but it was physics - not metaphysics- that showed time is not absolute, that it is relative to a reference frame (i.e. special relativity). It is physics that showed space and time are coupled, and identified the "problem of time". — Relativist
What specific insights have metaphysicians provided regarding time? — Relativist
I agree the "problem of time" implies deficiencies in our concept of time, but my point is that metaphysical analysis would never expose the deficiency.That physics has identified a "problem of time" demonstrates that the principle they apply, are deficient. The "things" that you say physics has shown about time are the things which lead to the "problem of time", which demonstrates that despite your claim, these "things" are not truths. They are simply useful principles which are limited in their application, demonstrating their deficiencies. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, right - no one noticed a distinction between past, present, and future before some metaphysicians pointed it out.We could begin with the way that we apprehend the substantial difference between past and future. The past consists of events which have actually occurred, and the future consists of events which are possible, as indicated by human behavior. This means that the present as what divides future from past, is ontologically significant. — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree the "problem of time" implies deficiencies in our concept of time, but my point is that metaphysical analysis would never expose the deficiency. — Relativist
Metaphysics consists of conceptual analysis, and in that regard it can help identify implications of concepts, but the paradigm shifting breakthroughs regarding our understanding of time has been a result of advances in physics - not metaphysics. — Relativist
No. It was the implication of theory. Page and Wooters considered the implications of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Subsequently, the Page-Wooter's effect was experimentally verifiedIsn't this a metaphysical analysis which is exposing these deficiencies? — Metaphysician Undercover
Feel free to enlighten me. My impression is that one could say physicists engage in metaphysics when they develop concepts (like the curvature of space and interpretations of quantum mechanics). If you'd like to divide the work of physicists this way, I have no objection, and I think philosophical reflection is important. My main issue is that the relevant paradigm shifts only occur because of new physics, not because of this philosophical reflection. My initial comment in this thread was: "I don't think metaphysical analysis can provide definitive answers about time. On the other hand, physics may develop insight into its nature"Seems you don't know the difference between physics and metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm open to considering the value of metaphysical analysis in this regard, but it was physics - not metaphysics- that showed time is not absolute, that it is relative to a reference frame (i.e. special relativity). It is physics that showed space and time are coupled, and identified the "problem of time". And it's physicists who are exploring what may be the fundamental basis of time. — Relativist
Feel free to enlighten me. My impression is that one could say physicists engage in metaphysics when they develop concepts (like the curvature of space and interpretations of quantum mechanics). If you'd like to divide the work of physicists this way, I have no objection, and I think philosophical reflection is important. My main issue is that the relevant paradigm shifts only occur because of new physics, not because of this philosophical reflection. — Relativist
What is "proper time"?It's unquestionably always the case that proper time is invariant while coordinate time is not because it's an outside analysis done onto other inertial frames of reference. — substantivalism
This paper, The Problem with the Problem of Time, similarly argues that something more is needed - the passage of time is not an illusion. Nevertheless, the Page-Wooters effect seems real. This suggests something is missing from our theories. My question is: who is more likely to find a solution, a philosopher or a physicist? I think the latter.I'm highly skeptical of physical theories which stress such absolute features as fundamental to time but also to physicists who believe they can attain change/time from unchanging/timeless entities.
