Quote Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
The_Unreality_of_Time


PS: In philosophy, time is treated as unreal by Spinoza, by Kant, by Hegel, and by Schopenhauer.

Those are some heavy names in the world of philosophy. I think that the problem is that physics pays no regard to philosophy for the most part, and in doing so, will always be foundamentally wrong.

BUT, I do however understand why time needs to be used in physics. Now, I think, I understand. It's a framework in which we are able to think of change. That's all. Just a tool that we need to use.
Philosophy and science are related at least at the level of hypothesis. In the past far more scientists were philosophers.

The difference, and scientists would argue the flaw with philosophy, is that science tests its ideas against the world. This is not to say that physics has dropped mind experiments such as Schrodingers Cat.

The specialisation has gone even further. We now have theoritical scientists such as Einstein and Hawking, and experimental scientists. The theorists create ideas, test them mathematically, while the experimental scientists go out and test the ideas. This division of labour is slightly abstract except when referring to Physics dons getting their slave labourer, umm, project student to do the experiment.

Although science is fairly commonly referred to as being not a democracy, In My Dishounourable Opinion the title of dictatorship of thought more fairly rests in the court of Philosophy.

Science is to Philosophy what Democracy are to Dictatorships. One at least has the support of the numbers and a far greater amount of accountability, the other just works on force of who has the greatest perceived power.

In the end of the day science is not a democracy either. All the worlds philosophers can say what they like, while one child can scientifically prove them wrong.