Hi AndyM,

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

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

view entire post

Hi AndyM,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

view post as summary

Dear Eckard,

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

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

view entire post

Dear Eckard,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

view post as summary

Dear Andy M, Thank you for your reply.

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

I...

view entire post

Dear Andy M, Thank you for your reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

view post as summary

Dear Andy M,

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

view entire post

Dear Andy M,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

view post as summary

Paul,

1." My" object reality is not experience- able at all. But is the source of the data from which an experience can be produced. Different observers can receive data from the same sources and produce different experiences of it. There are lots of different types of time and when the term time is used, without clarification of which type, it gets confusing. We are talking about 3...

view entire post

Paul,

1." My" object reality is not experience- able at all. But is the source of the data from which an experience can be produced. Different observers can receive data from the same sources and produce different experiences of it. There are lots of different types of time and when the term time is used, without clarification of which type, it gets confusing. We are talking about 3 different kinds. Time the dimension, passage of time due to changes to the arrangement of the universe and time as experienced by a human being.

I have been in a car crash and time definitely and dramatically slows. That may be anecdotal but many other people have reported similar experience. What is happening in that space, the sensory data input, when processed by the brain produces the output effect of time slowing. Same day, approx. same time 6feet to the left, time would be experienced to be running normally. With respect I do not think it is an entirely different matter because the difference between output reality and source of input is very important.

2 OK I agree, a number of different things are going on. Changes in the arrangement of the universe, inc. changes to objects; and effects upon sensory data within the environment and the role of observer reference frame upon the data intercepted.

3 I didn't think the fisherman was a pointless abstraction but amusing. With respect I still don't think you have understood the significance of the point I was trying to make. Its about there being an open future coming into being everywhere at once, not some parts of the universe being at one time others at another and other bits somewhere else in time. Everything progresses along its universal trajectory together. The whole universe is as one. Its not about where the man has his lunch but that wherever he does he will still be a part of the uni-temporal universe on the way home.

4 You said "I am aware that your label is Image Reality. Ultimately the labels do not matter, so long as they relate to some existent aspect of reality. However, as said previously, personally I prefer reality, since there is only one of those. "

Then it gets ambiguous and difficult to converse meaningfully. I have tried using the term subjective reality but it was unacceptable because corroborated subjective reality is considered objective in science. I have tried saying perception, though with the intended meaning of the image of reality observed, and it is met with the response- perception is irrelevant to physics go and discuss consciousness. I need to use a term that expresses the intended meaning. Until now no one has had a problem with Image reality.

I am aware that image refers to optical phenomena however we are primarily visual creatures and space-time and relativity deals with EM. Other senses could be included in the discussions and the specific term used but it is not necessary to discuss or refer to all of the senses every time IMO. I could I suppose just call it output reality.I do sometimes use several different terms for the same thing to ensure that I have got across what I am talking about.

5 This is just ridiculous because we are agreeing that the representation is not the same as the source of the representation. But now you are saying that my image reality is my object reality. No. You have misunderstood how I am differentiating them. You are also contradicting yourself, You are calling the representations existent and then saying they are not reality.

There is only one reality you have said so yourself. I am calling it the Entirety of reality.There is nowhere else for anything to exist other than within that Entirety. The human being and his brain is within it, the brain wave activity is within it, and the space-time experience of the observer (generated by it IMO) is within it. So is the unobserved source of all sensory input, the objects, substance and media and the sensory data and its medium of transmission which are the object reality.

6 You said "I have stated what relativity is concerned with above, and that is what those references referred to. But this is not what you are saying."

I may not be talking about what is within those specific references.I am trying to explain what I am doing -because it works- not what other people did which may or may not work. Like you I do also have a life outside of this web site, believe it or not. It looked like a lot of homework to find all of them, read them, think about them and comment on them one by one. So I'll pass on that instruction for now.

Thanks again, Georgina

view post as summary

Georgina,

I understand your argument and why it is necessary to keep it focused, but as you admit, you feel as though you are hitting your head against a wall. Having been in the same position, I'm basically thinking out loud about ways to step back and examine that wall.

