For over five hundred years the world has collectively lived in the Age of Science. The scientific paradigm holds that complex systems may be best understood by logically breaking these systems apart into smaller pieces, subsystems, each of which is then analyzed in a deterministic manner. In more succinct terms, the whole is the sum of the parts. While this approach, called reductionism, has worked remarkably well for centuries the world is starting to encounter systems that do not easily decompose into smaller, simpler subsystems. Unfortunately, the current set of scientific and mathematical tools are not well equipped to understand and analyze these kinds of systems. This paper outlines new approaches, and new tools, that may help us better cope with these more complex systems. They open the door to a new post-science paradigm, a systems paradigm.

Download Essay PDF File

Download Reference PDF File

Hello Malachite I enjoyed your essay. Especially the discussion of nentropy and its relationships with entropy and order. There is an essay in this competition that introduces a conversion of chaos to order that converts chaos into “all of the order in existence”1. Nentropy certainly could help in describing that progression. I believe that you may find the essay interesting. That essay is “Could Science Be Different and Improved? Yes. A Specific Proposal. Happy Reading.

3 months later

A timely discussion!!... that demonstrates the critical nature of appropriate application of mathematical methodologies.

It has been more than 70 years since Albert Einstein posed the question:"Can a field theory which describes exhaustively physical reality, including four-dimensional space, be specified directly?"... and he did not concur with the then and still prevailing conviction that the experimentally assured duality of nature... i.e. corpuscular and wave structure... can be realized only in conformity with present quantum theory... i.e.__**"...in an indirect way, by a statement of the statistics of the results of measurement attainable on the system."_

"I think that such a far-reaching theoretical renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge, and that one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory."~ A. Einstein
REF: "Albert Einstein Relativity: The Special and General Theory" 17th Edition Crown Publishers 1961 pg. 157

If "system" is defined as being "... composed of well-defined components such as numbers and operators", and the degree to which a component is "well-defined" is as a consequence of its resolve as a minimum/indivisible constituent of the system being analyzed, then the mathematical methodologies utilized to derive objectifiable minimum/indivisible elements of a Space-Time Energy emergence, are critical to definition validity of all subsequent systems... i.e. all subsequent system components are comprised of the most fundamental elements of a Space-Time Energy emergent system analysis.

As a consequence of investigations of Space-Time Energy emergence, from a single point sourced emission, of minimum/indivisible units of spatially defined Energy (QE), within a non-perturbative QE distribution framework, that defines minimum/indivisible spatial units (QI) of QE occupancy, the emergence of Space-Time as a component of a universe comprised of a Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain and a Space-Time Logic Domain, has been found to be neither random nor determinant... i.e. in that it must be solved on every Q-Tick of the pulsed source momentum mechanism, it is determinate as a consequence of resolve.

Given a a non-perturbative distribution framework as a networked intelligence... i.e. a computing resource... the dynamics of QE occupancy of QI can be Spontaneously, Harmoniously Resolved (SHR)... i.e. NEXT occurs.

Given a single point pulse sourced emission of spatially defined units of substance... i.e. system components... and a non-perturbative distribution structure... i.e. system operative intelligence... on pulse close of every Q-Tick of the momentum mechanism, the system could theoretically be considered deterministic, and with the universally networked intelligence as one's computational assistant, future QE distribution can be resolved 1 Q-Tick at a time.

Whether "... the behavior of a system can be inferred from the behavior of the components" is only verifiable to the degree of component analysis reduction.

Whether "... the behavior of the components may be inferred from the behavior of the system as a whole", is only verifiable to the degree of system operative analysis reduction.

Within a container of gas, temperature is a measurement of motion, but an inability to resolve the contribution of internal molecular motion to the temperature of the whole, does not infer that "temperature is not a property of the molecular component..." ... i.e. an analysis reduction of molecules exposes internal molecular dynamics/motion.

