Logic of objectivity

[brodix]

As an amateur philosopher, I've tried making sense of reality and so this idea comes from a very basic set of priorities, but is devised to explain the spectrum of human experience, not just mathematical models, or scientific disciplines. It has drawn the gamut of responses. Given this is a science forum, this is the extended version;

 

Points, lines and planes supposedly have a zero dimension. Well, 1x0=0. What they really have is a virtual dimension, not zero dimension. While a point can presumably be dimensionless, it is still a specific point of reference. The real zero for geometry would be empty space. It is the potential for any point, not a specific one. Also, three dimensions are the coordinate system of the point these lines cross, not space itself. Any number of coordinate systems, starting from any point, can be used to define the same space. You might say the Israelis and the Arabs use different coordinate systems to define the same land.

 

Time has two directions. The observer goes from past events to future events. On the other hand, these events go from being in the future to being in the past. To the hands of the clock, the face is going counterclockwise. The three dimensional frame of reference is not moving along an additional dimension. This subjective coordinate system is interacting with other such frames. To quote Newton, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

 

If we were to build a clock-like device to characterize non-linear motion, say of molecules in water, or people in a crowd, it would have many hands, going in both directions and the cumulative action would cancel out in a general equilibrium. With the concept of time, most of these hands are combined into the face, with a few going in one direction as coordinates for the reference point. Time is a linear measure and consequence of motion, not the basis for it.

 

The unit of time goes from beginning to end, but the process of time is going toward the beginning of the next, leaving the old. The hour on the clock starts in the future and the hand passes from its beginning to its end and then moves on to the next, leaving the previous hour in the past. Days go from dawn to dusk, as the sun moves from east to west, but it is the earth that is rotating west to east and the sunlight is moving through the time zones. Consider a factory. The product moves from start to finish, but the production line is facing the other way, consuming raw material and expelling finished product. This relationship of the process and the unit is one of perspective. A unit at one level is a process at another and vice versa. What matters to the process isn't so much the end product, as it is the energy produced, in wages and profits, calories burned, etc, that propels the process forward, consuming more material.

 

Our individual lives are units of time going from birth to death, while the process of living goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.

 

The reason time seems like a series of instants is because most motion is effectively at the speed of light and our mind is a process of consuming information and creating conceptual units, called thoughts, otherwise everything would be a blur.

 

Reality consists of energy recording information. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information is erased as new is recorded. Objective reality is the energy. Time is a function of the subjective information, as past and future do not physically exist because the energy to manifest them is currently tied up in the present. To the photon, there is no time. It contains no record of its past and only has physical direction. It is energy that exists as now. It doesn't exist in the past, or in the future. The concept of time only starts to arise when you attempt to record what these particles do and where they have been. Time cannot be reversed, but it exists as a function of the information being recorded, not of the energy doing the recording. History is the record, not a dimension.

 

Time is not so much a projection out from the present event, as it is a coming together of factors to define what is present. The past being those influences which define current order and the future is determined by the energy to motivate that order. Evolution is when order is an open set and absorbs fresh energy, defining it and adapting to it, so that the future is a continuation of the past. Revolution is when order is a closed set, so the energy accumulates elsewhere and the future becomes a reaction to the past. While the past informs us, it also recedes at a rapid rate.

 

One definition of the arrow of time is that of decreasing usable energy and increasing entropy in a closed system. Keep in mind that a "closed system" is a unit and these processes are the aging of this unit. This relationship of the unit and the process is the basic model that the field of Complexity Theory(http://www.santafe.edu) has examined in great detail, with top down ordering in a bottom up chaotic environment. Such as the corporate unit in the context of capitalism. It is the individual and the ecosystem. The reason the bottom up context is logically chaotic is that its parameters cannot be defined, or it would become a unit in the next level of context.

 

Even though we have come to understand there is no preferred frame of reference, when we define space as a three dimensional coordinate system, with a linear graph of motion as a fourth dimension, we are using the perspective of the generic point as the basis for explaining reality, but a more objective description requires understanding how many such points interact. How should we go about considering objective reality, when the very concept of perspective implies a point of reference? Our fundamental process of thought is inherently reductionistic and linear, so how do we reconcile it with a reality that is neither? Temperature is how we conceive of non-linear motion. It is a statistical measure that begins to lose meaning at the molecular level, as individual molecules are moving along particular trajectories and at specific velocities. At the human level, government statistics are a form of temperature reading of economic activity. To the individual, motion is experienced as the linear procession of events, thus our assumption that time is the basis of motion, but to the larger group there is no preferred frame of reference. It is the concept of temperature, the level of activity and energy, that describes non-linear motion. As politics is the process of organizing and refereeing competing perspectives, it has more in common with the mass motion of temperature then the linear motion of time. While particular movements have their own historical perspective, consideration of the past and concern for the future don't resonate across a fractured and fractious political landscape.

