Wilhelmus,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your good wishes.

"The what you are calling "objective reality" isn't it in fact your Consciousness ?"

That is not how I see it, Wilhelmus. No, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that an objective reality exists independent of my consciousness. As I wrote in my essay, I believe that there is a real universe. It is this real universe which I call objective reality. Relative to the whole, my consciousness and I are but one infinitesimally small portion of that real universe.

I did take a look at your earlier essay Realities Out of Total Simultaneity. In truth, however, I must admit that your thinking far exceeds my capability for comprehension. I tried but failed to understand what you mean when you wrote:

"So, once we reached this WALL of Planck, behind it we would experience the non causal dimensions of the origin of our own space-time and many other universes, which also means that after this Wall there is no separate past, no separate now and no separate future. It is the All in One, the Total Simultaneity (from now on to be called: T.S.) where all possible pasts, now's, futures and places of all thinkable and non-thinkable universes are simultaneously "present", comparable with our memory where all the events of the past have an equal place, only active thinking replaces this events in a linear causal sequence. This TS is what we will refer to as a fifth omnipresent dimension.

[...]

. . . Mankind "feels" however this infinite TS presence, not as a pure physical phenomenon but as a "spiritual" experience. Since the beginning Myths and Legends of other worlds accompany us, religion is one of the pillars to understand our universe, it is like the Theory of Everything that scientists are looking for. The human mind however "believes", and these beliefs emerge as the fourth reality the social reality."

I regret to say that my poor brain simply does not allow me to fathom the meaning underlying those words. This no doubt is my own failing. Your ideas clearly are exceedingly complex. Regardless, good luck with your program of study, and yes, let's do continue to admire the nightly sky. That much I can understand.

jcns

Hi Joe,

"Reality has no shape."

Aren't you being just a bit too hard on reality here, Joe? How would you like it if somebody said you have no shape? (Just kidding!)

I can't tell for sure from your comments whether you've given up on trying to understand the universe or not. I'm still optimistic that we'll continue to chip away at it little by little until we get a lot closer than we are now. But we'll only get there if we persevere. Nobody ever said it would be easy. Hang in there, Joe!

jcns

    • [deleted]

    • Post #9

    JCN Smith,

    You are too cautious in dealing with the problem of simultaneity:

    https://sites.google.com/site/smithjcnparadigm/

    "It will not have escaped the attention of readers closely familiar with this topic that the word "simultaneity" has not appeared in the current essay until this sentence. Simultaneity clearly is a topic which has loomed large in writings on the philosophy and science of time. I believe that the concept of time proposed in this essay has strong implications for the notion of simultaneity, but I beg forgiveness for choosing not to address that topic in this essay, which already has grown far too long and unwieldy."

    Julian Barbour is less cautious:

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/earlycareer/events/time/programme/julian_barbour.pdf

    Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/final_version_of_bulletin_autumn_2011.pdf

    "Julian reasoned that TIME SHOULD NOT BE FUSED WITH SPACE: it emerges from the timeless shape dynamics of space. Ratio is everything that is meaningful in physics, and the size of universe is far less fundamental than its shape. An instant of time is one configuration of the entire universe at one instant, he claimed, and ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY SHOULD BE RESTORED."

    The danger comes from the fact that the relativity of simultaneity is a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 light postulate. Restoring absolute simultaneity is tantamount to declaring that the light postulate is false.

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    Hi Pentcho,

    Thank you for those references. Yes, Julian Barbour and I appear to see eye to eye on many aspects of time. He wrote, "The relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe do not occur at instants of time . . . they are the instants of time." I wrote, "A particular time is identically equivalent to, and is completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe." I can't speak for Mr. Barbour, of course, but I see these as being two only very slightly different ways of expressing exactly the same concept of time.

    I believe that the significance of simultaneity, per se (as a separate issue), is vastly over-rated. Once we understand that any particular time is identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe, the notion of simultaneity becomes almost secondary. Any particular configuration of the universe (i.e., any particular time) is what it is. The universe has one, and only one, real history. Unfortunately, due to limitations of sensory data, the evolving configurations of the universe are intrinsically unknowable to individual observers, but that does not mean that particular real, albeit evolving, configurations do not exist.

    As I explained in my essay Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time, "events" are merely local, transitory subsets of larger, evolving configurations of the universe. Hence, it is possible that various events indeed *may* be simultaneous. Unfortunately, our knowledge of such simultaneity is precluded by limitations of sensory data. Theoretically, simultaneity is not only *possible*, but is *inevitable* for some events. The full practical import of this fact, however, is still less than crystal clear to me.

