Time for a Change - The Instantaneous, Present and the Existence of Time by Peter Lynds

Dear Cristi,

I can only assume that you've decided that the contents of my essay don't count for your 1 and 2 because of my use of the word continuity (despite it having nothing to do with my arguments).

In relation to perhaps providing a mathematical model, if you have read my essay or some of the comments above, you will already know that I don't think such a model exists, as using calculus itself to try to show why calculus has its limits when applied to the physical universe would be impossible. As such, I don't think that this can really be used as a criticism of the work.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Peter,

Thank you for answering.

Since from "continuous motion" you conclude the "nonexistence of time and positions", "continuity" has everything to do with your theory.

1. Can you write below a definition of continuity, even a "non-mathematical" one?

2. Can you then write how you infer from "continuous motion" the nonexistence of "instantaneous"?

Even if you wish to start your proof from another place than continuity, you will need to provide clear definitions of the terms, and then to express your arguments in a logical form, based on these terms.

Best wishes,

Cristi

Dear Cristi Stoica,

Because Peter did not reply yet, I will try and answer your questions. Hopefully someone will answer my question to Brian concerning Ritz if he needs too long for a reply.

1. Peirce followed Leibniz when he called a continuum something every part of which has parts.

2. Already Aristoteles (384-322) followed Anaxagoras (500-426) in that the continuum is endlessly divisible as later described by Peirce. Aristoteles was aware of the contradiction between rest and beginning motion at the starting point of motion.

Anaxagoras was just ten years elder than Zeno (490-430) who lived in Italy.

Zeno was strictly speaking correct when he said: "The true being evades reception by measurement."

Exhaustion by Eudoxos (408-355) is a method that just provides an approximation as good as you like.

Pythagoreans called irrational numbers alogos.

Best,

Eckard

Dear Dr.-Ing. Blumschein,

Thank you for the explanations. You provide interesting historical information. You refer to alternative definitions of continuity, much older than topology. Yet, I do not see how they apply to our problem.

You say: "Aristoteles was aware of the contradiction between rest and beginning motion at the starting point of motion."

This contradiction is solved by topology. Let's assume that the position x(t) is constant = c before t=0, then x increases continuously. x^{-1}(c) is a closed set: the instants of rest time form a closed set, and the instants for motion form an open one. At t=0, the position is still c. If we want to know whether at t=0 the object is moving, we need calculus: we can calculate the first derivative (which at t=0 is 0, when it is defined).

Some may be disturbed by the asymmetry between open sets and closed sets, but this is the key feature of topology. Anyway, the contradiction seems to be due to the definition of continuity employed by Aristoteles, but the topological definition of continuity solves it. Fortunately, we advanced a bit since the great Greek philosophers.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Cristi,

Don't EPR illustrate that the brutal "solution" by Dedekind and Cantor a is an ambitious mathematical twist but not really justified? The reason for me to deal with the matter was my question to mathematicians how to deal with the very nil when separating IR into IR and IR-? I got so many arbitrary suggestions as there are possibilities.

So I looked for and found myself solution that I consider free of arbitrariness:

Continuum and discrete points are two mutually excluding and complementing worlds inside a broader understood mathematics. Something that is fully continuous cannot at the same time be fully discrete. Accordingly it is impossible to have a complete list of all numbers which would correspond to all points of any piece of a line. Sets of points merely approximate continua because infinity is no quantum but the property to have no end at all.

I do not deny that the fictitious entity of all numbers with a also fictitious infinite resolution can be thought to constitute a continuum. I prefer to avoid the notion real numbers because the property to not allow a full numerical representation demands that "embedded" rational numbers have to have lost their numerical approachability. On could say it somewhat smugly: (Un)real numbers must be solutions to a not immediately resolvable, with numbers of finite accuracy, problem.

Mathematicians will immediately object: Every number is absolutely accurate. I disagree: The difference between two non-(un)real numbers must be tangible. Any given number including zero is not tangible if considered as a unreal number. Therefore stupid people could call zero non-existent at all. Anyway, it makes no sense to deal with a singular zero between IR and IR-, and for (un)real numbers there is no reason to distinguish between open and closed intervals.

I even consider it reasonable to make no exception for x=0 in |sign(x)|=1 except for rational numbers.

