A-Chris t1_j5pdjsd wrote on January 24, 2023 at 5:17 PM

I’m not the right person to explain it, but this author doesn’t have an even basic grasp of how modern physics views time. It’s certainly a prickly topic given that we can’t really discuss it without invoking the linguistic shorthand already associated with our pretty ancient views of it, but his “insights” are basically what physicists have been trying to communicate to the public for a century; namely that time isn’t universal and that the flexible definition of the present does centre around the observer or more precisely reference frames. Again, I’m not the right person to describe this, but I don’t think this word salad gets you any closer to comprehension for what is a very deep and fascinating subject.

Edit: typo

aut0po31s1s t1_j5sjn31 wrote on January 25, 2023 at 6:44 AM

Yeah, Bergson and Einstein had conflict on this one too.

Never_B_Ur_Saint_377 t1_j6ckhpx wrote on January 29, 2023 at 10:53 AM

I always cringe at philosophy trying to explain time. It is observed by the subject trying to explain it making it subjective. If you try to explain the present it has already become the past. The future is real because while explaining the present which is becoming the past you are entering the future. We all know it exists but when boiled down to thought experiments its existence can be questionable. The static view is pretty objective but then it makes no room for the ego and of course it has to come in trying to find meaning for itself.