Joe

Oh, well that is what I do, because this print is too small to read.

Re sequence: here is a copy of a post to John earlier on today:

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.

The sequence could be anything from the entirety of reality, to you, to an elementary particle. So it is "brand new" at every point in time, or at least a substantial part of it is, some things changing quicker than others, and point in time is driven by the quickest. In other words there is only at present in existence, which alters and there is a 'new' present. There is only the present in physical existence.

Sensing is different. This relies on pysically existent phenomena which result from an interaction with the reality. They take time in travelling, is only representational of that reality, and indeed might be deficient in some way in that respect (paras 18-23). Unfortunately(!!)we only have individual perceptions to work back from. But tha is another story, my interest finishes when the phenomena interact with a receiving organ, because this is supposed to be physics. So what we want to know is what was physically received by the sensory system, 2 what existed which, as the result of an interaction with it, instigated what we received.

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #33

Dear Mr. Reed,

Although the smaller portion of my rational mind shrieks to accept your explanation of our sense of reality as being indubitably absolutely inarguably correct, due to the far larger and more dominant area if my impish irrational mindless stubbornness, I think otherwise. If I run down the block, the exertion engages all of the cells in my body. It is my mad contention, that by my running down the block, all the cells of every other person on this planet have to be affected in some physical way as well. I will go insanely further; my running down the block has to affect all of the cells of all living creatures and all vegetation in some way, even if that change is merely the nature of individual sequential progression. My only reason for thinking this is in order to exist, I have to put something live, or something that once was alive in my mouth from time to time and swallow it. As far as I can tell, all living organisms have to somehow continually consume other life form organisms in order to exist pretty much as they are. Besides consuming life forms, all living organisms have to expel whatever food they have processed. Although we consider such expulsions as being waste, it actually consists of highly nutritional valuable matter that could only be useful to be consumed by living organisms. Notably, there is really no such thing as death. Just as we regularly eat "dead" cow's flesh, so too the worms and the maggots eventually chew up most of us after we supposedly die. What goes around does indeed come around in one way or another.

Joe

If it helps at all, I had the same fight with myself! It reverses the normal way of thinking how things occur, and to begin with I had some difficulty 'holding' on to it, and difficulty expressing it (because language reflects the 'normal' way of thinking).

Your point about 'cells' is logically correct. By definition, ultimately everything must be interconnected, but this is just a statement of the obvious. The real point is that only those things (which is ultimately elementary particle types) which are adjacent to each other can directly, (ie really, physically) affect one another, at that time. Which is actually just another statement of the obvious, but I am not so sure this one is followed through.

Organisms in order to exist have to consume non-organic material as well. All of which just demonstrates how evolution worked. Also it describes a particular sequence. The other point to bear in mind that one is not affecting the future, because it does not exist. What one is doing is causing a different present to occur than that which would have done.

Paul

Paul,

Defining reality linguistically is difficult. The language is developed by humanity to communicate human observations. Reality is part of human observations but exists beyond that.

How do we address this deficiency, is define the reality in the context of a thought process. My definition of reality shall be seen in that perspective.

Vijay Gupta

picophysics.org

    • [deleted]

    • Post #36

    This is a copy of a post by JCN 18/7 12.56 in Recognising top-down (Geoerge Ellis)

    Paul,

    With apologies to Professor Ellis for what probably is a distraction from the main point of his essay, insofar as it may bear at least tangentially on his topic I will reply to your post here, but if we wish to pursue this debate further we should move the discussion to one of our own blogs. You wrote:

    "The sequence can involve a subsequent state which is identical to a previous one, but that is not reversal."

    This is the thing you've never appeared to comprehend, Paul. According to my view of time (which I believe is consistent with Julian Barbour's view, in this regard at least), a particular time is identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe. This is my preferred wording of the concept which Barbour expresses by stating that "The relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe do not occur at instants of time . . . they are the instants of time."

    By this way of thinking, if the configuration of the universe were, hypothetically, to oscillate between two identically equivalent configurations, then time would oscillate between those two particular times. That said, however, things would get sticky because of the momentum involved in such an oscillation. The precise moments representing the end points of the oscillatory motion would be identically equivalent configurations and identically equivalent particular times. This sort of thing is easier to envision if we think of the universe as comprised entirely of three not-further-reducible billiard balls in a not-further-reducible shoebox.

