Is Time Merely Constant Change?

[kvantti]

Just to throw in some handy quotes from a SciAm article "That mysterious flow" by Paul Davies [SciAm Special Edition "A matter of Time"]:

The flow of time is unreal, but time itself is as real as space.

-- we do not really observe the passage of time. What we actually observe is that later states of the world differ from earlier states that we still remember. The fact that we remember the past, rather than the future, is an observation not of the passage of time but of the assymmetry of time. Nothing other than a conscious observer registers the flow of time. A clock measures durations between events much as a measuring tape measures distances between places; it does not measure the "speed" with which one moment succeeds another.

Just something to think about and to stir up the conversation.

 

[vanesch]

kvantti: what you quoted is indeed the entirely geometrical view on time: that all the "moving" is an illusion (but not the geometrical temporal relationships themselves - which is what the dynamical laws in physics describe, of course).

Actually, personally, I'm quite fond of that view, because once you're there, it is not such a big step to accept that "observation" is also an illusion, facilitating an MWI view on quantum theory. That said, it is also good for one's mental health, to remember that all these ponderings are entirely hypothetical and only serve a purpose in helping to create mental pictures that make one understand the workings of a theory much better.

So it is probably also a healthy attitude to consider the opposite (and more intuitive) viewpoint too, which is that "time genuinly changes" ; just not to lock oneself up too much into one single paradigm.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It doesn't say whether this observer is "travelling through" a geometrical time, or whether time is a dynamical phenomenon in itself.

It almost sounds like another twist on relativity.

ie. Is time moving past me or am I moving through it?

 

[kvantti]

Actually, personally, I'm quite fond of that view, because once you're there, it is not such a big step to accept that "observation" is also an illusion, facilitating an MWI view on quantum theory. That said, it is also good for one's mental health, to remember that all these ponderings are entirely hypothetical and only serve a purpose in helping to create mental pictures that make one understand the workings of a theory much better.

I also like the geometrical view of time and how it gets entangled with the MWI; they complete each other in quantum cosmology.

So it is probably also a healthy attitude to consider the opposite (and more intuitive) viewpoint too, which is that "time genuinly changes" ; just not to lock oneself up too much into one single paradigm.

Yeah everything is possible... altho I'm pretty sure, purely because of theoretical reasons, that the 4D MWI view of the universe is somewhat "true"... but that's just me. Until I find some reason to abandon it, I think I'll stick to it.

 

[vanesch]

ie. Is time moving past me or am I moving through it?

That's the most succinct expression of the problem I've ever seen :!)

 

[Paul Martin]

That's the most succinct expression of the problem I've ever seen :!)

I agree. I also think it is a good starting point for analyzing time. The next step, it seems to me, is to clearly identify what we mean by the terms 'me' and 'I' as they appear in the question. What exactly is it that might be moving through time, or that time might be moving past? I think the identification of that "thing" will not only elucidate time, but also the rest of existence as well.

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[AnssiH]

I agree. I also think it is a good starting point for analyzing time. The next step, it seems to me, is to clearly identify what we mean by the terms 'me' and 'I' as they appear in the question. What exactly is it that might be moving through time, or that time might be moving past? I think the identification of that "thing" will not only elucidate time, but also the rest of existence as well.

Try;


It is probably quite important to get rid of ideas about self as some kind of "object", and rather define subjective experience in terms of a process of some sort.

When you get to the ideas about time though, I would advice to open the door to the idea that motion is of metaphysical existence more than time. Well, I guess I've said that many times enough.

About whether it is "really" time or "consciousness" that is in motion, consider in what sense we could say anything to be in motion "in reality" in so far that we assume spacetime to exist.

Also remember that spacetime already defines completely how any natural object measures time, and any "speed" you imagine to this "motion of time" cannot be observed in any way. To think that the speed with which we consciously observe reality has something to do with the speed of flow of time or whatever is leaning to much towards naive realism for my liking. :P

-Anssi

 

[vanesch]

About whether it is "really" time or "consciousness" that is in motion, consider in what sense we could say anything to be in motion "in reality" in so far that we assume spacetime to exist.

