An Accidental Universe

I tend to agree with Barbour that there is no time dimension. The Universe has just one quantum state that evolves. Humans, animals or computers can memorize portions of the universal state in the order in which they occurred- and that creates the illusion of time. If so it is immaterial what clocks are used to compare these different states either as they occur or in hindsight. In other words the laws of the Universe should not depend on which clocks are used to measure an essentially emergent aspect of it.

Vladimir you said Quote:"Humans, animals or computers can memorize portions of the universal state in the order in which they occurred- and that creates the illusion of time." With respect, I think you should have said -' in the order in which the sensory data is processed into output'. As that -might not be- the order in which the events occurred and the potential sensory data data was formed.

The time dimension pertains to the distribution of the potential sensory data in the environment and the Image universe formed from it, not to the structure of the material Object universe.An important question to ask is which universe is being measured, the image or the object? The hindsight image that you mention can be very different from the material events themselves. As the potential sensory data in the environment can undergo transformations after it has been produced, there can be alterations during processing, and memory too is malleable and not perfect immutable recording.

I have been thinking that not only can an object (such as one of Julian's fixed angle triangles) undergo rotation, translation and scaling changes it might also undergo origami like changes. Though once the fixed angled shape has been "copied into" light data the range of possible transformations are increased. The potential sensory data is something very different from the object even though the image produced from it might appear superficially the same..

Vladimir,

I think the existence of a time dimension in some form is inescapable. When you say "The Universe has just one quantum state that evolves", what is it evolving in? To fully describe the state requires more than just 3 spatial numbers, even if there is no ordering to the different "evolved" states. In other words, 3 space does not by itself allow evolution/change.

With regard to Barbour, I don't believe he has done away with time at all. He certainly has done (attempted to do) away with motion by his "static configuration" description. But to me, there is still an assumed a priori time dimension, otherwise his configurations would be in a sense superimposed in an undifferentiable "block". In which case his "time capsules" and our memories would be impossible, even in his description.

Roy,

the imagined sequence of arrangements in space (not space-time) can be imagined along a time line, which is just imaginary not an existing thing -not an actual dimension of the Universe.The earlier versions of the Object- Universe are recycled and only the youngest iteration exists. Where as the output from processing potential sensory data, giving an image of the universe, does have a time dimension; as the data arriving at the observer at the same time, from further away, was produced from an earlier iteration of the Object-Universe arrangement.

Georgina

"The time dimension pertains to the distribution of the potential sensory data in the environment and the Image universe formed from it, not to the structure of the material Object universe"

What does this mean? It is physical existence (or the existential sequence) which is altering, at a rate. Light, or indeed any other form of physical phenomena for which sensory systems have developed, embodies that as it does other features of the existential reality, ie it is a representation of what occurred. As best it can, given that light is a physical phenomenon with its own physical properties, so there is no reason to presume it corresponds perfectly with what happened.

So, there is a rate of change in physical existence. There is a time differential between the time of that occurrence and the time of receipt of a physical representation of it (eg light, noise, vibration, etc). There might also be a differential between the rate at which any given physical existence is altering in sequence, and the rate that light can depict. And indeed, as you say, the original light (representation) can then be 'interfered' with during its travel before it is received, ie it encounters some medium which slows it down, or something which alters its direction of travel. Whilst subsequent processing might 'enhance/distort' the understanding of what was received, which is a problem, that is not physics. Physics concerns what was received, and what caused that. Sensory system/brain processing is just a nuisance!

Paul

Paul,

To clarify what I meant by :"The time dimension pertains to the distribution of the potential sensory data in the environment and the Image universe formed from it, not to the structure of the material Object universe".

It means that the distribution of the potential data in the environment has not occurred all at once. So rather than everything existing at the same time,(uni-temporally), as the actualised material objects do, it gives an output with -the appearance of- things distributed within space-time; but they are the images of things, manifestations. The time dimension belongs to space-time not space.