    I have no desire whatsoever to belabor this argument further, Paul, here or elsewhere, but if you insist on doing so, please pick another blog (yours or mine) where we may do so. Thanks.

    jcns

      JCN

      My quote: "The sequence can involve a subsequent state which is identical to a previous one, but that is not reversal."

      JCN response: "This is the thing you've never appeared to comprehend, Paul. According to my view of time ... a particular time is identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe"

      And this is what I have explained, several times, is the problem with this approach. Physical existence is driving it, not timing. In any given sequence, there is the chance that what physically existed at a given point in time, could occur again at a subsequent point in time. But this is not physical existence going into some form of reverse. It is the reoccurrence of a previously occurred state. Indeed, if there is no change (or at least change that is slower than the fastest, then as at subsequent points in time, the physically existent state will be the same. It is the state of physical existence that counts, not the timing of it.

      "By this way of thinking, if the configuration of the universe were, hypothetically, to oscillate between two identically equivalent configurations, then time would oscillate between those two particular times"

      Not so (that's why things get "sticky"). All we have is repetition of existent states in a sequence, with both the sequence and timing (not time) 'moving forward'. This demonstrates what I always sensed, that despite all our exchanges, you are not fully comprehending what I am saying. Of course, that might be faulty, but a comment needs to address what I am saying.

      Paul

      Vijay

      "How do we address this deficiency, is define the reality in the context of a thought process"

      What we do is we reverse engineer the resultant individual perceptions in order to find out what physically existent phenomenon was received by the ensory system, then infer what reality occurred which caused this. If we coulderadicate all sorts of 'interference' that occurs in sensory processing, we would get there much quicker. The paradox is that we are not interested in these accretions, but it is all we can start with to discrn reality.

      Paul

      • [deleted]

      • Post #39

      Paul,

      (From George Ellis' thread;)

      "Yes, the present that subsequently occurs is different from what it would have been. But what it would have been never existed."

      That is one of the observations in my essay; When we view time as moving from a determined past into a probabilistic future, the math seems to say the reality branches out into all possibilities, ie. multiworlds. On the other hand, if we view time as emerging from physical activity, it is the collapse of these probabilities into one sequence of occurrences. The physical occurrence is what determines whether the cat lives or dies. Future becomes past, rather than present moving from past to future.

      "As above, reactions are the next actions, the fact that I used the plural form of these words is irrelevant. My point was a repetition of the above. While they can be depicted as reactions, there is no form of reversal of physical existence. Everything could be described as a reaction to something."

      I never said there is any physical reversal and I certainly accept everything is a reaction to cumulative inputs. My point has been that all this activity results in changing configuration and since there is only the physical presence, prior configurations fade away, as they are continuously replaced by subsequent forms. Our point of disagreement seems to be that you think there is a specific present attached to every configuration, while I feel there is only one present and it changes form.

      "Brains are physically existent, not a "reflection" of it, so are eyes, ears, etc. We are not somehow external to physical existence. What is different in sentient organisms that they possess a processing capability that enables them to be aware of the physical existence."

      Brains are information sponges and develop according to what they absorb.

        Paul

        Contradictions are the locks on the doors to reality. We surely can't find truth by avoiding not facing apparent anomalies. You say " I look forward to your attempt to prove how my essay is contradictory." I did not of say your essay is contradictory, but that in your mind it is not, and the greatest value is from identifying and resolving apparent contradictions.

        As far as 'agreement' goes, there is very much I agree with, but much where I have to defer to Edwin's view that your view is naive (but as I just wrote to Vijay, naivety is far more valuable than an indoctrinated view). I describe my own approach as naive, though thoroughly informed. So to some apparent contradictions, which I expect are mainly about familiarisation with 'standard' scientific interpretations of words.

        5. You say 'not subjective' but immediately followed by 'for us' which makes it the subjective view, at least in common understanding. It seems then you have a different view of 'subjective' to the standard one Georgina applies, (this also seemed to emerge from your and also our conversations). If 3 people observe an event from different places or in different states of motion, they will all see something different. That is 'subjective' reality. The event itself was objective, and if all observers were in the same place, time and frame (state of motion) as the 'event', they would all agree, as they have an objective view. You are clearly trying to explain a different viewpoint but the words do not then get that across.

        13/14. You refer to 'presence' which implies 'size', (Boscovich, Descartes etc explored this very thoroughly) but then used the old (discarded as confused) meaning of 'point' to describe the same thing you have just explained as the antithesis to 'point', being non zero. In mathematics and physics a 'point' is an abstraction because it has zero size, i.e. zero in on it and it keeps reducing to infinity. I suggest the apparent contradiction to others is not necessary as the terms body, particle, position, mass, matter, system etc. are available.

