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

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/23/19 at 18:53pm UTC, wrote Correction: I meant Huntsville, not Huntington.

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 3/23/19 at 17:25pm UTC, wrote “Existence” takes meaning from its logical opposite, nothingness. ...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/23/19 at 17:02pm UTC, wrote It is well explained but we need to rank and differenciate the...

Ilgaitis Prusis: on 3/23/19 at 16:35pm UTC, wrote Hi, Lorraine This is the best explanation of the information which I have...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/23/19 at 10:23am UTC, wrote Hi Lorraine,thanks for sharing your ideas,it is well explained.Regards

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/23/19 at 4:53am UTC, wrote Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, I asked “how to unlearn Maxwell’s...

Lorraine Ford: on 3/22/19 at 22:19pm UTC, wrote Ilgaitis, Information is all we have about ourselves, our world and the...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/22/19 at 20:01pm UTC, wrote The Density also can be studied for the ranking of different...



FQXi FORUM
March 23, 2019

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

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 16:59 GMT
I'm opening up this thread, following requests from users, as a place to discuss general questions and ideas about the nature of time.

Enjoy!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eric Aspling wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 18:25 GMT
I'd like this to be an open discussion about ideas. I'm posting my thoughts here because this has to do with the nature of time. These thoughts don't seem to answer any questions. They have helped me come to grips with the tough topics and maybe could generate some fun discourse (maybe not).

Understanding the Irreversibility of Time Using Gates.

I’m a graduate student attempting...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 17:07 GMT
Eric,

"Does this quantum computing system not apply to the universe?" It does not, because the entire concept of a "quantum bit" is a figment of the imagination. The observed seemingly "weird" quantum behavior is that of a single, classical bit, AS DEFINED BY SHANNON, not the physics community, which has never understood Shannon.

"Reality seems merely a series of measurement gates..." That is correct. Once you understand what Shannon's capacity theorem is actually all about, it becomes clear that quantum theory is not a theory about "matter" at all, it is a theory about the "measurement of matter" only. The ancient Greek philosophers made a distinction between "being" (things as they are - Reality as it is) and "seeming" (things as they appear - Reality as it seems). Physicists have always simply assumed that quantum theory is a theory of "being", but from the perspective of Shannon, it is a theory of "seeming", a theory about the interactions (such as measurements) between things, rather then about the things per se.

Consider this

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Eric Aspling replied on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 20:28 GMT
Thank you for your comments Rob.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 20:39 GMT
Hi Eric,

Thanks for this. I have deleted the copy of your message from the "Alternative Models" thread, so that it can continue here.

Hi Rob,

Having deleted Eric message from the other thread, I also just moved your reply to Eric from the "Alternative Models" thread over to here (and deleted the post you put here pointing to that reply), so that the discussion can move here.

I hope that nothing has been lost in the process.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jim George Snowdon wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 19:25 GMT
We are inclined to assume that time exists, as the result of being immersed in the Earth`s rotational motion. The Earth`s rotational motion`s surface speed at the Equator is roughly 1,000 miles per hour. Endlessly flying along at 1,000 miles per hour, along with everything around us, inclines us to assume, that time exists as some kind of force or thing.

We are within the Earth`s rotational motion. Rotational motion itself is perfectly matched to our time measurement system, since our time measurement system is based on the period of the Earth`s rotation. We use the Earth`s period of rotation as the baseline measurement to measure time passing. Our clocks do not actually measure time passing, our clocks measure duration elapsing.

There is no such thing or force as time. What we do have is motion in our timeless Universe. What we do have is duration elapsing. There is no co-existing past(s) or future(s) somewhere else. There is only the present, the now, the state of duration elapsing.

There is no possible time travel, since there are no other times to travel to.