Physics does not stop when a biological life form is encountered, it is everywhere. There is overlap of biology and physics and it is relevant and interesting. As some of the winning essays, that were selected by the community and judges, in this years FQXi competition show. Including "Is Life Fundamental?"by Sara Walker and "Recognising Top-Down Causation" by George Ellis

Georgina

Indeed, there is a potentially receivable physical representation of what occurred, which, as it is physically existent in its own right, has a time-line of its own. But this is not what is being referred to as time, neither does it explain it. The existential sequence, progression of which results in the existence of physical representations of it, as it interacts with certain physical phenomena, involves alteration, that happens at a rate. This is what is occurring in physical reality and gives rise to the concept of time, and the development of the measuring system, timing. The duration incurred between physically existent states.

"Physics does not stop when a biological life form is encountered"

Yes it does, and obviously so. This is another fundamental misconception about physical existence which keeps getting repeated on this forum. Your eyes are in your face. Your mouth receives light, as does the brick wall behind you. However your mouth and the brick wall cannot process this physical input. Light (noise, vibration, etc) does not 'anticipate' what is in its line of travel, neither does it only travel to physical entities which can utilise it. The subsequent processing of what must be a minute proportion of the light, etc, physically existent, is irrelevant to physics. Other than, obviously, it is the first indication that 'something happened'. The physical circumstance which happened occurred before any awareness was invoked. And furthermore, what was received was not what happened anyway. This notion that observation, or any form of sensing, had an affect on physical existence is ludicrous. What the sensory system/brain processing does is 'interfere' with a representation of what was received. Which is itself an independent, physically existent representation of what occurred.

Paul

Paul,

The potential data (your "existent representations") can be altered, as you say. That change will not require its own separate time line but is part of the time line of the whole evolving Object universe- That whole material universe is changing together as it all exists at the same time. The sensory data in the environment is also a part of that reality.

The time dimension is different. It is to do with the way in which the potential data is distributed in the environment and so how data is received giving an output containing temporal spread rather than output that is uni-temporal like the external environment. That's an important difference. That time is a part of physics, sometimes referred to as "co-ordinate time", rather than "proper time".

The organisms are not holes in the environment where physics ceases; they are both fully immersed in the physics that surrounds them and that goes on inside them; and can also affect, through their behaviour, the physics that occurs. Not direct feedback from the processed image but via behaviour. Some examples -turning on an electric gadget, , connecting to the WiFi, altering the air flow within the physical landscape with buildings, building and operating particle colliders. Behaviour may be guided or directed by the output of processing of the sensory input the organism has had.

Georgina

I think I understand what you are saying. You seem to be thinking along similar lines to Barbour in that only spatial configurations exist as discrete instants and the notion of time comes about only through the relativistic ordering of sensory input. So no other dimension needed in the object-universe.

To me, that model is only rigorous in the absence of motion. If we use the analogy of a movie, your model would describe the screen as being space with the sensory notion of time as coming from the changing frames, ie static configurations (frames) on space (screen). I think the difference may come from our different interpretations of what form the time dimension can take. In the movie analogy, I would describe the time dimension as that which allows the availability of both the different frames and the transfer of energy that must occur for them to move from one to another.

I therefore believe that the time dimension is just as real as the spatial ones but that actual temporality or ordering (eg our memories) are not propertys of it, in the same sense that direction is not a property of space itself, only a potential it provides. They are both perfectly symmetric, non-directional and atemporal.

Georgina

"The potential data (your "existent representations") can be altered"

No it cannot. This is the whole point. The physically existent entity (eg light) which is received is not altered. Reception just involves its cessation of it in that form. It has already existed before it is received, by definition. What is created, and subject to alteration from individual to individual, is the perception of what is received, which is dependent on the capability of the sensory system/brain involved, cultural factors, etc, etc. But physics is not about perception, it is concerned with the physical circumstance.

