Time is the denominator of existence, and bits come to be in it by Daryl Janzen

Hi Israel,

It's nice to see you here as well! Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I see much to clarify based on your comments, so I'm glad you've given me a chance to do that. I'll address things point-by-point.

"...based on the mathematical formulation of special relativity (SR) one can conclude that the world doesn't evolve."

Yes, I'm arguing that one can, and often does--but really doesn't have to--conclude this.

"So, to solve this problem you're suggesting to add an additional absolute time dimension, is this correct? As I understood, the idea that you expose in your essay is that the four dimensional space-time of relativity should be embedded in an absolute time dimension?"

No, that's the point of confusion. I'm saying that very often people *do* think of space-time as existing, and that's a five-dimensional concept that's not acknowledged. I quoted Weyl and Ehlers in the essay; above, I've quoted a few paragraphs from Brian Greene's Life of the Cosmos, which really illustrates this. See the big long post that's two above here, on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 23:30 GMT.

To understand what I mean by this, think of a block of wood that's just sitting somewhere. That's a four-dimensional concept. It occupies a three-dimensional place as time passes. The space-time concept that's often been derived erroneously from relativity is a similar five-dimensional concept, extending throughout all of space-time as some extraneous time passes. There are two important differences, though: there is some flow of thought through the timelike dimension of space-time, like a river where the map stays the same but there's a constant flux through it; and, due to general relativity, space-time usually isn't thought to be just a frozen block, but something that changes. Think about it: space-time has to be thought to exist, in an extra dimension of time, in order to be able to change.

Consider the following from Einstein's autobiography: "It is a wide-spread error that the theory of relativity is supposed to have, to a certain extent, first discovered, or at any rate, newly introduced, the four-dimensionality of the physical continuum. This, of course, is not the case. Classical mechanics, too, is based on the four-dimensional continuum of space and time. But in the four-dimensional continuum of classical physics the subspaces with constant time value have an absolute reality, independent of the choice of the reference system. Because of this the four-dimensional continuum falls naturally into a three-dimensional and a one-dimensional (time), so that the four-dimensional point of view does not force itself upon one as *necessary*."

In a completely analogous way, I'm arguing that because of relativity and a really sloppy way of thinking of things which has a lot to do with the complete inconsistency of our languages with the whole block universe concept, people do very commonly think of space-time five-dimensionally, which is a very wrong way of thinking. They think of space-time existing, as a four-dimensional view of things, in much the same way that people used to incorrectly think of classical mechanics as describing a three-dimensional view of things.

Does that make sense? I'm just arguing that the whole concept is completely muddled and wrong. That's what I meant in my abstract when I said the concept of time in physics is a mess. I then offered just the existence of the three-dimensional Universe, as a way out of the mess that's motivated by cosmology.

You then asked how I would define time. I'd define time in terms of existence, and I'd say that the three-dimensional Universe exists; it evolves from one time to the next, continuously. All that exists is the three-dimensions of reality--and that is a four-dimensional concept, described by four-dimensional physics with time as one dimension. Do you see what I mean?

"You discuss the issue of simultaneity and the twin paradox"

I don't think I wrote anything at all about the twins paradox. I searched the PDF to be certain, and the word "twin" isn't there. Perhaps you're referring to the discussion of time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity. That was meant to illustrate that Einstein's interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity is wrong.

"...I just wonder if you are aware of this."

I'm well aware of the literature on the relativity of simultaneity and its implications.

With regard to the rest, I prefer to keep a chin up. Reason based on sound logic and empirical evidence will prevail. And in that regard, thank you for recommending my essay to Daniel and others. I appreciate that.

And I very much look forward to reading your essay. Thanks very much for commenting, and if you would like further clarification on any points in my essay, please don't hesitate to ask.

Best wishes,

Daryl

Hi Israel,

Thanks for your reply. Again, since you've written a lot I've got a lot to say in response. I really want to be clear about the whole five-dimensionality thing before I can properly respond to a lot of what you've said/asked, so I'll have to submit multiple posts.

