Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Agnew: on 4/22/14 at 4:12am UTC, wrote You do pretty much have it. It is important to distinguish between real...

Georgina Woodward: on 4/20/14 at 1:48am UTC, wrote Configuration to configuration and iteration to iteration are both ways of...

Georgina Woodward: on 4/19/14 at 23:08pm UTC, wrote Building unimaginable shapes A really fascinating TED talk. With an...

Georgina Woodward: on 4/19/14 at 22:01pm UTC, wrote Steve, thanks for the explanation. Have I now got this duality correctly...

Steve Agnew: on 4/19/14 at 15:56pm UTC, wrote "What is Relational representation actually if it is not the output of...

Georgina Woodward: on 4/16/14 at 10:51am UTC, wrote Steve, thanks for your reply. I like your description especially of...

Peter Jackson: on 4/15/14 at 13:03pm UTC, wrote Giacomo, "to prove how much I appreciated Your work in the essay : ...

Giacomo Alessiani: on 4/15/14 at 5:36am UTC, wrote Mr. Jackson, thank You for the positive answer. But I do not see ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Time and the Nature of Reality [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Mar. 8, 2014 @ 18:28 GMT
Anthony Aguirre
We recently ran an article (courtesy of Nautilus Magazine) in which physicist Paul Davies ran through some open questions about the nature of time.

I want to alert you to another discussion currently taking place on the Big Questions Online site based on a terrific essay by none other than FQXi's own supremo Anthony Aguirre asking, "What Does Our Understanding of Time Suggest About the Nature of Reality?"

Anthony close his essay with a terrific set of questions, which I am just cutting and pasting here:

1. If the speed of light were much slower, so we could really experience the subjectivity of simultaneity implied by Relativity, how to you think it would change our experience of time, space, and the world?

2. If you truly believed that the past, future, and present all exist in just the same way, as in the Unitary Block view, would it change your attitude toward life -- or death, or decisions?

3. If there are aspects of the world that are unpredictable in principle, is there still a sense in which we can say that they are determined?  Or do those two ideas go hand-in-hand?

4. I've suggested that part of the controversy over how to think about quantum mechanics is a controversy over whether the classical, macroscopic world emerges from the quantum world, or whether the quantum world is a particular, stripped-down limit of an essentially classical world.  How do you see it? What theoretical or experimental findings might lead you to accept one view as more viable than the other?

Please do visit BQO to take part in this discussion and more.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 9, 2014 @ 07:50 GMT
"Please do visit BQO to take part in this discussion and more."

I did but unfortunately Anthony Aguirre believes so strongly in Divine Albert's Divine Theory that he sees no difference between various critics. He combines them to form a homogeneous group and then rejects the group as a whole.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 9, 2014 @ 16:19 GMT
I did post this last night, but it hasn't made it through the moderators yet;

Anthony,

The point I keep raising about the issue of time is that we experience it as a sequence of events and so think of it as this point of the present moving along a narrative vector from past to future, but the actual physical process is the changing configuration of what exists is constantly creating...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 21:57 GMT
The comments on the BQO essay are now closed so I could not post my thoughts on the questions there.

1. If the speed of light was much slower it would be more obvious that personal experience of the 'outside world' is fabricated when data is received and processed, not when it is produced. Like when observing a thunderstorm, a distant observer knows that the experienced delay between sight and sound is due to the different transmission times, for light and sound, from source of the sensory data to receiver. The seeming simultaneity of events experienced by the observer are due to sensory data being processed together into an output reality fabrication which has temporal distortion built into it.We are always looking at an amalgamated image of past events which forms our experienced present, not the past as it objectively was, or what is or will be.

If the speed of light was really slow it would make crossing the road dangerous because there is a bigger discrepancy between where material objects are and where they are seen to be. Though sharing the same name, the fabricated image of an object is not the same as a material object existing independently of observation. An experiment could be conducted where observers are made to wear goggles into which are fed delayed images of what they are looking at. They are then asked to navigate in their environment which includes a number of obstacles that move.I think they will be more accident prone, than a control group receiving only naturally delayed information, at least prior to adjustment of behaviour to take account of the greater information delay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 22:35 GMT
2.IF I truly believed in block time I would have no responsibility for my actions because what I do and the outcome has already been written in the make up of the universe. My freewill to affect outcomes and create my future would be an illusion.

Believing in block time I would also know that the material past ( not just em images) continues to exist after the experience of events passing. Pain, suffering and terror are without end in that case. That makes the universe not just terrible for including those events but also unmerciful for not erasing them. In that case I would have to hate rather than love the universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 10, 2014 @ 05:21 GMT
Is it possible to check Aguirre's essay for something of relevance without taking part in BQO? Looking for serious rather than "Big" questions, I feel deterred by some suggested for discussion topics that were not hidden to me behind gray.

Let me try and briefly answer Aguirre's four questions:

1. Perception does not matter. To me, subjectivity and "experience of time and space" are naive perspectives outside rational thinking. To me, trust in reality is the trust in a logically consistent view on something objective, in other words the denial of anything Big, deep, mysterious, or supra-natural. I beg your pardon for considering SR an inappropriate perspective.

