I still think the problem with our understanding of time is that we are trying to model the present moving along the series of events as some form of vector, rather than considering the present as what is physically real and it is the changing configuration which collapses future probability into actual events and then replaces them. We are not traveling the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. The reason clocks run at different rates is because different energy levels change the clock rates. The twin out in space simply has a higher metabolic rate, due to the gravity field slowing the metabolic rate of the one remaining on earth. They are not traveling along different vectors of time and one is not further into the future.
Essentially time, rate of change, is similar to temperature, level of activity. Both are quite real, but as emergent effects, not fundamental geometry.
Remember that when these ideas were first being developed, over a hundred years ago, prior even to World War One, knowledge and thinking were respectably linear. Cause preceded effect on the narrative timeline and Newton and his idea of the absolute flow of time were still a direct part of the intellectual landscape. Of course, up until Galileo and Copernicus, it seemed quite natural to think of the sun as moving, not the earth. Our entire sense of historical evolution is based on this idea of the present as moving from the past into the future, so it makes sense to include it into our physical models, but just like geocentric cosmology, the physics is the reciprocal of our perception. It is the events which coalesce out of potential action and are replaced.
Time is not a vector, it is a process. All the complex geometric modeling in the universe is not going to make past or future events physically real. There is only what is manifest.
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 03:34 GMT
John,
The definitions are so we can communicate using the same terms for the same things. And different terms for different things rather than muddling them up and confusing ourselves and each other. Like you saying about the existing arrangement of the universe "it is the current manifestation" when I am using the term manifestation only to mean what the observer sees and not the "stuff" of the universe at all. We can not precisely share and exchange and compare ideas if we are not using the language consistently.
I thought addressing language used to communicate ideas was a sensible suggestion arising from the conference. I have mentioned before the ambiguity of the word "time" and the various different meanings it can have. I have since seen others doing the same. The ideas can only be explained without ambiguity when the confusion arising from the language, used to express the ideas, is eliminated. I have repeated the same things over and over so many times in part to try and overcome the ambiguity and misunderstandings real or potential arising from the language I have used to explain them.
If people are going to talk about the subtle differences of snow the language to do so is necessary. If they want to talk about the subtleties of time the language to do so is necessary. Likewise if two people are to talk meaningfully about consciousness. Time is my focus of attention so I have set out what I mean when I use those terms pertaining to time.
Re your temperature analogy:
If I think of lots of particles moving around and if the temperature increases they move around faster, then there is more change at the higher temperature. However it is still has to be change within a unitemporal space where everything exists simultaneously. So time can not pass faster in some places than others. Though rate of change or rate of reaction can be faster in different places.
This means that some parts of the space can have -more- change than others but also there is still the steady change of everything. The unobserved trajectory of everything at all scales. The rotations, translations and scaling transformations of particles , macroscopic objects, planets, star systems, galaxies. It is that entire -all scales- change, of everything changing spatial position together that is passage of time IMHO. Not the dance of individual particles considered at a single scale and considered in isolation from the entirety of the object universe.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 05:09 GMT
John,
I don't know if this sounds bizarre to you. I'm thinking about it like this. Analogy; If there is a putty ball and it is squashed into a different shape some parts can be squashed more than others but it is still just one putty ball existing at one time. The whole thing has to change together. Thats what its like for the Object universe. It isn't moving through time, or being spread across time or moving along a time dimension, or have different parts existing at different times because time is running faster in some parts than others. It just is all together in space.
I don't think it matters if you consider it from the smallest scale up or the largest scale down, however much spatial change is happening doesn't alter the time at which the Object universe exists.It is always there/then ahead of all present manifestations and measured time. Also it isn't directly observed so there is nothing to compare against steady change of a clock.
It is timeless but that sequential change of spatial arrangement is giving observed changes which we measure against clocks and call passage of time, even though the changes in space-time observed manifestation are not identical to what is occurring unobserved in unitemporal/timeless space, due to data transmission delays and data processing time and the effect of observer reference frame.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 06:12 GMT
Perhaps it would have been better if I said ahead of all elapsed time.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 09:59 GMT
However the Image Universe -does- appear to be spread over time as well as space, because data persists over time within the environment. So rather than there only being the singular existent arrangement of the universe, there are lots of potential -former- arrangements that might be observed.
That which is observed from our perspective within the object Universe is not -the Universe out there- but manifestations produced from -interpretation- of data persisting within uni-temporal space. "Artistic" spatial and temporal fabrications. Not necessarily even representing EM emitted from still existent bodies anywhere out in space. Produced from ancient emissions and reflections, shadows and products of affects upon the transmission of EM... and the imagination of the artist astronomer.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 10:02 GMT
Georgina
I feel that your terminology and emphasis on time might be confusing matters. Why don't you just say: 1 Within the inescapable limitations of our existence there is a reality which exists independently of us. 2 Our awareness of that occurs with the receipt of sensory representations of it (you tend to concentrate on sight, when there are others). 3 This process of experiencing reality not only involves only medium based representations, but it is effected at the individual level, is subject to interpretation based on culture, etc, etc. 4 Therefore, in order to extrapolate the underlying reality, one needs to strip out all these interferences and reverse engineer the core sensory representation.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 10:06 GMT
Georgina,
"If I think of lots of particles moving around and if the temperature increases they move around faster, then there is more change at the higher temperature. However it is still has to be change within a unitemporal space where everything exists simultaneously. So time can not pass faster in some places than others. Though rate of change or rate of reaction can be faster in different places."
We are very much in agreement on the physics. I'm just making points in terms of both conceptual and tactical perspectives. As there is no God's eye view on all this, we are all coming into the discussion with very subjective perspectives and that is the nature of the beast. For your own good, you can't engage in this discussion under the assumption there is an objective judging process.
In my various conversations with Tom, he would frequently make the pint that spacetime is a mathematically accurate description, therefore it must be right, even though it treats the measurement, clock rate, as more fundamental than what is measured, energy. To which I replied that epicycles were also mathematically accurate and he even pointed out that had they used ellipses, rather than circles, would have been even more so. In reality, one could make a Georginacentric model of the universe and with enough complexity, it would be as accurate as any other, even though the entire earth and universe would be swinging around your every move, because relativistically, that is how it does happen, because you are the center of your universe.
So even the most mathematically precision only puts a theory in the running for best description of reality. The point which choses the winner from the finalists is Ockham's razor. That which is most efficient. That's why we use a heliocentric model, not a geocentric model. It is most efficient.
So yes, make it as precise as necessary, but don't go overboard, or you lose sight of your goals.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 10:32 GMT
Paul,
is it confusing or are you just unfamiliar with it? The emphasis I place on time is because time is what its about. That is what I am talking about. Not culture, sociology, ethnic differences, consciousness or spiritual philosophy. Time is my focus and the terminology has been developed to unravel the temporal confusion that leads to the time paradoxes and unanswered foundational questions.
It has nothing to do with how Australian aboriginals or any other ethnic group deal with time. But the problems of physics specifically. I am not doing a sociological study of how different cultures interpret time.I am sure it has been done already and is of no use particular use to physicists.I too have read about isolated cultures who do not have any concept of time as we generally think about it. Interesting, but ultimately irrelevant here.
I am concentrating mostly upon the visual manifestation of reality as we are primarily visual creatures. To complicate the discussions by continually referring to all of the different senses would not be helpful. Though I have also mentioned the other senses and even non human senses.
If I said it like you then I would be thinking like you and not like me!! If you think you can answer any paradoxes or solve any physics questions by seeking out cultural differences and extracting them from consideration then go ahead.I won't hold my breath.
With respect. Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 11:07 GMT
John ,
I think the construct of reality outlined is very efficient given the number of questions that "simple" alteration of interpretation can make. IE the alteration from considering reality to be only that which is seen/experienced as present-now, to also being the independently existing source of the data. Is there anything simpler that accomplishes as much without bringing in supernatural agents or realms? Not as far as I am aware.
I agree that the less said on peripheral matters the easier it is to sell the basic ideas. But ideas do not exist in a vacuum they have consequences and effects. It sounds bizarre because we have been taught that that image is the Universe but it just isn't the objects in space as they are, its an image reality. Which means there must be an object version. Lets say that is a prediction. When we get far enough out into space we will find things aren't where we think they ought to be or as they ought to be. Because the observed manifestation is not the uni-temporal object reality.
I will try to keep your good advice in mind.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear John,
"we use a heliocentric model, not a geocentric model. It is most efficient." Hm.
In my work as an engineer, I did never use a heliocentric model. Gravitation on earth and on moon is perhaps best described with geocentric and moon-centric, respectively, models. Just the explanation of motion of the moon relative to earth, of the earth relative to sun, of the sun relative to our galaxy, etc. (?) is more reasonable if we take an appropriate point of view.
Physicists like Lorentz and Michelson imagined the hypothetic medium of electromagnetic waves moving relative to the earth and could not explain why there was no experimental confirmation for that. Their rather elaborate attempts to find a way out gave rise to Einstein's speculations that are still not yet convincing to hundreds of scientists, a part of which signed the twin-paradox petition.
I wonder, why do proponents of new physics ignore obviously undeniable evidence for a largely geostationary medium of electromagnetic waves on earth?
Their ignorance reminds me of share holders before the crush in new economy.
While Einstein was perhaps often wrong, he was certainly correct when uttering: The stupidity of men has no limit.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
Georgina,
I understand your argument and why it is necessary to keep it focused, but as you admit, you feel as though you are hitting your head against a wall. Having been in the same position, I'm basically thinking out loud about ways to step back and examine that wall.
Further up this thread I got into one of my usual discussions with Tom on the subject and he concluded by...
view entire post
Georgina,
I understand your argument and why it is necessary to keep it focused, but as you admit, you feel as though you are hitting your head against a wall. Having been in the same position, I'm basically thinking out loud about ways to step back and examine that wall.
Further up this thread I got into one of my usual discussions with Tom on the subject and he concluded by linking to the wiki articles on general and special relativity. I replied by posting the exact paragraph where it says:
"Such simple derivations ignore the fact that in general relativity the experiment compares clock rates, rather than energies. In other words, the "higher energy" of the photon after it falls can be equivalently ascribed to the slower running of clocks deeper in the gravitational potential well."
And I made the observation:
"My point has been that the clock rate derives from the energy, not the energy from the clock rate. This doesn't change the math, but it eliminates many of the exotic extrapolations, such as blocktime, wormholes, etc."
He simply cannot accept that anyone could legitimately consider that the geometry of spacetime is a model, not the fundamental reality and doesn't feel obligated to explain why, other than saying I just don't understand the math. So this is essentially the same wall you are hitting your head against.
The fact is that large sections of modern physics are built on this assumption of the geometry of spacetime as foundational to physical reality. Cosmology is the most obvious example, as the whole notion of space expanding from a point is based on it. Even many people who question established theory assume Big Bang cosmology as a given. So they will continue to ignore the idea of time as measurement, not geometry, because it does raise more questions than most people engaged in physics are willing to consider.
That's why there is a need to step back and look at it from a broader disciplinary perspective.
You have mentioned you are a biology teacher, if I'm not mistaken. Consider how important and interrelated time and temperature are in biology, as well as geology and many other fields where real change is a given, not an illusion.
Living in Baltimore, the local public radio station will bring on various experts from some of the local universities, such as Johns Hopkins, etc. Some years ago, they had on a neurologist, discussing the mind/brain dichotomy. I called in and made the point that if two objects collide, it creates an event. While the objects go from past events to future ones, the event goes from being in the future to being in the past and this is the mind/brain duality, because the brain, being physically manifest, goes past to future, but the mind, being a record of events, is going future to past. His first response was, "That's deep." then he started going on about how physics explains time as a component of space, at which point the moderator cut us off.
My point in telling this is that the nature of time is very important in understanding many fields, but that physics has established a monopoly on explaining it. So rather than taking on the physics establishment directly, given the stakes involved for their foundational models, there might be a way to get a foot in the door, through other disciplines. Especially if those engaged in those fields were to seriously examine the assumptions required of spacetime and not just assume it is too complicated to understand.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 16:33 GMT
Eckard,
The geocentric model certainly does still have many applications, but the natural desire for clear story lines even extends to the history of science.
I've read interesting articles on how it was epicycles which laid the groundwork for the development of clock mechanisms and these were the original complex human built machines. The original example of how the desire for knowledge spawned technological advances far beyond the original intentions.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 19:25 GMT
Georgina
Time is not the fundamental delineator. Time is omnipresent. This does not help differentiate reality from (in your words) its manifestation, and, as said, I think this is where the confusion is creeping in. My point has essentially two strands: a) we are locked into a closed system of experience, that is our reality b) within that confine there is a separation of reality and and what we physically experience. Sociological concerns are a minor irritant in the experience process. I do not understand where you derived the notion of a Sociological interpretation of time from, I have not said anything that could be remotely translated that way.
To take one sentence from the several posts in the past few hours:
"However the Image Universe -does- appear to be spread over time as well as space, because data persists over time within the environment. So rather than there only being the singular existent arrangement of the universe, there are lots of potential -former- arrangements that might be observed".
This is incorrect. There was one, and one only, existent state that generated the 'image'. It might have taken one nano second, or 10 billion light years, for the conveyance of that reality in an image realisable form, but that has no effect on the reality. The "Image Universe", or preferably the sensory representation of reality, is not "spread over time", it just took a duration to travel. The longer that takes, the more likelihood there is that it will be affected by forces en route, but that is an entirely different point. Of course there will be more than one state, and one image, one might be able to observe this particular reality for 1 minute or 10 days, but the same logical point pertains to a sequence of states as it does to one.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 8, 2011 @ 23:17 GMT
Paul,
with respect the confusion is your own. You said "I do not understand where you derived the notion of a Sociological interpretation of time from, I have not said anything that could be remotely translated that way"
In your previous message you said "3 This process of experiencing reality not only involves only medium based representations, but it is effected at the individual...
view entire post
Paul,
with respect the confusion is your own. You said "I do not understand where you derived the notion of a Sociological interpretation of time from, I have not said anything that could be remotely translated that way"
In your previous message you said "3 This process of experiencing reality not only involves only medium based representations, but it is effected at the individual level, is subject to interpretation based on culture, etc, etc."
I supopose it depends then upon what you mean by "culture etc etc." Perhaps you are using your own meaning of the word that has nothing to do with sociology.(?) And also that you are not talking specifically about time but generally about how people relate to reality. This thread is about understanding time. I have been talking about understanding time and giving the meaning of the words that I use, as I use them, to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding.A helpful suggestion to have come out of the conference on time and shared in the video at the top of the thread.
People can interpret or relate to things however they like. (So long as they don't insist I must believe it or must do the same.) However the mathematics is the mathematics and only the correct solution will enable complete and correct -mathematics- of relativity and QM to be fully compatible without contradictions, paradoxes or other problems/questions.
What I said was not incorrect. It is how it appears to me when I think about it. I am not thinking about other peoples theoretical fantasies but what is observed. As for the image of the universe being produced in a nonosecond. That is an interpretation based upon the supposed expansion of the universe taken back to a point prior to time and space from which it all supposed to have begun. That is a theoretical supposition that I do not agree on. (It may be that the appearance of expansion is to do with the way in which the Earth object is moving relative to the unchanging origin of the radiation received. A trajectory at all scales not accounted for in the space-time/ block-time model.)
I am fitting the particular explanations given, with observation, basic well understood physics and biological processes, in such a way that the Grandfather paradox, and other paradoxes are overcomes and the foundational questions are answered. Without a space-time universe exploding from nothing in a nanosecond, without a fully determined unchanging space-time universe or, Multi-verses.It is not an interpretation that fits within, or needs to fit within, those aforementioned mental constructs but replaces them.
I would say -you- are incorrect when you say time is omnipresent. I would say the object reality is without time. I have previously tried using the term atemporal but now generally say unitemporal. That is to make clear that it is not spread across space-time, it is without time dimension.It exists -always- ahead of observation and all elapsed time from the temporal perspective of all observers.
- Not moving in time, not spread across time and with no time dimension.-
It is the observer produced manifestation, produced from sensory data, that is tied up with temporal complications. And that does not exist externally.
Don't come here and tell me that I am confused and I must think about things differently. Unless you can specifically tell me why the solution given does not overcome the paradoxes and does not permit QM and relativity to co-exist without contradiction or does not permit partial non determinism, and temporally unidirectional causality while still allowing relativity and non simultaneity.etc etc. Do you have a -better- solution?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 04:04 GMT
John,
thank you for your last message. I agree that it might be useful to think about going on in other ways that are still compatible with the problem solving explanatory construct worked out, but are simpler to explain and comprehend. Your insistence on the direction of time has been very helpful. The temperature, a measure of the amount of change in spatial position of particles when looked at at a particular scale, might be a useful analogy.IMO; Despite Tom's reluctance.
Though importantly all objects do not exits just at the scale of the observer regarding them but have a microscopic and an object universal existence. The object consists of particles but also has change of position associated with the spatial change of the whole of galaxy in which it exists. I think it is this continual -total change in spatial position- of everything that is the connection of everything with complexity, and also the connection with the changes we observe and call passage of time. It is as you say energy, which is therefore comparable to heat which we measure at our scale as temperature.