Further up this thread I got into one of my usual discussions with Tom on the subject and he concluded by...

view entire post

Georgina,

I understand your argument and why it is necessary to keep it focused, but as you admit, you feel as though you are hitting your head against a wall. Having been in the same position, I'm basically thinking out loud about ways to step back and examine that wall.

Further up this thread I got into one of my usual discussions with Tom on the subject and he concluded by linking to the wiki articles on general and special relativity. I replied by posting the exact paragraph where it says:

"Such simple derivations ignore the fact that in general relativity the experiment compares clock rates, rather than energies. In other words, the "higher energy" of the photon after it falls can be equivalently ascribed to the slower running of clocks deeper in the gravitational potential well."

And I made the observation:

"My point has been that the clock rate derives from the energy, not the energy from the clock rate. This doesn't change the math, but it eliminates many of the exotic extrapolations, such as blocktime, wormholes, etc."

He simply cannot accept that anyone could legitimately consider that the geometry of spacetime is a model, not the fundamental reality and doesn't feel obligated to explain why, other than saying I just don't understand the math. So this is essentially the same wall you are hitting your head against.

The fact is that large sections of modern physics are built on this assumption of the geometry of spacetime as foundational to physical reality. Cosmology is the most obvious example, as the whole notion of space expanding from a point is based on it. Even many people who question established theory assume Big Bang cosmology as a given. So they will continue to ignore the idea of time as measurement, not geometry, because it does raise more questions than most people engaged in physics are willing to consider.

That's why there is a need to step back and look at it from a broader disciplinary perspective.

You have mentioned you are a biology teacher, if I'm not mistaken. Consider how important and interrelated time and temperature are in biology, as well as geology and many other fields where real change is a given, not an illusion.

Living in Baltimore, the local public radio station will bring on various experts from some of the local universities, such as Johns Hopkins, etc. Some years ago, they had on a neurologist, discussing the mind/brain dichotomy. I called in and made the point that if two objects collide, it creates an event. While the objects go from past events to future ones, the event goes from being in the future to being in the past and this is the mind/brain duality, because the brain, being physically manifest, goes past to future, but the mind, being a record of events, is going future to past. His first response was, "That's deep." then he started going on about how physics explains time as a component of space, at which point the moderator cut us off.

My point in telling this is that the nature of time is very important in understanding many fields, but that physics has established a monopoly on explaining it. So rather than taking on the physics establishment directly, given the stakes involved for their foundational models, there might be a way to get a foot in the door, through other disciplines. Especially if those engaged in those fields were to seriously examine the assumptions required of spacetime and not just assume it is too complicated to understand.

view post as summary

Paul,

with respect the confusion is your own. You said "I do not understand where you derived the notion of a Sociological interpretation of time from, I have not said anything that could be remotely translated that way"

In your previous message you said "3 This process of experiencing reality not only involves only medium based representations, but it is effected at the individual...

view entire post

Paul,

with respect the confusion is your own. You said "I do not understand where you derived the notion of a Sociological interpretation of time from, I have not said anything that could be remotely translated that way"

In your previous message you said "3 This process of experiencing reality not only involves only medium based representations, but it is effected at the individual level, is subject to interpretation based on culture, etc, etc."

I supopose it depends then upon what you mean by "culture etc etc." Perhaps you are using your own meaning of the word that has nothing to do with sociology.(?) And also that you are not talking specifically about time but generally about how people relate to reality. This thread is about understanding time. I have been talking about understanding time and giving the meaning of the words that I use, as I use them, to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding.A helpful suggestion to have come out of the conference on time and shared in the video at the top of the thread.

People can interpret or relate to things however they like. (So long as they don't insist I must believe it or must do the same.) However the mathematics is the mathematics and only the correct solution will enable complete and correct -mathematics- of relativity and QM to be fully compatible without contradictions, paradoxes or other problems/questions.

What I said was not incorrect. It is how it appears to me when I think about it. I am not thinking about other peoples theoretical fantasies but what is observed. As for the image of the universe being produced in a nonosecond. That is an interpretation based upon the supposed expansion of the universe taken back to a point prior to time and space from which it all supposed to have begun. That is a theoretical supposition that I do not agree on. (It may be that the appearance of expansion is to do with the way in which the Earth object is moving relative to the unchanging origin of the radiation received. A trajectory at all scales not accounted for in the space-time/ block-time model.)