First of all, you say that my point that "'existence' in itself constitutes a dimension of temporality" is not easy to grasp at first. I don't deny that it is, but then my question is: isn't that remarkable? I mean, nothing should be more obvious, from a geometrical perspective, than to say that "a point exists" presents a one-dimensional concept; the entire history of the zero-dimensional point is described by a line. This doesn't mean that the line itself exists, and the point moves along it--in fact, can you now begin to see that THAT is a two-dimensional concept? I mean, that "the existence of a line" is already a two-dimensional concept, with ITS existence described by another dimension?

Now, to go back to the one-dimensional concept of "a point existing", this doesn't have to mean that there is ever anything real but the point itself. The point itself may *constitute all of reality at any instant*, even though its existence is one-dimensional. This is how the dimension of time is viewed in classical mechanics, and it's why, as Einstein indicated, there was widespread misunderstanding about the dimensionality of physical reality as described by classical mechanics; i.e. while the dimensionality of the physical world described by classical mechanics is four, the three dimensions of space constitute all of reality at any instant.

Therefore, while the dimensionality of the physical worlds described by classical mechanics and relativity are the same (four), the significant difference between the two lies in the implication, because of the relativity of simultaneity, that the *four*-dimensions of space-time constitute all of reality at any instant, as that may be arbitrarily defined.

But do you see that in this explanation of the difference between the two theories I have tactfully avoided saying anything like "relativity implies that all of space-time is real"? That's because it's wrong to do so. "Is" carries existential meaning, and as I've tried to explain (because for whatever reason it IS a difficult concept to grasp), the concept of anything's existence constitutes an extra dimension of temporality, above and beyond the number of dimensions of the thing itself. That's why the conception of space-time as "being" all real is five-dimensional--i.e. because the "being" already constitutes another dimension.

The reason why this is important is that people do often think of space-time as existing--that the reality of all space-time that's thought to be indicated by relativity HAS led many to think of space-time as something that exists. And the problem that's arisen because of that, is that, as a thing that exists, people then go on to think of it as something that EVOLVES and CHANGES. And while it may be subtle and hard to grasp the point that "all of space-time is real" IS a five-dimensional concept, there's nothing at all subtle about the five-dimensionality of the concept that "all of space-time is real and constantly changing".

I guess the thing is, that it's a lot easier to grasp the fact that the classical mechanics description of a three-dimensional Universe that exists is really a four-dimensional concept, described by four-dimensional physics, than it is to grasp the reality of all four-dimensions of relativistic space-time WITHOUT sneaking a fifth dimension into the concept. Would you agree with that? Because that's where all the inconsistency that comes with thinking of space-time as warping and changing and evolving as bodies move around in it, etc., enters.

That's really enough to say in one post, and I've hardly begun to respond to all the points you've brought up, so I'll break here and get back to your comments in another post.

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST)

Now, based on everything I said in the last post, I want to answer to your point that "In Newton's mechanics time is seen as a linear flow with the same rate for observers", and your comment/question a little further down, that "In this case I was expecting something more like your notion of time. I mean, what do you understand by the word "time"? A flow, change, a substance, etc.?"

You weren't satisfied with my definition of time in terms of existence, and were looking for a word like "flow". I intentionally avoided using the word "flow" even though that's roughly what I mean by "exist" anyway. I mean that I would define time just as Newton defined absolute time, except that I'd add a note that by "flow" I DO NOT mean flow through a substantive dimension, which the definition can easily be taken to mean. Rather than flow along a substantive dimension, I suppose I'd say more properly I mean flow as an absolute dimension, so that, as with classical mechanics, I mean that at any instant the three-dimensional Universe, and only the three-dimensional Universe, constitutes all of reality.

If you understood my previous post, you'll know what I mean by this.

Now, in between the two statements I just answered to, you noted that relativity complicates such a view and asked if I have a solution to the problem. Actually, more specifically you asked, "Since the mathematical formulation is the one that matter for practical purposes. So mathematically speaking, do you have any solution?"

I have a suspicion that you've got something else entirely in mind, and therefore may not consider my answer too carefully, but I'll give it to you anyway: Actually, the statement that the mathematical formalism is all that matters for practical purposes is incorrect. In practice, in order to correctly make use of the mathematical formalism, we need to take observation into account as well--and the cosmological data clearly indicate that there is an ultimate cosmic rest-frame. I discussed this in my last essay, referenced it in the current one, and tried to explain it to you further during the previous contest. I discussed why this matters, practically, in both of my essays; but I'll briefly explain that here.

