How relativity might prove spirituality

[MirceaKitsune]

I've been working on finding scientific arguments that spirits and an out-of-body consciousness exist, and that our awareness isn't just an effect created by signals in the brain as some speculate. Yesterday I realized something rather obvious, but very important if my understanding is proven correct. My argument relies on the theory of relativity... with focus on the idea that time is a fixed dimension, where the past and present both exist in a static state across a 4th axis. After nearly a day of pondering this view, I couldn't find any counterfacts to it, and I'd like to hear what others think and other pro / con arguments.

 

So let's consider this: Right now you are sitting on a chair. 10 seconds before that, you were opening the door to your room and walking inside. Both moments are fixed frames of time, and each frame contains the state of everything physical: The atoms that make up your body and the room around you, the particles of light flooding the room, and (most importantly in this discussion) every particle involved in any electrochemical process taking place in your brain. In both time frames, your brain is functioning and biologically perceiving that very moment as present. So why is it that you, the aware living being, are now experiencing the moment when you are sitting on the chair, and no longer live the time when you were opening the door? There's nothing to indicate that a certain frame of time is "now"... as far as your body and physics themselves know, every moment is now!

 

Let's think of it as a film strip which contains many images in order. The 50th shot might be you walking through the door, and the 100th is you sitting on the chair. To each shot in the strip, you can add any information you want... even numbers or arrows so we know which frame is which. But whatever you do, the strip doesn't know when and if it's being played by a projector, nor that it's even meant to! As far as the storage unit is concerned, each shot could be "now", or there is no now at all. The only way to put the strip to use is by running it through something that interprets it, like a projector. That projector alone knows how to roll the film in front of a light beam, at what speed, and how each frame represents time and motion.

 

To use another analogy: Imagine that you're reading a comic book, with panels containing all sorts of images and text. Each page in the book is also numbered, so you can easily resume where you left off in case you take a break. But one piece of information you cannot print on the comic book is what panel the reader is looking at. From the comic's perspective, no one might be looking, or the author might be reading any panel on any page... and in any order if he really wants.

 

My logical conclusion is: No matter how advanced the processes going on in the brain are, they alone cannot create an awareness that perceives time to be flowing. In order for us to have our perception of time, an external consciousness must interpret every state of our body in an orderly fashion, reading the 4th dimension like a comic strip. If spacetime is still, you cannot encode information in it regarding when now is now... because it was always now in a fraction of time, yet all fractions of time would say it's now. Or to put it differently, you cannot "summon" a dynamic effect using a static shape, although you can add markers that help guide the way. An external reader understands that shape, and interprets fractions of it orderly to do so. I pondered whether warping spacetime around itself could work around this, but couldn't find how even that might "program" a dynamic consciousness in relative spacetime.

[Delta1212]

Where does relativity come in?

[Strange]

All you are saying is that the future is predetermined and there is no free will. I don't see what it has to do with spirituality. (I'm not even sure what you mean by that? Communing with the dead?)

 

 

No matter how advanced the processes going on in the brain are, they alone cannot create an awareness that perceives time to be flowing. In order for us to have our perception of time, an external consciousness must interpret every state of our body in an orderly fashion, reading the 4th dimension like a comic strip.

 

That is a complete non-sequitur; it doesn't follow from (or even relate to) anything you said before. Why would it require another external consciousness? How is that consciousness able to perceive time to flow if we can't?

 

 

If spacetime is still, you cannot encode information in it regarding when now is now... because it was always now in a fraction of time, yet all fractions of time would say it's now.

 

Yay! Word games!

Edited July 30, 2014 by Strange

[Endy0816]

Your awareness exists along the axis of time. You can imagine it walking along, looking at a panel, walking along looking at the next panel.

 

You note changes in what you are observing and you perceive time as passing. Entropy, expansion, your standard clock, etc.

 

We never even actually experience NOW with all the physical and processing delays involved. Our brains lie to us to convince us we are seeing a coherent narrative of events.

[Strange]

We never even actually experience NOW with all the physical and processing delays involved. Our brains lie to us to convince us we are seeing a coherent narrative of events.

 

Different senses and signals from different parts of the body are delayed by vastly different amounts. What we think of as "now" is spread out over almost one second.

[MirceaKitsune]

Sorry if I posted parts of my idea in a confusing way. First of all, the part of relativity that comes into play here is that time is a fixed dimension, and therefore everything that happened or will happen already exists and doesn't change. This is relevant because it clarifies that time isn't being "built" as we see it flow, and everything is already there.

