Comparing Apples to Inches by John Brodix Merryman

Eckard,

I find myself defending Einstein's relativity in conversation with you and attacking it in conversation with Thomas Ray, so I thought would cross post this observation to somewhat clarify my position:

Tom,

I realize there is a delicate and precise balance between light, mass, duration and distance, such that tweeking one affects the others, but let me try an analogy of why it rattles my chains, if I may;

You are the center of your perspective of the universe. As such you could develop a coordinate system of the entire universe, using your location as its center. If you were to do this, though, the earth would not rotate on its axis, but revolve in a loop around you, same with the moon and sun and stars, even the entire Milky Way would spin around your final resting place every 225 million years. This Tomcentric cosmology could theoretically be developed to be so accurate as to predict the location of the planets far into the future. Obviously this is what a geocentric cosmology does, with the earth as its center. When you get down to it, what really makes a heliocentric cosmology more useful than a Tomcentric or geocentric cosmology isn't so much the theoretical accuracy, as that it is vastly simpler and less complex.

The real problem with the geocentric cosmology was trying to develop a physical model to explain its mathematical structure. The solution was that all these planets were fastened to huge cosmic gear wheels and it spun around as an enormous clockwork. You point out they made a mistake by assuming circles were perfection and thinking they had to move in perfect circles, but I suspect the actual reason is more prosaic. Trying to make oval gears is far more conceptually, mathematically and technically complex than circular gears. In theory though, it might still be made to work. The fact though, is there is no physical evidence of these gears, just planets and stars making strange, yet precise loops around the heavens.

Now consider spacetime and relativity. Mathematically it is a very precise, yet also very complex theory that works with utmost precision. The problem is when we try explaining it with some physical theory and end up with things like blocktime, warped spacetime, time travel, etc. Just like those cosmic gearwheels, they seem necessary to explain what seems to be a very effective and useful mathematical theory, but there is just no physical evidence, other than that functional theory. As with epicycles, is some factor being overlooked?

John,

J:

As I've said, I see time as an effect.

E:

I see it a measure. Don't causing influences precede any effect?

J:

We see evidence of things which occurred in the past, but as the energy radiates around, it moves from that event to our eyes and as our eyes are processing the information, it is of some prior event, but the occurrence of our perception is our existence.

E:

Isn't existence independent from perception? What about the role of energy, look at the harmonic oscillator in phase plane. Energy is in this admittedly idealized case expressed as constant radius while the parameter t proceeds along a circular path.

J:

Now is as abstract as past and future.

E:

of course.

(E:)

"- (a) something particular that we can steer to some extent but not predict for sure and

- (b) in a more general sense an abstract order of all not yet observable features of and events within certainly ongoing processes."

J:

I agree with both points. As I point out, the changing configuration of what is, turns potential into actual. Future possibilities merge into actual events.

E:

In reality only some possibilities, not all.

J:

The problem with the past to future arrow of time is that to the extent physical laws are fundamental, events which occur are those with the highest probability and thus effectively deterministic,

E:

I disagree: Even highly unlikely events may happen. Probability is only reliable with many trials.

J:

but we don't know all potential input until the event occurs,

E:

Often it is even after the event impossible to reconstruct all influences.

J:

since information can be arriving from opposite directions at the speed of light.

E: ?

J:

So the total causes of any particular event are in the future

E:

Such anticipation could at best be true within a closed system. In reality, it is reasonable to reject fatalism and to consider the future not yet existing.

J:

until that event occurs and all probabilities are calculated by those fundamental laws of nature. The event then recedes into the past. In this sense, cause is in the future and effect is in the past.

E:

Nature does not calculate probabilities. Any cause always precedes its past. I understand your fallacy.

J:

In that sense, a big problem with physics is trying to incorporate the past to future arrow of time as a fundamental factor,

E:

Isn't this illusory? I see physics obliged to separate between (b) where future time is just a void placeholder and (a) where future does simply not yet exist.

Up to now, physics operates with closed modeling systems instead of reality. For models, the future can indeed be calculated.

J:

rather than an emergent effect of motion. Projecting the deterministic past onto the probabilistic future leads to the concept of multi-worlds, as all probabilities exist as a function of the percentage of their occurring.

E:

Isn't there an uncountable variety of possibilities? Let me mock: Uncountable worlds are perhaps pointless.

J:

Pretty much the basis of human rationality is the result of past to future examination of cause and effect. So it is natural for us to consider it as fundamental,

E:

I agree.

J:

but this chronology is a function of examining prior occurrences and their subsequent effects, not a consideration of the physical processes in the act of occurring.

E:

Well, preparation is possible. However it does not shift reality.

J:

Time is different kettle of fish when we read about it in books and the linear series is known, then when it is occurring in our face and the possibilities are coming from all directions.

E:

While I did not quite understand your metaphor I guess I can agree.

Let me ask again for any essential argument by Georgina, Einstein or you that might defend presentism in physics.

What about spacetime, I see its proponents mingling (a) and (b).

Eckard

Joe,

Sorry to have not replied to this, but I thought I would read your essay first, yet still have not found the opportunity.

Horses actually are quite predictable, but like anything, it comes with lots of practice and a bit of pain.

Good luck.

E:

I see it a measure.

J:

What is it that we measure? Changes of configuration, preferably those with regularity.

