Time is imaginary and entanglement is null-spatial

[Fred56]

There is no 3-dimensional edge to spacetime. There is an "edge" to its expansion, which is the "arrow" of entropy. The expansion and the "fact": the universe has no (Euclidean) boundary, are related. The "vector" of time (Time's arrow) is obviously not a real quantity, but belongs in the imaginary realm.

 

Is it still logically consistent to say the vector (of time) is measurable? Of course.

How should it be modelled? Do we only have a single point we can consider? This last seems to, in fact, be the case. We need to invent, for ourselves, some point; a reference, to be able to take the pulse of anything we call "motion": the movement of mass -(ourselves, with our single time-point) through what we know (but a strange property of mass we have observed doesn't), as spatiality -distance or separation (of mass).

 

Time is an apparent property of (classical) entropy/distance. This isn't, or shouldn't be any big deal: temperature is also an apparent measure, available to us, which has no actual existence, similarly weight is a feature of some mass in the grip of a gravitational “field” (our model of a "force", which we assume to be a universal property of mass). Weight only exists,as such, because the mass and the field exist, we do not conjure such things into any separate, independent existence. They are, obviously, artefacts of the act, the process of our “measure-taking”.

 

There is no time (we "imagine" it), there is diffusion (separation) of mass due to entropy.

 

The mass/energy equivalence of information exists in the quantised world of very small scales/distances, except for a mysterious property of mass/energy: superposition ("entanglement" of quantum states). Which appears to us to be able to ignore distance, as if space did not exist.... ... .. . oh, right, there's another one: a massless (very small scale) particle that travels really fast, that photon thingy. The photon is the "message" we get from the quantum world, which we "convert" into "information" in our brains...

 

The conceptual (philosophical/scientific) problem with our quantum view -(our present thermodynamic and physical concepts might need some repair) is:

 

The problem with linking thermodynamic entropy to information entropy is that ...the entire body of thermodynamics which deals with the physical nature of entropy is missing. The second law ..., and the first law ...are physical concepts rather than informational concepts. If thermodynamic entropy is seen as including all of the physical dynamics of entropy as well as the equilibrium statistical aspects, then information entropy gives only part of the description of thermodynamic entropy. -Wikipedia: "Entropy”

We can't apply the classical thermodynamic view to quantum "information" (superposition).

 

We know that mass/energy is conserved (throughout the universe, presumably). We know that it "emits" photons, little packets of energy that "convey" information into our biochemical, thermodynamic brains. We know there is another conserved and quantised property that mass "has": superposition, and that this, unlike the photon (a "real" particle), is perturbed easily (by the thermodynamic/quantum world).

 

Edit: The preceding, some of you may have noticed (or not), is using "information" in a classical (no-cost, no-mass) way. What sort of mass/energy does this information (that is labeled "quantum") have? It isn't due to photons being emitted from a "classical collection" of iron atoms (like a red-hot stove) or an "excited" gas. Photon "information" (the mass/energy of photons impinging on electrons, say in someone's eye) is different from their entangled "state information", but we know it (superposition) also has mass.

 

P.S. Apologies to anyone who has already read any of this: this is a bit of a rehash of stuff from the pseudoscience thread, and other bits...

[Fred56]

Just as any “past” interval of time has no actuality, no existence other than as a memory in some brain, or words on some dusty page, distance also has no realization, it isn't more than some concept of a separation of objects.

Distance is a measurement, it's something we do without laser rangefinders or tape-rulers, or human steps. Distance is apparent because of entropy –and entropy is (part of) the way our entropic brains perceive change --we cannot step outside this frame of reference, because our brains have to change to perceive, to observe and measure.

 

Quantum states see distance as virtual, what does this reveal to us about the nature of distance as a real and tangible thing to the reality of superposition? This property of matter-waves that does not 'see' entropy, or at least not the projection that entropy makes: Distance.

 

Entropy is a projection of energy, energy is a projection of the universe. Mass is then also a projection (as a function of its own character -separation) which is its condensate. Mass is the surface of the mirror, and energy is its obverse. Mass 'communicates' as matter-waves by using energy as waves for the message. Mass (the stuff we know and love), comes with the following properties:

 

Gravity is a projection (an attractive, proportional character) of matter's existence.