Since the predictions made through the mathematical formalism have been verified, it's reasonable to assume for now that there's nothing the matter with the math. The issue, then, becomes one of consistently reconciling the mathematical formalism with ALL the observations. And in that sense, yes, I do think I have a solution. Put far too simply to be entirely convincing to everyone, the solution is that, according to the cosmological observations, there IS an ultimate cosmic rest-frame, and an associated "true"--i.e. absolute--simultaneity-relation. Mathematically speaking, in any inertial frame BUT the cosmic frame, the hypersurfaces of absolute simultaneity won't be orthogonal to the proper time axis--i.e. they'll be tilted--BUT that doesn't mean that they won't still "flow equably along that axis" (please recall, that by flowing equably along an axis, I don't mean a substantive dimension).

I don't like using the words "privileged" or "preferred" reference frame to describe the cosmic reference frame, because these are the words of relativists who historically wanted to claim the objectivity of their stance, and argued that each observer's proper frame should be considered to be as good a reference frame through which to describe "true reality" as anyone else's, and therefore liked to claim that there's no such thing. I call bulls**t.

The point that I tried to make in my essay with the Albert and Henri example is that this is actually wrongheaded. Sure, Henri is free to frame things in such a way that the clock across the train car "remains at a fixed distance from him, and both of them remain motionless". But if he opens his eyes to the world around him, he should see that he's actually moving--i.e. he's not "truly" motionless. Then, he should realise that a photon that travels from the clock to him DOESN'T truly make it all the way across that fixed distance, because from point of emission to point of observation Henri ACTUALLY moved forward and met it part way. Mathematically speaking, this all works perfectly well according to what I said above about absolute simultaneity being tilted in Henri's frame of reference.

Now, the Machian argument against this is "How can Henri or Albert really *know* that Albert's frame is the correct one to use?" In actuality, it isn't: the Earth orbits the Sun, which orbits the Galaxy, etc. But what matters is that there IS one objective cosmic frame, which we have been able to observe to an unprecedented degree of confidence. We "know", with as great a degree of scientific knowledge that we "know" anything, that we are actually moving through the Universe at 370 km/s--and that's really the bottom line. The relativist argument is pure speculation based on the relativity of inertia; science says otherwise, and it's perfectly consistent with the relativity of inertia.

The last thing you talked about was the twins paradox, and it seems you want to perpetuate a much too common error about acceleration being the solution. I'll address that in one more post.

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for the gentle nudge. I apologise. I did see your post there only late last night when I had to go to bed, and I woke up with this post from Israel that bothered me for a couple of reasons, so that I wanted to respond right away. Unfortunately, I am leaving shortly to go camping for my daughter's 8th birthday this weekend, so I fear I won't get to it before then. I hope it's not too much to ask if I can respond then? I see now that Paul has posted another reply there, too, and I'd like to keep up the discussion.

Peter, If you manage to see this, I did notice your last post above and haven't had a chance to read through and give it the consideration it deserves. As I said, I'll be gone for a couple of days but will respond when I get back.

My apologies to both of you, and best regards,

Daryl

(CONTINUED ON FROM PREVIOUS POST)

First of all, from your statement,

"So, if you use this... to demonstrate that SR is plagued with paradoxes, our colleagues will reply with the same argument, i.e., that Henry changed from an inertial frame to a non-inertial frame and therefore there is no paradox. This is what I meant when I said: "I just wonder if you are aware of this." But from your comments I have the impression that you were not."

I feel both misrepresented and slightly insulted. Regarding the misrepresentation, in describing a well-known "paradox" my intention was not to argue that SR, or certain of its assumptions, should be rejected because it "is plagued with paradoxes". In my opinion, that in itself is a pretty weak form of argument. What I did was move on from a derivation of the paradoxical result, to provide an intuitive and realistic resolution to it, that's in objective agreement with the empirical data (see my previous post), as opposed to simply going with Einstein's suggestion that we should just accept that "that's how it's got to be". And regarding the insult, you weren't being very clear about what you meant, which is I think why you felt the need to explain your meaning more clearly. It seems you perhaps meant to test my knowledge, so see if I'd infer your meaning from what you had written, and found that because I didn't respond as you'd expect someone with your knowledge to respond, you thought I must be unaware of something. Please: if you've not been overtly clear about your meaning, don't presume that I don't know my subject because I haven't answered unasked questions.

