Paul,

"The physically existent state is not "defining" a point in time. It is in one particular state at that point in time."

This is a key point upon which we hold differing views, and it is this specific difference, more than any other, which is preventing a better meeting of minds.

Let me offer a different wording of the idea I'm trying to convey; perhaps it will help. This wording is not mine; it is the wording of Julian Barbour (with whom I am in complete agreement on this point): "The relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe do not occur at instants of time . . . they are the instants of time."

Again, the relative configurations of the universe do not occur *at* instants of time . . . they *are* the instants of time. Does that wording help clarify the idea? It is *not* that a particular configuration *occurs simultaneously with* a particular time or that it "coincides with" a particular time. The particular configuration and the particular time are identically equivalent; they are one and the same thing. There is no "time" separate from configurations of the universe.

This also explains why there is no risk of there ever being more than one time at a time, which was an earlier concern you'd expressed (a concern which I believe was founded on a faulty grasp of the concept). As you correctly pointed out ". . . there can only be one existent state at a time." Yes, exactly, and the reason for this is that the existent state and the time are exactly the same thing. If it was a different existent state it would also be a different time.

Not only is it not necessary, but, moreover, it is positively confusing and misleading and unhelpful to add on a separate, imaginary "layer" to reality and to give that imaginary layer the name "time."

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #32

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

Paul,

"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."

I'm assuming that the "they" to which you're referring here are physically existent states (?), which, in my lexicon, are the same as particular times.

"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, in my lexicon, is that you cannot describe a particular configuration of the universe without first describing that particular configuration of the universe.

By way of specific example, let me sketch out, in minimalistic brush strokes, a rough configuration of one small portion of the universe: dinosaurs roaming the planet Earth. I was able to describe this existent state without needing first (as a separate, preliminary step) to "choose a particular point in time." The reason is that this existent state and this particular point in time are one and the same thing. By choosing one you've chosen both.

Now, what's the risk that one of these dinosaurs might have been injured by walking onto a railroad track and being struck by a steam locomotive? (Could steam locomotives have caused the extinction of dinosaurs?) Not much risk. Why not? Because steam locomotives and dinosaurs have not shared an existent reality (configuration of the universe). This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I believe you call "timing," but it has everything to do with particular times (particular configurations of the universe). There has never been a particular physically existent state, (i.e., a particular configuration of the universe; i.e., a particular time) which included both dinosaurs and steam locomotives.

"Any alteration to that state constitutes a different state."

Yes, and it also constitutes a different particular time.

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

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

Paul,

"Reality is a sequence of static existent states. There are differences between these."

I'm not sure what universe you're living in, Paul, but there's nothing static about the existent states in my universe. In my universe there is a sequence of existent states, and there are differences between them.

Your universe sounds like an old-fashioned film strip in which individual static frames are projected in rapid succession to give the appearance (illusion) of motion. And here we encounter the debate regarding whether reality is digital or analog, which I've assiduously avoided. Do the existent states in my universe flow smoothly from one to another or do they jump jerkily from one to another so rapidly that I'm unable to detect their jerky nature? I don't know the answer to that one, Paul. In the interest of making progress, however agonizingly slow and fitful, in the ongoing discussion we've been having here, however, I'm not sure it's essential that we definitively answer the analog vs. digital question. Do you see this question as being central to our discussion? If so, why?

"We can quantify the rate at which these alterations occurred using a system known as timing"

Agreed.

"You are using the concept of "particular time" . . . to delineate existence." [please dispense with (as in timing) for the moment.]

Yes, correct; I am using the concept of "particular time" to delineate the existence of a particular configuration of the universe, or, in your terminology, the existence of a particular existent state.

"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."

Believe it or not, Paul, (I hope you're sitting down) I agree with you on this. This is where clocks enter the picture. Unfortunately, it's also where trouble enters the picture.

The point I was trying to make (obviously unsuccessfully) in my previous post with the dinosaur and steam locomotive example is that "Time" is *more* than just the reading of a clock, and it is *more* than just timing. We have gotten ourselves into all manner of trouble and confusion because people have lost sight of this.

Which brings me back full circle to the point of my essay in the current FQXi competition. So far as science is concerned, "time is that which is measured by clocks" is the full story. I argue that it is *not* the full story. That way of thinking has led us to block time and to claims that the distinctions between past, present, and future are an illusion, however persistent that illusion may be, and to claims that there is no objective flow of time. Do you believe that those are accurate depictions of reality? I don't.

