Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?

Can you tell me why DB Larson's Reciprocal Sytem theory of time (having 3 dimensions) is wrong?

DB Larson's Reciprocal System theory - phenomenological theory. It does not have deep ontology and dialectic "coincidence of opposites" - absolute rest and absolute motion of matter. In order to "grab" (understand) the nature and essence of time must first be "grab" the structure of space. "Understanding - grasping structure" (( G.Gutner Ontology mathematical discourse). Ontological basic structure of the Universum - it is the triunity of absolute states of matter: absolute rest (linear state) + absolute motion (vortex state) + absolute becoming (wave state). Each absolute state of matter has its way ("vector" absolute state). Basic structure («general framework structure» or Absolute generating structure) substantiates the triune (absolute) structure of space and time ("arrow of time" - "vertical" of the Universum, its hierarchy) three linear measurements + three vortex measurements + three wave measurements + three time measurement. Triune structure of the Universum has its ontological (structural, cosmic) memory-measure being the Universe as a whole, "quality quantity " absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute state). "Information" and "time" are multivalent phenomena of the Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory substantiating the essential unity of the Universum on the "horizontal" and "vertical". Idea of generating structures - central. It is based on the idea of N.Bourbaki about the maternal structures.(N.Bourbaki "Architecture of Mathematics")

Time is what Kant called the act of spontaneity which generates the representation 'I think'. This act performs synthesis. I.e. time is mind processing information. Space is the medium where information is processed.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

Darius,

Kant's ideas require deeper ontologization otherwise immediately possible to "fall" in psychologism. Justification of knowledge requires extreme transcendence limit unification of matter on all floors being to "grab" the primordial structure of the universe, the nature and essence of time. It works well Kant's idea of conceptual and figure synthesis. Overcoming the "crisis of understanding" in Fundamental Science, «the crisis of interpretations and representations»"- this is a deep, limit conceptual - figurative synthesis.

Thank you very much! Very interesting research. But I got a slightly different way to arrive at a "general framework structure" (Absolute generating structure, the parent company General Structure mother) and understanding of "time" as a multivalent phenomenon of the Ontological (structural, aerospace) memory: Heraclitus (dialectic, the doctrine of the Logos) - Parmenides (identity of being and thinking) - Plato (idea and matter, "Platonic Solids") - Aristotle (the study of form, mind-prime mover) - Plotinus (dialectics three main ontological substance - One, mind and soul, an emanation) - Cusa (dialectical "coincidence of opposites) - Descartes («vortices»,«cogito ergo sum», geometrization) - Spinoza («more geometrico»)- Kant (Apriorism, conceptual - figurative synthesis) - Fichte (dialectical process of deconstructing and his "taking off" followed by a spirit of the act, the ideality of space and time) - Hegel (the dialectic of absolute ideas, triad, updated the concept of "measure" as a quality quantity) - Husserl (intentionality of consciousness, «LebensWelt», the original meaning of geometry, "origin of geometry", "philosophy as rigorous science")") - Bergson (matter and memory) - Heidegger (fundamental ontology, the doctrine of sense,"language-house being», "topology of being») - Losev (dialectics of «eidos» and «logos») - Bourbaki ("mother structure", generating structures of mathematics). I believe that the "Monad" Leibniz does not help "draw" and justify the primordial structure of the Universum, to construct a "general framework structure" of Universum - framework, carcass and base of knowledge.

I agree with Alexander Zenkin: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to "an unlimited circle"of spectators.»( Scientific Counter-Revolution in Mathematics.

I have a short Amazon book "The Mental Creation of Time." It's a physics-based development of Leibniz's relationist concept that all physical activity is more fundamental than time. I argue that moments are the observer's mental unification of events (infinitesimal motion elements). In the end I argue that time is an emergent dimension of mind. The summary is free for you to read.

Hi Jerrold,

Read the summary and congratulations on your book. The idea that "Thus all events (infinitesimal motion elements) are regarded as not being in time but instead as a basis for our sense of time" sits well with me.