This is the nature of scientific revolutions. Without science investigation, metaphysicians would be spinning their wheels and getting nowhere.Physicists can construct new theories that bring about paradigm shifts but they have to do so under the bias of an already preconceived ontology which may or may not be justified. Take general relativity in which it's popular to envision a substantival real existent spacetime which is curved when in reality physicists should be rather dumbfounded as most analysis i've seen into general relativity make the question of whether there is or isn't a real existent spacetime being curved rather unclear. Perhaps physics enjoys throwing numerous metaphysical concepts at the wall until one sticks experimentally. — substantivalism
This is the nature of scientific revolutions. Without science investigation, metaphysicians would be spinning their wheels and getting nowhere. — Relativist
What is "proper time"? — Relativist
Special relativity and Page-Wooters clearly show that time is weirder than anyone would have thought. Weirdness like this is not going to be uncovered without new Physics. If Physics can't do it, there's no hope for Metaphysicians. — Relativist
Regarding the fundamentals of time, I also question whether metaphysicians are equipped to answer it. Physicists are exploring it (see Time: An Emergent Property of Matter). — Relativist
It would be good to hear from an actual physicist regarding these comments. — jgill
My main issue is that the relevant paradigm shifts only occur because of new physics, not because of this philosophical reflection. — Relativist
My initial comment in this thread was: "I don't think metaphysical analysis can provide definitive answers about time. On the other hand, physics may develop insight into its nature"
And I haven't seen any reason to think this isn't true. — Relativist
My impression is that one could say physicists engage in metaphysics when they develop concepts (like the curvature of space and interpretations of quantum mechanics). — Relativist
No, I do not agree that Einstein went beyond the accepted principles of physics of his day. He was addressing some outstanding problems in the physics of the day.My impression is that one could say physicists engage in metaphysics when they develop concepts (like the curvature of space and interpretations of quantum mechanics). — Relativist
Would you agree, that when Einstein went beyond the accepted principles of physics of his day, he was practicing metaphysics rather than physics? Since he wasn't following the conventional rules of physics, we cannot say he was doing physics. If you agree, then why would you think that it's physics rather than metaphysics which gives us insight into the nature of time? — Metaphysician Undercover
You can call it philosophy if you like, but understand it's the sort of philosophy that can only be done by physicists. Personally - I don't see any value in categorizing the work of physicists into the separate categories of physics and metaphysics.And what do physicists mean when they say something like "we can just change the math on this one a little". They literally say stuff like this all the time!! If the math merely reflects the quantities measured, it would seem ALL of physics is about experimentation. So where does that leave theoretical physics? I think in philosophy, but I am willing to be corrected — Gregory
No, I do not agree that Einstein went beyond the accepted principles of physics of his day. He was addressing some outstanding problems in the physics of the day. — Relativist
As I said previously, one can classify some of the work of physicists as "metaphysics", but what's the point? Physicists aren't typically trained in the field of metaphysics, they're trained in physics, and this does not seem to have handicapped them. — Relativist
For example, when the standard model of particle physics was proposed, one could have called this an exercise in metaphysics (it proposed a suite of particles that constitute the fundamental building blocks of material reality), but it's not the sort of metaphysics a philosopher could do because it depended on knowledge of physics. — Relativist
If you're going to label as "metaphysics" any work physicists do that is outside the box of established physics, feel free - but it doesn't change anything. I'd be more inclined to just call the entire venture "natural philosphy", as was the norm prior to the 19th century. Categorizing the work of physicists as partially science and partially philosophy just seems a forced fit into semantic categories. It's harmless, but doesn't serve to improve the process.The point is to demonstrate that you are wrong in your conclusion. Physicists do go beyond the work of physics, into the field of metaphysics. And, they aren't trained in metaphysics, as you accept. So why not accept as well, that their metaphysics is very often deficient, faulty in comparison with classical metaphysics, because they are not educated in some of the fundamental principles of metaphysics? And your conclusion "this does not seem to have handicapped them" is demonstrably false. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sounds like you don't understand what I'm talking about. I'm referrring to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which consists of things like quarks, leptons, bosons. This model was proposed in the 1960s to explain the large number of (supposed) elementary particles that were being generated and identified in particle collisions. The model proposed that those observed particles were actually composed of these more elementary components. It was derived mathematically, but over the decades was verified experimentally.The standard model is extremely deficient. It accepts uncertainty (the uncertainty principle), as inherent within the thing being modeled. What kind of a model is that? We're modeling something, but fundamental aspects of the thing being modeled cannot be modeled using our metaphysical principles, so we'll just incorporate "uncertainty" into the model. The problem here is that the metaphysics of time being employed in the standard model is very deficient in comparison with the classical metaphysics of time, and this produces an extremely deficient model, full of uncertainty. — Metaphysician Undercover
If you're going to label as "metaphysics" any work physicists do that is outside the box of established physics, feel free - but it doesn't change anything. — Relativist
You say it's "demonstrably false" that their ignorance of metaphysics has handicapped physicists. Please provide one or two good examples. — Relativist
