Hello Prof. Wharton,
re:
"The
water flowing down the river is analogous to the causal chains moving forward in time. A
place where the water is stagnating is analogous to a lack of causal chains, and therefore a
lack of events."
time does seem to be largely a perceptual problem. another way of looking at it:
we can toss a hula hoop out on a lake, put a little drop of oil in the center of the ring, monitor it's dispersion, note that it eventually fills the ring fairly evenly, watch the rainbows, have great fun 'till someone from the EPA shows up.
our calculations all include the expression "on the water".
we can set a couple of marker buoys on the lake and race a couple of boats around them, calculating their relative position to one another and the marker buoys all the while, and noting that, on the boats, they are always moving forward, regardless of which way they may turn.
our calculations all include the expression "on the water".
somewhere around the middle of the shoreline, wherever the middle of of a shoreline might be, we hop in an inner tube and go dog-paddling across the lake. it's a big lake. we paddle and paddle... count the number of strokes, intending in this way to measure how big the lake is... lose site of the shoreline... never find an end to the water... maybe somewhere in the wee hours of the morning we slip exhausted from the inner tube and disappear.
again, our calculations include the expression, "on the water".
our local situation may be compared to a bunch of people on a raft being towed around the lake by the sun, much as a water-skier might be towed.
some have gotten to looking at the calculations and wonder just what that "on the water" means in them; some ask if the calculations prove that water exists, others whether or no one can dispense with the idea of "on the water" in the equations and some get to questioning if there even is any water.
i've come to suspect that time needs to be somewhat axiomatically (because of the lack of availability of contrast - we can't actually step outside time to have a look-see - necessary for the relativistic nature of a theorem) defined very simply, something along the lines of: 'time is a potential for data to exist' and to further define this relationship as non-commutative such that an absence of detectable data does not negate a potential for its existence.
big lake, with lots of stuff floating around on and in it doing all kinds of strange things. [looking at the strange things going on on the lake, such as 'causal chains' and what electrons in a hydrogen atom are doing, doesn't tend to actually yield much info regarding the lake.]
re:
"One of the most puzzling features of quantum mechanics is the appearance of non-locality
defined as causation traveling faster than the speed of light."
physicists seem fascinated with 'entanglement'. it's not a terribly big deal; not when it conveys no data (can't be used for communication) and there are well documented instances of acquisition of actual data from distant past, future and elsewhere in the present moment through some even more strange physics of consciousness. 'entanglement' cannot account for this and is a bit of a yawn by comparison. the data strongly suggests a spatial quality to 'time' and seems to support the notion of a block universe, but one which is significantly more dynamical than generally appears to be envisioned. in that at any given instance, there can only be one set of events at one space (i don't appear to be able to both sit here typing and take a walk around the block 'simultaneously'), appears deterministic, but a high degree of potential variability can arise from vectors of influence at any given instance. yet, that there is only one set of events at any one moment appears to afford a definitive set capable of being accessed predictively. the number of influence vectors involved in the orbit of the earth around the sun are minimal. the number of influence vectors involved in, say, one's crossing a busy street, get a little more complicated. where one atom may wind up at in a dispersion is even more complex. yet, at any given moment at any given location, there is only one event set. very curious dynamics. the 'chain of causation' appears to be largely an anthropocentric conventionality and oversimplification of the dynamics involved. cause and effect cannot be identified as a chain since relativity killed absolute time and can only be thought of as vector intersects of equal significance but of potentially varying magnitude (anthropocentrically, we tend to ascribe greater significance, that is - 'causal', to vectors of greater amplitude). as in an expression from Zen, 'cause and effect are one'.
see: http://www.remoteviewed.com/rob_abbott_videos.html vid #1 (while this is not perhaps the best example, i've selected it for its dramatic impact)
also: www.espresearch.com/espgeneral/doc-SpeedOfThought.pdf
see also my comments at Curiel's "Time Paradoxes", http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/309
re:
"However the two causally connected events can not be at different spatial locations at the same time, because the maximum speed at which the causal chain traverses space time is the speed of light, c. Human experience is restricted to the macro-world where causation only flows forward in time giving us the distinction between past and future. This is what gives us the impression that time flows."
while it serves a pragmatic function, this perception does not appear to be entirely accurate.
i'd have to agree with Hawking.
glad to meet you. happy for the opportunity for dialogue.
warm regards,
:-)
matt kolasinski
"Just because Schrödinger hasn't seen his cat lately doesn't mean it's dead."