The future is the past by Roger Schlafly

Dear Roger,

You certainly know the story of a tailor who made a suit that did not fit at all. His costumer was poor and of course upset. The tailor showed him how to bend his body in order to make the suit fitting. People judged: Look, what a poor invalid veteran of war. However, his tailor is top.

Regards,

Eckard

The following is just a thought map involving quantum causality, as an alternate example for the assertions.

In physics, any closed system of evolving causality will eventually repeat, exactly unless there is an outside influence.

Therefore, when we speak of cause and effect; i.e. effect from cause. Equally valid is effect and cause; i.e. cause from effect.

Based on this premise, the universe will evolve into other dimensional states (physics constants changing). Eventually, our physics constants will reform and a new Big Bang will begin evolution as we understand it again. But things will be different. The extinction and eventual reforming of our Universe will repeat an almost unconceivable number of times and we will not exist in most of them. But eventually we will make every alternate decision and live with the consequences. Finally, we will repeat exactly.

This presupposes Axiom of Choice extended to include Relativity is accurate.

However, there may be methods to short-cycle the dimensional shifts. But do we want to exclude others from existing also? For us, there is no perception of these transitions.

James Dunn

FQXi Submission:

Graduated Certification for Certification of Common Sense

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2045

Dear Roger,

Though the block theory is expressional with non-deterministic stochastic systems in Corpuscularianism, in an Eigen-rotational string-matter continuum scenario, the clock is with the system and thus the nature of time is, 'Cyclic' in that quantization of time is plausible. In this, while the past-present interval is definite, the indefinite past-future and present-future intervals indicate the imperativeness for a holarchical reference time to describe the dynamics of the universe in discrete cyclic times.

With Cyclic time it is expressional that, 'present' is the relic of 'sub-effect' on the observer for a 'sub-cause', between a 'cause' and 'effect'. This implies that the 'future' and 'past' are co-existing with the 'present' and cyclic, in that I agree that past determine future and future determine past while everything pre-determined.

As 'emergence of time' is integral with the nature and dynamics of matter, the expectations from differential equations to find out the theory of everything implies with the re-structuring of atomic analogy, in that nature of time also differs. I think there is plausible option to resolve the initial value problem and the boundary value problem, while we integrate Planck values with this paradigm. Thus the String theory needs adaptations to re-explore 'Conformal field theories' to re-define 'matter' as string to define 'time'.

In this scenario, the action between string-segments is in randomness whereas the energy propagations in strings are in determinism and thus I think 'free will' has influence on determinism.

This indicates that the 'The future is the past' is within a time domain. That is the nature of time is discrete and cyclic in holarchical reference time, in that the dynamics of Universe in entirety is in Cyclic-time, without parallel universe in this paradigm.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Hi Roger,

Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

Goodness me, its a good job I don't believe in a (Material) Many Worlds or Block time. To take them seriously is it seems very dangerous.

IMHO They are incorrectly understood as they are each models of incomplete reality. I do not know if you were expressing a serious viewpoint or highlighting the absurdity of interpreting mainstream physics ideas outside of an explanatory framework that enables them to be comprehended in ways that are not counter intuitive or absurd. Either way it was entertaining, informative and easy to read but I can not say it was optimistic. ( Your clone has written the optimistic version : )

[By the way, in case you doubt it, we are responsible for our actions, do have a duty of care for ourselves and others, we are not being cloned all the time (so don't give yourself a hard time) and we are building the unwritten future. Trust yourself]

Good luck, Georgina

Dear Doctor Schlafly,

I thought that your fine essay was truly absorbing, and I do wish it well in the competition.

You wrote: "Time is what distinguishes the past from the future." Indeed it does abstractly. Fortunately, unique reality only takes place here and now. Unique reality does not have a past or a future.

No matter how ingeniously it was designed, it would be physically impossible to manufacture a camera that would be capable of photographing a scene that occurred before the camera became operable. One can only photograph a scene that is taking place here and now. No matter how ingeniously it was designed, it would be physically impossible to manufacture a thermometer capable of recording a temperature that occurred before the thermometer became operational. A thermometer can only measure a temperature that is present here and now. No matter how ingeniously it was designed, it would be physically impossible to manufacture any instrument capable of measuring any phenomena that was not present here and now at the time the instrument was recording it.

Yet the timepiece makers claim that although their timepieces cannot measure now, their timepieces can measure time any place that they are located. They also claim that their timepieces can actually accurately measure all of the elapsed time that has ever occurred before they were activated. This is a remarkable feat considering that time seems to lack a temperature or an appearance.

With regards,

Joe Fisher

Roger -

Well done, but I'm left wondering where you are on the question? But maybe that doesn't matter since some other clone in a different multiverse has a different answer - I will only hear the answer I choose to hear.

I recently posted an article noting that the scientific and religious views of time and determinism were remarkably similar. Time and Free Will. At the moment I would say some theological explanations are better than the ones postulated by scientists.

If you have a chance to review my essay, The Tip of the Spear, I would be grateful. I have stayed away from the paradox of time and only include an oblique reference to the causality problem and taken an optimistic approach to humanity's future, but perhaps you will enjoy it anyway.

