Dear Joe,

Thanks very much for your gracious comment. I've only managed a cursory look through your essay, but I wanted to say that I like your use of "codswallop", and think your main argument that each and every event that ever occurs is unique, is a good one.

I wanted to clarify a couple of points that you made in your comment. The first quotation was given in summary of the logical consequences of a view that I don't agree with. In any case, I think you've mistaken me there, because the eventual conclusion of the argument is that according to the view (as commonly acknowledged) time shouldn't actually pass, as we commonly think of it. I think it does, and I think relativity theory describes that very well, contrary to popular belief.

The second quote you gave is actually something I quoted from Juergen Ehlers, and it's also something I disagree with. I think there very much is an all-pervading "now"--a three-dimensional Universe--that exists, by which I mean that time passes, with new events occurring throughout space at every instant.

When people like Ehlers say things like "The four-dimensional world simply is, it doesn't evolve", I take them to be describing a 4D block reality--all the events that seem to occur throughout eternity--as existing, in the same sense as I think of the 3D Universe as existing, except that the 4D block isn't supposed to change as the 3D Universe I'm thinking of--the all-pervading "now"--does.

Anyway, I think this one idea--the 3D Universe exists--is probably the same as what you mean when you say "One real Universe is eternally occurring, once", and that it's also what Paul means when he says "Existence is only spatial".

Daryl

Dear Hoang cao Hai,

I have to admit that I think I don't understand the question. Sorry for that.

I see from your essay that you must be a realist, since you're arguing for an absolute reality. I've done this as well. I think we probably share a similar viewpoint on a number of issues. I've examined relativistic effects in my essay, and argued that they are indeed consistent with these views that I think we share. I'm arguing against the view that reality is relative, not for it.

I hope that starts to answer your questions.

Best,

Daryl

Daryl

"There's a pretty common conception that space-time exists..."

No, there is a common conception that the concept of space and time, and their relationship, as exemplified in the model spacetime is a correct representation of the form physical existence takes. Which was my point, ie although it is an incorrect model, I am not aware of a common conception that it exists, ie this is not a basis for criticism of it.

In a similar vein, the concept of it from bit does not imply there is no it, just that we can only have bit. Or alternativly, there would be no it if there was no bit. So arguing from the basis that the conception is that there is no it, is another false trail.

This is a key sentence: "So we're charged with a need to describe time in a way that makes sense of existence".

Now, there is no need to argue through spacetime, relativity, etc, etc to answer that question. Indeed, that is the wrong way round. The question should be answered from identifying what existence for us can be, and then how that must occur (albeit generically, it is the task of physicists to establish what manifests). Which then enables one to judge the underlying validity of any given theory which purports to represent reality.

And the answer is very simple: for existence to both occur, and then occur differently, it must be sequence. And what is varying is the physically existent state. In other words, a reality (ie physical existence) is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. To exist, by definition, involves discreteness (ie only one state) and definitiveness (ie there is a state). Time is concerned with the rate of change (ie the turnover rate of realities, the crate at which states alter in some way). Which means that time is a feature of how realities differ (another feature being what differs). There is no time in reality, reality is purely spatial (incidentally there are more than 3 dimensions, this is just the conceptual minimum). From this basis, it is the easy to point out the fundamental flaws in relativity/QM/spacetime.

Another problem you have by arguing through the theories to a conclusion is what precisely constitutes, say, relativity, anyway. I have posted on this many times, and there is a post on my essay blog which is the first 24 paras of another paper.

I can, and did sense before, that there is an underlying view about time which at the very least is similar to mine, but it is not stated overtly, neither is it overtly explained why this is so.

Paul

Paul,

You must surely be aware that people say things called "black holes" exist? Beyond the event horizon of a black hole, there is one timelike and three spacelike coordinates that are all supposed to exist. Objects are supposed to be able to be dropped into a black hole, one after the other, and move through an existing timelike direction, one after the other. This illustrates the common conception that space-time exists and objects move around in it.

Another example that illustrates the idea that all of space-time exists is time travel. You must be aware that time travel theory poses a problem that has been discussed a lot in both physics and philosophy literature. The "grandfather paradox" and variants are seriously considered to be real problems. A time traveller couldn't go back to the past if the past didn't really exist.