E:

Don't causing influences precede any effect?

J:

Yes, but there is no way to calculate how they will interact prior to the event, since information can be coming from opposite directions at the speed of light, so knowing all potential input requires that God like "objective perspective."

E:

Isn't existence independent from perception?

J:

Perception is a small, subjective part of existence. The problem though, is that there is no such thing as an objective perspective of existence, because "objective perspective" is an oxymoron.

E:

What about the role of energy, look at the harmonic oscillator in phase plane. Energy is in this admittedly idealized case expressed as constant radius while the parameter t proceeds along a circular path.

J:

We can only know that subjective part our minds register. The problem with knowledge is the dichotomy of specialization vs, generalization. As an electrical engineer, you have quite a lot of specialized knowledge about electrical properties, but someone who spend their life as a painter would have a completely different, yet equally valid understanding of the properties of light.

E:

In reality only some possibilities, not all.

J:

That's why they are only possibilities.

E:

I disagree: Even highly unlikely events may happen. Probability is only reliable with many trials.

J:

The point is that once a particular event has actually occurred, the odds of it having happened are 100%. Not that there are not many subjective arguments as to what might have happened, but all events that are in the past have that 100% probability.

E:

Often it is even after the event impossible to reconstruct all influences.

J:

True. That is why the idea that information isn't destroyed is nonsense. As I said earlier, the past is chewed up to feed the future. Energy is conserved, so old information is destroyed in the process of creating new information.

E:

Such anticipation could at best be true within a closed system. In reality, it is reasonable to reject fatalism and to consider the future not yet existing.

J:

In a closed system, there would presumably be a way to know all input. It is because the light cone of any event is still open prior to its occurrence.

E:

Nature does not calculate probabilities. Any cause always precedes its past. I understand your fallacy.

J:

Maybe "calculate" was not the right term, as it implies intent. The arrow of time goes from what comes first, to what comes second. Tomorrow is the 7th of March. Shortly that date will be yesterday. So the arrow of time for the actual events is future to past. Now your point is that prior events precede succeeding ones, therefore the past is cause of the future. The fact is that it is never past, or future, but only the present. The same energy which manifested as yesterday, is currently manifesting today and will eventually manifest tomorrow. That energy is never in the future, or in the past, its existence is what is the present. As that energy moves around, it creates these configurations, Past configurations dissolve into the present configuration, which is dissolving into the next. Neither past or future physically exist because the energy moved on. Now until a particular event occurs, it is a probability, ie, in the future. The probability of an event precedes its actual occurrence. The future is the probabilities and the past is the effect of those probabilities being resolved.

E:

Isn't this illusory? I see physics obliged to separate between (b) where future time is just a void placeholder and (a) where future does simply not yet exist.

Up to now, physics operates with closed modeling systems instead of reality. For models, the future can indeed be calculated.

J:

That's why they end up with multiworlds. Our brains physically exist and thus are always present. Our minds are a record of events, as they recede into the past. If you view time as the probabilities collapsing and not as some fundamental dimension along which events exist, which splays out on encountering the future, then how (A) is separated from (B) makes sense.

E:

Well, preparation is possible. However it does not shift reality.

J:

Preparation is action, which does shift reality, though not always as intended.

E:

What about spacetime, I see its proponents mingling (a) and (b).

J:

They, along with the quantum theorists, are trying to reconcile how the effect of time, ie. the sequential series of events, is fundamental, without considering that the process of time, the changing configuration of what is, is the inverse. Much as we see the sun moving across the sky and spent millennia trying to figure out how, before realizing it was the ground we stand on that was moving the other direction.

Dear John,

I enjoy the word Tomcentric. Before the allegedly relative Poincaré desynchronization, there was no doubt: Fortunately, the Tomcentric time is ubiquitously valid.

J:

What is it that we measure? Changes of configuration, preferably those with regularity.

E:

Measures like temporal or spatial distance are means of comparison that are based on recognizable discrete features.

(E:)

Don't causing influences precede any effect?

J:

Yes, but there is no way to calculate how they will interact prior to the event, since information can be coming from opposite directions at the speed of light, so knowing all potential input requires that God like "objective perspective."

E:

Good point.

(E:)

Isn't existence independent from perception?

J:

Perception is a small, subjective part of existence. The problem though, is that there is no such thing as an objective perspective of existence, because "objective perspective" is an oxymoron.

E:

I did not use the expression objective perspective but I consider objective existence the only reasonable guess and always confirmed without exception.

(E:)

What about the role of energy, look at the harmonic oscillator in phase plane. Energy is in this admittedly idealized case expressed as constant radius while the parameter t proceeds along a circular path.

J:

We can only know that subjective part our minds register. The problem with knowledge is the dichotomy of specialization vs, generalization. As an electrical engineer, you have quite a lot of specialized knowledge about electrical properties, but someone who spend their life as a painter would have a completely different, yet equally valid understanding of the properties of light.

E:

I am claiming to be closer to logically foundational questions than an artist. He can create the illusion of getting younger. I am forced to judge reasonably.

(E:)

I disagree: Even highly unlikely events may happen. Probability is only reliable with many trials.

J:

The point is that once a particular event has actually occurred, the odds of it having happened are 100%. Not that there are not many subjective arguments as to what might have happened, but all events that are in the past have that 100% probability.