Well, then you have already conceded to the geometrical view on time (the block universe view), and hence the question is then moot.

Also remember that spacetime already defines completely how any natural object measures time, and any "speed" you imagine to this "motion of time" cannot be observed in any way.

It's always the same thing. Everybody agrees that the physical parameter "time" (the "t" in the equations) is sufficient to explain all the "correlations" related to this parameter, and hence to "time": like the number of swings of a pendulum related to the position of the planet Mars or things like that.
What we are talking about here is that, to our subjective experience, there seems to be "only one value of t at a time" ; in other words, we don't experience "all the values of time simultaneously", while this is nevertheless what happens to other coordinates, such as x or y or z. We don't seem to experience "one x value at a time". But we do experience "one t value at a time". If t is geometrical, just as x or y, then there's no a priori reason for that. So then it must reside in whatever it is that suffers subjective experiences, that it takes "time in slices". Or it might be that time is ontologically a different thing than space after all, and that it "only comes in slices". Committing to a spacetime ontology already goes for the geometrical view on time, and hence leaves it entirely to the "nature of subjective experience" to see time come in slices, one at a time.

To think that the speed with which we consciously observe reality has something to do with the speed of flow of time or whatever is leaning to much towards naive realism for my liking. :P

I tend to agree with you, but we've been putting a lot onto the shoulders of "subjective experience" - one should be careful with that too, and not shove every single difficulty into that bin: the experience of time in spacetime physics, the experience of observation in MWI-QM, soon the experience of space with the holographic principle... We'll end up finding out that we're just a single character in a cosmic video game :-)

 

[AnssiH]

Well, then you have already conceded to the geometrical view on time (the block universe view), and hence the question is then moot.

You mean moot in that nothing can be said to be in motion once it has been claimed that spacetime exists?

I would tend to agree with this, but the point I was trying to make was that there exists motion in some sense in reality because we experience motion or change in our subjective experience, and our subjective experience is certainly caused by something in reality. It cannot be said that conscious experience could have any change in it without change existing in one sense or another.

So then it must reside in whatever it is that suffers subjective experiences, that it takes "time in slices". Or it might be that time is ontologically a different thing than space after all, and that it "only comes in slices".

Well, I would say that just the fact that we experience time so differently from space is already enough reason to say it is ontologically different. Also we should ask if it is fair to say that time or motion advances in discreet steps, or is it more proper to say it is continuous.

Committing to a spacetime ontology already goes for the geometrical view on time, and hence leaves it entirely to the "nature of subjective experience" to see time come in slices, one at a time.

Yeah exactly. Problems arise when you try and describe the nature of subjective experience. Without getting to the philosophy of the mind one could claim that everything is static in reality, and then hope that it could just be a subjective illusion that there appears to exist motion. It will become quite difficult to explain how could any illusion of motion exist when you have earlier denied any notion of metaphysical motion from reality...

I tend to agree with you, but we've been putting a lot onto the shoulders of "subjective experience" - one should be careful with that too, and not shove every single difficulty into that bin: the experience of time in spacetime physics, the experience of observation in MWI-QM, soon the experience of space with the holographic principle... We'll end up finding out that we're just a single character in a cosmic video game :-)

Well, I think we can say quite fairly that the static spacetime ontology can be used as a tool to "understand" reality, but it cannot be said that it actually is "like" reality. Map is not the territory here either.

-Anssi

 

[Paul Martin]

Well, I think we can say quite fairly that the static spacetime ontology can be used as a tool to "understand" reality, but it cannot be said that it actually is "like" reality. Map is not the territory here either.

Agreed. Let's start with that.

Let's suppose a 4D static spacetime 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 worldlines must have always increasing components in that dimension. (This may account for the asymmetry of that component in the spacetime metric, but I'll defer to someone else on that.)

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

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

Maybe so, but let me give it a shot anyway. Then you can tell me where the problems are.

Without getting to the philosophy of the mind one could claim that everything is static in reality,

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

and then hope that it could just be a subjective illusion that there appears to exist motion.