Motion itself does not create time. The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion about the nature of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rick Lockyer wrote on Feb. 15, 2019 @ 21:45 GMT
IMHO time is a complex value. Our mechanical clocks and our sense of time passing are purely real axis phenomena. I would agree the only quality of time relevant to mathematics is differential time. We can only know or sense now, but this does not speak to time’s existence. It must be accounted for in our mathematical physics dimensionally as degrees of freedom on an equal basis with spatial dimensions within the enveloping algebra.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 17, 2019 @ 06:35 GMT
Why are physicists happy with the paradoxes (logical inconsistencies) of special relativity? I believe that it is primarily due to the numerous experimental results that show 'time dilation'. Einstein built multiple times into his inertial frames; automatically destroying the intuitive understanding of absolute time as universal simultaneity and replacing it with "the relativity...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 17, 2019 @ 08:46 GMT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-akILbzjhc

SR was accepted long before 1971 or even the Myon speculation. Why? Perhaps the 100 Autoren were ignored in 1932 for propaganda reasons.

I consider Einstein's intentional nonsensical "synchronization" the central root of time dilution and all that.

EB

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 18, 2019 @ 03:44 GMT
One more paradox from

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/MuonRelativity.htm ?

"they use time dilation from one direction and length contraction from the other! It’s hard to say whether the presenters are aware of their inconsistent logic or if they are just reciting it with a straight face."

Pre-Relativistic Doppler effects on apparent length and apparent time depend on the sign of v.

With 1971 I referred to an experiment that might have overlooked the Sagnac effect.

Where are the many experimental confirmations of SR?

EB

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2019 @ 00:39 GMT
Edwin,

Maybe, the answer is Max, Max, Max, and once again Max. Maxwell's aether worried the community. Max Abraham firmly believed in it. Max Planck and Max von Laue supported Einstein's utterly mistakable interpretation of the principle of relativity as Relativity. Max Born built a bridge via Stern/Gerlach to the also multi-paradoxical mechanical interpretation of quantum physics.

While I admit, my suspicion concerning the Stern/Gerlach experiment might be unfounded, I maintain: The fundamental logical inconsistency of Einstein's 1905 relative two-way velocity is definitely inacceptable to me.

I realized that even prominent opponents of Relativity overlooked or swallowed it.

You are attributing gamma to energy. This might be the most reasonable way out, no matter whether or not you are correct in all other details.

EB

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 19, 2019 @ 14:05 GMT
About this time it is for me a link with this space respecting this general relativity.It is like a duration correlated with the rotating sphères probably.Now of course we know that we can decrease our internal clocks due to this special relativity when we reach c.It is also a good Tools this special relativity permitting to rank the evolution of our universe because more we go far in space more we return in the past for the observer.Time and space are linked and are foundamentals ,regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eric Aspling wrote on Feb. 21, 2019 @ 12:16 GMT
Hi Georgina,

This post was simply to express why the illusion of time seems to progress directionally based on quantum gates and the way they can transform quantum information. Ensuring the unitarity and thus reversibility of quantum gates that go unmeasured doesn’t give any new information toward understanding how to interpret the wave function.

It does however link the evolution of entropy in the universe to a preferential time direction (2nd law of thermo). It also spreads some light on how the system behaves this way. The measurement problem could answer why it behaves this way but the statement that observed time has preferential direction is not novel, but it is highly debated.

I have yet to hear a philosophical argument that there are two versions of time one that has preferential direction and one that does not. Not only making the argument, but applying it to reality was what I attempted to do here.

When the mathematics become developed to answer the measurement problem, the current “shut up and calculate” methods will be emergent out of the theory. Thanks,

Eric

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 21, 2019 @ 14:36 GMT
Eric,

"This post was simply to express why the illusion of time seems to progress directionally.."

The answer is obvious, if you disregard "conventional wisdom" and think about the following:

It is all about "seeming" rather than "being".

Imagine you have a machine with a "start" button. As soon as you press that button, time will run in reverse, throughout the entire cosmos, for exactly five seconds, and then resume running forward.

