Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time by J. C. N. Smith

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Dear J.C.

As Oscar Wilde sagely opined: Everything in moderation, including moderation, I am somewhat appalled by the extent and absolute dominance of the amount of abstract ideas that are inflicted upon us every day. When did it become more important to us what we thought compared to that which we actually sensed? Why is not one Reality 101 class taught in any of our schools? Do you not think that it might be best to teach our children how to grow his and her own food, and how to cloth his and herself and how to find and maintain a suitable shelter, rather than inculcating them with the esoteric mysteries of algebra and calculus?

JCN

The physically existent state is not 'defining' a point in time. It is in one particular state at that point in time. But you choose the point, and then established what existed at it. So it is timing, as I said.

"The configuration of the universe changes if, and only if, some portion of the universe is displaced relative to some other portion".

I do not know what causes alteration. But alteration can involve more than displacement (though you might be using the word displacement as an alternative to alteration, ie not just movement/spatial position?). You are aware of it because when comparing one existent state with another (which is all you have) differences are manifest. You can calibrate these differences by comparing them against each other, or against one chosen common denominator. Timing is just comparing any rate of any change against any other rate of any change. Sheep moves vis a vis bell tolls. Speed, etc is comparing similar types of those changes, ie the relative rates of change in spatial position.

Re snail clock. Often it is good discipline to pick a ludicrous, but logically correct, example, because it demonstrates what is really going on. Yep the whole world could be run in accord with snail time. Everybody would have a snail on their wrist/mantelpiece/wall, etc, etc. Instead we commonly have quartz oscillations. But this emphasises what timing really is, and what is being measured.

Paul

JCN

They occur. So they must do so at a point in time (as in timing). Otherwise, they could not be differentiated from other such occurrences, which did not happen concurrently. Indeed, you are not even able to define what did occur, unless you choose a particular point in time first. What Julian Barbour does not understand, and hence why he is expressing it this way, is time, not timing. Time is non-existent. There is no physically existent entity in reality which corresponds to this concept.

What exists is a physically existent state, then another, etc. Taking some in a sequence (the criterion for selection is irrelevant, say 'ball', 'Andromeda Galaxy', 'squirrel', etc) then comparison of those states reveals differences with reference to a number of physical attributes (eg colour, shape, texture, spatial position, etc). Comparison of the rate at which those changes occur, ie irrespective of what is involved, is timing. Hence, while Andromeda Galaxy spun X, squirrel eat a nut. There is only timing, which is a measuring system that enables the comparison of disparate rates of change. But change is not physically existent, and anyway, it is concerned with the difference between realities, not of them.

All this can boil down to, in the sense that you and Julian are saying, is that there is some rate of change which is the quickest, when compared to any other, and if we could identify it and utilise it in timing devices, then we would have a unit for our timing measuring system which enables complete differentiation. As it is, we use occurrences which are not as good (eg crystal oscillation) but still involve a high frequency and constancy. Or put the other way around, there are some rates of change which occur quicker than one oscillation. But, as with all measuring systems, it is only a reference, of itelf it is meaningless.

"This also explains why there is no risk of there ever being more than one time at a time".

No it does not. This has nothing to do with timing. It is how existence must occur. It can only be in one physically existent state at a time. Any alteration to that state constitutes a different state.

Paul

JCN

I am not sure why you are putting a question mark after the word they, this refers to your quote from Barbour where they was: "relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe" . I did not bother to question what this might actually be, because Barbour said it, and such a question is irrelevant. Because what occurs, ie is physically existent, can only occur in one physical state at a time. By definition, this somewhat obvious truism applies to anything, ie a specific elementary particle, a cathedral, the universe, etc.

""Indeed, you are not even able to define what did occur, unless you choose a particular point in time first." What you are saying here, Paul"

Simple, as above. We say, 'there is a cathedral', 'the grass is green', 'there is a fly on the window', etc, etc. Now, what is left off those statement, because life would be impossible, and we are probably incapable of knowing all the information necessary, is a precise moment in time when these alleged occurrences happened, and then a precise definition as to what actually physically constituted the concepts cathedral, grass, green, fly, on, window, as at that chosen point in time. Since at another point in time they were different.

As I keep on saying, sensory systems evolved to enable survival, not detect the nature of reality. We would need impossibly sized/complex sensory systems, unbelievable technology, and probably an entire lifetime of analysis just trying to establish what, as at any given point in time, constituted that which we labelled cathedral. We are operating at a much higher level of differentiation than that which actually must occur in reality. We are conceptualising it. Our entire way of thinking, our language, etc, etc, has this inbuilt. We do it automatically.

So the second part of that sentence: "...in my lexicon, is that you cannot describe a particular configuration of the universe without first describing that particular configuration of the universe" is incorrect (this is demonstrated in your dinosaur example). Reality is a sequence of static existent states. There are differences between these. We can quantify the rate at which these alterations occurred using a system known as timing, which involves comparison of the rates at which any given identifiable changes occurred (ie any given state was superseded by the next), irrespective as to what it involved.

In your dinosaur example, you have described many previously existent states over a considerable duration. You have not defined an actual physically existent state. And in order to do so you would have to select a precise moment n millions of years ago and then define what was physically in existence as at that chosen point in time. Not one in the same era, or more than one but not too many. Because, at any other point in time than the chosen one, there are differences to what is physically existent. So you would have to define something different.

You are using the concept of 'particular time' (as in timing) to delineate existence. Whereas reality exists in one specific physically existent state at a time, then alterations occur, and we can measure the rate at which this does so by comparing the turnover of various disparate alterations.

Paul