Topology pretends to deal with uncountable numbers too. Actually it merely deals with the countable rationals. I see the definition of reals a self-deceptive maneuver. While in numerical practice, there is anyway no room for (un)reals, I consider the subtle distinction a must for correct physical interpretation. Additionally I found cases where mathematics itself, in particular integral tables, suffers from intentional subordination of continuum under the realm of numbers.

Is the fundamental crisis of mathematics really settled?

I refer to Weyl and argue: Confusion in physics has proven the putative solution not fertile but futile.

Do not belittle the ancient mathematicians as philosophers. Do not belittle Galilei who reasoned: For infinite quantities, >, = , and < are not valid. Do not tell me the gospel of set theory. Meanwhile I delved into this shallow water.

I apologize for hurting feelings.

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Dr.-Ing. Blumschein,

Your posts are interesting and obviously they reflect long years of thinking at the very foundations of Mathematics, perhaps with the purpose of attacking them. I welcome the periodical shaking of the fundamentals. Although I disagree with your arguments, I have reserves of engaging myself in this "battle", because I think that your points represent rather a philosophical preference, and I see neither reason, nor possibility, to contradict someone's personal preference. Although I don't share your viewpoint, I can read your ideas and find them interesting.

This discussion started when you offered to answer my questions instead of Peter. Maybe I don't understand your point. Do you want instead to prove something about the validity of Math? What kind of reaction do you expect from me? Please do not consider the answers obvious, for me they are not.

To paraphrase you:

Do not belittle Galilei who reasoned: "The great book of nature is written in mathematical symbols.".

Best wishes,

Cristi

Dear Cristi,

Thank you for your readiness to respect my suggestions. I consider myself a bit slowly in revealing and understanding some notorious flaws of signal processing by means of complex calculus based on time between minus infinity and plus infinity. I am arguing that spectral analysis of recorded data does not need future time. Is this a philosophical preference or just a successful attempt to get rid of arbitrary redundancy?

Of course I got angry when my flawless alternative approach was rejected for "mathematical reasons". I found some of my arguments against naive set theory already uttered in literature, others arose from own reasoning. My final conviction that modern mathematics needs fundamental correction is the result of a rather comprehensive study of original work. This was easy to me because I am a German, I have a lot experience in revealing misconceptions in religious or political agitation as well as in scientific papers. The ignored mathematical symbol is ||. What I found were understandable intentions, naive ideas, flawed evidence, and the brutally enforced attempt to substitute lacking basics by arbitrarily chosen axioms. I reiterate: Dedekind still admitted to have no basic evidence. Cantor misinterpreted his DA2. Fraenkel confessed that Cantor's definition of a set is untenable and cannot be corrected.

Hilbert called his axiomatic method something that allows to maintain the formerly naive belief in certain relationships.

After more than one hundred years, we also may judge the result: While aleph_0 and aleph_1 roughly correspond to the reasonable notions infinite and uncountable, already aleph_2 is obviously futile. The whole tempest with CH and AC was in vain. Even Ebbinghaus let Lessing denote Cantor's theory an obvious error. Fraenkel warned of a possible breakdown of mathematics into a huge heap or rubble without set theory.

Actually, mathematics does not need what is claimed to be its fundamentals.

I do not expect those who have to fear loosing their job to swim against the "piper" Hilbert and his space. However, a back to understandable basics might resolve some notorious enigma of physics. Again: Why did v. Neumann no longer believe in Hilbert space?

You asked for a definition of continuity. The good old genuine one is definitely the original and basic one. Hausdorff dealt with the surroundings of points. There is no distance between the fictitious points of a genuine continuum. Example 0.999... = 1.000... = (1.000... - 0.999...). In this sense, Peter is correct: There is no separable incident exactly at 1.000... . For those who are thinking in terms of probability: The likelihood for x exactly equating 1.000... is zero.

Best wishes,

Eckard

Dear Dr.-Ing Blumschein,

You say: “I am arguing that spectral analysis of recorded data does not need future time. Is this a philosophical preference or just a successful attempt to get rid of arbitrary redundancy?”

I never said something about this subject.

“Again: Why did v. Neumann no longer believe in Hilbert space?”

My guess is that von Neumann did not question the Hilbert space as a mathematical structure, but the way it is used in Quantum Mechanics. I propose a smooth approach to QM, and I advocate the use of a rigged Hilbert space, maybe for similar reasons.

“Do not tell me the gospel of set theory.”

