What Does Consciousness Do?

Quoting ucarr

When we look at the world at the scale of QM, we’re looking at pre-cognitive reality without the benefit of the formatting by reality’s boundary administrator, our consciousness.

Why should this be the case? On the one hand, you seem to be presenting a metaphysics of consciousness as a natural feature of reality. But then you seem to fall back on a more anthropomorphic interpretation.

Perhaps consciousness does exemplify an "executive" function (oversees boundary negotiations). But another way to phrase it would be that it is a "function of" those operations.

Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting Pantagruel

Why should this be the case? On the one hand, you seem to be presenting a metaphysics of consciousness as a natural feature of reality.

We're getting into the metaphysics of consciousness when we start examining Schrödinger's Equation and begin understanding some particulars of the propagation/collapse of the wave function.

Observation-as-measurement, i.e., consciousness, as made explicit by the differential equation, effects a transformation from superposition to decided position. So, yes, this transformation, which can be characterized as the physics of "will," is a sine qua non function of consciousness_reality.

Quoting Pantagruel

But then you seem to fall back on a more anthropomorphic interpretation.

Of course we're in the anthropomorphic zone when we examine theoretical/experimental experiences "observing" the wave function mathematically at our human scale of experience.

The central focus of this conversation is providing a definition of consciousness as a transitive agent in addition to its well-known role as a perceiver.

The purpose of the definition of consciousness as a transitive agent is to bridge the suppositional gap between QM and Newton.

Premise - Consciousness is the bridge linking QM with Newton.

If this premise is correct, then we now have a way forward in our examination of consciousness as a physical phenomenon amenable to scientific investigation.

I completely agree consciousness crosses the quantum-classical bridge; I just don't know whether it therefore builds that bridge. Certainly quantum phenomena are not a discrete and isolated realm, because they not only do manifest directly at the classical level, but are increasingly being exploited (by consciousness) in advanced technologies.

Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting Pantagruel

Certainly quantum phenomena are not a discrete and isolate realm, because they not only do manifest directly at the classical level...

I understand you to be referring to such macro-QM effects as the tenants living atop a skyscraper aging faster than those living on the ground floor due to the time dilation of the stronger gravitational field at the skyscraper's base.

Quoting Pantagruel

...but are increasingly being exploited (by consciousness) in advanced technologies.

I'm wild-guessing the qubits of quantum computing will be manipulatable in various ways towards enhancing the power of organic consciousness: the optical systems of humans acting in concert with qubits might enable direct perception of hyper-cubic space.

By my argument above, I'm defending the notion consciousness acts as a boundary administrator in the construction process of a picture of reality composed of sub-sets ambiguously parts_gestalt.

Actually quantum phenomena are being practically harnessed at rapid rate, beginning with transistors and cascading throughout modern electronics. But also of course being increasingly recognized as operating in nature, including organic nature. Most recently, the realization that microtubules in the brain can sustain quantum states supporting Penrose's hypothesis. So I would hazard that more than just the construction of a picture of reality is going on. Constructing reality itself perhaps. However, undoubtedly constructing the picture is a significant part of that project.

Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting Pantagruel

...I would hazard that more than just the construction of a picture of reality is going on. Constructing reality itself perhaps. However, undoubtedly constructing the picture is a significant part of that project.

You do a good job clarifying the richness of the palette of QM applications. In order to keep the scope of my focus manageable, for now I'd like to stick to consciousness as a boundary administrator in the construction process of a picture of reality composed of sub-sets ambiguously parts_gestalt.

Perhaps some justification for this particular focus gets expressed in your conjecture:

Quoting Pantagruel

I would hazard that more than just the construction of a picture of reality is going on. Constructing reality itself perhaps.

If consciousness, working in tandem with QM, constructs reality itself, that function is the role of boundary administrator writ large.

If you are suggesting that consciousness functions as an organizational principle of reality I'd agree that is evident.

Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting Pantagruel

If you are suggesting that consciousness functions as an organizational principle of reality I'd agree that is evident.

So far, I'm suggesting that consciousness functions as an organizational principle of the representation of reality.

In turn, this representation is a construction deriving from the cognitive complex linking the senses, the brain and the mind.

I think it probable the role of consciousness regarding the organizational principles of QM_Newton is a very deep question.

The handshake between consciousness (in its formatting role as boundary administrator) and (the building blocks of) QM_Newton is presently perplexed by the boundary negotiations of consciousness regarding the hard boundaries of the particle form vis-á-vis the soft boundaries of the waveform.

I think the way consciousness variably navigates these two modes of physics lies at the heart of the HPoC. At present, we have two complex schools of thought: materialism/immaterialism. Also, of late, we have a middle zone featuring emergence_supervenience.

It might be the case that a cogent analysis of this variable navigation will shine light on what it means to "see" QM mathematically at the Newtonian scale of experience.

In turn, such cogent analysis might help answer questions pertaining to the existential status of mathematics. Is it strictly mental, or does it also inhabit the empirical realm of practical physics?

Quoting ucarr

Is it strictly mental, or does it also inhabit the empirical realm of practical physics?

To me this seems like asking the question, Is the "representation" real? It seems incontrovertibly to be so, the question being posed (by the representing faculty). Our increasing mastery of quantum phenomena being solid evidence.

Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting ucarr

Is it strictly mental, or does it also inhabit the empirical realm of practical physics?

Quoting Pantagruel

To me this seems like asking the question, Is the "representation" real?

I'm asking if math representations have referents within the practical world of empirical physics. Since math supposedly allows us to create valid forms we cannot experience empirically, it presents as formidable evidence there is a real and immaterial realm.

Quoting Pantagruel

It seems incontrovertibly to be so... Our increasing mastery of quantum phenomena being solid evidence.

From the above I gather that you, like me, believe math inhabits the empirical realm.

Math...among other things. But are we talking about the conscious experience qua representation, or are we talking about some kind of construct - presumably a material-symbolic artefact - that instantiates or incorporates this conscious experience?

Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting Pantagruel

...are we talking about the conscious experience qua representation, or are we talking about some kind of construct - presumably a material-symbolic artefact - that instantiates or incorporates this conscious experience?

This is a deep question. Presently, I am focusing on consciousness as a builder by way of being a boundary administrator. The boundary negotiations work towards construction of a representation of reality. Using this simple structure for my method of attack helps me keep my focus manageable.

One of the deep questions is whether reality can be experienced directly, or only indirectly through constructed representations. I suppose Kant's noumena presents an argument against the possibility of direct cognitive access to reality (things-in-themselves). I also suppose Kant harks back to Plato, who claimed our perceptions can only copy eternal forms imperfectly.

In the same vein, there is the deep question whether consciousness via the neuronal circuits of the brain is an endlessly hierarchical spiral upwards through evolving levels of cognition.

Also, there's the question whether the sweeping dynamism of an upwardly evolving spiral of memory, if it is at all physical, can be ever be examined in stasis; is the memory spiral like photons which are physical, but have no rest mass?

Quoting ucarr

Presently, I am focusing on consciousness as a builder by way of being a boundary administrator. The boundary negotiations work towards construction of a representation of reality.

Conceptually, this is cogent. But it still begs the question of the exact nature of the representation construct. I view it in light of what I'd call "constructive realism".

Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting Pantagruel

Conceptually, this is cogent.

Thank-you.

Quoting Pantagruel

But it still begs the question of the exact nature of the representation construct.

This is a work in progress. I present my theories incomplete because my method of working requires interaction with other thinkers who check/advance my own thinking. Considering my work method being embedded within the hot kitchen of debate, of course the conjectured method of construction by boundary negotiations is presently vague. This is not to suggest I'm not working from an already elaborated database of systematic reasoning and scholarship.

Quoting Pantagruel

I view it in light of what I'd call "constructive realism".

That's a useful label. Thank-you

Quoting ucarr

What about the possibility of consciousness acting in the role of a transitive agent impacting and changing the objects under its influence?

Quoting Pantagruel

But are we talking about the conscious experience qua representation, or are we talking about some kind of construct - presumably a material-symbolic artefact - that instantiates or incorporates this conscious experience?

Interesting conversation.

I was thinking Kant right out of the gate so I appreciated when his name came up.

Is there a possibility that where this is headed is going to end up restating in QM terms what Kant clarified in the subject (consciousness) that is isolated from the thing in itself (wave, QM theories), due to the phenomenal veil (consciousness’s constructions)?

I think I’m wrong and not getting the nuances here yet.

How does this fit into your thoughts: there are two parts to consciousness. One is as the seat of perception, like a dog is conscious, a function of the brain, out there in the world, like any other thing in itself. The second part, for human beings, is consciousness of this consciousness. This is why we are so cut off from things in themselves. We see representational constructs of things in themselves in our consciousness - consciousness of the things we are conscious of, none of which are simply the thing.

This may just restate the problem really, but does your theory have any application on these terms, namely consciousness and self-consciousness (which is what I mean by consciousness of my consciousness)? Where does the transitive bridge fit in?

If I’m making any sense to you.

Is there a sense in which consciousness overflows its symbolic representations? Empirical knowledge is precisely reflected in exhausted by what is symbolically represented. However consciousness can know some things in a way that seems to transcend empirical encapsulation of this kind. The fact that it can "know" that something can be brought about by conducting itself counterfactually, for example, acting "against" the way things are in order to bring about something different. So does intuitive knowledge transcend empirical encapsulation? Or is it in fact such an encapsulation itself?

Reply to Fire Ologist

Great -- and deep -- questions.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Is there a possibility that where this is headed is going to end up restating in QM terms what Kant clarified in the subject (consciousness) that is isolated from the thing in itself (wave, QM theories), due to the phenomenal veil (consciousness’s constructions)?

I think your forward vision of where this is going is good. Little doubt rejiggering Kant with (hopefully) substantial additions and nuancing of transcendental idealism will occur.

For me, the gist of QM is discovery of the boundary of a quantum, as there is a boundary of a photon or, recently, the discovery there is a quantum of space. Well, if space itself is a construction from space-atoms at the Planck scale, then even what appears to our perception at the Newtonian scale as a neutral background is a construction with atomic boundaries negotiated in aggregate into a larger thing.

Who would've thought the boundary negotiations of the hard boundary particle form and the soft boundary of the waveform would be so rich with complex physics?

Quoting Fire Ologist

...there are two parts to consciousness. One is as the seat of perception, like a dog is conscious, a function of the brain, out there in the world, like any other thing in itself. The second part, for human beings, is consciousness of this consciousness.

Yes, the first level is the baseline of the cognitive construction; consciousness constructs a representation of the thing-in-itself. Now, even here at the baseline of consciousness, we have to be careful: since we're dealing with a representation of the thing-in-itself, we're already dealing with an "echo" of the prior thing-in-itself. Echoes are resident within circularity, so the physics of even the baseline of consciousness is complex.

The second level is the tentpole feature of what's known about consciousness to date: subjectivity, or internally consistent selfhood. Structurally, this is a higher-order ring of the upwardly evolving spiral of mnemonics-based cognition.

At this level, the boundary negotiations are perplexed by the entelechy and the telos of subjectivity. Now, the physics of consciousness must address the structures attendant upon non-local physics: thermo-dynamics, morpho-dynamics, teleo-dynamics.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Where does the transitive bridge fit in?

If I’m making any sense to you.

Have no doubt you're making good sense when you ask a million dollar question. If we take recourse to Schrödinger's equation, we can conjecture that our assembled consciousness formats superposition into position, which is to say it resolves the conflated boundaries of paradox down to the hard boundaries of the particle form.

This conjectured transitive function of consciousness is the wall of empirical experience QM had to break through en route to discovering the hard boundaries of apparently continuous material objects are made up of discrete quanta.

Reply to Pantagruel Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting Pantagruel

Is there a sense in which consciousness overflows its symbolic representations?

Please note that in our conversation, consciousness is representation. As such, consciousness itself is a construction from the aggregated quanta of (presumably) Planck scale cognitive atoms.

Things get really interesting when we conjecture that consciousness, the boundary administrator, acts upon itself in that role in its own constructions of representations of objective things. Circularity.

Quoting Pantagruel

Empirical knowledge is precisely reflected in exhausted by what is symbolically represented.

Folks keep telling me: "The map is not the territory."

Quoting Pantagruel

However consciousness can know some things in a way that seems to transcend empirical encapsulation of this kind. That fact that it can "know" that something can be brought about by conducting itself counterfactually, for example, acting "against" the way things are in order to bring about something different. So does intuitive knowledge transcend empirical encapsulation? Or does it in fact such an encapsulation itself?

Reply to Pantagruel

Premise - Quoting Pantagruel

Empirical knowledge is precisely reflected in exhausted by what is symbolically represented.

Argument - Quoting Pantagruel

However consciousness can know some things in a way that seems to transcend empirical encapsulation of this kind. The fact that it can "know" that something can be brought about by conducting itself counterfactually, for example, acting "against" the way things are in order to bring about something different.

Questions - Quoting Pantagruel

So does intuitive knowledge transcend empirical encapsulation? Or is it in fact such an encapsulation itself?

Your premise is addressed by Kant's distinction between experience through the senses and understanding by abstract reasoning. Abstract reasoning sometimes liberates the understanding from the report of the senses by arriving at a valid, non-empirical conclusion to an abstract premise. When this happens, we say, "Our abstract reasoning has discovered a counter-intuitive truth about the world."

Your argument examples abstract reasoning liberating the understanding from the encapsulation of the appearance of things via the senses.

Your questions: Intuitive knowledge viewed in our context here in this conversation presents as the low resolution feedback looping mnemonics of abstract reasoning about the world. All of the spirals of feedback looping cognitive circularity involving subjectivity are higher-order loops. A low resolution loop, as in the case of intuition, can be enriched by the addition of information, thus rendering it as a high resolution loop.

At low resolution, or at high resolution, abstract reasoning has the capacity to liberate itself from the limitations and distortions of experience rendered through the senses. As the resolution increases, the more thoroughgoing the liberation.

Kant on God

Looking at your questions within the context of the big picture:

These questions hark back to the free will or fate puzzle. Can humans really create something? If they can, then certain individuals, from time to time, will arrive at new thinking not a statistical probability hard-wired into a bounded existence. On the other side, if existence is a bounded infinity, what happens is still pre-ordained by probability, even if it will take forever for all possibilities to actualize. This unlimited timeline of unlimited probabilities is the phenomenon projecting the illusion of human creativity.

So, unbounded (and incomplete) is the way to go if you're favoring human freedom and creativity, and especially so if you embrace the elusive physics of the upturning spiral of consciousness.

Reply to Pantagruel Reply to J Reply to jkop Reply to Patterner

If consciousness functions as a boundary administrator, formatting the picture of reality into the physical world of material objects with discrete boundaries in space and time, then there is the suggestion that at the QM scale on down to the Planck scale, an interval wherein, presumably, consciousness is not yet assembled, the state of the system is superposition. If so, then we can associate superposition with Kant's noumenal realm of things-in-themselves.

Therefore, the noumenal realm isn't in fact inaccessible to perception and knowledge thereof, instead, it's the granular building blocks of both reality and consciousness. Seeing the objects of the micro-cosmos entails meeting the challenge of interpolating consciousness into the mix such that it bridges the gap between QM and Newton. It is the boundary administration of consciousness as the formatting function rendering superposition into a discrete physics that establishes the consistency linking QM with Newton.

With the search for QM gravity underway, we can examine this context with the goal of applying the boundary administration of consciousness to time_causation. Just as there is an essential bonding of space and time, there is an essential bonding of time and causation, with consciousness enacting the role of the mediator effecting this bond.

Yes, it might be the case that consciousness parses the time boundaries of events as it parses the vector boundaries of physics. This leads us to a new conception of spacetime with consciousness interpolated into the mix as spacetime's nearly synonymous organizing principle.

Making an allowance for imprecision during this period of high conjecture, let it be said that consciousness is an integral function of spacetime. In this context, integral has meaning in two senses: a) consciousness is essential to spacetime; b) consciousness integrates spacetime into a formatted and navigable coherence.

So now we have the triumvirate radical: cogito-spacetime.

Descartes' cogito ergo sum can now be adjusted away from the hard-boundary bifurcation of substance and essence, a configuration that gives rise to the HPoC.

Instead, cogito-spacetime takes the place of cogito ergo sum. With consciousness now inducted into the physico_material realm of physics as the boundary administrator for the cognition of the physics of physico_material reality, this addition resolves the seeming inconsistency between QM and Newton. The seeming inconsistency between QM and Newton, plus Descartes' cogito ergo sum, operate as the wellsprings of the HPoC.

If the seeming inconsistency between QM and Newton, plus Descartes' cogito ergo sum, are accounted for systemically: a) QM is the pre-conscious realm of superposition; b) the cogito ergo sum is a focal point of the QM_Newton inconsistency due to the absence of consciousness as boundary administrator, then the addition dissolves away the hard bifurcation of the cogito ergo sum.

With consciousness situated in the physico_material realm, a promising attack on the question of how works the physics of subjectivity might be the conception of an upwards evolving spiral of higher-orders of mnemonic feedback looping, the reiterative physico_material home for consciousness.

Closing Thought - The HPoC is a symptom of the problem of the seeming inconsistency between QM and Newton. This seeming inconsistency, foreshadowed by Descartes' cogito ergo sum, raises questions that find answers in the objectification of consciousness as an agent that performs actions in the physico_material world. These actions are the boundary negotiations that find their essence in the the two modes of physics: a) the discrete boundaries of the particle form; b) the soft boundaries of the waveform.

Quoting ucarr

If consciousness functions as a boundary administrator, formatting the picture of reality into the physical world of material objects with discrete boundaries in space and time, then there is the suggestion that at the QM scale on down to the Planck scale, an interval wherein, presumably, consciousness is not yet assembled, the state of the system is superposition. If so, then we can associate superposition with Kant's noumenal realm of things-in-themselves.

The problem with your ideas is that they are too idiosyncratic, and that they don't reference anyone else's work in philosophy, cog sci and other fields. You've taken bits here, pieces there, and tried to combine them into what you see as a synthesis, but the problem I have is that I can barely make sense of the result. Your posts often contain many sweeping statements with deep implications, but that alone doesn't guarantee quality. I would recommend you find some established authors who's published works represent what you think is the best synthesis of these ideas and provide references to them, a practice that you will notice I try to do in many of my posts. (Sorry for being blunt, but you did request feedback.)

Reply to Wayfarer

Quoting Wayfarer

I would recommend you find some established authors who's published works represent what you think is the best synthesis of these ideas and provide references to them, a practice that you will notice I try to do in many of my posts. (Sorry for being blunt, but you did request feedback.)

You have given me what I asked for, and I thank you for it. Already my understanding has a sharper focus because of what you've shared with me. I think your advice is good and I'm going to do what you advise.

Let me make a start right now by sharing my best idea about communicating who I am to another person. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man rocked my world with its insights. Marshall McLuhan lit up my mind with his observations about the evolution of mass media: first there was the spoken word; then there was the printed word; now there's the motion picture; next there might by AI through QM computing. Each medium expands communication across a bigger landscape with its computational coding at a greater removal from DNA-based organics.

I'm not at all a media guru. What I'm getting at is that McLuhan, like me, thinks in terms of big leaps forward through a narrative via intuition-supported insights. His book is full of stunning insights I feel in my gut while being challenged by the overborne continuity of his mind's quantum leaps of understanding.

Reply to ucarr Right! Excellent start, and thank you for the acknowledgement. My knowledge of McLuhan is second-hand although I do recognise that he was a pivotal thinker. (Another in that vein is Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death.)

Trying to think of a few of the books that influenced my philosophical development over the years: The Tao of Physics, Fritjof Capra; Where the Wasteland Ends, Theodore Rozak; Why Us? James le Fanu; Understanding the Present, Bryan Appleyard; The Sleepwalkers, Arthur Koestler - to name a few. What they have in common is the asking of Big Questions, against a backdrop of history of ideas. Of how the Western worldview developed. I recommend a synoptic and thematic approach - following how ideas develop over history. Actually another book that comes to mind in that respect is Russell's History of Western Philosophy - despite its critics, it is very good at putting things in that historical context.

So - please do carry on, but try and anchor your insights against sources. There is a practically endless amount of media on YouTube, plus quality publications like Aeon.co, Quantumagazine.org, Ted talks, BigThink, to mention a few. Find some articles that elaborate the points you want to make, and try to digest and present what you think is important about them. That would be my advice.

Quoting ucarr

Instead, cogito-spacetime takes the place of cogito ergo sum. With consciousness now inducted into the physico_material realm of physics as the boundary administrator for the cognition of the physics of physico_material reality, this addition resolves the seeming inconsistency between QM and Newton. The seeming inconsistency between QM and Newton, plus Descartes' cogito ergo sum, operate as the wellsprings of the HPoC.

I think conceptually this accords with R. G. Collingwood's elaboration of the Ontological Argument:

The distinction between processes that we can discover in the object, and processes which we can discover in our minds when we reflect on our thought about the object, is a distinction that we have no right to make here, because, as we learnt in reflecting upon the idea of nothing, we are here in a realm of thought in which there is no object, and in which therefore whatever necessarily happens in our minds when we think about a given concept is a process necessarily ascribed to the concept itself.
~Collingwood, The Nature of Metaphysical Study

Our thoughts exemplify what they conceptualize. This is why I don't quite gel with your notion of the "boundary administrator" role. I would say we are quantum-mechanical adjudicators of the quantum.

Reply to Pantagruel Reply to Harry Hindu

My notion of consciousness, as boundary administrator for the everyday picture of reality, casts it in the role of a mechanism of perceptual organization. In this role it's a type of formatting algorithm for rendering quantum reality in terms of what we call Newtonian physics.

Quoting Pantagruel

Our thoughts exemplify what they conceptualize.

My analysis of your above quote has: "thoughts exemplify" = "what they conceptualize." Thoughts model as examples of "what they conceptualize."

Your use of "conceptualize" is critically important.

con-cep-tu-al-ize
k?n?sep(t)SH(?w)??l?z
verb [with object]
form a concept or idea of (something): we can more easily conceptualize speed in miles per hour.

You are saying, as I understand you, that thoughts model the structural organization, i.e., the formatting of themselves. The statement pictures a seamless integration of form and content. It invokes Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message.” Context and information are merged.

So, thinking is a structured environment that conveys information via the holism of itself. Thinking conveys information environmentally. This is the groundwork of emergence.

What feeds environmental holism? Quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement, in turn, strategizes new forms of thought by suggesting what cannot be wholly contained. Consciousness feeds upon this uncontainability of quantum entanglement towards ever-arising new forms modeling permutating boundaries.

QM reality is the entangled environment of environments. Consciousness, feeding on this higher order of environmentalism, spits out ever-arising new forms modeling permutating boundaries.

Yes, regarding thought, the medium is the message. However, even the entangled environment of environments is merely circular without external referents.

There is no self without the other and its otherness. This contradictory relationship of strategic incompleteness is succinctly expressed linguistically through GIT (Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory).

The reconciliation of quantum entanglement rendering, via consciousness, Newtonian physics is the material correlate of GIT.

There will be no reduction to final axioms of any discipline because our reality is life-bearing, and life depends upon the strategic incompleteness supporting the self/other binary.

The self/other binary, being the referent/sign binary, sustains the inside/outside binary making life possible. That no self can complete itself makes life possible as strategic incompleteness. Because living things die, i.e., there is something vital beyond the living organism it cannot wholly access because this vital something is incomplete, living things die.

Death makes life-as-strategic-incompleteness possible. In the absence of death, existing things, having no vital referent beyond themselves, would be complete, circular and devoid of value.

In summation, the presence of life in our world demands objective reality (the otherness lying beyond the self-interest of the self) and impartial truth (the selfish connection to unselfishness). It also demands social intercourse (Our native incompleteness abhors isolation).

We are alive and real only because we can die. Consciousness divorced from death is a childish game. We grow up when we accept the strategic incompleteness of ourselves; it fends off death until the living project extends beyond the individual’s strategies for preserving its incompleteness.

Quoting ucarr

We are alive and real only because we can die. Consciousness divorced from death is a childish game. We grow up when we accept the strategic incompleteness of ourselves; it fends off death until the living project extends beyond the individual’s strategies for preserving its incompleteness.

Consciousness can be construed as a species-collective property, which at the bare minimum distances (and possibly insulates) it from the individual notion of (ego-)death. Your statement reads as existential. I've been a determined existentialist in the past; I'm coming to see existentialism, however, as more of a very sophisticated kind of psychology.

Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting Pantagruel

Consciousness can be construed as a species-collective property, which at the bare minimum distances (and possibly insulates) it from the individual notion of (ego-)death.

It's interesting how radically life, with threat of death removed, loses value and therefore meaning. It motivates me a long way towards claiming time is the mathematics of life and death. Again, time, with threat of death removed, loses value and therefore meaning. Same again for information.

Dead information is information without a referent not itself. You are nothing in the absence of that which is not you. Primordial evil is objective otherness. The child in the store sees something it wants and pitches a tantrum on the floor when parent refuses their appeal. Most children grow up and get over the fact there are forces out there not you and what you want. These forces must be reckoned with rationally, or else the stunted individual must be warehoused in lockdown.

When you score a victory against your opposition, it has meaning and value. The circularity of you being you in isolation has no meaning or value.

Math printed in a book signifies inter-relations between signs. All of this circularity goes nowhere until a perishable human opens the book and imparts value and meaning to the signification by being able somehow to make use of it in the struggle to stave off blank nullity.

There is no membership within a coven of votaries that can stave off your very individual burial.

Existence is incomplete on purpose, and therein lives all the drama of life's adventures.

Quoting ucarr

When you score a victory against your opposition, it has meaning and value. The circularity of you being you in isolation has no meaning or value.

Which is why Collingwood's conception of logic-metaphysics is not just dialectical, but dialogical. Propositions only have meanings as answers to questions.

Reply to Pantagruel

Quoting Pantagruel

The distinction between processes that we can discover in the object, and processes which we can discover in our minds when we reflect on our thought about the object, is a distinction that we have no right to make here... ~Collingwood, The Nature of Metaphysical Study

As I understand your Collingwood quote, the formatted configuration of the referent populating our thought is the cognition itself, not the external thing-in-itself. The self of the mind, in this example, is its own cognition, not the thing-in-itself. So perception of the world is a self/other binary. Our knowledge of the thing-in-itself is limited to the formatted configuration of the referent as thing-in-itself, not the objective thing-in-itself.

So far this seems to be consistent with my claim consciousness formats the boundaries of perceived things as a translation of things-in-themselves. We know our empirical experience is unlike the math descriptions of events transpiring within the QM realm.

Quoting Pantagruel

Our thoughts exemplify what they conceptualize

Since a concept is a generalization of a thing, i.e., an abstraction from a specific example to a set of examples linked thematically, conceptualization of a thing is an impression of a thematic form. What phenomenon conceptualizes a thing as a thematic form (thought) if not consciousness?

At present, I'm not seeing how:

Quoting Pantagruel

Our thoughts exemplify what they conceptualize

is inconsistent with:

Quoting ucarr

...consciousness formats the boundaries of perceived things as a translation of things-in-themselves.

Quoting ucarr

At present, I'm not seeing how:

Our thoughts exemplify what they conceptualize
— Pantagruel

is inconsistent with:

...consciousness formats the boundaries of perceived things as a translation of things-in-themselves.
— ucarr

I don't know that I said it was inconsistent, merely that your concept of "boundary administration" isn't gelling with me. Perspective might dictate that we perceive the same thing through different metaphors.

Quoting ucarr

Consciousness, acting in the role of boundary administrator, formats a grid of material boundaries in superposition into a navigable environment.

I'm just spitballing it here with no backup references (my apologies), but it seems to me as the quantum environment gets explored more deeply, basically what we've defined as "matter" is just different levels of energy in different forms. My hand feeling the surface of my desk is the energy fields of the atoms (which can be decomposed into energy) in my hand reacting to the energy fields of the atoms that make up the desk. Could one function of our consciousness be to define all the energy fields we come into contact with, whether "matter" or not, into a "navigable environment"? In this context I would separate consciousness from awareness as awareness doesn't require acknowledgement beyond "this exists", which may or may not be navigable.

Reply to alleybear

Quoting alleybear

...what we've defined as "matter" is just different levels of energy in different forms.

Quoting alleybear

Could one function of our consciousness be to define all the energy fields we come into contact with, whether "matter" or not, into a "navigable environment"?

Yes. As described by Einstein's equation: [math]E=MC^2[/math] we're navigating our way around a reality populated by the mass/energy binary. Mass is the particle form of energy and energy is the waveform of mass. Under this scheme, consciousness, like your word-processing program, organizes raw data. Instead of organizing letters, punctuation and spaces into words, sentences and paragraphs, it organizes the raw data of the mass/energy binary into massive objects, their dynamic motion and the resulting events into empirical experience.

I conjecture that spacetime in its pure form is infinite flow. The mass/energy binary is the result of the perturbation of flow. So, our mass/energy populated reality is rooted in the interruption of infinite flow and, existentially speaking, the deepest inclination of our reality, and of ourselves, is the natural desire to return to the flow out of which we emerge as a disturbance.

This desire to hark back to the infinite flow is spirituality viewed through the lens of physics.

Schopenhauer's suicidal apotheosis is the desire to liberate the material self, an interruption_perturbation of flow, from its incompleteness. Some force disturbed the surface of the primordial waters, thus causing water droplets to spring upwards into the air. While the water droplets live airborne, traversing space and time, they long to return to the sublime oblivion of the primordial waters.

Under this view, the consciousness of the water droplets - a stand-in for sentient beings such as us - is tragical. It's formatting function of the mass/energy binary is an attempt to return to the primordial waters in piecemeal fashion. The primordial waters, however, are the limit of consciousness and what it constructs. The constructions of consciousness are forever approaching but never arriving at their source.

Quoting ucarr

Schopenhauer's suicidal apotheosis is the desire to liberate the material self, an interruption_perturbation of flow, from its incompleteness. Some force disturbed the surface of the primordial waters, thus causing water droplets to spring upwards into the air. While the water droplets live airborne, traversing space and time, they long to return to the sublime oblivion of the primordial waters.

Under this view, the consciousness of the water droplets - a stand-in for sentient beings such as us - is tragical. It's formatting function of the mass/energy binary is an attempt to return to the primordial waters in piecemeal fashion. The primordial waters, however, are the limit of consciousness and what it constructs. The constructions of consciousness are forever approaching but never arriving at their source.

I like your analogy here. I for one, take Schopenhauer seriously, but at the same time metaphorically. That is to say, I don't necessarily buy into the metaphysics (i.e. Will objectified into Forms and mediated by the appearances of object for a subject further conditioned by the PSR which creates the appearance of individual world). I might be more agnostic on this. However, if taken as an allegory, it has the ring of truth of the animal condition, such as we experience. Although all animals experience the striving and contingent nature of existence, humans suffer particularly acutely because of our increased levels of self-reflection, creating a "hall of mirrors" that amplifies the effects. Other animals seem to be more embedded in nature through instincts and being in the "present". Humans struggle to experience this state, and thus look for it in any number of avenues: "peak" experiences, flow states, drugs, pleasures, meditation, study, worship, and a whole host of other ways. But where animals are already "there", we have to try to get there. It takes conscious effort and thus, work, and thus more striving. The dissatisfaction is thus implicit in our struggle. There is a striving principle to life, and there are contingent negatives one generally encounters and/or tries to overcome. All the while, we are self-aware of this endeavor.

*

I've always thought consciousness does being. It is the being aspect.

Reply to ucarr

Isn't your argument relying on the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantum physics? And Schrödinger's cat wasn't a proposed concept of how things work, but an example of the absurdity of how the logical end points of some interpretations of quantum mechanics lead to absurd outcomes. It was an example used as criticism of how some thought about it all.

The Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantum physics has the least, or rather no empirical evidence behind it. It's, in my own words, an argument or interpretation out of the "arrogance of man". That we elevate our own sense of importance in the universe because the notion of ourselves as just being as basic as all other matter and energy drives us to despair. It's an emotional drive that tries to imbue ourselves with an attribute (consciousness) that elevates ourselves to deities of reality.

As I see it, there's nothing to support consciousness being "special" if we observe everything from the point of view of reality itself.

I think that leaving out evolutionary reasons for consciousness and the reasons for life itself is a grave mistake when trying to assess what consciousness is. People have a tendency to become bias to their own existence and skew explanations into the realm of religious belief. But if we look at a logical concept of why consciousness and life formed, we begin to see why it emerged from our universal laws of physics.

------------

The major process of reality is entropy. Energy, both released and trapped in matter, is simply spreading itself out over time. Without going into the physical processes of the relation between time and entropy, the universe is, by the laws of physics, leaning towards spreading out energy as effective as possible. Life, as a process, is highly effective at transferring energy. Both from the sun and from the matter of celestial bodies. There's an inclination towards the formation of life, by entropy itself. And the more energy demanding life is, the faster entropy moves. The complexity forming out of this is generally in line with speeding entropy up, and the complexity might seem oddly beautiful to us, but may just be iterative as anything else in nature. Consciousness then, is the spear tip of life adapting to energy consumption. Adaptation is a key component of consciousness.

And it's through adaptation that I propose consciousness stems. There's an interesting "coincidence" that we see advanced consciousness in mammals and some reptilians. The evolution of advanced consciousness seem to be linked to major apocalyptic events in which the remaining animals that survive require themselves to be highly adaptive to the post-apocalyptic environment they exist in. The more adaptive a species can be, the better they will prosper and spread. And those who required most adaptation among large animals were the mammals and remaining reptiles. Basically explaining why mammals and some birds show the highest level of intelligence in nature.

High intelligence in consciousness becomes a second step of evolution. The basic form of evolution relies on cellular adaptation out of chemical reactions. The next step is instinctual behavior that is changed over generations. The third step is the lifeform itself adapting to continuously changing environments. The fourth step is spreading adaptive behaviors between lifeforms. Through this we can see life evolving the consciousness we possess; featuring all steps within us and the fourth through advanced language and spreading of ideas.

Consciousness, with empirical evidence supporting the predictive coding theory, operates on primarily generating a hallucinatory representation of our surroundings, then using previous experiences stored in memory to predict events as we navigate through reality. This process is so complex and malleable that our experience of it appears as the experience we have as thinking beings. We believe ourselves to have free will and "thinking" but in general, we are only operating on an advanced prediction process in order to adapt to our surroundings. Rather than our adaption being moments apart in time, our advanced cognition makes it happen on extremely short timespans. We can adapt within microseconds. Evolution has driven chemical reactions, genetic changes, through instinctual behaviors changing over generations, to social changes (like in dolphins), to end up operating so fast in adaption that our experience produce the illusion of free will.

But in the end, we are still acting on simple prediction operations, generating an experience that fold in on itself, predicting its own predictions, thinking about thinking. As such, this feedback loop produces abstract concepts that evolve out to complex ideas that is being spread by language.

Essentially this feedback loop forms a new level of complexity, just as we see in any other system in nature. Emerging a state of operation that on its surface look more complex than the parts permit. But we are not more complex than any other system in nature and reality, we just believe we are due to the limitations of a system reacting to itself.

-----------

So I don't think that consciousness relation to quantum physics has a special bond of meaning or is linked in the way you describe. Consciousness operate much more simpler than being a bridge like that. Just because our brain have quantum mechanical operations being part of our function, does not mean consciousness itself stems from a bridge between Newtonian and quantum physics. It only means that as anything else in the universe and reality, quantum processes are part of our being.

We are, in essence, only an emergent complex process that is a natural progression of the physical laws and processes of our universe. And in my opinion, it's important to be humble to the fact that we are not special, but part of a hierarchy of emergent processes, steps on a ladder in which we exist pretty high, but without knowledge of the steps above us.

Quoting ucarr

We know that consciousness sees and understands the many events that populate the history of the world. This is consciousness reacting to its environment.

Is consciousness only reactive?

What about the possibility of consciousness acting in the role of a transitive agent impacting and changing the objects under its influence?

I claim that consciousness performs a variety of functions that affect the boundaries of material objects in various ways:

• Time dissolves boundaries

• Space platforms boundaries

• Spacetime extends boundaries

• Consciousness oversees these three boundary negotiations

There are two very distinct ways of looking at this. You describe consciousness as reactive here, the other way is to describe consciousness as creative. The two are fundamentally incompatible, because the former assumes a world already made, which is irking the consciousness, while the latter assumes that the consciousness is producing "the world", in its creativity. Then you attempt to describe the consciousness as constructive (creative) within the incompatible premise that the consciousness is reactive.

To deal with this incompatibility, lets assume two distinct aspects of reality, those which the consciousness can work with to create, and those which the consciousness does not have the ability to alter, so that it can only be reactive to these. Basic experience defines these two categories as past and future. We look at the future as having the possibilities to create, and the past as what we do not have the ability to alter. I believe that this is the most productive way to frame that fundamental incompatibility, the past in its reality, is incompatible with the future, in its reality.

Now the human being is fundamentally an intentional being, so its primary perspective is toward the future of possibilities, and it observes, notes, and remembers the past in relation to the primary perspective, which is the creative perspective, looking toward the future. Therefore, I ask you to reverse your perspective, and place the consciousness as fundamentally creative rather than reactive. The consciousness is always moving forward in time, creating, constructing, and the means by which it "reacts" is through the structures it has already created. So all of its "reactions" are already conditioned by its creations, the creations being prior to the reactions, as required for "a reaction". This is demonstrated by the scientific method, we test hypotheses with experiments, build an apparatus, and see how it reacts. Notice that the "reaction" is fundamentally conditioned by the apparatus built. And it is required that there is an apparatus to produce a reaction.

Quoting ucarr

As described by Einstein's equation: E=MC2

=


2
we're navigating our way around a reality populated by the mass/energy binary. Mass is the particle form of energy and energy is the waveform of mass. Under this scheme, consciousness, like your word-processing program, organizes raw data.

Notice how the past/ future categorical separation is represented by the mass/energy binary". The "mass" perspective is a conceptual creation expressed in Newton's laws of motion. We describe past existence with "mass" which has inertia as a fundamental property, and this is "resistance to change". Resistance to change is what is basic to "what we do not have the ability to alter", and this is mass. "Energy", on the other hand is "the capacity to do work", and this is an expression of the view toward the future, "the possibilities to create". What we have then, with this expression of mass/energy equivalence, E=MC2, is a principle designed to convert "what we do not have the ability to alter", the inertia of mass, into the malleable energy, "possibilities to create".

However, we need to respect the basic incompatibility between the past and future, which defines these two categories. Because of this basic incompatibility, we can know that this supposed mass/energy equivalence is defective It is an attempt at doing what is impossible, taking the determinist principles of inertia, "what we do not have the ability to alter", and expressing it in the free will perspective of "the possibilities to create".

The problem is that we need to assign priority to one over the other, and fit the other within that perspective. And, as I explained above, the primary perspective of the human being is intentional, the view toward the future, so this must have priority. However, the entire sense apparatus of the human being has bee constructed through evolution as reactive, the view toward the past, and sense observation is what is used to validate "science". This means that science is critically disadvantaged as a tool to guide us in this endeavour. What this implies is that we need to create an observational capacity, an apparatus, which is not reliant on mass/inertia principles. In other words we need an apparatus which is entirely created of possibility without matter or mass. We cannot call this use of pure possibilities "energy", due to the faulty mass/energy equivalence.

Reply to Christoffer

Quoting Christoffer

...there's nothing to support consciousness being "special" if we observe everything from the point of view of reality itself.

Here I take you to mean existence must be perceived logically, not egotistically. With some nuance, I agree with this premise.

Quoting Christoffer

The major process of reality is entropy.

My gut reaction, so far, infers the above statement stands as the foremost premise in your post. So, given consciousness being a part of reality, and given your premise "entropy drives reality," then our core question here seems to be: What's the relationship between entropy and consciousness? My spitball conjecture says: Consciousness drives some part of entropy.

Quoting Christoffer

...the universe is, by the laws of physics, leaning towards spreading out energy as effective as possible.

Here we come upon a complex issue: the language of the above statement imbues the universe and its laws with teleology. The universe, having a goal, behaves with design towards spreading out energy as effective as possible. Also, the universe, because it prioritizes effectiveness over its opposite, has a value it adheres to. The implication is that the universe is itself conscious.

