# the mind + 4D-spacetime = the experience of the unfolding of the events moment by moment in the actual moment by an observer

## Recommended Posts

I want to share with you my hypothesis about spacetime, time and observers. What do you think about my following hypothesis:

Reality, in itself, without observers, is a manifold, a 4D-object.

Spacetime is this 4D-object, which is not directly observable/measurable, but only deducable.

Spacetime is therefore, in my opinion, a Platonic entity, very real, even more 'real' then our relativistic observations of time and space, but pure abstract to us, and mathematical to us. We can’t observe it directly.

So, the mathematicians and theoretical physisists should like this idea that reality n itself, without minds to perceive/measure it, is only pure mathematical.

Einstein said that time is an illusion. Physicist Brian Greene also said that time is an illusion.

In my opinion: time and space are not an illusion: it’s just a way of reality (spacetime) to present itself to a conscious mind. Let me explain this.

Spacertime is all events from past, present and maybe future. (Einstein, Minkowski)

The interaction of minds (human or animal) with spacetime results in the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment in the actual moment by observers.

First there was spacetime. Undefined. Events from past, present and future existing together in a 4D object.

Then a conscious observer (an animal, a human, ...) came into being. He experiences these events, unfolding themselves, moment by moment in the actual moment. Which is not how reality outthere, in itself, exists. (see 4D-objects in 4D-spacetime)

These observers (humans) can deduce spacetime (reality in itself without observers), based on their relativistic observations of space and time. A mathematical 4D-object. More absolute (not relative) then their relativistic observations of space and time.

The most important factor in this hypothesis is that 'minds' are involved in physics. Minds are, somehow, lawfully connected to their observations/measurement of the events through time. An observer is a mind in this context. I know that 'observer' in physics has another meaning. But only a mind can experience the unfolding of the events moment by moment. An instrument or measuring device cannot. All steps of a scientific experiment exist together outthere in spacetime. And the measuring device, measuring or observing the universe, is a series of events, already existing in the past, present and maybe also the future. Only a conscious mind, like a scientist, can experience the scientific experiment, unfolding itself, moment by moment in the actual moment.

That’s a crucial the difference between a mind and a measuring device. The 'experience' of time.

To have an observable universe as we see it through our telescopes, you need minds to capture the events moment by moment. The interaction of a mind with 4D-spacetime, results in the experience of the events through time, moment by moment.

Maarten Vergucht

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I want to share with you my hypothesis about spacetime, time and observers. What do you think about my following hypothesis:

Reality, in itself, without observers, is a manifold, a 4D-object.

Spacetime is this 4D-object, which is not directly observable/measurable, but only deducable.

Spacetime is therefore, in my opinion, a Platonic entity, very real, even more 'real' then our relativistic observations of time and space, but pure abstract to us, and mathematical to us. We can’t observe it directly.

So, the mathematicians and theoretical physisists should like this idea that reality n itself, without minds to perceive/measure it, is only pure mathematical.

Einstein said that time is an illusion. Physicist Brian Greene also said that time is an illusion.

In my opinion: time and space are not an illusion: it’s just a way of reality (spacetime) to present itself to a conscious mind. Let me explain this.

Spacertime is all events from past, present and maybe future. (Einstein, Minkowski)

The interaction of minds (human or animal) with spacetime results in the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment in the actual moment by observers.

First there was spacetime. Undefined. Events from past, present and future existing together in a 4D object.

Then a conscious observer (an animal, a human, ...) came into being. He experiences these events, unfolding themselves, moment by moment in the actual moment. Which is not how reality outthere, in itself, exists. (see 4D-objects in 4D-spacetime)

These observers (humans) can deduce spacetime (reality in itself without observers), based on their relativistic observations of space and time. A mathematical 4D-object. More absolute (not relative) then their relativistic observations of space and time.