I think that introducing the concepts of "hope", "subjective", "illusion", and "appears" cloud the question with unnecessary complexity.

It will become quite difficult to explain how could any illusion of motion exist when you have earlier denied any notion of metaphysical motion from reality...

Yes, that would be difficult. But we have not "denied any notion of metaphysical motion from reality" here. We have denied motion to spacetime (the map) but not to reality (the territory). Here's how I think it could be explained.

Spacetime is a finite static 4D structure with worldlines always increasing in one of the dimensions (the temporal one). That 4D structure is a manifold in a 6D structure. One of the additional dimensions is spatial and can participate in the same Euclidean metric as the three spatial dimensions of the 4D spacetime. This additional dimension allows more than adequate space for hypercomplex structures to exist for which the 4D spacetime bears the same relationship to them as Vanesch's video game does to us humans.

The second additional dimension is a temporal one in the same sense we consider our familiar temporal dimension allows for motion. Thus, structures in the 6D spacetime can move (possibly limited by the same sort of always increasing of time we sense).

If we identify some 5D structure in the 6D spacetime with the label "observer", then in this picture, the observer could "travel", or "proceed" along a worldline in the 4D spacetime, and to the observer, the illusion of motion in 4D spacetime would be evident, even though the 4D spacetime is really static.

At branch points in a worldline 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.

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.

It seems to me that this model not only would explain the illusion of motion in the static universe, but it could provide a framework for explaining a lot of other mysteries as well.

What problems do you see with it?

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[Andre]

Ever asked Augustinus what time is?

Confessiones XI, 14 "Quid est ergo tempus? si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio."

What then is time? When nobody ask me I do know, when I want to explain somebody who asks it, I don't know.

 

[vanesch]

I would tend to agree with this, but the point I was trying to make was that there exists motion in some sense in reality because we experience motion or change in our subjective experience, and our subjective experience is certainly caused by something in reality.

That's then the extra hypothesis. I wouldn't go that far (I'm therefor a dualist). Of course, subjective reality is related to something in reality (that's the psycho-physical hypothesis), but in order to be able to say that "reality is static" (time is geometric), and nevertheless, we subjectively experience time as a motion (or a slice, or... well, something dynamical), I don't see how you can get away with having "subjective experience" entirely explained by the physical reality in which there's nothing else but time as a geometrical concept. In other words, you need somehow to "plug in something extra", outside of the spacetime reality itself, that can, in conjunction with the spacetime reality itself, make the subjective experience emerge. The fact that something extra is postulated, makes it a dualist view.

It cannot be said that conscious experience could have any change in it without change existing in one sense or another.

Exactly. And given that nothing is "changing" in a geometrical time view, the "ticking clock" must hence be "outside", and moreover individually linked to the "thing generating the subjective experience", which can then "plug it into the block universe" to extract the eigentime slice to be experienced. This wasn't a problem in a Newtonian view, where there was an ontologically "clicking clock" on which we could tap to do so.

As a sidenote, if I have the (dualistic) liberty to have an "outside of physical reality" ticking time clock, I can add to that an "outside of physical reality" random number generator to do the drawing in an MWI setting... that's why I try to argue that the philosophical problem with geometrical time is related to the philosophical problem of a multiverse - often without much success

Well, I would say that just the fact that we experience time so differently from space is already enough reason to say it is ontologically different.

The entire idea of a geometrical spacetime is to say that it is *not* fundamentally different.

Also we should ask if it is fair to say that time or motion advances in discreet steps, or is it more proper to say it is continuous.

Well, I think that this is difficult to distinguish: any continuous model can be arbitrarily well approximated by a discrete model with fine enough steps, no ?

Yeah exactly. Problems arise when you try and describe the nature of subjective experience. Without getting to the philosophy of the mind one could claim that everything is static in reality, and then hope that it could just be a subjective illusion that there appears to exist motion. It will become quite difficult to explain how could any illusion of motion exist when you have earlier denied any notion of metaphysical motion from reality...

... unless you accept a dualist vision. It is only in a strictly materialist view that this geometrical time poses a problem.