Quoting Christoffer

There's an inclination towards the formation of life, by entropy itself.

Here we have more teleology, but operating on an even grander scale: entropy is biased towards the formation of life - that is to say, entropy has the goal of forming life.

Here's how I define entropy for myself:

entropy - the unidirectional increase of disorder within any dynamical system utilizing energy toward performance of a function. So, entropy is rooted within [math]InputA ? logical/operator ? Output B[/math].

The negation of inherent design within creation is a gnarly problem for sentients. This is so because sentients must perceive patterns in nature in order to live.

If you discern patterns in nature, you cannot deny that nature has purposes, as patterns and purposes are intimately related. In fact, if you say there’s a pattern to activity, you’re as good as saying there’s a purpose to activity. If there’s a logical sequence to activity, a sentient observer can only conclude there’s a goal-oriented progression including a start point, a mid-point and an end point. If you randomize this sequence, and all patterns along with it, the sentient being cannot practice life-sustaining behavior. Working backwards, we see that existence without patterns and purposes would not lead to the emergence of life.

So, teleodynamics - thermo-dynamics at the higher level of entropic systems organizing constraints on natural forces towards a future state of the system - or cognitive design by sentients, is about something not immediately present, but rather something predicted to emerge at a later state of the system.

Quoting Christoffer

...the more energy demanding life is, the faster entropy moves. The complexity forming out of this is generally in line with speeding entropy up, and the complexity might seem oddly beautiful to us, but may just be iterative as anything else in nature.

I take you to mean entropy is an essential and iterative process.

Could it be the iteration of entropy and the complexity of mind are joined by the bi-conditional operator? As the iterations of entropy evolve upwardly, the complexity of mind evolves upwardly. From the reverse direction, as the complexity of minds increases, the vertical stacking of re-iteration rises.

Conclusion – there’s no conflict between the entropy-driven evolutionary process and the egotistical mediation of its resultant: sentient beings.

Reply to Barkon

Quoting Barkon

I've always thought consciousness does being. It is the being aspect.

Interesting premise. Consider: If medical science could surgically reduce the human brain to the limited power of sustaining only the unconscious nervous system, with no trace of an individual personality and its will remaining, would such a vegetative state of a biological system in human form count as a presence when in the company of conscious humans?

I ask this question because your conceptualization of "being" as an active verb, i.e., how one goes about "doing being" sounds like it's the same conceptualization I have. I think in the case of both conceptualizations, our conscious presence is the active verb that empowers us to go about "doing being." We are doing "being" when we focus our attention on something or someone.

I'm with you, i.e., present, when I pay attention to you. Paying attention is how we do "being."

Quoting ucarr

Interesting premise. Consider: If medical science could surgically reduce the human brain to the limited power of sustaining only the unconscious nervous system, with no trace of an individual personality and its will remaining, would such a vegetative state of a biological system in human form count as a presence when in the company of conscious humans?

No. Nagel's bat would be more of a presence. In the situation you describe, there would be nothing it's like to be that person from that person's pov. That person doesn't have a pov.

Quoting ucarr

Here I take you to mean existence must be perceived logically, not egotistically. With some nuance, I agree with this premise.

Precisely. Any perspective of our consciousness being a higher state or more special than everything else in reality is a conjecture based in our emotional reaction to our own experience rather than rational argument about our function.

Quoting ucarr

What's the relationship between entropy and consciousness? My spitball conjecture says: Consciousness drives some part of entropy.

Consciousness is a development in evolution and evolution is a result of entropy leaning towards more efficiency. The concept is that life appears out of chemical reactions that utilize energy absorption for its continued reaction and in doing so start to develop more and more complex ways of doing that process. As it continues it becomes more advanced, forming higher cellular structures that streamlines the same kind of process between multiple parts. And as an ecosystem it spreads out this process of efficient entropy more and more.

The development of consciousness being more a part in the evolutionary system than entropy, but at a higher scale still moves towards even more efficient entropy, so it may be that entropy even has part in forming consciousness as higher conscious beings require more and consume more energy. Humans compared to gorillas consume a lot more energy because of our brains, so it makes sense, but we are also beings that create things that push entropic processes into high gear, so to speak.

Quoting ucarr

Here we come upon a complex issue: the language of the above statement imbues the universe and its laws with teleology. The universe, having a goal, behaves with design towards spreading out energy as effective as possible. Also, the universe, because it prioritizes effectiveness over its opposite, has a value it adheres to. The implication is that the universe is itself conscious.

Not necessarily. Our laws of physics have constants and variables that push processes and behaviors into specific leanings. Like the cosmological constant, which exist at the right balance to allow the formation of galaxies and even slightly changing would collapse out universe.

While these are often used by theology to "prove" the existence of God, there's no need for such explanation as it's no different than how specific parameters of matter cause things like the surface tension on water. All over nature and in the universe there are balanced parameters that in that balance produce a certain effect.

If we were to view the universe as any other "sample" of a chemical process, we can write out the parameters that dictate its behavior.

That entropy functions like this does not require purpose or meaning anymore than the meaning and purpose of the surface tension of water.

I usually try to view reality through this lens in order to not imbue my emotions onto explaining things. Viewing it in relation to other physical systems we know very much about and through that dispel any human arrogance or sense of insignificance to the greater whole. If I look at the universe as a petri dish of chemical reactions that functions due to certain parameters that govern its entirety, it starts to make sens why things happen without any meaning or purpose being applied to it.

Quoting ucarr

Here's how I define entropy for myself:

entropy - the unidirectional increase of disorder within any dynamical system utilizing energy toward performance of a function. So, entropy is rooted within InputA?logical/operator?OutputB

The negation of inherent design within creation is a gnarly problem for sentients. This is so because sentients must perceive patterns in nature in order to live.

If you discern patterns in nature, you cannot deny that nature has purposes, as patterns and purposes are intimately related. In fact, if you say there’s a pattern to activity, you’re as good as saying there’s a purpose to activity. If there’s a logical sequence to activity, a sentient observer can only conclude there’s a goal-oriented progression including a start point, a mid-point and an end point. If you randomize this sequence, and all patterns along with it, the sentient being cannot practice life-sustaining behavior. Working backwards, we see that existence without patterns and purposes would not lead to the emergence of life.

So, teleodynamics - thermo-dynamics at the higher level of entropic systems organizing constraints on natural forces towards a future state of the system - or cognitive design by sentients, is about something not immediately present, but rather something predicted to emerge at a later state of the system.

Natural laws can create ordered structures and sequences without any goal or intent. The standard definition of entropy does not imply function or design. Recognizing patterns in nature doesn't mean nature has intrinsic purposes, it simply reflects consistent physical processes.

Patterns, as we humans see and experience them are linked to our predictive coding organizing experience in ways that is easier to perceive, it doesn't give them value or purpose. We are good at it because it is beneficial for survival. We prefer symmetry and order because then we can spot disorder (something breaking it, like a predator in the bush).

Quoting ucarr

if you say there’s a pattern to activity, you’re as good as saying there’s a purpose to activity. If there’s a logical sequence to activity, a sentient observer can only conclude there’s a goal-oriented progression including a start point, a mid-point and an end point.

I'm not sure that's correct. I don't see how pattern to activity has the logical conclusion to be the same as purpose or having a goal. They do not logically follow each other. You can have patterns without any purpose or goal. You can have a randomly created constant that because of it produces certain patterns. Like how the patterns of fractals form due to certain mathematical values, but those values in themselves are meaningless.

Quoting ucarr

I take you to mean entropy is an essential and iterative process.

Could it be the iteration of entropy and the complexity of mind are joined by the bi-conditional operator? As the iterations of entropy evolve upwardly, the complexity of mind evolves upwardly. From the reverse direction, as the complexity of minds increases, the vertical stacking of re-iteration rises.

Conclusion – there’s no conflict between the entropy-driven evolutionary process and the egotistical mediation of its resultant: sentient beings.

A big problem with the reasoning of many who try to evaluate consciousness is that they look at it as some form of "order creation mechanism that produce order out of chaos". But this is again tapping into the biases of our consciousness seeing patterns where there are none. What we view as "order" does not equal order in the point of view of reality. We can see the dead process of a mountain being formed as perfectly symmetrical and beautiful in its "order", but it is as dead of a process as any other chemical system in nature and reality. We imbue value into a process because it looks beautiful to us, but it makes no difference to the universe.

Thus when we think ourselves as beings that through our consciousness can make order out of the chaos of the universe we act in arrogance in front of the more logical truth; that we act in accordance with that chaos. Our sense of "order" is only order in our perspective, but the processes of the universe and reality does not have such a perspective. We are therefor just part of the chaos machine, part of entropy and the entropic processes that happen through time. We take energy, absorb it and consume it, then dissipate it. All according to entropy.

We fool ourselves with the illusion of seeing order, but if we had the capacity to view the totality of the universe, from that elevated perspective beyond our comprehension, we would not.

And we don't know about any next steps of evolution of consciousness. It may very well be that the next step is our own creation of synthetic consciousness, being even more effective at entropic processes. Maybe the paper clip scenario is in fact a natural end game for entropy.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You describe consciousness as reactive here, the other way is to describe consciousness as creative.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The two are fundamentally incompatible, because the former assumes a world already made, which is irking the consciousness, while the latter assumes that the consciousness is producing "the world", in its creativity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Then you attempt to describe the consciousness as constructive (creative) within the incompatible premise that the consciousness is reactive.

First, you talk about consciousness as something reacting to a reality at least partially independent of it.

Second, you talk about consciousness as something that produces reality from itself.

Third, you talk about the contradiction in characterizing the function of consciousness as a reactive organizing principle that parses the raw material things of existence into a navigable environment.

Speaking in a parallel, I don't believe grammar, an organizing principle that takes words and organizes them into sentences, paragraphs, chapters and books, creates written language. No, grammar organizes written language. The organized sounds of the spoken word get organized into written signs that can be interpreted by a standardized organization, i.e., grammar.

Likewise, as I'm saying, consciousness takes partially independent material objects that, at the quantum level, exist prior to consciousness - itself a construction from parts - and organizes them into navigable environments. So, consciousness is a material phenomenon that provides a function that parallels the syntactical function of grammar.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To deal with this incompatibility, lets assume two distinct aspects of reality, those which the consciousness can work with to create, and those which the consciousness does not have the ability to alter, so that it can only be reactive to these.

Your above sentence contains some issues. First, you say there are aspects of reality consciousness can work with. That's consciousness in reactive mode. Didn't you already say consciousness_reactive and consciousness_creative are fundamentally incompatible? Doesn't this imply that consciousness can only be one or the other, with switching between the two modes being impossible?

Second, you say consciousness must be reactive to independently existing things it cannot alter. Doesn't this statement have the same problem as the first one?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We look at the future as having the possibilities to create, and the past as what we do not have the ability to alter. I believe that this is the most productive way to frame that fundamental incompatibility, the past in its reality, is incompatible with the future, in its reality.

If I'm not mistaken, there is no continuity between incompatible things. By this reasoning, past and future must be compatible given the natural continuity between them. Clearly, the functional present, when seen relativistically as the future in relation to the past, contains overlap with the past. If there were no compatibility between the two - not to elaborate on the problem of them existing as such only in relationship to each other - it seems to me there could only be an eternal present. An eternal present is hard to make sense of when we entertain the concept of progress.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So all of its "reactions" are already conditioned by its creations, the creations being prior to the reactions, as required for "a reaction".

This argument seems to contradict your prior argument: "...the past in its reality, is incompatible with the future, in its reality."

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What we have then, with this expression of mass/energy equivalence, E=MC2, is a principle designed to convert "what we do not have the ability to alter", the inertia of mass, into the malleable energy, "possibilities to create".

Your above statement contains an issue. Inertia can be overcome, and it is overcome too many times to count. Einstein's equation, by explaining change of momentum through mass/energy equivalence,
establishes the fact that where's there's inertia, there's also energy, and thus past and future, being consistent along the channel of mass/energy equivalence, are not incompatible.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...this supposed mass/energy equivalence is defective It is an attempt at doing what is impossible, taking the determinist principles of inertia, "what we do not have the ability to alter", and expressing it in the free will perspective of "the possibilities to create".

I take your above statement to be a logic-based attack upon [math]E=MC^2[/math]. As I see it, the gist of your argument says: the equation tries to make a claim based on Mode A interpreted in the context of Mode B, but this must be a faulty claim because Mode A and Mode B are incompatible.

Can you show how inertia examples determinism?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...the primary perspective of the human being is intentional, the view toward the future, so this must have priority.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...we need to create an observational capacity, an apparatus, which is not reliant on mass/inertia principles. In other words we need an apparatus which is entirely created of possibility without matter or mass.

Are you assuming the human individual can exist untethered from mass/energy?

Reply to Patterner

Quoting Patterner

No. Nagel's bat would be more of a presence. In the situation you describe, there would be nothing it's like to be that person from that person's pov. That person doesn't have a pov.

I agree with what you say. So, where are we now? Well, maybe it's easier to see that in the supposed noumenal world of Kant, existing things dwell in something like superposition because they have no presence, something supplied by consciousness. Therefore, it appears that the human observer's presence vis-à-vis the object observed imparts to it boundaries both measurable and navigable.

Attention, then, imposes measurable material properties upon potential material things. Does this allow us to speculate about measurement being, to some extent, a self-fulfilling prophesy? When you expect something to be there along the lines of certain dimensions measurable, it will be there in such prescribed form? If nothing else, this might help explain flights of fancy become airborne in the dark, optical illusions and hallucinations.

Reply to Christoffer

Quoting ucarr

if you say there’s a pattern to activity, you’re as good as saying there’s a purpose to activity.

A person cannot follow a pattern without having a purpose. This is true even if the purpose of the pattern is simply cycling through the pattern and maintaining its organized form. In this example, purpose means maintaining a sequence of steps holding true to the pattern. There's no way to understand organization outside of purpose. In the absence of organization, there's no possibility of consciousness that recognizes organization and distills from it purpose. Working backwards, the presence of a conscious being implies a universe consistent with life and its stupendous organization. This is not to say there's a humanoid, super-being who designed the universe super-naturally. Thermo-dynamics may have caused life-supporting organization in balance with non-living chaos. Whatever system supports life is a system consistent with life even if it's also consistent, in equal measure, with total chaos. As such, it cannot be characterized as being a system devoid of organization and purpose. We know this because, being part of this system, we see the presence of organization and purpose.

Quoting Christoffer

Our sense of "order" is only order in our perspective, but the processes of the universe and reality does not have such a perspective. We are therefor just part of the chaos machine, part of entropy and the entropic processes that happen through time. We take energy, absorb it and consume it, then dissipate it. All according to entropy.

Order in our perspective is order in the perspective of the universe because we are part of the universe.
We're not separate from the universe, and neither is our pattern recognition, logical thinking and purpose.

Humans lived thousands of years before the organic chemistry of the metabolism began to be understood as an organized process. In other words, it was present and operational in the world before there was any human perspective on what goes on inside our bodies. Do the enzymes in our digestive track have a role to play, i.e., a purpose to fulfill? If you're alive and in good health, you cannot doubt this.

Quoting ucarr

I agree with what you say. So, where are we now? Well, maybe it's easier to see that in the supposed noumenal world of Kant, existing things dwell in something like superposition because they have no presence, something supplied by consciousness. Therefore, it appears that the human observer's presence vis-à-vis the object observed imparts to it boundaries both measurable and navigable.

I don't agree with any of that. I can be blindfolded, driven somewhere I've never been, and taken into room in a building I've never even seen in a picture. There could be anything in that room. Something someone made; a plant; a meteorite; a person; anything at all.

Someone I've never heard of could be taken to the same room in the same manner, and they would see the same thing.

The thing was there, and had the characteristics it had, regardless of the other person and/or me seeing it.

Being is meeting the condition of having rational activity, such as consciousness being the rational activity of a brain and body online. Or shoppers in shops.

Quoting ucarr

Speaking in a parallel, I don't believe grammar, an organizing principle that takes words and organizes them into sentences, paragraphs, chapters and books, creates written language. No, grammar organizes written language. The organized sounds of the spoken word get organized into written signs that can be interpreted by a standardized organization, i.e., grammar.

I think you need to look at written symbols independently from written words. Then you'll see that there is necessarily "a grammar" behind any writing of symbols. The written symbol may be essentially a memory aid, or something like that, and there is necessarily a rule, as to what the symbol represents. Without that grammar, which tells one how to read the symbol, the symbol would be useless. Likewise, in the organizing of letters to create words, there is a grammar required. Generally, in English, each letter represents a sound. You'll notice that in some languages, a written symbol often represents an idea, and hieroglyphics is taken to be a combination of these two. In an acronym each letter represents a word. These are all different "grammars".

You might wish to restrict the meaning of "grammar" to a more formal sense, so that this type of rule does not qualify as "grammar", but then we still have to account for the reality of this type of "rule", which is used to create written language.

Quoting ucarr

Likewise, as I'm saying, consciousness takes partially independent material objects that, at the quantum level, exist prior to consciousness - itself a construction from parts - and organizes them into navigable environments. So, consciousness is a material phenomenon that provides a function that parallels the syntactical function of grammar.

This analogy does not work. As demonstrated above, with the reality of written language, the parts themselves, each mark or symbol, is created according to a rule or rules. So if we wish to maintain your analogy with quantum particles, we must say that the "material objects" are not independent, they are created intentionally, according to some rules. So if you want to maintain the principle that these parts exist prior to consciousness, then we need to allow intention prior to consciousness, as what creates the parts. Then we have a formal meaning of "consciousness", as what arranges the parts, just like the formal meaning of "grammar", as what arranges the symbols, but we still need "intention" as prior to the parts, creating them, just like we need "rules" as prior to the symbols.

Quoting ucarr

First, you say there are aspects of reality consciousness can work with. That's consciousness in reactive mode.

Working with something is not the reactive mode, it is the creative mode. This is evident from the fact that we can work with completely passive things, moving them around to build something. That you interpret what I wrote, in this way, demonstrates misunderstanding.

Quoting ucarr

Didn't you already say consciousness_reactive and consciousness_creative are fundamentally incompatible? Doesn't this imply that consciousness can only be one or the other, with switching between the two modes being impossible?

No, I meant that the descriptive principles, the descriptive modes are fundamentally incompatible. If we describe consciousness as reactive, that description is fundamentally incompatible with a description of consciousness as creative. This is a feature of the rules which apply to making such descriptions. Consider the difference between describing a past event, and describing a future event for example. We use the past tense of verbs to describe the past, and future tense to describe the future.

Notice how the incompatibility between the two descriptive modes is understood as an incompatibility between two features of reality. This is a product of the reactive mode. All such "representation of reality" is the reactive mode. So adherence to the reactive mode produces the appearance that "consciousness can only be one or the other". This is because the reactive mode cannot apprehend the creative mode except by analyzing the effects of the creative mode. This is what I described as observations through the apparatus. This approach cannot understand the creative mode which built the apparatus, because it always interprets through effects, what have occurred, the past.

From the perspective of the creative mode, however, both of the two apparently incompatible features of reality can be understood, as incompatible due to the descriptive modes employed, and these are created. This means that the supposed independent reality does not necessarily consist of incompatible features, only our (created) modes of representing reality has produced this appearance. This leaves the consciousness itself as capable of understanding reality. The required separation is not between the consciousness and the independent reality, as an independent reality is only "supposed" by the consciousness, as part of its creative functions. The required separation is between the will to create, and the effects of this, the creation.

The will to create, itself, does not require the assumption of a separate independent reality, as it takes absolute freedom as its premise. And absolute freedom denies any external constraints. It is only after the act of creating, when the consciousness observes what has been created, that the constraints of the external world are observed, in their effects, that the consciousness is inclined to create the two incompatible representations, one representing the will to create, in absolute freedom, and the other representing what has been created, as having been restricted.

Quoting ucarr

If I'm not mistaken, there is no continuity between incompatible things. By this reasoning, past and future must be compatible given the natural continuity between them. Clearly, the functional present, when seen relativistically as the future in relation to the past, contains overlap with the past. If there were no compatibility between the two - not to elaborate on the problem of them existing as such only in relationship to each other - it seems to me there could only be an eternal present. An eternal present is hard to make sense of when we entertain the concept of progress.

The issue outlined here helps to demonstrate that the problem of incompatibility is a problem with the representation, not a problem with "reality" itself. The concepts of "past" and "future" are aspects of the representation. The incompatibility exists here, within this conceptualization. The "being" of consciousness, at the present, demonstrates the continuity between the two, and that the incompatibility is somehow an incorrect representation.

The problem can be seen to be the assumption of an "independent reality". Placing reality as "independent" removes the consciousness, and its creative acts, from "reality", leaving only the observed "past" as "reality". Then the consciousness's creative acts are interpreted as reactive. Modeling the consciousness's creative acts as reactive rather than creative is what produces the incompatibility. This misplaces the creative acts, as "at the present" instead of modeling them as "in the future" with an overlap of future and past, as you describe. The reality of the overlap of future and past is what allows for the incompatibility to be resolved. But this idea necessitates a breakdown of "independent reality", which is what "special relativity" accomplishes. Then we are left with the consciousness only, no assumption of "independent reality", and we must start with a primary premise which respects the reality of the consciousness itself, as the will to create.

Quoting ucarr

This argument seems to contradict your prior argument: "...the past in its reality, is incompatible with the future, in its reality."

That is what happens when we assume an "independent reality". We assume the consciousness to be at the present. The independent reality is the past and future, and all of temporal existence, as distinct from the perspective of the consciousness, which then is understood as a "point in time", which provides the grounds for temporal measurements. But the "point in time" then is distinct from the "independent reality", which is a requirement for the idea of "independent". Now, the "point in time" is an eternal principle, as distinct from temporal existence, which the consciousness can insert anywhere into the supposed independent temporal existence, to produce temporal measurements.

However, this "point in time", which is derived from that assumption of "independent reality", is really a faulty principle, as "special relativity" indicates. Now the "point in time", which is representative of the consciousness's "present", as distinct from "independent reality", must be reworked, to allow that "the present" is actually a duration of time combining both future and past. This is the way to dissolve, or resolve, the apparent incompatibility between past and future. We take the consciousness's "present" as a combination of the will to create, and the experiencing of the effects of this will to create, without the need to assume any "independent reality".

Quoting ucarr

Your above statement contains an issue. Inertia can be overcome, and it is overcome too many times to count. Einstein's equation, by explaining change of momentum through mass/energy equivalence,
establishes the fact that where's there's inertia, there's also energy, and thus past and future, being consistent along the channel of mass/energy equivalence, are not incompatible.

We do not need to discuss this, but the incompatibility is evident in the difference between invariant (inertial) mass, and variant (relativistic) mass.

Quoting ucarr

I take your above statement to be a logic-based attack upon E=MC2

=


2
. As I see it, the gist of your argument says: the equation tries to make a claim based on Mode A interpreted in the context of Mode B, but this must be a faulty claim because Mode A and Mode B are incompatible.

Yes, the problems of E=MC2, as demonstrated by the difference between invariant mass and variant mass, demonstrate the incompatibility between the Newtonian (mass) perspective, and the Einsteinian (energy) perspective.

Quoting ucarr

Can you show how inertia examples determinism?

The inertia perspective, is derived from Newtonian laws of motion, which state as the first law, that a body will continue to move in a regular way, as it has in the past, indefinitely into the future, unless forced to change. That is the determinist perspective, that a cause of change is required. Notice that the way I stated it, as "indefinitely into the future" the determinist infinite regress of efficient causation is signified.

Quoting ucarr

Are you assuming the human individual can exist untethered from mass/energy?

I don't understand the question. These are temporal concepts, "mass", "energy". We do not need to employ them. In theory we could completely annihilate them, and build a different conceptual structure.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think you need to look at written symbols independently from written words. Then you'll see that there is necessarily "a grammar" behind any writing of symbols. The written symbol may be essentially a memory aid, or something like that, and there is necessarily a rule, as to what the symbol represents. Without that grammar, which tells one how to read the symbol, the symbol would be useless.

Consider a symbol whose rule for its interpretation is lost. Though meaningless, the symbol still exists.

Consider a symbol whose rule for its interpretation is known. The rule can be read and understood. The logic supporting the rule can be read and learned. Where in this sequence is something created from nothing?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...if you want to maintain the principle that these parts exist prior to consciousness, then we need to allow intention prior to consciousness, as what creates the parts. Then we have a formal meaning of "consciousness", as what arranges the parts, just like the formal meaning of "grammar", as what arranges the symbols, but we still need "intention" as prior to the parts, creating them, just like we need "rules" as prior to the symbols.

Consider that in our dialogue, as dialogue, there is nothing prior to consciousness. Can there be something prior to consciousness? We cannot know the answer to this question because the means of searching out the answer requires a questioning mind, which pre-supposes consciousness. Consciousness can only get beyond itself paradoxically, as in the case of Kant's realm of the noumena: things in themselves unmediated by consciousness. This is the paradox of a conscious conception of what is not consciousness. By playing a mind game wherein I paradoxically assert there is a realm lying beyond consciousness, I paradoxically de-construct consciousness and arrive at the inexpressible, given that expression pre-supposes consciousness. So, getting beyond consciousness paradoxically via a mind game, I de-construct consciousness, and thus the logical implication is that at its most fundamental, consciousness formats reality itself. Of course, within the scope of the mind game of paradoxicality, intentionality is just another stop in the infinite regress of consciously constructed reality.

Quoting ucarr

First, you say there are aspects of reality consciousness can work with. That's consciousness in reactive mode.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Working with something is not the reactive mode, it is the creative mode. This is evident from the fact that we can work with completely passive things, moving them around to build something.

If creativity means something from nothing, that's the paradox of nothingness being an existing thing. If creativity means re-arranging pre-existent things, that's equating creativity with permutation, a false equivalence. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We use the past tense of verbs to describe the past, and future tense to describe the future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Notice how the incompatibility between the two descriptive modes is understood as an incompatibility between two features of reality.

Distinct and incompatible are non-equivalent. I shake your right hand with my right hand. Our two hands are distinct across the axis of two semi-circles symmetrical. Our distinct hands example compatibility in a handshake.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

the reactive mode cannot apprehend the creative mode except by analyzing the effects of the creative mode. This is what I described as observations through the apparatus. This approach cannot understand the creative mode which built the apparatus, because it always interprets through effects, what have occurred, the past.

Reverse engineering has no problem recreating the creation of the apparatus from the opposite direction: final state [math]?[/math] initial state.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The will to create, itself, does not require the assumption of a separate independent reality, as it takes absolute freedom as its premise.

The will to create pre-supposes a sentient. The existence of a sentient in turn pre-supposes an environment from which the sentient is emergent. In our entropically mediated world, absolute freedom holds no obvious pertinence to the constraints of the evolving thermo-dynamism of far from equilibrium life forms. Feeding the metabolism on a daily basis - a far from equilibrium necessity - bears no resemblance to absolute freedom.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The "being" of consciousness, at the present, demonstrates the continuity between the two, and that the incompatibility is somehow an incorrect representation.

The issue here pertains to accessing Kant's noumenal realm of things in themselves, i.e., "being" without encountering the problem of the perceptual distortion you describe. If what you say is something you know, and not merely conjecture, then it must be true that you can do this. Show me that you can.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The reality of the overlap of future and past is what allows for the incompatibility to be resolved. But this idea necessitates a breakdown of "independent reality", which is what "special relativity" accomplishes. Then we are left with the consciousness only, no assumption of "independent reality", and we must start with a primary premise which respects the reality of the consciousness itself, as the will to create.

You seem to think that elimination of the noumenal realm delivers us into a unified reality permeated by consciousness. Moreover, you seem to think material reality no less a part of mind than abstract reality.

What do you make of Russell's Paradox as it relates to the origin boundary ontology you equate with omnipresent mind?

Note - The paradox shows that, logically, a set cannot be a sub-set of itself. In order to overthrow "existence precedes essence," you have to produce some logic showing there exists a context wherein a set being a sub-set of itself doesn't entail an uncontainable paradox. It's the uncontainability of the paradox that explodes establishment of an internally consistent origin of existence.

The problem is the reason for a posited material reality independent of mind. It's this originating part of the Big Bang science can't reach.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The independent reality is the past and future...

How do you know this about something lying beyond your consciousness?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"the present" is actually a duration of time combining both future and past

How is it that future and past don't dissolve when joined together in the present? There can be no direct contact with either, as contact implies the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...the incompatibility is evident in the difference between invariant (inertial) mass, and variant (relativistic) mass.

I conjecture there's no local frame of reference for either the past or the future; they exist only as abstract concepts. Likewise, I conjecture there's no past mass or future mass. Whatever their causes might be, they render them as present tense phenomena.

Quoting ucarr

Can you show how inertia examples determinism?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The inertia perspective, is derived from Newtonian laws of motion, which state as the first law, that a body will continue to move in a regular way, as it has in the past, indefinitely into the future, unless forced to change.

Okay. So constant flow animation only gets interrupted with perturbation of momentum.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

....we need to create an observational capacity, an apparatus, which is not reliant on mass/inertia principles. In other words we need an apparatus which is entirely created of possibility without matter or mass.

Quoting ucarr

Are you assuming the human individual can exist untethered from mass/energy?

I'm wondering how a zero-mass apparatus could be built by the positive-mass agency of humans.

Reply to Patterner

Quoting Patterner

I don't agree with any of that. I can be blindfolded, driven somewhere I've never been, and taken into room in a building I've never even seen in a picture. There could be anything in that room. Something someone made; a plant; a meteorite; a person; anything at all.

Someone I've never heard of could be taken to the same room in the same manner, and they would see the same thing.

The thing was there, and had the characteristics it had, regardless of the other person and/or me seeing it.

Regarding what you know, you can't transcend the scope of your consciousness. Everything you describe examples an organized perception of reality known to your personal history and its attendant point of view. Through social interaction, you've experienced verification of what you've perceived by other individuals who've described similar perceptions.

You know that other individuals have perceptual mechanisms that render perceptions similar to yours when they gaze upon similar things.

Do you know there's a realm lying beyond yours and other persons perceptions that's analogous to those perceptions?

Quoting ucarr

Do you know there's a realm lying beyond yours and other persons perceptions that's analogous to those perceptions?

I do. If there wasn't, we wouldn't perceive the same thing. No matter how we test or verify it, we see the same thing. The reason is because we independently perceive the same thing outside of our minds. That's the function of our perceptions. Why would we have these gelatinous orbs that seem to let us know what is out there, a conclusion which all of our scientific methods of studying confirms, if that wasn't what's going on? We can philosophize about it all we want, but that's what's going on.

Reply to Patterner

Quoting ucarr

Do you know there's a realm lying beyond yours and other persons perceptions that's analogous to those perceptions?

Quoting Patterner

I do. If there wasn't, we wouldn't perceive the same thing. No matter how we test or verify it, we see the same thing. The reason is because we independently perceive the same thing outside of our minds.

You know that you perceive what you call reality in accordance with the cognitive constructions of your mind. Since the basis for what you know is your mind, how do you know what lies beyond the basis for your knowing, i.e., your mind?

You know that another person looks at what you've looked at and reports seeing something that agrees closely with your description of what you've looked at. So far, you know that your and the other persons' minds construct perceptions similar, and thus you know that your and the other persons' minds do similar things when they react to existing things that stimulate their perceptive activity.

Consider a parallel. You and your friend both have the same computer system. Also, you both run the same word processing program on your respective computers for formatting typed input into spread sheets as output. Let's say the program is MicroSoft's Excel program.

Neither of you has independently learned the DOS (Disk Operating System) language that supports the GUI (Graphical User Interface) that translates, i.e., constructs the cognitive package of animations, pictures and sounds you and your friend know as Excel.

What do you know about the underlying DOS that makes possible the GUI you and your friend depend on? For example: Do you think that, on the basis of knowing the GUI content alone, you could write DOS code for the GUI you and your friend depend on for seeing and comprehending Excel's content?

Let's assume that via parallelism you can translate from the GUI content to an analogous DOS electronic content. In this situation, you've discovered an analogous realm lying beyond what you perceive directly.

If, however, we assume the underlying system supporting the GUI is not an analog program, but rather a digital program, do you think that in this situation knowing GUI content informs you about digital content?

Note - What Cons Does: Examining in Overview by Analogy

If quantum reality supports our empirical GUI, which we call reality, then, by analogy, we can understand that QM codes for our empirical GUI.

Does it follow that making a study of the QM realm leads to unlocking the QM coding of our empirical GUI?

Might this be equal to learning how to read the building blocks of cons?

Will this lead to understanding our cons at the human scale of experience in terms of it being a formatting program for the empirical reality assembled from the building blocks of cons, i.e., quantum phenomena?

Quoting ucarr

Consider a symbol whose rule for its interpretation is lost. Though meaningless, the symbol still exists.

Consider a symbol whose rule for its interpretation is known. The rule can be read and understood. The logic supporting the rule can be read and learned. Where in this sequence is something created from nothing?

Who said anything about "something created from nothing"? I said that the rule, for using the symbol, is prior in time to the symbol's existence, as the reason for its existence.

Quoting ucarr

Consider that in our dialogue, as dialogue, there is nothing prior to consciousness. Can there be something prior to consciousness?

How does this make sense to you? You are asking me to take as a premise, that there is nothing prior to consciousness, and then asking me if there can be something prior to consciousness. That would be blatant contradiction.

Quoting ucarr

If creativity means something from nothing, that's the paradox of nothingness being an existing thing. If creativity means re-arranging pre-existent things, that's equating creativity with permutation, a false equivalence. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

I think the problems that you have with this issue are due to the conditions which you set up for yourself. Why do yo see the need to set out conditions such as these? Just like the above example where you asked for a blatant contradiction, this makes no sense to me. Why do you insist on "something from nothing" as a condition?

Quoting ucarr

Distinct and incompatible are non-equivalent.

Sure, but I am explaining them as incompatible. And "distinct" is a form or type of "incompatible". Incompatible is the broader term, with a wider application, and "distinct" is more specific.

Quoting ucarr

Reverse engineering has no problem recreating the creation of the apparatus from the opposite direction: final state ?
?
initial state.

Perhaps, but that doesn't address the point, which is to get to the reason behind the existence of the thing, what is prior to the initial state. Consider the title of the thread, "what does consciousness do". I answer that it is an act which produces "the initial state". If reverse engineering looks at "states", it does not apprehend the activity which produces the states. Therefore reverse engineering does not apprehend the activity prior to the initial state. This issue is very evident in quantum mechanics. The engineering produces "particles" (states), but it does not apprehend the activity which produces the particle (referred to as wave function, and wave function collapse).

Quoting ucarr

The will to create pre-supposes a sentient. The existence of a sentient in turn pre-supposes an environment from which the sentient is emergent.

Again, you are just employing contradictory conditions. Why do this to yourself? You impose terms upon yourself which create an impossible to solve problem.

Quoting ucarr

The issue here pertains to accessing Kant's noumenal realm of things in themselves, i.e., "being" without encountering the problem of the perceptual distortion you describe. If what you say is something you know, and not merely conjecture, then it must be true that you can do this. Show me that you can.

I never said anything about "Kant's noumenal realm". Again, you are imposing terms designed to create difficulty in understanding. Why do this to yourself?

Quoting ucarr

What do you make of Russell's Paradox as it relates to the origin boundary ontology you equate with omnipresent mind?

Note - The paradox shows that, logically, a set cannot be a sub-set of itself. In order to overthrow "existence precedes essence," you have to produce some logic showing there exists a context wherein a set being a sub-set of itself doesn't entail an uncontainable paradox. It's the uncontainability of the paradox that explodes establishment of an internally consistent origin of existence.

The problem is the reason for a posited material reality independent of mind. It's this originating part of the Big Bang science can't reach.

Now, you describe things in terms of Russel's paradox, and set theory. Then you say "you have to produce some logic showing there exists a context wherein a set being a sub-set of itself doesn't entail an uncontainable paradox". But why do you even refer to set theory at all. By defining "objects" in terms of "sets", all you do is impose extremely difficult conditions on yourself. These conditions are designed to place "objects" outside our capacity of understanding, by making the constituent elements of a set unintelligible, and telling us to simply take them for granted.

Again, why use terms which create difficulty for yourself, rather than looking to actually understand the issue?

Quoting ucarr

I'm wondering how a zero-mass apparatus could be built by the positive-mass agency of humans.

If you believe in free will, and the immateriality of the soul, then you would not represent the agency of human beings as "positive-mass". Therefore this would not be an issue.

See what your post demonstrates? You reject the terms and conditions (free will, immaterial, soul) which are specifically designed to make all the aspects of these problems you bring up intelligible, comprehensible, and solvable. And you insist on employing terms which create contradictions, and paradoxes, creating unsolvable problems. Since we construct and choose our premises and axioms, why not take the ones designed to solve the problems, which the other ones create?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Who said anything about "something created from nothing"?

You're argument is rooted in a series: Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I said that the rule, for using the symbol, is prior in time to the symbol's existence, as the reason for its existence.

What's the reason for the rule's existence?

Quoting ucarr

Consider that in our dialogue, as dialogue, there is nothing prior to consciousness. Can there be something prior to consciousness?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How does this make sense to you? You are asking me to take as a premise, that there is nothing prior to consciousness, and then asking me if there can be something prior to consciousness. That would be blatant contradiction.

Can you provide an example of a dialog that occurs outside of consciousness?

Quoting ucarr

If creativity means something from nothing, that's the paradox of nothingness being an existing thing. If creativity means re-arranging pre-existent things, that's equating creativity with permutation, a false equivalence. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think the problems that you have with this issue are due to the conditions which you set up for yourself. Why do yo see the need to set out conditions such as these?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Why do you insist on "something from nothing" as a condition?

How do you define creativity?

Quoting ucarr

Distinct and incompatible are non-equivalent.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but I am explaining them as incompatible.

I = Incompatibility, A = Material Thing, so {[math]??I[/math]} and {[math] A?I[/math]}. The set containing A is a sub-set of the set containing [math]?[/math]. Since, by definition, every material thing is incompatible with incompatibility, declaring that a specific material thing, such as A, is incompatible with incompatibility is a trivial and useless declaration.

Quoting ucarr

Reverse engineering has no problem recreating the creation of the apparatus from the opposite direction: final state [math]?[/math] initial state.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps, but that doesn't address the point, which is to get to the reason behind the existence of the thing, what is prior to the initial state. Consider the title of the thread, "what does consciousness do". I answer that it is an act which produces "the initial state". If reverse engineering looks at "states", it does not apprehend the activity which produces the states.

A timeline of events seems not to be relevant to the existence of an artifact. The substance, structure, construction and purpose of the artifact are contemporaneous. Regarding natural material objects, they have no substance, structure, construction and purpose outside of sentient interpretation of the signs supporting the intelligibility of the sentient's agent intellect.

Quoting ucarr

The will to create pre-supposes a sentient. The existence of a sentient in turn pre-supposes an environment from which the sentient is emergent.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...you are just employing contradictory conditions.

The will to create is always immersed in the ecology of self and its environment.

Quoting ucarr

The issue here pertains to accessing Kant's noumenal realm of things in themselves, i.e., "being" without encountering the problem of the perceptual distortion you describe.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I never said anything about "Kant's noumenal realm"

When you talk about the conflict between cons_creative and cons_reactive, you invoke an implication there is something that cons distorts when one of the modes is embedded in the other mode. This distortion implies something causal to cons that cons, in its effort to perceive it, distorts. This causal something seems to be Kant's noumenal realm.

Quoting ucarr

What do you make of Russell's Paradox as it relates to the origin boundary ontology you equate with omnipresent mind?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...why do you even refer to set theory at all.

My main premise in our dialogue says that Russell's Paradox shows how logically there can be no unified and local totality. I infer from your argument you posit cons in the position of first cause. In the context of our dialogue, this looks like a version of panpsychism, since you think cons exists at the level of elementary particles. Although this seems to be an argument for cons as first cause, Russell's Paradox, by my argument, forestalls cons (and everything else) as first cause; it shows that logically there is no first cause.

Quoting ucarr

I'm wondering how a zero-mass apparatus could be built by the positive-mass agency of humans.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You reject the terms and conditions (free will, immaterial, soul) which are specifically designed to make all the aspects of these problems you bring up intelligible, comprehensible, and solvable.

