Hi AndyM,

thank you for bringing that discussion to my attention.I have read Bees explanation and the first few comments. Too tired to read it all now.

Yes you have identified a similarity but there are also significant differences in what Bee and I are saying. I am putting forward an argument that is like present-ism but not quite. The unitemporal Now that I am talking about is not...

view entire post

Hi AndyM,

thank you for bringing that discussion to my attention.I have read Bees explanation and the first few comments. Too tired to read it all now.

Yes you have identified a similarity but there are also significant differences in what Bee and I are saying. I am putting forward an argument that is like present-ism but not quite. The unitemporal Now that I am talking about is not the "now" of the observer but preceeds it. It is the unobserved Object universe that contains all of the objects, chemicals, particles, media for wave transmission, potential sensory data, (chemicals and waves) and observers.

I do not think all of the afore mentioned are just "invisible friends" because the SR mathematics is representing EM transmission so presumably there is a source of the EM under consideration, an emitting or reflecting object/s and that potential sensory data exists in the environment of space between leaving its source and arriving at the observer, and the observer also has existence enabling it to act as receiver and to produce the observed output.

I am therefore making the assumption that they do have reality, an actualization in space, even if they do not have a observed manifestation. I understand that the mathematics still works whether reality is attributed to those things or not. However it seems to me that if not, it is then just a mathematical model that does not relate back to the biology, chemistry and physics of the universe that the sciences seek to describe.

Bee says; "For maximal carefulness I want to point out that another assumption which also goes into the argument is

A) Time is either a parameter or a dimension and there is no other possibility."

However IMHO there is another possibility. That being that there is a time dimension within the manifestation of reality, that which apparently exists. That time dimension being due to the non infinite speed of transmission of data from which the manifestation is constructed.Also though there is only a passage of time parameter (not a dimension, but continual sequential spatial change for everything that has independent existence IE exists without being an image reality constructed by an observer.)

It is -that- particular temporal construct that allows the Grandfather paradox to be overcome as the time dimension only pertains to that which is observed and not to that which exists in the uni-tempotral Object universe. So for the actual objects, particles etc, rather than than the temporal fabrication formed from received data, there is no time -dimension- along which to travel. It also allows sequential unidirectional causality for the actual objects etc but non simultaneity and order of events that can vary according to observer reference frame, when considering the observer constructed manifestation from received data.

Bee says "Let us start with claim 2): We know that time can't be a universal parameter because we have experimental prove the passage of time depends on the state of motion and path of an object. Thus, presentism b2) is falsified, which means with A) time is a dimension. It follows 2) is correct."

But having experimental proof that what is observed depends upon reference frame only gives evidence concerning the observed manifestation of reality not all of the rest of reality that is actualized but unobserved. All of the afore mentioned stuff of the Object universe.

I have probably said more than enough. Thanks once again. It was interesting.

view post as summary

Dear Eckard,

Without going back over Bee's original explanation I would like to agree with Bob's mistakes that you have identified and give my opinion on them.

Re i)Once again this is to do with SR being within an incomplete model of reality. SR fits within a model that takes no account of an Open future. Where events have not yet occurred, providing no potential sensory data to the...

view entire post

Dear Eckard,

Without going back over Bee's original explanation I would like to agree with Bob's mistakes that you have identified and give my opinion on them.

Re i)Once again this is to do with SR being within an incomplete model of reality. SR fits within a model that takes no account of an Open future. Where events have not yet occurred, providing no potential sensory data to the environment.It assumes all events are predetermined within space-time. This omission ties back in with my explanation of the two types of future, both of which are necessary to answer the foundational questions, overcome the paradoxes and still be compatible with relativity.

RE ii) Eckard, you said "While the reasoning of SR considers the arrival of a reflected signal at an observer, the only reasonable meaning of the simultaneity of two events must not at all be attributed to the perception or measurement of a signal from one of them by an observer."

I completely agree. There is non simultaneity as what happens together depends upon reference frame of the observer. It is an added complication for making valid observations. I think however that it -is- logical that that should be so, but is not immediately obvious.