E:

Opponents of a clear distinction between past and future like Georgina argue, the past, while 100% decided in the present moment, gets increasingly uncertain, and they do not look at reality but on our possibility to retrace it.

(E:)

Often it is even after the event impossible to reconstruct all influences.

J:

True. That is why the idea that information isn't destroyed is nonsense.

E:

I meant it is often impossible to observe and analyze all influences.

J:

As I said earlier, the past is chewed up to feed the future. Energy is conserved, so old information is destroyed in the process of creating new information.

E:

Sounds as if we should burn all old books and destroy all fossils.

(E:)

Such anticipation could at best be true within a closed system. In reality, it is reasonable to reject fatalism and to consider the future not yet existing.

J:

In a closed system, there would presumably be a way to know all input.

E:

Yes.

J:

It is because the light cone of any event is still open prior to its occurrence.

E:

I dislike attributing mental constructs to reality. What is "the" light cone of any event? You meant the cone of future in the sense of exclusding impossible processes.

E:

Nature does not calculate probabilities. Any cause always precedes its past. I understand your fallacy.

J:

Maybe "calculate" was not the right term, as it implies intent. The arrow of time goes from what comes first, to what comes second. Tomorrow is the 7th of March. Shortly that date will be yesterday. So the arrow of time for the actual events is future to past. Now your point is that prior events precede succeeding ones, therefore the past is cause of the future. The fact is that it is never past, or future, but only the present. The same energy which manifested as yesterday, is currently manifesting today and will eventually manifest tomorrow. That energy is never in the future, or in the past, its existence is what is the present. As that energy moves around, it creates these configurations, Past configurations dissolve into the present configuration, which is dissolving into the next. Neither past or future physically exist because the energy moved on. Now until a particular event occurs, it is a probability, ie, in the future. The probability of an event precedes its actual occurrence. The future is the probabilities and the past is the effect of those probabilities being resolved.

E:

Here you are horribly wrong. Effects can only be ascribed to causes, not to probabilities. Consider a clock. Isn't is nonsensical to ask which energy is manifesting yesterday, today, and tomorrow? "Neither past or future physically exist". In what sense do you mean does the present time exist? You means only configurations exist. In that I agree. Nonetheless I see existing while of course declining evidence of what happened but no future fossils.

(E:)

Isn't this illusory? I see physics obliged to separate between (b) where future time is just a void placeholder and (a) where future does simply not yet exist.

Up to now, physics operates with closed modeling systems instead of reality. For models, the future can indeed be calculated.

J:

That's why they end up with multiworlds. Our brains physically exist and thus are always present. Our minds are a record of events, as they recede into the past. If you view time as the probabilities collapsing and not as some fundamental dimension along which events exist, which splays out on encountering the future, then how (A) is separated from (B) makes sense.

E:

I share and appreciate this insight.

(E:)

Well, preparation is possible. However it does not shift reality.

J:

Preparation is action, which does shift reality, though not always as intended.

E:

With shift of reality I meant shift of time scale in reality. You will agree that this is not feasible.

(E:)

What about spacetime, I see its proponents mingling (a) and (b).

J:

They, along with the quantum theorists, are trying to reconcile how the effect of time, ie. the sequential series of events, is fundamental, without considering that the process of time, the changing configuration of what is, is the inverse. Much as we see the sun moving across the sky and spent millennia trying to figure out how, before realizing it was the ground we stand on that was moving the other direction.

E:

Despite your adherence to presentism, you seem to be among the very few who can agree with a considerable part of my essay. I consider rewarding it.

Best regards,

Eckard

E:

Measures like temporal or spatial distance are means of comparison that are based on recognizable discrete features.

J:

Yes, but what are we measuring? In space, two points can simultaneously exist, but in time the initiating reference ceases to exist, when we get to the concluding reference.

E:

I did not use the expression objective perspective but I consider objective existence the only reasonable guess and always confirmed without exception.

J:

Objective existence is real, but perspective is subjective.

E:

I am claiming to be closer to logically foundational questions than an artist. He can create the illusion of getting younger. I am forced to judge reasonably.

J:

What artists deal in is perspective. They have to extract some narrative focus from that non-linear objective reality. Consider that people were creating quite lifelike sculpture 2500 years ago, but until they really began to develop vanishing point perspectives some 6/700 years ago, efforts to impart three dimensionality on a flat surface amounted to putting smaller objects between the larger objects, but without giving it that central point of focus, it rarely achieved the desired effect. A similar dichotomy exists between scientists and journalists, as scientists possess large amounts of information, centered around particular subjects and get overwhelmed trying to draw some manageable narrative thread from it, then accuse someone writing about it as being shallow and biased for focusing on points which might stand out, but loose their context. It goes back to the problem with perspective versus the underlaying reality. Currently politics has similar problem, as society grows ever larger. While it is said power corrupts, the underlaying reality is that power blinds. The ability to rationally deal with exponentially growing information is quickly overwhelmed, so even the best intentions get washed away and emotion prevails

E:

Opponents of a clear distinction between past and future like Georgina argue, the past, while 100% decided in the present moment, gets increasingly uncertain, and they do not look at reality but on our possibility to retrace it.

