The Problem: We See Time Backward by John Brodix Merryman

John

"But that is the question"

Yes, and the next is why, having established what. But before one can ask either of those questions we have to understand how, ie the given from which we start, because if we get that wrong, everything else is a 'castle of sand'.

There is no time, there is a sequence (which by definition involves change). The sheer number of changes of a type, can be compared to those of a different type, ie irrespective of the type. This is timing. The comparison of the frequency of change, of itself, ie not by characteristic. For example: whilst the quartz crystal oscillated 10K times, the elephant moved 10 yards.

"wouldn't this lack of action"

It is not a lack of action, it is a specific physically existent state of whatever constitutes the 'basic stuff' which comprises physical reality, as at any point in time, ie to the exclusion of any other (within whatever sequence one wants to consider, ie from the entirety of physical reality to an elementary particle). There must be a point of non divisibility for it to occur, then re-occur differently. Physical reality, as manifested, cannot be some sort of 'jumble', it is a sequence: one state at a time.

Now, one could start saying that the 'properties' 'alter' (ie something happens) between those existent states. And indeed, one can hardly presume that such changes all occur in neat sets (ie concurrently). Except that in respect of each 'property' you then have the same logic of 'one at a time'. You must always reach non divisibility for anything to occur, by definition. But it really does not matter, because the point still remains: a sequence only occurs one at a time, because the latest one can only exist with the cessation of its predecessor.

So one physically existent state had a temperature, the subsequent one had another, which may or may not be different. "Does this sequence change occur universally, or is it relative?". The sequence is anything you want to define, ie a specific elementary particle or St Paul's cathedral. Every change that occurs, does so "universally", if it occurs physically. Relative is associated with the calibration (measurement, observation, etc) of that. Since everything is potentially 'doing it', there is no immediately available absolute reference. So calibration is all about cross-referencing, ie comparison to establish difference.

Paul

Paul,

" There must be a point of non divisibility for it to occur, then re-occur differently. Physical reality, as manifested, cannot be some sort of 'jumble', it is a sequence: one state at a time. "

This seems to be the premise of your theory. Why is it so? I know it's analytically convenient to think reality exists as definable little packets, by why should reality care what we want? What if it really is just a fuzzy blur of action and we make sense of it by focusing on narrow perspectives and then try putting them together in some order?

If wishes were nickels, we would all be rich.

John

"This seems to be the premise of your theory. Why is it so?"

It is the start point. Forget metaphysical possibilities, this is science. So, what do we fundamentally know, which must provide the start point for an objective analysis of physical reality? Answer: 1) something exists independently of sensory perception, because something which is physically existent is received by them, and is itself the result of an interaction with other somethings, 2) differences, 3) that this must involve, at the very least for one difference to occur, the same fundamental something.

Physical existence is, therefore, a sequence. Sequences can only involve 'one at a time', ie the subsequent one ceases in order that its successor can occur. That's it. To use your phrase, something cannot 'be' in a "fuzzy" state. To 'be' is definite. It can only occur in a definite state. The fact that we cannot identify it is irrelevant.

We then get to the area of 'effects', 'properties' and whatever is causing alteration. Now, I cannot accept that anything referred to, does not have a physical basis, otherwise how does it exist? We cannot refer to some phenomenon such as 'energy', for example, without really identifying how does that physically occur. Which always brings you back to the 'one at a time' rule. There are lots of things need establishing, like for instance I wonder, how many photons constitute 'a light', are there many effects in each photon or just one in each and its a set that is interpretable by the sensory system, is exactly the same effect replicated at exactly the same point so that all the effects travelling in any direction are identical or are they each the next one in a sequence. But, at the generic level this has no real impact, because one can objectively state that it must be 'one at a time', and 'light' is a physically existent phenomenon which results from a physical interaction, and is usable by a sensory system should it be received. That, of itself being enough to illuminate what has gone wrong.

Paul

Paul,

" Answer: 1) something exists independently of sensory perception, because something which is physically existent is received by them, and is itself the result of an interaction with other somethings, 2) differences, 3) that this must involve, at the very least for one difference to occur, the same fundamental something."

Doesn't it occur to you that often the most distinct differences are opposites that define each other; positive/negative, up/down, on/off, left/right, matter/anti-matter, expansion/contraction, etc.

As well how can an observer be totally separate from what is being observed? Isn't there a fundamental connection required in order to make the observation?

As I keep pointing out, you are very focused on distinctions, but fail to see any foundational importance to the connections. I can certainly understand that distinctions are foundational to any concept of information, but it is the connections which make it knowledge.

John

"Doesn't it occur to you that often the most distinct differences are opposites that define each other; positive/negative, up/down, on/off, left/right, matter/anti-matter, expansion/contraction, etc."

By definition, if A then everything else is not-A. An opposite being a specific form of not-A. I am not sure why you said this, so I will relate it back to what I said. If physical existence, then there is a possibility of not-physical existence. But it is only a logical possibility and by definition unknowable. So to be scientific we can only consider physical existence. Therefore, what is its basis. Answer: something and sequence.

"As well how can an observer be totally separate from what is being observed? Isn't there a fundamental connection required in order to make the observation"

He (or she) cannot be separate in terms of the sensory process, but are in physical reality. Input, which is physically existent, is received, and only if paths physically cross. Just like a brick wall receives light. Its just that an eye, etc, can then process it, a brick wall cannot. In fact the light, the carrier of which last interacted with a cat, now is a representation of that brick wall, should it next hit an eye.

"As I keep pointing out, you are very focused on distinctions, but fail to see any foundational importance to the connections"

No I am not. Once we are able to compare, then there just are distinctions. Indeed, it is only through the cross-referencing, etc of those distinctions that we establish what was not a distinction, ie constituted 'one' at any given point in time. And I keep saying that obviously something is causing the alteration which results in different existent states. Though I would then suggest that that something has physical existence, so we still get 'one at a time'. Which would imply that we should consider physical existence as the state of the 'properties' as at any point in time, which is what I was doing. Now, how that change comes about is another, and very important, question, but it is a different question.

"I can certainly understand that distinctions are foundational to any concept of information, but it is the connections which make it knowledge"

You first need the individual knowledge, to then gain knowledge of the distinctions, to be then able to generate knowledge on the connections.

Paul

Paul,

No. Left is not in sequence with right. Opposites are not just being vs. not-being. Each side gives definition to the other. They co-exist.

It really seems like what you describe is the entire universe being a function of a strobe like effect, yet there is no real mechanism, because that would require admitting to some underlaying connection.

"You first need the individual knowledge, to then gain knowledge of the distinctions, to be then able to generate knowledge on the connections."

No, first you need the elemental awareness to make the distinctions and then the connections, but this essential consciousness must first be connected to that reality in order to perceive the distinctions included within it.

John

"No. Left is not in sequence with right"

? I did not say it was. Given A, everything else is not-A. But that can be broken down into how it varies from A.

"yet there is no real mechanism"

I never say this, every time you make this point I respond with 'obviously something is causing the alteration in physical existence'.

It has nothing to do with consciousness. You need more than one to effect a comparison and hence identify difference. Having done that one can then start worrying about what caused this difference.

Paul

Paul,

So wouldn't that "something causing change" be causal to these sequential states?

John

Yes, as I say every time you raise this point and every time it needs to be said in something I write.

Obviously. 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'. Or put the proper way round the physically existent state of an 'it' is a function of the physically existent state of its 'innate properties' (which are what is underneath 'reason') as at any point in time. Ultimately, by definition, one must arrive at a state of non divisibility, otherwise there can be no physical existence.

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

Paul

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.