The most important factor in this hypothesis is that 'minds' are involved in physics. Minds are, somehow, lawfully connected to their observations/measurement of the events through time. An observer is a mind in this context. I know that 'observer' in physics has another meaning. But only a mind can experience the unfolding of the events moment by moment. An instrument or measuring device cannot. All steps of a scientific experiment exist together outthere in spacetime. And the measuring device, measuring or observing the universe, is a series of events, already existing in the past, present and maybe also the future. Only a conscious mind, like a scientist, can experience the scientific experiment, unfolding itself, moment by moment in the actual moment.

That’s a crucial the difference between a mind and a measuring device. The 'experience' of time.

To have an observable universe as we see it through our telescopes, you need minds to capture the events moment by moment. The interaction of a mind with 4D-spacetime, results in the experience of the events through time, moment by moment.

Maarten Vergucht

Spacetime and causality was, is and will be doing just fine without minds observing it. Spacetime is not just a mathematical abstract, we observe gravity, time dilation and length contraction as very real empirically detectable phenomena. I ron’t think that minds are in any way connected causally with physics, this notion is very troubling to say the least. The implications of this notion being somehow true would be ridiculous...physics did not suddenly change when first consciousness emerged and started observing whats going on around it. Physics was working just fine long before there were any minds observing it.

Edited by koti

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, koti said:

Physics was working just fine long before there were any minds observing it.

If physics had not been consciousness would have never emerged. So I guess there went that idea.

Edited by Outrider

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Outrider said:

If it had not been, consciousness would have never emerged. So I guess there went that idea.

Sure, thats a deduction we can make and it makes perfect sense. But we observe it experimentally too, cosmic events which happened hundreds of millions or even billions of years ago which we can observe only now, happened when no minds were present. I also inserted a comma into your post, it changes the context and makes it clear. Its funny how much a little comma can do

##### Share on other sites

Yeah it wasn't worded great but we do agree this idea can trivially be put to bed.

##### Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

To have an observable universe as we see it through our telescopes, you need minds to capture the events moment by moment. The interaction of a mind with 4D-spacetime, results in the experience of the events through time, moment by moment.

Sounds a lot like Wheeler's "Participatory Universe"

##### Share on other sites
I didn't say that reality and physics did not exist before minds existed.
I say: reality is 4-dimensional in itself. (with all the physics involved).
space and time combined in one continuüm.

Without minds existing, this reality is true.

But a conscious mind can only observe reality from one vantage point: 'the present', 'the actual moment'

A mesuring device cannot experience time in the actual moment. A measuring devicen, measuring someething = the beginning of the experiment
till the end of the experiment exist together simultaniously in the block universe ( 4D-spacetime). But we do not have direct access to this whole 4D universe.
This 4 dimensional spacetimeuniverse is pure mathematical to us.
We, conscious observers have only access to the present. So, the observable universe, as we observe it, and all its motions in it, is a result of minds having access to only the actual moment of this 4D-spacetime block universe.



Edited by Maartenn100

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Strange said:

Sounds a lot like Wheeler's "Participatory Universe"

I’m a little sceptical as to the anisotropic theories, as I understand it Wheeler, Hawking and others are refering to strong and weak anisotropic principals in a philosophical manner in contexts involving BB and plausible explanations of it. I have to admit that I don’t understand a lot of what Wheeler is/was saying related to this, I read some Wheeler about 20 years ago and it was too much for me, I will have to come back to it.

24 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I didn't say that reality and physics did not exist before minds existed.
I say: reality is 4-dimensional in itself. (with all the physics involved).
space and time combined in one continuüm.

Without minds existing, this reality is true.

But a conscious mind can only observe reality from one vantage point: 'the present', 'the actual moment'

A mesuring device cannot experience time in the actual moment. A measuring devicen, measuring someething = the beginning of the experiment
till the end of the experiment exist together simultaniously in the block universe ( 4D-spacetime). But we do not have direct access to this whole 4D universe.
This 4 dimensional spacetimeuniverse is pure mathematical to us.
We, conscious observers have only access to the present. So, the observable universe, as we observe it, and all its motions in it, is a result of minds having access to only the actual moment of this 4D-spacetime block universe.