Complexity is intimately involved in the whole conundrum. It is something that I have contemplated in the past but has been sidelined in the attempt to get a working explanatory model of time that is exact, precisely explicable, not based on speculation, and really works.
The temperature of a substance is measured with a thermometer by looking at the effect of the energy upon a liquid expanding next to a scale. We can not stick a thermometer into the universe at the object universal scale and note on the scale of the device the "temperature" of the universe.IE how much change in spatial position of constituents is actually occurring within it.So not directly comparable to temperature or achievable.But a helpful analogy, I think.
Humans make comparisons of the energy of objects from within the manifestation of space-time from the observers relative perspective at a single scale of existence. We can not even see the object universe as it is and physicist generally regard the image of the universe to be The (and only) universe (itself).So what is to be done? We agree that at that foundational level of reality, outside of the human observer's construct of space-time, it is energy, change in spatial positions that is occurring continually unobserved- giving observed passage of time. So one might say that -energy is creating observed time, though it (object universe) is not in time and does not contain time.-
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 04:21 GMT
Paul,
please forgive my grumpy reply to your message. I am normally more patient and reasonable. The problem is that you have come upon my posts, which are to do with an exact explanation of time developed painstakingly over a number of years. Taken out of context the posts might not make sense. I took your messages as insulting to my intelligence and demeaning, when in fact I should have regarded them merely as a reflection of your incomplete understanding of what I was talking about or why.
Thank you for taking the time to write. It has been very helpful to me, as it is clear that the full explanation of the explanatory framework should be set out together as a series of papers or book that can just be referred to as required. I will then not have to rely on people having read and being able to follow my post, that have analyzed and developed the framework piece by piece here.
I have been thinking about the problem of time for over 6 years and was, to my shame, trying to inform mathematicians and scientists of the problem before it became the hot topic it is today. My initial attempts to form a working explanation have had to be binned as have subsequent unfounded speculations. Only those ideas that have stood the test of time and scrutiny remain and they provide the explanatory framework today. There is no confusion about it.
Kind regards, Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 09:57 GMT
Georgina,
No, we can't stick a thermometer in the entire universe, but neither does a particular clock record all rates of change, but just as we could approximate a universal time by averaging all those clock, so too could we approximate a universal temperature by averaging the various levels of energy. Given the amount of space, relative to energy/mass, it probably wouldn't be much higher than the temperature of the microwave background temperature of 2.7k.
The idea of an expanding universe is based on the observed redshift of distant galaxies. Since this is directly proportional to distance, it is proposed that space itself expands, rather than this being an expansion in space, otherwise it would make us appear to be at the exact center of the universe. Here is a possible explanation for how light might otherwise be redshifted proportional to distance:
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChr
istov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 10:24 GMT
Georgina
That's OK. I noticed your frustration before, and indeed (as Peter J will confirm) suffer them myself. It is difficult within the context of a forum. I also have a feeling that we are, more or less, 'on the same track'. Whilst I have read your paper (Peter J pointed me at it)I would not pretend to know your "full explanation".
So, let's start again. Specifically, re time (though ultimately it is difficult to separate that out from the fundamental logic of reality).
Time is an inherent dimensional quality of our reality. It does not exist as an entity, but is real as it is manifested through our experience of change to existent entities. Which implies there must be a dimensional quality in our reality for those processes to occur. This is similar to spatial dimension, where again, no entity exists. Our realisation of spatial dimensions being based on the experience of differences in existent entities and relative movement.
However, time is not a spatial dimension. Change does not necessitate space, as irrespective of the actuality, logically it always involves:
- sequence, which is a number of discrete states in a specific order
- rate, the speed at which any given state replaces its predecessor
So, at any point, reality only constitutes the last state of everything, as the previous state has been replaced and the subsequent one does not yet exist.
For example. If one 'froze' reality. [Which in effect is what is happening when a light based/air wave compression/etc representations of it are emitted, which we can then subsequently experience] Then one would still find the 3 spatial dimensions, because they would still be manifest in the state of the existent entities at that point. BUT, time would not be manifest, because there would only be one state of any given entity. So in that circumstance our ability to appreciate the dimension of time has been denied us. Now 're-freeze' reality some n units of time subsequently. Time is now realisable, because comparing states of existent entities reveals differences. Change has occurred. Not in everything, but the cat has moved, elementary particles have certainly done so, there is a noise that was not there before, but your monitor still looks the same and the leaves on the bush still appear to be the same hue of green. So,all exitent entities which comprise our reality change, albeit at different rates. Time is the dimension within which this occurs, but only one state in any given sequence of change exists in reality. Different states do not exist concurrently. So time is not a spatial dimension, it has, at any point, just one value.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 13:02 GMT
Paul,
I have read your post carefully. Rather than dissect it I will try to explain briefly how the construct works so that you can see why I must disagree with what you have said. There are two different things going on together and that complicates matters.
There is passage of time which is a sequential change in the arrangement of the whole universe of objects and substance in space (not space time.) As you have said only the latest (or perhaps more correctly the earliest) version exists. The other versions having changed into the only existing arrangement. As they no longer exist they are just imaginings.
Reflected or emitted data from the objects in the existing object universe persists in the environment after the arrangement of the object universe has changed. It can be detected by different observers at different times (that is to say simultaneously to different existing arrangements of the object universe.)Giving relativity and non simultaneity.
The reality experienced by the observer is formed from the data intercepted and represents the objects as they were in the object universe when the data left it source. Not the existing arrangement of the object universe when it is received. Transmission of the data from source to observer takes time and so the object universe as it -is- always precedes observation of how it was when the data was produced. It might therefore be regarded as in the future compared to the experience of the observer. Light travels very fast so this is negligible for near objects but becomes significant for very distant objects or very fast moving objects.
Therefore there are two versions of reality. One formed as the output from received data input and the externally existing object universe which is temporally ahead of the images and experience of the observer which lag behind due to data transmission delay. This makes it necessary to differentiate and be clear about which version of reality is being considered as they are not identical.
The experienced reality, produced by the observer is dependent upon data input from the external object reality. It is prone to relativity and non simultaneity and is formed from preexisting data in the environment. So it is predetermined by that data.It has a time dimension.
The reality that exists unobserved is not prone to relativity or non simultaneity and is formed from continual change influenced by the overall effect all interacting variables and parameters within the object universe. Nothing but the existing uni-temporal universe precedes its new arrangement so its new arrangement is not predetermined but consequential.It has no time dimension. The object reality is independent of the image reality of the observer.
Both of the afore mentioned facets of the Entirety of reality co-exist.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 14:37 GMT
Hi John- given that with infinite timeless probability a whole universe can suddenly appear out of a singularity into not time and not space, and create all time and space and everything in it for all time, why can't a giant thermometer jump out of a singularity and stick itself in the universe!! Perhaps its already there and not there, but there isn't an observer with a big enough eye to look at it and make its wave function collapse!!
Joking (in case you had any doubts.)Thanks for the link.I'll look at it.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 17:40 GMT
Georgina,
There is no God's eye objective perspective and there is no God's butt to stick in a thermometer.
Singularities cannot collapse or expand space. Because space has no physical structure, its consequent properties are infinite volume and absolute equilibrium. Neither of which can be measured directly, even if they can be inferred.
We just have these cycles of energetic expansion and contraction.
I think we will come to realize that what are called black holes are gravitational vortices, like the eye of a hurricane. So the matter falling into them doesn't disappear into the black hole, but is ejected out as jets and bubbles of cosmic rays and radiation.
An interesting article on how close these rays appear to originate from the location of the black hole and not just its periphery:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-team-elusive-b
lack-hole-radio.html
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 22:05 GMT
John,
I was amusing myself by making the ridiculous absurd.
Being serious for a moment:According to big bang theory the universe didn't expand into space and time it made the space-time. What preexisted was nothing, no properties not even equilibrium, which requires something to be balanced and not volume because that requires something to fill the volume or something to contain the volume. So it wasn't and therefore has no description.
Enough of that.
I can image this as an entry in the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". Pre-space-time: The ultimate blank canvas. So blank it has vanished completely and never was. Which made designing the universe rather tricky.
There can't -just- be cycles of expansion and contraction. There has to be Objects and media that can change spatial position or resist change of spatial position, and so be described as having energy. Or to be the things and stuff that provide the sensory data that can be processed and interpreted as things or stuff moving or resisting being moved. Disembodied energy with no medium of transmission is as ridiculous, but not as amusing, as measuring the temperature of the universe by sticking a thermometer up God's invisible Butt. By the way in reply to yours- I'm not God so I wouldn't know.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 02:14 GMT
Georgina,
By cycles of expansion and contraction, I don't mean the universe as a whole, but radiation and mass/gravity. It was on first learning that gravitational contraction and the "expansion of space" had to be inversely proportional that I first began questioning big bang cosmology, because it made far more sense as a form of galactic convection cycle, where elemental mass particles...
view entire post
Georgina,
By cycles of expansion and contraction, I don't mean the universe as a whole, but radiation and mass/gravity. It was on first learning that gravitational contraction and the "expansion of space" had to be inversely proportional that I first began questioning big bang cosmology, because it made far more sense as a form of galactic convection cycle, where elemental mass particles condense out of radiant energy and "precipitate" into galactic vortices, until the density ignites it and the energy radiates back out, to start the process over again.
The background radiation emanating from the edges of the visible universe is not residue of the big bang, but the black body radiation of ever more distant light sources, that has fallen completely off the visible spectrum. I've been waiting since before the Hubble was launched, for them to find evidence of activity too old to be explained in the Big Bang timeframe, but the only reaction has been a scratching of the collective head as to how galaxies and galaxy clusters evolved so quickly. Currently the oldest observed galaxy is at 13.2 billion lightyears, which means it had to coalesce out of the inflation stage residue in only 500 million years. Since it takes our galaxy 225 million years to make one revolution, this would be like saying the time from the invention of the wheel to the development of the Model T, was about as long as it would take to drive two and a half times around New York City, to make a rough comparison.
Also, it makes no sense to say that space itself is expanding and then presume a stable speed of light to measure the expansion against. If space truly expanded, then so should this most basic measure of space increase proportionally. Yet if the speed of light increased as space expanded, then we wouldn't be able to detect it, as the light would be traveling ever faster to match the distance.
So there is some far more logical explanation for redshift than recession.
It was in trying to work this out that I came to the insight about time being truly relativistic, in that the events do not constitute a static frame, but move the opposite direction of the present. When I first began considering time, it wasn't as the present being the stable frame, but as the point of reference moving through its frame and causing everything it it to move incrementally in the opposite direction. Much as moving your finger through water causes a similar amount of water to move in the opposite direction. As in Newton's, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." It was in working this out that I began to understand how time is entirely a consequence of motion, not an external frame for motion. Thus my motion affects my reality to the same extent the larger reality affects me. Which makes the question of free will moot, as I am not free of effects, but am able to express the will that is me.
Space, infinite and absolute, is the frame for activity.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 09:14 GMT
Georgina
1 Time is not ‘a sequential change in the arrangement of reality’. Reality, or at least to be correct all the entities which comprise reality, change (at varying rates). We can experience that, and therefore appreciate, as far as we are concerned, reality has a non-spatial ‘dimension’ which enables this to happen (ie time).
2 It must be the latest state (version) of every entity that exists. Previous ones have been replaced, future ones have yet to come into existence. I cannot understand the meaning of ‘the other versions having changed into the only existing arrangement’. In reality, preceding states (versions) have ceased to exist. They are not ‘imaginings’, though sensory representations (data) of previous existent states may still exist.
3 Sensory representations (data) of any given state of any given entity do indeed exist (persist in the environment) independently and for long durations. And, in everyday life people do have a tendency to assume that what they experience a) directly represents reality, b) is all concurrent, and represents the present. But the whole point of science is to extrapolate the reality which instigated these resultant experiences, from a jumbled up translation of them.
4 There are not two versions of reality, in the sense you define, neither does the differentiation depend on timing. There is one reality. But we can only be aware of it via a spectrum of sensory representations thereof (data), which is selective because it is based on a medium, and then there are all the other variables which interfere. The time delay between existence in reality and receipt of a sensory representation thereof, being just one of the many variables to be accounted for. So we certainly have to be careful to ‘differentiate’ and ensure we are not conflating an experience of reality with reality. The process being reification.
5 There is a timing issue in the ‘experienced reality’ because the sensory representations (data), which are real physical phenomenon, have to travel varying distances in varying conditions. But the more we understand about how light (or any other medium) works, and the specific conditions prevailing, the more accurate we can get at estimating the actual time of existence.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 09:46 GMT
John
Sorry if I am being pedantic, but time is not a consequence of motion. Our appreciation of it, and spatial dimension, arises from our experience of motion. By definition, motion must involve an alteration in spatial position (and we discern three possible directions), and motion involves change (in spatial position)so there must be a 'dimension' of time because we have a succession of existent states, albeit only one thereof exists in reality at any point. I am not sure about the infinite/absolute, we are constrained by our existence, but at least that invokes a closed circle for us within which we can explore reality as experienced by us. So we can have 'absolutes' within that limitation.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 10:15 GMT
John,
Thank you for sharing your points of view.
Re time: I agree that time for us is to some extent a consequence of our own movement. We determine the events that make up the passage of time that we experience by choosing our spatial locations. Thats also what Wilhelmus was saying about free will and a unique life path.
It does take the living organism observer, that is able to move around, away from being a mere passive recipient of predetermined sensory input supplied by the universe; because the organism is choosing location and thus -which- prewritten sensory input will be received. Unlike the inanimate object or device set at a fixed location. That is an interesting point of difference that you have both identified.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 11:24 GMT
Hi Paul,
I will address your numbered points one by one.
1.Sequence is not the same as fixed or uniform throughout. If I have a lot of balls on the floor of a box that are touching and I push one of the balls the other balls will have to move also to accommodate the movement of the pushed ball. Some balls may move more than others but after the push the balls are in a new arrangement than before. There has been a change from one spatial arrangement to another in sequence. Arrangement 1. becomes arrangement 2. The sequence of the arrangements is nothing to do with how much the individual balls move or don't move. Push a ball again and the next arrangement in the sequence 3.will be formed. The sequence of arrangement is 1,2, 3, where to or how ever much the individual balls shift.
2.If the sensory data required to be aware of something has not yet arrived but it will later on, that which has not yet been seen is in the "will be" observer's future. That which has already been observed is in the observer's past from the observer's perspective. Hence it is the earliest/youngest arrangement that exists. The previous arrangements having been recycled into the "youngest" version. This is providing continual -new- input into the (potential sensory) data pool and giving temporally unidirectional causality and passage of time.
3.OK
4. This is a matter of description. Yes there is only one Entirety of reality but within that there is the output from processing of sensory input which is a manufactured representation. Therefore I choose to describe them as different facets of the Entirety of reality. One I call the object reality the other the image reality. They were on the list of definitions I gave. The photo of a cat is not EM data reflected from a cat, or a living cat organism. Photo=output, reflected EM=Input, Cat= Source of input. But as you point out and I agree all are reality, in their own way.
5.Its actual existence as it is, is always ahead of every observer's manifestation of reality regarded as present-now. Thats when it is. Temporally ahead of observation. Everything that is seen/experienced within a present now is formed from data from events that have already occurred.It is not as easy as it sounds to say when something was because of non simultaneity within space-time. Knowing that very accurate timings can be made and potentially more can be learned about transmission of data and affects upon it.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 11:38 GMT
John,
The experiments I mentioned found an ether that moved together with earth relative to the sun except for sharing the earth's rotation. So I should perhaps not use the denotation geocentric.
While I am not an expert in this field, I see this revelation an intriguing alternative to so far otherwise explained experiments which led to special theory of relativity.
Shtyrkov considered his experiments a (failed) test of the latter. As a serious scientist he avoided to draw attention to the due consequences in a sensational manner. He cautiously wrote: "Evidently, this fact is reason for the hypothesis of light speed constancy WITH RESPECT TO THE OBSERVER (in Proc. of the NPA emphasis expressed by small bold letters) to be revised."
I already also mentioned Persson, and Gift. Recently Norbert Feist suggested: Detecting the Ether Wind by Doppler-Radar. See also Doug Marett.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 16:37 GMT
Eckard
May I proffer that 'Geocentric' is correct, or ECRF (Earth Centred Reference Frame) to be fully astrophysically correct with respect to NASA, GPS etc. This does not however make the Barycentric (or Heliocentric) frame incorrect. (Inside the Heliosheath shock). Each collection of protons ('body' or collection of bodies) has it's own dragged field. The Russian paper was correct, consistent with Gravity Probe B's Geodetic drag, and Stokes 'Ether drag.' Every planet has an ionosphere and shock, as Venus express recently showed. The thin pour brains find difficult to envisage is the fact that they may be inside each other. i.e. there are background frames but they're not 'absolute' frames. This is precisely what the DFM shows.