 

Charge (a balanced character or property, with its own symmetry and a proportional attractive/repulsive symmetry with Gravity) is a projection of the “energy communication” (photons), that a matter-wave (a lepton) --when it forms a 'resonant stable oscillation' around one or two other “condensed bits” (matter waves called hadrons or baryons), and this assembly -of matter-waves- is the energy “sender/receiver” (a hydrogen or helium atom).

 

Superposition is a projection of the nature of waves and oscillations, phases and polarisations, resonances, coupling (of oscillation), and the way waves can “mix together”. This property (superposition of wave-function) is a coupling of oscillations, a connection between (quantised) states of the wave nature of mass/energy. This property, like Gravity, has no known causative effect. Charge is the only 'obvious' property we can explain in terms of other bits of matter and energy.

[thedarkshade]

Lately I've heard an idea which really made me thought! Three inches in Earth are equal to three inches in Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, Saturn wherever. But three seconds in Earth are not equal to three seconds in Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, Saturn wherever. And few physicist now believe that there got to be some equations that can be used to measure the velocity, acceleration without having to consider time. So this kind of thinking leads to something that's called "NO TIME"!!! And that's weird. That's impossible actually. As you all know the entire universe is four things : time, matter, space and energy! Or it might be better to sat the universe is made of two couples energy-space and time-matter. And excluding any of them is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE because that would cause the exclusion of the three other. You see, time stands to matter as space stand to energy. You might find this confusing but it actually is not, it's very simple! Now let's take a closer look!

 

All out current equations that we use to measure velocity, acceleration, the amount of motion etc, all these equations have time integrated within them. And why is that?! That is because every single event that happens in this perfect and endless universe happens through time. Even the Big Bang itself is thought to have happened in the presence of time ("imaginary time" - Hawking Model). So there is not a single event that can ignore time. And why I said "time is to matter as space to energy"?

According to Einstein's equation E=mc2, when a body reaches the speed of light, then that body is one the limit of it's energy (the largest energy that body is able to produce). And again according to Einstein, when a body reaches 99% of the speed of light, then the time dilation is infinite, that means no time. So as we can clearly see, when a body reaches the full speed of light, that body (as matter) is actually converted into energy and it has no time (as it has reached more than 99% the speed of light) so it only moves though space. But so far, nothing but light has reached the speed of light so we can't experiment, neither observe such conversion (time-space ; matter-energy).

And if someone makes it find an equation using which we can measure velocity ignoring time, then I really want to see it.

[Martin]

Hi Fred,

I for one am glad to see you back with us. I'd like your understanding on one point. At another forum I see they have a location called INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH or something like that, and we don't have any such thing here. "Individual" doesn't have the perjorative connotation of "pseudo-science". I wish we had a separate forum for Individual Theories and Speculations, that didn't have that perjorative tag.

 

But we don't so my choices of what to do are limited.

 

anyway could we, between us, please refer to this forum as Speculations and not use the impolite P-word?

=================

 

Here's a rough rule of thumb. something is a fully-formed (not halfbaked) physics theory if the quantities in it are mathematically definable and in some cases measurable----and it it makes some NEW FALSIFIABLE predictions.

It has to make some numerical predictions (not just some vague verbal ones) which are not already predicted by prior accepted theories.

 

And it has to be possible to do an experiment that prior established theory allows could possibly falsify the theory.

 

If a theory can accept any outcome of any future experiment, then it is useless unpredictive mush----it is too accomodating. A real science theory has to BET ITS LIFE ON A PREDICTION so that it DIES if something different is observed.

 

If a theorist can't tell you an experiment that some possible outcome of it would kill his theory and make him abandon it, then the theory is still halfbaked. It is a WANNABE theory-in-the-making. Not a real empirical science theory.

 

A theory can never be proven right, because the next test could prove it wrong and it would have to be replaced.

 

but at least a fully-baked theory can be proven wrong. And that's the basic rule. We expect theorists to offer falsifiable theories, that some experiment, if it didnt come out accordingly, would falsify it. Otherwise there is no predictivity.

