I should have been more precise-

I wrote "The Grandfather paradox and the whole idea of the past remaining in the space-time continuum, and for that matter a preordained future already within the space time continuum is utterly abhorrent and needs to be shown as the falsehood that it is." Perhaps I should have written 'past [concrete event itself]..and preordained [concrete future] already ......'

Data within the light remains after the event from which Image reality manifestations (observed/experienced reality) can be formed. Even so, actualised concrete objects can not be constructed from received light. They are a different category of reality. So past events themselves ie the configurations of concrete elements of Object reality are not within the hypothetical space-time continuum or the pool of electromagnetic potential sensory data. And can not be visited by time travel. The arrangements of matter and particles that were the source event may go onto form other relationships in the uni-temporal Object universe.

I have just read today about a scientist who has spent his life since age 11 trying to build a time machine to warn his dad of a heart attack. He is using lazer rings to try and create disturbances in the space-time continuum , even obtaining large sums of money to pursue a feasibly study of his goals.Scientist building a time machine Unfortunately this kind of research is misguided, due to the inbuilt category error, that I point out, not having been identified.

It also doesn't alter time ( it seems from the article that the scientist's hypothesis is that it is space-time 'Out there' and so disturbing space is also disturbing time).I disagree. It is uni-temporal space within which there is potential sensory data giving space-time output when processed. Evidence for that being that that allows the barn pole type and Andromeda paradoxes to be fully intuitive and Grandfather paradox to be negated without contrived prohibition rules or many worlds world line jumping.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments Georgina..

Also thanks for the comment sending me here. I'm needing sleep now, but I will consider your explanations when there is ample time.

All the best,

Jonathan

7 days later

Georgina,

I agree your characterisation. My locally real 'discrete field' model identifies and analyses an important distinction between 'causal' and 'deterministic', which are confused in current interpretations so leading to much of the nonsense. Your work is highly compatible.

I've found resolving the conundrums of nature is the easy part. Waiting for the biological entities needed to absorb and decode it to evolve and use a more logic based intellect requires great patience so seems rather harder.

Over to you! I'll just wait till 2020 and try again.

You seemed to be dropping so I've just applied your score. Best of luck

Peter

Dear Georgina,

I appreciate the environment of your essay;most especially your ability to accommodate both those whose theoretical perspectives were empirically applicable or averse.It falls into the category of writings that "add" rather than substract from the existing retinue of knowledge.

Your acknowledgement of the existence of co-operative relations between some aspects of nature and their mathematical description coupled with your bid to resolve the problem of persistent errors in the rapport between Maths and Physics deserves applause.

I also admire your consistency and finese in the presentation of the subject matter.I also appreciate the intellectual contributions you have been making to other essays in this contest.

Grateful,please extend same gesture to mine.

Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.

15 days later

I am grateful to those people who took the time to read my essay and comment.

Its a pity no one wanted to ask about or pick out where the explanations could have been clearer. The key for understanding the alphabetic 'equations' is on the first, new diagram. I was short of space and characters my own counter much stricter than FQXi's. It would have helped if it was given prior to using that precise shorthand code.

One good question would have been why is the live cat observable Absolute and not limited fixed state. Having thought about this I was mistaken in equating the live cat object with the observable itself. The observable is that part of the live cat from which sensory data is emitted and from which the observed manifestation will be formed. It is not the whole of the cat and is only that part from which data is received by the observer on first opening the box. Making it limited and fixed at observation- the state of the cat surface corresponding to the sensory data emitted does not change. Likewise upon reflection I would rather denote the dead cat observable, that part of the dead cat seen only, as a limited fixed state produced upon observation, rather than as the Absolute dead cat object.

This also raises the issue that this is a scenario evolving over time and so it would have been useful to mark the different times as T1 through to T5 going from initial content to output, emergent reality produced by the observer's processing of received sensory data.As I do on the attached document.

The purpose of the analysis was to show that the analogy is inadequate as a representation of superposition of states.Which I think it still does without the improvements.Attachment #1: Cat_in_the_box_revisited_with_times.pdf

    Also of relevance is the following:

    Wave function collapse is switching from a theoretical superposition of isolated observables (outcomes), not yet formed, as a Definite Fixed State observable is produced upon observation; to a definite limited fixed state manifestation in space-time, emergent, reality. What exists in Object reality, prior to measurement, are proto- observables conjoined with the carrier.

