: "That idea, the idea that there is an underlying spacetime, we know from many points of view, from many theoretical arguments, we strongly believe that spacetime doesn't really exist. (...) The slogan is that spacetime is doomed and something has to replace it."
The consequent (spacetime) is doomed, doesn't exist, and has to be replaced, but the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate) should remain (otherwise Einsteinians' children would go hungry in the streets):
: "When Einstein started thinking about gravity in 1907, he had already figured out his special theory of relativity, which brought together Newtonian mechanics - how things move, push and pull - and Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism. To achieve this, the rules of physics had to change. Space and time became intertwined and the speed of light become sacrosanct and invariant, a cosmic speed limit on any physical process."
Pentcho Valev
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Sep. 29, 2014 @ 11:35 GMT
Hello Eckard,
I think that physicists should love dialectics and ontology, then the problem of the nature of time will be much easier to solve. Among the most profound meaning of the Universum have to go through Heraclitus - Plato - Aristotle - Plotinus-Cusa - Descartes - Leibniz - Kant - Hegel. Good hint dates N.Burbaki idea of the "maternal structures" ("Architecture of Mathematics"). As well said Alexander Zenkin: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to "an unlimited circle"of spectators.» ( Alexander Zenkin
SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS). This is true both for Mathematics and Physics. «Eidos», «logos», «topos», «maternal structure» are a great opportunity to overcome the ontological crisis of representation and interpretation in fundamental knowledge.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 30, 2014 @ 04:43 GMT
Vladimir,
Thesis: Time is a dragon to slay in order to unite theories.
Antithesis: Why not slaying instead the doctrine "shut up and mathmasturbate"?
Synthesis: Let's rediscover sound reasoning and reveal possible mistakes. Why not accepting that only the order of past events is already unchangeable and the conventional bilaterally symmetrically extended notion of time is just a modified abstraction from this unilateral order? Future time is likewise unilateral. One has only to abandon the unprovable and perhaps futile because fatalistic ontological guess of monists like Parmenides that the behavior of the world can be as completely anticipated as can that of a finite model of it.
What about Hegel's dialectic, even Karl Marx spoke of "abstruse Hegelei".
I contempt just being lazily satisfied with two mutually excluding views at a time.
Having read Zenkin's paper a while ago, I just recall that he didn't ascribe the utterance "mankind will recover from the illness of Cantor's set theory" to Poincaré as did Mueckenheim but to someone else.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 30, 2014 @ 04:47 GMT
Pentcho,
With Einstein's children you certainly meant the many of his fellows. I just heard by chance that Einstein had a disabled child which he neglected.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 30, 2014 @ 05:29 GMT
Someone else was Brouwer. I regret that even he just tried to replace Cantor's set theory by a substitute instead of humbly admitting that infinity and continuity in their original meaning (cg. the definition by Peirce) and irrational numbers are simply qualitatively outside the realm of sets of rational numbers.
Of course, intuitionism relates to what is called the Urintuition of counting. Counting requires to abstract a unit that can alternatively be identified.
In contrast to counting for the purpose of taxing, ancient geometry was somewhat aristocratic for good reason. While mathematics on the basis of natural numbers provides exact results, every primary identification is a process with more or less uncertain result. Leibniz had it: After one has chosen a unit, the realm of belonging commensurable values is defined.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Sep. 30, 2014 @ 16:49 GMT
Eckard,
To grasp the nature of time is necessary to "grasp" the dialectic triad of nature at the deepest ontological level. Understanding - it means "to grasp" structure
( G.Gutner Ontologija matematicheskogo diskursa" / "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). And then imagine eidos of ontological (primordial) structures of nature. That is, to "draw" the primordial structure of the Universum. Hegel his "triad" crucified on the tripod, but not painted. Marx did not understand "abstruse" Hegel and went into political economy. Engels did not complete his "Dialectics of Nature". It is necessary to go back to Heraclitus and Cusa with all the knowledge accumulated by mankind to XXI century, and then to "dig" deeper than Hegel, to make "great synthesis" - "to grasp" the structure of space and only then - "to grasp" the nature of time. "Dragon" has to live. But as the mathematics work in eternity, then for "gripes" primordial (basic) structure of the Universum (the structure of eternity) "dragon" can be taken out of the brackets for a while (put in «the cage»- our mind) . Mathematicians want to
"close the physics" (Ludwig Faddeev "Uravnenie zlogo duha"/"The equation of the evil spirit"), but the mathematics - the fundamental sign system without ontological justification, as well as physics. The problem of the justification (foundation) of mathematics for over a hundred years...