Clocks (and calendars) have taken on extremely important roles in our lives because they serve as a convenient shorthand notation for conveying information about configurations of the universe, as I explained in my essay Time: Illusion and Reality. If I tell you that I am talking about the configuration of the universe 200 million years ago which included dinosaurs, I can safely assume that I will not need to explain to you that steam locomotives are not a part of that configuration, because you have some knowledge of history.

I argue that we need to complement, or augment, the operational definition of time with a broader view, as explained in my essay.

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #36

JCN

So what exists if it is not static, in the sense that for a certain period no form of change occurs? How do you define any given substance if it is in more than one physical state, because it then involves change, ie differences, ie more than one? Stuff can only be in one physically existent state at a time (ie static, I could not think of a better word, but have explained it many times), or how can two such states in the same sequence both exist at the same time? Ultimately there must be non-divisibility. Your film analogy is correct, this just involves ultra high frequency in terms of duration and extreme minuteness in terms of what constitutes a change.

Making the same points again, with quotes from your second paragraph: "Do the existent states in my universe flow smoothly from one to another". One to another what? If something "flows" ("smoothly" or otherwise), then there needs to be a definable (ie static) something, not two or more different states of the something. "Or do they jump jerkily from one to another so rapidly that I'm unable to detect their jerky nature". Must do, but it is only "jerky" if there was some ability to sense the extremely minute alterations involved, occurring at extremely high frequencies.

"I'm not sure it's essential that we definitively answer the analog vs. digital question. Do you see this question as being central to our discussion? If so, why?"

I am not bothered about it being characterised as the 'analog v digital question'. But this is the most important point, in a number of key points, about how reality must occur. And the answer is that there must ultimately be discreteness. Go back to my leaf. Bud, leaf grows in size, starts losing green colour, falls off, disintegrates. Now, how does that sequence physically occur if not in discrete existent states? There are not two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as the sequence progresses. There is only one, at any point in time (which constitutes the present). If not, where are the others? Answer: nowhere. By definition, they have been superseded by the new present (existent state), because alteration(s) to the previous one occurred which resulted in it, and the cessation of the previous present. Something cannot change, but then still be in existence. There can only be something. Not something, plus what it was before it became that, plus, even, what it might become when it changes.

"Believe it or not, Paul, (I hope you're sitting down) I agree with you on this"

Actually, I think you do. But this is directly contradictory to what you say above. And you then say: "This is where clocks enter the picture. Unfortunately, it's also where trouble enters the picture". Clocks (timing) does not enter the picture. What does, is an alteration(s) to that physically existent state, so there is now a different one. There is only ever one, But it is different from the previous ones, and the rate at which these changes occurred can be compared with one another, ie irrespective of substance. And this is timing. What is "more than" (in your words) is change, which results in a different reality (existent state). Timing being a human devised duration measuring system.

Which brings me back to my original point(!), that this 'operational time' is not considered as the entirety of what constitutes 'time'. The real problem is that 'time' as exemplified in terms of change, has been reified into reality, ie it is considered to be an attribute of reality. So now there is a logical problem resolving how when there are (effectively) more than one state in existence at a time, there appears to be only one. Which results in this nonsense about the nature of its existence being dependent on the sentient organism (in the code, observer frame of reference, waveform collapse). And as you say, a complete confusion over what can constitute the past, present, future.

"Do you believe that those are accurate depictions of reality? I don't"

No. And the irony is that they are incorrect because they are based on philosophy, ie a flawed presumption as to how reality occurs.

Paul

Paul,

"There are not two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as the sequence progresses."

It sounds as though you're trying to convince me of the truth of this statement. If so, there's no need for you to do so. We're already in violent agreement about this. As I've tried to say numerous time, in numerous different ways, there *cannot* be two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as a sequence progresses. The reason is that if there are two or more physically existent states, then these two or more physically existent states equate (by definition) to two or more particular times! Can you accept "yes, I agree with you" as an answer on this point?

"There is only one [physically existent state], at any point in time (which constitutes the present)."

Yes, again we are in complete agreement about this.

"If not, where are the others? Answer: nowhere. By definition, they have been superseded by the new present (existent state), because alteration(s) to the previous one occurred which resulted in it, and the cessation of the previous present."

