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

[MigL]

What if you have one glass with 1 cl of water in it.

After 1 sec it still has 1cl of water in it.
After an hour it still has 1 cl of water in it.
After 1 day ( Depending on evaporation ) it still has 1 cl of water in it.

It IS 'moving' along its worldline, not through the spatial dimensions, but only along the time dimension,
At no time was the glass void of the 1 cl of water.

If you want to invoke another model, fine; Markus has provided 3 other than the Block Universe ( eternalist, B-time ) model.
But if you want to keep discussing the Block Universe ( hey, it was your hijack to begin with ), then realise that the model says events (the notion of 'motion' is kind of redundant in the BU model ) are described by co-ordinate points along a worldline ( that is the BU model's 'motion' ), and a line cannot be devoid of its constituent points.

[michel123456]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

What if you have one glass with 1 cl of water in it.

After 1 sec it still has 1cl of water in it.
After an hour it still has 1 cl of water in it.
After 1 day ( Depending on evaporation ) it still has 1 cl of water in it.

It IS 'moving' along its worldline, not through the spatial dimensions, but only along the time dimension,
At no time was the glass void of the 1 cl of water.

If you want to invoke another model, fine; Markus has provided 3 other than the Block Universe ( eternalist, B-time ) model.
But if you want to keep discussing the Block Universe ( hey, it was your hijack to begin with ), then realise that the model says events (the notion of 'motion' is kind of redundant in the BU model ) are described by co-ordinate points along a worldline ( that is the BU model's 'motion' ), and a line cannot be devoid of its constituent points.

Of course. I cannot find an example that works in our world since what I try to make you figure is in another dimension.

The empty glass is a parable. 

My "model" (if you can call it a model) disagrees completely from the Block Universe. The idea comes from the fact that the huge majority of past & future coordinates are not observable. If they are not observable, if we cannot reach them, then why do we firmly believe that they remain frozen? If we cannot reach them, they cannot reach us. Interaction is not allowed. If we insert completely artificially another hilariously different object in the past, or the future, say an Earth B' at 15minutes away in the past, we cannot interact with it. An observer on the Moon, 2seconds away, would not have a clue either. Even the Sun, 7min away would not interact with it. You'd need another "observer" twice the distance to the Sun in order to interact with it. However, that could be measurable. If the hypothetical earthb is one year away in the past, then it would be hardly noticeable. But at the end, when measuring the whole interactions of the Observable Universe, you would notice that something is missing, because this eartb would indeed interact with some parts of the O.U.

That is the idea.

 

[dimreepr]

38 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

If they are not observable, if we cannot reach them, then why do we firmly believe that they remain frozen?

We don't, it's not a thing, it's a point on a map.

Edited March 1, 2020 by dimreepr

[michel123456]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

You are confusing the terrain for the map, I think.

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

We don't, it's not a thing, it's a point on a map.

Good. So maybe you may agree that we "moved" from this point.

As regarded to Swansont's remark above (and dimreepr's)

Yes, maybe I am confusing the terrain for the map. It depends whether you consider Time as something futile or whether you consider Time as a true dimension of Reality (with a big R).

If Time is a full dimension, like the 3 spatial ones, then I may be right. If Time is simply a map, a kind of human concept, then I am wrong.

The fact that all the stars & galaxies we are currently observing makes me think that Time is not simply a concept. If time has a place in almost all the equations of physics, then it must be considered as a full entity, on the same stance as space is.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

Good. So maybe you may agree that we "moved" from this point.

No one has suggested otherwise.

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

If Time is a full dimension, like the 3 spatial ones, then I may be right.

Time is a dimension but it's not like the spatial ones, it's why space-time is easily confusing; and why it's profoundly resitant to definition. 

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

If Time is simply a map, a kind of human concept, then I am wrong.

I refer you to Eise's 4D bird analogy.

Edited March 1, 2020 by dimreepr

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

The fact that all the stars & galaxies we are currently observing makes me think that Time is not simply a concept. If time has a place in almost all the equations of physics, then it must be considered as a full entity, on the same stance as space is.

