Models for making sense of relativity - physical space vs physical spacetime

[koti]

With all due respect, it seems to me that you guys really do not grasp the model at all. The idea of the standard block universe model is that it is done and dusted, a complete package. It is also not dependent on us observing all of it (we observe what we have access to during our lifeline). It would not have existed in its current form if there was not enough "space". You might as well imply that there is not enough space for the universe..? So I don't quite follow your logic here (as with Michel). Let us consider the alternative. In stead of everything already existing, we have "new information" coming into existence ex nihilo every nanosecond..? BTW, keep in mind that the BB was just one of many events/points in the bock universe.

 

OK, unfortunately I have to run again. I hope this would make some sense. I haven't really checked everything properly so if there are any loose ends, I will attend to it a bit later on.

 

Memammal, that very well might be the case, at least with me Can you recommend a book that would be a comprehensive source on this ?

As for my possibly unjustified concern, let me rephrase;

Eternalism states that all points in time are equally real (wiki) If I understand this correctly, at the big bang there had to be a stage in which a continumm of all future events had to be presented...and had to be presented instantly. This sounds extremely far fetched if not ridiculous.

[Memammal]

I don't know how you want to use reduced time consciousness for this discussion; but since that person's movements of arms and legs probably uses a kind of PID control (and that implies again activation of speed cells and "time" dynamics), I don't think that that would be a totally different "ball game".

We are still the same living, moving biological entities brought about by the same tools of what we understand to be evolution. The block universe model does not alter any of that. We are moving through- and experiencing our lifelines that are embedded in it, breathing actual oxygen on the way. You know perfectly well why I brought that analogy into the discussion. It is important to envisage, or imagine a different reality (from that on Earth) such as the one that I tried to illustrate. It brings a total new perspective to the way we look at these issues.

 

Memammal, that very well might be the case, at least with me Can you recommend a book that would be a comprehensive source on this ?

The link that I provided earlier is about the easiest to digest: Time, Free Will and the Block Universe

* EDIT: The article itself is part of a series, as far as I remember, so there are other references and pages linked to it.

 

As for my possibly unjustified concern, let me rephrase;

Eternalism states that all points in time are equally real (wiki) If I understand this correctly, at the big bang there had to be a stage in which a continumm of all future events had to be presented...and had to be presented instantly. This sounds extremely far fetched if not ridiculous.

Eternalism posits that there was no beginning (or end) from within the block universe. Seeing that our conventional understanding of time is no longer valid (as per Einstein & Co) and since we cannot tell whether the universe is finite of infinite in size, it is akin to you asking how it was possible that ALL numeric numbers (from -infinite to +infinite) were introduced at the same "moment", let us say at point zero? In fact this seems like a nice illustration...are all numbers equally real, do they all exist, do they change?

And I really wonder if we did a poll, what percentage of people would vote for "block".

And I really hope this does not turn into a popularity contest, Tim

Edited October 26, 2016 by Memammal

[koti]

The link that I provided earlier is about the easiest to digest: Time, Free Will and the Block Universe

* EDIT: The article itself is part of a series, as far as I remember, so there are other references and pages linked to it.

 

Eternalism posits that there was no beginning (or end) from within the block universe. Seeing that our conventional understanding of time is no longer valid (as per Einstein & Co) and since we cannot tell whether the universe is finite of infinite in size, it is akin to you asking how it was possible that ALL numeric numbers (from -infinite to +infinite) were introduced at the same "moment", let us say at point zero? In fact this seems like a nice illustration...are all numbers equally real, do they all exist, do they change?

 

Thanks for the link, will read through it tonight hopefuly.

Despite that you might be right, I think that the (-infinite -> +infinite) analogy might not be a good one as events placed in spacetime are quite a different occurance than numbers which are purely a concept.

Edited October 26, 2016 by koti

[studiot]

 

koti, on 26 Oct 2016 - 1:37 PM, said:

BTW...Wouldn't there be an issue (at least a philosophical one) with the block universe concepts concerning the amount of information involved?

Considering the original block concept where the past, present and future are done events wouldn't that mean that at or right after the big bang spacetime would have to be "stuffed" with a ridiculuos amount of information?

 

One of the ways in which we create lossless compression in movies is to only record changes from frame to frame (Note the cinematographic use of the word frame)

[Tim88]

Quoted from Absolute space and time​:

• the notion of [..] curved spacetime in general relativity.​
• [..]

• ...and general relativity further reduces the physical scope of absolute space and time through the concept of geodesics.

And from Relativistic dynamics:

• Einstein rejected the Newtonian concept and identified t as the fourth coordinate of a space-time four-vector. Einstein's view of time requires a physical equivalence between coordinate time and coordinate space.
• The role of time was a key difference between Einsteinian and Newtonian views of classical theory.

[..]

 

In my opinion, Wikipedia is hardly of more value for philosophical citations than this thread itself. Moreover, in this thread we are comparing disagreeing explanatory views of relativistic physics with each other - and not classical physics with relativistic physics.

 

Thus, here above I filtered through the parts that seem to relate to explanatory power of the block universe on top of the mathematical explanatory power of the Poincare-Minkowski space-time formalism which is shared by the two models. I'll next read your links and try to see if I can distill more out of those that can be used to phrase the causal block universe explanations of the phenomena of points 1-3 of post #163.