Yes, we agree here. By the way, the physically existent states which have been superseded by the present are what we refer to as the past.

"Something cannot change, but then still be in existence."

Here we disagree. I argue that the universe can change, but then still be in existence. The configuration of the universe evolves. The configuration of the universe today is not the same as the configuration of the universe yesterday or 200 million years ago. But the universe continues to exist.

"There can only be something. Not something, plus what it was before it became that, plus, even, what it might become when it changes."

Yes, we agree here (especially if the "something" to which you refer is the universe).

Unless I'm missing something, the points on which we agree appear to be outnumbering the points on which we disagree. Is such possible?

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #38

JCN

"Can you accept "yes, I agree with you" as an answer on this point?"

No!! Because it is not "the reason". Timing is a human invention, it is not physically existent. Stuff is. And the very nature of 'is' or 'in existence' is that in any given sequence stuff only takes on one form at a time.

"Here we disagree"

Actually you don't! Because you agreed with this above. The statement: "Something cannot change, but then still be in existence" is an alternative way of expressing: 'there can only be one at a time'. What existed was caused to alter, so subsequently something different existed. This is not the same as: 'there is something existing which has changed in some respects'. A difference is a difference is a difference.

Now, it might be (I do not know, because I do not know how all the existent variables interrelate) that while certain aspects of any given existent state have changed, others have not (this is in respect of real physical existence, not conceptualisation). That is, the 'others' alter at a less frequent rate. I would worry about this because I would suspect there is a fundamental feature (or very few) which alters (or if more than one alter concurrently because they are interrelated) and everything else is a consequence thereof.

But that is only opinion and I do not base my statement on that anyway. The point being that there is a physically existent state; alteration occurs. If not every aspect of that original physical state has altered in that duration, then there is just a different physically existent state, of which some aspects have not yet altered when compared to the one that has been superseded and therefore ceased. The key here is to get away from the ordinary way of seeing this, which implies some form of continuance, and the notion (often not realised) that more than one exists at a time.

"Unless I'm missing something..."

Yep. And I think the 'last point' of difference is encapsulated in that last paragraph. At the physical level, ie what is actually happening, 'let go' of the notion that there is more than one. There can only ever be one. Which is the same as saying there is no change within what exists, because change is about more than one.

Paul

Paul,

"Timing is a human invention, it is not physically existent. Stuff is. And the very nature of "is" or "in existence" is that in any given sequence stuff only takes on one form at a time."

We are in total agreement about all of this, Paul. You may protest all you like and claim that we're not in agreement, but I must respectfully disagree; we *do* agree here. For some bizarre reason which I've yet to fathom, however, you seem unwilling and/or unable to comprehend and/or accept the notion of *defining* particular times as being equivalent to particular configurations of the universe. Or, in Barbour's wording, "The relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe do not occur *at* instants of time . . . they *are* the instants of time." [my emphasis added.] Once you really "get" this way of thinking about time and internalize it everything comes together. Really. But if you don't get it, you don't get it. If you don't see it, you don't see it.

Inasmuch as I believe you are sincere in your arguments and are not being argumentative merely for the sake of being argumentative, I can only lay the blame for our failure to see eye to eye at my own failure to explain my position with sufficient clarity. "Getting" the point I'm trying to make requires a shift in the paradigm one uses for thinking about time. I suspect that you and I are looking at exactly the same physical reality and conceptualizing it differently. Are you familiar with the Necker Cube illusion? It neatly illustrates the fact that we can look at exactly the same physical reality and interpret what we're seeing in two different ways. I'm beginning to surmise that this is what the two of us are doing and that this is why we continue to fail to achieve a meeting of minds.

Rather than beating this poor dead horse further here, I respectfully request that you go back and carefully read (or re-read) two of my earlier essays, Time: Illusion and Reality, and On the Impossibility of Time Travel. If you read those and take issue with the view of time presented there, let's resume our discussion later with a focus on specific points of disagreement from your reading of those essays.

". . . the irony is that they [the beliefs that distinctions between past, present, and future are an illusion and that there is no objective flow of time] are incorrect because they are based on philosophy, ie a flawed presumption as to how reality occurs."