Whenever we observe something on a cosmic scale, we always see the past due to relativity, we never see the present. In this line of thinking which is confirmed by Einsteins relativity, we never have access to the present when dealing with cosmic scales.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, koti said:

Whenever we observe something on a cosmic scale, we always see the past due to relativity, we never see the present. In this line of thinking which is confirmed by Einsteins relativity, we never have access to the present when dealing with cosmic scales.

I agree with you. You can only observer or measure the past. Becasue of the limits of the speed of light. But you are in the actual moment, observing the past.

##### Share on other sites

Why do we only experience a 3D-world, while it's actually a 4D spacetime universe (Einstein) where past, present and maybe future co-exist simultaniously as some block universe? Due to the interaction of consciousness with this 4D-spacetime- block universe, we only experience a 3D world.

Edited by Maartenn100

##### Share on other sites

Do not forget that also in the physical 4D-world, the time dimension does not stand on equal footing with the space dimensions. Pythagoras in spacetime is:

x2 + y2 + z2 - (ct)2 = d2

Note the minus-sign.

So in some sense we experience a 4D world: we need 4 coordinates to define the spacetime location of events. But time- and space dimensions do not behave exactly the same.

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

Why do we only experience a 3D-world, while it's actually a 4D spacetime universe (Einstein) where past, present and maybe future co-exist simultaniously as some block universe? Due to the interaction of consciousness with this 4D-spacetime- block universe, we only experience a 3D world.

What do you mean by "experience"?

I experience the four dimensions. Three of them visually. The fourth, not the same way.

##### Share on other sites
On 4/1/2018 at 1:19 AM, Maartenn100 said:

But you are in the actual moment, observing the past.

Does not the observer also "observe" him or herself too?

The observer (human ,ie brain) can be considered to be made up  of components with the useful illusion of  being one thing when in fact it is a system.

The speed of information applies within the system ;even the speed of light applies although it is unmeasurable in that context.

For an observer to observe any event "in vacuo"  is impossible,I think.

edit: I also feel there is no boundary between the observer and the observed, so apparently that Wheeler  graphic applies to my predisposition ,although the "universe" I have in mind is not cosmological but  fundamentally neighbouring or local.

Edited by geordief

##### Share on other sites

I think you mean 'anthropic' in your discussion of J A Wheeler's Participatory Universe idea.
'Anisotropic' is related to observations in differing directions, Koti.

But I fully agree.
I don't mix Philosophy and Physics either.
Although, to be fair to Eise, Philosophy can be a valuable 'guide' to doing Physics.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, swansont said:

What do you mean by "experience"?

I experience the four dimensions. Three of them visually. The fourth, not the same way.

We only experience a 3D-universe, in the actual moment. We only experience the present. (philosophical presentism) (we observe the past, but we observe it in our present moment). The present moment is all there exist for an observer. But without observers, the universe in itself, is eternalism. The block universe where past, present and maybe future co-exist.

This video explains the difference between our human experience and spacetime very well:

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I think you mean 'anthropic' in your discussion of J A Wheeler's Participatory Universe idea.
'Anisotropic' is related to observations in differing directions, Koti.

But I fully agree.
I don't mix Philosophy and Physics either.
Although, to be fair to Eise, Philosophy can be a valuable 'guide' to doing Physics.

The philosophical aspect would be 'consciousness' or 'mind' that's added to physics. Our experience of a 3D space in the actual moment, is actually an experience of a 3-dimensional universe, while there are 4 dimensions. The interaction of a mind with 4D-spacetime let us only experience the 3D-universe in the present moment.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Do not forget that also in the physical 4D-world, the time dimension does not stand on equal footing with the space dimensions. Pythagoras in spacetime is:

x2 + y2 + z2 - (ct)2 = d2

Note the minus-sign.

So in some sense we experience a 4D world: we need 4 coordinates to define the spacetime location of events. But time- and space dimensions do not behave exactly the same.

Thank you for this information!

Does the moon exist when there are no observers?

Without any observer, the moon and everything the universe exist as it was in the past, as it is in the present and as it will be in the future simultaniously.