 

But it is true that apart of the "odometer" explanation, I find the block universe concept rather incomprehensible. For example, does "curved spacetime" (which is a mathematical term) correspond to a curved Spacetime in block universe (thus with a 1:1 metaphysical correspondence), so that the clocks have different trajectories due to "curvature" of the Spacetime background? (and if so, what explains that curvature? How should it be interpreted? And the same for geodesics, is the "block" view helpful here?).

 

Therefore, I'll be happy if someone else with a better understanding of that view explains inertia, and effects from rotation with the help of "block" instead of me!

 

Apart of that:

Something like a "double time" is needed in this concept too

 

You mean that Absolute Space needs "something like double time"? I don't think so. [edit:] Although it uses different "times", it has a single time concept.

 

As I see it, relativistic Absolute Space implies that different clock times occur as direct physical effects of location near heavy mass and motion through Space; time as a comparison of the progress of physical processes implies that there's only one kind of "real time".

 

[edit:] Of course, there is also a "local time" as set up by humans for measuring time, due to the impossibility to establish absolute speed and absolute simultaneity. Although "true time" is inaccessible to us, the relationship between "true" and "local" time is straightforward.

And it's even possible to add a theoretical "Newtonian absolute time" in that view for conceptual convenience, standing for an imaginary "zero speed, zero gravitational field clock"; but in that view of reality, such an "absolute time" is merely a mathematical construct of our minds, a thinking aid.

 

So far, no comparable logical explanation has emerged concerning the "double" time (two conceptually different "true times"?) of the Spacetime view; it remained more of a mystery than an explanation. If you would like to start a topic on that: yes please!

Edited October 26, 2016 by Tim88

[koti]

 

The link that I provided earlier is about the easiest to digest: Time, Free Will and the Block Universe

 

 

Memammal, I am barely keeping my eyes open as a flu is killing me and my 6 month old's teething is not helping so I am irritated as hell so take it easy on me...

Below I marked in orange a statement and a conclusion drawn from it from the link you recommended. The below are excerpts from the article:

 

----------------------------

There are two dominant – and incompatible – theories of time: the tensed theory, and thetenseless theory. The tensed theory of time most resembles the popularly-held view of time. The tensed theory requires there to be a present moment (the “now”), and a distinction between an event in the past, present, and future (an event in the past was real, an event in the present is real, and an event in the future will be real). Notice that the “now” moves. This apparent movement of the “now” is an essential feature of the tensed theory of time.

 

However, there is a philosophical (and logical) problem to this idea of a moving “now”. Put simply, it raises the question which has puzzled philosophers: “How fast does time flow?”. If the “now” moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not. To say “Time moves at the rate of one second per second” is meaningless. Rather, the rate of time flow would have to be measured with respect to some secondary, external time reference. However, in our earlier discussion on this page it was stressed that there was no clock outside the universe, so there could not be any such external time reference. It is simply logically impossible for there to be a moving “now”. Time does not “flow”!

--------------------------

 

Where is the logic in stating that "if the now moves then in must do so in respect to some reference?" Why is it that there has to be some reference? As far as I know SR and GR do not force this kind of aproach on time or does it? I hope it doesn't because it bothers me as hell as a careless argument resulting in an axiom which obviously has grand implications in any later reasoning.

 

 

One of the ways in which we create lossless compression in movies is to only record changes from frame to frame (Note the cinematographic use of the word frame)

 

I am a bit familiar with the cinematography technology and I agree...this analogy is better. I still don't fully grasp the block concepts, I will have to postpone my further posts on this subject untill I get a firmer grip on this. Franky, for now I am irritated by the above article and the block time concepts. Probably due to the fact that I just don't get it but still I'm irritated.

Edited October 26, 2016 by koti

[studiot]

 

koti

However, there is a philosophical (and logical) problem to this idea of a moving “now”. Put simply, it raises the question which has puzzled philosophers: “How fast does time flow?”. If the “now” moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not. To say “Time moves at the rate of one second per second” is meaningless. Rather, the rate of time flow would have to be measured with respect to some secondary, external time reference. However, in our earlier discussion on this page it was stressed that there was no clock outside the universe, so there could not be any such external time reference. It is simply logically impossible for there to be a moving “now”. Time does not “flow”!

 

That presupposes the movement to be uniform.

 

Why should it be?

 

I actually prefer to reserve the word move or movement for change of spatial location and to choose another word for change of temporal location.

 

Now the whole subject of rate of change requires at least two axes and there is only one temporal axis.

 

This is basic analysis (calculus) in high school maths.

 

So the whole argument is spurious.

[koti]

 

That presupposes the movement to be uniform.

 

Why should it be?

 

I actually prefer to reserve the word move or movement for change of spatial location and to choose another word for change of temporal location.

 

Now the whole subject of rate of change requires at least two axes and there is only one temporal axis.

 

This is basic analysis (calculus) in high school maths.

 

So the whole argument is spurious.

 

Studiot, do you realise that the statements marked by me in orange come from the article Memammal linked and I'm highly irritated by them as spurious ?

Edited October 26, 2016 by koti

[Tim88]

[citation]:
[..] There are two dominant – and incompatible – theories of time: the tensed theory, and thetenseless theory. The tensed theory of time most resembles the popularly-held view of time. The tensed theory requires there to be a present moment (the “now”), and a distinction between an event in the past, present, and future (an event in the past was real, an event in the present is real, and an event in the future will be real). Notice that the “now” moves. This apparent movement of the “now” is an essential feature of the tensed theory of time.

However, there is a philosophical (and logical) problem to this idea of a moving “now”. [..]

