Time: Investigating the Psychological Arrow and Cosmological Time

[Graviphoton]

There is a lot of confusion about time, and what is it around here, quite naturally. I mean, what is time? Is it really a dimension? Is it really a continuum? Does it exist independant of the mind?

 

One rule of quantum physics does exist, which encompasses all of these notions. It is the cornerstone of Copenhagen, and the rulebook of quantum metaphysics -- but don't mistake this thread as a philosophy of time...

 

At the heart physics, is the phenomena of the mind. For ages past, physicists have been aware that the reality at large, the reality we see everyday is not the external world, but a recreation, a representation of that reality. It seems that the world we see is in fact a by-product of some degree of freedom (1).

 

Linde says...

 

Andre Linde says

 

‘’ The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves.''

 

And he continues to say

 

''Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?’’

 

Here, Linde touches on the fact that consciousness has its own dimension -- and dimension is nothing but another term for degrees of freedom.

 

Without delving into the idea of dimension too deeply, the subject for thought here is the independant nature of the reality we experience, and the reality at large. Some interdependant theories treat both as invariant, so if consciousness/mind was removed, any notion of spacetime would be obsolete, and this is actually correct to some respect, as we shall see soon.

 

So we have perhaps two kinds of time. One external and the other internal. Two kinds of space, one internal, the other external. This has been highlighted over the many years of physics, by many physicists... here is one prominent leader of this fact:

 

'There is always a triple correspondence;

1. A mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world

2. Some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is inscrutable in nature

3. A set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer readings

To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'. '

Sir Arthur Eddington

 

Frozen Lake

 

Now, it turns out that time is actually a frozen lake (2). If we could observe our pasts, we would see our history all layed out before us, frozen in time like a fly stuck in amber.

 

This means that the past and the future are but illusions of time. Even Einstein made it clear that ignorant fools hold onto the idea that the past and future exist. As we shall see soon, it is only the present time that ever exists.

 

Flux of Time

 

The psychological arrow, one of several arrows of time, is in fact the easiest to understand, based on a few simple concepts. We sense time flow forward. We don't sense any other directionality, other than a sense of forward. Whilst it is purely psychological, it is supposed to reflect the forward nature of reality at large (3).

 

But time doesn't ''flow'' at all. Any notion of ''flow'' must be abandoned, because without an observer, time actually takes on the form of crystalized structures, or discontanious flashes of existence. Not a smooth, continous flow of anything, because this notion is created purely by an observer (4) (5).

 

So ending this part, the time we feel, the internal time, is very different in nature to the time external of the mind.

 

Past, Present and Future: Nothing But An Illusion

 

And the observer finally brings into the picture a notion of what was past and what is still to come.

 

As Einstein informed us, past and future are an illusion... a dillusion of the mind. I suppose its a way to keep our minds from insanity, from collecting too much information at one time. If we didn't have this steady existence, we would not be able to function correctly.

 

The only time that ever exists, is the present time. Any notion of past you might have, is in fact a storage of memory. Or put more elegantly, the present is a collection of the past.

 

But since the present time is the only time that ever exists, then the past and future can't exist. But this isn't quite true, because relativity in theory predicts time travel -- so would't that imply that the future and past are happening right now?

 

There are two solutions accepted in phsyics. One being parallel universes, and the other stating that the future is in fact a present state as well.

 

I hope these things clear up any notion of time.

 

(1) - This is why i brought forth the idea that we can apply vectors to the human mind, to help describe consciousness mathematically. With such a limited, yet hostile response, i was really happy to find that the theory has already been speculated, and isn't considered a psuedoscience... despite the decision here that it be moved to psuedoscience.

 

(2) - Brain Greene's ''The Frozen Lake.''

 

Fred Alan Wolf, ''Parallel Universes.''

 

(3) - But the forward directionality breaks down at the level of gravitino's and protino's, simple because cause and effect breaks down. Matter in its fundamental form, is perfectly retrocausal.

 

(4) - In a recent conversation with Dr. Wolf, he assures me that time is really built up on starts and stops, whilst when an observer is involved, we sense it flow. I suggest this is related to the binding paradox of consciousness...

 

(5) - This maybe what drove Frank J. Tipler, mathematician and prof of physics to suggest that reality squeezed in and out of existence... possibly in the planck time.

 

Why is this in pseudoscience? It is quantum physics at its best. I don't understand this move.

[iNow]

"...and Speculations."

[Graviphoton]

So, scientists cannot speculate? Time is just speculation now? So is reativity? And quantum physics?

 

Even if that is true, the greater part of my post does not speculate, but rather informs how physics persues the understanding of time...

[iNow]

Speculation is fine, AND accepted. It even has it's own forum!

[Graviphoton]

Fine. But i am stating hard QM facts. Hard relativistic facts. Surely this is downgraded too much to be put here?

[iNow]

Show your data. Show your experiments. Show your formulae and your variables, and you'll have much more solid ground to stand on when making your argument that it's more than speculation.

 

Also, be sure your data is accurate and appropriately reflects the work being done, otherwise, it's not likely to graduate into the other fora.

 

Finally, who cares where your ideas are "bucketed?"

 

You have a venue to discuss them with people who can give you critical insights and feedback. I advise you take advantage of that instead of wasting a bunch of timing whining that you don't want it to be considered a "speculation."

[Graviphoton]

very well.

[swansont]

Tying QM into the mind — "At the heart physics, is the phenomena of the mind." Surely, that is speculative.

[Graviphoton]

Well... its a theory of quantum mechanics. It's no more sepculation than the improbable parallel universe theory, now is it? Considering there are more than several different top physicists working in the field of the mind, never mind the neurobiologists.

 

The mind is perfectly a subject for quantum physics, as we are told here

 

Andre Linde says

‘’ The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves.

...

Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?’’

 

and in a recent conversation with Dr Wolf, he says,

 

''we need to create a theory of the mind for any notion of a unified theory of everything.''

 

So the mind is cetainly a quantum subject.

 

Who ever designed the site, has made a grave error in mixing speculation with pseudoscience. If someone started a thread on the Multiverse, it would survive being chucked in here. But here's the rub. The multiverse theory is speculative as well, and untestable.

[ecoli]

That's all well and good, Graviphoton, but you still haven't shown any mathematics or testable models behind the work. Where's the potential for falsifiability?

[Graviphoton]

Time is so ethereal, and incorporeal, the only designs of time lie in the foundation of what we already know. Any extention (which doesn't involve the facts i have shown), cannot work without some extra kind of proof. The fact we have three spatial dimensions, and one time, we know the mathematical proof from Minkowski Spacetime. This alone is proof of what is being said

 

If you are referring to the degrees of freedom, associated with consciousness, then you should view my thread concerning this in psuedoscience. Make it known though, i recently found that wiki states that spacetime theories with the mind are not psuedoscience, because they make testable predictions.

[iNow]

Who ever designed the site, has made a grave error in mixing speculation with pseudoscience.

 

Oh FFS... If you don't like it, build your own or go elsewhere. You're continued whining is growing tiresome, and it's not like anybody is forcing you to keep posting here. What are you, 3 years old? Grow the hell up!

 

 

Hmmm... Sorry, guys. Too heated, I know. I suppose it's not enough to be right.

 

 

Graviphoton,

 

I calmly explained above what you should focus on if the fact that your thread has been put into the speculations bucket bothers you. Unfortunately, you have done none of that, so I just don't know what else to say. I tried.