There is no LAW. Just a mathematical symbolic tool that works ok in solving problems. All created by the Creative Mind. — Rich

So that's a... Law?

So that's a... Law? — Banno

No Laws here. I consider the concept silly, especially the way it is thrown around to achieve some ground of superiority. Law of Attraction is a nice one. Works well because people like Laws.

You seem to have no trouble using the laws of English.

SO it seems your rejection of laws (rules?) is selective.

I like that.

It's a bit off-topic, but relevant to the post I was responding to.

More relevant to the topic at hand, there's an essay from about a year ago on NPR Cosmos and Culture, on Einstein and Bergson, Was Einstein Wrong? It is a comment on the book the OP is about, by Adam Frank, who's a pretty good writer on science and philosophy.

is there a philosophy — a "metaphysics" — that goes beyond what the math and the data support? And, if such background metaphysics exist, could it be wrong even if the theory itself is right in terms of experiments and data?

This question is at the heart of a fascinating book I've been reading called The Physicist and the Philosopher by Jimena Canales. It's a story about Albert Einstein (who needs no introduction) and Henri Bergson (who probably does). — Adam Frank

SO it seems your rejection of laws (rules?) is selective. — Banno

No. There are no Laws and I don't make them up for convenience or to gain the gravitas high ground.

You don't understand the problem, that's the problem which is why we keep revisiting it.

is there a philosophy — a "metaphysics" — that goes beyond what the math and the data support? And, if such background metaphysics exist, could it be wrong even if the theory itself is right in terms of experiments and data? — Wayfarer

That's the problem.

I think I remember an interview with Canales a few months back.

The unfolding of our experiences happens within time as set out by physicist. So I think Canales reverses physics and metaphysics; physics provides the background for phenomenology, rather than phenomenology underpinning physics.

Brining this back to the topic at hand, integral calculus clearly explains instantaneous velocity. Is there a further issue, not explained by the mathematics, perhaps involving phenomenology, that needs addressing?

We each experience time differently from others and within our own lives. — Rich

So what do you make of this, Wayfarer? We might agree that we each experience different events within time; but that is not the same as each experiencing time differently. Now if this were true, and we do experience time differently, how could this be discussed? IS the question different to "We each experience colour differently from others and within our own lives".

Rich is unable to set the issue out clearly. IS there an issue?

I have and image of Rich in court, objecting to his speeding fine:

I will not pay my fine, your honour; for you see, there are no laws. And further, 3:45 on the 3rd January is an instant; my car could not have traveled any distance during that instant; and was therefore stationary, and certainly not doing 100 in an 80 zone!

The unfolding of our experiences happens within time as set out by physicist. — Banno

What time does the physicist set out. A clock? Something that moves in space. Would I not still experience duration whether or not I measure the some rhythms of a clock?

Duration is what we experience as the passage of like. During this duration events occur. So humans became curious (or for economic reasons) where events happen at the same time. As it turns out, as the simultaneity oof events on clocks became more difficult to determine, the limits were found. But where or not technology is able to keep track of time, the time of life as internally experienced, as felt, continues. This is what Bergson referred to as real time. Science is only concerned with trying to measure simultaneity of events. Totally different issue and had nothing to do with the evolution of life.

Now if this were true, and we do experience time differently, how could this be discussed? — Banno

Easily,. "That play seemed to drag". "Funny, time seems to fly for me." "I thought that would never end". "That vacation went by so fast". 'It seems just as if happened yesterday". But more importantly than communicating the feeling of duration, is the experiencing of duration. How does duration change between awake, day dreaming, dreaming, asleep without dreaming, waking up? There is a qualitative feeling that is personal and defines ones life.

I have and image of Rich in court, objecting to his speeding fine:
I will not pay my fine, your honour; for you see, there are no laws. And further, 3:45 on the 3rd January is an instant; my car could not have traveled any distance at that instant; and was therefore stationary, and certainly not doing 100 in an 80 zone! — Banno

As I said, people make up Laws and change Laws. Nothing sacrosanct about them - except the Laws of God, of course. You see, Laws are handy but they don't solve any philosophical problem.

And reality is what happens despite your beliefs and desires.

]what do you make of this, Wayfarer? We might agree that we each experience different events within time; but that is not the same as each experiencing time differently. Now if this were true, and we do experience time differently, how could this be discussed? — Banno

Einstein was a scientific realist. Obviously a genius, basically the byword for genius - but would he have understood Kant’s ‘Copernican revolution in thought’? I suspect not. Whereas, I think Bergson, being a philosopher, did (although I haven't read him yet.)

Recall that Kant regarded time and space as 'primary intuitions' - contributions of the mind in some sense. So they aren't entirely objective. But I think a huge amount rides on 'entirely' in this context. I mean, for you and I both, the distance from Earth to the Sun is the same, a kilo is 2.20462 pounds, and so on. All the vast array of scientifically-ascertainable facts remain as they are. But there is still a sense in which the mind itself furnishes the background within which all such judgements are made. Whereas for the scientific realist, the mind is generally an output, a result, of the forces that science studies. 'The background', for the scientist, is purportedly the physical Cosmos. Carl Sagan - 'Cosmos is all there is.' That is scientific realism. But it forgets the all-important role of the mind, it pretends that all of this exists independently of any act of cognition. Now, due in part to relativity, and the 'observer problem' in quantum physics, science has forced us to re-think this sense of separation or 'other-ness' from the Universe. It is becoming obvious that the scientist is part of the picture. And that is something Einstein would never agree with, or understand, I feel - for reasons that aren't strictly speaking scientific at all.