J:

What Georgina is trying to do is clarify that relationship between perspective and the underlaying reality. I think she is doing a very good job of it, but then I have a good idea what she is trying to express. As with anything, unless you are in a similar position to the perspective being drawn, the observation might as well be in another language. Much like a star chart drawn from the earth would be meaningless if we viewed the heavens from Alpha Centari.

E:

I meant it is often impossible to observe and analyze all influences.

J:

Yes, because perspective is not objective.

E:

Sounds as if we should burn all old books and destroy all fossils.

J:

They are views back in time, much like a star is information from the past, but much reduced from what was originally radiated. Consider the position of the person who wrote the original draft of that old book, a thousand years ago and what he would think of a fossil dug up then. Even though slightly closer in time, but not having centuries of progress in geology, anatomy, biology, etc. he would not have much information to contextualize it and likely view it as evidence of dragons. On the other hand, he would have far greater understanding of the immediate context in which that book was written, than we would have, though we might have more perspective of the larger political circumstance than someone directly immeshed in them might. Much like those star charts, they only make sense from their own perspective, but if we can still place them in that context, it gives us the ability to multiply our knowledge, much as binocular vision combines to give us greater depth of perspective..

E:

I dislike attributing mental constructs to reality. What is "the" light cone of any event? You meant the cone of future in the sense of excluding impossible processes.

J:

It's a good example of using a concept, that of a cone, in a slightly different perspective, that of the sphere of influence, such that it might clarify, but also might confuse the issue. It is a consequence of trying to define time, ie. the changing configuration, as another dimension, which is a spatial concept. Thus we have cones, which take the three dimensional sphere of influence, reduce it to a two dimensional circle and then project it along that timeline, such that the circle increases in diameter. If we simply projected out ever larger spheres of influence, there would be no way to incorporate the timeline, as the center would remain a point.

E:

Here you are horribly wrong. Effects can only be ascribed to causes, not to probabilities. Consider a clock. Isn't is nonsensical to ask which energy is manifesting yesterday, today, and tomorrow? "Neither past or future physically exist". In what sense do you mean does the present time exist? You means only configurations exist. In that I agree. Nonetheless I see existing while of course declining evidence of what happened but no future fossils.

J:

Isn't that "declining evidence of what happened," the particular configuration receding into the past, as it is constantly being overwritten by new configurations? Yes, effects can only be ascribed to causes, but the exact configuration emerges from the range of causal influences.

E:

With shift of reality I meant shift of time scale in reality. You will agree that this is not feasible.

J:

Basically, but if you increase the level of activity, you increase the rate of change. One ages faster with a higher metabolic rate.

E:

Despite your adherence to presentism, you seem to be among the very few who can agree with a considerable part of my essay. I consider rewarding it.

J:

Presentism still assumes time is foundational, but exists in the present moment. I simply see it as a sea of energy and the changing configuration creates the effect of time. Georgina does put a lot of effort into trying to clarify how time and the events used to measure it, emerge from this foundational activity. There is no point of the present, since it requires varying durations of input to coalesce into particular events. The more we try to isolate duration down to its shortest possible unit, the less input and information we receive and the smaller our perspective. On the other hand, if we go the opposite direction and try to include to much information, it blurs together, like setting aperture and shutter speed to large. It's a function of perspective. Our limitations are what give us definition and focus.

Thanks for the compliments, but thanks even more for taking the time to discuss it.

John, I went back and did another read. Below is an interesting statement from your essay, but can you explain it a little further:

In fact, if light is an expanding radiant energy in an infinite universe, which could not further expand, it might also go toward explaining the effect ascribed to dark matter.Rather than some additional force of attraction within galaxies, it would be a source of external pressure on them. Given it is the rate at which the outer bands of these galaxies move that is in question, this external solution would be fitting.

Forgive me if you covered this in a previous post.

Dear John,

Nothing can happen in the very moment unless we ascribe a duration to it. Exact integration in physics requires restricting to possible causation, i.e. to influences that already exist at the considered moment.

Let me further check your arguments:

(E:) Measures like temporal or spatial distance are means of comparison that are based on recognizable discrete features.

J: Yes, but what are we measuring? In space, two points can simultaneously exist, but in time the initiating reference ceases to exist, when we get to the concluding reference.

E: Yes, anything can only move within abstract time. I see this one more reason to question spacetime.

(E:) I did not use the expression objective perspective but I consider objective existence the only reasonable guess and always confirmed without exception.

J: Objective existence is real, but perspective is subjective.

E: I see reality synonymous to objective existence and tend to avoid the ambiguous and possibly mistakable term perspective.

(E:) Opponents of a clear distinction between past and future like Georgina argue, the past, while 100% decided in the present moment, gets increasingly uncertain, and they do not look at reality but on our possibility to retrace it.

J:What Georgina is trying to do is clarify that relationship between perspective and the underlaying reality. I think she is doing a very good job of it, but then I have a good idea what she is trying to express. As with anything, unless you are in a similar position to the perspective being drawn, the observation might as well be in another language. Much like a star chart drawn from the earth would be meaningless if we viewed the heavens from Alpha Centari.

E: Doesn't she bring owls to Athens when she distinguishes between territory and map? What U am trying to reveal is the fallacy behind the definitely wrong argument the past is as uncertain as is future.

(E:) I meant it is often impossible to observe and analyze all influences.

J:Yes, because perspective is not objective.

E: Because even the best model is not the reality. Again: The map is not the territory.