It's essentially a metaphysical question, and you know the rules 'according to st. Migl', you've got to be stoned to argue... 🙃

[Mordred]

Miche123456 time is given dimensionality of length by using the interval ct. This is not the same as a spatial coordinate but depends upon the distance light travels in a given amount of time.

Time itself isn't a thing. It is a property measuring rates of change of duration. I know I have told you this before numerous times. 

 The only way to really understand time dilation is to look at what causes the signal delays from particle information exchanges in multiparticle systems. This is where the mass term comes into play as mass is resistance to acceleration.

 Any field of matter or force field can cause signal delays depending on how strongly those fields couple. It is the collective couplings that the mass term describes. This coupling does affect clocks and aging identically as both are still multiparticle systems.

 One of most common misconceptions involve thinking different measurement devices should be affected differently. However all physical objects are multiparticle systems so the physics apply equally to every object. Regardless of involving decay rates, signal exchange, interaction rates etc.

 An event only occurs at a specified 4d coordinate (map) that event did happen at that specified spatial and time coordinate. Observers in the future of that event can measure that event. So that event will be measurable to future observers.

However an event only describes a Specific location at a specific time. Any change in the 4d coordinate location describes a new event. For example am object at rest in the same spatial location will have multiple spacetime events as time at that location changes.

If the object moves it moves to a new event.

A strong hint treat every spacetime coordinate(map) as an event. Change the value of any of those coordinates you now describe a new event.

An event is not a time location (nonsensical ) as time isn't a spatial location. Nor is it a spatial location. It is a spacetime location. As Minkowskii famously stated one cannot treat space and time separately. (The coordinates allow us to map the events) it does not mean the coordinates are the events. I can arbitrarily change the coordinate system used to describe an event. Just as one can arbitrarily describe an object under a different number of dimensions. Example Kaluzu Klien. 5d.

The mathematics and geometry are nothing nothing more than representations. The metaphysical arguments are in essence how to interpret those representations ( lol I expect some debate on that statement)

Edited March 1, 2020 by Mordred

[MigL]

No debate from me...
Michel brought up whether events are duplicated in the Block Universe model, in the OP.
Aside from the fact that he doesn't seem to understand the BU model, nor what an 'event' implies, he fails to realise that we are ALWAYS dealing with a model ( or map, if you will ), as we can only interact with our local ( causal ) 'now'.
A map. model, photograph, or even memories, are all representations of reality.
And in none of those representations are 'previous' space-time co-ordinates, events, photographs or memories vacated once an 'object' ( whatever that is ) 'moves' ( whatever that means ) to a new space-time co-ordinate.

Any interpretations he chooses to make about 'reality' based on a new model ( which he should present ) might have some significance.
But he should introduce the new model first; not misrepresent an existing ( and GR compliant ) model, like the BU model.

Edited March 1, 2020 by MigL

[Mordred]

Agreed one of the biggest sources of confusion between models is what constitutes a representation vs reality. GR in essence is mathematical representation. When you get right down to it the entire body of all physics models are only representions of what we can observe or measure.

 Though physics can and does conjecture on non measurable quantities by applying known measurable physics. 

 One detail I have learned from intensive study of different physics models from classical, GR, QM,String theory, MOND, FLRW metric etc etc. Is that all these different models and treatments often describe the same measurable physical dynamics in different ways. Each has its own pros and cons. However all models are representations.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Mordred

[michel123456]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

And in none of those representations are 'previous' space-time co-ordinates, events, photographs or memories vacated once an 'object' ( whatever that is ) 'moves' ( whatever that means ) to a new space-time co-ordinate.

That's the point.

Space-time coordinate≠event≠photograph≠memory.

And "move"≠copy. I know that everybody here never used the word "copy" except me, but then someone must explain me what he understands by "moving in time". Under my concept "moving in time" is a "change" of coordinates and then the previous coordinate must be vacated. If the previous coordinate is not vacated, then the object (and not simply the event) is still there.

I cannot accept a Spacetime where the object is everywhen (corresponding to everywhere) a4D object in the B.U.