The idea that the past, present, and future all exist is known as eternalism (as opposed to presentism, which is your view and mine), and it's commonly acknowledged as the philosophical view that's most objectively supported by relativity, so your claim that relativity isn't important in the debate on existence is wrong, since it's been the central physical theory in that debate for a century.

Then you said "...arguing from the basis that the conception is that there is no it, is another false trail." I've done nothing of the sort. I argued that there could be no bits if there wasn't first it--that bits come to be in it--as opposed to all the bits coming together to form it.

But it's clear that you still didn't read past the introduction, because much of what you're saying I should have done is what I did do in my essay. I didn't just dwell on relativity, but attempted a consistent description of what existence can be for us, and I've attempted to connect the generic view with relativity, as the physical theory that describes what manifests.

I agree with you that the answer is simple, and I think you've got the right idea about time and existence; but you're parsing it all wrong, and you're not acknowledging all the arguments that have been made against it that are generally accepted as sound, while your stance is commonly regarded at best as probably untenable. I am trying to argue against all that here.

Daryl

Daryl,

I find myself in agreement with most of what you have stated in your objective approach to understanding existence in relation to time. Well done!

I hope you take the time to review my essay which also touched upon some of the topics in your essay as well. The findings as presented in my essay have led me to how causality unifies gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministc force, see:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Best wishes,

Manuel

    Paul,

    ""There's a pretty common conception that space-time exists..."

    No..."

    Perhaps consider this, from Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos, p. 138:

    ""So: if you buy the notion that reality consists of the things in your freeze-frame mental image of right now, and if you agree that your now is no more valid than the now of someone located far away in space who can move freely, then reality encompasses all of the events of spacetime. The total loaf exists [he's been chopping up space-time like a loaf of bread]. Just as we envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing, we should also envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing, too. Past, present, and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." The only thing that's real is the whole of spacetime.

    In this way of thinking, events, regardless of when they happen from any particular perspective, just are. They all exist. They eternally occupy their particular point in spacetime. There is no flow. If you were having a great time at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve, 1999, you still are, since that is just one immutable location in spacetime. It is tough to accept this description, since our worldview so forcefuly distinguishes between past, present, and future. But if we stare intently at this familiar temporal scheme and confront it with the cold hard facts of modern physics, its only place of refuge seems to lie within the human mind."

    Daryl

    Dear Manuel,

    Thanks very much for reading my essay, and for your gracious comment. I will read your essay and comment. And I'll give it a fair rating. But please allow me some time to get to it, as I've got a number of others I have to get to before then.

    Best wishes,

    Daryl

    Hello, Daryl!

    I read your essay with great interest. It is right that in this contest you update problem of the nature of time. How to get out of the vicious circle: «Explain time? Not without explaining existence. Explain existence? Not without explaining time.».... In my essay, I built a "home" for the time of the absolute form of existence of matter (absolute state). Time has calmed down in this "house" and then it became clear that "time" is a multivalent phenomenon ontological (structural) memory, which is manifested in the "arrow of time" - "vertical" world of generation of new structures. Time and information are one source - the ontological (structural) memory. Matter - is that from which everything is born (Plato), the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - this is the fact that all generates. Best regards and wishes, Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir,

      Thank you very much for your comments! I'm so glad that you read and appreciated my essay. It's great that you see the relevance of the topic to this particular contest, and I'm glad you've agreed with the argument as well, as you say it's true that time is the denominator of existence.

      I haven't managed to read many of the essays here yet, but I thought I'd mention that a point I've tried to make, that there should be some sort of existence to begin with, so that events can occur and information can come to be, is, I think, similarly made in some other essays as well, which you might be interested to read if you haven't yet. For instance, Lawrence Crowell commented on his own essay, that "The core issue is that It From Bit is undecidable, for any schema of that nature is based on an incomplete axiomatic system". Also, Cristi Stoica discusses Wheeler's "law without law" in his essay.

