The Problem: We See Time Backward by John Brodix Merryman

Hello John,

It is cool that you make this essays contest. I wish you all the best.You merit it.

Regards

Paul,

"Any given physically existent state (of an 'it') does not become another, but altered, physically existent state, for no reason."

"But be careful here, because the 'reason' must, of itself, have physical existence (otherwise how does it work?). In which case one has the physically existent state of a 'reason' which affects the physically existent state of an 'it'."

Reason, or no reason?

"So the real question is what are these fundamental properties, how are they physically existent, interract, etc."

Yes, that is the question.

So we have a process of time, that which is constantly going from one unit to the next and then the units we measure. It would seem to me the process, this constantly churning reality of the present, is cause of the units, the regular cycles within that action that we measure.

Thanks Steve. It's a wall I seem to keep bumping my head into.

:)

John

No we do not have a "process of time", we have a sequence of occurrences, which differ. Timing is just a human devised measuring system to quantify the rates of changes. Something(s), ie propertes of the basic substance(s) is causing this.

Anyway, my essay has now come up, so you can comment on it. Hoefully, though it is only 8 pages, some stuff might be more comprhendable in context rather than these posts which can only cover a bit at a time

Paul

John

Ah, but what was the physically existent state of that wall, and indeed your head, as at that point in time when this interaction occurred!

Paul

Paul,

Ok. We have a process emerging from dynamic activity that results in change and time is a measure of that change. The sequences emerge from that activity, much as time emerges from the action required to transistion through various regular cycles of action.

I plan on getting to your essay, but my time has been very occupied by much activity. ;-)

Paul,

Given the state of my head and the increasingly muddled contents, I would say the wall is hard.

John

Sequence. When more than one, can compare, which enables the identification of difference. Change does not physically exist. 'Ones' do. So, again, be careful with the notion of "dynamic activity" because that has to have physical existence, which is a sequence........

Try and eradicate any notion of time except as timing, the human invented measuring system.

Possibly the best way to look at this is that any given ultimate 'it' (of which there may be more than one type) has properties which are in one particular state as at any point in time. A point in time being the shortest duration in physical reality, ie the quickest example of change.

Paul

Paul,

You see product where I see process. Thought is a consequence of focus and when we focus, we tend to see a particular entity/state, but there is a natural tendency to distill away all the connections and actions that object or state has that reduce the clarity of focus. State and static are of the same root, so there is a natural tendency to impose stasis in order to understand. Much like a photo is clearest when it is the shortest speed.

Paul,

That is a reductionist approach and perfectly useful, but it does tend to give incomplete answers. Say I observed that a factory is a process. Now you want to see it "physically." Do you want to just see the building and the machinery, or do you want to observe it in action, with all the various inputs and outputs, from concepts of products, to their designs and manufacture. The people operating all the stages of production and their accommodations, pay, paperwork, the various materials, the machinery in action, etcetc. Or do you just want to see a building and its contents in isolation from any function or connection to the outside economy and society?

John

The point is about how it is physically constituted, and there is only singleton states which when compared enable the identification of alteration. At which point one of course asks, well what is the cause of this, and are there idenfiable sequences which enable the understanding of that. I think it was a paragrah I cut out to get the character count down, but I know I've made this point to you before. In most cases, decomposing until one reaches 'bedrock' is not only impossible anyway, but just detracts from an understanding as to what is occurring, at the level required. So, as long as the conceptualisation of the sequence is ontologically valid, that is OK.

In other words. To understand 'factory', then we need not reduce it to elementary particle level as at each point in time. But that is the physical reality of 'factory'. There is no "isolation", it is a matter of level of detail conceptualised. And indeed, although I understand what you meant, many of the concepts used are not physical, ie pay is a sociological attribution of a physically existent entity.

Paul

Paul,

Due to my own lack of time and tiredness on the occasions I get to read, I haven't finished your essay yet, though it's certainly well written.

I just don't get the "singleton state." I certainly sense they are a fundamental paradigm for you, but your efforts to explain why they must be have not been overly convincing. Mentally we do need to qualify and quantify reality in order to develop any degree of complexity, but on further examination it generally turns out to be subjective. There are many who do see it from your general point of view and think all of reality is digital, down to space and time, but I've yet to see any arguments that are convincing. One could equally describe reality as holographic, in which every part is a reflection of the rest, yet it would be equally meaningless, without some inherent function of differentiation. There has to be some way to incorporate both sides of the coin, connectivity and distinguishability, for an explanation of reality to be adequate.

John

That's OK, I have been retired for 10 years and appreciate the value of free time. It is also raining here, again.

"I just don't get the "singleton state."

Here is the argument. Eradicate metaphysical possibilities. There is only a closed system of sensory detection, that is how, and only, how, we know of reality. Some of which is identifiable directly, some indirectly as we have to overcome practical issues in the sensory process. Within this valid and unavoidable confine, there are two fundamental knowns: 1) existence is independent of sensory detection (ie a physical phenomenon is received (forget about the subsequent processing), 2) there is alteration.

This means that physical reality is a sequence, because that is the only way those two manifestations can be fulfilled. Put simply, something occurs, something occurs but is different (when compared). Sequence cannot occur unless the predecessor ceases so that the successor can occur, ie there can only be 'one at a time' within a sequence.

Paul

Paul,

"(ie a physical phenomenon is received (forget about the subsequent processing)"

Reception is part of the process. Without such connections, all the singular phenomena would exist in isolation.

John

It is not "isolation", it is existence. And physics is concerned with that. The irony is that without the evolved sensory systems, there would be no awareness of it. But it is independent of that sensory processing.

Paul

Paul,

How is that sensory processing independent of physical realty, as well as all the other processing involved?

I just do not comprehend how physical reality exists independent of process, even if that process is the simple motion of a particle. Neither observation or reality function,other than as process,even if it's speculative, hidden,etc. There is no noun without a verb.

John

Because organisms receive physically existent phenomena (called light, noise, vibration, etc). Which themselves must be the result of an interaction with other physically existent phenomena. All this happens externally to the sensory systems, which have just evolved to take advantage of it, ie enable organisms to have 'awareness' of reality (of which they are a component).

Physical existence is not knowledge of physical existence. We know as function of sensory systems.

Paul

Paul,

I'm in general agreement with that. The issue is whether this physical existence is a dynamic process, with sequential states as an emergent effect, or the sequence is foundational and the process is a consequence of the existence of this sequence.

This day has been one long convoluted sequence of events on my part.