Maartenn100

The neural correlates are just the outer appearance of this inner world, dimension, or space, seen from the viewpoint of another mind. The neural correlates are 'this inner space and inner thoughts' seen in the perceptions of another mind. The neural correlates of consciousness do not cause the mind, they are the mind, seen from the perspective of another mind.

Science (as concept) is non-physical. Without this non-physical mind you could not read these words here on the page or any other book for that matter. Take the non-physical mind away from the world, and science ceases to exist.

There is at least one other dimension beyond the physical dimension we witness daily: the hidden 'spatial' dimension where the inner voice, inner thoughts, inner images, and dreams 'reside'. For ourselves, this dimension is visible to our 'mind's eye'. We notice our inner voice, witness our thoughts and observe our dreams. However, the same dimension and its non-physical entities are not visible to us in others or in the rest of the physical world. Thus, we do not know if ChatGPT also has such an 'inner experiential world'. Such a hidden spatial dimension. We assume it in animals. We hardly suspect it in a computer component or radio. We do not even consider that there may be other hidden dimensions tied to the physical world that we cannot discover, which are different from that inwardly noticeable non-physical space. When we see someone, we do not see their hidden non-physical dimension from which they conceptualize, dream, have inner images, and so forth. When this person dies, we also do not see what happens to this inner space. It is possible that this inner space 'expands', now that the physical matter to which this dimension was tied, crumbles. We can never directly see this space of the other, so we also do not know what happens to it after the death of the material correlates. I am asking here and now for immediate recognition from the physicalists for this non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside! That there exists at least one non-physical domain, or 'space' or 'dimension' that each of us personally witnesses, but cannot observe in others or the other physical objects, and about which we fundamentally do not know what happens after the disintegration of the material correlates of this non-physical dimension!

I accept that timedilation happened in a field of gravity. But to a conscious astronaut, he/she will experience his clock ticking at a normal rate. There will be no difference in time perception for him. Take the following thought experiment from special relativity: on a ship travelling near the speed of light relative to Earth, the observers on that ship don't experience a dilation of time, nor a shrink of their ship. To them, everything on the ship is perceived 'normal'. To them: Earth is shrinking in one direction and the clocks on Earth do have strange effects. To the conscious observers in the ship. So, to a conscious observer, his perception of time rate passage is the same, wherever he or she is. He has no experience of a timestretch or timecontraction, a spacecontraction or a space-expansion locally. Only when we compare the clocks afterwards, when we bring them together, we see that there must have been a difference in time rate passage. Think about the travellers in the ship near the speed of light. We, from Earth, see that the ship is shrinking and that the time is dilating over there. But the conscious observers in the ship do not perceive anything weird on the ship. The ship is as always. The clocks run normal. Everything is fine. Why? Because wherever an observer is, his idea of time is 'normal'. Even when he is close to a black hole. Why is this relevant? It's relevant for our observations of space through our telescopes. What we observer has also something to do with our clocks and with our normal perception of time here on Earth, while time is actually dilated.

My claim is that conscious observers have their own particular clock and their own particular ruler. A reference for time and a reference for a straight uncurved, unstretched ruler. Wherever we are, as conscious observers, we experience the same time rate passage. And we have our local idea of what's an uncurved and straight ruler. Time So, far above the Earth, scientists say: the time rate passage goes faster, due to gravitational timedilation here on Earth. Gravity slows down time. But what's actually happening is: relative to an observer high above the Earth (an astronaut f.e.), the time rate passage is slower on Earth then his reference idea of a standard ticking clock. But to a conscious observer near a black hole, time on Earth goes faster then his local standard idea of a normal ticking clock. Time goes very fast on Earth, relative to this conscious observer near that black hole. Because his consciousness experiences time 'normal' locally, wherever he is. ('normal' means: a reference time rate passage for consciousness, that is everywhere the same for every observer, wherever he or she is). So, our experience of time is everywhere the same. Therefore, everywhere we have a particular ruler. Ruler I think that every conscious observer has also his or her particular idea of a straight line as his or her reference for the observations of 'curvature' or 'expanding' spaces elsewhere, far away from the observer. In relative heavier or relative weaker fields of gravity. So, a straight uncurved and unexpanded ruler for a conscious observer in intergalactic 'expanding' space is different from a straight uncurved or unexpanded ruler for a conscious observer here on Earth. Time-observations and ruler-observations are connected Whenever we, as conscious observers, observe a 'curved environement' in space, due to gravity, f.e. gravitational lensing etc., we see this curvature through the lens of our clock. We see this curvature through the lens of our idea of an uncurved and unstretched ruler in our referenceframe. It means, that overthere, the clock will tick relative slower then our reference clock, as conscious observers on Earth. So, whatever we observer 'outthere' depends on our local idea of a normal ticking clock and our particular idea of a straight uncurved and unstretched line as our reference for 'curvature by gravity' (or speed). Maarten Vergucht

You're right. Thanks for your feedback.

