Is Time Merely Constant Change?

[Paul Martin]

Yeah, it is conceivable that there exist motion "outside" the 4D-block, but going along this route tends to make the ontology rather muddy instead of elegant.

Basically you can add more dimensions to express motion "to" spacetime, like you suggested, but then these dimensions too are static constructions, like Vanesch noted. The "2nd" temporal dimension cannot say "when" the changes happen to the 4D-spacetime (such as "a change" to a particular worldline), unless this 2nd dimension is actually in motion.

Then you have to include yet another dimension to express this motion. It is clear this leads to infinite regress.

It is not clear to me. I see no more reason to jump to the conclusion of infinite regress than one would after opening a few nested Russian dolls. In particular, if some aspect of the sequence of blocks of increasing dimensionality, such as the number of "things" in each block, or the number of "pointers" in each block, were decreasing, then a limit would be reached when this number reached zero. It is conceivable that the number of such blocks might be limited to some number like 11, as speculated both by Plato and by some string theorists.

So, the idea of "speed" to our idea of "motion" is nonsensical when we try to understand the motion of this metaphysical "pointer". It would only be the fact that the pointer can exist only in "one" location at one time that could give us any further clarity to subjective experience. It is up to debate whether this could be enough or not. And it definitely is up to debate whether this view of reality is elegant or not.

I agree. Elegance does not necessarily imply simplicity. As we have discovered, reality is much more complex than imagined by the ancients, and it may be even more complex than modern cosmologists imagine it to be today. I think an 11-dimensional reality might very well be elegant, although I agree that the question is debatable at this point of our understanding.

What you now simply constructed is some new, 5-dimensional geometrical construction, and nothing is flowing in there either. IF you now put a universal "tag" on the 5-th dimension (a "running pointer" as in Newton's universal time), which, I take it, would "tick away eigentime" then you run into problems with your 4-d spacetime, unless you identified specific eigentime-worldlines for each individual "conscious being".

Yes. That is exactly what I would do. The mystery we are trying to understand is the experience of consciousness and its temporal aspects. In our experience, we observe that time and motion are perceptible only and exactly in conjunction with a "conscious being" traversing a specific world line.

But that's nothing else but the "dualist subjective clock" I introduce...

That is no problem for me; I, too, am a dualist.

Nevertheless, you agree with me that this is happening "Outside of geometrical spacetime". Your "fifth dimension with a pointer" is then my "subjective clock", and the choices come down to my "subjective random generator".

I agree that my "fifth dimension with a pointer" is your "subjective clock", but I think there are more choices than your "subjective random generator". I think another possibility is that the pointer is a fundamental "ability to know" or an "ability to realize".

The point is that there are some things in reality that are fundamental, and there is no reason why motion could not be one of them, and thus time would be a semantical concept but nothing more.

I agree with AnssiH here. And I say that there is also no reason why "the ability to realize" could not be one of them. This "ability to realize", or "ability to know", would by nature have the ability to form semantical concepts, including the notions of time and motion, which would seem to make it even more fundamental than AnssiH's choice.

It is our subjective experience of time flow, and only that, which makes you consider this "extra structure".

Yes. But the mystery of subjective experience is exactly what we are trying to understand and explain. That seems to make it worth considering this "extra structure".

The "extra structure" (without going into detail), needed only to explain an aspect of subjective experience, is what I call, a dualist notion (which I adhere to).

I agree. I also adhere to a dualist view. As you may recall, I tried to make a case for my version of dualism in my thread, "A Dualist Phoenix".

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[AnssiH]

Basically you can add more dimensions to express motion "to" spacetime, like you suggested, but then these dimensions too are static constructions... ...It is clear this leads to infinite regress.

It is not clear to me. I see no more reason to jump to the conclusion of infinite regress than one would after opening a few nested Russian dolls. In particular, if some aspect of the sequence of blocks of increasing dimensionality, such as the number of "things" in each block, or the number of "pointers" in each block, were decreasing, then a limit would be reached when this number reached zero. It is conceivable that the number of such blocks might be limited to some number like 11, as speculated both by Plato and by some string theorists.

Well, I must say I certainly have never been able to conceive any way to make it work without adding any "dynamic" component somewhere one way or another.

If you decrease the number of "pointers" in each higher dimension, then wouldn't it just mean that the "upmost" pointer is pointing to the rest of reality, "all the time"?

I agree. Elegance does not necessarily imply simplicity.

Yeah, and it doesn't even seem that the duality view is the simplest option, at least not in my mind. I've said it many times in this forum that once I've tried to reconcile spacetime with the philosophy of the mind, it has become by far the most elegant option to assume that reality really is in motion, and metaphysically so.

As we have discovered, reality is much more complex than imagined by the ancients, and it may be even more complex than modern cosmologists imagine it to be today. I think an 11-dimensional reality might very well be elegant, although I agree that the question is debatable at this point of our understanding.

Yeah, and certainly it can be questioned whether even in this case the extra dimensions should even be imagined as if they are spatial dimensions, after all they are very different from the three we are familiar with. Have I understood correctly that the dimensions are needed so that the strings could vibrate in such ways that observable phenomena can be explained with the vibrations? If so, it seems that one could just as well assume that what we think of as "vibrations" are some other properties of strings that can exist in three dimensions of space. Is this possible?

And I say that there is also no reason why "the ability to realize" could not be one of them. This "ability to realize", or "ability to know", would by nature have the ability to form semantical concepts, including the notions of time and motion, which would seem to make it even more fundamental than AnssiH's choice.

Yeah, that is probably possible.

In the case that we assume motion to be real, it also seems quite possible to explain quite a bit about how semantical models or semantical reasoning/understanding comes to be in mechanical terms.

Basically, if you assume a learning system that initially doesn't have any pre-conceived idea of reality at all, it is forced to form some idea of reality by making assumptions about "what exists" and by building an association network that is basically system's own conception of the world; its worldview. (And the only way to build a worldview without anything to begin with is to build concepts that can be placed in juxtaposition with each others, such as "space" is what "matter" is not, and vice versa...)

The worldview that results is not something that has its root in some fundamental truths, but rather it is a self-supported circle of beliefs. When we look at some system, we are capable of interpreting it in many different ways. We can classify reality in different terms. This is all what would result if a system must learn without any prior knowledge about reality. Such a system can never quite be certain of the ontological nature of its own reality either.

Well, if it seems to click, some more words about semantical reasoning here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1136726&postcount=148

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Paul, When I read your post from last week, I thought I would make a couple comments.

Let's suppose a 4D static space-time ontology. Since the temporal dimension is static, it is similar to the spatial dimensions in some respects. The constraint it imposes, it seems to me, is that world-lines must have always increasing components in that dimension.

The static nature of Einstein’s picture rests with the fact that he is describing the rules obeyed by known data. His picture describes the future only in the sense that, once the future becomes the past, what ever it is it will be described by that picture. Thus it is that what is actually static about his picture is that it represents “the past”. That is also the exact source of Einstein’s problem with quantum representation of his general theory of relativity: i.e., quantum deals with uncertainty and uncertainty is what is not known: i.e., not part of the past. Another way of viewing that is realization that all changes in our knowledge of the past lie in the future.

In this analysis, the static space-time is like the "map" you referred to. The "territory" then would be reality, which is what we would like to understand.

Reality must include the future and we can only know exactly what it is after its absolute entirety is “the past”: at that point, it is static! That’s why all the big boys put forth the “many universes” theory. It is the only way uncertainty can be handled in Einstein’s picture.

What I am pointing out is that Einstein’s theory of relativity (both special and general) do not provide any convenient mechanism for establishing the past/future boundary. Essentially, all the professionals will do is point out that the boundary can always be shown to exist in any valid frame of reference. My position is that a proper representation of reality has to do more than that; it has to provide for the exact nature of that boundary: the change from fixed static information (the past) into the unknown (the future}.

Problems arise when you try and describe the nature of subjective experience.

All experience is subjective! The whole issue of science is to explain our subjective experiences. Objective is an adjective used to categorize experiences which everyone agrees are valid and/or universal (real and not a “figment of your imagination”!

I think that claim would be going too far. Space-time (the map) may be static, while reality (the territory) may include dynamic components above and beyond space-time.

"Above and beyond space-time” would imply that it specifies information outside that represented by Einstein’s geometry. This essentially adds a fifth dimension to the problem..

Space-time is a finite static 4D structure with world-lines always increasing in one of the dimensions (the temporal one). That 4D structure is a manifold in a 6D structure.

Your six dimensions clearly arise from Einstein’s four dimensional plus one to represent dynamic change and a second to handle the fact that Einstein’s space-time is not Euclidean. You clearly agree that the one representing dynamic change is essentially what we mean by time.

The second additional dimension is a temporal one in the same sense we consider our familiar temporal dimension allows for motion.

Here you are being dragged by Einstein’s success into the idea that “time” should be represented as another dimension. What is so awful about the Newtonian means of representing time: as a parameter of position along its path through the geometry? And furthermore, if you are adding time to Einstein’s picture, what need is there for time in that four dimensional construct you are borrowing from him? Finally, the Newtonian means of representing time yields a clear exposition of the present (that boundary between past and future, which is, of course, a function of the observer).

That brings you back to my argument (in my opus) that the proper fourth dimension to be used here is Einstein’s invariant interval not time: i.e., a factor measured along the world lines in Einstein’s picture. A factor clearly measured by any clock in contact with the entity of interest (essentially, exactly what is measured by clocks). When you do that, the geometry becomes Euclidean even for general relativistic effects. This totally removes the need for that sixth dimension you added. Five dimensions are entirely sufficient to the problem.

What I am getting at here is the fact that your perspective is very close to my perspective. From what I have gathered from reading your comments is that you are headed directly towards what I am saying; only approaching it from a slightly different direction.

At branch points in a world-line when the outcome of a particular quantum event might determine which branch to take, the observer would have a choice and could take either branch, or, in successive trips could take both paths.

First, if you use Newton’s perspective (that is, time is no more than a parameter indicating what point on the world-line is of interest to your examination) every point in a given world-line can be seen as a branch point (i.e., a specific world line represents the past, what is known). What path is taken is established when the result is known (that is, it has become part of the past).

Your comment, “in successive trips could take both paths” seems to presume one can return to exactly the same circumstance: i.e., to do so would require time travel. What I am trying to point out is that “successive trips” are “samples of the same trip” only in the perspective of the experimenter who is presuming he is talking about the same thing. Actually he is talking about a completely different time line. Finally, you of all people should be able to understand the necessity of “taking both paths”. You have argued against infinities and continuity on enough occasions to realize that this “continuous world-line” is a mental fabrication. The only thing which manages to become part of reality (and become map-able in Einstein’s picture) is the observed outcome of following “both paths”. Until that information is available to us, the outcome is in the future and is only determinable as a probability. Thus it is that the mechanism to be used is quantum mechanics which overtly recognizes probabilistic outcomes.

Since the 4D spacetime manifold is finite, all worldlines have an end. Nothing would prevent the observer from constructing extensions to the manifold to lengthen particular world lines. This would mean that the 4D manifold (our observable universe) could evolve in its temporal dimension as it seems to have done.

Which is essentially what I am saying.

