Dear Jonathan,
Steve Sycamore suggested to me something like an attempt to summarize the essence of my essay. Asking myself for the key assumption to start with I tend to focus on the notion of reality in contrast to e.g. Einstein's notion of it. I did not yet reply to your hint on the finding that a child has to learn distinguishing between himself and his surroundings. And yes, oneness is an issue.
All the Best,
Eckard
Eckard
"Human perspective..." There is nothing else we can know, and even then we have to invoke hypothesis to overcome a variety of mecchanical problems in the sensory processes. We can just make assertions, based on no form of experienceability, but this is science not belief. We know of a physical reality only via the sensory systems. But within that existentially closed system, it exists independently of them.
"the very moment is strictly speaking not manifest". So how does physical existence occur then? Take anything as an example. Say St Paul's Cathedral. This is differentiated from everything else by certain features, and we also know they change. But this conceptualisation of 'it' is at a much higher level than what occurs. In terms of existence, what appears to constitute 'it' is constantly altering, indeed it would be impossible to delineate a clear boundary for 'it', etc. But it must have a physically existent state as at any given point in time, ie whatever configuration is actually occurring, in order to exist. This (aka present)is all there is, it is not the previous configuration (aka past)which must have ceased and been superceded, neither is it the subsequent configuration (aka future)which has yet to occur as a function of the present.
Paul
Paul,
With human perspective I mean for instance that counting does never reach a number infinity. Archimedes argued: every number can be incremented by adding one. Scholastics taught what Aristotle formulated: Infinitum actu non datur. Nonetheless, EEs like me used to operate with infinity like a quantity. We know that this infinity belongs to an abstraction. Somewhat simple people cannot even imagine how it happens that sometimes temporarily insane people are saying they feel standing besides themselves. The sound human perspective is certainly the most natural but not at all the only possible one.
You are persistently speaking of a closed system in which we live. When I agree with Popper on that the real world is presumably an open system, I assume that there is an infinite plurality of possible influences on everything and therefore no chance to predict the future for sure.
May I understand your "closed system" as human's ultimate mental restriction to input via the sensory systems? Well, in this respect I agree at least with respect to one decisive aspect: Future data are definitely not available in advance via any sensory or measuring system.
I maintain: There is no present time between past and future. Expressions like today, presently, at this month, within this millennium, etc. denote time spans that are usually deliberately undecided with respect to the alternative past or future. Today was, today will be, or today was and will be something. What does existence mean? My dictionary tells me: "If something exists then it is present in the world as real, living or actual thing." Such a practical judgment cannot be based on expected future data. Hence, existence necessarily belongs to the near past. How near is, of course, as unclear as is the duration of considered as unchanged existence. What you calls "physical existent state at a given moment" is a fiction which is only reasonable together with the assumption anything flows steadily without sudden steps.
Why do you imagine that the past must cease immediately? Isn't the past a continuous summary of all what already happened up to the border to the future, something like a permanently incremented integral? Why do you speak of the future as the subsequent state? Don't you know that real numbers do not have a successor? Do you blindly follow Hilbert's unfounded finitism?
Eckard
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your suggestion. In the meantime I wrote a short file forerunner that refers to a post of you.
Best,
Eckard
"May I understand your "closed system" as human's ultimate mental restriction to input via the sensory systems?"
No. We, and indeed all sentient organisms, are part of reality. We are not separate from it, as if we were, somehow, 'looking in'. So our very existence is the closed system. We cannot transcend that, and thereby know of anything extrinsic to it (assuming it exists anyway). But, although we are trapped in a sensory loop, within that, the sensory systems which enable that particular form of awareness in the first place, do not control/create what we are enabled to be aware of. That is, 'our' reality occurs independently of these processes. They receive physically existent phenomena.
It is the subsequent processing that is one of the problems. All the 'mental' stuff is just another 'nuisance', ie another factor which prevents the sensory systems from functioning perfectly by causing variation from the original. But all these factors are concerned with the mechanics of the processes, not metaphysical issues which cannot be resolved, by definition, and are irrelevant to an objective explanation of physical existence as it is detectable to us.