 

The interesting part is that this implies there is a still copy or representation of all matter in each moment of time... such as one of ourselves and the world around us as it was a minute ago, one as it will be a minute from now, etc. But in each of these copies, our brain is active and functional... making decisions, analyzing the environment, as well as thinking that very frame of time is the present. Every atom that makes up our brain, every electrochemical signal generated by it, are all represented by a still spacetime.

 

So how can spacetime mark an exact moment from this huge chain of time frames as being "now"... especially since objects and people can travel through time at slightly different rates? A mental system, brain pattern, neural wiring, etc. that could create the illusion of time flowing stops making sense logically, because the brain and all matter it's made of or it influences exists in a still state in every moment of time. So every moment of time can be a potential "now" for our consciousness.

 

Here's another way to look at the problem: In order for our perception to move from past toward future and for us to see time animate, information regarding which moment of time is "now" for our perspective needs to be stored somewhere and somehow. Even if it's just virtual data created by a brain trick, because information must too reside in something. But if timespace is fixed and cannot be modified, where do you store it? Our consciousness needs to be something that moves on top of time itself... like the needle of a pickup disc reader must be moved over the surface of the disk for music to play. No matter how intelligently you draw something on the pickup disk itself, you cannot create a virtual needle that interprets it... and we clearly have a consciousness that somehow interprets the passing of time.

Edited July 30, 2014 by MirceaKitsune

[Strange]

 

So how can spacetime mark an exact moment from this huge chain of time frames as being "now"...

 

In the same way that you can mark an exact spatial position. You don't consider yourself spread out though all of space, so why consider yourself spread out through time.

 

Spacetime is a coordinate system, therefore you can mark any position and call it "now". Of course, you can choose any position and label it "now" or "then" or Fred". But so what? There is nothing special about the word or concept "now".

 

A mental system, brain pattern, neural wiring, etc. that could create the illusion of time flowing stops making sense logically

 

I don't see why. Our mind integrates signals from various sources and creates the impression of time passing. Not unlike the frames of a film analogy that you mentioned.

 

You are simply asserting that this does not make sense logically. You certainly haven't shown this to be true.

 

 

because the brain and all matter it's made of or it influences exists in a still state in every moment of time.

 

This sounds a bit like Zeno's Paradox. And we all know how bogus that is.

 

 

Even if it's just virtual data created by a brain trick, because information must too reside in something. But if timespace is fixed and cannot be modified, where do you store it?

 

By that argument, nothing could ever change. But things do change over time. Including the information stored in our brains. That change creates the sense of time passing.

 

For example, how is this different from a camera recording a series of images over time: How can it do that if spacetime is fixed!?!? Simply because at each point along its path in spacetime, it contains different information. Just like we do. The camera interprets that as an MPEG file or whatever, we interpret it as the illusion of a continuous present.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Strange

[MirceaKitsune]

[removed text to keep posts short]

 

Yes, we are indeed spread throughout both space and time. Each atom in our body exists in a given location and state at every given moment. My question is, how could consciousness choose that moment and keep its momentum across it, if it's created by matter in an environment that's static (spacetime)? By momentum, I mean our perspective sticking to a certain time and only moving toward future... so for example we don't constantly re-experience 10 exact seconds from our lifetime, or see time unfold in reverse.

 

The mind indeed integrates signals from various sources, and processes information in an incredible way and to a fantastic extent. But again, it does so in every frame of time, and every frame of time is engraved in a static timespace as far as it's known. What creates a reference to a specific fraction of time, given that the same process happens throughout the entire lifetime of the brain (from the person's birth day and its death day)?

 

As for whether the time dimension of spacetime is fixed, the theory of relativity strongly implies that as far as I know. If one object can travel faster through time than another, it means that object can (in a sense) check that this other object already exists in the future.

 

Otherwise I do believe in free will, as much as this hypothesis might imply otherwise. But I'm of the belief that choice is the product of the consciousness switching lanes to different forks of time (or time lines). This concept is of course not proven either, but common in quantum theory debates from what I've seen (such as Schrödinger's Cat). Either way it might be a slightly different subject from this, and I don't want to focus on every idea and hypothesis at once.

 

Otherwise, a camera recording a series of images is a great example. First of all, the act of the camera recording the video already exists in timespace, whether from the perspective of a consciousness it has yet to take place or has taken place. Second, the camera records a series of images and compiles them into a video file as frames. But that video file is a static entity. We see video because a media player opens the file up and interprets it, showing one image on the screen at a time.