2. Yes, consequent belief in a Unitary Block would imply fatalism, etc. I don't share this belief.

3. Practically, it makes no difference whether something is irresolvable because the pixels are to small as to be seen or it is strictly speaking continuous in Peirce's sense. Accordingly, I am bluntly calling the question academic in a contemptuous sense.

4. I am not surprised if unjustified abstractions and generalizations led to theories that contradict each other. There are a lot of weak points. I wonder if ideal notions like point, line, continuity, unitarity, singularity, etc. really have exactly matching correlates in physical reality.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Mar. 10, 2014 @ 11:22 GMT
I find Aguirre's closing statement profound:

"The mode of theoretical physics has tended toward elevating certain descriptions as more 'true' and 'fundamental', and the other descriptions as 'in principle derivable' from these. I think it is worth contemplating a different approach: that just as the Experienced Reality description is far more useful than the 'Unitary Block' in some applications (and far less in others), that we take Experienced Reality as an equally true description that is complementary to, but not derivative of, the Unitary Block. Perhaps the nature of time is telling us something about the nature of truth."

Unitarity depends on experience, and always has. In Einstein's words, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." It is only comprehensible in experience, and we don't experience the infinite transition between one event and another, because the brain-mind processes information discretely. That fact compels me to answer at least one of Aguirre's excellent questions (no. 1) this way:

The speed of light constant as relates to experience, is independent of its empirical value. Rigid transformations in spacetime depend on a constant nonzero metric. That the metric is always length 1 locally, is why we normalize the speed of light in quantum mechanical calculations and call events not measured, "nonlocal." Time drops out of the equation. In Einstein's world, though, all physics is local, and the global value of c is also length 1; there are no actual, physical, rigid transformations in continuous spacetime. Therefore with no boundary between local and global events, whatever value the speed of light is measured to be, does not affect our unitary experience.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 10, 2014 @ 17:06 GMT
Tom, Pentcho,

Possibly the problem isn't the "infinite transition between one event and another," but the fundamentally non-linear transition and our need to impose linearity onto it. Every event is the effect of energy and information coming at the speed of light from all directions and our mind has to distill out enough of the output from prior moments, to make that succeeding moment comprehensible. Alot gets left on the cutting room floor. In large communal endeavors, it is those currently in charge who make the decisions as to what is important and what is not. As that larger movement loses momentum and focus starts to turn inward and those at the top start to circle their own wagons, the effect starts to look somewhat delusional, as those of us observing current world events seem to sense. In the field of physics, some of those cracks may run deeper than many think possible.

In order to sense where the future might go, it's better to know where the energy is accumulating than to listen to those perched on top of current forms.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Mar. 10, 2014 @ 12:58 GMT
"Things" have both intrinsic and extrinsic properties. Everyone knows this. But much of modern physics is based upon ignoring this distinction, usually through ignorance; not ignorance of the existence of the distinction, but in the utter failure to correctly identify which properties are intrinsic and which are extrinsic. It is why the observer and observed are "entangled" in ways that seem...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 10, 2014 @ 21:46 GMT
"Physical laws distinguish past from future. In particular, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the most basic, says that entropy — a measure of how ‘generic’ the state of a system appears — increases toward the future, not the past. The universe thus has a clear ‘arrow of time’ built in that points in the direction of time increase."

What is the intended meaning of the word "generic"

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 19:47 GMT
My opinion: I will assume that "generic" refers to a condition typical of entropies other than Clausius' entropy. The other entropies do not function in the same manner as does Clausius' entropy. The arrow of time belonging to Clasius' entropy applies to contained systems that lose energy to outside the contained systems. For a contained system that does not lose energy, Clausius' entropy is a constant independent of the temperature of the system. Each contained system that is unique from all others will have its own constant Clausius entropy independent of its temperature.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 13:13 GMT
James,

Like Time and a few other quantities, entropy appears to be defined in several ways. But from your post about Clausius entropy let me ask:

- 'does losing energy to the outside' or gaining energy from the outside increase or reduce the entropy of a system? And may we know if you agree on an equation to quantitatively tell us about the changes, if any.

- you may also have heard that entropy is related to the number of different possible ways, W that a system and its constituents can be arranged, what will a system of zero entropy look like?

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 20:54 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Updated with an added edited portion:

"- 'does losing energy to the outside' or gaining energy from the outside increase or reduce the entropy of a system? And may we know if you agree on an equation to quantitatively tell us about the changes, if any."

I will give short answers that are based upon the Carnot engine and Clausius' derivation of thermodynamic entropy....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 09:15 GMT
Anthony did respond to my two small questions, which I framed so as not to antagonize his beliefs because I observe that if a question appears to do so, the knee jerk response is to dismiss it outright without looking at its merits. Despite some evasiveness in the response, probably so as not to commit himself to something that will end up putting a doubt on his beliefs, Anthony admitted that,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 12:22 GMT
Akinbo,

I suppose I didn't frame my questions benignly enough. I don't see much likelihood of them letting the drawbridge down around here.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 06:02 GMT
One of the oddest things about science and the current spacetime framework is the difficulty that science has in defining time. Although time appears quite extensively as part of 4-D displacement and the integral of time and energy or matter is action, science cannot seem to make up its mind about what time is.

