Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Brian Cox\'s Science of Dr WHO by matt welcome marsden

hi matt

re - hi matt i think timelessness is the same as eternity and thats what the universe is.our perception is just a geometric illusion conjured by our brains which are virtual simulators,hence life itself may just be a simulation,hence time travel is a reality .Please take time to please vote for my video here- http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2223.meanwhile i just voted for yours.thanks.All the best

HI Michael,

Thank you for your vote and comment, ill check out your video.

Re your comments, I produced "A Brief History of Timelessness" as a result of (Imo) being ruthlessly logical analytical and scientific -

I think I may have been more scientific than many of the scientific authors I have researched, because many of them seem to have adopted, and unscientifically, constantly used terms such as "the " past, and "the" future, and taken them as probably having valid meaning, without actually citing scientific proof of this.

Imo, if we let a single unchecked term or idea into our reasoning, then there is a strong chance that much of our subsequent thinking may be seriously flawed ( i.e. probably wrong).

e.g. Let me show you how applying logic to your ideas may show you where some of your conclusions may be unsound. You suggest a number of things, if you don't mind, and I'm not being rude, just honest, but here's what I mean by apply science rigorously.

Specifically re the scientific method, in simple terms we come up with an idea, or hypothesis, test it by doing experiments, let others duplicate and check those experiments, check if those results support our initial hypothesis, and drop or modify the hypothesis according to what actually seems to be observed and confirmed.

So you suggest...

1 our perception is just a geometric illusion conjured by our brains which are virtual simulators

2 hence life itself may just be a simulation

3 hence time travel is a reality

Point 2 rests on point 1 being correct. But I don't see the logic behind point 3 being related to either ( you give no reasoning)

Re point 1. You state "our perception is just a geometric illusion" ( your hypothesis), so you would need some experiment(s) to test this.

It seems to me that we, the matter that makes us up exists, and our senses react to the inputs form the world around us. So what we perceive in our minds is what occurs in our minds. I see no reason to call this an illusion, any more than I would call the image that forms on a piece of film inside a camera an illusion. Imo, I have no reason to suspect it is not what it seems to be, and no proof that it is not what is seems to be.

I think it may be very illogical to speculate something, then assume our speculation is correct unless disproven. Especially if we then make no effort to check or disprove our own 'guess'. We may do this , but it is certainly not "scientific" i.e. as per the scientific method.

Our brains seem to perceive things, and we can certainly run simulations, but this only proves matter exists in our minds and can be running simulations.

If we take virtual to mean "the quality of having the attributes of something without sharing its physical form"

Then fine, we can run a virtual flight sim in a pc. This means a pc can exist and its components and electrons are modelling the mathematics of flight - but it does not mean that the pc , or its components do not exist,(they just have a different physical form to an aeroplane ) or that aeroplanes do not exist.

So I disagree re -"our perception is just a geometric illusion"

Our perception may be a geometric re-presentation of what our senses are reacting to , but I see no "illusion", and no reason to suspect there is not also a real world around us that we are perceiving.

(to scientifically suggest otherwise you need an experiment to prove your assumption).

Thus point 2 - "hence life itself MAY just be a simulation"

The word MAY here is critical, you need a reason to suspect life is a simulation, and to explain what you mean by that. And you need to be able to justify why you suspect every single piece of wholly reliable and consistent information that you constantly are receiving from the world around you.

In simple terms (imo) you need a reason, and proof that the universe is NOT just as it actually and reliably, testably, seems to be.

.....................so,

Re "think timelessness is the same as eternity "

"eternity" is defined as "Infinite or unending TIME" (OED)

And TIME is defined as "The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future"

For the definition of TIME to be valid, one needs scientific proof that the terms "the past", and "the future" do not just relate to ideas in our minds, but are also genuine and existing phenomena.

But in all of science, and throughout my extensive research for "A Brief History of Timelessness"

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/bib

I find no scientific experiments actually exist to prove these "phenomena", only a large number of scientists claiming that special relativity proves time ( which imo does not seem to be the case, "electrodynamics seems to "assume" but in no way prove the existence of a thing called time).