        18. Effects resulting from interactions are of course dependent on the entity being 'interacted' with ('detected by). If I wear green sunglasses I see a different colour of course. Or if I am moving wrt a train the train then appears to me be moving. Your words appear to deny that. I am sure you don't mean that.

        23. To our 3 different moving detectors (observers), what each of them sees, which is different, is not understood as objective reality, it can only ever be subjective reality. You may use the word differently, but it's no good going to Scotland and insisting a 'carry out' is an orange vegetable. They'll simply find your language incomprehensible. They won't all change so you must learn to use the the language their way.

        If you really did mean the opposite to what I have assumed please do say so, or just explain how your intentions were indeed consistent. One disagreement I have is in 12, with your assumption (quite common) that frequency is somehow a 'real' entity. Frequency is a derivative of motion and time. In using time it becomes metaphysical, i.e. just a number. What is more, speed itself also uses time, so f uses time twice! Using speed as a constant, on interactions with detectors the 'real' quality that changes is wavelength lambda. Because c=f.lambda is a constant, the result is a change to the 'observable' f. Promoting a derivative to the assumed status of a real entity is one of the root causes of misunderstanding among optics students, and physicist who don't study optics.

        Sorry to go on so long!

        Peter

          John

          My point is not what you describe so it cannot be an observation in your essay, on that basis.

          Anyway, my point is that the 'future' does not physically exist. When, subsequently, any particular state does exist, it is a present. Only presents occur. Your broken leg does not alter anything, because it does not exist to be altered. What happens is the subsequent sequence of presents is different from what would have otherwise occurred. It has nothing to do with time. Physical existence is a sequence, it 'goes' 'one way', it is not 'reversible', and it 'goes' one at a time. That is what a sequence is.

          There are no possibilities physically existing, which then "collapse", a physical phenomenon that somebody really needs to substantiate. There is no existent future to become a past. There is a present, which is then superseded by another one, the predecessor ceasing.

          No, I know you did not say 'physical reversal', that is why I said, 'some form of'. What you were implying, as above, is that there is some form of 'backwards' (ie feedback). Whereas it is 'one directional' (I don't like that phrase), alteration after alteration. Prior configurations do not "fade away", they cease. Mind, brilliant Stones song, and I went to a celebration of their first gig 50 years ago last week!

          What brains and eyes functionally do is relevant to the sensory process, they are physically existent, a component of physical reality.

          Paul

          Peter

          1 Re contradictory: what you wrote to Georgina was: "It seems Paul has a different definition of 'subjective' to it's common use in science, which is implicit from his essay, appearing wholly contradictory but obviously not as understood by Paul, so apparent directly conflicting views may not really be so"

          2 Re Edwin's view: I do not care who's view you defer to, what I do care about is that any point is properly substantiated, and not an assertion. But you do not substantiate this either.

          3 Re subjective: the full sentence is: "So knowledge thereby gained is not inherently subjective, since it represents, for us, both what is, and all there can be". That caveat 'for us' does not make it subjective, as you assert. Because if you re-read paras 3-5, you will see that 'for us' refers to the knowledge of reality, ie what it is possible for us to know. Which is based on a physical process. And is reality, we do not have access to 'something else'. We can of course hypothecate, otherwise we would be very limited. But that is based on, and referenced to, validated direct experience. In simple language, we cannot transcend our own existence, that is what beliefs do, and this is science. So there is a valid and inevitable closed system (it is a function of the sensory systems), within which objectivity is establishable. "If 3 people observe an event from different places or in different states of motion, they will all see something different. That is 'subjective' reality." No it is not, they are perceptions, which could be objective or subjective, within their own contexts. And anyway, as I make perfectly clear, I am not interested in anything after point of reception at sensory system. "The words do not then get that across" because you are interpreting what I write, rather than reading what I actually write.

          4 Re presence: I did not like that word myself, that is why it is in parenthesis (in fact it has gone in the update). However, it is clear what I am referring to, and I do not care who else has used it in other contexts. We are supposed to be assessing what I have written. Neither do I care what maths does, and your references to zero, which are nothing to do with what I have written. I write of the concept of 'occupying' a configuration of 'spatial points', ie it is a method for expressing relative size/shape of physically existent phenomena. By definition, the smallest elementary particle will equate with a spatial point, it will 'occupy' a 'spatial point'. [Just for the record there can be no zero or infinity in physical reality, in the sense that zero means nothing, and a physical phenomenon is something, and physical reality has definiteness (it may be immense but not infinite)].

