Time Does Not Exist

[SteveA]

Planck time marches on, those instants seeming to form a continuum?

Yes, that's how I think it works - we continually build a continuum from plank units and those units are not of a specific physical size. Their relative size arises from the context in which they're placed/perceived.

For example, if we placed numbers on a number line, they remain separated by a constant unit of difference x<y. We could have these numbers be anything, but in order to fit on the same line, they have to be organized ...a<b<c<d<... and the common unit is always an inequality (magnitude comparison from least to greatest or we could analogize this with emotional terms as - best to worst)

Time does not exist in Hawaii. This is called "island time", meaning come or go or do anything anytime.

Sounds like a great time zone to visit I guess if you wanted to return from there you'd have to have something eventually resynchronize you with time elsewhere.

[greenbug]

Consider this.. the reason for the expansion of space and continued progression of time is due to the relation of relative sizes. That is between each point a<b there could be an a(i)<z(i) Yet the only reason you would ever see a(i)<z(i) in a<b is because of the relation between b<c and d<e to a<b.. That is each 'a' has an infinite dimension of (i) but each is only realized threw a grater perspective of the first a<z .. soo.. a(i)<z(i) only exsist because of a<z ... And each would be in perspective only by their correlations. Temporally speaking.. That doesn't mean that there are different time lines, but it could mean that there are worlds and universes between us if we could just relate the difference in size.

[SteveA]

That is between each point a<b there could be an a(i)<z(i)

I assume you're referring to:

a(i)<z(i)<b(i)

means that we (can) observe the "objects" a, z and b having a persistent relationship in space in the present, over time? (If we assume that i represents a function of fundamental units of time that correlates to a quantity of time representing the present. for example, i(t)?)

I tend to prefer having all these a function of a single fundamental version of time, and I'd probably write these as:

a(t)<z(t)<b(t)

Then we could construct yet another function of t to describe "when" present observations occur and then we can interleave/multiplex these all into something like bins that are incremented.

For example, if we had two objects that maintained a square root relationship over time a~=sqrt(b), we could interleave this in this manner for each new unit of t:

a(0)=0
b(0)=0

For each new unit of t:
if a(t)<sqrt(b(t)) then
a(t+1)<-a(t)+1
b(t)<-b(t)
else
a(t+1)<-a(t)
b(t+1)<-b(t)+1

It does appear that we'd need a constant framework, within which everything else was placed so that we could maintain the equivalent of what a "uniform"/flat/unbend/straight reference is, though that could, once again, be a subjective function of fundamental units of t.

Anyway, by multiplexing this incrementing operation in many dimensions we can construct any number of objects with various dynamic relationships between them and on scales that are infinitely variable, though at any moment, there exists a largest quantity, t, that contains them all and that they are all deterministically related by.

(In reality, though t might be a specific quantity, we'd likely have to measure it in terms of a potentially diverse array of diverging functions - so there could always remain unknowns in terms of its absolute value though we could determine likely properties of t as well as the relationships between objects "expanding"/incrementing in time)

Oh, and yes, in relative physical terms, we should have a minimum and maximum quantity between which other things are related, but consider that just because a(t-1)<z(t-1) and y(t-1)<z(t-1) in the past was true, does not deny that we could find on some non-absolute or fundamental scale y(t)>z(t), in which case we could need a continual resorting of space over time and objects could pass by and interact with each other over time (and that fits in well with other ideas I've had regarding describing flow within a superfluid as swaps of elements in a 1 dimension array ... things simply change position when moving through a conserved volume of space. We could describe any and all (discrete) motions as just reorderings of a single set describing all the locations and so motions in space can be just swaps occuring in 1-D ordered list of magnitudes/elements and a sorting operation could be the fundamental process by which motion occurs - interactions in space would arise from superpositions due to an equality, which could appear to compress space. For example, if ...=a=b=c=d=..., then space becomes compressed to a singularity)

[AntonioLao]

If time does not exist then the universe or for that matter nothing exist and the universe stays the same as it was, now, and everlasting. Time is really a marker for change of states, say from state of matter to state of energy, state of matter to spacetime, state of energy to spacetime and vice versas. Now we exist in the state of matter but a million years from now some of us will become the state of energy or the state of spacetime some will be reborn back to the state of matter. These changes of state last forever on and on, cycle after cycle. There are 3 fundamental states of physical existence: matter, energy, and square of energy (aka quantum of spacetime).

[SteveA]

A way to rewrite the above process in terms solely descriptive of motions in space would be to only have this accumulation occur at one position of space (it would appear an origin would be a natural position for this).