    The (Definite Fixed State) observables do not exist in space-time prior to the observation. Space-time is the output of sensory data processing that one fixed viewpoint formed from the sensory data received. The proto-observables conjoined with material-wave carrier exist in absolute Object reality space (no singular reference frame)for which there is uni-temporal (same time everywhere) passage of time.It is interaction with the apparatus and or measurement protocol that forms an observable from a proto-observable.

    For the unseen spinning falling coin example the proto-heads observable can have many different orientations in absolute space that are within in the repertoire allowed by the flux. Absolute (source reality for all reference frames), Not definite as no reference frame and no measurement yet applied and not fixed as in flux but the output observable produced by the measurement protocol has only one orientation in space-time, heads up seen by the observer. The definite limited fixed state has been produced by the measurement protocol it is not representative of the absolute actualized (substantial) proto-observable- matter-flux carrier ensemble pre-measurement. The superposition of outcomes in a 2D mathematical space is an impoverished model compared to the variation of the proto-observable during the material-flux(or wave) carrier interaction.

    The hidden variables that make the outcomes deterministic rather than merely probabilistic are substantial and unseen in absolute space. The foundational space that is the source reality for (definite, limited view) space-time emergent reality. The outcomes of the many experiments remain probabilistic despite the deterministic flux of the proto-observables because 'starting state' of a particle or other unseen object is never known. Thus representing variability of states, rather than uniformity within the population.

    In the case of the unseen spinning, falling coin the possible outcome states are conjoined with the substantial matter of the coin and its flux as it falls and spins. The Object reality of the coin is thus providing real, substantial, carrier wave of the proto-observables. That upon interaction with the measurement protocol gives just one definite observable because the material-flux carrier relationship is destroyed. The coin is halted (carrier wave ceases to exist)and the material coin is fixed in a limited state (only one surface potentially visible. On observation an observer reference frame is imposed switching from the abstract theoretical observables superposition to the Image reality Definite Limited Fixed State output of sensory data processing,

    In the case of the electron in the double slit experiment:It can be supposed that there is also a substantial carrier wave interaction prior to outcome observation. Prior to observation the electron is influenced by the waves produced from the vibration of the atoms of the apparatus [combined also with the effect of its own motion]in unseen Object reality. The interaction of the carrier waves with each other producing the interference pattern and the electron's final position on a screen being affected by the environment produced by the carrier waves. This model of the double slit experiment put forward in my FQXi essay What Is Reality In the Context of Physics? by Georgina Parry (created by Georgina Woodward • Feb. 7, 2011 @ 15:58 GMT)

    These models of substantial carriers as the influential environment in which proto-observables actually exist are the realistic counterpart to disembodied observable superposition in a mathematical space. The models give the environment that makes wave-function collapse intuitive and overcomes any requirement for many worlds explanations as why this outcome and not the other is fully explained by the absolute environment in which the observable was formed. The observables in superposition model is useful but unrealistic as the outcomes do not exist until measurement they are not free but constrained by their carrier. Probabilistic outcomes from that deterministic picture are due to not having/knowing a starting state for a particular reference frame of any individual proto-observables-carrier ensemble.So the outcome that will be obtained can not be calculated with certainty.

    See [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2501#post_116203] for further discussion

    Re.the Andromeda paradox. This explanation applies to a universe in which there is a foundational uni-temporal, absolute space Object reality (This is like Present-ism but preceding the observed present which is the output of sensory data processing and thus delayed relative to uni-temporal Now Object reality:and there is an an emergent space time reality that co-exists within Object reality as another distinct facet of reality.

    The Object reality or source reality, and Image reality experienced present manifestation are not synchronized. When an event is observed via its manifestations is variable, but when an event happens in the source Object reality is definite, and uni-temporal as that event having happened in Object reality is true for all locations.

    The observer walking towards Andromeda would receive the potential sensory data sooner than an Earth bound observer. So even though no invasion data is yet received as Andromeda is too far away it can be said that for the walking observer the potential sensory data emitted from the invasion events on Andromeda are nearer to him than the Earth bound observer. This does not however mean the source event occurred sooner. The source event occurs only once and the time of that occurrence (iteration of the Object universe within the imaginary past sequence of iterations is unique and unchangeable).

    Category and Reconciliation Errors

    Key

    A.. Actualized, a substantial element of reality.

    Ab.. absolute, no singular reference frame applied.

    Category error.. failure to correctly identify or discriminate between different kinds of element of reality belonging to the different facets of reality.