[lucaspa]

Just a couple of comments:

 

Time has two directions. The observer goes from past events to future events. On the other hand, these events go from being in the future to being in the past.

 

This presumes that future events are real, existing entities! They aren't. The future does not exist until it happens. Therefore time only has one direction.

 

Time is a linear measure and consequence of motion, not the basis for it.

 

Several philosophers have tried this. It doesn't work. Motion is change of position over time. You can't have motion without time, therefore time cannot be a consequence of motion. So, time IS a basis for motion. In order to have motion, you need a spacetime. Something to move thru.

 

Reality consists of energy recording information.

 

You threw that out there without any basis. It's a premise, but one that you haven't bothered establishing. For instance, HOW does energy record information? What about energy that is at maximal entropy, where there is no energy to do work? Let's face it, recording is work.

 

As the amount of energy remains the same, old information is erased as new is recorded.

 

Really, does that always happen?

 

Objective reality is the energy.

 

What about space? Where does that fit into "objective reality"?

 

To the photon, there is no time. It contains no record of its past and only has physical direction.

 

Not true. It's wavelength can tell you where it originated. For instance, the photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation tell that their past was that they were generated at the Big Bang.

 

The wavelength can also tell you how long it has been traveling. Ever hear of the Red Shift?

 

The concept of time only starts to arise when you attempt to record what these particles do and where they have been.

 

Well! That contradicts your statements that photons don't have a past! If they don't have one, then you can't "record" where they "have been" -- past.

 

Keep working on your philosophy. But read someone besides Mach, will you?

[brodix]

This presumes that future events are real, existing entities! They aren't. The future does not exist until it happens. Therefore time only has one direction.

 

The past doesn't exist either, except as whatever record remains in the present. Your next birthday is presumably in the future and many more, hopefully. But eventually, they will all be in the past. We don't know what the future holds, but there will be a future, of some sort.

 

Several philosophers have tried this. It doesn't work. Motion is change of position over time. You can't have motion without time, therefore time cannot be a consequence of motion. So, time IS a basis for motion. In order to have motion, you need a spacetime. Something to move thru.

 

If it is something to move thru, then the future does exist. Possibly you mean it is a thread being drawn out by the events of the present?

 

Motion is relative. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." I'm just pointing out what that means for time. To the hands of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise. From our point of perspective the sun moves from east to west, as the earth rotates west to east.

Because these arrows of time go in opposite directions, they cancel each other out, otherwise, if there was only one direction of time, it would imply a medium, ie. something to move thru, but then that medium would be an absolute and there would be no reaction, so the future would be determined and existent. Question; Is time the series of events, or is it our perception of them?

 

You threw that out there without any basis. It's a premise, but one that you haven't bothered establishing. For instance, HOW does energy record information? What about energy that is at maximal entropy, where there is no energy to do work? Let's face it, recording is work.

 

It would seem to be two sides of the same coin. The existance of energy is a state/information. Information doesn't exist, if it's not manifest.

 

Entropy implies a closed set. Even the Big Bang as closed set is faced with the question of dark energy.

 

 

Really, does that always happen?

 

Regularly enough to qualify as a fact.

 

What about space? Where does that fit into "objective reality"?

 

As both absolute (ie. equilibrium state) and infinite, it is basis. Of course Big Bang theory assumes space itself was created in the singularity, but if that is so, then why doesn't the speed of light increase as space expands?

 

Not true. It's wavelength can tell you where it originated. For instance, the photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation tell that their past was that they were generated at the Big Bang.

 

The wavelength can also tell you how long it has been traveling. Ever hear of the Red Shift?

 

I did say that it's impossible to have energy without information. Yes, it has been traveling and the original events which sent it on its way no longer exist, any more then its future potential physically exists.

 

Well! That contradicts your statements that photons don't have a past! If they don't have one, then you can't "record" where they "have been" -- past.

 

Always good to bat ideas around and find where the arguments are weak. You did somewhat cherry pick my observations, though.

 

Keep working on your philosophy. But read someone besides Mach, will you?

 

Actually I tend to follow politics more closely. This is just the result of trying to establish some logical basis for this circus we live in.