I think using our most intuitive understanding of time to question the very idea of law and anything being eternal, and remove the last remnants of this postulated error from physics where it still resides in the faith of eternal laws. So I really do think we should all go and read this book in full, got mine ordered, but thanks for the reminder it is relevant as you say, but probably wrong to use it to dismiss Smolin I think, but need to move from reviews to the full book to confirm one way or the other.

Good to hear from you
David M

Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>David,
>
>I had a look at the review of Smolin's book by Adam Frank that you posted the link for below.
>
>I don't know if you've ever read the articles about time and the MOQ at robertpirsig.org but as a contributor for both of these papers, I eventually realised that time hasn't existed as a working concept/law for physicists since Einstein invented space-time about a hundred years ago.  
>
>It sounds to me... (wait for it!) that Smolin is conflating a concept by intuition (sensed time) with a concept by postulation (time/space-time as a law of physics).  In other words, his book is full of nonsense (but probably without the wit, charm and imagination of Lewis Carroll!)
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Ant
>
>
>David M noted May 4th 2013:
> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> Interesting review of Smolin's latest book,
>> going in the right direction I feel:
>> 
>> http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/05/02/180037757/is-time-real
>> 
>> Regards
>> David M
>
>
>
>. 		 	   		  
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org/md/archives.html