No observer ANYWHERE would EVER notice! It is ENTIRELY unobservable. Because the first thing that happens would be returning the cosmos to the state immediately before the button was pushed - and that includes removing/erasing all memory of the past "future" that was just reversed.

In other words, "time-reversing" is entirely unobservable, even in principle, even when it happens. That is why it has never been observed. We could all be repeatedly taking two-steps forward in time, followed by one-step back, and there is no way for us to ever observe that fact, because true time-reversing, erases all information about its very occurrence - by definition.

"The measurement problem could answer why it behaves this way..." Exactly. There is nothing left, no "forensic evidence" to ever be measured - the process of time-reversal always removes all detectable evidence of itself. It has nothing to do with quantum theory.

Only an observer "outside" of our cosmos and its reversals in time, could ever observe such reversals. But we are not such observers.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 21, 2019 @ 21:15 GMT
Eric, I'm not sure how you can address (to paraphrase) the illusion of time progressing in a directional manner, when the quantum gates you mention can only be considered as a tally of mathematics performed. Is the seeming uni-directionality a illusion? Or is it assumed to be an illusion by accepting the mathematically sanctioned time reversibility of classical mechanics and relativity? If the background in which all processes are happening is the configuration of all that exists and the change in that configuration is foundational passage of time, time is not reversible and the dirrectionality not an illusion, but a metaphor. If instead one considers the sequence of products from measurement or observation occurring within the afore mentioned background, they too are not reversible. That providing the perceived "direction" of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eric Aspling replied on Feb. 23, 2019 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Georgina,

The "illusion" is simply a catch phrase associated with the debate about temporal direction. The argument is usually centralized about unitarity in quantum mechanics. Basically stated that if a quantum gate is Unitary then there exists a law that takes a state 1 to state 2, and there must also exist a law that takes state 2 to state 1. Quantum gates that are not measurements, are required to be Unitary. Measurement gates are not required to do this. Certainly, this is a conundrum that is hence to be solved mathematically by understanding the measurement problem.

My solution to thinking about the debate is that both of these things exist independently of each other. Quantum Mechanically, there does exist a notion of unitarity that is absolute. However, there is also directional time that we experience through measurement. No real mathematics or physics gets accomplished but a sort of entertaining philosophy can be drawn from the example.

Eric

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 26, 2019 @ 04:33 GMT
Eckhard has read and grasped my paper Everything's relative… and remarked above that

"Attributing gamma to energy… might be the most reasonable way out" [regardless of whether I'm correct in all other details.]

The Fizeau experiment [among others] is still not physically understood, so my details of such may or may not be correct, nevertheless the energy-time model versus the space-time model yields intuitive physical explanations of experiments without the inconsistencies of special relativity (the 'paradoxes').

Having spent almost 2 years arguing these points with excellent physicists, including two of Feynman's students, I am very aware that relativity has been pushed into countless areas of application. The application of gamma to relativistic energies is significant, but time-dilation experiments are the basis of most relativists' faith in SR.

I have become convinced that focusing on many details, while necessary, is distracting, and that it is better to focus on the root false premise – Einstein's introduction of multiple time dimensions into the problem at the 'definition-of-terms' level, and since all theoretical arguments are then framed in these terms (i.e., inertial reference frames) then the falsehood permeates every logical argument thereafter.

Einstein complemented the introduction of his false premise of multiple times with his imaginary invention of perfect, weightless clocks, that somehow magically measure time in each time dimension. With real physical clocks, based on mass and inertia, the increase in relativistic mass causes clock's inertia to increase, and since every real clock depends on inertia this provides a universal explanation of 'time dilation' in all SR experiments.

My best to all,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 04:09 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Let me guess: You are hoping for more attention to your 57 pages paper „Everything’s relative, or is it?“. Did you therefore refuse discussing just selected details at FQXi ? Can you please guide me to forums that are better suited?

