(continued from above)

4. The above statement represents a genuine change of number for the relative position category. Something new has been added to the system: a genuine change of number, as opposed to a change of number that can be fully accounted for by the law of nature relationship structure, without adding any new numbers to the system. So, the above statement, in the context of the laws of nature, contains a higher-level category of information that could potentially be acquired:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND change is true

This can seemingly also be represented as something like the following:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND time = time 1

5. So, Time is a higher-level category of information: it represents whether it is true or not that genuine change of number has occurred in other, lower-level, categories of information.

Here is some thoughts about time and its duality nature, too long and too much diagrams so I have to put it in the attachment. It is actually kind of "Alternative Models of time" to explain reality, hope my poor English doesn't bother your reading :)

abstract: Wave-particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy.

Albert Einstein once wrote: It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.

Since the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved, physicists have various views about the nature of duality, which includes Both-particle-and-wave view/Wave-only view/ Particle-only view/Neither-wave-nor-particle view etc.

If there are two kinds of reality at different times, it is easier to make sense of the duality by understanding the nature of time. Could time itself be composed of two aspects as well?

We will raise this conjecture to the status of a postulate, and also introduce the concept of discrete time domain, in which all wave or energy appears to be particles. The theory to be developed is based on the relationships between discrete time observation and continuous motion process. Quantum experiments such as double-slit experiment, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and Schrödinger's cat etc. are discussed and explained on this postulate.

Re Lee Smolin's public lecture webcast "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution", 17 April 2019 [1]:

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin seems to link people who don't believe in rationality and evidence (is he perhaps referring to climate-change deniers, or Donald Trump?) with physicists he calls "anti-realists":

The theory [Quantum Mechanics] these anti-realists [Bohr and Heisenberg] made was not consistent with realism... Now, does this matter?...among the things that we are concerned about...there seem to be a lot of people out there in the world who are gaining or interested in gaining power who don't believe in rationality, in evidence and so forth... "A simple criterion for science to qualify as postmodern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth". Let that sink in (Smolin and audience members laugh)... "By this criterion...the...interpretation of quantum physics due to Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen school is seen as postmodernist."

    (continued from above)

    Lee Smolin represents a very large group of "realist" physicists and philosophers. They have no physics that can account for a situation in which we (and other living things) can intervene and change the world. So their views logically imply that, because we have never, and can never, intervene and change the world, it is the pure and unaided unfolding of laws of nature that caused plastics to litter the planet, damaging wildlife and ecosystems.

    Lee Smolin, and all of us, have acquired "higher-level" [2] knowledge of the world, and yet there is no physics that can account for higher-level knowledge; and there is no physics that can link this acquired higher-level knowledge to outcomes in the world - according to physics the only possible outcomes are those determined by laws of nature. So, according to Smolin's view of the world, we can't intervene and make genuine changes to reality (e.g. to avert climate change, and clean up plastic pollution), we just have to hope that the laws of nature, which are based on "lower-level" information, and have no connection to higher-level knowledge of the situation, will somehow fix the problem.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zri9gS1w5ok , quote starting at approximately 19 minutes in.

    2. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3255#post_150459

    P.S.

    Re Time:

    I'm contending (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3255#post_150460) that Time IS a type of higher-level knowledge.

    Re Lee Smolin's public lecture webcast "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution", 17 April 2019 [1]:

    Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin says that a theory (e.g. quantum mechanics) that is complete shouldn't depend on our intervention. But he is assuming that he already knows what the world should be like: he is assuming that the world is such that elements (e.g. living things) can't and don't "intervene" and change the world. I.e. he wrongly assumes that the world is such that, when looked at closely, it is nothing but the unfolding of laws of nature that caused plastics to litter the planet.

    Smolin also implies that quantum mechanics must be wrong because the people who formulated the theory had "anti-realist" beliefs. But who would think, for example, that a universe with laws of nature and massy-mass that you could kick would appear out nothing and nowhere? Whatever way you look at it, the foundational aspects of the universe are necessarily "anti-realist".

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zri9gS1w5ok

    • [deleted]

    I'm arguing that information doesn't float in some hypothetical ether. I'm arguing that it is things like particles, atoms and living things that carry/ experience information, including Time information. So, this is the information that particles carry:

    1) Categories of information, in the form of law of nature information relationships, which we represent with equations.