Is this what I am doing? These three points make me believe that you are not talking with me, but with a projection. I have the feeling that you expect me to play the role of the establishment in your fight against the very foundations of Mathematics. Why do you think I deserve this honor?

---

To make our discussion easier to follow by myself, I propose a sequential approach. The first step would be to ask you kindly to write below your final answer to the question that started our discussion: “2. Can you then how you infer from continuous motion the nonexistence of instantaneous?”, if you have it. Assuming that you succeed in demolishing the basics of Mathematics, this will not prove Peter’s viewpoint.

After we resolve the first step in one way or another, if you want to discuss a specific problem of Math’s foundations, you can address it. If I can answer, I will be willing to provide my viewpoint. Shaking the foundations can lead to interesting discoveries. But my request is to advance in a step by step manner. Otherwise, I will not be able to follow you.

Warm regards,

Cristi

Dear Cristi Stioca,

Yes, I do not feel bound to what the mainstream considers the very foundations of mathematics if there are serious reasons to doubt in their correctness. You are perhaps correct in that v. Neumann did not doubt in HS as a mathematical structure but in the HS as appropriate basis for physics. What about RHS, I just looked into http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000814/00/QSA2001.pdf

and did not get the impression that it will resolve the problem. Already choices of riggings are problem dependent. If I am correct, then reality does not overlap with future, and an unlimited positive elapsed time would be sufficient in principle for a single unrelated function of time.

Now to your question 2: "Can you infer from continuous motion the non-existence of instantaneous?"

I have to clarify that I prefer the notion of a continuum as something every part of which has parts. Accordingly, a continuous motion is not a stepwise one but a smoothly gliding one.

Aristoteles argued that rest and simultaneously beginning motion at the same first instant contradict to each other.

The notion existence might be inappropriate because there is no trichotomy with continuous gliding. In principle, it is impossible to take a snapshot without non-vanishing duration. When I made records of physical quantities I was happy with sample width as small as a few picoseconds. I do not consider band-limitation a technical problem but a question of appropriate mathematics. Do we really need each single natural number? There are certainly huge natural numbers that are extremely unlikely to be used ever. Likewise, virtually nobody needs rational numbers with huge denominator. So they exist as a mathematical potentiality without any physical relevance. If we try and formalize the very moment, it gets as nonsensical as Buridan's donkey, Schroedinger's cat, Wigner's friend, and G. Cantor's transfinite numbers.

Uncertainty affects for instance the pairs elapsed time/frequency and position/momentum. The products of these quantities is equal to one or to a constant, respectively.

If time goes to zero, frequency goes to infinity and vice versa. Frequency and momentum have to be expressed as quanta, i.e. as natural numbers. This is obvious for instance for transversal em waves. Transversal waves of too large wavelength do not fit in a waveguide. A time-frequency representation becomes questionable for short time-spans that correspond to split frequencies, cf.

http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein.M284.html and M285

I do not intend shaking genuine fundamentals. However, I picked up hints which indicate that some putative fundamentals might be elusive.

Best regards,

Eckard

Hello Peter,

Hope all is well down under in Australia!

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -Galileo Galilei

I think it's cool how MDT solves all the philosophical problems you perceive (misperceive in some cases) with a simple *physical* model, postulate, and equation: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, or dx4/dt=ic.

I think you will agree that *physical* theory ought contain *physical* models representing *physical* reality which leads to naturally-emergent *physical* phenomena that we can *physically* observe and measure. I think you will also agree that the purpose of physics has ever been to provide novel physical theories representing previously unheralded phsyical aspects of our universe, captured in simple, immutable postulates and equations, which oft unify disparate physical phenomena in a common, underlying, deeper *physical* model. MDT does all this with dx4/dt=ic.

MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY: EXALTING EINSTEIN'S ELEMENTARY FOUNDATIONS OF RELATIVITY & SCHRODENGER'S CHARACTERISTIC TRAIT OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

by Dr. Elliot McGucken

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

"A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as probability. -Einstein in a letter to Arnold Sommerfield on January 14th, 1908. CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 73:"

"When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled." -Schrödinger

Moving Dimensions Theory's simple postulate, physical model, and equation account for both "relativity's elementary foundations," which Einstein stated we yet needed, and Schrödinger's "characteristic trait" of quantum mechanics--entanglement. Both relativity (it's two postulates and Minkowski/Einstein spacetime metric) and quantum entanglement/nonlocality naturally emerge from MDT's simple postualte and equation, which weaves change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity.