Well, I think we can say quite fairly that the static spacetime ontology can be used as a tool to "understand" reality, but it cannot be said that it actually is "like" reality. Map is not the territory here either.

Amen to that.
Ontological hypotheses (unverifiable as they are) must serve a purpose, and the purpose is to help us "understand" reality ; or better, the model we have of reality - which is nothing else but the physical theory under consideration.

 

[vanesch]

Spacetime is a finite static 4D structure with worldlines always increasing in one of the dimensions (the temporal one).

Hehe, and they decrease in the other direction

This is like the silly joke:
"how do you know whether a slope is rising or descending ?"
"easy, put a ball on it: if the ball rises, it is a rising slope, if it descends, it is a descending slope"

The second additional dimension is a temporal one in the same sense we consider our familiar temporal dimension allows for motion. Thus, structures in the 6D spacetime can move (possibly limited by the same sort of always increasing of time we sense).

Well, then, or it is not genuinly a geometrical dimension, or we're back to case one, where this dimension is again static.

If we identify some 5D structure in the 6D spacetime with the label "observer", then in this picture, the observer could "travel", or "proceed" along a worldline in the 4D spacetime, and to the observer, the illusion of motion in 4D spacetime would be evident, even though the 4D spacetime is really static.

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".

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

At branch points in a worldline 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.

Yup. Why not ? 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".

You can of course "physicalise" dualistic notions, (you do this by introducing a 5th dimension + pointer and so on), but the point is, you need to introduce something dynamical and a whole lot of extra structure if there is only a geometrical notion of time (in 4-d spacetime), purely to explain the subjective notion of time slice.

In other words, with a purely geometrical view on time alone, it will be difficult to explain our subjective experience of time, although all physical observations are explainable that way. It is our subjective experience of time flow, and only that, which makes you consider 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).

 

[AnssiH]

Spacetime (the map) may be static, while reality (the territory) may include dynamic components above and beyond spacetime.

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.

(As a related note, ever noticed how people tend to assume there can exist motion to spacetime without ever suggesting any ontology to understand "when" these changes happen. For example in the description of transactional interpretation of QM, where information "first" flows forward in time and "then" comes backwards in time, or about how measuring something in QM causes changes "elsewhere" in spacetime "simultaneously". How does something "change" in spacetime here? More clarity is needed to the terminology that people use here)

Another option is, like Vanesch suggests, to consider some flavour of dualism. I.e. to consider that in some sense, conscious experience or "consciousness" is some kind of "thing" that is "really" in motion in relation to the temporal dimension. I.e. that there exists a metaphysical "pointer" that is "reading" the time-dimension.

This at least does not lead to infinite regress, but it does lean towards naive realism. Not all facets of our semantical notion of "motion" are appropriate for the motion of this "pointer".

Let me explain. Naive realist view of time is that time objectively moves forward "at the speed" that we subjective perceive it to. But once you look into human perception processes, it stands to reason that the speed with which we perceive "motion" or "time" depends wholly on the speed with which the natural processes in the brain can recognize things. If you are looking at a spinning wheel, you have a subjective experience of its motion occurring at certain speed, from which you could derive some idea about the speed with which "time" is moving. But imagine how it would feel if all the natural recognition processes of the brain were to move twice as fast as usual suddenly. Would you not perceive the wheel to rotate at half the speed? Basically everything you'd perceive would move half the speed of usual, and it would feel as if time slowed down, even though you just "speeded up".

Notice now, that the natural recognition processes of the brain, and in particular the speed of their motion in relation to the "spinning wheel", are already completely defined in a static spacetime. In other words, the "speed" at which this metaphysical "pointer" moves does not change the "speed" of the subjective experience at all.

We should ask here, could even the direction of the motion of this pointer change the experience? Could we "remember the future"? Of course not, that is another assumption that could only be made in the naive realism framework.

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.

Also, I adviced before to keep the door open to the idea that it is motion after all that is of metaphysical existence. Just like one might thoughtlessly claim that "there can be no motion without time", another man can claim " without motion there could not be any notion of time". 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.