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 1, 2014 @ 04:18 GMT
The very beautiful timekeepers of our galaxy are the pulsars and there are now thousands known. The millisecond pulsars are especially interesting and precise and here is a plot of about 350 from the pulsar handbook that show a trend in their decays that seems to agree with the 0.283 matter decay constant for a shrinking universe.
Interesting that the measured spin down decay of earth seems to agree with the same decay constant as well...also the reported decay of the earth-moon orbit seems to agree with pulsar decay constant. The one thing that seems to be certain about our best clocks is that they all decay over time in very regular fashion. There are actually many different ways that pulsars decay and increase by radiation and accretion, including gravity waves. But somehow millisecond pulsars all seem to have march to a common drummer.
The electron spin and hydrogen atom decays, which are assumed in matter time to decay at this rate as well, are simply beyond the current measurement precision.
pulsar decays
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 1, 2014 @ 14:00 GMT
Vladimir,
While the triad thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is undoubtedly valuable, according to Wiki, Hegel himself used this introduced earlier by Fichte classification only once. Instead, Hegel's dialectic is that things or ideas have internal contradictions. Popper meant: Hegel's system formed a thinly veiled justification for the absolute rule of Frederick William III. Marx spoke of abstruse Hegelei in the sense of Hegelishness like childishness as to express disapproval.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 1, 2014 @ 14:20 GMT
Steve,
Elderly people like me tend to prefer black text on white background.
I appreciate your attitude to defend the measure time, and I also admit that I don't yet understand at all how the precisely reproducible decay works.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 1, 2014 @ 19:08 GMT
Eckard,
Understand the nature of time - is to see and understand the dialectics of nature, see the "coincidence of opposites" in the very nature and design the primordial generating structure of a hierarchical universe. Today it is necessary to climb on the shoulders of great thinkers Kant - Fichte - Hegel and see more, to see the deep ontology and the dialectics of nature. Unfortunately, physics as a fundamental system of signs - is a science without ontological justification (substantiation). For such substantiation just need the dialectical method.
Karl Popper reduces the dialectics to Hegelian and Marxist variants. Dialectics of Popper as a cognitive movement from thesis to antithesis, and from it to the synthesis. It's too narrow interpretation of dialectics. K.Popper, as it does not see any particular sphere, which is engaged in the dialectic -
the sphere of opposites. M. Cornforth, well-known critic of Karl Popper, pointed out that the dialectic is interested
in the connection of opposites. In the integrity of the development of German idealism gradually formed the dialectical method, which must be applied to grasping of a primordial structure of the Universum and "grasp" the nature of time. The dialectic is not a whim, not an invention, not artifice, it has roots in reality and its theoretical understanding.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 1, 2014 @ 19:47 GMT
Steve,
Good image of the "pulsar" in Cosmos for the "grasping" of the primordial ontological structure of the Universum and the nature of time. They are clearly visible the absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states) and the primordial structure of space. From the structure of space - another step towards the nature of time as a polyvalent phenomenon of the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. We are accustomed the time to "measure" and "calculate". But now it is necessary to understand, otherwise it will be to "kill". And it's bad for fundamental science and for society.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 03:04 GMT
I am also fascinated by the problem of time. And to reiterate, time is what clocks measure.
"I appreciate your attitude to defend the measure time, and I also admit that I don't yet understand at all how the precisely reproducible decay works."The decay and speed up of pulsars occurs due to radiation or accretion of matter, by and large, but pulsars in orbit around another star are affected by that as well. Millisecond pulsars have particularly stable decays and periods, that is all. In other words, the best clocks that we have are ones that not only tick, but decay in time as well as tick.