You seem to be closer to understanding what I am saying than anyone else. As I see it, the only difference between our perspectives is that you don’t regard language communications as subject to the same laws. From my perspective, the problem of understanding what is meant by a collection of words is exactly the same as the problem of understanding what is meant by a collection of scientific experiments. That is why the set A is left as undefined in my http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm . In the final analysis, “all experience is subjective” and needs to be examined in an objective manner (in terms everyone agrees to – mathematics, the condensed essence of logic}.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[vanesch]

What I am pointing out is that Einstein’s theory of relativity (both special and general) do not provide any convenient mechanism for establishing the past/future boundary.

Worse ! It makes it impossible to have one ontologically existing. The reason is that such an ontologically existing past/future boundary would be a space-like hypersurface which would then "flow" through the spacetime manifold at a certain "Newtonian" rate. However, the worldlines of different observers would see their intersection of this hypersurface with their worldline evolve at rates which are not compatible with the eigentimes along these worldlines for all thinkable worldlines.

Here you are being dragged by Einstein’s success into the idea that “time” should be represented as another dimension. What is so awful about the Newtonian means of representing time: as a parameter of position along its path through the geometry? And furthermore, if you are adding time to Einstein’s picture, what need is there for time in that four dimensional construct you are borrowing from him? Finally, the Newtonian means of representing time yields a clear exposition of the present (that boundary between past and future, which is, of course, a function of the observer).

Yes, but the problem is that a specific event will be in "the future" for one observer and "already in the past" for another.

That brings you back to my argument (in my opus) that the proper fourth dimension to be used here is Einstein’s invariant interval not time: i.e., a factor measured along the world lines in Einstein’s picture.

But how do you handle then something like the twin paradox where we have two lines between two events A and B, with different eigentimes along them ?

 

[pibomb]

I can no longer see time. All I recognize is the morphing and changing of energies/masses/matters. This concept of time we have is slowly deteriorating from my mind. There is no time, all things are just constantly changing? Nothing ever really leaves us... and nothing is ever really born new in terms of energy. So all that we have is all that we have and it never goes anywhere except for changing into differenent physical, dimensional, and material states? So everything is not really passing... only changing. Time will never leave us, we must learn to leave time.

Time is a way of expressing change. Without change, time wouldn't seem real and without time, change would not be real either. You need to define time more clearly, but as of now, time is a human method of stating the "space" between events.

 

[vanesch]

In another thread about the same problem, pervect provided some great references on the topic:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1176689&postcount=6

 

[Doctordick]

Worse ! It makes it impossible to have one ontologically existing. The reason is that such an ontologically existing past/future boundary would be a space-like hypersurface which would then "flow" through the spacetime manifold at a certain "Newtonian" rate. However, the worldlines of different observers would see their intersection of this hypersurface with their worldline evolve at rates which are not compatible with the eigentimes along these worldlines for all thinkable worldlines.

I am afraid you are just too bound up in Einstein's picture to understand what I am talking about. As a starter towards understanding my attack, take a quick read of http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/flaw/Fatalfla.htm . The entire resolution of the conflict is not presented there but the central issue is developed and a trained physicist ought to be able to pick up on the issue I am talking about. If you honestly examine the issue carefully you will discover some rather surprising consequences.

Yes, but the problem is that a specific event will be in "the future" for one observer and "already in the past" for another.

Again, you are too bound up in Einstein's picture to appreciate that the problem you see is purely a problem of your perspective. Time can only be defined along an observers path and then only in a manner consistent with his interactions with the universe. It is the presumption that time can be universally defined which is the crux of the problem. It is a well known fact that no real experiment can bring the issue, "that a specific event will be in "the future" for one observer and "already in the past" for another", into an experimental conflict. That is exactly the issue I complain about: the geometry should not include possibilities which can not be achieved or it is not the proper geometry to analyze reality.

But how do you handle then something like the twin paradox where we have two lines between two events A and B, with different eigentimes along them ?

In my presentation, time is only defined along the path of the observer (the observer can be any physical phenomena) and is nothing more or less than a description of the path length of that observer. Different paths have different path lengths thus leading to what is called the twin paradox.

Talk to me if you find anything there difficult to understand.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Paul Martin]

It is conceivable that the number of such blocks might be limited to some number like 11, as speculated both by Plato and by some string theorists.

Well, I must say I certainly have never been able to conceive any way to make it work without adding any "dynamic" component somewhere one way or another.

I agree. Maybe we can talk about what that "dynamic" component might be.

If you decrease the number of "pointers" in each higher dimension, then wouldn't it just mean that the "upmost" pointer is pointing to the rest of reality, "all the time"?

Yes. But I don't think that poses an insoluble problem. If the "rest of reality" were a hierarchical nested set of static space-time blocks (MWI), then the pointer would be pointing at it (into it) "all the time".

I've said it many times in this forum that once I've tried to reconcile spacetime with the philosophy of the mind, it has become by far the most elegant option to assume that reality really is in motion, and metaphysically so.

I agree with your view here. But, it leaves us with the questions of what exactly is it in, or about, reality that is in motion? And what, exactly, is motion itself? I'd like to explore those questions a little deeper.

Yeah, and certainly it can be questioned whether even in this case the extra dimensions should even be imagined as if they are spatial dimensions, after all they are very different from the three we are familiar with.

I think this is a good question to begin with. What is a spatial dimension, and whatever it is, is it the only reasonable candidate for the extra dimensions?

Please correct any of this analysis, but this is the way I see it: A dimension is a degree of freedom. Thus, we may have not only spatial dimensions with position as the variable, but we may have dimensions of color, or energy density, or other variables.

It doesn't seem reasonable to consider change in color or temperature or other non-spatial variable to be motion. So, we could define 'motion' to be a change in position by an entity (the thing that is in motion). The "thing", as you point out, seems to be a stable pattern of some sort. With this definition, we require the "thing" that is in motion, and at least one spatial dimension. So "motion" is the process of the "thing" occupying successively different positions in a spatial dimension.

Now, let's ask what that "thing" might be. Can we say, for example, that a graph of the function y = x is in motion? Well, no, it is static. How about considering a short segment of the ink mark on the graph to be a "stable pattern", and we notice that for different positions of x, the "stable pattern" changes to a different position vertically. Is that motion? I think it makes no sense to say so. But what if you observe that graph, and your eyes and your attention follow the ink line from the origin up to the right some distance. Is that motion? Well, yes it is. At least your eyeballs moved. But more importantly, your subjective conscious experience of attending to the successive ink mark segments not only gave you the illusion of motion, but the experience was along the lines of what we usually associate with motion.

Thus it seems that, continuing with my suggestion above, if the "rest of reality" were a hierarchical nested set of static space-time blocks (MWI), and the pointer is pointing at it (into it) "all the time", the "illusion" of motion, and the necessary conditions for QM and GR would be satisfied if the pointer follows world lines within the various blocks.

The pointer would serve as the observer and would somehow determine which, or how many, of the optional branches to take at each encountered quantum event. Whether the pointer splits and becomes several, each following a world line in a different one of the MWs, or whether the pointer has the free will to choose one over the others, or whether there is some deterministic random algorithm which makes the choice, would be questions for further investigation, but that wouldn't change the ontological or the physical explanation, it seems to me.

Basically, if you assume a learning system that initially doesn't have any pre-conceived idea of reality at all, it is forced to form some idea of reality by making assumptions about "what exists" and by building an association network that is basically system's own conception of the world; its worldview. (And the only way to build a worldview without anything to begin with is to build concepts that can be placed in juxtaposition with each others, such as "space" is what "matter" is not, and vice versa...)
The worldview that results is not something that has its root in some fundamental truths, but rather it is a self-supported circle of beliefs. ... This is all what would result if a system must learn without any prior knowledge about reality. Such a system can never quite be certain of the ontological nature of its own reality either.

I agree completely. But what exactly is this "learning system"? Let me suggest some possibilities.

For starters, we have the living human brain. You have already explained how the brain builds a worldview just as you described above.

Next, we can imagine sophisticated robots that are probably going to be built in the not-too-distant future, which will be set to work exploring heretofore unreachable parts of our universe, such as nano- and micro-scale environments, deep space, deep oceans, etc. And, as you point out, regardless of what they learn about their respective environments, they "can never quite be certain of the ontological nature of [their] own reality."

Next, going backward in time, we can consider the most primitive precursors of life on Earth as being such "learning systems". Everything you said above applies to them as well, as it does to all their progeny, including us.

Finally, going back even further in time, we can ask whether the most primordial, or fundamental ontological entity, whatever it was, might not also have the same characteristic of being a "learning system". It makes sense to me that it might, and it seems to me that it might be fruitful to investigate the consequences of this hypothesis. What do you think?

In your post #107 in Quantum Physics>Against "Realism", you wrote,

You may be tempted to say "maybe MWI is just this idea", but to me MWI is like all the other interpretations, and they are basically arguing about whether everything is made out of "earth, air, water and fire" or from "solid, liquid and gas", or perhaps the fundamentals are "opaque" and "transparent" matterpieces, when they should be concentrating on much much deeper issues. Something like, how could inertia be fundamental? Think about that.

I have thought about it. It seems to me that an "ability to know", i.e., a "learning system" could be fundamental. It seems less complex than, say, assuming something like energy (the ability to do work), or a field (the ability to force), or a set of laws (the ability to prescribe), is fundamental. What do you think about that?

In that same thread, you wrote,

I don't think anyone has been able to actually make any explanation about how the "illusion of flow of time" could be achieved if nothing is in motion in reality, but everybody are very willing to dismiss the whole problem as meaningless because you really don't bump into it until you get to the philosophy of the mind, which may seem unrelated to physics, but it is not.

So you could say my belief is that we just haven't figured out the proper model yet, but that we are capable of doing so by letting go certain particularly sticky assumptions about reality.

Let me try. If we let go of all assumptions except for the existence of a primordial "learning system", (AKA "an ability to know", "an ability to realize", "a receptive principle", "pointer") we can imagine an evolutionary scenario in which "the "illusion of flow of time" could be achieved if nothing is in motion in reality..." Here's how:

This "learning system" exists (by hypothesis). Therefore, something and not nothing exists. Therefore that fact also exists. The "learning system" has the "ability to know", so it is reasonable to conclude that it might know that single fact (i.e. that something exists). (Even at this beginning point, your observation is well taken, that the "system can never quite be certain of the ontological nature of its own reality", so the "learning system" might know that something exists, but it can't know the nature of the "learning system" itself.)

The fact that a fact is known is a new fact, which could then be known. Similarly, a large set of facts, or information could be generated and developed. (I'm not exactly sure how, but I think it could be worked out.) This set of information, together with the "learning system" itself, would comprise reality. If the "learning system" could act as a "pointer", by successively attending to various details of that set of information (like stable patterns in it), then "the "illusion of flow of time" could be achieved [even though] nothing is in motion in reality".

It should be noticed that in this model, even though nothing in reality is in motion, there is an evolution going on: new information is being added. This is consistent with the part of reality we observe (our universe) in that it already contains a sizeable amount of information and if we consider the present moment of any worldline to be a temporal boundary, it seems that this boundary continues to recede (procede?) into the future.