(E:) Sounds as if we should burn all old books and destroy all fossils.

J: They are views back in time, ...

E: My English is shaky. Doesn't view mean looking at? .

(E:) I dislike attributing mental constructs to reality. What is "the" light cone of any event? You meant the cone of future in the sense of excluding impossible processes.

J:It's a good example of using a concept, that of a cone, in a slightly different perspective, that of the sphere of influence,...

E: I fear you did not get my point here. It doesn't matter.

(E:) Here you are horribly wrong. Effects can only be ascribed to causes, not to probabilities. Consider a clock. Isn't is nonsensical to ask which energy is manifesting yesterday, today, and tomorrow? "Neither past or future physically exist". In what sense do you mean does the present time exist? You means only configurations exist. In that I agree. Nonetheless I see existing while of course declining evidence of what happened but no future fossils.

J: Isn't that "declining evidence of what happened," the particular configuration receding into the past, as it is constantly being overwritten by new configurations? Yes, effects can only be ascribed to causes, but the exact configuration emerges from the range of causal influences.

E: I would rather say it is the sum of all involved influences. In case we can calculate the result it is in mathematical terms an integral. That's why I do not consider differential equations basic to physics.

(E:) With shift of reality I meant shift of time scale in reality. You will agree that this is not feasible.

J:Basically, but if you increase the level of activity, you increase the rate of change. One ages faster with a higher metabolic rate.

E: This would not affect the time.

J:Presentism still assumes time is foundational, but exists in the present moment. I simply see it as a sea of energy and the changing configuration creates the effect of time.

E: Again: The ideal border between past and future is a point, something that has no parts, no duration. There is no change possible in it. Any change is a process. If one considers moment when the process has finished, then all influences go back to somewhere in the past. It is likewise reasonable to consider predicted future processes.

J: Georgina does put a lot of effort into trying to clarify how time and the events used to measure it, emerge from this foundational activity. There is no point of the present, since it requires varying durations of input to coalesce into particular events. The more we try to isolate duration down to its shortest possible unit, the less input and information we receive and the smaller our perspective. On the other hand, if we go the opposite direction and try to include to much information, it blurs together, like setting aperture and shutter speed to large. It's a function of perspective. Our limitations are what give us definition and focus.

E: I am afraid Georgina is unable to admit that their presentist perspective cannot overcome the calamity you described. Of course it is reasonable to use notions like today that are deliberately undecided between past and future. Of course it is helpful to imagine a huge amount of processes going on right now. In practice it is anyway difficult to idealize processes as between each a point at the beginning and at the end. However, physics needs idealized models. When Einstein denied the separation between past, present and future, he confused physics with the belief in eternal life and with the unphysical notion of presence.

Unfortunately Georgina also failed to consequently argue against spacetime. Can we clarify really foundational matters without the readiness to hurt the mainstream if necessary?

Regards,

Eckard

Thanks for the compliments, but thanks even more for taking the time to discuss it.

E:

Nothing can happen in the very moment unless we ascribe a duration to it. Exact integration in physics requires restricting to possible causation, i.e. to influences that already exist at the considered moment.

J:

Agreed. Time is an effect of motion.

E:

Yes, anything can only move within abstract time. I see this one more reason to question spacetime.

J:

One of the points I make is that the same argument for time as a dimension of space could be used to say temperature is another parameter of volume. Beside the fact that changing the volume of a given amount of energy has an inverse effect on its temperature, in ideal circumstances, can you conceive of temperature without space? Plus that any given amount of space supposedly has some amount of energy, which would be recorded as having a temperature.

The reason this is not considered is that the sequencing of events is foundational to logic, but temperature is simply environmental, so there is less ability to view time objectively.

E:

I see reality synonymous to objective existence and tend to avoid the ambiguous and possibly mistakable term perspective.

J:

Reality and objective existence are the same, but our ability to perceive it is a complex process of deconstruction and reconstruction. Think about it in terms of how your sight functions. It is quite similar to a movie camera, in that it registers "snapshots" of perception, otherwise all the detail would be blurred together. Also it only registers three areas on the spectrum of light. We are defined by our limitations, because definition is limitation.

E:

Doesn't she bring owls to Athens when she distinguishes between territory and map? What U am trying to reveal is the fallacy behind the definitely wrong argument the past is as uncertain as is future.

J:

Objectively, the past does not physically exist, only the influences it has on the current configuration. To some extent, reverse engineering this configuration can be as problematic as predicting where it might go. Which is not to say that past configurations did not go through exact circumstances, but that those circumstances no longer exist and that does pose some clarity issues. Maps sometimes have the advantage of recording information which is no longer in the territory. To a certain extent, spacetime is a mapping device for fixing temporal coordinates. Prior to that, Newton's flow of absolute time assumed the slices of universal moments were naturally fixed. With relativity, the same event can be perceived at different times. Which is not to say, as is supposed, that there is no universal present, but that it cannot be judged in terms of fixed measurable points of reference. For those who assume that space and time are only functions of measurement, this is equivalent to saying there is no universal present. Then they are forced to assert block time, that the dimension of time is the same as those of space.

E:

Because even the best model is not the reality. Again: The map is not the territory.

J:

No, but if we could perceive reality in terms greater than the little snippets at a time that we do, it would, by definition, fry our mental circuits.