It should be obvious that when we "measure time" in semantical sense, we are actually measuring how far a clock moves during the period that some other system moves from somewhere to another place. I.e. we cannot measure "time" directly, we can only compare motions.

The difficulty with this would be that it would be required for simultaneity to be absolute. It is worth noting here, that it would not mean that the math of relativity would be false; all the observable effect could still be the same. The ideas about time dilation would just turn into form of how and why physical processes proceed at different speeds in different environments. These sorts of models can be built, and many have been built, and the only thing they change is that time travel would be impossible; the past and the future would not exist "all the time". (Note that the idea of time travel is also an idea of "change" happening to spacetime "when the time travel happens", and if you insisit ontological clarity here, you would require the 2nd time dimension, and 3rd, and 4th...)

Well, I think that this is difficult to distinguish: any continuous model can be arbitrarily well approximated by a discrete model with fine enough steps, no ?

Yes, and actually there are models with discrete time steps that even have the power to explain some quantum behaviour. This question also remains whether one assumes it to be "time" or "motion" that is more fundamental. Motion too can happen in discrete steps.

 

[Philocrat]

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.

Hello Outlandish, I totally understand your frustation over this very subject. At one point a few years back, I thought that I was the only one left alive on this planet who is deeply concerned with the sort of spooky tricks that the notion of time plays on the human imagination. Over the years I have thought long and hard about this subject, at least at the philosophical level of things, but each time I always came out empty-handed. The issues you are raising here about time are just a tiny bit of the grand scale of things. Now let me lend you a hand to expand on the overal scale of the problems that we are facing both scientifically and philosophically by looking at each each issue in turn:

There is no time, all things are just constantly changing?

Yes, so it appears to us in the outer. But this problem is two-fold (1) the Illusory nature of time and (2) the Illusory Nature of change itself. Time appears illusory because of the way science itself accounts for it by division into quantifiable dimensions, of which many people on this thread have already deduced the resulting implications. The other problem is the relationship between something and Nothing. Of this, I have already argued that there is no such relation since it is naturally impossible for something to come from nothing, let alone decline back into nothing. If time is something, then it is impossible for it to be nothing, hence it must exist in some physically accountable form. But is this really the case? Is time something?

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[.

Well, this is metaphysically equivalent to denying some dimensions of time itself. When things change time ought to elapse! So, presumably there are quantifiable elapsed times between changing things and events. Metaphysically, as we say in philosophy, the spatio-temporal histories of those changing things and events are inevitably created. It is when we analyse such spatio-temporal histories that the notion of time dimensions (past, present and future) begin to confront us both in our observation and in the actual analysis. If this is the case, your text does appear as if though you are suggesting that such histories are infected or polluted by sudden disappearance of all the time dimensions that may be found in them during the observation or analysis of them. Is this what your text is implying? Is this what makes you declare time as a whole delusory?

A more radical observation in recent times is the sudden appearance of time in the spectrum of reality as if though there is no present in anyone spatio-temporal history of a given event. Some people are already suggesting that this is the case, that we are always either in the past or in the future. This is a different angle of the problem which, as in your own text, makes the notion of time equally delusive. I am not quite sure if this is the case as I have written something on this forum that denies this possibility, which however also ended in declaring time equally delusive but in a completely different light. What I wrote about time was blacklisted on this forum because it was not a standard science and made what may be construed as wild claims. One of the questions I asked in that posting is whether zero-history events, actions or changes are possible? Can events occur at time t=0 regardless of the physical distances between them in spacetime?
Events that leave no histories behind, sptiotemporally, is metaphysically spooky and how we even begin to think about them is equally spooky.

My argument therefore is that if zero-history events exist, then it is under this metaphysical condition that time can be construed as being illusory. Metaphysically, this would be equivalent to being physically and psychologically devoid of time in the strictest sense of the word.

 

[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*[/color], and the future is what you do not know; what has yet to happened *TO YOU*[/color]). 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*[/color], and the future is what you do not know; what has yet to happened *TO YOU*[/color]).

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.