      And the first point I discussed in the essay, that space-time shouldn't be thought to exist anyway---which is just a wrong way of thinking about it---is noted as well in the introduction to Edwin Eugene Klingman's excellent essay.

      Your essay too sounds very interesting to me, and I very much look forward to reading it!

      Thanks again, and best of luck!

      Daryl

      Daryl,

      I was unaware that Wheeler identified time as most resistant to reformulation as information, but it makes sense. I agree that "the concept of time in physics is a mess." That is why I found your last essay so enlightening. Your last essay was far more complex than this one, which, I believe, is written at just the right level for the contest. (Your current score is ridiculous, and I will do what I can to remedy it.)

      Your statement that "It from Bit" represents a universe in which "everything we may think of as a fundamental aspect of reality could... be because of the correlation of randomly occurring bits" clearly shows the problem time presents to his view. And your following analysis shows that 'block time' is erroneous and a 3-D universe existing 'now' is the reality. The key to reality is energy (often instantiated as local mass). When local mass structures are "informed" by packets of energy crossing a threshold, the received packets create stored information, which remains available as a 'memory' of the threshold crossing.

      I like Stein's argument that asserting the reality of any single event in the 'elsewhere' beyond one's own here and now brings the whole ball of wax into existence. No thanks!

      As you note, Einstein's analysis of relative velocities in such a framework "comes with the fantastic notion that 'what exists for me' is different from 'what exists for you' because I'm now out for a walk and you're sitting somewhere reading this."

      Capek: "if time has no genuine reality, why does it appear so real?" As I noted in my essay, I'm aware of time passing. And it makes no sense to me to interpret this consciousness as based on random bits of information.

      You explain well that Wheeler's conjectures are based on the 4D space-time which you have recently debunked. This "gross misunderstanding of the meaning of relativity" apparently still holds sway. Your treatment of "space that exists in time" is superb, and much easier to understand than last year's more technical essay. I'm glad to see you moving beyond dissertation-level explanations to more popular exposition. Even so I had to read your essay twice to gain its full import.

      I hope you find time to read my essay enough to make sense. I think it's very compatible with your view.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Daryl,

        Great essay, again. Important subject, and well handled. I think it should add a lot to understanding, if it were ever published!

        However, the ending, where I'd hoped to find the logical tying up of all the unravelled nonsense of past theory, seemed to fall just short. I've read it now 5 times, and think I know what you are saying, but find it incomplete. Not rigorously identifying the apparent last quote, and the Einstein/Newton/New cases didn't help, particularly as the Newtonian description is not quite as I understand it. i.e. I don't think he proposed that light travels at infinite speed from distant events.

        There seems some slight underparametrization which leaves matters a little open. This also emerges in the description that Einstein; "retains the assumption that simultaneous events are synchronous in the frame of every observer," Did he really 'say' that? which is quite different to the postulate. Am I so long thinking in an apparently more consistent way that I'm forgetting what happened in the Wonderland of relativistic interpretation?

        First I of course agree absolute reality, but not a single absolute 'ether' background. I also agree local propagation speed c (or c/n) and in fact the postulates themselves, if not as interpreted. but let me ask you a question;

        In your proposed schema, Let's take THREE clocks C1, C2 and C3 all at the front of the train, C1 inside the train, C2 outside but hanging on a bracket beside the car, and C3 also outside but on a fixed post in the track frame. All three (co-ordinated with his own clock when at rest) send a flash at the same instant.

        Will he see the flashes at different times, and if so which first/last? and why.

        And will wavelengths be the same?

        To aid (or confuse!?) you I have a derivation which suggests there will be differences.

        Peter

          Dear Daryl Janzen,

          Your essay might be the one of this contest that has the most already agreeing arguments but simultaneously the most still disagreeing ones as compared with mine. I see this a challenge to check on what we can agree.

          Yours sincerely,

          Eckard

            Dear Eckard,

            That sounds like an excellent challenge, which I very much look forward to following up on. Let us get to the bottom of this!