The uncertainty principle isn't directly related to this, so perhaps you were mistaken. Nevertheless the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics has also been verified experimentally - so I'm sorry, but it's nonsensical to dismiss its reality based on some metaphysical principles. Physics needs to come first, and the metaphysics needs to be consistent with it. Not the other way around. As I said earlier, physics has proven the natural world is weird at the fundamental level, a fact that would never be exposed by pure philosophical reflection. — Relativist
Yes and no. Metaphysicians are better equipped for conceptual analysis, including developing general metaphysical frameworks, but they would be abysmal at the "metaphysics" that is part of the core work of theoretical physicists - the thinking outside the box. As I brought up earlier, no metaphysician would have thought up the Page-Wooter mechanism, had the insight about time that we gained from special relativity, predicted quantum uncertainty, nor proposed the nature of quantum fields as (possibly) fundamental. Metaphysicians can reflect on these advances, and perhaps propose a metaphysical framework (like ontic structural realism), but they won't actually be contributing to the advance of physics - even if you choose to label this "metaphysics".OK, then let's call it metaphysics, if you're ok with that. Now, are you willing to recognize that a metaphysician, trained in the principles of metaphysics is most likely a lot more capable of doing this work (metaphysics), than is a physicist, who is trained in the principles of physics, and not in metaphysics? — Metaphysician Undercover
But you're wrong, so I infer that you have no actual cases in which an ignorance of metaphysics impaired physicists.I did, in my last post, it was your example of the standard model of particle physics. It incorporates uncertainty as a fundamental principle of quantum physics; obviously bad metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover
But even if you denied quantum uncertainty, you can't deny the existence of these particles. Furthermore, quantum uncertainty has been verified.The uncertainty principle is a feature of all quantum field theory, and therefore the standard model as well. — Metaphysician Undercover
Is this a joke? If not, then it just indicates you don't know what you're taking about.Of course it's been verified experimentally, when you are uncertain of something it's easy to demonstrate this. But that doesn't mean that the uncertainty is not derived from bad metaphysics.
Yes and no. Metaphysicians are better equipped for conceptual analysis, including developing general metaphysical frameworks, but they would be abysmal at the "metaphysics" that is part of the core work of theoretical physicists - the thinking outside the box. — Relativist
As I brought up earlier, no metaphysician would have thought up the Page-Wooter mechanism, had the insight about time that we gained from special relativity, predicted quantum uncertainty, nor proposed the nature of quantum fields as (possibly) fundamental. Metaphysicians can reflect on these advances, and perhaps propose a metaphysical framework (like ontic structural realism), but they won't actually be contributing to the advance of physics - even if you choose to label this "metaphysics". — Relativist
But you're wrong, so I infer that you have no actual cases in which an ignorance of metaphysics impaired physicists. — Relativist
But even if you denied quantum uncertainty, you can't deny the existence of these particles. Furthermore, quantum uncertainty has been verified. — Relativist
I don't deny quantum uncertainty. I just explained how it is the product of bad metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover
Out of idle curiosity, what exactly is your objection to quantum physics? — fishfry
Think of going back in time one year, then from there back 1/2 a year, then from there back 1/3 a year, etc. At each stage there is "causation" before that point in time. However, the sum 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 +.... tends very slowly to infinity (the first six million terms add up to less than 21, if I recall correctly). So, we have an infinite chain of causation that has no starting point, no beginning of time.
Just idle chatter . . . pay no attention to that men behind the curtain. :nerd:
The first has it, almost as a trick of our need to find patterns in the world, that a series of events would still occur even if one entity in the series was erased.
— substantivalism
This more or less coincides with Stanislaw Lem's Ergodic theory of history. Some movements in society are so powerful that changing bits here and there have no appreciable effect. On the other end of the spectrum is the Butterfly effect. — jgill
An infinite series of, say, dominoes going into the past does indeed need a prime mover or movers (Aristotle) or a Trinity (Aquinas) to keep it well ordered. I'm a little stricter and think there can't be an infinite past. Try if you can to imagine humanity with all the births and deaths going back forever with no first human or evolution. It verges on the illogical. So I say potentiality flung into actuality along Heideggerian lines. — Gregory
What an odd thing to say, considering that you asserted physicists have been impaired by their ignorance of metaphysics, and your examples were a fail.Assertion will get you nowhere. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is a novel view of an "uncertainty principle" That's interesting that you think that time can't be measured precisely. You're wrong, but it's interesting that you believe it.The problem is, that from the perspective of classical metaphysics, the "insight" of special relativity is not an advancement at all, it's a step backward, a rejection of discipline. Special relativity assigns ambiguity to the point in time designated as "now". But precise measurement of time requires precise determinations of the points "now", which mark the beginning an ending of the measured duration. Without such precision we have uncertainty. Hence the uncertainty principle, emerges as the result of the ambiguity which special relativity assigns to the point in time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Fishfry - don't waste your time.Out of idle curiosity, what exactly is your objection to quantum physics?
— fishfry
If you're interested, just go back and read the posts I made in this thread. They aren't large, and there isn't a lot. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.