Cheers - George

Unique reality can only provide "free-will" No human being wants to have "free-will." The only thing every human being wants is to belong. Apparently, everyone commenting on this site would much prefer to belong to a group that only believes in the perfect abstract universe that is perfectly abstractly measurable by the adroit application of Einstein's concept of the perfect abstract fixed constant speed of light. My arguing that as light does not have a surface, therefore, light cannot move is the best indicator that I do not belong here.

Thanks to the freedom of my will, I will remain.

Joe Fisher

I meant, you are advocating from the position of mandatory physics against your own much more sound "naive" opinion. The result is funny.

Checking your text I got aware of minor imperfections.

For instance, you quoted Einstein as believing in physics while Zeh wrote believing physicist. The latter fits to the fact that the source was a letter of condolence to the widow of Einstein's old friend Besso.

While I also doubt that your hints on leftist and atheist attitudes are always correct and necessary, I appreciate that you quoted Russell. You called him "The great liberal atheist pacifist logician and philosopher.

Didn't he plagiarize Gotthold Ephraim Lessing when he wrote in his book - Why I am not a Christian - There are many world religions, Hindus, Buddhist, Jews, Christians, Mohammedans, and ... However at best one can be the true, correct one?

Was his criticism of set theory consequent?

I cannot judge whether he was correct when he called gravitational astronomy an advanced science in which the word cause does never occur. Maybe he confused advanced with speculative?

Is causality really erroneously supposed to do no harm?

You wrote: "His argument is that relativity and other scientific principles have convinced him of the block theory of time".

I see it the other way round: If the block theory of time is wrong then this gives rise to also question Einstein's relativity even if this was taboo.

I prefer breaking taboos instead of abandoning truly logic reasoning.

You are perhaps correct: "A true commitment to time reversibility requires a belief in the many worlds interpretation." While you intended putting the topic of the essay ad absurdum, I read your essay as a hint to absurdities in modern physics which may have roots in too arbitrary mathematics.

Regards,

Eckard

Hello Roger,

I read your submission and I would like you to read mine. You wrote very interesting essay, quoted famous personalities, discussed a broad spectrum of perceptions and perceptions. You even wrote about the holographic model of the universe. In my essay I write about the imagining, analogous imagining and how people think. You may find it helpful. The essay is a part of the collection of the futuristic essays, including one essay concerning the design of the physical world.

You may look at my entry about imagining the future. I hope my essay will encourage you to learn more about ways of knowing and to apply analogous imagining in your field of interests.

You are welcome to share the link to my essay with your correspondents

Please disregard any typo mistakes you may encounter.

Regards,

Margarita Iudin

Roger,

I found that an exceptionally well written and well argued essay, particularly as I suspect you disagree fundamentally with it's tenet. I certainly agree that if QM is correct and complete then we're wholly unprepared. I also agree that ensuring fundamental theoretical correctness, mainly unifying the two so called 'pillars' of physics, is the biggest challenge and will have the biggest influence on our future. I think 'fatalism' may become worse than a disease if we can't escape it.

However.

I do hope you read my essay. I describe how correcting a fundamental assumption hidden in the heart of QM can allow a classical explanation of 'Probability' theory and quantum correlations, bypassing Bell's theorem. We can now 'say' more about particles than 90 years ago. I suggest the description of "superposed spin states collapsing to pure singlet state on measurement" is no longer 'modern'

Or is it too late? Are we now so deep in the rut of probabilism that we can never escape? I hope you're not as resigned as your argument suggests we should be, but how any paradigm is now changed I don't know.

Thank you for painting that picture so well. It deserves top marks so I don't understand why it's still so low. I hope it rises to the top. Was it really a subliminal alarm call? I look forward to your view on mine if you get to read it.

Best wishes

Peter

Hi Roger,

I think yours is a good essay, exposing the nonsense going on in the minds of many of today's prominent physicists, and their followers e.g. some philosophers.

As you indicate, the practical consequences of physics' absurd ideas are seemingly not understood by the general public, and if they are understood, they reject these ideas.

I also found your essay quite amusing e.g. the ironic "Apparently some retro folks in Kansas still believe that ...creatures have both the capacity and the physical ability to act in the world according to their own desires, and that men are morally responsible for their behavior".

I also liked "The idea that humanity should steer the future is a cognitive prejudice, based on an ancient misperception of time. Modern physics has brought us a new fatalism about the future, and more reason to focus on the past. The consequence is that there is no future to steer, and humanity is not what we expect."

I think your essay deserves to do very well in the contest.

Cheers,

Lorraine

That's a good point, Roger. Now, in order for something to be recognized as feasible, it must first be recognized as logically possible. As you know, what I have done is to analyze the logic of the very concept of a future-viewing machine, to isolate the kind of future-viewing machine that is logically possible. So, whether it is physically possible is a separate consideration which the next thirty years of science will likely discover, either way. In any case, this consideration has intrinsic value for humanity, because it would be such a home run if it does turn out that we can build them!

For further insights, I would recommend that you read my conversations with Michael Allan, Tommy Anderberg, and Robert de Neufville on my page. A great deal of clarification is available in those stimulating conversations.

I see that you have written about the ontology of time, et cetera. I will surely read your essay when my technical program is completed on Friday, it looks great.

Take care,

Aaron