The fact that millisecond pulsar decay seems to follow the mdot decay constant and that decay constant reflects the spin down of earth and of the earth-moon orbit seems more than a coincidence. Our science accepts that our clocks vary with our frame of reference and that any decay is due to radiation, including gravity wave radiation. Any common decay is just an illusion, not a constant.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 09:27 GMT
Steve,
And you throw all the clocks and think deep the ontology of Universum. From where force was born? From where energy was born? What the primordial structure of the Universe with all the observation of nature: in Cosmos and on Mother Earth? From "point"? What structure has a "point"?
Should be ontology of measures and ontology forms. Only when we understand and draw
the primordial structure of the Universum, then we can understand the nature of time. All of the modern structures of the Universum, built on observations and mathematics - a phenomenological structures without ontological justification. Today the fundamental physics and cosmology must answer the most profound questions and without ontology they do not answer.
Regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 16:19 GMT
Vladimir,
Euclid's point is something (ideal) that has no parts. Does anybody know a better definition?
Even the smallest physical particles are imagined as divisible in the sense one attributes a divisible size to then. On the other hand, an abstract notions that describes an item is indivisible. For instance, you as a unique living person cannot be divided into identical smaller units. Futile ontological guesswork including Hegel's idealist rejection of atoms were nurtured by some inability to consequently separate between reality and abstraction.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 16:31 GMT
Vladimir,
Do we really need to understand time? Maybe it is already a big success to admit that time in reality, i.e. past time and abstract time including time expected to come are essentially different.
Tom quoted Einstein's metaphors of marble and wood as to distinguish the putative realities which SR and GR are thought to refer to. This reminds not by chance to Cantor's different infinities.
In case of really past time and abstract time, such metaphors are really justified.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 19:03 GMT
Eckard,
Euclid's point is something (ideal) that has no parts. Does anybody know a better definition?Even the smallest physical particles are imagined as divisibleHas no parts, does not mean not extended. It means the smallest possible extension that cannot be further divided into smaller parts.
Then, think what does 'divided' mean. A knife can divide a loaf of bread continuously until the smallest slice is even smaller than the knife edge. At that point, the slice of bread can have "no parts". That does not make it have zero extension.
In geometry, what divides objects are lines. A line of zero width can divide infinitely but can such a 'knife' exist? No, except in the mathematical realm. Lines that exist in the physical realm have width and can continue dividing until they encounter the smallest extended object of same width as the line. Then the line undergoing division stops having further parts. You have arrive at the 'point'.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 22:48 GMT
Akinbo,
We agree on that there are limits to divisibility in physics but not in Euclid's mathematics. I wrote: "Even the smallest physical particles are imagined as divisible in the sense one attributes a divisible size to then." Mathematics provides a continuous scale to physics, not the other way round.
Euclid's definition clearly means that a point has no extension at all. Even the smallest mathematical extension could be divided endlessly. Peirce defined, according tho what he learned from Leibniz, a continuum as something every part of which has parts. Therefore, contrary to set theory, one must not imagine a continuum composed as a set of ideal points. Spinoza still confirmed this logical necessity because he understood infinity as something that cannot be enlarged.
Present mathematics follows Dedekind and Cantor who equated irrational expressions with their approximation by means of an unspecified huge number of ratios.
In other words, they ignored Cauchy's qualitative distinction between what has no quantifiable difference. Effectively they understood points like you as infinitesimally small pieces of a line. Is this redefinition of a point better than Euclid's? I don't think so. Imagine two lines crossing each other within one point. Even the smallest pieces of them have different directions. They cannot both be the same point. Points are not infinitesimal but they have simply zero dimension. In physics, singular points, lines, and areas are fictions.
This opinion of mine is at the root of my disagreement with Tom.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 02:41 GMT
Time is not alone...
