Eckard

“While left and right are just chosen directions, past and future are quite different from each other, at least in reality”.

This would be better expressed as: ‘while spatial dimensions have a logical commonality, what is referred to as time is fundamentally different.’ Because what constitutes “past” and “future” in reality are in a sense similar, in that they...

view entire post

Eckard

“While left and right are just chosen directions, past and future are quite different from each other, at least in reality”.

This would be better expressed as: ‘while spatial dimensions have a logical commonality, what is referred to as time is fundamentally different.’ Because what constitutes “past” and “future” in reality are in a sense similar, in that they are components of a continuum of existence. But anyway, a better approach is to identify what they actually are:

-in the context of physical reality, the past is that which has existed. The future being a somewhat pointless term since it is nothing. It can only be not the past (what has existed) and not the present/now (what exists). The judgement on which state of existence necessitating a reference point of time (as in timing), ie at a given point in time….

-in the context of perception, the past is that where information about existence has been received by any organism (the point being that there will be differences, since that information has to travel. Indeed on many occasions it will not be received). The present (now) being when that information is being received. The future being that information which exists and can potentially be received, but has not yet been so. Again, by definition, all this depends on timing, ie the establishment of a point in time when the judgement is effected.

Now, the next step in order properly to establish a “compelling argument against all theories that allow time reversal” (which incidentally SR & GR in their original form do not, space-time is the problem) is to identify what time (not timing) actually is in reality. And that is, the frequency at which any given incident of change occurs. To use the phraseology from above, the rate at which, in any given circumstance, the future becomes the present and then the past. THAT is why what is the actual phenomenon that is commonly mis-labelled as time, is irreversible. Because it relates to rate of change, and change cannot reverse. It occurs. So there is no reverse sequence for there to be a rate of. Therefore, any model that allows change to be in “both directions” is not in accord with reality. Finally, present/now is the point at which existence occurs. There I no change at that point, otherwise existence cannot occur, and hence there is no frequency of change. Therefore, there can only be spatial dimensions in existence, which change, and again, any model that does not reflect this is not in accord with reality.

“Einstein was perhaps not consequent or not quite honest when he quasi reduced the rather obviously nonsensical SR to the less understandable to laymen GR.” That is not correct. It would have been better if in 1916 he had published: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies: Version 2. But you are assuming that what was written in 1905 constitutes SR. Which it does not. On many occasions, Einstein subsequently defines SR, and it is only on that basis, after all it is his theory, that one can differentiate SR & GR. And hence what belongs to which IRRESPECTIVE of when it was written. SR is just an abstract state.

“I see the foundational questions institute obliged to check the very roots of any basic theory for correctness”. I agree with that, but one needs to ensure first that one has established what the theory actually was.

Paul

view post as summary

Eckard

Yes, I would “confront this rather superficial view”, though from the perspective of a dictionary it is understandable. But not on the basis you do.

While I would not use the word “events” (this was John), why do you assert that: “strictly speaking there are no point-like events”? Or a similar assertion: that my statement “"There must be a present, otherwise...

view entire post

Eckard

Yes, I would “confront this rather superficial view”, though from the perspective of a dictionary it is understandable. But not on the basis you do.

While I would not use the word “events” (this was John), why do you assert that: “strictly speaking there are no point-like events”? Or a similar assertion: that my statement “"There must be a present, otherwise there is no existence” is a “fallacy?

Strictly speaking there are no such ‘things’ as cup, or floor. Because those ‘entities’ are constantly changing, which raises the question as to what particular physical state of existence of them constitutes ‘cup’, or ‘floor’, or anything else for that matter. They just appear to us to have a constancy of existence.

However, that aside, cup hitting floor will certainly invoke change (in your word-crush). What are these “processes”? In the sense that they seem to be special. Everything is a process. It is just that some processes we can easily sense, others we can conceive of and hypothecate. Then we get mentally stuck because, understandably, we attribute reality with a degree of persistence it cannot not actually have. Unless it has a non-changing state at any given point in time, then it cannot exist.

“Two events may happen simultaneously at different location. How can this simultaneity be checked if the two objects are moving relative to each other?”. Because, leaving aside the practicalities of actually doing so, which is irrelevant to the logic. The two “events” occurred (ie had existence). Now, assuming we can understand conditions for the travel of information about that (maybe it is light, or noise, or heat, or vibration, etc), we can, given spatial relationships, discern when (ie at what point in time) they both occurred by extrapolation from information received. [I might note for the sake of completeness, that if these relative speeds are considerably different, there is then the issue of dimension change, according to Einstein et al. Which in calculating timings would need to be taken into account, because distances (ie spaces) alter as the dimension of bodies alters].