There are a couple of reasons why I couldn't possibly have inferred your meaning. First of all, the "clock paradox" that you refer to is not IDENTICAL to the "twins paradox", as you've suggested. The "clock paradox" is an important result from SR that's used in *constructing* the "twins paradox", which runs specifically as follows. Consider two twins, standing together: at some point in time, they separate via Lorentz boost and remain in constant relative motion awhile; then at some point in time another Lorentz boost causes them to approach each other with (for simplicity) the same relative velocity; when they come together at the same place, a final Lorentz boost keeps them together. According to the symmetry of relative time-dilation (meaning both, that clocks tick relatively slowly by the exact same amount whether they're approaching or receding with constant relative velocity AND from any perspective, a clock in uniform translatory motion will tick slowly--which you've called the "clock paradox") either twin should therefore expect the other to be younger when they meet again, according to a pure relativist perspective, for the following reason: since, according to pure relativists, there's no such thing as actual motion, as it's all just relative, throughout the entire scenario EITHER TWIN can claim to be "perfectly at rest" while his brother "went off on a journey"; therefore, BOTH of them should expect their brother to be younger when they return, but the two points mentioned in brackets above.

The "paradox" is already ill posed, because there is such a thing as REAL motion, as I've already discussed. Therefore, only one of the brothers can claim to have remained motionless the entire time; i.e., at some point, one of the two brothers HAS to have ACTUALLY hopped from one frame of reference to the other. They can both determine this by looking at the world around them. The solution then runs as in Schutz's Introduction to Relativity textbook, which you might be interested to look at because it has all the right details in it.

The resolution has nothing whatsoever to do with acceleration. It's a mathematically ill-posed problem in SR, which is derived without reference to acceleration, and it's by correctly posing it IN SR that it needs to be properly resolved.

And this is the other reason why I didn't pick up on what you were driving at before: I do know that there has been a common misconception that the twins paradox can be resolved by saying someone has to accelerate, but I'd like it if everyone would move beyond that, so I don't tend to think of it too much. It's wrong, and that's all there is to it.

This can be proven as follows (e.g., see Tim Maudlin's new space and time book; I think Fig 11? Although he's got the paradox itself wrong, this bit is great!): consider the scenario as described in the frame of the twin who remains at rest; his twin heads off into space and at some point turns around and heads back with the same constant velocity. We know it's the twin who actually went on the journey who aged less, and the reason can be stated geometrically: less proper time passes along the "longer" worldline, as drawn in Euclidean space. Now consider giving the twin who stays at home some short Lorentz boosts so that he moves for a short time, in the middle of his brother's absence, at the same "outward" velocity as his brother (no relative motion), then turns around at the same time (considered still in the same frame; so there's still no relative motion), and then comes back to rest and sits there waiting for his brother. He's been "accelerated" just as much, but still his worldline is shorter, and he will still have aged more than his brother. You can actually give him multiple of these boosts, so he's actually "accelerated" MORE, and he'll still be the older one when he and his twin come back together.

That's all I wanted to say in response to your detailed post. I hope I haven't said anything offensive, and I'm sorry that I took a bit of offense to your remark. I really appreciate your interest, and feel you've hit on some very good points here, and therefore also appreciate being given the opportunity to respond as I have. Please do post a reply if you see any further interesting points of discussion, and I'll gladly take them up with you.

Sincerely yours,

Daryl

Hi John,

Thanks for commenting. It's never a bother to hear your opinion. I'm sorry if I've ever given you the impression that it has been. If I haven't been able to properly respond to your comments in the past, it was simply because the Earth spins around every twenty-four hours, rather than thirty-six or fifty or whatever it would actually take for me to get to everything I'd like to get to in a day.