I am fitting the particular explanations given, with observation, basic well understood physics and biological processes, in such a way that the Grandfather paradox, and other paradoxes are overcomes and the foundational questions are answered. Without a space-time universe exploding from nothing in a nanosecond, without a fully determined unchanging space-time universe or, Multi-verses.It is not an interpretation that fits within, or needs to fit within, those aforementioned mental constructs but replaces them.

I would say -you- are incorrect when you say time is omnipresent. I would say the object reality is without time. I have previously tried using the term atemporal but now generally say unitemporal. That is to make clear that it is not spread across space-time, it is without time dimension.It exists -always- ahead of observation and all elapsed time from the temporal perspective of all observers.

- Not moving in time, not spread across time and with no time dimension.-

It is the observer produced manifestation, produced from sensory data, that is tied up with temporal complications. And that does not exist externally.

Don't come here and tell me that I am confused and I must think about things differently. Unless you can specifically tell me why the solution given does not overcome the paradoxes and does not permit QM and relativity to co-exist without contradiction or does not permit partial non determinism, and temporally unidirectional causality while still allowing relativity and non simultaneity.etc etc. Do you have a -better- solution?

view post as summary

Georgina,

By cycles of expansion and contraction, I don't mean the universe as a whole, but radiation and mass/gravity. It was on first learning that gravitational contraction and the "expansion of space" had to be inversely proportional that I first began questioning big bang cosmology, because it made far more sense as a form of galactic convection cycle, where elemental mass particles...

view entire post

Georgina,

By cycles of expansion and contraction, I don't mean the universe as a whole, but radiation and mass/gravity. It was on first learning that gravitational contraction and the "expansion of space" had to be inversely proportional that I first began questioning big bang cosmology, because it made far more sense as a form of galactic convection cycle, where elemental mass particles condense out of radiant energy and "precipitate" into galactic vortices, until the density ignites it and the energy radiates back out, to start the process over again.

The background radiation emanating from the edges of the visible universe is not residue of the big bang, but the black body radiation of ever more distant light sources, that has fallen completely off the visible spectrum. I've been waiting since before the Hubble was launched, for them to find evidence of activity too old to be explained in the Big Bang timeframe, but the only reaction has been a scratching of the collective head as to how galaxies and galaxy clusters evolved so quickly. Currently the oldest observed galaxy is at 13.2 billion lightyears, which means it had to coalesce out of the inflation stage residue in only 500 million years. Since it takes our galaxy 225 million years to make one revolution, this would be like saying the time from the invention of the wheel to the development of the Model T, was about as long as it would take to drive two and a half times around New York City, to make a rough comparison.

Also, it makes no sense to say that space itself is expanding and then presume a stable speed of light to measure the expansion against. If space truly expanded, then so should this most basic measure of space increase proportionally. Yet if the speed of light increased as space expanded, then we wouldn't be able to detect it, as the light would be traveling ever faster to match the distance.

So there is some far more logical explanation for redshift than recession.

It was in trying to work this out that I came to the insight about time being truly relativistic, in that the events do not constitute a static frame, but move the opposite direction of the present. When I first began considering time, it wasn't as the present being the stable frame, but as the point of reference moving through its frame and causing everything it it to move incrementally in the opposite direction. Much as moving your finger through water causes a similar amount of water to move in the opposite direction. As in Newton's, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." It was in working this out that I began to understand how time is entirely a consequence of motion, not an external frame for motion. Thus my motion affects my reality to the same extent the larger reality affects me. Which makes the question of free will moot, as I am not free of effects, but am able to express the will that is me.

Space, infinite and absolute, is the frame for activity.

view post as summary

Georgina

Re your post 10/9 10.15. Time is not to any extent a ‘consequence of our own movement’, or indeed any other action. We cannot influence time, just like we cannot alter any existent aspect of reality. In your words, the living organism is still a ‘passive recipient of predetermined sensory input’. It just happens to occupy a different spatial position from that which it could have...

view entire post

Georgina

Re your post 10/9 10.15. Time is not to any extent a ‘consequence of our own movement’, or indeed any other action. We cannot influence time, just like we cannot alter any existent aspect of reality. In your words, the living organism is still a ‘passive recipient of predetermined sensory input’. It just happens to occupy a different spatial position from that which it could have done, at the point of reception of the sensory information. It has the free will to be in any spatial position (within reason!), but that just means there is a variance (eg time delay) in whatever would have obtained in an alternative circumstance. The organism cannot occupy different spatial positions and receive the same sensory representation of the same state of reality.