I do not think that this non simultaneity need alter the assumption of a generally constant speed of light. The reason being EM radiation is waves and waves require a medium of transmission.(I consider the photon to be the smallest possible disturbance of the medium that gives a detectable/observable manifestation when it arrives at artificial detector or light sensitive cell. So I do not really regard it as -qualitatively- different from waves of EM. I often have used the terms EM and photons interchangeably.)

I am aware that space-time is said not to have a medium of EM transmission and I agree with that. Because the space-time image reality is formed by an observer upon receipt of sensory data and is not what exists in space independent from observation. The transmission medium provides no sensory data by which it can be known. It allows EM potential sensory data to spread through space -mostly at a constant speed, (as most space is empty so there is no mass moving through it to affect it )-. So the fact that Einstein used a field model for space-time, instead of a medium does not in any way contradict the necessity for a medium of EM transmission in unobserved Object reality space. That no evidence of a medium has been found -through observation- does not disprove what must -be- unobserved. The observed manifestation is not the actualized Object reality.

The speed of transmission is limited by the speed at which the disturbance/agitation of the medium spreads which is due to the properties of the medium. Not how the light is regarded by an observer, or any other factors such as frequency, amplitude or wavelength. But large scale disturbance of the medium, such as by the movement of a body through it can alter the speed of transmission due to the affect of the trajectory of the body upon the medium. Not alteration to time which is only the observed manifestaion created from the affected sensory data. The trajectory of the body through object reality space, that resists alteration to it, gives inertial mass and the deformation of the medium of EM transmission caused by the trajectory of the body through it gives gravitational mass.IMHO.

view post as summary

Dear Andy M, Thank you for your reply.

I'm afraid that view is not correct IMHO. The observers whoever and wherever they are only ever see the manifestaion they have formed from sensory data recieved from the environment. They are not seeing actual objects ever, (that are the origin of the input sensory data). They only see the output manifestation produced by them, the observer.

I...

view entire post

Dear Andy M, Thank you for your reply.

I'm afraid that view is not correct IMHO. The observers whoever and wherever they are only ever see the manifestaion they have formed from sensory data recieved from the environment. They are not seeing actual objects ever, (that are the origin of the input sensory data). They only see the output manifestation produced by them, the observer.

I describe the human sensory system as the prime reality interface because the sense organs interface with the external reality of the universe, as the organism is immersed in that space. Data is received and processed by those sense organs. Then the brain, in particular the visual cortex, is able to further process the data into the manifestation of reality observed. It is an output, it is not the data received and it is not the objects in space. Observer and object are on opposite sides of of the prime reality interface. The observer can not see the objects directly only indirectly through the visual process.

So all of the world paths shown show the manifestations that will be observed from the sensory data in the environment that is intercepted. Different observers will observe the same things at different times but whatever they do or do not see they never see the object itself only a manifestation output. They can only see manifestations formed from data already within the environment. The process of sensory data interception and processing into a manifestation expereinced as the present is the physics-biology of the observer's here-now on his world line in the mathematics represented on the diagram.

Events that have not yet happened in uni-temporal now are only imaginary and have not provided any data to the environment. This is the open future that is no part if space-time but allows temporally uni-directional causality, not contradicting non simultaneity in the space-time manifestation and allows unidirectional passage of time, and potential free will,because that future is unwritten, even though there is also a written future ( the existing data in the environment) that will be observed when that data is formed into a manifestation. The present-now manifestation expereinced by the observer, who is in uni-temporal space, lags behind what is occurring in uni-temporal space because of the non infinite speed of data transmission.So the uni-temporal Now of Object reality is never the "now" of an observer.

Just irrelevant biology? Consider an inanimate detector instead, an old fashioned photographic film -and a cat. The cat object is a complex biochemical organism with flesh, bones, fur etc. Daylight hits the body of the cat and some wavelengths are absorbed and others reflected. The reflected wavelengths from the body of the cat travel across space together with light reflected from other objects in the environment and hit the photographic film. Where the most light falls the silver nitrate grains darken the most and an image develops. That film can then be used in another process to give a positive rather than negative image. The "cat" seen on the final photograph is an image reality, it can not be the EM that caused the film to darken, nor can it be the flesh and bone cat object. The image is a different side of the reality interface, the film, from the object cat. 1.Cat object, 2.EM input 3.cat image output. 1.2.and 3. are not the same. Most importantly 3.is not 1. Never ever.