As a final point of agreement, I agree with you on this observation. The paradigm for the nature of time (for the nature of objective reality) which underlies those ideas is faulty, in my opinion. The continued acceptance of that faulty paradigm is "enabled" by a failure or unwillingness to look beyond the operational definition of time (time is that which is measured by clocks) and see the objective reality which is staring us all squarely in the face. I fear that too many scientists (Smolin, Barbour, and some others notably *not* among them) may pride themselves on holding deep and sophisticated views which are contrary to the "common sense" views of ordinary humans. This is akin to religious zealots priding themselves on having "faith" in the most bizarre tenets of their religion. So rather than openly and objectively questioning the reasons for the glaring disconnect between science and common sense (and thereby risk being found to have held erroneous views) they double down on their beliefs. Never mind that we've failed to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics. Just keep on with the same old ways of thinking. Don't entertain any other possible ways of looking at reality.

But I would not lay the blame for this at the feet of philosophy. That's unfair to philosophy, in my opinion. No, scientists have managed to create this glaring disconnect between science and common sense quite on their own. And, having done so, they're loath to consider the possibility that it could be based on their own faulty view of reality.

jcns

Paul,

With apologies for back-to-back posts, I offer a couple of quotes which I believe are germane/apropos.

"Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don't conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best fit the facts. It urges on us a delicate balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything - - new ideas and established wisdom."

-- Carl Sagan, 'The Demon-Haunted World'

"The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth."

-- David Deutsch, 'The Beginning of Infinity'

jcns

Hi J.C.N.Smith,

I really like the Carl Sagen and David Deutsch quotes that you posted. Thanks for posting them.

I have read your essay quickly. I will try to spend more time reading it carefully. It seems, from a quick reading, really clearly argued and well presented, as is your other writing on this subject.

Its dealing thoroughly with one, in my opinion -most important-, basic physical problem that needs addressing. I hope it gets its deserved interest- from lots of different people.

(Very different from my own essay. I am glad, as we will not be directly competing with the same idea.) Good luck.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #42

JCN

"For some bizarre reason which I've yet to fathom, however, you seem unwilling and/or unable to comprehend and/or accept the notion of *defining* particular times as being equivalent to particular configurations of the universe"

No I don't. I have always been saying that 'what physically exists can only be defined as at any given point in time, because it is constantly being superseded by another existent state which is different'. Indeed, the fastest rate of change must define the real duration of a point in time. But that is not what you were saying.

You said in the previous post: "As I've tried to say numerous time, in numerous different ways, there *cannot* be two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as a sequence progresses. The reason is that if there are two or more physically existent states, then these two or more physically existent states equate (by definition) to two or more particular times! Can you accept "yes, I agree with you" as an answer on this point?" And then you repeat Barbour's words in this post.

To which I say: No. Because the reason there cannot be two or more physically existent states in a sequence in existence at the same time, is because this is not physically possible. Existence can only occur with one physically existent state at a time in any given sequence. Each existent state being superseded by another, which is different, because something caused alteration(s) to the preceding one, which has now ceased to exist. And so on. The point is about the very nature of existence and how it must be, in order to occur, and then re-occur. And another way of expressing this is that therefore, there can be no form of change within any given physically existent state, because change involves more than one. It is an identified difference as the result of comparison, and comparison necessitates more than one.

The measuring system timing just reflects that fact, otherwise it would be useless. Although, because we probably could not achieve any practical system anyway, it does not differentiate down to a real point in time (as determined by physical reality). But if we could establish what that was, then when necessary, we could apply a conversion rate to whatever frequency was being used (eg crystal oscillation, some atomic event).

Anyway, the point is that the 'one at a time' rule is not determined by timing, it is a function of how physical existence must occur. It is that simple. Now, in the sense of using the notion that one 'equates' to the other, then we jointly arrive at the same point. And I have always agreed with a number of points you make. But, the problems arise when you have time/timing being the driving factor, and not existence. And I would certainly agree with your last point. Philosophers babbling in the background is irrelevant, those pursuing physics should have identified how reality occurs first. If one intends to do some woodwork, then it is best to know what wood is before starting, and not turn up with a pair of scissors and a nail file just because the latter are tools.

Paul

Hi Georgina,

Thank you for your kind words on my current essay and other writings. As we've noted in the past, our thinking about the topic appears to be pretty much in synch.

I'll definitely give your essay a thorough read when it appears and offer such comments as I'm able.

I agree with your comment about not directly competing. So far, there's been an interesting variety of essay topics, and I suspect that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.

