Cristi,
"I think it is hard to show this, because energy is conserved in both time directions."
Necessarily there would be the same amount of energy at any moment in time, but doesn't the concept of "conserved" mean that all the energy of one moment transitions to the next? In fact, isn't it that dynamic of energy which creates the events in the first place? I realize I may not be addressing your issue, as you see it, but I'm the idiot in this conversation and it seems much simpler to have the flow of energy creating the events, than having all of history existing in some platonic dimension.
Consider a batter hitting a ball and running around the bases; If we were to apply Ockham's razor, from my limited point of view, the energy based explanation seems much less complex and it explains why one event flows into the next.
I am not saying to live in the present. Plants and animals do it just fine, but it is our ability to remember and record history which rises us above them.
Would you agree that as our perception goes from prior to succeeding events, i.e., past to future, the events in question effectively go the opposite direction, from being in the future to being in the past?
To me, this seems much more relational, than all events permanently existing on some narrative dimension of time. That seems rather absolute.
Do these events exist on this dimension prior to the Big Bang? If not, then it would suggest some foundational flow, of creation and dissolution. Before the bang, they are in the future, after the universe dissipates, they are in the past.
If they do exist beyond the Big Bang, then the cup of tea I am drinking is more permanent than the entire universe.
As for the "bird's eye view," the same problem I have with the logic of monotheism applies as well.
A spiritual absolute would presumably be the essence of sentience, if not cognition, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgment from which we fell. The raw awareness of the new born, not the collected wisdom of the old man. (Just that religion is more about social control, than spiritual enlightenment, so best make it about wisdom, than awareness.)
This would apply to a bird's eye view of the entire universe, in that there is no universal point of view, no top down vision.
Knowledge is a function of both transmitting and receiving information, as well as its processing into more clarified forms. So there can be no universal knowledge, because knowledge is a construct, i.e. emergent. Reality is bottom up. Like the expanding energy/fluctuating vacuum. The forms are top down, but then their very definition and structure also limits them. As I pointed out about galaxies, they are energy radiating out, as mass coalesces in, so while the energy might be seeking infinity, the form is seeking equilibrium. Form is not infinite, but emergent.
Hi John,
It is another contest! Though I admit my entry was a dash-off, just to participate in the discussions, under the assumption I wouldn't do any good. So the motivation was more spontaneous, than deliberate. To those who read it, this is evident in the lack of serious editing. (I would say, my brief foray to 7 was a rush, but now even more of a downer, to be back where I figured I'd be.)
The problem I see with your view is you view it from the assumption of time as this narrative effect, where now is just a dimensionless point between a fading past and uncooperatively invisible future. So the concept of simultaneity means the entire universe existing on the dimensionless point.
As I see it, it is just space and energy. Vacuum and fluctuation. The reason the now seems so minuscule is that this energy flashes around much faster than our ability to comprehend it. Our thought process can only absorb and reflect on very minor amounts of what goes on and this does revolve around our mental ability to focus. Consequently the sequence of perceptions amounts to a very narrow stream.
(Being someone with a fairly physically active life, I have had to let that stream expand, by relaxing my sense of focus and often going with instinct, which does draw up the more subconscious and thermodynamically variegated parts of my self.)
So, as I said to Cristi above, there is no universal frame of information, because information is about definition. There is no bird that can see the entire universe simultaneously, because it is fundamentally the energy carrying the information and information is emergent from its interactions. So the information can only travel at the finite speeds of the energy carrying it.
Which is why, as I pointed out, the future remains probabilistic, because it is the occurrence of events which computes the input and determines the outcome. To assume the entire universe is pre-determined, existing on that block time dimension, is to assume that information can travel instantaneously. Which is specifically not an assumption that I am making, though other ideas seem to need it. I don't see that platonic realm of information, no matter how many dimensions it takes to explain it.
Best,
John
