Hello Professor Green,

I think that you do a wonderful job constructing a historical philosophical narrative. I thought that your essay was very interesting. Many of the essays that I have read lately are not dissimilar to mine. Have you read Daniel Kolak's I am You. Please let me know if you would be interested and I will send you a link to the pdf of the book. Kolak provides a wonderfully unique proposal on metaphysical identity. I saw a lot of material on identity in your essay:

A) "...Time-shattering would be mindshattering..." I agree (also, great adjective- "mindshattering"). For such examples of (potentially) "time-shattering" one might consider psychedelic experiences (much research is being done today in this realm. You can see the following link for just one of many examples https://mind-foundation.org/

B) "...the past is memory and is unverifiable..." From an absolutely practical perspective, yes, this seems intuitive. However, could the past ever be verifiable if causality is 'mastered' sometime in the future? Perhaps there is no "now" but there are likely events which happen in space (and time- hence we don't know when because each individual's when is nearly non simultaneous).

("...Andy Warhol summoned back memories by sniffing at perfumes he had worn in the past - his personal 'scent museum' - so that he was instantly brought back to those periods...") On remembering the past and memories evoked from scents please see https://qualiacomputing.com/. There are essays on perfume and qualia. (see Perfumery as an Art Form)

C)

D) It seems that this essay predominantly encompasses physical phenomena and is not related to mathematical vernacular so much.

E) "...In which way is there a future? If it can be said to 'exist', it is only as potential. And as potential, the future is not of what will happen, but of what could possibly happen, perhaps even probably happen..." You write a lot about unpredictability in the conventional sense. What about differing theories of the objective existence of time (opposed to how we perceive the chronological or even the 'realness' of events in space and time).

F) Kindly see my essay for references to various theories which might be of interest to you. I also recommend works by Deutsch and Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture also see more info on counterfactuals for more implications of 'could have/would have, et cetera.

G) I also recommend looking into various alternative theories of causality (e.g. top down) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262299/ also see theories on retro-causality too.

H) Although you wrote a conventional essay, overall, it was well written and interesting.

Best,

Dale C. Gillman

    Dear Steve,

    Thank you for your comments, which I found interesting.

    Dear Dale,

    Thank you for your comments and for the links and suggested readings, many of which I am, of course, familiar with.

    Regarding your comments in E, my essay points out briefly why there cannot be an objective existence of time, and that time 'exists' only relatively to other points at which time is said to exist. This, as well as aspects of causality, is greatly expanded in my book "Time To Tell: a look at how we tick (iff Books 2018).

    Best wishes,

    Ronald

    You are welcome, thanks , I found your essey interesting also, we search answers after all to this universal puzzle and its main unknowns

    4 days later

    Dear Dr. Green,

    Your essay on time is very well written, but I think you completely ignore the main issue:

    Time is all about causality. "A implies B" is not the same as "B implies A".

    Time is not reversible in the real world. A dropped glass will break into a hundred small pieces, but the pieces will not spontaneously recombine.

    I make several key points about time in my own essay, The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing.

    First, time and space are obviously different, and an abstract mathematical spacetime is not needed to explain relativity. Time is relative because the atomic clocks that calibrate its passage are variable.

    Second, microscopic determinism is fully compatible with macroscopic uncertainty. I question the presence of fundamental quantum indeterminacy at any level, yet our ability to predict the future in complex systems is rather limited.

    Third, consciousness is based on temporal pattern recognition of agency and the self, and creation of a simplified narrative in time involving the self, which connects past and future. This can be emulated using artificial neural networks.

    Finally, let me comment on the conclusion of your essay: "we must question the deep-seated belief that the past is intrinsically different from the future ..."

    No, it is a fact that past and future are different, not a belief.

    The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

    Alan Kadin

      Dear Alan,

      Thank you for your comments and for the time you took in examining my ideas. I am pleased to have the opportunity of addressing some of your issues.

