Science And Metaphysics

[Khandro]

I read from, 'Sämtliche Werke und Briefe in Vier Bänden', a biography of the Berlin German woman poet; Mascha Kaléko, that in 1952 she sent one of her poems to Albert Einstein, the opening line was; "Time stands still. It is us who are passing away".
Einstein replied: "I think your poem is very beautiful and rich in meaning. It touches upon a deep metaphysical problem that has become relevant through physics".
What do you think he meant by that?

[jomifl]

Jim, if it isn't consistent with the rules that we think apply then we have got the wrong rules surely?

[jim360]

I might be not quite understanding what you are asking.

Time varies across the Universe and is local. However the rules that govern that variation are consistent.

[Khandro]

I once asked jomifl "If I drove my car at the speed of light, would the headlights work?". We entered the usual knock-about stuff about brakes and seat-belts :-) but there is a serious point here; at that velocity the headlights could not illuminate my path, because the photons could not escape bulbs in the vehicle. However someone observing me from another planet could see the lights, albeit at a later 'time' depending on the distance they were away.
Is that correct?

[jomifl]

A hypothetical argument that posits something that is impossible is a waste of time. But to go along with your car travelling at the speed of light, Not only would it be infinitely large and time would have stopped for it so that the light could never escape the headlights. How silly do you want to get.

[jomifl]

Jim, I took your statement that time isn't consistent within the universe to mean that it wasn't consistent with what we understand about the behaviour of light. I see that you mean it is inconsistent with something else.

[vascop]

@Khandro
How do you know Einstein was referring to the opening line of the poem? We all seem to be assuming that his remarks refer to the opening line, but we may be wrong. Where can we see the rest of the poem please?

[Khandro]

vascop; https://www.google.co.uk/#q=mascha+kaleko+poems
jomifl; I think Einstein himself talked about trams travelling at the speed of light; was he too being "silly"?

[jim360]

I tihnk he talked about them going "near" rather than "at. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light anyway, without being infinitely heavy and requiring an infinity of energy. This is, of course, impossible, so the picture is there only to show that it makes no sense.

[jake-the-peg]

The fact that nothing massive can travel at the speed of light doesn't stop you from asking what would it look like to travel on a beam of light

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/

[jomifl]

You are absolutely correct jake, anyone can ask any question they like, nothing wrong with that. My question would be why would anyone ask a question that cannot have a sensible answer?

[Peter Pedant]

It is all relative innit.

[solvitquick]

A few points: at this stage in our primitive understanding:
(a) Time is an arrow travelling from here to the next stage (the future). This explains causality. For time to travel backwards it could only do so without involving humanity (the killing your father or grandfather shows this to be impossible - no not a paradox). The only way round this is the infinite reality or universe hypothesis (if that is the correct term) but that seems like a fairy-tale-like get out to me.
(b)The velocity of light is NOT constant (only in a vacuum, allegedly and probably right). It varies according to the material it passes through here on earth. Hence the refraction effect as it passes through water, glass etc.
Armchair philosophers are a waste of time and space.
I speak of course as an empiricist or classical/natural scientist - at least that approach yields useful dividends. To me metaphysics has a tendency to mean what you want it to except in it's claim to transend classical physics, chemistry, biology etc.
Regards,
SIQ.

[jomifl]

SIQ, you are doing philosophers a great injustice, their strenuous efforts have helped mankind make great leaps in understanding the universe and aided technological progress. Can't think of any examples off hand, but I'll come back to you when I can, can you wait until hell freezes over?

[solvitquick]

Dear jomifl,
Please note my term "Armchair" re philosophers.
Science researchers are often awarded a Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy) although no implication of superiority over anyone else, just an academic term. But indicates that they appreciate the philosophy of science.
Your posts are often consusing, to me at least i.e. joke or serious.
Regards,
SIQ.

[Khandro]

Perhaps an interesting case it put forward by Victor Mansfield; Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Colgate University on time from a Buddhist point of view.
http://www.shin-ibs.edu/documents/pwj-new/new11/02Mansfield.pdf
The first part of the paper deals with the problems arising when we erroneously invest a designated object with the non-existent property of inherent existence, then continues to relate that to time (page 18).
I wonder if anyone would care to read through it and comment?

[solvitquick]

In my earlier post re Time is an arrow, I think the correct term would be "numerous parallel universes" as a get out from "killing your father"
SIQ.

[jim360]

How do you reconcile that paper with your own belief in Cartesian dualism, since that paper attempts utterly to deny such a thing?

[Khandro]

jim; I'm pleased you read the link and would be interested in any further observations. Regarding Cartesian dualism; I find it hard enough to gain acceptance of the concept of the separation of mind and matter within this cohort, let alone continue on into the realms of 'mind only', being as it It seems many residents of AB (science) believe science exists as a discipline somehow standing alone outside of the mind and therefore metaphysics.
Dualism is the first step away from materialism, which something I am utterly opposed to.

[jomifl]

SIQ, Sometimes my replies are nearly as ambiguous as the questions.

[jim360]

I've only given it a skim-read. The physics section I've seen all before, there's some stuff in the philosophy around it that bothers me but I'm inclined for the moment to put that down to needing to read more about this "inherent existence" thing before I criticise it.

Mainly I was impressed perhaps by two points: firstly the willingness to acknowledge that Science should reign supreme in any disagreement between it and Buddhism; and secondly that he also acknowledged that there was some way to go in Science yet so you should be careful of tying your thinking to current theories as they might change. Sorry for that long sentence, but hopefully it's readable. Anyway that's admirable flexibility, even if I'm not that the starting points are the best ones. Something you don't always see in religion/ science debates. People of other religions often seem to resolve clashes between their faith and Science by questioning the science and not the faith, which is never the right way to go about it.