Peter--you write, "In relation to space-time having no physical existence, this is far from a revelation. Einstein himself held this view, and often appears to have been careful to make a note of it."

This is completely untrue. Never, never did Einstein state that space-time has no *physical* existence. His formulation of relativity is based on the very opposite of this. Have you ever read his papers or The Meaning of Relativity?

Indeed--Einstein's entire framework of relativity was built upon the fact that dimensions are *physically* real and that they have a *physical* reality, and that they could *physically* bend, warp, and *move*. It was this bold insight that now helps power our invaluable GPS systems. Whenever you fly on an airplane, you are *physically* leveraging and making use of the *physical* reality Einstein pursued and exalted. You are acknowledging the physical reality of space, time, and dimensions, whether you admit to it in your philosophy or not.

"Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit."

"Called or not called , GOD will be present." - Inscription on Gravestone of Professor Dr. Carl G. Jung

"There is more in this heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy." --Hamlet

"CHAPTER XXXII: THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of matter as being something that is known." --Einstein's Meaning of Relativity

Space has geometrical properties. And it has a *physical* reality which can bend starlight, attract apples to the earth, hold satellites in orbit, and inform their GPS systems. Space and time are as real as starlight, apples, and satellites. Now I know that one can get a Ph.D. in philosophy by saying that nothing is real but for tenure, ST/LQG, sabbaticals, and summers off in summer homes, but this is physics--the physics which assumes the physical realtiy that your computer and internet connection depend on.

In a section reverently titled "No Time, No Space," in your essay, you write, "The realization that there was no such thing as an instant in time, and that an object in relative motion did not have a determined relative position, had some further implications. Perhaps the most obvious one related to the nature of time itself. If there is was no such thing as an instant in time, I also realized that there could be no "flow" or passage of time, for without a continuous progression through indivisible instants over an extended duration, there could be no physical progression or flow."

I do not grasp this logic on several levels. De Broglie showed that all electrons and matter have wave-like properties, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle showed that due to the wave-like nature, it was impossible to measure the absolute postition at an absolute time with absolute precision. But how does this imply in any way the impossibility of the flow of time?

You write, "for without a continuous progression through indivisible instants over an extended duration, there could be no physical progression or flow." Why not? Moving Dimensions Theory postulates that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, weaving wave-like behavior and motion into spacetime itself, as shown in the attached paper.

You write, "In other words, there was nothing there, no temporal stepping-stone, for which time could possibly use to progress. Kind of similar to how an invisible ether was once assumed to permeate throughout the entire universe, Newton's invisible river of time, assumed by many to enable motion and change as it proceeded, could not exist either. It had no water. Although we certainly feel as though we are swimming along with it, we are actually high and dry. Further, the same could be said for the existence of space, due to the lack of spatial points." The sweeping analogies and extrapolations here lose me.

Indeed, we need a new model of spacetime which accomodates change and the *physical* reality we perceive, and MDT provides the new *physical* reality, accounting for space, time, and motion--providing a *physical* foundation for all of relativity, quantum entanglement, entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries.

Too, too many physicits and philosophers would prefer to simply receive tenure and titles by throwing out time and space--by disposing of physics--in our fallen, postmodern world whence we have abandoned the heroic quest of undertsanding *physical* reality; as well as the gold standard and god standard; leading to our current financial crises. Thus, it is easier for them to dismiss Einstein's, Bohr's, and Feynman's spirits, along with Einstein's relativity amd Schrodenger's characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, than it is to unite them all in Moving Dimensions Theory. Now many have used the fact that Moving Dimensions Theory resembles neither LQG nor String Theory to catsigate and impugn it, but the fact that it resembles neither ST nor LQG is actually a grand compliment in its favor. For while ST & LQG lack postulates and equations despite their hundreds of millions in funding, MDT proposes a simple postulate and equation: "The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, or dx4/dt=ic." From this time, all of relativity, entanglement, nonlocality, entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries naturally emerge.

Please see the attached for further development/commentary/philosophy.

Hope all is well!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)Attachment #1: j.a._wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpgAttachment #2: MDT_EINSTEINS_RELATIVTY_SCHRODENGERS_CHARACTERISTIC_TRAIT.pdf

Dear Peter,

I think I agree almost entirely with what you wrote in your paper "Time for a change". I came to the same conclusions regarding the inexistence of time and space in observer-independent reality - but by a different path.

