An Accidental Universe

"And the second isn't a arbitarily agreed standard?"

John, here's where we get back to you confusing a meter stick with the marks on it. The meter stick is physically real; the marks aren't. The interval (the unit second) is physically real; what it measures, isn't. Why? -- because the stick -- or the interval -- only measures what's in the interval. Do you get it?

"A 60th of a 60th of a 24th of the duration of a rotation of the planet is not somewhat arbitrary?"

Only in the sense that we could have divided the interval many other ways, such as one period of 24 hours or two periods of 12 hours. Do you get it yet? -- how we divide the interval does not affect the physically real unit measure.

"Standards, units, measures,(of time) etc. all seem to be derived from some regular process."

Then if you read the article here, you didn't understand a word of it.

Now that I've answered three of your questions, answer one of mine:

What do you consider 'physically real' in your proposition? What makes it so?

Tom

We stay here until reality is solved!

Constantinos

I would delete the word 'think', because that invokes some concept of arbitraryness. By definition, knowledge can only be a function of the available information at that time. And know has a definitive physical basis, which must be adhered to, otherwise it is belief.

Paul

Anonymousse

We will never know why, because we cannot externalise ourselves from it to assess whether it is and why. Indeed, it may not be, it could be any possibility. But in science, we can only deal with physical existence as is, not whatever we can believe it to be. If the 'theory' does not tell us it is sequence, then that theory is based on a flawed presumption as to how physical existence is constituted. Because, without any doubt, we know 1)it exists independently of us, 2) it alters. That is existential sequence, whereby all that constiutes it exists in one definitive physically existent state at any given time. And alteration involves any given physically existent state being superceded by the next, as the successor can only exist if the predecessor ceases. Timing is the calibration of the speed at which any given sequence of alteration occurs.

It is not a case of me leaving, it is a case of you, or anybdy else, pointing out the flaw in that simple argument. Unless of course you just want to have a metaphysical debate, which I certainly don't.

Paul

Georgina

Sorry, I couldn't really understand your first paragraph.

The point you make in the second paragraph is incorrect. What Einstein failed to differentiate is physical existence, and the physical representation of that, resulting from an interaction with it, which is what is received. Reception being in the line of travel with and hence interacting with. The subsequent processing of that is irrelevant to the physics. That processing can have no effect on the physical existence of what was received or what caused it. Einstein did not postulate that it was something to do with that processing.

He conflated existence, and the physical representation of it. But at the same time, he did not understand the reference which timing uses. So he created an 'extra' layer of timing, ie 'common time' in the concept of simultaneity. That counterbalances his conflation. In other words, he has the timing differential at the wrong end of the physical process. Relativity being the concept that every entity has its own time of existence, unless it is in the immediate proximity.

Paul

Henk

It is not an absolute time, but a physically existent state which exists at that time. Which then alters, so there is a rate of change. Obviously, if one reduces physical existence to whatever constitutes its elementary component parts, then there is going to be a common set of rates of change (or perhaps only one) for the entirety of physical existence. The argument is about physical existence, and its speed of alteration. Timing is just a measuring system to calibrate this.

A change in spatial position is but just one form of alteration. Indeed, it is the manifestation of some other physical alteration, because something caused it. Furthermore, space does not exist (or at least nobody has proved that there are spatial positions where, at any given time, there is absolutely nothing, and even then there is the question as to how do we track this nothing in order to use it as a reference). Physically existent entities exist, space being the difference between them, differences do not exist.

Space-time is a flawed representation of physical existence, because it is an attempt to depict time (or what that represents) as being an inherent feature of it. Which it is not. Physical existence can only exist in one physically existent state at a time, there is no change within it. The change, and hence rate of alteration, is concerned with differences between physically existent states. Space-time imposes a certain supposed standard relationship between time (alteration) and space on physical existence, and does so on the basis of a conflation of physical existence and the representation of it (ie light).

Obviously, there is some form of relationship between any given existent state and another which occurred at a different time. But we need to establish that, not presume some all pervading equation, and certainly not one that has physical existence as the equivalent to the light based representation of it.

Paul

Blimey, best go and get another cup of coffee then!

Sorry Paul.

That first paragraph was to answer your question "what is observed reality?" Saying that; to be sure something is an inter-personal "reality" and not just a subjective reality, (which might be a mistaken interpenetration or a delusion of some kind. Eg. due to a mistake in execution of the experiment or malfunction of the particular sensory system), it is necessary to have agreement that what is observed is also observed by others conducting the same experiment.