"The sensory data in the environment is also a part of that reality"

No they are not. The physically existent phenomena, which if received can be processed by the recipient sensory systems, are a consequence of an interaction with the existential sequence. That being normally what people are referring to as 'reality'. That is why they are representations of it, they are not part of it. As the existential sequence progresses, interaction with certain types of existent phenomena create these physically existent entities. And due to the evolution of sensory systems/brain capacity, if received they can be processed, which results in an awareness that something happened, of which the physical inpout was a representation. As they are physically existent they are part of the totality of reality, but they are not part of the sequence, just a consequence. Now, that consequence may then, in some instances, affect the sequence subsequently, but that is a different point.

"The time dimension is different. It is to do with the way in which the potential data is distributed in the environment "

No it is not. The existential sequence involves alteration, which occurs at a rate. That is the 'time dimension'. Indeed, as the representations are themselves physically existent, these are also altering at a rate. But the evidence suggests that, and indeed evolution depended on, the physical characteristic which is utilised, if received, by the sensory systems, remaining unchanged (or virtually so) in the vast majority of circumstances. Otherwise we would live in a very bizarre world, and the evolution of the sensory systems would not have occurred in the first place, because in that circumstance reception of these phenomena would serve no purpose as they would not provide reliable representations.

Now, the question becomes, since these phenomena have physical properties of their own, to what extent can they replicate the rate of change which is actually occurring. Then there is the question as to what circumstances they encountered in their travel, which may have had a effect on the duration of their existence before being received. Or, if we just assume a standard speed of travel, then the timing differential of receipt of these representations will be a function of relative spatial relationship.

"The organisms are not holes in the environment where physics ceases"

Yes they are, except that they are not holes, as such. What subsequently happens is not part of the physics of the circumstance. Just because light encounters an entity which is part of a system which can process a perception of that input is irrelevant. The physical circumstance is no different had that light encountered a brick wall. This subsequent processing can have no effect on physical existence. That is, either the representation received, or the physical occurrence which caused it. All it does is render a perception of something occurring. A brick wall cannot do this.

Paul

Roy,

I think I can have my cake and eat it. There is just one material configuration in existence at a time, there is only one time to be at. That's what I mean when I call that Object-universe uni-temporal. There is also continual change (energy) so the configuration can be altered but only the youngest arrangement ever exists. What ever it was made from is superseeded.

However within that material configuration there is also potential sensory data, sound waves and electromagnetic waves in particular, from which an image can be formed. The sensory data provides the movie (the Image reality, output of data processing); the rest of the Object Reality, excluding the (sensory) data pool in the environment, provides is the movie theater, the pop corn, audience etc.

There is a diagram in my 2012 FQXi essay and a high resolution version of it in the discussion thread, that might help explain what I'm talking about.

Georgina

Physcal existence itself is the equivalent of a movie. Which is why anything representing it (eg light) also has these characteristics. Because light, vibraion, noise, etc is, of itself, physically existent, its role as a representation being an acquired functional one in the context of the development of sensory systems. And it is representing something (ie physical existence/the existential sequence) which has the characteristic of a movie.

Paul

Paul,

the physical existence that you are talking about, out in the environment, has no observers; the observers are watching the output of data processing subsequent to receipt of data. The potential data (your existent representations) are not ordered as a movie waiting to be watched. The potential data is just that and the order in which it is observed is determined by the behaviour of the observer, his "world line", as well as the distribution of the data in the environment.It is not just a faithful temporally sequenced copy as you seem to think. The Object reality sequence and the image reality sequence are not the same thing. They are on different sides of the reality interface, represented by different levels on the high res. RICP diagram, in my 2012 essay thread.

Georgina

"the physical existence that you are talking about, out in the environment, has no observers"

I know. And I have never said otherwise. But so what, given the point I was actually making? It exists, and it alters, at a rate. It is like a movie, as I said, one physically existent state at a time in an existential sequence. This rate of alteration is where the concept of time ultimately stems from. It is then, obviously, replicated, to some degree, in the physical representation of it, which is what is received by sentient organisms. And there are then timing issues around the receipt of the representations, dependent on relative spatial position. All of which I have said.

"the observers are watching the output of data processing subsequent to receipt of data"

They are indeed, not that I would use the verb 'watching'. But this is irrelevant. Physics is concerned with the physical circumstance. That is, what was received (and then subsequently processed), and, given that it was the result of a physical interaction, what occurred which caused it.