Being a German, I understand “or is it” in the cautiously doubting naïve sense of “oder etwa nicht”. Having...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 19:48 GMT
Dear Eckard,

When I began ~2 years ago I believed special relativity was simple. I no longer believe that. Over a year’s effort produced ‘Everything’s Relative, or is it?’ and I hope to soon publish another 6 months follow on effort. I often spend 2 to 3 hours face to face with quite competent physicists (all older) and know how very hard it is to “unlearn” Relativity concepts.

Einstein embedded his false premise (multiple times) in his definition of inertial reference frame and formulated all of his principles and postulates in terms of inertial reference frames. Thus the game is lost before it begins. One accepts his false premise or one cannot discuss relativity. This leads to length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc.

I claim gamma is an inertial factor, applied to mass, NOT velocity, whether in particle physics or in inertial clocks. This causes real clocks to slow down because their increased inertia resists the restoring force (accel) common to all oscillating systems, and accounts for ‘time dilation’.

The gravitational field has energy and is physically a real ‘medium’ in which light can propagate. This ‘ether’ equivalent establishes a preferred frame, canceling Einstein’s “no preferred frame” as the basis of “space-time symmetry”.

I wish that you and I could meet face-to-face. It would be enjoyable and far more efficient than these comments. My opinion is that reading the essay four or five times would be necessary to understand well the alternate theory.

Thank you for suggesting that my theory is correct.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 19:50 GMT
“1) Einstein hid his false premise in the definition of inertial reference frame and then based all axioms on this”.

I rather directly attribute his key mistake to the obvious misuse of Poincarè synchronization based on two reference frames.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kjetil Hustveit wrote on Mar. 2, 2019 @ 17:34 GMT
I always find it fruitful to try to explain the universe in a completely background independent way. How to explain everything without time, space and forces and matter? I think some of the equations from loop quantum gravity may hint about something as they don't take time into account. Time, as almost everything else must somehow be emergent from a very simple ground structure. And time like everything else must be local. Such that I experience my own time, exactly like you, when reading this experience your own. Although the difference is way too small to notice.

I think what we eventually experience as time is a result of a really simple mechanism. If we take a really broad view of what the universe is we can say it is a huge heap of lumps of information that is related to each other. When some relation changes, time ticks. Each change of relation is not completely deterministic - there is always some random element, hence time has a direction. The cause of the change can be thought of as a point of action, something that instigates a change. The total number of these points is by the way the total energy in the system.

These ideas leeds us inevitably to ponder upon if conservation of energy is a fundamental property or if it is a result of a higher order error correction algorithm like, say spacetime. Anyhow it is indeed fortunate for the stability of the universe that we have a maximum speed limit and a swift mechanism for decoherence.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alex Rhatushnyak wrote on Mar. 4, 2019 @ 06:57 GMT
Bird's-eye view of time and evolution

is in the attached single-page document.

See also:

https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/226

attachments: bev_otae.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 5, 2019 @ 03:45 GMT
Hi Alex, what exactly did you want to draw our attention to at the fQxi page address mentioned? I've looked at the page but don't know what it is I should be 'seeing'. Could you give a very brief summary of the linked one page document. I don't know you and do not know that the link can be trusted. I am interested if you have a novel way of thinking about time. I'd say time is my primary interest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alex Rhatushnyak replied on Mar. 5, 2019 @ 13:31 GMT
> Could you give a very brief summary of the linked one page document.

Georgina, it's already a very very brief summary,

but here it is again in PNG format instead of PDF.

attachments: bev_otae.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 5, 2019 @ 21:21 GMT
Alex,is there nothing you can say about it? Is this the same as Max Tegmark's bird's eye view of the universe or something different? Is it looking at space-time from the outside or a different kind of time? What assumptions must be made to envision the birds eye view? How is this helpful?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 12:11 GMT
To Erick, Georgina and all.