Therefore, with respect, Re "think timelessness is the same as eternity "

You would need scientific proof that "the past" and "the future" are valid terms , and proof that a thing called time must exist, and pass 'endlessly', for matter to be able to exist and move, for the term "eternity" to be valid.

By "timelessness" - I mean ...

"perhaps the universe is, just , and only , as it is directly observed to be - i.e. just filled with matter moving and interacting in all directions ( not "heading into a future", nor "leaving a past behind it")

And

- perhaps in this way, if we over interpret the contents of our minds - we may be being mislead into thinking there is "a past" and/or " a future", and thus mislead into assuming a thing called time exists, or is needed.

so the definitions alone of timelessness and eternity are fundamentally different,

my term ...

"timelessly" relying only on that which is actually observed

and

"eternity" relying on that which is observed, and the unchecked hypothesis that there is also an unseen and untestable past, unseen future and unseen thing called time.

So, I hope you don't mind be being so logical, but for these reasons I think the concept of "eternity" is invalid, and is not the same as what I mean by "timeless".

Yours

Matthew marsden

(auth "A Brief History of Timelessness" > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I09XHMQ )

Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Brian Cox's Science of Dr WHO

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2243

Answers to Prof Brian Cox's Science of Dr WHO

Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past".

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2245

'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past".

Time travel, Worm hole, billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly. (re Paul Davies- New scientist article)

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2244

billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly

ps , to see why i think relativity i.e "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies", seems to "assume" but in no way prove the existence of a thing called time.

see https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies

or the FQXI vids

Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Brian Cox's Science of Dr WHO

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2243

Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past".

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2245

Time travel, Worm hole, billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly. (re Paul Davies- New scientist article)

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2244

mm

HI Michael, ( sorry, re post with correct header)

re - hi matt i think timelessness is the same as eternity and thats what the universe is.our perception is just a geometric illusion conjured by our brains which are virtual simulators,hence life itself may just be a simulation,hence time travel is a reality

Thank you for your vote and comment, ill check out your video.

Re your comments, I produced "A Brief History of Timelessness" as a result of (Imo) being ruthlessly logical analytical and scientific -

I think I may have been more scientific than many of the scientific authors I have researched, because many of them seem to have adopted, and unscientifically, constantly used terms such as "the " past, and "the" future, and taken them as probably having valid meaning, without actually citing scientific proof of this.

Imo, if we let a single unchecked term or idea into our reasoning, then there is a strong chance that much of our subsequent thinking may be seriously flawed ( i.e. probably wrong).

e.g. Let me show you how applying logic to your ideas may show you where some of your conclusions may be unsound. You suggest a number of things, if you don't mind, and I'm not being rude, just honest, but here's what I mean by apply science rigorously.

Specifically re the scientific method, in simple terms we come up with an idea, or hypothesis, test it by doing experiments, let others duplicate and check those experiments, check if those results support our initial hypothesis, and drop or modify the hypothesis according to what actually seems to be observed and confirmed.

So you suggest...

1 our perception is just a geometric illusion conjured by our brains which are virtual simulators

2 hence life itself may just be a simulation

3 hence time travel is a reality

Point 2 rests on point 1 being correct. But I don't see the logic behind point 3 being related to either ( you give no reasoning)

Re point 1. You state "our perception is just a geometric illusion" ( your hypothesis), so you would need some experiment(s) to test this.

It seems to me that we, the matter that makes us up exists, and our senses react to the inputs form the world around us. So what we perceive in our minds is what occurs in our minds. I see no reason to call this an illusion, any more than I would call the image that forms on a piece of film inside a camera an illusion. Imo, I have no reason to suspect it is not what it seems to be, and no proof that it is not what is seems to be.

I think it may be very illogical to speculate something, then assume our speculation is correct unless disproven. Especially if we then make no effort to check or disprove our own 'guess'. We may do this , but it is certainly not "scientific" i.e. as per the scientific method.