    Thank you again for your interesting and helpful comments.

    jcns

      • [deleted]

      • Post #11

      JCN

      We have had this exchange previously.

      There is only one form of simultaneity, which is in timing, and it is 'at any given point in time'. As at that point, which is a present in the proper sense of the word, though it has occrred, there is a definitive reality (ie physically existent states). Subsequent to that there is alteration. So there are different existent states, at another subsequent point in time. These alterations vary in the rate at which they occur. Comparison of these rates is timing. Time does not exist, as usually conceived. The rate at which any given change occurs, does.

      Paul

        Hi Paul,

        Yes, we have had at least a similar exchange previously.

        "Time does not exist, as usually conceived. The rate at which any given change occurs, does."

        I honestly think that I understand the point you're driving at with this statement, Paul. If so, it's why I made clear in my essay that I am not criticizing the operational definition of time, per se. It is the operational definition which provides a convenient way for us to accomplish the "timing" you refer to.

        A "rate" is merely a way to compare changes. Whether a rate "exists" or not depends on what you mean by "exists," I suppose.

        It strikes me that this is the reason our previous discussions have tended mostly to conclude in an impasse. We end up quibbling about definitions of terminology. Not a trivial issue, and not one that I intend to trivialize. Words are important. For some reason I've yet to fathom, however, our discussions tend not to converge, but rather to remain on separate, more or less parallel trajectories. It always reminds me of the saying that using words to express an idea is like using lumber to build a tree.

        Moreover, Paul, I can't tell from your comments whether you agree with the point I've tried to make in my current FQXi essay or not. Are we in agreement on that or not? Or is it not possible to say, given our apparent terminological disconnects?

        jcns

        • [deleted]

        • Post #13

        Sorry JCNS but the notion of simultaneity CANNOT be secondary. If the consequent is false, that is, if simultaneity is absolute and not relative, as leading theoreticians seem to believe, then we have to conclude that the antecedent, Einstein's 1905 light postulate, is false as well. But the falsehood of the light postulate implies an unprecedented catastrophe in science:

        Albert Einstein (in a letter to Freundlich): "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

        http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C4_PP.HTM

        Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce."

        http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf

        Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        JCN: I feel honored that you took the time to read my essay and really analyse it. I think that the subjective reality is created by our consciousness. Our consciousness (in my view) has contact with TS (like an antenna) and so with its entangled counterpart (probability) in this "dimension". In TS there is no causality, no cause and event, each probability in TS is "reality" but not as amaterial entity but as ,I do not know to call it other as "probability", it is just the way of being a causal human mind cannot understand. However the fact that the entanglement of the consciousness and its counterpart does exist we have a "feeling" that there is something else, this feeling is in ancient times (and still now) expressed as "religion", the Faith in God(s). Imagine the counterpart of your consciousness in TS as a point on a infinite line (both ways), then always the point where your counterpart is has the same distance to both sides of infinity, so it IS everywhere in this non causal infinity. It is eternal because there is no longer a cause that is vanishing. In our causal universe however our consciousness is a limited entity, it has a beginning and an end. (birth and death). In TS the eternal point that formed a unit with the consciousness here is eternal. So your life there is eternal, but not in the causal way. This is my explanation of religions and mythes, that mankind always has cherished, just because of the fact that we have a "feeling" (the entanglement with TS) about something eternal.

        Wilhelmus

        • [deleted]

        • Post #15

        Dear J.C.,

        I have to ruefully admit to my having a shape and it is not an impressive one by any means. Reality cannot and does not have a shape. What would the acceptable scientific ascertainment of reality shape be? How could shape be scientifically distinguished from shapeless? How could reality contain shape and shapeless constituencies? While it is true that seemingly separate realistic objects can temporarily be considered to have a definable shape, the totality of reality does not. I do not think that the Universe is understandable. I believe that opposite states attract, similar states abide, and states on the brink of becoming identical -after first exchanging propensities- then merge into a new state. The real Universe can attract abstract ideas about its inception and continuance because of the opposite containment of reality to abstraction. The reality of the Universe has to persist because all of its seeming substantive parts are really similar. Abstract ideas about the Universe have fluctuated over the years from Ptolemy to Newton to Einstein and many others. Essentially, I think all abstraction is unwholesome.

        Pentcho,

        Once again, thank you for the excellent references. The Magueijo paper ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf ) especially raises a pertinent issue:

        ". . . The speed of light is a quantity with units (units of speed) and in a world without constants there is no a priori guarantee that the meter sticks are the same at all points and that clocks spread throughout the universe are identical. Clearly if a *dimensionless* constant is observed to vary . . . that fact is unambiguous." (pp. 5-6)

        Now, perhaps somewhat ironically, one direct logical outgrowth of my view of the nature of time is that speed is *not* a quantity with units; it is a dimensionless quantity. This conclusion is developed in my essay, Time: Illusion and Reality ( https://sites.google.com/site/smithjcn/time ).

