Time/Space Continuum a Fraud? (Page 2)

Zoey234: Splurrk udabom!

MrSteveA67: Thank you much, Zoey, for seeing through the fog. Yes, there are many ways where it seems that various abstractions are created and then treated as if the abstractions were truly the original objects and yes, there are many things in experience for which there's no way to directly show or communicate things.

For example, how do we know that electrons exist? If we had no physical perceptions there would have never been any observations of various physical phenomenon and we could never have seen events indicative of electrical and magnetic influences.

To say that electrons can exist apart from the perceptions, experience and intelligence etc. that allowed them to be detected is simply faith in something intangible and unverifiable. If someone says that they must exist because some textbook says they do and many assumed great minds say they do, this is the same logic that people used thousands of years ago for invisible Fire gods etc.

If we're going to have a rigid foudation for logic and science, it has to be derived from the immediately verifiable first person version of reality (which many people would claim is subjective, but truly that appears to be a more accurate representation of what is than an objective reality that might include all sorts of unknowns lying beyond distant horizons for which no immediate manner of verification is available).

Of course what one deems to be representative of objective reality is still derived from ones own experiences (even if those are as conversations or shared experiences with others) and so objective reality is constructed by the larger set of (subjective) experiences.

To me, it seems actually more irrational for someone to claim to know things about truths "out there" for which they have only 2nd hand information available.

Science shouldn't become yet another religion and it's been interesting to me to discover that there's a lot of truth and logic behind many Eastern views and it seems I'm continually finding more areas where metaphysical and spiritual views appear to have some truth behind them.

Though just as there's no way to see the color of the sky without looking, there's really little way for someone to understand these things without putting some personal investment into it. It's interesting to see that in some areas of science more evidence of these aspects of experience are being found though.

It's been quite a journey and I'm still learning ...

Have fun

the real slim DEEPy: time and space are barriers of sorts. if time did not exist, everything would happen all at the same time. if space did not exist, everything would exist in the same location. if time was a fraud, explain why you cannot travel to the past, or hasten the future. if space did not exist, then explain why travelling to the moon takes less energy than travelling to mars.

splurrrk: if you need proof that electrons exist...go lick a powerpoint !

MrSteveA67: Thanks for the additional examples. Yes, physical evidence is derived from (conscious) perceptions.

In the same manner, if someone wants evidence of the past, even if there's nothing physical that can be shown that exists in the past. The past can still be perceived as/in memory.

The Uncertainty Principle in physics reflects this as well, because the only thing physically measurable is what exists "Here and Now" and physical energies are fundamentally based upon change/motion/time and don't exist solely in the present, yet the past isn't physically measurable and is observer dependent (subjective/memory). Hence half of the component of motion (where something came from) isn't measurable and being able to measure where something is now doesn't tell us its inertia, just as a photograph of the Moon at some moment doesn't show its motion.

Consider that even if you had multiple photographs of the Moon, these are still just multiple stationary images and none of them truly show motion (a video of the Moon is still just multiple still frames). If you tried to create an image of the actual motion you simply get a blur instead.

There's really never a way to externally demonstrate time exists and this is why physical theories have included 4-D spacetime, in order to have a 3-D model of space with different observer estimates of time.

I think that's not a very accurate way of viewing things and that's because all physical evidence arises from perceptions. A model should begin as a (1-D) stream of (perceptual/conscious) information over time and build dimensions from there.

Consider how a baby can learn about space. Initially a child doesn't have much knowledge of physical properties but acts rather creatively/randomly and senses feedback over time to construct/learn patterns over time and these are extended through life.

Tachyons (faster than light objects) aren't recognized as physically existing, yet they effectively do exist in intelligence and some of the ways this can be seen are that faster than light objects can create a perception of reversal of cause and effect in time and allow for faster than light speed observations to be made.

If you drop an apple, before it reaches the ground, it's rather easy to predict that it will hit the ground ... that prediction can be made before the event is actually observed to occur using light speed information.

The radius of the known universe (obviously centered around the perceptions of observers ... yes, Earth "happens" to be at the center of the known universe ) is billions of light years, yet these distances have been measured in less than hundreds of years. Once again, these faster than light speed observations are constructed by intelligence.

In a similar manner, Einstein should not have had any direct physical evidence regarding curvatures in spacetime yet correlations between multiple sources of information and the conception of what a "straight/unbent" (and faster than light) version of space might appear as allowed him to conceive that spacetime is bent. The metric by which warped spacetime is measured is effectively one that is instantaineously communicated or "infinitely fast".