    Definite.. certain and un-altering

    EOIR.. element of Image reality.

    EOOR.. element of Object reality, not same as objective reality.

    Image reality.. emergent output reality from sensory data /measurement processing, Individual observer specific or objective via shared output or shared sensory data input.

    L.. Limited (partial sample)

    FS ...Fixed state.. a selection giving one un-altering state

    MS.. Mixed state..a selection containing more than one state

    Manifestation .. Output of sensory data processing

    O Observable

    Object reality.. foundational, source reality of substantial objects and particles and potential sensory data.

    Objective reality.. Multi-observer corroborated Image reality

    PSD.. Potential sensory data

    R..related to

    Reality interface..Interface between object reality and image reality where input sensory data is converted to output manifestations.

    The Prime reality Interface is the human sensory system inc. CNS. That converts input sensory data from Object reality into experienced present manifestation.

    S.. source, a substantial EOOR that is source of the potential sensory data under consideration.

    Subjective reality...Personal experience of Image reality

    Pre-written future.. PSD within the environment that may be received by an observer and be processed into experienced present.

    Un-written future..Imaginary future that has no substantial existence.

    Uni-temporal.. singular universal time of Object reality. Passage of time being the change in configuration of the Object universe, only the youngest arrangement having substantial existence. The sequence of arrangements is imaginary (it has no substantial reality).

    Here I have used O for observable rather than theta used in the essay and diagram. I thought O might be confused with Object, which is S for source, but thinking about it some mire theta might be even more confusing as it already has a number of other uses in mathematics and various branches of science.

    16 days later

    Interestingly the explanatory framework with two different facets of reality implies a wave matter duality underlying that. The matter component is the objects made of atoms, where as the wave component is the sensory data produced through interaction of the object with the surrounding environment.

    For a man that is his substantial body made of atoms AND the potential sensory data emitted from his body and clothing spreading out in space around him. That can be intercepted by an observer at one of a variety of positions or by several different observers at different positions around him and be formed into a manifestation or manifestations of the man. Each manifestation giving a representation of an aspect of the topology of the man as it is made from the subset of data received by that observer at that position and time.

    Both the man made of atoms and the wave sensory data are real phenomena and in everyday conversation both the Object man made of atoms, forming blood flesh bones and organs and the image manifestation of the man that is seen would be referred to as 'the man' or more likely the man's name as he is a person. There isn't in general parlance differentiation between the two phenomena, the two aspects of the wave matter duality.

    For a single particle such as an electron it is likely the interaction of the effect of the particles own motion with the effect of the vibration of the atoms of the apparatus that gives the waves able to interfere and thence influence the final destination of the particle. Once again interaction of the matter with the surrounding environment.

    The given framework has a place for atoms unlike the space-time continuum which only includes the observed product of intercepted em waves, thus missing one complete facet of reality.

      I realize I misrepresented the space time continuum idea in that last post. It arose from Einstein's work on special relativity which is concerned with the recipient of EM sensory data and the reality output from that, manifestations. That is consistent with the explanatory framework I am setting out as it is regarding Image reality.

      By 1907 Minkowski realized that the special theory of relativity, introduced by his former student Albert Einstein in 1905 and based on the previous work of Lorentz and Poincaré, could best be understood in a four-dimensional space, since known as the "Minkowski spacetime", in which time and space are not separated entities but intermingled in a four dimensional space-time, and in which the Lorentz geometry of special relativity can be effectively represented. Wikipedia, Hermann Minkowski (Best understood was Minkowski's opinion)

      Einstein disliked what his former tutor had done but later found the geometrical approach helpful in developing GR

      As I see it different observer reference frames give different manifestations because they are receiving different sensory data, related to different source times, at the same and only time. Not because they are slicing perpetual space-time filled with substantial objects like braided 'spaghetti' differently.( Braided spaghetti description from Gravity Probe B testing Einstein's universe.Standford.edu)

      "Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence." 1952, Relativity, Einstein. Which is him accepting the wrong model -because to avoid the paradoxes of the space-time model but retain Einstein's ground breaking realization of non simultaneity of events requires 3 dimensional evolution within which potential sensory data persists -from which manifestations of former events can be formed. Braided spaghetti threading through time is only imaginary as there is only one configuration of the universe, the youngest and so there is only one absolute time everywhere, though different apparent times.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #41

      Nowadays we are not limited to drawing flat diagrams on paper but have the advantage of being able to represent matters as CGI. Computer generated representation of 3 dimensional space that can be orientated by the viewer can be used to represent changing configurations of Object realty.