        The reasoning runs as follows: 1.) a particular time is identically equivalent to, and is completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe; 2.) The configuration of the universe changes if, and only if, some portion of the universe is displaced relative to some other portion; 3.) In order to observe and measure a change in the configuration of the universe (and, hence, a change from one particular time to another) we must observe and measure a displacement of some portion of the universe relative to some other portion. But displacements are measured in units of (what else?) displacement! Time changes (i.e., changes from one particular time to another) equate to displacement changes. Thus, speed may be seen in this light as being a dimensionless quantity.

        jcns

        • [deleted]

        • Post #17

        JCN

        Specifically:

        "A "rate" is merely a way to compare changes. Whether a rate "exists" or not depends on what you mean by "exists," I suppose".

        It is not that a rate is a way to compare changes. The point is that it is a rate at which something is physically occurring that is being compared, ie a rate is being compared with another rate. And it is the rate at which alteration occurs (or more precisely, the speed at which one existent state supersedes another). Now, we can compare them directly, without any reference to timing, as such. Hence: X occurred whilst Y occurred. Or, we can introduce a common denominator (a defined rate of change-like crystal oscillation) and compare other rates of change against that. Alteration occurs. We are comparing the rate at which one alteration occurs against another.

        Re the second part of the sentence: change does not exist, as such. Existent states exist. There are differences between them. This has two aspects: 1) substance, ie what is different, 2) the rate at which the differences occur when comparing one with another (which may be disparate in substance ie movement and colour, or of the same attribute).

        Generally:

        While I sympathise with what you are saying, I am not sure that the "operational definition of time" (which is actually timing) is regarded as the "final word". So your argument may be addressing a problem which does not exist. Though there certainly is a problem. A concept, referred to as time, has been reified into reality, ie it is seen as an attribute of any given reality. It is known to revolve around change. Then, additionally, events are timed. This supposed variable (time) within any given reality allegedly accounts for other variances. There is a degree of confusion as to whether these variances (or at least some of them) occur in reality, or the sensing (usually only seeing is referred to) ie quantification thereof.

        Now, the point is that 'time' (misconceived or otherwise) does not occur in any given reality. Because it actually corresponds with the rate at which change occurs. That is, it is an attribute of the difference between physically existent states, not of them. Timing involves the comparison, and hence quantification, of these. For example, a quartz watch is comparing crystal oscillations (which is change) with a defined sequence of change (say movement). So, the whole concept of time is incorrect. There is no change occurring within any given physically existent reality, because if that was so, that would comprise more that one existent reality. And there can only be one existent state at a time. The present, incidentally, constitutes that which was existent as at any given point in time.

        So it is not really a question of "adopting a broader, more comprehensive, view" and thereby establishing a definition which "complements"... Alteration occurs, that happens at a rate. Quantification of this rate is timing.

        [Just to note: SR involves no form of these variables. There is only motion which is effectively 'stillness' (ie uniform rectilinear and non-rotary), and objects are fixed in shape].

        Paul

        Paul,

        'There is no change occurring within any given physically existent reality, because if that was so, that would comprise more that one existent reality. And there can only be one existent state at a time."

        This statement beautifully captures the crux of our differing views. It's still not clear to me, however, whether our failure to achieve a meeting of the minds is due to a disconnect over terminology or a disconnect over substance or perhaps some combination of the two.

        I'll try one more time here to explain my view. A particular configuration (or "arrangement" or whatever term you'd prefer) of the physically existent reality that we refer to as the universe *defines* a particular time. The configuration of the universe *does* change (this is one of our most primitive empirical observations). Each separate manifestation of that changing configuration is, *by definition,* a separate time. So when you say that "there can only be one existent state at a time" you are really saying (from my perspective) that there can only be one time at a time. Yes, I'm in violent agreement with you, there can only be one time at a time.

        The configuration of the universe changes. A previous configuration included dinosaurs roaming our planet. The current configuration does not. These are two different configurations and two different times. There is no risk of there ever being more than one time at a time.

