time hijack from the mind + 4D-spacetime = the experience of the unfolding of the events moment by moment in the actual moment by an observer

[michel123456]

If you look carefully to the video, you will read the words " sens du mouvement" (direction of the movement).

This "movement" is a "motion in time". It is represented as Time being a static dimension in which the objects are translating. It appears no different than a motion in space.

The video also shows the imprint of the path.

The question is if this imprint truly "exist" or not.

IOW the question is whether objects constantly duplicate over time and thus "exist" in the past (and also the future) or if the object simply "moves through time" and exists in its own  present only.

If the imprint exists, then we have the Block Universe (B.U.)

If the imprint vanishes, then we have no B.U. and we have a free future (& free will). Also we have no need for an enormous amount of energy for the supposed duplication procedure.

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by michel123456

[MigL]

39 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

If the imprint exists, then we have the Block Universe (B.U.)

If the imprint vanishes, then we have no B.U. and we have a free future (& free will). Also we have no need for an enormous amount of energy for the supposed duplication procedure.

I don't follow ( and don't agree ) with your conclusions.
Please elaborate.

[michel123456]

23 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't follow ( and don't agree ) with your conclusions.
Please elaborate.

I will not elaborate but ask : If the imprint vanishes what would be your conclusion?

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

I will not elaborate but ask : If the imprint vanishes what would be your conclusion?

Well, you certainly didn't elaborate, but in answer to your question: It was there, according to my eyes, and now it's not... 🙄 

[MigL]

Do you somewhat understand relativity Michel ?

The imprint may 'vanish' for one observer, but it does not for another.
Your now is NOT the same as another observer's now.
And your past is NOT the same as another observer's past.

The block universe is common to all observers; there is no 'outside' , nor 'preferred', vantage point.
But every observer 'experiences' a differing 'now' foliation, and a differing past light cone, of the block.

[michel123456]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well, you certainly didn't elaborate, but in answer to your question: It was there, according to my eyes, and now it's not... 🙄 

Right. It is not. If you get the concept of the vanishing path, you may also get the concept of the empty future. The situation resumes to an empty universe behind us & an empty universe in front of us. The unique things that exist are the ones that travel with us in time enhanced by the slot in the video.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Do you somewhat understand relativity Michel ?

Maybe yes. Maybe no. I am often surprised with the many possible interpretations of this Theory.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

The imprint may 'vanish' for one observer, but it does not for another.
Your now is NOT the same as another observer's now.
And your past is NOT the same as another observer's past.

The block universe is common to all observers; there is no 'outside' , nor 'preferred', vantage point.
But every observer 'experiences' a differing 'now' foliation, and a differing past light cone, of the block.

From the video, if you agree with it, you may observe the slot that moves upward. It represents the simultaneity between events. In cosmology, the slot is not horizontal, it is inclined (at 45 degrees) in such a way to show that the observer gets information from the past. But fundamentally that changes nothing, the only events that currently happen belong to the slot.

 If we send a spaceship to Alpha Centauri (that we observe as it was some time ago) we will see it all along its path during the travel & we will eventually see it land (or orbit) Alpha Centauri, constantly inside the slot. At no time the traveler will escape the slot. The entire observable universe is upon this slot. The rest is supposedly full if you believe in the Block Universe, or empty following the "vanishing past" concept.

Edited February 22, 2020 by michel123456

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Right. It is not. If you get the concept of the vanishing path, you may also get the concept of the empty future. The situation resumes to an empty universe behind us & an empty universe in front of us.

The thing is, I remember the path and, with a map, I know where it's going.

 

The sun shone for all of our yesterday's and will shine for all of our tomorrows (at least a few billion of them).

[MigL]

Simultaneity is not mandatory, even in a common FoR.
It is, at best, a local approximation.

So, I have to ask, Michel, do you agree with the slot video ?
And why would you ?

[michel123456]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

So, I have to ask, Michel, do you agree with the slot video ?

The slot yes.

But not the image when you remove the sheet & show the B.U.

Not to say that the comment at the end of the video shows the embarrassing situation that occurs with the B.U. concept: the future is already there, and in order to avoid the "already existing future" one has to invoke quantum fluctuations (as an ex machina explanation).

let me explain once again:

IF (if) you can accept that objects travel through time (that objects change time coordinates), you may also see that the slot in the sheet is unnecessary. My point is that simply objects move in time exactly as they move in space. they change position, they do not copy themselves. They progress from down to up. Objects are not "extruded" through time. Objects are not 4D. Objects are 3D entities that travel in a 4D continuum. Sure you can show the path of this object in 4D, but it will be a path, not a 4D object. The same as your footpath in the snow. At each instant you are somewhere at a specific point of the path, you are not extended all along your footsteps.

