The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: In concordance with my removed - yet proved theory - the only time direction  (Read 3758 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
On the Pyschological Problem of Time

During my previous essay ''Exploring the Paradox of Time and Showing How It Must Be Purely Local'', i explain how there seems to be paradox concerning the objective and subjective examples of a physical time. Subjectively,
there is absolutely no indication that time is physical. It's highly conceptual and governed by abstractual notions. It's an experience itself, which has no concern to the physical expectations of the world at large. Then we
have the notion that there does exist an external time, the objectivity of time can be viewed as simply the time which exists independantly of the human state. Since human experience of time [1] does not corrolate to the ''time''
we believe that exists independant of our thoughts, then our experience of time must be viewed as a unique representation; a representation of the mind, recreating the world as it [may] physically exist external of our corporeal
bodies.

We can all sense time pass differently. But this does not necesserily mean that the time we seem to experience fluctuating in its different speeds is actually the manifold of time itself, described by the Minkowski spacetime matrix.
In effect, we may go as far to say that the varying speed in time is due to physical processes within the body, but not due to being the actual dimension of time explained by relativistic math; which would mean that our experience of time,
whilst it is an emergent property of physical processes within our bodies, the experience itself and therefore the time itself is not a physical entity.

This means that two descriptions of time may be allowed to exist in physics. One states that there can be a time which is naturally part of the external world and then the model in which we come to experience time, an asymptotic time (the
time we all come to experience and agree on). But as i have explained in the essay ''Exploring the Paradox of Time and Showing How It Must Be Purely Local'' we may not require the superfluous amount of two dimensions of time. Indeed,
you might be sitting there wondering how you can't have two time dimensions when i have shown above that not only can time exist independantly of consciousness, but that consciousness itself has a description of time which is unique of the
physical manifold. But let's restate this another way. Time does not actually [need] to exist outside of the mind.

As you may recall time external of the mind may have no flow at all. In fact, it's quantization leads to rather starts and stops instead of a linear continuous smooth operation of events.. Events instead are broken up into tiny fractions.
In a sense, time as [we know it] would then not even exist! The time we have come to agree on, this smooth linear experience of events passing has a type of superioty when declaring which of the two time examples are correct. You could take the
stance and say both are correct, but i think you may come to realize, that this is not where i am heading with this.

The Observer Effect

In physics, our experience and our everyday interactions with the world at large play important parts in physics. The Copenhagen Interpretation states that whenever we are not observing the world, the world is not quite there at all. In fact,
it completely vanishes! But recent experimental evidence has shown that Bohr was not wrong, but he wasn't quite right niether [2]. This includes Einstein himself who rejected the observer effect strongly. It seems that the world acts in very
strange ways when it is not being observed. What seems to happen is that particles appear in places where the statistics governing them should not actually be there, and where particles should be, aren't (1)!!

What a bizarre notion eh? On a grand scale, we should know by now that quantum physics throws at us some of the most surprising results, and perhaps Einsteins bold assertion that the universe is comprehensible may not be such an easy comprehension,
as it seems to be getting even stranger as we analyse the evidences. If one was to interpret (1) then it would mean that the world we see actually rearranges itself so that there is some kind of logical order in which our consciousness is allowed to
permit [3]. So when we are not intentively watching the ''extremely undefined'' quantum world, it arranges itself in ways that might be actually be classed as the true definition of how things are arranged. It's only when we begin to watch the universe
in its vast spectacular arrays do we find a universe assorted to what should be expected.

On the other hand, we can argue that this bizzare external world when not being observed is not the true definition of the universes structure at all, and our observations (and this may include natural decoherence within the wave function of atomic
observers), and our experiences of it, are actually the true arrangement. The latter would be deeply construded as an observer-dependant reality. If we are to believe that the real world is actually not so real afterall when not being observed then what
exactly is it we are seeing within our theories?

