[yor_on]

Ok, been working the tunnels all night, my free day starting and slightly inebriated, a ice cold beer and a hot bath goes very well together. :) Let's see if I can untangle the knots, but bear with me, it's just me playing with logic.

Why time is important to me

Because I equal 'c' to a (local) clock. Remember that I used the argument that "  Presuming that there is a isotropic homogeneous universe, and from that also presume that what holds at one place and time will hold at another, you come down to a principle in where 'instants' should be of a same duration. "

If you now do, agree to, those things, then 'time' is the 'universe'. You don't need 'motion' but you need a logical representation that mimic it, or if one like, is a equivalent of it. And it takes care of the 'propagation' too.

Actually you can expand on it and define it as a universe that uses relations to define cause and effect. I don't see how we can avoid causation, it exist. But if I presume that the two slit experiment is a result of the relations I also, probably, need to assume that there is some way of communication that surpass 'the speed of light'. And we have that.

I expect that one have to differ between the rules regarding mass (aka 'proper mass') and those that 'break' the speed of light (and that one isn't as clear as it sounds rereading it, it's tricky). And the way it seems to build up is through what scale you use. How does the two slit experiment 'instantly know' the way you set it up for example?  And how does the spin of one photon communicate the opposite spin as soon as you measure it. This one is about causation too https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156673-the-first-quantum-entanglement-of-photons-through-space-and-time but in a different way as it discuss entanglements

Then there is also a importance in pointing out that the question of whether 'time' is a 'flow' or 'instants' isn't that important for my ideas. You can always divide a flow into 'instants', and possibly also find some threshold that define those.

We do know there are different rules macroscopically than what we find on a microscopic plane, aka quantum mechanics, and we also use decoherence to define where a threshold might be https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/

[Bill S (OP)]

…..you come down to a principle in where 'instants' should be of a same duration.

That’s fine, but are these instants static in the sense that Lynds refers to in the OP?

Regardless of how small and accurate the value is made however, it cannot indicate a precise static instant in time at which a value would theoretically be precisely determined, because there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process.

I’m not ignoring the rest of your post; just trying to unpick one thread at a time.

[yor_on]

No, I don't think so. He adhere to a relativistic approach as I get it? The one in where you as a observer define a 'instant' by your clock. But if instants exist then we're in a 'flickering' universe. and using simple logic that also will imply 'somewhere else' from where 'someone can see it flickering. And, let's see, if you to it add that the flickering is 'observer dependent' I have to wonder who will be able to 'see' our universe at all, it imply a outside to be true I think? Then again, if you adhere to many worlds scenarios this just add up to it, extremely intricate universe in where we don't exist at all as defined from a outside, except as 'instances' :)

[yor_on]

But  I don't think he's right. I prefer a universe in where Relativity is correct, it's just that we keep looking at it from a 'whole universe', that one I'm not as sure on. That's what I think he do when he uses ones local clock, and then talks about 'instants'. Einstein did the same as I think, he looked at a whole universe.
==

You might want to call it a contradiction in terms. A Isotropic homogeneous universe, in where the 'laws' are the same at every 'SpaceTime' position. But 'flickering'. Relativity do not discuss a outside as far as I know, but a 'flickering' should demand one? A simpler solution should be the one I suggested using the isotropism and homogeneous ideas we have, and then ask ourselves how we can join 'instants' of a same measure to that idea, by which I mean observer dependencies btw :)
==

although the one I really think is correct is the one the two slit experiment suggest. A complementary logic in where the observer defines the outcome by the way he sets up his experiment. A 'observer dependent' universe, but also one in where each observer relative his clock and ruler, have a same measure. Expressed otherwise. You can always divide a flow into 'instants', and possibly also find some threshold that define those. But it demands you to find a way to express this mathematically.

Hmm, rereading it. Maybe he has a point, as far as I see he's also suggesting that instants can't exist due to HUP ? That's a very valid comment as HUP is about indeterminacy. You might then go from that to define a 'instant' as being the 'outcome' though. Maybe´I should have read it more carefully.

One of the points of an idea in where instants are non existent is that you no more can use 'instants of acceleration' for example, equalizing them to a 'uniform motion'. It has a lot of implications for those wanting to simplify how to think about relativity.

[Bill S (OP)]

If you now do, agree to, those things, then 'time' is the 'universe'. You don't need 'motion' but you need a logical representation that mimic it, or if one like, is a equivalent of it. And it takes care of the 'propagation' too.

You’ve lost me there!  I don’t see how time can be the universe.  It may be more than the tool we use to measure change, but you seem to be suggesting that it is the fundamental reality.  Convince me. 

[Bill S (OP)]

But if instants exist then we're in a 'flickering' universe. and using simple logic that also will imply 'somewhere else' from where 'someone can see it flickering. And, let's see, if you to it add that the flickering is 'observer dependent' I have to wonder who will be able to 'see' our universe at all, it imply a outside to be true I think? 