[MigL]

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2020 at 1:36 PM, michel123456 said:

It represents the simultaneity between events

Again, I ask, what simultaneity.
You ( and the video ) base your argument on a tenuous concept, which is an approximation.

[michel123456]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Again, I ask, what simultaneity.
You ( and the video ) base your argument on a tenuous concept, which is an approximation.

The simultaneity of events as observed by the observer. I see today a star exploding. This star may have exploded a long time ago but I see it now. The slot is this  now.

[michel123456]

The video

 

[MigL]

A higher dimensional space always intersects a lower dimensional space in the lower dimension.
For example.
A two dimensional plane intersects a one dimensional space in a line ( one dimensional ).
A three dimensional space intersects a two dimensional space in an area.
( take a 3D pencil and punch it through a 2D sheet of paper, the intersection is a circular area; easiest to visualize )

Similarly, if we are 4D in extent, then we intersect the 3D 'now' in a volume.
It is this volume that you consider our 'selves' ( not the points on your 2D graph and videos ), but actually we extend in the time dimension along a world line.
Why would you vacate a previous time co-ordinate; you were 'there' ( then ? ), and we both remember it.
And we also occupy future positions along the world line, according to the Block Universe.
Our 'now' cross section just hasn't gotten 'there' ( then ? ) yet.

I really can't explain it any better than that

Edited February 25, 2020 by MigL

[michel123456]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Why would you vacate a previous time co-ordinate; you were 'there' ( then ? ), and we both remember it.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

A higher dimensional space always intersects a lower dimensional space in the lower dimension.
For example.
A two dimensional plane intersects a one dimensional space in a line ( one dimensional ).
A three dimensional space intersects a two dimensional space in an area.
( take a 3D pencil and punch it through a 2D sheet of paper, the intersection is a circular area; easiest to visualize )

Similarly, if we are 4D in extent, then we intersect the 3D 'now' in a volume.
It is this volume that you consider our 'selves' ( not the points on your 2D graph and videos ), but actually we extend in the time dimension along a world line.
Why would you vacate a previous time co-ordinate; you were 'there' ( then ? ), and we both remember it.
And we also occupy future positions along the world line, according to the Block Universe.
Our 'now' cross section just hasn't gotten 'there' ( then ? ) yet.

I really can't explain it any better than that

I understand.

But, to me, we don't "also occupy future positions", and we don't "extend in the time dimension along a world line".

We cannot both be in the past, the present & the future, these are mutually exclusive situations. If you choose a position at a past coordinate, you are there and nowhere else. if you choose a position in present time, you are not in the past. And you are not in the future. To me, 3D objects are not  4D entities reduced by 1 dimension. 3D objects are what they are: 3D. Simply they travel through a dimension we call time.

In this concept, Time is simply an extra dimension, Time does nothing, Time is a kind of empty receptacle exactly as Space is.

Time doesn't "pass by". Objects change position in Time.

When I say that they "change position", I mean exactly as objects change position in space. They do not copy themselves from one position to the other.

Quote

Why would you vacate a previous time co-ordinate; you were 'there' ( then ? ), and we both remember it.

Yes we remember it, we have a photograph of the event, we even have it recorded and carved into stone. But does that mean that the event is frozen forever at some coordinate in time? A coordinate we have currently no access to? Just because it is physically impossible to change our past doesn't mean that we are stuck there.

Yes the path exists, the picture of the event is here in present time, I can look at it, and the marble stone is also here in present time. And if the stone is here now then it is physically impossible to be in the past or the future. There are no 3 stones. There is only one, and it is in the present.

If a new event happens in our past (although seemingly impossible under current understanding), this "new-old" event will not make any change to the picture nor to the stone. Because the picture & the stone are not there (anymore). They have traveled together with us in present time. 

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

I understand.

Do you?

It's called space-time for a reason...

 

 

[michel123456]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Do you?

It's called space-time for a reason...

 

 

I even understand the counter argument of what I am saying.

The counter argument is that I have introduced change in the 4D universe which means that I have introduced time in time.

But that is also the way the video is presented. The slot moves upward in the 4D continuum. And that have annoyed nobody here.

[MigL]

9 hours ago, michel123456 said:

In this concept, Time is simply an extra dimension, Time does nothing, Time is a kind of empty receptacle exactly as Space is.

Yet, you have an 'extent' in the x dimension, probably about 0.5 m ( width, depending on whether you regularly do shoulder presses).
An 'extent' in the y dimension of about 1.75 m ( height, maybe less; are Greek or French people short like us Italians ? ).
And an 'extent' in the z dimension of about 0.3 m ( depth, depending of course, on how much you like to eat ).