Our brains seem to perceive things, and we can certainly run simulations, but this only proves matter exists in our minds and can be running simulations.

If we take virtual to mean "the quality of having the attributes of something without sharing its physical form"

Then fine, we can run a virtual flight sim in a pc. This means a pc can exist and its components and electrons are modelling the mathematics of flight - but it does not mean that the pc , or its components do not exist,(they just have a different physical form to an aeroplane ) or that aeroplanes do not exist.

So I disagree re -"our perception is just a geometric illusion"

Our perception may be a geometric re-presentation of what our senses are reacting to , but I see no "illusion", and no reason to suspect there is not also a real world around us that we are perceiving.

(to scientifically suggest otherwise you need an experiment to prove your assumption).

Thus point 2 - "hence life itself MAY just be a simulation"

The word MAY here is critical, you need a reason to suspect life is a simulation, and to explain what you mean by that. And you need to be able to justify why you suspect every single piece of wholly reliable and consistent information that you constantly are receiving from the world around you.

In simple terms (imo) you need a reason, and proof that the universe is NOT just as it actually and reliably, testably, seems to be.

.....................so,

Re "think timelessness is the same as eternity "

"eternity" is defined as "Infinite or unending TIME" (OED)

And TIME is defined as "The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future"

For the definition of TIME to be valid, one needs scientific proof that the terms "the past", and "the future" do not just relate to ideas in our minds, but are also genuine and existing phenomena.

But in all of science, and throughout my extensive research for "A Brief History of Timelessness"

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/bib

I find no scientific experiments actually exist to prove these "phenomena", only a large number of scientists claiming that special relativity proves time ( which imo does not seem to be the case, "electrodynamics seems to "assume" but in no way prove the existence of a thing called time).

Therefore, with respect, Re "think timelessness is the same as eternity "

You would need scientific proof that "the past" and "the future" are valid terms , and proof that a thing called time must exist, and pass 'endlessly', for matter to be able to exist and move, for the term "eternity" to be valid.

By "timelessness" - I mean ...

"perhaps the universe is, just , and only , as it is directly observed to be - i.e. just filled with matter moving and interacting in all directions ( not "heading into a future", nor "leaving a past behind it")

And

- perhaps in this way, if we over interpret the contents of our minds - we may be being mislead into thinking there is "a past" and/or " a future", and thus mislead into assuming a thing called time exists, or is needed.

so the definitions alone of timelessness and eternity are fundamentally different,

my term ...

"timelessly" relying only on that which is actually observed - and nothing more, yet still incorporating the essence of relativity.

and

"eternity" relying on that which is observed, and the unchecked hypothesis that there is also an unseen and untestable past, unseen future and unseen thing called time.

So, I hope you don't mind be being so logical, but for these reasons I think the concept of "eternity" is invalid, and is not the same as what I mean by "timeless".

Yours

Matthew marsden

(auth "A Brief History of Timelessness" > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I09XHMQ )

Hi Michael,(Sorry again,ignore other posts,FQXI doesn't let u edit or delete :(

Thank you for your vote and comment, ill check out your video.

Re your comments, I produced "A Brief History of Timelessness" as a result of (Imo) being ruthlessly logical analytical and scientific -

I think I may have been more scientific than many of the scientific authors I have researched, because many of them seem to have adopted, and unscientifically, constantly used terms such as "the " past, and "the" future, and taken them as probably having valid meaning, without actually citing scientific proof of this.

...........So, re your comment...

hi matt i think timelessness is the same as eternity and thats what the universe is.our perception is just a geometric illusion conjured by our brains which are virtual simulators,hence life itself may just be a simulation,hence time travel is a reality.

Imo, if we let a single unchecked term or idea into our reasoning, then there is a strong chance that much of our subsequent thinking may be seriously flawed ( i.e. probably wrong).

e.g. Let me show you how applying logic to your ideas may show you where some of your conclusions may be unsound. You suggest a number of things, if you don't mind, and I'm not being rude, just honest, but here's what I mean by apply science rigorously.