      Light sensory data can be depicted spreading out from the substantial Source objects. Different colours can be used to represent the iteration in which each set of sensory data had its origin IE the "time" represented by the data.

      A suitable interval between colour changes can be selected to give the best, clearest representation although it should for accuracy probably be the limit of human discrimination between individual images that can be slowed down for the purpose of gleaning what is occurring within the representation. The data received for each observer line of sight (the angle of his visual field as he is not receiving data from all 360 degrees around him ) can be shown by what colour data from which sources intersects his location within the visual field.

      The colour used to depict the observer will always be the colour of the youngest iteration which is uni-temporal -Now but the data he is receiving, that changes with his position and orientation in space, is of different colours.

      The historical view, what the observer has been seeing can be reviewed by looking back over his different coloured existences, as individual uni.-Now times. Or it can be reviewed as a movie showing evolution of the sensory data distributions and from that the evolution of the observers experienced present.It would be interesting to not only replay his experienced present but to also select to show, superimposed, the coexisting Object reality by showing the location of all objects (without showing their sensory data output, that have the same uni-temporal-Now colour as the observer.

      Two different observers can be put into the space simulation and their data selection and hence experienced presents compared. The temporal spread within each experienced present will be clear from, the different colours of data received and the non simultaneity of evets between two different observers will be clear from the differences in the colours of their respective received data.

      I think that is quite clearly explained but I am happy to answer questions on it. I could try to create that simulation but it will take me a long time as I am new to 3D modeling. Perhaps putting together a professional CGI presentation for public presentation and educational purposes is something FQXi might consider worthy of a grant.

      I'd just like to add that with this CGI representation it will also be easy to show that moving towards a source Object coincides with receiving younger potential sensory data giving a more recent (advanced ) present output; whereas moving away from a source object older sensory data is received giving an older(retarded) present output.Both outputs showing different apparent presents co-existing within the youngest, only existing configuration of the Object universe, uni-temporal -Now.

      This is an important step taking the explanatory framework from a philosophical basis to a mathematically demonstrable model. Showing the emergence of experienced space-time from the configurations of uni-temporal space. It will also be possible to extract Mathematical descriptions of what is occurring from the CGI model putting it on par with other mathematical frameworks.

      13 days later

      I' m posting these relevant posts about time here with my essay so they do not become lost in the mass of discussion pages. I think they are further indications of the utility of the explanatory framework and of the problem with accepting mathematical theory at 'face value'. This understanding of time overcomes Grandfather, barn pole, Andromeda, and Man riding light beam paradoxes.

      The first reply comes after a discussion of a man riding a light beam.

      Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 01:01 GMT

      Akinbo, All

      Akinbo you make a good point regarding the existence of a photon when "time stops". I will address that issue.

      The problem here is lack of differentiation of different kinds of time.

      There needs to be at least 4 kinds acknowledged and differentiated in physics, though there are more kinds of time if we include different representations of time such as time that only exists mathematically, internal biologically time, as kept by circadian rhythms adjusted by light exposure times: important for biological organisms, and "Father time" that only exists symbolically and mentally.

      The kinds of time important for physics are:

      1. time in foundational Object reality, that is passage of time synonymous with the sequential change in configuration of the Object universe. OR.configuration time. Any highly regular sequential change with unchanging accuracy of repetition can be use to represent this such as clock time but only very close to the position of a stationary observer, to avoid significant data transmission and processing delay and affects of motion upon the timekeeping of the clock. This can be likened to "Proper time".

      2. time information carried by potential sensory EM data primarily (but also other forms of sensory data ) in Object reality, OR. data time.

      3. The time as experienced by an organism or displayed by a processing device. Which is Image reality time. It may be helpful to split that time into outputs that retain the data receipt order and those that do not necessarily.

      That's a Basic IR. time and a subjective IR. time.

      Now as regards the "stopped" photon. That it is stopped is the relative perception of the observer travelling with it. Yes from that perspective the photon ceases to have a frequency or wavelength because the observer is travelling with the wave keeping pace with it. But the photons in the beam are not themselves changed. There is no Basic IR. or subjective IR.Passage of time that can be formed from the photons in that reference frame.So in that respect there is no time. However the photon beam is still carrying OR. data time that could give Basic or subjective IR. time output to observer's crossed by it's path not travelling with it. Also there is still the foundational OR. configuration time: Object universal passage of time in which these scenarios are happening, that is independent of relative perceptions and data transmission.