 

The example is Einstein 1915 GR. Immediately in 1915 it already predicted stuff that could have killed it. It bet its life on a prediction of some lightbending angle and in 1919 that angle was measured during a solar eclipse. And it passed the test.

 

And then it passed more tests, up to present day. It is what a theory is supposed to do in empirical science. Pass real tests.

 

=================

I can't understand what your theories mean in terms of hard predictions.

 

I can't think of experiments that would prove yr theories wrong if it didnt come out right.

 

Maybe I am missing something. If so, maybe you could tell me some particular experiment

 

Mods, rather than move this thread immediately to Trash, let's keep it open for a while and available. Fred may offer empirical evidence, or clarification, for the ideas. And also other speculations from Fred can be merged in here as they arise.

[Fred56]

OK, in terms of predictions I don't think my "theorising" is anywhere near something like that. I'm really just kind of thinking out loud. Most of what I post is stuff I've gone over and edited in some file already.

I really want to know if it makes sense or if someone maybe thinks, y'know, I need to take my medication more often.

I'm basically seeing if my insights are skewed, at all. If I can see a simple picture of something it can make it easier to see a simple connection -along the lines that the whole thing really is simple, and the "unknown" properties have a simple explanation.

But I know it can look like there's a connection when there isn't. And I'm interested in feedback (but responses never are anything like you expect).

But as a sample of where I am: Imagine humans back before we developed records. What observations and measurements did we make then without any record except the memory of an individual, and would the observations have eventually presented a situation where it became advantageous to record them a better way, i.e. externally. And how would we have observed it? What ideas were available, and then what would a "primitive" mind make of modern-day observations, would they be able to 'see' them? How would they compare (if they noticed anything) the observation with their "usual" set? Things like that. Or you could consider what sort of observations (of time, distance, motion of objects, warmth, etc) a species other than humans makes of its world. In short, what do we really observe when we measure the world?

[Spyman]

Stonehenge -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

[fredrik]

Fred, I realise your are thinking loud and I like some of your reflections, but sometimes i find your posts a bit cryptical and sometimes giving and impression of composed of fragments of different questions with unclear relation. I don't think I'm the right person to say this but maybe try to treat one key point at a time to the extent possible as to make it easier from someone else to see your perspective and what the question or suggestion is to comment on.

 

Before it's all formalised that's not easy. There is some people that don't understand or doesn't want to understand until the task of formalisation is already done, but I have not problems to at least try to understand philosophical reflections. I this thread I wasn't sure what your key point was, and thus I wasn't sure what to comment on. Sometimes I think the philosophical threads can be enlighting if there is a good focus, but sometimes due to misunderstandings they have been developed into big messes, that only increase the confusion rather than reduce it. It's usually easier to convey these fuzzy ideas to someone who are already on the same track, then to someone else.

 

About time I think your connection to disorder is interesting. I make a similar connection. In a background independent view, there is of course no external clocks. The clocks chosen have no choice than to be part of the system, and they are thus subject to the same uncertainties as is everything else. And the first task before introducing time, is how to "select/define a clock" in the general case. I definitely think the expected arrow of time can be deduced from the observers information. On the quantum information level, time is bound to fluctuate and this might explain why the arrow of time and gravity phenomena is hard to see on this level because the perspective is too narrow. To "see time" I think we need a larger part of history, and also sufficiently complex observers.

 

I think the final task is to translate the fuzzy thinking into a formalism that will unify this. The reason why I do the ramblings is because atm I have no better language because I'm looking for it.

 

The foundations of information theory and probability theory is IMO where I look. The mainly missing part is how the observers microstructure complicates the picture! We talk about measurements as projections, but usually doesn't raise the issue of the nature of the "screen" where the projetions are made? What if the screen are to small to retain the entire projection? These things are what I want to implement in the formalism from scratch, and it does suggest to me a revision of the probability formalism, and information concept used in QM.

 

/Fredrik

 

To be a little more specific, and I have probably said this too many times already. What does background independence when for probability theory? Well I figure that there is no given probability space, and no given priors! The probability space and the priors are themselves evolving only relative to themselves. So where do we start? And where does the non-trivial structures come from?