This not only matches all the evidence... (here are just 2 papers;) Hewish A., Bragg L., The Diffraction of Radio Waves in Passing through a phase-changing ionosphere. PRS. Vol. 209, No.1096. 1951 http://www.jstor.org/pss/98862
Gherm V.E., et al., Radio Science, Vol. 46, RS3002, doi:10.1029/2010RS004624, 2011 http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/si/links/2010RS004624.pdf
...but is fully in accordance with Einstein's conception that bodies are not 'IN' space but are "spatialy extended" and there are "infinitely many 'spaces' in motion relatively" (1952)
This resolves the speed of light being limited to c for all moving observers if they are made of bunches of protons, (with fine stricture electrons around them). If any moving observers are NOT made of bunches of protons however, then I have to agree that the DFM will be proved false.
Do you have any links to English translations?.
Best regards
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 17:27 GMT
Paul,
The point I keep making about why time seems confusing is that our cognitive functions are based on that sequential series:
"Our appreciation of it, and spatial dimension, arises from our experience of motion. By definition, motion must involve an alteration in spatial position (and we discern three possible directions), and motion involves change (in spatial position)so there must be a 'dimension' of time because we have a succession of existent states, albeit only one thereof exists in reality at any point."
Yet the actual physics does not involve the present "moving" from one state to the next, but within the present, there is a change of configuration, such that what is physically happening is not that the present moves from past to future, but the events transition from future to past.
Does the earth really travel a fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?
When you view it as the former, yes there is that narrative dimensionality of the timeline, but when you consider it in terms of the latter, then the series of different events is an effect of the changing configuration of what physically exists as what we call the "present."
When clock rates differ, due to physical input, it doesn't mean one clock is traveling along that dimension of time faster than another, but that one is recording a faster rate of change, due to a more energetic level of activity. Thus when the twins meet up again, one may have aged faster, but only due to an elevated metabolic rate, due to a higher level of atomic activity.
There is no need for multiworlds either, due to quantum probabilities, because it is the collapse of such probabilities, the future potential, which creates present events and then replaces them.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 17:31 GMT
Georgina,
Plants don't need a central nervous system because they don't move. Consider how important movement is to making us what we are.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 19:31 GMT
John,
Certainly they don't walk to the office, or the pub, or the rugby ground. The plants are also complex organisms able to respond and move in response to the stimuli in their environment. I even read in New scientist about a plant that releases a chemical that summons ladybird beetles for assistance, when caterpillars are eating its leaves.
In Australian aboriginal culture the landscape is tied to personal stories that are shared and passed down generations.By walking the landscape, and identifying the features and characteristics of the places passed through that person is then able to narrate the tale of the journey in detail. Memory experts tell us that it is easier to remember lots of information, especially lists, if the information is connected in some way into a story. These mental maps can be referred to when navigating. The places brought to mind then are not points within a spatial co-ordinate system on paper or computer screen but part of an individuals life journey, one of those unique life paths that Wilhelmus mentioned.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 21:08 GMT
Georgina,
I'm not knocking plants for not having a central nervous system, but commenting on how motion defines our existence.
In discussions with Jason, over his desire for faster than light travel, I point out that speed is another form of limitation, in that the faster we go, the less ability we have to maneuver, or connect.
Probably if plants were able to intellectually express themselves, they would view temperature as much more fundamental than time, as it is the constant change of temperature which dictates their temporal cycles. Plants are very non-linear.
Our intellectual function is primarily a recording of the sequential function, both in the stories we remember, record and transmit, as well as the cause and effect processes which underlay the sciences.
Would a plant look out across the cosmos and think there exists some timeline, from birth on, that explains it all, or would it see those stars and galaxies as flowers in a field, the points of attraction in an endless network?
The function of our mind is to distill out the useful information from the endless amount available, so it is this distillation process that so defines our appreciation for reality, as we constantly search for meaning, as though it were the perfect berry on a bush. Now we are constantly trying to distill ever more abstractions of value from our reality; metals, jewels, instruments, abstractions of wealth and value. We want them because they appeal to that foundational sense of focus and attraction that is our means of survival and the sense of purpose it gives us.
Is this focus foundational, as we assume with our search for Gods and theories of everything, or is it just a conscious manifestation of electromagnetic and gravitational attraction, eventually kept in check by forces of repulsion and radiation?
Something to consider, as this worldwide Tower of Babel crumbles. What will rise in the eventual rebirth?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 22:03 GMT
Hi John,
Didn't think you were insulting them. The brainless plants don't have brain to be offended anyway. Re. Star gazing philosopher plants?-love it.
Re your big questions, whats it all about? Where are we going?, What will the future be? - I doubt the plants consider such things, they just grow and do and survive if they can."Consider the lilies...." perhaps.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 12:05 GMT
Georgina
Re your post 10/9 10.15. Time is not to any extent a ‘consequence of our own movement’, or indeed any other action. We cannot influence time, just like we cannot alter any existent aspect of reality. In your words, the living organism is still a ‘passive recipient of predetermined sensory input’. It just happens to occupy a different spatial position from that which it...
view entire post
Georgina
Re your post 10/9 10.15. Time is not to any extent a ‘consequence of our own movement’, or indeed any other action. We cannot influence time, just like we cannot alter any existent aspect of reality. In your words, the living organism is still a ‘passive recipient of predetermined sensory input’. It just happens to occupy a different spatial position from that which it could have done, at the point of reception of the sensory information. It has the free will to be in any spatial position (within reason!), but that just means there is a variance (eg time delay) in whatever would have obtained in an alternative circumstance. The organism cannot occupy different spatial positions and receive the same sensory representation of the same state of reality.
Re your post 10/9 11.24.
1 The sequence is the number of discrete states, in an order, which comprise a particular example of change. There is then a rate at which states replace their predecessors, which could vary from state to state in any permutation. The totality of durations for each state, obviously equals the total duration of the sequence. Example: cat walks across garden. That could be decomposed into a sequence of states. Note that during this event, it will also get older, its molecular structure will alter, it claws grow, moult some hair, etc, etc. But we are interested in the sequence of change in reality associated with its progression from A to B. It is doubtful if each state will elapse with the same duration, it will probably stalk to begin with and then make a dash for it. I couldn’t understand the relevance of your example about balls.
2 Obviously sensory information which has not yet been received is in the observer’s future, assuming that he/she is in a position to receive it. If they happen to be looking the other way, or a brick wall is in the path of the light, then…..Equally obviously, something that has been observed is in the observer’s past. And all this is in terms of observer perspective. But this is not reality. As above, reality went through a sequence of existent states, each of which resulted in the emanation of experienceable information. How people process this stream of information, I don’t have a clue about. I will leave that to people that do. It is fascinating, one gets a good programme every now and then, particularly where people have suffered some specific brain damage, or indeed there was the blind bloke recently who had learnt to echolocate.
4 As I said above when picking up a post I missed, there are two existent states which we have no influence over. It is not a ‘manufactured’ representation. That is the point, it exists BEFORE we/other organisms enter the process and ‘muck it up’(!) even more. I turn round and there is my dog. I am aware of him, because a) he is an independent existent entity, b) light emitting from him has enabled this. Then, and only then, do I come into play and interpret the information. I realise what your labels refer to, but personally, I see no point in an adjective preceeding reality. It is just that, reality. And I have looked at your definition of Image Reality, this being the output from the process of experience. Again personally, I would not deploy the word reality here. It makes what is actually a jumble of translations seem more ‘official’ than it is. This is what we start with, but it’s a mess.
5 I do not understand your point, and do not want to get involved in simultaneity/ relativity. Go back to that cat. Assume no relative motion, and lots of other things which enable us to have articulated experiences and only the raw light based representations. We have a man and his dog, a few metres away. Another the same distance but behind a metre thick glass wall, an eagle several thousand feet up overhead. A bloke on the moon, another in a strange gas cloud/aquarium of water, etc, etc. Now, with the right understanding of the processes, all these observations could be regressed and would arrive at the same definition of reality, ie cat by point in time by specific point in space.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT
John
Re your post 10/9 17.27
It certainly is confusing, and I did say ‘I might be being pendantic’.
However…wrt your sentence “but within the present, there is a change of configuration, such that what is physically happening is not that the present moves from past to future, but the events transition from future to past” In reality, there is, at any point, only the present. It is the result of a change from the previously existent state. And in due course (very very quickly if we are considering the motion of elementary particles) it will be superceeded by the next existent state, and cease to exist.
The earth rotates, for a reason, in a duration. There must therefore be time. That is reality. Perceptions thereof, and how people may wish to translate them, are different.
I agree with your point about the twins, etc, which again is why I used the caveat of pedantic. Time in reality cannot be altered. Moreover, if the logic of reality is one existence, independent, we experience, etc, etc, then QM has a fundamental problem. Just for a laugh, if you follow the QM vision as to how reality operates, then Schrodinger’s cat would have ‘caused’ reality to occur. A human opening the box later, with or without a friend, is irrelevant, because the event has already occurred. But as with most philosophers, non-human organsims seem to be denied their right of experience. Which in terms of consistency is invalid. That little dog I mentioned in a previous post (Ralph), shot off downstairs several minutes before the postman actually arrived and I heard his foorsteps.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 17:33 GMT
Paul,
"The earth rotates, for a reason, in a duration. There must therefore be time. That is reality."
Why is it not argued there must be a physically real temperature scale? There certainly is a bottom end to the scale, ie, absolute zero and there are certainly quite a few independent lines on the scale, freezing, boiling, ignition points, etc. Yet we don't see temperature as fundamental, but an emergent measure of various interacting elements.
I would say time falls in the same category. In fact, in terms of measurement, temperature is more obvious, since there presumably can be a level of activity, without a perceptible change of state.
When the argument is made that there is duration, therefore time must be real, but what is duration? It is not as though the starting and stopping points coexist, as points in space can coexist, since the physical processes dissolve one in order to manufacture the other out of the same constituent/present energy. There is no universal measure of duration, as relativity shows that environment will change the duration of a given process. Just as changing environments will change freezing/boiling points. When we measure duration, we are measuring a physical process, just as when we measure temperature.
So I will certainly agree time is a real phenomena, but in the same sense that temperature is a real phenomena.
The reality is that we have a bias towards time, because our rational mental functions derive from the temporal vector of cause and effect narrative memories. Consider though that the concept of spacetime isn't based on all aspects of space, but specifically of direction/distance. Volume is an equally necessary non-linear concept of space, of which temperature is closely related. In fact one could use ideal gas laws to argue temperature is another parameter of volume, much as the properties of light are used to correlate distance and duration to make spacetime. Specifically that changing the volume of a given amount of gas will have an inverse effect on its temperature. So why doesn't anyone talk about spacetemperature?
Basically because we understand temperature is a property of activity, not some topological basis for it.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 21:05 GMT
Hi Paul,
You said "Time is not to any extent a "consequence of our own movement", or indeed any other action. I read your explanation of that sentence. I'm afraid it depends upon what you mean by "time" and how you define "reality", ie how/why you think time occurs and what you think reality is. Within your personal understanding of time , which I think is inadequately considered and your...
view entire post
Hi Paul,
You said "Time is not to any extent a "consequence of our own movement", or indeed any other action. I read your explanation of that sentence. I'm afraid it depends upon what you mean by "time" and how you define "reality", ie how/why you think time occurs and what you think reality is. Within your personal understanding of time , which I think is inadequately considered and your personal opinion of reality then you may be correct.The time experienced by the individual does depend upon the sensory data received because it is that data that is forming the present now-manifestation of reality.It depends on other things too such as speed of processing of the information , state of alertness, whether it is a life threatening situation.
Addressing your numbered points:
1 Pity you didn't understand the balls. The point was passage of time is about change of the whole universe simultaneously and not comparison of how one object changes position relative to another. Not how an observer measures an isolated change from his reference frame at his scale. It is the whole pattern of the object universe changing at all scales.
2 Obviously? Really? Good. You said "If they happen to be looking the other way, or a brick wall is in the path of the light, then..." Yes they do not see it. But that does not alter its independent object reality.
You then say -"Equally obviously, something that has been observed is in the observer's past." Glad it is obvious to you. Though I do not know what you think "the past" is. So we might actually be disagreeing on this point
You then say "And all this is in terms of observer perspective. But this is not reality."
If it is not reality then what is it? If you look in a dictionary it will most probably define reality as being that which is -seen-to exist, amongst other things. I have given several dictionary definitions of reality on this site as well as definitions of the terms object and image reality as I am using them. If we don't even agree on what is and isn't reality then it will be difficult to fully agree.
You said " ..... there are two existent states which we have no influence over. It is not a "manufactured" representation. That is the point, it exists BEFORE we/other organisms enter the process and "muck it up"(!) even more." Here you are misinterpreting my description of image reality from processing received data with the independently existing object reality. That is just misunderstanding.
You said "I turn round and there is my dog." No I perceive that there is my dog from the information received. I do not see dog object but observer constructed manifestation produced by my visual cortex using input data and memory conserning said dog.A fabricated representation.
You said " I am aware of him, because a) he is an independent existent entity, b) light emitting from him has enabled this. Then, and only then, do I come into play and interpret the information. I realise what your labels refer to, but personally, I see no point in an adjective preceeding reality. It is just that, reality."
Thats the problem, you do not see the point. It is -essential- that the output reality from sensory data is not equated to the source of the input as they are not identical. This separation of the facets of reality allows the Grandfather paradox to be overcome because it can be found from this separation that the time dimension only pertains to the manifestation output and not the source of the input.
You said "5 I do not understand your point, and do not want to get involved in simultaneity/ relativity." I'm afraid there is not much hope understanding how time woks if you don't want to think about relativity and non simultaneity. They are intimately involved in the conundrum.
And finally You said "........... all these observations could be regressed and would arrive at the same definition of reality, ie cat by point in time by specific point in space." Alas, if only it were that simple.
Georgina.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
GeorginaParry replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 01:37 GMT
John,
Re temperature. Go back to balls in the box analogy. There are two kinds of change going on simultaneously it seems to me. One is the change of position of everything together at all scales, whether the orbit of a satellite or the rotation of galaxy or of an electron. Thats the pushing the box along the floor. No choice about it everything goes together what ever scale it is at. Nothing can be left behind as everything is moving. Two fermions can not occupy the same space at the same time. And there is only 1 time here.If everything is moving everything has to get out of the way! Its as if the whole pattern has undergone rotation at all scales but apart from that is unchanged.
The other kind of change is the amount of change of individual objects within the universe. Which is how much the pattern of the universe itself has changed rather than just moved. Thats what happens when a ball is given a push, a force is applied, and the universe has to respond. The other balls have to move to accommodate the change of the pushed ball. This is the temperature component that you are talking about imo. The higher the temperature, the greater the changes of position of individual objects. The more change occurring, the more the overall pattern of the universe changes in that region, as the continual change of everything continues. High temp., lots of energy, lots of change , lots of alteration of the pattern. Low temp., less energy, less change, pattern remains and moves to new position IE is also present in the new iteration of the object universe.
I don't think the two different kinds of change can be separated out and one is the absolute time and the other isn't as they are occurring together as one complete process of transition between object universal arrangements/patterns. Arrangement1. arrangement2. arrangemt3.....
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 02:22 GMT
Georgina,
Yes, time and temperature cannot be physically separated, but the problems arise with how we conceive them. For one thing, we think of temperature as a dynamic. What we are measuring is the level of action. It would make no sense to try to consider that exact position of every molecule, since it is their motion we are measuring. On the other hand, with time, we try to mentally freeze frame the action, since we are trying to measure from one exact position to another. This mental conditioning eventually leads to static spacetime geometry.
Since a particle cannot be isolated from its motion, the idea of an exact position is moot. Which places limits on really exact measures of duration.
report post as inappropriate
GeorginaParry replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 03:57 GMT
John,
I suppose we are back to the question of whether the change of patten and pattern rotation is continuous or digital. Whether there is a minimum possible amount of change. Perhaps there isn't, and whenever it is thought to be as small as it can get there is a smaller scale to consider. Thats how it seems to be with fractal patterns. Pattern within pattern, within pattern at smaller and smaller scales.
Who knows what exists at such a tiny scale. Perhaps a pattern in free quarks within the medium of space, and beneath that within fragments of quarks....There are however minimum possible detectable changes, like the photon which I think is the minimum detectable disturbance of the medium of space caused by change in position of an electron. So the model ought to work down to that digital limitation. As otherwise it will have to use imaginary changes for which there is no evidence.
That is not to say that it is a digital object reality but that it can not yet be shown that it is not. Any change so small that it is unmeasurable/undetectable and has no discernible effect may as well be regarded provisionally as no change.I don't think it is what individual subatomic particles are doing that gives passage of time but what the whole universe is doing at all scales. Not those those minuscule sub atomic changes alone but the rotation, continuation and alteration of arrangement/pattern of the object universe as a whole.
report post as inappropriate
GeorginaParry replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 04:18 GMT
John,
you know its that quantum physics dilemma at the universal scale. Its a choice between position or momentum at the subatomic scale and at the universal scale it is a choice between spatial pattern/arrangement of the universe or energy/change of arrangement. Either a pattern can be considered or the transitions but they can not be considered as the same thing at the same time, even though in nature they are inseparable.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 09:56 GMT
Georgina,
True enough, but there are practical effects of whether we consider the measurement as fundamental, or whether what is being measured as being an effect of something fundamental. The notion of an expanding universe is built up from the assumption that photons are indivisible particles, rather than the smallest measurable quantity of light. Thus assuming they travel as particles and can only be redshifted by recession of the source, rather than as the sampling of a wave front that has been continuously expanding from the source.
