The Problem: We See Time Backward by John Brodix Merryman

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.

John

It is not an issue, you have now gone back to the other key point which I answered above. The "dynamic process" must have a physical basis, which brings you back to 'one at a time'. There is only sequence. You are still thinking in terms of sequence and then something else, which somehow exists but avoids being sequence, which is impossible, causing that sequence.

The two base points are:

1 There is physical existence independent of sensing

2 There is alteration to that physical existence

That leads to sequence. And sequence can only occur one at a time

Paul

Paul,

In your own description, you say alteration leads sequence, so logically alteration is the cause and sequence is the effect.

John

There is, and there is alteration. That means it is a sequence. Alteration is not the cause, something is causing alteration and that something must have physical existence which will occur in a sequence. The ultimate sequence is the physically existent state of elementary particles as at any given point in time.

Paul

Paul,

"The ultimate sequence is the physically existent state of elementary particles as at any given point in time."

That's not a sequence, that's a state. In order for one state to transition to another, there must be action, ie. process. As for which informs the other, according to the architects, who have been doing this since long before science was a discipline, "Form follows function."

In math, the nouns and verbs are called 'factors' and 'functions.' Functions tell factors what to do.

John

It should have read sequence involves the...

You have not commented on my essay yet

Paul

Paul,

I apologize for not having commented on your essay. Admittedly a significant part of this has been our continuous disagreement over the above point and the fact that your essay is an argument for a view I don't agree.

"8 Another way of expressing this is that any given physically existent state cannot

involve any form of change to that state."

My view is diametrically opposed, that there is simply mass/energy moving about in space and change is an effect of it. States are simply a mental frame of an observed configuration.

I've read through parts or all of various of these papers and limited my observations to where it might have some effect. I don't have much extra time and since I know I'm not going to convince you, it would seem a futile effort to try to argue the point. You are a hard wall and my head naturally limits how much I will hit it against.

If I were to comment, it would have to be to disagree and that wouldn't be of much help to you.

John

My 'hard wall' is based on there is physical existence independent of sensory detection, and physical existence involves alteration. Both of these are indisputable facts, assuming one does not invoke beliefs. So there is no opinion involved on my part.

Paul

Paul,

The only point of contention is whether the alteration is dynamic process, or a sequence of static states.

John,

what I like about your writing and our conversations is that you do make me think. That is enjoyable and we usually either end up agreeing or having to think in new ways. You are right, while trying (not always succeeding) to keep an open mind, I am particularly interested in ideas that will fit the explanatory framework I have been working on. It is still work in progress.

Rather than just continually trying to explain it or seeking acclaim for what it is now I do need to keep improving what I have. One way is to show how other people's work fits with it. That has only just become really apparent to me by writing the essay for the competition. Having got into that frame of mind I can already see how at least 5 different new approaches, as I am interpreting them, work together with it. I would like to explain how in another essay.

Perhaps my sub conscious mind, inspired by you writing, will work out something else in the meantime. Sometimes the ideas have to sit in my sub conscious for a while and find their place before anything happens.

Georgina,

I know that feeling exactly. The mind is a bit of a stew to which we keep adding all sorts of stuff and there is no telling what comes out. I like to consul patience, but since I have none, I learn to just let the mind loose and spin its gears in whatever direction it feels like. My version of zen thinking.