Time does exist.

[SteveA]

Hi Steve:

The idea of magic is relative to the level of understanding. If we were to show a tv set to someone from the 18th century it would no doubt be considered magic.

What exactly do we experience with our consciousness?
( TIME.)
What is the one thing that conciousness can not exist without?
( TIME. )
Consider what if:
TIME, CONCIOUSNESS and CREATION are all one thing.
Then you have the TOE!

Because it even explains the observer effect in QP and QM.

What is the observer?
Consciousness.
What is necessary to the Consciousness?
Time.
What then is the action?
Continious dynamic creation as in the growing block universe.

TIME/CONSCIOUSNESS/CREATION = TOE.

John EMM

I agree with the general character of this and I've been working along similar lines using communication - if we know something exists, then information regarding it must be available, that information has to possess some specific characteristics in order that we can see it as persisting etc. and it appears that many structures arise from this process that possess properties quite similar to physical properties.

I'm willing to make that "leap of faith" that physical laws arise from logic regarding communication, and the objects we see on human scales appear to be determined from the aggregate statistics of collections of these, but that's part of the problem - a physical object may be composed of. let's say, 3 attributes, A, B and C. One observer in time sees ABC, while another sees CBA and another BAC etc. (We have additional complexity if some of these symbols appear objectively identical though they can't truly be identical otherwise they'd be just one thing, but we might have an objective appearance of A and B being interchangeable)

But there's a fundation below all this that includes logic and memory etc. that's rather inexplicable - it just exists, and the specific things that are experienced, even if they share this common framework, are unique and unpredictable.

Though for a Theory of Everything from the observation perspective of a social institution of communication, limited to a recognition of events that are repetitive and predictable (and preferrably providing an ability for these observers to communicate about and alter in a useful manner), then we already have some rather limited subset of everything possible and can begin to construct various features of these on larger scales (for example, we must be able to establish communication between 2 observers observing a third object in common and being able to verify common properties observed in it over time, so you have multiple pathways of communication, each requiring sufficiently complex perceptions or memory to distinguish between and then for the classical view we need statistical measurements involved in order to determine which observations are sufficiently similar to be seen as objective versus those that are seen as subjective - something one person observes but the other does not would be subjective and the things that appear statistically reliable between them would be seen to objectively exist - the statistical borderline between these is similar to the uncertainty principle).

If we took an electronic circuit and mapped out how information flows within it over time, we can find the equivalent of a light speed limit within a computational space and that's true of any computational medium as long as we're preserving information (which is also effectively guaranteed over a sufficient time because the information that was not conserved is no longer available, hence conservation laws automatically arise in a computational medium as well). We also can find the equivalent of spectrums and resonance etc. within a computation medium and any proof regarding any physical theory could effectively be reduced to a program as well, based upon some founding assumptions (10 dimensional string theory is overkill - 1 dimension of experiences over time, with an unlimited dimensional subjective space interpreted from this is a superset or unification of all 10-d string theory and we can find very complex and detailed patterns of growth from just making associations from experiences over time and "Universal Computation" is a superset of all "proofs" of anything - it only takes a few types of structures to emulate any form of computational mapping, so you have a few computational building blocks and an infinite space and potentially lots of time, but objective physical rates of time are not the same as subjective rates of time because people aren't detecting the same set of events in the same order and so the changes don't objectively synchronize).

Anyway, yes, I think a lot of people have already nailed down various physical ToEs, the problem is over what it takes for someone to know it's true and ultimately I don't think physical proof is enough. It would have to be true for someone simply because there's no other way it could be and that would require someone knowing what could be - which might take some time

[SteveA]

I showed this before, but let's assume for a second that there exists some being capable of perceiving all possible universes, though all these observations are synchronized in time with observer. Other than being perceived as a unified structure by that being, these universes are otherwise independent and need not actually be synchronized in time with the observations - the requirement I place on this is simply that the being observe a sequence of arbitrarily long "symbols", similar to either the presence or not of some consciously detected quality.

Now we have a few possible classes of "universes", but it appears they compress down to just 2 types - finite and infinite.

If the observations are of a finite system, then the observations of it ultimately repeat and the primary characteristic is the period or wavelength of this repetition.

If the observations of it do not repeat then there's really nothing predictable about it and all the influences of all of the infinite universes can be described as the single influence of a single infinite universe but with multiple properties it displays (which isn't particularly relevant for this example).

For all the finite universes we have a repeating sequence of observations and similar to the infinite sequence, 2 such universes that share the same period of repetition, or wavelength can be compressed into the observation of a single universe determining multiple perceived qualities simultaineously.