In fact most definitions of time end up circular. Unitary block time means that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 10:19 GMT
Steve,

I mostly agree with you, but this part I have an issue with;

"Each object in the universe has a unique matter moment, including the universe itself. For example, the moment for an hourglass is the mass of a sand grain, ~5e-4 kg. The moment for a human is the matter equivalent energy of a heartbeat. The cesium atomic clock matter moment is the matter equivalent energy of a photon of the cesium-133 hyperfine resonance at 9,192,631,770 Hz, which is 1.1e-41 kg."

I would argue you cannot isolate these mass/moments from their context. It would be like trying to isolate the crest of a wave from its trough and thus what connects it to the next crest. The whole planck unit, quantization issue overlooks that you need ever smaller boundaries to define the unit. If you truly isolate some moment, you would have to distill away a lot of the energy, momentum etc. which makes it what it is. The distinctions and the connections are two sides of the same coin of reality. Our minds like to think in terms of frames and objects, because the image gets very blurry quickly, but we can't ignore or minimize that energetic process which is constantly creating and dissolving all these distinctions.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 20:33 GMT
"I would argue you cannot isolate these mass/moments from their context."

If you are saying that I cannot isolate matter moments in the context of time, then it gets down to time is time again. If you are saying that I cannot isolate matter moments in the context of objects, I would agree and that is what I thought that I said. The matter moment has no meaning without its object and an object has no meaning without its moment of matter.

"The whole planck unit, quantization issue overlooks that you need ever smaller boundaries to define the unit."

I would agree that in space time, there is a little problem with infinite divisibility of both time and space...Zeno's paradox again. However, my universe is a Fourier transform of a finite matter time pulse that necessarily means that there is a total mass and a smallest particle, whatever you want to call it. A finite and bounded universe necessarily has finite time, a total mass, and a finite albeit quite small particle as well.

"Our minds like to think in terms of frames and objects, because the image gets very blurry quickly, but we can't ignore or minimize that energetic process which is constantly creating and dissolving all these distinctions."

A frame is a matter moment and an object is the action that is that object, i.e., what I had said. Our minds do average over the moments of our brain, which I believe are defined by the EEG delta wave, the heartbeat mode at ~1.6 Hz. That is our standard "blurring" of memory. In my lexicon, energy is simply a form of matter and so energetic processes are the matter changes that objects undergo in time, i.e., the matter moments.

So it appears that although you said you disagreed with me, everything that you stated seemed consistent with the definition of time that I described.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 15, 2014 @ 01:41 GMT
Steve,

I would argue the concepts of divisibility and continuity are opposite sides of the coin and while each can be projected to infinity, ultimately neither makes sense without consideration of the other. At the most essential level, there is no structure, order, chaos, activity, energy, information, etc. without differences to compare, yet without some element of connectivity, there...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 14:36 GMT
I'd like to answer:

"4. I've suggested that part of the controversy over how to think about quantum mechanics is a controversy over whether the classical, macroscopic world emerges from the quantum world, or whether the quantum world is a particular, stripped-down limit of an essentially classical world. How do you see it? What theoretical or experimental findings might lead you to accept one view as more viable than the other?"

There is a third alternative, suggested by J.S. Bell, that there is in fact no boundary between quantum and classical domains.

Supporters of Bell's theorem as a foundational principle conventionally believe that violation of Bell's inequality in Bell-Aspect type experiments rules out this alternative. However, the experimental protocols of all this class of experiments assumes choice of boundary conditions (in the form of detector settings) that begs the question of what a model without boundary conditions looks like. In other words, it rules out such a model by fiat, and only demonstrates what it assumes in the first place.

There really is no mathematical support for deriving the continuum from a discrete measurement schema, that is independent of the assumption of a system of points that fits the desired curve.

This is my own suggestion to ensure an objective evaluation of a continuous measurement function.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 09:12 GMT
There is a common misconception about the Big question that light speed is posing to us that even 'supremos', like Anthony Aguirre do not understand, but which once understood the nature of reality we are seeking must become clearer. In closing his essay, Anthony asks, "If the speed of light were much slower...". For God's sake, that is not the relevant and foundational question! The really, really BIG question light speed has been asking since 1887/1905 has nothing at all to do with its magnitude! The question that light is asking us to answer is: No matter my magnitude, am I a vector quantity (like velocity) or a scalar quantity (like temperature)? Period. That is, can my 'resultant' value be varied by the way an observer is moving?

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 16:00 GMT
Akinbo,

If you are into the whole blocktime thing, it's a scalar, but.....

Some issues don't look like they are going to get addressed anytime soon.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 19:16 GMT
No John, I don't agree with the block time thing. Evidence also abounds from for example Pulsar light timing measurements, Laser ranging measurements within the solar system, Cosmic microwave anisotropy observations that light velocity is a vector. That is why the motion of the observer shows up in the measurements and has to be edited out in order to see the regularity of the Pulsar clock-like emissions, the isotropy of the CMB radiation and accurate distances to the Moon and the planets ranged by Laser.