"It is not just a faithful temporally sequenced copy as you seem to think"

I did not say it was. As I have said on many occasions, there are various factors which can 'interfere' with it, once in existence. However, it starts off, and for the vast majority of the time remains, a temporally ordered sequence. The exact relationship between it and the existential sequence depends on the physical properties of the physical phenomena involved. It is always the same interaction which causes, what for the sensory system is, a physical representation of what occurred. The 'behaviour' of the observer does not alter the physical existence of the physical representation received, because it existed previously. It alters what is received and when.

"The Object reality sequence and the image reality sequence are not the same thing"

I know. I have been pointing out that this is one of the fundamental misconceptions, especially by Einstein, for the past two years. Though I do not understand what your concept of "reality interface" can be.

You did not reply above to my post of 24/3 05.27.

Paul

Paul,

I was referring to the unseen arrangement of the potential data in the environment which is what I have taken your term "existent representation" to mean. Hence all of our previous conversation about the inappropriateness of the term in my opinion. The arrangement of the potential data in the environment can alter prior to receipt, that is what I meant. Are you now saying that the "existent representation" is the data that impinges upon the photo-receptor or sensitive material? Or only that which can be detected? Is that rather than it being the data in the environment prior to receipt?

Paul that post was the reply to your post of 24/3 05.27. I've accidentally put it in the wrong place.

Paul,

I must agree with Edwin that you ought to familiarize yourself with the concept of the space-time continuum and its implications.

I will not explain in detail the concept of a reality interface here as it is off topic.I am surprised that it is not apparent to you after so many conversations. Reminder-,organism, device or sensitive material. Please refer back to the high res. RICP diagram in my essay thread or the previous versions you have been shown.

Paul,

The order in which data is received depends upon the position of the observer in space not just the order in which the potential data was produced. Using sound as an example because it is easy to give an "everyday" kind of scenario. There is a thunderstorm overhead for observer A and a distant dog. For observer B his dog is close by and there is a distant thunderstorm. A hears a clap of thunder and then a dog bark, he might think the dog barked because of the thunder clap. B hears the dog bark and then the thunder, he might think his dog has the power to foretell the future

Georgina

"I must agree with Edwin that you ought to familiarize yourself with the concept of the space-time continuum and its implications"

Really? It would be good if you just responded to the points I make, rather than dodging them. And in respect of the 'space-time continuum', I am as familiar with it as I need to be. Because the model is an incorrect depiction of physical existence, as time, or more precisely alteration, is not a feature of any given physically existent state, but a characteristic of the difference between them, ie the rate at which the alteration occurs. In other words, physical existence is a purely spatial phenomenon which alters over time. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that there is a one to one relationship between a unit of space and a unit of time, which is what the model presumes. Indeed, the whole argument about the space-time model is entirely circular (as set out, for example, in Cox & Forshaw, Why does E=mc2 ). All of which I covered in a post on my blog, which resulted from an exchange with Jonathan Dickau and others last October.

I am fully aware of your diagram, as you correctly point out. But did not understand what your concept of 'reality interface' could be. Whilst 'off topic', presumably it would have only taken a sentence or two to define.

"The order in which data is received depends upon the position of the observer in space not just the order in which the potential data was produced."

I have said the former countless times, and did not say the latter. Indeed, the most important point is that for the physically existent representation to be received, an entity which can enable the subsequent processing of that physical input must be in the line of travel of it. In the case of light, for example, this means your eye, not your mouth, or the brick wall behind you. As for your dog in a thunderstorm. I am not interested in what people think. There was a physical circumstance, both in terms of occurrence and the consequent generation of physically existent representations of that. Full stop. You argue that what happens internally in any recipient sentient organism, if in receipt of the latter somehow has an effect. Which it cannot. It has an effect on the perception of what was physically received. As I keep on pointing out, but you do not explain how it possibly could. Indeed, the last time you eventually got upset and told me off for not respecting your model which you had worked on for years...as if I am supposed to bend the rules of existence .

Paul