RE. my second paragraph: Did you ask just to disagree with me? I don't think I am wrong. My terminology and explanation is different from your own and we have previously talked about why I don't like your explanation and terminology.As a reminder - in particular your incorrect use of the word representation. So I will not go into that again as it is not relevant to the topic. You are right that Einstein did not formally postulate that it was due to that processing. However whether space-time was some kind of "mind space" was considered.I would give you a quote if I could find it.(Maybe I will later.) It is discussed somewhere in that book E= Einstein. I consider the decision of Einstein to come down firmly against that possibility to be his mistake.

Oops I did read through my post before sending it but missed THAT typo. Hope no psychiatrists read it! I meant .....interpretation...., of course.

That's just hot air, not physics. You have to hook it into equations and experiemtal results. The standard view is that the sequence is an illusion. You have to say why it isn't, if you think it isn't, or you're not in the discussion. Some of what you say implies physics is meaningless, but the fact is, we're only unable to get a handle on things if we take your kind of approach, ie. not bothering about equations and experimental results. So your criticism of physics is underneath a criticism of your own approach to physics. The person who can never find out for sure, as you say, is you. Physics can find things out, and it will.

Anonymousse

1 Can you please state which particular aspect of that post is "hot air" rather than based on physics, and why?

2 Separately, can you please then explain why an explanation has to be couched in terms of equations, especially when the comment is a generic one.

3 I do not care what the standard view is, only what it can be. So can you then explain why what I have said is not an adequate explanation as to why physical existence is sequence, given that this is a post and the point is generic. If you have some factual evidence that physical existence is not independent of us, and does not involve alteration, please state what this is and why that alternate view is justified.

4 Nothing I say implies physics is meaningless. It certainly does prove that certain theories are based on metaphysical presumptions about how physical existence is constituted. By definition, if what I (or indeed anybody else) state about how physical existence occurs is correct, then the consequences are correct, that is the definition of fact. The point is not about "experimental results", per se, because when the subject matter is existence, if the start point is flawed, then the 'results' and the theory will be flawed. Especially if we are dealing with aspects of existence which are outwith direct, unequivocal experience.

5 All my statement are simple, because I am only tackling the subject at a generic level. By the same token, if there is something factually invalid about what I am stating, then you, or anybody else, should be easily able to provide proof to the contrary. Denunciations about hot air, etc, are not that.

Paul

Tom,

"The interval (the unit second) is physically real; what it measures, isn't. Why? -- because the stick -- or the interval -- only measures what's in the interval. "

The interval/duration is the process occurring, what is physically real. The marks, say the peaks of the waves, the days, etc. are only real as they are occurring, as the process is producing them.

The problem is that this interval can be variable, given different conditions, say gravity fields. So how does one incorporate what seems to be a universal passage of time, from past into future, with variable clock rates? Do we construct a complex four dimensional geometry, in which the dynamic present is an illusion, in order to fix the events occurring at different rates into one framework, or do we view the process, what is occurring, as real and the marks as subjective, ie what comes into being and then is erased, ie. going from potential, to actual, to residual?

As you say, the marks; yesterday, today, tomorrow, etc. are not physically real. What is in the interval, the process occurring, is. So wouldn't we take the process as the constant and the marks as the variable? Therefore it isn't the present that moves, only the marks.

So I consider the action, the processing of the interval, to be physically real.

Georgina

So what you are referring to is the best validated knowledge we have as at the current time. Which is fair enough, because obviously we do not want belief masquerading as knowledge. But I am lost as to how this justifies your original comment on my post, when you asserted that two concepts are not incorrect but just misunderstood (to paraphrase). Which is why I asked questions as to a definition of the words you were using.

Here is one of the best quotes which encapsulates Einstien's flawed idea, although one does not have to any further than 1905, section 1 part 1, which is very easy to follow, including spotting the mistakes. Einstein 1916, para 4 section 9:

"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

This is nonsense. Physical existence exists. At any given time of choosing, what occurred, occurred. The occurrence of physical existence is not dependent on sensing, it existed long before sensory systems developed, is not affected by sensing, and would continue if all sentient life anywhere was obliterated. Timing is an extrinsic, human devised, measuring system which calibrates the rate at which physical existence alters. Alteration, in a sequence, is what is physically happening, and that occurs at a rate of change. The point is that we receive a physical input, if the appropriate sensory detection mechanism is in the line of travel. These inputs (one type being light) which are created at the same time as that particular existence are received at different times, depending on circumstances.