"There is no present time between past and future". Now, given that there is a physical existence, and it alters (ie occurs in different states), how can that statement be true? There must be a point of existence (the notion of time is irrelevant). Otherwise there is no physical existence, let alone something which can then occur differently! It cannot be what has occurred, neither can it be what has yet to occur. It can only be what is occurring. You are quite right about the vagueness of the quantities of time you quote. What is being referred to here is the deconstruction of physical existence until a physically existent state is 'revealed', ie that which had physical existence and involved no form of change. This probably revolves around the condition of the properties of the elementary parts. But that is what, to answer your question, is what existence means. This is not to be confused with the substance of existence.
"Such a practical judgment cannot be based on..." You are confusing knowledge of reality, with reality. It must have existed so that we can gain knowledge of it.
"Why do you imagine that the past must cease immediately". Because within any sequence of physical existence, two physically existent states cannot co-exist. The predecessor must cease for the successor to occur.
Without going into detail, and questioning the concepts, but just to convey the point. Two examples:
1 Take any type of elementary particle which is doing something. Now, in terms of substance, that is it, that is the 'bottom-line'. In terms of reality, ie what is existent at any time, that is not it. Because the question arises as to what constitutes a physically existent state? Say the 'doing something' was 'spinning'. Do we designate a physically existent state as half a spin, a whole spin, a million spins? No, all those options include change (ie must be more than one state). A physically existent state (ie a reality) in this circumstance will be one 'degree' of spin, ie where there is no further divisible state between two subsequent states. And a 'degree' would equate to the smallest particle in reality, ie the point at which no further spatial difference is possible. We have no chance of identifying this, I would suggest, but then the sensory systems evolved to give advantage in survival, not to perceive the very nature of our existence. But the whole point is, for physical existence to occur, and change, there must be a physically existent state of it, that must be definitive, there can only be one of them at a time in any given sequence, and it cannot involve change. This is the present, ie what at any given time is existent.
2 Say reality consisted of n differently shaped and coloured bricks, which have an innate property which caused them to move. Now, again the elementary substance of physical existence is the n bricks. The reality, ie what is existent, is a particular configuration of these as at any point in time, ie a particular physically existent state.
Finally, I must just stress that, generically, this is all very easy to say. What this is in terms of our reality is incredibly difficult. But these (and other) logical rules apply.
Paul
PS: I dumped the latest version of the first 22 paragraphs on my blog yesterday
Your work is mentioned here
Eckard,
Let us juxtapose an emission theory and a normal (that is, non-relativistic) wave theory:
Emission theory:
1. The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the light source.
2. The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.
Wave theory:
1. The speed of light relative to the observer DOES NOT VARY with the speed of the light source.
2. The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.
As you can see, the emission theory and the wave theory share Proposition 2 which contradicts special relativity. I must admit however that the wave theory defends Proposition 2 much better than the emission theory so in my essay I was forced to use the wave theory, not the emission theory:
Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light
Pentcho Valev
Anonymous Yuri,
I see LC a tragic figure with rather imperfect education and rude manners. Otherwise he did not write "Einstein's anus mirabilis" and did not write: "some other papers ... such as Tamari, Blumschein, Klingman, Leshan, Merryman which either have factually wrong physics, advance silly propositions and in some cases clearly show a lack of basic understanding of physics." He tends to strongly dislike my criticism, and the contest provides a good opportunity for him to take issue and show at least a weakness in my essay. Obviously he did not find anything in it he could seriously object to. Instead he decided to insult me and others in public without uttering a single factual argument and even without signaling his insult to us. Should I urge him to get factual? You know, I appreciate most if someone reveals a mistake of mine. Frankly speaking, I do not expect a single valuable criticism from LC. So let's ignore him. Nonetheless thank you for the information.
Eckard
Pentcho
If you consider both cases, then I believe your essay would become uniquely good.