E:

My English is shaky. Doesn't view mean looking at? .

J:

Yes.

E:

This would not affect the time.

J:

It would affect the measure of time. Essentially one clock runs faster than another, but they both exist in the same present.

E:

Again: The ideal border between past and future is a point, something that has no parts, no duration. There is no change possible in it.

J:

Isn't the term "ideal" an abstraction? A dimensionless point is a useful tool, but conceptually flawed, since anything multiplied by zero is zero.

E:

Any change is a process. If one considers moment when the process has finished, then all influences go back to somewhere in the past.

J:

Our brains like these clear delineations, but under the discreteness, it is analog. Even death can be a slow draining away. And there certainly is lots of controversy as to when life begins.

E:

In practice it is anyway difficult to idealize processes as between each a point at the beginning and at the end. However, physics needs idealized models. When Einstein denied the separation between past, present and future, he confused physics with the belief in eternal life and with the unphysical notion of presence.

J:

We all need models to make it through the day. What if every doorknob you encountered, you had to evaluate its mechanism in order to open the door? I'm not Einstein, so I can't speak for him. I do know there are moments in the day when my mind seems spread across the universe and other times when it is obsessed by the most minor details. Einstein suffered from fame and the problem of having others take his every utterance seriously.

E:

Unfortunately Georgina also failed to consequently argue against spacetime. Can we clarify really foundational matters without the readiness to hurt the mainstream if necessary?

J:

We can offer up ideas and see if they have any effect. Other than that, the mainstream follows its own course. I grew up as a younger child in a large family, so I'm quite used to being ignored.

Regards,

John

Chris,

If space "expands," but the universe is infinite and therefore cannot expand, as all areas maintain equal pressure on other areas and this expansion is balanced by the contraction of gravity, resulting in overall flat space which it appears to be, then not only is gravity pulling mass inward, but what would be causing space to expand, whether simply radiation from all galaxies within the billions of lightyears which light can travel, or vacuum fluctuation, would be external pressure on these systems.

The assumption is that this additional spin must be due to extra attraction within the galaxy, but why couldn't it be due to external pressure on the galaxy? Especially since the motion in question is primarily on the outer edges.

Obviously this would seem a negligible amount of pressure, but I think that the idea the entire universe is only 13.7 billion years old is like thinking the earth is only the biblical 6000 years old. Currently the oldest discovered galaxy is at 13.2 billion lightyears. Which means it would have to grow large enough to shine that far in only 500 million years. So I think the universe is infinitely old and these processes take much longer to develop momentum and size.

Also the gravity fields of galaxies extend much further out than the visible edges, so the combination of various forces, electromagnetic, gravitational and external pressure would combine to make what amount to the middle range, even though it is the edge of what is visible, spin at close to the same rate as the inner bands.

I agree it's one of my less clear points, but I thought I'd stick it in there anyway.

Chris,

Here are a couple of links. From Dan Benedict on a very large theoretical miss by Big Bang theory which is overlooked:

[link:www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale]http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

From Israel Perez on another possible explanation for redshift as a function of distance:

2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

That last site:

here

Another:

here

J: Agreed. Time is an effect of motion.

E: Motion of what?

J: ... if we could perceive reality in terms greater than the little snippets at a time that we do, it would, by definition, fry our mental circuits.

E: Auditory perception has a time window of a few milliseconds. Already the primary auditory cortex A1 integrates over much a larger time span. I did not understand in terms of cerebral physiology what you meant with fried mental circuits. My English is shaky.

(E:) This would not affect the time.

J:It would affect the measure of time. Essentially one clock runs faster than

another, but they both exist in the same present.

E: In my understanding time is a measure which does not depend on how fast a clock runs. Mors certa hora incerta can be ridiculed as follows: "It is absolutely certain, the clock runs incorrect."

Arjen Dijkman defined reality as something everybody can agree on. You wrote "exist in the same present". Already St. Augustinus understood that there is not at all a timespan "present". I tried to explain that both "exist" and "present" are deliberately used as imprecise notions. What exists at a considered point is not just a configuration in the sense of hidden Markov models but sums of influences out of the past. Mathematics reflect this when it declares a state given by the value of a variable at a given moment but also all belonging derivatives. It would be more naturally to consider all integrals instead.

I suggest considering the existence of something as the actual sum of all influences into it.

(E:) Again: The ideal border between past and future is a point, something that has no parts, no duration. There is no change possible in it.

J: A dimensionless point is a useful tool, but conceptually flawed, since anything multiplied by zero is zero.

E: Infinity multiplied by zero can be anything. I do not consider ideals like point, line, and area conceptually flawed.

(E:) ... physics needs idealized models. When Einstein denied the separation between past, present and future, he confused physics with the belief in eternal life and with the unphysical notion of presence.

J: Einstein suffered from fame and the problem of having others take his every utterance seriously.

E: While he made this utterance in a letter of condolence, it does nonetheless repeat his disagreement with Ritz.

(E:) Unfortunately Georgina also failed to consequently argue against spacetime. Can we clarify really foundational matters without the readiness to hurt the mainstream if necessary?

J: We can offer up ideas and see if they have any effect. Other than that, the mainstream follows its own course. I grew up as a younger child in a large family, so I'm quite used to being ignored.

E: Before offering ideas we should do our homework. Tomorrow more.

