Just now, Townsend said:

PBTR does not violate continuity—it redefines it. If historical reality is shaped by collective perception rather than stored past states, then modifying perception alters history without needing traditional time travel.

Just now, Townsend said:

As for your final question. does something need to exist physically to affect reality. my answer would be no, Ideas, beliefs, and memory influence the world without requiring physical presence. PBTR works within this principle, showing that perception dictates history rather than assuming past moments are physically stored locations.

I'm glad there is something we can agree on.

Just now, Townsend said:

PBTR does not violate continuity—it redefines it. If historical reality is shaped by collective perception rather than stored past states, then modifying perception alters history without needing traditional time travel.

You keep referring to a stored version and similar concepts.....

The universe is defined as everything there is.

So where is this stored copy kept ?

The only way I can see to make your model workwould be if the universe was actually like The Matrix (this time I am referring to the films).

There is a problem with perception in that it can be tricked. Have you heard of Trompe L'Oeil for instance.

All our senses can be fooled.

That is why scientists strive for objectivity.

Just now, Townsend said:

you did not frame this in a way that need a response, you framed it as something you were telling me, not asking me to respond. So i do not know why you have included this.

Granting your little scheme to fool folks by changing the clocks could be achieved in a thought experiment, it would still fail becasueof external markers.
For instance if I were to have my sleep by the seaside and be woken 2 hours early, with my watch advanced the extra 2 hours, I would immediately know this was wrong becasue of the incompatible state of the tide.

I included information for you that I thought was relevant. If you don't even acknowledge it, this ceases to be a discussion.

Edited May 1May 1 by studiot

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

gain

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

From my perspective - physics - it’s semantics. It’s your job to explain why this distinction is imporrtant.

Posting in physics implies you wish to discuss physics. It’s clear you do not. There’s no reason to continue along these lines.

From my perspective - the person who started the conversation You joined - it's your job to explain why you think the distinction is not important to keep the flow of the conversation going.

Again, as I have already said, I posted it in physics because the mention of time travel, I will not go over the same thing, you can read the reply I gave you last time for the answer.

2 minutes ago, Townsend said:

From my perspective - the person who started the conversation You joined - it's your job to explain why you think the distinction is not important to keep the flow of the conversation going.

Again, as I have already said, I posted it in physics because the mention of time travel, I will not go over the same thing, you can read the reply I gave you last time for the answer.

I joined because you pulled a bait-and-switch by implying that there was physics involved.

I’m trying to exit the conversation, since you’ve made it clear that there isn’t. You could just leave it alone, but you won’t. It’s looking more like trolling with each post. Take the hint and just address the cognitive issues, from others’ posts.

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm glad there is something we can agree on.

You keep referring to a stored version and similar concepts.....

The universe is defined as everything there is.

So where is this stored copy kept ?

The only way I can see to make your model workwould be if the universe was actually like The Matrix (this time I am referring to the films).

There is a problem with perception in that it can be tricked. Have you heard of Trompe L'Oeil for instance.

All our senses can be fooled.

That is why scientists strive for objectivity.

Granting your little scheme to fool folks by changing the clocks could be achieved in a thought experiment, it would still fail becasueof external markers.
For instance if I were to have my sleep by the seaside and be woken 2 hours early, with my watch advanced the extra 2 hours, I would immediately know this was wrong becasue of the incompatible state of the tide.

I included information for you that I thought was relevant. If you don't even acknowledge it, this ceases to be a discussion.

I have to keep referring to stored versions because the conversation keeps going on about time travel and classic physics models, neither of which PBTR relies on, I have already said this numerous times, I am not the one that replies with time travel, I answer because you have taken the time to reply.

You're forcing PBTR into a classical stored timeline model that it does not rely on. The assumption that history must be physically archived somewhere is unfounded—there is no empirical evidence that past moments persist as retrievable states. I have only stated this in the context of physical time travel.

PBTR does not need a stored version of the past because it operates within cognitive mechanisms, not physics. If history is shaped by collective recall, then modifying perception is modifying history, without requiring an external storage system.

Your reference to The Matrix is a mischaracterization—PBTR does not assume a fabricated simulation, nor does it rely on artificial control of memory. It functions through well-documented cognitive principles like memory reconsolidation, schema theory, and collective reinterpretation.

And yes, perception can be deceived—but that reinforces PBTR, not disproves it. If perception shapes historical continuity, then controlling perception is functionally equivalent to altering history. Whether scientists strive for objectivity is irrelevant—PBTR is not claiming objectivity, it is demonstrating that reality is defined by how events are collectively remembered.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

I joined because you pulled a bait-and-switch by implying that there was physics involved.

I’m trying to exit the conversation, since you’ve made it clear that there isn’t. You could just leave it alone, but you won’t. It’s looking more like trolling with each post. Take the hint and just address the cognitive issues, from others’ posts.

there was no bait and switch at all, that is what you want to believe to justify your response, I posted it in physics because I mentioned time travel, time travel is physics yes? So I believed it belonged in Physics thats it, no other reason. It turned out to be the wrong section because the premise wasn't just time travel.. I did not know at the time there was a speculation section. So how can you say for certain without knowing what i was thinking that i was doing what you accuse. As for trolling, I could say the same for you, you keep replying, so aren't you doing the same thing you are accusing me of. If you want to exit the conversation that is fine, if you believe I am trolling that is fine, you are allowed to have your opinion, but that is what it is, your own opinion,

Thank you for the replies.