Something you said above, "write two events that APPEAR simultaneous if seen from a first coordinate system don't APPEAR simultaneous if seen from a second system in motion to the first one". My concern is with the word, 'seen' because I just saw a lightening bolt her and two minutes later the roar of thunder. We are told the event leading to the two observations, one seen and one heard occurred simultaneously. In a block universe does this imply any paradox?

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 21:19 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

The two kinds of phenomena are spread out from the (mathematical) origin. The spread is not synchronized because of the different speeds of light and sound. They can be said to be simultaneous where there is minimal/insignificant transmission delay, between origin and receipt. With delay between production and receipt the phenomena are progressively more separated in space-time. So the events are only simultaneous for the very near observer not universally simultaneous. That does not seem paradoxical to me.

It makes more sense to me that the observers are fabricating their own different output realities from the data they receive. Data that has had its one and only origin in an event occurring during a particular iteration of the Object (material) universe. Rather than an event was created in space-time during the formation of block time close to the big bang which is, eons later, discovered by the observers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 28, 2014 @ 02:01 GMT
Georgina,

The object is just an image in the mind. The answer to the old question "Is the moon there when I am not watching? is NO.

The image of the moon is a snapshot that makes it appear all at once in a moment of perception.

The reality is that no two points of the moon are at the same moment. Light requires some time, no matter how small, to travel between any two points. This means that the "moon" is an aggregate of matter across time.

This aggregate of matter across time become an object in our minds when we conceive it as being there all at once, in one moment.

The concept of "object" as something all present in one moment is an illusion, a concept of the mind created from the snapshot image we perceive.



So, the cup in your hand is just the same as the one away on the counter; they are both "non object".

(hey! long time no see!)

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 28, 2014 @ 04:14 GMT
Hey Marcel, good to disagree with you again!

I can agree that the moon that I see is not there when I'm not looking because that moon is a fabrication from received data. No sensory data, no Image reality. So far so good.

I don't buy the matter spread over time idea though. I'm pretty sure there is only one time, Now preceeding the observed present, but potential sensory data within it to fabricate images of different times and composites of different times.

According to the explanatory framework I am working with, the cup I am holding is a material object, made of atoms existing Now but the distant cup is an image formed by the central nervous system from received data.Comprised not of atoms but I am presuming, as I don't know any better, electrical excitation of areas of the brain. A completely different 'kettle of fish' but called by the same name.

As usual we will have to agree to disagree because we are using different explanatory models to look at the same problem and so coming out with different answers each compatible with our own way of looking at it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 28, 2014 @ 11:23 GMT
Marcel, Georgina,

How much of what it is, or is not, is simply based on our own prior assumptions of what it should be? Often it is the scientific mind which assumes it should be some clear distinct object, yet Rembrandt and the Impressionists came along before Relativity or Quantum theory. When some people say something is non-intuitive, they necessarily can only mean their own intuition. All others are assumptions.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 29, 2014 @ 04:17 GMT
John, Marcel,All,

We ought to ask, what do we mean when we say "the Moon"? Do we mean the light reflected from its surface, the image that we see fabricated from processing of received light, or the material moon made of atoms (not its illumination). Without the illumination of the moon that allows us to make an image we couldn't see it even if we looked. We don't see material objects themselves but the images of them made from processing of the received sensory data.

So there is a problem with the question not being specific enough and that highlights how we do not make the distinction between object, sensory data and Image in everyday language. Perhaps we should have oMoon, sdMoon and iMoon in this case, and for other nouns where it is important to specify which category of thing is being referred to; actualised Object, sensory data or image reality manifestation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 30, 2014 @ 16:42 GMT
Georgina,

My goal is to understand as much as possible what the universe is like, by itself. It is a frame of mind that is multi-component. I hope this frame of mind will help us weed out questions that are not receivable.

For example, the question of “what is the weather like right now on mars?” is not receivable. I, on earth, and the planet mars do not share a “now”. We may go through abstraction and technology to get the answer about the weather but the fact that we do not share a “now” remains.

“The visible (space-time) universe is not The Universe but the fabricated Image universe,..” I agree.

But not in a uni-temporal now. . .

In the end, you choose the frame of mind and rules that suit your goal in order to form your own truth system.

Metaphyscia/logical understanding and physical descriptions of the subject are mutually exclusive. I pursue the former and I believe you pursue the later. Because of that we will never agree completely.

There is only one logical understanding of the subject matter while there is countless ways in which to describe it. I am going for the only thing left to do.

Cheers,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 30, 2014 @ 20:44 GMT
What the weather is like on Mars "right now" is not knowable because Earth and Mars do not share an -expereinced Now. However that does not mean that the Now is not happening simultaneously for Mars and Earth, in the material Object universe, source of the sensory data. It does not mean that there is no answer in the universe.(There is. It just hasn't arrived yet.)

Which reminds me of the subject of counter factual definiteness. Requiring the acceptance of something as real even though it has not been measured.

Re Any Image reality; it has temporal spread incorporated into it but the image exists in the unitemporal- Now, (u-Now)of the material Object universe.That is a space-time universe( One of a multiverse of different output Image realities) within space without temporal spread. u-Now is like the present but the present is what is experienced to exist (fabricated from data) but the u-Now is what materially exists. This structure overcomes the temporal paradoxes of space-time, it is a logical physical description that functions by answering long unresolved questions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 30, 2014 @ 22:39 GMT
In defense of the existence of things not measurable. Imagine a material cup. An object such as that, made of atoms, implies counter-factual definiteness because it (object,oCup) is not just the source of the observation that is made of it but also the potential to give the other observations that were not made. If its observed to be concave, as it is also convex it could have been observed to be so. Same with images from received data,( iCup), there is data in the environment, the data not selected, that could have made the other images not seen.