So we so far have the equivalent of an infinite spectrum of wavelengths and each "step" of time within each wavelength determines some perceived quality of an experience at that time (as an example, the quality of seeing red and green simultaineously could be the same as just seeing yellow and not red and green independently).

Now if this being begins with no knowledge but learns structures from recurrences in these perceptions, then we need to look at what novel information can be observed over time.

If we begin at time 1, every observation of every universe is entirely unique and has no previous history. There are not yet any relationships in memory to construct and so the first observation could be anything.

At time 2, we have all the systems that are not constant changing, whereas all "universes" that simply remain at a constant state (with a period or wavelength of 1 ) are observed to remain unchanged.

At time 3, we still have all the period one systems repeat identically (forever) and we now see a second split of the original "indescribable" remainder into both the remaining period 3 and larger components as well as the first repetition of all the period 2 systems (which should oscillate back and forth between 2 states forever).

Notice that we no longer need to observe the period 1 systems anymore as they provide no new information on "what time it is". If each phase of the period 2 system contains the same information information as the period 1s, then informationally we only need to know what state the period 2 systems are at to determine what state the period 1 systems are at (they remain constant).

As a quick example of this, imagine that all trees have leaves. If there was never a tree without a leaf then simply knowing something was a tree would tell you that it also had leaves and the "tree perception" overrides the perceptions of the leaves. There may have been an initial moment that either the branches or the leaves may have been noticed, but after that "it's all trees" (except for what else comes along later).

So in this sense, the observation of the period 2 system informationally "obscures" the period 1 systems.

From a subjective perspective, this should appear similar to a split - you have an initial event that's indescribable and from there it splits into a component that remains indescribable and then comes an oscillating component that proceeds to obscure the observation of the constant components.

At time 4 we see the repetitions of length 3 systems and this is just a new construction that doesn't synchronize with the length 2 systems. So it simply splits out of the "indescribable" component on its own.

At time 5 we find once again an that the period 4 systems informationally overwrite the period 2 systems, so the bipolar oscillation could be seen to split into a an object with a period of 4 (though it could also be interpreted as a pair of binary oscillation an octave apart).

At time 6 we have another new class of length 5.

At time 7 we have a class of length 6 which creates a different form of transformation as it can describe both the length 2 and length 3 systems simultaineously, but we've already had the length 4 system overwrite the length 2 system, so we could have the interpretation of the "smaller/faster" component of a binary pair describing the length 4 system splitting off and combining with the length 3 system in order to construct the length 6 system.

To show this better as a graphical timeline, imagine these sequences being observed over time.

Time goes from left to right and all the properties of an observation are shown vertically with the shortest wavelengths at the top:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA...
BCBCBCBCBCBCBC...
DEFDEFDEFDEFDE...
GHIJGHIJGHIJGH...
KLMNOKLMNOKLMN...
PQRSTUPQRSTUPQ...
...

At the initial time, the observation was of the composite of A, B, D, G, K and P.

Because none of these have ever been seen before and potentially each one of these symbols is also an infinite combination of various perceived qualities. The "ensemble" could simply be described like a single symbol itself.

At the second moment of time, the A is the only property that repeats and so, if we assume each of these universes possesses some form of rules by which they operate, then going from A to A leaves the system unchanged and it would remain at A forever.
The remain C,E,H,L,Q observations are once again unique, so the initial perception of the A, B, D, G, K and P could now be interpreted as having split into a constant A component and the remaining transformation from B, D, G, K and P to C, E, H, L and Q.

At the third step we have the C component change back to B and once again, if we assume we're seeing the entirety of some "universe" operating by a specific set of rules, then we already know that B will then become C, so we can now, after seeing the repetition predict the BCBCBCBCB... continues.

Again, notice that whenever B or C was observed, there was always A present and because of this, we can remove the perception of A as something independent because it was already present in both the B and C observations and so by knowing BCBCBCBC... we also know AAAAAA...

So the constant component, A, could be seen as having "left" or become obstructed etc. because it no longer conveys information (it's now "timeless").

When we encounter the repetition of the DEFDEFDEF... this can't be combined or simplified in any way, so we'd now have two oscillations - the BCBCBCBCBC... and the separate DEFDEFDEF...

When we see the repetition of the GHIJGHIJGHIJ, the BCBCBCBC... now becomes redundant as every G and I contains a B and every H and J contains a C, so this could interpreted as a splitting of the BCBCBCBC.... into two pairs (though this splitting isn't symmetrical and it contains two components an octave apart - one could be considered the smaller/faster/inner pair and the slower/larger/outer pair).