I think the issue of the Higgs field will be a test of whether everything, even inertia, can be quantized.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 10:47 GMT
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 11:10 GMT
John
Your post 12/9 17.33
If I understand your question re temperature correctly, then the answer: because, even within the confines of our existence, we have no way of fixing an absolute for attributes such as temperature (or movement etc). They are all pervading, ie every entity exhibits it. So we can only establish temperature by comparison. When measuring this, or any similar attribute, what we are actually doing is saying A is different to B by Z units. But temperature is a real existent phenomena, that is why you can feel it.
Time is not of the same type as temperature. You cannot see, hear, feel, or in any physical sensory way, experience its existence. It has no existent state. What you experience is change. The state of an entity changes. As you know that one state must precede another, or only one state can exist at a time, then we can logically appreciate that our reality has a dimension to enable that. Duration is time, and this is not a point about relativity. Going back to earth rotates, one can express this, not in terms of time, but with comparison to another example of change. Example: whilst the earth rotates once, the average conifer tree grows 1mm in height. We are comparing change. Indeed, we could run the entire system in terms of conifer growth. That would be logically valid, just not practical, because conifer growth is not particularly constant and its frequency of variation is low. And it would be damned difficult to carry your own personal conifer (clock) around!!
In terms of perception, we certainly have a ‘bias’, or whatever other word one wants to use. We’ve evolved over millions of years. But science is supposed to differentiate reality from perception (deep seated or otherwise). In your comment about volume/gas/etc, you are confusing cause and effect. Measles has an effect, ie spots. We can define these and identify both the disease and its progress. But, if we get something wrong re symptoms, that does not alter the actual pathology of the disease. Neither is anyone suggesting the spots are the disease.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 12:18 GMT
Georgina
Your post of 12/9 21.05
1 It’s not a case of personal opinion. Time, as a dimension of our reality, exists, independently of us, so we cannot influence it in any way. Reality exists. My house exists, no amount of perception by me, or any other organism, will change its existent state. As I said, the time delay, between existence and realisation thereof, is dependent on the variables in the process. I don’t understand what point you are making there (assuming it is meant to be different to something I have said). One is the time as at existence, the other is the time as at realisation (however that is specifically defined).
2 I still do not understand your example with balls. Ultimately, one could argue that everything must have a connectivity with everything else. Whilst logically obvious, I am not sure where this can lead. This morning somebody, somewhere, chopped a tree down. Now, by tracing trillions of interrelated events I could probably, ultimately establish a connection with some impact on me. So? One has to deal with valid closed systems. There is no known connectivity between the act of fishing and plumbing. So someone can go fishing without this knowledge, they do however need a rod, etc, and to know where the river is, etc. But this may not have been your point.
3 I think one can safely say that the fact that the event has to exist before we can experience it is an ‘obvious’ statement. The answer to your question [“If it is not reality then what is it?”] is that it is perception, (or whatever one wants to label it, so long as its definition has a correlation with reality).
4 My point about the dog, and expressed elsewhere, was that there are two states before any organism is in anyway involved in the process, ie a) the existent state of reality, b) sensory representations thereof. We cannot see anything if there is no light based representation available, and that cannot exist if there is no reality. I’m lost as to how you think I am failing to see the differentiation of the various ‘realities’ (whatever label is applied), because it is precisely what I keep on about. But this might have something to do with the conceptualisation of time
5 In terms of relativity and simultaneity, I was trying to not generate a whole other debate. However….please read the following references first, then tell me how time ‘fits in’. Lorentz 1892, paras 3 6 7 8. Lorentz 1895, section 6. Lorentz 1904, paras 1 8 10 11. Poincaré (July) 1905, introduction. Einstein 1925, para 4 5.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 16:09 GMT
Paul,
"You cannot see, hear, feel, or in any physical sensory way, experience its existence. It has no existent state. What you experience is change. The state of an entity changes. As you know that one state must precede another, or only one state can exist at a time, then we can logically appreciate that our reality has a dimension to enable that. Duration is time, and this is not a point about relativity.
As I keep pointing out, we do perceive one state preceding another, but does the present move from past to future, or do those states go future to past? To repeat a previous example of the question, does the earth really travel that dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does the constantly changing situation, including the rotation of the earth, turn tomorrow into yesterday?
I can understand that when one views time simply as the linear progression from one event to the next, time does have the appearance of such a vector. It's the conceptual basis of history and all such narrative by which we define ourselves, but is that timeline physically foundational, or an effect of more foundational processes?
I rather suspect that if you told the average person of a thousand years ago, that the earth is rotating relative to the sun and not that the sun moves across the heavens, they would look at you as if your head was on backwards. Obviously the sun moves across the sky!!!! What world are you from? Haven't you stood outside and watched it come up in the east and set in the west? The fact is that is how we do perceive it, even today, but know we know it is because it is the earth rotating not the sun moving.
Now above, you make the observation; "As you know that one state must precede another, or only one state can exist at a time, then we can logically appreciate that our reality has a dimension to enable that. Duration is time." What you are saying is that obviously time is movement from past to future.
That is what we experience, just as we experience the sun moving across the sky from east to west, but what causes this experience? Does the present moment move along that dimension? Or does the physical activity cause transitions within the present? If you can accept that it is really transitions within the present, then that "dimension" must exist within the present as well, but only as memory and projection.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 16:49 GMT
Paul,
It is not a "whole other debate" to bring up time's place in mathematics and physics, it is quite on point and important to understanding just what time fundamentally is. I believe you have placed far too much importance to the human sensory angle, too many attempts to "strip away" what is actually more important. I do not think you can form an equivalence of sorts between the reality of time and the reality of one's tush "in a chair", a river, your dog, etc. etc. Time is a bit more ethereal than that.
After you "strip away" what I would consider the more important issues, you are left with nothing more than the obvious, that all of us understand as human beings, perhaps not so appropriate for this blog dedicated to fundamental issues in math and physics.
Rick
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 13, 2011 @ 22:39 GMT
Paul,
1 You said "It's not a case of personal opinion. Time, as a dimension of our reality, exists..." Statement of your belief.If you mean by "our reality" that which is experienced then I agree. You then said "...independently of us, so we cannot influence it in any way". The time dimension does not have independent existence in the object universe but is formed by the observer...
view entire post
Paul,
1 You said "It's not a case of personal opinion. Time, as a dimension of our reality, exists..." Statement of your belief.If you mean by "our reality" that which is experienced then I agree. You then said "...independently of us, so we cannot influence it in any way". The time dimension does not have independent existence in the object universe but is formed by the observer observing. It exists only in the output reality. It depends upon the observer observing and the perception of the observer can be that the passage of time is variable according to input data. It is the path through space that influences what data will be input to form each present-now experience.
The variable speed of passage of time according to observer perception is not a part of the model under discussion, though it might be considered as an extension of it. It is certainly not incompatible. Variable passage of time is a part if the reality experienced by the observer and therefore should not be denied its factual occurrence, on the grounds of incorrectly applied theoretical ideas.
There are two things going on. Passage of time due to change of arrangement of the independently existing reality and relativity in space-time due to the temporal artifact resulting from data transmission delay.
2. You said "I still do not understand your example with balls." It is a model of what is happening at the foundational level of reality and has come from the descriptions of how time occurs, that are being used.
You said "Ultimately, one could argue that everything must have a connectivity with everything else. Whilst logically obvious, I am not sure where this can lead."
"OK the balls in a box are an analogy. So not actually what is going on but a concrete way of thinking about an abstract idea. It goes with a model that allows a partial non determinism and so some free will. For that to happen there has to be an -unwritten- future coming into being. Thats what the balls are representing. With this going on -as well as- the transmission of EM data producing the space-time experienced reality, it is then possible to have both relativity and non simultaneity but no Grandfather paradox. Also pre-written futures (sensory data in environment ) but also free will and uni-directional causality and one way time.Its actually a big deal.
You said There is no known connectivity between the act of fishing and plumbing."Certainly there is a connection if the fisherman is a plumber and he misses my appointment because he is out on the river.
3. You said "I think one can safely say that the fact that the event has to exist before we can experience it is an "obvious" statement.""OK though I would prefer "had to have occurred" as it then ceases to exist as an arangement of the object universe and only the sensory data produced from it remains in the environment.
You said "The answer to your question ["If it is not reality then what is it?"] is that it is perception, (or whatever one wants to label it, so long as its definition has a correlation with reality)." OK as I was saying then "Image reality". That is what I want to label it. It shows that it is still a part of reality, agrees with people who consider what they see to -be- reality; but differentiates it from that which exists independently from the transmission of sensory data and observer experience.
4. You said " My point about the dog, and expressed elsewhere, was that there are two states before any organism is in anyway involved in the process, ie a) the existent state of reality, b) sensory representations thereof. We cannot see anything if there is no light based representation available, and that cannot exist if there is no reality. I'm lost as to how you think I am failing to see the differentiation of the various "realities" (whatever label is applied), because it is precisely what I keep on about. But this might have something to do with the conceptualization of time."
OK. I think we are agreeing on the basic concept of an observer independent reality but you are not clearly differentiating between source of input to observer- and output. It may seem a minor and irrelevant point but it is very significant for answering the foundational questions and overcomiong the time paradoxes.
a)the existent arrangement in space independent of observer perception.- Dog object. b)The EM data reflected from dog in data pool within the environment independent of observer - Potential sensory data. { a) and b) are the independent reality, called Object reality, by me.} input-[ REALITY INTERFACE ]-output c). The observed output, produced -by the observer- from received data input, temporally delayed and otherwise altered by the process -the Manifestation, -experienced- as existing in external reality - Dog image reality output.
5.You said "In terms of relativity and simultaneity, I was trying to not generate a whole other debate." Good. We experience reality due to receipt and processing of data, that has been transmitted but with non infinite data transmission speed. So there is a temporal component of the experienced reality resulting from that. Therefore relativity and non simultaneity are a part of the output image reality.
Paul thank you so much for taking the time to consider these ideas.I really do appreciate it. I am sorry to disagree with you on so many points. For the model to work to answer the foundational questions and overcome the paradoxes it has to be precisely understood and applied. To ensure that it is precisely understood it is necessary to be pedantic about the language used and the way in which temporal terms are applied in particular.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 00:48 GMT
John,
I just want to rewind back to this.
"John,
you know its that quantum physics dilemma at the universal scale. Its a choice between position or momentum at the subatomic scale and at the universal scale it is a choice between spatial pattern/arrangement of the universe or energy/change of arrangement. Either a pattern can be considered or the transitions but they can not...
view entire post
John,
I just want to rewind back to this.
"John,
you know its that quantum physics dilemma at the universal scale. Its a choice between position or momentum at the subatomic scale and at the universal scale it is a choice between spatial pattern/arrangement of the universe or energy/change of arrangement. Either a pattern can be considered or the transitions but they can not be considered as the same thing at the same time, even though in nature they are inseparable."GP
I think this is important because there is a problem with QM not scaling up. Here however something seen in QM -is- scaling up to the object universal scale.
Also the very fact that it is not possible separate change from the pattern it forms or vice versa, and have them existing independently is important, I think.
It means that particles really ought not to be considered as zero dimensional points. Something which Eckard feels strongly to be a mistake from a mathematical viewpoint. I think he is correct because the zero dimensional point vanishes where as what we have is something in transition between those imaginary zero dimensional points. A minute 1 dimensional line.If you make the line so small it becomes a one dimensional point the realism of the model has been destroyed; because it no longer represents the energy component and the transition. So that it is made from hypothetical particle lines not points is as important as the pattern.
At each step in the sequence the line has moved but might be considered to touch or overlap the line of the previous step. Now the becoming, the energy, is included in the representation of what is. It does mean that the position can not be absolutely defined but it would seem that absolute position is incompatible with a universe where everything is locked into perpetual change, moving on and becoming.
Superposition in QM may be confusing the desire for a static absolute position of an object with a continual change, as the arrangement of the universe continually alters at every scale. Where a particle is detected will depend upon the arrangement of the universe, at that scale, when the detection occurs. It is only observer perspective that makes some things appear static and others to appear to be in motion. The earth is moving and so therefore is the cup on my desk. It is that human perspective that drives the desire to give things static measured positions in space-time.
Everything must be changing spatial position. Like the balls in the box. Shift the box and everything goes together. Move one and the others must accommodate the change. Everything is changing position faster at that tiny scale. There is a lot of energy, accentuating the changing of position; but it is not different from what is occurring at the larger scales just faster. Larger objects move more slowly- but they have more inertia, more resistance to change of trajectory. (So scale is not just about size but amount of change occurring.)
Then quantum de-coherence is an observer imposing a static viewpoint of position/state of being from received data/detection. That reality being formed from the detection/received data. The reality -imposed by the observer- only comes into being upon detection but what was, which may have been more variable over time/change of arrangement of the universe, still had reality in space independently of the observer. Spread not over a Multi-verse but different iterations of the Object universe, existing and then being superseded in sequence.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 01:10 GMT
PS. Wouldn't be right to join all of the minute lines into strings because only the youngest of the sequence exists.IE where it is within the existent arrangement/iteration of the object universe,so not including any former ones. Though such a string would be an imaginary historical path through space of a single object.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 02:26 GMT
Georgina,
That's very much my view as well. Consider:
"It is only observer perspective that makes some things appear static and others to appear to be in motion."
The implications of this. Think in terms of a camera, where the faster the shutter speed, the clearer a moving object appears, but the slower the shutter speed, the more its motion is chronicled. How different is than saying that both position and velocity cannot be measured at the same time.
The moving object appears smeared out and not as substantial than the static object, yet they are obviously the same object. It is both wave and particle.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 10:40 GMT
John
Your post 13/9 16.09
1 We are aware of existent states succeeding one another. Previous (the past) states precede the current (now) state, which exist before those states which have yet to come into existence (future). Assuming the medium conveying this information to us has an adequate frequency and a reasonable consistency of travel, then our perception will accord, fundamentally, with this. In other words, in the information we receive the states will be in the order that they existed in, and, at least, we will be aware of a substantial proportion of the existent states in that order. If not, given known experience, we could re-order the received states and/or fill in the gaps.
2 People can view time in any way they want to. It is its existent reality that is important. It is, to use your words, ‘physically foundational’. It exists, as a dimension, independently of us, we are aware logically of its existence because entities change in state.
3 Your next example proves my point. For very understandable reasons, based on lack of information, or deemed connectivity between entities which are not actually existant, etc, etc, people can come up with depictions of reality which are not in accord with it. But they are depictions/perception/whatever, not reality. Indeed, in existential terms, science can only ever be a ‘depiction’, but the aim is to ensure it accords with reality as far as possible within the limitations of our existence.
4 There is only one present moment, so it does not ‘move’, neither can there be ‘physical activity within it’. We experience the sun in a series of spatial positions which indicate that wrt……etc. But this is all about spatial position, spatial dimension and movement, not time. It is purely the fact that the sun has changed, in this example in terms of relative position, which indicates time. There is a change in existent state. The fact that it glows at different rates of brightness is another indicator. Change has occurred.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 10:53 GMT
Rick
Your post 13/9 16.49
I am not sure I said that in respect of mathematics/physics, and anyway, I am certainly not placing ‘too much importance on the human sensory angle’. Quite the opposite. As I keep on saying, it is an existent dimension of reality, and we can logically infer it to be so because we experience change. This all refers to a physical, real, process.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 11:02 GMT
fqxi 8th may 2009
"My hunch is that this ability of the system itself to grow new parts is a fundamental aspect of the nature of spacetime and the vacuum that we have so far missed in physics," explains Jacobson, a physicist at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Armed with a $82,127 grant from the Foundational Questions Institute, Jacobson is now working on that hunch to address two basic questions: How can we modify the laws of physics to allow for this growth, and could we possibly see signs of this underlying discreteness in weird phenomena such as dark energy?