      I must disagree that "[t]ime is all about causality." Time is all about change, in which causality is a feature.

      I agree, of course, that time is irreversible and it is linear, as I state "...the immutable linear movement from birth to death." Why would you think that I contended something different? My contention regarding memory was that the past is memory, which is fickle and not objective. The fact that our past constantly changes does not mean that time moves backwards, but that our perception of what happened is constantly changing.

      I can't agree with your implication that because "time and space are obviously different", they are not inexorably linked. It's not for nothing that Einstein referred to spacetime as a fundamental of nature. Surely it is obvious that when we move spatially, we also move temporally. Time is relative because it depends on - and seen as such by an observer - the location of the events being timed.

      According to the theory I set out, the ability to predict the future is thwarted. We never get to the future, but see it only when it has happened, i.e. it is the past. The future is a probability based on the probability of the past (our memories).

      The above is the reason for my conclusion that the past is not *intrinsically* different from the future. They are both probabilities, i.e. not objective facts. I am not saying that what has happened is the same as what will happen. My point is that we have really no more absolute knowledge of what did happen as we do of what will happen. Our belief that we know what happed is, I'm afraid to say, merely a belief, and I show why that is so.

      As for the quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, on the surface it is cute. But 'really', according to what I demonstrate, we do each create our own facts. Nobody's facts are exactly the same facts as someone else's.

      Again, I am pleased to have received your comments, that gave me the opportunity to answer as best as I can.

      Best wishes,

      Ronald

      Thank you Prof Ronald Green,

      You gave good explanation of Logical NOWs...

      Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability are very much undesirable properties and out-comes of any theory. That theory might have developed by a very reputed person or by a group of well-educated and knowledgeable persons. There is no point of poring resources, money and highly educated man power into that theory when that theory is failing on above three points.

      I just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the " real open thinking" is supported. Have a look at my essay with title......

      "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

      =snp.gupta

      Ronald,

      Wow! That is a lot to take in. If I understand part of what you say, we live in a memory centric existence. It seems to be dependent, not on time, but perception that moves forward based only on our past. As I read you essay it reminded me of one perceptionяГа one person. I was struck by your reminder that Einstein said that time can't be the same everywhere because there is distance between things. I had just concluded that there has to be a fundamental time to underlie protons that are everywhere the same. They are energy based and energy is E=h(1/time). This is consistent if everything is coincident and based on probability and perception. This would be extremely subjective.

      I am aware that communication is difficult because we live in our own worlds. My view, I think, is similar to yours. I believe in an information based universe and believe that wave-function collapse is the basis of my (yours since we all have our own) perception. The perception, according to the Schrodinger equation is probability 1. But I think there is a huge amount of information in probability 1. It is information about nature and it is based on probabilities 1*1*1*1. Each 1 is the combination of probabilities that contain information fundamental to our perception of the proton in nature. It contains the laws of nature. Information processes separate (create) energy with equal and opposite halves in a creative process that we become part of. It might be one perceptionяГа one person but we are part of a process that is apparently billions of years old. Bohm's concept of an implicate order is appropriate. Billions of similar organisms have unfolded each with an apparent perception. I agree with a subjective view but have been working toward understanding the underlying structure that supports it.

      I like your concepts.

      Dear Gene,

      Thank you for your comments. I note that we seem to have similar views about the perception of 'reality'.

      The connection between time and perception is an important point I make. With time as change, perception changes and it does so continuously for each of us as individuals. So, yes, it is - and can only be - subjective.

      Your comments about information are interesting. Particularly interesting is your last sentence regarding the search for an underling structure. It is interesting in the sense that I don't believe that there is an underlying structure; there can't be if all is in constant change. An underlying structure would be objective (and untestable) and somewhat akin to Kant's 'thing in itself'.

      Thank you again. Keep up the good work.

      Best wishes,

      Ronald

      18 days later

      Dear Ronald Green,

      "However much we try,we cannot imagine a world that has no time." This is similar to saying we can't imagine a wold that has no change.