        Btw, I've heard rumors that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Mulberry Bushes has begun monitoring our exchanges, so we can't continue going round and round this same poor bush forever. On the other hand, I *would* like to see us achieve a meeting of the minds if such is possible, but I've about exhausted my explanatory arsenal. I don't know how better to explain my view.

        jcns

        • [deleted]

        • Post #19

        Hi JCNS,

        Concerning the importance of the notion of simultaneity:

        http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/lectures/Tsinghua/Tsinghua.html

        John Norton: "The second step is Einstein's discovery of the relativity of simultaneity. This is the breakthrough that showed Einstein how to reconcile his principle of relativity with the constancy of the speed of light."

        Clearly by replacing the relativity of simultaneity with absolute simultaneity, a direction in which most of today's theoreticians secretly or openly move, one makes the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light irreconciliable again. Curiously, the principle of relativity then becomes reconciliable with the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light (c'=c+v). I am sure some of the rebel theoreticians know that.

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        • [deleted]

        • Post #20

        JCN

        "It's still not clear to me, however, whether our failure...."

        No, it is unclear to me as well, but sod the Mulberry Bush and its supporters, you do, as I do, keep trying to reach a point of understood agreement about whether we disagree or not.

        Now, in the second sentence second para, why say "defines" a particular time? It is the physically existent state which exists, time is a measurement system. And the definition of what did so can only be established as at any given point in time (a "particular time"). So, yes, we have particular time, particular existent state (incidentally, this is in respect of anything, could be the universe, or a ball, or you). The expression is sort of correct, but the 'wrong' way round. A point in time (ie a unit, as in timing) is, by definition, definable by the quickest at which any given alteration occurs. But, as it is a measuring system, any reference will suffice, just the more frequent and constant the change, the better.

        I then worry about the phrase before that: "A particular configuration...of the physically existent reality". There is no 'of something', there is only a physically existent state as at any given point in time. Nothing else. The previous state has been superseded. And if there is any form of change, then it must be a different physically existent state (that is what different is). There can only be one at a time, ie there is no change/alteration within any given reality (which is a shorter word for physically existent state). Our problem is that we are conceptualising reality from a higher level (never quite sure whether less detailed equals higher), so we latch on to certain superficial physical characteristics, and unless they alter, deem it as being the same thing, an 'it', albeit perhaps altering in some respects. This is incorrect. There is, in reality, a sequence of different 'its', they just have similar characteristics at a very superficial level. There is no 'leaf', as such. There is a particular physically existent state, then another, and another, and so on. A property of the 'stuff' (technical word!) which comprises any given state causes alteration. Now, during that sequence of change, 'it', after being a 'bud' resembles what is known as 'leaf'. Eventually, as change continues to occur, having altered in colour, texture, shape, etc, it disconnects from the tree (or Mulberry Bush, even), but we still refer to the subsequent existent states as 'leaf'. Finally it is no longer constituted in a way which gives it the characteristics of 'leaf'. But in physical terms, there never was an 'it' ('leaf'), there was just a sequence of different physically existent states.

        Paul

        Paul,

        I may be hallucinating, but I sense that we're making progress.

        "So, yes, we have particular time, particular existent state (incidentally, this is in respect of anything, could be the universe, or a ball, or you)."

        We agree here, Paul, and this, for me, is the key to the whole concept. I simply choose to think in terms of the existent state of the most inclusive thing I can imagine, which is the universe, which of course includes balls and us and mulberry bushes and leaves, etc.

        "The expression is sort of correct, but the "wrong" way round. A point in time (ie a unit, as in timing) is, by definition, definable by the quickest at which any given alteration occurs."

        Curses! Foiled again! The dreaded "but" rears its ugly head. Here, Paul, is one place where our thinking diverges. What you call "a point in time" (which I believe is the same as what I call "a particular time," and what others commonly refer to as a "moment" or as a "moment in time" is not, according to my view, "a unit, as in timing," nor is it, "by definition, definable by the quickest at which any given alteration occurs."

        Quickest relative to what, Paul? You've already built a clock into the universe with this statement. Forget clocks for now. Banish clocks from the universe. (A difficult feat, given that virtually any process may be viewed as a clock.) The "quickness" with which any one alteration occurs is only meaningful if we compare it with some other alteration. For convenience, we arbitrarily select one alteration and call it our clock. (A wise - - i.e., optimally useful - - selection of what to use as a clock clearly is not totally arbitrary, but I'm speaking purely theoretically.)

        "There is a particular physically existent state, then another, and another, and so on. A property of the "stuff" (technical word!) which comprises any given state causes alteration."

        Again, we are in total agreement here. The "property" which causes alteration in any given state is what we humans have, in our infinite wisdom, named the laws of physics or the laws of nature. Some of the best thinkers ever to have lived have taken it as their mission to understand and codify these laws.