Good luck to you, too, Georgina!

Btw, this is as good an opportunity as any to add that I'm deeply grateful to FQXi for providing this forum in which relatively unknown people such as the two of us, for example, have an opportunity to air our ideas in a constructive, welcoming setting. It's analogous to an "open" tennis tournament in which anybody who owns a tennis racket can enter and play. Only those who've "got game" will win, of course, but I think it's healthy for the sport of tennis to ensure that the recognized top players must compete against all comers. Just as it's healthy for science to ensure that established experts and authorities must compete in the realm of ideas with all comers. Fortunately, there is no monopoly on good ideas, but lacking a forum such as this many good ideas might never see the light of day. Yes, there will be some "clunkers" among the essays (and my essay may be among them for all I know), but that's a relatively small price to pay for the counterbalancing benefits, in my view.

Cheers!

jcns

Paul,

". . . the reason there cannot be two or more physically existent states in a sequence in existence at the same time, is because this is not physically possible. Existence can only occur with one physically existent state at a time in any given sequence. Each existent state being superseded by another, which is different, . . ."

Again, Paul, you appear to think that I disagree with you about this, but I *don't* disagree. This is what baffles me; I could have written that statement myself. And yet you seem to think that I disagree with it. Am I correct in thinking that you think I disagree with you on this? We're becoming more and more like a dog chasing its own tail here.

The configuration of the universe evolves. The configuration of the universe which we call "yesterday" was different from the configuration of the universe which we call "today." Do you agree with that, Paul? If not, we're hopelessly at odds.

"Each existent state being superseded by another, which is different, . . ."

Yes. But the *only* thing that's different from one existent state to another is the *arrangement* of the stuff, not the stuff itself! It's the same old stuff just being rearranged according to rules which we call the laws of physics. Each new arrangement of the same old stuff constitutes a new particular time, in my view. Perhaps this is where we don't see eye to eye?

For purists among us, I'm talking here about reality at the macroscopic level. Yes, there may be particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum level and atoms undergoing spontaneous disintegration, etc., but when our ancestors were formulating their thinking about the nature of time, which is the thinking we're still saddled with and still trying to sort out today, they were not thinking about events at the quantum level.

Your analogy about woodworking and tools is a good one, Paul, and certainly apropos the topic.

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #45

you are welcome,

Sorry but I am less on FQxi. It is always the same things here.A kind of business, that is all. I have others things to think about. It is just a kind of publicity for a small team. Sad reality !!! for the sciences community.

The interactions are not really relevant.

I will read the essays and I will critic but frankly fqxi begin to irritate me with their pseudo sciences.Furthermore with the pseudo congratulations, that do not arrange my perception of fqxi.I thought at the begining that they were more professional !!!

Good morning to the cia and the sri JCN Smith.and revolution spherization of course. with humility, sciences and rational determinism of course !!!

Regards

  • [deleted]

  • Post #46

You know JCN Smith,

I beleive that a team around FQXi, with several vanitious and frsutrated lacking of generality in their analyzes,implies confusions. New York WAKE UP !!!

For their information, I see their play and the false threads.I find all that very sad from a kind of pseudo team.It shows their stupidity. They think simply that they are intelligent but in fact they are simply a team of pseudo scientists with false maths. I am surprised that some parts of sciences community is not rational, perhaps it is due to this monney and the taste of opulences.In all case the rational deterministic sphere is not to sell!!!

A pure comedy from a team of algorythmic players. It is not my road. Perhaps it is time that they learn real sciences.

Regards

  • [deleted]

  • Post #47

and a nobel, one !

ahahah let's laugh in live JCN .wait I am going to create an algorythm for a pure selectivity of priorities......and the objectivity shows to the subjectivity that a water drop is like a star :)

The nature of abstraction, yes of course and what after a pure play about the determinism and the irrationalism, ....any sense ! in all irony of course.

Regards

  • [deleted]

  • Post #48

JCN

"Am I correct in thinking that you think I disagree with you on this?"

Not necessarily, ie the fact as such I think you do agree with. But you stated the reason was time, whereas I am stating that it is a truism of existence. That is physical existence, it must be how it occurs, ie one at a time in a sequence. Timing is irrelevant, that system must just reflect that fact.

"Yes. But the *only* thing that's different from one existent state to another is the *arrangement* of the stuff, not the stuff itself!"

