Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Potential Problem For Presentism?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:43:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In Isreal, scientists entangled two particles that did not coexist at the same time [http://phys.org...]. However, how can entanglement happen across time if only the present exists?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:47:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically, they created a particle, measured it, destroyed it, and then created another particle at time later and that particle was entangled with the prior particle that didn't even exist anymore. Very bizarre indeed.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 10:57:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 8:47:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, they created a particle, measured it, destroyed it, and then created another particle at time later and that particle was entangled with the prior particle that didn't even exist anymore. Very bizarre indeed.

Read the article, was pretty much over my head, but perhaps photons experience time differently than humans. After all, we experience time linearly, but time may not have such limits. Still though, I don't think that this is necessarily problematic to Presentism on a pragmatic level. Perhaps the present moment itself is not what we think it is. After all, the present moment is always fleeting towards both past and future. Very interesting, indeed.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 11:50:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 10:57:34 PM, whatledge wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:47:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, they created a particle, measured it, destroyed it, and then created another particle at time later and that particle was entangled with the prior particle that didn't even exist anymore. Very bizarre indeed.

Read the article, was pretty much over my head, but perhaps photons experience time differently than humans.

I don't think you understand. Photons are independent of time because time itself emerges from quantum entanglement with regards to particles like photons [https://medium.com...]. Also, they are not conscious, so I am not sure how they can "experience" time.

After all, we experience time linearly, but time may not have such limits.

Perhaps there is no time at all?

Still though, I don't think that this is necessarily problematic to Presentism on a pragmatic level. Perhaps the present moment itself is not what we think it is.

I never said it was necessarily problematic, just that it seems that way. You haven't convinced me that it is not. Also, "what if it wasn't what we think it is" is a cop out ad hoc story. We can hand-wave away anything with that. You think the Earth is round? Well, what if NASA photos aren't what you think they are? And astronomers aren't who they think they are? This just leads to radical radical epistemological skepticism.

After all, the present moment is always fleeting towards both past and future. Very interesting, indeed.

The experiment seems to debunk the main formulation of Presentism. The reason why two photons can be entangled even though neither of them coexisted at the same time, is that the future, with regards to the present moment at which the first photon was created and measured, had to play some ontological role; which is exactly what Presentism rejects.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 12:03:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 11:50:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 10:57:34 PM, whatledge wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:47:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, they created a particle, measured it, destroyed it, and then created another particle at time later and that particle was entangled with the prior particle that didn't even exist anymore. Very bizarre indeed.

Read the article, was pretty much over my head, but perhaps photons experience time differently than humans.

I don't think you understand. Photons are independent of time because time itself emerges from quantum entanglement with regards to particles like photons [https://medium.com...]. Also, they are not conscious, so I am not sure how they can "experience" time.

Yeah, quantum physics is not exactly my strong point. But if photons are independent of time, as you say, I don't see how it effects Presentism (which is bound by time), as photons aren't bound by time. It makes sense that they would be able to entangle if time is not an issue to begin with, or rather, if time is irrelevant itself as it is independent of photons.


After all, we experience time linearly, but time may not have such limits.

Perhaps there is no time at all?

I have thought of that alternative many times, and perhaps time only exists as an illusion. After all, seconds and minutes, clocks and stopwatches, are all made up by humans. Still, on a practical level, I think it is safe to assume that it exists, if not literally than as a means of measuring experience/events.


Still though, I don't think that this is necessarily problematic to Presentism on a pragmatic level. Perhaps the present moment itself is not what we think it is.

I never said it was necessarily problematic, just that it seems that way. You haven't convinced me that it is not. Also, "what if it wasn't what we think it is" is a cop out ad hoc story. We can hand-wave away anything with that. You think the Earth is round? Well, what if NASA photos aren't what you think they are? And astronomers aren't who they think they are? This just leads to radical radical epistemological skepticism.

I agree with you, I do think that it could be problematic, but on a practical level, I am not convinced. Especially if, as you say, photons are independent of time.


After all, the present moment is always fleeting towards both past and future. Very interesting, indeed.

The experiment seems to debunk the main formulation of Presentism. The reason why two photons can be entangled even though neither of them coexisted at the same time, is that the future, with regards to the present moment at which the first photon was created and measured, had to play some ontological role; which is exactly what Presentism rejects.

But what is future or present to a photon, if it isn't bound by time? Like I said, quantum physics isn't my strong suit, so you could perhaps educate me a little here. It seems if photons are independent of time, it would be incapable of having any of its faculties, eg being in present or future.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 12:38:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 12:03:17 AM, whatledge wrote:
At 1/5/2014 11:50:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 10:57:34 PM, whatledge wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:47:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, they created a particle, measured it, destroyed it, and then created another particle at time later and that particle was entangled with the prior particle that didn't even exist anymore. Very bizarre indeed.

Read the article, was pretty much over my head, but perhaps photons experience time differently than humans.

I don't think you understand. Photons are independent of time because time itself emerges from quantum entanglement with regards to particles like photons [https://medium.com...]. Also, they are not conscious, so I am not sure how they can "experience" time.