I see some correspondence between what has been discussed in these recent posts with the view expressed in the paragraphs above. There must be new arrangements of objects and substance coming into being, (though not directly into space-time but in space).That component of the explanatory model is necessary , it gives the open future necessary for temporally "uni-directionl" causality, "uni-directional" passage of time and potential free will. Yes so far missed as the space-time continuum has been assumed to be complete from beginning to end.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 11:17 GMT
Paul,
do not concern yourself with the human sensory angle if you think it complicates matters or is irrelevant. The different facets of reality also apply to artificial detectors. Source of input is not identical to output. That is the important matter. Yes it is all reality, but to answer the questions and overcome the paradoxes the differentiation between that part of reality which is the source of input and that part of reality (the output) created from change occurring when data is input, has to be made. The human sensory angle is just being used because that is what we experience. The structure and function of living organisms is more familiar to me but we might just as well talk about the camera or other recording device.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 11:49 GMT
FQXi Grants 2010 "Lee Smolin $47,500 Project Summary
The question of whether time is real or an illusion lies at the root of several of the most fundamental unsolved problems in physics and cosmology today. These include the problem of quantum gravity, which is the problem of unifying the physics of the quantum with the physics of spacetime, the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the problem of how the laws of physics, which are observed to govern our universe, were selected. In this proposal we investigate the consequences for these problems of the hypothesis that time is real and part of the fundamental organization of nature."
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 12:00 GMT
$102,263 " FQXi Grant 2010 Craig Callender
Project Summary
"There is a gap between what we might call the 'manifest' and 'scientific' images of time. Physics sees time as like space. Yet experience regards them very differently: we behave as if the future is unreal, the present special, and time fundamentally directed. These features affect the way we live our lives; for instance, we dread future pain but feel relief when pain is past. Hence there is a significant gap between time as represented by experience and by physics. Closing this gap is the goal of my research. My work shows that time in physics is surprisingly different than space, even when united into spacetime -- despite conventional wisdom. In a very precise sense, physics is able to tell better narratives (make better predictions and explanations) in the timelike direction than spacelike directions. Our macroscopic environments then latch onto this difference to make a representation of time as different than space most natural. By looking at an interdisciplinary mix of fields, including cognitive science, evolution, and philosophy of time, I explain why we believe that there is a common now and also why we care more about the future than past."
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 12:07 GMT
Georgina
Your post 13/9 22.39
1 My point about opinion is that as reality exists independently of us, then only one description of that is correct, scientifically. Our reality referred to the existent reality we inhabit, ie that which is potentially experienceable by all organisms. This equates to your Object Reality. Time is not ‘formed’ by the observer observing. It has to be...
view entire post
Georgina
Your post 13/9 22.39
1 My point about opinion is that as reality exists independently of us, then only one description of that is correct, scientifically. Our reality referred to the existent reality we inhabit, ie that which is potentially experienceable by all organisms. This equates to your Object Reality. Time is not ‘formed’ by the observer observing. It has to be logically inferred, but that is a reflection of the fact that it is a dimension. It is an intrinsic feature of reality, we do not in any way create it. The perception of the timing and duration of events is another matter.
2 There is a passage of time in reality. Entities change. We can deploy a measuring system to quantify it and enable comparisons of disparate types of change. Relativity is based on the hypothesis that all matter alters in dimension with movement, ie once there is relative movement this effect has to be accounted for. This is not only true of itself, but that then has an impact on the speed of light, which is in addition susceptible to influence depending upon the medium it is travelling in irrespective of relative motion. In a sentence, a whole other layer of complex interference to understand when trying to discern the existent reality which instigated a representation which ultimately resulted in a perception.
3 Your point about the fisherman and plumbing proves the point I was making. Ultimately anything must have a connectivity with something else, because, like the balls in the box, everything is within a confine ie existence). But this is a pointless abstraction, because it has lost all sense of context. In terms of going fishing, the man does not need to know about plumbing. In terms of being contactable, whether he has gone fishing, down the pub, or whatever, is an entirely different matter. It’s a matter of appropriate closed systems and reference points.
4 I am aware that your label is Image Reality. Ultimately the labels do not matter, so long as they relate to some existent aspect of reality. However, as said previously, personally I prefer reality, since there is only one of those. And perception, because there are trillions of these, ranging from the accurate to the stupid. So whilst they may be considered reality to the individual, I feel that is somewhat stretching the intrinsic meaning of the word. Also, image relates to only one of many senses upon which a perception may be based.
5 I am differentiating the various levels. You are including the existent sensory representations of reality in reality (your word Object Reality). This is incorrect. The sensory representations of reality are precisely that, representations. They are not reality. We do not see, hear, feel, etc, reality. We sense a representation based on the properties of the medium conveying the information to us. It may be selective, etc. We have no influence over its existence, so as I previously said, one could attribute this with a reality tag. But they have to be considered to be a different existent phenomena from the reality which instigated its existence. Now, in practical terms, this may not matter for a lot of science. But sometimes it will. And we must be aware of this differentiation (which is then further interfered with in a process of experience) to be able to make the proper choice as to whether to ignore it or not.
6 I have stated what relativity is concerned with above, and that is what those references referred to. But this is not what you are saying.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
Georgina
Your post 15/9 11.17
I am not concerning myself with the sensory angle, or at least not in the way that I was represented as doing so.
Technology is irrelevant in the logic of what is being said. So long as we are aware of any potential effects it can have in the process of experience, we can then discount them, in the sense that they in anyway interfere with a representation of reality. And, ultimately an organism has to experience the output of technology.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
$110,397 FQXi Grant 2010 Stefano Pironio, Jonathan Barrett
"Project summary
It is common to be in a state of bewilderment after reading a popular account of quantum theory. After all, physicists and philosophers are still trying to make sense out of the numerous puzzles and paradoxes of the theory, such as Schrodinger's cat, the impossibility of determining unambiguously the polarization state of a photon by measuring it, or the mysterious faster-than-light connection between distant particles. It is rarely stressed, though, that these weird quantum effects are deeply connected to issues about the nature of time. If Schrodinger's cat must end up alive or dead, it is hard to maintain a time-reversible picture of quantum evolution. A measurement apparatus able to determine the polarization state of an arbitrary photon would contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The spooky action-at-a-distance between quantum particles can be accounted for if the future can influence the past. What does quantum theory tell us about time? Can facts about time help us interpret the mathematical formalism of quantum theory or understand why Nature chose this theory? We will address these questions in the context of a very new area of research, wherein probabilistic models more general than quantum theory are developed.. "
NB The phrase above - "It is rarely stressed, though, that these weird quantum effects are deeply connected to issues about the nature of time. If Schrodinger's cat must end up alive or dead, it is hard to maintain a time-reversible picture of quantum evolution."
It won't be time reversible because the time reversible bit of the model relates to observer produced reality and not the foundational unobserved reality where passage of time, through continual reiteration of the object universe is occurring. That is along an imaginary historical time line not the hypothetically time reversible time dimension of space-time.
All of these research projects relate to the ideas we have been discussing here.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 14:29 GMT
Paul,
"4 There is only one present moment, so it does not ‘move’, neither can there be ‘physical activity within it’. We experience the sun in a series of spatial positions which indicate that wrt……etc. But this is all about spatial position, spatial dimension and movement, not time. It is purely the fact that the sun has changed, in this example in terms of relative position, which indicates time. There is a change in existent state. The fact that it glows at different rates of brightness is another indicator. Change has occurred."
No, there isn't a "present moment." There is what is present, ie. physically manifest. Much of it is light and other forms of radiation, moving around far faster than we can mentally process. In order to function, we have to create a series of mental images from this constant energetic environment, called thoughts. So it is natural to think in terms of "moments," ie frames of perception. Think of it in terms of taking pictures. Much like a movie camera, we stitch together multiple images, rather then trying to process the information wholistically, because trying to understand all the input without this process of breaking it into coherent units would be like trying to take a picture with the shutter left open. It would just be a blur of indistinguishable input. Yet those pictures, what we consider as "moments" are not dimensionless points in time, because that would be like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. There would be nothing recorded. Yet within any picture, light comes from different sources. If we take a picture of stars, some of the light might be coming from the planets and be a few minutes since it was reflected off the surface, while that from other galaxies would have been traveling for many millions of years. The duration of that travel is a measure of the physical process of light traversing space. Yes, there are innumerable units we can use to measure duration against, but they are all relative to physical conditions, not some underlaying dimension of time. There is no foundational dimension of time. It is real, but emerges from motion in space.
Time is a measure of change, not that change is a measure of time. That is why it is future events becoming past events, rather than the present "moment" as a point moving along the time dimension.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 16:06 GMT
Georgina
Your post 15/9 13.37, reproduced below to bring it back into the right thread:
1." My" object reality is not experience- able at all. But is the source of the data from which an experience can be produced. Different observers can receive data from the same sources and produce different experiences of it. There are lots of different types of time and when the term time is...
view entire post
Georgina
Your post 15/9 13.37, reproduced below to bring it back into the right thread:
1." My" object reality is not experience- able at all. But is the source of the data from which an experience can be produced. Different observers can receive data from the same sources and produce different experiences of it. There are lots of different types of time and when the term time is used, without clarification of which type, it gets confusing. We are talking about 3 different kinds. Time the dimension, passage of time due to changes to the arrangement of the universe and time as experienced by a human being.
I have been in a car crash and time definitely and dramatically slows. That may be anecdotal but many other people have reported similar experience. What is happening in that space, the sensory data input, when processed by the brain produces the output effect of time slowing. Same day, approx. same time 6feet to the left, time would be experienced to be running normally. With respect I do not think it is an entirely different matter because the difference between output reality and source of input is very important.
2 OK I agree, a number of different things are going on. Changes in the arrangement of the universe, inc. changes to objects; and effects upon sensory data within the environment and the role of observer reference frame upon the data intercepted.
3 I didn't think the fisherman was a pointless abstraction but amusing. With respect I still don't think you have understood the significance of the point I was trying to make. Its about there being an open future coming into being everywhere at once, not some parts of the universe being at one time others at another and other bits somewhere else in time. Everything progresses along its universal trajectory together. The whole universe is as one. Its not about where the man has his lunch but that wherever he does he will still be a part of the uni-temporal universe on the way home.
4 You said "I am aware that your label is Image Reality. Ultimately the labels do not matter, so long as they relate to some existent aspect of reality. However, as said previously, personally I prefer reality, since there is only one of those. "
Then it gets ambiguous and difficult to converse meaningfully. I have tried using the term subjective reality but it was unacceptable because corroborated subjective reality is considered objective in science. I have tried saying perception, though with the intended meaning of the image of reality observed, and it is met with the response- perception is irrelevant to physics go and discuss consciousness. I need to use a term that expresses the intended meaning. Until now no one has had a problem with Image reality.
I am aware that image refers to optical phenomena however we are primarily visual creatures and space-time and relativity deals with EM. Other senses could be included in the discussions and the specific term used but it is not necessary to discuss or refer to all of the senses every time IMO. I could I suppose just call it output reality.I do sometimes use several different terms for the same thing to ensure that I have got across what I am talking about.
5 This is just ridiculous because we are agreeing that the representation is not the same as the source of the representation. But now you are saying that my image reality is my object reality. No. You have misunderstood how I am differentiating them. You are also contradicting yourself, You are calling the representations existent and then saying they are not reality.
There is only one reality you have said so yourself. I am calling it the Entirety of reality.There is nowhere else for anything to exist other than within that Entirety. The human being and his brain is within it, the brain wave activity is within it, and the space-time experience of the observer (generated by it IMO) is within it. So is the unobserved source of all sensory input, the objects, substance and media and the sensory data and its medium of transmission which are the object reality.
6 You said "I have stated what relativity is concerned with above, and that is what those references referred to. But this is not what you are saying."
I may not be talking about what is within those specific references.I am trying to explain what I am doing -because it works- not what other people did which may or may not work. Like you I do also have a life outside of this web site, believe it or not. It looked like a lot of homework to find all of them, read them, think about them and comment on them one by one. So I'll pass on that instruction for now.
My response to the above post:
1(a) If your Object Reality is not experienceable, then how does anybody know about it? But I have re-read your definitions, and maybe this is something else, so a) what precisely is it, b) if it is not reality, then what is it?
1(b) There are not different types of time. As I keep on saying, time is a real dimension of an existent reality. Just like reality itself, its existence is not amenable to alteration. Perception of time can be subject to physiological/phychological ‘quirks’, but that is perception, not reality. The timing of perception will be different because there is a time delay between existence and receipt/processing of information (leaving aside relativity, ie matter dimension alteration). There is also the possibility of a ‘doppler’ effect. Think on the following:
Light is the information medium in an experience based on sight. As light travels, there is a delay between the existence of a state and its perception. That delay will vary as a function of the individual spaces involved, and the speed with which the light travelled in each experience. Whilst the perceived order of sequence will never vary, assuming that light has a reasonable degree of constancy of movement (ie is not fundamentally erratic).
The perceived rate of change of a sequence will remain the same, so long as the on-going relative spatial position remains constant amongst everything involved. Because, while the value of the delay is different depending on each individual space, it remains constant. However, when relative individual space is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which individual spaces are altering. It is a perceptual illusion. The intrinsic rate of change in reality in the sequence being experienced does not alter, either in order to create this effect, or as a consequence of this effect being realised.
2 /3 It was not the fisherman that was ‘pointless’, but the portraying of the entirety of our existence as one interconnected whole (ie box of balls). The future does not come into being everywhere at once, in the sense that that sentence implies. At a subsequent point in time, which was the future, a new reality exists. It comprises the totality of last states in sequences of change, which may be connected in some instances, but mostly are not. For example, my dog is still in the same spatial position (lazy bugger), but during that time a plane has gone overhead ( I heard it, being in Wapping planes for Heathrow are now slowing up and quite low). What I am saying has nothing to do with time. Reality consists of entities, all of which are undergoing various changes, which happen at different rates. At any point in time, reality just consists of the last state in all the sequences. Everything does not progress ‘along its universal trajectory, or be as one’, how can it? There is only one timescale for reality, but I’m not sure that is what you mean. In your definitions I cannot see what a ‘uni-temporal universe’ is.
4 It can be slightly difficult, but so long as the labels refer to something that is valid, that does not matter. Apart from any common day meanings attached to the words subjective and objective, their ‘validity’ depends on the reference point and context. And I can understand some of the reactions you describe. Which are actually stupid. Because perception, and individual perception at that, is all we have at the outset. So it is not irrelevant to physics, or indeed anything else. Consciousness, is a factor because obviously the way in which the brain works, has an influence on input to output. But we would never assess any perception if we regressed every one back through the entire process.
5 I am not sure I have. Your Image Reality refers to the ‘manifestation output formed by an observer’. My sensory representations are the existent, real, phenomena that enable us to experience (see, hear, etc) reality. But they are not reality. And we have not become involved yet. There is reality, then medium based sensory representations thereof, then eyeballs/ears/etc. Example: colour does not exist in reality, a certain molecular structure does, light ‘encodes’ this in some way, that is translated by eyes in combination with brain (forget the exactness of those words, but hope you get the meaning). As I said before, we may choose to ignore the differentiation, or it might not matter, but it is imperative that we understand that we are not directly experiencing reality, but a representation of it, which is subject to the properties of the medium enabling it.
6 I am not sure what your point means. You kept referring to relativity (and simultaneity), so I posted relevant references which describe what the effect which relativity seeks to explain is about. And indeed, then said it anyway, in responding to some other point.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 16:22 GMT
Schrodinger's Cat.
Both the cat and the Geiger counter would detect the state of reality as and when it occurred. Our observation at a later stage would enable a deduction as to what happened, but it certainly did not create reality. The cat either died or it continued to live. Questions about its possible state before we experienced it, are irrelevant metaphysical concerns arising from confusion over the nature of reality, and our interrelationship with it. We might not be able to determine the exact state of an elementary particle, but it had one.
Apart from denying the fact that the cat was capable of experiencing reality itself anyway. That is, if it is assumed that, just for the sake of the argument, there were prior alternative ‘realities’, then under the logic of this (incorrect) proposition it actually would be the cat that ‘caused’ the event (unless we assume that the Geiger counter also has some form of ‘life’), and not us, who only observed it after it had occurred. With or without a friend present.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 16:56 GMT
John
Your post 15/9 14.29.
You used the phrase ‘present moment’, not me.
There is at any point a currently existent state. It is not ‘mostly light, etc’ (your words). It is sub-atomic particles in a vast array of combinations. The light you are referring to is the light based representations of aforesaid reality, which enables us to see. There are air waves, etc, etc, as well. These are real existent entities, but not, reality.
How we biologically process these stimuli, how consciousness works, etc, etc, I have no idea. Do you? All I do know is that these are variables within the entire process of experience. So one notes them as being areas where, what was originally a reality, might get further ‘distorted’.
This may be more semantics than anything. But the units (of time) are not ‘all relative to physical conditions rather than some underlying dimension of time’. Reality has its own intrinsic timescale, which is manifest through disparate entity change. We can apply any form of unit we like to measure it. Obviously, the best one would be one with a very high degree of frequency and constancy, so that it was capable of differentiating very fast sequences of change, or great variabilities in the rate of change from one state to another within a sequence. Neither does time ‘emerge from motion in space’. Or at least, only in so far as motion is an example of change. Colour/texture alteration, sound, etc, etc, are also examples of change. And it is change that means there is time. One could reduce everything to movement, but that is not particularly useful and I doubt if it’s what you meant.
I did not say ‘change is a measure of time’. Time is logically inferable because, and only because, we experience change. Change involves subsequent states. Time reflects the dimension within which these subsequent states occur. But it is not spatial, because only one state (the last) exists at any one point in time
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 17:48 GMT
Paul,
"Reality has its own intrinsic timescale, which is manifest through disparate entity change."