Spin path dictates at QE scale... i.e. dynamics of minimum/indivisible units of spatially defined Energy... induce observationally imperceptible distance/time variations that invalidate application of observed distance/time parameters as justification to categorize gravitational systems as being deterministic... i.e. gravitational systems are deterministic as a consequence of a resolvable/deterministic Space-Time Energy emergence, not as a consequence of observable distance/time relationships.

Admittedly it would require massive computational resources, but flipping a coin within a non-perturbative analysis environment is theoretically deterministic.

In that a non-perturbative Space-Time Energy analysis environment facilitates an unbroken logic chain from observed QE event to QE source, any necessity for numeric manipulators which introduce probability and/or normalization functions, is eliminated.

At QE-scale, a Space-Time Energy system component is irreducible... i.e. a minimum/indivisible unit... but if uniform throughout the system, is it a reductionist system?

System analysis at electron scale may suggest that "... a pair of entangled electrons is not a reductionist system as it is impossible to predict the behavior of the systems through an analysis of the individual electrons. An entangled electron pair must be treated as if it is an indivisible system composed of two electrons."

Is an "electron" a detectable spin interaction event, or a spatially defined unit of Energy?

If as an event, an electron's mass is associated with the QE participants of the spin interaction.

If as a spatially defined unit of Energy it is comprised of QE... i.e. is divisible.

In either case, two electrons may appear "entangled" at electromagnetic scale, but at QE scale, "an indivisible system composed of two electrons" can be resolved as QE-spin interactions... i.e. electrons appear entangled as a consequence of QE dynamics... and all QE-spin interactions are determinant within a non-perturbatve emergence analysis environment.

"As an example of a deterministic and reductionist system, classical mechanics utilizes well-defined properties such as mass, position, velocity, and time that interact with each other in well-defined manner."

The "well-defined" qualifier in the above statement, raises fundamental derivation methodology issues... i.e. only within a framework in which Space, Time, and Energy are well-defined, can mass be considered a well-defined system component.
Ref. "Physical Space and Physical Time: What are they?"- D. Oriti
(

Newton's application of numeric manipulators to perturbatively derived evaluators as a means to "...derive a new property called ‘force’", has obscured the fact that substance dynamics requires a momentum mechanism that inherently resolves all forces as derived of a single Force.

In that QE and QI are indivisible, and a pulsed momentum mechanism implys an indivisible temporal unit (Q-Tick) as the pulse rate, calculus manipulations are not necessarily applicable to evaluation of Space-Time Energy emergence analysis.

As a consequence of misapplied numeric manipulators, Science should not reject "new" fundamental element derivation methodologies... i.e. to "add to the vocabulary of mathematics" may generate relational statistics, which are not applicable to Space-Time Energy emergence analysis.

"Relativity and the standard model", are conceptualizations that rely heavily on perturbatively derived system components and operators, and their formalisms are unable to objectify required fundamental elements of emergence... i e momentum mechanism, substance, and distribution intelligence... which inhibits resolve of all forces as derived of a single Force.

Mathematically manipulating undefined system components and operators... i.e. mass, space and time... to derive "force" has created an illusion... i.e. Force is a consequence of an emergence momentum mechanism, not a property of math manipulations, and its properties are revealed in the distribution resolve dynamics of QE, as minimum/indivisible units of potential motion, within an intelligent distribution framework.

"Thermodynamics is the prototype for systems that are non-deterministic...", but as discussed above, molecular heat phenomena is deterministic if an analysis reduction that facilitates temperature/motion measurement at molecular dynamic scale, is made.

Within a non-perturbative distribution framework, in which the.QE distribution structure functions as a networked intelligence, all motion is reducible to QE scale dynamics, which are, if given adequate computing resources, deterministic to Q-Tick= NOW, and resolvable to Q-Tick= NEXT.

"Thermodynamics led to the discovery of the property called entropy. Entropy is a measure of the uncertainty, disorder, or randomness of a system."

How appropriate is it to apply entropy to a system analysis of the universe, if the universe is a resolvable/deterministic system?

A thermodynamical necessity for "entropy" is indicative of a lack of a non-perturbative Space-Time Energy emergence model.