Yeah, quantum physics is not exactly my strong point. But if photons are independent of time, as you say, I don't see how it effects Presentism (which is bound by time), as photons aren't bound by time.

Because you said photons may "experience" time different, but I am saying that if their quantum interactions are more fundamental than time (non-dependent), then this suggests they are timeless. Meaning, they probably don't "experience" time at all.

It makes sense that they would be able to entangle if time is not an issue to begin with, or rather, if time is irrelevant itself as it is independent of photons.

This seems to be the case.



After all, we experience time linearly, but time may not have such limits.

Perhaps there is no time at all?

I have thought of that alternative many times, and perhaps time only exists as an illusion. After all, seconds and minutes, clocks and stopwatches, are all made up by humans. Still, on a practical level, I think it is safe to assume that it exists, if not literally than as a means of measuring experience/events.

Yes.



Still though, I don't think that this is necessarily problematic to Presentism on a pragmatic level. Perhaps the present moment itself is not what we think it is.

I never said it was necessarily problematic, just that it seems that way. You haven't convinced me that it is not. Also, "what if it wasn't what we think it is" is a cop out ad hoc story. We can hand-wave away anything with that. You think the Earth is round? Well, what if NASA photos aren't what you think they are? And astronomers aren't who they think they are? This just leads to radical radical epistemological skepticism.

I agree with you, I do think that it could be problematic, but on a practical level, I am not convinced. Especially if, as you say, photons are independent of time.

Well if photons are timeless, then your little "they may experience time" different argument goes out the window.



After all, the present moment is always fleeting towards both past and future. Very interesting, indeed.

The experiment seems to debunk the main formulation of Presentism. The reason why two photons can be entangled even though neither of them coexisted at the same time, is that the future, with regards to the present moment at which the first photon was created and measured, had to play some ontological role; which is exactly what Presentism rejects.

But what is future or present to a photon, if it isn't bound by time? Like I said, quantum physics isn't my strong suit, so you could perhaps educate me a little here. It seems if photons are independent of time, it would be incapable of having any of its faculties, eg being in present or future.

Hence why time is likely an illusion.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 12:52:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 12:38:35 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 12:03:17 AM, whatledge wrote:
At 1/5/2014 11:50:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 10:57:34 PM, whatledge wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:47:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, they created a particle, measured it, destroyed it, and then created another particle at time later and that particle was entangled with the prior particle that didn't even exist anymore. Very bizarre indeed.

Read the article, was pretty much over my head, but perhaps photons experience time differently than humans.

I don't think you understand. Photons are independent of time because time itself emerges from quantum entanglement with regards to particles like photons [https://medium.com...]. Also, they are not conscious, so I am not sure how they can "experience" time.

Yeah, quantum physics is not exactly my strong point. But if photons are independent of time, as you say, I don't see how it effects Presentism (which is bound by time), as photons aren't bound by time.

Because you said photons may "experience" time different, but I am saying that if their quantum interactions are more fundamental than time (non-dependent), then this suggests they are timeless. Meaning, they probably don't "experience" time at all.

I see. As I've said, I'm not really well-versed in quantum physics to have an argument. I was more or less making an observation/assumption based on the article.


It makes sense that they would be able to entangle if time is not an issue to begin with, or rather, if time is irrelevant itself as it is independent of photons.

This seems to be the case.



After all, we experience time linearly, but time may not have such limits.

Perhaps there is no time at all?

I have thought of that alternative many times, and perhaps time only exists as an illusion. After all, seconds and minutes, clocks and stopwatches, are all made up by humans. Still, on a practical level, I think it is safe to assume that it exists, if not literally than as a means of measuring experience/events.

Yes.



Still though, I don't think that this is necessarily problematic to Presentism on a pragmatic level. Perhaps the present moment itself is not what we think it is.

I never said it was necessarily problematic, just that it seems that way. You haven't convinced me that it is not. Also, "what if it wasn't what we think it is" is a cop out ad hoc story. We can hand-wave away anything with that. You think the Earth is round? Well, what if NASA photos aren't what you think they are? And astronomers aren't who they think they are? This just leads to radical radical epistemological skepticism.

I agree with you, I do think that it could be problematic, but on a practical level, I am not convinced. Especially if, as you say, photons are independent of time.

Well if photons are timeless, then your little "they may experience time" different argument goes out the window.

It wasn't meant to be an argument, "little" or otherwise. Like I said, I don't really have the credentials to make an argument. I was more or less exploring the question with you.




After all, the present moment is always fleeting towards both past and future. Very interesting, indeed.

The experiment seems to debunk the main formulation of Presentism. The reason why two photons can be entangled even though neither of them coexisted at the same time, is that the future, with regards to the present moment at which the first photon was created and measured, had to play some ontological role; which is exactly what Presentism rejects.

But what is future or present to a photon, if it isn't bound by time? Like I said, quantum physics isn't my strong suit, so you could perhaps educate me a little here. It seems if photons are independent of time, it would be incapable of having any of its faculties, eg being in present or future.

Hence why time is likely an illusion.

So then, does this still posit a problem for presentism? Or are you saying that presentism in itself is an illusion?