A man might imagine the problem of getting through a rough mountain pass is solved by human flight over the mountain range. This act of imagination, however, will go nowhere if it's not eventually supported by facts, science and engineering. Can you show how facts, science and engineering support free will and immaterial soul?

Quoting Patterner

I do. If there wasn't, we wouldn't perceive the same thing. No matter how we test or verify it, we see the same thing. The reason is because we independently perceive the same thing outside of our minds.

Please help me understand. Many traffic accidents have objectively shown that four different people standing on four different corners at the same intersection watching the same auto collision see four different things.
And this may be BS but I'm willing to bet that sometimes two people standing on the same corner watching the same accident see two different things.

Reply to alleybear
Yes, that happens all the time. I couldn't guess all the reasons for it, but I'm sure there have been many studies done. A few possibilities...
-Sometimes someone didn't really see, and they fill in some details. They kind of assume what must have happened, and embrace the story to the point that they think it's what they saw. I think the term is confabulation. Not lying, because they believe it.
-Sometimes someone doesn't remember as well as someone else.
-Even if two people are on the same corner, they aren't looking at the exact same thing at the exact same time from the exact same angle. It's impossible, and sometimes it's very different. They could have been looking at different cars. Or paying more attention to the driver that they thought was cute than what the driver was doing.

Anyway, that's not at all what I'm talking about. I mean take a pad and pencil into a room in a building you never saw before, and describe and draw what you see. Have another person who has never seen that building do the same, and compare your drawings and descriptions. Or each of you take different cameras. Have the other person put their photos with a bunch of photos taken elsewhere, and see if you can pick out the ones that the other person took of that room that you saw.

There is an objective reality outside of our minds. Our senses reveal at least certain aspects of it, so we can navigate it.

Quoting ucarr

When you talk about the conflict between cons_creative and cons_reactive, you invoke an implication there is something that cons distorts when one of the modes is embedded in the other mode. This distortion implies something causal to cons that cons, in its effort to perceive it, distorts. This causal something seems to be Kant's noumenal realm.

What is distorted when cons-creative is embedded within cons-reactive, is cons-creative. This is because that embedding is a fundamental misunderstanding which requires a distortion, of cons-creative, to allow for that model. The "something causal" is cons-creative itself, and attempting to understand cons-creative as embedded within cons-reactive is a misunderstanding because it fails to recognize the priority of cons-creative, and the fact that cons-reactive is a creation of con-creative.

Quoting ucarr

My main premise in our dialogue says that Russell's Paradox shows how logically there can be no unified and local totality. I infer from your argument you posit cons in the position of first cause. In the context of our dialogue, this looks like a version of panpsychism, since you think cons exists at the level of elementary particles. Although this seems to be an argument for cons as first cause, Russell's Paradox, by my argument, forestalls cons (and everything else) as first cause; it shows that logically there is no first cause.

It only produces the conclusion of "panpsychism" through equivocation between less-restrictive definitions, and more-restrictive definitions. This problem, I pointed out earlier. That is also the base of Russel's paradox, equivocation of "set". In one sense, "set" means a collection of objects, in another sense, "set" means a defined type. The latter sense allows for an empty set, the former sense does not.

Quoting ucarr

A man might imagine the problem of getting through a rough mountain pass is solved by human flight over the mountain range. This act of imagination, however, will go nowhere if it's not eventually supported by facts, science and engineering. Can you show how facts, science and engineering support free will and immaterial soul?

I told you how free will is supported. All you did was insist that free will may be an illusion. I invited you to take a look at the support and explain how it is possible to apprehend free will as an illusion. I'm still waiting for that.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

When you talk about the conflict between cons_creative and cons_reactive, you invoke an implication there is something that cons distorts when one of the modes is embedded in the other mode. This distortion implies something causal to cons that cons, in its effort to perceive it, distorts. This causal something seems to be Kant's noumenal realm.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The "something causal" is cons-creative itself, and attempting to understand cons-creative as embedded within cons-reactive is ...a misunderstanding because it fails to recognize the priority of cons-creative, and the fact that cons-reactive is a creation of con-creative.

Okay. So, cons_creative precedes cons_reactive, which is to say, cons_creative causes cons_reactive. Is this a correct reading of what you intend to communicate?

Are you positing cons_creative as the first cause?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It only produces the conclusion of "panpsychism" through equivocation between less-restrictive definitions, and more-restrictive definitions.

Is your pronoun "It" referring to the premise: Cons_creative is the first cause? If you reject panpsychism, then you must believe cons is a construction that lies somewhere within the evolving material complexity we observe on earth, but this, however, contradicts cons_creative as first cause.

Quoting ucarr

My main premise in our dialogue says that Russell's Paradox shows how logically there can be no unified and local totality.

Apropos of this, a first cause, by definition must cause, or create itself. This means that it must be simultaneous itself, and something greater than itself. A self cannot create something identical to itself. It therefore must be distinct from what it creates. In the instance of self-creation, how can the self be distinct from itself? The only approach to this entails the self being greater that itself, which is a convoluted way of saying the self must contain itself plus something more, otherwise you merely have an identity.* In the case of an identity, the self is eternal, with no creation or demise. This is Kant’s noumenal realm. Consider Sartre’s response to the noumenal realm: “existence precedes essence.”

*This paradox is expressed in set theory thus: no set can be a proper subset of itself; a proper subset is not equal to the superset to which it belongs. Without this restriction, a subset being a proper subset of itself means it is unequal to itself. Russell's Paradox shows this is what happens when you try to unify everything into one locality.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...Russel's paradox, equivocation of "set". In one sense, "set" means a collection of objects, in another sense, "set" means a defined type. The latter sense allows for an empty set, the former sense does not.

I think I can cite a counter-narrative to your first definition of set: a collection of objects... that does not include an empty set. According to one standard of set theory, the empty set is a member of every set. The comprehension of the axiom: "the empty set is a member of every set" applies to both senses of "set."

Regarding the premise: Cons_creative is the first cause; this would have to entail the set of all heterogenous things linked thematically by: the type that is not-type. This, again, examples Russell's Paradox exploding a unified and local whole via paradox.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I invited you to... explain how it is possible to apprehend free will as an illusion. I'm still waiting for that.

As I've been arguing from Russell's Paradox above, because there is no unified and local whole, there is no first cause. This leaves us with permutation of the already existing things. As it is said by thermodynamics: matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed (but instead merely rearranged).

Can you refute this premise? For example: can you show that permutation examples free will?

Quoting ucarr

Are you positing cons_creative as the first cause?

No, like I said, it's the cause of cons-reactive, not necessarily the first cause. This makes the rest of your post seem irrelevant

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

Are you positing cons_creative as the first cause?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, like I said, it's the cause of cons-reactive, not necessarily the first cause.

Your inclusion of the adverb reads like a hedge on your commitment to denial of cons_creative as the first cause. Why don't you share with me the fine print on the status of cons_creative in the role of first cause?

I know you reject: "existence precedes essence," so if, as you conditionally claim, cons-creative is not the first cause, then please elucidate important details of the cons_creative origin story.

Re: the relevance of my argument in my previous post, it intends to show - via the first law of thermodynamics - that cons_creative is neither the cause of itself nor of cons_reactive.

Reply to ucarr
Cons-creative, itself, must have a cause, and therefore is not the first cause.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Cons-creative, itself, must have a cause, and therefore is not the first cause.

Do I remember correctly you telling me that, according to your understanding, time holds place as the first cause?

Reply to ucarr
I don't know, you'd have to put that into context. Anyway, "time", and "cons-creative" are not at all the same thing, so I don't see how that would be relevant here.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

Do I remember correctly you telling me that, according to your understanding, time holds place as the first cause?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know, you'd have to put that into context. Anyway, "time", and "cons-creative" are not at all the same thing, so I don't see how that would be relevant here.

So, it's a maybe on you thinking time is a first cause.

Time is a universal context, unless you can think of something that exists outside of time. The Big Bang believers are signed on to it being able to happen in the context of no context as in nothing exists; I'm skeptical about the rapid expansion of the Big Bang being possible in such a situation.

The upshot of what I'm saying is that time is relevant to everything, even the supposedly totally self-sufficient first cause. If first cause pre-dates everything else, doesn't that put first cause into a temporal relationship with what follows from it? Even when we consider first cause alone, assuming there can be a time before first cause causes anything other than itself, the existence of first cause alone involves some elapsed time in the process of its self-creation happening; it involves some elapsed time in its possible duration alone before causing anything contingent; it involves some elapsed time in its relative temporal priority to its contingents.

Finally, I'm saying the practice of cons of any type involves elapsing time, so that includes cons_creative.

Quoting ucarr

Time is a universal context, unless you can think of something that exists outside of time.

The present, "now" exists outside of time. All existent time consists of past time and future time, whereas the present, now, is a point or moment, which separates the past from the future. So all of time has either gone by (past) or not yet gone by (future), and the present is what it goes past. This means that the present is "outside of time" by being neither past nor future.

Quoting ucarr

The upshot of what I'm saying is that time is relevant to everything, even the supposedly totally self-sufficient first cause. If first cause pre-dates everything else, doesn't that put first cause into a temporal relationship with what follows from it?

It doesn't make sense to speak of that which is outside of time, as pre-dating everything, because that is to give it a temporal context, prior in time to everything else. So "first cause" is not a good term to use here. This is why it is better to think of the present as that which is outside of time, rather than a first cause as being outside of time. The latter becomes self-contradicting.

This provides a perspective from which the passing of time is observed and measured, "now" or the present. Then also, the cause which is outside of time, the free will act, is understood as derived from the present. But, you should be able to see why it is incorrect to call this cause a "first cause", or a cause which "pre-dates everything else". It is better known as a final cause.

Quoting ucarr

Finally, I'm saying the practice of cons of any type involves elapsing time, so that includes cons_creative.

I agree, the practices of con-creative, i.e. its actions, necessarily involve elapsing time. However, the cause of those actions, the free will act itself, may occur at the moment of the present, and this need not involve any elapsing time; the moment of the present being outside of time as described above.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The present, "now" exists outside of time. All existent time consists of past time and future time, whereas the present, now, is a point or moment, which separates the past from the future. So all of time has either gone by (past) or not yet gone by (future), and the present is what it goes past. This means that the present is "outside of time" by being neither past nor future.

I'm mulling over the idea that time as you describe it above doesn't exist at any time: the present exists outside of time; the past, once the non-existent present, continues to be non-existent as time gone by; the future derived from the non-existent present, does not yet exist until it becomes the non-existent present and then continues its non-existence as the past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't make sense to speak of that which is outside of time, as pre-dating everything, because that is to give it a temporal context, prior in time to everything else. So "first cause" is not a good term to use here. This is why it is better to think of the present as that which is outside of time, rather than a first cause as being outside of time. The latter becomes self-contradicting.

I glean from the above you think a first cause exists outside of time. I understand your desire to steer clear of a first cause because of some problems it introduces. I will observe that it's strange to think of a first cause outside of time because causation seems by definition to entail a sequence of time such that one thing precedes another.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This provides a perspective from which the passing of time is observed and measured, "now" or the present. Then also, the cause which is outside of time, the free will act, is understood as derived from the present. But, you should be able to see why it is incorrect to call this cause a "first cause", or a cause which "pre-dates everything else". It is better known as a final cause.

Does time pass within the present? This is an issue because if it doesn't, the question arises: How does the present become the future?; coming at this same issue from the opposite direction: If time doesn't pass within the present, how does the present become the past?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...the cause of those actions, the free will act itself, may occur at the moment of the present, and this need not involve any elapsing time; the moment of the present being outside of time as described above.

This is a description of causation outside of time? Consider: The accumulation of falling snow on the roof caused it to cave in. Is this an example of timeless causation?

Quoting ucarr

I'm mulling over the idea that time as you describe it above doesn't exist at any time: the present exists outside of time; the past, once the non-existent present, continues to be non-existent as time gone by; the future derived from the non-existent present, does not yet exist until it becomes the non-existent present and then continues its non-existence as the past.

The question of whether time exists or not is not relevant here, it's just a distraction. What is relevant is that all of time is either in the past or in the future, and the moment of "the present" separates these two and contains no time itself. This make the present outside of time.

Quoting ucarr

I glean from the above you think a first cause exists outside of time.

No, I think "first cause", without serious explanation and manipulation, is an incoherent notion. However, "final cause" is not incoherent, and can be conceived of as outside of time in the way I described.

Quoting ucarr

Does time pass within the present? This is an issue because if it doesn't, the question arises: How does the present become the future?; coming at this same issue from the opposite direction: If time doesn't pass within the present, how does the present become the past?

In the model I described, the present does not become the future, nor does the present become the past. The present is outside of time, and time consists of future and past. The future becomes the past, as time passes, and the present is a perspective from which this is observed. Also final cause acts from this perspective, as a cause from outside of time, which intervenes in the events which are occurring as time passes.

Quoting ucarr

This is a description of causation outside of time? Consider: The accumulation of falling snow on the roof caused it to cave in. Is this an example of timeless causation?

No, causation outside of time would be the freely made choice (free will act) which causes a shovel to be picked up and the roof to be shoveled, which would be an intervening in the "accumulation of falling snow on the roof", preventing the roof from collapsing. The being with free will, observing from the perspective of "the present" which is outside of time, makes a choice which causes the event of the roof being shoveled, and this would prevent the roof from collapsing. The cause of this event, shoveling the roof, is outside of time.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The question of whether time exists or not is not relevant here, it's just a distraction. What is relevant is that all of time is either in the past or in the future, and the moment of "the present" separates these two and contains no time itself. This make the present outside of time.

So, time -- if it exists, and it may not -- can only approach the present from the past, or from the future, without arriving. You say the present is outside of time. According to my understanding, I exist in the present and not in either the past or the future. By this understanding, the past and the future are abstract concepts that occupy my mindscape as relativistic things; I know mentally, but not existentially, both the past and the future in relation to my existential presence within the present.

If the present contains no time elapsed, then must I conclude my perception of time elapsing occurs in response to my existential presence in either the past or in the future?

What does it mean to say we live in the past or in the future only? It suggests we aren't present anywhere. The pun is intended because presence denotes the present, but I don't immediately see how there can be presence of a thing in the past as the past, or in the future as future. Is it not so that wherever we are, we are there in the present? Where are you now? How can you be present in your own past?

What kind of existence does the present have in total separation from elapsing time?

If the present is timeless, how does it maintain the separation of past/future? Maintaining the separation implies an indefinite duration of time for the maintenance of the separation. Also, separation implies both a spatial and temporal duration keeping past/future apart, but spatial and temporal durations are not timeless, are they?

How does a material thing sustain its dimensional expansion, a physical phenomenon, outside of time? Consider a twelve-inch ruler. Its twelve inches of extension continuously consume time. Relativity tells us the physical dimensions of a material thing change with acceleration of velocity accompanied by time dilation, so we know from this that physical dimensions consume time.

Quoting ucarr

So, time -- if it exists, and it may not -- can only approach the present from the past, or from the future, without arriving. You say the present is outside of time.

Being outside of time, the present would be categorically distinct from the future and past which are the components of time. So neither can be said to "approach the present". "The present" refers to a perspective from which time is observed. Think of right and left as an analogy, where "here" is similar to "the present". Right and left are determined relative to the perspective which is "here".

Quoting ucarr

According to my understanding, I exist in the present and not in either the past or the future. By this understanding, the past and the future are abstract concepts that occupy my mindscape as relativistic things; I know mentally, but not existentially, both the past and the future in relation to my existential presence within the present.

The first sentence here is good. You, as the observer, and the free willing agent, exist in the present. But the next part appears to be confused. "The present" is an abstract concept, we use it to substantiate our existence. But so is "future and past" an abstract concept. The future and past are what we attribute to the external world, what is independent from us. But since it is the way we understand the world, it is still conceptual.

And since the future and past are time, this is what makes us outside of time. But we are "outside" time in a strange way, because we understand time as external to us, and this makes us "outside time" to the inside. Our position at "the present", from which we observe and act with free will, is beyond the internal boundary, This makes us outside of time to the inside, beyond the internal boundary.

Quoting ucarr

If the present contains no time elapsed, then must I conclude my perception of time elapsing occurs in response to my existential presence in either the past or in the future?

Imagine your perspective, at the present, to be a static point, and everything is moving around you. It is this movement around you which provides the perception of time passing. But your point is not necessarily completely static in an absolute way, because you can act, by free will. This act comes from outside of time, to the inside.

Quoting ucarr

What does it mean to say we live in the past or in the future only? It suggests we aren't present anywhere. The pun is intended because presence denotes the present, but I don't immediately see how there can be presence of a thing in the past as the past, or in the future as future. Is it not so that wherever we are, we are there in the present? Where are you now? How can you be present in your own past?

I'm not saying we live in the past and future. I am saying the opposite, that we are at the present. This is our perspective. But this puts us outside of time (to the inside). It has to be this way in order that we can measure time passing. If our perspective was not outside time, then any measurement of time passing would be tainted because there would be time passing within us, just like judging colour through a tinted lens.

Quoting ucarr

If the present is timeless, how does it maintain the separation of past/future? Maintaining the separation implies an indefinite duration of time for the maintenance of the separation. Also, separation implies both a spatial and temporal duration keeping past/future apart, but spatial and temporal durations are not timeless, are they?

There must be no duration of time in the point of separation. If there was we couldn't have an accurate measurement of time. Imagine if the duration was a day, then our measurements would be accurate to within a day. If it was an hour, our measurements would be accurate to within an hour. If the duration was a minute, our measurements would be accurate within a minute. And so on. If there is any time within the moment of the present, this would affect the accuracy of our measurements by the amount within the moment, because there would be a corresponding vagueness in the start and end point of the measurement.

Quoting ucarr

How does a material thing sustain its dimensional expansion, a physical phenomenon, outside of time? Consider a twelve-inch ruler. Its twelve inches of extension continuously consume time. Relativity tells us the physical dimensions of a material thing change with acceleration of velocity accompanied by time dilation, so we know from this that physical dimensions consume time.

It is the immaterial (nondimensional) aspect, deep within us, what is responsible for free will and intellection, that is outside of time, not our physical bodies.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

So, time -- if it exists, and it may not -- can only approach the present from the past, or from the future, without arriving. You say the present is outside of time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Being outside of time, the present would be categorically distinct from the future and past which are the components of time. So neither can be said to "approach the present". "The present" refers to a perspective from which time is observed. Think of right and left as an analogy, where "here" is similar to "the present". Right and left are determined relative to the perspective which is "here".

I'm trying to picture what it means for temporal experience to be distinct from a world timeless. If the present is outside of time, how can observations, which take time to be made, be carried out from its perspective? Do I misread you? Are you saying, indirectly, that the present is a void? Is it like the abstract concept of a point on the number line? Does the present, like the point, "occupy" a zero dimensional "space?" If this is the case, does that mean you're saying the present exists only as a non-physical, abstract concept of the mind?

Since neither past nor future can approach the present, how does past become present, and how does present become future? It seems common sense to think the past and the future somehow connect with the present. Is this not the case?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The first sentence here is good. You, as the observer, and the free willing agent, exist in the present. But the next part appears to be confused. "The present" is an abstract concept, we use it to substantiate our existence. But so is "future and past" an abstract concept. The future and past are what we attribute to the external world, what is independent from us. But since it is the way we understand the world, it is still conceptual.

Do I exist in the past_present_future, abstract concepts, outside of time? If past_present_future all exist as abstract concepts, where does my physical life occur?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And since the future and past are time, this is what makes us outside of time. But we are "outside" time in a strange way, because we understand time as external to us, and this makes us "outside time" to the inside. Our position at "the present", from which we observe and act with free will, is beyond the internal boundary, This makes us outside of time to the inside, beyond the internal boundary.

You're saying we observe and act with free will within a timeless realm called "the present?"

Quoting ucarr

If the present contains no time elapsed, then must I conclude my perception of time elapsing occurs in response to my existential presence in either the past or in the future?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine your perspective, at the present, to be a static point, and everything is moving around you. It is this movement around you which provides the perception of time passing. But your point is not necessarily completely static in an absolute way, because you can act, by free will. This act comes from outside of time, to the inside.

You're saying that when I act with free will, I'm doing things outside of time, but somehow my actions crossover from the outside of time to the inside of time?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I am saying... that we are at the present. This is our perspective. But this puts us outside of time (to the inside).

Explain "...outside of time (to the inside)."

Quoting ucarr

f the present is timeless, how does it maintain the separation of past/future? Maintaining the separation implies an indefinite duration of time for the maintenance of the separation. Also, separation implies both a spatial and temporal duration keeping past/future apart, but spatial and temporal durations are not timeless, are they?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There must be no duration of time in the point of separation.

By what means is a point of separation established and maintained?

Quoting ucarr

How does a material thing sustain its dimensional expansion, a physical phenomenon, outside of time?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is the immaterial (nondimensional) aspect, deep within us, what is responsible for free will and intellection, that is outside of time, not our physical bodies.

Since the immaterial aspect is non-dimensional, how do you go about ascertaining its position "deep within us"?

Does our free will and intellection connect to our brain? Are you talking about our everyday thoughts and decisions?

Quoting ucarr

I'm trying to picture what it means for temporal experience to be distinct from a world timeless. If the present is outside of time, how can observations, which take time to be made, be carried out from its perspective?

Imagine standing still, and watching something pass you from right to left. You, in your perspective, or point of view, are "outside" that motion, being not a part of it. You can, however, choose to act with your body, and interfere with that motion. Or, you can simply observe.

This is what I mean about your point of view at "the present". You can watch from that perspective, as the entire world around you, passes you, proceeding from future to past, while you maintain your perspective at the present. You might choose to move your body, and interfere in that temporal world, or you might just choose to observe the temporal world as it go past. The meditative position is to do neither, observe nor interfere.

Quoting ucarr

Since neither past nor future can approach the present, how does past become present, and how does present become future? It seems common sense to think the past and the future somehow connect with the present. Is this not the case?

As I said, "present" is distinct as referring to that position from which the passage of time may be observed and interfered with. The only connection is through observation and interference. These two, observation and interference, are intertwined in experimentation, and this forms the base of "the connection". That is how the past and future "connect with the present". The meditative position, mentioned above disconnects the present, so that the future simply becomes the past, all around the meditating subject, and the subject has removed the connection by neither observing nor interfering.

Quoting ucarr

Do I exist in the past_present_future, abstract concepts, outside of time? If past_present_future all exist as abstract concepts, where does my physical life occur?

Your "physical life" remains the unknown. All that is known, is known through the means of abstract ideas.

Quoting ucarr

You're saying we observe and act with free will within a timeless realm called "the present?"

Yes.

Quoting ucarr

You're saying that when I act with free will, I'm doing things outside of time, but somehow my actions crossover from the outside of time to the inside of time?

Yes.

Quoting ucarr

Explain "...outside of time (to the inside)."

I thought I did explain this. Time is the world of change, which we experience as external to our mind or consciousness. The immaterial, nonchanging perspective of the mind, as "the present" is deep within us, as internal. This perspective, being the nonchanging "present", is outside of time (timeless). But since this timeless perspective is internal, and time is external, then it is "outside time to the inside".

Consider the existence of a physical object for an explanatory analogy. We may posit an external boundary to that object, and this serves us as a means of judging that object's activities relative to other objects, it's relative motion. We might model the object as a bounded area of space, or we might model it as a center of gravity, a point, but no matter which way, its external relations determine its changing position, and this provides for what we know as its temporal existence, its position relative to other things. Now the present, as I described, is derived from our experience of an internal principle. The internal principle provides the perspective of "the present" which is demonstrated as necessarily outside of time, but to the inside of the subject. So this produces the need for an internal boundary to separate the temporal (external) from the nontemporal internal. If the material body is modeled as a point which marks the center of gravity, then the boundary which provides for the non-temporal must be internal to the point.

Quoting ucarr

By what means is a point of separation established and maintained?

This separation, as any theory, may be established and maintained, through expression of the principle, and validation through experimentation. In other words, the principle "there must be no time within the point of separation between past and future, in order for temporal measurement to be accurate", is expressed as a principle (theory), and then it may be verified by experimentation. The success of relativity theory helps to verify that principle.

Quoting ucarr

Since the immaterial aspect is non-dimensional, how do you go about ascertaining its position "deep within us"?

This is verified by experience. But it doesn't really matter if it is inside or outside, as we could turn the whole thing around, and argue that everything we experience as external is really internal. Then, what we experience as internal, our perspective of "the present", is really external, flipping the whole thing around. This turn around assumes s true, the skeptic\s claim that the external world is entirely an illusion. It is all internal. Everything, the entire physical world, is within, and there is nothing outside us whatsoever, as we ourselves form the outside boundary, as the static, unchanging "present". Then all physical existence is internal to us, and also inside time, while the immaterial, that which is outside time, is properly external to this. Therefore the skeptic's claim that the external is an illusion might actually provide a better representation of reality, as it allows for what is outside time, to be properly external.

Quoting ucarr

Does our free will and intellection connect to our brain? Are you talking about our everyday thoughts and decisions?

The free will and intellection, being immaterial aspects of the immaterial "soul' (for lack of a better word), which has the timeless perspective of "the present", are connected to "the brain", as a temporal, physical aspect. This way of connection is described above. There are two aspects of the connection, observational, and active. The meditative mode moves to disconnect both.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine standing still, and watching something pass you from right to left. You, in your perspective, or point of view, are "outside" that motion, being not a part of it. You can, however, choose to act with your body, and interfere with that motion. Or, you can simply observe.

There's some difficulty of communication of your theory because verbal language, being about actions and actors and thus being rooted in animation, does a poor job of representing non-temporal phenomena, which are, by definition, devoid of animation.

In our everyday context of interpretation, standing still and watching something pass from right to left is a phenomenon no less animated - and no less temporal - than the object passing from right to left.

I think I understand, however, that in the context of your theory, the observer is "outside" the motion of the passing object in the sense that the present is an abstract concept of the mind. In the abstract context of this thought experiment, the mind can imaginatively stipulate "no motion or time."

If this is a mis-reading of your theory, then I'm still fundamentally unclear about the structure and logic of the continuum of past_present_future within your theoretical context.

Firstly, it's a mental challenge to wrap my head around the introduction of a timeless present into the continuity. Timeless present introduces a discontinuity into the continuity. I now think understanding in detail the ramifications of this inserted discontinuity holds the key to understanding your theory in general.

I'm now inclined to think your theory can be rendered with greater clarity through mathematical language. For example, by interposing a timeless present between a temporal past and future, it makes sense to think of a timeless present as a theoretical point of zero dimensions.

The present is then a vanishing point of reference for the unidirectional arrow of time to move forward, with both future and past existing as relativistic constructions of the mind. From here I can see the measurement of time in terms of Schrödinger's partial differential equation that governs the wave function of a QM system.

Conceptually, the Schrödinger equation is the quantum counterpart of Newton's second law in classical mechanics. Given a set of known initial conditions, Newton's second law makes a mathematical prediction as to what path a given physical system will take over time. The Schrödinger equation gives the evolution over time of the wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. Schrödinger Equation

Your theory, when viewed through the lens of Schrödinger, suggests all physical systems, at whatever scale, express probable not certain outcomes.

Quoting ucarr

If this is a mis-reading of your theory, then I'm still fundamentally unclear about the structure and logic of the continuum of past_present_future within your theoretical context.

What I keep saying, is that there is no such past_present_future continuum. The continuum would be future-past, and the present is distinct, outside time. This is the discrete/continuous incompatibility. If there actually is a present within the continuum, it would break the continuum into discrete sections, annihilating the continuum.

Quoting ucarr

I'm now inclined to think your theory can be rendered with greater clarity through mathematical language. For example, by interposing a timeless present between a temporal past and future, it makes sense to think of a timeless present as a theoretical point of zero dimensions.

This rendering sort of works, so long as you adhere to the point you made, that this is a "theoretical present". In this particular model, there is no "natural present". This "present", the zero dimension point of the model, is artificial, a theoretical point and the "interposing" you refer to must be understood as a theoretical act of inserting the the theoretical point into the future-past continuum in various places, for the purpose of temporal measurements, discrete temporal units.

However, we must still respect the reality of "the present", the true, "natural present" which serves as the perspective of the living subject. This natural present is what the human subject has tried to represent with the artificial, conceptual "zero dimension point" which serves as the means for measurement. The natural present is much more difficult to understand.

Quoting ucarr

There's some difficulty of communication of your theory because verbal language, being about actions and actors and thus being rooted in animation, does a poor job of representing non-temporal phenomena, which are, by definition, devoid of animation.

Now we approach the key point. The "theoretical present", in its traditional form, as a zero dimension point served us well for hundreds, even thousands of years, in its service of measuring temporal duration. However, though it is useful, it is not acceptable as an accurate representation of the "natural present". The "natural present" is the perspective of the human mind, the human being, in relation to the future-past continuum. This is the natural perspective, how we actually exist, observe and act, at the present in time, rather than the model which makes the present a point in time.

The traditional representation of the theoretical present puts the human soul as "outside of time", as discussed, and this, as you say, renders it "by definition, devoid of animation". This is a representation of the classical "interaction problem" of dualism. The properties of the immaterial soul, ideas etc., being eternal, and outside of time (because they exist at the zero dimension present), have not the capacity to interact with the future-past continuum.

What this indicates is that the conceptualization of time employed, with a zero dimension point that can be inserted as the present, for the purpose of measurement, is faulty. It's not a true representation of the "natural present". To understand the natura present, we need to review the human perspective. What I glean from such a review, is that the natural present consists of both, the past, as sensory perception (what is perceived is in the past by the time it is perceived), and the future, as what is anticipated. Therefore to provide a true modal of time we need an overlap of past and future at the present, instead of a zero dimension point which separates the two.

This implies that future-past is improperly modeled, if modeled as a continuum. We need overlap of future and past, at the present, to allow for the real interaction of the living subject. This implies a dimensional present.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...the zero dimension point of the model, is artificial, a theoretical point and the "interposing" you refer to must be understood as a theoretical act of inserting the the theoretical point into the future-past continuum in various places, for the purpose of temporal measurements, discrete temporal units.

The present_theoretical is a math tactic, but its scope of influence needs to be contained lest it distort clear perception of the present_natural.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

However, we must still respect the reality of "the present", the true, "natural present" which serves as the perspective of the living subject.

The main premise of the theory says: a) the truth resides within the present_natural; b) the present_natural supplies the true picture of reality to the observer.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The "theoretical present", in its traditional form, as a zero dimension point served us well for hundreds, even thousands of years, in its service of measuring temporal duration. However, though it is useful, it is not acceptable as an accurate representation of the "natural present".

The distortion of the present_theoretical is what MU's theory seeks to expose and correct.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The "natural present" is the perspective of the human mind, the human being, in relation to the future-past continuum. This is the natural perspective, how we actually exist, observe and act, at the present in time, rather than the model which makes the present a point in time.

Question - Does the future_past continuum of this theory assert a unidirectional arrow of time from future to past? This is a reversal of the conventional conception of the unidirectional arrow of time from present_theoretical to future. Moreover, the flow of time from future to past feels strange and counter-intuitive. In terms of human history, this reversal suggests human progress is going backwards from sophisticated to primitive. What would be reason for that?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The traditional representation of the theoretical present puts the human soul as "outside of time", as discussed, and this, as you say, renders it "by definition, devoid of animation". This is a representation of the classical "interaction problem" of dualism. The properties of the immaterial soul, ideas etc., being eternal, and outside of time (because they exist at the zero dimension present), have not the capacity to interact with the future-past continuum.

This is the problem - the distortion of the truth - MU's theory intends to solve.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What this indicates is that the conceptualization of time employed, with a zero dimension point that can be inserted as the present, for the purpose of measurement, is faulty. It's not a true representation of the "natural present".

This is the problem stated more specifically. What's needed is a representation more faithful to the existential reality of the present_natural.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To understand the natura present, we need to review the human perspective. What I glean from such a review, is that the natural present consists of both, the past, as sensory perception (what is perceived is in the past by the time it is perceived), and the future, as what is anticipated.

The statement in bold is MU's definition of the present_natural.

Question - If what is perceived is in the past at the time of its perception, then there's only perception of the past. So there's only perception of the past (as if the present) in MU's description of present_natural.

Question - Is there not a difference between the actual future and the anticipation of the future, a mere speculation about what the future might be? If so, then we see the present is just whatever is happening presently, including speculations about the future. So, again, there's only perception of the past (as if the present) in MU's description of present_natural.

The two above questions point to the possibility MU's language, in both instances, circles back around to a theoretical point both dimensionless and timeless as the representation of the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore to provide a true modal of time we need an overlap of past and future at the present, instead of a zero dimension point which separates the two.

The statement in bold is MU's call for what s/he believes is required for correction of the problem.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This implies that future-past is improperly modeled, if modeled as a continuum. We need overlap of future and past, at the present, to allow for the real interaction of the living subject. This implies a dimensional present.

MU's conception of the correct representation of present_natural entails a confluence of past/present/future into one unified whole. As an example, consider: the combination of red, green and blue to form gray.

Now we're confronted with wrapping our minds around a temporal amalgam simultaneously past/present/future. What the heck might that be like? I contemplate with horror a temporal complex of undecidability, e.g. an inhabitant of such a realm could not know where s/he was in time.

On the other hand, is temporal undecidability just another way of saying "timeless." Does MU's theory circle back around to the inanimate, immortal soul it seeks to rebel against?

On the other hand yet again, might a temporal complex of undecidability be a jumping off point into... uh, maybe time travel?

If my previous two points example my sci-fi imagination run amok, then they're evidence MU needs to elaborate details of a multi-dimensional present_natural easily relatable to the normal person.

Reply to ucarr
Thanks for your patience ucarr, sticking with me, and your encouragement to help me through this process. I think you will find that this post will elucidate a lot, and thorough reading of it should give you a much better understanding of my perspective on this.

Quoting ucarr

The main premise of the theory says: a) the truth resides within the present_natural; b) the present_natural supplies the true picture of reality to the observer.

I'd clarify this by saying that an understanding of the present_natural would supply a true picture of reality, but we do not have that required understanding.

Quoting ucarr

Question - Does the future_past continuum of this theory assert a unidirectional arrow of time from future to past?

Since it is the case, as I described, that the present must be dimensional, then this dimension (which I call the breadth of the present) would be a qualification to the unidirectionalness.

Try looking at it this way. We understand "the flow of time" from our observations of motions. And, we observe motions as relative. The relativity of our perception of motion is the important feature of reality revealed when the heliocentric model of the solar system replaced the geocentric model. We now know, from the application of relativity theory, that "the flow of time" must also be understood as being perceived as relative, and this forces unintuitive conclusions about "the natural present", produced from our perceptions which make time relative. This is demonstrated by the principle called the relativity of simultaneity.

What I believe is demonstrated, is that if we model a single dimensional line, "an arrow of time", the present cannot be adequately positioned on that line, because the different types of objects moving relative to each other (massive vs massless), would require a different position on the line. We could simply make the area called "the present" wider, but the way that relativity theory deals with massless objects would require that the whole line would need to be "the present" at one boundary, and the other boundary would assumingly be a point. This allows for an infinitely wide present.

Clearly this is not an acceptable representation. So, if instead, we model a number of parallel lines, each representing a different type of object, from the most massive to the most massless, then each could have its own point of "the present" which would distinguish that type of objects future from its past. Then the multitude of lines, marking the flow of time for each different type of object, would be placed in relation to each other, revealing how "the past" for some types of objects is still the future for other types, in relation to the overall flow of time. This allows for the breadth of the present, the second dimension of time, where the past and the future actually overlap because of the multitude of different types of object in the vast field of reality, each having a specific "present" at a different time, making the general "present" wide..

Quoting ucarr

This is a reversal of the conventional conception of the unidirectional arrow of time from present_theoretical to future. Moreover, the flow of time from future to past feels strange and counter-intuitive. In terms of human history, this reversal suggests human progress is going backwards from sophisticated to primitive. What would be reason for that?

Modeling the flow of time as from future to past is actually much more intuitive than modeling it as past to future. The past to future model is a learned (acquired) way, derived from empirical observation, and the concept of "causation", which is entrenched by our scientific/deterministic world view. This is the model derived from the perspective of having the present as independent from (outside) of time. When we observe the passage of time from outside of time, at a point of "the present", we observe an order of the occurrence of events. One event is seen as prior to another, meaning it goes into the past first. This inclines us to position furthest past events as first (prior) and later events as posterior.

In reality, I believe, we must actually learn to suppress our truly intuitive way of looking at time, to construct that perspective which puts the observer outside of time. This is done at a very young age with the learning of moral principles, and even earlier, derived from the act/reward process. Certain types of acts result in rewards or punishments, and this is conducive to us learning the cause/effect, determinist flow of time.

But that type of moral training suppresses our true perspective, which is a more selfish perspective, placing priority on future events, what is wanted, desired. This more natural perspective assigns priority to intentions, representing the individual as a person active in the world, attempting to do things, and get what one wants. We really have very little, if any "representation" of this, because it is inherently not a representation. it is an understanding of one's own actual role in the world, as agent.

Now, when the person understands oneself to be an actual individual within the world, the eternal present, outside of time, is gone. The person is inundated with duties, responsibilities, obligations, and simple needs, things which must be done. The future then, is a source of stress and anxiety, and the passing of time is a force of immense pressure on the person, so that the individual is inclined by instinct to rush around like a squirrel collecting nuts before winter sets in.

So from this perspective, the flow of time is an oppressive future, attempting to force all that is at the present, into the past. For us this is death, and for inanimate objects, this is their breakdown and annihilation. This is why it is ultimately more intuitive to place the future as prior to the past. The coming event, the anticipated, predicted, "future event", is in the future before it is in the past. And, there is a critical condition which must be fulfilled before it can even get into the past, it must actually occur, therefore we have anxiety and stress. So the event is in the future first, as potential. The critical condition of occurrence (with its lack of necessity, which forms the concept of "contingency") is second, the present, and the event being in the past is third, posterior to the occurrence, which is posterior to the potential..

Notice that the difference may be exemplified by the way that we understand freedom of choice. The determinist way places priority in the past, making all future events caused by the past. The free choice way recognizes a lack of necessity in the occurrence of events at the present, and this invalidates the determinist model. That produces the need for a model which includes as real, the contingency of being. This model needs to include the freely willed choice, and that puts priority in the future, because the choice is the will toward a future state.

Quoting ucarr

Question - If what is perceived is in the past at the time of its perception, then there's only perception of the past. So there's only perception of the past (as if the present) in MU's description of present_natural.

Well yes, this has to be a key point, which comes from our modern understanding of light, electrical energy, and the nervous system in general. There is always a medium between the thing perceived, and the mind which perceives. You see an object a metre away, a hundred metres away, whatever, you do not see the light in between which acts as the medium. The required activity of this medium ensures that the thing seen is in the past by the time it's seen. And the same thing occurs within the nervous system itself, with the sense of touch for instance, there is a time delay, reflex time.

Quoting ucarr

Question - Is there not a difference between the actual future and the anticipation of the future, a mere speculation about what the future might be? If so, then we see the present is just whatever is happening presently, including speculations about the future. So, again, there's only perception of the past (as if the present) in MU's description of present_natural.

Talking about "the future" is when words fail us. This is due to the representative nature of the most common words. We watch, and talk about what we have experienced, and when we turn around to face the future, we get absorbed into our own minds, where our own goals and intentions take priority. Since we are always looking out for ourselves, we must fend against deception when talking about the future. So, we learn the moral principles of cause/effect, described above, and this allows us to talk about the future objectively, in the sense of predictions which are grounded in good scientific principles. However, this suppresses the individual's true view toward the future, the subjective perspective, and replaces it with the false determinist perspective. This false perspective being the one imposed by educational institutions facilitates talk about the future, but in an untrue way.

So, I think it is important to note, that "the true future" is the anticipation of the future. This is the truest view of the future that we have, just like observation and memory is the truest view of the past. The other view, where we use determinist principles of causation, to project in "objective predictions" is not a true view. It's not true because it produces a view of the future which does not respect the contingency of the present, by making the cause/effect relation necessary.