Re your post 10/9 11.24.

1 The sequence is the number of discrete states, in an order, which comprise a particular example of change. There is then a rate at which states replace their predecessors, which could vary from state to state in any permutation. The totality of durations for each state, obviously equals the total duration of the sequence. Example: cat walks across garden. That could be decomposed into a sequence of states. Note that during this event, it will also get older, its molecular structure will alter, it claws grow, moult some hair, etc, etc. But we are interested in the sequence of change in reality associated with its progression from A to B. It is doubtful if each state will elapse with the same duration, it will probably stalk to begin with and then make a dash for it. I couldn’t understand the relevance of your example about balls.

2 Obviously sensory information which has not yet been received is in the observer’s future, assuming that he/she is in a position to receive it. If they happen to be looking the other way, or a brick wall is in the path of the light, then…..Equally obviously, something that has been observed is in the observer’s past. And all this is in terms of observer perspective. But this is not reality. As above, reality went through a sequence of existent states, each of which resulted in the emanation of experienceable information. How people process this stream of information, I don’t have a clue about. I will leave that to people that do. It is fascinating, one gets a good programme every now and then, particularly where people have suffered some specific brain damage, or indeed there was the blind bloke recently who had learnt to echolocate.

4 As I said above when picking up a post I missed, there are two existent states which we have no influence over. It is not a ‘manufactured’ representation. That is the point, it exists BEFORE we/other organisms enter the process and ‘muck it up’(!) even more. I turn round and there is my dog. I am aware of him, because a) he is an independent existent entity, b) light emitting from him has enabled this. Then, and only then, do I come into play and interpret the information. I realise what your labels refer to, but personally, I see no point in an adjective preceeding reality. It is just that, reality. And I have looked at your definition of Image Reality, this being the output from the process of experience. Again personally, I would not deploy the word reality here. It makes what is actually a jumble of translations seem more ‘official’ than it is. This is what we start with, but it’s a mess.

5 I do not understand your point, and do not want to get involved in simultaneity/ relativity. Go back to that cat. Assume no relative motion, and lots of other things which enable us to have articulated experiences and only the raw light based representations. We have a man and his dog, a few metres away. Another the same distance but behind a metre thick glass wall, an eagle several thousand feet up overhead. A bloke on the moon, another in a strange gas cloud/aquarium of water, etc, etc. Now, with the right understanding of the processes, all these observations could be regressed and would arrive at the same definition of reality, ie cat by point in time by specific point in space.

Paul

view post as summary

Hi Paul,

You said "Time is not to any extent a "consequence of our own movement", or indeed any other action. I read your explanation of that sentence. I'm afraid it depends upon what you mean by "time" and how you define "reality", ie how/why you think time occurs and what you think reality is. Within your personal understanding of time , which I think is inadequately considered and your...

view entire post

Hi Paul,

You said "Time is not to any extent a "consequence of our own movement", or indeed any other action. I read your explanation of that sentence. I'm afraid it depends upon what you mean by "time" and how you define "reality", ie how/why you think time occurs and what you think reality is. Within your personal understanding of time , which I think is inadequately considered and your personal opinion of reality then you may be correct.The time experienced by the individual does depend upon the sensory data received because it is that data that is forming the present now-manifestation of reality.It depends on other things too such as speed of processing of the information , state of alertness, whether it is a life threatening situation.

Addressing your numbered points:

1 Pity you didn't understand the balls. The point was passage of time is about change of the whole universe simultaneously and not comparison of how one object changes position relative to another. Not how an observer measures an isolated change from his reference frame at his scale. It is the whole pattern of the object universe changing at all scales.

2 Obviously? Really? Good. You said "If they happen to be looking the other way, or a brick wall is in the path of the light, then..." Yes they do not see it. But that does not alter its independent object reality.