      That time is both stopped and not stopped is only paradoxical if no differentiation between kinds of time is made.

      Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 06:34 GMT

      I just need to add to my previous post that: OR.configuration time is not affected by gravitation or motion , unlike Einstein's proper time. OR.data time and subsequent Basic IR. time is affected due to the curving of the EM data paths within a gravitational field and the Doppler effect. If substantial atomic clocks themselves are running slow when in motion as shown by a permanent change in time shown compared to a relatively stationary clock it is necessary to separately categorize clock time, for moving clocks.

        Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 23:30 GMT

        Steve, All,

        Steve wrote" Sensation of time delays and other kinds of changes in objects are from where space and motion emerge." I agree with this with the proviso that this is emergent Image reality space and motion and not the external, foundational Object reality.

        Steve also wrote " The two dimensions of absolute and relative times ......" The object universe doesn't have a time dimension being only the youngest iteration of a sequence of configurations that can be imagined but do not have substantial existence. This structure is important for overcoming Grandfather like paradoxes. The time line along which the sequence of configurations can be imagined is imaginary though it can still be useful to illustrate during which iteration an event occurred. Potential sensory data spread within the Object reality environment provides the semblance of a time dimension as it encodes events that have occurred 'over time' within it. But it is just sensory data spread within Object reality space. The output IR. basic or subjective is a space time output because it contains manifestations formed from data taking different lengths of time (iterations of the Object universe ) to arrive together or very close together, the further away the object the further back in time the origin of the data forming the image, and in that sense it has a time dimension.

        .................................... shortened

        Replying to Steve's puzzlement regarding my avoidance of the term dimension, choosing to give a description instead.

        Georgina Woodward replied on May. 25, 2015 @ 04:41 GMT

        Steve, All,

        simple words are fine when they accurately describe what is being discussed. If the word doesn't fit an alternative description is required.

        If we consider block time; that 4D geometric object has a dimension which is the time dimension as well as its space dimensions. The Object universe however is not spread over time but is only the youngest configuration of objects and relations within it. So it does not have time as a dimension, and is unlike the block universe in that respect. However there is passage of time as the configuration is always changing - the Object universe's contents are in continual motion. But only the most recent arrangement has substantial existence. This is like Presentism but subtly different as it is about what actually exists rather than what is seen to exist -Now, the Object reality rather than the Image reality. A series of former configurations of the Object universe could be imagined along a time line but the sequence and the line do not actually exist unlike the block universe model. The time line is imaginary but the change in configuration of the universe is not. The time line can be useful for considering the historical sequence but there is no substantial past or future. This is important as it prevents Grandfather like paradoxes. Yet the distribution of potential sensory data within the Object universe allows relativity, non simultaneity of events for different observers and resolution of other paradoxes. The OR.(Object reality)data time (events encoded within the potential sensory data gives the different Basic and subjective IR.(Image reality )times.

        Steve wrote "However, you did seem to say that OR configuration time is not affected by velocity or gravity...which means to me that it is absolute...but now you say it does not really exist." Yes it is absolute not relative and uni-temporal meaning it is the same time everywhere. That one time is synonymous with the existing substantial configuration. It is the change in configuration that gives passage of time. That passage of time does not have an existence independent of the changing configuration of the universe and is not a dimension of the 3D configuration. So without paradox: OR. configuration time may be regarded as foundational absolute time and might also be considered not to exist as it is just a temporal description of the overall spatial changes in a substantial configuration.

        ..........................................shortened

        15 days later

        Re the cat in the box observable. I think it is OK as written as it is identified as an observable (that which will be observed and not the entire cat object). Though it could be made clearer. The scenarios for observable formation the two cats alive and dead are not the same. The dead cat observable can be said to form when the cat is dead and no longer moving. That part of the cat that will be seen when the box opens is determined at that time. However for the live cat the observable is only formed upon opening the box as it is the part of the live cat facing the observer at that time that is the observable. While still shut inside the box the cat can move and so the observable is not determined.So it would not be incorrect to say for the live cat that, as the observable is undetermined, it is in an absolute state as an alternative to saying it has not yet been formed. But the dead cat observable is a determined limited fixed state as soon as the cat ceases to move. (So long as the delay in opening the box is not too long.)So is probably best identified as such.

        Write a Reply...