Going back to the pychological problem of time, in a sense, there is a related paradox. Just like how the question arises ''is our time the only time, or is there also another time which is true to the metric,'' is analogous to the question of whether
the external world exists compaired to the one we incontrivertibly experience. But on top of this, we can also argue that both conditions equally exist; this is the interpretation i have come to accept. In short, there must be a quantization of time, but
not the kind of time we are aware of when concerning the manifold. Equally true is our experience of time, and such a linear flow, so it becomes difficult to say that our imaginary experience of time is any ''less real'' than the one which orders the fundamental time.

Equally again is that the world does exist when not being observed, [but not as we know it]. As though a veil is placed within the pychology of the human [4] - the world we see is not really the world at large but is a world upon itself [5]. But which one can be
classed as more real? Of course, they could be equally real but that takes the fun out of things. In my studies i have come to decide that our experiences of time is really what counts. Atomic clocks too have their own time, but they are not [conscious]
of that time, so atoms cannot say it exists for them. We can for obvious reasons, just as much as we can say we subjectively experience a time. Without a self-reflecting organism, one which can reflect upon its own existence, can you weigh what is important and what
is not. The antipathy here is that we might be slightly biased upon such a conclusionary thought - howsoever, our experience should not die in vain niether (2).

Only One Universe

One of my idols in the scientific search for the unity of physics and consciousness, the great pioneer Fred Alan Wolf is an avid believer in the multiverse. But i cannot share this contention, and with recent information i read written by Smolin suggests that more
and more scientists are beginning to find the multiverse theory as not the correct interpretation of the universe. In a sense, the word ''universe'' alone itself defines the very meaning of everything, so one actually finds a paradox if one invites, let's say another
universe. If everything which counts remains within this spacetime, then how can any other physical reality with the same definition be existent alongside our own [6]?

Without jumping the gun, is it not complex enough to consider one universe alone than a great ensemble? As rhetorical as the question is, it is true having more than one universe complicates things and it also takes the importance from this universe itself, because no
longer could we state that the universe is unique. It could only be unique if where able to know for great certainy that our universe is the most probable universe that could have manifested, according to schematic wave function diagrams of universes calculated by Prof.
Stephen Hawking, arguably one of the greatest physicists of our time.

But now to understand why one universe is actually quite important within this work, we must take our minds back to the contention there is only one time ever existent or experienced and only one consciousness (the latter, just for the sake of repeation, was proven by
Ludvic Bass). With this entire unity, we can now say there is only one universe in which only one consciousness resides, alongside the one time which governs everything. Remember, i have shown consistently that if we are to take the generalized solutions of a frozen lake
of time seriously, then we had to introduce this as a consequence of interpreting this unity between consciousness, and the ''all-time'' scenario [7].

Thus it turns out to be very advantageous for a theory of consciousness to have one universe than let's say, accepting the ''Many-Minds Model'' of Quantum Mechanics [8], but this is a theory i really don't have too much time to get into without loosing course of where we are heading.
In Bass' world there is no singular entity of consciousness, but a consequence of this must invariably mean there is one time. Excluding the time which we believe that exists independant of the mind through the arguement that i based that our experience is ultimately
more real than one which exists independant of our corporeal structures (2), then there is a single field of consciousness in a single universe, and no more others. Already the simplifies the idea of time, mind and the universe at large in a unique way.

Time, The Dimensional Foundation Upon Which Consciousness Stands

Our experience of time is very important. Usually everyday, laymans among the like do not understand how seriously important time is; this is not actually a physical matter of importance. Ultimately as i have shown previously, time cannot be a physical quantity when analysed
under the light of the experience itself. It can be construded as being a consequence of physical interactions within the brain, or to some specific gene, but our experience is not a tangible one. Can you hold a thought in your hand? Can you take time and put it in a box? In fact,
you cannot just ask the latter question presented because it is fundamentally-faulty. Rather, the question should be ''can you take the experience of time and put it in a box?''