May I suggest;
2. Is modified to "The speed of light approaching and passing by the observer varies with respect to the observer subject to the speed of the observer."
2a. The speed of light interacting with and passing through the observers lens is changed to c wrt the observer.
The underlying theme of my essay is that in many areas there are TWO cases not the one we assume. I suggest this is a key example.
Peter
Paul,
My Fig. 3 might hopefully understandably explain my objection concerning Hilbert space.
Feeling a bit like someone who tries to teach atheism in Islamabad, I will nonetheless begin to try and patiently unravel what I consider your mistakes:
While I do still not yet entirely understand what you mean with the "closed system" and in particular with "we are trapped in a sensory loop", this might be not of central importance. We may perhaps agree on that we are using the notion reality roughly synonymous to objective existence in contrast to subjective imagination and expectation.
I think I understand your picture of subsequent states. I will show you some logical inconsistencies. You imagine that the past must cease immediately. What do you include within the past? Given the past must cease immediately and be replaced by the immediately following present. What would remain and could cease the next time?
In reality, there are traces to be found that memorize what happened while there are no traces belonging to the future. Isn't this an important aspect of reality/existence? Traces exist, often for very long time.
In principle, your imagined sequence of pebble-like states corresponds to discrete mathematics. We may attribute e.g. the upper half matrix to the past but the power to the future. This requires to arbitrarily choose a step width between subsequent states.
You wrote: "There must be a point of existence". A point has no extension. You mean a piece of the past immediately adjacent to the future that is so small that there is no noticeable change in it. If you maintain that there is a timespan present between past and future then tell me please its width and why it cannot be attributed to the past.
I apologize for having no interest in your blog.
Eckard
Hello Eckard,
Regarding the statement that "a child has to learn distinguishing between himself and his surroundings," and the issue of oneness; I think this is a key point, often missed, that bears close inspection. If the universe had a beginning, I think it likely that it originated from an undifferentiated state, and that oneness is an essential quality that helps to define existence. We can speak about there being no topology before the first distinction, recognizing that topology is defined by the topological distinction between the two sides of any boundary or surface. In some sense; such distinctions belie the notion that oneness is by nature encompassing, existing on both sides, as well as in the boundary.
Oneness can be referred to as identity, sameness, self-agreement, self similarity, and so on. The Chinese philosophers talk about something called Wu-Ji, the state beyond and before distinctions that create duality or comparisons. Wu-Ji is said to exist before Tai-Ji - which is sometimes translated as 'grand ultimate' - because oneness is assumed to be more fundamental than greatness. The Chinese word for Physics is similar - Wu-Li.
I'm working on a universal protocol for measurement or determination, and step one is to assume oneness. From the individual perspective, who, where, and what I am is assumed to be identical with myself, and not different from anything else. So when a child does not initially distinguish between him or herself and the surroundings, maybe that little baby knows something we tend to forget.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Hello Eckard,
A reply to your comment about oneness was made above.
Jonathan
Eckard
"You imagine that the past must cease immediately..."
Take St Paul's Cathedral (again). Now, due to weathering, a molecule of stone detatches from the bell tower. I hope there is no concept other than that the state which involved attachment preceded the state which involved detachment, and that they did not occur at the same time?
But, while quite detailed, this is not a conceptualisation of what we refer to as St Paul's Cathedral at its existential level. That is an incomprehensible configuration of elementary substances each in some particular state with respect to their own innate properties. The fact that we cannot comprehend it is irrelevant. As at any given point in time 'St Paul's Cathedral' must be in one, and one only, definitive physically existent state, otherwise it cannot exist. And that involves no form of change, because change indicates more than one such state. The immediately previous state in the sequence of existence of 'St Paul's Cathedral' must have ceased. Nothing can have more than one physically existent state at a time.