You then say -"Equally obviously, something that has been observed is in the observer's past." Glad it is obvious to you. Though I do not know what you think "the past" is. So we might actually be disagreeing on this point

You then say "And all this is in terms of observer perspective. But this is not reality."

If it is not reality then what is it? If you look in a dictionary it will most probably define reality as being that which is -seen-to exist, amongst other things. I have given several dictionary definitions of reality on this site as well as definitions of the terms object and image reality as I am using them. If we don't even agree on what is and isn't reality then it will be difficult to fully agree.

You said " ..... there are two existent states which we have no influence over. It is not a "manufactured" representation. That is the point, it exists BEFORE we/other organisms enter the process and "muck it up"(!) even more." Here you are misinterpreting my description of image reality from processing received data with the independently existing object reality. That is just misunderstanding.

You said "I turn round and there is my dog." No I perceive that there is my dog from the information received. I do not see dog object but observer constructed manifestation produced by my visual cortex using input data and memory conserning said dog.A fabricated representation.

You said " I am aware of him, because a) he is an independent existent entity, b) light emitting from him has enabled this. Then, and only then, do I come into play and interpret the information. I realise what your labels refer to, but personally, I see no point in an adjective preceeding reality. It is just that, reality."

Thats the problem, you do not see the point. It is -essential- that the output reality from sensory data is not equated to the source of the input as they are not identical. This separation of the facets of reality allows the Grandfather paradox to be overcome because it can be found from this separation that the time dimension only pertains to the manifestation output and not the source of the input.

You said "5 I do not understand your point, and do not want to get involved in simultaneity/ relativity." I'm afraid there is not much hope understanding how time woks if you don't want to think about relativity and non simultaneity. They are intimately involved in the conundrum.

And finally You said "........... all these observations could be regressed and would arrive at the same definition of reality, ie cat by point in time by specific point in space." Alas, if only it were that simple.

Georgina.

view post as summary

Paul,

1 You said "It's not a case of personal opinion. Time, as a dimension of our reality, exists..." Statement of your belief.If you mean by "our reality" that which is experienced then I agree. You then said "...independently of us, so we cannot influence it in any way". The time dimension does not have independent existence in the object universe but is formed by the observer...

view entire post

Paul,

1 You said "It's not a case of personal opinion. Time, as a dimension of our reality, exists..." Statement of your belief.If you mean by "our reality" that which is experienced then I agree. You then said "...independently of us, so we cannot influence it in any way". The time dimension does not have independent existence in the object universe but is formed by the observer observing. It exists only in the output reality. It depends upon the observer observing and the perception of the observer can be that the passage of time is variable according to input data. It is the path through space that influences what data will be input to form each present-now experience.

The variable speed of passage of time according to observer perception is not a part of the model under discussion, though it might be considered as an extension of it. It is certainly not incompatible. Variable passage of time is a part if the reality experienced by the observer and therefore should not be denied its factual occurrence, on the grounds of incorrectly applied theoretical ideas.

There are two things going on. Passage of time due to change of arrangement of the independently existing reality and relativity in space-time due to the temporal artifact resulting from data transmission delay.

2. You said "I still do not understand your example with balls." It is a model of what is happening at the foundational level of reality and has come from the descriptions of how time occurs, that are being used.

You said "Ultimately, one could argue that everything must have a connectivity with everything else. Whilst logically obvious, I am not sure where this can lead."

"OK the balls in a box are an analogy. So not actually what is going on but a concrete way of thinking about an abstract idea. It goes with a model that allows a partial non determinism and so some free will. For that to happen there has to be an -unwritten- future coming into being. Thats what the balls are representing. With this going on -as well as- the transmission of EM data producing the space-time experienced reality, it is then possible to have both relativity and non simultaneity but no Grandfather paradox. Also pre-written futures (sensory data in environment ) but also free will and uni-directional causality and one way time.Its actually a big deal.

You said There is no known connectivity between the act of fishing and plumbing."Certainly there is a connection if the fisherman is a plumber and he misses my appointment because he is out on the river.

3. You said "I think one can safely say that the fact that the event has to exist before we can experience it is an "obvious" statement.""OK though I would prefer "had to have occurred" as it then ceases to exist as an arangement of the object universe and only the sensory data produced from it remains in the environment.