So reality, as you suggested, really is in motion, but the real motion is only in the "pointer" and not the MWI blocks. I suppose you could also say that the growth of the blocks is motion in the same way that the growth of a coral reef could be said to be motion. The reef is static, but the boundaries move.

I am eager to hear your thoughts on these ideas.

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

Hi Dick,

The static nature of Einstein’s picture rests with the fact that he is describing the rules obeyed by known data. His picture describes the future only in the sense that, once the future becomes the past, what ever it is it will be described by that picture. Thus it is that what is actually static about his picture is that it represents “the past”. That is also the exact source of Einstein’s problem with quantum representation of his general theory of relativity: i.e., quantum deals with uncertainty and uncertainty is what is not known: i.e., not part of the past. Another way of viewing that is realization that all changes in our knowledge of the past lie in the future.

I think that the analogy of a coral reef that I mentioned to AnssiH is consistent with Einstein's picture. The reef at any moment is static and represents "the past". It is all known information. But at the boundary, new information is added and the boundary between what is known and what is unknown, moves out a little. QM describes the unitary evolution of the structure of these additions. It is debatable whether a single outcome is added at each new quantum event (which leaves the problem of how it was chosen), or whether all possible outcomes are added to the structure, each one going into a separate and distinct space-time block (MWI). Either way, it is like the growth of a coral reef, albeit in the MWI it must be a hyperdimensional reef.

Reality must include the future and we can only know exactly what it is after its absolute entirety is “the past”: at that point, it is static! That’s why all the big boys put forth the “many universes” theory. It is the only way uncertainty can be handled in Einstein’s picture.

What I am pointing out is that Einstein’s theory of relativity (both special and general) do not provide any convenient mechanism for establishing the past/future boundary. Essentially, all the professionals will do is point out that the boundary can always be shown to exist in any valid frame of reference. My position is that a proper representation of reality has to do more than that; it has to provide for the exact nature of that boundary: the change from fixed static information (the past) into the unknown (the future}.

In my picture, nothing would prevent the "pointer" from traversing a particular worldline many times, or traversing several worldlines in any arbitrary sequence, or partially, or intermittently. The "future" would only have meaning in the context of a particular traversal of the pointer on a particular worldline and at a particular point on that worldline. In this context, the "future" would consist of the future light cone with origin at that point on the worldline.

Now, given the evolutionary coral-reef-like nature of the space-time block(s), there would be discrete ends to each and every worldline. In the event the pointer encounters one of these ends, the quantum outcome, however it is determined, will construct the addition on the overall structure. This raises the question of whether such evolution may proceed in the absence of a visit by the pointer, or not. My guess is that it can be either. In the case the pointer is not involved, then some deterministic algorithm probably decides (in the non-MWI interpretations). In the case the pointer is involved, the choice may be much more complex. These are just some thoughts you stirred up with your comment.

I think that claim would be going too far. Space-time (the map) may be static, while reality (the territory) may include dynamic components above and beyond space-time.

"Above and beyond space-time” would imply that it specifies information outside that represented by Einstein’s geometry. This essentially adds a fifth dimension to the problem..

Yes. At least a fifth dimension. My guess is that, in reality, there are several more as well. Maybe a number like 11.

Your six dimensions clearly arise from Einstein’s four dimensional plus one to represent dynamic change and a second to handle the fact that Einstein’s space-time is not Euclidean. You clearly agree that the one representing dynamic change is essentially what we mean by time.

Yes. I agree with that.

Here you are being dragged by Einstein’s success into the idea that “time” should be represented as another dimension. What is so awful about the Newtonian means of representing time: as a parameter of position along its path through the geometry?

Maybe not "awful", but just a little constraining. I do consider "time" to be just another spatial dimension in the block. But it seems to have the constraint that worldlines must always increase in that dimension. That is, the degree of freedom in the temporal dimension is not as "free" as in other spatial dimensions: we can't go backward in time, or even stop going for that matter. But within that constraint, I agree with the path-position parameter as a definition of time.

And furthermore, if you are adding time to Einstein’s picture, what need is there for time in that four dimensional construct you are borrowing from him?

Only to explain the time-like nature of subjective experience, as AnssiH has pointed out.

Finally, the Newtonian means of representing time yields a clear exposition of the present (that boundary between past and future, which is, of course, a function of the observer).

The problem is that Newton has one clear boundary for all observers, which we now know is not the case. As you say, it is a function of the observer.

That brings you back to my argument (in my opus) that the proper fourth dimension to be used here is Einstein’s invariant interval not time: i.e., a factor measured along the world lines in Einstein’s picture. A factor clearly measured by any clock in contact with the entity of interest (essentially, exactly what is measured by clocks). When you do that, the geometry becomes Euclidean even for general relativistic effects. This totally removes the need for that sixth dimension you added. Five dimensions are entirely sufficient to the problem.

To the extent that I understand you, I think I agree with you. From the standpoint of understanding time and motion here in our local 4D block, I think five would be sufficient. The reason I favor considering more than that is the problem of the number of "pointers" in a block. As is apparent, there are at least six billion pointers just on our planet. In my view, as you may have noticed, these "pointers" are manifestations of structures and algorithms in hyper-space-time which serve as "drivers" of organisms as vehicles. So are there six billion drivers in hyperspace-time? or One? My guess is that the number is somewhere in between, and that at successively "higher" levels of dimensions, the number of pointer/drivers diminishes, until at the highest level there is only One.

That is why I would really like for you to work out solutions to your fundamental equation in 4, 5, 6 and even higher dimensions to see if we can't get a clue as to what the possibilities for structures and dynamics might be in those spaces. I know. I know. You did it for n dimensions, and that should be sufficient. But I think that specific solutions for specific higher dimensions might shed more light than a general solution does.

As I see it, the only difference between our perspectives is that you don’t regard language communications as subject to the same laws. From my perspective, the problem of understanding what is meant by a collection of words is exactly the same as the problem of understanding what is meant by a collection of scientific experiments. That is why the set A is left as undefined in my “explanation” paper. In the final analysis, “all experience is subjective” and needs to be examined in an objective manner (in terms everyone agrees to – mathematics, the condensed essence of logic}.

As I see it, the only difference between our perspectives is that I don't understand as much as you do. On the point of language communications being subject to the same laws, I agree with you completely. In fact, it is only language constructs that we can deal with at all. What we think of as ontological "particles" are nothing more than stable patterns in something, as AnssiH has pointed out, and we can only guess at what that "something" is. My guess is that it is nothing but information. And thus, the only thing that can operate on it is language. I think that all of reality is nothing more than a language game when you get right down to it. It is the "pointer" going over the various patterns in the information that has evolved.

Good talking with you again, Dick.
Warm regards to all,

Paul

 

[vanesch]

In my presentation, time is only defined along the path of the observer (the observer can be any physical phenomena) and is nothing more or less than a description of the path length of that observer. Different paths have different path lengths thus leading to what is called the twin paradox.

Let us call "doodle" the quantity that separates (absolute) past from future. What is "doodle" then according to you ? Observer eigentime ?

I mean: for every event, you should be able to assign a quantity which is called "doodle" and which, when doodle > 25, is "future" and when <25, is "past". How do you do this ?

 

[Doctordick]

I mean: for every event, you should be able to assign a quantity which is called "doodle" and which, when doodle > 25, is "future" and when <25, is "past". How do you do this ?

Again, you are so involved in the standard Einsteinian perspective that you fail to comprehend what I am saying. Time is a parameter, embedded in your (and likewise everyone's) mental picture of reality, used to refer to order of changes in that reality (the past is what you know; what has already happened *TO YOU*, and the future is what you do not know; what has yet to happened *TO YOU*). As such time comparisons between entities following different paths through that reality can not be expected to agree on the particular value some other entity assigned to some specific event; however, they will certainly all agree that contact interactions occur at the same time in everybody's personal coordinate system, they just won't agree as to what number should be attached to the event to differentiate between past and future. The transition from past to future (i.e., the present) is a very personal thing having nothing to do with the structure of the universe. I presume you have some knowledge of relativistic physics and, if that is the case, you should be well aware of the fact that the time differences (time assignments established in different frames) never resolve down to actual causality inversion.

As I said in http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/flaw/Fatalfla.htm , consider a four dimensional Euclidean space (x,y,z, tau) where free fundamental entities propagate at a fixed velocity (since the conventional concept of mass does not exist exist in my picture, the quantum mechanical solution yielding the probability of finding the entity is simply a traveling wave with a fixed velocity). Now, if mass is defined to be the name assigned to momentum in the tau direction (yielding energy as the magnitude of the total momentum), what will common interactions look like? Remember, all your experiments are done in laboratories constructed of uncountable numbers of fundamental entities all in eigenstates of mass (momentum quantized states relative to the tau direction), presume action at a distance does not occur, and all observed forces are due to virtual exchange of fundamental entities. Work out the mathematics and see what you get! I guarantee your description will be identical to standard modern physics (that is, if you don't make an error in your analysis). And that analysis will also generate all the common general relativistic effects.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Paul,

I am afraid you are just too bound up in your personal beliefs to see the problem objectively.

To the extent that I understand you, I think I agree with you. From the standpoint of understanding time and motion here in our local 4D block, I think five would be sufficient. The reason I favor considering more than that is the problem of the number of "pointers" in a block. As is apparent, there are at least six billion pointers just on our planet. In my view, as you may have noticed, these "pointers" are manifestations of structures and algorithms in hyper-space-time which serve as "drivers" of organisms as vehicles. So are there six billion drivers in hyperspace-time? or One? My guess is that the number is somewhere in between, and that at successively "higher" levels of dimensions, the number of pointer/drivers diminishes, until at the highest level there is only One.

That is why I would really like for you to work out solutions to your fundamental equation in 4, 5, 6 and even higher dimensions to see if we can't get a clue as to what the possibilities for structures and dynamics might be in those spaces. I know. I know. You did it for n dimensions, and that should be sufficient. But I think that specific solutions for specific higher dimensions might shed more light than a general solution does.

Sorry, but you are just wrong. You are a mathematician so you should understand the issue of analog phenomena; i.e., different phenomena which, though they involve quite different entities and totally different relationship, none the less end up obeying identical dynamic equations (think about those analog computers circa 1960's). We had one in the physics department when I was a graduate student and I got some experience programing them.

What I am getting at here is the issue embedded in that old question, "how do I know you are experiencing the same phenomena when you say you are seeing 'green' as what I am experiencing when I think I am seeing 'green'?" The correct answer to the question is, "I don't!" We don't worry about the issue because all the related phenomena (any experiment either of us can conceive of related to the issue) end up being in simple accordance with the presumption that we are seeing the same thing. What this really means is that the phenomena and the surrounding aspects you experience are analogs to the phenomena I experience so, if they happen to actually be different, that fact is of utterly no experimental consequence.

That is exactly what is so important about my discovery, the nugget of which is given in my paper http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm . The set A constitutes the complete collection of ontological elements a given explanation is to explain. The set C is the actual information upon which that explanation is based (the explanation cannot be based on A because we are not all knowing). The set B(t) constitutes changes in what we know: i.e., changes in C. I define an explanation to be a method of predicting our expectations and from that definition deduce the fact that, if the explanation is internally consistent with itself, the fundamental elements of that explanation must obey my fundamental equation. That fact has utterly nothing to do with what those elements are or what experiences are contained in the explainer's personal knowledge C.