Would that timescale exist, if there was no change, no activity?
"Change involves subsequent states. Time reflects the dimension within which these subsequent states occur."
This goes to my original argument: You see what is physically present as moving along/"within" that dimension, while I see that dimension as a conceptual projection of change within what is physically present.
Does the earth move along that dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday due to the rotation of this planet, relative to its star?
The normal notion is that the present does move along that dimension and it was to modify Newton's assertion of an "absolute flow of time," that the geometry of four dimensional spacetime evolved, to incorporate variable clock rates.
You do seem to see only the present as physically real, but spacetime requires the time dimension to be physically real, ie. "blocktime" and a simultaneous present to be illusionary, such that all events are as physically real as all other events, in that geometry.
What Georgina and I have been arguing is how to have a physically real present, with spacetime as a mathematical model of events, not the foundation on which they reside.
So before totally dismissing our argument, examine the conceptual lengths the theory of General Relativity must go, in order to sustain the existence of a foundational dimension of time.
As for Schrodinger's cat, if you consider the events as creating the direction of time, it makes more sense. It is the collapse of probabilities and their consequences which creates the flow of events. The quantum decay decides the release of poison, which decides the fate of the cat, etc. The probabilities are in the future, until they collapse and the results are the effect. Otherwise, when we go along that past to future timeline, from when the cat is definitely alive, to the probability of it being either dead or alive, it doesn't work, because the timeline doesn't decide the events, the events decide the timeline.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT
Paul ,
The object reality (unobserved) exists independently of the observer.( We are agreeing upon this, we are not arguing that reality only comes into existence upon observation) The cat is alive or dead. But as it is unobserved its state is unknown.Upon observation the data available is used to form the reality known/experienced by the observer. It becomes manifest rather then just...
view entire post
Paul ,
The object reality (unobserved) exists independently of the observer.( We are agreeing upon this, we are not arguing that reality only comes into existence upon observation) The cat is alive or dead. But as it is unobserved its state is unknown.Upon observation the data available is used to form the reality known/experienced by the observer. It becomes manifest rather then just actualized.
I am using these particular words to differentiate between an arrangement of the universe that -is- unobserved, from a former (or continuing -pattern-) of arrangement of the universe that is known or experienced from received data. It might sound pedantic and unnecessary to use those terms but it is very helpful when one tries to ascertain the direction of change and how various other temporal terms relate to the actualization and the manifestation.
You said to John "There is at any point a currently existent state."
This is something that John ad I have been discussing recently. It would seem that the notion of a zero dimensional point is incompatible with the nature of reality that -is- (rather than is just experienced/observed.) Which is that nothing is static and therefore by assigning it to a zero dimensional point eliminates a vital aspect of what it is , something in transition across/through space. Though a zero dimensional point might be compatible with a hypothetical eternal unchanging space-time it is not compatible with a reality in which there is a continual becoming allowing freewill, unidirectional causality and passage of time.
Overcoming the grandfather paradox, while also fitting with observations, and not relying upon supernatural agents or realms: There has to be a time dimension and relativity. However if the existent reality only ever has its youngest form and the others have ceased to exist (being moved or recycled) the time dimension does not exist as a parameter of a reality consisting of objects and substance-. Instead the time dimension is part of the reality constructed by the observer, not that which exists independently. Therefore although it can be said that there is a time dimension and it can be demonstrated experimentally it can not be traveled along. There is only uni-temporal reality of objects and substance in space. So no paradox.
Those past and future realms have no existence made of things and stuff.
Instead the data from which they are constructed persists within the environment after the source of it has ceased to exit, as it was, having been moved or recycled. Whether the output reality, formed(or to be formed) by that data is the past, or a present, or a future, depends upon the observers relationship to it. Not what it is intrinsically, of itself. When it has been experienced the event becomes the past for that observer. if it is currently experienced it is a present-now, if it is yet to be experienced but is an event that has already occurred unobserved it is a pre-written future for that observer.
The Grandfather paradox might seem an irrelevant curiosity of physics that can be explained away in other ways. Such as jumping between paths on different parallel universes of the multi-verse at the appropriate time. Or just something that demonstrates the paradoxical nature of reality. However it is my opinion that it is the result of applying a mathematically complete but physically incomplete model to the reality of nature. By taking into account both that which exists independently of the observer and that which requires the interaction of an observer, the paradox can be overcome.
It also gives a way for the mathematics (not the current interpretations), of QM and relativity, to co-exist as idealized descriptions of reality/nature. Rather than being contradictory. It also, as I have mentioned before, answers the questions about the arrow of time, allows uni-directional causality co existing with non simultaneity, and the uni-directional passage of time along with relativity. It allows there to be a pre-written future but also incomplete determinism and freewill. Answering some very tricky foundational questions.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 19:56 GMT
John
Your post 15/9 17.48.
[Nothing on TV til Brian Connolly, so here I am!! Mind, Brian Wilson tomorrow night at the Festival Hall]
That timescale (or time) would not exist if there was no change. But then neither would reality. By definition you must see (or in any other way, sense) what was (not is) currently in existence. That is the definition of existence, it existed in a state which enables to us experience it (albeit later because the information has to travel from it to us). You sense what was a current existence, the time lag being dependent on several variables. Not sure why you keep asking that point about the earth.
There is no such thing as a 4 dimensional space. What is in this fourth dimension? Reality only exists in one state at any one point in time. Or the question would be, where are these alternative existent states, how many are ‘stored’, over what duration, what is the mechanism that ‘deletes’ states? Otherwise one is going to end up with every existent state still in existence. That is, although the cat is now dead and rotting in the ground, existent states that occurred when it walked across the garden are still existent, somewhere!!!
What I am saying is that it is the present that physically exists, now. Everything else either existed, or will come into existence. I am not sure what GR has to do with this, though I haven’t read it. The effect on time is a consequence in SR. The effect being a change in dimension of matter with movement (so relative movement shows it up and it has to be accounted for when comparing things). On the other side of the equation they incorrectly deemed the ether had no effect and held light speed constant in idealistic circumstances (which in itself is not a fault, one often neutralises one variable in the mix in order to isolate others).
There is no such thing as ‘collapse’ or ‘probabilities’ in reality. The fundamental logic of reality and our relationship with it does not suddenly alter on the basis of atomic size. The events are all you have.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 21:11 GMT
Paul,
By no "probabilities" in reality, do you think of reality as entirely deterministic?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Paul,
You said "1(a) If your Object Reality is not experienceable, then how does anybody know about it? But I have re-read your definitions, and maybe this is something else, so a) what precisely is it, b) if it is not reality, then what is it?"
No one can experience the object reality directly because instead we form a representation from sensory data emitted or reflected from...
view entire post
Dear Paul,
You said "1(a) If your Object Reality is not experienceable, then how does anybody know about it? But I have re-read your definitions, and maybe this is something else, so a) what precisely is it, b) if it is not reality, then what is it?"
No one can experience the object reality directly because instead we form a representation from sensory data emitted or reflected from it. a) The actual things and stuff. We can not know it directly so it is very difficult to say with certainty what it is. It may be accumulations of what ever is there within a more diffuse medium/media. Or it could be various vortices in the media or standing waves formed by reinforcement of waves. Or combinations of all of those possibilities or something else. I can only speculate because no one knows and we have no way of knowing. b) It is reality because it is what exists. but it is not experienced/observed reality. It has to exist to answer the foundational questions and overcome the paradoxes and unite the mathematics of QM and relativity in one working explanatory model of reality.
You said "1(b) There are not different types of time. As I keep on saying, time is a real dimension of an existent reality. Just like reality itself, its existence is not amenable to alteration. Perception of time can be subject to physiological/phychological "quirks", but that is perception, not reality...."and much more.
It is your belief that there are not different types of time and I am sure many others might agree with you. However I do not and I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this conundrum and its solution. "Time" is full of ambiguity because it is used to refer to many different phenomena. That is a problem of language. I agree that there is a time dimension to the reality that is experienced but it is -not- IMHO a foundational dimension of the externally existing universe. Space-time does not exist outside of output reality from received data and the mathematical model.
2 /3 Answers;
No, I assume your lazy dog is on planet Earth and we know that planet Earth rotates giving our day night cycle. Therefore your dog can not be stationary unless he is moving in the opposite direction to the Earths rotation and orbit of the sun etc. Which you might perceive as your dog moving rather than remaining stationary. I'll admit the dog moving through space with the Earth is imperceptible to an observer also moving with the Earth. That does not mean it is not happening.
But I am not talking here about what the observer observes/ perceives but what is happening unobserved. The uni-temporal universe is the object universe, the things and stuff actually existing in space. Not an observers reconstruction from received data, or the isolated data. It has no time dimension but everything exists simultaneously in space. There is no other space or time for it to be in. There is continual sequential spatial change of everything as previously described.
4 Not entirely sure what you were trying to say there. It seems now you are saying consciousness is relevant whereas perception and "psychological quirks" (such as the variations in temporal awareness that I mentioned) are not.I do not know why some kinds of experience are deemed acceptable and relevant for consideration by a scientist investigating time but others are not.
5.You said " Your Image Reality refers to the "manifestation output formed by an observer". My sensory representations are the existent, real, phenomena that enable us to experience (see, hear, etc) reality." OK I think we are talking about the same thing but then you say " But they are not reality." ? But you have just said they are existent and real?I do not know why you insist that they are not then reality. They are according to the definitions of reality that I am working with.
The new Collins consise dictionary of the English language.
Reality 1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be2. something that is real3.the state of being real4.philosophy.a)awareness b)the totality of facts5.in reality.actually, in fact.
NZ Oxford English dictionary -Reality: the quality of being real:resemblance to an original 2. All that is real, the real world as opposed to fantasy.
5.I understand the fundamentals of the biology of sensory perception. It is only relevant if we are talking about a biological observer. The observer could be an inanimate object such as a photosensitive material or electronic sensor.
6. You said " I am not sure what your point means. You kept referring to relativity (and simultaneity), so I posted relevant references which describe what the effect which relativity seeks to explain is about. And indeed, then said it anyway, in responding to some other point." My point was only that relativity and non simultaneity can not be completely ignored because the time dimension is a part of the observed reality. Thats all. Not that we have to trawl through lots of references dealing with relativity and what it is and dissect them to see if it applies or not.
My time is precious too.
Georgina.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 03:05 GMT
Paul,
Reading back through your comment, it does seem we are about 95% in agreement. Past and present states do not exist, because the energy which did manifest them, or will manifest them, is currently manifesting the current state. Though you prefer to think of time as more of a dimension and I tend to think of it as more the effect of a process, the reason Georgina and I are being so obsessive about clarifying it is because, if you care to read through the original
FQXi Nature of Time contest, you will see that for the professionals in the field, the physical model under all the math is quite "non-intuitive." The blocktime view is very mainstream, because without simultaneity, there is no way to distinguish between past, present and future.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 08:55 GMT
Georgina
Your post 15/9 19.27
1 Neither am I. In respect of QM, via ‘waveform collapse’, etc, and some of the constructs that have been developed to explain the conundrum [which is actually just of their own making, it is not real], there is a presumption that realities exist, a priori, and so, in effect, we ‘create’ them by realising one amongst many options. Now, moving...
view entire post
Georgina
Your post 15/9 19.27
1 Neither am I. In respect of QM, via ‘waveform collapse’, etc, and some of the constructs that have been developed to explain the conundrum [which is actually just of their own making, it is not real], there is a presumption that realities exist, a priori, and so, in effect, we ‘create’ them by realising one amongst many options. Now, moving away from QM.
Your definition of ‘actualisation’ is: “That which has existence unobserved, independent of all observer's perspectives. The material/substance/objects/media within space”. So, this is any aspect of reality that was unobserved (by any organism), plus any aspect of the sensory representations thereof, which were instigated as a result of the existence of reality, which are also unobserved (by any organism). I am not sure what the purpose is of differentiating the entirety of all that which existed independently of us, between observed [or experienced, if one widens this to include all senses, rather than just sight, which indeed it must, since one sense does not logically function differently from another] and not observed (not experienced). It is correct to do so. But there is so much of reality, particularly in the past, but also what has just existed, that we (or any other organism) has not observed/experienced. Obervation (experience), or not, does not impact on what existed. It existed. Some was experienced, the rest not. That is, of course, a different point from the experienceability of it, ie some we just cannot experience, for practical reasons. The latter caveat having been inserted to complete the point, because there is then that which humans believe existed, but, given the nature of our existence, has no proven reason for its potential existence whatsoever.
Your definition of ‘manifestation’ is: “That which is seen /experienced by an observer and is considered by that observer to exist externally to him/herself. Either through input and processing of sensory data from outside of the observer or internally generated or both”. I note the broadening of seen/observed here to experienced. What any given human considers a perception to be is irrelevant, as such. It does not mean that whatever instigated this resultant perception did exist, or not. Something existed. And then we have all other life forms on this planet that don’t go through a process of ‘thinking’. But they do experience reality, so any definition of it, or how it interacts with life forms, must be consistent across all organisms and all senses.
The ‘universe’ is not ‘arranged’ on this basis. It existed. Organisms then get a representation of that via certain media. Those organisms then process that received information, which results in a perception. There is no ‘direction’ of change. Change happened, it existed. We are aware of it because of difference. By definition, the existence of any given specific existent state was at a particular point in time. At that point in time there were countless (but not infinite) other existent states. Reality, at any point in time, is the totality of all last existent states of everything. Timing in what is experienced is a function of the conditions of the variables that enable organisms to have an experience of reality. Like being on the moon rather than one metre away, travelling at 10,000 mph faster than the existent entity, etc, etc.
2 It is not a ‘zero’ or ‘dimensional’ (in the sense of spatial) point. So zero is obviously ‘incompatible’ with reality, there would be no reality in that instance. The lowest unit of time is a point in time. That would relate, if we could find it, to the fastest change event in our existence. That is the purpose of measuring systems. If they are not able to differentiate the quantities they are comparing, then they are not fit for purpose. Put the other way around, the duration between two consecutive points in time must be one state of change in the fast sequence there is. The notion as to whether or not something is ‘static’ depends on the number of points of time being used in the measurement, and the sequence of change under consideration. If one is not careful, reality could be decomposed to its elementary parts, which are moving, which whilst correct, serves no real purpose.
I feel I will stop there, before this gets too long.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 09:16 GMT
John
Your post 15/9 21.11
I would rather avoid saying yes or not to ‘deterministic’, just in case I misrepresent myself. And put it this way:
At any given point in time, within the confines of our existence which we are unable to transcend, the dog, is the dog, is the dog. So too are any resultant sensory representations of that existent state which are instigated (ie that which we (and all other organisms) then see, hear, touch, taste, smell, etc).
Reality, and indeed the (potentially selective) sensory representations which provide the basis of our awareness, exist, in one form, independently of us. But the sensory representations are not reality, as my label suggests, they are sensory and they are representations. In simple language, no organism sees reality, it receives an EM based representation of it. No organism hears reality, it receives…….etc, etc. Then, and only then, do organisms enter the process, with all that that implies in terms of ‘distorting’, ultimately in terms of an articulated perception, the original reality.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 10:32 GMT
Paul.
re the actualization: You said "So, this is any aspect of reality that was unobserved (by any organism), plus any aspect of the sensory representations thereof, which were instigated as a result of the existence of reality, which are also unobserved (by any organism)." NO. The actualization has nothing at all to do with observers and their sensory representations. I defined it for you...
view entire post
Paul.
re the actualization: You said "So, this is any aspect of reality that was unobserved (by any organism), plus any aspect of the sensory representations thereof, which were instigated as a result of the existence of reality, which are also unobserved (by any organism)." NO. The actualization has nothing at all to do with observers and their sensory representations. I defined it for you but perhaps not well enough, but it did not include any of the plus.... that you have included.
The Entirety is necessary because as you say there is only one reality therefore the unobserved foundational reality and the observed space-time reality must be subsets of it. There are some diagrams on my essay thread that try to illustrate the arrangement and they show how various ideas to do with reality and physics are related to this construct. The visual illustration might be more helpful to you than verbal description.
Without going back to look at our long discussion, I presume the definition of manifestation given was to try to help you to understand the difference between what -is-(the actualization in uni-temporal space) and what is observed (the output reality). The manifestation does not have to be produced by an organism but could be produced by an artificial detector or material that is sensitive to a kind of energetic input.It is the output produced from the data input - it does not matter if it the output of a light sensitive film, a jelly fish, a tape recorder, or a baboon.It is still a manifestation of reality and not the source reality or the input.
I agree that there is no singular -direction- of change but there is spatial change non the less which can not just be pointed to from within a 3 dimensional spatial perspective. Just because it can not be pointed to does not mean it is not spatial at the foundational level of reality. / Yes if one makes the smallest possible division of a 1 dimensional line it becomes a zero dimensional point. I didn't make that up it is mathematics. I think I agree with what you are saying in your last paragraph, but I wouldn't say it like that myself.