Yes, obviously. Otherwise there would be no existence at all. Though I would hardly use the word "only". We have to establish precisely what substance(s) are non divisible and the nature of them, ie what is stuff. And as I've said before, the word "configuration" has connotations of just movement/organisation, whether you intend that or not. Whereas I say physically existent state (which encompasses everything which can be physically defined about something as at a point in time). Or put the other way around, all that has remained the same is the fundamental substance, whatever that might be. By definition, if it has innate properties (ie generically they are part of the substance), these will have altered in their manifestation/value, and the substance may well be occupying a different relative spatial position. And yes it is a new "particular time". But that is because it is different, ie a different physically existent state (albeit ultimately, by definition, of the same fundamental stuff). This must therefore be represented by a different point in time, if we are timing the sequence of change. How it affects timing is a consequence. The nature of physical existence determines how timing works. Keep focussing on the fact that all we have is something, and only something at a point in time, time, space, change, etc are conceptual derivatives of that.

"Yes, there may be particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum level and atoms undergoing spontaneous disintegration, etc"

Aha. Now, that cannot be 'stuff' that is doing that (assuming the observation is valid). Because, by definition, whatever constitutes 'stuff' endures over time. It is the foundational commodity of physical existence. And there has to be something of that nature, otherwise there cannot be physical existence. So these must be 'effects' not 'things', in simple language.

Paul

Paul,

". . . the fact as such I think you do agree with. But you stated the reason was time, whereas I am stating that it is a truism of existence . . . Timing is irrelevant, that system must just reflect that fact."

Yes, I'm now convinced more than ever that we're in fundamental agreement about all of this. On those points where we appear to diverge, I now see it more as a matter of our language and semantics than as a matter of substance. Language is a tricky, slippery tool for conveying ideas, which often are themselves more than a wee bit slippery.

A virtue of science is that it encourages us to nail down our ideas (and the language we use to describe them) more carefully than typically is our wont. One of the greatest sources of frustration for me has been the fact that science has been deeply remiss in acceding to this encouragement when it comes to the topic of time. As I wrote in 'Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time':

". . . choose at random virtually any book or essay on the nature of time and search in it for the author's definition of what he or she means by the word "time." Be forewarned, however; you would be well advised not to hold your breath until you find it. Countless books have been written about the nature of time, time travel, the philosophy of time, and the whole gamut of related topics, without any effort having been made by the author to define exactly what is meant by the word time.

"To be charitable, perhaps these authors simply assume, or hope, that everyone will already know what is meant by the word time without any need of further clarification, but this is exactly the problem; everyone does *not* know what time is. If they did, a great many of these works would not be needed."

It is the general failure of science (with notable exceptions such as Barbour and Smolin) to confront this issue head on which has driven me to write the series of essay's I've written in an effort to focus attention specifically and directly on the inadequacy of efforts by science heretofore to address this issue forthrightly. The operational definition of time is a wonderful and useful little tool, but it is *not* an explanation for the underlying nature of time or for the underlying nature of reality!

Why are many scientists loath to come to grips with this? Is it because the operational definition, in and of itself, has been so incredibly successful? If so, I can't blame them for that. But I suspect that another aspect is that scientists (perhaps not without some justification) will go to almost any lengths to avoid what might be considered the "taint" of dabbling in philosophy were they to look beyond the operational definition. I argue that it is indeed possible for scientists to think about and to talk about the reality underlying our concept of time without fear of being tarred by the dreaded brush of philosophy. And, moreover, it not only is *possible* for science to do so, but also *necessary* for science to do so in order to advance as rapidly as it might, in my view.

I relinquish my soapbox.

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #50

JCN

Language is indeed a very poor tool for achieving unequivocal meaning. But from the rest of your post, I am not sure what are "those points where we appear to diverge".

Towards the end of the post you ask 'why scientists do not get to grips with this?' Yes they need to get to grips with what timing really is, but more importantly they need to understand how physical existence occurs, which proves that, apart from anything else, time (as conceptualised) does not exist. But it proves a whole lot of other things, which are disturbing. Note my comment, which I have posted many times before, about the urban myth as to what constitutes SR. You see, I am just a punk who with no previous baggage, read the material, as is, which is dangerous!!

You may have noticed that I am only on here early morning, that is because renovating my son's new property takes precedence, including writing essays. However, I now have one, posting that will be even more dangerous!!!

Paul