"Quantum mechanics is one of the few examples of a formal system that attempts to describe a system that is both non-deterministic and non-reductionist."

In that QE dynamics... i.e. quantum mechanix as opposed to "quantum mechanics"... has to be solved for the entire system, on every Q-Tick, obviously NOW has been system inherent Networked Intelligence solved... i.e. determined... and NEXT is, as a consequence of system inherent Networked Intelligence, resolvable.

The inability of "quantum mechanics", as formalized mathematics, to establish QE scale dynamics... i.e. Quantum Mechanix... as a resolvable/determinate system, inhibits application of system inherent Networked Intelligence.

"The mathematics of quantum mechanics, linear algebra over a complex Hilbert space, was discovered by chance as a way of explaining the confusing data that was discovered in the beginning of the 20,- century."

The current state of Science, and consequently human functionality, suggest it is a prudent time to pursue a Space-Time Energy "field" model that resolves "confusing data"... e.g. the before mentioned description of an "entangled electron pair."... rather than continue to mathematically manipulate... i e. normalize... "confusing data".

An "... increasing reliance on non-deterministic/non-reductionist approaches demands that mathematics develop a formal model of the concept of uncertainty."

A "formal model" must define "uncertainty" as differentiated from its polar opposite... i.e. certainty.

Given "certainty" as the result of a process that can establish an unbroken kinematic logic chain from conditional at any time now to conditional at any prior time, one can know "How"... i.e."How" necessitates a logic domain that preserves differential logic operations.

Given that "certainty" infers a requirement to know "Next", necessitates a logic domain that facilitates inherent resolve of "Next".

If "certainty" is as the result of resolve and determinism, the antithesis would be: go forth without resolve and leave an indeterminate "How" in your wake... i.e. the "concept of uncertainty" may not yield to mathematical formalization.

To eliminate "uncertainty" the UQS CAD SIM formalization embeds "certainty" within a objectified universe, comprised of a Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain as the Resolve/Intelligence component, which experiences/perceives a Spaceless-Timeless FEELING of Space-Time Energy distribution dynamics, and pulse sources QE to Spontaneously, Harmoniously Resolve (SHR) NEXT within the Space-Time Logic Domain, as the determinate component, on very pulse... i.e. Q-Tick.

Within the Space-Time Logic Domain, all Space-Time Energy differentials are a consequence of an emerging resolvable/determinate system... i.e. deterministic to NOW, and resolvable to NEXT.

Space-Time differentials necessitate 2-bit logic operators, which facilitate inference... i.e logic expansion that maintains determinism.

In that "uncertainty" is a consequence of abstraction... i.e. conceptual expansion that does NOT maintain determinism... it is not surprising that "... uncertainty is present in mathematics in the form of concepts...".

Objectifiable entities, as QE, or configurations of QE choreographed composites, within the Space-Time Logic Domain component of the universe, are resolved... i.e. a kinematic logic chain from entity QE emergence to current QE/QI configuration, exist.

Mathematical manipulations that break that chain are not applicable to Space-Time Energy emergence analysis.

Abstracted relationships between visually objectifiable entities can augment cause and effect analysis, but application of an abstraction that invalidates determinism of an entity upon which the abstraction is applied, will invalidate the analysis.

The "uncertainty" attributed to an inability of classical mechanics to "... describe how three objects are attracted to each other gravitationally...", is as a consequence of the limitations of perturbative analysis... i.e. it is not inherent within a Space-Time Logic Domain component of a universe, in which the mechanix of emergence and subsequent distribution of irreducible objectifiable entities is resolvable/deterministic.

The inability of quantum mechanics to resolve "... both the position and the velocity of a mass with absolute certainty.", is as a consequence of the limitations of perturbative analysis... i.e. it is not inherent within the universe's Space-Time Logic Domain component, in which the mechanix of emergence and subsequent distribution of irreducible objectifiable entities is resolvable/deterministic.