Then, if a different object, not currently at the origin was to be incremented, it could be swapped/moved (not unlike a 1-D rotation or orbital/loop of elements) to the origin where it is incremented (or updated).

In that case we could describe the evolution of all these elements in terms of motions in space and a fundamental unit of this would be to just swap adjacent locations.

If we wanted to avoid moving this swap position in 1 dimension and swapping elements within a ring, we could instead break these elements up into a binary tree and update, for example, the element that exists as the leftmost or rightmost branch of this and then the swaps in this space would occur similar to inverting dimensions of a hypercube (for example, we could alternately allocate an initial string of elements into a "top level" left/right bin and then similarly, copy this form of allocation recursively, which would give us two such pairs of secondary bins, and 4 pairs at the next layer etc.)

Here's an image of a binary tree:



Though this is an interesting version also with varied lengths and angles (we could potentially generate this by constructing a correlation function between the "data" contained by branches and give us an "analog" appearance).



Anyway, by using such a structure the swap positions would always remain constant in space (a fixed spacial form, though a potentially exponentially growing layered space with new binary properties/qualities arising at each level) and also the accumulation operation inherent in time could remain at a fixed position within this tree. The only information necessary to describe all of these motions and growths would then be a binary string of information that determined which layers were swapped before an increment to the object occured in time.

Because this binary string could be interpreted to be "wrapped" cyclically around from root to a leaf, we could find a structure that appeared rolled into a loop (a collection of (logarithmically?) "red shifting" wavelengths over time), though that could be a form more fundamental than we could observe.

Anyway, I'm just tossing out some ideas of possible mechanisms by which time could operate. (The algorithm I mentioned here would be very easy to implement with digital electronics)

Consider something as well. If we looked at space as a form of maximal volume describing all possible quantities that can physically exist, and we had physical units, like photons or protons describing the currently present quantities (each at a position in space determined by their associated quantity of fundamental units), then swapping them in some other representation/dimension would leave them appearing unaltered in space. This close association in that alternate representation could similarly give rise to the appearance of entanglement between disparate objects in space (they could be at complimentary positions on two different leaves in any one of the swappable "dimensions").

I tend to think that we have more than simply binary properties, but these could arise from recurring loops in their motions within the sorted representation.

There is a very natural algorithm for sorting in a binary tree as well (so you could have complimentary trees - one performs the binary swapping and incrementing and the other performs the sorting into magnitudes):

Binary Tree Sort
http://spiffed.freeshell.net/humber/...ary%20tree.pdf

... just more ideas (though I like this idea because it shows at least one concrete manner to fit things in, except it excludes a specific mechanism to generate the binary sequence driving this ... though it might be interesting to test out some ideas in that respect)

One thing that works out elegant if we append a complimentary sorting binary tree is that we could then possible wrap a binary string from an origin on one end, out to a leave and than back again, but performing binary swaps of space in two different representations - one outward and one inward).

[greenbug]

means that we (can) observe the "objects" a, z and b having a persistent relationship in space in the present, over time?

Yes.

I tend to prefer having all these a function of a single fundamental version of time, and I'd probably write these as:

a(t)<z(t)<b(t)

and thats fine too as long as you don't narrow down to a single point or object because then there maybe scaling issues in which case based on what ever frame of reference you could have a(i) ~ a(t) as 'i' is an equivalent of 't'. I'm not sure if 't' is infinitesimal or not as long as there is more then one value for 't' then it is.

It does appear that we'd need a constant framework, within which everything else was placed so that we could maintain the equivalent of what a "uniform"/flat/unbend/straight reference is, though that could, once again, be a subjective function of fundamental units of t.

Oh, and yes, in relative physical terms, we should have a minimum and maximum quantity between which other things are related, but consider that just because a(t-1)<z(t-1) and y(t-1)<z(t-1) in the past was true, does not deny that we could find on some non-absolute or fundamental scale y(t)>z(t), in which case we could need a continual resorting of space over time and objects could pass by and interact with each other over time (and that fits in well with other ideas I've had regarding describing flow within a superfluid as swaps of elements in a 1 dimension array

The framework is in groupings. As long as there are more then two values each grouping describes the next framework. Groups are form by the existing values by scale, between each scale, lets say a(t) and b(t) describe a value i(t). That value describes a new value considared c(t). No other value out side any new value will exceed i(t) for that scale as it is perspective for that framework.

a(t) - b(t) = c(t) = i(t)
a(t) -c(t)= 2*i(t)

but as you can see at any time i ~ t, because this would also be true in perspective..

d(t) - e(t) = f(t) = i(t)
but
a(t) - b(t) ~ d(t) - e(t)

so just consider i as an incremental scaling of t.. a frame of reference if you will.