Now I read your discussion about reversibility of time. You all are right. The problem is that there are several types of motion. The time is only characteristic of motion. So there are several types of time. The time is irreversible in the irreversible motions. For example, accelerating expansion of Universe. It is absolute time, independent from other motions and irreversible. The time is reversible in the reversible motions, for example, different waves. It is local time. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331440555_About_Arr
ow_of_Time

Ilgaitis

attachments: About_Arrow_of_Time.pdf, Pioneer_Anomaly_and_Dimensions_of_Time.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Saibal Mitra wrote on Mar. 10, 2019 @ 22:52 GMT
https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1615

Each instant of time a new Universe

We present an alternative view of quantum evolution in which each moment of time is viewed as a new "universe" and time evolution is given by correlations between them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 11:17 GMT
In the nutshell about nature of time.

Time per se does not exist. There is only motion. The concept of time allows you to compare motions. All clocks compare motions. Absolute time is the effect of expanding Universe. Time have 3 dimensions. In the direction from past to future active is only present. The past is no longer, but the future is not yet. The present have 2 dimensions in the cosmic scale distances. More in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329453486_Pioneer_A
nomaly_and_Dimensions_of_Time

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 00:00 GMT
Re “There is only motion”:

Yes, but what causes this “motion”? The laws of physics are merely relationships. The laws of physics attempt to represent change of number via the delta symbol, but they don’t explain why change of number should ever occur. The laws of physics assume change of number, but physics has no explanation for change of number.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 10:46 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

The initial cause of motion is force. The laws of physics are attempts to explain laws of nature. There is no numbers in the nature. The numbers are imagination of human mind. In the nature are merely forcefields and its sources (mass, charge etc). All other arise from mutual action of forces.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 21, 2019 @ 02:16 GMT
Ilgaitis,

Re “There is only motion” [1]; “The initial cause of motion is force” [2]:

Yes, a force is a result of a quantum mechanical particle interaction, involving quantum jumps, that changes the motion of particles. But the motion of things is closely related to the question of time: how would we detect time if we never observed motion?

The laws of physics don’t change, so how does physics represent motion, given a frame of reference? Motion can be thought of as a change in the numbers that apply to some of the variables (e.g. position, velocity, acceleration, energy, momentum) in the equations that comprise the laws of physics [3]. These laws don’t ever initiate number change: the laws of physics merely represent number change relationships using the delta symbol. But seemingly all number changes in the universe are initiated by quantum mechanics e.g. the quantum jumps in particle interactions.

So, our sense of time comes from the number changes initiated by (what we call) quantum mechanics.

1. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 11:17 GMT

2. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 10:46 GMT

3. The laws of physics are assumed to represent laws of nature.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Mar. 21, 2019 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thank you, now I understand that we are talking about different things. You writing about difficulties of quantum mechanics to interpret the time and movement, but I am talking about movement of celestial bodies. In the my case no problems to observe motion of Sun or Moon. My sense of time is based on motion of Sun. There is no need for quantum mechanics.

Do you look at everything from a Quantum Field Theory (QFT) perspective?

QFT, like all mainstream physics, is based on the assumption that space is eternal endless container. It is “free imagination of human mind” (Einstein). This leads to many unsolved conundrums.

I prefer facts: there is expanding Universe with mass and therefore gravity. All other (space, time, etc.) are consequences of that. As a result, all physics puzzles vanish.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 00:24 GMT
Ilgaitis,

I probably essentially agree with part of what you are saying:

I would say that space and time are not the most fundamental things that structure the universe: space and time information is derived from other types of information, via information relationships (i.e. law of nature relationships).

Space and time information, and seemingly all other information about the universe, is subjective information, not absolute information. I.e. the categories of information (e.g. “space”, “time”) seem to be somewhat absolute, but the numbers that apply to the categories are not absolute.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 10:01 GMT
Hi, Lorraine

If I understood correctly you think the information is primary. Everything else (matter, space, time etc) comes from information. If so, there is question: what is information? I have not been able to find the definition of information.