What it says is that a logical self consistent explanation of anything must obey that equation. I call the result the "Foundation of Physical Reality" because it provides us with a foundation for communication: i.e., physical reality. What I am getting at here is that it makes utterly no difference as to what kind of universe you live in or what your experiences are, if you come up with an internally consistent explanation of any aspect of that reality, I know that your explanation (that is, what you are able to communicate to me) must obey that equation.

The consequence of that fact is that we all agree about the nature of Physical Reality: i.e., it makes no difference what your personal experiences are (the universe you live in could bear no resemblence at all to the one I experience), those explanations which are internally consistent have to be analog representations of my experiences which are internally consistent. The reason we all agree about physical phenomena is that all the fundamental relationships of modern physics (including chemistry, biology and any of the other hard sciences) are actually approximate solutions to my fundamental equation. Thus they constitute phenomena within our varied experiences which have explanations which are analog representations of the same thing even if we are actually talking about totally different phenomena. It follows that, when we get away from physics and mathematics, we have utterly no reason to presume we are even talking about the same things or that a mutual analog to our thoughts even exists.

Now, to get to the issue of dimensionality. My fundamental equation is essentially two dimensional. The first dimension is to allow representation of "difference" (if every element of A is identical to every other element, we have only one element to talk about). The second dimension allows us to consider two different elements of C to be the same element of A. These two dimensions are no more than a recording mechanism (a mental note pad so to speak). The actual number of elements in C are presumed to be so large as to be essentially uncountable (I think you like the word "pointers" to refer to this issue). Fundamentally, this is an n body problem and is quite definitely a mathematically insoluble problem; however, if one takes the universe one event at a time (presuming the solution for the rest of the universe is known) I show that there exists a one dimensional solution for that one event and in fact show that Schroedinger's equation is an approximation to that solution (which also allows me to define some of those analog concepts: momentum, energy and mass).

I then expand the problem by collecting the elements of C in sets of three. Essentially regarding each of these three different sets as independent of one another (no problem as all of the original elements were independent anyway, as the dependence comes purely out of the explanation and not out of reality). When I do that I get a three dimensional Schroedinger's equation implying the fact that our three dimensional picture of the universe must obey Newtonian mechanics on an anthropomorphic level (Newtonian mechanics is an analog model of that collection of elements going to make up an internally consistent explanation of whatever it is you are explaining).

The fundamental point you are missing is the fact that the rest of the universe must be known or we cannot solve the problem (that presumed solution for the rest of the universe provides the boundary conditions for our "one body solution" in three dimensions). My next step, in chapter four, is to use the definitions developed in the deduction of the Schroedinger approximation to essentially set up a one body problem in six dimensions. That effort is my derivation of Dirac's equation. The six dimensions are, for practical purposes three for the electron (momentum in the tau direction being quantized essentially eliminates tau) and three for the photon (since it is massless, the tau dimension is insignificant). The deduction produces both Dirac's equation and Maxwell's equations in a relativistically correct representation.

Essentially, relativity is a phenomena which arises in a four dimensional analysis, relativistically correct electromagnetic phenomena arise from that six dimensional representation. If one allows non-zero tau momentum in the second particle, one obtains the nuclear strong force. And finally, under the presumption that our boundary conditions are valid (given to us by the agreement between our solutions and our success at physics) we can examine the consequences of variations in interaction density and, by this means, obtain all the known general relativistic effects including gravity itself. Gravity is a distortion in our above solution created by the radial variation in interaction density.

The reason I bring all this up is that the dimensionality of the representation expresses the number of independent variables in the solution space. We can take the number up to eight only because we have a very good idea as to how the boundary conditions are to be represented (the impact of those millions upon billions of other significant events). That result has been achieved by our subconscious through millions of years of evolution and survival. What you want to do requires us to express those boundary conditions correctly for these higher dimensional representations. Before you step off in that direction, you ought to consider carefully exactly what I have done as it is intimately related to dimensional representation.

Essentially I have shown that the "individual entities" in that higher dimensional representation (up to around eight dimensions anyway, a two body problem in four dimensions) have to obey the laws of physics; thus the question you have to answer before you can begin to cast the whole universe in a higher dimensional representation is, what are the resultant boundary conditions of such a representation. To put that question in another form, it should be seen as totally equivalent to, "what is or is not possible when we require all the entities in the universe to obey the laws of modern physics. We have trouble conceiving how four dimensions comes to require relativity and electromagnetic effects (though we can show it analytically), how can you expect to conceive of the impact of higher dimensional interactions and what relationships are or are not possible in such a representation? Without the boundary conditions, you cannot even state the problem.

By the way, have you ever looked at my posts on Hypography Science Forums? Take a look at "A simple geometric proof with profound consequences".

Have fun -- Dick

 

[mosassam]

Sorry to just butt in like this but I have a query concerning Time and it's obvious I've finally found the right place. Looking at the previous posts I see that I'm completely out of my depths in terms of the science - I'm more of an 'accidental philosopher'. Because of my ability to remember the past or make predictions about the future I've always taken for granted the arrow of time from Past to Future through the Present. However, after looking more closely I find my personal experience is of an ever-changing NOW - my actions in the past were done NOW as were the memories these actions created. I carry these memories with me NOW and when I observe any physical effects of my past actions (ie: initials carved in a tree when I was 11) I observe them NOW.
I had also assumed that Time is a measurement of change but it appears that Time is more like a byproduct of change and as such can be used to measure it. This is all very philosophical but I would like to ask anyone if there is a mathematical proof for Time, or some kind of scientific proof. Time is a fundamental aspect of physics so I am assuming that it has an objective existence that has been proven. Apologies if this is a completely bonehead question.

 

[vanesch]

Again, you are so involved in the standard Einsteinian perspective that you fail to comprehend what I am saying. Time is a parameter, embedded in your (and likewise everyone's) mental picture of reality, used to refer to order of changes in that reality (the past is what you know; what has already happened *TO YOU*, and the future is what you do not know; what has yet to happened *TO YOU*).

Yes, but that is your "subjective time" if you want to.

As such time comparisons between entities following different paths through that reality can not be expected to agree on the particular value some other entity assigned to some specific event; however, they will certainly all agree that contact interactions occur at the same time in everybody's personal coordinate system, they just won't agree as to what number should be attached to the event to differentiate between past and future.

Ah, but here already, I have a problem. When you say that "past and future" have a physical, objective meaning - which I guess you are saying - this means that for all events (even those that are far away), one should be able to say whether they are "in the past" or "in the future" ; otherwise, the concept of "past" and "future" has no objective, observer-independent meaning (and can hence not have an ontological status). For your view, this is necessary, because "past events" exist, while "future events" don't even exist. So the question should be legitime, to ask: when I saw the firecracker go off nearby, at that moment, for me, did, or didn't, the explosion of a remote firecracker "exist" ? At that very moment of course, I didn't have any information about the remote firecracker. But later on, I did. So it should be justified to ask what was the ontological status of the remote exploding firecracker WHEN MY FIRECRACKER WENT OFF, no ? Otherwise, we are in a totally relational view of reality, and don't allow for a genuine ontological and objective status of "past" and "future", but only a subjective reality which is observer-dependent.

Now, same question, but for an observer zipping by me, which crosses me exactly when the nearby firecracker explodes (so that we both see the firecracker explode at the same moment).

The transition from past to future (i.e., the present) is a very personal thing having nothing to do with the structure of the universe. I presume you have some knowledge of relativistic physics and, if that is the case, you should be well aware of the fact that the time differences (time assignments established in different frames) never resolve down to actual causality inversion.

If you want to assign an ontological status to "past" and "future", then this should be entirely observer-independent. That means, one should be able to tell (even after the fact) whether a specific event (explosion of a fire cracker) was in the past or in the future. The reason is that if this ontological status of past and future is something of the kind "exists" or "doesn't exist", then a fire cracker explosion cannot "exist" for one observer, and "not exist" for another observer. So you have to introduce a "master observer" somewhere, whose time is "the genuine time" and who will decide what.

Your alternative formulation is of course possible. You can do GR "in ether mode", and introduce an arbitary timelike vectorfield: it will be the gradient of a scalar function which you can call "time" and separate past from future that way. But it violates the spirit of GR. You have introduced a preferred foliation of spacetime.

There was a guy of the name of Ilya Schmeltzer or something who did something very similar. Of course, once you've introduced "an ether" that way, you can go back to the Newtonian vision of time.

 

[vanesch]

That is exactly what is so important about my discovery, the nugget of which is given in my paper http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm .

This has a strange smell to it. Has this been published officially somewhere ? On first reading, it doesn't make sense at all to me.

 

[Doctordick]

I had also assumed that Time is a measurement of change but it appears that Time is more like a byproduct of change and as such can be used to measure it. This is all very philosophical but I would like to ask anyone if there is a mathematical proof for Time, or some kind of scientific proof. Time is a fundamental aspect of physics so I am assuming that it has an objective existence that has been proven. Apologies if this is a completely bonehead question.

Time is a basic ontological concept and as such certainly cannot be “proved” from an epistemological perspective (you can google those terms for clarification); however, time can be seen as a required concept from the perspective that we are not all knowing and the representation of change in our knowledge has to be possible in any rational world view. If one examines the situation carefully, it can be seen that no further refinement of the concept is necessary at all. But, in order to understand that assertion, you would need to understand calculus and my presentation, http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

Yes, but that is your "subjective time" if you want to.

I think the real problem here is that you cannot comprehend that it is you (and the rest of the physics community) who are making the error when you presume that there exists a “subjective time” which can be absolutely mapped into a universally valid coordinate system. By universally valid, I mean a coordinate system which can be used to express all aspects of reality. If you have any decent training in physics, you should be aware of the problems arising when one tries to create a general relativisticly correct theory of quantum mechanics. I am asserting that these problems are entirely due to the erroneous concept of time taken to be obviously valid by the physics community. Take a look at my paper, ”Resolution of the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict”.

So it should be justified to ask what was the ontological status of the remote exploding firecracker WHEN MY FIRECRACKER WENT OFF, no ?

The correct answer to that question is NO! Time is a subjective matter and not a coordinate of the universe!

Otherwise, we are in a totally relational view of reality, and don't allow for a genuine ontological and objective status of "past" and "future", but only a subjective reality which is observer-dependent.

No, I would not agree with that statement. What is subjective is the time elapsing between events. All observers will agree exactly with the concurrence of specific events so there is considerably more objective analysis than implied by the statement, “but only a subjective reality which is observer-dependent”.

Now, same question, but for an observer zipping by me, which crosses me exactly when the nearby firecracker explodes (so that we both see the firecracker explode at the same moment).

Both parties will agree that they both saw the explosion at the same moment and, further, that the firecracker exploded at the very same moment that the fuse burned into the charge; what they will argue about is the elapsed time between those two events (a subjective matter wholly dependent upon their personal presumptions as to the proper geometry to be used to describe the circumstance).