 

koti wrote:
Where is the logic in stating that "if the now moves then in must do so in respect to some reference?" Why is it that there has to be some reference? As far as I know SR and GR do not force this kind of aproach to time or does it? I hope it doesn't because it bothers me as hell as a careless argument resulting in an axiom which obviously has grand implications in any later reasoning. [..]

 

Koti, the "moving now" issue is the "double time" issue of block universe - I already discussed that in a thread on that topic [edit: see here]. That reference is thus utter nonsense.

See instead the bottom part of my last post #180, just before your post.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Tim88

[koti]

I edited my #181 post to be more transparent as to what is my writing and what is being quoted by me from the article Memammal linked.

 

 

 

 

Koti, the "moving now" issue is the "double time" issue of block universe - I already discussed that in a thread on that topic [edit: see here]. That reference is thus utter nonsense.

 

See instead the bottom part of my last post #180, just before your post.

ok, I'm officially incapable of comprehending anything anymore tonight. I will go thru this again tomorrow. I don't even know who is argumenting what anymore.

Edited October 26, 2016 by koti

[studiot]

 

Studiot, do you realise that the statements marked by me in orange come from the article Memammal linked and I'm highly irritated by them as spurious ?

 

Not really, and I don't see the relevance of the source?

 

You didn't answer my question

 

Why does what is dubbed the rate of flow of time matter?

[Tim88]

I edited my #181 post to be more transparent as to what is my writing and what is being quoted by me from the article Memammal linked.

 

ok, I'm officially incapable of comprehending anything anymore tonight. I will go thru this again tomorrow. I don't even know who is argumenting what anymore.

 

I'm also going to sleep now! The article that Memammal referred to can be useful to explain some kind of block universe view, and that's why he linked to it. You got bugged by a straw man that the writer invented concerning "time" according to the Absolute Space view - as I explained earlier in the "presentism" thread.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Tim88

[koti]

 

Why does what is dubbed the rate of flow of time matter?

 

I don't know why it would matter. I certainly don't think it does. Why would you ask this question in the context of my concern with the below statement coming from an article linked by Memammal? :

"if the now moves then in must do so in respect to some reference?"

 

 

You got bugged by a straw man that the writer invented concerning "time" according to the Absolute Space view - as I explained earlier in the "presentism" thread.

 

That's good to hear, I can go to sleep in peace now

[studiot]

 

I don't know why it would matter. I certainly don't think it does. Why would you ask this question in the context of my concern with the below statement coming from an article linked by Memammal? :

"if the now moves then in must do so in respect to some reference?"

 

 

That's good to hear, I can go to sleep in peace now

 

Perhaps I misunderstood but I couldn't determine why you posted those quotes or what you were trying to say with/about them.

[Memammal]

One of the ways in which we create lossless compression in movies is to only record changes from frame to frame (Note the cinematographic use of the word frame)

This is pretty relevant to the block universe model. First and foremost the concept of lossless. It is a technical term mostly used in audio/video formats. If one records in a lossy format some (unnecessary...which could be either empty, almost empty or duplicated) information is discarded in the process. When our brains perceive said lossy information, it processes it and reassembles it by means of for example psychoacoustics in the case of audio. Let me quote:

...in many problems in acoustics, such as for audio processing, it is advantageous to take into account not just the mechanics of the environment, but also the fact that both the ear and the brain are involved in a person’s listening experience. The inner ear, for example, does significant signal processing in converting sound waveforms into neural stimuli, so certain differences between waveforms may be imperceptible. Data compression techniques, such as MP3, make use of this fact... Another effect of the ear's nonlinear response is that sounds that are close in frequency produce phantom beat notes, or intermodulation distortion products. The term "psychoacoustics" also arises in discussions about cognitive psychology and the effects that personal expectations, prejudices, and predispositions may have on listeners' relative evaluations and comparisons of sonic aesthetics and acuity and on listeners' varying determinations about the relative qualities of various musical instruments and performers. The expression that one "hears what one wants (or expects) to hear" may pertain in such discussions.

 

I am using this in order to illustrate how our brains sometimes fill in (or compensate for-) our perception of reality.

 

Lossless refers to native information/reality. Nothing gets changed, lost or replaced. There can be no vagueness in perception. In studiot's analogy you can compare each frame with an "event" at a new point in spacetime where new lossless information enters one's frame of reference (observation/experience of reality, one's light cone) as you "move along your lifeline". It happens each and every single moment, a smooth, entirely lossless (native or lifelike) transition from one moment (event) to the next (breath by breath, Planck unit by unit, the position of a flying bee's wing from one fraction to the next). The only question that remains would be if said new information is pre-existing (as per an eternalist/tenseless, deterministic block universe model) and or if it comes into being in a nondeterministic fashion (as per presentism/tensed, growing/evolving block universe). More about this later.

 

In my opinion, Wikipedia is hardly of more value for philosophical citations than this thread itself. Moreover, in this thread we are comparing disagreeing explanatory views of relativistic physics with each other - and not classical physics with relativistic physics.

 

Thus, here above I filtered through the parts that seem to relate to explanatory power of the block universe on top of the mathematical explanatory power of the Poincare-Minkowski space-time formalism which is shared by the two models. I'll next read your links and try to see if I can distill more out of those that can be used to phrase the causal block universe explanations...

Have you read the more technical Minkowski space​ article that I linked earlier?