Rather than getting “disappointed”, you need to ensure you have differentiated two different aspects of reality. That is: a) actuality, b) sensorily detectectable representations of that. Both are existent, but in order to know (a) we receive (b). You then need to explain, other than if you do not accept the ‘future’ as non-existent, then what it can be in reality. Also you need to define the phrase “written for good”. Reality occurs, whether an organism receives information about that is irrelevant. Nothing is written or not written. Neither is it just physics that does “not immediately deal with reality but only with abstracted from reality models”. NOTHING does. We cannot “immediately deal with reality”. We can only know of it as objective knowledge. It can only be “abstracted” from information received. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with “models”, they are only wrong if they are not in accord with the reality they purport to represent.

Paul

view post as summary

Paul,

Present time, today, just in this second, and the like may include past as well as future. How long does the present last? In physics, we do not have any justification for attributing a duration to the border between past and future. Instead of stating "there must be a present, otherwise there is no existence” I suggest: existence can only be experienced from what already happened....

view entire post

Paul,

Present time, today, just in this second, and the like may include past as well as future. How long does the present last? In physics, we do not have any justification for attributing a duration to the border between past and future. Instead of stating "there must be a present, otherwise there is no existence” I suggest: existence can only be experienced from what already happened.

You wrote: "Everything is a process. It is just that some processes we can easily sense, others we can conceive of and hypothecate. Then we get mentally stuck because, understandably, we attribute reality with a degree of persistence it cannot not actually have. Unless it has a non-changing state at any given point in time, then it cannot exist." My English is perhaps not good enough as to understand e.g. "cannot not". Moreover, I am unhappy with the formulation "any given point IN time" because in my understanding, only processes IN past time are already "written" for sure. The following question of simultaneity seems to be more important:

(E:) “Two events may happen simultaneously at different location. How can this simultaneity be checked if the two objects are moving relative to each other?”.

P: Because, ... The two “events” occurred (ie had existence).

E: This does not yet answer my "how".

P: Now, assuming we can understand conditions for the travel of information about that (maybe it is light, or noise, or heat, or vibration, etc), we can, given spatial relationships, discern when (ie at what point in time) they both occurred by extrapolation from information received.

E: My point is: If the distance between A and B changes during transmission of the signals, the time for a signal to travel from A to B must be equal to the time for a signal that simultaneously travels from B to A.

P: [I might note for the sake of completeness, that if these relative speeds are considerably different, ...

E: You did not specify what velocities you refer to.

P: there is then the issue of dimension change, according to Einstein et al. Which in calculating timings would need to be taken into account, because distances (ie spaces) alter as the dimension of bodies alters].

E: I do not share your belief.

P: Rather than getting “disappointed”, you need to ensure you have differentiated two different aspects of reality. That is: a) actuality, b) sensorily detectectable representations of that.

E: Simultaneity cannot at all be "sensorily detected" from A. Einstein's ABA desynchronized reality. There is no second reality (b).

P: Both are existent, but in order to know (a) we receive (b). You then need to explain, other than if you do not accept the ‘future’ as non-existent, then what it can be in reality. Also you need to define the phrase “written for good”.

E: Written for good means, in reality even the tiniest part of the past can absolutely not be changed any more. In reality all future is still undecided to some extent.

P: Reality occurs, whether an organism receives information about that is irrelevant.

E: Yes.

P: Nothing is written or not written.

E: See above.

P: Neither is it just physics that does “not immediately deal with reality but only with abstracted from reality models”. NOTHING does. We cannot “immediately deal with reality”.

E: Living in reality we are bound to the running border between past and future. Physics deals with abstracted models of reality that can be shifted, flipped, or otherwise manipulated. Hilbert even ignored the arrow of causality.

P: We can only know of it [reality] as objective knowledge. It can only be “abstracted” from information received. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with “models”, they are only wrong if they are not in accord with the reality they purport to represent.

E: The problem is not the limited validity e.g. of weather forecast but the use of mathematical instruments that require extrapolation and completeness up to infinity. Even or perhaps rather because you are a layman, you will hopefully agree on that it is nonsensical to demand inclusion of not yet existing future data in an analysis of measured, i.e. necessarily past ones. Theory dictates to ignore the fact that measured data are limited to the past. This led into apparent symmetries and other serious complications.

Eckard

view post as summary

Eckard

"Present time, today, just in this second, and the like may include past as well as future". How can it? Though I would have to ask whether you are referring to actuality &/or perception.