            Best regards,

            Daryl

            Hello Edwin,

            Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments on my essay. I have read yours as well, which I was exceptionally well done, and I agree that our views are very compatible. Actually, at a couple of points, and particularly the paragraph on p. 6 above "How does information use structure", I felt like you may have had some of our previous exchanges in mind when you wrote it. I found the whole thing drew me in, as much by the excellent writing as by the very interesting content. I have a number of comments and questions that I'll save for a post on your site, but perhaps you could clarify a minor detail.

            I hadn't noticed when I read through your essay at first, but when I went to refer to it in my reply to Vladimir Rogozhin above, to say that I thought you've said something like my point that "space-time doesn't exist" in your introduction, it seemed that your "Map from territory, or territory from map?" may be stated backwards in relation to "It from bit or bit from it?". Have I got that right? I think you want to say that space-time is the map of all the events that happen in the Universe, and therefore connect it with the territory and the map with the bits. It's a totally minor detail, but should your alternative title for the contest have been

            "Territory from map, or map from territory?"

            Regarding your comment on the improved readability of this essay compared with the last one, I have a couple of comments. First of all, I partly have you to thank for that, as you'd pointed out to me before that it would be good to aim at a slightly less technical level of discourse, to improve the overall accessibility of the discussion. And secondly, I just can't say it enough (I've said it at least twice already in these comments) that Time is an extremely difficult concept to parse. I was recently visiting some friends in Phoenix, and spent a fair bit of our vacation going on about these things. On the last day we were there, after I made some statement about events not existing at all, but happening as things exist (with the map of all those events forming space-time), one of them summed it all up perfectly, I think, with that statement.

            I think it's exactly what Augustine had realised already more than 1600 years ago, when he wrote "What, then, is time? If no one asks of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not." Time really is just a very difficult concept to parse, and it's why I think philosophers have spent so much time trying to nail down the right language. There's no doubt in my mind that you and I have the right idea, but nailing down a clear description that's generally understandable and deals with all the intricacies is a real challenge.

            Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to read and comment here. I really appreciate it!

            All the best,

            Daryl

            Daryl,

            You are of course correct that I should have re-ordered the map and territory to reflect the order of bit and it. I saw that after I had submitted it. Sorry for the confusion.

            I look forward to other questions on my essay when you find time.

            With the schedule you have, I'm amazed you find time even to enter the contest. So many of us are old codgers with time on our hands, and even then the time seems to fly. There are a few places where you present incorrect views of time, and, if one reads too quickly, these can be taken for your view. So as you hone this presentation, be sure you present a clear distinction. For example, the last paragraph on page 2 requires careful reading. This is overshadowed by your fine writing, but people are so confused, you must help at every step to clarify. For example double negatives: "aren't relevant to non-existence" and, later "not inconsistent", etc. When people are confused (as most are about time) these can throw them, if read too quickly. Seems silly, but it's true.

            I'm glad to see that Eckard finds agreement and disagreement (below). I hope that leads to further clarification. Eckhard often refers to a dictionary for translation purposes. In dealing with international distributors of our products, my wife found out early that, if an English sentence can be interpreted in two different ways, it will usually be interpreted in the wrong way! Eckhard is a careful thinker, so it will be interesting to see what comes of this.

            As I've noted elsewhere, I think your example with Albert and Henri deserves a '3D' diagram or drawing (or two?), if you can manage a good one. In addition to your Fig 2. This seems like the kind of thing that is published in Scientific American.

            And as for the paragraph on page 6 you mention above. I was thinking this before I came across your essay. But you made it scientifically respectable from the General Relativistic viewpoint. Thank you again for that! It really is a challenge to nail it down, whether in General Relativity, Special Relativity, or just prose English. But it's even harder when you don't understand it. Since you do understand it, it's simply a matter of fine tuning your explanations. The beauty of FQXi is that people point to what needs fine tuning, so you have all these helpers working for you for free!

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Newton wrote that for time to be understood, it should be considered as two different flavors: the relative time depicted by our clocks and other moving/changing systems, and absolute time which is external.

            Its not that "true reality is timeless", but that relative time is meaningless in absolute reality (and vice versa).

            My essay attempts to use an algorithm operating on is own time to produce an observer from the complexity of the algorithms computations, wherein the observer makes measurements of a clock and relative time emerges from the measurements.