 

So far, no comparable logical explanation has emerged concerning the "double" time (two conceptually different "true times"?) of the Spacetime view; it remained more of a mystery than an explanation. If you would like to start a topic on that: yes please!

It would seem that the thread got seriously side-tracked by the notion of double time. This was something that Michel brought up (I merely inserted his quote) and something that you (Tim) seemed to have agreed with him on. I referenced the source used by Wiki in that article as it links to a scientific paper on the subject. I did so specifically so that Michel and/or you may have a look at it and see if there was anything useful to be extracted from it.

 

I will next deal with the last page and this confusion re so-called double time. In doing so, I think it will indeed be useful to use my previous illustration of the numeric sequence from -infinite to +infinite...

Where is the logic in stating that "if the now moves then in must do so in respect to some reference?" Why is it that there has to be some reference?

 

That presupposes the movement to be uniform.

 

Why should it be?

 

I actually prefer to reserve the word move or movement for change of spatial location and to choose another word for change of temporal location.

 

Now the whole subject of rate of change requires at least two axes and there is only one temporal axis.

 

This is basic analysis (calculus) in high school maths.

 

So the whole argument is spurious.

 

Koti, the "moving now" issue is the "double time" issue of block universe - I already discussed that in a thread on that topic [edit: see here]. That reference is thus utter nonsense.

 

OK, back to my numerical sequence. Let me use the analogy of said number sequence (from -infinite to +infinite) being placed on a (very long, well basically infinite) ruler (or measuring tape). For the purpose of this discussion think of this ruler/measuring tape to be the time dimension, a flat foundation on which the 3-D events are "constructed". Now consider two scenario's:

 

1. Point zero (theoretically in the middle of the ruler) corresponds to the present time, the now. All the positive numbers relate to the future, all negative numbers to the past. Consider yourself as the observer in the form of a tiny toy standing on top of the zero. So if you want to move the now, the zero (with the toy on top of it) has to move and as such the entire ruler has to move. Hence the question what is the now, the zero, the ruler moving in relation to? This refers to the moving now, the tensed or presentist theory.

 

2. In the second scenario point zero corresponds with an event at that coordinate, let us say the big bang. All the numbers represent coordinates on different sides of the big bang (- to the one, + to the other). Imagine a physical 3-D hologram being constructed on top of the ruler, at each consecutive number it reflects a slightly different event/image/frame/slice. At point zero, said hologram will represent a singularity. Place the toy/observer on a coordinate (number) of let us say +13.8 billion to represent our current now. In order to move to the next now, just move the toy forward into its next holographic environment (with light, sound, oxygen to breathe, etc). So what has happened? Effectively each number on the ruler has now become a real event, a real now, one of many now's. This correlates with the standard block universe model (with eternalism & determinism).

 

I hope that you can all spot the difference. We perceive ourselves in a flowing time, a moving now, whereas it may in fact be us (and our capacity to observe and to experience) moving along spacetime from one now (coordinate) to the other.

 

Back to physics, to mechanics, to dynamics, etc. both classical and quantum. All of our scientific disciplines are reflections of how we perceive reality. Scientists have observed and measured certain natural phenomena, we have detected certain correlations and repetitions that enabled us to predict, to calculate, to design, or to accept the uncertainty thereof (for example in QM). That, however, does not rule out the hypothetical fixed ruler (time dimension) with its lossless 3-D space hologram as part of a "prefabricated" 4-D block universe, or for that matter any ongoing/flowing experience (incl biological functions, dynamics, mechanics, etc) of each moment within it.

 

* FINAL EDIT *

Edited October 27, 2016 by Memammal

[studiot]

This is pretty relevant to the block universe model. First and foremost the concept of lossless. It is a technical term mostly used in audio/video formats. If one records in a lossy format some (unnecessary...which could be either empty, almost empty or duplicated) information is discarded in the process. When our brains perceive said lossy information, it processes it and reassembles it by means of for example psychoacoustics in the case of audio. Let me quote:

...in many problems in acoustics, such as for audio processing, it is advantageous to take into account not just the mechanics of the environment, but also the fact that both the ear and the brain are involved in a person’s listening experience. The inner ear, for example, does significant signal processing in converting sound waveforms into neural stimuli, so certain differences between waveforms may be imperceptible. Data compression techniques, such as MP3, make use of this fact... Another effect of the ear's nonlinear response is that sounds that are close in frequency produce phantom beat notes, or intermodulation distortion products. The term "psychoacoustics" also arises in discussions about cognitive psychology and the effects that personal expectations, prejudices, and predispositions may have on listeners' relative evaluations and comparisons of sonic aesthetics and acuity and on listeners' varying determinations about the relative qualities of various musical instruments and performers. The expression that one "hears what one wants (or expects) to hear" may pertain in such discussions.

 

I am using this in order to illustrate how our brains sometimes fill in (or compensate for-) our perception of reality.

 

Lossless refers to native information/reality. Nothing gets changed, lost or replaced. There can be no vagueness in perception. In studiot's analogy you can compare each frame with an "event" at a new point in spacetime where new lossless information enters one's frame of reference (observation/experience of reality, one's light cone) as you "move along your lifeline". It happens each and every single moment, a smooth, entirely lossless (native or lifelike) transition from one moment (event) to the next (breath by breath, Planck unit by unit, the position of a flying bee's wing from one fraction to the next). The only question that remains would be if said new information is pre-existing (as per an eternalist/tenseless, deterministic block universe model) and or if it comes into being in a nondeterministic fashion (as per presentism/tensed, growing/evolving block universe). More about this later.