"Probability" as a mathematical devise... i.e. numeric manipulator... contrived as a means to evade "uncertainty", inhibits momentum to establish an emergence model that exhibits distribution intelligence ... i.e. a resolvable/deterministic system... and thus eliminate "uncertainty".

In that "The mathematics of quantum mechanical systems manipulate probability distributions (actually they manipulate a relative called a complex wavefunction) to determine how the system evolves over time."... i.e. do not resolve "uncertainty"... and a Space-Time Logic Domain, as a universal component, in which the quantum mechanix of emergence and subsequent distribution of irreducible objectifiable entities is a resolvable/deterministic system, the mathematics of quantum mechanics warrants re-formalization within a non-perturbative analysis environment.

Although my 2023FQXi Essay: "Digital Science: Emergence of Quantum Consciousness" (http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) was intended as a demonstration of how a non-perturbative analysis structure would change Science, the demonstration objectified a momentum mechanism as a single point pulse sourced emission of substance, as spatially defined minimum/indivisible quanta of Energy (QE), which inherently resolves all forces as derived of a single Force, and consequently FQXi rejected my essay as being an "alternative ""theory of everything"", not an essay about how Science could be different."

"Nentropy is an example of a new kind of mathematics, one that is ideally structured to characterize both the non-reductionist and the non-deterministic properties of a pair of entangled electrons."

In that "... even deterministic systems have uncertainty", how does a nentropy of 0, which "... indicates a system with no uncertainty whatsoever." reliably identify a deterministic system.?

Although utilizing the methodologies of formalized quantum mechanics can generate new mathematics... e.g. Nentropy as a "meta system" qualifier... and determination of cause and effect correspondence validates numerical manipulation, this does not imply that Nentropy as "... an example of a formal model of uncertainty..." is an appropriate tool to evaluate a resolvable/deterministic quantum mechanical system... i.e. a "degree of entropy" necessitates a concept of "uncertainty".

"It is now possible to describe any model of mechanics (classical, statistical, quantum, et al.) in terms of their nentropy, their degree of uncertainty."

A system may appear non-deterministic until the distribution intelligence becomes known... i e. "uncertainty" can be attributed to a lack of conceptual system resolution achievable utilizing inadequate analysis methodologies.

"New" methodologies ... e.g. a non-perturbatve geometry/logic framework... that exhibit a resolvable/deterministic distribution intelligence, for distribution of minimum/indivisible quanta of spatially defined potential motion (QE), justify a re-evaluation of any assessment that quantum mechanix is a "... system that is described by a discrete, finite probability distribution.".

Application of numeric manipulators to "understanding complex systems" must consider appropriateness.

In that the current formalization of the "mathematics of quantum mechanics", does not objectify fundamental elements of emergence... i.e. momentum mechanism, substance, and distribution intelligence... the "mathematics of quantum mechanics" may be applicable to analysis of abstractions which deviate from any requirement for an unbroken kinematic logic chain... i e. develop non-determinate/non-reductionist system characteristics... but quantum mechanix can be shown to be resolvable/deterministic within a non-perturbative analysis environment.

The "... human genome is an example of a non-reductionist system since two or more genes acting in concert often behave differently than the individual genes.", but genes interact as a consequence of the deterministic QE spin operatives as dictated by the dynamics of emergence within a non-perturbative QE distribution analysis environment... i.e. "deterministic" is a matter of analysis scale.
REF: "UQS Consciousness Investigation" (http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php)

It is possible "... to re-purpose the mathematics of quantum mechanics" to investigate "... the relationship between the "human genome and cancer..." at other than minimum/indivisible component scale, but if protons, as constituents of genes, can be resolved to QE-Spin resolution, the analysis would facilitate abstraction of an un-broken kinematic logic chain from a gene event, to QE source... i.e. eliminate the "How" "uncertainty" induced by the perturbative nature of the current formalism of "quantum mechanics"... and facilitate system intelligence to effect resolve of "Next".

"... it is possible to apply mathematics to better understand the behaviors and properties of non-reductionist and non-deterministic systems in a variety of unrelated disciplines."