If you want to assign an ontological status to "past" and "future", then this should be entirely observer-independent. That means, one should be able to tell (even after the fact) whether a specific event (explosion of a fire cracker) was in the past or in the future. The reason is that if this ontological status of past and future is something of the kind "exists" or "doesn't exist", then a fire cracker explosion cannot "exist" for one observer, and "not exist" for another observer. So you have to introduce a "master observer" somewhere, whose time is "the genuine time" and who will decide what.

I will agree that you need to introduce “a master observer”, if you wish to attach a “time” parameter to the collection of events, but where do you come up with the idea that you should be able to attach such a parameter to these events? As I said, you are just too embedded in Einstein’s perspective to realize that it is not only unnecessary but a globally invalid concept.

Your alternative formulation is of course possible. You can do GR "in ether mode", and introduce an arbitary timelike vectorfield: it will be the gradient of a scalar function which you can call "time" and separate past from future that way.

Why do you refer to my presentation as an ”ether mode”? Past and future is a statement about the state of the universe available to an entity at a particular point in its path through the geometry. Even in Einstein’s perspective, the exact information as to the state of the universe available to a specific entity at each point in its path is a universal observable (it’s right there at the point of his light cone). The only problem is attaching a universally agreed upon parameter to that collection of events.

But it violates the spirit of GR. You have introduced a preferred foliation of spacetime.

Does it really? Are you saying that a geometry which yields the “speed of light” as the same in any direction is not a preferred foliation of space-time? Can you give me an experiment which proves the speed of light is the same in the plus or minus x direction? Wouldn’t such a proof violate the basic premise of relativity itself? I say Einstein chose that particular “preferred foliation” of the geometry to be used because it was convenient to his Newtonian world view. Actually Einstein is the one who has failed to present the universe in a manner independent of the old “ether” concept. Even today I regularly read articles clearly discussing the “structure of space-time”. Now, if that is not an “ether” concept, what is?

That is exactly what is so important about my discovery, the nugget of which is given in my paper The Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself.

This has a strange smell to it. Has this been published officially somewhere ? On first reading, it doesn't make sense at all to me.

Exactly what do you mean by “a strange smell to it”? Are you trying to suggest it is a piece of “Cr*p”? That seems to be the consensus of the physics community but that doesn’t make them right! Yes, it is officially published somewhere: on my website where you read it! As far as it not making sense to you, what did you do, just scan it? It is fundamentally a deduction and the line where you were confused should be clear if you read it carefully. If you have any serious rational questions, I am here to answer them. If your real interest is just to dissuade others from thinking about what I say, I have no interest in battling windmills.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[AnssiH]

Please correct any of this analysis, but this is the way I see it: A dimension is a degree of freedom. Thus, we may have not only spatial dimensions with position as the variable, but we may have dimensions of color, or energy density, or other variables.

It doesn't seem reasonable to consider change in color or temperature or other non-spatial variable to be motion. So, we could define 'motion' to be a change in position by an entity (the thing that is in motion). The "thing", as you point out, seems to be a stable pattern of some sort. With this definition, we require the "thing" that is in motion, and at least one spatial dimension. So "motion" is the process of the "thing" occupying successively different positions in a spatial dimension.

Now, let's ask what that "thing" might be. Can we say, for example, that a graph of the function y = x is in motion? Well, no, it is static. How about considering a short segment of the ink mark on the graph to be a "stable pattern", and we notice that for different positions of x, the "stable pattern" changes to a different position vertically. Is that motion? I think it makes no sense to say so. But what if you observe that graph, and your eyes and your attention follow the ink line from the origin up to the right some distance. Is that motion? Well, yes it is. At least your eyeballs moved. But more importantly, your subjective conscious experience of attending to the successive ink mark segments not only gave you the illusion of motion, but the experience was along the lines of what we usually associate with motion.

Thus it seems that, continuing with my suggestion above, if the "rest of reality" were a hierarchical nested set of static space-time blocks (MWI), and the pointer is pointing at it (into it) "all the time", the "illusion" of motion, and the necessary conditions for QM and GR would be satisfied if the pointer follows world lines within the various blocks.

The pointer would serve as the observer and would somehow determine which, or how many, of the optional branches to take at each encountered quantum event. Whether the pointer splits and becomes several, each following a world line in a different one of the MWs, or whether the pointer has the free will to choose one over the others, or whether there is some deterministic random algorithm which makes the choice, would be questions for further investigation, but that wouldn't change the ontological or the physical explanation, it seems to me.

You are suggesting a hierarchical set of static spacetime blocks, where there exists a pointer that is metaphysically in motion and acts as an observer, thus giving rise to a subjective experience where there exists a "now" moment.

Whether there exists such a nested hierarchy or not does not give us any observable effects here. If you suggest there is something like a pointer that is in motion and as such reading the static blocks, you might just as well say there is that one 4-dimensional block and the pointers are moving through it. This would be simpler to imagine and being that both flavours are just maps anyway, the latter seems more useful.

Either way, the problem remains. It is not particularly elegant to say reality is such a place where nothing is in motion, except for some kind of pointer that is having or providing subjective experience. If it is asserted that time dimension is necessary for what we call motion, it is not elegant to say something is in motion outside of it.

So, when I said "once I've tried to reconcile spacetime with the philosophy of the mind, it has become by far the most elegant option to assume that reality really is in motion, and metaphysically so", I meant, to assume that things we observe to be moving really are in motion, in such sense that there is no "past and future in existence all the time". Instead, there is just a present. If this is true, then it naturally follows that where there occurs a process that gives rise to subjective experience, the subjective experience also is in motion, experiencing a present as it is occurring "all the time".

This does not need to be in conflict with any observable effects of relativity. It is just a different map of the same terrain. I don't know how well this is recognized today, since people are so used to think in terms of spacetime and lorentz-transformation. I guess it is not too well recognized, judging from the lengthy articles of Dr. Dick. His description is basically just a different way to look at the same thing. The topology of events is preserved while the shape of the map is very different, and here the topology is all that physical things can observe.

A clock does not measure how time dimension is in motion, but it measures the topology; we compare the motion of two physical things, and say the clock advanced this and this much while some other object advaced this and this much.

Here, the different but compatible ways to imagine reality imply different sorts of ontologies, and in fact I have just been arguing elsewhere that because of how we learn, we can always build arbitrary number of different kinds of ontologies. It will always be a matter of faith to choose between the ontologies, as long as they provide the topology that we observe to be true.

But just to give credit where credit is due, Einstein was aware of this (I don't think you need to be so harsh to the man Dr. Dick :)

The shape of spacetime is not observable property, as long as the topology between things is preserved. The measurement devices do not have a life that is independent of reality:

For the construction of the present theory of relativity the
following is essential:

1. Physical things are described by continuous functions, field-
variables of four coordinates. As long as the topological connection
is preserved, these latter can be freely chosen.
2. The field variables are tensor components, among the tensors is a
symmetrical tensor gik for the description of the gravitational
field.
3. There are physical objects, which (in the macroscopic field)
measure the invariant ds.

If 1 and 2 are accepted, 3 is plausible, but not necessary. The
construction of a mathematical theory rests exclusively upon 1 and
2. A complete theory of physics as a totality, in accordance with 1
and 2 does not yet exist. If it did exist, there would be no room
for the supposition 3. For the objects used as tools for measurement
do not lead an independent existence alongside of the objects
implicated by the field equations.
- Albert Einstein

This can basically be seen as an assertion against the ontological view he favoured himself (subjective simultaneity and static spacetime). We can draw all kinds of simultaneity planes on the spacetime diagram, and assume that they mean this or that, and consequently assert that there must be such a thing as subjective simultaneity, but it need not be that way.

Different views, while preserving the topology, can be argued to be less elegant in some geometrical sense, but on the other hand, it is hardly a trivial to show why would the simplest way to draw the map on paper also be the way reality actually is. Lorentz-transformation can imply invalid ontology while it can predict the correct observable effects. Spacetime diagrams can imply invalid ontology while they can predict the correct observable effects.

I agree completely. But what exactly is this "learning system"? Let me suggest some possibilities.

For starters, we have the living human brain. You have already explained how the brain builds a worldview just as you described above.

Next, we can imagine sophisticated robots that are probably going to be built in the not-too-distant future, which will be set to work exploring heretofore unreachable parts of our universe, such as nano- and micro-scale environments, deep space, deep oceans, etc. And, as you point out, regardless of what they learn about their respective environments, they "can never quite be certain of the ontological nature of [their] own reality."

Next, going backward in time, we can consider the most primitive precursors of life on Earth as being such "learning systems". Everything you said above applies to them as well, as it does to all their progeny, including us.

Finally, going back even further in time, we can ask whether the most primordial, or fundamental ontological entity, whatever it was, might not also have the same characteristic of being a "learning system". It makes sense to me that it might, and it seems to me that it might be fruitful to investigate the consequences of this hypothesis. What do you think?

Well it is pretty different from what I'm thinking. I am thinking that it is the complexity of the cortex that gives rise to the learning process that forms the semantical worldview. I am not giving much weight to the idea that semantical learning is something that some simple metaphysical entity is doing (dualism), for quite a few reasons.

I am aware my view cannot solve the Hard Problem, but I would also expect it to be so for a learning system that cannot understand reality directly, but has a subjective experience by having formed a mental model of reality, based on the raw data that is meaningless independently (i.e. the sensory data in its raw form does not carry meaning apart from the learning systems interpreting the data in such or such ways; recognizing such and such objects or sounds or scents from it).

There are also some fairly good descriptions of how the cortex might, at a low level, actually be doing all this. For one, look at Jeff Hawkins' "On Intelligence".

In your post #107 in Quantum Physics>Against "Realism", you wrote,
I have thought about it. It seems to me that an "ability to know", i.e., a "learning system" could be fundamental. It seems less complex than, say, assuming something like energy (the ability to do work), or a field (the ability to force), or a set of laws (the ability to prescribe), is fundamental. What do you think about that?

I think "energy" and "fields" and such things are semantical concepts that can be used as a part of a map, to comprehend how some system works, or more properly, to make some predictions about the behaviour of some system. Any model of reality is a framework that posits such and such things as fundamental. That the model can be used to predict the behaviour of reality correctly doesn't mean that when we imagine its fundamentals, such as "energy", in our heads, we are actually imagining a true sense of reality. We are still just conscious of a map.

I do not think it is fruitful to assume that something as complex as the building of a semantical worldview and interpretation of sensory data accordingly, would be a fundamental function. It is not exactly trivial to build such models, and it is not necessary even. Semantical learning can be seen as (complex) mechanical behaviour, as long as the "knowledge base" of the system is all it subjectively knows about reality, and the knowledge base is something that is an artifical expression of "real things".

I.e. when you are aware of looking at an apple, it is a case if the apple being expressed by the spatial/temporal patterns in cortex. This expression is all you know about reality. Strictly speaking, you don't know what the apple is like "in reality" apart from your own ideas of it.

The fact that a fact is known is a new fact, which could then be known. Similarly, a large set of facts, or information could be generated and developed. (I'm not exactly sure how, but I think it could be worked out.) This set of information, together with the "learning system" itself, would comprise reality. If the "learning system" could act as a "pointer", by successively attending to various details of that set of information (like stable patterns in it), then "the "illusion of flow of time" could be achieved [even though] nothing is in motion in reality".