 

Stated this way, it suggest that the problem is strongly attached to the probability formalism. Not only do we need measurements to find the state of the microstructure, we need measurements to FORM the microstructure as well! Exactly how must this relation look like?

 

/Fredrik

 

My current attempt that I'm working on is to, rather than to start from the axioms of probability, I start with some basic axiom that an observer can at minimum distinguish between two states, and from thereon, I try to build relations in uncertain picture, where deviations from expectations are used as a guide to create structures on demand. In that picture "effective" probability spaces are generated, but they do not satisfy the axioms of probability because there is no way to guaranteed unitarity, but non-unitary observeations is exactly what drives the expansion of the space. So combinatorial considerations of a "microstructure" that is _built_ from elementary relations based on the distinguishability concept will generate effective probability theory, with the desired properties. That's the idea, but there is many details yet I haven't figured out. The arrow of time with then be unified with a generalisation of the second law, where the information about the dynamics is incorporated into the "state", thus also giving an effective "entropy" to dynamics. So I have a semi-clear vision on what I want to do... but I go on steps and let it mature to make sure it's right, then I try to develop a mathcing formalism as I go along. If this works gravity will be a dynamic effect in thsis picture that is crucial for stability and structure formation.

 

/Fredrik

 

note: unitarity will still be attained in an effective sence when the learning curve is flattening, however there seems to be no way to maintain unitary during steep learning. At least not a way that is consistent with my vision.

 

/Fredrik

[Fred56]

Quantum "processes" that we are observing with unparalleled precision currently seem to violate Bell's Law and so unitarity. But there seem to be mathematical ways (possibly) around this.

There are researchers who are already seeing a need to redefine, or at least define more precisely, what is meant by information, regarding what is known about a system, classical or otherwise, and what the difference is between ontology and epistemology. I read something about a team who define information about some external system which has say, Newtonian mechanical properties as ontogenic, or ontic (i.e. observation is because of the systems character), and information which is projected, as epistemogenic, or epistemic, since it comes from within us.

I think that analysis misses the point that both are projections, axiomatic in that neither is 'available' ontically or epistemically, without an observer and an observed.

Others are looking at a "Cognitive Theoretic" model of reality. They have described something called "infocognitive potential", which is supposed to be some unbound property which is modified by 'reality' in a process resembling a telic response. I found it interesting that they consider the dualism of measurement (observer/observed) to be an axiom of this 'reality', and that dualism is the "problem". Not sure about the rest of it though. They describe a need to define the separation between mind and external solid matter, and cognition and measurement or observation. Certainly there are differently applicable semantics all over the place...

(Language is information and all observers must use some internal language regardless of the size of their 'brain' or their place in the evolutionary scheme. All observers must posses a "phenomenological syntax" to be able to explain the world to themselves...)

Also they describe the "language" of external reality (Nature) as its 'obvious' properties (regular recurring events, etc.). The goal is to eliminate the mind-matter distinction and reveal the cosmos as a self-sustaining, self-organised and deterministic 'organism' which is evolving toward some 'intelligent' end. I don't know that the "intelligent design" crowd can claim any brownie points from what is a serious looking philosophical dissertation on the nature of information and measurement -the same stuff I've been banging on about.

[Royston]

From your summary, it sounds like some sort of Anthropic Holographic Principle hybrid, though I don't have the knowledge to explain the 'Holographic Principle' fully, though it's certainly fascinating what I have read on the subject.

[Fred56]

Actually it doesn't matter what it is, this is a 'pseudoscience' thread so this could all be total crap (but actually there is such a thing as the Cognitive Theoretic Model).

I can post whatever the hell I like because nobody is interested (or maybe intelligent) enough to tell me I'm talking a load of rubbish.

Or maybe I'm not intelligent enough to say anything meaningful, so noone's interested, I don't really give a monkeys, to be honest...

It doesn't matter to me if anyone else agrees or disagrees, or ignores it completely -except once it's posted, its probably there forever. Even if this site goes down the tubes one day, it will probably survive in some fashion. Information has its own way of existing. The whole concept of controlling or censoring it is patently absurd, but who cares?