Specifically re the scientific method, in simple terms we come up with an idea, or hypothesis, test it by doing experiments, let others duplicate and check those experiments, check if those results support our initial hypothesis, and drop or modify the hypothesis according to what actually seems to be observed and confirmed.

So you suggest...

1 our perception is just a geometric illusion conjured by our brains which are virtual simulators

2 hence life itself may just be a simulation

3 hence time travel is a reality

Point 2 rests on point 1 being correct. But I don't see the logic behind point 3 being related to either ( you give no reasoning)

Re point 1. You state "our perception is just a geometric illusion" ( your hypothesis), so you would need some experiment(s) to test this.

It seems to me that we, the matter that makes us up exists, and our senses react to the inputs form the world around us. So what we perceive in our minds is what occurs in our minds. I see no reason to call this an illusion, any more than I would call the image that forms on a piece of film inside a camera an illusion. Imo, I have no reason to suspect it is not what it seems to be, and no proof that it is not what is seems to be.

I think it may be very illogical to speculate something, then assume our speculation is correct unless disproven. Especially if we then make no effort to check or disprove our own 'guess'. We may do this , but it is certainly not "scientific" i.e. as per the scientific method.

Our brains seem to perceive things, and we can certainly run simulations, but this only proves matter exists in our minds and can be running simulations.

If we take virtual to mean "the quality of having the attributes of something without sharing its physical form"

Then fine, we can run a virtual flight sim in a pc. This means a pc can exist and its components and electrons are modelling the mathematics of flight - but it does not mean that the pc , or its components do not exist,(they just have a different physical form to an aeroplane ) or that aeroplanes do not exist.

So I disagree re -"our perception is just a geometric illusion"

Our perception may be a geometric re-presentation of what our senses are reacting to , but I see no "illusion", and no reason to suspect there is not also a real world around us that we are perceiving.

(to scientifically suggest otherwise you need an experiment to prove your assumption).

Thus point 2 - "hence life itself MAY just be a simulation"

The word MAY here is critical, you need a reason to suspect life is a simulation, and to explain what you mean by that. And you need to be able to justify why you suspect every single piece of wholly reliable and consistent information that you constantly are receiving from the world around you.

In simple terms (imo) you need a reason, and proof that the universe is NOT just as it actually and reliably, testably, seems to be.

.....................so,

Re "think timelessness is the same as eternity "

"eternity" is defined as "Infinite or unending TIME" (OED)

And TIME is defined as "The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future"

For the definition of TIME to be valid, one needs scientific proof that the terms "the past", and "the future" do not just relate to ideas in our minds, but are also genuine and existing phenomena.

But in all of science, and throughout my extensive research for "A Brief History of Timelessness"

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/bib

I find no scientific experiments actually exist to prove these "phenomena", only a large number of scientists claiming that special relativity proves time ( which imo does not seem to be the case, "electrodynamics seems to "assume" but in no way prove the existence of a thing called time).

Therefore, with respect, Re "think timelessness is the same as eternity "

You would need scientific proof that "the past" and "the future" are valid terms , and proof that a thing called time must exist, and pass 'endlessly', for matter to be able to exist and move, for the term "eternity" to be valid.

By "timelessness" - I mean ...

"perhaps the universe is, just , and only , as it is directly observed to be - i.e. just filled with matter moving and interacting in all directions ( not "heading into a future", nor "leaving a past behind it")

And

- perhaps in this way, if we over interpret the contents of our minds - we may be being mislead into thinking there is "a past" and/or " a future", and thus mislead into assuming a thing called time exists, or is needed.

so the definitions alone of timelessness and eternity are fundamentally different,

my term ...

"timelessly" relying only on that which is actually observed

and

"eternity" relying on that which is observed, and the unchecked hypothesis that there is also an unseen and untestable past, unseen future and unseen thing called time.

So, I hope you don't mind be being so logical, but for these reasons I think the concept of "eternity" is invalid, and is not the same as what I mean by "timeless".

Yours

Matthew marsden

(auth "A Brief History of Timelessness" > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I09XHMQ )