Thank you Johnathan,I look forward to your further thoughts. At the beginning I'm setting out the background, which is not the space-time continuum, the visible or observable universe or a probability space.I could have simplified that section further by having a numbered glossary of terms. I think getting a clear understanding of tense is the biggest hurdle.

1, Configuration of all existing = Object universe ( Not visible or observable).

2. Uni-temporal Now (-Now) , temporal expression of 1., the one and only same foundational time everywhere.

3. i. changes continually, all is recycled into the new 1., giving foundational passage of time. Records, relics and memory storage are all parts of the structure of 1., not a separate past

4.No Material past or future prevents temporal paradox. An Open/ unwwritten/ non existing material future allows true agency.

5. Potential sensory inputs sin the environment allow non simultaneity of observed events= [potential] pre- written future(pertaining to observation products, not material existence

6. Observation product, part of Image reality.Observer generated using received input.

7. Seen content= Present. Temporal expression =now. Identifying the content of an observers reference frame to be observer generated products makes the paradoxes where observers see a different 'reality' intuitive , not paradoxical.

8. Beable = element of Object reality (material reality), independent of observation or measurement p. Cf: observation product =element of Image reality. Reality interface, where input from external material Object reality is processed into Image reality observation products.

The above may provide a quick reference tool.

Till later, regards, G.

Dear Georgina P. Woodward, I have a question for you: "Have you read my essay?" I read your essay, but you didn't. If you read, you would leave a comment on my page, but it is not, but this does not mean that you did not read my essay. You may have read it, but left no comment. In general, for me the situation is Undecidability, but for you not, you know for sure whether you read my essay or not. Sorry for the pun.

Of your essay, I liked Background the most. If you lived in Russia, you would definitely quote from the song "There is only a moment between the past and the future, hold on to it" I did not comment on the rest, since due to the need for translation I limit myself to short comments. However, I note that the speed of time is a tautology and this concept should be changed so that it acquires a different terminology, for example, acceleration (second per second). Obviously, where you saw the speed of time, dynamic processes occur, since acceleration is the result of the manifestation of force.

Your essay is preparing material for the FQXi grant, "Consciousness in the Physical World." Perhaps you want to improve it through comments. I can tell you something, but first you must show that you have acquired the identity of Descartes's space and matter, and believe that physical space moves relative to itself, since it is matter.

聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽I again invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes's space and matter: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ".

Regards, Boris Dizhechko.

Thanks so much Georgina,

I am reminded of a comment by Kodish and Kodish from "Drive yourself sane" where they talked about the term 'things are changing' and suggested that the view according to quantum mechanics would be 'changes are thinging' instead - which is much closer to H.D. Zeh's views. There too; it is shown or implied that behind every object lurks a process.

If things are objects, they don't change, although their configuration or orientation might. But seeing every object as an ongoing process allows transformations or transmutation from one form or appearance to another. But this begs the question, because then the atoms would be the individual objects, and we know they are more process-like than a rock or a ball is.

The Chinese language is much more process-like than English - which divides things up into objects and subjects - at least for traditionals. In modern Westernized speech that distinction is becoming watered-down over time. But it is reflected in the ease of learning for orientals studying some subjects. And it may be the faults of English are an underlying cause of the disconnect you cite.

More later,

Jonathan

At the beginning I'm setting out the background, which is not the space-time continuum, the visible or observable universe or a probability space.I could have simplified that section further by having a numbered glossary of terms. I think getting a clear understanding of tense is the biggest hurdle.

1, Configuration of all existing = Object universe ( Not visible or observable).

2. Uni-temporal Now (-Now), temporal expression of 1., the one and only same foundational time everywhere.

3. i. changes continually, all is recycled into the new 1., giving foundational passage of time. Records, relics and memory storage are all parts of the structure of 1., not a separate past

4.No Material past or future prevents temporal paradox. An Open/ unwwritten/ non existing material future allows true agency.

5. Potential sensory inputs in the environment allow non simultaneity of observed events= [potential] pre- written future(pertaining to observation products, not material existence

6. Observation product, part of Image reality.Observer generated using received input.

7. Seen content= Present. Temporal expression =now. Identifying the content of an observers reference frame to be observer generated products makes the paradoxes where observers see a different 'reality' intuitive, not paradoxical.

8. Beable = element of Object reality (material reality), independent of observation or measurement. Cf: 9.

9. Observation product = element of Image reality

10. Reality interface: where input from external material Object reality is processed into Image reality observation products.

The above may provide a quick reference tool. (Improved numbering and punctuation to the list written for Johnathon.) This is supplementary. The information contained in the list is in the essay.

Hi Johnathan, existence and happening are both founadtional. John Merryman and I have both, at times. used the expression "stuff happens". I don't know who said it first but it amuses me. Taken one way it is very mundane and another way it is saying something profound about existence and (material-spatial) change occurring (which I say is energy). Objects do change but the change is usually disregarded and the object continues to be called by the same name. Unless there is great change, such as by growth and development. Objects can change because of corrosion, desiccation, biological decay, out-gassing, erosion, deposition, metal fatigue etc. Different material conditions are at different -Nows, not simultaneous. That is why I have posited State transit uncertainty for Schrodinger's cat.