I don't know that I've ever said anything directly about your view of time, so I thought I'd try to give you a bit of a response to some of the points you bring up. First of all, saying that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the Earth rotates seems to me like a Wheelerian participatory way of thinking. I personally think the passage of time is more fundamental, and has nothing to do with our Solar System, although that's a good reference point; i.e., I don't agree with your apparent view that the Earth's rotation *causes* time to pass, but think the two coincide.

Now, regarding either the idea that the future becomes the past as time passes, or the idea that the past becomes the future: this is a common view that's taken up by "blockers" who use it in order to find inadequacy in a presentist position on temporal passage. But at it's heart, this is a five-dimensional way of thinking of becoming, which seems flawed from the get-go *because* it already views all of eternity in a sense as *existing*, and then restricts that view to a supposed present that moves through it.

As I've tried to bring out in my essay (it may help as well if you read through to the end of my first response to Israel on July 5, above), existence of anything adds a temporal dimension above and beyond the dimensions of the thing. The conception of all eternity existing adds a fifth dimension to the four dimensions of space-time, and it's this sense of existence that allows us to think of change within space-time, such as future becoming past, etc. And beginning from this view, a lot of philosophers go on to show that a description of temporal passage like the one you've given just imposes a lot of superfluous structure, so as opposed to "resolv[ing] the issues with time", I think it really does just muddle the concept up enough, leading to enough of a false conception of existence, to enable people to construct a reasonable argument *against* temporal passage.

When you say, "there is no universal flow of time" I have to take you to mean, from the surrounding text, that there is no universal perception of the flow of time. Because actually, "there is no universal flow of time" is inconsistent with "there is a universal present because there is only what exists..." By "what exists", I have to assume you mean a three-dimensional Universe that exists. If that's the right clarification of what you've written, then I agree with you.

Except I don't think that is quite your meaning, because you *are* talking about a probabilistic future existentially, as something that becomes the (existential) determined past.

Anyway, when you speak of "no need for blocktime", I'm not sure that you understand that the view has been taken as logically necessitated by other views that I'm not certain you disagree with. And just to be sure: I'm arguing for a very similar viewpoint as you, I think, but I'm doing so through analysis which takes into account various relevant aspects of the problem, rather than simply stating an opinion. I could tell you my opinions as well, and tell you that they make perfect sense because they do to me, but without offering any sort of analytical argument that considers the relevant aspects of the problem and either fits them into that view or argues why they're wrong, that isn't anything more than the trivial statement of opinions. I think that's probably where you're running into problems with others, as you've indicated that people have considered your opinion unproven or trivial. Because until you provide reason to support your claim that the Earth's rotation causes tomorrow to become yesterday, it'll remain just an opinion.

I hope this helps. You seem frustrated about not being taken seriously. I assure you that I'm just as frustrated. It's hard to get anyone to take one's ideas seriously. I don't think you've ever taken my ideas seriously.

If you do want to discuss any of this further, please feel free and I'll do my best to respond.

All the best,

Daryl

Dear John,

Thanks for clarifying. I have a much better idea of your position on time now, and I do mostly agree with it. Since you've indicated that you have trouble getting people to discuss the matter with you, I have some suggestions that you're free to take or leave. First of all, if you don't think the Earth's rotation causes time to pass, then you shouldn't use the word "because". You could use "as", or, since that is sometimes used in place of "because", "while" might really be the best.

But in the end, what you're doing is working out a well-oiled statement of your view, and I think simply stating that view might be the wrong way to get people to start discussing it with you. Your statement comes across as a simple doctrinaire assertion, and I know you have reasons for thinking these things, so I'd recommend starting a discussion by stating those reasons in context, rather than just your conclusions/overall opinion on the matter of time, which really doesn't provide an opening for discussion. When you state an opinion without apparent cause, and without any reasoning, whether anyone agrees with it or not, it's difficult to know how to respond, and I suspect most just won't (and you've indicated that they don't).

And finally, most importantly, while a number of people *will* agree with this position to some extent or other (as I said, I mostly do), you do need to recognise, and you need to learn to appreciate, the reasons why many people think that this basic idea of the functioning of time simply can't be correct. The most significant obstacle in the matter is surely relativity, but there are obstacles related to quantum theory, for example, *even though quantum mechanics has been historically based on a classical conception of time*. For an example of how someone might respond from that perspective, you could look at Ken Wharton's responses to me over on his essay page.

