Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (256980)	10/25/2005 1:17:09 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575422

"I've been looking in vain for a very good article on the current thoughts on the physicality of time, can't find it... oh well." That is because there isn't even a subset that any significant number of scientists, much less philosophers who tend to be trailing edge, agree. "Chronons" may or may not exist, but that only implies that time is digital instead of analog. And don't get pulled into the trap that these models are absolute reality, as many philosophers of science do. These are only models. They may represent reality, but they probably don't. They are mathematically self-consistent and give a method that correlates with what we know. But that doesn't mean they are the "real" model. Newtonian physics, for example, is a very good model of what we as humans experience. But it isn't complete, things at the extreme of speed, size or energies aren't well represented. Which is why quantum mechanics led to so much. Quantum was based on the same problems that Einstein used to develop special theory and general theory of relativity. Quantum's solutions were different than special or general theory, merging them has proved difficult. Much less with Maxwell's. Does this mean those theories are wrong? I guess it depends on your definition of "wrong". In some sense, all of these theories are wrong because they have restricted models. Newtonian physics is a good model until you approach certain limits like the speed of light. When you approach those universal constants, Newtonian physics breaks down. Likewise, Einsteinian physics breaks down when you approach its limits. And so on. While there are several theories that extend Einstein, none of them are either testable or as robust as Einstein's theories. That will likely change in the future, but we aren't there yet. Until then don't get wrapped up in digital time, time worms or any of those other oddities. They work in certain models, but don't necessarily reflect reality. I emphasis this because my wife is interested in philosophy of science and, apparently too many philosophers fall into these traps. These things aren't necessarily real, although many formulators of these theories get caught up in the possibilities. Einstein himself didn't. While his models defined a probabilistic universe, he himself didn't believe it to be the case. I personally feel he was wrong, a strictly deterministic universe under the control of a central deity doesn't map to the way I think of the universe. I personally don't think Albert realized exactly how powerful probability could be in the universe. But I digress in the direction of faith...