Every aspect of the material object can be thought to exists within a single iteration of the object universe, and a corresponding collection of potential sensory data in the environment.Sources of the answers to the questions not asked or the selections not made. When thinking about a single particle is there still counter-factual definiteness? I 'd like to say yes. The answers to the question that will be asked and the question not asked eg. position? and momentum? have answers, i.e. are measureable properties, prior to one of the questions being asked. From what I've read, wikipedia.org Counterfactual definitenessl Quote "Counterfactual definiteness is present in any interpretation of quantum mechanics that regards quantum mechanical measurements to be objective descriptions of a system's state independent of the measuring process, but also if regarded as an objective description of the system and the measurement apparatus."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 30, 2014 @ 17:09 GMT
Steve,

My definition of "object" is stuff all at the same moment. This is how we think. But science says everything is some time away from everything else. So, there are really no "objects". If you have a different definition of "object" you may dispute my claim.

You seem to like the dichotomy of wave and particles. Both are the same; travelling waves (photon) or standing waves (particles). They are also the same in the sense that both are affected by gravity because they both "exist". I would suggest a dichotomy between the process of time passing and matter/wave that exist by replacing it. Gravity is the local depletion of the former by the presence of the latter.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 30, 2014 @ 20:15 GMT
"My definition of "object" is stuff all at the same moment. This is how we think. But science says everything is some time away from everything else. So, there are really no "objects". If you have a different definition of "object" you may dispute my claim."

"The concept of "object" as something all present in one moment is an illusion, a concept of the mind created from the snapshot image we perceive."

Well, let's back up a bit. An object of perception is as you say necessarily a concept of our mind and in that sense, I agree that the concept of an object is an illusion. However, there is usually an accretion of stuff that does exist outside of our mind that is responsible for the concept in our mind and usually we call that accretion the true object.

You want to call that accretion something else to differentiate the concepts of our subjective reality from the accretions of our objective reality. But you have not used any words yet to describe the kind of stuff that accretes outside of perception, which I call the matter and action of our wavelike reality.

You also refer to a "unitemporal Now" kind of time, which seems to suggest a present moment of time that exists as an infinitely divisible Now. There are plenty of problems with this knife-edge kind of present time and the present time is better understood as a finite moment. A finite moment of time is the differential of action with matter and as long as matter and action are finite and well defined, a moment is finite and well defined as well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 30, 2014 @ 21:01 GMT
Steve,

We might say the present is the shortest duration of an image that is visible to the conscious mind, though the subconscious can register shorter duration.So perhaps the present should be regarded as shorter than perception.

How long is u-Now, or a single iteration of the material Object universe? Its an interesting question. It can't be seen so can't be measured. Does it matter? I suppose the smallest change in the arrangement of the universe might be considered a new iteration of its arrangement. Making the time it takes a photon to travel plank length seem to fit the bill, as its the smallest known distance traveled at the fastest known time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 31, 2014 @ 05:13 GMT
Exactly. A human moment is roughly a heartbeat and is the basic duration of a single thought. The basic time unit of the universe is something like a Planck time as you suggest. In my universe, it is actually fundamental and well defined by the smallest particle as it really should be in any bounded universe. As long as there is a smallest particle there will be a shortest time as well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 30, 2014 @ 20:49 GMT
Marcel,

We have light(and everything else) moving about in space. The light leaves the moon before it strikes our eye and that span is time, yet that span is specifically due to the physical process of the light radiating across the space between the surface of the moon and your eye. What would physically be the 'present' is the situation of the light between those events. So duration is not so much a dimension external to the point of the present, but is a measure of what is physically present and the changes it effects. So time then is a measure of what is physically happening, as the points of reference are created and necessarily dissolve. The light has to leave the moon, in order for it to reach our eye, so the event of it leaving dissolves and no longer physically exists, when the light is striking your eye. So there can be no blocktime, of all events existing on some fourth dimension. So it is not so much that the present moves, because the present is whatever physically exists/is present. It is these forms and shapes which come into being and dissolve, ie. go from being in the future/potential, to being in the past/residual. Time then is a measure of these forms coming into being and dissolving. That is why we can have clocks move at different rates, but still be in the same physical reality, like gps satellites and clocks on the ground move at different rates, but don't go off into different realities. Each action is its own clock and the universal passage of time is a cumulative effect of all this change, not a singular passage of time.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 30, 2014 @ 22:50 GMT
Sreve 20:15

- I agree with an accretion of stuff. Call it object if you want, even if none of it is at the same time.

- Yes I did use words for the stuff and even for its background: matter/wave and the process of time passing.

- Oups! Read carefully! The unitemoral time is a quote from Georgina's post!

Georgina 21:01

This is psycho-physiology or something of the sort. Interesting but not my goal.



