I see many parallels to my own thinking.

In deference I am a pure atheist. I am an animal, an opinion of humanity three generations after him.

Perspectives are another word for philosophies in my opinion. Accordingly there are as many valid perspectives of reality as there are valid philosophies.

In my opinion perspectives of reality are not truths. Neither are any philosophy in my opinion. Some can be better relate/ understood by some people but all that linger have their following. But accordingly none are absolute truths.

“Reality just sits there” begging for a description of it which necessarily contains a perspective which can be described as metaphysical, which can be explained as a philosophy. All science, whether they know it or not, requires a perspective (philosophy) which in one form or another involves points of view. Many differing points of view can be derived from the same observations

– as can theories in general.

I will have to check out Bergson as you suggest. I am unaware of his writings, thanks. Also Paul is recommending him as a “reading essential,” cool

Speaking of TCM, I can’t help but think that Martha Nussbaum looks more like a movie star than a philosopher in her photos in the latest issue of tpm.

Also, Mesa is connected to the international scene via Nina being quoted by Ophelia Benson in an article in the same issue of tpm.

Einstein also used time as a forth dimension creating the concept of space-time. This concept is needed because galaxies move relative to each other so how could one ever determine one particular point in space. You can’t. All you can do is to define a point in space relative to its observable material surroundings at a particular time. This is the basis for the calculations of gravity in General Relativity where time is used congruently with the 3 well-known spatial Cartesian dimensions, length width and depth, A.K.A.: X, Y, & Z.

A simpler and more general definition of time would be that accordingly time is equivalent to change. Without change time does not pass or exist. The rate of change in today’s Cesium clocks are related to motions at the atomic scale as measured by the frequency of microwave emissions. This clock is accurate to 2 billionths of a second per day, or one second in 1,400,000 years. Two of the most accurate clocks in the world are orbiting in space and are part of our GPS system.

If temperatures and pressures are at prescribed levels, changes at the atomic level can act as the most accurate clocks. So seemingly for both science and philosophy time can be equated with change and I believe has no better definition or meaning than this. From this perspective and explanation one could never go back in time since changes have already occurred and are on-going.

Space can also be simply defined as the volume which matter occupies as well as linear space being the distances between matter.

By this definition there is no space outside the bounds of the universe of matter and field (the Zero Point Field). As Descartes explained and defined it: space is an extension of matter.

The writings of Douglas Adams, as you have quoted him, are certainly philosophical but I believe are unrelated to science.

I’m only into the first few chapters, but the thrust of his argument seems to be that science keeps running into walls when trying to go too far in any direction, from impossible-seeming implications at the quantum level, to theoretical gymnastics necessitated by the breakdown of known physics close to the moment of the Big Bang.

He takes these things as signs that our model of the universe (or reality; he seems to conflate the two) is flawed and/or incomplete at some level.

I think this is a great idea to bring up, and this has been in the back of my head ever since my college physics-for-English-majors instructor performed the experiment in class that showed light behaving as wave or particle, depending on observation. The implications of that are pretty amazing.

His main point seems to be that incorporating consciousness into physics will make everything fall into place, in a unified field theory sort of way.

But I don’t see how such a thing could be done, both because I don’t understand the physics involved, and because he doesn’t seem to offer any real theory of consciousness that would be a guide (even Dennett’s “let’s just say it ain’t really there” approach at least tackles the problem).

He really does seem to take the stance that consciousness itself creates the universe, or at least is a fundamental property of it, but as far as I’ve read he doesn’t seem to have any interest in explaining what consciousness is.

So it’s interesting, but I think he’s trying to go too far with too little. Worse, he tends to dive into mysticism, and to also insist on biology as the supreme science (just look at the title) without any real justification; his personal biases are obvious. And the book seems to lack any real philosophical rigor, though he’s not a philosopher.

I’m enjoying the read so far, but it’s not very novel from a philosophical angle, and I doubt that many scientists will gain any practical new insight from it.

Even setting that aside, for you to bring two points in time together requires that they both exist. In other words, the past, present, and future states of everything would have to be existing simultaneously — how could the perception of time even exist in such a reality?

I guess I should thank you, though, for giving me something to do for the past three minutes.

Time can seem linear, even if there is no actual linear motion measured by time, because the measurement of time is mathematical and is always in the direction of increase because of the possibility of the infinity of time.

It pains me to say this little but I am constrained by time.