The way we view information is changing. A need has been seen to get a better grip on it, evne though we all believe we know what it is, hte quantum world has shaken the tree a bit, and we're waking up to the possibility that we might not know something important about observation and information. Reading about what other people and researchers are doing in regard to refining their view is an absorbing thing to do, but its only a part (though a very important part) of what up ahead in terms of information and what it represents as a resource. If quantum processing opens the door to 'instantaneous' computation, which is looking lots more likely, the changes this will usher in will make the industrial revolution look like kids with buckets and spades at the beach.

Which reminds me, I was planning to head over to a beach for some r&r. but the bloody weather's been stink...

[fredrik]

Yes I think it has a connection to that, or is a generalisation thereof (or rather the holographic principle might be a special case)

 

If one consider the holographic principle to suggest that the information contained in a volume of space can be represented by a theory that lives on it's boundary, then what I persoanally envision is that the information about the environment, can be represented by a "model" that lives on the observer, or rather HAS TO BE represented by a model that is defined in the observer, because what other option is there?

 

This is exactly why I think the constraints imposed by the nature of the observer itself (of course "observer" here doesn't generally mean humans, it could be a measurement device or an atom) must be implemented in along with the first principles.

 

The generalisation I imagine is to consider a sort of probability formalism that is defined in terms of it's interaction BUT also constrained by it's capacity to actually retain information. The task is to find the ultimate fundamental framework that implements this. From what I understand the original ideas of holographic principles come from a special setting, rather than considering potentially novel first principles. So I've got a feeling a proper first-principle-understanding of this is still to be found.

 

/Fredrik

[Martin]

... I'd like your understanding on one point. At another forum I see they have a location called INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH or something like that, and we don't have any such thing here. "Individual" doesn't have the perjorative connotation of "pseudo-science". I wish we had a separate forum for Individual Theories and Speculations, that didn't have that perjorative tag.

...

 

I regret that Speculation is lumped in with Pseudoscience in one subforum. My understanding is that speculation can be purposeful, maybe necessary. Maybe it is where "theories in the making" come from.

 

Actually it doesn't matter what it is' date=' this is a 'pseudoscience' thread so this could all be total crap ...

I can post whatever the hell I like because nobody is interested (or maybe intelligent) enough to tell me I'm talking a load of rubbish.[/quote']

 

I don't think this is a pseudoscience thread. (We just have a simplified forum structure in which two different categories are lumped together.) It's a speculative thread IMO.

 

I don't think it's true that "nobody is interested". Several people seem to know what you are talking about. They express interest too. I personally don't understand your line of thought here, but other people seem to.

 

If nobody said you are talking a load of rubbish, that could be for some other reason besides their lack of interest or intelligence.

 

OK' date=' in terms of predictions I don't think my "theorising" is anywhere near something like that. I'm really just kind of thinking out loud. Most of what I post is stuff I've gone over and edited in some file already.

I really want to know if it makes sense... [/quote']

 

That makes it sound like what you are contributing should be considered philosophy rather than empirical (i.e. predictive) science.

 

If that's where you are at, there are discussion boards with more of a philosophy slant. And there are science boards with a substantial philosophy slant. All we have here is the Speculation half of a Spec + Pseudo combination catchall.

 

As long as you don't change yourself into a scientist, and continue to be a speculative philosopher, we just have to make the best of an awkward situation. I would encourage you to continue to work out your speculations.

There will always be some people interested since you are (it must be said) entertaining and articulate. Also being Kiwi may give you some obscure advantage.

[Fred56]

Righto, I admit to posting in a blog-style which says stuff in a declarative way rather than posing questions. What I've been doing is "thinking out loud' and seeing if anyone can follow it. If questions arise, ok, otherwise its up to me to pose some of my own. But I feel already that there is a big lack of understanding in general about what I'm on about (...what observation is, what do we mean by 'information', and what is "quantum" information), so I look into what other researchers think we need to do about the "problem", and try to work out what they're on about. So far I haven't found any definitive formulas or descriptions, so my conclusion (so far) is that we humans still need to nail this down. My discussions with other SFN members indicate that they are mostly busy thinking about their own stuff. The intersection of ideas isn't guaranteed by a forum like this...

