Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion

Joe, my concern has been with understanding, in particular, time. Your explanation does not help explain what time is and how it fits within physics. You say 'infinite surface' existed millions of years ago but do not say whether that ancient surface still exists or has been recycled into the surface that exists now. Does it exist eternally or is it infinite but ever changing? How do you know? How is vision possible if everything is a part of the surface? You do not seem to make any distinction between 'real': independently existing not imagined, and 'real'; visual product. They are categorically not the same. I think since you use the term 'real visible' it might be helpful to you if you gave the meanings of those words alone and as an aggregate term some deeper thought.

My view on Time is this: The present is a reality filter. Only suitable theories can show in the present, that is, in the Here-and-Now of knowledge, whereby giving a DISPOSTION TO ACTION. False theories are filtered out and discarded in the waste bins called past and future. Theories pretending that the present temporally evolves from the past end up in the past-waste-bin; theories that pretend to predict the future end up in the future-waste-bin. They simply can't show (have effect) in the (any) present (reality), because causality in Hume's sense is not how the world works. Then it follows that in the present nothing can ever be met which we are not aquainted with, one way or another. Theories involving Becoming on the other hand are mere appeals to belief or escapists' domains. Whatever doesn't show in the present is FALSE.

This is why classical physics is time-less. It works at any time, it can be used by everyone, and it mustn't be believed! And - it hasn't been falsified within the range of human EXPERIENCE, the totality of the present.

Hi Heinrich, you wrote "Then it follows that in the present nothing can ever be met which we are not aquainted with, one way or another.". That does not strike me as correct. For example I recall my first encounter with a cigarette rolling machine.. A 'what is it ?' thing. I also remember my first encounter with a multiple lens security camera in a flower bed. Having discounted water droplets because of the dryness of the bed and symmetry of the shimmers my next best guess was a giant spider. Having got out of my car for a better look I was met by the house owner who wanted to know what I was doing, and subsequently said it was a camera. As a small child the temporary holding category 'What is it?' was frequently employed but as an adult it is much less often required, I haven't seen everything existing or that will exist in the world so again encountering something with which I am thoroughly unacquainted is quite likely.

Dear Heinrich Luediger,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before you decided that your (abstract finite) view on (invisible) Time was this: The (abstract) present is a(n) (abstract finite) reality (invisible) filter. VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE AM UNFILTERED.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Georgina Woodward,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Heinrich provided us with some more finite misinformation. REALITY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DEPENDANT ON ANY HUMAN BEING'S PRESENTATION OF FINITE MISINFORMATION. REALITY AM NOT A FINITE MYSTERY THAT HAS TO BE SOLVED BY HUMAN BEINGS.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Georgina Woodward,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before your surface wrote on a surface; "Joe you are a source of perplexity. You seem oblivious to the significance of the solution I have provided." REALITY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DEPENDANT ON ANY HUMAN BEING'S PRESENTATION OF FINITE MISINFORMATION. REALITY AM NOT A FINITE MYSTERY THAT HAS TO BE SOLVED BY HUMAN BEINGS.

It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Joe, you have not answered any of my questions to you. You say 'infinite surface' existed millions of years ago but do not say whether that ancient surface still exists or has been recycled into the surface that exists now. Does it exist eternally or is it infinite but ever changing? How do you know? My concern has been with understanding, in particular, time. Your explanation does not help explain what time is and how it fits within physics, does it?

How is vision possible if everything is a part of the surface? What does visible mean to you? What is your opinion on the dichotomy of visual products (seen manifestations) and (actualized) source material objects?

Dear Georgina Woodward,

I have repeatedly stated that It logically follows that Nature must have designed the only REAL VISIBLE structure of the real planet earth, and the real VISIBLE Universe the real VISIBLE earth am contained in, obtainable.

The real Universe consists only of ONE real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

You have a complete VISIBLE surface. Each real dinosaur had a complete VISIBLE surface. Each real ant that has ever raced about on the real VISIBLE surface of the earth has always had a complete VISIBLE surface. No part of one infinite VISIBLE surface am finitely DEFINABLE. I am not presenting my version of reality. Reality am not finitely DEFINABLE.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Trân Trần,

Finite time cannot exist in eternity. Each finite timepiece can be constructed of an infinite number of materials, and be of an infinite dimension. Each finite timepiece has a complete visible surface. If all of the timepieces were removed from the planet, it would not alter the fact that the real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Joe, you have not answered any of my questions to you.

Joe, I have subsequently found that you did reply to one of the questions, that someone else copied without quotation marks or attribution, and adding a URL. You have written "finite time can not exist in eternity."

Well that depends on what time is. J.C.N.Smith and I regard a (finite) time as being the configuration of the existential, material universe. Each configuration is a time.

There need not be an end to the sequence of configurations that occur, that can be thought of as foundational passage of time, and so it can be posited that the change and sequence of configurations (that can be imagined) extends to eternity.

You did not address the question of whether there is recycling of what exists, or whether 'the surface' is eternal and unchanging.If 'the surface' is unchanging then there are still dinosaurs roaming, we are just not looking at the right bit. Is that so ?

To be clear, it is necessary to imagine configurations reaching towards eternity, they do not exist, as only uni-temporal Now exists I.e. the youngest configuration in the sequence that is in existence.In the same way it is necessary to imagine the sequence of configurations extending into the past, They do not still exist. The unwritten, open future overcomes the issue of complete determinism of a block time kind of model and non existent material future and past prevents temporal paradox.