 

Have you read the more technical Minkowski space​ article that I linked earlier?

 

It would seem that the thread got seriously side-tracked by the notion of double time. This was something that Michel brought up (I merely inserted his quote) and something that you (Tim) seemed to have agreed with him on. I referenced the source used by Wiki in that article as it links to a scientific paper on the subject. I did so specifically so that Michel and/or you may have a look at it and see if there was anything useful to be extracted from it.

 

I will next deal with the last page and this confusion re so-called double time. In doing so, I think it will indeed be useful to use my previous illustration of the numeric sequence from -infinite to +infinite...

 

 

 

OK, back to my numerical sequence. Let me use the analogy of said number sequence (from -infinite to +infinite) being placed on a (very long, well basically infinite) ruler (or measuring tape). For the purpose of this discussion think of this ruler/measuring tape to be the time dimension, a flat foundation on which the 3-D events are "constructed". Now consider two scenario's:

 

1. Point zero (theoretically in the middle of the ruler) corresponds to the present time, the now. All the positive numbers relate to the future, all negative numbers to the past. Consider yourself as the observer in the form of a tiny toy standing on top of the zero. So if you want to move the now, the zero (with the toy on top of it) has to move and as such the entire ruler has to move. Hence the question what is the now, the zero, the ruler moving in relation to? This refers to the moving now, the tensed or presentist theory.

 

2. In the second scenario point zero corresponds with an event at that coordinate, let us say the big bang. All the numbers represent coordinates on different sides of the big bang (- to the one, + to the other). Imagine a physical 3-D hologram being constructed on top of the ruler, at each consecutive number it reflects a slightly different event/image/frame/slice. At point zero, said hologram will represent a singularity. Place the toy/observer on a coordinate (number) of let us say +13.8 billion to represent our current now. In order to move to the next now, just move the toy forward into its next holographic environment (with light, sound, oxygen to breathe, etc). So what has happened? Effectively each number on the ruler has now become a real event, a real now, one of many now's. This correlates with the standard block universe model (with eternalism & determinism).

 

I hope that you can all spot the difference. We perceive ourselves in a flowing time, a moving now, whereas it may in fact be us (and our capacity to observe and to experience) moving along spacetime from one now (coordinate) to the other.

 

Back to physics, to mechanics, to dynamics, etc. both classical and quantum. All of our scientific disciplines are reflections of how we perceive reality. Scientists have observed and measured certain natural phenomena, we have detected certain correlations and repetitions that enabled us to predict, to calculate, to design, or to accept the uncertainty thereof (for example in QM). That, however, does not rule out the hypothetical fixed ruler (time dimension) with its lossless 3-D space hologram as part of a "prefabricated" 4-D block universe, or for that matter any ongoing/flowing experience (incl biological functions, dynamics, mechanics, etc) of each moment within it.

 

* FINAL EDIT *

 

 

First thank you for elaborating on my comments about cinematography.

 

I did not introduce 'information' here in the first place and there are implications using this concept.

Not in the least the relationship between information and evolution and the difficulty that people experience coming to terms with the idea that informational complexity can arise from purely random processes.

 

Also information is something that we see or can extract from the configuration of a system, which need 'know' nothing about this information itself.

 

Secondly I stress I am not interested in Tim's attempt to limit this to two particular models. There are in fact other current threads about the two particular ones in his focus.

My input is intended to bring out other models (as originally requested in the OP) and compare their defects and strengths with each other as well as Tim's two models.

I am not particularly impressed with either of Tim's two as they are both incomplete.

[Memammal]

I did not introduce 'information' here in the first place and there are implications using this concept.

Not in the least the relationship between information and evolution and the difficulty that people experience coming to terms with the idea that informational complexity can arise from purely random processes.

 

Also information is something that we see or can extract from the configuration of a system, which need 'know' nothing about this information itself.

Point taken. The use of "information" was introduced earlier by koti in reference to whether there is enough "space for all the information" to which you responded with your explanation w.r.t. lossless. It was in that sense that I continued to use it, but you are right in referring to its other connotations.

As a side note...something that I forgot to respond to:

 

In my opinion, Wikipedia is hardly of more value for philosophical citations than this thread itself. Moreover, in this thread we are comparing disagreeing explanatory views of relativistic physics with each other - and not classical physics with relativistic physics.

I provided those quotes in attempt to substantiate the pivotal role that Einstein played in changing our perception away from absolute time and absolute space whilst also reaffirming the lesser status of the latter, even within the context of Newtonian mechanics.

 

​Let us not get side-tracked by this side note though.

[koti]

 

Perhaps I misunderstood but I couldn't determine why you posted those quotes or what you were trying to say with/about them.

 

No worries Studiot. There will be dicrepancies in yours and mine reasoning due to my lack of academic background. I will try to convey my thoughts in my answer to Memammal below as well as I can.

 

Point taken. The use of "information" was introduced earlier by koti in reference to whether there is enough "space for all the information" to which you responded with your explanation w.r.t. lossless. It was in that sense that I continued to use it, but you are right in referring to its other connotations.

 

True. I did introduce the information subject earlier. I thought it will be relevant when trying to cope with the oroginal block concept where the future events are "a done deal" What immediately struck me is how could nature introduce that at T-0 and it also correlates to Hawking's work on black holes information paradox. For what its worth, I am not concerned with the available "space for all the information" I am concerned with nature introducing those future "done deal events" instantly at T-0.