Just some comments about your paper.

"The paradoxes of Achilles and the Tortoise and the Dichotomy, on the other hand, have generally been thought to be solved by the summing of an infinite series, a mathematical technique developed by Cauchy, Weierstrass, and the German mathematician, Richard Dedekind. In relation to the paradoxes, this means the summing of an infinite series of progressively small time intervals and distances, so that the time taken for Achilles to reach his goal and overtake the Tortoise, or to traverse the said distance in the Dichotomy, is, in fact, finite. The faulty logic in Zeno's argument is seen to be the assumption that the sum of an infinite number of terms is always infinite, when in fact, an infinite sum, for instance, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ..., can be mathematically manipulated to be shown equal to a finite number, or in this case, equal to 2. Therefore, Zeno's infinitely many subdivisions of any distance to be traversed, can be mathematically reassembled to give the desired finite answer, and the body in apparent motion in the paradoxes said to have reached its said impossible goal."

The mathematical "refutation" of Zeno's argument rests entirely on the alledged assumption that "the sum of an infinite series is always infinite"

1. I notice that no reference is ever provided as where to find this assumption in Zeno's works.

2. Zeno's argument is based on the implicit assumption that a finite distance is infinitely divisible. Then what is this finite distance if not the sum of the infinite series of parts into which it can be divided ? In other words, the formula (1 = 1/2+1/4+1/8...) is implicitly but necessarily present in Zeno's argument. Then, the "calculus solution" just demonstrates that

(1=1/2+1/4+1/8...) = ( 1/2+1/4+1/8...=1).

Well, for my part, I am too shy to call this a tautology. But some more callous people might.

I think the calculus solution is just an elegant way of sweeping the problem under the carpet. It is an unsettled problem and science does not like to admit that it is at least partly based on unsettled problems. That is why the dominant view in the scientific community is to ignore the challenge by pretending it has been settled.

But the problem is still here : it concerns our impossibility to conceive continuity and motion in their own terms - because we can think only in discrete terms, i.e. in the terms of their negation. If we could describe continuous motion in another way than as sequences of discrete events, there would be no Zeno's paradoxes.

"The same fault applied to the Arrow paradox's proposed solution by calculus, as the "limit" of the arrow's velocity at the instant is never actually reached; strictly speaking, the arrow does not have a velocity at the instant. It cannot, as by definition, an instant has no duration, so the arrow cannot have a velocity at an instant if there is no interval of time during which it could cover a distance. Indeed, to say that it could have one, was like saying than a stationary body could at the same time be moving, or that a multi-sided polygon could also be a circle. Furthermore, as a continuous function is a static and indivisible mathematical entity, by invoking this model, people were essentially agreeing that motion did not exist and was some sort of strange subjective illusion."

Saying that a moving body is at any given instant in a determined position amounts to say that at this instant it covers a zero distance (it is in a space point). If the distance travelled by the body is infinitely divisible, it contains no zero distance. There is no such thing as a point in space (a determined exact position) - and for the same reason, an instant in time.

I may add that if the said body is at every instant in a determined position, where it covers a zero distance, then the sum of all determined positions is also a zero distance : if there is such thing as an instant in reality, movement is impossible.

"The realization that there was no such thing as an instant in time, and that an object in relative motion did not have a determined relative position, had some further implications. Perhaps the most obvious one related to the nature of time itself. If there was no such thing as an instant in time, I also realized that there could be no "flow" or passage of time, for without a continuous progression through indivisible instants over an extended duration, there could be no physical progression or flow."

I am not sure I understand you well here. Why should a continuous progression necessarily proceed "through indivisible instants"? Either it proceeds from an instant to the next (and it is not continuous), or it proceeds continuously. If there is no time in reality, there can be no flow of time.

An instant is a time point, i.e. a zero time duration. If there are no instants, there are no zero time durations. If there are no zero time durations, there are no zero space lengths, where the body can be at rest. In other words, in reality everything is changing continuously, however small the duration considered. But we cannot perceive continuous changing as such : when a body moves from A to B, we perceive it at rest in A, let us say for 1/25 of a second, then at rest in B, etc, never in between, however close A and B are. With the help of a fast-filming camera we can catch it in between, we can perceive it in C, in D, etc - but once more at rest for say 1/100 of a second, and so on. We always perceive continuous motion as a succession of fixed spatial configurations. But such fixed configurations do not exist in reality, they exist only in our representation of reality.