        "But in physical terms, there never was an "it" ("leaf"), there was just a sequence of different physically existent states."

        Here we diverge again. I say that there was indeed a leaf. "Leaf" is the term we use to describe a particular configuration of "stuff." (I tend to use the technical term "bits and pieces" rather than "stuff," but I can live with your terminology.) The configuration of the ensemble of atoms (stuff) which had come together in the form of a leaf subsequently becomes altered (in compliance with the laws of physics) to become an ensemble of stuff we call "mulch." This subsequently will be scattered (again, in compliance with the laws of physics) and some will be taken up by plant roots and eventually become another leaf, which may be eaten by an animal, which is in turn eaten by another animal, and which eventually may become a part of you or me.

        jcns

          Hi Steve,

          ". . . a pure harmonization spherization of global systems."

          That sounds like a good thing. We definitely could use some harmonization of global systems (and real harmony) now.

          Glad you found my essay interesting. Thanks for checking it out.

          pax,

          jcns

          Hi Paul,

          You'll find a reply to your post below. Perhaps I failed to do a "reply to this thread." Sorry.

          jcns

          • [deleted]

          • Post #24

          JCN

          "...is not, according to my view, "a unit, as in timing," nor is it, "by definition, definable by the quickest at which any given alteration occurs."

          Aha:

          1 If it is not timing then what is it? Timing requires points which represent start and finish and the points in between are units of the measuring system (duration). Now, as in any measuring system, one can choose any common denominator (unit) as the reference, so long as it has the required attributes. It is just that some are better.

          2 Since timing is the comparison of the rate at which any form of change occurs, then that which occurs quickest (whatever form of change it might be-probably movement of elementary particles(?)) when comparing any change one to another, constitutes the unit of timing. One could say this is the 'tick' rate of our reality. It takes that duration for any alteration to occur. Many forms of change take more than one of those 'ticks'. This is why (above 1) any reference is OK in so far as the same 'mistake' is being made every time. And the only real problem is that some degree of differential which occurs is not being identified, but then we are usually conceptualising a sequence of change at a much higher level than that which actually occurs anyway. So, crystal oscillation is a considerably slower form of change compared to elementary particle occupying adjacent spatial position.

          Another way of responding to your "Quickest relative to what", is to point out that everything is a 'clock'. Everything is changing. But the changes can be very slow and not consistent. So the snail crossing my garden does not provide a 'good' clock. There is change (in that physically existent states occur which when compared have differences). These changes can be in respect of all sorts of attributes. [It may well be that change, although manifest in many different ways, is the function of one, or very few, factors, but that is a different issue]. Timing is about comparing the rate at which these disparate alterations occur. Speed is about comparing only a particular form of change. So is colour, texture, noise, heat, etc, etc, etc. Therefore, it is all timing really, ie comparison to establish differences. It is just that timing compares anything and everything, irrespective of what form of change it is.

          We agree on the last point. There is relentless reconfiguration, but for some number of these in a sequence, they have superficial characteristics which mean it can be identified as an 'it' (leaf). The important point to remember is that this is only so in respect of that conceptualisation. In reality, each configuration (physically existent state) was considerably different from the preceding ones.

          Paul

          Hi Joe,

          "Abstract ideas about the Universe have fluctuated over the years from Ptolemy to Newton to Einstein and many others. Essentially, I think all abstraction is unwholesome."

          Whether abstraction is "unwholesome" or not is, I think, in the mind of the beholder. Moreover, it strikes me that abstraction is virtually inevitable. How can thinking beings exist and *not* engage in abstraction? Were it not for abstraction wouldn't we all still be living in caves and hunting with sticks and stones and eating plants and raw meat whenever we were fortunate enough to acquire it? Or perhaps I'm missing your point about the nature of abstraction?

          jcns

          • [deleted]

          • Post #26

          Dear JCNS,

          I have read your essay and come to understand your point of view in establishing the human experience of time as a valid representation of time and that there is a flow of time. Time like consciousness of a being is both relative and absolute in nature. When we deal with relative time by being in local consciousness of I am a human at this moment, yes then there difinitely is the flow of time from past to present to future. When our consciousness merges with universal conscience (when one attains singularity), then one stops to count the events one is experiencing and the time becomes absolute or infinite, this is when the phenomenon of all realities existing simultaneously at once happens and this is what some scientists are describing with their models. Both aspects of time are equally true, its just our choice to experience one over the other that determines the time at that moment. Duality is as real as singularity and relativity as true as the absolute. I "am" a relative being, i in me is the absolute.

          Please see Conscience is the cosmological constant.

          Love,

          Sridattadev.