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

As for trolling, I could say the same for you

You do understand I’m a moderator, right? That part of this is trying to get you to follow the rules? Having you flip-flop about whether there’s any physics to discuss is a violation of rule 2.12, and I was practically begging you to not respond to me.

Just now, swansont said:

You do understand I’m a moderator, right? That part of this is trying to get you to follow the rules? Having you flip-flop about whether there’s any physics to discuss is a violation of rule 2.12, and I was practically begging you to not respond to me.

yes I know you are a moderator, does that change how I have to reply to you, No, you do not have any special right to be spoken to differently, infact, you should hold yourself to a higher standard than others when replying to other people, you are representing this forum, the fact that you mocked an idea just because you do not think it has merit, MIB reference, you then accuse me of pulling a bait and switch without any evidence except to use it as a justification to reply, then on top of that you accuse me of trolling, again without any evidence, this is not the role of a moderator, a moderator is impartial and is to enforce rules based on factual evidence. you have none but your own opinion. And yes just because you are a moderator doesn't mean I cannot defend myself. But all this is a moot point.

People come here to share ideas and converse on those ideas, whether it validates or invalidates is not the primary concern, the sharing of that idea and the discourse around it, is more important, you Mr Moderator have made a mockery of that, so whatever you need to do, thats fine, lock the thread, delete it, whatever, I shall not be frequenting these forums again.

5 minutes ago, Townsend said:

yes I know you are a moderator, does that change how I have to reply to you, No, you do not have any special right to be spoken to differently, infact, you should hold yourself to a higher standard than others when replying to other people, you are representing this forum, the fact that you mocked an idea just because you do not think it has merit, MIB reference, you then accuse me of pulling a bait and switch without any evidence except to use it as a justification to reply, then on top of that you accuse me of trolling, again without any evidence, this is not the role of a moderator, a moderator is impartial and is to enforce rules based on factual evidence. you have none but your own opinion. And yes just because you are a moderator doesn't mean I cannot defend myself. But all this is a moot point.

That’s “mocking”?

Is your idea about changing memories or isn’t it?

“shifting within Conscious Memory”

“does not alter physical events only the perception of how those events are remembered”

Are just two of many descriptions you posted.

(I posted a bunch of physics stuff, but you made it clear that you aren’t discussing that)

5 minutes ago, Townsend said:

People come here to share ideas and converse on those ideas, whether it validates or invalidates is not the primary concern, the sharing of that idea and the discourse around it, is more important, you Mr Moderator have made a mockery of that, so whatever you need to do,

You don’t get to decide the primary concern; the rules of speculations are reasonably clear. Seems that you might be upset that you didn’t find a credulous audience, and that you wanted to pontificate rather than discuss.

5 minutes ago, Townsend said:

thats fine, lock the thread, delete it, whatever, I shall not be frequenting these forums again.

That’s your prerogative, but we’re going to hold you to it.

1 hour ago, Townsend said:

And yes, perception can be deceived—but that reinforces PBTR, not disproves it. If perception shapes historical continuity, then controlling perception is functionally equivalent to altering history. Whether scientists strive for objectivity is irrelevant—PBTR is not claiming objectivity, it is demonstrating that reality is defined by how events are collectively remembered.

I have to ask if you really believe that millions of Jews, Poles, Roma, gays, etc will not have been murdered in the Holocaust if we collectively agree that didn't happen and remember it as a giant beer and bratwurst festival. For that matter, if Subjectivism is really the hill you want to die on, we could brainwash everyone that life is like The Truman Show, and the moon only a projected image on a giant dome ceiling. The moon composed of rock will cease to exist, as will the descendants of Apollo program astronauts and those chunks of feldspar, pyroxene, and olivine they brought back to Earth. Gone. Never happened.

I can't tell if you want to grapple with some of the ontological issues your theory brings up. Your insistence that mental states (like perceptions and memories) are not physical states has glaring philosophical problems, but you've sort of skipped past them. Handwaving ("they are not physical and that's that") doesn't really work with this crowd. If I see a cat sleeping on a lawn chair, that's a chain of physical events, starting with photons emitted by the sun, some reflected off the cat and into my eyeball, then absorbed by retinal pigments, then chemical changes that cause nerves to propagate signals to my brains occipital region, and so on. These are physical events that have been observed and objectively determined to consistently correlate with conscious states.

ETA: So he's undearly departed, so my reply was wasted. Damn, I was still hoping he could engage on these ontological problems. I was wondering how deep we would wade into subjectivism. We had someone at another science forum who believed the moon stops existing if no one is looking at it. (They were suffering that misunderstanding of QT in which someone imagines that an entire planet is only as a quantum system forced into an eigenstate when someone conscious observes it, not understanding that a system with such a large number of degrees of freedom will behave as a classical one. And that measurements happen constantly, with objects interacting with the surrounding universe and with itself - no conscious observer needed)