John 20:49

The “present” suffers the same problem as the “object”. As a volume of point all at the same moment, the “present” is an illusion. Someone else said that before....

John, time duration may be viewed as a dimension of a finished event where duration was involved. If the event is not finished this value does not exist yet or is not set.

... no blocktime.... I agree

...the passage of time is universal but not its rate .... I agree, it is a local value.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 31, 2014 @ 01:47 GMT
Marcel,

you wrote "John, time duration may be viewed as a dimension of a finished event where duration was involved. If the event is not finished this value does not exist yet or is not set."

When is the event finished Marcel? when it has been viewed, or when all of the data about it is encoded in light within the universe, or when it has materially happened I.e. one configuration of the universe under consideration has become the other configuration. If, as you say, you are trying to consider the universe by itself,for me it would seem strange if you were to choose when it has been viewed. That seems like equating the universe with personal experience which is contradictory to your stated goal. If it is not 'when it is viewed' but one of the other options it can be said that the duration of the event exists prior to its being viewed and measured.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 31, 2014 @ 01:57 GMT
Marcel,

"The “present” suffers the same problem as the “object”. As a volume of point all at the same moment, the “present” is an illusion. Someone else said that before...."

The problem is that we think of 'the present' in terms of our own particular perception of a moment in time, which is very much a creation of our cognition, aka, a thought. What I describe as the present is what physically exists and this cannot be delineated, since so much of what is, is action and if we were to freeze the action, it would vanish, like a temperature of absolute zero. And we cannot delineate the precise location of something in motion, be it an electron, or a car, as it continuously changes. We might frame its location fairly closely, but still over some duration. Otherwise it would be like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero.

So much of the problem in physics is that they try to banish this inherent fuzziness of reality and keep trying to define ever more exact images and measurements, even when they lose all context and wander off about multiverses.

We are the multiworlds. Knowledge is a function of distilling some signal from the noise and yet that noise still contains other signals, but we can't understand them all, or they turn back into noise. Much like leaving the shutter open too long just leaves the picture white.

We are that color between black and white.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 31, 2014 @ 06:41 GMT
I'm struggling to understand the controversy about of locality in regard to QM. Is this a problem with the space-time model, where things are thought to come into existence when they are observed rather than already existing?

Having come to terms with counter-factual definiteness, i.e. that the answers to questions not asked are as real, prior to measurement, as the answers to questions asked -Aren't the properties that the entangled particles will have already determined from the instant they are produced? Answers to all of those unasked questions of what the particle is like -Now. When and where they are produced, and when and where they are observed deciding what they will be observed to be. Why is it at all necessary for there to be assumed a causal influence of particle B.when it is measured, on particle A.?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 31, 2014 @ 07:42 GMT
The probabilistic nature arising because when and where/how the measurement will be made is not predetermined......?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 31, 2014 @ 11:21 GMT
Georgina,

I agree the assumptions of QM are flawed. The question remaining is how Alice, by switching her setting an instant before arrival, can apparently CHANGE Bob's result half a universe away. Bells theorem shows that MUST be the case by defining the limit of 'random/unequal' or local effects, which is conclusively shown as violated experimentally.

Alice changing Bobs settings (and vice verse) to constrain his finding is 'non-local state reduction'.

So the challenge is to find a classical solution to the experimental findings, so we don't need to invoke spooky action at a distance or superluminal communication.

That is what I've now done in a simple 'classroom' experiment, contained in a kit of just one sheet of A4 paper, (attached below) described here; https://www.academia.edu/6525547/Classical_reproduction_of_q
uantum_correlations

A fundamental hidden assumption of QM was that 'spin' (QAM) is not like ordinary angular momentum, which is both clockwise and anticlockwise subject to which side you look from (yin/yang). Correct that and add electron spin flit and the matter is resolved classically.

But again, I don't expect a science steeped in embedded assumptions will be able to recognise the error before perhaps 2020. It's human nature.

You're writing a lot of sense. I look forward to reading your essay (when I've written mine!).

Best wishes

Peter

attachments: 1_Kit._FIG_5.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 1, 2014 @ 10:33 GMT
Hi Peter,

I have taken a quick look at your attachment so far, 14 pages! and fear it is probably too clever for me to properly understand.

I didn't know there was a new competition until you mentioned it. I don't know if I will be submitting an entry though it is a challenging topic.

......................................................
...................

Found this, others who want another easy explanation might find it helpful Bell's theorem with easy Math

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 1, 2014 @ 02:18 GMT
Georgina, 01:47

Time is always part of the event. The finished label only underline the fact that the value is set. I don't need to see it. The "photon" take T time to be emitted which is the period.

John, 01:57

Yes. This problem of delineation reminds me of the uncertainty principle. We can't have both position and momentum because it is about two contradictory ways of considering something at the same time. We can't consider simultaneously something as "in motion" and "stopped".

No matter how often the question "why" is uttered in science, the system always return a "how" answer. Distilling as signal from the noise consist in applying limitations or a window/filter. limitations are the impossibilities that create the truth system.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 1, 2014 @ 10:03 GMT
Marcel,

I try making that point often, but it doesn't seem to get recognized as such, that knowledge is inherently subjective, that definition is limitation, so this scientific quest for objective knowledge, to know both position and momentum at the same time, so to speak, is a contradiction. Sometimes art and poetry are far more precise than science, in describing what needs to be said in as few words and as few strokes as possible.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 1, 2014 @ 02:39 GMT
Peter Georgina,

Non locality bothers me .. like anything else not logical.