[greenbug]

You have to look at it also invertible.. That is the binary tree can be changed in shape by the correlation between each branch. As each branch relates information the value 'i' between each other level or branch it changes perspective and once connecting levels of the tree are now discreetly different yet still there. Like having six branches group together to form two, they no longer affect the tree as six individuals unless some other perspective changes that. (yet six levels would react discreetly different)

In away you could almost think of this like the double slit experiment and differences between wave and particle interactions. The particle interactions are only a summed up version of wave interactions. Only changed by perspective (frame of references as that frame maybe of another order)..

[greenbug]

I'm not sure how that picture would look if you some how tied each level into each other, as they would more directly relate information to each other because the values are discreetly similar at their level 'i'.. Yet that is where it becomes 3 dimensional rather then two dimensional.

here is an interesting read on a simular prodject and pictures showing simular results to what I'm saying..

http://www.math.utk.edu/~schulze/paper24.pdf

[SteveA]

Yes.

and thats fine too as long as you don't narrow down to a single point or object because then there maybe scaling issues in which case based on what ever frame of reference you could have a(i) ~ a(t) as 'i' is an equivalent of 't'. I'm not sure if 't' is infinitesimal or not as long as there is more then one value for 't' then it is.

I assume there exists a maximum quantity, and I'd refer to it as 't' and:

t=a(t)+b(t)+c(t)+...

So t is the total volume of "time" (or an equivalent quanta). Though this could prove problematic if we had an even lower level representation that performed the sorting/motions of objects within this space, but basically, whatever is the lowest layer of representation necessary, steps/units of that process would be the largest quantity required to describe everything in time.

This quantity would likely appear to go beyond any manner of measurement and probably construct the equivalent of other universes etc., so I don't expect this fundamental quantity to be measurable, and so we'd need to have an equivalent physical time that would similarly be the largest quantity necessary to construct all physical objects/events.

As a little bit of a sidenote, it's interesting to see that we can actually redefine "Infinity" to simply be the largest natural number in this system and it appears to resolve a lot of paradoxes that otherwise occur in mathematics. For example, the question "How many natural numbers are there?" is normally answered as "infinite", but if we tried to match 1 for 1 every natural number with an infinite quantity, then there should exist at least one infinite natural number, but that violates the concept of it being a specific number (for example, we could determine whether or not a natural number is odd or even, but a vague "infinity" is not specifically odd or even - it's a variable in that sense and not a number and this confusion appears to occur quite often in mathematics as variables are considered to be numbers). Also, the result of "taking" (more like "assigning" ) the limit of a function can have infinitesimal "errors". Well, if we avoid this and instead "nest" all such computations into a single computation against a single limit (which would be the largest quantity that all of them are constructed with) then we can find a lot of dynamic, chaotic and fractal properties embedded within these infinitesimals as the limit is increased.

Similar to a finite speed of light requiring an even faster form of communication in order to communicate information regarding the space in which this "motion" (if we assume it is actually a motion in space), we can see properties on various scales appearing to always require some more encompassing and faster version of communication on another scale in order to "contain" phenomenon within some derivative space. So we could see various scales of "t" depending upon the context of the space in which we're analyzing properties. For example, if physical space is recognized by the mind or consciousness, then consciousness needs to interact on a faster/broader scale than those observed physical events and if pure awareness without any conscious intelligence at work contains all that as well as other aspects of experience, then this needs to work on an even "larger"/broader/faster scale. It appears that for awareness the space at which we could "stop this progression" would be the scale at which there is no longer an awareness of anything and that would appear to be the most relevant fundamental unit of time that we would need to abstract out to.

From there we'd have progressively more and more complex layers of properties arising in more dimensions and in terms of larger and larger quantities of fundamental units (pardon me for jumping to properties I've been looking at in an alternate model but an interesting correlation here is with prime factors of a number - a prime number has no factors and a "universe" with a prime wavelength would in many ways appear to "contain nothing" (here I'm referring to objects constructed by resonance within a space of periodic, constant velocity motion - a prime wavelength only has the fundamental wavelength and no harmonics), though as we counted through these, we'd find "universes" with more factors (for example, we'd have an alternating odd/even component and every second increment would at least construct something evenly divisible by 2, so at least one binary "dimension" could separate this into two objects differing by only some binary quality, but other numbers have more factors and these could appear to possess more dimensions with more properties, though the "width" of these dimensions would be less than a prime width and so these spaces could appear to be compressed and possessing motions of a slower velocity, but that might not actually be the case - the velocities could simply appear slower if we assume these spaces use Euclidean motions in multiple dimensions and not just 1 dimensional - for example, if we had a 1-D motion, but we looped this within a 3-D space in order to fill space, then the appearance of a light speed motion within that 3-D space could arise from a velocity that actually resembled a cube (3rd power) of that velocity).