          5 Re effects: Again, you have not read what I have written. I use different labels here, which are defined, so that the grammar does not become plain intolerable. The effects, are physically existent phenomena (aka light, vibration, etc), ie they are a reality. They result from an interaction between other physically existent phenomena, one of which is the reality we are trying to identify. It has nothing to do with sunglasses, you are referring to the wrong interaction.

          6 Re observation: yet again, this is not what I an referring to. I am not interested in all that which goes on after reception at sensory system, please read para 17.

          7 Re "Sorry to go on so long!" Not at all Peter. You are the first one who has made what I feel is a genuine attempt to understand what I am saying, and commented as such, and not just said tried to link what is apparently being said with their own efforts. Frankly, I have found most of the discussion intellectually dispiriting, a form of yes it is/no it isn't. What I will say, is that, obviously, I can only use the language available and that relates to another way of looking at things. But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with my use of language, my current amended copy has not changed much at all. So, all I can say is try it a couple of times more (its only paras 3-24), but, and I am not being rude here, just read what is there.

          Paul

          Peter (and indeed anybody else)

          Having just watched Operation Mincemeat, all about decption (The man who never was), I thought i would have a go at 'deciphering'. Here is a stripped down version of the argument.

          Simple explanation

          1 Leaving aside all metaphysical possibilities, since this is science, what we can know of reality can only be based on what is potentially receivable by the sensory detection systems of all organisms. Hypothesis can overcome known practical problems involved in the sensory processes, ie where it is determined that there is something which is potentially receivable, but it cannot be so. However, that is still subservient to the start point. That is, it is indirectly, rather than directly, validated sensory experience, and is not assertion, which is based on no experienceability.

          2 So, within this valid closed system of sensory awareness, in respect of physical reality there are two knowns: 1 It physically exists independently of sensory detection. 2 It involves alteration. This is so because we receive physical input to the sensory systems, and after subsequent processing, difference can be identified when such inputs are compared.

          3 This means physical existence is a sequence, and as such that can only occur one at a time, because the successor cannot occur unless the predecessor ceases. In other words, there is a specific physically existent state in existence as at any given point in time (as in timing, a point in time being the unit of timing, which is the fastest rate of change in reality). This is known as the present. Now, this involves a vanishingly small degree of change and duration, but it must be so, otherwise physical existence cannot occur.

          4 The key point here being that it reveals the falsity of attributing the concept of time to being a characteristic of a reality (ie a physically existent state). Because that is concerned with the difference between realities, not of a reality. Physically, there is alteration, and the timing system calibrates the rate at which that occurs, by comparing sheer numbers of change which occurred, ie irrespective of type.

          5 The physical phenomena received by the sensory systems (commonly known as light, noise, vibration, etc) are the result of a physical interaction between two other physically existent phenomena, one of which is the reality we are trying to discern. In the context of the sensory processes, these received physical effects can be characterised as 'representations' (or 'information') of that reality, as the evolution of sensing means that they have acquired a functional role in that process, ie that of 'gathering' and 'conveying' receivable 'information' about reality. But this has no affect on their physically existent state.

          6 Precisely how these physical effects are instigated, travel, etc, needs to be known, in order accurately to infer from them the reality they 'represent' (given that they have first to be inferred from individual perceptions). But at the generic level, this lack of precise understanding is largely irrelevant. As while some of the logic thereby remains unresolved, it is sufficient that: any given physically existent state (a reality) interacts with another such state (a 'medium' in the context of the sensory process, of which there are several types), resulting in a number of identical (or near so) physically existent states (effects in the context of the sensory process), within each type of medium. Each medium corresponding with a type of sensory detection system (eg sight, hearing, etc).

          7 In travelling, some of these effects interact with a suitable sensory organ, many do not. That interaction resulting in the cessation of the existent state, in the same way as when it involves something which is not able to functionally utilise it (ie is not associated with a sensory system, like a brick wall). These effects are such that they continue to exist in a physically existent form which is unchanged (or largely so), whilst, in contrast, the reality they represent has since altered.