To procedurally establish a methodology "... structured to probe the behaviors of non-deterministic and non-reductionist systems so prevalent in the non-hard sciences.", it is necessary to examine the processes by which non-reductionist and non-deterministic systems are generated.

For example:

  1. Clarify a distinction between inference and abstraction.
  2. Identify the initial abstraction.
  3. Identify objectifiable components that underlay the abstraction.
  4. Isolate any subsequent requirement that invalidates determinism of any underlying objectified components.

Advocating a "paradigm" that undermines the possibility that reality is a resolvable/deterministic system, in order to accommodate the numerically manipulated abstractions that have generated non-deterministic and non-reductionist systems is not justifiable.

"It is indeed both telling and a bit ironic that the non-deterministic/non-reductionist system called quantum mechanics is recognized as the most accurate description of reality ever developed."

What if reality is a resolvable/deterministic system?.. i.e. CAD SIMulations derived from application of "new" non-perrturbative methodologies to Space-Time Energy emergence investigations, suggest that any formalization of quantum mechanics that portrays quantum reality as a non-deterministic/non-reductionist system, is not "the most accurate description of reality ever developed."

Thanks for an informative and well written essay that demonstrates the subtle means by which momentum for a fundamental methodology paradigm is being inadvertently constrained.

S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
http:www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

    15 days later

    Sue Lingo
    I come from a neuroscience background and believe a conceptualisation of time necessarily needs to take into account our biological evolution.

    Our perception of time is a biological process that has evolved to track the changes in our environment at a scale that is consistent with the speed of processing of our biology. Our experience of time is also dependent on the evolved needs of the organism within a biologically evolved environment. For example, a dragonfly has an evolved biology that detects faster moving objects (insects) than do humans, humans do not need to be significantly aware of such fast moving objects, therefore a dragonfly experiences time more slowly. That is why it’s difficult to catch a dragonfly, it has more time to see you coming. Likewise dragonflies are not good at detecting slow moving objects because their evolutionary niche does not require them to detect slow moving organism.

    The more complex an organism is, the more time it needs to process its environment so the more it is aware of the passing of time. Different organisms therefore experience slightly different dimensions of time but since all organisms have co-evolved, their perception of time may be similar.

    An alien that has evolved on a different planet may experience time differently, that is, the dimension of time in which it operates may be different to ours. Perhaps biological processes evolve in a similar ways throughout the universe so this alien may experience a similar dimension of time to humans, but it could also be very different.

    The evolution of our sense of time is therefore related to our senses’ and brain’s ability to convert the raw data that is environment, into information, in order to better navigate the environment.

    Our experience of time is directly related to our evolved need to be aware of our environment.

    Time therefore is a psychology phenomenon, much like sight and sound is, Time exists to make senses of our environment. Time does not exists without conscious awareness.

    A sun may decay into a black holes over billions of years but if there is no awareness of the passing of that time, there is no ‘ time’, much like a tree makes no sound if it falls in the forest, if there are no ears to hear it.

    At base level, nuclear reactions in the this dying sun are taking place at the level of interacting plank scale energy waves travelling at the speed of light, energy waves ‘experience’ no time ‘themselves’ as they are travelling at the speed of light. All of time is happening at the same time unless there is a conscious observer.

    Would be grateful for any thoughts.

      Perhaps the difficulties science has in explaining counterintuitive quantum phenomena is because we have reached the limits of brain processing.

      the limits of brain processing data about about brain around fifty differential equations are being used to abstractly model a couple of neurons
      an imaginary brain tied/infused quantum devices that are designed to alter the normal activity and give better intuition-al sense of quantum-phenomena

      there might be an apparent singular moment in space or time or it could be a knot with many wires, -i have no idea what i'm talking about .

      more complex an organism

      is society is an example of organism by your standards?