Space and time do exist - but only in our perception of reality (in phenomenal reality, as Kant said). They are not observer-independent (that is why times are different for two observers moving relatively to each other). The main problem is that we are trapped in an inadequate philosophical frame, that of classical realism, which assumes that reality and its perception are one and the same thing.

Best regards

Pierre Sabatier

Dear Pierre,

Thanks for your very sharp thoughts. I appreciated them. Naturally enough, I agree with everything you said too. In relation to your point about instants and the flow of time, I agree too. I was trying to show how, given the discontinuous nature of instants, the idea of time flowing and progressing by way of them (the only way it potentially could do), is entirely contradictory. For if you might like to have a look, section 4 in my essay notes goes into this a little further. http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/fqxiessaynotes.pdf

Dear Dr E,

I have to agree with you about it not being correct that Einstein seems to often have been careful to note that space-time does not have exitance in itself. Not because I don't think it is evident that he believed this - at least later in his life - but because I think I was too generous to him in this respest and that he could have maybe done a bit more.

Of course, it is also evident that he didn't think that time, space, or indeed, instants, existed either. As with his initial reluctance to fully embrace general covariance, "by which time and space are robbed of the last trace of objective reality", unsurprisingly, it just seems that his views on things time, space and space-time sometimes changed developed with time.

Dear Cristi,

C x Mi = E(ssay)2

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Peter,

I thought it would be interesting to give a connection of your two papers, i.e. how one can conclude from the first paper to the second.

Giannis

Dear Giannis,

The only real connection between the two papers I can think of is that my cosmology theory/model is consistent with a timeless, block view of the universe. If all events, past, present and future, are all mapped out together, and there is no present moment gradually "unfolding", there is no issue with Nature seemingly being able to anticipate (what we would regularly term) future or past events (i.e. so that the order of events that Nature employed would always be an order in which entropy increased), as all events in the universe, so-called future and past, are already just "there" and given. They don't happen all at once, as motion and continuity (including the continuous workings of a clock) is indifferent to the past, present, future, time etc. They are things that we ascribe to Nature, rather than the other way around.

There is naturally a strong connection between my 2003 time paper and my paper about the present and consciousness.

Best wishes

Peter

simultaneous synchronicity

TIMEPIECE

The day before yesterday,

yesterday was the future.

Today yesterday is history.

Yesterday the day before yesterday

was history and today was the future.

Today tomorrow is the future. Today

will be history tomorrow and

the day after tomorrow, tomorrow

will be history and so on.

We are making history all the time.

The future comes and goes.

The future is over --

over and over.

But you can't prove it. No one can

prove the future exists

until it's here -- and then it's gone,

but who knows where? And where

does that leave us? In the present?

Take a moment to think about that.

We live in the present, we live in

the moment - moment to moment.

We live in the moment that soon

will be history. Sooner than you

think. This moment will be history in

the time it takes to cross your mind.

The present is gone in no time at all.

There is no time like the present.

But that's all the time we've got.

Whatever it is. The present --

the gift.

© Susan Quist 2009

Dear Peter -

Kurt Vonnegut liked my poetry. I hope you will too. I love your work, thanks -- and your outsiderness. I found you through Google - you can Google me too.

Best wishes -

Susan Quist

Dear Peter,

I had this thought and I wanted to share it,

It can be proven that an object cannot disappear and appear suddenly in a different position, such as the effect of a "magician". This would mean that in a time instant the object would be in a precise position and then appear in another precise position of a given time instant. This cannot be done according to your theory.

I had this thought when I was watching magic tricks and I thought that if I was born yesterday without experiences and only with logic I could prove that this is just a trick and not something that really happens.

Sincerely,

Giannis

Hi Peter, I'm late to the game (just found out about FQXI), am just now reading

the essays, and so far, I find yours comes closest to what I believe is essential about understanding the nature of time. In an hourglass analogy, reality truly does appear to manifest in this rarefied instant we call the present - the 'aperture' of the hourglass - that 'place' where the omni-present sands of past and future are seemingly processed. The paradoxes we find, when trying to grasp instantaneous quantities in the present, appear because time is the defining example of a true continuum: unlike the sands of an hourglass, between any two instants, another actually does exist, ad infinitum. Should you find the time,

my thoughts can be found at singularityshuttle.com.