Hi Dizhechko, I will comment on your essay when and if I wish to do so. Not because of your demand or insistence.

Thank you, the song lyric is apt. Thank you for taking a look at my essay. Kind regards G.

Well written, Georgi,

you have become much more cohesive in aligning the multiple facets of your ideas to reflect an internal association. It is easily readable, good job.

I'll only make a couple observations but from an historical perspective, because 'controlling the narrative' has been the persistent theme in all pursuits, throughout. "Publish or Perish" is so ingrained that Theologians categorically speak of Five Great Religions all of which stem, and continually change, from religious writings before the advent or introduction to the Age of Reason.

Firstly; while Newton, a religiously strange personality, did wax metaphysically on Time Immemorial, in his development of the method of calculating derivatives and in application to analysis (he supported himself by contracting to do analysis of other's experimental observations hence the breadth of accumulated topics in the Principia, along with payment for tutorials from the Chair and Rooms he bought at College) that analysis was mathematically conducted in 'instantaneous measures' then stringing them together (integration) over a time span. The same thing as your notion of Uni-Temporal Time, you might consider giving some attention to the life and times of Newton as a supporting argument. But as narratives go, 'Newtonian Time' has become conflated with DesCartes and generally thought of as a continuous metronomic 'flow'.

Secondly: the narrative of Einstein's SR also has been conflated with Minkowski's Four Dimensional SpaceTime, with the attendant assumed paradoxes. Einstein was swept along with the currents of his watershed rationalization of Maxwell, but SR is strictly only the geometry of constant uniform motion constrained to only two degrees of freedom. Your qualifications of Image and Object, while not typically addressed metaphysically are none-the-less incorporated as 'delay'corrections' in practical practice. So you aren't 'coloring outside the lines' there, either.

Thirdly: You make cogent arguments addressing undecidability in the QM method of Spin State Characteristics. All of which are consistent with Shannon's concise definition of 'Information".

Fourthly; and finally, I will take issue with your contention that because "each different configuration of all that exists is a different time, it makes no sense to talk of the speed of time in relation to that". Events that in your Object Universe may coincide in an observed configuration corrected to the metronome in your observatory, but that does not prove that Time is registered in the inertial reference frames of those objects at the same rate as your metronome. And Your Own opening scenario freely admits that there is no universal reference of scale for either time or space. There is only the bounded interval of possible speed between nil and light velocity. It is a mathematical consequence of omission of that degree of freedom in Minkowski SpaceTime that spawns the so-called SR paradoxes.

I'll let the panel judges decide if you have "use(d) this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the authors pet topic". It's worth a cool 1/3 weight of score for relevance, you know. Good Luck, and never be satisfied with your arguments and axioms as they stand now. They may change in a different configuration of acquired knowledge. Best Wishes, John

    Hi John, thank you for taking time to read my essay and comment I'm glad you found it readable. I did not want to present a wall of words. It is a departure from my usual impersonal style of writing.The way I was taught science writing should be, reflecting its objectivity. I have, here and there, put more of myself into the writing , hoping that humour and anecdotes will make it a lighter read and keep surprising the reader.

    I think I have met the guidelines."Shoehorning" to me, implies not a good fit or irrelevant to the topic. I think the universe in which the physics is being considered is important to specify. Unless specified the reader will make assumptions based on prior learning which are incompatible with the framework I'm using.

    For Newton , time is the dwelling of God. There is no time he is not . He is always and everywhere. That sounds to me like Eternalism. In contrast, the configuration of all existence does not endure in time, but is itself a time that is ephemeral in the extreme, if the smallest changes are considered.Evolution of the configuration of all existing is sequential as is Newtonian time. Eternalism though allows the theoretical possibility of time travel. That is impossible when all existing is -Now, with no material future or past.

    I'll not argue with you here here about the SR paradoxes.IMHO they are due to incorrectly conflating what is observed and what exists. I know you have your own ideas on them from the blogs.

    Finally don't take the elephants too seriously. How can you tell there is an elephant in your luggage? The trunk with big ears.Kind regards, G.

      Hi John, thank you for taking time to read my essay and comment I'm glad you found it readable. I did not want to present a wall of words. It is a departure from my usual impersonal style of writing.The way I was taught science writing should be, reflecting its objectivity. I have, here and there, put more of myself into the writing , hoping that humour and anecdotes will make it a lighter read and keep surprising the reader.

      I think I have met the guidelines."Shoehorning" to me, implies not a good fit or irrelevant to the topic. I think the universe in which the physics is being considered is important to specify. Unless specified the reader will make assumptions based on prior learning which are incompatible with the framework I'm using.