Anyway, the progression ends up having correlations with lots of areas but the most direct correlation is with the properties of prime numbers and factoring and there are ways of remapping this similar to a vortex with rings of various wavelengths interacting between themselves over time.

There are also many musical, geometric, and mathematical relationships that arise from this (for example, a "chord" appears as a single static structure that's the composite of multiple wavelengths and it could appear to have various loops like a lissajous image to describe the ratios of the frequencies - if we compare two frequencies of similar but not identical wavelengths there can appear to be relative motion between them and the appearance of an orbital).

I mostly like the fact that you can begin with something as basic as conscious perceptions of information over time and find a naturally arising "common landscape" shared by these.

[sillysally]

This is the best explanation I have ever heard. It can't be infinite when you include time but it ends and continues with more. It has to have a more refined sequence, like Fibonacci.

I think the initial beginning was finitiny (my made up word before I knew plank time). That's why time is a lot longer than a second, like way longer. That's also how there was never a beginning, just always was a universe.

[Exsoteric]

Hi,
There are many scientists that don’t see a need to further understand time; they believe it’s already understood well enough. Most are content with believing time is simply a type of measure.



Other scientists, including philosophers, believe time is all in the mind, that humans have constructed time and it has no physical existence.

But there are other scientists who are not satisfied, with our present understanding, for example, Roger Penrose, one of today’s most eminent physicists, believes it may be our lack of understanding of time that is holding science back, that a better and perhaps new understanding of time is required, one that may shed much needed light on the unification of quantum theory and relativity.

I believe I have found a new concept of time that might fit the bill, and I’ve got to admit it’s different. I came up with the idea about nine years ago and since then I have been adding to it. I posted the concept in the “Article’s” section of ToeQuest, it’s titled Chronos Secret. In case your wondering, Chronos is the Greek god of TIME.



It’s divided in two parts, two pdf file attachments. It contains no math and I believe it’s easy reading, check it out and let me know what you think. Who knows we may be making history!

Regards,

[SteveA]

This is the best explanation I have ever heard. It can't be infinite when you include time but it ends and continues with more. It has to have a more refined sequence, like Fibonacci.

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it. It appears to be a very naturally arising "landscape" for conscious perceptions and the assumptions are very minimal and they include:

1) That experiences are discrete events - "actual things with hard edges" and not a continuum of unrealized possibilities never beginning and never ending - a continuum is simply how it potentially appears over an unlimited time (but we're not there yet and won't ever get there "within time" - there's always more).

2) That a consciously perceived quality (the characteristics of how some sensation "feels" or "appears" etc.) arises from a potentially unlimited quantity of information and that the actual information detected is determined by the capabilities of the observer - so there would be a potentially unlimited variety of conscious sensations, but these appear "superimposed" as a single sensation, selected from one of those an observer is capable of detecting.

3) The only "knowledge" gained in this model occurs when a repetition of some quality is observed - at that point it effectively becomes memory (this correlates similar to strings in string theory or energy cycling in a closed space as matter) and is inherently known/witnessed/experienced, but after that growth the information is no longer witnessed as something continually recurring.

If we look at what science ideally tries to do, it tries to predict future events and this almost automatically determines that wavelengths/periods/repetitions will be observed. If we take science as a social institution constructed by communication between people about various physical events that may or may not be observed in a common objective space and we have "science look at everything" (that it could possibly "see"), we already have a lot of rules by which these interactions must occur simply for the institution to remain and so once again we have a situation where the properties of the "observer" determines what's observed by its various senses, cognitive powers and abilities to interact and communicate etc.

Oh and regarding the Fibonacci sequence, yes, there are actually some correlations to the Fibonacci sequence we can find as well. The most significant feature of the sequences I showed above is that the wavelengths or periods can appear synchronized in time and "obscure" or become redundant when they share a common divisor/factor between they. Hence they interact when they're not relatively prime to each other.

Now an almost identical thing occurs in the Fibonacci sequence (and thank you for mentioning it).

(I accidently posted this before it was finished ... I'll finish it as a second post)

[SteveA]

Let's grab some Fibonacci numbers:

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233,377,610

Now let's factor them, if they have a divisor that's already a Fibonacci number:

F(1)=1
F(2)=1
F(3)=2
F(4)=3
F(5)=5
F(6)=2*2*2
F(7)=13
F(8)=3*7
F(9)=2*17
F(10)=5*11
F(11)=89
F(12)=2*2*2*2*3*3
F(13)=233
F(14)=13*29
F(15)=2*5*61

Notice that other than F(4) (and possibly F(2) depending upon whether or not you consider 1 to be a prime number), if the index of the Fibonacci number in this series is prime then the Fibonacci number is also prime relative to smaller Fibonacci numbers.