The present-now manifestation observed by the observer is the equivalent of the photograph image cat. Presentism does not answer the foundational questions or overcome the time paradoxes. It isn't the answer. It is the duel facets of reality, that which exists unobserved in uni-temporal space and the space-time manifestation existing together within the entirety of uni-temporal object reality that together allow the questions to be answered and still fit with observation and so Einstein's mathematics.

view post as summary

Dear Andy M,

I agree the observer is receiving "light" signals. However there is no "present" independent of observer expereinced here-now on that diagram. And whatever is observed in that observer's present is something that has -already happened- in uni-temporal Now, due to data transmission delay. Therefore being present-now does not give the event or object any current existence...

view entire post

Dear Andy M,

I agree the observer is receiving "light" signals. However there is no "present" independent of observer expereinced here-now on that diagram. And whatever is observed in that observer's present is something that has -already happened- in uni-temporal Now, due to data transmission delay. Therefore being present-now does not give the event or object any current existence independently of the observer's simulation of it.

I agree that events -are- occurring at the same time as data is being transmitted and intercepted but the diagram is -not- showing data input to the environment, only that data that will be intercepted. The missing data input is the open future of uni-temporal now and it is not a part of the space-time/block time model. The space-time/ block time universe model -assumes- no input, but an -entirely written- "history -existence- future".

The object source of the EM, the objects in uni-temporal space, provide the potential data to the environment at the singular unique event in uni-temporal space. Using your supernova example; the sun object explodes once in uni-temporal space and creates lots of potential sensory data within the environment. That spreads out from the origin. That potential sensory data can be intercepted by numerous different observers, on different planets if you like, at different times, when the data input stimulates the observer's sensory systems and the data is processed to give the output manifestation of the event expereinced as present-now.

Until the data arrives it is unknown to the observer and is a pre-written future, as the event has occurred in uni-temporal space but has not yet been experienced as present-now. "Bee's" diagram is only dealing with the -manifestation- of reality from data in the environment and not the foundational underlying Object reality.

I do not regard all of that potential sensory data as the block time universe (though it has the potential to become manifestation regarded as real.) I have called it the -Data pool- on my diagram of reality on my essay thread.It is within the unseen uni-temporal object reality as a part of the environment. That is the -physical location- of the data. However it is also literally between object reality and image reality. It interfaces with the prime reality interface as the input enabling the output manifestation, an image reality to be formed. The world line is the data that has previously been intercepted by that particular individual observer or is current observed present-now or will be intercepted by that particular individual and processed to form the present-now manifestation.

Whether the supernova only exists when the observer sees it for himself is a matter of philosophical debate. I will say that most people -like to believe - that what they see is real and has more reality than what they can't see. (Which is why there can be professional illusionists and we can be amazed.) I must also admit that the manifestation observed has reality, in its own way, as it is constructed using data that existed independently from the observer within the uni-temporal environment and the organism or artificial detector also has independent existence in uni-temporal space, not requiring to be observed by another to exist.

But it is an image reality, a reconstruction and a temporal fabrication too, as what is expereinced in that present-now is the product of data that has taken different lengths of time to reach and interact with the observer. Object and image reality are separated by the non infinite transmission time of data and the necessary process of alteration of sensory data into an image or experience recognizable by a human.

This allows the time paradoxes to be overcome, and other foundational questions to be answered. Presentism and Eternalism alone do not. Showing that present-ism can exist within SR mathematical theory does not seem to offer any solutions or benefits that I can see. I do not have a handy label to assign to the viewpoint I am giving. It incorporates -both- an observer independent uni-temporal space and a space-time observer manifestation co-existing within the entirety of uni-temporal spatial reality. That is the solution.

view post as summary

Paul,

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...

view entire post

Paul,

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.

Thanks again, Georgina

view post as summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/2008.1

Yo
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

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

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

I have been over and over in my mind the best description of direction. After Paul mentioned culture etc, (though I am still unclear his exact meaning) I have had to go back and check on different cultural ideas of direction of time. Non of those are relevant to the directions we are trying to assign which are to do with the physics processes not social convention.