An existing mind will experience the motions of the moon moment by moment. Only in the present. While 'outthere', in spacetime, in the block universe, all the motions of the moon co-exist in past, present and maybe future.

That's how I see it.

The double slit experiment f.e.: the shooting of the electron, the electron going through the slit and finally touching the photoscreen, all these events exist simultaniously when there are no observers. The observer will fix the particle in a moment in time, while in reality, in 4D-spacetime, the whole experiment, from beginning to end, co-exists through time simultaniously.

Edited by Maartenn100

##### Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We only experience a 3D-universe, in the actual moment.

When did that start?

##### Share on other sites

In philosophy of time, you have eternalism and presentism. Eternalism says: there is the block universe where past, present and future co-exist as one block universe.

Presentism says: there is only the present moment.

My idea is: to a conscious mind, there is only the present (presentism), but a universe without minds is a block universe (eternalism). So presentism and eternalism are both true, depending on the perspective you are using. The perspective of a mind/observer = presentism. The perspective of a universe without minds (even animals, although they could experience time differently) is a 4D-block universe.

Edited by Maartenn100

##### Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We only experience a 3D-universe, in the actual moment. We only experience the present. (philosophical presentism) (we observe the past, but we observe it in our present moment). The present moment is all there exist for an observer.

Speak for yourself. I can remember things from the past, hence I experience the fourth dimension.

53 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

But without observers, the universe in itself, is eternalism.

Even without observers, systems change over time.

53 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The block universe where past, present and maybe future co-exist.

The block universe is one view. Not the view.

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Speak for yourself. I can remember things from the past, hence I experience the fourth dimension.

Even without observers, systems change over time.

The block universe is one view. Not the view.

But, the past is gone and the future isn't there yet, in our experience. Only the actual moment exists and is real. We observe the past, but we are in the present moment, and that's all there is to our conscious experience. Even when you remember something from the past, it pops up in the present. Because the present is all there is (to minds).

Edited by Maartenn100

##### Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

My idea is: to a conscious mind, there is only the present (presentism), but a universe without minds is a block universe (eternalism). So presentism and eternalism are both true, depending on the perspective you are using. The perspective of a mind/observer = presentism. The perspective of a universe without minds (even animals, although they could experience time differently) is a 4D-block universe.

If you cant tell a friend what the point?

Edited by dimreepr

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you can tell a friend what the point?

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you cant tell a friend what the point?

Edited by dimreepr

##### Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

My idea is: to a conscious mind, there is only the present (presentism), but a universe without minds is a block universe (eternalism). So presentism and eternalism are both true, depending on the perspective you are using. The perspective of a mind/observer = presentism. The perspective of a universe without minds (even animals, although they could experience time differently) is a 4D-block universe.

I don't see it as being anything different than the philosophical argument that, "if a tree falls in the woods, did it make a sound?"  That is a philosophical issue that is said to have never been resolved.  I don't see how your argument approaches a greater truth to this or can even better things by thinking differently about the world or how it could even be applied or used to anything.

All it does it invoke a reaction of, "Whoa, dude that would be crazy!"  It makes me wonder if this thread could be used as a reference for proving that they legalized it.  It could be used for a more enjoyable trip while on psychedelics.

What's even crazier is that quantum mechanics says that a world with no observers would just exist in a state of quantum flux, and no object would have a real speed or position.  One of Einsteins arguments against acknowledging quantum mechanics was that it would mean the moon wasn't even there unless someone was looking at it.  Of coarse, quantum mechanics ended up being one of the most proven scientific theories to exist since then, besides that.

##### Share on other sites

What's wrong with the following reasoning?

- The past is gone (doesn't exist (anymore))

- The future isn't there yet (doesn't exist)

- The actual moment is all there is.

- The actual moment can't have a duration, because in that case it could be divided into a past, present and a future.

So, the duration of the actual moment must be 0 sec.

Conclusion: time is an illusion.

Edited by Maartenn100

##### Share on other sites

time is an illusion: lunchtime doubly so.

## Create an account

Register a new account

×

• #### Activity

×
• Create New...