Edited July 30, 2014 by MirceaKitsune

[Delta1212]

First of all, the part of relativity that comes into play here is that time is a fixed dimension, and therefore everything that happened or will happen already exists and doesn't change.

That's not a part of relativity.

[Endy0816]

As for whether the time dimension of spacetime is fixed, the theory of relativity strongly implies that as far as I know. If one object can travel faster through time than another, it means that object can (in a sense) check that this other object already exists in the future.

 

In the relativistic rocket examples, you and whatever you happen to be observing are at the same moment in time together.

 

The rate at which time will appear to pass for the other frame will be different(time dilation). But you both are still in the same moment.

[Delta1212]

 

In the relativistic rocket examples, you and whatever you happen to be observing are at the same moment in time together.

 

The rate at which time will appear to pass for the other frame will be different(time dilation). But you both are still in the same moment.

Well, what that even means over any kind of distance is somewhat debatable. Relativity of simultaneity makes defining any kind of "universal now" kind of dodgy.

[John Cuthber]

 

. Each atom in our body exists in a given location and state at every given moment.

 

Nope, read up on the uncertainty principle.

[Endy0816]

Well, what that even means over any kind of distance is somewhat debatable. Relativity of simultaneity makes defining any kind of "universal now" kind of dodgy.

 

Mostly just meant that after taking "Good Ship 0.99c" out for a spin and coming back and landing on Earth you'll both be on the same page.

 

There are highly theoretical methods, but yeah, they probably wouldn't remain applicable in our own framework. Interesting to think about the impact of changing in terms of dimensional properties though.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Endy0816

[MirceaKitsune]

I didn't know the "fixed past and future" theory isn't part of the theory of relativity. I shall look more into this in that case, and also read up on the uncertainty principle later. Either way, this debate is valid if time is indeed a static dimension. If time is somehow being constructed as it flows, and the past is wiped out of existence while the future is yet to exist, this subject is probably baseless. Since in this case, there's only one space which automatically represents the present, so consciousness doesn't need to interpret pieces of time from a static entity that time is modeled into. Although such a truth would overturn everything I've understood about timespace and physics, and make quantum physics an insane mystery.

 

From what I otherwise understood regarding relativity, it means that if a person travels near the speed of light while another person stands still, the stationary person would see the moving person frozen in time... such as moving their hand in slow motion. The part related to consciousness which intrigued me was: From the stationary person's perspective, time passes more slowly for the moving person, while the moving person sees his / her self passing normally through time. Therefore when the moving person stops traveling, he / she should have their aware perspective in the future compared to the perspective of the person who stood there.

 

A more intriguing fact is that the person who traveled near light speed is still able to interact with the person who didn't. Both can talk to each other, take aware decisions in relationship to one another... yet one's perspective of present should be off compared to the others. Then again, if timespace is indeed static, it means both people have already taken all the choices they're going to take in their entire existence (at least on one time line), and their conscious perspective is going to catch up to this moment later on as it "reads" through time.

[Delta1212]

I didn't know the "fixed past and future" theory isn't part of the theory of relativity. I shall look more into this in that case, and also read up on the uncertainty principle later. Either way, this debate is valid if time is indeed a static dimension. If time is somehow being constructed as it flows, and the past is wiped out of existence while the future is yet to exist, this subject is probably baseless. Since in this case, there's only one space which automatically represents the present, so consciousness doesn't need to interpret pieces of time from a static entity that time is modeled into. Although such a truth would overturn everything I've understood about timespace and physics, and make quantum physics an insane mystery.

 

From what I otherwise understood regarding relativity, it means that if a person travels near the speed of light while another person stands still, the stationary person would see the moving person frozen in time... such as moving their hand in slow motion. The part related to consciousness which intrigued me was: From the stationary person's perspective, time passes more slowly for the moving person, while the moving person sees his / her self passing normally through time. Therefore when the moving person stops traveling, he / she should have their aware perspective in the future compared to the perspective of the person who stood there.

 

A more intriguing fact is that the person who traveled near light speed is still able to interact with the person who didn't. Both can talk to each other, take aware decisions in relationship to one another... yet one's perspective of present should be off compared to the others. Then again, if timespace is indeed static, it means both people have already taken all the choices they're going to take in their entire existence (at least on one time line), and their conscious perspective is going to catch up to this moment later on as it "reads" through time.

Keep in mind, that as long as the motion is inertial (that is, nobody accelerates) it is equally valid to say that either person is moving. There is no absolute frame against which you can say "this is the person that is moving and this other one is standing still." To each person, they are the one standing still and the other person is the one moving close to the speed of light, with all attendant effects, and they are both equally correct.