The bottom line in all of this is *reason*. If you want to convince someone that the way you view time is correct, you need to provide reason why conclusions they've drawn from physical theory could be in error, or could be interpreted another way and remain consistent with empirical evidence. For example, prior to the discovery of relativity, the ticking of clocks in all inertial frames was thought to be absolute; but Einstein showed with simple thought experiments (e.g., the one that I've used in my essay) that if the speed of light is to be constant in all inertial frames (as empirical evidence suggested) this simply can't be the case. The irrefutable reason is that the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is longer than its legs. If you're arguing in favour of presentism, amongst other things you do need to explain the flaw in Einstein's reasoning. There is no other way to convince people who've reasoned that, according to relativity, presentism is wrong.

I hope this helps. Maybe I should add that when I say I mostly agree with your position, the reason I don't completely agree with it is that I think temporal passage is a more fundamental aspect of reality that doesn't result from continuous change, or the motion of things that exist. I think change *can* occur because time passes, and that the order of that passage has to do with a very basic metrical structure--namely, the fundamental symmetry of nature. So about the order, or consistent measure of temporal passage, I don't personally think that it can be *caused by* relative change, although it's certainly evident *through* relative change. For an insightful discussion, I'd recommend reading the part of St Augustine's Confessions that deals with time. I think it's book 11. I think his discussion of the duration of syllables really illustrates this.

Best wishes,

Daryl

Dear John,

Believe me that I do understand what you are saying. In fact, this is why I'd urge you to giving up thinking of events as things that "become" or "dissolve" or anything at all like that. Instead, I think the distinction needs to be made between what it means for something to "exist" and what it means for something to "happen". I've tried to state my position as being that the Universe---everything; which is only three-dimensional---exists. And I emphasize the word "exists", because that's where the fourth dimension enters into the description. I think that existence is a well ordered, measured duration that gives rise to the well-defined metrical structure of space-time. And what is space-time in this view? It is the set of "events", "happenings", "occurrences", that "take place" in the Universe as it exists. When we begin to think of events as "existing", we start sneaking a fifth dimension into our conception of reality, because indeed, the idea of the events of space-time as "existing" is a five-dimensional concept, just as the idea of the three-dimensional bodies in the Universe all existing is a four-dimensional concept. That's why I think your idea of events dissolving isn't the right way of looking at it. Something has to exist to dissolve. I think it's best to think of the whole three-dimensional world as existing---i.e., enduring with objectively well-defined order---and then think of events as the things that happen in it as it exists.

I hope that helps you to understand my views better.

Best regards,

Daryl

Thanks for the question, John!

Recall from Tom's essay last year:

"Only with the development of analytical geometry were we able to identify relations between numerically distant points and a local coordinate system." Similarly, only through the development of relativity theory have we been able to accurately identify the relationship between different events and a local space-time metric. Space-time specifically has four-dimensional Lorentzian metrical structure. As I said, I don't think time is just an effect of things happening in space, because space-time does appear to have this objective metrical structure, through which events are just as well ordered in time as they are in space. While I naively define my notion of "existence" as another dimension in my concept of an n-dimensional thing that exists (i.e., I think that's an (n+1)-dimensional concept), I think this is a more formal definition.

You asked "Is there another way to do this?" and I think the Machian spirit of relativity needs to be completely abandoned and replaced by a Newtonian one. I think all that needs to be done is to adopt an objective cosmic rest-frame, as per the evidence, and interpret relativistic solutions geometrically, keeping consistent track of that, rather than in the usual abstract topological way, which considers that the coordinates have no immediate metrical significance.

I know we disagree on this one point, but I can see that our views are otherwise in agreement, as we both think all that's real is three-dimensional space that exists. Perhaps I, more than you, consider space-time as an accurate description of the events that occur in space, though. With this in mind, my question to you is: are you able to appreciate anything about the arguments in my essays that are meant to support this view over the interpretation that relativity most objectively implies a block universe view of reality?

By the way, thanks for the discussion! I've been enjoying it.

Daryl