"Only when we understand and draw the primordial structure of the Universum, then we can understand the nature of time. All of the modern structures of the Universum, built on observations and mathematics - a phenomenological structures without ontological justification. Today the fundamental physics and cosmology must answer the most profound questions and without ontology they do not answer."Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe. These things simply are the way they are because the universe is the way it is. After all, that is what an ontology is. We can only ever understand time, an axiom, in terms of the other two axioms, matter and action.
The matter and action of the universe define time...think of a clock. Time and matter define action...think of the change of matter as action. Time and action define matter...think of how we sense objects.
With this simple ontology that I call the trimal, a whole universe evolves...
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 10:15 GMT
Eckard,
On my system, the Universum and its "beginning" I regard as the "generating process" of the matter which has the structure. I base the ontological structure of this process, which the hierarchy. And then, when the generating structure is constructed, I "grasp" the nature of time. I stand outside the brackets the concepts of mathematics of Euclid and use only the ontological mathematics in the spirit of Plato ("Platonic solids", "heavenly triangle"). Today mathematics - a sign system without ontological justification.
"Point" as a source of a process which has the structure. In Russian the words "point" - "source" - " justness" have the same root: «toch-ka» - «is-toch-nik» - «toch-nost». I consider the Universum as the holistic process, which includes a consciousness and a man - "the measure of all things" (Protagoras).
First
ONTOLOGIA and only then -
MATHEMATICS. That is, I will consider the ontology of the simplest mathematical objects in the light of all the accumulated knowledge of mankind. I do not separate "absolute idea" from the «matter» - it is the
holistic process of the generating of structures. "Absolute idea" as a process of self-motion "logos" ("triune logos"), manifested as the
"ontological (structural, cosmic) memory" , creative new material structures at all levels of the Universum as a whole.
Yes, scientific metaphors can and should be used, but in the end it is necessary to build the
"general framework structure" - "generating structure" for the fundamental knowledge that gives us insight into the time at the deepest ontological level. The philosophy of Heraclitus - Aristotle - Plotinus - Cusa - Descartes - Kant - Hegel - the first assistant in the ontological construction of the
"generating structures" .
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 10:34 GMT
Steve,
Please, construct the
primordial generating structure of the Universum based on these three concepts:
«Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe.» The "clock" has been moved outside the brackets: there is only Nature and your Mind.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 23:56 GMT
Nothing is outside of the brackets of the universe.
” Please, construct the primordial generating structure of the Universum based on these three concepts: «Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe.» The "clock" has been moved outside the brackets: there is only Nature...
view entire post
Nothing is outside of the brackets of the universe.
” Please, construct the primordial generating structure of the Universum based on these three concepts: «Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe.» The "clock" has been moved outside the brackets: there is only Nature and your Mind.”By nature and mind you seem to mean the basic duality of our world, mind and body. I am with you, but that duality still exists inside of the brackets that are the universe. Nothing is outside of the brackets including the clock, which is the quotient of action and matter and that clock is within the universe.
So your “nature” appears to deal with matter, time, and action, which is the trimal of our Cartesian representation while your “mind” deals with a complementary relational representation. The trimal of origin, destiny, and purpose describes the stories that we experience, remember, and tell about the relations of objects and that is how our mind and consciousness works.
There is a dual representation for the universe that roughly corresponds to the perpetual philosophical discourse on dualism. The Cartesian representation is all about the ontology of matter, time, and action, what you call “nature.” The relational representation is all about the ontology of origin, destiny, and purpose, which are the stories of consciousness, what you call “mind.” These are not two different ontologies or realities but rather these are two representations of the same common reality or ontology.
Notice that I am very careful to leave particular stories out of my ontology. The points, lines, planes, and volumes of Euclidean space and Plato’s solids and triangle, these are all stories that help us predict action in space. Since the generating structure of the universe is the action equation that describes the change in matter with time, space then becomes a result of action and not the place where action occurs.