Apart from the fact that it is easy to identify how and why Einstein was wrong, given a properly constituted definition of physical existence, one cannot 'change the goalposts' in order to justify the correctness of what he said. Although considering an explanation can be found in the functioning of sensory systems, etc, is obviously wrong anyway. That processing happens after physical existence, so how can it have any effect on it??

Paul

Peter,

RE: "Does that sound at all intuitive to you?"

Not really. There would be a little studying to do & it may include math, or something outside of dream thinking.

I shall though look up "tight soliton" though. Don't think I've ever come across that. It doesn't have anything to do with the female mousse does it?

Certainly I would agree that the single photon scenario is out of the question (it's only theorectical). I don't believe that experimentation is that sensitive yet. One and a half photons, maybe.

THX

To TH Ray

Albrecht's ideas really do not have the same potential. If people do not recognize it, it is because of Albrecht. He has a great university and credential to give him credibility. Einstein, S. Bose and Debroglie had none of that when they proposed ideas that was experimentally confirmed.

Remember, Young and Debroglie used the double slit experiment to confirm logic regarding light waves and electron waves. My heart goes out to individuals like Einstein, S. Bose and Debroglie during the time when they had no credentials but was a part of an academic community that really loved science. Max Planck did not have to help Einstein nor did Einstein have to help S. Bose or Debroglie. They did it for the sake of science. The current science community is not at all concerned with the sake of science but more concerned about self even if it means destroying the fundamental bases of inquiry. You start with the idea and you test it or you start with the phenomena and you propose an idea and test it. Quantum physics was a set of ideas that were created to match experiment so of course it is experimentally successful but there is no depth of knowledge. It is like working back from the answer to a proof. You can't cheat in logic mathematical or otherwise. We live with problems associated with cheaters. Albercht has the ear of the community and he has not presented anything worth listening to in this article. When has anyone other than the usual suspects won any FQXi competition or ideas been considered. They are not looking for the next patent clerk or mathematician like an indian clerk.

Paul,

If you delete the word 'think' in my summary "We know what we think we know" you get, "We know what we know". This is a simple tautology! Hmm! ... maybe you got something here!

But I still don't think we should delete "think"! Rather, I prefer this tautology to read, "We think we know what we think we know". Now that's better! Don't you think?

Constantinos

Tom,

You write, "It's becoming more obvious that standard quantum theory offers no falsifying criteria".

Only 'tautologies', 'absolute assumptions' and Darwinism "offer no falsifying criteria". Can you think of any others? If not, which of the three I listed standard quantum theory falls under?

Constantinos

John,

" ... how does one incorporate what seems to be a universal passage of time, from past into future, with variable clock rates?"

One doesn't, if relativity is true. There is no universal time, and "all physics is local."

"Do we construct a complex four dimensional geometry, in which the dynamic present is an illusion, in order to fix the events occurring at different rates into one framework, or do we view the process, what is occurring, as real and the marks as subjective, ie what comes into being and then is erased, ie. going from potential, to actual, to residual?"

You're mixing up incompatible models. A geometric flow differs from a metric measure ("potential to actual;" "residual" is not physical) in that global least action is nonlinear and not simultaneous with local least action. It's an open question of whether a complex system model bridges the local-global distinction (the subject of my ICCS 2007 paper, "Time, change and self-organization").

"As you say, the marks; yesterday, today, tomorrow, etc. are not physically real. What is in the interval, the process occurring, is. So wouldn't we take the process as the constant and the marks as the variable? Therefore it isn't the present that moves, only the marks."

How does a process constitute a constant?

"So I consider the action, the processing of the interval, to be physically real."

But you said the process is a constant. This is equivalent to Zeno's arrow paradox, and motion is impossible, in principle. Do you understand the contradiction?

Tom

Tom,

Zeno's paradox only makes sense if they are decelerating proportional to the fractions of distance and would quite quickly have to literally vanish, as the level of molecular activity and eventually quantum activity would be greater then the remaining distance.

The speed of light is considered a constant and it is certainly a function of motion, thus process. The light is physically real. What is your understanding of "constant," the motion of light is not?