Regards,

Eckard

John,

I noticed that in a comment to John Gadway you said: "I first began studying physics in a search for objectivity, but find the field rife with many of the same conceptual and professional contradictions inherent in other fields."

Welcome to the real world.

You also said: "I think we are all waiting for the denouement, such as not discovering super-symmetric particles by the LHC, or the discovery of galaxies older than the presumed age of the universe, in order to have the space for new ideas to flourish."

As I've remarked to you elsewhere, my GEM theory has for five years predicted no Higgs and no SUSY (Super-Symmetry) and no other new particles.

The response to this from many has been "There has to be SUSY!"

But this morning my 3 Mar 2011 issue of NATURE said that over a year of searching at LHC has failed to find any evidence of super-particles (or the Higgs), and if SUSY is not found by the end of the year, the theory is in serious trouble (some already say that 'SUSY is dead'.)

Nature says "SUSY's utility and mathematical grace have instilled a "religious devotion" among its followers" some of whom have been working on the theory for thirty years.

The key statement in the article is this:

"This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

Explains a lot, doesn't it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I've been keeping tabs on the LHC site and that article was linked through there. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out in the physics establishment.

E:

Motion of what?

J:

Julian Barbour won the nature of time contest arguing the only measure of time worthy of the name was that of least action between separate configuration states of the universe. I would tend to be far more wholistic and argue virtually any change of state, no matter how regular,or not, manifests duration. So maybe I should have said change, yet the question is as to what effects change and motion seems the most concise answer. Of what? Well, whatever can be distinguished.

E:

Auditory perception has a time window of a few milliseconds. Already the primary auditory cortex A1 integrates over much a larger time span. I did not understand in terms of cerebral physiology what you meant with fried mental circuits. My English is shaky.

J;

Sensory overload.

E:

In my understanding time is a measure which does not depend on how fast a clock runs. Mors certa hora incerta can be ridiculed as follows: "It is absolutely certain, the clock runs incorrect."

J:

The main logical observation of relativity is that acceleration, gravity, etc. affect clock rates. The point being there is no universal, Newtonian measure of time. Since I think space is an equilibrium state, possibly if we were to scatter clocks all around space and the one registering the fastest time would be least affected by any acceleration or gravitational influences and thus the closest to this state of complete equilibrium.

E:

Arjen Dijkman defined reality as something everybody can agree on. You wrote "exist in the same present". Already St. Augustinus understood that there is not at all a timespan "present". I tried to explain that both "exist" and "present" are deliberately used as imprecise notions. What exists at a considered point is not just a configuration in the sense of hidden Markov models but sums of influences out of the past. Mathematics reflect this when it declares a state given by the value of a variable at a given moment but also all belonging derivatives. It would be more naturally to consider all integrals instead.

J:

"but sums of influences out of the past." At what point do these influences come together?

I don't know that I'd say reality is what everyone can agree on. Ithink alot of the depth and complexity of reality and life is due to the fact that it is elemental to have opposing views. They don't cancel each other out, but balance each other in a larger reality.

E:

I suggest considering the existence of something as the actual sum of all influences into it.

J:

True, but it is when these influences come together that that something comes into existence.

E:

Infinity multiplied by zero can be anything. I do not consider ideals like point, line, and area conceptually flawed.

J:

The present isn't zero duration, because that would be like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. There would be no "sums of influences out of the past."

E:

Before offering ideas we should do our homework. Tomorrow more.

J:

Homework for me always meant working outside.

Regards,

John

J: Julian Barbour won the nature of time contest arguing the only measure of time worthy of the name was that of least action between separate configuration states of the universe. I would tend to be far more holistic and argue virtually any change of state, no matter how regular, or not, manifests duration. So maybe I should have said change, yet the question is as to what effects change and motion seems the most concise answer. Of what? Well, whatever can be distinguished.

E: Isn't the notion universe holistic? While Rosen-bridge claims the opposite I do not yet see any chance to benefit from speculations that consider the world continued in excess of this logical encapsulation. As I confessed to Tejinder Singh, I consider it unlikely but not impossible that time and space have a discrete structure. At least I did not realize that any essay could envision something tangible in this direction. Aren't enough other questions to be tackled that might have a better chance to prove foundational? I maintain: A bundle of such questions goes back to insufficient distinction between past und future down to the denial of the necessity to revive an appropriate mathematical basis.

What is foundational? Spacetime is definitely foundational to the history of physics in the 20th century. Is it really foundational to physics for good?

J: Sensory overload. E: Thanks.

(E: ) In my understanding time is a measure which does not depend on how fast a clock runs. Mors certa hora incerta can be ridiculed as follows: "It is absolutely certain, the clock runs incorrect."

J: The main logical observation of relativity is that acceleration, gravity, etc. affect clock rates. The point being there is no universal, Newtonian measure of time. Since I think space is an equilibrium state, possibly if we were to scatter clocks all around space and the one registering the fastest time would be least affected by any acceleration or gravitational influences and thus the closest to this state of complete equilibrium.

E: Of course, clock rates depend on forces. This can be observed and there is also no logical alternative to Galilei's sound principle of relativity while I understood "relativity" as a presumably flawed concept. Why do you think "space is an equilibrium state"? Whom do you follow in that?