Nonetheless I shall try to be more enquiring in my posts.

P.S. BTW do you think that Science and Philosophy are separate disciplines, or that Philosophy can't be scientific?

P.P.S. Being a Kiwi means we get lots more Antarctic weather lately. Not sure if that gives me an advantage...

[Martin]

...

P.S. BTW do you think that Science and Philosophy are separate disciplines, or that Philosophy can't be scientific?

P.P.S. Being a Kiwi means we get lots more Antarctic weather lately. Not sure if that gives me an advantage...

 

when I say Science I often qualify it as empirical science,

or Baconian.

the basic notion is there is a COMMUNITY of people who act in good faith according to a certain ETHIC

where the basic rule is that any theory that anyone proposes should be

FALSIFIABLE by accessible OBSERVATIONS

 

none of this is absolute or perfect-----but if something is called empirical science then I expect to see theorists making a good-faith effort to formulate theory that is experimentally falsifiable

 

and if observations go against a theory for long enough then I expect the proponents to gradually give it up and fall in line with the rest of the community

 

and if the theorists can't come up with a predictive falsifiable theory within some reasonable time then if they are scientists I expect them to stop making excuses and to abandon whatever the approach or ideology is and try some different line----what is a reasonable time is subject to political argument, negotiation and pressure---no absolute criterion there.

 

so what qualifies as science depends on ethical behavior within a community, where there has to be a balance of toleration and conformity

and there has to be honest reporting of experimental results

and all ideas have to be made testable

because the way the community resolves differences is by empirical test

 

Now you ask if PHILOSOPHY could be scientific. It never occurred to me that there is any way it could be scientific. In the experimental/empirical sense that I have in mind. I can't think of any way it could be. Maybe you can.

 

that doesn't mean we all shouldn't have philosophies (and religions too if you want, and emotional relations to the universe, and Beliefs of various kinds)

That is fine.

Beliefs certainly don't have to be all supported by scientific evidence.

But with philosophy there must be other ways of settling differences of opinion. I don't see how you can do an experiment or make an astronomical observation that would settle anything. So if there are philosophical communities, or religious communities, they have to run by some different ethic and they have to have their own different ways of settling disputes.

[Fred56]

The Science/Philosophy thing is a bit skewed, methinks. I've met scientists who scoff at philosophers (because all they do is think), and I've met philosophers who doubt that Science can do more than 'classify' things. Personally I don't see how anyone who "studies" either can claim to be on one side or the other, because everyone is a scientist, and also a philosopher.

I don't honestly think anyone can avoid this, despite what they might say about it ...

[fredrik]

Almost appropriately, it seems there is a difficulty to find an exact verbal definition of what "philosophy" is, it's methods and goals.

 

The meaning of the word "philosopher" as per the ancient greeks is "friend of wisdom". And as we know philosophy is usually also divied into branches and topics (ontology, epistemology, ethics and logic and maybe more).

 

Philosophy is not random baloney, it is supposedly a sort of an supposed deeper "rational analysis" of various things. You can go on to question every single word, what does "rational" mean and so on. And this is in part a philosophical analysis. Sometimes philosophy is characterised as "thinking about thinking" or "analysing the analysis" as I like to think of it, which is IMO certainly an important part of self-interaction and highly relevant to science as I think of it.

 

For example science: Our scientific method certainly IMO falls under the domain of philosophy, I suppose much influenced by Popper who was a philosopher. I sometimes see a tendency among scientists to never question or improve these foundations, but instead just buy into a particular philosophy so to speak. But they are nevertheless resting on a philosophical foundation, and this can certainly be discussed.

 

I think also "science" can be given different meanings. Usually the falsifiability and so one is actually a philosophy of science as per popper. It may seem plausible enough to be obvious, but that's taking things too lightly IMO. Part of the effective human science is clearly bordering to sociology/politics as well, because scientists judge each other. But does this man a man stuck on an desert island can't do science on his own? Further, would it be possible to analyse the thought process in the spirit of a scientific method? I think it is possible, but the problem is of course that two different scientists may come to different conclusions. Does this make it unscientific? Exactly HOW MANY scientists must come to the same conclusion before it's science? Obviously there is a gray area here. Discussing this grey area means discussing the philosophy of science, and at least as far as my limited history knowledge knows the history of science is most certainly a branch of philosophy that is try to gain knowledge about nature using some idea of a "good scientific method".