The failing of words inclines us to say things like "the actual future". Because activity occurs at the present, and anticipated events of the future have not yet reached the present, they cannot be "actual" in thi sense. "Actual" here means having activity. But there is another sense of "actual" and the difference between the two was well described by Aristotle in his Metaphysics. The second sense of "actual" means real, substantial, "having actual existence" rather than imaginary or theoretical. This sense applies only to the past. What has actually occurred at the present, is now in the past, and this is real, substantial. Future events are not substantial in that way, and have no actual existence in that sense. However, under the determinist principles of cause/effect, and objective prediction, we may extend this form of "actuality" to talk about "the actual future", to say things like "the sun actually will rise tomorrow". But this way of using "actual", to refer to things which are essentially possible, having not yet crossed the boundary of contingency, the present, is really very misleading. The determinist perspective then denies the real (substantial) difference between past and future, by referring to both with "actual"..

Quoting ucarr

The two above questions point to the possibility MU's language, in both instances, circles back around to a theoretical point both dimensionless and timeless as the representation of the present.

The theoretical "present" has some truth in its representation, as a divisor between future and past. It's principal fault is the "dimensionless point" representation, which facilitates the illusion of accurate temporal measurements. That it puts the separation between future and past outside of time, causing the interaction problem of idealism, is evidence that it is faulty. So we do not need to throw away the entire conception of "present", just what is required to bring consistency between the theoretical present and the natural present.

Quoting ucarr

MU's conception of the correct representation of present_natural entails a confluence of past/present/future into one unified whole. As an example, consider: the combination of red, green and blue to form gray.

Not quite. It's not a unified whole in the sense of your example, where the distinct colours combine to make one colour. That is more like what some people think now, future, present, and past are commonly combined and presented as a unified whole, "time". But this always involves inconsistencies. So the need is somewhat opposite, to see the distinct elements, future, and past, as completely distinct, because the present exists between these two, inserting contingency. The determinist way is to ignore contingency, represent a unified past and future, and dismissed the "the present" as unreal eternalist ideal, which is problematic. But this provides no base for understanding of the natural present, and what we call the passing of time.

So instead of "unified whole", it is an attempt to establish compatibility, consistency, commensurability between distinct features which appear to be incompatible. That is, if we deny the determinist unification because of the faults that it shows, as not a true representation, we need to come up with something else. The principles which invalidate the determinist representation, essentially the contingency factor, leave the past and future as completely distinct, with a mere appearance of incompatibility. That produces a very difficult problem.

Quoting ucarr

I contemplate with horror a temporal complex of undecidability, e.g. an inhabitant of such a realm could not know where s/he was in time.

The "undecidability" you refer to is due to the breadth of time, and the fact that we do not know our position on that spectrum. This is because our understanding of concepts like mass and energy is very primitive. It's comparable to the geocentric model of astronomy. We didn't know where we were in space. Now "the universe" is a temporal concept, having been detached from the idea of an eternal background, and we use it to provide us with a position in time, X number of years past the big bang. But in reality, we really don't know where we are in time because we do not apprehend the breadth of the present, so our way of relating small objects to huge masses like galaxies, is very faulty. .

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

The main premise of the theory says: a) the truth resides within the present_natural; b) the present_natural supplies the true picture of reality to the observer.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I'd clarify this by saying that an understanding of the present_natural would supply a true picture of reality, but we do not have that required understanding.

You're still in the hunt for an understanding of the present_natural not yet supplied by your theory.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The principles which invalidate the determinist representation, essentially the contingency factor, leave the past and future as completely distinct, with a mere appearance of incompatibility. That produces a very difficult problem.

It looks like a major goal of your theory is to promote freedom of choice over and above determinism.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...we really don't know where we are in time because we do not apprehend the breadth of the present,

It looks like another major goal of your theory is to develop a concept of the present that includes dimensional extensions of spacetime.

Furthermore, you want to knit together a coherent timeline of past_present_future that properly constrains determinism whilst protecting freedom of choice.

In overview I see you're working to revise the cosmic timeline with structural changes to the present at the center of your focus.

If you've ever read a murder mystery, then you know the timeline of events lies at the center of the analysis made by the homicide detective. You also know, from watching the work of a detective who's a competent logician, that oftentimes the timeline of events, upon close inspection, balloons into a circuitous continuity of complicated, multi-tiered perspectives. In the courtroom, a clever defendant articulates a counter-narrative that is a word salad able to confuse all but the most clear-headed and focused thinkers. The scalpel that cuts the fat and exposes the meat is math and the precision of its logic.

I see clearly your need to develop your math literacy. It will facilitate the clarity and precision of the complicated details of your theory. It will empower you to provide diagrams, charts and tables that effectively communicate your ideas, analyses and conclusions.

As it stands now, your verbal narrative shows deep thought and thoroughness. However, making theory clear to the reader requires lucid prose and, in your case, mathematical precision as a bolster. Too often your statements make a close pass to the border of obscurity.

Quoting ucarr

You're still in the hunt for an understanding of the present_natural not yet supplied by your theory.

That's right. What we've termed "present_natural" is extremely difficult. I think the best understanding of any human being barely qualifies as a start to this subject.

Quoting ucarr

It looks like a major goal of your theory is to promote freedom of choice over and above determinism.

No, I take freedom of choice as a strong premise, being a self-evident truth, supported by empirical observation of the human condition. Argumentation in support of free will is pointless because anyone who denies what is self-evident will never be convinced by argument. The goal is true understanding.

Quoting ucarr

It looks like another major goal of your theory is to develop a concept of the present that includes dimensional extensions of spacetime.

The need for multi-dimensional time is a conclusion drawn from the two basic premises, the truth of free will, and the usefulness of the determinist principles of cause/effect.

"Spacetime" is not an appropriate concept for the quest for truth, because it makes space logically prior to time, instead of time being prior to space. In other words we can conceive of time without space, providing the potential for space, but space without time is absolute nothing, from which nothing can come. That's the point of Aristotle's cosmological argument, actuality (therefore time), is prior to material existence (therefore space). Many people dismiss this argument, but it's actually very strong. So the reason why time (therefore "the present") is so difficult, is because we haven't figured out what type of activity occurs without space.

Quoting ucarr

I see clearly your need to develop your math literacy. It will facilitate the clarity and precision of the complicated details of your theory. It will empower you to provide diagrams, charts and tables that effectively communicate your ideas, analyses and conclusions.

I firmly believe that good ontology is not done with mathematics, although some Platonists think it's nothing but mathematics.. In fact, I think that mathematics distracts from truth, and misleads, being designed and conventionalized for other purposes. Cosmological mathematics has been diverted to serve "spacetime" conceptions, so the majority is useless toward truth.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

You're still in the hunt for an understanding of the present_natural not yet supplied by your theory.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That's right. What we've termed "present_natural" is extremely difficult. I think the best understanding of any human being barely qualifies as a start to this subject.

Since you acknowledge your goal is unachieved and its manifestation extremely challenging to comprehension, I return to my previous advice:

Quoting ucarr

I see clearly your need to develop your math literacy. It will facilitate the clarity and precision of the complicated details of your theory. It will empower you to provide diagrams, charts and tables that effectively communicate your ideas, analyses and conclusions.

You need visual aides that will sharpen the clarity of what you're envisioning.

Quoting ucarr

Question - Does the future_past continuum of this theory assert a unidirectional arrow of time from future to past?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Since it is the case, as I described, that the present must be dimensional, then this dimension (which I call the breadth of the present) would be a qualification to the unidirectionalness.

Your conceptualization of the present as dimensionally extended and bi-directional entails radical changes to establishment physics’ conventional view of time:

• If the present has duration due to dimensional extension, then I ask if you’re nesting a tripartite past_present_future within the present? This is a big escalation of the complexity of the picture of time.

• If the present is bi-directional,* then I ask if you’re nesting a tripartite past_present_future within the present that includes reversal of entropy. Since establishment physics’ conventional view of entropy is that it, like time, is unidirectional and only moves towards increasing disorder, then your “breadth of the present… would be a qualification to the unidirectionalness,” suggests your belief in a contrarian physics entailing a stupendous increase of complexity of the timeline of time.

*You’re saying that when you drop an egg onto the floor, given your conceptualization of the present as bi-directional, the shattered egg will reassemble itself and fly backwards up and into your hand once again whole. To substantiate your theory, you must show yourself experiencing this reversal of the increase of entropy. Can you do this?

Your stupendously complexified timeline of time figures to be the centerpiece of your theory of time. If you persist in your claim the clarifying visualizations of math graphics is bad procedure for explicating the physics of time, I’ll start leaning heavily towards the conclusion you’re proceeding with a word-salad laden approach thoroughly benighted.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We now know, from the application of relativity theory, that "the flow of time" must also be understood as being perceived as relative, and this forces unintuitive conclusions about "the natural present", produced from our perceptions which make time relative. This is demonstrated by the principle called the relativity of simultaneity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What I believe is demonstrated, is that if we model a single dimensional line, "an arrow of time", the present cannot be adequately positioned on that line, because the different types of objects moving relative to each other (massive vs massless), would require a different position on the line. We could simply make the area called "the present" wider, but the way that relativity theory deals with massless objects would require that the whole line would need to be "the present" at one boundary, and the other boundary would assumingly be a point. This allows for an infinitely wide present.

Clearly this is not an acceptable representation. So, if instead, we model a number of parallel lines, each representing a different type of object, from the most massive to the most massless, then each could have its own point of "the present" which would distinguish that type of objects future from its past. Then the multitude of lines, marking the flow of time for each different type of object, would be placed in relation to each other, revealing how "the past" for some types of objects is still the future for other types, in relation to the overall flow of time. This allows for the breadth of the present, the second dimension of time, where the past and the future actually overlap because of the multitude of different types of object in the vast field of reality, each having a specific "present" at a different time, making the general "present" wide..

Regarding your three paragraphs above, try to walk a mile in the shoes of one of your readers. You're describing a complex timeline nested within the present. The interweave of the three temporal phases (past, present, future) plus parallel lines featuring particles both massive and massless presents a very complicated concept. Visuals depicting the interactions of the parts is the right way to go.

Having to think your way through the visuals will usefully confront you with perplexities you're unlikely to see from the point of view of a verbal narrative.

The confusion-adjacent complexity of your narrative exemplifies the reason establishment physics employs two languages: verbal, mathematical.

Quoting ucarr

You need visual aides that will sharpen the clarity of what you're envisioning.

I actually have produced some visual aids in the past, consisting of horizontal and vertical lines. These simple drawings are not difficult to produce. The difficult aspect is accepting the required premises. The reality of free will requires that some aspects of, or even the entire physical universe, must be created anew at every passing moment of time. This is very difficult to fathom, and most people prefer to just fall back on the determinist representation showing the continuity of a physical universe.

Quoting ucarr

Your conceptualization of the present as dimensionally extended and bi-directional entails radical changes to establishment physics’ conventional view of time:

If the present has duration due to dimensional extension, then I ask if you’re nesting a tripartite past_present_future within the present? This is a big escalation of the complexity of the picture of time.

If the present is bi-directional,* then I ask if you’re nesting a tripartite past_present_future within the present that includes reversal of entropy. Since establishment physics’ conventional view of entropy is that it, like time, is unidirectional and only moves towards increasing disorder, then your “breadth of the present… would be a qualification to the unidirectionalness,” suggests your belief in a contrarian physics entailing a stupendous increase of complexity of the timeline of time.

It is not the case that the time proposed is bi-directional. What I propose is that physical things come into existence (are recreated) at each moment of passing time. Once it is created at the present it cannot be changed, but until that moment it is not determined. The second dimension of the present allows that some types of objects move into the past (receive material existence) prior to others, at the present. This means that the present is multidimensional because some types of objects are already in the past (fixed), while other types are just beginning to materialize. Empirical evidence indicates that massive objects are created and move into the past first, that is why they have inertia, obey basic determinist laws, and it is more difficult for freely willed acts to change them. Massless things are created last, having their moment of the present later, and this provides free will the greater capacity to use them for change.

So consider the premise that anything, any state of being, which comes into existence at the present. must be predetermined (principle of sufficient reason) by something. Now imagine a number of parallel horizontal lines, as arrows of time, in the same direction, arrows pointing left. At the top of the page is the most massive type of object, and at the bottom is the least massive type. At the top line, the present is to the right, so that the entire line is in the past. At the bottom line, the present is to the left, so the entire line is in the future. "The present" refers to when each type of object gains its physical existence. Notice that at any moment, massive objects already have physical existence before massless objects do. This allows that a slight change to a massive object, through a freely will act, is capable of producing a large effect on massless objects. This effect we observe as our capacity to change things.

Quoting ucarr

Your stupendously complexified timeline of time figures to be the centerpiece of your theory of time. If you persist in your claim the clarifying visualizations of math graphics is bad procedure for explicating the physics of time, I’ll start leaning heavily towards the conclusion you’re proceeding with a word-salad laden approach thoroughly benighted.

Again, the key point is conceptualizing and contemplating time in such a way which allows for freedom of choice. This does not require mathematics, it requires accepting a discontinuity at the present, such that the world can "change" at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act. This implies that the physical world must be recreated at each moment of passing time. Once this principle is accepted, the dynamics of how this occurs (like the proposal above) can be discussed. Only when some of these basic principles can be ironed out, would diagrams and mathematics be useful.

Quoting ucarr

Regarding your three paragraphs above, try to walk a mile in the shoes of one of your readers. You're describing a complex timeline nested within the present. The interweave of the three temporal phases (past, present, future) plus parallel lines featuring particles both massive and massless presents a very complicated concept. Visuals depicting the interactions of the parts is the right way to go.

Having to think your way through the visuals will usefully confront you with perplexities you're unlikely to see from the point of view of a verbal narrative.

I have great respect for the "perplexities", and I've worked out a few, but I know there is far more left. If any mathematician, physicist, or cosmologist, will take the premises seriously, I would guide them through the application of their tools. However, any such effort would be pointless without agreement on fundamental premises, and this cannot be produced through mathematics or diagrams.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The reality of free will requires that some aspects of, or even the entire physical universe, must be created anew at every passing moment of time.

You're saying free choice remakes the universe?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is not the case that the time proposed is bi-directional.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Since it is the case, as I described, that the present must be dimensional, then this dimension (which I call the breadth of the present) would be a qualification to the unidirectionalness.

qualification | ?kwäl?f??k?SH(?)n |
noun
3 a statement or assertion that makes another less absolute
-- The Apple Dictionary

Since the present must be dimensional, and this dimensional extension does not demand a specific direction, and the true flow of time, as per the subjective point of view of your theory, flows from future to past, whereas the established view has time flowing from past to future, then it seems logical that your theory either: a) makes the flow of time bi-directional, or b) reverses the established flow of time. Is it a) or b), or do you think another possibility exists?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

[i]It is not the case that the time proposed is bi-directional. What I propose is that physical things come into existence (are recreated) at each moment of passing time. Once it is created at the present it cannot be changed, but until that moment it is not determined. The second dimension of the present allows that some types of objects move into the past (receive material existence) prior to others, at the present. This means that the present is multidimensional because some types of objects are already in the past (fixed), while other types are just beginning to materialize. Empirical evidence indicates that massive objects are created and move into the past first, that is why they have inertia, obey basic determinist laws, and it is more difficult for freely willed acts to change them. Massless things are created last, having their moment of the present later, and this provides free will the greater capacity to use them for change.

So consider the premise that anything, any state of being, which comes into existence at the present. must be predetermined (principle of sufficient reason) by something. Now imagine a number of parallel horizontal lines, as arrows of time, in the same direction, arrows pointing left. At the top of the page is the most massive type of object, and at the bottom is the least massive type. At the top line, the present is to the right, so that the entire line is in the past. At the bottom line, the present is to the left, so the entire line is in the future. "The present" refers to when each type of object gains its physical existence. Notice that at any moment, massive objects already have physical existence before massless objects do. This allows that a slight change to a massive object, through a freely will act, is capable of producing a large effect on massless objects. This effect we observe as our capacity to change things.[/i]

Are you interacting with a lot of readers who find your two above paragraphs to be a clear, thorough and easy to understand narration of your ontological theory? To provide an example of how unclear the mission of your theory has been to me, let me tell you that until just now, I didn't know your theory is not only a theory of the timeline of time. That's just one component of a broadly inclusive and intricately detailed theory of physics.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Again, the key point is conceptualizing and contemplating time in such a way which allows for freedom of choice. This does not require mathematics, it requires accepting a discontinuity at the present, such that the world can "change" at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act. This implies that the physical world must be recreated at each moment of passing time. Once this principle is accepted, the dynamics of how this occurs (like the proposal above) can be discussed.

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement. In other words, time is mathematics.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Only when some of these basic principles can be ironed out, would diagrams and mathematics be useful.

If ironing out the basic principles and making diagrams explained by math isn't your job, then whose job is it?

Aside from slogging around in the verbiage you’ve been presenting, how are we to understand “discontinuity at the present, such that the world can ‘change’ at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act.”? Since this is what is already taking place, then how is your theory adding anything to the world? If, on the other hand, you could say “I can calculate when the human individual is present in the present at such time when the scope of freedom of choice is at maximum,” then, if true, your calculation would be adding something to the world.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If any mathematician, physicist, or cosmologist, will take the premises seriously, I would guide them through the application of their tools.

Again, if taking the premises seriously isn't enough to motivate you to do the job of working out their practical applications mathematically, then whose job is it?

Personal Note -- All of my tough talk applies to me. Our dialogue is helping me correct myself in exactly the same ways I suggest you correct yourself. Since we're alike, I'll share this: Without a firm grounding in the work of science, my philosophy will remain at its present level, unpublished. Have you been published?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I have great respect for the "perplexities", and I've worked out a few

If you've got diagrams that explain visually some perplexities you've worked out, then share them here.

Hello @ucarr and @Metaphysician Undercover, how are you? Mind if I jump in at this point? I'll just go for it, since I seem to be having the same problem that you two are having. Let me see if I can look at this from a different angle:

Quoting ucarr

qualification | ?kwäl?f??k?SH(?)n |
noun
3 a statement or assertion that makes another less absolute
-- The Apple Dictionary

Let's take the dictionary's word for that. And let's read that literally, as in, it is not open to interpretation. That being the case, if a qualification is literally a statement or assertion that makes another (statement or assertion) less absolute, then, by definition, it makes them (the statement or assertion in question) more relative. In general, to be less absolute is to be more relative, and to be less relative is to be more absolute. That, from a purely technical, formal standpoint.

Quoting ucarr

I didn't know your theory is not only a theory of the timeline of time. That's just one component of a broadly inclusive and intricately detailed theory of physics.

I agree with this. A broadly inclusive, intricately detailed theory of physics, would include a theory of the timeline of time. But the former cannot be reduced to the latter, and this is also presumably by definition.

Quoting ucarr

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement.

Hmmm... do I agree with this? I'll tell you what I think. I accept Mario Bunge's definition of space and time. He says the following:

(Bunge, 1977: 308):So much for our outline of a relational theory of spacetime. Such a theory is not only relational but also compatible with relativistic physics, in that (a) it assumes the structure of spacetime to depend upon its furniture, and (b) it does not postulate a global structure. However, the theory is not relativistic: it does not include any of the special laws characterizing the various relativistic theories, such as for example the frame independence of the velocity of light, or the equations of the gravitational field. The relational theory of spacetime sketched above is just a component of the background of any general-relativistic theory- if one cares to add such an ontological background. Physicists usually don't: they are in the habit of postulating the four-manifold without inquiring into its roots in events.

Quoting ucarr

You're saying free choice remakes the universe?

No, I am saying that in order for human beings to be able to act freely to change the universe at will, at any passing moment, these parts of the universe must be made anew at each passing moment. It does not makes sense to think that only some specific parts of the universe are created anew at each passing moment, so we need to assume that the entire universe is.

Consider "X exists". As time passes, at each moment, X continues to exist. Consider now, that at any moment of the present, as time passes, a free will act could annihilate X. Since it is possible to annihilate X at any moment of the present, then X cannot have any necessary existence prior to the present, i.e. in the future. If, at any moment of passing time, the existence of X at the next moment is necessary, then the free will act could not act to annihilate X at that moment. So X's existence in the future is not necessary. And since the free will could act at any moment, then there can be no existence of X in the future at any moment of the present. Therefore we must conclude that X must be recreated at each moment of passing time.

Quoting ucarr

dimensional extension does not demand a specific direction,

A specific direction is demanded. As I explained making the future prior to the past does not involve reversing the flow of time, it just involves recognizing that the future is prior to the past. For example, Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past. This requires a sort of reifying of time, such that the day which we know as Jan 5 (that portion of time), can have a proper place "in time".

Quoting ucarr

Are you interacting with a lot of readers who find your two above paragraphs to be a clear, thorough and easy to understand narration of your ontological theory?

As far as I know you are the only one who read those paragraphs. And, I know from the fact that I have to repeat for you, that you have difficulty understanding me.

Quoting ucarr

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement. In other words, time is mathematics.

What you are talking about is "time" as a measurement, mathematics. Aristotle, in his physics, thousands of years ago, explain how there is two distinct senses of "time". One sense is what you say here, "time" as measurement, but also there is a sense of "time" as what is measured. This is the distinction I made with present_artificial, and present_natural.

Consider for example, the existence of a clock. The clock is a device which is measuring the passing of time. So there is something real, independent from the mathematics, which the clock is measuring, the passing of time. This is "time" in the sense of what is measured, what we know as the passing of time, and this real passing of time is what grounds the so-called "arrow of time" as necessary.

On the other hand, we can also take the clock, and use it as you propose, to measure motion. This is a distinct sense of "time", because here "time" refers to principles for comparing motions using a conceptual structure. So if I time myself with a clock, and determine that it took me ten minutes to walk to the store, then what I am doing is comparing the temporal extension of that activity, to the temporal extension of whatever activity the clock is doing, calibrated by some principles, mathematics applied, and the conclusion, "ten minutes" is derived.

Notice, that in the second sense of "time", the one you describe, the real activity of time, the passing of time, is not even a required aspect for the measurement. It is implied that there is such a real passing of time, in the concept of "temporal extension", but it is not at all a required part of the measurement. The measurement is simply a product of comparing two different motions, through the application of principles.

Quoting ucarr

Aside from slogging around in the verbiage you’ve been presenting, how are we to understand “discontinuity at the present, such that the world can ‘change’ at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act.”? Since this is what is already taking place, then how is your theory adding anything to the world? If, on the other hand, you could say “I can calculate when the human individual is present in the present at such time when the scope of freedom of choice is at maximum,” then, if true, your calculation would be adding something to the world.

Sorry, I can't understand this.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Let's take the dictionary's word for that. And let's read that literally, as in, it is not open to interpretation. That being the case, if a qualification is literally a statement or assertion that makes another (statement or assertion) less absolute, then, by definition, it makes them (the statement or assertion in question) more relative. In general, to be less absolute is to be more relative, and to be less relative is to be more absolute. That, from a purely technical, formal standpoint.

Ucarr asked me if my temporal theory involves a unidirectional flow of time. I said yes, but since the present has dimensional breadth, the unidirectional aspect is somewhat qualified. The bread of the present allows that some types of objects move into the past prior to other types moving into the past, so that relatively speaking, if something were able to extend itself across the present (similar to acceleration in relativity theory), this thing could move from the past into the future, instead of the natural flow of time which has the future moving into the past. But this is a relative movement, which allows backward motion, across time, so time stays unidirectional in the true sense.

.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich

Welcome to our conversation. Thanks for joining. I appreciate your input.

Quoting ucarr

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Hmmm... do I agree with this? I'll tell you what I think. I accept Mario Bunge's definition of space and time.

(Bunge, 1977: 308):So much for our outline of a relational theory of spacetime. Such a theory is not only relational but also compatible with relativistic physics...

So, relational theory and relativistic theory are compatible but non-identical. Moreover, the former is non-essential wallpaper within the context of the latter.

Do you characterize my definition of time as a relational theory?

(Bunge, 1977: 308):...it (relational theory) does not include any of the special laws characterizing the various relativistic theories, such as for example the frame independence of the velocity of light, or the equations of the gravitational field.

You're implying a properly current definition of time must include the above properties? If so, no argument. My general premise herein is that time is mathematical.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It does not makes sense to think that only some specific parts of the universe are created anew at each passing moment, so we need to assume that the entire universe is.

Do you speak to the deep interconnection of existing things, as in the context of the butterfly effect?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Since it is possible to annihilate X at any moment of the present, then X cannot have any necessary existence prior to the present, i.e. in the future.

You're committing your temporal theory to a uni-directional arrow of time featuring a future that progresses to the present, and then a present that progresses to the past?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...X must be recreated at each moment of passing time.

Does this process of continuous recreation entail an oscillation between construction/deconstruction of every existing thing? If so, why is the universe unstable in this way?

Since the process of continuous recreation necessitates the elapse of a positive interval of time, how does this time consuming cyclical structure of construction/deconstruction formally integrate into the structure of your tripartite temporal timeline: future_present_past?

Quoting ucarr

dimensional extension does not demand a specific direction,

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

A specific direction is demanded. As I explained making the future prior to the past does not involve reversing the flow of time, it just involves recognizing that the future is prior to the past. For example, Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past. This requires a sort of reifying of time, such that the day which we know as Jan 5 (that portion of time), can have a proper place "in time"

How are: a) Object A moves toward its future and b) the future moves toward Object A, its past, decidable given that time moves in both directions, albeit in two different senses (one relative and one true)?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Notice, that in the second sense of "time", the one you describe, the real activity of time, the passing of time, is not even a required aspect for the measurement. It is implied that there is such a real passing of time, in the concept of "temporal extension", but it is not at all a required part of the measurement. The measurement is simply a product of comparing two different motions, through the application of principles.

Give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Again, the key point is conceptualizing and contemplating time in such a way which allows for freedom of choice. This does not require mathematics, it requires accepting a discontinuity at the present, such that the world can "change" at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act.

When I pick up my pen and write in my notebook, is that an example of a discontinuity freely chosen at a moment in the present in such a way that the world changes? If it is then, as we all know, multitudes of humans all over the planet are doing this every day. Therefore, with this in mind,

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...conceptualizing and contemplating time in such a way which allows for freedom of choice... such that the world can "change" at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act.

seems to be nothing more than a description of what's already taking place.

If this is what is already taking place, then how is your theory adding anything to the world? Suppose you could say “Through manipulation of the timeline of time, I can calculate when the human individual can access freedom of choice at its maximum." That would be an example of you adding something useful to the world.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The bread [sic] of the present allows that some types of objects move into the past prior to other types moving into the past...

If the present is dimensionally extended, and if two different things are both in this dimensionally extended present, with one of the things overlapping this present with the past, and the other thing simply being in the present, then: a) what is the physics of the thing simultaneously in the present and the past; b) how are these two things related to each other within the present?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...so that relatively speaking, if something were able to extend itself across the present (similar to acceleration in relativity theory), this thing could move from the past into the future...

Explain "acceleration in relativity theory" in your context here.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

....instead of the natural flow of time which has the future moving into the past.

In your context here, is movement from the past into the future a reversal of movement from the future into the past?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But this is a relative movement, which allows backward motion, across time, so time stays unidirectional in the true sense.

Can you give an example of a non-relative movement?

Is backward motion across time exemplified by the broken egg reassembling itself into a whole egg?

Does backward motion across time cause reverse entropy, i.e. a functional system in isolation experiences diminishing disorder?

If time can move backwards in the relative sense, and yet time stays unidirectional in the true sense, are you implying time in the relative sense is something other than true?

Quoting ucarr

Do you speak to the deep interconnection of existing things, as in the context of the butterfly effect?

No, I mean that if we have to conceive of the relation between space and time in such a way as to allow that some specific objects are recreated at each moment of passing time, it wouldn't make sense to also use another conception of that relation to represent the existence of other objects. We'd have two distinct and incompatible conceptions of the relations between space and time. Imagine if someone wanted to model the earth as orbiting the sun but have the other planets and stars modeled the geocentric way. It would not work.


Quoting ucarr

You're committing your temporal theory to a uni-directional arrow of time featuring a future that progresses to the present, and then a present that progresses to the past?

Not really. Time is unidirectional, future to past. This is an activity of the world, what we know as the future becoming the past, The day named as "tomorrow" becomes the day named as "yesterday" through this activity, this process of the future becoming the past. And, this activity is what is known as "the present". The real activity of this, in the assumed independent world, is what we termed "present-natural". However, "the present" also refers to how we represent this activity, for the sake of temporal measurement. That is "present-artificial". And these two constitute the two senses of "time", "time" as the thing measured being the former, and "time" as a measurement being the latter.

Quoting ucarr

Does this process of continuous recreation entail an oscillation between construction/deconstruction of every existing thing? If so, why is the universe unstable in this way?

There is no need for deconstruction. The existing things as constructed simply move into the past. Imagine a "flipbook", except each page is created at the moment of the present, instead of preexisting. The page then moves into the past. Remember what I described, the force of time is from future to past.

Quoting ucarr

How are: a) Object A moves toward its future and b) the future moves toward Object A, its past decidable given that time moves in both directions, albeit in two different senses (one relative and one true)?

As explained above. These two are incompatible. It's like the difference between relative time and absolute time, or geocentric/heliocentric. We can model the world either way, but we cannot use both because there will be incompatibility where the two overlap. So we cannot, in one inclusive model, represent object A in both ways.

Quoting ucarr

Give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space.

Simply imagine what it means for time to pass, then imagine this happening without anything in the world changing. Here's another way. Imagine that there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration. Now imagine half a Planck time. That is a duration of time during which an object changing its place in space is impossible.

Quoting ucarr

If this is what is already taking place, then how is your theory adding anything to the world?

The free will activity is taking place, that is what you acknowledge. An accurate temporal representation of it does not exist because our representations are determinist. That's the problem.

Quoting ucarr

Suppose you could say “Through manipulation of the timeline of time, I can calculate when the human individual can access freedom of choice at its maximum." That would be an example of you adding something useful to the world.

This is exactly the misconception that I am trying to avoid. You are saying, instead of representing time and space in a way which allows that free will is real, let's just assume that someone, some day, will provide a way to show that determinism is true, and free will is not real. This is simply denial of the self-evident truth, which I referred to earlier, the truth of free will.

Quoting ucarr

If the present is dimensionally extended, and if two different things are both in this dimensionally extended present, with one of the things overlapping this present with the past, and the other thing simply being in the present, then: a) what is the physics of the thing simultaneously in the present and the past; b) how are these two things related to each other within the present?

I don't understand this at all.

Quoting ucarr

n your context here, is movement from the past into the future a reversal of movement from the future into the past?

It's just a different representation of the very same thing, like geocentric/heliocentric. In this case it is the determinist representation as compared to the free willist representation. One can represent either way.
But the two are incompatible so we cannot have one model which uses both, one to represent some aspects of reality, and the other to represent other aspects of reality, because things which interact between the two will be unrepresentable.

Quoting ucarr

If time can move backwards in the relative sense, and yet time stays unidirectional in the true sense, are you implying time in the relative sense is something other than true?

What I described is not "time moving backward". That is impossible. What I described is a hypothetical "thing", which could not be a natural thing, moving from the past to the future (reverse direction of time) by crossing the relational spectrum of "the present of different types of objects", essentially by moving faster against the flow of time, than the speed of the flow of time.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, I mean that if we have to conceive of the relation between space and time in such a way as to allow that some specific objects are recreated at each moment of passing time, it wouldn't make sense to also use another conception of that relation to represent the existence of other objects. We'd have two distinct and incompatible conceptions of the relations between space and time. Imagine if someone wanted to model the earth as orbiting the sun but have the other planets and stars modeled the geocentric way. It would not work.

Are there two basic premises here: a) Material existence is a continuous recreation, moment-to-moment; b) Material creation, moment-to-moment, is global, not local.

Quoting ucarr

You're committing your temporal theory to a uni-directional arrow of time featuring a future that progresses to the present, and then a present that progresses to the past?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Not really.

You're hedging against a commitment to a uni-directional flow of time from the future to a dimensionally extended present?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Time is unidirectional, future to past. This is an activity of the world, what we know as the future becoming the past, The day named as "tomorrow" becomes the day named as "yesterday" through this activity, this process of the future becoming the past.

Tomorrow becomes yesterday through the uni-directional arrow of time, future-to-past?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And, this activity is what is known as "the present". The real activity of this, in the assumed independent world, is what we termed "present-natural".

Tomorrow becomes yesterday through the uni-directional arrow of time as the present?

What temporal structure supports the two above “Tomorrow” premises as consistent statements?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The real activity of this, in the assumed independent world, is what we termed "present-natural".

Present_natural supports the uni-directional arrow of time as future-to-past, and it also supports the uni-directional arrow of time as dimensionally-extending-present?

Present_natural supports these two activities simultaneously?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

However, "the present" also refers to how we represent this activity, for the sake of temporal measurement. That is "present-artificial".

Present_artificial, another component of "the present," supports temporal measurement?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And these two constitute the two senses of "time", "time" as the thing measured being the former [present_natural], and "time" as a measurement being the latter [present_artificial].

Present_natural supports time as a thing-in-itself, with a uni-directional arrow of time both future-to-past and dimensionally extended present?

Present_artificial supports time as a measurement distinct from time as a thing-in-itself?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There is no need for deconstruction. The existing things as constructed simply move into the past. Imagine a "flipbook", except each page is created at the moment of the present, instead of preexisting. The page then moves into the past.

In the "flip book," each page is created at the moment of the present, and since the present is dimensionally extended as a sequence of moments, each page created at the moment of the present is recreated across the sequence of moments?

Recreation across a sequence of moments is the same thing as persistent existence across a sequence of moments?

Existing things created at the moment of the dimensionally extended present can also move into the past as existing things created in the dimensionally extended present? The result is a past populated with existing things created in the dimensionally extended present?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As explained above. These two are incompatible.

Quoting ucarr

How are: a) Object A moves toward its future and b) the future moves toward Object A, its past, decidable given that time moves in both directions, albeit in two different senses (one relative and one true)?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As explained above. These two are incompatible. It's like the difference between relative time and absolute time, or geocentric/heliocentric. We can model the world either way, but we cannot use both because there will be incompatibility where the two overlap. So we cannot, in one inclusive model, represent object A in both ways.

In saying we can (correctly) model the world either way, you're basing your faith in the correctness of absolute time on New Age Physics? Since absolute time encompasses the entire world, then relative time, being incompatible, cannot coexist with it. So you must be proposing a multiverse containing two incompatible universes. Isn't such a multiverse a contradiction? Please click on the link below.

New Age Physics

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If your above quote tells us, in effect (although not explicitly), that the future approaches the present, then it tells us that simultaneously the present approaches the future because the position of the two things, relative to each other, changes. Since a dimensionally extended present supports such a relativistic approach bi-directional (whereas a theoretical point of zero dimensions present doesn't), doesn't that stalemate your future-to-past arrow of time into undecidability?

[s]It's like the difference between relative time and absolute time, or geocentric/heliocentric. We can model the world either way, but we cannot use both because there will be incompatibility where the two overlap. So we cannot, in one inclusive model, represent object A in both ways.

[/s]

Quoting ucarr

If the present is dimensionally extended, and if two different things are both in this dimensionally extended present, with one of the things overlapping this present with the past, and the other thing simply being in the present, then: a) what is the physics of the thing simultaneously in the present and the past; b) how are these two things related to each other within the present?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand this at all.

If you don't at all understand what I'm asking above, then this might be evidence you, no less than I, have a fundamental problem with the rolling out of your theory in the fullness of its detail. You, like I, appear to be struggling to achieve a clear and full comprehension of some possibly important ramifications of the details of your theory. Take another look at what you posted earlier:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What I believe is demonstrated, is that if we model a single dimensional line, "an arrow of time", the present cannot be adequately positioned on that line, because the different types of objects moving relative to each other (massive vs massless), would require a different position on the line. We could simply make the area called "the present" wider, but the way that relativity theory deals with massless objects would require that the whole line would need to be "the present" at one boundary, and the other boundary would assumingly be a point. This allows for an infinitely wide present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Clearly this is not an acceptable representation. So, if instead, we model a number of parallel lines, each representing a different type of object, from the most massive to the most massless, then each could have its own point of "the present" which would distinguish that type of objects future from its past. Then the multitude of lines, marking the flow of time for each different type of object, would be placed in relation to each other, revealing how "the past" for some types of objects is still the future for other types, in relation to the overall flow of time. This allows for the breadth of the present, the second dimension of time, where the past and the future actually overlap because of the multitude of different types of object in the vast field of reality, each having a specific "present" at a different time, making the general "present" wide...

I think a dimensionally extended present - it contains a future_present_past timeline - entails nesting a second temporal timeline within a larger structure that also has a future_present_past timeline. This larger structure is the temporal timeline: future_present_past, including in its present, the second, nested future_present_past timeline. This multi-tiered complexity implies physical relationships whose questions about which you don't understand at all.

Quoting ucarr

Give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine that there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration. Now imagine half a Planck time. That is a duration of time during which an object changing its place in space is impossible.

If the Planck time is the shortest possible time duration, then half of that duration doesn't exist, so it can't be an example of time independent of a material object changing its position in space. Moreover, by this same argument, the Planck time duration limit cements the existing bond between a material object changing its position in space and its math measurement. Again, by this same argument, your claim time exists independent of material objects and their math measurement renders it immaterial.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What I described is not "time moving backward". That is impossible.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

For example, Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past. This requires a sort of reifying of time, such that the day which we know as Jan 5 (that portion of time), can have a proper place "in time".

All of your language above implies an arrow of time moving backwards from the future towards the present (since it's dimensional) and then to the past. If the language is figurative, then it only refers to an abstract idea of time, and not to a physically real time.

Quoting ucarr

In saying we can (correctly) model the world either way, you're basing your faith in the correctness of absolute time on New Age Physics? Since absolute time encompasses the entire world, then relative time, being incompatible, cannot coexist with it. So you must be proposing a multiverse containing two incompatible universes. Isn't such a multiverse a contradiction? Please click on the link below.

As I said, I'm basing my faith in what I believe to be a self- evident truth, free will. I don't see how this relates to multiverses.

Quoting ucarr

Please click on the link below.

New Age Physics

This theory is actually very different from mine. There is a sort of starting premise which is similar to one of mine, what I said about the passing of time being a force, the future forces itself upon us. Here's the similar statement from the New Age Physics article:

One crucial component of my ‘Theory of Universal Absolutivity’, is that the flow of Time is the source of all kinetic energy because it enables all movement. This becomes very apparent when not ‘at rest’, i.e. when subject to a force other than just the forward progression of Time. Owing to the curvature of space created by the Earth’s mass, all human beings experience the ‘force’ of gravity, that being the Earth’s resistance to our continual forward momentum through space-time towards the centre of the Earth. We still progress through the universe at exactly the same speed of Absolute-Time – (there is no other option!) – but we are in resistance to this speed because we are not in an inertial frame of reference. So, for example, when we walk up stairs, or sharply change direction in a car, the additional pressure we experience is our increased resistance to vectors of Absolute-Time.

The big difference though, is that the New Age theory does not take the very important premise of free will. It is the premise of free will which makes the future to past flow of time evident, as we seek the means to avoid being swept into the past (the means to survival), by the force of the future becoming the past. The other thing which the New Age theory doesn't provide, which is necessitated by free will, is the multi-dimensional present.

The issue of free will is what makes time relevant to the op.

Quoting ucarr

If you don't at all understand what I'm asking above, then this might be evidence you, no less than I, have a fundamental problem with the rolling out of your theory in the fullness of its detail. You, like I, appear to be struggling to achieve a clear and full comprehension of some possibly important ramifications of the details of your theory. Take another look at what you posted earlier:

Yeah sure, I agree with this. As I said, time is a very difficult subject which no one has a good understanding of. And of course, that includes me.

Quoting ucarr

I think a dimensionally extended present - it contains a future_present_past timeline - entails nesting a second temporal timeline within a larger structure that also has a future_present_past timeline.

You are not understanding the breadth of time at all. Start with this. How long is the present? That depends on context. The present might be 2025, a full year, it might be this week, today, this hour, this second, etc.. This way of determining the length of the present is completely dependent on one's purpose, so we can say it's arbitrary. Another way, to simply stipulate that the present is a dimensionless point between past and future, is demonstrably unreal, as we've discussed.