Paul it has been a fascinating exercise for me to try to explain how the explanatory model functions. It is even clearer to me now how very carefully the terms must be defined and how strictly their interpretation must be controlled.In order for them to have the intended meaning and not be misinterpreted or abused. The explanatory model only works if the concepts are understood and used in a very particular way. Yes they might be defined and used in other ways but then the explanatory model does not work and the questions and paradoxes can not be resolved.
Rather than continue with this I intend to spend some time writing a very clear and concise summary of the model which will then serve as a useful reference tool for those who might be interested in understanding how it works or applying it in other areas. It has also recently occurred to me how the interpretation might be extended and possibly lead to a better mathematical understanding of unobserved reality and how it interfaces with observed reality. I would also like to take time to explore that further.
Thank you for the time you have spent. Georgina.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 11:05 GMT
Georgina
Your post 16/9 01.02
1 My question was, how can, what your refer to as ‘object reality’ be non-experienceable (you said that in a post). Or put the other way round, if it is, then in terms of a definition, what is it?
2 It is not a matter of my ‘belief’ about time. If you, or indeed anybody else, can explain to me how time, in reality (not perception) can be...
view entire post
Georgina
Your post 16/9 01.02
1 My question was, how can, what your refer to as ‘object reality’ be non-experienceable (you said that in a post). Or put the other way round, if it is, then in terms of a definition, what is it?
2 It is not a matter of my ‘belief’ about time. If you, or indeed anybody else, can explain to me how time, in reality (not perception) can be anything other than what I have stated it is, then please explain it with evidential/logical proof.
3 My point about dog and plane had nothing to do with planet earth, etc. The point was a) sequences of change involve different timescales, b) change can be discerned by direct comparison of two change sequences. As said in another post, observed/unobserved is irrelevant in this context.
4 No, I said ‘consciousness is a factor’. And then later, ‘but if we tried to regress every perception we would never move forward’. In other words we had best just use a standard conception as to how consciousness ‘interferes’, worrying about each individual’s consciousness would be a nightmare.
5 I said what you refer to, and what I refer to, are different. The labels are irrelevant.
6 What has a ‘biological observer’ (whatever that is) got to do with it? This is applicable to any organism in respect of any sensory ability (and if one looks on Wicki there are some I was not aware of, but that’s OK, because my point is a logical one, not medium specific). As I said in another post, technology is irrelevant, except that one now needs to know how that might have interfered. The sequence: reality-sensory representation-perception, just becomes: reality-sensory representation-technologically enhanced sensory representation of sensory representation-perception.
7 I know what you said. But if you have incorrectly construed the relevance of time in relativity, then….So I took the bother to refer you to several short pieces. Now I will copy them out here, to save you even more time.
1 Lorentz 1892
Para 3
I have sought a long time to explain this experiment without success, and eventually I found only one way to reconcile the result with Fresnel’s theory. It consists of the assumption, that the line joining two points of a solid body doesn't conserve its length, when it is once in motion parallel to the direction of motion of Earth, and afterwards it is brought normal to it. [The difference when comparing the two motions in the same dimension being p2/2V2] . Such a change in length of the arms in Michelson’s first experiment, and in the size of the stone plate in the second, is really not inconceivable as it seems to me.
Para 6
Indeed, what determines the size and shape of a solid body? Apparently the intensity of molecular forces; any cause that could modify it, could modify the shape and size as well. Now we can assume at present, that electric and magnetic forces act by intervention of the aether. It is not unnatural to assume the same for molecular forces, but then it can make make a difference, whether the connecting line of two particles, which move together through the ether, is moving parallel to the direction of motion or perpendicular to it… Since we know nothing about the nature of molecular forces, it is impossible to verify the hypothesis. We only can, of course by introducing more or less plausible assumptions, calculate the influence of the motion of ponderable matter on electric and magnetic forces. Perhaps it is worth mentioning, that when the result obtained for the electric forces is transferred to molecular forces, it exactly gives the value of [p2/2V2] given above.
Para 7
We want to transfer this to the molecular forces, and imagine a solid body as a system of material points, in equilibrium by the influence of their mutual attractions and repulsions…Of course we cannot ascribe great importance to this result; the transfer to molecular forces of what we have found for electrical forces, may be too risky for some. Moreover, if we want to do this, it remains undecided whether earth's motion shortens the dimensions in one direction - as it was supposed before - or elongates the length perpendicular to it, by which assumption we could reach the same result.
Anyway, it seems undeniable that changes of the molecular forces and consequently of the body's size of order of 1 - p2/2V2 are possible. Michelson’s experiment thus loses its verification power for the question at which it was aimed. If one assumes the theory of Fresnel, then its meaning rather lies in the fact, that we can learn something about the change of dimensions.
Para 8
A contraction of the diameter of the Earth by this ratio would amount 6 cm. We cannot speak about the observation of a change in length of two hundred millionth when comparing meter sticks, and even if an observation method would allow this, then this method would be the juxtaposition of two sticks, but we would never detect the discussed changes, when they occur in the same way for both of them. The only remedy is to compare the length of two sticks perpendicular to each other, and if we want to do this by the observation of an interference phenomenon (with a light ray that travels back and forth along the first and the other ray along the second arm), then we would come back to Mitchelson’s experiment. The influence of the change in length, however, would be compensated by the change of phase shift which is determined by expression lp2/V³ .
2 Lorentz 1895
Section 6
Consequently we have to imagine, that the motion of a rigid body, e.g. a brass rod or of the stone plate used in later experiments, would have an influence on the dimensions throughout the aether, which, depending on the orientation of the body with respect to the direction of motion, is different…
As strange as this hypothesis would appear at first sight, nevertheless one must admit that it's not so far off, as soon as we assume that also the molecular forces, similarly as we now definitely can say it of the electrical and magnetic forces, are transmitted through the aether. If this is so, then the translation will change the action between two molecules or atoms most likely in a similar way, as the attraction or repulsion between charged particles. Now, since the shape and the dimensions of a fixed body are, in the last instance, determined by the intensity of the molecular effects, then also a change of the dimensions is inevitable.
Thus from a theoretical perspective there is no objection to the hypothesis. As regards the experimental confirmation, it is to be noticed at first, that the relevant elongations and contractions are extremely small… it would cause a contraction in the direction of motion in the ratio of 1 to √(1-p2/V2). In reality the molecules of a body are not at rest, but there exists a stationary motion in every "equilibrium state". As to how this condition is of influence as regards the considered phenomenon, may remain undecided.
3 Lorentz 1904
Para 1
The first example of this kind is Michelson’s well known interference experiment, the negative result of which has led Fitzgerald and myself to the conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered by their motion through the aether.
Para 8
I shall now suppose that the electrons, which I take to be spheres of radius R in the state of rest, have their dimensions changed by the effect of a translation, the dimensions in the direction of motion becoming kl times and those in perpendicular direction l times smaller. In this deformation, which may be represented by… each element of volume is understood to preserve its charge. Our assumption amounts to saying that in an electrostatic system, moving with a velocity, all electrons are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axes in the direction of motion.
Para 10
We are therefore led to suppose that the influence of a translation on the dimensions (of the separate electrons and of a ponderable body as a whole) is confined to those that have the direction of the motion, these becoming k times smaller than they are in the state of rest.
Para 11
It is easily seen that the proposed theory can account for a large number of facts. Let us take in the first place the case of a system without translation….It will therefore be impossible to detect an influence of the Earth's motion on any optical experiment, made with a terrestrial source of light, in which the geometrical distribution of light and darkness is observed. Many experiments on interference and diffraction belong to this class.
In the second place, if in two points of a system, rays of light of the same state of polarization are propagated in the same direction, the ratio between the amplitudes in these points may be shown not to be altered by a translation. The latter remark applies to those experiments in which the intensities in adjacent parts of the field of view are compared.
The above conclusions confirm the results I have formerly obtained by a similar train of reasoning, in which however the terms of the second order were neglected. They also contain an explanation of Michelson’s negative result, more general and of somewhat different form than the one previously given, and they show why Rayleigh and Brace could find no signs of double refraction produced by the motion of the Earth.
As to the experiments of Trouton and Noble, their negative result becomes at once clear, if we admit the hypotheses of para 8. It may be inferred from these and from our last assumption (para 10) that the only effect of the translation must have been a contraction of the whole system of electrons and other particles constituting the charged condenser and the beam and thread of the torsion-balance. Such a contraction does not give rise to a sensible change of direction.
It need hardly be said that the present theory is put forward with all due reserve. Though it seems to me that it can account for all well established facts, it leads to some consequences that cannot as yet be put to the test of experiment. One of these is that the result of Michelson’s experiment must remain negative, if the interfering rays of light are made to travel through some ponderable transparent body.
Our assumption about the contraction of the electrons cannot in itself be pronounced to be either plausible or inadmissible. What we know about the nature of electrons is very little…..
4 Poincaré 1905
An explanation was proposed by Lorentz and Fitzgerald, who introduced the hypothesis of a contraction undergone by all bodies into the direction of the motion of earth and proportional to the square of aberration; this contraction hypothesis would become insufficient, however, if one were to assume the postulate of relativity in all its generality.
It is thus necessary to return from here to the theory of Lorentz; but if one wants to preserve it and avoid intolerable contradictions, it is necessary to suppose a special force which explains at the same time the contraction and the constancy of two of the axes. I sought to determine this force, I found that it can be compared to a constant external pressure, acting on the deformable and compressible electron, and whose work is proportional to the variations of the volume of the electron.
5 Einstein 1925
Para 4
At this point, H. A. Lorentz came to the rescue... He thus conceived of these fields as being conditions of the aether, which was regarded as continuous…Lorentz considered the aether to be intrinsically independent of matter, both from a mechanical and a physical point of view. The aether did not take part in the motions of matter, and a reciprocity between aether and matter could be assumed only in so far as the latter was considered to be the carrier of attached electrical charges. The great value of the theory of Lorentz lay in the fact that the entire electrodynamics of bodies at rest and of bodies in motion was led back to Maxwell's equations of empty space...also pre-eminently successful in explaining the experimental facts.
Para 5
The theory appeared to be unsatisfactory only in one point of fundamental importance. It appeared to give preference to one system of coordinates of a particular state of motion (at rest relative to the aether) as against all other systems of co-ordinates in motion with respect to this one.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 11:25 GMT
John
Your post 16/9 03.05
Re 95%, I know, that is why I often use caveats when replying to you. And what is an’effect’? And it is non-existent isn’t it? I am not desperately keen on the label ‘dimension’ because of the overtones of that word. But if you compare it with spatial dimension it has the same form. We cannot experience any existent entity which constitutes ‘width’, etc. But we are aware of these dimensions because of relative shape, and movement in existent entities. So we logically deduce 3D as a quality of reality. Time is the same, except that it is not spatial. Existent (3D) entities change in their existent state, so logically there is a dimension for this, but only one existent state exists at any point, hence it is not spatial. We call that time.
In simple language, do some sematics on what you see as a difference and they become the same.
Re your link, it did not work, got another ref? But I suspect what I will actually see when I do read this, is that it is flawed!
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 12:30 GMT
Georgina
Your post 18/9 10.32
1 Eh? My statement (which you copy back anyway) of a translation of your definition into what it must mean, does not say it has anything to do with the observed. I then do include ‘sensory representations’, because your definition has omitted these. They are phenomena which, to use your words, have “existence unobserved, independent of all observer's perspectives”. In other words, by the terms of your own definition of a concept of yours, you have omitted phenomena, ie there is an internal inconsistency.
2 The entirety is not necessary. Indeed it is impossible to deal with. There is no way, even if every existent state had a connectivity with every other existent state, to deal with this. No scientific understanding would ever progress under such an information overload.
3 No. As with your definition of actualisation, I just played back your definition of manifestation. Both of them having been used by you in a previous post, which is why I did that. And that your ‘actualisation’ is missing existent phenomena wrt your own definition. Your ‘manifestation’ does not seem to serve any purpose, because what people think of the validity of their perceptions is irrelevant (unless one is doing a Sociological analysis).
4 There is no spatial requirement. Please tell me, what occupies this ‘fourth dimension’, how do existent states which occurred at different points in time, co-exist, if they do, then why do we not experience them, what mechanism ultimately causes their cessation or do all existent states that have ever existed continue to exist, etc?
5 The ‘explanatory model’ (whatever that is) only ultimately works, just like any other scientific hypothesis, if it is in accord with the fundamental constitution of reality, and our interrelationship with it.
6 OK
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 20:25 GMT
Paul,
Go to the top of this page and push the "contests" link. There are only three and it's the first.
How is an "effect" non-existent? If I touch a hot stove, is temperature non-existent because it is really just a measure of molecular energy, or in the case of stepping in a pool of radioactive water, a measure of atomic activity?
The change is real. Time is a measure of change. There is no foundational geometry of time on which non-simultaneous events co-exist, much as London and New York co-exist.
Einstein famously said, "Space is what you measure with a ruler. Time is what you measure with a clock."
A ruler consists of one part, all sections of which co-exist. A clock consists of two parts, hands and face. Time is the measure of their action relative to one another.
I can do some semantics of temperature and volume and say they are the same, because if I were to reduce the volume of a given amount of gas, its temperature would increase proportionally. So why can't I say temperature is simply another parameter of volume, since by squeezing the volume, the temperature parameter bulges out.
As for the relative nature of width, Big Bang theory argues that space is expanding, not that there is an expansion in space. This is because we appear to be at the center of that expansion and by saying that the very fabric of space expands, then every point appears as the center of its own expansion.
The problem I have with that is the speed of light remains constant. According to theory, if two galaxies are x lightyears apart and the universe doubled in size, they would be 2x lightyears apart. This is not an expansion of space, as being measured by the speed of light, but simply increasing distance. Much like with the doppler effect, the train moving away isn't stretching space, but putting what was in front of it, behind it.
So either we have to say space expands and overlook an otherwise stable speed of light, or assume we must be at the exact center of the universe. Or find some other explanation for redshift, than recession.
Which is to say there is some absolute character of space which we have yet to deduce. Since space has no physical properties, it seems meaningless to assume it can be stretched, bent, curved, bounded, etc. Only the contents of it have such qualities.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 08:22 GMT
John
Your post 18/9 20.25
1 My point about ‘effect/non-existent’, was addressing your post 16/9 03.05, 2nd & 3rd sentences, where you draw a distinction, and I am replying by saying I think you will find there is none, or less than immediately apparent, if one considers semantics. So 95% increases! Specifically, the answer to your question is: the word effect is in your 3rd sentence. I am saying something like, ‘ a different word could be ‘consequence’, or even ‘logical deduction’, and non-existent refers to the fact that time is not an existent entity, it has no reality, per se. But it is most certainly real, in the sense that it is a logical deduction that can be made based on directly experienceable existent events. In short, the ‘difference’ you allude to can dissolve away. It wasn’t much of a point, which is why I was so cryptic.
2 A ruler, or any other entity used to measure spatial dimensions, is directly comparing spatial dimensions. A clock is a device which is driven by various methods, the greater the speed of frequently change (eg crystal oscillation) and the more consistent that is, the better. What is happening here is that the device is being used to compare different sequences of change in terms of a common denominator, which is itself a change sequence. The hands/face are irrelevant (we just can’t see the crystal or whatever), so too is the common denominator, which is why we can have timing devices driven by different means.
3 As far as I understand it, light speed is not constant, other than in perfect conditions, which is something of a tautology. But that might not have been what you meant. In terms of ‘space expansion’. Thinking aloud to Jason in another post, I suggested that if all reality is expanding, then, by definition, since it is omnipresent we cannot detect it. Only after a huge duration might we be able to discern it, and that is because the rate of expansion was different. Again, as with so many things, we need differences to become aware of phenomena. Mind, one can then start asking ‘well what is it expanding into?’ Which is the corollary of asking, ‘where did it expand from?’ There’s always going to be a boundary, because we are ‘aware’, and cannot transcend that. But at that stage, one gets a cup of coffee and addresses more solvable problems!!
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 08:53 GMT
The Collins consise dictionary of the English language.
Real adj. 1. Existing or occurring in the physical world, not imaginary , fictitious or theoretical;actual 2. True, actual not false.3. deserving of the name ;rightly so called :a real friend 4.not artificial or simulated ;genuine:real fur 5.Philosophy. existent or relating to actual existence rather than non existence, existing.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 16:00 GMT
Paul,
All forms of clock have both a sequencing function and a reference function. On the classic analog clock, the face is the sequencing and the hands are the reference. With an atomic clock, the cycles of the cesium atom provide the sequences and the device to detect them is the reference. The reference represents the present, while the sequences represent events.
It is not the reference function which moves, but the dynamic of the sequencing function. It is this physical dynamic which creates and replaces the events being measured. The events in this sequence go future to past.
A clock serves as a common denominator because it is regular. It wouldn't make sense to use an irregular process. There is no universal common denominator. Only more or less regular ones. The overall effect of temporal change emerges from all these processes, much as temperature emerges from cumulative activity.