My first explanation was that polarization or any measured parameter of choice in a Bell type experiment, is a measure under constraint which constraint transforms the parameter into a quantum number of the system. This means that no matter how many angles of polarization you think you can measure ... the now quantized parameter may only carry two valid values: zero or 90 degree. This is the essence of quantum mechamics. The constraint due to the act of measurement creates a temporary quantization of the parameter.

My second explanation is that a wave function describes the probability of finding a particle in one place. It describes in fact the relative amount of time the particle spends in different places, which, exactly corresponds to the probability of finding it in each place. So, the particle may statistically be said to be in two places but: a) never at the same moment in two places b) the sum of all probabilities is one (1) i.e. it exists somewhere within the path described by the wave functon. See, not truly in two places at the same moment; that would be nonsense.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 1, 2014 @ 11:03 GMT
Marcel,

Field energy density potentials are calculable and real. I agree non-local state reduction at high physical separation is nonsense, but no more so than a 'particle' being in various places. Logic emerges if the energy fluctuations condense a particle where they reach a threshold energy, which can only happen in few places and is what we can calculate as 'wave interference (Huygens/QED, NLS equation etc).

That seems harmonic with most of the rest of your conceptions. In a way it's also the Higgs mechanism, condensing quanta in fermionic pairs from dark energy.

Then 'spin half' emerges logically (see my Fig 1) similar to your concept, but recognising that we can only measure (transfer OAM) from one of TWO sides of any spinning particle at a time. So I axiomise there are NO PURE SINGLET STATES, but that we have a 50:50 chance which side we measure (all clockwise MUST have equal anticlockwise, as all yin has yang) It's then entirely observer dependent.

That alone removes any need for non-locality outside tomographic 'phase lock' range. I think you'll like my preprint (link below) and simple experiment (link above) which all can do. Do let me know if you understand it. Many who claim to understand the Bell inequalities apparently don't!

Best wishes

Peter

attachments: 1_Classical_Inequalities_v2.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Apr. 1, 2014 @ 22:25 GMT
Marcel,

I thought Bill Unruh's concept of unequal flow of time was deserving of discussion, too. Welcome back. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 2, 2014 @ 00:03 GMT
Peter,

"Logic emerges if the energy fluctuations condense a particle where they reach a threshold energy, which can only happen in few places and is what we can calculate as 'wave interference (Huygens/QED, NLS equation etc).

That seems harmonic with most of the rest of your conceptions. In a way it's also the Higgs mechanism, condensing quanta in fermionic pairs from dark energy."

What if the energy fluctuation is light crossing intergalactic space and it occasionally 'condenses' out a particle? Wouldn't that cause the light to redshift?

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 2, 2014 @ 03:20 GMT
Peter,

- long: 14 pages

- no page numbering

- lots of typos

Reading .... Will get back to you.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 2, 2014 @ 12:32 GMT
Marcel,

Great, thanks. Just what I need. See the new finding in the link to John above.

Do please pick up any typo's and send to here.

I've shortened it once, but not labouring some key points left both Richard and Tom with misunderstandings (see the classical spheres thread on Joys proposal). Some of the concepts are new so initially tricky. Let me know of any bits you think superfluous.

many thanks

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 7, 2014 @ 08:13 GMT
Georgina,

"it's probably too clever for me to properly understand." No, not really. There are two simple components;

1. Whatever has clockwise spin must have equal anti clockwise spin. It purely depends on which side you look from or 'interact' with. It's called 'non-mirror symmetry'. Try that on anything you like. It's true but not yet applied in QM.

2. Electrons 'flip' with the magnetic field when it's reversed, so Clockwise becomes anti-Clockwise. What a detector 'detects' ('measures') with (by angular momentum transfer) is it's EM field (electrons). So if the spin reverses, so will the spin 'finding'.

And there you have it. Put those two together in the EPR experiment and it exposes the truth. There is no such thing as a 'pure singlet spin state' particle, only a pure singlet spin state FINDING, which can be reversed if Alice reverses her field angle setting (or if it's a filter, rotates it to change it's polarisation orientation).

Only a little bit of brainpower is then needed to realise that no "spooky action at a distance" or superluminal communication (non-locality) is needed to explain what experiments find. That circumvents Bells Theorem, and all of QM, by simply using a more coherent starting assumption. The problem is that way humans think. We rely on those hidden assumptions and can't conceive they may be flawed. Just reading Richard and Tom's responses to mine on 'Classical spheres..." shows the problem. It's how do we improve out thinking methods. If I have time that may be my essay.

Was that really too clever for you?

Best wishes

Peter

Marcel,

I'm re-writing it more clearly. Please do offer any comments. Did you understand it? I also have a new 'kit' for the experiment; attached.

attachments: FIG_4a.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 7, 2014 @ 09:10 GMT
Thanks for the summary Peter. It sounds perfectly sensible put like that.I get the clockwise anticlockwise argument.Had never heard of spin flip but Googled it and found its something known about.