"How long does the present last?" The duration incurred for one point of change to occur in any given attribute in any given sequence of change. In physical reality, this is likely to...

view entire post

Eckard

"Present time, today, just in this second, and the like may include past as well as future". How can it? Though I would have to ask whether you are referring to actuality &/or perception.

"How long does the present last?" The duration incurred for one point of change to occur in any given attribute in any given sequence of change. In physical reality, this is likely to revolve around alteration in spatial position of elementary particles (ie movement). Because that is what reality ultimately decomposes to, and it probably involves the fastest rate of change. But, leaving aside the issues with identifying this, it does not assist in the understanding of most change sequences. So, as long as the logic is maintained (ie static states changing in substance and at a frequency), then conceptualisation to a lower level of decomposition will suffice. For example, leaf turns brown. The aim would be to determine a sequence of meaningful, appropriate, discrete states, which depict the process (albeit at a conceptualised level). Then one could explain this phenomenon in terms of what happens, why, and the rate at which it occurs (ie the frequency of change from one 'existent state' to the next-commonly known as time).

"In physics, we do not have any justification for attributing a duration to the border between past and future". I know. There is a “border”, so there must be an existence of that, and a duration thereto. This means physics is investigating something for which it has no proper logical definition of. And more importantly, it is conceptualising incorrectly. Because, in common with the rest of the population, it is deeming any given existent state to have change in it. Which is bizarre. Because if that is so, the question is then, what constitutes the physically existent state of any given entity at any given point in time. And anyway, it cannot be more than one. Interrelated to this is the misconceptualisation of time, and worse still, its reification as some form of existent dimension. In sum, the way in which reality is deemed to exist is incorrect.

“I suggest: existence can only be experienced from what already happened”. We can only extrapolate from our knowledge of what existed, when it was in existence, and what is likely to be in existence. This does not alter the fact that what exists is the present.

The word cannot refers to the logic that to have existence in our reality there must ultimately be a static state. “Any given point in time” is correct, because this is about timing, not the phenomenon incorrectly known as time. What is “past time” and “written” (a word you keep using)? Do not confuse the delay between existence, and our realisation of it, as time. Or confuse the existence of representations of reality, which is the information we receive, with the existence of reality itself. Or confuse existence with whether it has been perceived or not.

“E: My point is: If the distance between A and B changes during transmission of the signals, the time for a signal to travel from A to B must be equal to the time for a signal that simultaneously travels from B to A. So what?. We want to know A to B, not B to A. Assuming A is the event and B is a observer. If not, what are they? Then we want to know C to B, assuming C is the other event which you stipulated occurred and at the same point in time, albeit the two have different rates of motion. Then there is one observer “checking”. What is the problem?

“E: You did not specify what velocities you refer to”. Why should I? You stated: “the two objects are moving relative to each other”. I was just making the point, for completeness, that if this involves very high speeds and considerable differences between the two, then the supposed effect on dimension will occur”.

“E: I do not share your belief”. It is not mine, neither is it a belief. In the sense that this is what Einstein, et al, proposed was happening, and it underpins Relativity. But the effects have been morphed into ‘time’. Whether or not it actually occurs needs to be established. But really the point needs to re-discovered first, once the flaws over time and timing have been rectified.

“There is no second reality (b)”. Really? So what is light, noise, vibration, heat, etc? Though I did not call them a “second reality”. I said they are existent representations. That is they are, of themselves, a reality. But due to evolution, they have acquired a role as being the information that we receive, then process, to ‘know’ reality. In other words, for every actual existent state, there are many existent representations of it, and they can exist for longer.

“E: Written for good means, in reality even the tiniest part of the past can absolutely not be changed any more. In reality all future is still undecided to some extent”. No part of the past can be changed. It has occurred. Indeed, neither can the present, because by the time we know of it, it has occurred. Furthermore, by definition we cannot change the present. Because this concept assumes there is already something in existence which can be changed! This is your misconceptualisation of the future. The future is non-existent, it is nothing. It cannot be changed. There is nothing to change. What one is doing is altering the present from that which would have otherwise occurred.

“E: Living in reality we are bound to the running border between past and future…” This was not my point, which was we do not deal directly with reality (which is what you said), we deal with knowledge of it.

“E: The problem is not the limited validity…” Again, this was not my point, which was, since we can only have knowledge of reality, we must use representational devices to depict it. If those are at logical variance with the nature of reality, ie form not content, then there is a likelihood of not generating objective knowledge.

Paul

view post as summary