> The book is, however, upbeat and, finally, optimistic. Unapologetically drawing on historical tradition and even modern philosophy, Smolin proposes a new set of principles that applies to both quantum mechanics and space-time. He then explores how these principles might be realized as part of a fundamental theory of nature, although he stops short of supplying details of the implementation.
That's nice. Too bad QM doesn't care about tradition, philosophy, or your feelings.
> Smolin concludes with the implications of all this for our understanding of space and time. He suggests that time is irreversible and fundamental, in the sense that the processes by which future events are produced from present ones are truly basic: they do not need to be explained in terms of more basic ideas. Space, however, is different. He argues that it emerges from something deeper.
Smolin routinely bullshits, and does not back up much with rigorous theory. He attempts to make a name for himself in a publish-or-perish field by getting his ridiculously unsupported and contrarian ideas traction in the press.
In short, he's all talk, with no substance to back it up.
Having read Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, I think there's a lot of substance there. It's a book made to even include high schoolers, so you have to give it some benefit of the doubt.
As per the philosophy question, neither classical mechanics, relativity, or even death cares about what we think. What matters here is how we perceive and understand a concept.
> The book is, however, upbeat and, finally, optimistic. Unapologetically drawing on historical tradition and even modern philosophy, Smolin proposes a new set of principles that applies to both quantum mechanics and space-time. He then explores how these principles might be realized as part of a fundamental theory of nature, although he stops short of supplying details of the implementation.
That's nice. Too bad QM doesn't care about tradition, philosophy, or your feelings.
> Smolin concludes with the implications of all this for our understanding of space and time. He suggests that time is irreversible and fundamental, in the sense that the processes by which future events are produced from present ones are truly basic: they do not need to be explained in terms of more basic ideas. Space, however, is different. He argues that it emerges from something deeper.
Smolin routinely bullshits, and does not back up much with rigorous theory. He attempts to make a name for himself in a publish-or-perish field by getting his ridiculously unsupported and contrarian ideas traction in the press.
In short, he's all talk, with no substance to back it up.