      Time therefore is a psychology phenomenon, much like sight and sound is, Time exists to make senses of our environment. Time does not exists without conscious awareness.

      neuromorphic computing is the idea of parallel processors(lets say those processors are fixed crystalized more like a rock , ,the fastest cpu still does line by line its processing (or batches of lines)

      rock

      constructing a society around point like time givers that are the processors clock , instead of embracing that everything has its own time, so a living brain in that respect has more time givers by the activity of many more neurons

      *how much parallel processing does a stone sitting still on a beach? 🙂
      stone

      *an expresion habbitual paradox irony, just using the words "how much" is a point like thing, skews stretch cut graph number quantification, to look at something volumetric parallel ,multi, /
      something parallel multi should interact ( be described/ influencedsymbolized, controlled/modeled) with something parallel multi , that's the beauty specificity of language! it can handle only so ->- much

        The more complex an organism is, the more time it needs to process its environment so the more it is aware of the passing of time. Different organisms therefore experience slightly different dimensions of time but since all organisms have co-evolved, their perception of time may be similar.

        within environmental poisonous boundaries, survival reward functions place a limit on what media are being explored for obvious reasons with the right proportion even drinking water can be a poison, i suspect some of the most simple toxic substances are within very small proportions present in living organisms and play important crucial roles (maybe because they are at intersection of many stable realms and there is a dis balance control ,like a source for randomization , the place of creativity (unusual-ness)

        An alien that has evolved on a different planet may experience time differently, that is, the dimension of time in which it operates may be different to ours. Perhaps biological processes evolve in a similar ways throughout the universe so this alien may experience a similar dimension of time to humans, but it could also be very different.

        here the question i'm having is around evolutionary pathways that arrive at stable complex systems
        lets say an alien have evolved to sense radio waves by having an metal-organic mix receiver, what would be a necessary slow dynamic of the environment such that it is possible for such an alien to exist, why would an evolutionary process would make choices that needs sensors for different time experience, it something different in that environment that expose some novel time phenomena,or it is having this capability just by luck and the uses are emergent


        there might be an apparent singular moment in space or time at the beginning ,or it could be a knot with many separate wires(or other shapes) that manifest similarly in the present , -i have no idea what i'm talking about .
        namely the space to be like a lattice grid where tings move from point to point and all the points are conncted tangled to an other external special bridge point that you call it singular(the same time) point and i call it a knot with multiple separate wires. Erubisu

        Here’s a thought, what if at the quantum scale all of time happened at the same time, and all of space was in the same space?

        more time givers

        is the same mistake habitual paradox irony done twice seven times* in a post cristi marcovici ,so i'm poorly self consistent with my own ideas.

        *here im doing it again'
        i cannot escape, numbers are everywhere?!!
        reevaluating gives even a higher

        • 1 fifty differential
        • 2better intuition
        • 3singular
        • 4many wires
        • 5more time givers
        • 6many more neurons
        • 7how much

        Deterministic and reductionist

        To this day, there are many
        scientists as well as large portions of the general public that believe that the universe may
        be seen as a gigantic kind of machine, constructed from simple components that obey a
        deterministic set of laws.

        using numbers is a reductionist approach ,
        using language with degree of comparison is a subtitle pinpointing to those easy to remember numbers

        an extraterestrial language full of possibilities , that still maintain accuracy or consistency

        alien may experience a similar dimension of time to humans

        if the speed of light constant would be much smaller 🙂

        imagine a being that has a kind of split division and rejoin mind and can evaluate/ponder multiple times contractions

        a month later

        Erubisu
        Thank you for sharing a neuro "biological perspective of time".

        Contemplating a differential between the "biological perception of time", and the physical measurement (clocked) of time, provided a thought provoking 2 weeks.

        It has been my experience that highly attention demanding processing... e.g. arc welding... alters the "biological perception of time" passing as referent to the resonant frequency of a cesium 133 atom... i.e. an atomic clock.

        Any generalized formulation of "time"... e.g.. t=d/v... that does not "take into account the biological perception of time" is conceptually incomplete, but the biological perception may not be relevant to the analysis being conducted.

        In that one's "biological perception of time" demonstrates potential for variable perception of event duration, can determination of a singular event, as required to "track changes", be entirely a function of empirical measurement?