    2) Quantity/ intensity information, which we represent with numbers that apply to the categories.

    3) "Quantum mechanical" information. I'm contending that this comprises higher-level information coupled with outcomes, which can be represented as an algorithmic statement:

    3.1) Higher-level true/false conditions and number-change (Time) information

    is coupled with

    3.2) Higher-level number-change outcomes involving "quantum jumps" of number.

      5 days later

      Time is like a measure of number jumps. Time is a category devoted to number-jump change in the numbers that apply to other categories of information. While other numbers may go "forward" or "backward", Time merely records that change has occurred, so it always goes "forward".

      The time category, like the mass and position categories, is an information relationship which we can represent mathematically (or algorithmically in the case of time); and relative masses, positions and times, can be represented by specific numbers. The imaginary set of all possible position numbers is known as "space", and the imaginary set of all possible time numbers is known as "time".

      So, you have time as an information category (i.e. a relationship), time as a specific number, and time as an imaginary set of possible numbers.

      The question is: does a law of nature relationship (like the mass, position and time categories) exist "in" the time that is the imaginary set of possible numbers? Clearly, it doesn't: the time category is not a number, so it doesn't exist in the set of possible numbers representing time. But specific time numbers, applying to specific things like particles or people, can be imagined as existing in an imaginary set of possible time numbers.

        (The above post is a clarification of the posts "Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:14 GMT" and "Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:15 GMT".)

        See post "Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 25, 2019 @ 01:16 GMT", which is a clarification of the above 2 posts.

        We would be inclined to assume that time did not exist, as some kind of force or thing, if the Earth did not have it`s rotational motion.

        Lorraine, there is a difference between (unmeasured) 'passage of time' and timing, a measurement. Records can be made using timing but 'passage of time' does not require conducting timing measurement in order to occur.

        Jim, I agree with a lot you have written here but have two disagreements. I think it is helpful to separate what is happening -Now and what is experienced as the present. Also, even if the Earth did not rotate there would still be other changes happening. Timing does not have to be with a 12 or 24 hr clock. It can be done with a sand or water clock. All that matters is that the change used is regular, not varying in rate. I.e. the duration of the intervals of the chosen timing method are the same as each other.

        Here is a new theory of time. It answers a lot of questions.

        https://philpapers.org/rec/MERANT-2

        Georgina Woodward thanks for your help on a very very early version of the paper, I will put you in the acknowledgements in a future version.

        Georgina,

        At a fundamental level, time does not exist. The equations of physics, which represent laws of nature, show that at a fundamental level, time does not exist.

        The equations of physics show mathematical relationships between categories of information, where mass and position are examples of categories of information. But the equations of physics show that time cannot be represented in a mathematical relationship between fundamental categories of information.

        Instead, time is a category that represents change of number for other categories of information: change of number can only be represented by an algorithm; time is information about information, i.e. time is a higher-level category of information.

        Hi Lorraine, you wrote "Instead, time is a category that represents change of number for other categories of information:" I don't think that is spot on. Clock time, t, as used in equations, I.e. shown by numbers is a beable change being used for comparison with other variables that can also be shown by numbers. Clock time,t, is just one type of time.

        Georgina,

        Mass, position and time are natural categories of contextual information, which have existed since the early universe, and still exist now, underlying everything. Seemingly this information does not float in some abstract ether: the information is carried by things like particles and atoms, which existed well before clocks came on the scene.

        However time is different to other categories: other categories are relationships between other similar types of categories; but time is a different type of category which records change of number.

        A piece pf matter has a particular mass (unmeasured) because of the arrangement of it's constituent particles. Without imposition of an artificial coordinate frame, position is location within and relative to other particles or masses. I see from your reply you are not talking about clock time. (Foundational) Time is the entire arrangement of existing things. Each different entire pattern a different time. Passage of time encompasses all change. Numbers depict measured or calculated outcomes. The measurement and processing of inputs, or calculation process are an in-between requirement.'Information', what is conveyed by a particular sequence or arrangement implies receipt and processing into knowledge (or other product). Time numbers, mass numbers and position numbers are on the knowledge side of the sensory interface with external nature.