So, I propose that there is a true, non-arbitrary breadth of the present. So, not only do we have an arrow of time, the flow of time, but that arrow is not one-dimensional, it has a second dimension, breadth, the arrow has thickness. This is necessary to avoid the falsity of "the point of the present", and the arbitrariness of a duration of "the present".

Quoting ucarr

This larger structure is the temporal timeline: future_present_past, including in its present, the second, nested future_present_past timeline. This multi-tiered complexity implies physical relationships whose questions about which you don't understand at all.

So this is irrelevant being based in that misunderstanding.

Quoting ucarr

If the Planck time is the shortest possible time duration, then half of that duration doesn't exist, so it can't be an example of time independent of a material object changing its position in space.

The Planck length is not the shortest possible time duration, nor did I say that it is. I said its the "shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world". Notice the difference. The limit here is imposed by the restrictions to empirical observation. However, it is not a logical restriction. A shorter time period is still logically possible. Just because we do not currently have the capacity to observe it, does not mean that we ought to rule it out as a logical possibility.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

Give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine that there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration. Now imagine half a Planck time. That is a duration of time during which an object changing its place in space is impossible.

Quoting ucarr

If the Planck time is the shortest possible time duration, then half of that duration doesn't exist, so it can't be an example of time independent of a material object changing its position in space. Moreover, by this same argument, the Planck time duration limit cements the existing bond between a material object changing its position in space and its math measurement. Again, by this same argument, your claim time exists independent of material objects and their math measurement renders it immaterial.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The Planck length is not the shortest possible time duration, nor did I say that it is. I said its the "shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world". Notice the difference. The limit here is imposed by the restrictions to empirical observation. However, it is not a logical restriction. A shorter time period is still logically possible. Just because we do not currently have the capacity to observe it, does not mean that we ought to rule it out as a logical possibility.

Firstly, I asked you to give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space. Instead, you ask me to imagine (along with you) half a Planck time. A conjecture, which has a measure of scientific and logical formalism, falls short of an example, which is evidence from the real world. The act of imagination you invite me join as proof of time's independence from measurement doesn't even have the nascent persuasiveness of a conjecture.

Secondly, even if we grant the existence of half a Planck time, such a reality of Planck time means material objects occupying that space, so how does that show time's independence from measurement via math tracking the change of position of a material object in space? It doesn't.

Your two closing lines indicate you are making your argument for time's independence by knowingly imagining something unreal and thus devoid of material objects. Of course, this argument also doesn't work, because, as I've said, unreal things don't count as evidence.

Thirdly, if we assume future technology will empower observation of material reality below the Planck scale, then continuing on this path, which you argue for logically, we make an ever more close approach to the present moment as a theoretical vanishing point with zero dimensions. I think this is the third time that your attempt to argue for your theory has you instead arguing for its refutation.

Quoting ucarr

You're committing your temporal theory to a uni-directional arrow of time featuring a future that progresses to the present, and then a present that progresses to the past?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Not really.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Time is unidirectional, future to past. This is an activity of the world, what we know as the future becoming the past, The day named as "tomorrow" becomes the day named as "yesterday" through this activity, this process of the future becoming the past. And, this activity is what is known as "the present". The real activity of this, in the assumed independent world, is what we termed "present-natural"

Quoting ucarr

You're hedging against a firm commitment to a uni-directional flow of time from the future to a dimensionally extended present. This is evidence components of your theory are inconsistent and contrary. Therefore, as you face a variety of refutations, you waffle between different positions according whatever you think the best defense in the moment.

Your attempt to spin away from the present as zero dimensional doesn't work because your uni-directional time, future to past is just a word game. It has no effect whatsoever upon physical spacetime. We all know this because we all know that all we ever experience in reality is our asymptotically close approach to the present moment of time, and that's the very near past chasing the very near present. When you declare that tomorrow is prior to today in time, you always make this declaration in the nearly present moment. Our thoughts are not prior to our position in time, regardless of the word games we play. Even if it's true our minds make decisions before our conscious awareness of them, the neuronal activity at the subconscious level is still the near past chasing the near present. The arrow of time for the real, physical time is the near past chasing the near present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, I propose that there is a true, non-arbitrary breadth of the present. So, not only do we have an arrow of time, the flow of time, but that arrow is not one-dimensional, it has a second dimension, breadth, the arrow has thickness. This is necessary to avoid the falsity of "the point of the present", and the arbitrariness of a duration of "the present".

If the arrow of time has breadth, then it is an area and not a line. How does this change time's operations within the context of relativity, which shows us some of its operations in three dimensions? You also say time has thickness; that means the arrow of time has three dimensions. Does your arrow of time merge into relativity?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is the premise of free will which makes the future to past flow of time evident, as we seek the means to avoid being swept into the past (the means to survival), by the force of the future becoming the past.

You're reaching towards a logical structure for design, which is the intentions of the self organized logically, and thus configured as an executable plan towards realization of goals. Design calls for illuminating visuals including charts, graphs, tables, etc.

Teleodynamics. Please click the link.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The other thing which the New Age theory doesn't provide, which is necessitated by free will, is the multi-dimensional present.

Quoting ucarr

This larger structure is the temporal timeline: future_present_past, including in its present, the second, nested future_present_past timeline. This multi-tiered complexity implies physical relationships whose questions about which you don't understand at all.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You are not understanding the breadth of time at all.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So this [ucarr quote immediately above] is irrelevant being based in that misunderstanding.

Your desire to expand the present tense (of the timeline) positions you to explain how your reversal of the arrow of time doesn't also reverse the direction of entropy. Sticking with future_present_past weds you to: the cracked egg reassembles itself. This is a tall - but, no. It's not a tall order because you have no desire to reverse the direction of entropy. This is evidence either you know your reversal of the arrow of time is a word game that doesn't touch physical time, or you're inadvertently flipping-flopping between two glaring inconsistencies: a) time moves toward the past; b) increasing disorder, acting in time, moves toward the future. When you have these two arrows going in opposite directions, you end up saying complex nature moves towards simplicity, whereas increasing disorder moves toward complexity. The arrows of time and entropy must agree, otherwise your world is mishegoss.

Complex time, with nested higher-orders of the timeline, might be something both possible and desirable. Putting it across to the reader won't likely happen without visual aids, and those entail a lot of hard work with the unfudgeable precision of math.

Quoting ucarr

Firstly, I asked you to give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space. Instead, you ask me to imagine (along with you) half a Planck time. A conjecture, which has a measure of scientific and logical formalism, falls short of an example, which is evidence from the real world. The act of imagination you invite me join as proof of time's independence from measurement doesn't even have the nascent persuasiveness of a conjecture.

Secondly, even if we grant the existence of half a Planck time, such a reality of Planck time means material objects occupying that space, so how does that show time's independence from measurement via math tracking the change of position of a material object in space? It doesn't.

Your two closing lines indicate you are making your argument for time's independence by knowingly imagining something unreal and thus devoid of material objects. Of course, this argument also doesn't work, because, as I've said, unreal things don't count as evidence.

Thirdly, if we assume future technology will empower observation of material reality below the Planck scale, then continuing on this path, which you argue for logically, we make an ever more close approach to the present moment as a theoretical vanishing point with zero dimensions. I think this is the third time that your attempt to argue for your theory has you instead arguing for its refutation.

To be clear. My example was time passing without any change occurring. I said "imagine what it means for time to pass, then imagine this happening without anything in the world changing". I then referred to Planck time to demonstrate that my example is logically possible. The example is not "unreal" as the Planck time demonstration shows. Therefore all of this criticism is misguided and not at all relevant.

Quoting ucarr

our attempt to spin away from the present as zero dimensional doesn't work because your uni-directional time, future to past is just a word game. It has no effect whatsoever upon physical spacetime. We all know this because we all know that all we ever experience in reality is our asymptotically close approach to the present moment of time, and that's the very near past chasing the very near present. When you declare that tomorrow is prior to today in time, you always make this declaration in the nearly present moment. Our thoughts are not prior to our position in time, regardless of the word games we play. Even if it's true our minds make decisions before our conscious awareness of them, the neuronal activity at the subconscious level is still the near past chasing the near present. The arrow of time for the real, physical time is the near past chasing the near present.

There is no such thing as "physical spacetime". Spacetime is conceptual. And none of this makes any sense. Your reference to "near past", and "near present" are incoherent. What could you be referring to with this other than "future"? But that would mean that you are saying that all we ever experience is the future. But that's my proposal, that we experience the future as near to the past, and you want to be arguing against my proposal. So this argument makes no sense at all.

Quoting ucarr

If the arrow of time has breadth, then it is an area and not a line. How does this change time's operations within the context of relativity, which shows us some of its operations in three dimensions? You also say time has thickness; that means the arrow of time has three dimensions. Does your arrow of time merge into relativity?

Relativity theory is not applicable, being an incompatible theory as I explained last post.

Quoting ucarr

Your desire to expand the present tense (of the timeline) positions you to explain how your reversal of the arrow of time doesn't also reverse the direction of entropy.

The arrow of time is not reversed! It's simply a different model. I've told you this numerous times now, but you just don't get it. Switching from the geocentric to the heliocentric model of the solar system does not change the direction that the planets move, it models the very same movement in a different way. My model does not change the arrow of time, it models it in a different way.

So your criticism about entropy is misguided and irrelevant, as is the rest of your criticism in this post.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Did you check out the teleodynamics link?

Reply to ucarr
I did now. What about it?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Some components of teleodynamics might be pertinent to your intended changes to the present tense of the timeline.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Switching from the geocentric to the heliocentric model of the solar system does not change the direction that the planets move, it models the very same movement in a different way.

Consider: the earth with respect to the sun and the sun with respect to the earth when the sun orbits the earth. In the limited context of this relationship, is the earth stationary and the sun mobile?

Consider: the sun with respect to the earth and the earth with respect to the sun when the earth orbits the sun. In the limited context of this relationship, is the sun stationary and the earth mobile?

In making a comparison of the two above considerations, do you say the two considerations model the very same movement in a different way?

Reply to ucarr

The first statement of "when the sun orbits the earth", is what we know as the rotation of the earth on its axis. The second statement "the earth orbits the sun", is what we know as the earth revolving around the sun. These two do not model the same motion.

What we model as "the rotation of the earth" is the same motion as what you described as "when the sun orbits the earth". If we know the distance between the earth and sun, and assume the earth to be a point at the centre of a circular orbit, we could calculate the speed at which the sun orbits the earth, in that model in which the sun orbits the earth.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Time is unidirectional, future to past. This is an activity of the world, what we know as the future becoming the past, The day named as "tomorrow" becomes the day named as "yesterday" through this activity, this process of the future becoming the past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past.

This process of the future becoming the past has the arrow of time moving in which direction: a) the events of Jan 5 change into the events of Jan 4; b) the events of Jan 4 change into the events of Jan 5?

Since you say, “time is unidirectional, future to past,” and also you say, “the day named as tomorrow becomes the day named as ‘yesterday,’” logically we have to conclude the arrow of time moves from Jan 5 to Jan 4. Entailed in this is the logical necessity that you become a day younger as the arrow of time continues to move from future to past.

Have you ever grown a day younger in your life? Speaking more dramatically, can you remember being ten years older than you are now?

Does today become tomorrow, or yesterday? Your answer speaks to your perception of the direction of the arrow of time.

Quoting ucarr

This process of the future becoming the past has the arrow of time moving in which direction: a) the events of Jan 5 change into the events of Jan 4; b) the events of Jan 4 change into the events of Jan 5?

I don't see what you are asking. The events of Jan 4 are the events of Jan 4, and the events of Jan 5 are the events of Jan 5. One does not become the other. However, the time marked by, or referred to as "Jan 4", itself moves from being in the future to being in the past, as does the time referred to as "Jan 5".

The difference is that in my model, time itself is assigned substantial existence, as something. What we know as "the passing of time", which is the process by which the time indicated as "Jan 5" changes from being in the future to being in the past, is reified, understood to be something real, a real process. This "something" can be understood as the cause of all events. Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events. And, we order events as past events being prior to future events, due to the way that events are observed by us through sensation. However, when we consider time on its own, as something which can be marked with indicators such as dates, then we understand that any indicated time, is in the future before it is in the past, like the example shows.

Here's another way of looking at it, which may or may not help you to understand. Imagine that there was a start to time, time started, there was a beginning to time. At the point when time began, there was future, but no past, because no time had passed yet, but there was time about to pass. And, as time passes, there becomes more and more past, and less and less future. Imagine a wind-up toy, fully wound, and ready to go. The process of its unwinding is fully in the future, but as it unwinds, it goes into the past. This demonstrates that future is prior to past.

Quoting ucarr

Since you say, “time is unidirectional, future to past,” and also you say, “the day named as tomorrow becomes the day named as ‘yesterday,’” logically we have to conclude the arrow of time moves from Jan 5 to Jan 4.

Why do you say this? If "Jan 4", and "Jan 5" referred to events, we'd say that Jan 4 occurs before Jan 5. But these do not refer to events, they refer to dates in time. If we made a timeline, based on our empirical observation of events, we'd see that the events of Jan 4 are prior in time, to the events of Jan 5, and we might be tempted to model "the flow of time" in that direction. However, this is because we are mapping the dates as events which occur. A true analysis shows that both Jan 4, and Jan 5. are in the future before they are in the past, so regardless of the order that these dates occur to us as events, the future part of time is prior to the past part of time.

Your conclusion doesn't seem to be valid, and I do not know how you derive it. The arrow of time has it that the day named as "Jan 4" was in the future before it was in the past, as is the case with the day named as "Jan 5". Now, today, the day named as "Jan 9" is in the future, but soon it will be in the past.

Now if we look at "Jan 9" as an event, instead of as a date, we will say that this event occurs after Jan 8 occurs, and we will represent this with a number line of sorts, showing that order. But according to my explanation, that number line represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see what you are asking. The events of Jan 4 are the events of Jan 4, and the events of Jan 5 are the events of Jan 5. One does not become the other.

I'm asking you to say what you think happens as you travel in time. As you move from Jan 4 to Jan 5, do you get younger, or do you get older? If you get older, that means you have moved from the present to the updated, newer present. So, old moves toward new, so that's old before new, not new before old. So, if a man acknowledges he moves forward in time, he validates that movement as an example of the old, which comes first, moving forward toward the new, which comes after.

Saying the future moves toward the past and continues in this direction examples the past becoming the more distant past; this amounts to saying the future causes the past to move toward the more distant past. We know what you’re saying is backwards, as obviously the present*, as it moves forward in time, thus moving towards the updated, newer present, doesn’t move from the past to the more distant past.

*The empirical present, though it lags minutely behind the mathematical present, acts as an empirical present moving toward an ever mathematically updating newer present. The additional complication of the time lag still maintains the older present moving toward the newer present, not the reverse.

If we reverse our direction in time, with the newer present moving toward the older present, with the newer present first and the older present second, then that examples a man moving in time such that he’s getting younger instead of getting older. We know that’s not what’s happening in our empirical experience of time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

However, the time marked by, or referred to as "Jan 4", itself moves from being in the future to being in the past, as does the time referred to as "Jan 5".

If you're saying Jan 4 progressing in time toward Jan 5 examples progressing from the future toward the past, then let us observe a man as part of this progression from the future toward the past; In so doing, we see you're also saying progressing in time from Jan 4 toward Jan 5 examples a man growing younger. We know from our empirical experience in time this is not true. We know this is not true because we know our future self is older than our past self.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events.

You haven't shown time independent of the animation of material objects because your supporting example, a thought experiment based upon imagination, is not evidence. Logical possibility necessitating corresponding physics remains unproven. This lack of proof is memorialized in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. There are logical statements unproven by the rules that generate them, and there are physical systems unexplained logically. The scientific picture of the world is incomplete.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...we order events as past events being prior to future events, due to the way that events are observed by us through sensation.

The time lag of experience rendered though the cognitive system has sentients experiencing the empirical present as a time-lagged older present relative to an ever-updating numerical present, an abstraction. This is evidence abstract thought is emergent from memory. Abstract thought emergent from memory is evidence the ever-updating numerical present is about time_future not yet extant. Since time_future is grounded in memory, this is evidence time_future is not an existentially independent reality standing apart from phenomena, but rather a component of a complex memory phenomenon.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...when we consider time on its own, as something which can be marked with indicators such as dates, then we understand that any indicated time, is in the future before it is in the past, like the example shows.

Time is not on its own, i.e. not independent, for two reasons: a) time_future is an emergent property of a complex memory phenomenon; it is tied to the material animation of memory; b) time experienced empirically as the updating present is itself a physical phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be independent of itself. Relativity is a theory of physics; it is not a theory of abstract thought falsely conventionalized as immaterial.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...when we consider time on its own, as something which can be marked with indicators such as dates, then we understand that any indicated time, is in the future before it is in the past, like the example shows.

Time experienced as the updating present is the empirical present ever moving forward within a physically real phenomenon. This movement from the present to a newer present posits an arrow of time from present to newer present. It also posits an arrow of entropy from the present state of order to a lesser state of order. Both arrows move toward a newer state.

Since time, being itself a phenomenon, is not prior to other phenomena, its progression is therefore contemporary with the animate phenomena it tracks numerically.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine that there was a start to time, time started, there was a beginning to time. At the point when time began, there was future, but no past, because no time had passed yet, but there was time about to pass.

Since the start of time takes time, there is no extant time without a past. Moreover, the theoretical vanishing point with zero dimension, the limit of the starting point you posit and something you seek to discard, plays a fundamental role in launching your thought experiment.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

A true analysis shows that both Jan 4, and Jan 5. are in the future before they are in the past, so regardless of the order that these dates occur to us as events, the future part of time is prior to the past part of time.

See above for my counter-narrative to your premise time is prior to the phenomena (events) it tracks numerically.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now if we look at "Jan 9" as an event, instead of as a date, we will say that this event occurs after Jan 8 occurs, and we will represent this with a number line of sorts, showing that order. But according to my explanation, that number line represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time.

You seem to be separating time from occurrence of events. I think all occurrences of events happen in time. Following this line of reasoning that keeps time paired with events, separating an event from the date of its occurrence in time is a false separation we don't experience.

If your argument is predicated upon the premise events occur outside of time (which includes dates) - and that appears to be the case - then it is obviously false.

Quoting ucarr

I'm asking you to say what you think happens as you travel in time. As you move from Jan 4 to Jan 5, do you get younger, or do you get older?

We do not travel in time, we do not move from Jan 4 to Jan 5 in this model of time. This is the principal difference of the model. Things, or people, do not move through time, the passing of time itself is an activity, a process, and this process has an effect on us, it causes change. When you model an object as moving through time, you model it as moving from past to future, but if you model it as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, then change and movement are caused, by the passing of time.

Quoting ucarr

this amounts to saying the future causes the past to move toward the more distant past.

That's a correct representation. I described the future becoming the past as a force. We, as human beings work to maintain our position at the present (maintaining this position is known as survival), despite the force of the future pushing against us. But the force of the future always wins, and each human being is forced into death, then further and further into the past.

Quoting ucarr

We know what you’re saying is backwards, as obviously the present*, as it moves forward in time, thus moving towards the updated, newer present, doesn’t move from the past to the more distant past.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that the present moves, or changes in any way. The present is always the division between past and future, so clearly it does not change. And, movement, motion, is an observed property of physical things, relative to each other. We do not observe any such movement with respect to the present. You are simply assuming that the present is something moving through a static medium, "time", but this is a faulty representation, because what is actually moving is time itself. Imagine a membrane, a filter or something like that, and a substance is being forced through that membrane, and this results in a change to the substance. The membrane represents "the present", and the substance being forced through is time, being forced from future to past.

Quoting ucarr

*The empirical present...

As I explained, there is no such thing as the empirical present. Sensation is of the past, and anticipation is of the future. The two might be united in experience, but this does not produce an "empirical present", it produces a theoretical present. And, as I made great effort to explain to you, our theoretical present is inaccurate.

Quoting ucarr

If you're saying Jan 4 progressing in time toward Jan 5...

This is what your model would say, the model which puts the past as prior to the future. It would say that the past Jan 4 progresses toward the future, Jan 5. The rest of that passage makes no sense.

Quoting ucarr

You haven't shown time independent of the animation of material objects because your supporting example, a thought experiment based upon imagination, is not evidence. Logical possibility necessitating corresponding physics remains unproven. This lack of proof is memorialized in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. There are logical statements unproven by the rules that generate them, and there are physical systems unexplained logically. The scientific picture of the world is incomplete.

You just asked for an example, not proof. I gave you an example, not proof. Please don't take it as an attempt at proof.

Quoting ucarr

The time lag of experience rendered though the cognitive system has sentients experiencing the empirical present as a time-lagged older present relative to an ever-updating numerical present, an abstraction. This is evidence abstract thought is emergent from memory. Abstract thought emergent from memory is evidence the ever-updating numerical present is about time_future not yet extant. Since time_future is grounded in memory, this is evidence time_future is not an existentially independent reality standing apart from phenomena, but rather a component of a complex memory phenomenon.

This is very wrong. "Future" cannot be grounded in memory. Memory applies only toward what has happened, the past. There are no memories of the future. "Future" is grounded in our apprehension of possibilities and anticipation of things to come, not memories of things past.

Now, going back to how we relate to events, we understand that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event. This implies that the event, exists as a possibility, in the future, prior to its actual existence. as the event moves into the past. Since it is the case, with all physical events, that the possibility of the event must be prior in time to the actual occurrence of the event, this is very clear evidence, "proof" I might say, that the future of every event, is prior in time to its past.

Quoting ucarr

Time is not on its own, i.e. not independent, for two reasons: a) time_future is an emergent property of a complex memory phenomenon; it is tied to the material animation of memory; b) time experienced empirically as the updating present is itself a physical phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be independent of itself. Relativity is a theory of physics; it is not a theory of abstract thought falsely conventionalized as immaterial.

Human experience consists of both memory of the past, and anticipation of the future. You are focusing on "memory" while completely ignoring anticipation, so your representation is woefully inadequate.

Quoting ucarr

Time experienced as the updating present is the empirical present ever moving forward within a physically real phenomenon. This movement from the present to a newer present posits an arrow of time from present to newer present. It also posits an arrow of entropy from the present state of order to a lesser state of order. Both arrows move toward a newer state.

Again, you are simply representing time as static, with the present moving through time. This is what I argue is the bad (unreal) representation. Any complete analysis, as I am working at, will reveal that time is really active, and "the present" is just the way that we conceptualize this activity.

Quoting ucarr

Since time, being itself a phenomenon, is not prior to other phenomena, its progression is therefore contemporary with the animate phenomena it tracks numerically.

This is no progression of time in your representation, only a movement of the present to a newer present. But if the present moves this way, along the time line, or however you conceive it, something must move it, a cause, or force which propels the present along the line. But it should be obvious to you that there is no such activity as the present being propelled along a line. The real activity is the future becoming the past, and this is simply modeled as the present being propelled down a line. Of course that model is obviously wrong because the idea that there is a force in the world propelling the present down a line, is simply unintelligible, incoherent. What is really the case, is that there is a force which causes possibilities to actualize as time passes. This is very obvious, and this is the future (possibilities) becoming the past (actualities)..

Quoting ucarr

See above for my counter-narrative to your premise time is prior to the phenomena (events) it tracks numerically.

You have provided no counter-argument, only the assertion, which I agree to, that my example is not proof. It's just an example.

Quoting ucarr

Since the start of time takes time, there is no extant time without a past.

This is self-contradicting. If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past. Your claim that "the start of time takes time" is contradictory, implying that there is time prior to the start of time implying that time is already required for time to start. This is clearly wrong, all that is required is a future, and along with that the impetus which causes it to become past.

. Quoting ucarr

You seem to be separating time from occurrence of events.

Exactly.

Quoting ucarr

I think all occurrences of events happen in time.

I agree, and we can conclude that time is required for events. This means that time is logically prior to events, but not vise versa.

Quoting ucarr

Following this line of reasoning that keeps time paired with events...

This is faulty logic. That all events happen in time implies that time is required for events, but it does not imply that events are required for time.

Quoting ucarr

If your argument is predicated upon the premise events occur outside of time (which includes dates) - and that appears to be the case - then it is obviously false.

Why would you think this, when I've been arguing the exact opposite? I have been saying that time can pass without an event occurring. You did not like my example, saying that it doesn't prove this claim. It was not meant to prove the claim, only to support it by showing that it is logically possible for there to be time passing with no events occurring.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We do not travel in time, we do not move from Jan 4 to Jan 5 in this model of time.

When I finished reading this sentence, I slapped my palm to my forehead and exclaimed, "Oh, man! Now he tells me!"

Given that your theory makes radical changes to the view of time, whether it's viewed through the lens of common sense, or viewed scientifically, it's belatedly clear you have neglected your responsibility to your readers.

In order to prevent them from wasting their time with many irrelevant questions aimed at clarification of your premises and their applications, you need to write a pamphlet, booklet or book exposing the foundational components of your theory and their ramifications.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is the principal difference of the model. Things, or people, do not move through time, the passing of time itself is an activity, a process, and this process has an effect on us, it causes change.

Here's another fragment from your list of radical premises: Time is an activity somehow distinct from the animation of material things. I infer from this that it's related to this: Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events.

Immediately another gnarly issue arises: there appears to be an inconsistency between: "the passing of time itself is an activity, a process..." and "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events." How is it that time as an activity is not an event? Perhaps you have a cogent answer to this question. What you've written here looks like a contradiction. In your writing, you're doing a terrible job of communicating.

So far, your rollout of your theory is a tissue of radical premises obscurely explained and embedded within a continuity containing contradictions.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

When you model an object as moving through time, you model it as moving from past to future, but if you model it as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, then change and movement are caused, by the passing of time.

Now you tell us material objects are not animated, yet they are being changed by the flow of time. So, a material object doesn't move. Is this true for, say, a mechanical clock with a winding mainspring? If so, it's not the kinetic energy stored in the mainspring, but time, a separate phenomenon that makes the clock turn? Well, you say that material things don't move, yet they are changed by the flow of time. How is it that change involves no motion?

You make a pronouncement that flies in the face of everyday experience, then give us no explanation why it isn't blatant nonsense. Perhaps it's not nonsense, but that's not clear because your contradictory communication is terrible.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I described the future becoming the past as a force.

This contradicts: "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events."

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I see absolutely no reason to believe that the present moves, or changes in any way.... And, movement, motion, is an observed property of physical things, relative to each other... We do not observe any such movement with respect to the present.

You say that motion is relative, and you say that the present is dimensionally extended. Since relative motion requires dimensional extension, you must explain why a dimensionally extended present is not a part of the phenomenon of relative motion. This explanation is especially important given the role of the present as a separator of future and past that moves in relation to them. How else could it separate them? Remember, when you're standing stationary on a train station platform, you're stationary relative to the stationary station, but your both are in relative motion with respect to the moving train leaving the station. You know this because you've seen a stationary person standing on the platform who appears to start moving as you, a passenger on the train, start moving away with the moving train, which to you appears stationary. All of this relative motion is supported by the dimensional extension your theory advocates!

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You are simply assuming that the present is something moving through a static medium, "time"

No one understanding relativity thinks spacetime is static. Einstein's 4-Manifold keeps the moon in its orbit around the earth; it keeps our solar system intact.

Quoting ucarr

*The empirical present...

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I explained, there is no such thing as the empirical present. Sensation is of the past, and anticipation is of the future. The two might be united in experience, but this does not produce an "empirical present", it produces a theoretical present. And, as I made great effort to explain to you, our theoretical present is inaccurate.

I'm finding your statement contradictory and confusing. I've been understanding you to be propounding a dimensional present while refuting it as a theoretical point of zero dimensions. If the present is dimensional, how can it not be our empirical experience of things happening now, albeit with the understanding there is a minute time lag between the empirical now as perceived and the mathematical now, a math limit closely approached by the dimensional, empirical now.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is what your model would say, the model which puts the [s]past[/s] empirical now as prior to the future. It would say that the [s]past[/s] empirical now of Jan 4 progresses toward the future, Jan 5.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You just asked for an example, not proof. I gave you an example, not proof. Please don't take it as an attempt at proof.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine that there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration. Now imagine half a Planck time. That is a duration of time during which an object changing its place in space is impossible.

The example needs to be evidence supporting your claim time stands independent of the animation of material things. What's the value of an "example" that's merely whimsy about how the world might be? An act of imagination can have value as a thought experiment that poses a counter-narrative supported by a valid argument. In your imagined Planck scale multiplied by one half, you omit to make a valid argument why this minute space can only contain time without animate things. I say this because given the wording of your thought experiment (see above), you violate: "...there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration." Half a Planck time, your would be counter-narrative, contains no explanation why Planck time is divisible after all. Also, it contains no explanation why sub-Planck time cannot contain animate things. As such, your "example" is only a flight of fancy. It lacks the component meeting the threshold of a thought experiment: a valid argument.

Quoting ucarr

The time lag of experience rendered though the cognitive system has sentients experiencing the empirical present as a time-lagged older present relative to an ever-updating numerical present, an abstraction. This is evidence abstract thought is emergent from memory. Abstract thought emergent from memory is evidence the ever-updating numerical present is about time_future not yet extant. Since time_future is grounded in memory, this is evidence time_future is not an existentially independent reality standing apart from phenomena, but rather a component of a complex memory phenomenon.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is very wrong. "Future" cannot be grounded in memory. Memory applies only toward what has happened, the past.

Although I admit the above passage could've been written with more clarity, the correct meaning is there to be read, but you have mis-interpreted it.

Time_future not yet extant is part of the empirical now. Aboutness, my awkward-sounding neologism, expresses intentional thinking - something occurring in the present- but about the future state of things as manipulated by a rational plan for attaining that desired future state of things.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There are no memories of the future. "Future" is grounded in our apprehension of possibilities and anticipation of things to come, not memories of things past.

I know your narrative overall is very complicated, but for the moment, I ask how can memories of the future not be what humans experience, given your claim time is prior to events? Since human lives consist of moments strung together, and time, as you say, is prior to all of these moments, how can our lives not be memories of what hasn't yet happened? You're the one frequently claiming the future jumps into the past.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now, going back to how we relate to events, we understand that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event. This implies that the event, exists as a possibility, in the future, prior to its actual existence. as the event moves into the past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Since it is the case, with all physical events, that the possibility of the event must be prior in time to the actual occurrence of the event, this is very clear evidence, "proof" I might say, that the future of every event, is prior in time to its past.

Firstly, understanding that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event is an awareness that happens in the empirical now, not in the future. So, the possibility of an event, an abstraction of the mind, does not reside in the mind in the future, but rather in the empirical now.

Secondly, in what direction does the arrow of time for the conscious human individual move? If we say it moves from the future toward the past, then we’re also saying the conscious human individual grows younger with the passing of time.

So, knowing we don’t grow younger with the passing of time, logically we must conclude the arrow of time is moving toward the future, not toward the past.

Quoting ucarr

Time is not on its own, i.e. not independent, for two reasons: a) time_future is an emergent property of a complex memory phenomenon; it is tied to the material animation of memory; b) time experienced empirically as the updating present is itself a physical phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be independent of itself. Relativity is a theory of physics; it is not a theory of abstract thought falsely conventionalized as immaterial.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Human experience consists of both memory of the past, and anticipation of the future. You are focusing on "memory" while completely ignoring anticipation, so your representation is woefully inadequate.

Since cognition of anticipation of the future, like cognition of memory of the past, is actually the empirical present minutely time-lagged after the theoretical point of zero dimensions, memory contains memory of anticipation no less than it contains memory of remembrance.

Quoting ucarr

Time experienced as the updating present is the empirical present ever moving forward within a physically real phenomenon. This movement from the present to a newer present posits an arrow of time from present to newer present. It also posits an arrow of entropy from the present state of order to a lesser state of order. Both arrows move toward a newer state.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Again, you are simply representing time as static, with the present moving through time.

Since the present moves in time, it's not static. My understanding of the timeline is that the ever-updating present is a dynamical system, whereas past and future are mental abstractions never experienced dynamically. As abstract thoughts, they keep us oriented within the experience of the dynamical present. In this environment, the dynamical present is our empirical experience of time. It is not static.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is no progression of time in your representation, only a movement of the present to a newer present. But if the present moves this way, along the time line, or however you conceive it, something must move it, a cause, or force which propels the present along the line.

The dynamical present is part of a phenomenal system of animate objects. From this system time emerges as a dimension that can function as a numerical tracker of animation. Regarding forces, it seems sensible to think the dynamism of animate objects expands time. If this is the case, then time as a dimension is tied to the dynamism of animate objects.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But it should be obvious to you that there is no such activity as the present being propelled along a line. The real activity is the future becoming the past, and this is simply modeled as the present being propelled down a line. Of course that model is obviously wrong because the idea that there is a force in the world propelling the present down a line, is simply unintelligible, incoherent. What is really the case, is that there is a force which causes possibilities to actualize as time passes. This is very obvious, and this is the future (possibilities) becoming the past (actualities)..

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is the premise of free will which makes the future to past flow of time evident, as we seek the means to avoid being swept into the past (the means to survival), by the force of the future becoming the past.

You say, as time passes, possibilities actualize by the force of the future becoming the past. Time is a dimension, not a force. In order for possibilities to actualize by the force of the future becoming the past, it would require that the animate things actualize the possibilities by driving the expansion of the dimension of time. However, we know from empirical experience events comprised of material things don't run backwards from the future to the past.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

Since time, being itself a phenomenon, is not prior to other phenomena, its progression is therefore contemporary with the animate phenomena it tracks numerically.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You have provided no counter-argument, only the assertion, which I agree to, that my example is not proof. It's just an example.

Do you deny time is a phenomenon? You say time is a process; that's a functional system. Time is not a system, but a part of a system in the role of a dimension. A system has mass and, as Roger Penrose says, "Mass requires time." Time doesn't require either mass or force, and you can and this may persuade you to imagine its existence apart from them. However, because time is a part of physics as a dimension, time apart from mass and force still is not apart from physics, and thus time is itself a phenomenon, and thus it is not apart from phenomena, and thus it is not prior to phenomena.

For this reason, there is no true equilibrium devoid of motion, and there is no temperature truly zero. Time apart from phenomena, following this reasoning, entails infinite compression of dimension. Just as there is no singularity, there is no infinite compression of time, which would be the same thing as time apart from phenomena.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

Since the start of time takes time, there is no extant time without a past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past.

With this claim you validate the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. You also validate the phenomenal system which consists of the numerical present at the front end, i.e. the point with zero dimensions, and the empirical present, the minutely time-lagged approach to the numerical present at the back end.

Practically speaking, with the theoretical point in place up front, the temporal timeline is never without its past_present_future triad. More precisely, the cosmic timeline has no start, nor has it a finish. There is the ever-closer approach to a start and to an end, but no arrival. This asymptotic approach is consistent with the phenomenal system of the dynamical present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Your claim that "the start of time takes time" is contradictory, implying that there is time prior to the start of time implying that time is already required for time to start. This is clearly wrong, all that is required is a future, and along with that the impetus which causes it to become past.

When does the start of time start? We can't say exactly. As you have acknowledged, there is a time lag between the numerical start of something and the perception of that start, which is the empirical start. Math allows us to forever approach the starts and endings of things; we don't actually arrive. QM tells something similar with its demand we accept super-position. Well, this connects with the understanding we can't say precisely where we are. At the Newtonian scale, we've got a functionally accurate measure of where we are, but, in point of fact, exactly where we are at any given moment is, per Heisenberg, uncertain. So, in summation, the start of time is a high probability accurate measurement of the left side of the dynamical present, but it, being uncertain, maintains a sloppy border with the prior iterations of the dynamical present.

Quoting ucarr

I think all occurrences of events happen in time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I agree, and we can conclude that time is required for events. This means that time is logically prior to events, but not vise versa.

No one disputes time being required for events. How does the temporal extension of events prove time is logically prior to them? I don't read your statement as a self-evident truth. You still haven't described what action time performs alone that is a necessary prelude to the occurrence of events. Moreover, you haven't described any action time performs apart from material things.

You claim time, acting in isolation, causes events, but you have not described any functions of solitary time that effect that causation.

Time is a dimension that platforms the animation of material things and their associated forces in terms of temporal parameters. You imply time possesses parameters in isolation. Well, those parameters should be measurable. What are those measurements?

If it's true time in isolation has no measurable parameters, then we can sensibly ask whether time exists in isolation.

Quoting ucarr

I think all occurrences of events happen in time. Following this line of reasoning that keeps time paired with events, separating an event from the date of its occurrence in time is a false separation we don't experience.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I agree, and we can conclude that time is required for events.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is faulty logic. That all events happen in time implies that time is required for events, but it does not imply that events are required for time.

I don't exactly agree time is required for events. Events and time are parts of a dynamical system, with time supplying the temporal parameters of the system. Is time the cause of something it's a part of? This question spotlights the likely fact time under your theory's causal hiearchy is a proper subset of the dynamics of physics. If it's a cause of its own superset, then that's saying it is its own superset. The comprehension restriction of set theory prohibits a set from being the proper subset of itself.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now if we look at "Jan 9" as an event, instead of as a date, we will say that this event occurs after Jan 8 occurs, and we will represent this with a number line of sorts, showing that order. But according to my explanation, that number line represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time.

Here you say the present-towards-the-future timeline represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time. So you are separating events from time.

Quoting ucarr

If your argument is predicated upon the premise events occur outside of time (which includes dates) - and that appears to be the case - then it is obviously false.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Why would you think this, when I've been arguing the exact opposite? I have been saying that time can pass without an event occurring. You did not like my example, saying that it doesn't prove this claim. It was not meant to prove the claim, only to support it by showing that it is logically possible for there to be time passing with no events occurring.

Now I get it. You're saying time can pass without events occurring, but events cannot occur without time passing. So, the present-towards-the-future timeline is wrong because time is prior to events.

Okay. So show me your measurements of time passing without events passing concurrently.

Bear in mind, the act of measuring time passing entails the event of the measurement happening concurrently.

Quoting ucarr

When I finished reading this sentence, I slapped my palm to my forehead and exclaimed, "Oh, man! Now he tells me!"

Given that your theory makes radical changes to the view of time, whether it's viewed through the lens of common sense, or viewed scientifically, it's belatedly clear you have neglected your responsibility to your readers.

In order to prevent them from wasting their time with many irrelevant questions aimed at clarification of your premises and their applications, you need to write a pamphlet, booklet or book exposing the foundational components of your theory and their ramifications.

I think it was obvious what I was saying. And it's obvious to anyone who has given it any thought. What I was saying is very simple, and consistent with experience and how we commonly speak. We say that time is passing when the day of Jan 4 is replaced with the day of Jan 5. We say that time passed overnight. We do not say that we were moving through time while we were asleep

Quoting ucarr

Here's another fragment from your list of radical premises: Time is an activity somehow distinct from the animation of material things. I infer from this that it's related to this: Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events.

Immediately another gnarly issue arises: there appears to be an inconsistency between: "the passing of time itself is an activity, a process..." and "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events." How is it that time as an activity is not an event? Perhaps you have a cogent answer to this question. What you've written here looks like a contradiction. In your writing, you're doing a terrible job of communicating.

So far, your rollout of your theory is a tissue of radical premises obscurely explained and embedded within a continuity containing contradictions.

Activity is the condition of being active, an event is a thing which happens. I see no contradiction in saying that the passing of time is an activity which is not an event. This is simply to say that there is not any particular physical "thing" (event) which happens, which is describable as the activity which we know as the passing of time. It is an activity which cannot be described as "a thing which happens". Instead, we describe it by the general terms of "time passing".

I see that you have problems imagining the possibility of time passing without anything happening, and you are inclined to refuse this conception, but that's simply your refusal, your denial, having an effect on your ability to understand what I am saying.

Quoting ucarr

Now you tell us material objects are not animated, yet they are being changed by the flow of time. So, a material object doesn't move.

No, I did not say this, and this is not what I am proposing at all. As I said movement is the change of position of an object relative to another. What I said is that movement is caused by the passing of time.