14 pages is a lot to read so I only skimmed.

I don't think I have a little bit of brain power in reserve because it isn't immediately obvious to me. The whole Bell's experiment isn't obvious to me.

Would you be able to explain simply for me the not spooky findings? Why were they spooky and why aren't they now with your finding.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2014 @ 11:30 GMT
Georgina,

Spookyness isn't needed as Alice doesn't control Bob's finding. QM assumes that a particle splits into two opposite states with mysterious 'superpositions' of 'up' and 'down' spin.

But now we know that means; both Cwise and anti-Cwise depending on which side you look at. It does NOT mean one 'mysteriously collapses' on measurement! Just remember a particle travels on it's...

view entire post


attachments: Fig_1a.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 08:49 GMT
Thank you Peter.Think I may have to try your experiment, and then it might sink in.I can imagine why it might not be a popular discovery.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 7, 2014 @ 13:07 GMT
Peter,

It is a tough prose.

There is no specific target. There are three guns; spin flip, cosin stats interpretation and some (?) detector constraint/influence. Many boxes of ammos as supporting associations, correlations etc.pulled from all sort knowledge, some of which caliber may not fit the guns.

It may draw from too many pieces of knowledge for me to follow.

Read my two previous essays and you will see that I may suffer from the same problem; trying to put too much all at once.

In other words, I am not really qualified to comment on the content of your essay. :-)

Thanks,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2014 @ 15:03 GMT
Marcel,

Excellent, thanks. Spin flip and non-mirror symmetry are key, but so are a few other things!

I had the same problem in my essays too.

The problem I face is the same as writing instructions to solve a rubic cube. There are a certain number of components and steps. Leave some out for simplicity and it fails!

I'm working on simplification and clarity, and will better specify the target, which is resolving the EPR paradox.

I'll replace it with a temporary sticky plaster to stop the rest of physics keep falling out and unifying!

Thanks, and Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Giacomo Alessiani replied on Apr. 13, 2014 @ 02:49 GMT
Mr. Jackson , I am following this interesting exchange in the forum and I am happily surprised by the content of the essay published the 1th april, here in the forum . With My surprise, I understood almost all the elements within , and I have already an important question. I watch to theoretical physics as an hobbyst so I am still pushing on "classical approach" . Recently I am thinking about the chance for the Coriolis' work to enter into "quantum correlation" area. Do You think is a dead line ?

Thanks

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 14, 2014 @ 10:02 GMT
Giacomo,

Very perceptive. Thanks And I agree the Coriolis effect as a significant contributor to quantum 'uncertainty'. I think we may the fundamental cause of the effect itself is closely related to the fundamental derivation of the cosine distribution.

But do check out the conversations on 'Classical Spheres..." where I try to give a clearer explanation of the relative rather than absolute 'setting difference' relationships. That is a bit trickier. First ask yourself 'which way is 'up' in space. You should find there isn't one, which fact then points the way.

Great to find another with conceptual resonance. Are you any good at maths?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 22:20 GMT
John (Cox)

Back to you. Yes, Unruh speaks about time. I met him a few years back at a conference in Montreal. He listened to me but said my theory appeared to be a "pilot-wave" like theory which he did not accept.

His original paper which I quoted is attached.

Marcel,

attachments: Unruh-Prob-time.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 23:08 GMT
Building unimaginable shapes A really fascinating TED talk.

With an Object reality that is altering from configuration to configuration, as JCN Smith would say, or from iteration to iteration, as I would say, it is easy to see how natural processes that involve reiteration of simple mathematical processes are able to build the complexity of the natural environment. 1.There is the chaos of weather and climate systems, hydrological systems, Brownian motion 2. the processes of erosion and deposition 3. the folding and convolution of surfaces, as in geological processes giving topology and the processes of embroyogenesis, metamorphosis and biological development.(As is known from chaos theory very complex forms can be generated from very simple operation of a mathematical formula. 'Instructing' translations, rotations and scaling transformations; and as shown in the video very complex forms can be generated by the repeated folding of surfaces)

Fascinating is the independent generation of hedgehog, mouse and shrew like forms of the Madagascan tenrec. Britannica, tenrec Also the similarity between the 'noise' shown in the video and the spines of both hedgehog and tenrec. Both hedgehog and tenrec must have had the genetic potential to adopt that form and (possibly epigenetic) changes in gene expression have lead to very similar outcomes in morphology. It seems to me the technique of generating new unimaginable shapes could also be used to find those 'mathematical' instructions generating known forms; and further research could be conducted to discover how the biochemistry in vivo relates to the simple mathematical instructions giving complex form.

These are processes requiring step like 'unidirectional'passage of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 20, 2014 @ 01:48 GMT
Configuration to configuration and iteration to iteration are both ways of considering the same scenario. Configuration being the relations of the parts in an arrangement, while iteration gives a sense of the simple repetition of processes, happening to generate the natural forms.(I have also used arrangement to arrangement as a description of the material-temporal sequence.)

The noise isn't quite like the spines as it is too random but the wild fluctuation in amplitude gives a distinctly spiky look. That is to say I don't think the spines are random noise but may be a more controlled version.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.