          8 As all the phenomena involved are physically existent, ie have intrinsic physical properties, it has to be assumed until proven otherwise, that these could impinge upon their ability to fulfil this acquired sensory function. So unless proven to the contrary, it must not be assumed that what is received by the sensory systems, which is not the reality anyway, is an entirely accurate, and/or comprehensive, representation of the reality. It is only the result of a physical interaction, which sensory systems have evolved to take advantage of, thereby providing awareness of reality to organisms. Whether any given recipient sensory system could process all that information, if it is, or could be, available, is another issue. The sensory systems evolved to enable survival, not analysis of the constitution of reality.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #44

          Paul,

          If you prefer to think of it as me not comprehending what you've been saying, then so be it. I prefer to think of it as me comprehending what you've been saying and disagreeing with it. I also prefer to think of it as you not comprehending what I've been saying but disagreeing with your faulty concept of what I've been saying.

          Regardless of which of these various ways of looking at it is more accurate, you've finally succeeded in wearing me down. Debating with you, unfortunately, has turned out to be like debating with a brick wall, and you probably feel the same about debating with me. I've really given it my best shot. And, to your credit, I perceive that you've given it your best shot, too. But I give up. I can use my time more productively than debating with a brick wall, and I suspect that the same is true for you as well. I'm sorry we could never achieve a meeting of minds, despite our best efforts.

          As David Deutsch has stated, "The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth." ('The Beginning of Infinity,' p. 257) We have to hope that the truth is still out there somewhere waiting for us (and others) to converge on it. When we do, we'll no doubt echo Wheeler's words: "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it -- in a decade, a century, or a millennium -- we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?"

          Good luck with your program of study and with the essay competition.

          jcns

          Dear Paul,

          I have tried my best to understand your essay, but I have a hard time understanding what you're getting at. Most arguments are presented as facts, not hypotheses, and I fail to find in any of them how the conclusions logically follows from the premises. Maybe it's me, but the essay reads like a cross between metaphysical premises and religious prescriptions.

          After reading your essay, I realized that that everything you have introduced come is based on one single idea; that reality emerges from perceptible physical interactions. In other words, reality is observer dependent.

          It is important to discuss how reality is experienced and perceived (that it, by the way, the very definition of metaphysics), but affirming that reality must be perceived negates the existence of an objective reality. Reality, as understood as being the sum of all physical objects and processes, existed billions of year before there was any observer (it took billion of years before the conditions necessary for something as complex as observer to emerge).

          Closer to home, atoms, particles and the biological processes that is life existed before there were perceived. They exist today for most people regardless of them being aware or not of their existence. Objective reality, which is something you seem to discuss, is observer independent.

          That said, I agree you, at least in part, when you say that knowledge of reality must be based on physical processes. Yet, none of your affirmations are based on observed or inferred physical phenomena.

          Maybe the affirmations you made are truly based on physical reality (whatever definitions you may use), but I fail to see that in the essay.

          One last note, presenting affirmations as truths leaves very little space for critical thinking or discussion. You might want to introduce a few "ifs" , "maybes" or "in my opinion." After all, yours are opinions, aren't they?

          I hope you will my comments useful.

          Regards,

          DLB

            • [deleted]

            • Post #46

            Paul,

            Since I am of the opinion there is only what is physically real and it is dynamically changing, entities do "fade away," as they loose more substance than they gain.

            While I do make some degree of effort to see your view, even though I don't see what creates the necessary change, I don't see that you make significant effort to understand where others might be coming from and don't try to unravel what others are trying to say. Since I only see reality as action in space, it is meaningless to say I'm arguing for a physically extant future. By " feedback," I mean within that current context. For example, if a ship is moving through the water, due to the water being pushed out of the way in front of the ship and filling in behind it, effectively an amount of water equal to the displacement of the ship is moving in the opposite direction. This applies to most action, in that the total environment compensates by moving an equal amount in a non-linear fashion, in the opposite direction, creating an overall equilibrium, even though the effects might be distributed far away from the action in question.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #47

            Paul and JCN Smith,

            This is how I see it. Passage of time is the change in arrangements /configurations of the Object universe -the sequence of iterations. It could be argued that if the sequence oscillated between different arrangements then time was oscillating back and forth, agreeing with J.C.N. It depends upon whether it is thought of as a linear sequence that can only be linear or the patterns are regarded as the times and a same pattern is a repetition of the -same time- not a -new iteration- with the same pattern. It is exceedingly unlikely that the whole Object universe would recreate exactly the same universal pattern.So I do not think an important philosophical question to resolve.