Quoting ucarr

You make a pronouncement that flies in the face of everyday experience, then give us no explanation why it isn't blatant nonsense.

I think what I say is very consistent with everyday experience, and saying things like "we move through time" "the present moves through time", is what is not consistent with our experience. Really, when people say that we are moving through time, this only makes sense as a metaphor. Where is this medium called "time" which we would be traveling through? Obviously, anyone who considers the reality of the situation recognizes that time is passing, and we are not passing through time.

Quoting ucarr

This contradicts: "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events."

It appears contradictory to you, because in your condition of denial, you refuse to allow the possibility of what I demonstrated as a valid logical possibility, that time could be passing without any physical event occurring. Therefore you refuse to accept the distinction between being active, and being an event.

The term "event" is restricted to a physical happening, but "active" is not restricted in this way. Therefore whatever it is which is active, is not necessarily a physical event. A physicalist would deny this difference, disallowing that there is anything more to reality than physical things and events. But anyone who recognizes the reality of what is known as "the immaterial", will allow for the reality of activity which is other than physical.

This is why I warned you that it would be pointless to proceed into this discussion without accepting the reality of freewill. The concept of "freewill" allows for the reality of a cause which is not a physical event. If you cling to physicalist/determinist principles, you will simply deny and refuse the principles which make this thesis intelligible, and claim contradiction, as you are doing. So, if you refuse to relinquish this attitude, further discussion would be pointless.

Quoting ucarr

You say that motion is relative, and you say that the present is dimensionally extended. Since relative motion requires dimensional extension, you must explain why a dimensionally extended present is not a part of the phenomenon of relative motion. This explanation is especially important given the role of the present as a separator of future and past that moves in relation to them. How else could it separate them?

I really do not understand what you are asking, but it appears like you are saying that any separator between future and past must be moving. I explained to you why this is false, and provided an example, the substance being forced through a membrane.

Quoting ucarr

What's the value of an "example" that's merely whimsy about how the world might be?

I told you the value of the example. It's a logical possibility. You refuse things based on your claim of "contradictory". But it only appears contradictory to you because you refuse to accept a valid logical possibility. When you accept it as a valid possibility, then your claim of contradiction disappears. It is logically possible that time can pass without any physical change occurring. You refuse and deny this logical possibility, and that's what creates problems for you. You frame it as a problem for my theory of time, but it's not. It's just a problem with your attitude.


Quoting ucarr

I know your narrative overall is very complicated, but for the moment, I ask how can memories of the future not be what humans experience, given your claim time is prior to events? Since human lives consist of moments strung together, and time, as you say, is prior to all of these moments, how can our lives not be memories of what hasn't yet happened? You're the one frequently claiming the future jumps into the past.

Sorry, I really can't decipher what you are asking here.

Quoting ucarr

Firstly, understanding that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event is an awareness that happens in the empirical now, not in the future. So, the possibility of an event, an abstraction of the mind, does not reside in the mind in the future, but rather in the empirical now.

I'm not talking about "possibility" here, as an abstraction in the mind. I am talking about ontological possibility.

Quoting ucarr

Secondly, in what direction does the arrow of time for the conscious human individual move? If we say it moves from the future toward the past, then we’re also saying the conscious human individual grows younger with the passing of time.

That's a false conclusion for the reasons I've already explained.

Quoting ucarr

Since the present moves in time, it's not static.

Your preferred model of time might have the present moving in time, mine does not. And, I explained to you why mine does not. If you want to understand mine, then you have to drop this idea, because the two are incompatible. If you insist that time must be modeled as having the present moving in time, then we might as well end the discussion right now, because I'm not interested in that model, I think it is obviously false.

Quoting ucarr

Time is a dimension, not a force.

A "dimension" is an aspect, or feature of something. If time is a dimension, then what is it a dimension of?

Quoting ucarr

Time is not a system, but a part of a system in the role of a dimension.

OK then, what is "the system" which time is a dimension of? You do realize that all systems are artificial don't you? There is physical systems, and theoretical systems, but they are all produced by human beings. Are you saying that time is simply theoretical, part of a theoretical system? I think this is what you said earlier, when you defined time as a mathematical measurement.

I explained why you have to get beyond that idea of time if you want to develop a true understanding of time. As I said, you need to drop these preconceived ideas, if you want to discuss time with me, because I am not interested in discussing time with someone who will relentlessly insist on false premises.

Quoting ucarr

With this claim you validate the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present.

Again, you are applying incompatible premises in an effort to make what I say look contradictory.. The start time does not have to be "the present". It's not, that's the point of the example. As the example clearly shows, the start time is "the future". The future is first. If time started then it is necessary that there was a future before there was a past or a present. The only way to avoid this is to say that time is eternal, but that has problems.

Quoting ucarr

There is the ever-closer approach to a start and to an end, but no arrival.

I'm not interesting in discussing the deficiencies of mathematics.

Quoting ucarr

No one disputes time being required for events. How does the temporal extension of events prove time is logically prior to them?

As I said, this is not proven, That time might pass without physical events, is offered as a logical possibility which needs to be considered, instead of simply rejected as impossible.

Quoting ucarr

I don't read your statement as a self-evident truth.

What is offered as self-evident truth is free will. And, when something other than a physical event (a free will), selects a possibility, and causes a physical event, this implies an activity (cause) which is not a physical event. Do you understand this basic principle? The physical event which is caused by a free will, is not caused by a physical event, it is caused by a free will. This implies a cause which is not a physical event. As a cause, it is necessarily an activity. And, activity requires time. Therefore we have time and activity without a physical event. There is an event which is caused by that activity but such an event is posterior to that activity.

Quoting ucarr

Moreover, you haven't described any action time performs apart from material things.

This is not true. I described the activity of time, as the future becoming the past. You simply did not accept my description, insisting instead on a model which has the present moving from past to future. But, as I explained above, my model of "time passing" is consistent with how we experience, know, and understand the reality of time. Your model of "the present moving", is not consistent with our experience.

Quoting ucarr

No one disputes time being required for events.

...

I don't exactly agree time is required for events.

Hmm, what can I say about this, sloppy writing?

Quoting ucarr

Events and time are parts of a dynamical system, with time supplying the temporal parameters of the system. Is time the cause of something it's a part of? This question spotlights the likely fact time under your theory's causal hiearchy is a proper subset of the dynamics of physics. If it's a cause of its own superset, then that's saying it is its own superset. The comprehension restriction of set theory prohibits a set from being the proper subset of itself.

Let me remind you, a "system" is always artificial. In one sense of "system" we construct a physical system, according to a design. In another sense of "system" we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be a system, it is modeled according to a system theory.

You may model a system, and include time as a part of that system, but I'm not interested in such false representations.

Quoting ucarr

So you are separating events from time.

Well of course. If you're just starting to see that now, then where were you?

Quoting ucarr

So show me your measurements of time passing without events passing concurrently.

We discussed the difference between the measurement and the thing which is measured, way back.
Now, do you agree that a measurement requires an act of measuring. There is no measurement without that act of measuring. However, the thing to be measured exists as the thing to be measured, regardless of whether it has been measured or not. Because I am discussing the thing to be measured, and an approach toward the means for making accurate measurements, your request for measurements is unwarranted.



.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We do not say that we were moving through time while we were asleep

Perhaps we don't say it, but we think it, don't we? I mean, if someone asked you, "Does time continue passing while you're asleep," you'd answer, "yes" wouldn't you?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Activity is the condition of being active, an event is a thing which happens. I see no contradiction in saying that the passing of time is an activity which is not an event.

Does an activity, including the passing of time, happen?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I see that you have problems imagining the possibility of time passing without anything happening, and you are inclined to refuse this conception, but that's simply your refusal, your denial, having an effect on your ability to understand what I am saying.

Time is conventionally conceived as being a dimension. It is part of a dynamic system of matter_energy transfer. We observe it as attached to the animation of material things. As time emerges from the animation of matter, so to speak, we mark its passing with a progression of numbers. In turn, time helps us gain a sense of duration with temporal parameters.

I now suspect you're theory posits time, not as a dimension emergent from matter_energy transfer systems, but as another dynamical system in itself. Even if it is, cast in this role, it exemplifies the animation of matter, and is therefore not apart from it. Check around and you’ll see that time has no mass. If you already know this, then you need to immediately tell your reader you’re rejecting the conventional wisdom and embarking on a radically different path to discovery about the identity of time.

Sound thinking in physics says spacetime can exist without matter_energy. If it’s the source of matter_energy systems, then we ask whether time alone is a system. If so, what kind of system, how does it work, and how does it ground matter_energy systems? I think these major concepts should be put into the first paragraph of your theory.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

When you model an object as moving through time, you model it as moving from past to future, but if you model it as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, then change and movement are caused, by the passing of time.

Quoting ucarr

Now you tell us material objects are not animated, yet they are being changed by the flow of time. So, a material object doesn't move.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, I did not say this, and this is not what I am proposing at all. As I said movement is the change of position of an object relative to another. What I said is that movement is caused by the passing of time.

When you model an object as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, does the modeled object remain static and only appear to be animated on the basis of relative motion?

Quoting ucarr

You make a pronouncement that flies in the face of everyday experience, then give us no explanation why it isn't blatant nonsense.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think what I say is very consistent with everyday experience, and saying things like "we move through time" "the present moves through time", is what is not consistent with our experience. Really, when people say that we are moving through time, this only makes sense as a metaphor. Where is this medium called "time" which we would be traveling through? Obviously, anyone who considers the reality of the situation recognizes that time is passing, and we are not passing through time.

Is time passing without anything happening an activity of time? I ask this question because if time makes itself pass, then to my understanding that's time being active, and thus it's an activity of time. To me these seem to be correct readings of what the language signifies.

Is the activity of time passing without anything happening an event? I ask this question because it seems to me that time passing without anything happening is something happening and I know events happen, so this too must be something happening, even though it's time passing without anything happening.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I described the future becoming the past as a force.

Quoting ucarr

This contradicts: "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events."

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It appears contradictory to you, because in your condition of denial, you refuse to allow the possibility of what I demonstrated as a valid logical possibility, that time could be passing without any physical event occurring. Therefore you refuse to accept the distinction between being active, and being an event.

Here you're keeping activity and event distinct? Also, since time is physical, please explain how time passes without any physical event occurring.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The term "event" is restricted to a physical happening, but "active" is not restricted in this way. Therefore whatever it is which is active, is not necessarily a physical event. A physicalist would deny this difference, disallowing that there is anything more to reality than physical things and events. But anyone who recognizes the reality of what is known as "the immaterial", will allow for the reality of activity which is other than physical.

When time in isolation causes itself to pass, this is an example of immaterial time involved in an activity where no physical system is present? So, "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events"?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is why I warned you that it would be pointless to proceed into this discussion without accepting the reality of freewill. The concept of "freewill" allows for the reality of a cause which is not a physical event. If you cling to physicalist/determinist principles, you will simply deny and refuse the principles which make this thesis intelligible, and claim contradiction, as you are doing. So, if you refuse to relinquish this attitude, further discussion would be pointless.

So, time, being immaterial, causes material things to change by passing. This, then, exemplifies the concept of "freewill" that allows for the reality of a cause which is not a physical event?

Quoting ucarr

You say that motion is relative, and you say that the present is dimensionally extended. Since relative motion requires dimensional extension, you must explain why a dimensionally extended present is not a part of the phenomenon of relative motion. This explanation is especially important given the role of the present as a separator of future and past that moves in relation to them. How else could it separate them?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I really do not understand what you are asking, but it appears like you are saying that any separator between future and past must be moving. I explained to you why this is false, and provided an example, the substance being forced through a membrane.

The argument is simple. Inside a spaceship, the substance being forced through a membrane establishes a frame of reference wherein it's stationary relative to the substance being forced through it. Outside the spaceship, we realize the membrane, like the substance being forced through it, exists in a state of motion. Anything dimensionally extended - something you want to do to the present tense - has a variable state of motion depending upon its frame of reference. So your dimensionally extended present tense is part of the phenomenon of relative motion. How does this agree with your claim the present, dimensionally extended, is static, and thus future moves directly to past, skipping over present?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

What's the value of an "example" that's merely whimsy about how the world might be?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I told you the value of the example. It's a logical possibility. You refuse things based on your claim of "contradictory". But it only appears contradictory to you because you refuse to accept a valid logical possibility. When you accept it as a valid possibility, then your claim of contradiction disappears. It is logically possible that time can pass without any physical change occurring. You refuse and deny this logical possibility, and that's what creates problems for you. You frame it as a problem for my theory of time, but it's not. It's just a problem with your attitude.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine that there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration. Now imagine half a Planck time. That is a duration of time during which an object changing its place in space is impossible.

There remains the chance your logical possibility is based upon valid reasoning to a false conclusion. This can happen if your valid reasoning includes a false premise. Suppose: a) 0.5 Planck time is inside a gluon; b) the gluon is inside a quark; c) the 0.5 Planck time is inside the quark. This is a valid argument. However, if premise a) is false because 0.5 Planck time is proven impossible, then 0.5 Planck time is not inside the quark, so the valid argument does not, in this case, lead to a true conclusion. This shows logical possibility is not always proof of facts. So, a logically valid argument does not necessarily support a given proposition, such as time can pass in a duration closed to events.

Quoting ucarr

Perhaps we don't say it, but we think it, don't we? I mean, if someone asked you, "Does time continue passing while you're asleep," you'd answer, "yes" wouldn't you?

Of course, but I think that time passes. You, on the other hand think that the present moves through time instead of time passing. That's the issue, do you really think that you're moving through time while you're sleeping, or do you think that time is passing while you're sleeping?

Quoting ucarr

Time is conventionally conceived as being a dimension.

I know, and that's what I am arguing is a faulty conception. You can explain it to me all you want, but unless you justify it, your explanations do nothing for me.

Quoting ucarr

I now suspect you're theory posits time, not as a dimension emergent from matter_energy transfer systems, but as another dynamical system in itself.

That's right, but for the reason explained, "system" is the wrong word.

Quoting ucarr

Even if it is, cast in this role, it exemplifies the animation of matter, and is therefore not apart from it.

This is backward. The animation of matter exemplifies time, not vice versa. The animation of matter is the example. This means that the animation of matter is not separate from time, but time is separate from the animation of matter. The relationship of necessity is in one direction, but not the other.

Human beings exemplify "animal" and there is a relationship of logical necessity which means that a human being is necessarily an animal. But "animal" is separate from humane beings, and there could be animals even if there was no human beings, because there is no logical necessity that an animal is a human being. Likewise, there is a relationship of necessity which means that animated matter implies that time is passing. However, "time" is separate from the animation of matter because there is no logical necessity which implies that if time is passing there must be animated matter.

This is the "logical possibility" I demonstrated to you, which you refuse to accept. Since this is causing you difficulty, here is another way to look at it. Consider that during a period of time, it is possible that some things can be stationary relative to each other. If it is possible that during one period of time some things can be stationary relative to each other, then it is also possible that at a period of time all things might be stationary relative to each other.

Quoting ucarr

If you already know this, then you need to immediately tell your reader you’re rejecting the conventional wisdom and embarking on a radically different path to discovery about the identity of time.

Of course, I've been dismissing "the conventional wisdom" on time, from the beginning. That is the point. We started with a discussion of how "the present" as a point in time, a convention which enabled the measurement of periods of time, leads to significant ontological problems. When you appeared receptive to that analysis which demonstrated the faults of this conception, I proceeded toward explaining a possible solution. But now you seem very reluctant to leave the comfort of your convention, and so you fall back on "conventional wisdom" insisting that we adhere to it, despite the fact that you seemed to agree with the demonstration which showed that the conventional wisdom is faulty.

Quoting ucarr

Sound thinking in physics says spacetime can exist without matter_energy. If it’s the source of matter_energy systems, then we ask whether time alone is a system. If so, what kind of system, how does it work, and how does it ground matter_energy systems? I think these major concepts should be put into the first paragraph of your theory.

As I explained, systems are artificial, made by human beings, and time existed before there was human beings. So this "systems" perspective is a non-starter.

Quoting ucarr

When you model an object as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, does the modeled object remain static and only appear to be animated on the basis of relative motion?

No, it means that without the passage of time, the object would not change. It, the object in itself, is fundamentally static, and the passing of time is what causes it to be active.

Quoting ucarr

Is time passing without anything happening an activity of time? I ask this question because if time makes itself pass, then to my understanding that's time being active, and thus it's an activity of time. To me these seem to be correct readings of what the language signifies.

Correct.

Quoting ucarr

Is the activity of time passing without anything happening an event? I ask this question because it seems to me that time passing without anything happening is something happening and I know events happen, so this too must be something happening, even though it's time passing without anything happening.

No, I drew this distinction all ready. An "event" is a particular physical thing which happens. It is describable by the terms and laws of physics. That is the way we understand "event". The activity of time passing is something more general which encompasses all events. Therefore it cannot be an event itself.

Imagine that each and every event exemplifies the passing of time. It's impossible that the passing of time could itself be an event, for much the same reason that it is impossible for a set to be a member of itself.

For example, consider a multitude of particular objects which exemplify the colour red. In order for a multitude to exemplify that property, "red", there must be something which forms the basis for that category, "red". It is impossible that the basis for that category is itself a red thing, because this would mean that every object in that category would have to be the exact same as that one red thing, leaving that thing as the sole member of the category.

For those reasons, you can see why it is necessary to maintain the distinction between the particular "event", and the general activity called "the passing of time".

Quoting ucarr

Here you're keeping activity and event distinct? Also, since time is physical, please explain how time passes without any physical event occurring.

Time is not physical, and that's a big reason why "conventional wisdom" is so faulty. Since there is no physical thing, which qualifies as "time" we just stipulate principles, like we do with mathematical axioms. When the principles prove to be useful, they become conventional. Neither "conventional" nor "useful" implies true.

Quoting ucarr

So, "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events"?

Correct.

Quoting ucarr

So, time, being immaterial, causes material things to change by passing. This, then, exemplifies the concept of "freewill" that allows for the reality of a cause which is not a physical event?

I'd say rather, that it is consistent with the concept of free will.

Quoting ucarr

The argument is simple. Inside a spaceship, the substance being forced through a membrane establishes a frame of reference wherein it's stationary relative to the substance being forced through it. Outside the spaceship, we realize the membrane, like the substance being forced through it, exists in a state of motion. Anything dimensionally extended - something you want to do to the present tense - has a variable state of motion depending upon its frame of reference. So your dimensionally extended present tense is part of the phenomenon of relative motion. How does this agree with your claim the present, dimensionally extended, is static, and thus future moves directly to past, skipping over present?

This argument is irrelevant because you are talking about spatial dimensions, and I am talking about temporal dimensions, so the principles do not apply. You are comparing apples and oranges. And only through the incompatible premise which makes time a spatial dimension, could the comparison be made.

Quoting ucarr

This shows logical possibility is not always proof of facts. So, a logically valid argument does not necessarily support a given proposition, such as time can pass in a duration closed to events.

As I said, the logical possibility is not presented as proof. However it does support the proposition, as evidence. But freewill allows us to deny and refuse (which is your approach), even things which are necessary. But the evidence remains evidence for those who accept it, until it is proven to be actually impossible.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

I know your narrative overall is very complicated, but for the moment, I ask how can memories of the future not be what humans experience, given your claim time is prior to events? Since human lives consist of moments strung together, and time, as you say, is prior to all of these moments, how can our lives not be memories of what hasn't yet happened? You're the one frequently claiming the future jumps into the past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry, I really can't decipher what you are asking here.

I'm asking you why you think it's empirically true that we remember what happens before our present tense experience? You say there's a jump from future to past, with time being the force pushing us into the past. Since you want to extend the present dimensionally - I think it already dimensionally extended as theoretic numerical present tense closely followed by empirical present tense - that means the jump from future to past is now a jump from theoretic numerical present to empirical present tense. You see, there's no empirical experience of either the future tense nor the past tense - we only experience the tempirical present tense minutely time-lagged behind the theoretic numerical present.

Quoting ucarr

Firstly, understanding that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event is an awareness that happens in the empirical now, not in the future. So, the possibility of an event, an abstraction of the mind, does not reside in the mind in the future, but rather in the empirical now.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not talking about "possibility" here, as an abstraction in the mind. I am talking about ontological possibility.

Possibility is a logical understanding, whether ontological or not. In either case, the sentient experiences this awareness in the empirical present tense whereas both the past and the future are abstractions of the empirically present tense mind.

Quoting ucarr

Secondly, in what direction does the arrow of time for the conscious human individual move? If we say it moves from the future toward the past, then we’re also saying the conscious human individual grows younger with the passing of time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That's a false conclusion for the reasons I've already explained.

Check around and you'll see, if you haven't already, that the arrow of time and the arrow of entropy point in the same direction. This is due to the obvious fact that entropy changes in time. I don't expect you to deny this given your claim time changes all things. This means that if the arrow of time points from future to past, then the arrow of entropy also points from future to past. This means, then, that living things are born at their greatest age and progressively grow younger.

Quoting ucarr

Since the present moves in time, it's not static.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Your preferred model of time might have the present moving in time, mine does not. And, I explained to you why mine does not. If you want to understand mine, then you have to drop this idea, because the two are incompatible. If you insist that time must be modeled as having the present moving in time, then we might as well end the discussion right now, because I'm not interested in that model, I think it is obviously false.

Note - You've been very patient and very generous with your time, as I've needed a lot of repetition from you as I have corrected my misreadings of your intended meanings. Only recently have I realized immaterial time is the central part of your theory. Now knowing this, I have a better grasp of your point of view. I'm grateful to you for giving me ample chance to understand you. Also, I'm grateful for the extensive workout; I like to believe it has strengthened my ability to reason.

I've been understanding you've decided to extend the present tense in a way that sometimes allows it to overlap with past or future. I see now that even given this, your concept of the present tense does not move in time. Have you written a paper that organizes all of the components of your theory?

Quoting ucarr

Time is not a system, but a part of a system in the role of a dimension.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

OK then, what is "the system" which time is a dimension of? You do realize that all systems are artificial don't you? There is physical systems, and theoretical systems, but they are all produced by human beings. Are you saying that time is simply theoretical, part of a theoretical system? I think this is what you said earlier, when you defined time as a mathematical measurement.

Einstein has described time as a temporal dimension attached to three spatial dimensions. This complex of four dimensions, the four-manifold, goes by the name spacetime. It is examined in terms of
a local frame of reference determining the relativity of time. Also, it is examined in terms of gravity which is space as the four-manifold. The role of time within gravity does not match its role within QM. Some QM physicists question whether time exists within QM. All or most physicists agree that time within QM is a separate and passive background that doesn't impact upon quantum events. This view parallels Newton's view of space as a separate and passive background that doesn't impact upon human scale events.

The human mind organizes natural events into logical patterns. Whether logic and numbers are discovered in nature or imposed upon it by the rational mind is a perennial debate I don't think it prudent for us to embark upon here.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I explained why you have to get beyond that idea of time if you want to develop a true understanding of time. As I said, you need to drop these preconceived ideas, if you want to discuss time with me, because I am not interested in discussing time with someone who will relentlessly insist on false premises.

Are asking me to set aside my physicalist concept of time in order to examine your non-physicalist concept of time? Yes, I want to examine your non-physicalist concept of time. I want to compare and contrast it with my physicalist concept of time. If you have a paper that organizes everything within your theory, I’ll read it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past.

Quoting ucarr

With this claim you validate the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Again, you are applying incompatible premises in an effort to make what I say look contradictory.. The start time does not have to be "the present". It's not, that's the point of the example. As the example clearly shows, the start time is "the future". The future is first. If time started then it is necessary that there was a future before there was a past or a present. The only way to avoid this is to say that time is eternal, but that has problems.

There is a question whether my statements spotlight the incompatibility of your axiomatic system with another, or if they spotlight inconsistencies and contradictions internal to your system. If I correctly infer a statement from your text that examples a contradiction in your logic, it not being written there explicitly does not allow you to jump to the conclusion I'm applying an external standard of measure incompatible with your premises.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past.

I infer from this statement that time without a past cannot be dimensionally extended because this state of the system presupposes the system being a proper subset of itself, a cosmic contradiction. The contradiction is established within the literature of logic. Within set theory, a set being a proper subset of itself, a situation positing the subset as its own superset and vice-versa, examples an obvious contradiction simultaneously equating things and anti-equating the same things. It's not established in the physicalist cosmology. This extension from the abstraction of logic to the existential cosmology is my doing.

The correction to the cosmological contradiction of a pure origin - there are no pure origins - embodies as the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival. This asymptotic progression toward the numerical present is evidence of QM properties being present within the Newtonian scale of physics. This is a way of saying we humans, like the elementary particles, have only a probable location in spacetime. At the Newtonian scale of physics, this seems not to be the case, and that's why Newton himself didn't include it within his physics.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

There is the ever-closer approach to a start and to an end, but no arrival.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not interesting in discussing the deficiencies of mathematics.

The infinite series of the calculus and it's limit work very well. They aren't deficiencies. Moreover, they are centrally pertinent to our discussion because you're attacking the theoretical point with zero dimensions. In its role as the numerical present tense, it stands as the limit of an infinite series.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, this is not proven, That time might pass without physical events, is offered as a logical possibility which needs to be considered, instead of simply rejected as impossible.

This is an important acknowledgement on your part. I will keep it in mind. I've already been evaluating the factual content of this conjecture.

Quoting ucarr

I think all occurrences of events happen in time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I agree, and we can conclude that time is required for events. This means that time is logically prior to events, but not vise versa.

Quoting ucarr

I don't read your statement as a self-evident truth.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What is offered as self-evident truth is free will. And, when something other than a physical event (a free will), selects a possibility, and causes a physical event, this implies an activity (cause) which is not a physical event. Do you understand this basic principle? The physical event which is caused by a free will, is not caused by a physical event, it is caused by a free will. This implies a cause which is not a physical event. As a cause, it is necessarily an activity. And, activity requires time. Therefore we have time and activity without a physical event. There is an event which is caused by that activity but such an event is posterior to that activity.

In claiming free will as a self-evident truth, you're ignoring a perennial debate stretching across millennia. The continuing doubt about the existence of free will renders your following argument undecided WRT free will.

Since you identify free will with non-physical and also with activity, that puts your supposition of a non-physical reality and your definition of non-physical activity within the same category of undecided.

The physical event, which is caused by a free will, is not caused by a physical event, it is caused by a free will. This implies a cause which is not a physical event. As a cause, it is necessarily an activity. And, activity requires time. Therefore we have time and activity without a physical event.

So, time, acting as a function of causation, animates events. There's a question whether time, or any other dimension, is causal. However, your premise thus far, might be worth propounding. Everything changes when you reach the point where you claim activity is non-physical. Since time, per Relativity, is physical, in order for your conclusion to be true, you must overturn Relativity.

Quoting ucarr

Moreover, you haven't described any action time performs apart from material things.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is not true. I described the activity of time, as the future becoming the past.

Since time is a physical dimension, but not dynamic, its status as a cause of things that are dynamic is doubtful. Time and events are paired as physical things. So, time as one of the three tenses pushing the past further into the past, if it happens, examples a physical-to-physical relationship. The problem, again, is that time, although physical, is not dynamic. You haven't shown contact between the non-physical and the physical.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Let me remind you, a "system" is always artificial. In one sense of "system" we construct a physical system, according to a design. In another sense of "system" we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be a system, it is modeled according to a system theory.

You say, "we construct a physical system, according to a design." Why isn't the physical thing a system?

Quoting ucarr

So show me your measurements of time passing without events passing concurrently.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We discussed the difference between the measurement and the thing which is measured, way back.

Now, do you agree that a measurement requires an act of measuring. There is no measurement without that act of measuring. However, the thing to be measured exists as the thing to be measured, regardless of whether it has been measured or not. Because I am discussing the thing to be measured, and an approach toward the means for making accurate measurements, your request for measurements is unwarranted.

This is your argument supporting the separation of activity from event? Thinking about doing something is not equal to the actual doing of the something thought about. In order to support your claim non-physical activity is prior - both logically and existentially - to events, you must show that priority, both logically and existentially. Show me, with mathematical inference, how non-physical time passes inside the Cern particle accelerator in such manner as to cause the animation of the material things that populate events.

Man, you two are really going at it. Is there any hope for any kind of resolution here, one way or the other? Or is this one of those problems that can be discussed for all eternity, without being able to ever reach a solution to it?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

Perhaps we don't say it, but we think it, don't we? I mean, if someone asked you, "Does time continue passing while you're asleep," you'd answer, "yes" wouldn't you?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, but I think that time passes. You, on the other hand think that the present moves through time instead of time passing. That's the issue, do you really think that you're moving through time while you're sleeping, or do you think that time is passing while you're sleeping?

Regarding passing through time, time is the dimension of duration, so is it false to think of my temporal experience as passing through a duration? Consider that it takes one hour to travel from point A to point B. Don't you think about your travel by car as passing through the interval of time required to arrive at your destination? I think it less intuitive to picture time as a separate thing passing away from me as I remain stationary.

Quoting ucarr

Time is conventionally conceived as being a dimension.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I know, and that's what I am arguing is a faulty conception. You can explain it to me all you want, but unless you justify it, your explanations do nothing for me.

How about I let Einstein justify it?

Time dilation caused by gravity or acceleration
Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different times after different accelerations. For example, time goes slower at the ISS, lagging approximately 0.01 seconds for every 12 Earth months passed. - Wikipedia

Note the above is not a thought experiment. It is scientific verification with real evidence supporting a prediction of Relativity.

Quoting ucarr

I now suspect you're theory posits time, not as a dimension emergent from matter_energy transfer systems, but as another dynamical system in itself.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That's right, but for the reason explained, "system" is the wrong word.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Let me remind you, a "system" is always artificial. In one sense of "system" we construct a physical system, according to a design. In another sense of "system" we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be a system, it is modeled according to a system theory.

If you're trying to reject system as a label for dynamic patterns organized logically, then you'll need to do more than the reasoning posted above. For example, you say, "...we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be as a system..." Must be a piss poor model if it in no way resembles systemically the systemization of the natural thing it models. I say this because your denial of the systemization of natural things does not apply to living organisms.

Quoting ucarr

Even if it is, cast in this role, it exemplifies the animation of matter, and is therefore not apart from it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is backward. The animation of matter exemplifies time, not vice versa. The animation of matter is the example. This means that the animation of matter is not separate from time, but time is separate from the animation of matter. The relationship of necessity is in one direction, but not the other.

I haven't forgotten your claim time causes the animation of events. If time is animated with passing time in isolation, it's a dynamic system. This being the case even if the passing of time is the only animation present. Well, this is just the same as what other dynamic systems do, so time is another example of thermo-dynamics and therefore it cannot be apart from or prior to other events given it being itself an event.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

..."time" is separate from the animation of matter because there is no logical necessity which implies that if time is passing there must be animated matter.

Relativity says something different.

In the context of special relativity, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer. - Wikipedia

Can space and time exist separately?
In the theory of general relativity, spacetime is described as a unified concept where space and time cannot be considered separately. Spacetime is a framework in which events occur and objects move and interact. - MIT.edu

If space and time are inseparable, then time is also inseparable from animate matter because space is equal to the warpage of gravitation, and that is an event.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is the "logical possibility" I demonstrated to you, which you refuse to accept.

Logical validity doesn’t necessarily establish what is factual.

If a valid conclusion is necessarily based upon a false premise, then that conclusion, being always counter-factual, is not logically possible.

Conversely, in order for something to be logically possible, it must always be possible to use true premises towards its arrival as a valid conclusion.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If it is possible that during one period of time some things can be stationary relative to each other, then it is also possible that at a period of time all things might be stationary relative to each other.

Again, your argument, even if valid, doesn't necessarily establish what is factual.

What conditions would describe the heat death of the universe?
The heat death of the universe is a postulated end to the universe as we know it. It is when a state of maximum disorder, or entropy, is reached; where no thermodynamic processes occur and time itself becomes meaningless. - tcd.ie

Will the universe reach absolute zero?
Long after the last star in the Universe has [+] burned out, the final black hole will decay away. Even after that happens, however, and even after waiting arbitrarily long amounts of time for the Universe to dilute and the radiation to redshift, the temperature still will not drop to absolute zero. - Forbes

In the first example, time, instead of passing in isolation, becomes meaningless. In the second example, the temperature never drops to zero, which signifies energy and motion.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...now you seem very reluctant to leave the comfort of your convention, and so you fall back on "conventional wisdom" insisting that we adhere to it, despite the fact that you seemed to agree with the demonstration which showed that the conventional wisdom is faulty.

My understanding of an evaluation of a paper says its premises and conclusions get referenced to established facts about the true nature of things. Conventional wisdom, if true and pertinent, stands up as good, not bad. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Quoting ucarr

Sound thinking in physics says spacetime can exist without matter_energy. If it’s the source of matter_energy systems, then we ask whether time alone is a system. If so, what kind of system, how does it work, and how does it ground matter_energy systems? I think these major concepts should be put into the first paragraph of your theory.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I explained, systems are artificial, made by human beings, and time existed before there was human beings. So this "systems" perspective is a non-starter.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Let me remind you, a "system" is always artificial. In one sense of "system" we construct a physical system, according to a design. In another sense of "system" we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be a system, it is modeled according to a system theory.

You also explained how "we model a natural thing according to system theory." No doubt your understanding of time is based upon the artifice of human-centered system theory. So your view of time is no less artificial than mine.

Quoting ucarr

When you model an object as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, does the modeled object remain static and only appear to be animated on the basis of relative motion?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, it means that without the passage of time, the object would not change. It, the object in itself, is fundamentally static, and the passing of time is what causes it to be active.

Your vague language leaves it unclear whether time imparts to fundamentally static things the relativity of motion. I ask this because the relativity of motion - apart from that relativity - leaves material things intact, i.e., fundamentally static. If relativity of motion changed you in any way besides relativistically, your appearance would keep changing. It doesn't. This sounds like what you're saying is that time, rather than motion, imparts relativistic motion to things. The problem with having it be time instead of energy is the fact time is not a force and thus cannot impart relativistic motion to material things.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It's impossible that the passing of time could itself be an event, for much the same reason that it is impossible for a set to be a member of itself.

Incorrect [math]?[/math]

Some sets are members of themselves and others are not: for example, the set of all sets is a member of itself, because it is a set, whereas the set of all penguins is not, because it is not a penguin. - Oxford Reference.com

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is impossible that the basis for that category is itself a red thing

Without getting into set theory, I can say that passing time, being part of a 4-manifold, involves the energy of animated things to which it is attached. Therefore, like Roger Penrose says, "Where there's mass, there's time. This tells me time doesn't pass apart from events populated by animated things.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Time is not physical, and that's a big reason why "conventional wisdom" is so faulty.

Time, a physical dimension, and being part of the 4-manifold, together with three spatial dimensions, forms a container of events.

Quoting ucarr

Anything dimensionally extended - something you want to do to the present tense - has a variable state of motion depending upon its frame of reference. So your dimensionally extended present tense is part of the phenomenon of relative motion.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This argument is irrelevant because you are talking about spatial dimensions, and I am talking about temporal dimensions, so the principles do not apply. You are comparing apples and oranges. And only through the incompatible premise which makes time a spatial dimension, could the comparison be made.

Time is relative. Through acceleration or gravity, time speeds up or slows down. Obviously, acceleration and gravity are both part of space, so their effect on time shows that time and space are connected, and thus your apples and oranges defense is what's irrelevant here.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...the logical possibility is not presented as proof. However it does support the proposition, as evidence.

Logic works with proofs. How does logic, short of a proof, support a proposition? You don't have any evidence because there's no experimental verification of a half-Planck scale.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich

I'm having a great time. MU has been patient with my blunders, and he's been generous with his time. I can't lose overall because I'm having an enriching experience.

Quoting ucarr

I'm asking you why you think it's empirically true that we remember what happens before our present tense experience?

No wonder I couldn't understand. I don't think that.

Quoting ucarr

You say there's a jump from future to past,

I never said anything about a jump. In fact i was implying that the future and past overlap, with my description of the dimensionality of the present. How is that a jump?

You are badly misrepresenting me.

Quoting ucarr

Possibility is a logical understanding, whether ontological or not. In either case, the sentient experiences this awareness in the empirical present tense whereas both the past and the future are abstractions of the empirically present tense mind.

This is what I would say is the mistaken assumption. Really, we are aware of the past, through memory. And, we are also aware of the future, through our anticipations and intentions. The "present" is just an abstraction. That's what I discussed concerning the faulty idea that "the present" is a nondimensional point which divides future from past.

Quoting ucarr

Check around and you'll see, if you haven't already, that the arrow of time and the arrow of entropy point in the same direction.

I can't see an arrow of time, nor an arrow of entropy. These are abstractions, part of a (faulty in my belief) conceptual structure.

Quoting ucarr

Note - You've been very patient and very generous with your time, as I've needed a lot of repetition from you as I have corrected my misreadings of your intended meanings. Only recently have I realized immaterial time is the central part of your theory. Now knowing this, I have a better grasp of your point of view. I'm grateful to you for giving me ample chance to understand you. Also, I'm grateful for the extensive workout; I like to believe it has strengthened my ability to reason.

You may claim to have a "better grasp" of what I'm saying, but you still badly misrepresent me, especially on the subject of the flow of time. The problem is, that you have this idea that the past is before the future, and this works as a model for determinist causation. When I tell you that it is necessary to understand the future as prior to the past, in order to understand the freewill perspective, you simply reverse the flow of time, and present that as my perspective. But I keep telling you that is not the case, the flow of time is exactly the same, whether it's modeled with past before the future, or future before the past. What is changed is the way that one understands the floe of time.

Do you agree that it is necessary to understand that the possibility for an event precedes the actual occurrence of that event? And do you understand that possibilities only exist in the future, not the past? What happens at the present is that possibilities coming from the future, are selected for, actualized, and then become past. Therefore the future is prior to the past.

Quoting ucarr

The role of time within gravity does not match its role within QM.

That's good evidence that Einstein's spacetime is a faulty theory of time.

Quoting ucarr

I infer from this statement that time without a past cannot be dimensionally extended because this state of the system presupposes the system being a proper subset of itself, a cosmic contradiction.

The "time without a past" is not dimensionless though. That's the point. It still has a future, which is a dimension of time. And, the further point is that this condition you mention, "time without a past", i.e. only a future, is necessarily prior to there being a past, if we rule out eternal or infinite time. Therefore if the extension of time is not infinite, future is necessarily prior to past.

Quoting ucarr

The correction to the cosmological contradiction of a pure origin - there are no pure origins - embodies as the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival. This asymptotic progression toward the numerical present is evidence of QM properties being present within the Newtonian scale of physics. This is a way of saying we humans, like the elementary particles, have only a probable location in spacetime. At the Newtonian scale of physics, this seems not to be the case, and that's why Newton himself didn't include it within his physics

Again, this is a terrible model. Why exclude "origins"? Having a model which excludes origins as unintelligible renders real origins as unintelligible. That origins appear to be unintelligible is the fault of the model, not because real origins are actually unintelligible. Origins are modeled as unintelligible, so whenever there is an origin it appears to be unintelligible. That's a faulty model.

Look, the following makes no sense:

"As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival. "

Earlier, you said we are in the "empirical present". Now you say we're moving in time, but never reaching the present. What does this mean, that we are always in the past, yet empirically in the present? Well how do we ever make freewill acts to change things then? The past is already fixed as unchangeable, if we never reach the present we never have the capacity to make a freewill act.

Quoting ucarr

The infinite series of the calculus and it's limit work very well. They aren't deficiencies.

Yes, infinite series' are deficiencies, because as you yourself show, they make origins unintelligible, requiring that there is an infinite series to be traversed between now and then. And, the appearance of infinite time here provides an avoidance of the argument which demonstrates that the future is necessarily prior to the past. Only if time was infinite, could this argument be avoided, and the calculus which works with the infinite series produces that illusion of infinity.

Now we have a contradictory scenario, there is supposed to be an origin on the other side of that infinite series, but the infinite series denies the reality of the origin. Then arguments like mine which actually address the origin, can be dismissed, because the infinite series makes a real origin impossible. So all we have is 'waffle-land', deny discussions which take an origin as a premise, because the infinite series doesn't allow the origin to be real, yet also deny that there is an infinite regress by claiming that there is an origin behind the infinite series.

