Time Really Passes, Science Can't Deny That · HackerPapers discussions

Time Really Passes, Science Can't Deny That — mentioned by mikhailfranco

Wed, 29 Jul 2026 13:32:49 GMT

We should also mention Nicolas Gisin. One of his mantras is Time is real; Real numbers are not. He conceives of real numbers resulting from processes (approximations, relaxations, computable calculations) that unfold over time. So there is a Heisenbergish uncertainty principle of observable precision and elapsed time. Selected papers: Indeterminism in Physics, Classical Chaos and Bohmian Mechanics. Are Real Numbers Really Real? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.06824 Real Numbers are the Hidden Variables of Classical Mechanics https://philarchive.org/rec/GISRNA Time Really Passes, Science Can’t Deny…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Time Really Passes, Science Can't Deny That — mentioned by jessriedel

Tue, 12 Jun 2018 22:49:18 GMT

> https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01497 Note that this is in the "history and philosophy of physics" section of the arXiv, so it's not flooding the arXiv in general. I've heard a small handful of practical physicists complain that Ginsin is getting too much status by posting on the arXiv, but I haven't heard any philosophers of science complain that his papers are particularly bad, much less that they are so obviously worthless that they are a net negative due to taking up space on the daily list of what's new in that section.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Time Really Passes, Science Can't Deny That — mentioned by thraway180306

Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:24:17 GMT

There are no equations and no citations to relevant formalisms so your guess is good as anyone's. The author had a spat with arXiv who, while not being a peer-reviewed venue do their best to keep out the crackpottery, rejected some of the stuff coming from his vicinity. Gisin's complaint was loud, ended up published in Nature, and now it seems anything goes. Then went a flood of similar gems. Such like over-the-top argument for physical time (deep problem formal in nontrivial ways), because thinking requires time thus obviously https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01497 (doubtful any creative time went…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.