 

[Tim88]

[..] Have you read the more technical Minkowski space​ article that I linked earlier?

 

Instead I said that I will do that, in order to try to find things that I may be able to answer for those o so many adherents of block universe.

 

 

It would seem that the thread got seriously side-tracked by the notion of double time. This was something that Michel brought up (I merely inserted his quote) and something that you (Tim) seemed to have agreed with him on. I referenced the source used by Wiki in that article as it links to a scientific paper on the subject. I did so specifically so that Michel and/or you may have a look at it and see if there was anything useful to be extracted from it.

 

Yes indeed this thread got side tracked, and it risks to get sidetracked further. As you here are replying to my comment in the thread about presentism, I'll reply there.

[..] I stress I am not interested in Tim's attempt to limit this to two particular models. There are in fact other current threads about the two particular ones in his focus.

My input is intended to bring out other models (as originally requested in the OP) and compare their defects and strengths with each other as well as Tim's two models.

I am not particularly impressed with either of Tim's two as they are both incomplete.

 

I don't know any other thread that even attempts what we attempt do here. Please show what other models that I never heard about offer concerning points 1-3, thanks!

Edited October 27, 2016 by Tim88

[Memammal]

Yes indeed this thread got side tracked, and it risks to get sidetracked further. As you here are replying to my comment in the thread about presentism, I'll reply there.

Post # 166 & 167 of this thread refer.

^ Read together with this quote from my post # 175:

• Special relativity eliminates absolute time (although Gödel and others suspect absolute time may be valid for some forms of general relativity)^[16]...
• [This may be an important source as it could link back to quote from Michel: Something like a "double time" is needed in this concept too.]​

PS. @ koti: you earlier asked about books re the block universe model. I have since remembered a reference to such a book; something that I actually mentioned in another thread that you also participated in. Here is a MIT review of it: “Objective Becoming” by Brad Skow. Here is a comment by one of the readers of that column that may be relevant:

On page 155 of his book on the special and general theories Einstein makes it clear that in general relativity, space-time no longer can claim an existence independent of matter. On page 141 he said, “Our concepts of space and time must be preceded by the concept of the material object.” Almost everyone seems to have missed this. Time does not exist, therefore, except as a concept of relative motion or events relative to the motion of material objects, which we have chosen the spin and orbit of Earth. Time is thus the relativity of events. And events are separate realities.

True. I did introduce the information subject earlier. I thought it will be relevant when trying to cope with the oroginal block concept where the future events are "a done deal" What immediately struck me is how could nature introduce that at T-0 and it also correlates to Hawking's work on black holes information paradox. For what its worth, I am not concerned with the available "space for all the information" I am concerned with nature introducing those future "done deal events" instantly at T-0.

As I alluded to earlier, where/when will T-0 be in this "timeless" block universe?. Hrvoje Nikolić argued that a block time model solves the black hole information paradox. [Nikolic H. (2009). "Resolving the black-hole information paradox by treating time on an equal footing with space". Phys. Lett. B 678 (2): 218]

Edited October 27, 2016 by Memammal

[koti]

PS. @ koti: you earlier asked about books re the block universe model. I have since remembered a reference to such a book; something that I actually mentioned in another thread that you also participated in. Here is a MIT review of it: Objective Becoming by Brad Skow. Here is a comment by one of the readers of that column that may be relevant:

On page 155 of his book on the special and general theories Einstein makes it clear that in general relativity, space-time no longer can claim an existence independent of matter. On page 141 he said, Our concepts of space and time must be preceded by the concept of the material object. Almost everyone seems to have missed this. Time does not exist, therefore, except as a concept of relative motion or events relative to the motion of material objects, which we have chosen the spin and orbit of Earth. Time is thus the relativity of events. And events are separate realities.

 

As I alluded to earlier, where/when will T-0 be in this "timeless" block universe?. Hrvoje Nikolić argued that a block time model solves the black hole information paradox. [Nikolic H. (2009). "Resolving the black-hole information paradox by treating time on an equal footing with space". Phys. Lett. B 678 (2): 218]

Thanks for the link Memammal, will look it up tomorrow.

 

You quoted above that time does not exist except as a concept of relative motion or events relative to the motion. We know from GR that spacetime cannot be treated independantly from matter. We know that time dilation and metric contraction are confirmed phenomena. If time doesn't exist and is just "relativity of events" then from that logic we should derive that space does not exist as well. That just doesn't stick.

 

You gave an example earlier of a ruler representing time and a toy object representing a person. From that example which stated that it's not the ruler which is moving but the toy itself you derived that we are moving through time as opposed to the concept that time is flowing and we are "stationary" My question is very simple...wheres the reference point to determine what is moving and what is stationary in that context?

 

I will go on a limb and state that we have absolutely no idea what the true nature of time is and were trying to invent like little children. On one hand we know how time manifests itself to us in models like GR but if we cant even be sure if time exists or not there is surely a lot more to it than what we see. Gravity in that sense is analogous, so far we only observe how it manifests itself to us but there are realy major pieces missing like why is gravity so weak compared to other forces or how it works in the planck scales. Frankly, the more I digg into theorerical physics, the more I have a feeling that we know very little...the trip is breathtaking though.

Edited October 28, 2016 by koti

[Memammal]

@ koti: First of all, I did not mean to come across as dismissive of the "too much information". You might have a point from within a certain paradigm and by using the word "information" in its appropriate context, which was the point that studiot wanted to convey.