Quoting ucarr

In claiming free will as a self-evident truth, you're ignoring a perennial debate stretching across millennia. The continuing doubt about the existence of free will renders your following argument undecided WRT free will.

Since the determinist perspective, and the freewill perspective produce incompatible models of time, we need to choose on or the other. I am not interested in discussing time with anyone who makes the self-contradicting choice, i.e. choosing that choice is not possible.

Quoting ucarr

There's a question whether time, or any other dimension, is causal.

You continue to misrepresent "time" as a dimension, in the incompatible determinist way. I mean that's acceptable to that model of time, but if you want to understand "time" in this model you need to rid yourself of those incompatible premises. "Time" here is not a dimension of something, it is something with dimensions.

Quoting ucarr

Since time, per Relativity, is physical, in order for your conclusion to be true, you must overturn Relativity.

Overturning relativity is not what is required, only to demonstrate it's deficiencies, like the one mentioned above. Another one which I've been arguing is that it wrongly renders the logical possibility of time without physical events as impossible. When a theory renders a logical possibility as impossible, through stipulation rather than through empirical observation, that theory must be held suspect.

Quoting ucarr

Since time is a physical dimension...

Bad premise!

Quoting ucarr

You haven't shown contact between the non-physical and the physical.

You haven't dropped your bad premise. Once you drop that premise that time is physical, what you ask for is accomplished.

Quoting ucarr

You say, "we construct a physical system, according to a design." Why isn't the physical thing a system?

The physical thing is a "system", but it's artificial. Then there's the other meaning of "system", as in system theory. In this sense we might model a natural things as a "system", but the natural things don't actually fit the theoretical system, so boundaries and things like that, need to be fudged. Both senses of "system", the physical system, and the theoretical system, refer to something artificial. Natural things just don't fulfill the requirement of "system".

Quoting ucarr

This is your argument supporting the separation of activity from event? Thinking about doing something is not equal to the actual doing of the something thought about. In order to support your claim non-physical activity is prior - both logically and existentially - to events, you must show that priority, both logically and existentially. Show me, with mathematical inference, how non-physical time passes inside the Cern particle accelerator in such manner as to cause the animation of the material things that populate events.

I've told you many times now, it's taken as a logical possibility, not as a proof. However, when we accept this logical possibility as reality, it makes freewill very intelligible. And, you can deny free will if you so choose, but then we'll have nothing more to talk about.

[Quoting ucarr

Regarding passing through time, time is the dimension of duration, so is it false to think of my temporal experience as passing through a duration? Consider that it takes one hour to travel from point A to point B. Don't you think about your travel by car as passing through the interval of time required to arrive at your destination? I think it less intuitive to picture time as a separate thing passing away from me as I remain stationary.

No, I think of passing through the space between A and B when I travel, and I think that this takes time, i.e. time passes while I traverse this space. I definitely do not think that I travel through time in the way I traverse space, because moving from one place to another requires energy, but time passes without any effort on my part. This is a very big difference which you need to respect. We need to propel ourselves to change locations, but time passes with no effort on our part. That is because time itself is the thing which is active when we supposedly "move through time", not us.

Quoting ucarr

How about I let Einstein justify it?

Time dilation caused by gravity or acceleration
Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different times after different accelerations. For example, time goes slower at the ISS, lagging approximately 0.01 seconds for every 12 Earth months passed. - Wikipedia

Note the above is not a thought experiment. It is scientific verification with real evidence supporting a prediction of Relativity.

I don't see how this proves anything.

Quoting ucarr

Must be a piss poor model if it in no way resembles systemically the systemization of the natural thing it models.

I didn't say "it in no way resembles..." If one thing resembles another, that does not mean it is the other. That's piss poor logic. If a natural thing resembles an artificial system, it's piss poor logic to conclude that it is a system.

Quoting ucarr

Again, your argument, even if valid, doesn't necessarily establish what is factual.

How many times do I have to tell you? I am in no way trying to "establish what is factual". I am discussing logical possibilities. Do you understand this? This is a theory based in possibilities, not based in what is actual, or factual. This is what makes it consistent with freewill, that it deals with possibilities.

Quoting ucarr

The heat death of the universe is a postulated end to the universe as we know it. It is when a state of maximum disorder, or entropy, is reached; where no thermodynamic processes occur and time itself becomes meaningless

That's very faulty. Look, "entropy" is a feature of a system, it accounts for the energy of a system which is no longer useful to that system, and cannot be account for. The universe is not a system. And, assuming a "heat death" is actually accounting for the energy which the concept of "entropy" explicitly indicates cannot be accounted for. So this heat death idea is just self-contradicting, even if you overlook the first fault, that the universe is not a system. Double bad does not make a theory good.

Quoting ucarr

No doubt your understanding of time is based upon the artifice of human-centered system theory.

Sure, but I don't pretend that the model is the thing modeled. My model is a model of possibility. You think time is the measurement, so all you are doing is modeling the model.

Quoting ucarr

The problem with having it be time instead of energy is the fact time is not a force

Again, you are just adopting incompatible premises to deny the theory. Clearly, in this theory time is a force, so your premise that time is not a force is irrelevant. Furthermore, you replace time as the force, with "energy" as the force, but energy is just a measurement, it's not a real independent thing like time is. We take measurements, and determine "the energy" of something, but that is just physical laws and mathematics. So "energy" is the product of measurements and applied mathematics, it is not a real force in the world, like the passing of time is. It appears your theory has swallowed up your reality.

Quoting ucarr

"Where there's mass, there's time. This tells me time doesn't pass apart from events populated by animated things.

This is an invalid conclusion. Like I explained, "where there's mass, there's time", implies that mass cannot exist without time, but it does not imply that time cannot exist without mass.

You need to learn how to understand "logical priority".

Quoting ucarr

Logic works with proofs. How does logic, short of a proof, support a proposition? You don't have any evidence because there's no experimental verification of a half-Planck scale.

Clearly you take one way in which logic is used, and assume that this is all that logic does. You see to be totally missing out on some of the greatest uses of it.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

...how can our lives not be memories of what hasn't yet happened? You're the one frequently claiming the future jumps into the past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry, I really can't decipher what you are asking here.

Quoting ucarr

I'm asking you why you think it's empirically true that we remember what happens before our present tense experience? You say there's a jump from future to past, with time being the force pushing us into the past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No wonder I couldn't understand. I don't think that.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I never said anything about a jump. In fact i was implying that the future and past overlap, with my description of the dimensionality of the present. How is that a jump?

You have written about the arrow of time as moving from future to past, with the force of the future pushing the past into the more distant past, so I've been reading that as an arrow of time that skips over the present.

Now it seems you're telling me the future moves to the present, and then the present mediates an overlap of the future and the past. So far, I can't picture the empirical experience of the merger of two temporal tenses: future and past in this example. Since you believe this to be happening, you should be able to provide a description of what it's like for a person to experience being simultaneously in the future and the past.

Quoting ucarr

Possibility is a logical understanding, whether ontological or not. In either case, the sentient experiences this awareness in the empirical present tense whereas both the past and the future are abstractions of the empirically present tense mind.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Really, we are aware of the past, through memory. And, we are also aware of the future, through our anticipations and intentions. The "present" is just an abstraction. That's what I discussed concerning the faulty idea that "the present" is a nondimensional point which divides future from past.

This statement from you needs unpacking. I think we're aware of all three temporal tenses within the empirical present. We can neither go to the future nor to the past. Even if we could time travel, arrival at either past or future would be, for us, more experience of the empirical present. The arrow of time outside of the boundaries of the empirical present is an abstraction. Neither the past nor the future are for us existentially real; only the empirical present is existentially real for us. I, like you, postulate an extended present, but my version contains neither future nor past.

Quoting ucarr

Check around and you'll see, if you haven't already, that the arrow of time and the arrow of entropy point in the same direction.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I can't see an arrow of time, nor an arrow of entropy. These are abstractions, part of a (faulty in my belief) conceptual structure.

You're saying you don't believe the two arrows represent dynamical things existentially real, or you're saying you think they're understood in terms of a distorted perception that needs to be corrected?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is, that you have this idea that the past is before the future, and this works as a model for determinist causation.

What we have here is a complicated interplay of different frames of reference. I keep my perception oriented by confining myself to the present tense view of all three tenses, with the understanding only the present tense is, for me, pragmatically real beyond the neuronal activity of my brain.

Keeping this in mind, I can ask why the future-to-past arrow and the past-to-future arrow don't both possess determinist causation?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

When I tell you that it is necessary to understand the future as prior to the past, in order to understand the freewill perspective, you simply reverse the flow of time, and present that as my perspective.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But I keep telling you that is not the case, the flow of time is exactly the same, whether it's modeled with past before the future, or future before the past. What is changed is the way that one understands the floe of time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...it is necessary to understand the future as prior to the past, in order to understand the freewill perspective...

If, as you claim, the arrow of time is the same for both directions, then how could one be any less causal than the other? I ask this question bearing in mind your talk of free will. Even if we somehow inhabit the future pragmatically and thus also paradoxically, and therein exercise our free will such that the past events following this future free will decision making are caused by it, how is that an example of the future-to-past arrow of time being any less determinist that the past-to-future arrow of time?

Quoting ucarr

The role of time within gravity does not match its role within QM.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That's good evidence that Einstein's spacetime is a faulty theory of time.

You acknowledge that time is a dimension, as it is claimed by Relativity. Is your understanding of time as a dimension different from Einstein's understanding? If this is why your theory of dimensional time is correct while Einstein's isn't; can you list the ramifications of each theory of dimensional time side by side for comparison and contrast? Moreover, can you then present an analysis that shows your version of dimensional time prevailing over his regarding the truth content of their respective ramifications?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past.

Quoting ucarr

I infer from this statement that time without a past cannot be dimensionally extended because this state of the system presupposes the system being a proper subset of itself, a cosmic contradiction.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The "time without a past" is not dimensionless though. That's the point. It still has a future, which is a dimension of time. And, the further point is that this condition you mention, "time without a past", i.e. only a future, is necessarily prior to there being a past, if we rule out eternal or infinite time. Therefore if the extension of time is not infinite, future is necessarily prior to past.

There's a logical problem in your statement. In the situation of "time without a past," how can the "future" be prior to something that doesn't exist? Obviously, priority depends upon a relativity of position of first to second. That can't be the case in a situation with only a first and no second.

Continuing our reasoning, imagine in this situation the present in relation to the future becomes the past. Okay, there’s the missing second in the form of the past. Now, however, another problem arises: this is a situation with no present. It follows logically that a situation with no present has no presence, i.e., doesn’t exist. (By the way, this is the reason why neither past or future have any presence beyond the abstract mind; it’s not possible for future or past to exist outside their connection to their relatives; that is a connection only possible in the abstract thinking of the mind.)

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

The correction to the cosmological contradiction of a pure origin - there are no pure origins - embodies as the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival. This asymptotic progression toward the numerical present is evidence of QM properties being present within the Newtonian scale of physics. This is a way of saying we humans, like the elementary particles, have only a probable location in spacetime. At the Newtonian scale of physics, this seems not to be the case, and that's why Newton himself didn't include it within his physics

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Again, this is a terrible model. Why exclude "origins"? Having a model which excludes origins as unintelligible renders real origins as unintelligible. That origins appear to be unintelligible is the fault of the model, not because real origins are actually unintelligible. Origins are modeled as unintelligible, so whenever there is an origin it appears to be unintelligible. That's a faulty model.

If you've ever tackled the question: "Why is There Not Nothing?" or, stated differently: "Why Existence?" or read up on approaches made by others, then you know why this question, still unsolved, predates Socrates. There is a gnarly cosmological question, specifically invoked by this question: What's the Origin of the Totality of Existence? The question, "What predates the singularity of the Big Bang" is a stumper event the great thinkers still succumb to.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Look, the following makes no sense:

Quoting ucarr

As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Earlier, you said we are in the "empirical present". Now you say we're moving in time, but never reaching the present. What does this mean, that we are always in the past, yet empirically in the present? Well how do we ever make freewill acts to change things then? The past is already fixed as unchangeable, if we never reach the present we never have the capacity to make a freewill act.

We're in the empirical present - how we consciously perceive the world around us, moment to moment - which time lags behind the theoretical numerical present. Speaking in terms of the relative positions, the nearly present, our empirical present, chases closely behind what to us relatively speaking is the near future. This is a way of saying we're some tiny fraction of a second behind the numerical present. Now, to be sure, perception of the numerical present gets gnarly when we home in on its details in high resolution. We can only approach the numerical present as a changing variable traveling the highway of an infinite series. We're always approaching and never arriving at a relative future we're trying to make present here and now. Since these discrepancies at the Newtonian scale are minute, we ignore them. However, if we wish to talk scientifically, we say our position is spacetime is probable, not certain. So, now you see why the present is represented as a theoretical point of zero dimensions.

Quoting ucarr

The infinite series of the calculus and it's limit work very well. They aren't deficiencies.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, infinite series' are deficiencies, because as you yourself show, they make origins unintelligible, requiring that there is an infinite series to be traversed between now and then. And, the appearance of infinite time here provides an avoidance of the argument which demonstrates that the future is necessarily prior to the past. Only if time was infinite, could this argument be avoided, and the calculus which works with the infinite series produces that illusion of infinity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, infinite series' are deficiencies, because as you yourself show, they make origins unintelligible, requiring that there is an infinite series to be traversed between now and then. And, the appearance of infinite time here provides an avoidance of the argument which demonstrates that the future is necessarily prior to the past. Only if time was infinite, could this argument be avoided, and the calculus which works with the infinite series produces that illusion of infinity.

Now we have a contradictory scenario, there is supposed to be an origin on the other side of that infinite series, but the infinite series denies the reality of the origin. Then arguments like mine which actually address the origin, can be dismissed, because the infinite series makes a real origin impossible. So all we have is 'waffle-land', deny discussions which take an origin as a premise, because the infinite series doesn't allow the origin to be real, yet also deny that there is an infinite regress by claiming that there is an origin behind the infinite series.

Since you're complaining about a never-ending present, maybe you should ask yourself, "Have I ever been bodily present within either the past or the future?" We both know you know the answer is "no." Have you ever awakened from sleep and discovered you're either in the past or in the future? No, you haven't. Even if you could get into a time machine and travel to either one million years past, or one million years future, upon your arrival, wouldn't you be in what for you is the present? Yes, you would. If you find enjoyment in life, and you wish to continue going forward in it, then clearly you have no legitimate reason for complaining about your never-ending experience of being in the present. After all, those not in the present are dead.

This is further evidence we cannot travel to the future; if we could, that would mean we never had a present, and thus we never existed. What prevents this is the fact any time travel is always from the present to another present. Well, that's the infinite present. For clarity, let's look at this from the opposite direction.

If you tried to go from the future backwards of the arrow of time that goes forward, you'd discover you cannot go to the past, because, being of the future and going directly to the past, you'd have no present and thus no presence and thus no existence. Again, going this way, your non-existence is prevented by the fact you can only go from one present to another present.

Now we see why the arrow of time goes in the same direction as the arrow of entropy: past_present_future, with an infinite present, means going in either direction is just a temporal journey from one present to another. Without the arrow of entropy, the past_present_future skein is equal in both directions; temporal travel, either way, is a journey from one present to another present. What gives the arrow of time its unidirectionality is its pairing with the arrow of entropy.

We know we're following the arrow of time only going forward because we know from our life experience we are born young and die older; we understand this as the present going forward to the future. In this sequence, youth, which we look back upon from old age, comes first at birth, old age at death, comes second. We also understand that the reverse of that direction is going from being older to being younger. Since we never see ourselves or anyone else growing younger, we know going forward in time is the only way we're moving in time.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

In claiming free will as a self-evident truth, you're ignoring a perennial debate stretching across millennia. The continuing doubt about the existence of free will renders your following argument undecided WRT free will.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Since the determinist perspective, and the freewill perspective produce incompatible models of time, we need to choose on or the other. I am not interested in discussing time with anyone who makes the self-contradicting choice, i.e. choosing that choice is not possible.

You're saying the past_present_future arrow of time is self-contradicting because it cancels the free-will option?

Quoting ucarr

There's a question whether time, or any other dimension, is causal.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You continue to misrepresent "time" as a dimension, in the incompatible determinist way. I mean that's acceptable to that model of time, but if you want to understand "time" in this model you need to rid yourself of those incompatible premises. "Time" here is not a dimension of something, it is something with dimensions.

You're saying time stands independent of space?

Regarding compatibility between the paradigm of judgment and the work judged, I'm mainly using Relativity as my paradigm, now that I'm clear on your positioning immaterial time at the center of your theory. Surely you're not surprised that examiners of your theory turn to Relativity as their paradigm. I struggle to see how it's legit to brush off Relativity as incompatible and irrelevant. Since you're the one trying to overthrow it, aren't you responsible for meeting it head on with cogent arguments? Waving the flag of incompatibility plays like a dodge.

Quoting ucarr

Since time, per Relativity, is physical, in order for your conclusion to be true, you must overturn Relativity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Overturning relativity is not what is required, only to demonstrate it's deficiencies, like the one mentioned above. Another one which I've been arguing is that it wrongly renders the logical possibility of time without physical events as impossible. When a theory renders a logical possibility as impossible, through stipulation rather than through empirical observation, that theory must be held suspect.

Okay, you hold that time is not physical.

Also, you hold that time passes with no events happening.

Since you fault Relativity for dismissing time-passing-without-events without empirical observation, you plan on supporting your claim of immaterial time with empirical observation.

Quoting ucarr

Since time is a physical dimension...

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Bad premise!

Quoting ucarr

You haven't shown contact between the non-physical and the physical.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You haven't dropped your bad premise. Once you drop that premise that time is physical, what you ask for is accomplished.

Perhaps time isn't physical, but Relativity's belief in same connects it with our lives, which are, at least in part, physical. Why should I drop my belief in the connection linking physical me with physical time? If It's something unreal - as according to your understanding - shouldn't you show me that immaterial time is somehow connecting with my physical life using cogent logic that overturns my belief. In the boxing ring, the challenger, in order to win, must knock out the champ. This is another kind of boxing ring.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now, do you agree that a measurement requires an act of measuring. There is no measurement without that act of measuring. However, the thing to be measured exists as the thing to be measured, regardless of whether it has been measured or not. Because I am discussing the thing to be measured, and an approach toward the means for making accurate measurements, your request for measurements is unwarranted.

Quoting ucarr

This is your argument supporting the separation of activity from event? Thinking about doing something is not equal to the actual doing of the something thought about. In order to support your claim non-physical activity is prior - both logically and existentially - to events, you must show that priority, both logically and existentially. Show me, with mathematical inference, how non-physical time passes inside the Cern particle accelerator in such manner as to cause the animation of the material things that populate events.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I've told you many times now, it's taken as a logical possibility, not as a proof. However, when we accept this logical possibility as reality, it makes freewill very intelligible. And, you can deny free will if you so choose, but then we'll have nothing more to talk about.

With activity, you refer to time imagined in total isolation acting as a transitive verb with events as its object. The transitive action of time is to move events into the past. The objects of time are events. We see a distinction between time as transitive verb and events as objects of time's activity. Time moves and events get moved. The distinction in this particular situation becomes a false generalization when applied to all actions involving time and objects. Its false because the objects moved can act as transitive verbs acting on time. Since time as a dimension has duration, an argument can be made for the actions of moving things acting as movers of time, with time getting moved because its duration increases.

Quoting ucarr

Don't you think about your travel by car as passing through the interval of time required to arrive at your destination?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, I think of passing through the space between A and B when I travel, and I think that this takes time, i.e. time passes while I traverse this space.

Passing through an hour of space and passing through the hour of time elapsed in passing through that space are two aspects of the same experience. We know this because we do both simultaneously. You cannot cite me one example wherein you pass through space without simultaneously passing through time. Being able to do that would mean being able to travel distance in zero time. Flipping this around, we know time doesn't pass without passing through space because that would mean being able to do the temporal expansion of numerical tracking as a dimension with zero dimension.

Quoting ucarr

Time is conventionally conceived as being a dimension.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I know, and that's what I am arguing is a faulty conception. You can explain it to me all you want, but unless you justify it, your explanations do nothing for me.

Quoting ucarr

How about I let Einstein justify it?

Time dilation caused by gravity or acceleration
Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different times after different accelerations. For example, time goes slower at the ISS, lagging approximately 0.01 seconds for every 12 Earth months passed. - Wikipedia

Note the above is not a thought experiment. It is scientific verification with real evidence supporting a prediction of Relativity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see how this proves anything.

If you don't see how time expanding temporally under influence of gravity or acceleration examples it as a relative, dimension of variable measurements experimentally verified, then it's probably because you don't see what you don't want to see.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If a natural thing resembles an artificial system, it's piss poor logic to conclude that it is a system.

A tree has a system of roots that feed into it. A switchboard has a system of cables that feed into it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I am in no way trying to "establish what is factual". I am discussing logical possibilities.

If a supposed state of reality is, in fact, real, then a valid argument that such a state is possible is factual. Any supposition not concerned with culminating in verification as being factual is whimsy.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Look, "entropy" is a feature of a system, it accounts for the energy of a system which is no longer useful to that system...

With heat death, motion stops, time becomes meaningless. This describes your situation where nothing is happening, not even the passing of time. Time still exists, but I'm guessing it's collapsed to a point of zero dimension. That's a meaningless existence for a dimension.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

My model is a model of possibility. You think time is the measurement, so all you are doing is modeling the model.

Show me a measurement of any kind with no duration of time attached to it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So "energy" is the product of measurements and applied mathematics, it is not a real force in the world, like the passing of time is.

I'm assuming that when a person dies of electrocution, you think it's due to time passing and not the presence of enough electromotive force to cook the person alive like a piece of meat in a hot skillet.

Quoting ucarr

Where there's mass, there's time. This tells me time doesn't pass apart from events populated by animated things.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is an invalid conclusion. Like I explained, "where there's mass, there's time", implies that mass cannot exist without time, but it does not imply that time cannot exist without mass.

Read again what I said and you'll see I said time cannot pass apart from mass; I didn't say it cannot exist without mass.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You need to learn how to understand "logical priority".

Logical priority exists when one category, being more broadly inclusive that another lesser category, logically contains the lesser category. If A is logically prior to B, then A is a necessary condition of B; A is the ground of B.

Quoting ucarr

Logic works with proofs. How does logic, short of a proof, support a proposition?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Clearly you take one way in which logic is used, and assume that this is all that logic does.

Do you think logical priority can stand on mere possibility absent proof?

You imply my demand that logic prove something in order to have value is short sighted. The laws of physics don't forbid time moving in both directions. It doesn't. This means the logical analysis of the direction of time is incomplete. Hence, it's unsound reasoning to propound a theory that reverses the arrow of time from the one established by consensus. You don't think it does. I believe it does because the direction of time from future to past has the arrow of entropy moving from birth into old age to death in pre-fertilization.

You're not interested in continuing your dialogue with a physicalist; I've benefitted greatly from dialoguing with you, an immaterialist.

From you I've learned time can exist apart from matter and energy.

I don't believe in your central premise: time passes in isolation from matter, energy and space.

We're both dug into our positions across the aisle from each other.

I agree with doing what you've been suggesting you want us to do: go our separate ways (for now), agreeing to disagree.

Quoting ucarr

The arrow of time outside of the boundaries of the empirical present is an abstraction.

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement concerning "the empirical present". I deny that there is such a thing, because "empirical" requires "observation", or "experience", and anything observed or experienced is past. Therefore I find "empirical present" to be self-contradicting. So I incorporate both, empirical (past), and anticipatory (future) elements into my conception of "present". You refuse to relinquish your idea of an empirical present, and this makes it impossible for you to understand my explanations.

Quoting ucarr

What we have here is a complicated interplay of different frames of reference. I keep my perception oriented by confining myself to the present tense view of all three tenses, with the understanding only the present tense is, for me, pragmatically real beyond the neuronal activity of my brain.

See, this is your supposed "empirical present" dominating your thought.

Quoting ucarr

Keeping this in mind, I can ask why the future-to-past arrow and the past-to-future arrow don't both possess determinist causation?

I wouldn't say that either one "possesses" determinist causation. Both allow for determinist causation. However, the past-to-future direction renders determinist causation as necessary due to the fixedness of the past. The future-to-past direction recognizes that the past is fixed, but since the flow is not from the past, but from the future, and the future consists of possibility, this causation is not necessary. The lack of necessity in this efficient causation is recognized by Hume, and even Newton as well, who said that his first law of motion relies on the Will of God.

Quoting ucarr

If, as you claim, the arrow of time is the same for both directions, then how could one be any less causal than the other? I ask this question bearing in mind your talk of free will. Even if we somehow inhabit the future pragmatically and thus also paradoxically, and therein exercise our free will such that the past events following this future free will decision making are caused by it, how is that an example of the future-to-past arrow of time being any less determinist that the past-to-future arrow of time?

The past-to-future representation does not allow for the future-to-past causation, which is required for free will, because no future-to-past flow is allowed for, Because possibilities are in the future, and actualities are in the past, the flow must be future-to-past to allow that possibilities can get selected and actualized at the present. This is required for the reality of free will. Under this representation efficient causation is understood as a human representation produced from inductive reasoning, therefore lacking true necessity, as explained by Hume.

Quoting ucarr

Even if we somehow inhabit the future pragmatically and thus also paradoxically, and therein exercise our free will such that the past events following this future free will decision making are caused by it, how is that an example of the future-to-past arrow of time being any less determinist that the past-to-future arrow of time?

The future consists of possibility.

Quoting ucarr

You acknowledge that time is a dimension...

I told you, time is not a dimension, it has dimensions.

Quoting ucarr

There's a logical problem in your statement. In the situation of "time without a past," how can the "future" be prior to something that doesn't exist?

In the case of all contingent things, the possibility of the thing is prior to the thing's actual existence.

Quoting ucarr

That can't be the case in a situation with only a first and no second.

Sure, but we're looking back, after the second has come into existence, and realizing that the first was necessarily prior to the second. As is indicated by the nature of "possibility", when there is only the first, and the first provides the possibility for a second, the second is not necessary. So you're correct to say that if there is only a first it makes no sense to say that the first is prior to the second, because there is no second. However, that is not our perspective. From our perspective there is both, and we can judge one as prior to the other.

Quoting ucarr

Now, however, another problem arises: this is a situation with no present. It follows logically that a situation with no present has no presence, i.e., doesn’t exist.

That's correct, but it's really not a problem. Possibility cannot be said to be an existent thing. We cannot say that anything in the future "exists" nor does the future "exist" by how we define that word. But this does not mean that the future is not real, it just means that it cannot be described by that word. So we use "possible" to refer to future things, rather than "exists". This is not a problem, it's just a recognition of the complexity of reality.

Quoting ucarr

We're in the empirical present - how we consciously perceive the world around us, moment to moment - which time lags behind the theoretical numerical present. Speaking in terms of the relative positions, the nearly present, our empirical present, chases closely behind what to us relatively speaking is the near future. This is a way of saying we're some tiny fraction of a second behind the numerical present. Now, to be sure, perception of the numerical present gets gnarly when we home in on its details in high resolution. We can only approach the numerical present as a changing variable traveling the highway of an infinite series. We're always approaching and never arriving at a relative future we're trying to make present here and now. Since these discrepancies at the Newtonian scale are minute, we ignore them. However, if we wish to talk scientifically, we say our position is spacetime is probable, not certain. So, now you see why the present is represented as a theoretical point of zero dimensions.

"Empirical present" is a faulty concept for the reason I explained above. All you are saying here, is that the empirical present isn't the real present, it's the past. What I propose is that we add to this aspect of being conscious (what you call the empirical present, which is really the past), the aspect of anticipation and intention (which is really the future), to have a more complete representation of being conscious at the present. The present includes some past and some future.

Quoting ucarr

"Have I ever been bodily present within either the past or the future?"

I consider myself to be present in both future and past, because I believe "the present" to be an overlapping of future and past. This I explained days ago with my dimensional representation of the present.

Quoting ucarr

We both know you know the answer is "no."

What I've been explaining is that a thorough analysis of the nature of time produces the need to answer this question with "yes". We believe ourselves to be in the present. But analysis of "the present" reveals that it cannot be a dimensionless point, as we've discussed. This implies that the present must be a duration of time. This duration cannot be completely in the past or we'd have to call it "the past". It cannot be completely in the future or we'd be calling it "the future". So introspection reveals that this duration must be partially past and partially future.

Quoting ucarr

We know we're following the arrow of time only going forward because we know from our life experience we are born young and die older; we understand this as the present going forward to the future.

That's not true. We understand this as the passing of time. The reason why we grow old is because time passes, this is not "the present going forward to the future". That doesn't even make sense. How could the present going forward to the future cause you to grow old? And don't say because of entropy. Entropy is not a cause and we're just left with asking what causes entropy. And that is the passing of time. Here we are, entropy is caused by the passing of time when time is modeled as past-to-future.

So when we model time as past-to-future, we are stuck with "entropy". And if we ask what causes entropy, we must answer that it is caused by the passing of time. Therefore, we must conclude that the past-to-future model is wrong, because it leaves us with something, "entropy", which can only be accounted for by a different model, by representing time as a cause, actively passing, and this implies future-to-past.


Quoting ucarr

You're saying the past_present_future arrow of time is self-contradicting because it cancels the free-will option?

No, I'm saying that to choose determinism over freewill is self-contradicting.

Quoting ucarr

Surely you're not surprised that examiners of your theory turn to Relativity as their paradigm. I struggle to see how it's legit to brush off Relativity as incompatible and irrelevant.

I understand that relativity provides the go-to perspective for many people. What I am saying, is that if you want to understand what I'm proposing, you must relinquish that perspective. If you can't apprehend as "legit", examining a completely different theory, because you think that relativity has got the ground covered, then we ought to stop right now. You would have no doubt that relativity provides all the answers, so there would be no point to pitching a new proposal to you.

Quoting ucarr

Since you're the one trying to overthrow it, aren't you responsible for meeting it head on with cogent arguments?

No, That's not my MO at all. I am very confident that relativity is sorely deficient in the way that it models time. And, I am very confident that many other people will notice this as well, because it is quite obvious. Therefore, I am also confident that there will be people interested in alternative theories.

There is no need to meet that theory "head on", or attempt to "overthrow it". What is required is to work on the true model of time.

Quoting ucarr

Since you fault Relativity for dismissing time-passing-without-events without empirical observation, you plan on supporting your claim of immaterial time with empirical observation.

No, that would be impossible. Since one whole dimension of time, the future, is completely hidden from empirical observation, and the other dimension, the past, has been observed but is currently unobservable, understanding of time is based in logical reasoning, not empirical observation.

Quoting ucarr

Perhaps time isn't physical, but Relativity's belief in same connects it with our lives, which are, at least in part, physical. Why should I drop my belief in the connection linking physical me with physical time? If It's something unreal - as according to your understanding - shouldn't you show me that immaterial time is somehow connecting with my physical life using cogent logic that overturns my belief. In the boxing ring, the challenger, in order to win, must knock out the champ. This is another kind of boxing ring.

The immaterial is not unreal, so I don't know what you are asking for. Don't your plans for the future, next minute, next hour, tomorrow, etc;, connect with your physical life? These things in your plans are completely immaterial. So it seems very obvious to me how the immaterial connects to your physical life, through desires, plans, goals, intentions, etc.. Do you, for some reason, not apprehend this fact?

Quoting ucarr

The distinction in this particular situation becomes a false generalization when applied to all actions involving time and objects

There is no false generalization, because all events require time. That's a true generalization.

Quoting ucarr

Its false because the objects moved can act as transitive verbs acting on time. Since time as a dimension has duration, an argument can be made for the actions of moving things acting as movers of time, with time getting moved because its duration increases.

Again, you are just applying the incompatible premise, the premise I say is false. The thing is, events can be modeled in different ways. Each way will model the events to some degree of acceptability, depending on the purpose. But the two models cannot be mixed. Relativity theory might tell you that each way is equally valid, and this might incline you to think that one way is no truer than any other.

So it's like if I were handing you a theory about the motions of the earth, sun, moon, planets, and stars, and I was telling you that the earth is spinning, and I model those other objects accordingly. Then you tell me "an argument can be made", that these things are orbiting the earth. Sure, but how is pointing out that there is another way of modeling these things any indication that my way is wrong? The issue is that we need a model of time which allows for the reality of freewill. Your model doesn't provide this, and mine does, that's why I say mine is better.

Quoting ucarr

You cannot cite me one example wherein you pass through space without simultaneously passing through time.

I will cite you every example of motion. In each case, when something moves through space, time is passing. It is obviously not the case that the thing is passing through time, because time is passing for everything, even the things which are not moving. Therefore the proper representation is that time is passing, whether a thing is moving or not. Otherwise a thing would be moving through time only when it's moving, and not moving through time when it's not moving.

Quoting ucarr

With heat death, motion stops, time becomes meaningless.

Good thing you defined "whimsy" for me, because this is a perfect example.

Quoting ucarr

I'm assuming that when a person dies of electrocution, you think it's due to time passing and not the presence of enough electromotive force to cook the person alive like a piece of meat in a hot skillet.

The primary cause is time passing, because "electromotive force" requires this it is a secondary cause.

Quoting ucarr

Logical priority exists when one category, being more broadly inclusive that another lesser category, logically contains the lesser category. If A is logically prior to B, then A is a necessary condition of B; A is the ground of B.

Right, now do you see that "time" is logically prior to "event", "motion", and "change"? All of these, "event", "motion", and "change", are the lesser categories than "time". Time is the necessary condition for them. Further, "event", "motion:, and "change" imply "time", but "time" does not imply any of these. That is the order of logical priority.

Quoting ucarr

Do you think logical priority can stand on mere possibility absent proof?

Of course, logical priority is based in definition, no proof is required. That's why you can question the logical priority of "time" over "event", by defining "time" in a way which makes the logical priority which I described above, not hold.

The problem though, is that we can manipulate definitions, for various purposes, to the point where it doesn't correspond with reality. Sometimes we can correct ourselves by looking at common usage. So we see that in common usage "time passes", and we do not "pass through time". And if you propose a definition for the purpose of avoiding the logical priority which would prove your argument wrong, and the definition (such as "pass through time") is not consistent with our common understanding, that is a problem for your argument.

Quoting ucarr

You don't think it does. I believe it does because the direction of time from future to past has the arrow of entropy moving from birth into old age to death in pre-fertilization.

As explained above, "entropy" is just a symptom of a problematic representation of time. The proper representation of time has no need for this concept which is the result of trying to model something which is not a system as if it was a system.

Quoting ucarr

From you I've learned time can exist apart from matter and energy.

At least it wasn't a complete waste of time. And to be fair, I've learned something from you too, physicalists are not completely hopeless. Can I ask, what immaterialist premise gets through to you? What makes you think that it might be worth your while to read this? Is it the supposition of freewill?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Can I ask, what immaterialist premise gets through to you?

Five of Your Key Talking Points

• Spacetime is an immaterial concept

• The independent system of passing time is the immaterial first cause, and it is logically prior to dynamism

• The future-to-past arrow of time establishes mind over matter

• Free will resides within the mind-over-matter hierarchy

• If time is immaterial, then time passing with nothing happening stems from immateriality conceived as nothing material happening

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

The arrow of time outside of the boundaries of the empirical present is an abstraction.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement concerning "the empirical present". I deny that there is such a thing, because "empirical" requires "observation", or "experience", and anything observed or experienced is past. Therefore I find "empirical present" to be self-contradicting. So I incorporate both, empirical (past), and anticipatory (future) elements into my conception of "present". You refuse to relinquish your idea of an empirical present, and this makes it impossible for you to understand my explanations.

Time passing in the future is prior to observing the changes in things time passing causes, which is in the past? This is why you say, "anything observed or experienced is past"?

Quoting ucarr

I can ask why the future-to-past arrow and the past-to-future arrow don't both possess determinist causation?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Both allow for determinist causation. However, the past-to-future direction renders determinist causation as necessary due to the fixedness of the past. The future-to-past direction recognizes that the past is fixed, but since the flow is not from the past, but from the future, and the future consists of possibility, this causation is not necessary.

The flow of future-to-past direction has the future tense flowing toward the past tense?

Since the flow of future-to-past direction recognizes that the past is fixed, does that tell us it is conscious?

To what subject does the consciousness of the future-to-past direction belong?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Because possibilities are in the future, and actualities are in the past, the flow must be future-to-past to allow that possibilities can get selected and actualized at the present.

Regarding "Because possibilities are in the future," If I say, "It's now possible for me to lift my left arm." am I speaking in the present or in the future?

Regarding "and actualities are in the past," The dictionary defines one of the senses of "actual" as "existing now; current." Is it wrong?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...time is not a dimension, it has dimensions.

Dimensions are a part of time.

How are dimensions connected to time?

Does time have other kinds of parts?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past.

In your example, does time start in the present?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

There's a logical problem in your statement. In the situation of "time without a past," how can the "future" be prior to something that doesn't exist?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In the case of all contingent things, the possibility of the thing is prior to the thing's actual existence.

Does logical priority imply causation?

Does causation imply temporal priority?

Can a cause exist before it's paired with its effect? For example: Can Cause A exist if Effect B doesn't simultaneously exist?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"time without a past", i.e. only a future, is necessarily prior to there being a past, if we rule out eternal or infinite time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As is indicated by the nature of "possibility", when there is only the first, and the first provides the possibility for a second, the second is not necessary. So you're correct to say that if there is only a first it makes no sense to say that the first is prior to the second, because there is no second.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...we're looking back, after the second has come into existence, and realizing that the first was necessarily prior to the second.

When there is only the first, and thus it makes no sense to say that the first is prior to the second, because there is no second, does it also follow that it makes no sense to posit the possibility of time without a past and only a future because such a possibility has neither present nor past, but only future. Given this setup, the temporal future tense has no present and thus no presence and therefore cannot exist and therefore cannot look backwards to a past that follows the future?

Given this train of logic, does it follow that the arrow of time, logically speaking, must move from one empirical present to another empirical present, with each empirical present possessing the past and future tenses as mental abstractions relative to the phenomenal_empirical present?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement concerning "the empirical present". I deny that there is such a thing, because "empirical" requires "observation", or "experience", and anything observed or experienced is past.

Does it make sense to always pair both the future tense and the past tense with the present tense because the present tense is necessary for the other two, relative tenses to exist, i.e., to possess presence?

Quoting ucarr

The flow of future-to-past direction has the future tense flowing toward the past tense?

I don't understand your use of "tense" here. so I can't answer this.

Quoting ucarr

To what subject does the consciousness of the future-to-past direction belong?

Ontology, I would say.

Quoting ucarr

Regarding "Because possibilities are in the future," If I say, "It's now possible for me to lift my left arm." am I speaking in the present or in the future?

You are speaking about the future, because by saying it is "possible" to lift your arm you are referring to something which would occur in the future. Anytime you say that such and such action is possible, you are saying that it may occur in the future. Your act of speaking is in the past though, by the time I hear it.

Quoting ucarr

Regarding "and actualities are in the past," The dictionary defines one of the senses of "actual" as "existing now; current." Is it wrong?

No, I would not say that the dictionary is wrong, it represents the way we speak. But I'd characterize "existing now" as an inductive conclusion. If I observe a chair in my room, in front of me for a duration of time, I will conclude "the chair exists now", or "is actual", meaning that I believe the chair will continue to be as it has been observed to be. That is correct by our conventions, and the dictionary indicates this. But it doesn't take into account the fact that the true nature of "now" consists equally of future as it does past. So by the time that I finish speaking that sentence, or by the time you hear it, the chair might cease to exist. That's why i would say that "actual" represents the past part of now, but not the future part.

Quoting ucarr

Dimensions are a part of time.

How are dimensions connected to time?

Does time have other kinds of parts?

A dimension is an aspect, or facet of a thing, it is not really \"a part" of a thing. Time has dimensions just like space has dimensions, but since space and time are completely different, the dimensions of time are in no way similar to the dimensions of space. The two dimensions of time are past and future, and since these two overlap at the present, the present is two dimensional.

Quoting ucarr

In your example, does time start in the present?