It should be noticed that in this model, even though nothing in reality is in motion, there is an evolution going on: new information is being added. This is consistent with the part of reality we observe (our universe) in that it already contains a sizeable amount of information and if we consider the present moment of any worldline to be a temporal boundary, it seems that this boundary continues to recede (procede?) into the future.

So reality, as you suggested, really is in motion, but the real motion is only in the "pointer" and not the MWI blocks. I suppose you could also say that the growth of the blocks is motion in the same way that the growth of a coral reef could be said to be motion. The reef is static, but the boundaries move.

I am eager to hear your thoughts on these ideas.

Is this last idea different from idealism? It would require a metaphysical consciousness, in a sense, and in it reality would only occur as a metaphysical learning process of some sort. It is not a map I would readily expect to be close to how reality is, although idealistic models can be much more coherent internally than most flavours of dualism or panpsychism or naive realism. I am still thinking materialism seems most coherent, as long as one is also aware of this leading to the fact that our conscious experience is limited to consist of the ideas the cortex forms about reality. There are some very good survival reasons why the cortex would do this, and why subjective experience could come to exists as a side-product of all the building of an artificial ideal or model of reality.

I'm sorry I cannot be brief. I've tried and usually everything I say gets misinterpreted into some kind of idealistic or solipsistic view :)

-Anssi

 

[vanesch]

Exactly what do you mean by “a strange smell to it”? Are you trying to suggest it is a piece of “Cr*p”?

Well, for one thing, there's quite some hokus pokus going on. You map a finite set on some random points on the real axis, you assign them some probabilities in all generality, which can always be written as the absolute value of a complex number, and suddenly that mapping, from that set of measure 0 on the real axis, into those complex numbers, should be a differentiable function, and imposing some conditions on that, and out of it pops the Dirac equation... come on !

It is not very difficult to obtain the Dirac equation when you require exactly the right kind of transformation rules. But they seem to really be begging the question.

True, any finite state machine can be modeled within the system of real numbers, but usually no calculus technique works on those kinds of very singular objects, let alone series development and derivatives.

 

[mosassam]

Time is a basic ontological concept and as such certainly cannot be “proved” from an epistemological perspective (you can google those terms for clarification); however, time can be seen as a required concept from the perspective that we are not all knowing and the representation of change in our knowledge has to be possible in any rational world view.

If one examines the situation carefully, it can be seen that no further refinement of the concept is necessary at all. But, in order to understand that assertion, you would need to understand calculus and my presentation, http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm
I think the real problem here is that you cannot comprehend that it is you (and the rest of the physics community) who are making the error when you presume that there exists a “subjective time” which can be absolutely mapped into a universally valid coordinate system. By universally valid, I mean a coordinate system which can be used to express all aspects of reality. If you have any decent training in physics, you should be aware of the problems arising when one tries to create a general relativisticly correct theory of quantum mechanics. I am asserting that these problems are entirely due to the erroneous concept of time taken to be obviously valid by the physics community. Take a look at my paper, ”Resolution of the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict”.
The correct answer to that question is NO! Time is a subjective matter and not a coordinate of the universe!
No, I would not agree with that statement. What is subjective is the time elapsing between events. All observers will agree exactly with the concurrence of specific events so there is considerably more objective analysis than implied by the statement, “but only a subjective reality which is observer-dependent”.
Both parties will agree that they both saw the explosion at the same moment and, further, that the firecracker exploded at the very same moment that the fuse burned into the charge; what they will argue about is the elapsed time between those two events (a subjective matter wholly dependent upon their personal presumptions as to the proper geometry to be used to describe the circumstance).
I will agree that you need to introduce “a master observer”, if you wish to attach a “time” parameter to the collection of events, but where do you come up with the idea that you should be able to attach such a parameter to these events? As I said, you are just too embedded in Einstein’s perspective to realize that it is not only unnecessary but a globally invalid concept.
Why do you refer to my presentation as an ”ether mode”? Past and future is a statement about the state of the universe available to an entity at a particular point in its path through the geometry. Even in Einstein’s perspective, the exact information as to the state of the universe available to a specific entity at each point in its path is a universal observable (it’s right there at the point of his light cone). The only problem is attaching a universally agreed upon parameter to that collection of events.
Does it really? Are you saying that a geometry which yields the “speed of light” as the same in any direction is not a preferred foliation of space-time? Can you give me an experiment which proves the speed of light is the same in the plus or minus x direction? Wouldn’t such a proof violate the basic premise of relativity itself? I say Einstein chose that particular “preferred foliation” of the geometry to be used because it was convenient to his Newtonian world view. Actually Einstein is the one who has failed to present the universe in a manner independent of the old “ether” concept. Even today I regularly read articles clearly discussing the “structure of space-time”. Now, if that is not an “ether” concept, what is?
Exactly what do you mean by “a strange smell to it”? Are you trying to suggest it is a piece of “Cr*p”? That seems to be the consensus of the physics community but that doesn’t make them right! Yes, it is officially published somewhere: on my website where you read it! As far as it not making sense to you, what did you do, just scan it? It is fundamentally a deduction and the line where you were confused should be clear if you read it carefully. If you have any serious rational questions, I am here to answer them. If your real interest is just to dissuade others from thinking about what I say, I have no interest in battling windmills.

Have fun -- Dick

Again, apologies for my layman status, please be patient. You seem to be saying that Time is a philosophical construct (I had to Google ontological) and cannot be "proved" mathematically or scientifically. You also refer to it as a 'required concept'. My understanding of this is that Time has no objective existence but (warning! - oversimplfication approaching) because it has been such a successful measuring device, and because the passing of time is such a deeply intuitive aspect of human consciousness, that it is accepted as part of the scientific paradigm. For me at least, this runs counter to my view of physics as a 'hard' science.

 

[AnssiH]

Again, apologies for my layman status, please be patient. You seem to be saying that Time is a philosophical construct (I had to Google ontological) and cannot be "proved" mathematically or scientifically. You also refer to it as a 'required concept'. My understanding of this is that Time has no objective existence but (warning! - oversimplfication approaching) because it has been such a successful measuring device, and because the passing of time is such a deeply intuitive aspect of human consciousness, that it is accepted as part of the scientific paradigm. For me at least, this runs counter to my view of physics as a 'hard' science.

Hmmm, how should I put it... The ontology of time is a question about what is the "true nature of time", or more properly, how should we understand time so to hold an idea that is as true to reality as possible. (With any question of ontology one must also understand map/territory relationship. Wikipedia it)

Now, in the "standard interpretation" of relativity, it is asserted that time is such a thing where it doesn't "pass" in an everyday sense at all. I.e. because relativity says simultaneity is subjective notion, it pretty much follows that in reality the "present moment" cannot be thought to exist, but rather all of time exists at once.

This view of course goes counter to our subjective experience, and sure enough, is problematic when you try to actually understand the nature of subjective experience. But here one can choose to interpret spacetime differently, without losing any observable effects of relativity. These would be different ontological views of time, that no one can prove or disprove with an experiement.

So is it possible to adopt such a view where there does exist a universal "present moment" and things really are in motion (so to explain why we, as physical beings, consciously experience a single present moment)?

Yes! If you imagine a static spacetime block in front of you, it is the topology of things, the way they connect, that gives you the observable relativistic effects. If you imagine the spacetime to bend one way or another, the topology does not change and thus no physical thing can ever detect this bending.

Similarly, the simultaneity planes attached to observers are also unobservable imaginary things. They do not change the topology of spacetime. To say that simultaneity is subjective is, strictly speaking, an ontological assertion. (Although it is often not treated as one, mainly because this assumption is what made it possible for Einstein to construct the model, and by assuming relativity of simultaneity, a spacetime diagram is geometrically simple to draw and understand from within one frame)

Now you should also be able to see how you could just choose to see this same spacetime as if there exists only one 3D-slice of it at a time, and as if this slice is really moving from "past" towards the "future". Does this change the topology of spacetime? No! This would essentially be such an ontological interpretation of relativity where simultaneity is universal, but the topology of physical connections causes time dilation effects.

Bear in mind that the above are just some principles. I would not use these concepts to construct an ontological view (because it doesn't offer any reason as to why the topology is such as it is), but I hope it goes to show that it is the topology of spacetime that is physically important and observable, and assertions about relativity of simultaneity or static spacetime blocks or such assertions about the nature of time are a matter of ontology, not something that can be proven.

As a simple exercise about the importance of topology, consider the fact that in any view of time, it cannot be said that time metaphysically and objectively moves at a rate that we observe it to move. Once a person is able to disgard naive realist view of reality, it is easy to see that the subjective experience of the "rate of time" depends on the speed with which the physical processes in the brain proceed. Twice the speed, and the time would seem to slow down to half. Here if course "twice the speed" could only mean "twice the speed as compared to external reality", i.e. it would only change the topology of "spacetime". I could say that "in reality it could take thousand years for one second to proceed and we as physical beings could not notice it", and this confused assertion hopefully reveals how our ideas of time are completely semantical. The "rate of passage of time" is not important, the topology is, and so is the existence of "present moment" for subjective experience.

-Anssi

 

[Doctordick]

The only thing which exists is your knowledge: i.e., the past!

Instead, there is just a present.

If nothing exists but the present, where do your memories come from. And finally, how can you think about the present? There isn't enough time for you to do anything!

But just to give credit where credit is due, Einstein was aware of this (I don't think you need to be so harsh to the man Dr. Dick :)

The shape of spacetime is not observable property, as long as the topology between things is preserved. The measurement devices do not have a life that is independent of reality:

Now that's a very nice sentiment, but does it really agree with his judgements?

For the construction of the present theory of relativity the
following is essential:

1. Physical things are described by continuous functions, field-
variables of four coordinates. As long as the topological connection
is preserved, these latter can be freely chosen.

And exactly how would one prove that statement? Proof that something physical is continuous would involve examining every point in that continuum. Such an examination would take an infinite amount of time and thus could not be completed. It follows that this statement is an assumption and not a testable assertion.

2. The field variables are tensor components, among the tensors is a symmetrical tensor gik for the description of the gravitational field.

This is clearly a theory; in fact it is his theory of gravity!

3. There are physical objects, which (in the macroscopic field) measure the invariant ds.

Now this I might agree with, but not from his perspective.

If 1 and 2 are accepted, 3 is plausible, but not necessary. The construction of a mathematical theory rests exclusively upon 1 and 2. A complete theory of physics as a totality, in accordance with 1 and 2 does not yet exist. If it did exist, there would be no room for the supposition 3. For the objects used as tools for measurement do not lead an independent existence alongside of the objects implicated by the field equations.

Well, in my opinion, his perspective is distorted by undefendable assumptions which are the source of his failure; and the source of the failure of the physics community to established a TOE.

I.e. when you are aware of looking at an apple, it is a case if the apple being expressed by the spatial/temporal patterns in cortex. This expression is all you know about reality. Strictly speaking, you don't know what the apple is like "in reality" apart from your own ideas of it.