Let’s see if I get what you are saying.

If instants don’t exist, our Universe doesn’t flicker.

If instants do exist, our Universe flickers.

If the Universe flickers, there must be an outside observer to observe the flickering.

If I have that right, my question is: Why the need for an observer of a flickering universe, but not a non-flickering one?

[Bill S (OP)]

A point on a line has no length. A point on a timeline has no duration. What's the problem?

I have no problem with either of those, in principle.  However, in practice, can you show me a point that has no length, but is still there?

Any thoughts on that, yet, Alan? 

[yor_on]

Heh :)

A 'flickering universe' must to be proved be observed. We can't do that, after all we're 'flickering' too :) That is if you define in to have a 'common beat'. If you don't we should be able to see it possibly? But when I think of it it is from the same ideas that have created the isotropic homogeneous universe we expect to exist. Which makes me think of it as if you excuse me, being a 'whole universe 'breathing' :) But you have a good point, after all, the universe is observer dependent.
=

It also go backs to 'instants of time' being equivalent to 'c', for me then.

[yor_on]

That's the whole point of it actually, it seems to me that observer dependencies won't allow you to observe the flickering either, if it now exist. Because what you will see is your 'universe' and that one should 'breath' to your timing. And it won't help if you ask your neighbor to look, as the same must be be true for him. You might say it's a result of the logic that creates repeatable experiment.
=

And yes, that's why I think a 'flickering universe' demands a 'outside', because it seems the only way to prove it.

Looking at it from a 'whole undivideable universe' in where we all participate gives it a common beat in where we are part too, from a observer dependent universe you won't find it either. You can't have it both ways simultaneously without moving it to a cerebral plane, but that's not what I'm thinking of here. I'm just trying to see how one could prove it, which becomes another kettle of fish.

[yor_on]

Time is change, motion and propagation is like paintings laid over each other, a coordinate system that needs change to create it. In that respect nothing exist without time. We define the universe through outcomes.

[Bill S (OP)]

A 'flickering universe' must to be proved be observed.

I would certainly not argue with that; but you seem to equate it with: 

If the Universe flickers, there must be an outside observer to observe the flickering.

As I see it; the Universe could flicker, whether we could prove it, or not.  Our perception/understanding of the Universe is observer dependent, but does that mean that the reality (whatever that might be) of the Universe is in any way dependent on our observations?

[yor_on]

We have repeatable experiments, that's what we've used so far to see if our hypothesis's, theory's hold. If we step away from that we will have beliefs instead. Those may be ever so convincing, but without experimental proofs they mean little scientifically, at least as I see it. So the question of a 'flickering universe' will definitely need a experiment, and how that one could be constructed? Which then leads me to a needed 'outside' as I can't see a way to construct it from 'inside' :)

And yes, the universe is indeed dependent on the 'observer', but that one could just as easily be inanimate as alive. As far as I see the universe treat everything the same when it comes to observer dependencies. You have delayed choice experiments for example. But let's assume that all pieces of their 'system' are 'observers' of whatever outcome that will be reached. Then those too are 'observing' in a sense, although not cognitively. That we can imagine ways to set up such experiments doesn't mean that they exist in a vacuum, as they say (that as everything indeed exist in a vacuum:)

https://briankoberlein.com/2015/06/04/real-and-unreal/

(One thing I don't agree with in the article though is the use of the word 'quanta'. It leads one to think of it as 'something', to me that is wrong. It's about indeterminism.)

One point more, there is naturally that third option in where you as a observer define some far away 'flickering frame' relative your own. That would be a very weird idea as one then differ observer dependencies by what distance it exist on relative the observer, so yea, there are several reasons why I don't believe in that one. One simple is that there isn't any such frame found :)

[Bill S (OP)]

I’ve been absent for a few days for a number of reasons, one of which was my second cataract Op.  Great success so far.
I apologise if I have missed anyone’s questions or failed to respond to relevant points.

I have had a bit of time for thinking, and have some thoughts in my head – a sort of summary of what I have gleaned from this thread.  Now that I can see  , I’ll try to post these thoughts soon. 

In the meantime, does anyone have any thoughts about that “ point that has no length, but is still there”?

[Bill S (OP)]

So the question of a 'flickering universe' will definitely need a experiment, and how that one could be constructed? Which then leads me to a needed 'outside' as I can't see a way to construct it from 'inside'

Let's be clear about what I'm saying/not saying.

I'm not saying I think the Universe flickers.
I'm not saying I think the Universe doesn't flicker.
I'm not saying I think you would not need an outside observer to establish flickering/non-flickering.

I am saying I think you cannot state categorically that either is the case, just because you cannot devise an experiment to establish the reality of the situation..

[Bill S (OP)]

I've not given the paper the time/attention it undoubtedly deserves, but if I hang on until I've done that, the subject may well be long gone.