Basically I cannot conceive  spacetime being occupied only by events without objects there. At each instant of time, the object is somewhere. When it is somewhere, it is not elsewhere. I don't know how to explain it differently. 

12 hours ago, MigL said:

once an 'object' ( whatever that is ) 'moves' ( whatever that means ) to a new space-time co-ordinate

Really, what does that mean to you?

How do you know the answer if you can't even figure the question?

[Mordred]

Lol if you can't accept metaphysics models then don't use them. You certainly don't require metaphysics to understand physics. I for one never use metaphysics. 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

That's the point.

Space-time coordinate≠event≠photograph≠memory.

 

And "move"≠copy. I know that everybody here never used the word "copy" except me, but then someone must explain me what he understands by "moving in time". Under my concept "moving in time" is a "change" of coordinates and then the previous coordinate must be vacated. If the previous coordinate is not vacated, then the object (and not simply the event) is still there.

 

I cannot accept a Spacetime where the object is everywhen (corresponding to everywhere) a4D object in the B.U.

Basically I cannot conceive  spacetime being occupied only by events without objects there. At each instant of time, the object is somewhere. When it is somewhere, it is not elsewhere. I don't know how to explain it differently. 

There you go again, it's not a thing; it's like evolution, it might look like it has a purpose (hence the confusion and never ending topics on both subjects) but IT doesn't exist outside the description of it. 

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Lol if you can't accept metaphysics models then don't use them. You certainly don't require metaphysics to understand physics. I for one never use metaphysics. 

Well, you do have to be stoned... and that's not for everyone... 🤪

[Mordred]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

Well, you do have to be stoned... and that's not for everyone... 🤪

  Lol perhaps that's it. Lets put it this my degree may be titled "Philosophies of Cosmology" however metaphysics was never part of the curriculum. 

Michel you really must try to seperation a representation of reality from being actual reality. All mathematical models including spacetime is a representation. They are tools to describe reality not reality itself.

 

[geordief]

21 minutes ago, Mordred said:

  Lol perhaps that's it. Lets put it this my degree may be titled "Philosophies of Cosmology" however metaphysics was never part of the curriculum. 

Michel you really must try to seperation a representation of reality from being actual reality. All mathematical models including spacetime is a representation. They are tools to describe reality not reality itself.

 

Would you say that scientific  models can tell us what a particular reality is not? (repeating this process and deducting one misconception after (oops😒 ) another  might allow us  an acquaintance with the  particular understanding we may be  seeking?)

 

As I said ,before ,I did find Michel's link very interesting ,but that may because my level of understanding is fairly low.

 

Can we say anything about that which we refer to as "time" that we can be very confident is incorrect (and should that be enough for something as fundamental as it seems to be?)

 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by geordief

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, geordief said:

Would you say that scientific  models can tell us what a particular reality is not?

Well, it's not nothing...

 

24 minutes ago, geordief said:

(repeating this process and deducting one misconception after (oops😒 ) might allow us  an acquaintance with the  particular understanding we may be  seeking?)

I know "I think therefore I am" is, in some way, a flawed argument, but if it's wrong; I simply can't be arsed...

Edited March 2, 2020 by dimreepr

[swansont]

All science can do is tell you how nature behaves. That's what we're doing when we do experiments/make observations - finding if the observed behavior matches what we've modeled.

[geordief]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

All science can do is tell you how nature behaves. That's what we're doing when we do experiments/make observations - finding if the observed behavior matches what we've modeled.

So all scientists are, qua scientists  engineers - "back engineers"?

 

New ,exciting developments in the field are just serendipitous lucky jackpots. It's a percentage game with random payouts...

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

So all scientists are, qua scientists  engineers - "back engineers"?

Don't know what that means.

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

New ,exciting developments in the field are just serendipitous lucky jackpots. It's a percentage game with random payouts...

No (though admittedly luck is involved in the process). Behavior has patterns. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

New ,exciting developments in the field are just serendipitous lucky jackpots. It's a percentage game with random payouts...

That depends on your perspective.

[geordief]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Don't know what that that means.

An engineer (as per my understanding) works within the parameters of what has been learned to work and reapplies them   to new situations.

 

It seemed to me like you were implicitly applying that description to science in general.

 

By "back engineer" I was thinking of people who break open a watch to learn how it works inside.

 

That seems to fit in with how particle physics is practiced ,smashing cosmic watches with a huge sledgehammer and poring over where the pieces fall.

 

I appreciate I may not be very clear but it may not be a comment of too much consequence.....

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

An engineer (as per my understanding) works within the parameters of what has been learned to work and reapplies them   to new situations.

 

It seemed to me like you were implicitly applying that description to science in general.

 

By "back engineer" I was thinking of people who break open a watch to learn how it works inside.

 

That seems to fit in with how particle physics is practiced ,smashing cosmic watches with a huge sledgehammer and poring over where the pieces fall.

 

I appreciate I may not be very clear but it may not be a comment of too much consequence.....

😁

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, geordief said:

An engineer (as per my understanding) works within the parameters of what has been learned to work and reapplies them   to new situations.

I'm not sure I agree, but perhaps that does apply to a wide range of the engineering profession(s)

 

27 minutes ago, geordief said:

It seemed to me like you were implicitly applying that description to science in general.

No. Scientists can look at/for behavior that has not yet been modeled. Often it's behavior that had not previously been observed.

Other times it's a matter of applying the model to a new set of circumstances, or testing the limits of the model to see if it still applies.

 

27 minutes ago, geordief said:

By "back engineer" I was thinking of people who break open a watch to learn how it works inside.

That's it so some extent, but you can't always "open the watch" in which case you have to treat it as a black box. See how it responds to various stimuli.

 

27 minutes ago, geordief said:

That seems to fit in with how particle physics is practiced ,smashing cosmic watches with a huge sledgehammer and poring over where the pieces fall.

There's a bit more to it than that, and accelerator-based particle physics is just a tiny slice of physics.

 

 

[Markus Hanke]

7 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Space-time coordinate≠event≠photograph≠memory.

“Spacetime” is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold of dimensionality 3+1, endowed with a connection and a metric.
An “event” is a single point on that manifold.
A “coordinate” is a unique label that identifies the event - its “name”, if you so will. The specific choice of coordinate system is arbitrary, so long as it is consistent across the manifold.
”Photograph” and “memory” are not terms that are used in this context.

8 hours ago, michel123456 said:

I cannot accept a Spacetime where the object is everywhen (corresponding to everywhere) a4D object in the B.U.

And yet that is exactly how GR models gravity, and it does so very successfully. Whether you can accept it or not, it works very well.

8 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Basically I cannot conceive  spacetime being occupied only by events without objects there. At each instant of time, the object is somewhere. When it is somewhere, it is not elsewhere. I don't know how to explain it differently. 

In the context of GR, there is no such thing as an “object” - there is only a set of events along with information on how these events are related, and together these make up spacetime. What we conceive of as a macroscopic “object” is simply a set of world lines, each of which in turn is a specific set of individual events that are related in specific ways. The only difference between a region of spacetime that is merely vacuum, and a region of spacetime that we think of as the “interior” of some energy-momentum distribution, is its geometry - the former is Ricci-flat, the latter is not. That’s all there is to it.

In this picture, you simply have events, and their geometric relationships in spacetime, and nothing else. Crucially, this entire construct is static - nothing “moves” anywhere, neither in space nor in time.

The question as to why the human mind only perceives a future-oriented succession of space-like hypersurfaces within that spacetime, is outside the scope of the theory of GR - which was designed only to provide a model for gravity, and nothing else. I think this is really important to remember - GR is a theory of gravity, not an attempt to explain the nature of time and/or space.  

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I think this is really important to remember - GR is a theory of gravity, not an attempt to explain the nature of time and/or space.  

lol I lost count how many times Posters railing against GR use the statement it didn't predict the cosmological constant etc etc.

 I always reply that it outside the scope of GR to do so, that is up to particle physics in general.

[michel123456]

17 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

And yet that is exactly how GR models gravity, and it does so very successfully. Whether you can accept it or not, it works very well.

The B.U. is representative of only 15% of the mass of the universe. My interpretation has no such an issue.

Without changing anything about GR