(E: ) Already St. Augustinus understood that there is not at all a time-span "present". I tried to explain that both "exist" and "present" are deliberately used as imprecise notions. What exists at a considered point is not just a configuration in the sense of hidden Markov models but sums of influences out of the past. Mathematics reflect this when it declares a state given by the value of a variable at a given moment but also all belonging derivatives. It would be more naturally to consider all integrals instead.

J: "but sums of influences out of the past." At what point do these influences come together?

E: At the ubiquitous border between past and future, and with different delays.

(E:) I suggest considering the existence of something as the actual sum of all influences into it.

J: True, but it is when these influences come together that that something comes into existence.

E: Yes, and it is reasonable to consider ongoing influence to the sum at later moments also existing. In other words, the past is unchangeable written and therefore more or less influential while the future does not act back.

(E: ) Infinity multiplied by zero can be anything. I do not consider ideals like point, line, and area conceptually flawed.

J: The present isn't zero duration, because that would be like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. There would be no "sums of influences out of the past."

E: Why not? I vote for a realistic use of point and line as unrealistic fictions. Hjelmslev mistook a point as a crossroad. Please read my essay again.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Edwin,

You quoted: "This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

Didn't my essay 527 last year claim that these options might have overlapped?

So far, I suspected all those who attacked transfinite numbers and SR to be just cranks. I beg FQXi for pardon if I have to admit that discussions here opened my eyes.

I do not yet entirely agree with John Merryman, and his mathematical background might be limited. Nonetheless I acknowledge his honest and perhaps correct attitude and decided to rate his essay together with the discussion it sparks worth 10. If you aren't one of the two 8 voters, I would like to ask you for doing the same.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

E:

Isn't the notion universe holistic?

J:

This goes to the understanding of what the prefix "uni" stands for. Does it mean "unit," or "unity?" One is a singular entity, which necessarily distinguishes between what is inside and what is outside. The other is connectivity. This distinction has great historical dimensions, as groups and organizations of people start out by defining their community in terms of connection and eventually this solidifies into an exclusivity which usually negates the essential nature and existence of whatever is outside, as the foundational philosophy becomes ever more hermetic. While this might seem unrelated to a discussion of scientific theory, the fact is that it forms how our minds function. As I point out in my essay, western thought is object oriented, while eastern thought is context oriented. We think in terms of units, while they think in terms of connections. So having originated from a western foundation, is it coincidental that we view reality in terms of scales of units, from subatomic particles, up to the entire universe existing as a singularity based unit? Then in the effort to make this philosophical projection hermetic, many complicating factors are trimmed away, thus we have light as these magic particles which pop into and out of existence, but cannot exist as anything but those irreducible objects. On the other end, we are asked to accept that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point and from this emerged time, space, energy and mass, with no precedents.

E:

Of course, clock rates depend on forces. This can be observed and there is also no logical alternative to Galilei's sound principle of relativity while I understood "relativity" as a presumably flawed concept. Why do you think "space is an equilibrium state"? Whom do you follow in that?

J:

That's pretty much my own. Once time is described as a third order effect of motion, it leaves the question of just what is space. There are a lot of precedents for it to have some foundational function, such as the idea of vacuum fluctuation. What is the vacuum, if not space. What would fluctuation be, but a disequilibrium, which implies the existence of an equilibrium. Then there are the myriad problems of trying to conceive of space as emerging from a point. One of the issues I've raised over the years with Lawrence, Tom and others, is that if space truly expands from a point, what accounts for the otherwise stable speed of light? If it was truly space expanding, wouldn't this foundational measure expand equally? Instead, Big Bang Theory simply assumes a stable speed of light, such that if the universe were to double in size, two sources x lightyears apart would be 2x lightyears apart. That's not expanding space, but an increased amount of stable space. I think it goes back to the basic geometric assumption that the center point of the three dimensional coordinate system is the zero point, but a point is still a singular entity. Logically zero would be the absence of any particular references, ie. blank space.

E:

At the ubiquitous border between past and future, and with different delays.

J:

But the reality is that that point is a conceptual abstraction, while the physical reality is still just a bunch of energy moving around, from which we perceive whatever comes in contact with our point of reference. It doesn't stop, we just take snapshots of it and reconstruct our sequential sense of motion from these series of impressions. It not that everything exists at the present moment, but that it simply exists. The sequential referencing is entirely a function of perspective.

E:

Yes, and it is reasonable to consider ongoing influence to the sum at later moments also existing. In other words, the past is unchangeable written and therefore more or less influential while the future does not act back.

J:

Yes, but we are constantly encountering unpredictable input. The more we rely on past events to guide our actions, the less flexible we are in responding. Much as a computer that stores too much information will freeze. As long as our knowledge can incorporate new input, the future is an evolving continuation from the past, but when we can no longer incorporate new input, the future becomes a reaction to the past and the reset button gets pushed on that particular store of information. Evolution, vs. revolution.

E:

Why not? I vote for a realistic use of point and line as unrealistic fictions. Hjelmslev mistook a point as a crossroad. Please read my essay again.

J:

I was reading through it a few days ago and spend too much time thinking through the various points and ran out of time. Today, my ex called this morning and wants me to pick the daughter up at school, so time is running short again. Then I go to my second job, (for the ex, finishing up at her riding school) then tonight, If some part of the brain is still functioning, I'll try again.

Regards,

John