Talk:Time Reborn

"just as much a diagnosis of contemporary economic and political ills"

I feel that a better quote is needed.. (and this one is kind of misleading) from that guy but preferably a physicist. I wander, what I should read into, that no physicist recommended the book on it's cover (or inside), as I'm sure he's on the right path (and string theorist misguided?). Maybe others already have – or the book contradicts their worldviews, keeping them silent..?

About the quote, it's fair, as the guy said that. Note, I've read the book and it's all physics, only the preface and epilogue, mention something else – possible implication, such as for economics (that have also traditionally been considered to have "fixed" laws), of the thinking that the laws are not fixed, but evolve. Evolution is also a theory (universally recognized as true, by (real) scientists), about non-fixed "laws", that Smolin "patterns" his ideas after.

Jaron Lanier (and others I forget) gave the book a glowing "review"/quote at the back of the book. [I assume quoting him is not ok here? Is it not considered independent if you are on the cover? Not saying those get paid or implying that. Is that however sometimes done?]

Lee Smolin's page says: "The following books are non-technical, and can be appreciated by those who are not physicists. [..] 2014 The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time: A Proposal in Natural Philosophy by Lee Smolin and Roberto Mangabeira Unger"

I look forward to reading it, as Time Reborn, is the BEST physics book (including, from memory, his other book I've read The Trouble with Physics) I've ever read, and the future (and past) of physics. Smolin, promised a follow-up bigger in-depth book (by that name if I recall), that should be more technical (while Time Reborn, is a "popular" book/for laymen). Thus, not sure if the "non-technical" is incorrect/inaccurate. He may have said (also) more philosophical as Unger is one. comp.arch (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying should be done, but I think Searle's quote is proper (relevant, reliable source, presented objectively) and should remain. If you want more reviews from reliable sources, it's your right to add them. RCraig09 (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, nothing more, than adding, the review I just did. As it's from 2013, it's strange that people haven't added a physicist review up to now – I assumed, wrongly, there weren't [m]any. I feel a professional physicist review should be the main reception (starting with it), while the book is a "popular" one, rather than from news organizations or the fine (non-physicist) people already quoted. At a minimum, I'm downplaying the "quote", by not starting with it. It is however interesting, just not the main theme of the book. comp.arch (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Duality, feel free to help

I got expectedly, got this notice on "duality" on my talk page. Feel free to help. I do not have the book with me. I put this in: "shape dynamics, a duality of Einstein's general relativity". Duality is a mathematical term, but is there also a general physical term I can link to? I do not want to choose a (too) specific duality term. Maybe this is ok as it is. Maybe this duality doesn't (yet - seemed I couldn't find at the time and now) have a name other than shape dynamics? Choosing anything other than the most general physical duality, might be WP:OR for me, as I might be misunderstanding/not fully understand then and do not want to screw this up/misrepresent the book/physics. See here: List of dualities#Science: Physics.

I lent the book (as it is great, getting people to read it), but I could look up an exact page number and/or the text if it helps people. comp.arch (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

duality .. the right/left mirror strsngeness of our reality ..how to send a picture of our alphabet to a distant planet via digital stream and be sure they do not print it backward ..duality symbolized in the hebrew starsymbolizing two spinning cones ina reciprocal interpenetrating emvrace .. same thing as yin/yang dancing on the underlying tao .. smolin is interesting but far too embedded in the objective stance .. his metaphirs (time as arrow) make me feel claustropgobic. qualia are physically real in their consequences .. they give rise to intent and intent changes the earth. intent lives entirely in the NOW .. a truth smolin never acknowledges. same ol same ol. Rupert Sheldrake is at least approaching the threshhold. no threshhold in sight with smolin Mondopinion (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

time as a stubbornly persistent illusion

From what I have read, Einstein did not say that time is an illusion, but rather that "the distinction between past, present and future is merely a stubbornly persistent illusion" after the funeral of his friend Besso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le petit poussin (talk • contribs) 09:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)