 

Also, something that is from what I can see often "trivialized" or overseen or missing altogether in the poppian philosophy of science is an ANALYSIS of the process of updating a theory. IMO, the process of falsification is the easy part. The feedback of the falsification to let it induce an optimal correction is the part we need to analyser further.

 

From the physical point of view, I think of "philosophy" as part of a "self-interaction", which is also why I think there are no clear objective (agreement among the set of all observers) reference, but lies is part of the fuzzy problem IMO.

 

> I've met scientists who scoff at philosophers (because all they do is think)

 

I guess there are many types of scientists, ranging from those working with applied science, to those trying to extend and improve the foundations of science any maybe even change it. To question yourself is difficult.

 

/Fredrik

 

One can also note some of the wordings and early elaborations of many famous people who has made groundbreaking discoveries in physics, and it's obvious that they have made plenty of philosophical considerations, that may not always be obvious in their results. The results is usually clear, consistent and successful, but the way there is probably not as clear.

 

Once a formalism is developed it is alot easier. But how can we expect to break new ground by just "following the rails"? I by no means think all big minds in history of science has "scoffed at" philosophical reflections.

 

/Fredrik

 

I don't honestly think anyone can avoid this, despite what they might say about it ...

 

In short, I agree with you here.

 

/Fredrik

[Fred56]

There will always be some people interested since you are (it must be said) entertaining and articulate. Also being Kiwi may give you some obscure advantage.

Martin: thanks for the compliment (sorry for not responding earlier)...

The obscurity of NZ is a bit of a problem -the only connection to astrophysics is the SKA project (which is happening because of our big neighbour -The Aussies are getting to build a pretty big chunk of it, and we get a whole 3 dishes. But the project is about radioastronomy and BH research. I still haven't managed to find out very much. As far as I can tell its all still drawings and ideas. I would really like to know if there will be anything on offer research-wise, or if I need to be a Ph.D. student or what. The internet is really the best link to all the research at the mo, but as we all know, up-close, hands-on stuff is what science is about...

[foodchain]

What I never understood about time seems to me as some duality of its understanding. For instance I have heard so many times that time is a dimension that you cant poke with a stick, or in short it has physical properties that are real and not real:confused: I can accept time as a dimension in which physics professionals can use the argument powers of math to make solid predictions of the universe thus understanding, but this does not tell me what time is or if its real or not. Relativity gives a definition to time, but relativity cannot be fully integrated with other physical models of the universe, so obviously its either something missing, or something in some model is wrong. Though I don’t know the definition of time from a quantum perspective, it does seem to differ from that of a relativity perspective? Maybe its just the scale of things involved, and the interaction of matter and energy from the subatomic to the galactic at work, but such is only a sentence and hardly an answer.

 

I think this is why physics wont use anything but math for models. When a mathematical argument works and predicts phenomena, there is no need to go any farther I guess, or really to me this means how do you go farther, how do you describe what mass is outside of math that reflects the true reality of mass throughout all physical reality. I can look at this as a shallow means of understanding, but in reality it may be all humans can do currently in regards to understanding. Such would seem not true giving the idea of what advances other scientific fields have made without relying purely on math, but observation and experiment, which I think validates empirical means works too. Which in reality is the final test of predictions in physics. All of this I think still escapes the question though is when can you say with absolute precision what something is outside of a mathematical description in regards to what physics studies. Mass has certain properties other stuff does not:D

 

That’s the best I can do for mass I think.

[Fred56]

time is a dimension that you cant poke with a stick, or in short it has physical properties that are real and not real

The thing about time is, it can't be a physical requirement, because we "invented it". It's a measurement which means its 'existence' (in our ontology) is the only real property is has. Time isn't "out there", it's in our heads (and any other lifeform that grows and dies). But, like a "static frame of reference", the universe doesn't 'require' it to keep doing what it does.

