Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CaseyTS t1_j0manwh wrote

Reply to comment by Matt5327 in Time is a Wheel, Time is an Arrow: on linear and cyclic conceptions of time by owlthatissuperb

Have you studied physics for long?

2

Matt5327 t1_j0mbmp6 wrote

Depends on what you mean by studied. I’m not going for a degree in it or anything, but I have been following research and engaging with physics education for about 15 years. But what does that matter? Let’s say physicists routinely use this extra broad definition of physical- that’s great for them, but their definition does not define it for other disciplines. So here we are in a philosophy subreddit, where we can reasonably expect something more narrow, so as to not automatically apply to any observable.

2

CaseyTS t1_j0mcy6y wrote

> So here we are in a philosophy subreddit, where we can reasonably expect something more narrow, so as to not automatically apply to any observable.

I ask about physics because physics is what this philosophical article is about. It is NOT overly narrow for this situation; the article is explicitly about the philosophy of time, and misunderstanding what time is (i.e. thinking it's some sort of construct and ignoring physical evidence of its features) makes it impossible to talk about this with any gravitas (ba dum tsss).

Is space physical? Electromagnetism? Your rationale applies to many things that it would be innacurate to say aren't physical, not just time.

If you haven't studied special and/or general relativity with some rigor, then you might not be qualified to answer questions about it.

5

Matt5327 t1_j0mw9vc wrote

The concern is more linguistics in this case. Yes, the article brings in physics but it’s not about physics, per se. Therein lies the challenge.

−1