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 19:56 GMT
Hi,you can consider informations like codes sent from the center of our universal sphere,the central biggest BH sending primordial informations implying all.The waves particles duality is correlated.In my model of spherisation,I consider quantum sphères sent from this central cosmological singularity and they are'coded'implying'properties'of'matters'and'waves'energy Inside this space time.Informations can be ranked and of course we must differenciate the primordial informations with others kinds. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 20:01 GMT
The Density also can be studied for the ranking of different informations.The spherical volumes also like the thermodynamics corrélations and QFT.The importance correlated with the sortings,synchros or superimposings so appears and so the ranking.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 22, 2019 @ 22:19 GMT
Ilgaitis,

Information is all we have about ourselves, our world and the universe. But we know the rest of the world and the universe exists independent to ourselves e.g. because we don’t choose to be maimed and killed in car accidents, and we don’t choose to drown in a tsunami. However, we are not 100% independent of the world and the universe, because we realise that we are part of the world and the universe.

Information is what is represented symbolically e.g. as words, sentences and equations. These symbols representing information are written on paper, spoken as soundwaves, or stored and manipulated in computers (where the representations are re-represented as binary digits). We can assume that, underneath all the representations, is something real: something that is not a representation. Law of nature relationships, mass, velocity, space and time are real. However, it is clear that mass, velocity, space and time are relationships, and relationship between relationships.

As observers, information is our context with respect to the rest of the world. Information is not relationships between things (e.g. observers, chairs and piles of sand are things). Information is relationships between our knowledge of things. If there is such a thing as objectively true information, it is not useful to us: the only useful information is contextual information.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 10:23 GMT
Hi Lorraine,thanks for sharing your ideas,it is well explained.Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 16:35 GMT
Hi, Lorraine

This is the best explanation of the information which I have ever read.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 17:02 GMT
It is well explained but we need to rank and differenciate the informations.For example we have primordial informations in our quantum series implying properties.We have the binar informations invented by us the humans and we have informations due to communication and encodings in brains.That permits to better understand the consciousness even in considering the 3 main systems.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 04:53 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I asked “how to unlearn Maxwell’s hypothetic (light carrying) medium?”. When Einstein himself uttered: we don’t need the ether, this additionally contributed to massive distrust among the 100 authors who naively focused on paradoxes that are deeper rooted in Maxwell’s hypothesis of a medium analog to air that carries sound. Why was the ether felt as an indispensable credo to Lorentz? Shouldn’t he have realized that acoustic media are subject to various physical influences on the wave speed, e.g. what gas, temperature, pressure, wind, etc. while electromagnetic waves may propagate within empty space with universally constant speed c?

You mentioned (on p. 14) that Einstein referred to “Fizeau’s experiment upon which I [Einstein] based my special theory of relativity”. I overlooked this detail. Can you please give a reference?

More than a decade agoI attended a conference in Pine Mountain which is not too much remote from your residence (in Huntington/Alabama?). Meanwhile I didn’t even leave my home in Magdeburg for properties near Berlin. So there is no chance for a face-to-face conversation.

I am however ready to take issue concerning what I consider to be better explained including the 2c fallacy.

My very best regards

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 18:53 GMT
Correction:

I meant Huntsville, not Huntington.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 23, 2019 @ 17:25 GMT
“Existence” takes meaning from its logical opposite, nothingness.

Existence from nothingness is not possible because of the rule of non-contradiction.

But, between “existence” and “nothingness”, a dynamic process can happen, which is neither.

So, we have a dynamic process. Starts as a small point. But look out the window and it is a big universe. This process is spontaneous (nobody is pushing) and generating (makes more units of itself, not superimposable= big universe). A spontaneous and generating process is …. An explosive process. The Big Bang was not an event. It was the beginning of a spontaneous process that is still happening right now.

The whole universe is made of this substance-process which, in its simplest form, we call TIME. This is why, as we know, at the atomic and sub-atomic level everything moves, jiggles, vibrates, … by itself.

Dark matter is just this time process clumping on itself and giving the impression (effect) that we interpret as the presence of some unseen dark mass…

See my last essay for more details

Marcel,

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.