So why would you have no 'extent' in the t dimension, instead of a 82 year line ( lifetime ), and be constrained to only one co-ordinate ?

Edited February 26, 2020 by MigL

[michel123456]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Yet, you have an 'extent' in the x dimension, probably about 0.5 m ( width, depending on whether you regularly do shoulder presses).
An 'extent' in the y dimension of about 1.75 m ( height, maybe less; are Greek or French people short like us Italians ? ).
And an 'extent' in the z dimension of about 0.3 m ( depth, depending of course, on how much you like to eat ).

So why would you have no 'extent' in the t dimension, instead of a 82 year line ( lifetime ), and be constrained to only one co-ordinate ?

We do have an extent in time as objects. Because we have dimensions in xyz we also have a dimension in t, but it is limited to an extremely small figure because c is very large. For example my hand at ~50cm of my eyes is slightly back in time (the same way that we are observing planets back in time).

But this extent in time does not cover my entire existence. If it did, for an extemely small time-lag, there would be an overlap of 2 Michel123456's.

If you take an object large enough, like the Earth, diameter 12740 km, after a 0,04 sec (if my calculation is correct) there would be an overlap with the "Earth-extended-behind-in-time". We do not observe such a thing.

Anyway, since we have already an extent in time as objects we cannot have a 2nd kind of extent in time.

[Eise]

On 2/21/2020 at 2:35 PM, michel123456 said:

The video also shows the imprint of the path.

The question is if this imprint truly "exist" or not.

If I make a graph of the path that an object takes in time, what does 'the imprint exists' even mean? Just do it: make a graph of the movement of some particle. And? Does the imprint disappear? To say it more realistically: if I was in the shop yesterday evening, was I not there anymore today, now I am not there anymore? (Careful, do not blow your head...). Of course: it is still true that I was in the shop yesterday evening, so if I want to make a spacetime diagram of my life, I certainly will add the event 'me in the shop yesterday evening'. The idea of an imprint 'truly existing' makes no sense.

In spacetime space and time are intimately related, but they are not the same. You cannot treat time just as another space dimension. So when you depict time as a distance, which you necessarily must do if you make a graph, it doesn't mean that everything you see in the graph has an exact physical counterpart. Here another example:

50 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

If you take an object large enough, like the Earth, diameter 12740 km, after a 0,04 sec (if my calculation is correct) there would be an overlap with the "Earth-extended-behind-in-time". We do not observe such a thing.

No, of course not. Objects can overlap in time, because at the moment t + 1 the object is not at t anymore, so there is nothing there to overlap with. 2 Objects cannot be at the same place at the same time, but they can perfectly at different times. A spacetime diagram is a diagram of events, not of objects. And as a diagram it is just a simplified model of what is going on. You confuse the model with reality.

The argument for the block universe goes along these lines: for observer A, two events are timely separated, one is in the past of A's observation, the other in its future. However, for an observer B, who is moving fast in relation to observer A, A's future event can be in his past. And a there are many ways other observers can move in relation to A there are many events that lie in the future for A but not for some other observer. So in a '4D-bird's view' ('God's view') A's future is already there, A just has not experienced it yet.

You, as an object, are not smeared out over time, But as a process (i.e. a continuous line of events), you are. 

[michel123456]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

If I make a graph of the path that an object takes in time, what does 'the imprint exists' even mean? Just do it: make a graph of the movement of some particle. And? Does the imprint disappear? To say it more realistically: if I was in the shop yesterday evening, was I not there anymore today, now I am not there anymore? (Careful, do not blow your head...). Of course: it is still true that I was in the shop yesterday evening, so if I want to make a spacetime diagram of my life, I certainly will add the event 'me in the shop yesterday evening'. The idea of an imprint 'truly existing' makes no sense.

It makes sense exactly as the footsteps in the snow. There can be a dog following me and his steps cross mines. However this crossing will not have changed my past.

After reading your comment twice, maybe do you agree with the "path" concept.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

No, of course not. Objects can overlap in time, because at the moment t + 1 the object is not at t anymore, so there is nothing there to overlap with. 2 Objects cannot be at the same place at the same time, but they can perfectly at different times. A spacetime diagram is a diagram of events, not of objects. And as a diagram it is just a simplified model of what is going on. You confuse the model with reality.

Well I assumed that conventional thinking is that the objects are 4D entities, represented with segments on the diagram.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

You, as an object, are not smeared out over time, But as a process (i.e. a continuous line of events), you are. 