Also notice this for all the non-primes:

F(6)=F(3)^3 (6 is divisible by 3)
F(8)=F(4)*7 (8 is divisible by 4)
F(9)=F(3)*17 (9 is divisible by 3)
F(10)=F(5)*11 (10 is divisible by 5)
F(12)=F(3)^4*F(4)^2 (12 is divisible by both 3 and 4)
F(14)=F(7)*29 (14 is divisible by 7)
F(15)=F(3)*F(5)*61 (15 is divisible by 3 and 5)

So if we had a structure of wavelengths constructed by a Fibonacci process instead, it would appear to possess very similar characteristics to just a linear progression.

Here's some other interesting information regarding patterns of primes in Fibonacci numbers http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal.../fibmaths.html.

There's another nice link to the Riemann Zeta function - the probability of any two randomly selected wavelengths sharing at least one divisor in common is equal to 6/(pi^2) and this number comes up in a diverse array of problems.

I think the initial beginning was finitiny (my made up word before I knew plank time). That's why time is a lot longer than a second, like way longer. That's also how there was never a beginning, just always was a universe.

The finite and infinite seem to be two separate things. One could be seen as numbers and the other the process of counting. The problem with counting is that it never stops at a number and it can't decide when to stop unless something outside it tells it when to stop (so the number that's counted to is effectively preselected before the counting even begins).

It's very common to see mathematical proofs describe a set of natural numbers as 1,2,3,...,n.

But this description is incorrect. 1,2,3,...10 would be a set of natural numbers and 1,2,3,...17 would also be such a set, but 1,2,3,...,n is actually a set of sets of natural numbers because n isn't actually a natural number (for example, natural numbers are odd or even ... is n odd or even, if someone can't determine that, then how could n be a specific number?) It's little things like this that are often overlooked that make trying to work with the idea of infinity as hard as trying to guess what happens inside an atom.

When people stick to working with discrete things and precise identities and not just things that appear to converge to some vague limit or are "close" to something else etc., then very precise and detailed structures emerge from things that don't appear to possess it, such as space itself. If someone blurs it into a continuous thing with nothing left to grab hold of, then the quality of the results come out to be the same as the qualities of the definitions going in ("garbage in, garbage out" as they say).

[sillysally]

Hi,
There are many scientists that don’t see a need to further understand time; they believe it’s already understood well enough. Most are content with believing time is simply a type of measure.



Other scientists, including philosophers, believe time is all in the mind, that humans have constructed time and it has no physical existence.

But there are other scientists who are not satisfied, with our present understanding, for example, Roger Penrose, one of today’s most eminent physicists, believes it may be our lack of understanding of time that is holding science back, that a better and perhaps new understanding of time is required, one that may shed much needed light on the unification of quantum theory and relativity.

I believe I have found a new concept of time that might fit the bill, and I’ve got to admit it’s different. I came up with the idea about nine years ago and since then I have been adding to it. I posted the concept in the “Article’s” section of ToeQuest, it’s titled Chronos Secret. In case your wondering, Chronos is the Greek god of TIME.



It’s divided in two parts, two pdf file attachments. It contains no math and I believe it’s easy reading, check it out and let me know what you think. Who knows we may be making history!

Regards,

I am almost finished with the first part and I just finished reading the part with "time waits for no one" and I think you forgot one, unless you wrote it later, "only time will tell".

I think you have some really good points and questions. It's almost annoying at what a hinderance time is being. I was just thinking when I started this thread that time is the most vast thing out there, everything takes time. I also have this thing about time not being linear, there is something simultaneous happening. I'll have to get back when my drugs wear off.

[SteveA]

I think you have some really good points and questions. It's almost annoying at what a hinderance time is being. I was just thinking when I started this thread that time is the most vast thing out there, everything takes time. I also have this thing about time not being linear, there is something simultaneous happening. I'll have to get back when my drugs wear off.

I think time is the first dimension that all the other ones are constructed from. It contains the information about all the rest.

One of the more subtle parts is that time and memory are interlinked - without memory, there would just be a sequence of events or experiences and no pattern to them. Something as pervasively noticeable as gravity would not appear to exist as some coherent force - you could fall down one second and wonder at what happened, only to repeat the same thing and not remember it happened before.