        Are the neuro-dynamics associated with "track changes in one's environment", altered by degree of attention to task?

        As a logician investigating Space-Time Energy emergence, my focus is on "time" as the minimum/indivisible temporal quanta (QT) associated with the open/close pulse cycle of the Space-Time Momentum Mechanism which, as necessitated by emergence, is inherently constant.

        Any discrepancy between "time", as biological perception, and "time" as empirical measurement, should be resolveable by specifying a single source pulsed Space-Time Energy emergence model that objectifies a Space-Time momentum mechanism with a constant minimum/indivisible open/close pulse cycle.

        "Our experience of time is also dependent on the evolved needs of the organism within a biologically evolved environment."

        I can agree that the lens, and therefore light processing capacity of your dragonfly's eye, is species survival determinate.

        However, in that event detection can vary as a consequence of light processing, can one infer a dragonfly mentally processes "biological perceptions of time", significantly different than does a human... i e. can neuro science detect temporal processing differentials in humans and dragonflies?

        The difficulty associated with catching a dragonfly, may be because "it has more time to see you conning", but experience as a biological modifier is also a factor.

        The defence strategy of skunks... i.e. turn your back, raise tail, and spray... has in my lifetime, observationally evolved as a consequence of automobile encounters, and I assume that if I move very slowly and catch a dragon fly, the act will impact dragonfly biological evolution.

        "Complexity of an organism" may not necessarily correlate directly to "time required to process its environment"... i.e. an organism's interaction with environment is also a factor on temporal demands of environmental processing.

        "Different organisms therefore experience slightly different dimensions of time but since all organisms have co-evolved, their perception of time may be similar."

        As used herein is dimension equivalent to perception?... or in what manner does a "dimension of time" differ from a "perception of time"??

        "An alien that has evolved on a different planet may experience time differently, that is, the dimension of time in which it operates may be different to ours."

        In this discussion, are "perception of time", "experience of time", and "dimension of time" semantically equivalent?... or is your usage intentionally selective to imply a subtle conceptual differential??

        For example, does the expression "experience of time" imply perception of a physical modification not associated with "perception of time"?

        Is a "perception of time" possible without perception of a physical modification?

        Physicist Robert Forward's sci-fi book "Dragon's Egg", is an insightful analysis of an alien culture experiencing accelerated biological processes... i.e. life sequencing... as a consequence of modified physical environment.

        "The evolution of our sense of time is therefore related to our senses’ and brain’s ability to convert the raw data that is environment, into information, in order to better navigate the environment."

        By what sensory mechanism is a "sense of time" processed?

        In this discussion, are "perception of time", "experience of time", "dimension of time" and "sense of time" semantically equivalent in reference to the brain's function as a data processor?

        In any case, my daily temporal inquires expose a discrepancy between my expectations of atomic clock measurement and observed atomic clock measurement, that may vary drastically over the course of a day, as a consequence of environmental attention demand.

        "Time therefore is a psychology phenomenon, much like sight and sound is, Time exists to make senses of our environment."

        Space and time are necessary logic elements for the perception/experience/sense of motion.

        "Time does not exist without conscious awareness."

        Is a Hydrogen proton conscious?... i.e. does it experience/perceive/sense physical modification/ motion??

        In the UQS model, Q-Time exist as a consequence of source pulsed emergence of the Space-Time Logic Domain component of the universe, but it does not exist with regard to the Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain, as the source component of the universe, and consciousness is hierarchical, with the Universe as the top tier.

        "A sun may decay into a black holes over billions of years but if there is no awareness of the passing of that time, there is no ‘ time’, much like a tree makes no sound if it falls in the forest, if there are no ears to hear it."

        If a black hole is experiencing decay, the Space-Time emergence momentum mechanism pulse is ticking.

        "At base level, nuclear reactions in this dying sun are taking place at the level of interacting plank scale energy waves."

        Planck scale is a limitation imposed as a consequence of the inability for our mathematics to penetrate the computational complexity of a "Big Bang" to reveal initial state mechanix, and the substance associated with phenomenal "energy waves" is as yet undetermined... i.e. what waves?

