Hello Mr. Nikolić,
i'm slowly working my way through the papers here.
i enjoyed reading yours. i appreciate that you kept it not too technical. communications is getting to be an issue. people in science spend all their lives studying what they need to know just to get to talk about something specific, there winds up only two or three others in the whole world to chat with about it. not good. especially considering how much info there is out there these days. getting complicated. which brings me to...
two names for time may indeed be a useful pedagogic tool.
but i'm concerned about the potential for complicating things more rather than simplifying/clarifying the situation.
re:
"But is a measure of time the same thing as time itself?"
no, it isn't. think about the characteristic properties of what gets measured and what is used to measure it. would you use a clock to measure a desk? no, of course not. what are you measuring? and what is it about a clock? do you set the clock down next to what you're measuring and mark off it's width? no. what is it about a clock that provides a unit of measurement (this was more obvious before digital clocks came along)? i don't know how we'd go about measuring time itself. as you said, in physics, it just is.
you might enjoy reading some of the observations on the origins of the notion of time in 'some thoughts on time' elsewhere here.
yes. consciousness. needs study. i'm noting this to be a recurring theme in the papers here.
maybe wisdom would be good too, but that doesn't appear to fall within the purview of physics. ;-)
i seem to have a very different picture of consciousness than you apparently envision it.
i have it being both effected by and effecting the external 'reality'. what enabled you to move your body to type the words, 'unmatter cannot influence matter' while identifying consciousness as unmatter?
this is an issue for physics.
in order to study consciousness, however, physics will in some way have to objectify 'unmatter'.
that's going to be tricky.
Pitkänen's paper here gets into it a little, but it's not easy to follow. i'm not terribly up on string theory, and he's got this blend with quantum stuff...
looks like a couple of others here get into consciousness specifically also, but i've not gotten to them yet.
i seem to have consciousness (not to be confused with conscious awareness) as being remarkably aware of a tremendous amount of information, that one of it's most important functions is actually to filter out most of the material as personally irrelevant, presenting a 'news brief' on the fly to conscious awareness of that which is of greater personal interest. part of you is aware of the color of the chair you sit on, the whir of the cooling fan on the computer, maybe the tick of a clock, and other stuff that's near by you at this moment and if you stopped to think about it you could probably name a lot of items and characteristics of your immediate environment without even looking, but your conscious awareness doesn't need to know all that right now. so it gets filtered out of the data being presented. that's a small example. i seem to have consciousness at it's heart a vast sea, quite possibly extending to the ends of time/space (that's not actually as far as it might seem, takes a shortcut through i). just that we don't need to know that much. there are also some advantages on occasion to 'pretending' to be dumb. surprises can on occasion be fun (that first meeting with a special someone) and would you really want to consciously know how you're going to die? somewhere within us, i have reason to believe we all do know such things.
i don't know if i'd say that free will is an illusion, but it certainly has it's limits. in any instance, while we may have multiple options for actions, we are invariably limited to actualizing only one action in any given instance (i don't see how i can both sit down at the computer here and walk out the front door at the same time), whatever that choice may be, which makes each moment unique. it looks like determinism because of this uniqueness of a moment, but seems to be something of a blend of intersecting influences, including our own 'free will'. a 'negotiation' of sorts. significantly enters into crossing busy streets and such.
:-)
matt kolasinski