[MD] Time

[Ant McWatt]

David,

Yes, to be fair to Lee Smolin, it's the REVIEW by Adam Frank that could be making the conceptual error here (regarding mixing-up concepts by intuition with concepts by postulation) rather than Smolin himself. It wouldn't be a good if a modern day physicist was making such an error - to say the least!  Either way, do keep me posted when you've had a chance to read Smolin's book.

By the way, you didn't say whether or not you had read the two articles about Time at 
robertpirsig.org (especially now I've made such an effort to make all 
the articles there much more accessible!):

http://robertpirsig.org/Evolution.htm

http://robertpirsig.org/MOQTime.htm


In the meantime, I've noticed that Ham Priday has sent me a comprehensive reply (regarding Essentialism and the MOQ) which I better start going through... 

Best wishes,

Ant 


----------------------------------------

David Morey said (May 5th 2013) in response to Ant:

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 May 4th:
>
> 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!)


.