The problem here is our conceptualisation of physical existence. Understandably, we conceptualise it at a much higher level than what actually occurs. For the most part this does not matter in generating understanding, because we only want it at that level. But, we need to recognise, when it is appropriate to do so, that this conceptualisation is ontologically incorrect. Put simply, there is no such entity as St Paul's Cathedral, or indeed all the other 'its' we invoke, when considering how physical existence actually occurs. There is a highly complex sequence (system), which only gives the appearance of St Paul's Cathedral when conceptualised at a high level. That is, certain features at that level constitute it, but they are entirely superficial, in the context of physical existence.
Look at this another way. We do not touch it, so over time St Paul's Cathedral becomes a pile of stone, wood, timber. It no longer 'exists'. But how does that differ, physically, from any of the physically existent states which occurred, and we were content to designate as St Paul's Cathedral? The answer is because what constitutes it no longer has the superficial physical features that we deemed to be St Paul's Cathedral. Physically, logically, this pile of debris is just another configuration in the sequence! In other words, St Paul's Cathedral (and any other such 'it') was only ever a concept.
"In reality, there are traces to be found that memorize...."
Forget memories, etc, etc. The distinction must be drawn between physical existence and knowledge of physical existence. Physical existence occurs independently of the mechanisms whereby we are enabled to be aware of it, albeit within the confine of existence. We are part of physical existence. We cannot 'escape' it. Which addresses your first concern about what constitutes the closed system I refer to. We only have knowledge.
"In principle, your imagined sequence..."
Yes, physical existence must ultimately have a discrete state, as at any given point in time, otherwise it could not exist, let alone change. The trick to identify that, and not confuse it with one that appears to occur when conceptualised from a higher level, or with elementary substance, in itself.
"then tell me please its width and why it cannot be attributed to the past"
Its 'width', ie duration, will be equivalent to the duration taken for the fastest change in reality to occur. Duration being the common denominator unit in the measuring system known as timing. In other words, at such a level of differentiation, no form of change would occur, so what was occurring would be a physically existent state, ie what existed as at that point in time. Obviously, not every form of change occurs at that speed, so one could have exactly the same physically existent state in some sequences occurring for more than one point in time. I just use the word point to emphasise non-divisibility/singularity. But what it constitutes must relate to physical reality, not just a concept, indeed, the same applies to the concept of spatial position and dimension. Any form of change indicates difference, but difference, as such, does not exist, states do. It is just that when compared difference can be identified.
Paul
Paul,
Your finitist point of view is shown in the upper part of my Fig. 3. I prefer to assume time as a continuum as shown in the lower part of my Fig. 3. A continuum is thought to be divisible without limitation. Theory of fields has been based on the assumption of continuity which is often even then advantageous if we know that the continuous model is a simplification of something that is discrete in reality.
The other way round, it also happens that something continuous is favorably approximated by means of discretization, see topic 833.
You assume: "physical existence must ultimately have a discrete state, as at any given point in time, otherwise it could not exist". Hm. Existence could not exist? You are trying to define existence by using it. This is called a logical circle.
Let's ask what properties does common sense associate with the notion reality/existence? I already mentioned opposite notions: imagination and expectation, anything at the level of abstract models.
If something is assumed to be real then it is usually considered immediately relevant in relation to something. This includes possible influences from past processes that we can perceive as well as influences into the future we can possibly exert. Accordingly, we tend to deliberately not exactly specify the temporal position of what we consider reality/existence. Your suggestion to restrict the duration of the present is therefore naive, and it is anyway not feasible. What measure has the very nil? Its measure is zero.
The relation between a particular cause and its effect is called arrow of time In reality it always denotes an irreversible process. It separates a particular past from the belonging future. Should we introduce a period of gradual transition between cause and effect just as to have a notion that would correspond to the present? I hope you will agree: No. I reiterate: The present and the present state are not exact and therefore not suited notions in physics.
Exploded and unexploded, Schoedinger's cat, Buridan's ass, ... There are many examples that ridicule the upper part of my Fig. 3. The lower part of Fig. 3 offers an alternative without singular point.
Eckard
Hello Jonathan,
To me, the assumption of oneness is an important step of abstraction. It has been indispensable for mathematics at least since Euclid.