Dear Georgina Woodward,

REALITY CANNOT POSSIBLY DEPEND ON HOW I ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT FINITE ABSTRACT MISINFORMATION. Nature must have devised the only VISIBLE construct of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable, and it did so BEFORE you or I or Einstein, or Hawking ever appeared on the surface of the earth, and began senselessly guessing about where the universe might have came from.. We know that the earth has had a Visible surface for millions of years. We know that no matter in which direction any man, woman, child, or centipede looks, any creature's open eye will only ever see VISIBLE surface. It logically follows that there must only be one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Trân Trần,

Finite time cannot exist in eternity. Each finite timepiece can be constructed of an infinite number of materials, and be of an infinite dimension. Each finite timepiece has a complete visible surface. If all of the timepieces were removed from the planet, it would not alter the fact that the real Universe consists only of one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Hi Georgina,

I said ....one way or another. I'm sure you could have written an essay describing that cigarette rolling machine or that multi-lens camera before knowing what purpose they serve. And I'm certain you didn't think that they could bite you, run away, speak to you, vanish into nothing, cause rain, etc. pp. My point was that our knowledge of the present is organised according to stringent principles so that there is no 'blue screen' - never! The literally infinite depth of human knowledge isn't stored in the brain, it is the effect of the negation of negations. The human brain/mind isn't sharing any commonality with a computer.

Hi Heinrich I'm not convinced that prior knowledge or experience is necessary for production of the sensory product (Image reality), which is the present from the point of view of the observer, only sensory input and functioning nervous system to process it. But prior knowledge or experience is necessary for correct perception or understanding of what is being experienced. In the case of the camera in the flower bed I did actually think it might bite me, as there was so little information available with which to perceive or understand the cause of the visual product. A shimmering like many eyes among the plants.

I agree we don't have a blue screen when there are errors with processing input or dealing with it. The brain can guess what is present and that is what is recognized or even seen. I have often mentioned at a quick glance seeing a cat, when it was actually a pile of laundry, on looking again. There aren't gaps but seen guesses or 'flagged' what is its. I don't know when the brain decides one approach or the other but suspect it depends on context. Such as whether there is time to be curious, whether there is a potential danger, whether the unknown is inconsequential background or periphery relative to other stimuli of interest.

Please could you explain more about what you mean by negation of negations?

There is a saying that says: There are lots of Einstein, but only there was a Newton.

Einstein and those physicists are wrong regarding time.

Time is an evolution parameter. This is clearly seen in Newtonian mechanics or in quantum mechanics.

The Coulomb potential is a function phi(R(t)) with time-implicit dependence, but Maxwell and others replaced it with a time-explicit function phi(r,t). Most modern textbooks call "Coulomb potential" to the phi(r,t), when it is not. Not only the history is rewritten, but the mathematics and the physics are abused. Coulomb phi(R(t)) is a 6D function, Maxwell phi(r,t) is a 4D function. The first function describes direct-particle action physics; the second describes contact-action physics of field theory with all the well-known deficiencies.

Further discussion of the incompatibilities of phi(R(t)) with phi(r,t) and the confusion between time-implicit and time-explicit evolutions can be found here

https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.53.5373

but their dual-potential model is not really needed. There is no two interaction mechanisms, only one. Field theory and its 4D potentials phi(r,t) and A(r,t) can be derived from N particle theory using the correct concept of time as evolution parameter

http://www.juanrga.com/2017/07/renormalized-field-theory-from-particle.html

Minskowski and Einstein derived the spacetime concept (x,t) from Maxwellian 4D functions. Time is no longer an evolution parameter but a dimension in Einstein theories. This is wrong and the cause for many difficulties (including the well-known incompatibility with quantum mechanics).

This spacetime view of the Universe is also incompatible with both irreversibility and randomness. Reason why Einstein always wanted to maintain reversibility and determinism as fundamental, and try statistical (ignorance-based) explanations for the second law of thermodynamics and for quantum phenomena. It didn't work.

Some modern physicists try to reintroduce Newtonian concept of time into relativistic physics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_dynamics

They introduce two different concepts of times: A coordinate time "t" in the sense of Einstein and an invariant evolution parameter "tau" in the sense of Newton. In reality the theory introduces N+1 times, because there is a t_i per particle and a tau for the overall system.

The Coulomb potential phi(R(t)) is generalized to phi(rho(tau)) with rho a relativistic distance.

This novel approach is still incorrect, but at least those physicists understand that Newtonian concept of time is missing in Einstein theories.

The "evolving state" picture is fundamental; the "spacetime box" picture is only a local approximation.

time has only math existenceAttachment #1: Euclidean-Planck_Metrics_of_Space_Particle_Physics_and_Cosmology_1224_FINAL.pdf

Juan,

"The Coulomb potential is a function phi(R(t)) with time-implicit dependence, but Maxwell and others replaced it with a time-explicit function phi(r,t)."

Let me see if I understand this. The time-implicit function meant that time was something real that exists in its own right. But physicists smelling some implied metaphysics (existence) decided to step back and declared Time as only a factual measurement. Without real (substantial) time, no further involvement of time in causality could be further explored.

The universe has existed and evolved by itself for the past 13.8 billion years so, causality is built into property (ies) of its constituent dynamic process (substance).

Marcel,