            Even if it was decided that passage of time could be said to reverse and repeat, the perceived arrow of time is not exactly the same as passage of time. There is one way input to the observer's image reality. The observer experiences a sequence of presents, that are patchwork amalgamations from data originating from different iterations, received from the data pool within the environment- Those experienced outputs do not precisely match (in perceived content) the content of the underlying sequence of iterations. So it might be experienced as an odd occurrence within the experienced time that still seems to be progressing one way.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #48

            Hi Paul, J.C.N.Smith,

            Hypothetical scenario for illustration;

            If the material arrangement of the Object universe goes from arrangement A to B to C and then D, E, F then there will be data reflected or emitted from arrangements A, B and C within the environment simultaneously with material arrangements D, E and F. As the potential sensory data persists in the environment after the material forms have changed.

            If the material arrangement then goes from F to E to D and then D to E to F there will be data in the environment reflected or emitted from former material arrangements F, E, D simultaneously with new material arrangements D, E and F, which were not present in the first scenario ie A,B,C,D,E,F.

            So though the material arrangement sequence is repeated, (D,E,F in both cases), the data in the environment and thus what an observer might perceive is not identical.

            JCN

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

            Exactly.

            Now that 'brick wall' is: 1. Physical reality is independent of sensory detection. 2. Physical reality involves alteration. Both of which are indisputable facts, unless one starts invoking beliefs. Therefore, the physical reality which we can know of via sensory detection, is a sequence. Sequences occur one at a time, because the predecessor must cease for the successor to occur. Which means that physical reality is that physically existent state which exists as at any given point in time.

            If you can find any bad bricks or poorly mixed mortar, please let me know.

            Paul

            Georgina

            Sorry, did not 'see' you underneath there, only had JCN's post on screen.

            Fundamentally, see above.

            This has nothing to do with time. It concerns the way in which physical reality occurs, when examined generically. Any points about time and timing are a consequence. As they should be, because there are only physically existent phenomena. Not change, space, time, etc, which are all artefacts in our conceptualisation thereof, although time as conceived is nonsense.

            Physics is supposed to be analysing physical existence, within a verified existentially closed system. That is, it is not a religion. My specific point to JCN was that there is no such progression as 'oscillation', in the sense that physical reality is a 'one-way' sequence. The fact that some physically existent states can 're-occur', is highly likely to be superficial. That is, at the physical level, there is really likely to be not much the same. It just looks so from a higher level. But, even if the same set of elementary particle states, etc, etc, re-occurred, this is irrelevant. Because all that has happened is the same existent state has occurred more than once in the sequence. That's it. There is no form of reversal in the sequence, or causal factors operating in the 'other direction', or whatever. Just a repeat performance! There is this underlying human desire (incidentally, I am human!) to attribute 'more' with the concept of future, reaction, etc.

            It all concerns a sequence. When states are compared, difference is identified. Difference involves: 1) substance (ie what it was), 2) order (ie order of occurrence), 3) frequency (ie the rate at which differences occur. That is, the number of changes, irrespective of type, which occurred in any given sequence, compared to any other number that occurred meanwhile. The latter could be in any sequence (including the former), and either occurred concurrently, or otherwise. This is timing.

            For example, with a quartz device, the number of crystal oscillations is being counted whilst some other number of changes occurs. These oscillations being physically converted into a readable form (ie moving hands around), whilst expression of the result in terms of days, etc, is merely indicative of fossilised language, as the first 'clock' was earth movement. What is really happening is that X oscillations occurred whilst the elephant walked Y yards. There is no time in physical reality, because timing concerns rating change, and change involves difference between realities, not of any given reality.

            This also has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of sensing. Because, by definition, the physically existent state must have occurred prior to it being sensed, otherwise it cannot be sensed (ie seen, heard, felt, etc).

            Re your A B C. Yes, what, from the sensory systems' perspective are 'representations' or 'information' of A B etc, could be in existence concurrently. But unless some bizarre interference occurs in their travel, then they will reach any given sensory system in the order in which they physically occurred, etc. There is a perceptual illusion here if relative movement occurs, and that is explained in paras 28 & 29.

            Paul

            John

            "I don't see that you make significant effort to understand where others might be coming from"

            I wonder how many exchanges I've been involved with. Probably about 300 with Georgina alone. As I said in a post to you in your blog, there is a 'brick wall' (which funnily enough JCN has just made the same metaphor). Now, what am I supposed to do? Just abandon it? Obviously, if any of you can find a substantiated crack/hole/whatever in it, then please articulate that. For my part I will continue to try and explain the points with as much clarity as possible.

            Otherwise, see above posts to JCN and Georgina.

            Paul