I would never guess that "little baby knows something we tend to forget". They are blind when they make steps we are not aware of.
I humbly admit being an engineer who decided to abstain from speculations about the beginning of the universe. I see still enough chances even for a nobody like me to contribute improvement in the accessible to logics and experiments very foundations of mathematics and physics.
All the Best,
Eckard
Peter,
Your post is possibly understandable within the context of a discussion on your essay in your thread.
I asked you there to defend yourself.
Eckard
Eckard
Time is the unit of a human devised measuring system, known as timing, which measures the relative speed at which change occurs by comparing numbers thereof in different sequences, ie how quickly present became past. Change is concerned with the difference between physically existent states (realities). Difference does not exist, neither can there be any change within any given physically existent state.
There can be no continuity in physical existence, except in the sense of one existent state which never ever changes. Existence cannot occur unless it has a discrete existent state, and elementary substance. Which brings us to para 3 "You are trying to define existence by using it. This is called a logical circle". No, it is called a closed system. And we are part of it. We can only know of it (which includes ourselves) via a mechanism which is existent within it. So, on that basis, we stop, in science, delving into beliefs about how existence might be constituted, and work on what is manifest (or could be properly be proven to be so). That is, what is potentially experienceable by any sentient organism, ie validated direct experience and what proven it could be so if the sensory systems were 'perfect'.
"Let's ask what properties does common sense associate with the notion reality/existence?"
It is not a matter of assuming something to be real. It either existed or it did not, and it either existed in the form assumed, or it did not. Its occurrence is a function of at least one previously existent state which must have had a certain relationship to the current state in terms of sequence occurrence and spatial position, because physical influence cannot 'jump' physical circumstance. There are no "influences into the future" because it does not exist and therefore cannot be influenced. When the subsequent present occurs it is just the current present in the sequence. It may be different from what could have otherwise occurred, but so is every present.
"and it is anyway not feasible"
Indeed, I always say that. But that is not the point. One has to accept how reality actually occurs (as known to us) and the implications thereof, and then move forward. Not invoke metaphysical assumptions because it is all too difficult, which do not correspond with reality, and then move forward on the basis of those.
Paul
Eckard
Does this help?
The only form of existence (ie our physical reality) knowable to us is that which is detectable, which encompasses both validated direct experience, and that which is proven (on the basis of other direct experience) to have been potentially directly experienceable had the mechanism of the sensory process, which enables detection, been perfect. Whether other forms of existence occur is irrelevant, because they cannot be known.
That form of existence (ie our physical reality) has the following features:
1 It is comprised of elementary substances, of which there may be more than one type. These have a physical presence which is not further divisible.
2 These elementary substances have at least one innate property each which has a propensity to alter, of itself &/or under external influence, in its existent condition.
3 In any given sequence of physical existence, only one physically existent state (ie a reality) can occur at a time.
4 A physically existent state is a definitive physical presence and does not involve any form of change.
5 No phenomenon can have physical influence but not have a form of physical existence.
6 The cause of any given existent state must be associated with other previously existent states (including the previous condition of the same elementary substance) and be only from amongst those states which have a specific relationship with that existent state, in terms of sequence and spatial position. As physical influence cannot 'jump' physical circumstance.
We would all like something more 'exotic', but are trapped, existentially. However, when translated into actuality, these apparently simple features could involve something highly complex. Truth is weirder than fiction, so to speak.
Paul
Paul,
The notion physical state is based on assumed oneness which goes back to abstraction. There are not just discrete properties like charge and spin but also in principle incommensurable to a chosen unit ones like position and velocity of a particle. You might find the issue illustrated in simulation results I presented in earlier contests. That's in what I agree with Roger Schlafly: Nature does not have exact elementary states in Hilbert space.
You wrote: "... existence (ie our physical reality) ... is that which is detectable, which encompasses both validated direct experience, and that which is proven (on the basis of other direct experience) to have been potentially directly experienceable had the mechanism of the sensory process, which enables detection, been perfect.