(continued ...)

[SteveA]

I apologize for drifting a bit, but I'm still trying to piece together a lot of loose ends (I want to get something that describes things on as large a scale as I can and don't simply want some model that describes an isolated subset of things ... with the typical hanging, vague and undefined unknowns that don't mesh with other things).

There are two "numbering systems" you could have for these a(t), b(t), ... values (we could rewrite these as a(p,t) and then let p be an enumeration of a,b,c,...) and this would appear to describe the process of a compression of a dimension.

You have more information when you're working with the raw quantities of a(p,t), but in terms of the derivative space these construct it could simply be the ordering a(p(0),t)<a(p(1),t)<a(p(2),t)<..., in which case we have a new set of "natural numbers" derived from these as potentially infinite (though sampled at some present state) quantities.

So it depends upon the context of which version of space we're working with. (As another related thought, we could have these elements with different orderings, depending upon which qualities we're looking at - first/last in terms of causation, best/worst in terms of emotions, nearest/furthest in subjective terms, or largest/smallest etc. and these could effectively provide a multidimensional position to objects).

Yes, I know I jump all over the place! (but I seriously do think all these things likely tie in very elegantly when you "get it right" ... at least that appears to be the direction things have been heading ).

What I wanted to say regarding your i ~ t statement is that this need not be true. If i is a derived quantity, representing a new dimensional quality or different form of space, then i can represent the equivalent fundamental 't' for that space. Specifically how various versions of i for different spaces constructed by t would be a good question (though, as usual, we should always be able to pass a line through everything, so even if it was some form of recursive fractal splitting in some attribute, there should still be a correlation to these fundamentally arising from a linear growth of t).

What I was going to say was that there's a physical theory that I've been looking at called "The Reciprocal System" http://rstheory.org/ which fundamentally appears to agree with the idea of a 1 dimensional expansion of space (I don't see this explicitly recognized, but the manner in which the theory operates is very compatible with a 1-D expansion). In this theory, there is a basic process of expansion occuring everywhere, but it appears that in order to see these as resulting in stationary structures we'd need a rescaling of space by some equivalent "endpoints" (I didn't see any obvious comments in this respect in the theory, though it appears to operate via. intersection and largely describes how periodic/cycle motions in different manners/dimensions can interact at a specific point and give rise to properties observed in matter, hence it basically describes resonant properties observed at a point, but I couldn't find an obvious manner in which an observation of an extended space could be observed, though that could be my own misunderstanding of the theory).

Anyway, if we had a group of elements a(p,t) accumulating fundamental units of t and then being ordered into a set a(p(0),t)<a(p(1),t)<...<a(p(n),t), then we have a "new" or derivative dimension of p(0),p(1),...p(n) that describes how the original elements a(0,0),a(1,0),a(2,0),...,a(n,0) have been reorder over time and this is a 1 to 1 (and information conserving, and potentially logically deducible) correlation with those n elements between those space (to give a better idea of how such a transformation/mapping might look, this could be similar to finding a correlation between some properties as nearest to furthest in a current observation and a correlation between these to a causative or temporal ordering relative to their production via. a figurative Big Bang or potentially finding a transformation between these and size or other linearly orderable qualities).

Anyway, we could then similarly assume each of these qualities/properties also had "discrete quanta" and if we had these elements sorted in such a manner, then for that quality we could assume all the differences are just a single unit of that quality and construct a new natural number line in terms of the ordering in that quality.

To give a better idea of this reasoning, consider a universe in which only two objects exist - a "small" object and a "large" object. In that case, asking "how large" either of them is, would not paricularly make sense - there would be no other finer scales of division in which to determine that one is x units of ? larger than the other. If we added a third element, then we might have the "medium" object, and it would be natural to assume that the difference between "medium" and "small" is the same as the difference between "large" and "medium" (they're both adjacent) and that the difference between the large and the small objects would contain both those other differences, hence it would be twice as large of a difference and tadah! we have a number line and mathematical relationships in terms of this quality.

Now we could also assume that because we're able to see this particular range of sizes, then we must possess an ability to access the endpoints of these and then we have relative/fractional/ratios involved and we could say, for example, that one is positioned at a location 1/2 way between the extremes or 7/11ths etc., and in this case we're basically deriving a space that possesses equivalent resonant properties.

I'll apologize again for jumping around to so many different ideas, and I know if someone else did this to me I'd find it hard to reply , but hopefully you'll find some things in there that 'click' for you