Consider time itself. If we observe that everything in the universe shares units of time that are comparable and atomic 'oscillations' on distant stars are in units of time that can be compared against clocks here, then there is a fundamental unit of time shared by everything instantaneously and this unit can't itself be communicated within time at light speed - things have to already have a 'local' reference available and that local reference is actually something universal because if those local references did not share something in common we couldn't make comparisons between these and it would be like comparing units of East to units of fried chicken.

The more Eastern view that everything's (at least partially) related seems to be close to the mark.

MrSteveA67: I generated some images using ideas related to these and a generalization of how to map any form of finite deterministic system into a space of motions with varying degrees of resonance detected and came up with many semi-realistic looking structures. Here's an example of some that appear more like landscapes (though I've got images that show pyramids and things that appear to demonstrate transitions in material phases between solid, liquid, gas and plasma).

I uploaded a few images to this site on my page, but here's one:

http://www.wireclub.com/Galleries/ViewImage.aspx?ImageId=3580826

the real slim DEEPy: from our current perspective, space/time is very real. from a point of view outside the universe, it may, however, be a temporary illusion. all things are relative to your point of view, thats how it is.

MrSteveA67: Yes, I agree.

Now consider this - there's really only one perspective that unites all these and it's simply ones own.

No matter the perspective, it would appear that, at most, nothing describes properties beyond its own, though I do believe that there truly is an 'objective reality' that's 'out there' but as you point out it's not specifically space or time but simply whatever unknowns lie outside the immediate "Here and Now" and I don't believe there's any way to create a precise logical model of those.

I believe the differences between the past and future arise from logic and memory. The past is constructed/remembered by various forms (and we can have beliefs that these will be persistent into the future) and the future arises from additions to the past that appear to contain an inherent uncertainty that the past cannot predict, though the past can provide a persistent context, but in some says it appears there's no 'inertia' to the past except to whatever extent past things are (re)referenced by future relationships.

The present is then experienced consciously as the interface between that creative energy and logical forms existing as past logic/memories etc.

That's where the wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics is observed and why consciousness remains present. If conscious interactions didn't mediate or have any influence to the present state, there would be nothing connecting it to "Here and Now" in space and time.

... I've got quite a few extensions of these thoughts as well and it appears we can find the equivalent of the electromagnetic spectrum arising from how information/energy can be transformed over time and number theory regarding in what forms information/energy can be conserved.

It appears many of the more metaphysical and spiritual views around may not simply be myth/folklore but that these are referencing some of the structures behind life and consciousness (and it appears that trying to say the body and brain gives rise to this doesn't logically pan out but creates irresolvable paradoxes).

Notice also that if one had to question the accuracy of their own memory or thoughts, this also leads to a logical problem as you couldn't begin with an uncertain foundation and derive much of anything certain regarding it. What would prove a memory to be false? It would seem only logic or some other memory would be capable of that, but if logic is learned by experiences in memory and the memory is questioned, it would appear the logic derived from that would have to be questioned as well and relying upon yet another memory to decide if some other memory is incorrect appears to be a catch-22 also and then the question of which were true or false would enter the picture.

It appears there's an implicit assumption behind any statement or belief and that's that there exists some foundamental element of truth that is not questioned or doubted. Even making a statement that something is uncertain requires a belief that that statement is true and that, yes, in fact it is true that there exists an uncertainty (in something else and not in the statement of uncertainty).

So it seems any form of logic/rationality/memory of the past requires some fundamental assumption of truth exist in order that any of the rest can exist at all and so it could be said that everything is founded in a belief of a truth.

... yes, I admit having hit the limits in some respects in science and I've spent quite a few years trying to apply many of those same tools to understanding a broader range of experiences in life. It's been a pleasure to find that things actually do appear to fit together and science isn't solely limited to understanding physical processes, but the same tools can be applies to other areas of experience.

thor1112010: Space is something, and time is not. You have just the present moment. Simple and elegant, like the universe.

thor1112010: If I travel to a nearby star, what did I travel thru to get there?

DIAMONDfire: space and time are without beginning or end. we as humans don't experience space or time any other way. so it could be said they are eternal or a priori (which means known only by the mind of us humans) in this respect space and time the highest concepts we experience. and are therefore useful.