However I do not want to...

view entire post

I have been over and over in my mind the best description of direction. After Paul mentioned culture etc, (though I am still unclear his exact meaning) I have had to go back and check on different cultural ideas of direction of time. Non of those are relevant to the directions we are trying to assign which are to do with the physics processes not social convention.

However I do not want to impose personal/cultural bias on to it. So best to be sure. There was a study mentioned in scientific American not too long ago. I will find the link later. Most are to do with the direction in which language is written ,left to right or right to left, or up to down or compass directions.

The arrow of time that scientists talk of "seems" to go past to future.(But that imagined direction can be regarded differently according to culture.)

We seem to see the past being built upon. It is true that forms and patterns from previous iterations can endure into following iterations. And since what -is- is all there is, it makes sense to say -that- becomes the next pattern though it isn't a becoming so much as a continuation. If the sequence of patterns is numbered in ascending order it is in the same direction as that order. Past to future.

But the direction of numbering of the sequence is arbitrary, it could be numbered in the opposite direction, (though it would be less convenient). The new arrangement, resulting from such things as concentration, gradients, pressure gradients and potential differences within the existing arrangement, is superseding the old arrangement. So one might consider the arrow to point from the imaginary consequential pattern, to what is ,to what was. As if the open future is the source. The numbers -just- impose an order and are not anything to do with magnitude.

The perception of an arrow of time comes from observed changes, observed from reflections/emissions from the patterns within object reality. It has been argued that those patterns are within a timeless/ uni-temporal reality and the change is spatial not temporal. Thus there is no physical direction of time at the foundational level. So the arrow of time only relates to how the observers regard time from their perception of the space-time experienced reality.

It has already been argued that the observer recieve the prewritten future which is data within the environment and experience the output as present-now. So the prewritten future is becoming the present-now which will become the past to that observer when superseded by new present-now. All present-now manifestations of external reality are produced in that way, so this contains all reflections from the patterns within object reality.

So received time is going future to past but perceived time is going in the opposite direction, (if you are a western scientist).

When actually it is going no where. The past is does not still exist, there is only persisting data,memories and records and the future is also just persisting data within the environment (pre-written future) and imagination (unwritten future), because the Entirety of reality in which space-time is a subset is uni-temporal and nothing moves -in time-.

view post as summary

Paul,

You said "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...

view entire post

Paul,

You said "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!!!

Paul, "3n plus 1" space-time as a complete model of the universe does imply all previous and future states exist.The cat is kitten , live cat and dead cat spread over time. It is just the observer who has a perspective of them which makes them either past, present or future. I am saying however that it is only EM (and other potential sensory) data within the uni-temporal environment, not the objects, substance etc. So there are no past or future realms to potentially visit and alter, or living dead cats. Only data from which the sensory experience of them can be fabricated.

RE A hypothetical 4th spatial dimension. This was something that I proposed and put a lot of effort into trying to defend when I realized that it was spatial change occurring at the foundational level not temporal. That spatial change not being included within the 3 spatial dimensions of space-time. This means things that appear stationary in a observer frame of reference still have change of spatial position unobserved.

However it has become clear that it is a universe that alters and recycles the former iterations of itself. So only the youngest version ever exists together with potential sensory data reflecting the former iterations. This means that that proposed "would be" dimension is not a dimension of what exists but a hypothetical historical time line along which the former and no longer existent iterations of the object universe could be arranged in sequence instead.IE something imaginary and not part of the universe.

So through careful consideration of the original idea it has been modified from something that does not work to answer the questions and is not compatible with accepted physics into something that is not only corresponds to accepted physics but works. It is unfortunate that fully formed and perfectly functioning ideas do not always come to mind straight away and have to be worked towards in steps. Just like a building site can appear messy and not at all like the finished building the mental building site lacks the tidiness and perfection required of the finished model.

Some ideas are suggested that are later on rejected because they are; not correct, or appropriate, or reasonable or sufficiently objective, or compatible- for one reason or another. The preliminary ideas were sufficiently interesting, or so I thought, that I wanted to share them and hoped to receive some constructive feedback.

view post as summary