One would assume the vacuum of intergalactic space to be about as uniform a medium as possible, for the transmission of light. Since we do detect the light from distant galaxies to be redshifted, given the current understanding of light, it is assumed this can only be due to recession of the source. In order to explain why we appear at the center, since these other galaxies would seem not have any comparable lateral motion and are redshifted proportional to distance, it is argued that the very fabric of space must be growing. In other words, that medium across which this light travels. Since lightspeed provides a useful yardstick for measuring such distances, it would seem logical that this unit of measure would be stretched, if the very fabric it is measuring were stretched, but that is not the theory. It is argued these galaxies will eventually disappear, as the light from them will no longer reach us. Therefore there seems to be two kinds of space. The stable units measured by lightspeed and the expanding units required of cosmic expansion. As you say, we need differences to become aware of phenomena, but that seems to be a difference which shows some flaw in the theory.
Horizon lines provide the boundaries of perception. I think we will eventually find the current boundary is how far light travels before it falls completely off the visible scale and that microwave background radiation, seemingly emanating from the edge of the universe isn't the glow of an initial singularity, but light from ever more distant sources which has fallen completely off the visible spectrum. All of which goes back to the nature of space, as opposed to our subjective perceptions.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 10:13 GMT
John
Your post 19/9 16.00
1 My point about clocks is that what is actually being compared is different frequencies of change. For example, with a quartz time device we are comparing the mechanical resonance of a vibrating crystal of piezoelectric material with whatever. Another way of looking at this is that we can eliminate the time units and just compare change directly. During the lifetime of that elephant, the oceans rose 1mm. We are comparing disparate examples of change. The ‘reference’ (your word), does not represent anything. It is completely arbitrary what units one uses, it is just a way of having a common denominator to compare change. Change, in many different ways, and at many different rates, is all that is happening. Timing it, is a human activity, which, obviously, has no impact on the actuality.
2 I like the idea that the entireity of whatever we are involved in (which we can never really know) is expanding. The notion of different rates of expansion sounds intuitively correct. I seem to remember a documentary that had some time lapsed camera work, and was showng how basically any explosion goes through several stages, which obviously we cannot observe directly without that technology.
How about we ‘appear in the centre’ might be a simple effect of the fact that we can only ‘see’ so far in any direction? I’m equally sure there is lots of it that we have never seen, and never will see, or some that has been previously seen but will not be in the future. Of course, in astronomy timescales, our lifespans are but nothing. But be careful, that does not imply ‘two types of space’, those outcomes are a function of light, etc and then ultimately impact on what we can see. And the ultimate boundary of our perception is that which has no experienceable potential. The latter is an existential boundary, whereas the former is practical (ie we could have seen it but we are n billion light years away, or it happened n billion years ago).
3 Re another exchange, can you just name the paper I was to read, ie the one that kicked off this thread(?). I looked at the top here and there are various refs, thanks.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 16:34 GMT
Paul,
It wasn't a particular paper, but the various entries in the Nature of Time contest, many by well respected physicists. Here are all the entries: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/category/10
Here are the winners:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1
Yo
u state, "The ‘reference’ (your word), does not represent anything."
Can you...
view entire post
Paul,
It wasn't a particular paper, but the various entries in the Nature of Time contest, many by well respected physicists. Here are all the entries:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/category/10 Here are the winners:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1Yo
u state, "The ‘reference’ (your word), does not represent anything."
Can you describe any clock which doesn't have the equivalent of a hand function? That being the reference to the current state, or present. How would you even go about measuring change, if not as a consequence of it passing this mark? Yes, the assumption behind four dimensional spacetime is that the time vector materially exists along its entire span and the idea of the present is entirely subjective, but even that implies the subjective reference???? You lost me.
Things do expand, but they also contract. Einstein proposed the cosmological constant to counterbalance his observation that gravity should cause the entire universe to eventually collapse to a point. In fact, according to theory and observation, gravitational contraction and spatial expansion are observationally proportional. Big Bang theory solves this problem by arguing the inflation stage expanded the entire universe so much in the first moment that the visible section is only a small portion of the whole and thus only appears close to flat, much as a local section of the surface of the earth appears flat. I think eventually cosmology will discard Big Bang theory and see what it considers to be cosmic expansion, based on redshift, to be an effect of the expansion of light. Thus the gravitational collapse into stellar formations and galaxies is balanced by the expansion of radiation between them. So the more distant the source, the more its light has expanded and that is why redshift is proportional to distance. If we viewed light as a wave when it is moving/expanding and only as a point particle/photon when encountering mass, such as that of a measuring device, rather than traveling as a point particle with wavelike characteristics, that can only be redshifted by recession of the source, this would make much more sense.
I think this dichotomy of expansion/contraction defines observational reality. To the extent reality is composed of energy manifesting series of forms, the energy is constantly moving from one form to the next, much as the present moves from one event to the next. Meanwhile these forms move the opposite direction; Coalescing out of ambient energy and condensing into ever more substantial forms, as this energy becomes more stable and less dynamic. With the majority of energy radiating away and leaving the more stable structures. The process of time then mirrors the relationship of matter and energy.
If you care to further the comparison, the political dichotomy of conservatism vs. liberalism fits in here as well, with conservatives focused more on the hard definable structure, institutions, etc. While liberals tend to think more in terms of potential and dynamic change. Of course, this frequently gets turned around, since what starts as liberal movements gradually solidifies into status quo arrangements, which then generate reactions, often by those dispossessed by the previous changes and the various cycles intermingle, etc.
Then there is the dichotomy of youth and age, as the young look to future potential and the elders look to established structures and all the energy of their youth expended to form them.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:21 GMT
John
Your post 20/9 16.34
1 Thanks, I’ve put those two refs into favourites and will have a look. But did presume that it was just one paper/theory that sparked this thread off.
2 I think you’re believing my point about clocks is more complicated than it is, and I’m being cryptic at times. My point is that the hands/ readout are a method to convey whatever is driving the timing device in an immediately understandable form. What is actually happening is that you are comparing different rates of change. Another (sort of associated) point to bear in mind, is that the units we quote time in, are an example of fossilised language. It reflects the change, or at least more important and regular example, that prompted the conceptualisation of perceived change. In terms of a quartz timing device, we should actually be speaking in terms of n oscillations, or in respect of a timing device driven by some other function…….etc. But we still quantify change in terms of day/hours/seconds. My point is about getting below the superficial elements and establishing the logic, ie what is really going on here.
3 The key point is whether the ‘time vector’ takes on a spatial quality, in the sense that it is deemed to have, like width, etc, various values at the same point in time. Which is not possible. Existent state A existed at point in time G. If there were 6 observers at different distances (leaving aside all the other possible variables) then you end up with 6 different perceived timings of the existent state, not 6 different times for that existent state in reality.
4 I really must just read GR. I read his re-expression of SR in the 1916 paper (and GR constitutes the second half), because it’s quite useful to compare and contrast and hence discern what he was actually trying to say in 1905. It was torturous for example to find out what he actually meant by ‘special’, having not used the word in 1905.
5 Ah, but what caused the ‘expansion of light’?? And of course there’s more to it than light, that just being the entity which enables us, literally, to see. Another way of looking at this is that maybe something very very weird is going on. But we cannot escape our own awareness boundary, so we will never know, or put in a more positive vein, best stick with what we can, potentially, know!!
6 In terms of your dichotomy, etc. Just try and visualise what is (as far as we can determine, which is all we can do) actually there, ie behind the veil that light, sound, touch etc presents, because we are reliant on various media to convey, what is actually only a representation based on their innate properties, to us
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 16:12 GMT
Paul,
"3 The key point is whether the ‘time vector’ takes on a spatial quality, in the sense that it is deemed to have, like width, etc, various values at the same point in time. Which is not possible. Existent state A existed at point in time G. If there were 6 observers at different distances (leaving aside all the other possible variables) then you end up with 6 different perceived...
view entire post
Paul,
"3 The key point is whether the ‘time vector’ takes on a spatial quality, in the sense that it is deemed to have, like width, etc, various values at the same point in time. Which is not possible. Existent state A existed at point in time G. If there were 6 observers at different distances (leaving aside all the other possible variables) then you end up with 6 different perceived timings of the existent state, not 6 different times for that existent state in reality."
We do have basic agreement here. I have also been making the point that what is occurring is different rates of change. To that end, I've been making the point that temperature, the scalar level of activity, is a measure of the energy affecting that rate of change. In that higher temperature, ie. greater level of activity, increases the rate of change. Such that with the twins paradox, they are not traveling different vectors of the temporal dimension, but one simply has a more elevated metabolism than the other, due to elevated atomic activity.
The point of this argument is that Relativity does treat time as a fundamental dimension and from that derives all sorts of science fictiony ideas, such as time travel through the warping of this four dimensional geometry. Also the entire expanding universe/Big Bang/Inflationary cosmology paradigm is based on this physical assumption about the mathematical model. All built around the warping of measures caused by velocity, acceleration, gravity, etc.
Since it dismisses the present as entirely subjective, due to the fact of the distortions of perception and measurement you mention, then it also must dismiss the difference between past and future, which means the future is as deterministic as the past.
This misconception is due to the understanding of time in terms of progression from past to future events and trying to incorporate this into a foundational physical model. At the time these theories were first being formulated, the issue was how to reconcile Newton's "absolute flow of time" with that variability of clock rates. With this model, it made it possible to both have variable clock rates and time as a flow from past to future, simply by having each clock navigating its own path.
What I've been trying to point out, to limited success, is that while we perceive the series of events, such that we go from past events to future ones, the underlaying physical reality is that we can only exist in what is physically real and thus is present. So it is the changing configuration of this physical energy which transforms one configuration into another and so it is the events which transition from future potential to past circumstance, not the present that moves along the time dimension, from past to future.
This allows the present as a physically real process of energetic change that is non-deterministic, with variable clock rates, since they are driven by local activity levels. It also puts time on a par with temperature, as a measure of activity, rather than space, the infinite frame for it.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 09:24 GMT
John
Your post 21/9 16.12
1 Re ‘twins’. Why assume it is an effect in reality? Then you don’t need to find a reason for it! Think on this:
Light is the information medium in an experience based on sight. As light travels, there is a delay between the existence of a state and its perception. That delay will vary as a function of the individual spaces involved, and the...
view entire post
John
Your post 21/9 16.12
1 Re ‘twins’. Why assume it is an effect in reality? Then you don’t need to find a reason for it! Think on this:
Light is the information medium in an experience based on sight. As light travels, there is a delay between the existence of a state and its perception. That delay will vary as a function of the individual spaces involved, and the speed with which the light travelled in each experience. The perceived order of sequence will never vary, assuming that light has a reasonable degree of constancy of movement (ie is not fundamentally erratic).
The perceived rate of change of a sequence will remain the same, so long as the on-going relative spatial position remains constant amongst everything involved. Because,while the value of the delay is different depending on each individual space, it remains constant. However, when relative individual space is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which individual spaces are altering. It is a perceptual illusion. The intrinsic rate of change (duration, in reality) in the sequence being experienced does not alter, either in order to create this effect, or as a consequence of this effect being realised.
The Twin Paradox is just a perceptual illusion (leave aside potential ‘dimension alteration’). Had they chosen ‘hand waving’ as the event being observed, then the effect would have been observable. But it does not actually happen, ie one actually waving faster. The twin does not actually age.
Now, ‘dimension alteration associated with movement’, which underpins relativity, is something I am trying to get someone to specify current thinking thereon, in a few simple sentences. I am not really interested in the complex process whereby it occurs, or its valuation, just what is the logical connection between movement and ‘dimension alteration’. If it exists, then yes that could affect metabolism, etc. Except that , of course, this is a thought experiment, and the particular feature chose to think about was inappropriate. You’ve now got to make the twin ‘younger’ in order that the two of them can acquire the same spatial relationship that they had originally, in order that a comparison can be made with their ages!!
2 Relativity does not treat time as a fundamental dimension. I say that with some caution because I would have to trawl all their statements. But, as is always the case, one must take the meanings of people’s words from the overall context. Poincare in particular latched onto time. But what was going on was that were trying to explain something in terms of its outcomes. Fundamentally, the process of reification has occurred since, whereby time, as a logical dimension, has acquired a quality whereby it can be attributed with ‘different’ times. Essentially, this results from a conflation of reality and observation. Effects in observation are being attributed to actual characteristics of reality, whereas, they are just consequences of effects in the process of observation. However(!) this does not disprove the cause which supposedly underpins it all (ie dimension alteration associated with movement). To use the analogy I have alluded to: identifying the symptoms of a disease incorrectly does not alter the actual pathology of it. It does not ‘dismiss the present’, etc etc. Can you please read those few quotes I listed. There is no misconception about time. There is certainly a confusion between reality and observation, but as I’ve just said, whilst adding to the problem of understanding, that does not disprove the theory.
3 “while we perceive the series of events, such that we go from past events to future ones, the underlaying physical reality is that we can only exist in what is physically real and thus is present”.
I think more that anything else, this is the concept that is the problem. As at any given point in time, an event occurs. But our perception of that event occurs later. All events, by definition, go from ‘past’, through present, to ‘future’. Though these concepts are none too helpful. The real differentiation is existed, existing, not yet existed. You have that flow with both what actually occurred, and what actually occurred in perception. Take one the early comments in Einstein 1905. The train arrived at 7pm…..No, it did not. The train arrived at a few nanoseconds before 7pm, because we perceived that event, vis a light based representation, at 7pm, and light has to travel . There are not two realities, or one reality with varying time. There is one reality, which is then subsequently, via a medium based representation of it, received by us. To turn your phrase another way: we ‘exist’ in the physical manifestation of perception in the present. We had a state of existence simultaneously with an event occurring, but that did not include a perception of the event.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 09:58 GMT
Paul,
Some of the effects of relativity are perceptual, but some are actual. The clocks on GPS satellites do run faster than clocks on the ground. The theory of relativity argues it is because the geometry of spacetime contracts in the gravity field, but the reality is the level of atomic activity is slowed by gravity. Since gravity is equivalent to acceleration and thus velocity and since nothing can travel faster than light, when mass is accelerated, its internal atomic activity has to slow accordingly, so the combination doesn't exceed C. At the speed of light, there is no internal activity, thus no change and no time, according to theory.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 09:40 GMT
John
Your post 22/9 09.58
The underlying effect in relativity is a supposed ‘alteration in dimension associated with movement’. I am trying, within the NPA forum, to get a view on the basic logic of this, ie the essential connectivity between constant and changing movement, ans dimension alteration. That is, not the valuation of it, or the process which causes it. Just: “ Without observation, take two identical masses of stuff……….then….what is the relationship between movement and dimension alteration”.
If there is such an effect, then physically, clocks, as existent entities are affected. As is any matter, ie it also has an effect on light. But mentioning clocks just really really confused the point, because it made it appear that time actually changed, which it does not. A thing caused a clock changed dimension, as did every other thing. [And anyway, I suspect that if there is some relationship between movement and the shape of matter, then it will be different for each type. A sort of ‘Coefficient of Squashability, akin to the Coefficient of Resitution].
As I’ve said before I haven’t got to Part 2 and GR. But from what you and others say, I can sense that this is again attempting to explain ‘dimension alteration’. In 1892 there was an explanation, then by 1904 another variant, etc. But this is the explanation of the cause, the outcome remained the same.
Be careful with your ‘nothing can travel faster than the speed of light’, but you may just be repeating Lorentz.
Lorentz 1904, para 2:
It would be more satisfactory, if it were possible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions, and without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago, I have already sought to frame a theory of this kind. I believe now to be able to treat the subject with a better result. The only restriction as regards the velocity will be that it be smaller than that of light.
Apart from anything else, they conflated reality and the light based representation thereof, which are, obviously, different. This is why there is c in all the equations. When considering entity to entity, the effect of movement, just what has c got to do with it?? Answer: nothing. It’s what enables observation.
This is so fundamental, because without this differentiation,we are in danger of thinking that reality is what light informs us it is. Which it is not. Stuff could be travelling faster, it could have a quality that neutralises light, it could alter at a frequency that is faster than light, etc, etc.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 09:54 GMT
Paul,
As I see it, C isn't so much a specific speed, as it is the speed at which all internal energy is converted into external momentum, so there isn't anymore to convert. Now, does the speed of the light when I strike a match, the same speed as what is being ejected out the poles of galaxies? Are there even further breakdowns in structure than normal light? I don't know, but Peter has been exploring that.
Does velocity actually shorten objects? If it requires the electrons in the atomic structure to be distorted in their orbits? Likely.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 13:24 GMT
John
It might be logically, but only in respect of what constitutes light.There might be other matter that has a different 'ultimate speed' for either the reson you suggest, or something else.
I understand that movement does alter dimension. This concept anyway is what underpins relativity, in other words, relativity is just a symptom of this cause, which can manifest itself in timing effects, and of course, it is an actual spatial effect. As said previously I am trying to get a defined relationship in terms of movement and dimension, in terms of constant or changing, movement. Forget the values or specific dimension, or what the cause of the alteration is.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
hide replies