      For Newton , time is the dwelling of God. There is no time he is not . He is always and everywhere. That sounds to me like Eternalism. In contrast, the configuration of all existence does not endure in time, but is itself a time that is ephemeral in the extreme, if the smallest changes are considered.Evolution of the configuration of all existing is sequential as is Newtonian time. Eternalism though allows the theoretical possibility of time travel. That is impossible when all existing is -Now, with no material future or past.

      I'll not argue with you here here about the SR paradoxes.IMHO they are due to incorrectly conflating what is observed and what exists. I know you have your own ideas on them from the blogs.

      Finally don't take the elephants too seriously. How can you tell there is an elephant in your luggage? The trunk with big ears.Kind regards, G.

      Georgi,

      wise, I agree. This is not the venue for interminable debate. Incidentally, as there is no edit tab for comments on essays I should clarify; I found your arguments of QM Spin States consistent with Shannon.

      I'm fond of history as its very instructive of how people thought and how much change there has been in usage of language. Also, there are many ideas and approaches that would have been very relevant to the prevalent thinking of the times, and which simply are not considered today because they were not in vogue in their day. The 'meme' creating the narrative. Fun fact about Newton, if you have seen the TV sitcom 'Big Bang Theory', Newton was the same sort of socially naive curmudgeon as the Sheldon character, he reputedly keep a cat in his rooms at Trinity and had a small hole cut in the bottom of the door so that the feline could go freely in and out. When the cat dropped a litter, he had the carpenter cut smaller holes, one for each of the kits. His idea of immutable physical laws was such that he expected the kittens to follow them.

      Q: When do you take an elephant on holiday? A: When a suitcase just won't do. :-)jrc

      Dear Georgina P. Woodward, my perseverance comes from the desire to consolidate in your subconscious the identity of Descartes' space and matter, according to which physical space moves, since it is matter. It is possible that someday it will affect the course of your thoughts, and you will become a supporter of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics.

      Regards, Boris Dizhechko.

      Hi John, thanks. It takes all sorts too make a world. The Newton and kittens story is amusing but it seems the tale has somewhat of a life of its own. G.

      10 days later

      Georgina,

      Thanks for you quick comments, my post was barely warm. I am printing out several, including yours to read.

      Jim Hoover

      4 days later

      Re: An observation product is generated by processing the input; with semblance to the external source (of the signal) reality but differing in significant ways. That differing allowing it to be identified as product not source; Image reality rather than observer independent Object reality.

      I argue that truly objective Object reality is without any applied perspective. However it is usual to consider material reality as having 3 space dimensions.Perpendicular and of the same kind. That gives mapping of Euclidean space. The 'block universe' has another dimension perpendicular to the others, giving traditional space-time. Seen Observation products or those generated by a camera have a different arrangement of dimensions. There are 3 spatial dimensions; but not all of the same kind. The perspective space dimension goes directly away from the observer as it looks 'into the distance'. The height/vertical and length/horizontal dimensions are proportion spatial dimensions . Meaning an element of Image realities position on the perspective dimension will be proportional to the seen height and length. Rather than being perpendicular the transmission time dimension overlaps the perspective spatial dimension. Giving space-time but not as it has been known. As the spatial dimensions do not form Euclidean space and because of the overlapping spatial perspective and transmission time dimension.

      Re.the camera's product. The photo, material object(Object reality), is two dimensional if its thickness is ignored. The Image reality depicted by the content of the photograph is not two spatial dimensions but perspectival space-time, as described in my previous post.

      Another way that observation products differ from material objects; an observation product,element of Image reality with the semblance of material object is only a partial view of the exterior surface, (unless the object is translucent or transparent). Surfaces obscured from view and the interior of the object are not a part of the observation product. That is because EM radiation received by an observer comes only from part of the surface of the Source material object.

      I'm reminded of an episode of "Father Ted" Hat Trick Productions for Channel 4, in which Ted is trying to explain to Father Dougal, saying "these are very small" referring to some plastic toy farm cow, and then saying "very far away" referring to the live cows in the distance.

      Georgina,

      The indescribable is a good addition, considering the non-relativistic view we still have toward observable objects. Currently Betelgeuse is ding weird things, many not seeing it as an object from some 700 years ago, which you points out.Given such ancient data, how can the 3 "Us" apply in any meaningful fashion. Your classification of objects as well as the observer for each is "U" is helpful. Your discussion of the quasi superpositions of Schrodinger's cat is of interest since I have always felt that a superposition representation of a macro object gives a wrong impression. That's why the quantum and macro linking experiment I cited perked my interest. Your discussions were likewise were interesting and informative. I liked your agency and consciousness comments on the unpredictable, certainly putting humans in the equation enters an irrational element.

      Jim Hoover

        Pleistocene Park There is a documentary on this page , about restoring the grassland ecosystem to prevent catastrophic greenhouse gas emission from permafrost melting. Including removal of dark 'lifeless' forest for more reflective grassland.Including the restoration of mammoths ("fat, hairy elephants would do") to the ecosystem.