You said "The answer to your question ["If it is not reality then what is it?"] is that it is perception, (or whatever one wants to label it, so long as its definition has a correlation with reality)." OK as I was saying then "Image reality". That is what I want to label it. It shows that it is still a part of reality, agrees with people who consider what they see to -be- reality; but differentiates it from that which exists independently from the transmission of sensory data and observer experience.

4. You said " My point about the dog, and expressed elsewhere, was that there are two states before any organism is in anyway involved in the process, ie a) the existent state of reality, b) sensory representations thereof. We cannot see anything if there is no light based representation available, and that cannot exist if there is no reality. I'm lost as to how you think I am failing to see the differentiation of the various "realities" (whatever label is applied), because it is precisely what I keep on about. But this might have something to do with the conceptualization of time."

OK. I think we are agreeing on the basic concept of an observer independent reality but you are not clearly differentiating between source of input to observer- and output. It may seem a minor and irrelevant point but it is very significant for answering the foundational questions and overcomiong the time paradoxes.

a)the existent arrangement in space independent of observer perception.- Dog object. b)The EM data reflected from dog in data pool within the environment independent of observer - Potential sensory data. { a) and b) are the independent reality, called Object reality, by me.} input-[ REALITY INTERFACE ]-output c). The observed output, produced -by the observer- from received data input, temporally delayed and otherwise altered by the process -the Manifestation, -experienced- as existing in external reality - Dog image reality output.

5.You said "In terms of relativity and simultaneity, I was trying to not generate a whole other debate." Good. We experience reality due to receipt and processing of data, that has been transmitted but with non infinite data transmission speed. So there is a temporal component of the experienced reality resulting from that. Therefore relativity and non simultaneity are a part of the output image reality.

Paul thank you so much for taking the time to consider these ideas.I really do appreciate it. I am sorry to disagree with you on so many points. For the model to work to answer the foundational questions and overcome the paradoxes it has to be precisely understood and applied. To ensure that it is precisely understood it is necessary to be pedantic about the language used and the way in which temporal terms are applied in particular.

view post as summary

John,

I just want to rewind back to this.

"John,

you know its that quantum physics dilemma at the universal scale. Its a choice between position or momentum at the subatomic scale and at the universal scale it is a choice between spatial pattern/arrangement of the universe or energy/change of arrangement. Either a pattern can be considered or the transitions but they can not...

view entire post

John,

I just want to rewind back to this.

"John,

you know its that quantum physics dilemma at the universal scale. Its a choice between position or momentum at the subatomic scale and at the universal scale it is a choice between spatial pattern/arrangement of the universe or energy/change of arrangement. Either a pattern can be considered or the transitions but they can not be considered as the same thing at the same time, even though in nature they are inseparable."GP

I think this is important because there is a problem with QM not scaling up. Here however something seen in QM -is- scaling up to the object universal scale.

Also the very fact that it is not possible separate change from the pattern it forms or vice versa, and have them existing independently is important, I think.

It means that particles really ought not to be considered as zero dimensional points. Something which Eckard feels strongly to be a mistake from a mathematical viewpoint. I think he is correct because the zero dimensional point vanishes where as what we have is something in transition between those imaginary zero dimensional points. A minute 1 dimensional line.If you make the line so small it becomes a one dimensional point the realism of the model has been destroyed; because it no longer represents the energy component and the transition. So that it is made from hypothetical particle lines not points is as important as the pattern.

At each step in the sequence the line has moved but might be considered to touch or overlap the line of the previous step. Now the becoming, the energy, is included in the representation of what is. It does mean that the position can not be absolutely defined but it would seem that absolute position is incompatible with a universe where everything is locked into perpetual change, moving on and becoming.

Superposition in QM may be confusing the desire for a static absolute position of an object with a continual change, as the arrangement of the universe continually alters at every scale. Where a particle is detected will depend upon the arrangement of the universe, at that scale, when the detection occurs. It is only observer perspective that makes some things appear static and others to appear to be in motion. The earth is moving and so therefore is the cup on my desk. It is that human perspective that drives the desire to give things static measured positions in space-time.