Absolutely correct. Perhaps you can get your mind around another very perplexing problem (solved by no one except myself because no one has seriously examined it). Which comes first, your senses of reality or your mental model of reality: i.e., how do you model your senses without a mental model of reality? The correct answer is, you cannot! The clue to solving the problem is realizing that you are free to model your senses: i.e., how your senses work can not be taken as an a-priori given. They should, instead, be taken as a free parameter which can be used to build a solution to the problem of understanding reality.

I'm sorry I cannot be brief. I've tried and usually everything I say gets misinterpreted into some kind of idealistic or solipsistic view :)

I sympathize as I often find myself in exactly the same position.

Well, for one thing, there's quite some hokus pokus going on. You map a finite set on some random points on the real axis, you assign them some probabilities in all generality, which can always be written as the absolute value of a complex number, and suddenly that mapping, from that set of measure 0 on the real axis, into those complex numbers, should be a differentiable function, and imposing some conditions on that, and out of it pops the Dirac equation... come on !

Ok, begin with my definition of "an explanation", and take it one step at a time. Either the validity of the step follows from what has been presented or it doesn't! I think the "hokus pokus" is in your imagination (created solely to provide you with a rational for ignoring what I say. Of course that's just my opinion.

And, by the way, a lot more than Dirac's equation pops out!

For me at least, this runs counter to my view of physics as a 'hard' science.

I went into physics because math and physics seemed to be the only fields where the issue, "who is b*** sh***** you ", seemed to be answerable in a clear and decisive manner. As math was totally abstract and says nothing about reality, physics was the only subject left to study. By the time I got to graduate school, the professional physicists were as bad as any other field; i.e., they were giving me undefendable propositions as if they were fact! Note that I don't hold that science should be defended via a democratic vote: i.e., consensus need not be consistent with "valid".

As to the issue of the necessity of the concept "time", if you are to hold the opinion that the concept "time" is unnecessary for a description of your experiences, I would ask you how you propose to reference change in your knowledge?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[AnssiH]

If nothing exists but the present, where do your memories come from. And finally, how can you think about the present? There isn't enough time for you to do anything!

In my materialistic view, memories or any thoughts exist as the physical configuration of the brain. I.e. memories don't "come from the past" of course, but they exist in the present. This is so in the static spacetime view too; no one has posited memories are things that lie in the past, connecting to the present, or something of that sort. I'm sure you don't mean to imply that either?

About "not having time to do anything", it seems to me that the idea where there would actually exist "time in motion" is rather confused and like I've said before, it seems more fruitful to think motion as more fundamental. I.e. to just think things really are in motion, and such is the case with the brain. In that sense, there can be said to be "a present moment", but not "time" as any other but semantical concept that is formed so to understand motion better (so to be able to handle abstract concepts dealing with motion).

This is still very very far from solving the Hard Problem of consciousness of course, but it doesn't make consciousness impossible. Rather the opposite seems to be true, it solves one problem that exists in static spacetime view.

Now that's a very nice sentiment, but does it really agree with his judgements?

Well perhaps I interpret him differently than you do. In any case, I'm sure we agree that it is the topology of spacetime that is of importance here, and whether something like simultaneity is thought to be relative or not, does not necessarily change the topology at all. I.e. does not change any observable properties of spacetime.

And why I'm paying attention to relativity of simultaneity is that in the view where there things really are in motion, there pretty much necessarily exists so-called "present moment" in a universal sense.

In short, it seems completely nuts to assume that present moment does not exist, on the virtue that this assumption makes spacetime diagrams geometrically more pleasing. Here I can only repeat; you can twist and bend your spacetime diagram to any shape that pleases your aesthetic eye, but as long as the topology does not change, it does not have any observable function.

I understood in your view there actually can be said to be one "present moment"?

Well, in my opinion, his perspective is distorted by undefendable assumptions which are the source of his failure; and the source of the failure of the physics community to established a TOE.

Yes, strictly speaking, his view is based on undefendable assumptions, as is the case of every model. We posit a set of fundamentals and explain observable phenomena with them. The postulates cannot be defeneded in any objective sense, their merit can only be judged on whether or not they produce the behaviour we observe in physical reality. While I think his philosophical arguments were quite weak at times, I would guess he knew very well that the postulates were always undefendable.

I have said many times that one can always take whatever physical behaviour we observe, and build arbitrary number of radically different models that all yield the same observables. It may not be easy to build many radically different models, but it certainly is possible. All posit different fundamentals, and all are equally undefendable. We are pretty much in the dark as far as any "true ontology" goes.

And this is what I would say is why we don't have a TOE. It is also why I say we will never have any single TOE. We can come up with math that makes the correct predictions every time. But we cannot interpret the math in any explicit sense. It is always possible to build arbitrary number of interpetations that posit different fundamentals that work with different unobservable concepts and mechanics, and all give the same observable results.

Absolutely correct. Perhaps you can get your mind around another very perplexing problem (solved by no one except myself because no one has seriously examined it). Which comes first, your senses of reality or your mental model of reality: i.e., how do you model your senses without a mental model of reality? The correct answer is, you cannot! The clue to solving the problem is realizing that you are free to model your senses: i.e., how your senses work can not be taken as an a-priori given. They should, instead, be taken as a free parameter which can be used to build a solution to the problem of understanding reality.

Exactly right. I have made this same assertion many times here and on other forums. And I am arguing about this very same fact on another forum currently, but it seems to go too much counter to many people's intuition for them to pick it up too readily. People tend to hang on to some aspect of naive realism without realizing it.

-Anssi

 

[mosassam]

Many thanks to AnssiH for your time and effort, it was only one billion miles above my head but thanks all the same (things I have no chance of ever understanding - topology, Einstein's theory of relativity including the 'standard interpretation', simultaneity, spacetime blocks and on and on). Half way through your explanation was this statement of obvious importance as it was in bold - "it is the topology of spacetime that is physically important and observable". I Googled topology which said it was a branch of mathematics. As I understand it you are saying that it is the mathematics of spacetime that is physically observable! I am seriously out of my depth.
PS. Do you have a layman's description of Time handy?

 

[mosassam]

the importance of change

As to the issue of the necessity of the concept "time", if you are to hold the opinion that the concept "time" is unnecessary for a description of your experiences, I would ask you how you propose to reference change in your knowledge?

I have been blundering around this and other forums trying to get my head around Time. It is becoming increasingly apparent that I should be focussing on Change. Time is a byproduct of Change and, as such, can be used to measure it. The only 'model' I can think of for Change, in physics terms, is Cause-and-Effect. I would argue that this, like Time, is also a byproduct of Change. On one of the forums somebody asked "What was the initial Cause?". This argument came to me:-
Q: What is the initial cause of Change?
A: Change
Q: What is the Effect?
A: Change
It seems to me that physics uses Time and Cause-and-Effect to describe and measure Change but this is like describing a ship by looking at its wake - sure, you might be able to deduce a couple of things but why not just look at the ship? Is there a part of physics that strikes at the heart of what Change is? Unfortunately, the only other area of study deaing with this area is Zen Buddhism and I look awful in orange. It clashes with my eyes.
PS: Getting back to the opening quote from Dr.Dick - At the moment I cannot say how I would propose to reference change in my knowledge, it is starting to appear that knowledge is yet another byproduct of Change. Maybe what is required is a comprehensive understanding (awareness) of Change, one in which Knowledge, Time and many other elements have their place.
This is either a very cheesy circular argument or there is a way of comprehending Change 'from the inside out' as it were.

 

[mosassam]

The quote at the top of my last post was from Dr.Dick - post#126

 

[AnssiH]

Many thanks to AnssiH for your time and effort, it was only one billion miles above my head but thanks all the same (things I have no chance of ever understanding - topology, Einstein's theory of relativity including the 'standard interpretation', simultaneity, spacetime blocks and on and on). Half way through your explanation was this statement of obvious importance as it was in bold - "it is the topology of spacetime that is physically important and observable". I Googled topology which said it was a branch of mathematics. As I understand it you are saying that it is the mathematics of spacetime that is physically observable!

No that's not quite what I'm saying. Topology refers to the way things connect. If you draw a set of lines that intersect each others on a surface of a balloon, you have drawn a network with certain connections; certain topology. Now if you inflate the balloon, the topology does not change while the network gets larger.

In relativity, when you perform Lorentz-transformation so to get from one inertial frame to another, you basically scale the spacetime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lorentz_transform_of_world_line.gif

Horizontal is space and vertical is time, the dots mark "events". In the center is an observer, and a vertical line in the middle would mark his "now moment" in the simplest interpretation. Notice how it keeps changing in such manner that some events that had already passed "now", can go back from the past to the future. This is not observed of course since the topology does not change; the light about such events has not reach our observer, instead the observer sees events as they pass the lower diagonal lines (which mark the trajectory of light). Notice how events never pass this line backwards.

If you draw trajectories of light between the events in such spacetime, the way events connect, i.e. their topology does not change no matter how much you scale the spacetime:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~anshyy/PhysicsForums/Scale-transformation1.jpg
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~anshyy/PhysicsForums/Scale-transformation2.jpg
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~anshyy/Suhteellisuus.avi

I.e. causality remains. If event A connects to event B, it will be so after the scaling as well.

Any physical system that is part of such spacetime cannot actually measure this scaling since it gets scaled itself as well (spatially and temporally), instead it can measure the topology; i.e. one clock can not measure time in metaphysical sense, but it can look at another clock and observe if one is advancing faster than the other.

It is the way things connect that gives us such measurable effects that we call time dilation, although performing Lorentz-transformation was and is a handy way to understand how the topology ends up this way; how do physical processes advance in relation to each others.

PS. Do you have a layman's description of Time handy?

There is no such thing as layman's description of time. There are only different ontological views, and it is rather complicated to try and sort them out. We can never be sure about the nature of time, and personally I tend to assume that motion does objectively exist even without conscious observer, and that past has already happened and it is gone forever; it does not exist in some sort of metaphysical spacetime. And likewise, future has not happened yet and does not exist.

Time then is just a man-made concept, and an exceedingly confused one.

-Anssi

 

[Doctordick]

The absolute necessity of the concept called "time"!

If you want to understand anything, you have to get down to the nitty gritty (so to speak). We have to make it very clear exactly what we are talking about. That is exactly what the ontology/epistemology division is all about. Fundamentally,the goal of science is to explain reality! (If you don't regard that statement as true then we have very little to talk about. )

Presuming you agree with me, the first question becomes, exactly what is reality? Well, that is the very issue of ontology. Ontology is the study of exactly what you have to work with! The problem most everyone seems to have with the issue of ontology is that they cannot comprehend not knowing what they have to work with and thus fail at the very first step. The issue being that the moment you put meaning to any ontological element, you are already outside the field of ontology and discussing epistemology: i.e., attaching meaning to an ontological element requires understanding the explanation of a definition and that is the essence of epistemology.