I've split the thoughts into two parts.  This is the first.

Summary: Considering time as flowing.

1.  Are static instants defensible?   
No.  Each instant would have to be separated from the preceding and following instants.
What would separate them?  Not time, that would make no sense.  Not space, because time would be required to traverse the space. 
Would it be “nothing”?  That would be tantamount to saying they were not separated.  How would this differ from continuous flow?

2.  Lynds says: “It is the relative order of events that is relevant, not the direction of time itself.”  If this is true, which seems reasonable, then dividing physical activity into “events” would make no difference to the apparent flow of time.  Time would continue during and between the events.

3.  Time cannot have “emerged”.  Claiming that this could happen would imply the existence of “time” before time; which is absurd. It would also imply the realisation of change without any possibility of measurement of that change.

4.  Is it possible that time has always existed?  There are many examples of arguments for “eternal” time; Eternal inflation being one of the prominent contenders.  These lines of reasoning seem to make much more sense than “emerging time”.  However, there is a serious problem that arises on closer consideration.  It touches on the relationship between time and eternity, and is, perhaps, an unnecessary diversion at this point.

Comments appreciated, please.  Be brutal!

[geordief]

A point on a line can perhaps be viewed as a limit as the extent of the line encompassed approaches zero.

That is not how it is defined mathematically so far as I know but maybe it is mathematically vigorous .

If so then a point in time could be seen in the same way , as a limit.

Even if somehow a "static point in time or spaces could be  located it would, in the physical world disappear  instantaneously as the world around it  interacted with it.

Of course mathematical points in spaces or time can perhaps be treated as static as mathematics only models the physical world and so has "artistic license"

[Bill S (OP)]

Of course mathematical points in spaces or time can perhaps be treated as static as mathematics only models the physical world and so has "artistic license"

Beautifully put! 

Mathematics must be the best tool we have for understanding the Universe; but maths is not God.  If someone could produce good evidence that some "intelligence" designed and created the Universe using mathematical rules, I would, of course, reconsider my position, but in the meantime, I'll go with the thought that the Universe is as it is, for whatever reason, and maths is the (astoundingly successful)  creation of the human mind.  I wash I had a better grasp of it.     

[Bill S (OP)]

Summary: Considering time as a measuring tool.

1.  Only physical change is relevant.  Time is simply a device we use to make sense of, and to measure this change.  As this is what Lynds seems to be saying, it must be that his “preoccupation” with the idea of static instants is an attempt on his part to address the “misconceptions” of others.
The development of the concept of linear time was necessary for rational beings to make sense the exigencies of the Universe we observe. 

2.  Does time “flow”?  We can, and many authors do, treat time as though it were flowing from past to future.  We can also treat time as being static and consider that we are passing through it.  the “tensed” and “tensless” views of time; or McTaggart’s “A Series” and “B Series” examine these two viewpoints.  Neither of these viewpoints has any validity if time does not exist as an “independent” entity.

3.  The necessity for eternity remains.  If it is physical change that is relevant, there must always have been change.  It follows that there must always have been something to change.

4.  An infinite multiverse, eternal inflation, or even “Platonia”, seem to offer explanations for an eternal “something”, but none of these actually addresses the problem of changes in eternity/infinity. 

[Bill S (OP)]

Re: Could there be "static" instants of time?

« Reply #3 on: 26/05/2018 21:22:59 »

A point on a line has no length. A point on a timeline has no duration. What's the problem?

I have no problem with either of those, in principle.  However, in practice, can you show me a point that has no length, but is still there?

Similarly, a point on a timeline that is defined as having no duration may be theoretically valuable, but both the timeline, and the point are mathematical tools.  What would be a physical example?

It's well over a month since I asked these questions, and a little later, tried to involve others.

If these questions arise from my ignorance, and if I assume that a complete lack of response indicates that no one can find an example, I might go on to assume that there is no answer; thus the "tide of [my] ignorance" would need "stemming"

[geordief]

The only way we can access the concept of "physical" is by way of measuring** it (or taking it on faith).

"Measurement" has mathematics hardwired into it and so we are allowed to incorporate zero  measurements into it.

But these measurements need to be repeatable and predictive to have any validity  and I am unaware of any cases where that has applied.

Lack of evidence does not mean proof of non-existence but it is a good working hypothesis (especially if nothing of value can be assumed  if this does exist (apart from shutting down the universe like sand on the beach   )

Personally I am happy to assume the impossibility of static moments in time as this understanding  seems to open up  doors of understanding that the contrary understanding would close off.

Actually come to think of it ,was there not some finding recently where a system was built that went into some kind of repetitive "time loop"? Not sure if that qualifies in any way as an independent "time space" (can't find the link just now but maybe others remember  that piece of science news over the past 6 months or so)


**even our bodies ,with their sensory equipment are just rough biological mathematical tools,arguably.