Everything must be changing spatial position. Like the balls in the box. Shift the box and everything goes together. Move one and the others must accommodate the change. Everything is changing position faster at that tiny scale. There is a lot of energy, accentuating the changing of position; but it is not different from what is occurring at the larger scales just faster. Larger objects move more slowly- but they have more inertia, more resistance to change of trajectory. (So scale is not just about size but amount of change occurring.)

Then quantum de-coherence is an observer imposing a static viewpoint of position/state of being from received data/detection. That reality being formed from the detection/received data. The reality -imposed by the observer- only comes into being upon detection but what was, which may have been more variable over time/change of arrangement of the universe, still had reality in space independently of the observer. Spread not over a Multi-verse but different iterations of the Object universe, existing and then being superseded in sequence.

view post as summary

Georgina

Your post 13/9 22.39

1 My point about opinion is that as reality exists independently of us, then only one description of that is correct, scientifically. Our reality referred to the existent reality we inhabit, ie that which is potentially experienceable by all organisms. This equates to your Object Reality. Time is not ‘formed’ by the observer observing. It has to be...

view entire post

Georgina

Your post 13/9 22.39

1 My point about opinion is that as reality exists independently of us, then only one description of that is correct, scientifically. Our reality referred to the existent reality we inhabit, ie that which is potentially experienceable by all organisms. This equates to your Object Reality. Time is not ‘formed’ by the observer observing. It has to be logically inferred, but that is a reflection of the fact that it is a dimension. It is an intrinsic feature of reality, we do not in any way create it. The perception of the timing and duration of events is another matter.

2 There is a passage of time in reality. Entities change. We can deploy a measuring system to quantify it and enable comparisons of disparate types of change. Relativity is based on the hypothesis that all matter alters in dimension with movement, ie once there is relative movement this effect has to be accounted for. This is not only true of itself, but that then has an impact on the speed of light, which is in addition susceptible to influence depending upon the medium it is travelling in irrespective of relative motion. In a sentence, a whole other layer of complex interference to understand when trying to discern the existent reality which instigated a representation which ultimately resulted in a perception.

3 Your point about the fisherman and plumbing proves the point I was making. Ultimately anything must have a connectivity with something else, because, like the balls in the box, everything is within a confine ie existence). But this is a pointless abstraction, because it has lost all sense of context. In terms of going fishing, the man does not need to know about plumbing. In terms of being contactable, whether he has gone fishing, down the pub, or whatever, is an entirely different matter. It’s a matter of appropriate closed systems and reference points.

4 I am aware that your label is Image Reality. Ultimately the labels do not matter, so long as they relate to some existent aspect of reality. However, as said previously, personally I prefer reality, since there is only one of those. And perception, because there are trillions of these, ranging from the accurate to the stupid. So whilst they may be considered reality to the individual, I feel that is somewhat stretching the intrinsic meaning of the word. Also, image relates to only one of many senses upon which a perception may be based.

5 I am differentiating the various levels. You are including the existent sensory representations of reality in reality (your word Object Reality). This is incorrect. The sensory representations of reality are precisely that, representations. They are not reality. We do not see, hear, feel, etc, reality. We sense a representation based on the properties of the medium conveying the information to us. It may be selective, etc. We have no influence over its existence, so as I previously said, one could attribute this with a reality tag. But they have to be considered to be a different existent phenomena from the reality which instigated its existence. Now, in practical terms, this may not matter for a lot of science. But sometimes it will. And we must be aware of this differentiation (which is then further interfered with in a process of experience) to be able to make the proper choice as to whether to ignore it or not.

6 I have stated what relativity is concerned with above, and that is what those references referred to. But this is not what you are saying.

Paul

view post as summary

Georgina

Your post 15/9 13.37, reproduced below to bring it back into the right thread:

1." My" object reality is not experience- able at all. But is the source of the data from which an experience can be produced. Different observers can receive data from the same sources and produce different experiences of it. There are lots of different types of time and when the term time is...

view entire post

Georgina

Your post 15/9 13.37, reproduced below to bring it back into the right thread:

1." My" object reality is not experience- able at all. But is the source of the data from which an experience can be produced. Different observers can receive data from the same sources and produce different experiences of it. There are lots of different types of time and when the term time is used, without clarification of which type, it gets confusing. We are talking about 3 different kinds. Time the dimension, passage of time due to changes to the arrangement of the universe and time as experienced by a human being.