Knowing these interesting differences shows us that its not as simple as to assertain that the time dimension is a physical one. However, the consequences of our experience of time is in fact the very ground upon which any conscious-self-reflecting being stands. If we did not have
our illusionary perception of linear time, we would not have logical events. ''Associative Events'' is when the mind gathers one instance/event to another and somehow binds them together; the so-called binding paradox of consciousness... for it asks how the mind can actually bind perception
together in such a fashion. I am going to suggest that the timelessness that ''exists'' independantly of the mind (that other time dimension we are led to believe exists paramount of our proverbial minds) might be a key to why things seem so binded. Let me explain this with some detail.

If indeed there is one consciousness, and one time only ever existent, then it may act as a type of basis to why we seem to bind reality together. Remember, our vision, our very experience of the world at large is not actually the world at all, just a recreation of the world that
is believed to be objectively ''out there''. Think of the external time dimension as being a static dimension of time. This static dimension of time clearly does not seem so frozen from our frames of reference, and it is almost as though our brains are the machines which twists
and distorts the ''natural'' world. It seems as though our brains could be doing something similar with the ingredients of the static interpretation. Instead of seeing the world for what it really is, that is this quantized time scale where there is no flow, our minds have made the
most of such connectivities. Every event in the universe may as well exist along side by side, so our experience of a flow of time could be an emergent property of this timelessness? Confused? So am i, but its hard to explain.

Might it be then, in a simpler way to explain this that our minds are ''aware'' [8] of the actual timelessness, so it must invoke a new sense of time? If this be the case, then the time we experience is actually grown from the soil of the absurdity of the frozen featureless changes of
the general relativistic solutions. Our minds are very efficient when concerning how to deal with the world without causing us the insanity which would follow from a frozen world where nothing changed.

This is purely speculation, but it begs to be questioned whether a decent answer is resovable.



[1] - The Suprachiasmatic nucleus has been detected in the human genome as being the gene responsible for our internal clock - or if you like, our very experience of times speed.

[2] - http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9703026.

[3] - To be fair, i haven't seen ever a proper explanation of these results, so this is my own interpretation.

[4] - The veil of the psychology and electrochemistry of the brain is it seems the only way something conscious like ourselves can operate. If we did not experience a flow of time for instance, our brains could not manifest reasonably-acceptable outcomes. It would as though our lives would be short lived.

[5] - In fact, what the brain does it quite remarkable. We don't see the physical true world, yet somehow our brains ''recreates'' the universe through many quantum actions, i.e. The photon bouncing off the retina, causing electrical imbalances which send information to the brain. Whilst the information is physical, the exerience of it is not.

[6] - I want to make it known you cannot have just two universes. In any viable theory, you can have either an infinite amount of universes, or you can have a limitation of around 10^100 universes that would suffice a theory, according to Bryce de Witt (ref Parallel Universes; the search for other worlds, Fred Alan Wolf PhD.)

[7] - ''All-time'' is in fact what it says on the tin. It allows us not to be biased upon one time from another but rather view time as one massive or very small block in which everything could happen within the smallest of instants (known as the Planck Time). To be clear, i define the Planck Time as the scale in which any physical process or action can be initiated within the smallest spatial distance.

[8] - I don't mean consciously-aware in this sense. It's like asking how an atom knows when its being observed or when it isn't. It may not know consciously it is being attentively watched, but somehow the mechanisms that are behind the structure of the wave function becomes deflated and the behaviour of the atom changes. see the Zeno-Effect for an example of this extraordinary fact of nature.


 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Your previous post was not removed, but moved to the "new theories" section of the forum. There was a "moved post" thread that explained where it had been moved to.

I will shortly be moving this thread there as well, so do keep an eye out for the post explaining where it is.

I have not yet had time to read your previous thread, (and may well not understand it, being a biological scientist) but might I warn you against claiming you have proven something? A far less arrogant way of going about this would be to ask if anyone can see flaws in your hypothesis. This will help you by showing any flaws you may have missed (allowing you to refine your hypothesis), but also strengthen your argument by showing you where the percieved flaws are.  Claiming to have proven something does not invite discussion, and can look like an insult to the intelligence of other forum members.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Your previous post was not removed, but moved to the "new theories" section of the forum. There was a "moved post" thread that explained where it had been moved to.