”On my system, the Universum and its "beginning" I regard as the "generating process" of the matter which has the structure. I base the ontological structure of this process, which the hierarchy. And then, when the generating structure is constructed, I "grasp" the nature of time.”The universum that you describe has a “beginning” (an origin), a “generating process” (a purpose), and a “generating structure” (a destiny). These are the stories we tell about our relational reality and from those stories we do indeed “grasp” a Cartesian time as well as matter and action. Of course your “generating process” is both the purpose and the action that results in structures or objects.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 4, 2014 @ 09:49 GMT
Steve,
I construct my ontological model of the Universum based on
one axiom (super-axiom): "In the beginning was the Logos (the meta-law) ...",
the simple ancient principles:
triunity of the absolute (unconditioned) forms of existence of matter (absolute states),
"that on top, and bottom", " coincidence of opposites" (Cusa) and the base method -
the method of ontological construction. The result of the construction -
"The absolute generating structure" as the framework, carcass and basis of fundamental knowledge.
The primordial structure of the Universum gives an insight into the ontological
dimension of the absolute space: three "linear" dimension + three "vortex" + three "wave", as well as an understanding of the nature and essence of time as
the multivalent phenomenon ontological (structural, space) memory substantiate the integrity of the Universum and its structure.
Matter - is that from which everything is born (Plato), the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - is that all creates.
Steve, but you have not shown the ontological structure of your Universum.
With regard to the "clock", then it's not about the natural "clock", and the clock, which we "measure"- they should be taken out of the brackets, ie, we first need to understand the nature of time, and then "measure".
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 4, 2014 @ 15:50 GMT
I was just following what you said. Your superaxiom is triunity, which is what I call a trimal. My superaxiom is simply that the universe exists. Since my universe has a trimal and yours has a triunity, if your story is an ontology, then mine story should also be an ontology.
Then you go on to triple down on everything, which is what I do as well, but with different words and a different action principle. Your action equation is something you call the "base method of ontological construction" and is different than mine, the Schrödinger equation, and so naturally your universe evolves differently from that different action principle. The ontological framework seems rather similar, though, between your triunity and my trimal. I like that.
Often philosophy ends up using words and discourse that seems new and novel, we know that once you find truth, all you can ever hope to do is repeat that same truth over and over again with different words and stories.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 08:06 GMT
Vladimir,
"First ONTOLOGIA and only then - MATHEMATICS". That's why I am suspecting the most basic mistakes not within mathematics but within
pre-mathematical intuitions .
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 19:32 GMT
Steve,
Yes, the principle of triunity (namely, the triunity of the absolute forms of existence of matter) - it is a basic principle (Super principle). I cut out the formula at the ontological construction of
"the general framework structure" ("Absolute generating structure") as the formula - it "clippings" from the Universum as a whole. Understand means "grab structure" ( G.Gutner
Ontologia matematicheskogo diskursa/Ontology of mathematical discourse).
"Absolute generating structure" gives you the opportunity to "grab" the nature of time as a multivalent phenomenon ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. In the physical picture of the Universum XXI century must enter the category of "memory" as the core, the semantic attractor, pulling together all the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Gusserl), all the ultimate meanings and values of the Universum. New heuristics and understanding of the Universum can only give the deepest philosophical ontology.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 19:37 GMT
Eckard,
I agree with you. Excellent essay. Mathematics as well as physics requires an ontological foundation.
What a philosophical conclusion about the nature of time? It is necessary to "kill the dragon" or we will find it the place in the structure of the Universum?
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 23:08 GMT
Vladimir,
I still consider the first four Figs. in that essay questioning details of ontology in mainstream.
My fifth Fig. shows the effort I spent as to hopefully understand a measurement by Norbert Feist in order to possibly question Michelson's null result.
Meanwhile, I am convinced that Michelson's experiments in Potsdam and Cleveland did indeed disprove the assumed by Maxwell effect of a light-conducting medium, and I manged explaining in the following essays a logical possibility to avoid what I consider wrong conclusions that led Einstein to questioning a ubiquitous time.
This seems to confirm my hope for genuine progress towards less paradoxes instead of a growing chain of wild guesses. You mentioned Nikolaus Cusanus (1401-1464). He plausibly argued that the universe is endless, has therefore no center, and looks equal from all sides.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 7, 2014 @ 08:58 GMT
Eckard,
In Figure 1, you gave «Logical origin of ordinary time scale».
You can give the
ONTO-LOGIA of the concepts
"time" and
"arrow of time"?
Regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 7, 2014 @ 17:08 GMT
Vladimir,
My specific conceptualization of time arose from getting aware of undeniable flaws not just in the theory of hearing but already in the concept of signal processing.
In other words, I looked for a plausible solution to a bundle of questions and found it by putting the common concept of time from head onto sound footing.
While I usually dislike teleology I hope to articulate my arguments most convincingly when I ascribe reasoning for instance to the cochlea: Cochlea cannot know the agreed synchronization. It can also definitely not perform complex calculus, and the physiologically evident rectification by the OHCs would also not work in complex plane.
My Fig. 1 resolves not just all such question but I consider it also providing sober solutions to notorious quarrels concerning the disputed flow of time. When I asked my boss for his opinion, he admitted to be not sure: "The issue is utterly foundational (sowas von fundamental]". Meanwhile I understand his hesitation: Some consequences in mathematics as well as in physics are taboo. I appreciate the chance to discuss them here.
I am sorry being unable to derive my concept from the postulated existence of something primordial. Causality demands: Future cannot influence the past. That's simply not yet accepted by those who prefer killing time and causality.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 7, 2014 @ 19:57 GMT
Eckard,
Good structural eidos "the cochlea". But why the "arrow of time"? - Asks schoolchild ... Maybe we are too simplistic understanding the phenomenon of "time", including in science? By the way, in the Russian language "time" in harmony with "burden»: «vremja» - «bremja» ...
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 7, 2014 @ 22:00 GMT
Vladimir,
The cochlea is the snail-shaped inner ear, the caudal part of our auditory pathway.
It performs a frequency analysis of sound that permanently comes in via outer and middle ear. Even if the traveling wave in cochlea is most certainly just an epiphenomenon, it also propagates like an arrow.
Zeh deals in his textbook with many other aspects of what he calls the direction of time.
Davis correctly argued that the block-time is a scale that of course cannot flow relative to itself. My Fig. 1 illustrates what flows: the scale of elapsed time is permanently in motion relative to the scale of abstract block time. Elapsed time cumulates. Time to come shrinks. Everything becomes objectively elder. Nothing becomes younger. Where is a problem with these trivialities?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 8, 2014 @ 11:41 GMT
Eckard,
I consider the "the cochlea" not as a phenomenon, but as a noumenon -
"thing to think not as an object of feeling, but as a thing-in-itself ... which does not involve any contradiction"(I.Kant). Moreover, not thinking "thing-in-itself " but
"process-in-itself". Here we need an ontology of the primordial process.
All of the modern concept of time is
not constructive. Why? It is necessary
to review the primordial structure of space, its ontology, only then can come to an understanding of the phenomenon of time.
G. Gutner made a good conclusion: "The event consists in prehension of the structure means understanding" (G.Gutner
«Ontologija matematicheskogo diskursa / Ontology of mathematical discourse»). To understand the nature and essence of time, "arrow of time" must first "seize" the primordial ontological structure of space: consider the snail as "primordial point" as an "event" as a "structure" as a "coincidence of opposites" of rest and motion. as the unity of absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest + absolute motion+ absolute becoming.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 9, 2014 @ 05:57 GMT
Vladimir,
While I don't doubt that it is reasonable to take evident principles of order like the distinctions near/far and earlier/later for granted like phenomena, I am not aware of examples that confirmed Kant's thing in itself as something valuable. Well, he was a founder of cosmogony. However, so far I see neither any convincing reason to ask for something absolutely primordial nor a chance to get a non-speculative answer.
When I was educated to believe in God, I was told that science has definitely no answer to such questions. Meanwhile, the idea of Adam and Eve has proved untenable for compelling reasons. Shouldn't we learn that teleology including theology tends to be a too lazy crutch?
Why not focusing on the treasure of hidden mistakes instead? It was evidently a mistake to conclude that the optical resolution is limited by the wavelength of the used light. Likewise, our ear outperforms the uncertainty relation between time and frequency.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 9, 2014 @ 10:57 GMT
Eckard,
I think that Kant's ideas are not yet fully in demand in today's fundamental science which is experiencing a "crisis of representation and interpretation."
It is above all the idea of a "figure synthesis" and "schemas". Kant's epistemology is different from all preceding its variants: the imagination in the history of philosophy for the first time acquired a fundamental importance. His position identified some important ideas of Fichte and Schelling, but later it is again relegated to the periphery of knowledge. On the importance of imagination in cognition drew the attention of physicists Albert Einstein:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."Only a deeper imagination will allow to "grab" the nature of time. It is necessary to go further than Kant - Fichte - Schelling - Hegel to "grab the dragon."
With regard to traditional knowledge, I think it also has a lot of ideas for deeper philosophical and scientific interpretation. This is primarily the axiom "In the beginning was the Logos ...". Is it not from the Greek "Logos" took all the science? But "In the beginning was the Big Bang ..." - this is a clear ontological groundlessness. First of all, it is expressed in the problem of
the nature of the "laws of nature" and in the nature of "fundamental physical constants" .
Yes, I agree, you need a very deep focus on "mistakes", but an even greater focus on the epistemological basis of "fundamental science".
Here is just an understanding of the nature of "time", which lies in the problem of "space", and the last - in the grasp of the
"process - in - themselves" . In modern fundamental sciences lot of "physicalism" and "engineering" but not enough ontological.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 9, 2014 @ 13:26 GMT
Vladimir,
"The nature of the "laws of nature" looks like a circulus vitiosus. Nature cannot reasonably be explained with nature. I see this not a linguistic problem but a logic fallacy.
Let's not forget on what we agree: There is no reason for considering time a dragon to be killed.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 9, 2014 @ 19:04 GMT
Eckard,
In "Time Reborn" Lee Smolin raises the question of "meta-law." Problem of the nature of the "laws of nature" and the nature of "fundamental physical constants" - it is a problem of understanding "meta-law" or "grasping" primordial ontological structure of the Universum, the structure of "meta-process" of nature ("process - in - themselves"). This is a question which has put Heraclitus - idea of the construction "the Beginning" and the "logos" as language and "meta-law" of nature. "Grasping" the construction of "perpetual process" of the Universum in the spirit of Heraclitus we can understand the nature of time. The fundamental error in the physicists that they have deprived Nature of its
the ontological (structural) memory , and therefore the problem of understanding the nature of time.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 10, 2014 @ 09:07 GMT
Vladimir,
FQXi article "Real-Time Physics" is more easily available than Smolin's book and podcast. I quote: "he [Einstein] argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related."
This seemingly plausible guess caused speculative physicists to intend killing time or at least find out the nature of nature of nature.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 10, 2014 @ 12:29 GMT
Eckard.
The question of causal connection time with geometrical and physical laws of the Universum still remains open. Necessary again, more deeply consider the concept of
"SPACE"and its
ontological (generating) STRUCTURE. A new vision of space is the key to understanding the nature of the phenomenon of "time". Method:
The total ontological unification of matter at all levels of the Universum. . The Information age requires a more in-depth - the ontological time, a new vision of "logos", "eidos" and "topos" of the Universum for our mind, which will open a new heuristic.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 7, 2016 @ 07:01 GMT
May I hope for hints to authors of truly foundational work on basics of mathematics? I recently communicated mature literature by Thomas Bedürftig, Wolfgang Mückenheim, and Detlef Spalt among these authors who did not quote each other. They even admitted being unaware of the communicated literature of the other ones. By chance I realized that Knobloch was mentioned by Spalt and also by Katz.
Katz has been using the term A-(Archimedes) continuum in contrast to a B-(Johann Bernoulli)continuum. For my feeling, Archimedes should not be associated with Zenon's ill-conceptualized continuum of indivisibles (points) but with the endless (Archimedean) possibilities of addition and division.