Mass has certain properties other stuff does not

Mass is conserved, an invariant property of the universe. It's real because it exists (presumably) without life (observers) being around to "observe" it into existence.

[fredrik]

What I never understood about time seems to me as some duality of its understanding. For instance I have heard so many times that time is a dimension that you cant poke with a stick, or in short it has physical properties that are real and not real:confused: I can accept time as a dimension in which physics professionals can use the argument powers of math to make solid predictions of the universe thus understanding, but this does not tell me what time is or if its real or not.

 

If we forget about time for a second, and consider the general case. What would a distinction between real and not real be that satisfies you? I take it "pokable with a stick" is not it, right? Are your thoughts real?

 

Though I don’t know the definition of time from a quantum perspective, it does seem to differ from that of a relativity perspective?

 

Usually in QM, time is part of the background given and is usually considered as a parameter, to which we relate our information (the state). Same with space. If space and time was not given, but is rather emergent (as some think, including myself) then the normal procedure to derive QM falls apart. So time and space is not questioned. It is given, and is the starting point and is used to formulate the probability space. From this, using symmetry arguments most conservation laws are derived too. To question time and space normal QM is inadequate and we need a more fundamental formulation.

 

IMO this is possibly the best we was able to do so far, but no way it's the final answer.

 

/Fredrik

[Fred56]

Usually in QM, time is part of the background given and is usually considered as a parameter, to which we relate our information (the state).

Yes, time is a given, but it isn't a real physical "ontic" thing that matter 'requires'. We however, do require it. This is because it's the way we measure change, and matter definitely is something that changes (all the 'time').

Same with space. If space and time was not given, but is rather emergent

Space is what happens when energy condenses and separates, so yes, it is 'there', and indeed it emerges, or is changing (increasing). We can 'remember' this.

[fredrik]

Yes, time is a given, but it isn't a real physical "ontic" thing that matter 'requires'. We however, do require it. This is because it's the way we measure change, and matter definitely is something that changes (all the 'time').

 

I personally see no clean way of separating ontology and epistemology in this context, this is part of my point. Epistemology explain the induction of ontological constructs. To consider an non-trivial ontology without epistemological support is to me not consistent with a "strong background independence". The trick seems to start with a minimal starting point and then see how "ontologies as well as higher epistemology" forms. This is my idea. Therefore, I see it as unclear to try to separate matter from time, as they are clearly related to the extent that one without the other makes little sense to me.

 

But in this context epistemology to me is not only concerned with "human knowledge", I am picturing it as how everything is connected and how different things gain information about each other.

 

However I understand your point that matter doesn't "require" time, but OTOH if it wasn't for time, I don't see why there would be aterial objects n the first place.

 

/Fredrik

[Fred56]

if it wasn't for time, I don't see why there would be [m]aterial objects n the first place.

If you exchange 'time' with 'change', it makes (some) more (kind of) sense. Time exists as a requirement for observers to 'remember' the world, but the universe came first (presumably). Time wasn't around, if you will, until life was.

[fredrik]

If you exchange 'time' with 'change', it makes (some) more (kind of) sense.

 

The reason I used time here is because you used time originally. But I do not think time is "given". That was my description of the QM way which I'm trying to improve.

 

My envisioned construct starts from a concept of relative distinguishability and set of relations/dataq, where change is a relative distinguishable change among with relations. Time is possibly a choice of parametrisation of the most probable path of changes consistent with the relations. So far, like in GR, I have an idea how to define differential time this way, but global time probably can't be defined in the ordinary sense at least, but I'm not sure that's necessary either. But I envision all "dimensions" to be defined in a similar way. Not only time, but also space. But I am still struggling with this.

 

/Fredrik

 

The main reason time seems to distinguish itself is because I consider it to define the direction of change, but along this "growth", new dimension can grow out as well. I have ideas on how this should be formalised, but it's a tricky one, and it will take me some time I am sure.

 

/Fredrik

[Fred56]

Has anyone seen that new theory about time requiring 2 dimensions? Itzhak Bars' idea of "Hypertime", which he has a paper on in Phy. Review Let. D v74 p085019...