Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Quantum Experiment Refutes Presentism?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 3:37:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
In the philosophy of time, Presentism is the view that only the present exists (and only things in the present exist). In this view, the past and future are non-existent. However, a team of physicists in 2012 were able to engangle two photons that never existed at the same point in time [http://arxiv.org...]. They created one photon, measured it, destroyed it, then created a second photon that had properties determined by the measurement of the first. The problem for Presentism is that this experiment would mean that something non-existent effected the second particle as the second particle was created (the first particle didn't exist then to effect it). But, how can something non-existent determine anything? It can't, as its non-existent! This entanglement across time only makes sense if the past is real. This seems to put Presentism into much question.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 4:03:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 3:37:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In the philosophy of time, Presentism is the view that only the present exists (and only things in the present exist). In this view, the past and future are non-existent. However, a team of physicists in 2012 were able to engangle two photons that never existed at the same point in time [http://arxiv.org...]. They created one photon, measured it, destroyed it, then created a second photon that had properties determined by the measurement of the first. The problem for Presentism is that this experiment would mean that something non-existent effected the second particle as the second particle was created (the first particle didn't exist then to effect it). But, how can something non-existent determine anything? It can't, as its non-existent! This entanglement across time only makes sense if the past is real. This seems to put Presentism into much question.

Is Thinking about the past considerd a conscious hallucination. ?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:17:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I think presentism is also on shaky ground via some aspects of special relativity, as SR abolishes the concept of a universal'present moment' or 'now'.

This link seems like a fairly easly understood demonstration of the sort of problem raised.
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com...

It seems to me that there is an element of the desire to reduce the complexity of spacetime to the familiar and the inuitive. I fear it may not be possible to do that, and the best we can hope for is to hold in our heads many different partial theories or models, applying which ever is most appropriate to solve the problem being tackled. We alread do this - more or less - when we think about the behaviour of light as being sometimes wave-like and other times as particle-like.

To get the correct 'objective' answer to a specific question about light, we can't really use intuition - we have to do abstract calculations and trust what the calculatons say. If so desired, later we can cast the result back into one of our approximate intuitive models.

I don't think presentism is right or wrong, and I don't think the block theory or A or B theories of time are right or wrong. I think they all represent attempts to characterise the nature of time in a way comprehensible to the human mind. As such they are partial truths, useful as guidelines and as tools to aid visualisations but none of them are complete descriptions and certainly not necessarily mutually exclusive, ust as the wave and particle descriptions of light are partial truths and complementary, not mutually exclusive.

I don't see any need to be tribal about which philosopy of time is 'true'. anymore than one has to sign up to being a card-carrying 'wavist' or a evangelical 'particlist' about light.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 7:49:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:17:45 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think presentism is also on shaky ground via some aspects of special relativity, as SR abolishes the concept of a universal'present moment' or 'now'.

This link seems like a fairly easly understood demonstration of the sort of problem raised.
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com...
I love how someone thinks perception of a human Is equivelant to a scientific theorem. Especially when there isn't one scintilla of evidence that these fantasies are validated. People somehow swallowed hook, line, and sinker this reasoning based solely on the emotional need to control time or think it can be controlled or think it's something that has a property that can be affected. This link on the twin paradox is filled with confusing cause and effect fallacies, or claims if you will. There wasn't one piece of time on those planes or in the experiments cited here. It's laughable what these people try to claim are things that are associated with each other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...


It seems to me that there is an element of the desire to reduce the complexity of spacetime to the familiar and the inuitive. I fear it may not be possible to do that, and the best we can hope for is to hold in our heads many different partial theories or models, applying which ever is most appropriate to solve the problem being tackled. We alread do this - more or less - when we think about the behaviour of light as being sometimes wave-like and other times as particle-like.

To get the correct 'objective' answer to a specific question about light, we can't really use intuition - we have to do abstract calculations and trust what the calculatons say. If so desired, later we can cast the result back into one of our approximate intuitive models.

I don't think presentism is right or wrong, and I don't think the block theory or A or B theories of time are right or wrong. I think they all represent attempts to characterise the nature of time in a way comprehensible to the human mind. As such they are partial truths, useful as guidelines and as tools to aid visualisations but none of them are complete descriptions and certainly not necessarily mutually exclusive, ust as the wave and particle descriptions of light are partial truths and complementary, not mutually exclusive.
Time is a language. The fact it is represented numerically causes way to many fantasies by physicists who want to tell a story. Atomic clocks on planes doesn't equate to a " time dilation experiment". It equates to an experiment concerning the engineering of atomic clocks. Satellites needing clock readjusting is about clock engineering, not time or Einstein's relativity. These people are simply emotionalists that have the need to think time can be controlled and in turn aging can, then their life span can, and finally they can put off aging or dying sooner. It's an illogical game of finding the fountain of youth.
I don't see any need to be tribal about which philosopy of time is 'true'. anymore than one has to sign up to being a card-carrying 'wavist' or a evangelical 'particlist' about light.