Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion

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 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,

Hi Georgina,

think of the terminating rule of chess (checkmate) as a negation or prohibition. Checkmate is defined as that configuration when the king can make no legitimate move to escape the threat. There are multi-millions of checkmate configurations. That is, the checkmate rule is 'infinite' and hence entirely unanschaulich itself - just a negation. And yet will any chess player recognize any of these configurations - when they occur! The negation (violation) of the negation (the prohibition) is hence a determinate case.

Another example is basic law, which consists of mostly prohibitions (thou shalt not kill, steal, etc.).

Heinrich

Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Newton and Einstein ever appeared on that surface and began their unrealistic physics guesswork.

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.

Please start reconsidering your Grant Funding options.

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

Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Newton and Einstein ever appeared on that surface and began their unrealistic physics guesswork, and before any timepieces were ever manufactured..

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 amrit,

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before any mathematicians or timepiece manufacturers ever appeared on that surface.

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

Time is real and even some scientists claim time existed before the Big Bang. They formulate the born of our observable universe as some kind of phase transition from an unstable 'vacuum'.

Besides confounding the physical concept of time as evolution parameter with a mathematical time as dimension, Einstein also introduced a confusion between the concept of a property and the operational definition of the property, when reduced time to "the reading of a clock".

Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Finite time am not real. Only humanly devised timepieces are real. Each real humanly devised timepiece, be it a sundial, a Timex wristwatch, or an atomic clock has a finite commencement and can be stopped and restarted AN INFINITE NUMBER OR TIMES.

Irrefutable evidence exists that conclusively proves that the earth had a visible surface for millions of regular Gregorian calendar years before Newton and Einstein ever appeared on that surface and began their unrealistic physics guesswork, and before any timepieces were ever manufactured..

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

CALCULATION OF DIMINISHED ENERGY DENSITY OF SPACE IN THE CENTRE OF THE PROTON VORTEXAttachment #1: CALCULATION_OF_DIMINISHED_ENERGY_DENSITY_OF_SPACE_IN_THE_CENTRE_OF_THE_PROTON_VORTEX.pdf

Dear Amrit Srecko Sorli,

Your posting appears to be about humanly devised finite calculation of an imaginary INVISIBLE variable energy that supposedly might affect the density of a finite amount of INVISIBLE space that might exist in the finite center of an INVISIBLE proton vortex.

One single VISIBLE infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by finite non-surface light contains no INVISIBLE protons, croutons or crayons.

Joe Fisher, Realist

I suggest that the best pixilated space-time QG is that of J. Ambjorn, dynamically triangulated QG. He was able to determine it has a cosmology, but the key problem is to find the StdModel ground state = QC/ED algebraic group representation geometry.

Well, dynamical triangulation of space-time is not at all like dynamical triangles, which have been quite easily demonstrated to replicate QC/ED - AND mass / energy, quite well.

So I'm very confident that this grant will yield a few papers, but nothing useful from a TOE standpoint. Good thing that you've now got Sabine looking for observational methods to disprove this approach to QG. Better to just accept the background independent QG work out of Penn State.