I will shortly be moving this thread there as well, so do keep an eye out for the post explaining where it is.

I have not yet had time to read your previous thread, (and may well not understand it, being a biological scientist) but might I warn you against claiming you have proven something? A far less arrogant way of going about this would be to ask if anyone can see flaws in your hypothesis. This will help you by showing any flaws you may have missed (allowing you to refine your hypothesis), but also strengthen your argument by showing you where the percieved flaws are.  Claiming to have proven something does not invite discussion, and can look like an insult to the intelligence of other forum members.
Yes, indeed, i was wrong in intepreting the ''removal''. However, i have actually proven verbally the inconsistencies.

Being a scientist of physics howsoever, what right does a biological scientist have in having them selves the right to reomove something upon the speculation is it not correct?

There is certainly a breakdown here between what is classed as being able to understand the theory, and what is a personal choice.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
PS. I am far from arrogant. If anything i am open to all conclusions unless reduced to their most logical and simplistic forms.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Yes, indeed, i was wrong in intepreting the ''removal''. However, i have actually proven verbally the inconsistencies.

Being a scientist of physics howsoever, what right does a biological scientist have in having them selves the right to reomove something upon the speculation is it not correct?
I have every right to decide to move your hypothesis to the new theories board, as does any other moderator on this forum, regardless of their educational background. Is it not a new theory? If it is, it should be in the new theories board; if it isn't, then you haven't proven anything.
Quote
There is certainly a breakdown here between what is classed as being able to understand the theory, and what is a personal choice.
...and precisely what is this supposed to mean?

 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Yes, indeed, i was wrong in intepreting the ''removal''. However, i have actually proven verbally the inconsistencies.

Being a scientist of physics howsoever, what right does a biological scientist have in having them selves the right to reomove something upon the speculation is it not correct?
I have every right to decide to move your hypothesis to the new theories board, as does any other moderator on this forum, regardless of their educational background. Is it not a new theory? If it is, it should be in the new theories board; if it isn't, then you haven't proven anything.
Quote
There is certainly a breakdown here between what is classed as being able to understand the theory, and what is a personal choice.
...and precisely what is this supposed to mean?



I did prove it though. No respectable scientist would naturally deny the ineherent physical relationships i gave in the post. So i kind of disagree with you using the alogory of it being new, despite it being a proven fact.

That's all.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
I'm sorry - I'm not sure I understand you.

Did you prove it?  As in, it's not established science and hasn't been proven in the literature before?  If so, it's a new theory and belongs in the new theories board.

If it's not new, and is established science - then you didn't prove it, someone else did (unless, of course, you are referring to a proof you devised many years ago).

No respectable scientist would deny this logic.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
By definition, all the ingredients used in the proof was already there. I just peiced them together to make sense, if you like.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
I just peiced them together to make sense, if you like.

so what you're saying is that it's new? amazing.

let's put this another way: your ideas will receive more attention in this section of the forum.

your original anger was that your topic was deleted. it was not. now your anger is that the topic was moved to an appropriate section. if you're angry about something like that, i think you should see a doctor. you have not been done wrong. please don't continue to act as though you have, so that we can focus on the science.
« Last Edit: 16/09/2009 18:50:09 by glovesforfoxes »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
I just peiced them together to make sense, if you like.

so what you're saying is that it's new? amazing.

let's put this another way: your ideas will receive more attention in this section of the forum.

your original anger was that your topic was deleted. it was not. now your anger is that the topic was moved to an appropriate section. if you're angry about something like that, i think you should see a doctor. you have not been done wrong. please don't continue to act as though you have, so that we can focus on the science.

No. My doctor is quite happy with my health, i think.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums