[acqq]

> The latter part is often lacking, and the amount of lacking very often appears to be proportional to the lack of knowledge of the commentator.

Very good: how does your comment fare using that frame?

And since you commented under my comment, what parts of my comment do you agree with and what do you thing you can correct, and based on which sources? I've given mine.

[chupa-chups]

Maybe i misunderstood your comment, if so I like to apologize.

In any case, would you please explain to me how you consider the title "The problem of time" being wrong. It appears to me as one of the most fundamental questions in physics. The wikipedia article does - from my PoV - a reasonably good try to explain the problem at hand in laymans terms. It touches the relevant aspects of the problem (no absolute time, time/space interdependency) and expands to a more speculative theory (thermal time hypothesis).

I will not at all claim to have even a basic understanding of the covered topics, despite being an avid reader of related bloggers and papers.

I just am astonished how people disregard work of others even without (basic) knowledge of the domain. Maybe I'm wrong, but noone in this thread even tried to show her/his accomplishments in the mentioned domain.

And thanks for replying without simply downvoting.

And please don't think i automatically included you in the perceived group not having "even a basic understanding o the topic". Maybe you have, but since this is even less recognizable than the merits of the wikipedia author it is - from an outside PoV - even less credible.

[acqq]

> how you consider the title "The problem of time" being wrong.

Because as far as I understand it is not commonly accepted name among the physicists for the issues that prevents them developing the "Theory of Everything"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

It's just how only a few authors name their articles and books. The title would be OK if it would be a title of the article about the specific book, but not as a title for the "problem" of physics. Because, as far as I know, it's not commonly called as such among the physicists, and that's why even the very support for the whole wikipedia article is a reference to the Quanta article and not some physics textbook, and that is what then confuses readers who don't have "even a basic understanding of the covered topics."

Reducing all the issues about "TOE" to the "problem of time" is not correct, from the perspective of physics. It is probably "fun" for "philosophers" though.