              Peter,

              Thanks very much for spending so much time with my essay, and for your questions and comments. I'm glad you agree with the relevance of the topic, and I appreciate the nice things you had to say about the essay.

              The first point I'll address is where you said "particularly as the Newtonian description is not quite as I understand it. i.e. I don't think he proposed that light travels at infinite speed from distant events."

              That's a good point, and I see I should really clarify what I wrote, which was "in assuming that truly simultaneous events, occurring at the same absolute time, should be described as synchronous in the proper coordinate frames of all inertial observers, Newton's theory is inconsistent with a constant finite speed of light."

              This is true enough, but obviously misleading. The difference between the Galilean transformations of Newtonian mechanics and the Lorentz transformations of special relativity is that the factor v/c is zero in the former, which is why Newtonian mechanics is valid at low velocities. Newtonian mechanics would be consistent with the light postulate (constant finite speed of light in all inertial frames) if the speed of light were infinite. That's why I added the word finite in that sentence.

              BUT the speed of light isn't infinite, and Newton knew that. His theory describes light as moving at a finite speed that varies between inertial frames of reference.

              So, what I said was that Newton's theory is inconsistent with the light postulate--i.e., that there's a constant finite speed of light--because he assumed that truly simultaneous events (in absolute time) should be described as synchronous in inertial frames.

              This brings me to that distinction between Newton, Einstein, and what I'm proposing, that you asked for clarification on: Newton assumed absolute simultaneity, motion, etc., and that simultaneous events are described as synchronous in all inertial frames, but allowed the speed of light to vary between reference frames; Einstein rejected absolute simultaneity, motion, etc., retained the assumption that simultaneous events are synchronous (and therefore relative depending on inertial frame), and proposed the light postulate; I'm proposing a rejection of the deep-seated assumption that synchronous events in all reference frames are simultaneous, a resurrection of an ultimate cosmic reference frame (absolute time, space, motion, etc.), away from which any relatively moving system can be described in isolation. This allows for an objective flow of time, as opposed to no flow at all, and contrary to the Machian argument that a Universal frame of rest can never be observed, it actually has!

              You then asked whether Einstein ever said "simultaneous events are synchronous in the frame of every [inertial] observer." The relativity of simultaneity is really a hallmark of Einstein's theory. Even if he hadn't said so explicitly, the definition is commonly made that events that occur at the same time in a given reference frame occur simultaneously. But yes, in the first relativity paper, Kinematical Part, section 1 is on the Definition of Simultaneity. There, he writes, e.g., "We have to take into account that all our judgements in which time plays a part are always judgements of *simultaneous events*. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."

              I'm saying this definition of simultaneity needs to be rejected in favour of a Universal definition of simultaneity because that's what cosmological observations indicate, and because that's the only way relativity can actually make sense--and not send us down a rabbit hole where every abstraction is welcome and nothing is/can even be consistent.

              Finally, in conclusion, you pointed out that my conclusion fizzles out. I don't disagree. The main point was that without the added structure of an absolute time in relativity, time can't pass; and in fact, whenever it's been denied it's just found a way of sneaking back into the way we think about our theories. The "it from bit" hypothesis is fundamentally inconsistent with this bit of structure--quantum interactions can't occur if there is no prior existence for them to occur in--and that's why I've argued for "bit from it".

              I hope that addresses your comments, and helps you to understand the parts a little better that weren't clear to begin with. Please feel free to keep pressing me if anything remains unclear.

              By the way, I've only looked at your essay briefly so far, but I really look forward to it. Thanks again, so much, for giving such attention to mine.

              Best regards, and best wishes in the contest,

              Daryl

              Peter,

              I forgot about the thought experiment. I'm not sure I understand it. Are the two clocks moving with the train and the other attached to a post at rest with respect to the outside? Do they need to be clocks, or are we just thinking of a signal that flashes once from each of them and is observed by someone at the other end of the train? Do the flashes occur, although side-by-side in, say, the y-coordinate, at the same value of x and t, so that in the x-t frame they look like the same event?

              It might help if you send me your derivation. I'm very interested to see what you've got.

              Thanks,

              Daryl