tarbag said:
Thus time exists in your mind only.
That is exactly what I am saying.
tarbag said:
Since it is a plurality of informations ordered ones after the others. This order is well a reality ...
You are apparently presuming that the order you put upon these elements of information is a fact of reality. This, I am afraid, is something you cannot prove.
tarbag said:
... but its representation with an independent parameter l (t) is just a mathematical tool like an integer number.
Any finite set (such as
C whose elements are the sets
B) can be ordered. It is your mental model of reality which presumes that this collection of finite
B's which go to make up what you actually know are members of an infinite set which form a continuous stream
B(t). What I show is that the shift symmetry of such a perspective requires your expectations (which you should understand also become a continuous function of that continuous parameter t) to obey the differential relationship that the partial with respect to t must vanish.
Likewise, in your attempt to explain
C, you will recognize (or one could say, take notice of) patterns within those
B's (the changes in what you know) which seem to repeat. Once you recognize these elements of your experiences they become a central element of your understanding. Once again, you will presume the existence of these elements within that continuous t. However your understanding proceeds, it will involve reference to those recognized elements. And once again, being finite (anything you know must be finite otherwise you couldn't know it), those references with the
B(t)'s can be ordered and your mental model will presume that your understanding could involve additional cases of such patterns within that order of which you are not aware. Once again the index on that set of references (within a successful mental model) becomes a continuous variable and once again the existence of shift symmetry yields the fact that your expectations must obey another differential relationship. What I am getting at is the fact that we should all be very careful about our definitions. It is quite easy to produce multiple definitions with inconsistent overlap.
When one designs an experiment, one must be careful to assure that the result is not predetermined by definition: that is, that one is actually checking something of significance. A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill. If one begins that experiment by defining downhill with a carpenters level, one has made a major error. They have clearly predefined the result of the experiment as downhill has been defined to be the direction water runs (the bubble being the absence of water). In such a case, it is rather a waste of time to finish carrying out such an experiment no matter how well the rest of the experiment is designed. It should be clear that to do so is nothing more then checking the consistency of one's definitions.
The issue of the above example is that, before performing any experiments, one can not just presume they "know" what they are talking about but must very carefully define exactly what they mean by the terms they use. In the above example, one must first carefully define "downhill" and then consider all the consequences of that definition. To do otherwise is to just be sloppy! And people are often quite sloppy when it comes to their beliefs.
My presentation (in using the undefined elements
A,
B,
C and
D) makes establishing the definitions part of the problem to be solved. My equation is nothing more but an internal consistency constraint on the definitions of those elements.
Have fun -- Dick