Memories aren't necessarily a true record of past experiences - it's easy to recognize that things can be forgotten or become only foggily recollected in the past and that's an issue in itself if knowledge is built upon it, but if there existed memories of things that never happened or things that happened for which no memory exists then it's hard to even begin to construct some stable form of knowledge. (Though it's not necessarily all a downside - there's a magic hidden in there).

[sillysally]

I think time is the first dimension that all the other ones are constructed from. It contains the information about all the rest.

I agree with this, time started everything.

One of the more subtle parts is that time and memory are interlinked - without memory, there would just be a sequence of events or experiences and no pattern to them. Something as pervasively noticeable as gravity would not appear to exist as some coherent force - you could fall down one second and wonder at what happened, only to repeat the same thing and not remember it happened before.

Exactly, wow you are really nailing it. There is no question, time and memory go hand in hand.

things that never happened or things that happened for which no memory exists then it's hard to even begin to construct some stable form of knowledge. (Though it's not necessarily all a downside - there's a magic hidden in there).

You keep coming back to this magic but I think it's could be all in your head,. Figuring out the brain memory will be a major breakthrough when it comes to time. I've always thought that once human being origin has been figured out, that's what will bring us to the rest of all the answers we want to know. It has more to do with our biology than anything else, everything that happens with our bodies relates to time.

I've never been one to ponder the purpose of being human but how we are human instead. The one thing that I have always wondered is where the heck have I been all the time before I was born? I know I was here someplace and I have had a spontaneous memory of seeing something a year before I was born, just before I was conceived. It's in my time bank, I just want to tap into it deeper and I can't willfully.

[SteveA]

...I've always thought that once human being origin has been figured out, that's what will bring us to the rest of all the answers we want to know.

Now there's a sentence I'm going to have to file away in "excellent quotes" book.

I've never been one to ponder the purpose of being human but how we are human instead. The one thing that I have always wondered is where the heck have I been all the time before I was born?

Consider this - if you lived in some completely different universe the memories may be uncorrelated with things in this one. Also, if you've been around here for a while ... well there could be memories of what you've done floating all over the place in space.

I know I was here someplace and I have had a spontaneous memory of seeing something a year before I was born, just before I was conceived. It's in my time bank, I just want to tap into it deeper and I can't willfully.

I have never had anything I'd consider like seeing some previously unknown past or future, but instead I've had some times when the gut instincts just tell me there's more and I did have one incident quite a few years ago where I'd spent a couple weeks really trying to brainstorm what are the core things in experience and trying to piece these together with observations in quantum mechanics and physics etc. and I kept coming to a "matrix" view of being "in the machine" and the picture was more sterile than I'd prefer.

But it was interesting, I kept trying to find more to that view but seemed stuck and then I had a thought similar to playing hide and seek and not finding anyone and thinking I didn't want to play anymore - and then there was a very strong feeling, almost like some intimate part of myself or a soulmate reassuring me that I was doing fine and didn't need to worry. It wasn't any out of body thing or vivid physical experience but simply a strong sense that there was something/someone I was intimately attached to letting me know that there's more an I'm not stuck.

This feeling stuck with me for quite a while and rather suddenly I started seeing "outside the box" and I realized that what had happened was that I was figuratively trying to see through the eyes of physical science which can't see beyond physical things, but I realized that there are many internal thoughts and feelings that aren't describable in physical terms - there's an internal world that extends beyond the physical and it ends up being massive and complex beyond imagination.

I remembered I'd read some accounts of near death experiences and how many people described a change in outlook afterwards - they didn't take problems as seriously later and didn't care as much about dying because they know there was something beyond it and though I understood the words before, I'd never really understood the feelings and the naturalness of the view until after I had that experience.

Now someone could say that it's all just chemicals in the brain or maybe some release of stress etc., but that really doesn't change anything - everyday experiences would still be the same - it's not an illusion unless it's all an illusion - illusions are real.

Anyway, now I'm on the other side of the box trying to see out just a few layers and it grows superexponentially in complexity. The "problem" I've got now is trying to figure out where it all comes from and I'm trying to unravel some of the layers back to the source of this "energy flow" ... but I'm beginning to think that won't work because I'm really just building the layers and there's likely no way to build a solid structure that reaches something random, if it is truly random (that's another question in there along with a lot of others). It could be that logic doesn't "do" randomness and it's just faith or belief or something creative underpinning logical laws and that's where I refer to "magic".