 

You quoted above that time does not exist except as a concept of relative motion or events relative to the motion. We know from GR that spacetime cannot be treated independantly from matter. We know that time dilation and metric contraction are confirmed phenomena. If time doesn't exist and is just "relativity of events" then from that logic we should derive that space does not exist as well. That just doesn't stick.

We are talking about two different kinds of time. Absolute (or conventional) time vs spacetime (i.e. as the fourth dimension in a spacetime coordinate). My references to "timeless" and the references to time in said quote refer to conventional time. With "timeless block universe" I meant the ETERNAL aspect thereof (which by implication will be "timeless").

 

You gave an example earlier of a ruler representing time and a toy object representing a person. From that example which stated that it's not the ruler which is moving but the toy itself you derived that we are moving through time as opposed to the concept that time is flowing and we are "stationary" My question is very simple...wheres the reference point to determine what is moving and what is stationary in that context?

The ruler represents the time coordinate part of spacetime. In scenario 1 the zero corresponded to the now. I explained that one would have to move the entire ruler (being the time dimension of spacetime) in order to move the zero/now, or for time to flow/move. By using such an analogy/model you have the advantage of (hypothetically) getting an external perspective. You should be able to understand that it does not make sense to move the ruler...in relation to what is the ruler/time moving? (The same argument that was made in the article that I referenced.)

 

In scenario 2 I placed the toy (observer) at a hypothetical time coordinate that would correspond with our "present time" in relation to something like the BB. The ruler, or time dimension, is kept still while the toy/observer moves to the next time coordinate (the next moment/event). This can be somewhat confusing (which is probably why you were posing the question) as you may perceive this as a movement of the physical body. Rather think of it as a moving observation or flowing experience. The observer is experiencing a next moment (the technical term is qualia). Hence, it is our observation/experience that moves on- or through a static timeline (or through our embedded-in-spacetime lifeline). Next time you walk around the house, think of it as a moving observation from one spacetime coordinate (moment) to the next.

 

I will go on a limb and state that we have absolutely no idea what the true nature of time is and were trying to invent like little children. On one hand we know how time manifests itself to us in models like GR but if we cant even be sure if time exists or not there is surely a lot more to it than what we see. Gravity in that sense is analogous, so far we only observe how it manifests itself to us but there are realy major pieces missing like why is gravity so weak compared to other forces or how it works in the planck scales. Frankly, the more I digg into theorerical physics, the more I have a feeling that we know very little...the trip is breathtaking though.

We are indeed speculating and debating models without having definite answers, but we should at least be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Science as we know is a dynamic process incorporating a multitude of different methodologies. It is definitely not a popularity contest. I think the single biggest challenge is to be able to scientifically differentiate between- and consider the merits of what seem sensible to our somewhat restricted (human and earth-bound) sense of reality, or intuition, and any paradigms that seem to be in conflict with it (in stead of frowning upon the latter).

 

I just read Tim88's post in another thread that seems to give a pretty good overview of the various concepts of time. I may have to reconsider my vague usage of the terms "absolute" and "conventional" time, although it should not change the essence of the narrative.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Memammal

[michel123456]

(...)

 

OK, back to my numerical sequence. Let me use the analogy of said number sequence (from -infinite to +infinite) being placed on a (very long, well basically infinite) ruler (or measuring tape). For the purpose of this discussion think of this ruler/measuring tape to be the time dimension, a flat foundation on which the 3-D events are "constructed". Now consider two scenario's:

 

1. Point zero (theoretically in the middle of the ruler) corresponds to the present time, the now. All the positive numbers relate to the future, all negative numbers to the past. Consider yourself as the observer in the form of a tiny toy standing on top of the zero. So if you want to move the now, the zero (with the toy on top of it) has to move and as such the entire ruler has to move. Hence the question what is the now, the zero, the ruler moving in relation to? This refers to the moving now, the tensed or presentist theory.

 

2. In the second scenario point zero corresponds with an event at that coordinate, let us say the big bang. All the numbers represent coordinates on different sides of the big bang (- to the one, + to the other). Imagine a physical 3-D hologram being constructed on top of the ruler, at each consecutive number it reflects a slightly different event/image/frame/slice. At point zero, said hologram will represent a singularity. Place the toy/observer on a coordinate (number) of let us say +13.8 billion to represent our current now. In order to move to the next now, just move the toy forward into its next holographic environment (with light, sound, oxygen to breathe, etc). So what has happened? Effectively each number on the ruler has now become a real event, a real now, one of many now's. This correlates with the standard block universe model (with eternalism & determinism).

 

I hope that you can all spot the difference. We perceive ourselves in a flowing time, a moving now, whereas it may in fact be us (and our capacity to observe and to experience) moving along spacetime from one now (coordinate) to the other.

 

(...)

 

* FINAL EDIT *

Scenario 1. I disagree completely. Making the ruler moving is complete nonsense IMHO. It corresponds to a geocentric view of the Universe, as if the observer was really at the center and dictating how the ruler must do its job. To me, it is wrong.

 

Scenario 2. Yes this is almost the way I see things. The observer is "moving" through time. It means that at some time stamp, the observer occupies a spacetime coordinate, at some other time stamp, the observer occupies another 4D coordinate, and so on. So simple.

 

But lets improve the scenario 2: rain is falling along the ruler while the observer slides from one time stamp to another. IOW, the present is the crossing event between the position of the observer and some rain drop. In this scenario, the future is not "already there", and the past is not "frozen". If you understand what I mean.