[Wso]

Assuming that time is an absolute, fixed dimension, that doesn't mean we have to move through it at the same speed. The faster that we move through space the slower we move in time in relation to how fast we were previously moving through time. How would this idea of time being a fixed dimension account for photons, which theoretically experiance all moments of their existences instantaneously? In this idea of time having frames, photons would experiance seeing every single frame at once. Also humans don't need to have a time frame to experiance time. Human brains can only process information at a fixed rate, which is much slower then the speed of light and certainly not instantaneous. All objects exist in every time frame, just in different forms. The human brain is no exception to this. This means that the human brain experiences time just as the rate at which information is processed and time is flowing due to speed. To date, no way has need discovered to directly move from one point in time to another. This means that even if someone were to dramatically dialate their time frame it would still exist in the moment that the casual observer barley moving would still be able to see their faster moving friend. This, in my opinion, disproves your initial hypothesis, however I could have been wrong here so correct me if I was incorrect about anything.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Wso

[MirceaKitsune]

...

 

The big question remains what actually moves through time... or what is it that moves at all? If time is fixed and modeled into the fabric of spacetime, nothing really travels. In programming terms, we can consider that the physics of all particles are pre-computed and pre-rendered. If we pick up a rock and throw it, we see it flying away until if falls, but in reality that's just a 4D "drawing" where the rock has an arched trail between the location it's thrown from to the location it lands at, and we perceive 3D segments of this shape in order (which makes us see time flow). If of course this is indeed the nature of spacetime, which is what I understand and currently believe based on the standard physics model.

 

You have a good point with photons, and that raises some ideas. If the speed of light is indeed the speed at which time is stretched to the highest point, a photon should theoretically have the same state in every time frame. But even if the brain uses photons, this still wouldn't solve the puzzle I think... since photons too have a fixed state in each time frame. If anything, this makes them an even more unlikely candidate... because they contain even less information throughout each moment of time, compared to particles which could be in different locations during different moments and therefore create more complex patterns. I might be envisioning this incorrectly however, it needs to be given more thought.

 

As for the time dilation statement, I might be imagining this a bit incorrectly as well. I'm assuming that if a person stays still while another travels at the speed of light, the consciousness of the person standing perceives the passing of time at standard speed, while that of the person traveling sees time for the surrounding world passing at a different rate. But in relation to their own bodies, both see time passing the same way. This might mean that one person's consciousness could have their sense of present offset from the other person's. Either way, this is mostly relevant to rule out the possibility that the universe has an universal reference of what is "now", which all forms of consciousness synchronize to.

Edited August 1, 2014 by MirceaKitsune

[andrewcellini]

we never really experience what is happening at any given moment because there is a delay from signal transduction to conscious perception, as well as action to perception of action occurring even though that delay is a short amount of time (say about 50 ms for visual transduction to perception, meaning we're perceiving what has already happened). how does this relate to your "theory?" also how does relativity fit into this mix?

Edited August 2, 2014 by andrewcellini

[MirceaKitsune]

we never really experience what is happening at any given moment because there is a delay from signal transduction to conscious perception, as well as action to perception of action occurring even though that delay is a short amount of time (say about 50 ms for visual transduction to perception, meaning we're perceiving what has already happened). how does this relate to your "theory?" also how does relativity fit into this mix?

 

I remember hearing about the brain perceiving everything at a delay of a few milliseconds. But I don't think this contradicts my hypothesis, and this is why and how I think it relates: The brain has parts where information coming from all other senses (seeing, hearing, touching, etc) is processed and interpreted, then compiled into logical results... this processing being what causes the delay. For example, the signal eyes transmit are just some gibberish dots of different colors. The brain translates them into a format that allows us to see an image, understand what each object means, perceive 3D depth, etc.

 

My speculation is that the consciousness interprets a body by sticking to a select few atoms inside the brain, based on a structure well defined by biology and evolution. So those end results are the only thing it would need to care about. The physical and biological processes that lead to a part of the brain representing the environment don't need to be of any interest, only that there is something representing the environment which it can "read" per time frame. This does mean the consciousness is offset by 50ms from the physical present it aims at perceiving, but it still involves a consciousness reading chunks of physical matter orderly across the time dimension.

 

As for how relativity relates, see my posts above... about the man traveling at light speed compared to the man standing still, and how their points of awareness might get out of sync. I did however include more physics concepts under "relativity" than the theory of relativity really speaks about, so I now realize the thread title might be a bit misleading and incorrect.