      The nature of change in physics is based on energy, which is the complement of time, but that brings 'persistence' into the picture. Noson Yanofsky's essay treats persistence, whether in people, ships, nations, etc which retain identity over time while the pieces constituting the entities undergo constant change.. He too places the enduring or persistent 'structure' in the mind.

      I believe that physicists project (in their minds) mathematical structure onto the world, then come to believe that physical reality actually has that structure. Some unlikely structures, such as 'qubits', taken seriously, lead to bad places.

      You observe that 'now', 'the present', has fuzzy edges and we don't know where it begins or ends. This was, more or less, the topic of three papers in Found. of Physics last November, that I treat in my essay, Deciding on the nature of time and space. You observe that special relativity complicates this further. My essay analyzes special relativity's frozen 4D-ontology versus the (3+1)D-ontology of universal simultaneity across all space, which is the energy-time formulation of 'spacetime'.

      Whereas I agree with your observations about perceived or 'experienced' time as unique to each person, nevertheless, as you say, "we cannot imagine a world that has no (objective) time." As I do not believe we can capture the experience of time, except allegorically or metaphorically, I focus on the shared or common time so necessary to physics. I hope you will read my essay and I welcome any comments.

      Thanks for an insightful, topical essay.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin (if I may),

        Thank you for your comments which I found not only interesting, but extremely helpful to the development of my thoughts on the subject and its ramifications.

        I read your essay "Deciding on the nature of time and space", which I enjoyed, and which added perspectives to my own theories, and to which I will refer as well in my reply below.

        I find much in your comments with which I agree. One example is your comment about physicists projecting mathematical structures onto the world. Mathematics works nicely within its own mathematical context/bubble.

        We both write about "the nature of change", but we do so from different perspectives. I don't believe that physics gives us the "real nature" any more than philosophy does (while together a rounder picture may be presented). To further complicate things, I don't believe that there is a "real nature", i.e. THE real nature of the universe or of how things work or how they really are "objectively out there", per se untestable.

        This viewpoint has everything to do with relativity and approximation, which I introduced in my book "Time To Tell: a look at how we tick" and which is featured in a number of essays and that I am developing further.

        It should be obvious that in a world of the moving 'now', I don't have any truck with "persistence". Persistence "in people, ships, nations, etc which retain identity over time while the pieces constituting the entities undergo constant change" is, of course the Theseus paradox.

        A point I do want to make regarding so-called "moving clocks". The interpretation of Einstein's special law of relativity that "clocks in motion run slower than clocks at rest." is incorrect. Clocks do not move slower or faster for an individual, whose clock continues at its rate however fast he is travelling. Clocks move relative to other clocks according to an observer. I am in agreement with your position against Susskind's regarding simultaneity. There is a danger in removing the observer from physics, which leads to puzzles in physics that are unnecessary, such as Mermin's rocket ships whose various clocks have been "deliberately set out of synchronization". Whatever time is shown on each clock, that clock will continue in its merry way, whether synchronized or not.

        Regarding the two models, "an empirical model based on measurements in absolute space and time and a conceptual model based on axioms that assume the existence of multiple time dimensions", it would seem that my model is the latter. I'm not sure, though, since each of my time dimensions is itself in constant change; there is no time dimension per se, since each is relative even to itself. So your comment that we cannot capture the experience of time, I agree with. My point is that we can "capture" it only afterwards, when it is seen in retrospect, and even then as a changing retrospection.

        I realize that squeezing in an adequate response to your comments is more than difficult. I am, though, very interested in your points, especially in pages 8 and 9, since in my work in progress I am looking at numbers and approximation.

        Thank you again for your interesting comments,

        Ronald

        24 days later

        Dear Ronald,

        A nice essay on various aspects of time.

        I wrote a long post to you but was logged out after submitting and all was lost!

        Now I am too tired to re-do it. My essay covers some aspects of time from the philosophy of presentism that may be of interest to you. I hope you find 'time' to read it.