By "process", what do you mean? As if you agreed that objects are "moving" in time.

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

It makes sense exactly as the footsteps in the snow. There can be a dog following me and his steps cross mines. However this crossing will not have changed my past.

After reading your comment twice, maybe do you agree with the "path" concept.

Well I assumed that conventional thinking is that the objects are 4D entities, represented with segments on the diagram.

By "process", what do you mean? As if you agreed that objects are "moving" in time.

Philosophically speaking I can't cross the same river twice, whilst in reality I cross the same river everyday; I wonder if that's at the core of your confusion?

[Eise]

42 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

It makes sense exactly as the footsteps in the snow. There can be a dog following me and his steps cross mines. However this crossing will not have changed my past.

No, because these footprints are in space, not in spacetime. I can assure you, when your spacial- and time-coordinates are the same as that of the dog, this is a Minkowski-depiction of you colliding with the dog. The dogs steps crossing yours in your example means that the dog passed your spacial coordinates at a later point in time. Again you do as if time is just a 4^th space-dimension. It is not.

42 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

Well I assumed that conventional thinking is that the objects are 4D entities, represented with segments on the diagram.

I think that is wrong. Objects are 3-dimensional objects. Processes are 4 dimensional objects: they can occupy a certain volume, and exist for a certain time. 

42 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

By "process", what do you mean? As if you agreed that objects are "moving" in time.

I mean what everybody means with 'process', see above.

'Moving' means (continuous?) change of coordinates. So if an object changes its space coordinates, we classically say it moves: movement is movement in space.

But the time coordinate also changes: at the beginning of the movement it was 13:00h, when it stopped it was 13:05h. So the object does indeed move in time. The only way that this does not fit the conventional meaning of 'movement' is that even if we do not change our space coordinates, we still move in time (even more so, according to SR). E.g. if I sit still in my chair from 13:00h to 13:05h, I 'moved' in time, but not in space.

So what is wrong is the kind of expressions as 'time flies like an arrow': no, we fly through time.

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Philosophically speaking I can't cross the same river twice, whilst in reality I cross the same river everyday; I wonder if that's at the core of your confusion?

Very poetic. And I think more or less true.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Eise

[michel123456]

50 minutes ago, Eise said:

No, because these footprints are in space, not in spacetime. I can assure you, when your spacial- and time-coordinates are the same as that of the dog, this is a Minkowski-depiction of you colliding with the dog. The dogs steps crossing yours in your example means that the dog passed your spacial coordinates at a later point in time. Again you do as if time is just a 4^th space-dimension. It is not.

I firmly believe that the concept of time is more close to that of space than is commonly assumed. There is no reason it would be fundamentally different otherwise how would it be possible for time to change into distance & reversely.

50 minutes ago, Eise said:

I mean what everybody means with 'process', see above.

'Moving' means (continuous?) change of coordinates. So if an object changes its space coordinates, we classically say it moves: movement is movement in space.

But the time coordinate also changes: at the beginning of the movement it was 13:00h, when it stopped it was 13:05h. So the object does indeed move in time. The only way that this does not fit the conventional meaning of 'movement' is that even if we do not change our space coordinates, we still move in time (even more so, according to SR). E.g. if I sit still in my chair from 13:00h to 13:05h, I 'moved' in time, but not in space.

So what is wrong is the kind of expressions as 'time flies like an arrow': no, we fly through time.

This is history, for the 1st time I agree 100% with someone here.

So, if we are "flying" through time, doesn't that mean that our past coordinates are free? And our future are free also?

Edited February 26, 2020 by michel123456

[swansont]

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Well I assumed that conventional thinking is that the objects are 4D entities, represented with segments on the diagram.

Which you agreed to a post or two back. Something that has an extent in space also has an extent in time.

The way around that issue is is to only consider points, and be consistent about it, so as to not introduce needless complications. 

 

Quote

It makes sense exactly as the footsteps in the snow. There can be a dog following me and his steps cross mines. However this crossing will not have changed my past.

Is there some interpretation of time where changing the past is possible?

[michel123456]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is there some interpretation of time where changing the past is possible?

No. As far as i see it, even in my interpretation, there is no physical way to change our own past. It is not observable and not reachable.

But the question is still there: If we are "flying" along the time dimension, if the spacetime diagram describes what I call a path, what Eise calls "process", then does that mean that our past coordinates are empty? And that all our future coordinates are empty also? Or are they full, as presented by the Block Universe concept.

From what I understand from Eise's post, the past & the future are full of events. Objects belong solely to the present. Am I correct in this or am I putting words in his mouth?