[andrewcellini]

so you accept that the brain is taking time to process sensory information, but not doing what your "conscious spirit" is doing, as in examining these data sets and their relationships essentially (albeit on a higher order of processing). i don't think you've really come to any logical conclusion, especially when current technology with such low resolution leaves many questions unanswered (for now presumably) in neuroscience. what reason would you need to add this extra entity to a theory of mind when there is no reason or evidence to assume the brain can't possibly perform this task?

 

rereading, i still don't think you understand relativity. i don't understand relativity well either, but i don't try to draw conclusions from what i do know because what i know of it could be flawed (probably is). can what you describe be derived from einstein field equations?

Edited August 4, 2014 by andrewcellini

[MirceaKitsune]

so you accept that the brain is taking time to process sensory information, but not doing what your "conscious spirit" is doing, as in examining these data sets and their relationships essentially (albeit on a higher order of processing). i don't think you've really come to any logical conclusion, especially when current technology with such low resolution leaves many questions unanswered (for now presumably) in neuroscience. what reason would you need to add this extra entity to a theory of mind when there is no reason or evidence to assume the brain can't possibly perform this task?

 

rereading, i still don't think you understand relativity. i don't understand relativity well either, but i don't try to draw conclusions from what i do know because what i know of it could be flawed (probably is). can what you describe be derived from einstein field equations?

 

Like I said, for me this is a logical question. If time is a fixed / static dimension, and each frame of time can be perceived as present by our awareness, then something external to it must be doing the perceiving. Because I don't see how you can create an impression of movement, or a presence of a dynamic nature, using only a static entity. Something must move through this static environment and interpret it.

 

A good example is taking a sheet of paper and a pen. You can consider up - down to be space and left - right to be time. The challenge is to draw anything on that paper which causes or implies movement from the left side to the right... even of a fake informational entity. You likely can't, because anything you draw is static. If you put a line somewhere to indicate present, you can no longer erase it, so no other segment of that paper could ever be perceived as present. Best you can do is create an optical illusion, like a wheel that appears to spin if you look at a center point... which again requires an external observer.

 

But I don't claim this to be absolute proof. It's just an idea which in my opinion makes sense, so I wanted to discuss it. As for relativity, I went with the essentials I knew about this theory... I know that an experienced mathematician understands it better than me and can tell me where I'm wrong.

[andrewcellini]

how can you claim to understand essentials when you don't understand the math behind it and what it means?

 

one misunderstanding is saying time is static. spacetime is static (which itself has a specific mathematical meaning that i don't know if you understand)

Edited August 5, 2014 by andrewcellini

[Endy0816]

 

Like I said, for me this is a logical question. If time is a fixed / static dimension, and each frame of time can be perceived as present by our awareness, then something external to it must be doing the perceiving. Because I don't see how you can create an impression of movement, or a presence of a dynamic nature, using only a static entity. Something must move through this static environment and interpret it.

 

A good example is taking a sheet of paper and a pen. You can consider up - down to be space and left - right to be time. The challenge is to draw anything on that paper which causes or implies movement from the left side to the right... even of a fake informational entity. You likely can't, because anything you draw is static. If you put a line somewhere to indicate present, you can no longer erase it, so no other segment of that paper could ever be perceived as present. Best you can do is create an optical illusion, like a wheel that appears to spin if you look at a center point... which again requires an external observer.

 

Could I create a similar illusion by comparing two memories?

[Strange]

 

Like I said, for me this is a logical question. If time is a fixed / static dimension, and each frame of time can be perceived as present by our awareness, then something external to it must be doing the perceiving.

 

I don't see how this can be a "logical" question when the next sentence contains a complete non sequitur.

 

I would suggest an introductory course in philosophy so that you understand what a logical argument looks like.

[MirceaKitsune]

how can you claim to understand essentials when you don't understand the math behind it and what it means?

 

one misunderstanding is saying time is static. spacetime is static (which itself has a specific mathematical meaning that i don't know if you understand)

 

I often work with what I do understand, and rather try to piece things together if you will... math is sadly not one of my strong points. I am aware I can be wrong, which is why I discuss things and can accept the opinions of others when they contradict mine.

 

In this case, many documentaries about spacetime stated that time is a static and fixed dimension. I assume channels like National Geographic wouldn't air science films if they were made by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

 

Could I create a similar illusion by comparing two memories?

 

That's an idea that would make sense. Although if we're talking about the biological brain, those memories should exist in each time frame, or more precisely in each copy / state of the brain inside each moment in time. So something external would have to choose which memories are being compared and in what order.