A plurality of infinities corresponds to the more obviously unjustified plurality of zeros. Given Mückenheim is correct in that there is strictly speaking no absolute infinity, should this not imply that there in no absolute zero and also not any absolute singular number except for the primary unit one? By the way, I agree with Katz on rigor.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 7, 2016 @ 08:31 GMT
(--)(--)(--)(--) Hello Eckard.
I agree also about the finite or infinite series.That said the physicality is finite in its series of uniqueness ,and infinite by add or X.That said we have this wall separating the physicality and the infinite entropy above this physicalit.It is always how we utilise our domains ,laws,math Tools.....Regards :)
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 8, 2016 @ 09:25 GMT
When I mentioned Katz, I mainly referred to M. Katz and to Notices of the ASM Vol. 60, No. 7 (Aug. 2013) p. 886-904 giving 110 refs. including Lawvere, J. Bell and many others.
I wonder if I will be able to benefit from anything offered by Steve D.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 8, 2016 @ 09:38 GMT
Hi Jedi (--)(--)(--)(--) Well ,If you want Eckard, I can offer you chocolates and beers from belgium.It will permit you toopen your mind for the creativity.Because it is well to repeat the story of sciences or some works with namesofpeople.But you know the most important is to play with maths and create new Tools with a pure imagination and intuition and also the sortings is essential.That is why it exists persons who creates équations and others who study them.It is the same in all humility with thee generality.It is a reality, a few number unfortunally of persons on this earth understands really what is the relativity and gravitation.Is it due to a lack of studies in all centers of interests?Is it due to a lack of studies of philosophies?The entropical principle it is the same.When people wants to speak about generalities, so they must understand these generalities or they must learn simply.The vanity is probably a main parameter, and these the maths have no explainations.The maths aremy passion and physics and sciences.Are you able to benefit of this reality Eckard my dear jedi friend of the sphere.Now we are going to speak about Bohm ,how do you consider his works ?a simple question of a simple nursery man.To you ....
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 8, 2016 @ 09:52 GMT
Let's begin with the manathan project and the works of debroglie bohm about the order and the inveloped, the implicate or the hidden order .Explain me in the dialog in a bohmain philosophy why the dualism is a reality and how saw Aharanov in all this?
After your development and DIALOG,you are going to explain where the determinism is a reality comparated to the interpretationof Copenagehn.You can utilise several Tools to develop the dialog about the pure universal determinism.The classment and categorification of orders can be extrapolated in this dialog about thedeterminism.Show me the subtil difference between the points of vue of Borh and Heisenberg and them of Bohm in a pure imaginative intuition.After like conclusion I d like that you interpret the uncertainty principle for both of these interprétations in explaining the philosophical meaning of the entropy and the codes, gravitational.The hidden variables so are ?Good work Eckard my jedi friend.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 8, 2016 @ 13:00 GMT
Eckard,
If your view is that infinity should be banished from theoretical physics, a view I share along with others then if we extend this to time, it means something that exists and is measurable cannot have infinite duration of existence. It cannot have infinite time. If this is so, it means that something will eventually cease to exist and whatever be the value of it that you are measuring will become absolute zero.
Therefore, it may not be correct to say that if there is no infinity, there cannot be absolute zero.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 8, 2016 @ 15:20 GMT
Hi Mr Ojo ,Eckard,
I discussed in private with Ms Yu Sandstrom ,she works about the zero.The zero is indeed intriguing like the zero aboslute.The walls appear.The infinity is a tool which must interpreted with relativity.If now deterministically speaking how is this infinity.The most important is to differenciate the serries Inside the physicality.They are finite.The infinity is above this finite system and others infinities appear with adds or X ...Let's take the constant pi or this or that ,it is a infinite serie,but it is not the infinity above.It is always how we interpret the series and mathematical Tools in fact,the philosophy is relevant to insert.We can discuss during an infinite time, that will not change the reality of this physicality.The constants ......
report post as inappropriate
hide replies