A good book that introduces, I suspect, the majority of readers to a philosopher named Bergson, a once famous contemporary of Einstein that unlike the latter had as time progressed fallen into obscurity. In this book Bergson’s ideas and convictions about the nature of time are revived and pitched against Einstein’s mechanistic interpretation of space time. This is well worth the read. ( )

There were a few stylistic elements to the book that I did not like. The two most prominent were the repeated, iterative listing of questions used to introduce sections and chapters, and so much skipping around time-wise (I'm fine with non-linear narrative, but it needs a bit more sign-posting.)

I also found the debate itself irritating. Have you ever come across a years-old comment thread online and, reading through it, shaken your head at how groups of people could sustain for so long in completely talking past each other? Witness here the early- to mid-twentieth century version of that.

This debate also grates on me because of my own biases. I have little patience for the "philosophical" arguments here. At a deep, gut level I cannot help but consider this as just so much... BS. Like I said, my own biases :)

On the good side of this book, I found out about a whole debate --a decades long, multi-person, and still somewhat unfinished debate-- that I never knew about. And, even if I can't completely overcome my own feelings of, "Ahh-fer-christ-sake..." that is definitely worthwhile. ( )

Gets to the heart of the metaphysics of the concept of time. ( )

The impact of Einstein's theories on philosophical conceptions of time. The challenge of relativity on metaphysics was similar to that of evolution on religion: it threatened to undermine its very raison d'être.

Is time something constructed by human minds or is it a physical dimension measurable by clocks? Einstein insisted on the latter while claiming that philosophers were speculating on a topic that belongs strictly within the domain of science.

The book focuses more on the personalities involved than it does on their ideas, making for a frustrating and occasionally tedious read. However, it is invaluable for dealing with this forgotten episode in 20th century intellectual history. ( )

In The Physicist & the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time, Jimena Canales examines the April 1922 Paris debate between Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson over how to understand time, either through Einstein’s relativistic approach or Bergson’s philosophical one. Canales writes, “‘The time of the universe’ discovered by Einstein and ‘the time of our lives’ associated with Bergson spiraled down dangerously conflicting paths, splitting the century into two cultures and pitting scientists against humanists, expert knowledge against lay wisdom. With repercussions for American pragmatism, logical positivism, phenomenology, and quantum mechanics, a series of intrigues and alliances explain why longstanding rivalries between science and philosophy, physics and metaphysics, and subjectivity are still so passionately fought” (pg. vii-viii). According to Canales, “By following the debate and its unraveling we can understand why Einstein emerged as the man who set science apart from metaphysics and why he was considered to be doing secular science, although he was profoundly spiritual” (pg. 32). The two men’s work and contributions “appeared to their contemporaries forcefully at odds, representing two competing strands of modern times. Vitalism was contrasted against mechanization, creation against ratiocination, and personality against uniformity” (pg. 7). In the end, “The debate between the two men soon engulfed one of the foundational concepts of modern science: experiment. What proof did Einstein have against the propositions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré, and Henri Bergson?” (pg. 99).
In this way, the understanding of time in 1922 is important. Canales writes, “What is one second of time? The answer to this question was complicated, especially after scientists realized that the common way of defining a unit of time by using the rotation of the Earth against the stars (the sidereal clock) was subject to numerous errors” (pg. 115). By the early twentieth century, “Paris was at the center of a rapidly expanding time-coordination network in which astronomers sent time to the world via radio waves” (pg. 262). According to Canales, “During the meeting on April 6, 1922, accurate time was determined via a complex timekeeping and distribution network that relied on many assumptions, including presuppositions about the behavior, constancy, and speed of light in relation to the Earth’s rotation and orbital velocity” (pg. 262). This led to a fairly standard understanding of time based on accurate clocks and timekeeping.
Much of the trouble stemmed from the use of metaphors to describe time. According to Canales, “Scientists, including Einstein, frequently used thought experiments, known as Gedankenexperiment, in their work. These thought experiments were different from other products of the imagination in that they, ostensibly, could be reproduced under certain circumstances. It did not matter that some aspects of the thought experiment may not be practically realizable at that moment. They were legitimate as long as they could one day be realized; as long as their potential realization did not contradict any known laws” (pg. 311). Einstein and his followers used the example of a clock to convey their understanding of time. This led to questions over its validity as a descriptive device. Canales writes, “Throughout Einstein’s life, two related questions were repeatedly brought up in critiques of relativity. First, why define time exclusively by reference to clocks? Second, why consider clocks in terms of the behavior of light? Light, he answered, behaved differently from most other things” (pg. 247). Some sought to correct the issues of thinking of time like a clock by referencing the relatively recent motion picture technology. According to Canales, “Bergson criticized ‘cinematographic’ conceptions of the physical universe as well as ‘cinematographic’ conceptions of time. By assuming that temporal events in physics succeeded each other in the same way as successive frames in filmstrips, science and film shared an underlying deceptive notion of time” (pg. 284). For example, many thermodynamic experiments could not be undone in linear succession, even though this understanding of time would suggest that was the case, creating a paradox of sorts. This difference of opinion split Bergson and his followers from Einstein and his, even though the two men developed a respect for each other later in life and Bergson accepted relativity.
Looking at the current state of science and humanism, Canales writes, “Questions pertaining to the relation of individual versus common experience and to information-transfer versus communication appear once again, albeit in a new guise. One difference is stark: scientists tackle these questions mostly on their own. Humanists are nowhere to be found in these conversations” (pg. 349). ( )