But note that observation itself is an event and therefore must comprise of 'motion elements', how does this fit with you?

'Motion elements' meaning what? Motion from where to where?

'infinitesimal', is there ultimately a smallest possible size?

And by the way, what is the procedure to get published by Amazon books?

Thanks and regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo: Observation is a complex physical and mental process rather than a simple event (as I define the latter in "The Mental Creation of Time").

Until the very speculative idea that space is quantized is confirmed, I will stick with the reasonable view that it is a continuum.

With "infinitesimal motion elements" I am referring to all things in relative motion.

Re publishing on Amazon, go to their kindle publishing site.

3.1. Time

A definition:

The time is initial and primordial. In generates all and can be looked upon as the mother of all that is to come. Everything has its own time. Time is a perceptible quantity and has a circular configuration with two separate, developing halves. The first half we see as real time and not only do we come from it but we also are a part of it. The other half is most recently considered by scientists as imaginary time even thought it is no more real than the real time. The two parts of time (real and imaginary) are different in their nature from the primordial time. The primordial time generates eight other times as each is a product of the previous. The time from which we spawn is of the sixth level of the All-harmony.

Hristov P., FATE OF THE WORLD 21.12.2012 the ancient knowledge of the cycles of time, 24, 29-31, Five Plus, 2012.

http://www.amazon.com/WORLD-21-12-2012-ancient-knowledge-cycles-ebook/dp/B008833DKA

The semantics of time flowing seems specious to me. The way we experience the dimension of time is by the metaphore of flow. We stand in a stream. There is water coming at us - the future - and water that passed us by - the past.

I'snt it experienced more like standing blindfolded in the water seeing neither the future approaching or the past behind but just feeling the water around the ankles in the present? Then I question whether there is a future and a past or just the -Now of the water stimulating the sensory receptors on my skin. Then after the signal reaching my brain and being processed into sensation, experiencing that as my present within the -Now, in which the water is still stimulating my skin as yet un-felt.

Time does not exist as a thing or force in reality.

Space/time is really space/nothing. Real things exist, they endure, they happen. We consciously engage with what happens.

In the sense that one can say there is only the `now`, one can say there is only the `nothing`. We do have motion in our timeless Universe.

The title of my short essay in the first essay contest is `Things Happen`.

Time has only a mathematical existence.

Time travel are out of question.

One can travel in space only.

time has only a mathematical existence, change run in a timeless quantum vacuum there is always NOW.

see file attached

We are permanently in the `now`. Everything that has ever happened, happened in the `now`. Remnants of all those happenings are still here with us, in the `now`. While it seems difficult to disprove time exists, it`s possible to prove it`s unnecessary, and not foundational.

The Physics of NOW - where time has only a mathematical existence.Attachment #1: 1_The_Physics_of_NOW.pdf

Jim, Amrit et al., Peter J you may have something to say as well,

Concerning this enduring but interesting mental agitation about Time and the physics of 'NOW', it appears mathematics cannot save us. In my opinion what will save us is dialectic, discussing all the possibilities and reductio ad absurdum type arguments.

Jim says, "We are permanently in the `now`", "We have motion in our timeless Universe.."

And I ask, if you are permanently in your NOW and tomorrow moves and comes to meet you where you are, how is this to be described? Has time flowed?

How is this to be differentiated mathematically and philosophically from you leaving your Now and meeting tomorrow?

These appear to be the bones of contention. I may be wrong.

Akinbo

*Jim, will take a look at your essay soon and comment if I can make sense of it.

Tomorrow doesn't move Akinbo it doesn't exist. When it comes into being it is -Now. Time has not flowed but the configuration or arrangement of the Object universe has changed. From what it is to what it is, ahead of the observed present formed from received sensory data. There is no time dimension in that reality but we can imagine a time line along which events are spread.

That does not contradict the concept of space-time which is useful for describing what is observed or will be observed and depends on the transmission of sensory data from source objects to observer. The sensory data pool is a part of the Object universe. The Object universe being that which exists rather than that which is observed, the Image (or visible )universe.