As for this:

michel123456, on 23 Oct 2016 - 9:09 PM, said:

And I repeat my nonsense: what element proves us that the past is "frozen"? That it still exist somehow in the past cone?

I don't quite follow the logic behind this comment. How do you propose for the past to be changed, to be unfrozen? Surely you can understand that if you were able to observe a spacetime coordinate that sits somewhere in the "past", you will observe the exact same event..? What else?

 

The fact is that we are not able to observe a spacetime coordinate that sits somewhere in the "past", I mean in "our past". The only things that we can directly observe from any time stamp are very specific and depends on distance.

-------------

(edit) I mean, the objects that we can observe all belong to the past, but they do not represent "all the past". They are the objects that lie at a specific distance and at specific time stamp of the past. All other events that are a time stamp that does not correspond to this particular distance are not (directly) observable.

Edited October 28, 2016 by michel123456

[koti]

@ koti: First of all, I did not mean to come across as dismissive of the "too much information". You might have a point from within a certain paradigm and by using the word "information" in its appropriate context, which was the point that studiot wanted to convey.

 

No worries, I guess I haven't put my point across clear enough. Just so we are on the same page, I do not have a problem with the "capacity" of nature as to the amount of information in it. Rather I have a problem with the concept of introducing this amount of information representing future events "instantly" at the BB. This instant inctroduction of information is in my opinion inevitable in the block universe concept where past, present and future events are co-existing in some kind of continuum. Take space and the BB as an example...big bang is an ongoing process whereas the future events of time in the block concept would have to be introduced instantly unless the properties of time are not universal which is highly improbable IMO.

 

We are talking about two different kinds of time. Absolute (or conventional) time vs spacetime (i.e. as the fourth dimension in a spacetime coordinate). My references to "timeless" and the references to time in said quote refer to conventional time. With "timeless block universe" I meant the ETERNAL aspect thereof (which by implication will be "timeless").

I have to disagree...you're implying that time has fundamentaly different properties and is essencialy a different entity depending on what models we use to define it.

A ball thrown in the air by a kid is exactly the same event whether we use different tools to describe it. This event remains the same whether we are trying to explain it as a Neanderthal or Newton.

I don't understand the distinction between "aboslute" time vs. "spacetime" time in the context of this discussion. Trying to force this distinction in this context is a really bad idea in my opinion.

Bounding time into spacetime as opposed to treating it pre-Einsteinian cannot imply that sudednly we are dealing with two different kinds of time. It just implies that we don't know what the underlying laws govern it.

 

The ruler represents the time coordinate part of spacetime. In scenario 1 the zero corresponded to the now. I explained that one would have to move the entire ruler (being the time dimension of spacetime) in order to move the zero/now, or for time to flow/move. By using such an analogy/model you have the advantage of (hypothetically) getting an external perspective. You should be able to understand that it does not make sense to move the ruler...in relation to what is the ruler/time moving? (The same argument that was made in the article that I referenced.)

I agree that it doesn't have to make sense to move the ruler and very well it might be the case that it doesn't move. My point is something different though:

Assuming that the toy represents all matter in the universe and the ruler represents the time coordinate of spacetime how would the ruler determine that the toy is moving and how would the toy determine that the ruler is moving? Assuming Einsteinian aproach to reality there is no way of determining that...so it doesn't realy make sense to go the alley of asking this question.

 

In scenario 2 I placed the toy (observer) at a hypothetical time coordinate that would correspond with our "present time" in relation to something like the BB. The ruler, or time dimension, is kept still while the toy/observer moves to the next time coordinate (the next moment/event). This can be somewhat confusing (which is probably why you were posing the question) as you may perceive this as a movement of the physical body. Rather think of it as a moving observation or flowing experience. The observer is experiencing a next moment (the technical term is qualia). Hence, it is our observation/experience that moves on- or through a static timeline (or through our embedded-in-spacetime lifeline). Next time you walk around the house, think of it as a moving observation from one spacetime coordinate (moment) to the next.

I think I managed to parse this one MemammaI My comment above relates to this as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that our methods of describing time are flawed. Swansont caught me superimposing Newtonian physics onto GR in some other thread and I think what we are doing here is the same. The sad difference is that we can choose not to superimpose Netwon and Einstein when dealing with movement, velocity, gravity, frames of refference, etc because both models are clear. We cannot do the same when dealing with "time" because essencially we got little to work with.

 

 

We are indeed speculating and debating models without having definite answers, but we should at least be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Science as we know is a dynamic process incorporating a multitude of different methodologies. It is definitely not a popularity contest. I think the single biggest challenge is to be able to scientifically differentiate between- and consider the merits of what seem sensible to our somewhat restricted (human and earth-bound) sense of reality, or intuition, and any paradigms that seem to be in conflict with it (in stead of frowning upon the latter).

Agreed.

 

I just read Tim88's post in another thread that seems to give a pretty good overview of the various concepts of time. I may have to reconsider my vague usage of the terms "absolute" and "conventional" time, although it should not change the essence of the narrative.

Edited October 28, 2016 by koti

[studiot]

 

michel123456

Scenario 2. Yes this is almost the way I see things. The observer is "moving" through time. It means that at some time stamp, the observer occupies a spacetime coordinate, at some other time stamp, the observer occupies another 4D coordinate, and so on. So simple.

 

But that way opens the floodgates for all sorts of paradoxes and fallacies about time travel.

 

Perhaps not so simple after all?