Now, I don't agree with a lot of Rich's posts, because I think he pushes this fact to the point of a very simplistic relativism - that everything is simply 'in the mind' or to all intents, a matter of opinion. I definitely don't agree with that. Facts are facts, a speeding ticket or the boiling point of water or the atomic weight of lead are what they are. Understanding the role or nature of mind is a very subtle thing, in my view. But I think that's the nub of the problem.

And reality is what happens despite your beliefs and desires. — Banno

Right. My personal experience of life which goes on whether or not I have a clock.

Facts are facts, a speeding ticket or the boiling point of water or the atomic weight of lead are what they are. — Wayfarer

Water boils. That's an observation. At what temperature? Oh, let's get together and make up some approximate measurement made by some device (which changes). That is what you don't understand. Approximations and consensus observations are not facts. Sometimes people agree, most often not. One cannot separate the observer from the system. Not philosophy, not technically. It is a thoroughly lost cause.

That is what you don't understand. Approximations are not facts. They are merely observations with some consensus - but sometimes not. — Rich

You think nobody has realised this before? If you actually study the Greeks, you would see that they were utterly dedicated to understanding the question of 'how do we know what anything actually is?' The Parmenides, which is the beginning of the Western metaphysical tradition, and then the subsequent dialectic of being and becoming that developed out of that, over centuries, really went into these questions in great depth. You're simply assuming the role of a Protagoras (although he was a pro!)

You think nobody has realised this before? If you actually study the Greeks, you would see that they were utterly dedicated to understanding the question of 'how do we know what anything actually is?' The Parmenides, which is the beginning of the Western metaphysical tradition, and then the subsequent dialectic of being and becoming that developed out of that, over centuries, really went into these questions in great depth. You're simply assuming the role of a Protagoras (although he was a pro!) — Wayfarer

Right. There is a whole history. So it isn't Rich's ideas, is it? You are actually disagreeing with Pros! (Always seeking the high ground).

I just don’t have the same contempt for science that you continually express. Sure, I don’t accept the role of science as ‘umpire of reality’ either. But it definitely is a source of new understandings, insights, powers, technologies, and has to be respected within it’s domain of application. Anyway, having entered the debate, I will definitely go back and listen to that video, I have only been making a general point about philosophy of science.

Science doesn't give insights. People do, like Bohm, Bell, De broglie, and Einstein's wife, Mileva Marić Einstein, who did a substantial part of the work (maybe more) which she was never credited with (other than the Nobel Prize money).

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/

I agree with much of what you have to say, Wayfarer.

But there is still a sense in which the mind itself furnishes the background within which all such judgements are made. — Wayfarer

I don't disagree with this. I would ask instead what a mind is, especially in this context. I suggest that the background, the context in which our discussions take place, is quite public; indeed, that it is pretty much delimited by our language.

I would also not phrase the physicist attitude to mind in quite the same way as you do. I would say instead that sensible physicists will steer clear of issues of mind until physical theory can play a useful role in its elucidation.

Nore does science treat mind as only output; I suspect it is closer to a strange loop, with inputs leading to unexpected consequences.

Approximations and consensus observations are not facts. — Rich

The first lesson in physics is about errors. The students are given rulers and asked to measure the table in front of them as accurately as they can. They come up with different measures - 1000mm, 1001mm, 998mm...

Then it is explained that they are all correct - to within a certain error. The table is 1000+/- 3mm.

So here is the fact: the table is 1000mm give or take 3 mm wide.

the table is 1000mm give or take 3 mm wide. — Banno

Based upon what? Some consensus arrived at by a group of observers? Suppose the rulers are recalled?

If one wants to understand how "facts" are created and the problems with them, one only has to observe the process by which they are created. Observation is always the key factor because that is what the human mind does, observe and then create.

Suppose the rulers are recalled? — Rich

So you will doubt without reason.

And yet you are comfortable using the rules of English, as I pointed out before.

So you doubt selectively.

So you will doubt without reason. — Banno

I understand. That is what I do.

I understand. — Rich

There is very little evidence to support this.

You say there are no rules, while selectively following them. You attack your critics, rather than answer their critique. Your view is impractical and irrational.

Appart from that, Fine.

There is very little evidence to support this. — Banno

Nice bantering with you.

You mean because I don't buy into your "facts" or your Laws? — Rich

But you do; that's the point. You use the rules of English, no problem. You play lip service to rationality. You use the physics of the internet without a qualm. But you argue against the very physics that you are obligated by reality to follow.

Yours is a strange folly.

u use the rules of English, no problem — Banno

I thought v you might call it the "Laws of English". Anyway, language is formed by consensus, so you keep making my point - and it keeps changing.

you argue against the very physics that you are obligated by reality to follow. — Banno

So now I'm arguing against physics?

Really nice bantering with you.

So you have moved from

There is no LAW. — Rich

to claiming laws are mere consensus...

language is formed by consensus, so you keep making my point - and it keeps changing. — Rich

Indeed, your point does keep changing.

So let's go back to your OP:

We each experience time differently from others and within our own lives. — Rich

IS this saying anything more or distinct from "we each experience different events"? If so, what?

Whereas, I think what you are describing is ‘fear of religion’. — Wayfarer

What puzzles me is why Nagel thinks anyone would be afraid of something if they had no motivation to concern themselves with it. If I do have a motivation to concern myself with religion then that leaves the question as to just what is nature of the motivation. The motivation may be different for each person, but why fear in any case?