I have been in a car crash and time definitely and dramatically slows. That may be anecdotal but many other people have reported similar experience. What is happening in that space, the sensory data input, when processed by the brain produces the output effect of time slowing. Same day, approx. same time 6feet to the left, time would be experienced to be running normally. With respect I do not think it is an entirely different matter because the difference between output reality and source of input is very important.

2 OK I agree, a number of different things are going on. Changes in the arrangement of the universe, inc. changes to objects; and effects upon sensory data within the environment and the role of observer reference frame upon the data intercepted.

3 I didn't think the fisherman was a pointless abstraction but amusing. With respect I still don't think you have understood the significance of the point I was trying to make. Its about there being an open future coming into being everywhere at once, not some parts of the universe being at one time others at another and other bits somewhere else in time. Everything progresses along its universal trajectory together. The whole universe is as one. Its not about where the man has his lunch but that wherever he does he will still be a part of the uni-temporal universe on the way home.

4 You said "I am aware that your label is Image Reality. Ultimately the labels do not matter, so long as they relate to some existent aspect of reality. However, as said previously, personally I prefer reality, since there is only one of those. "

Then it gets ambiguous and difficult to converse meaningfully. I have tried using the term subjective reality but it was unacceptable because corroborated subjective reality is considered objective in science. I have tried saying perception, though with the intended meaning of the image of reality observed, and it is met with the response- perception is irrelevant to physics go and discuss consciousness. I need to use a term that expresses the intended meaning. Until now no one has had a problem with Image reality.

I am aware that image refers to optical phenomena however we are primarily visual creatures and space-time and relativity deals with EM. Other senses could be included in the discussions and the specific term used but it is not necessary to discuss or refer to all of the senses every time IMO. I could I suppose just call it output reality.I do sometimes use several different terms for the same thing to ensure that I have got across what I am talking about.

5 This is just ridiculous because we are agreeing that the representation is not the same as the source of the representation. But now you are saying that my image reality is my object reality. No. You have misunderstood how I am differentiating them. You are also contradicting yourself, You are calling the representations existent and then saying they are not reality.

There is only one reality you have said so yourself. I am calling it the Entirety of reality.There is nowhere else for anything to exist other than within that Entirety. The human being and his brain is within it, the brain wave activity is within it, and the space-time experience of the observer (generated by it IMO) is within it. So is the unobserved source of all sensory input, the objects, substance and media and the sensory data and its medium of transmission which are the object reality.

6 You said "I have stated what relativity is concerned with above, and that is what those references referred to. But this is not what you are saying."

I may not be talking about what is within those specific references.I am trying to explain what I am doing -because it works- not what other people did which may or may not work. Like you I do also have a life outside of this web site, believe it or not. It looked like a lot of homework to find all of them, read them, think about them and comment on them one by one. So I'll pass on that instruction for now.

My response to the above post:

1(a) If your Object Reality is not experienceable, then how does anybody know about it? But I have re-read your definitions, and maybe this is something else, so a) what precisely is it, b) if it is not reality, then what is it?

1(b) There are not different types of time. As I keep on saying, time is a real dimension of an existent reality. Just like reality itself, its existence is not amenable to alteration. Perception of time can be subject to physiological/phychological ‘quirks’, but that is perception, not reality. The timing of perception will be different because there is a time delay between existence and receipt/processing of information (leaving aside relativity, ie matter dimension alteration). There is also the possibility of a ‘doppler’ effect. Think on the following:

Light is the information medium in an experience based on sight. As light travels, there is a delay between the existence of a state and its perception. That delay will vary as a function of the individual spaces involved, and the speed with which the light travelled in each experience. Whilst the perceived order of sequence will never vary, assuming that light has a reasonable degree of constancy of movement (ie is not fundamentally erratic).

The perceived rate of change of a sequence will remain the same, so long as the on-going relative spatial position remains constant amongst everything involved. Because, while the value of the delay is different depending on each individual space, it remains constant. However, when relative individual space is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which individual spaces are altering. It is a perceptual illusion. The intrinsic rate of change in reality in the sequence being experienced does not