New theory indicates present and future exist simultaneously...

What's wrong with the following reasoning? - The past is gone (doesn't exist (anymore)) - The future isn't there yet (doesn't exist) - The actual moment is all there is. - The actual moment can't have a duration, because in that case it could be divided into a past, present and a future. So, the duration of the actual moment must be 0 sec. Conclusion: time is an illusion.

I don't understand your question.

But, the past is gone and the future isn't there yet, in our experience. Only the actual moment exists and is real. We observe the past, but we are in the present moment, and that's all there is to our conscious experience. Even when you remember something from the past, it pops up in the present. Because the present is all there is (to minds).

In philosophy of time, you have eternalism and presentism. Eternalism says: there is the block universe where past, present and future co-exist as one block universe. Presentism says: there is only the present moment. My idea is: to a conscious mind, there is only the present (presentism), but a universe without minds is a block universe (eternalism). So presentism and eternalism are both true, depending on the perspective you are using. The perspective of a mind/observer = presentism. The perspective of a universe without minds (even animals, although they could experience time differently) is a 4D-block universe.

We only experience a 3D-universe, in the actual moment. We only experience the present. (philosophical presentism) (we observe the past, but we observe it in our present moment). The present moment is all there exist for an observer. But without observers, the universe in itself, is eternalism. The block universe where past, present and maybe future co-exist. This video explains the difference between our human experience and spacetime very well: The philosophical aspect would be 'consciousness' or 'mind' that's added to physics. Our experience of a 3D space in the actual moment, is actually an experience of a 3-dimensional universe, while there are 4 dimensions. The interaction of a mind with 4D-spacetime let us only experience the 3D-universe in the present moment. Thank you for this information! Does the moon exist when there are no observers? Without any observer, the moon and everything the universe exist as it was in the past, as it is in the present and as it will be in the future simultaniously. An existing mind will experience the motions of the moon moment by moment. Only in the present. While 'outthere', in spacetime, in the block universe, all the motions of the moon co-exist in past, present and maybe future. That's how I see it. The double slit experiment f.e.: the shooting of the electron, the electron going through the slit and finally touching the photoscreen, all these events exist simultaniously when there are no observers. The observer will fix the particle in a moment in time, while in reality, in 4D-spacetime, the whole experiment, from beginning to end, co-exists through time simultaniously.

Why do we only experience a 3D-world, while it's actually a 4D spacetime universe (Einstein) where past, present and maybe future co-exist simultaniously as some block universe? Due to the interaction of consciousness with this 4D-spacetime- block universe, we only experience a 3D world.

Ask yourself these questions: What is a straight line for observers in different, curved spacetime environements? Is it the same straight line for all observers? Or do we disagree about our ruler? For every observer, his particular idea of straight uncurved ruler (a straight line) is an individual idea of space, like he has an individual clock (time rate passage). Whatever an observer will see as a straight line, in his own referenceframe, will be curved somewhere else by heavier masses. Whatever an observer will see as a straight line in his own reference frame, will be seen as an expanded space somewhere else in less heavy environements (in intergalactic space f.e.). We have individual clocks, but we also have individual rulers. We all have a particular idea of straight uncurved and unexpanded spaces in our own reference frames.

So, you see the universe through the lens of your clock. An observer near a black hole, who will think that time on Earth is stretched (according to his idea of time), will observe Earth differently then we (here on Earth) do. We have the same clock then Earth has. (same time rate passage, same timeflow). So Earth stands still, relative to us here on Earth. Because we have the same clocks and rulers. (please reply with the analogy of observers and their clocks and rulers)

