Some information from Wikipedia: Looks like his philosophy is doing quite all right. Now, care to explain what your quite trenchant opinion is based on? As to the topic, following a page on Wikipedia I found an interesting generic article on medium.com: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...w-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933 If I understand it correctly it's not that time does not exist, but it can be explained in terms of other factors. A bit like a magnetic field can be explained in terms of the electric field
I think tha the babylonians used base 60 - it is hard to imagine the size of their hands! The truth is out there ( and will set you free).
erm...first, your links confirm Nyman's physics not his philosophy and it's physics, not philosophy, that holds; which is my point. Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. Ambrose Bierce Hence my baseball comment. Hope that clarifies.
Not really, no. Actually your difference between physics and philosophy is sort of making everything more confusing, as I'm starting to think I might have misunderstood. Let's try to be more explicit. The implication of your comments is that when Nima Arkani-Hamed talks about physics he shouldn't be listened to. I posted those quotes (didn't mean to post any link) to show that quite a few knowledgeable people disagree. So I'm not sure if I understood what you said, but when this guy talks I prefer to listen. I find it difficult to follow that video, though. I must be too stupid.
I really don't understand how you come to that. Surely it's clear I'm suggesting it's the philosophical propositions being derived here which I'm saying don't follow through with the science he confirms. I too prefer to listen to Nima. He is a brilliant physicist. All I suggest is the philosophical approach which broadly speaking proposes space-time is deterministic not fundamental, isn't borne out in (Nima's) physics. Nima offers a more legitimate question than saying "space-time must go" or "time is an illusion" in that it necessary to see the physics of the infinitely large coalescing with the physics of the infinitely small, in the way Einstein does with Newton.
A couple of things, like your definition of his physics as baseball. That didn't sound very respectful. It's your second post that got me thinking that maybe I interpreted it the wrong way Okay, I'm starting to understand what you mean, but I'm missing something. I think what you mean by philosophy is what usually is referred to as theoretical physics He's a physicist, how can you say his propositions are philosophical? My quantum mechanics is a bit rusty so I'm definitely not going to discuss the theory, but his job should be exactly to build propositions that follow through with science, as theoretical as they can be. There must be something in what he says that makes sense. Sometimes I really regret I didn't study physics. I read quantum mechanics is not so difficult though
andread My comment about baseball was analogous. There's nothing disrespectful at all about being compared to baseball in my view. The basic point being it (physics) is the real thing where ball meets bat. I meant philosophy in terms of a misunderstanding, which becomes, or almost becomes, a belief not based on the facts it refers to. Theoretical physics is not that. Scientific indications or pointers produced from theoretical physics can shoot off into philosophical assumptions which is not what I would accuse Nima specifically of doing from that video, but is what nitro has done with his "space-time / time is an illusion" malarkey. I think you have gotten the wrong end of the stick by what I said. Apologies for not being more clear.