        Best Regards

        Lockie Cresswell

          7 days later

          Hi Ronald. You tackle a subject close to my heart. You do a good job of explaining the experience of time from the human condition. The validity of memory is something you could have said more on. That memories are plastic and sometimes false. There is research showing false memories can be induced. I'm not sure the past is as unpredictable as the future, but memory and records are clues to what was and not certain truth. Authentication and corroboration help. Very readable. Regards Georgina

            Hi Georgina,

            Thank you for your comments, which are much appreciated.

            The fact I was limited to 9 pages precluded me from making the points that you raised. For your information, all of them were dealt with in my book "Time To Tell: a look at how we tick" (iff Books), In which I was able to expand on each and every one.

            Thank you again,

            Best wishes,

            Ronald

            Dear Lockie,

            Thank you for your comments. I would have liked to read your essay, but I don't seem to be able access it through your link. I'll try again later.

            Best wishes,

            Ronald

            Hi Ronald,

            I enjoyed a lot reading your short essay about time and objectivity or better non-objectivity. There are lots of pictures I like and a lot I disagree. I disagree because it questions the canonical way one looks at time in physics. But since it is well argued, it is on me to justify my view.

            But let me first pick some if your statements I like lot. For instance pointing out that we cannot verify past. I am so used to see the past as factual and objective, that I take it as given, that the past (or its memory) is verifiable.

            I also like your description of the strong link between the past and the future.

            I principally like the aim of your essay, where the past or memory of the past can change (are memories of the past and the actual past the same?). I argue in my essay, that what Wheeler's delayed choice experiments tells us is: what happens in the past is underdetermined until the context is set - maybe in some future.

            One minor critic is, that in special relativity, observers at different location in comoving frames can agree on the now. There is a way to synchronise the clocks. It is observers that move at different velocities, that have different notions simultaneity for events in different locations.

            One critic I would like to share is connected to the point of view I take in my essay. I belief that the in your essay you take the subjective view of the observers too seriously and ignore the objective lawful conditions that must be fulfilled in order to make the subjective experience possible at all. I would say the subjective observation of what is around us is already a mental construction. However a mental construction, that reproduces the invariant, lawful relations between our body the environment. This lawful relations are contingent, depending on the environment and the mesoscopic scales of our body. However they are objective and real in some sense.

            Good luck in the contest,

            Luca

              Hi Luca,

              Thank you for your comments, which were interesting and useful.

              I read your essay, which I enjoyed. It does seem that there are some basic differences in our approach, which makes the topic interesting.

              As you can see, I don't accept the possibility of objectivity in any sense. Yes, I agree with you that subjectivity is a mental construction. But how can it be anything else? What else is there apart from the construction/interpretation of the universe that presents itself to us? Objectivity can 'exist' only 'out there', absolute and unchanging - a situation that could never be arrived at.

              So when you say that "lawful relations are contingent, depending on the environment and the mesoscopic scales of our body," I agree. How, then, can anything be objective? Where would 'reality' be, and in which sense?

              In my view of time, the human is not an object within the universe, but the universe is within the human manifestation of his/her perception. To quote the last line of my book "Time To Tell: a look at how we tick": "It is time that contains the universe, not the opposite." (Marc Levy, "La Prochaine Fois",

              I wish us both luck,

              Best wishes,

              Ronald

              Dear Ronald,

              Thank you for your interesting essay. It is very good.

              I think the same. In the nutshell, Time itself does not exist. There are only motions. Motion is used as the time standard. The time is handy way to compare motions. Universal time (expansion rate of Universe) is irreversible. Local movements can be reversible, i.e., the local time can be reversible. More in: About Arrow of Time. http://viXra.org/abs/1902.0495.

              Best regards

              Ilgaitis

                Dear Ilgaitis,

                Thank you for your comments and for introducing me to your very interesting essay.

                Best wishes,

                Ronald

                Write a Reply...