        As Western mainstream media icon for credentialed physicist, Noble recipient, Roger Penrose has recently given academia the green light to investigate an initial state... i.e. a pre "Big Bang" condition... of the Space-Time component of the universe, and is attempting to visualize the fundamental quantization geometry of its structure.
        REF: @7:50 Roger Penrose: {"We Detected Hint Of Previous Universe Existed Before Big Bang"

        The fundamental spatial quantization unit... i.e. the minimum/indivisible quanta of Space (QI)... of the UQS initial state geometry objectifies spatial occupancy for source pulsed minimum/indivisible quanta of spatially defined Energy (QE)... i.e. facilitates the Space-Time Energy momentum mechanism with structural intelligence for QE distribution, as required for Space-Time Energy emergence.
        REF:UQS RE :{"Quantum Many Body System"~ FQXi: D. Oriti 11/2021](http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSDOriti.php)

        "... traveling at the speed of light, energy waves ‘experience’ no time ‘themselves’ as they are traveling at the speed of light."

        In the UQS Space-Time Energy emergence, it takes 4 QT to manifest light on the radiation channel, which suggest the Q-Tick... i.e. momentum mechanism pulse rate... is not conceptually equivalent to time as utilized in calculating the speed of light as distance over the tick of an atomic clock.

        In that QE are distributed as dictated by the spatial quantization, a "light ray" does not propagate as a straight line minimum path... i.e. the quantization unit imposes jaggies... which suggest that distance is not conceptually equivalent to distance as utilized in calculating the speed of light as distance over tick of an atomic clock.

        An investigation into the pre "Big Bang" Logic Domain does challenge our mathematics but it solves the "hard question of consciousness" by demonstrating that consciousness is a consequence of fundamental processes, and it is not surprising to those of us that did NOT wait for a green light, that Roger Penrose is now suggesting that "consciousness is woven into the fabric of the universe".
        REF: @16:00 Roger Penrose:{"Quantum Mechanics Wrong And Consciousness Isn't Computation" ](

        If consciousness can now be considered as a function of emergence, one is justified in investigating and making application of an extended set of mechanisms of consciousness.
        REF: "Digital Science: Emergence and Application of Quantum Consciousness" http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php

        If as a mechanism of consciousness, the act of attention initiates/triggers an enhanced awareness of Q-scale mechanix, then degree of attention could account, at least in part, for degrees of differential between perceived duration of an event, and atomic clock measurement of the event's duration.

        "All of time is happening at the same time unless there is a conscious observer."

        Einstein relativity negates observation of a simultaneous now... i.e. consciousness as the observer...and although E. A. Milne relativity disagrees, Einstein relativity prevails as a consequence of Einstein's mainstream media image.

        Media image is not necessarily a reliable reality check, and the conundrums of language inhibit theoretical coalescense.

        As the source component of the UQS One Universe, the Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain does not facilitate temporal differentiation... i.e. is a timeless now... but the temporal differentiation inferred from the dynamics of observed Spontaneous, Harmonious Resolve (SHR) of QE distribution within the Space-Time Logic Domain component of the UQS One Universe, suggest, and Penrose alludes to, "an underlying universal organizing principle"... a Cosmic Consciousness?
        REF: @14:00 Roger Penrose: {"Quantum Mechanics Wrong And Consciousness Isn't Computation" ](

        UQS models the Space-Time Energy consciousness as a networked intelligence, which inherently emerges as the ever present observer of the QE/QI configuration, throughout the entire Space-Time Energy Domain, on every Q-Tick, and each network node facilitates access to QE input from the Spaceless-Timeless Energy source, as necessary to Spontaneously, Harmoniously Resolve (SHR) QE distribution throughout the entire Space-Time Energy Domain, on every Q-Tick.

        Thanks for the mental stimulus... hope to have returned the favor.

        S. Lingo
        UQS Author/Logician
        http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

        Write a Reply...