Please, explain this in terms of observers and their clocks and rulers. An observer near a black hole will have a different idea of 'the stretch of time' here on Earth. To the observer near the black hole, time is not curved here on Earth, but stretched. (according to his idea of time near that black hole). To the observer here above Earth, time is contracted on Earth. (very small, but contracted). Both observers (near the black hole and an observer above Earth) have their own clock and their own ruler to determine the 'curvature of spacetime' on Earth. They have their own idea of standard timeflow and their own idea of an uncurved ruler. So they will have a particular idea of how much time is contracted here on Earth. They use their own stick to determine that. Their own reference frame. It depends on their standard for normal time flow (and their idea of a straight uncurved line). To an observer near a black hole, he has a different idea of a normal timeflow then an observer above Earth. (please try to explain this in terms of observers and their clocks and rulers). So, my point is: wherever you are as an observer, you use your standard idea of normal timeflow to determine the 'stetch or contraction' of time elsewhere by relatively more/less heavy massive bodies and relatively higher or lower speeds. The amount of 'curvature of spacetime' (the stretch or contraction of time f.e.) depends on your standard clock and standard ruler, wherever you are. So, whatever you observe outthere about space and time, has something to do with your own clock and ruler, locally.

I should say that the influence of curvature by masses on a clock is not knowable. Because there is no zeropoint to compare too. I mean, there is no zero gravity environment where we can put a clock or a ruler and compare it with our clock and ruler in our gravitational field. There is no objective standard for time and space. We can only compare the influence of Earth's gravity on our clock with another clock in another gravitational field. Small is therefore relative. Depending on with wich clock you compare it too. All the environements are curved somehow. So, to us, observers, there is no curvature on our clocks. We have a normal idea of time. To the observers in a spaceship above Earth, their idea of time is slowed down here on Earth. There is a small curvature. To an observer on Jupiter, time is stretched here on Earth.

But small is relative, isn't it? The influence of the black hole in the centre of our galaxy and the whole system we are part of (the galaxy) and the cluster of galaxies on our clock and ruler is very big, isn't it? The influence of a system of clusters of galaxies on our clock and ruler is big, isn't it? But to us, our clock ticks 'normal'. We use our clock and ruler as a standard, to state: that galaxy we observe over there has this space-timeproperties. It totally depends on our ruler and our clock. On our telescope in our field. In my theory there is no zero gravity condition thinkable. There is only curvature. There can be not no curvature of space and time. And the amount of curvature always depends on the observer's standard for time and curvature of space.

I have a hypothesis which I want to share here. It may be wrong, but I want to discuss about it. What we see through our telescopes has also something to do with from which gravitational field we observe the celestial bodies. Our observation of dark matter in an observed galaxy f.e. is the result of the space-time curvature of our gravity field from where we observe the other field, and the curvature of the galaxy we observe. It's a result of clocks and rulers. Of the influence of the field of gravity of the observers on their telescopes. Because we consider our clock and our local ruler to be non-curved and always the standard for slower running time or curved spaces elsewhere in a relatively stronger (or relatively weaker field) of gravity somewhere else. The movements of the celestial bodies performed are therefore, in my opinion, partly relative. From another gravitational field, we see an object revolving around its star in a certain way which will be different for an observer from another field of gravity. That is the prediction from my hypothesis. From a different gravitational field, we will see stars moving differently in their galaxies. The dark matter that is assumed, because observed stars rotate too fast in their galaxy, is therefore, in my opinion, the result of the influence of our gravitational field on our clock and ruler, on our telescope. On our observations. So what we call "dark matter" is, in my opinion, a kind of relativistic space-time perception. Depending on where we make the observation from. The result of the observer's gravitational field and the observed field provides the relativistic space-time curvature perception of the field concerned. Because an observer will always use his clock and ruler as the standard for normal ticking time and uncurved rulers. Therefore, the amount of observed dark matter will differ for different observers in different gravitational fields.

Thank you for this information. For which purposes, if I may ask? What makes the comoving frame more useful for some purposes then other frames of reference?

The more you travel through space, the less you travel through time and vice versa, not? Together it must be light speed, not? Someone told me, that there is a frame of reference that is "the Hubble flow". Where objects are stationary, relative to space so to speak, but only comoving together with the expansion of the universe. But they are going at lightspeed through time. They are called 'stationary observers'. Maybe that's the wrong information then.

Hello, I learned that a stationary observer is stationary relative to the expansion of the universe. This observer doesn't travel through space, but it travels at light speed through time. Why do physicists not use this reference frame to talk about absolute speed through space. If physicists talk about a stationary object (no motion through space, only moving with the expansion of the universe), they imply that there is absolute speed through space possible. (instead of relative motion). (ps: to moderation: I didn't ask this question before in another thread).

Time is relative. (Einstein) Yet scientists say that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. But dependent on different clocks of different observers with a different speed or in a different gravitational field, the duration of time can differ. Isn't that a contradiction?

Here is a video about 'free energy' and I want to know wether this is some new discovery or can it be explained with current theories of magnetism and electricity:

ok, thank you!