The issue then becomes, is it necessary for one to know what they are talking about in order to talk about it? The answer to that question is a resounding, why certainly not! We talk about things we do not understand all the time. Science could not even exist if we couldn't talk about things we don't understand. All that is required is a method of referring to what ever it is we are trying to discuss! Does anyone here claim to know what reality is? That is, do any of you pretend to be experts on the correct explanation of reality? Does that mean we cannot discuss the issue? The point is that the word "reality" is no more than a label for what it is we are discussing and "understanding what reality is" is not necessary in order to refer to it. In fact, exactly what label we use to refer to it is of no real consequence (only the severely uneducated think the symbols used for words contain their meaning). The point of that comment is that it is always the listener who must divine what it is that is being referred to; that is what "understanding a language" is all about and understanding itself is a presumption, not a provable fact. (That is why "misunderstandings" are such a common phenomena! )

Thus one must be drawn to the conclusion that the ontological elements which constitute reality must be left undefined: i.e., the definitions are part and parcel of our understanding of reality which, in the final analysis, must be held as a presumption beyond proof. It follows that the ontology of reality is an undefined collection of elements, the references to which (and the definitions we assign to those references) constitute our understanding of it, whether our understanding be valid or not.

Thus I arrive at the very first epistemological absolute which can be pronounced. The word "past" can be used to refer to the entire collection of ontological elements of reality of which I am aware. That pronouncement depends upon only one fact and one fact only. That fact is the absolute validity of the following presumption: I cannot prove that what I know is indeed, the entire truth, i.e., change in my knowledge is possible. By simple dichotomy, the word "future" refers to what is not the past and the word "present" refers to the boundary between the two: i.e., a change in that of which I am aware. (The existence of this possibility is so obvious that most people seem to believe it is all that really exists. )

Time is thus the most basic epistemological absolute and its existence is required by the simple fact that we are not all knowing. Also, it follows from the above analytic definition that the only thing we can be sure exists is "the past". (And the present only truly exists as it becomes part of the past: mathematically, one could say that the past is a closed set, i.e., the boundary is included in the set. )

Now, if you cannot follow that, I feel you are beyond my help.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[mosassam]

Profound thanks to both AnissH and Dr.Dick. There's a lot in your posts I've got to get my head round but I feel you've steered me in the right direction. Take it easy.

 

[AnssiH]

If you want to understand anything, you have to get down to the nitty gritty (so to speak). We have to make it very clear exactly what we are talking about. That is exactly what the ontology/epistemology division is all about. Fundamentally,the goal of science is to explain reality! (If you don't regard that statement as true then we have very little to talk about. )

Presuming you agree with me, the first question becomes, exactly what is reality? Well, that is the very issue of ontology. Ontology is the study of exactly what you have to work with! The problem most everyone seems to have with the issue of ontology is that they cannot comprehend not knowing what they have to work with and thus fail at the very first step. The issue being that the moment you put meaning to any ontological element, you are already outside the field of ontology and discussing epistemology: i.e., attaching meaning to an ontological element requires understanding the explanation of a definition and that is the essence of epistemology.

The issue then becomes, is it necessary for one to know what they are talking about in order to talk about it? The answer to that question is a resounding, why certainly not! We talk about things we do not understand all the time. Science could not even exist if we couldn't talk about things we don't understand. All that is required is a method of referring to what ever it is we are trying to discuss! Does anyone here claim to know what reality is? That is, do any of you pretend to be experts on the correct explanation of reality? Does that mean we cannot discuss the issue? The point is that the word "reality" is no more than a label for what it is we are discussing and "understanding what reality is" is not necessary in order to refer to it. In fact, exactly what label we use to refer to it is of no real consequence (only the severely uneducated think the symbols used for words contain their meaning). The point of that comment is that it is always the listener who must divine what it is that is being referred to; that is what "understanding a language" is all about and understanding itself is a presumption, not a provable fact. (That is why "misunderstandings" are such a common phenomena! )

Thus one must be drawn to the conclusion that the ontological elements which constitute reality must be left undefined: i.e., the definitions are part and parcel of our understanding of reality which, in the final analysis, must be held as a presumption beyond proof. It follows that the ontology of reality is an undefined collection of elements, the references to which (and the definitions we assign to those references) constitute our understanding of it, whether our understanding be valid or not.

Yes, that is all very important to keep in mind. While one cannot understand a single instance of a noumenon, the concept of noumenons must be firmly understood (and consequently, questions of ontology are unanswerable but nevertheless important).

I arrived to similar concept myself without knowing Kant had used it already over 200 years ago. And still it is not as widely understood as it should. Still people refuse to see over their intuitive naive realist views.

Thus I arrive at the very first epistemological absolute which can be pronounced. The word "past" can be used to refer to the entire collection of ontological elements of reality of which I am aware. That pronouncement depends upon only one fact and one fact only. That fact is the absolute validity of the following presumption: I cannot prove that what I know is indeed, the entire truth, i.e., change in my knowledge is possible. By simple dichotomy, the word "future" refers to what is not the past and the word "present" refers to the boundary between the two: i.e., a change in that of which I am aware. (The existence of this possibility is so obvious that most people seem to believe it is all that really exists. )

Time is thus the most basic epistemological absolute and its existence is required by the simple fact that we are not all knowing. Also, it follows from the above analytic definition that the only thing we can be sure exists is "the past". (And the present only truly exists as it becomes part of the past: mathematically, one could say that the past is a closed set, i.e., the boundary is included in the set. )

Now, if you cannot follow that, I feel you are beyond my help.

If I am following you correctly here, I have to say that I would not feel the need to see reality exactly this way. For one, physical things in present moment can express the past, so while we do have memories, we can still choose to understand reality in terms of only present moment existing.

And I have another issue with thinking in terms of "time that moves", or time serving as some kind of backdrop for making motion possible. While you probably need to use the concept of "time" one way or another in order to express motion (in math or just imagining motion in your head), it doesn't mean that real motion could not be more fundamental than time. I.e. that "time" is merely a concept we tend to classify reality, much the same way as "count" may be the way we understand clusters of things (i.e. "numbers" don't need to exist metaphysically for banana clusters to exist, since numbers are our own way to classify the clusters)

So just because we need the concept of time to understand motion, does not mean reality needs it to "produce motion". We comprehend reality by some self-made concepts, and "cannot meaningfully conceive an object that isn't structured in accordance with the categories of the understanding, such as substance and causality" (handy wikipedia quote)

Of course any astute person also readily recognizes that motion is just as much a man-made concept as time and as such these views should be equally valid, so I would like to be more careful in my assertion and just claim that it is merely useful for many purposes to assume that motion is more fundamental than time, and it is certainly useful to recognize that "time", as a backdrop for motion, is not necessarily of fundamental existence at all.

 

[mosassam]

I arrived to similar concept myself without knowing Kant had used it already over 200 years ago.

Kant! Ontology! You guys know your physics but this is surely philosophy! This I can do.
Last night I had an important insight (important to me at least) about Time. Bear with me because this is going to seem quite facile at first.
It's always NOW. Everything is always NOW. When I had my insight it is NOW, as I'm writing this it is NOW, when you read this it is NOW, as you compose your reply it is NOW, as you type it in it is NOW. I was born in NOW, I will die in it also.
We build and play with the most complex constructs and concepts to describe reality, we talk about memories or the ability to predict what will happen if I throw something up in the air, we see ourselves growing older - all these things happen in our mind and convince us Time is passing, that there is a past that we can remember and that there is a future we can guess about but they are shadows compared to the brutal reality of NOW.
( Man! I've just read what I've written and it looks like some loonball **** but I really need to get this point across - you may try and hide from NOW by saying "Well other philosophers have pointed this out in the past such as ..." but it doesn't fool NOW which is still with you, right NOW.
Here's a little experiment - consciously try not to skip to the end of the following sentence, which is going to end with the word NOW. Start observing Time passing as you read this sentence and even if its only a matter of seconds that have passed since you began your observation you will still find that by the time you have reached the end of this badly constructed sentence it is still NOW.
Fundamental truth #1 - It is always NOW.
This is not subjective, it is an objective reality.
Question 1 - How can the objective reality of NOW be proved?

So just because we need the concept of time to understand motion, does not mean reality needs it to "produce motion".

Time is a trick we play on ourselves and call it a concept to give it some 'reality' in the same way an illusion really is an illusion because we understand the concept of illusion. As such it can 'produce' nothing, let alone motion.

Of course any astute person also readily recognizes that motion is just as much a man-made concept as time

I must admit that my duded-up new insight can't cover this. In one of my earlier posts I stated that Cause-and-Effect and Time were both byproducts of Change but, whereas I can directly intuit the "Illusion of Time", I can't do the same thing with the "Illusion of Motion"!
This leads to my final questions:-
#2 - How is motion a man-made concept?
#3 - What is Change? (By this I don't mean 'What is the effect of Change' or 'Where did it come from', I mean "What is the 'fabric' of Change?"
PS - (for AnissH) I noticed that the Lorentz-transformation you guided me to already has an inbuilt Time axis as, I assume, does the notion of Spacetime. Aren't both of these things founded on an erroneous 'concept' of Time or do they arrive at the notion of Time independently. Are they both just games that people play in their minds or do they have a 'solidity' in the same way NOW does?
Remember, it is NOW.

 

[Doctordick]

You see the obvious but miss the subtle!

Fundamental truth #1 - It is always NOW.

All you are really saying is that "your awareness of reality is always changing".

By simple dichotomy, the word "future" refers to what is not the past and the word "present" refers to the boundary between the two: i.e., a change in that of which I am aware. (The existence of this possibility is so obvious that most people seem to believe it is all that really exists. )

It seems you have just fallen into exactly the intellectual trap I was referring to.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Tournesol]

#2 - How is motion a man-made concept?

People are always saying things like that, but I have never seen any clear criteria
for the man-made concept vs. natural concept distinction.

#3 - What is Change?

The same thing being in different states at different times.

 

[nannoh]

about change being

=Tournesol
The same thing being in different states at different times.

Is it possible for a "thing" to be the same "thing" when it is in a different state at a different stage of "change"? Isn't the fundamental nature of a "thing" or event different from state to state as it reacts or changes to various states?

For instance is frozen water in the winter the same water you swam in during the summer? Will it be the same water that was frozen in winter next summer when you swim in it? Or was the water fundamentally changed as it passed through condition after condition to the point where, if you were able to fingerprint the water, its actual fingerprint would be completely different from the original inking?

 

[Tournesol]

About "not having time to do anything", it seems to me that the idea where there would actually exist "time in motion" is rather confused and like I've said before, it seems more fruitful to think motion as more fundamental. I.e. to just think things really are in motion, and such is the case with the brain. In that sense, there can be said to be "a present moment", but not "time" as any other but semantical concept that is formed so to understand motion better (so to be able to handle abstract concepts dealing with motion).

So motion is an unsemantical object. How did that happen? What is
an unsemantical concept anyway? You usually claim that all
concepts are semantical.

 

[Tournesol]

about change being
Is it possible for a "thing" to be the same "thing" when it is in a different state at a different stage of "change"?

It is if you make a distinction between essential and accidental properties.

Isn't the fundamental nature of a "thing" or event different from state to state as it reacts or changes to various states?

For instance is frozen water in the winter the same water you swam in during the summer?

If is is the same molecules,yes,

Will it be the same water that was frozen in winter next summer when you swim in it? Or was the water fundamentally changed as it passed through condition after condition to the point where, if you were able to fingerprint the water, its actual fingerprint would be completely different from the original inking?

what is this "fingerprint"?