As I wrote in my essay, I see reality/existence an assumption. Your view only includes what already happened. If we assume something to be real then we may prove or disprove the assumption in future.
You added: ... existence has the following features:
"1 It is comprised of elementary substances, of which there may be more than one type. These have a physical presence which is not further divisible."
Are those sheep present that are unborn or just in the state of getting born?
"2 These elementary substances have at least one innate property each which has a propensity to alter, of itself &/or under external influence, in its existent condition.
3 In any given sequence of physical existence, only one physically existent state (ie a reality) can occur at a time."
This and 4 implies to understand the existent state like a snapshot of infinitesimal small exposition time immediately before the border to the future.
"4 A physically existent state is a definitive physical presence and does not involve any form of change."
You are trying to obey logic on cost of the benefits of the deliberately imprecise use of the notion presence. It is quite normal to speak of a present process.
"5 No phenomenon can have physical influence but not have a form of physical existence."
Well, existence/reality is nothing but the integration of influences from the past and the possibility to influence future processes.
"6 The cause of any given existent state must be associated with other previously existent states (including the previous condition of the same elementary substance) and be only from amongst those states which have a specific relationship with that existent state, in terms of sequence and spatial position. As physical influence cannot 'jump' physical circumstance."
You states are point-like. You need infinitely much of them. Discrete jumps are valuable abstract models.
Eckard
Eckard
Eckard
I would just like to say thanks for responding. This is not personal to you, as you are conveying thoughts commonly held.
I did see your exchange with Jonathan, but am not sure what this concept of 'oneness' actually relates to.
"As I wrote in my essay, I see reality/existence an assumption. Your view only includes what already happened. If we assume something to be real then we may prove or disprove the assumption in future".
Yes, and it is not tenable, given the nature of existence as known. As I said, we can only know of existence in one particular form, ie what is detectable or could be properly proven to be potentially so. Assuming nothing to be real, whilst appearing intellectually valid, is just as incorrect as assuming something which is not actually a feature of reality. It exists and we are part of it. No amount of thinking alters that, or can generate knowledge of it which is objective unless it is subservient to experienceability. Because what the sensory systems receive is the only independent representation of this form of existence which is available to us. In simple language: it can 'only include what already happened'. With the caveat: ...and what we can know, either directly or indirectly, of that. Remember, we are dealing with knowledge of reality, not reality. The issue is abstracting knowledge which correlates with what was received and what caused that.
Now, dependence on sensory detection does not imply that objective knowledge must be limited to validated direct experience: a 'doubting Thomas' type science. Because we know the sensory process does not work perfectly. But the crucial difference is between what, while not directly validatable, is properly inferred from other direct experience, and what is based on no substantiated experienceability (ie is belief). Though in practice, as knowledge becomes complex and its derivation further removed from direct experience, the more likely it is that these will become conflated.
"Are those sheep present that are unborn or just in the state of getting born?"
I do not understand this question. As at any given point time, that which we label 'unborn sheep' has a physically existent state. Our labelling and conceptualisation of it makes no difference whatsoever to the existential sequence involved.
"This and 4 implies to understand the existent state like a snapshot of infinitesimal small exposition time immediately before the border to the future"
Yes, because that is what it is, though I would not speak of future, but next state in the sequence.
"You are trying to obey logic on cost of the benefits of the deliberately imprecise use of the notion presence. It is quite normal to speak of a present process"
No, I am following what must be, given our knowledge of the existence we are trapped in. It may be 'quite normal to speak of a present process', but that is the problem. Because a process (system, sequence) involves more than one, but in existence there is only one at a time within a process. Assuming that the whole (or significant segments) of the process exist at the same time, which they cannot, then leads to all sorts of confusion.
"You states are point-like"
Yes, in that they are singular, definitive, devoid of change. For existence, as we can only know it, to occur and change, it must occur in physically existent states of this nature. My point about 'jumping' follows on from this and relates back to above, where it is believed that the process/sequence is existent at the same time. Which then enables incorrect causal relationships to be inferred, etc.
Paul