Due to the priority of the future, and the logical conclusion that there could be only future and no past, when time starts, we'd have to say that time started from the future. Only after time started to pass (i.e. after there is a present), could there be a past. Past is everything which is after (past) the present.

Quoting ucarr

Does logical priority imply causation?

No, not necessarily, though I think it could in some applications.

Quoting ucarr

Does causation imply temporal priority?

I think so, but there are different senses of "cause", as Aristotle outlined, and the different senses may require a different temporal ordering. So for example "efficient cause", which is the determinist sense, requires the Past-tp-future ordering. "Final cause", which allows for freewill requires a future-to-past ordering.

What is inevitable then, is that depending on the ontology you choose, one or the other becomes an invalid concept, and gets dismissed as illusion. So from the determinist ontology freewill and final cause are an illusion, but from the freewill perspective determinist causation loses the required necessity.

Quoting ucarr

Can Cause A exist if Effect B doesn't simultaneously exist?

It is temporal succession, not simultaneity.

Quoting ucarr

When there is only the first, and thus it makes no sense to say that the first is prior to the second, because there is no second, does it also follow that it makes no sense to posit the possibility of time without a past and only a future because such a possibility has neither present nor past, but only future.

No, why would you ask this? When there is the first, but not a second, it clearly makes sense to talk about the possibility of a second. In fact, in some interpretations, the first would itself be the possibility of the second. This is why possibility is in the future, and it is prior. When there is only future, all there is is possibility. However, something must act to actualize that possibility, and produce a past. This act is the act of time itself.

Quoting ucarr

Given this setup, the temporal future tense has no present and thus no presence and therefore cannot exist and therefore cannot look backwards to a past that follows the future?

That's right. something must act, and this act would bring about actual existence (past) from that dimension of possibility (future). This act we know as the passing of time.

Quoting ucarr

Given this train of logic, does it follow that the arrow of time, logically speaking, must move from one empirical present to another empirical present, with each empirical present possessing the past and future tenses as mental abstractions relative to the phenomenal_empirical present?

I suppose, I don't like your terminology though, "empirical present".

Quoting ucarr

Does it make sense to always pair both the future tense and the past tense with the present tense because the present tense is necessary for the other two, relative tenses to exist, i.e., to possess presence?

I don't agree with this. Future has the logical priority, as explained. It is necessary for the other two. Then present, as that act which creates a past from the future, is necessary for a past. So "present" requires future, and "past requires present and future.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Both allow for determinist causation. However, the past-to-future direction renders determinist causation as necessary due to the fixedness of the past. The future-to-past direction recognizes that the past is fixed, but since the flow is not from the past, but from the future, and the future consists of possibility, this causation is not necessary.

Quoting ucarr

The flow of future-to-past direction has the future tense flowing toward the past tense?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand your use of "tense" here. so I can't answer this.

Just ignore "tense." So, it's the future flowing toward the past.

Quoting ucarr

To what subject does the consciousness of the future-to-past direction belong?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Ontology, I would say.

We're examining a complicated arrangement of relative points of view (POV):

With the past_future POV, decisions of the past are completed and thus choices are excluded. With the future_past POV, decisions are not finalized and thus choices are available.

Does this correctly describe the important difference between the two POVs?

It's true, isn't it, that given: Man A with the past_future POV and Man B with the future_past POV, both make choices that come to pass, right?

If this is right, does it follow that Man A and Man B have an equal chance of realizing their choices? The difference, then, is that Man B has a more correct understanding about how his temporal path from choice to realization is organized in time?

So, the difference between the two POVs comes down to perception and understanding, not down to a literal choice between having free will or not having it, right? If it were true the past_future POV literally prevents a person from ever getting what they choose, no one would commit to that POV, would they?

Quoting ucarr

Regarding "Because possibilities are in the future," If I say, "It's now possible for me to lift my left arm." am I speaking in the present or in the future?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You are speaking about the future, because by saying it is "possible" to lift your arm you are referring to something which would occur in the future. Anytime you say that such and such action is possible, you are saying that it may occur in the future. Your act of speaking is in the past though, by the time I hear it.

Again, we're examining a complicated arrangement of relative points of view, and it's one of the devils confronting us in our dialogue. On this note, let me ask,

When I say, "It's now possible for me to lift my left arm." am I connecting* my words to the dynamism of the event of my arm going upwards in the air? If so, does it follow that the words and the dynamism of my arm are synchronous? In other words, when one is true, the other must also be simultaneously true? Does it follow that if they are not synchronous, then my words are not true and thus the possibility does not exist? So, going the other way, when I verbalize a possibility, the words are synchronous with the possible physical event?

*If my words don't accurately signify a possibility, then I'm just indulging my fancy, right?

Quoting ucarr

Regarding "and actualities are in the past," The dictionary defines one of the senses of "actual" as "existing now; current." Is it wrong?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, I would not say that the dictionary is wrong, it represents the way we speak. But I'd characterize "existing now" as an inductive conclusion. If I observe a chair in my room, in front of me for a duration of time, I will conclude "the chair exists now", or "is actual", meaning that I believe the chair will continue to be as it has been observed to be. That is correct by our conventions, and the dictionary indicates this. But it doesn't take into account the fact that the true nature of "now" consists equally of future as it does past. So by the time that I finish speaking that sentence, or by the time you hear it, the chair might cease to exist. That's why i would say that "actual" represents the past part of now, but not the future part.

We appear to agree that the present contains past and future parts.

Do you agree that any movement in time is from one present to another present? This is what I think, and I justify my thinking thus: When I get into my time machine now, in 2025, I intend to time travel backwards 100 years to 1925. Upon arrival there, however, 1925 is now my present, right? If this is true, then it examples my having traveled from one present, 2025, to another present, 1925. When I return to 2025, again that's traveling from one present to another present, right?

Do you agree with the following generalization from the above: in our experience of passing time, all we ever do is travel from one present to another present? This true though we say, "Tomorrow I shall do such and such." However, when we're actually doing such and such, it's today. In the reverse direction, I talk about what I did yesterday, but when I was actually doing it, it was today.

Can we say, then, past_present_future or, if you prefer, future_present_past, form a triad that can never be broken into parts?

Quoting ucarr

With the past_future POV, decisions of the past are completed and thus choices are excluded. With the future_past POV, decisions are not finalized and thus choices are available.

The past is fixed, unchangeable. If time flows from past to future, the fixedness of the past causes what happens, in a determinist way, and there is no possibility of anyone making any real choices. If time flows from future to past, then we allow that what happens is not fixed by the past.

Quoting ucarr

If this is right, does it follow that Man A and Man B have an equal chance of realizing their choices? The difference, then, is that Man B has a more correct understanding about how his temporal path from choice to realization is organized in time?

Correct, Man A has a misunderstanding concerning this matter.

Quoting ucarr

So, the difference between the two POVs comes down to perception and understanding, not down to a literal choice between having free will or not having it, right? If it were true the past_future POV literally prevents a person from ever getting what they choose, no one would commit to that POV, would they?

I think the issue is a bit more complex than this. People give all sorts of reasons for believing in determinism. And, a belief in determinism can produce a defeatist attitude, fatalism etc.. This attitude may be very detrimental to one's life, and prevent a person from getting a happiness which they might otherwise obtain.

Quoting ucarr

When I say, "It's now possible for me to lift my left arm." am I connecting* my words to the dynamism of the event of my arm going upwards in the air? If so, does it follow that the words and the dynamism of my arm are synchronous? In other words, when one is true, the other must also be simultaneously true? Does it follow that if they are not synchronous, then my words are not true and thus the possibility does not exist? So, going the other way, when I verbalize a possibility, the words are synchronous with the possible physical event?

I don't follow your logic. The phrase "possible for me to lift my arm" does not imply actually lifting an arm. So a person could repeat this phrase over and over, without ever lifting the arm, and it could be true. I do not understand the relation you are describing.

Quoting ucarr

*If my words don't accurately signify a possibility, then I'm just indulging my fancy, right?

Sure, but the possibility to lift the arm is not the same thing as actually lifting the arm. The relation of necessity is only one way. After the arm is lifted, we can say that the possibility to lift the arm was necessarily prior to the actual lifting. However, when the possibility is real, and no arm is yet lifted, this does not imply that the arm will ever necessarily be lifted.

The key point is that the words do not connect to "the dynamism of the event", as you say. The words connect to the possibility of that dynamism being activated, so this is something which is prior to that event. The words do not connect to the event, but something prior to the event, which could be actualized, and cause that event.

Quoting ucarr

Do you agree that any movement in time is from one present to another present?

As I said, I do not agree with "movement in time". We move in space, as time passes. Therefore time moves, we do not move in time.

Quoting ucarr

When I get into my time machine now, in 2025, I intend to time travel backwards 100 years to 1925. Upon arrival there, however, 1925 is now my present, right? If this is true, then it examples my having traveled from one present, 2025, to another present, 1925. When I return to 2025, again that's traveling from one present to another present, right?

I'll reply to this with your own words:

"If my words don't accurately signify a possibility, then I'm just indulging my fancy, right?"

Talking about time travel is fantasy. Unless you can somehow show that it is real, it provides no evidence toward your claim that we move through time. Are you using fiction as evidence of the truth of what you say? How could that make sense to you?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

So, the difference between the two POVs comes down to perception and understanding, not down to a literal choice between having free will or not having it, right? If it were true the past_future POV literally prevents a person from ever getting what they choose, no one would commit to that POV, would they?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think the issue is a bit more complex than this. People give all sorts of reasons for believing in determinism. And, a belief in determinism can produce a defeatist attitude, fatalism etc.. This attitude may be very detrimental to one's life, and prevent a person from getting a happiness which they might otherwise obtain.

Determinism and causation in our context here are much the same, and they are fundamental to humans with intentions regardless of their view of the arrow of time. Whether an individual is suffering from cause and effect thinking or thriving on it is more a psychological question than a scientific question, isn't it?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't follow your logic. The phrase "possible for me to lift my arm" does not imply actually lifting an arm. So a person could repeat this phrase over and over, without ever lifting the arm, and it could be true. I do not understand the relation you are describing.

If possibility is logically connected to realization of possibility, and logical continuity is atemporal, then the reality of the realization of possibility must be contemporary with the reality of the possibility. This doesn't, however, mean that possibility demands it be enacted; it just means the reality of its realizationability is simultaneous with the reality of its possibility. So possibility is not prior to realization, right?

Quoting ucarr

*If my words don't accurately signify a possibility, then I'm just indulging my fancy, right?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but the possibility to lift the arm is not the same thing as actually lifting the arm. The relation of necessity is only one way. After the arm is lifted, we can say that the possibility to lift the arm was necessarily [s]prior[/s] contemporary [s]to[/s] with the actual lifting. However, when the possibility is real, and no arm is yet lifted, this does not imply that the arm will ever necessarily be lifted.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The key point is that the words do not connect to "the dynamism of the event", as you say. The words connect to the possibility of that dynamism being activated, so this is something which is prior to that event. The words do not connect to the event, but something prior to the event, which could be actualized, and cause that event.

From the experience of experimental verification, we know that possibilities don't become realities, i.e., don't become realized, until at the time of verification via realization, not before this realization. Moreover, this verification must continue to occur simultaneous to the possibility; this is known as ongoing experimental verification of a theory that can never be proven, only repeatedly, experimentally verified. This is furthermore known as a verification that is public and repeatable, so possibility is always simultaneous with realization.

Does this suggest passing time is not prior to physics?

Quoting ucarr

Do you agree that any movement in time is from one present to another present?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, I do not agree with "movement in time". We move in space, as time passes. Therefore time moves, we do not move in time.

Are you uncoupling space and time?

If we move in space as time passes, is this how we're experiencing time, i.e., as movement through space? If so, how is movement through space, and the time elapsing in sync with that movement, different from things moving in time?

Does this posit time as necessary to our movement through space, i.e., time is necessary to physics?

Does time have physics as either a dimension, or as a multiplex of dimensions?

Since time moves, does its motion imply its physicality? If not, what is non-physical motion?

Can time move without causing things to change?

Can time move without causing things to move?

Quoting ucarr

When I get into my time machine now, in 2025, I intend to time travel backwards 100 years to 1925. Upon arrival there, however, 1925 is now my present, right? If this is true, then it examples my having traveled from one present, 2025, to another present, 1925. When I return to 2025, again that's traveling from one present to another present, right?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I'll reply to this with your own words:

Quoting ucarr

"If my words don't accurately signify a possibility, then I'm just indulging my fancy, right?"

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Talking about time travel is fantasy. Unless you can somehow show that it is real, it provides no evidence toward your claim that we move through time. Are you using fiction as evidence of the truth of what you say? How could that make sense to you?

My thought experiment draws its rationale from some interpretations of Relativity and QM that allow time travel. In the realm of science, time travel has not been denounced wholesale.

Let's reconfigure the thought experiment as follows: passing time is making me change. First I name my present day as Friday. Passing time changes me so that I next name my present day as Saturday, and so on. This is an ordinal series which has passing time changing me through a sequence of present days, right?

Quoting ucarr

Determinism and causation in our context here are much the same, and they are fundamental to humans with intentions regardless of their view of the arrow of time. Whether an individual is suffering from cause and effect thinking or thriving on it is more a psychological question than a scientific question, isn't it?

You ask me a psychological question, concerning the difference between believing in freewill, and believing in determinism, and how this might affect one's life. I answered accordingly.

But determinism and causation are not the same, and this is the central issue of our discussion. Determinism reduces causation to one type of cause, known in philosophy as efficient cause. The concept of freewill allows for the reality of what is known in philosophy as "final cause". This type of causation is completely distinct from "efficient cause". "Final cause" is only intelligible when we allow that the force from the future is causal.

Quoting ucarr

If possibility is logically connected to realization of possibility, and logical continuity is atemporal, then the reality of the realization of possibility must be contemporary with the reality of the possibility. This doesn't, however, mean that possibility demands it be enacted; it just means the reality of its realizationability is simultaneous with the reality of its possibility. So possibility is not prior to realization, right?

No, I don't think that follows logically. First, any specific possibility must have a temporal extension, what might be called colloquially as "the window of opportunity". Realization must occur within that period of time, so to say that the two are "contemporary" would be misleading. Also possibility is required for the actualization, and it is highly improbable that the actualization would occur at the exact moment that the possibility arises.

Furthermore, the moment that the actualization occurs, the possibility is gone, because "possibility" implies more than one option, and when actualization occurs, other options are rendered impossible by the fact of actualization. Therefore it would be contradictory to say that the possibility and the actualization occur at the same time. So we must conclude that the possibility is temporally prior to the actualization.

Quoting ucarr

From the experience of experimental verification, we know that possibilities don't become realities, i.e., don't become realized, until at the time of verification via realization, not before this realization.

That is an incorrect description. Possibilities must be a reality prior to being actualized, or else they could not be act on. Therefore they have a place in reality which is other than "actual".

Quoting ucarr

Are you uncoupling space and time?

Of course, as I explained, this is necessary for a proper understanding.

Quoting ucarr

If we move in space as time passes, is this how we're experiencing time, i.e., as movement through space? If so, how is movement through space, and the time elapsing in sync with that movement, different from things moving in time?

Does this posit time as necessary to our movement through space, i.e., time is necessary to physics?

Does time have physics as either a dimension, or as a multiplex of dimensions?

Since time moves, does its motion imply its physicality? If not, what is non-physical motion?

Can time move without causing things to change?

Can time move without causing things to move?

I think I've already addressed all this.

Quoting ucarr

Let's reconfigure the thought experiment as follows: passing time is making me change. First I name my present day as Friday. Passing time changes me so that I next name my present day as Saturday, and so on. This is an ordinal series which has passing time changing me through a sequence of present days, right?

Not quite. The passing of time causes changes. You notice these changes, and name the days according to the way you were taught and understand, "Friday", "Saturday", etc.. To make things easier, imagine that the clock says 1:00, so you say "it is one o'clock". The passing of time causes changes, and you notice that the clock says 2:00, so you say "it's two o'clock".

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

Determinism and causation in our context here are much the same, and they are fundamental to humans with intentions regardless of their view of the arrow of time. Whether an individual is suffering from cause and effect thinking or thriving on it is more a psychological question than a physics question, isn't it?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You ask me a psychological question, concerning the difference between believing in freewill, and believing in determinism, and how this might affect one's life. I answered accordingly.

I didn't ask you a psychological question. We've established a context within our dialogue. We're examining the role of time in the physics of our world. Our focus has been on the facts of time passing within physics. Our standard of judgment has been whether our claims, respectively, have been verified logically and empirically. You've been claiming the arrow of time, one way, supports free will, and the other way blocks it. We've agreed that members of both groups make plans and realize them.
So, our topics have been physics and philosophy, not psychology.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But determinism and causation are not the same, and this is the central issue of our discussion. Determinism reduces causation to one type of cause, known in philosophy as efficient cause. The concept of freewill allows for the reality of what is known in philosophy as "final cause". This type of causation is completely distinct from "efficient cause". "Final cause" is only intelligible when we allow that the force from the future is causal.

Since determination and efficient causation overlap, we conclude the former is a component of the latter. This being the case, we know embrace of determination does not necessarily exclude embracing the other three types of causation. This peaceful coexistence of the two things can operate within the free will advocate. We know this because everyone with intentions acts so as to determine outcomes.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, I don't think that follows logically. First, any specific possibility must have a temporal extension, what might be called colloquially as "the window of opportunity". Realization must occur within that period of time, so to say that the two are "contemporary" would be misleading. Also possibility is required for the actualization, and it is highly improbable that the actualization would occur at the exact moment that the possibility arises.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, the moment that the actualization occurs, the possibility is gone, because "possibility" implies more than one option, and when actualization occurs, other options are rendered impossible by the fact of actualization. Therefore it would be contradictory to say that the possibility and the actualization occur at the same time. So we must conclude that the possibility is temporally prior to the actualization.

By saying a possibility has a window of opportunity, you're saying: On Thursday, P ? A (possibility = P; actualization = A; and Thursday = the window of opportunity, so P implies A during a twenty-four time period). Why do you think P has temporal priority to A? Why do you think the P ? A relationship ends when a specific P is actualized as a specific A?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

From the experience of experimental verification, we know that possibilities don't become realities, i.e., don't become realized, until at the time of verification via realization, not before this realization.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That is an incorrect description. Possibilities must be a reality prior to being actualized, or else they could not be act on. Therefore they have a place in reality which is other than "actual".

I underlined the key sentence in your statement. If a possibility is a reality before being realized, then a possibility is always a reality, so how is it a possibility, i.e., how is it's reality conditional? We transform possibilities into realities via experimental confirmation. After transformation, we know the former possibility will actualize, so possibility becomes abstract reality. As an example, consider: The demolition charges will vertically drop the condemned building. We know that dynamite explodes and we know buildings implode vertically. Before the demolition charges are ignited, we know in abstraction what will happen. As another example, consider: We're looking for the Higgs-Boson particle at Cern prior to its discovery. At this time, the particle is a possibility, not an abstract reality. That changes if and when it's experimentally verified.

Now for the tricky part: Before discovery of the particle, although we cannot know it, the possibility of the particle and its realizationability are contemporary. They are contemporary because the possibility of its discovery can only exist if it can be realized, even before actual realization by experimental verification. There’s no such thing as a possibility not being realizable before its realization. Were that the case, a magic trick would be required to change what’s not realizable into what is realizable prior to realization.

Quoting ucarr

Are you uncoupling space and time?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, as I explained, this is necessary for a proper understanding.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think I've already addressed all this.

Can you briefly recap your answers to the two questions below?

Quoting ucarr

Can time pass without causing things to change?

Quoting ucarr

Since time passes, does its passing imply is physicality? If not, what is non-physical passing?

When things change how they're changing, doesn't time follow suit by changing how it's changing?

Example: I'm driving my car at thirty-five miles per hour. I decide to accelerate my speed to forty-five miles per hour. Relativity tells me that by accelerating, I slow down the rate at which times passes for me. Is that an example of me having a causal effect upon time passing?

Quoting ucarr

Let's reconfigure the thought experiment as follows: passing time is making me change. First I name my present day as Friday. Passing time changes me so that I next name my present day as Saturday, and so on. This is an ordinal series which has passing time changing me through a sequence of present days, right?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Not quite. The passing of time causes changes. You notice these changes, and name the days according to the way you were taught and understand, "Friday", "Saturday", etc.. To make things easier, imagine that the clock says 1:00, so you say "it is one o'clock". The passing of time causes changes, and you notice that the clock says 2:00, so you say "it's two o'clock".

If you're saying time changes me and not I change myself in time, then that difference seems to have zero effect on the changes we're discussing. In both situations, an hour of time passes and the earth changes its position in relation to the sun. The motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun is not uniform; at some points in its orbit, the earth is closer to the sun than at other points. At the closer points the time on earth passes more slowly because, as with the example of my acceleration of my car, time passing changes in reaction to acceleration and gravity. Aren't these examples of physical phenomena having a causal effect on time?

In continuation of this reasoning, when time changes the earth through its orbital by a measure of twenty-four hours, aren't I always in my present? I'm never in my past, or in my future, am I?

Quoting ucarr

I didn't ask you a psychological question. We've established a context within our dialogue. We're examining the role of time in the physics of our world. Our focus has been on the facts of time passing within physics. Our standard of judgment has been whether our claims, respectively, have been verified logically and empirically. You've been claiming the arrow of time, one way, supports free will, and the other way blocks it. We've agreed that members of both groups make plans and realize them.
So, our topics have been physics and philosophy, not psychology.

You asked a question concerning the psychology of committing oneself to a belief in determinism. And I answered that question the best I could, explaining that it is a complex matter. Look what you asked:
"So, the difference between the two POVs comes down to perception and understanding, not down to a literal choice between having free will or not having it, right? If it were true the past_future POV literally prevents a person from ever getting what they choose, no one would commit to that POV, would they?"


Quoting ucarr

Since determination and efficient causation overlap, we conclude the former is a component of the latter. This being the case, we know embrace of determination does not necessarily exclude embracing the other three types of causation. This peaceful coexistence of the two things can operate within the free will advocate. We know this because everyone with intentions acts so as to determine outcomes.

I disagree with this. I believe that determinism excludes the possibility of freewill, because a freely willed act would violate the precepts of determinism. I also believe that the freewill perspective provides a different interpretation of efficient causation than does the determinist perspective. What I explained already, is that I think that the freewill perspective denies the necessity of efficient causation, in the way described by Hume, but the determinist perspective affirms the necessity of efficient causation.

Quoting ucarr

By saying a possibility has a window of opportunity, you're saying: On Thursday, P ? A (possibility = P; actualization = A; and Thursday = the window of opportunity, so P implies A during a twenty-four time period). Why do you think P has temporal priority to A? Why do you think the P ? A relationship ends when a specific P is actualized as a specific A?

I don't think I can explain this any better than I already did. Your representation here demonstrates that you don't understand my use of terms like "possibility". For example, if "P" represents the possibility of "A", how do yo conclude "so P implies A during a twenty-four time period"? Since P represents the possibility of A, not the necessity of A, P never implies A.

Quoting ucarr

If a possibility is a reality before being realized, then a possibility is always a reality, so how is it a possibility, i.e., how is it's reality conditional?

I don't understand what you are asking.

Quoting ucarr

As an example, consider: The demolition charges will vertically drop the condemned building. We know that dynamite explodes and we know buildings implode vertically. Before the demolition charges are ignited, we know in abstraction what will happen.

OK, let me explain with reference to this example. The explosive charges are planted in the building. If the charges are detonated the building should implode according to plan. However, the explosives might not ever be detonated, they may be removed, and the building may never implode as planned.

So, the possibility I am discussing here is the possibility of the building being destroyed by the explosive charges. That possibility is very real, as the charges are already planted. Further the possibility of the building being demolished is clearly prior to the actual demolition. Also, the possibility does not necessitate that the building will actually be demolished. The actualization of that possibility is the act of detonation, which may or may not occur.

Quoting ucarr

When things change how they're changing, doesn't time follow suit by changing how it's changing?

No, I don't believe that. I told you, I think relativity theory does not provide a good representation of time. This feature you discuss is the result of Einstein stipulating the relativity of simultaneity, in his theory of special relativity. I believe that replacing this principle with the multidimensional present (the fat present) provides a much more accurate description of time.

Quoting ucarr

If you're saying time changes me and not I change myself in time, then that difference seems to have zero effect on the changes we're discussing.

That's what I keep telling you, each is just a different way of modeling the same thing. So switching from one model to the other has "zero effect" on the understanding of many things. You kept insisting that the future-to-past representation reversed the flow of time, and I had to reiterate over and over, that there is no reversal of the flow of timem just a different way of looking at (modeling) the same flow of time.

However, as much as the difference between the two ways has little if any effect on many of the changes we are discussing, it has immense effect on the ability to understand freewill acts. This is because if you model yourself as traveling through time, the changes to yourself are necessary. But if you model time as changing you these changes are not necessary, because through freewill and will power we can resist some of those changes.

Notice, from your perspective the only way to avoid the changes caused by traveling through time, is through your fantasy "time travel". From my perspective, to avoid the force of time induced change, all one has to fo is use their will power. You know, if something is coming at your head, you duck out of the way. So my perspective readily allows for the reality of what we naturally understand through experience, as free will acts. But your perspective leaves free will as requiring magic.

Quoting ucarr

...aren't I always in my present? I'm never in my past, or in my future, am I?

Didn't we both agree that the present is both future and past?

ucarr:In your example, are you establishing the shortest duration of time allowing physical change to occur?

Metaphysician Undercover:In your example, there is a quark at one moment, state A, then an anti quark at the next moment, state B, [s]and you have proposed that nothing can be observed in the time between, hence the shortest duration allowing for physical change. So state B is different from state A, and there is time between these two[/s]. We can conclude that the change from state A to state B occurred during this time [one Planck length]. Do you agree with me, that something must have happened during this time, which constitutes, or substantiates "the change" from quark to anti-quark?

I have lined through what is unclear to me.

Here's what I agree to: T1 = State A: a quark; T2 = State B: a quark_anti-quark pair. This transformation occurs in one Planck length, the shortest duration allowing physical change.

For example, another quark has collided with the quark of T1, thus producing the quark_anti-quark pair at T2.

ucarr:Is it true that first you establish the shortest duration of time allowing a physical change from state A to state B, and then, in the following paragraph, you continue talking about this same duration of time until you jump to establishing a non-physical change based on info instead of on physics?

Metaphysician Undercover:There is no "jump", only a sound logical conclusion. We have an observation at t-1, and an observation at t-2. The two states are different. Therefore we can conclude that change occurred during the duration of time which is between t-1 and t-2. "Change" requires that "something happened" which would account for the difference between state A and state B. We have determined that this "something" which happened cannot be a physical change because it would be in a duration of time shorter than the one defined by state A then state B, which has been determined as the shortest possible period of time for physical change. This duration is between state A and state B, therefore shorter, and so it is too short for physical change, therefore it is non-physical activity.

I have made bold the letters where the jump appears to occur. You inexplicably claim we've established that physical change cannot happen. Apparently, you're jumping from the interval between T1 and T2 being one Planck length to being one half of one Planck length.

If you're agreeing physical change can happen in one Planck length, but stipulating physical change cannot happen in one half Planck length, then I'll agree.

Metaphysician Undercover:We are no [sic] talking about the shorter period of time, between t-1 and t-2, so we must conclude that the change which occurs in this time is non physical.

If “no” equals “now,” then okay.

Here's how I see the setup: There is a quark at T1; There is a quark_anti-quark pair at T2. The distance linking T1 to T2 is established as the shortest distance possible between a transformation of a physical system, such as a quark to a quark_anti-quark pair. Let's establish that the distance between the two physical systems measures as one Planck length: [math]5.39x10^-44s[/math].

Since it's conjectured space-time itself - the environment that affords parameters for physics - breaks down into sub-units below Planck length, it's impossible to define space-time distances smaller than one Planck length.

Now, let's imagine a theoretical distance between T1' and T2' measuring as 0.5 Planck length. T1' and T2' are theoretically linked by a distance of 0.5 Planck length: [math]2.70x10^-44s[/math]. As it's established no physical system can transform from one state to another in this distance, any state transformation therein would have to be non-physical.

Now the question arises, "How are non-physical things measured?" Measurement itself implies physicality. What does a non-physical measurement of a non-physical thing entail? Assuming such measurements exist, how are they translated into something practically verifiable and useful?

If “no” equals “now,” then okay.

Metaphysician Undercover:"Information" is the name which I gave to the non-physical, as I explained at the beginning why information is non-physical. So what happens between t-1 and t-2, by the use of this term, is a change in information.

I assume you're talking about what happens over the duration of one half of one Planck length.

Metaphysician Undercover:The issue is the lack of continuity between state A (quark), and state B (anti-quark). Without continuity we lose the principle of identity. At t-1 is state A, at t-2 is state B, and there is time between these two. In this time between, we cannot say whether there is state A, state B, neither, nor both. However, there must be something which links the two, because if we consider a succession of states prior to state A, state B can be successfully predicted. The prediction however is not one of necessity, but one of probability, as explained by Hume. Therefore, we have something in that duration of time, between t-1 and t-2, which produces the illusion of continuity, but since it provides a relation of probability between state A and state B, rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

Consider: In an election, at the national convention, the superdelegates for Party A are composed of some individuals committed to vote for Candidate A, and some not committed to vote for any particular candidate.

Let’s call the uncommitted superdelegates the free will superdelegates. Since we can only know what their vote will be in terms of the probability math that calculates the odds according to the total number of candidates, we conclude their vote is a probability. Each of five total candidates has a twenty per cent chance of being selected by a free will superdelegate.

Probability stands as a necessary condition for a distribution of options, instead of for a single option.

How is this an illusion of continuity?

Quoting ucarr

Here's what I agree to: T1 = State A: a quark; T2 = State B: a quark_anti-quark pair. This transformation occurs in one Planck length, the shortest duration allowing physical change.

For example, another quark has collided with the quark of T1, thus producing the quark_anti-quark pair at T2.

How could two quarks collide in the time between T1 and T2 because the change form quark to quark, anti-quark pair, already takes up all that time, and nothing physical can happen in a shorter time?

Do you see what I mean? The physical change observed is the change from State A to state B. Nothing physical can happen in a shorter time. Therefore it is impossible that anything physical happened between the state of quark, and the state of quark, anti-quark. Therefore it is impossible that another quark collided with the quark during this time.

Quoting ucarr

I have made bold the letters where the jump appears to occur. You inexplicably claim we've established that physical change cannot happen. Apparently, you're jumping from the interval between T1 and T2 being one Planck length to being one half of one Planck length.

The presence of State A, and the presence of State B are included in the time duration defined as T1-T2. This is stipulated, or otherwise determined from empirical evidence, to be the shortest period of time during which a physical change can occur. Therefore no physical event can occur between T1 and T2, whether this event takes a quarter of that time, a half of that time, three quarters, or .999... percent of that time.

So, in your example, If T-1 marks the presence of a quark, and T-2 marks the presence of a quark, anti-quark pair, it is impossible that a collision of two quarks occurred in between, because this is a physical event, and it has already been determined that this period of time is too short for the occurrence of a physical event.

Quoting ucarr

If “no” equals “now,” then okay.

Yeah, sorry, typo.

Quoting ucarr

Now the question arises, "How are non-physical things measured?" Measurement itself implies physicality. What does a non-physical measurement of a non-physical thing entail? Assuming such measurements exist, how are they translated into something practically verifiable and useful?

Are you seriously asking me these questions?

But here's the issue. In the model of time I described, it is necessary to assume real points in time, real moments when the world materializes as time passes. These moments ought to be observable, and from these real moments, the principles for relating the non-physical activity can be established.

Quoting ucarr

How is this an illusion of continuity?

The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity. The break in continuity is between past and future. So when we say that because the last ten minutes have occurred in a certain, determined way, the next minute will necessarily be in a determinable way, based on what already happened. That is the assumed necessity of the cause/effect relationship which supports determinism, such that we say that if X occurs, Y necessarily will occur, when Y is understood to be the necessary effect of X. That necessity implies a continuity between past and future, such that nothing could interfere, or come between X (past) and Y (future), at the present, to make something other than Y occur. Do you see how the assumed necessity of the relation between cause and effect is based in a presumed continuity, the premise of continuity supports the believed necessity of that relation?

So in your example, necessity is related to the "individuals committed to vote for Candidate A". What has occurred in the past (they said they would vote for A) is believed to predict the future (they will vote for A) in a necessary way. It is impossible for them to vote otherwise. This assumption is based on an assumed continuity of the delegates' commitment. Only by disallowing that there could be a break in that commitment (a discontinuity), can we conclude that the delegates will necessarily vote for A.

Notice the "illusion of continuity". The delegates may actually change their minds, the necessity is not a true necessity, and neither is the assumption of continuity which supports that necessity.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

Here's what I agree to: T1 = State A: a quark; T2 = State B: a quark_anti-quark pair. This transformation occurs in one Planck length, the shortest duration allowing physical change.

For example, another quark has collided with the quark of T1, thus producing the quark_anti-quark pair at T2.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How could two quarks collide in the time between T1 and T2 because the change form quark to quark, anti-quark pair, already takes up all that time, and nothing physical can happen in a shorter time?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How could two quarks collide in the time between T1 and T2 because the change form quark to quark, anti-quark pair, already takes up all that time, and nothing physical can happen in a shorter time?

Do you see what I mean? The physical change observed is the change from State A to state B. Nothing physical can happen in a shorter time. Therefore it is impossible that anything physical happened between the state of quark, and the state of quark, anti-quark. Therefore it is impossible that another quark collided with the quark during this time.

Since we're doing a thought experiment, we're stipulating terms. Up front, we can stipulate scientific rigor, or not. If not, then I can stipulate: at T1 two quarks collide such that T2 has a pairing of one quark with one anti-quark.

If yes, then we have to do calculations based on the time for light to travel 1 Planck length in vacuum, which is a time interval of approximately [math]5.39x10^-44s[/math]. Light being the greatest possible velocity of our world, this is a measure of the longest time possible for a physical event to occur within the boundary of one Planck length.

Since all other physical events are sub-light speed, and thus would have time durations greater than [math]5.39x10^-44s[/math], we know that, per scientific rigor, the only example of a physical event occurring within one Planck length is light traveling in vacuum.

So, per scientific rigor, I stipulate at T1 a photon emits, and at T2 the photon covers the distance matching one Planck length. So the change of state of our thought experiment is the change of position of a photon across one Planck length.

The shortest length science can currently measure is one Planck length. This is a very different statement than the statement that says, “On Planck length is the shortest possible length in which physics can occur.”

So, thanks to your demand for scientific rigor, it appears that our contemplation of its requirements has imploded your project to establish a spacetime wherein no physical event can occur yet wherein a supposed non-physical exchange of info is possible.

For clarity, it should be stated that the Planck length is currently the smallest spacetime unit we can measure. Smaller spacetime units, such as those occurring at the time of the Big Bang, are not currently measurable.

The Big Bang theory makes it clear that some scientists believe physics persists all the way down to the singularity, which is infinitely small. So, by this reasoning, there is no pre-singularity point at which physics stops.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

[s]The presence of State A, and the presence of State B are included in the time duration defined as T1-T2. This is stipulated, or otherwise determined from empirical evidence, to be the shortest period of time during which a physical change can occur. Therefore no physical event can occur between T1 and T2, whether this event takes a quarter of that time, a half of that time, three quarters, or .999... percent of that time.[/s]

Firstly, I've lined through your statement because I believe it generally invalid, as I've explained in my previous post.

Secondly, for curiosity, I've bolded two of your statements that contradict each other. Given this contradiction, your argument is nonsense.

[s]So, in your example, If T-1 marks the presence of a quark, and T-2 marks the presence of a quark, anti-quark pair, it is impossible that a collision of two quarks occurred in between, because this is a physical event, and it has already been determined that this period of time is too short for the occurrence of a physical event.[/s]

Firstly, again I've lined through your statement because I believe it generally invalid, as I've explained in my previous post.

Secondly, for curiosity, I've bolded part of your statement because, as I understand you, you're saying all of the time is consumed in the transformation from T1 to T2. This transformation cannot happen without a catalyst; in this case its the collision of the two quarks.

Quoting ucarr

So, per scientific rigor, I stipulate at T1 a photon emits, and at T2 the photon covers the distance matching one Planck length. So the change of state of our thought experiment is the change of position of a photon across one Planck length.

You haven't stated this quite right. We have to say at T1 the photon is at position X, and at T2 the photon is at position Y. What is at issue, is that the photon does not, rigorously speaking, "cover the distance". What happens between T! and T2 is not a "physical change" because it cannot be empirically verified, observed. That is why you hear some physicists say that the photon must take every possible path between X and Y. Therefore, we cannot even conclude, from observable evidence, that the photon exists in the meantime. Because it cannot be observed in the meantime, the continuity of its existence cannot be verified, during that time. Therefore we cannot even conclude that the two instances are "the same photon".

All we can say is that a photon was produced at position X at T1, and a photon was produced at position Y at T2. Further, we can analyze "the causes" of these two occurrences, but if we adhere to the determinist principles, which limit causation to the temporal succession of observed events, then we restrict ourselves from considering that anything between T1 ant T2 could have occurred, and had causal influence on the state at T2, because this is outside the possibilities of "a physical event". Such an event would violate Newton's first law of motion, which describes temporal continuity. That law assumes temporal continuity of "the same body" between T1 and T2. At this scale, that temporal continuity cannot be verified

So, by adhering to determinist causation, it is assumed that there is temporal continuity of the photon between T1 and T2, and by Newton's first law, nothing can have an effect on it in the meantime, because that is outside the limits of physical possibility.

However, let's take a look at what really happens, without that restrictive presumption of continuity. A photon occurs at PX , T1, and a photon occurs at PY, T2, and there is time between these two occurrences. A non-physical act (freewill acts are in this category), could act between T1 and T2, as a cause of what occurs at T2. See, when we remove the necessity of temporal continuity described by Newton's first law, because it cannot be verified at that temporal scale, then we have that gap between moments in time, which allows for the nonphysical to operate, and have influence over the physical.

Quoting ucarr

The shortest length science can currently measure is one Planck length. This is a very different statement than the statement that says, “On Planck length is the shortest possible length in which physics can occur.”

The issue is that "physics" is limited by the scientific method, which relies on empirical observation for verification. Therefore the science of physics is restricted by the natural limitations of observability. Remember, we agreed that what is "observed" is always in the past. However, we also agreed that there is some part of the future, which coexists with the past, at the present. This aspect of "the present" which is really "the future", in the same way that what is observed at the present is really "the past", is an unobservable part of the present. This is what can be called the nonphysical, due to its inability to be observed. And the nature of free will demonstrates to us that the nonphysical is active and causal at the present.

Quoting ucarr

So, thanks to your demand for scientific rigor, it appears that our contemplation of its requirements has imploded your project to establish a spacetime wherein no physical event can occur yet wherein a supposed non-physical exchange of info is possible.

The important thing to note is that the nonphysical, which we term "info" here, is not only active within its own realm of "nonphysical", but also, as freewill demonstrates, it is causal within the "physical". This implies a type of causation which "physics" cannot account for, or understand, due to the natural limitations of observability.

Quoting ucarr

For clarity, it should be stated that the Planck length is currently the smallest spacetime unit we can measure. Smaller spacetime units, such as those occurring at the time of the Big Bang, are not currently measurable.

The Big Bang theory makes it clear that some scientists believe physics persists all the way down to the singularity, which is infinitely small. So, by this reasoning, there is no pre-singularity point at which physics stops.

The problem here, obviously, is the limitations of observability. Since observation is necessary to verify the theories of physics, speculations and theories at this scale cannot be verified, and therefore cannot obtain to the level of "science", so it is wrong to call this "physics".

Consider this analogy, which I touched on already. We assume a continuity of time. We name a point in time as a boundary, or limit, and by the method of calculus we approach that point in description, but must cross infinite divisions before arriving at that point. We can never actually, truthfully determine what is at that point. We say this does not matter, because there is really nothing at that point, it is a nondimensional boundary. However, this is not really true, the point is actually dimensional, infinitesimal, as the "Planck length" demonstrates. Now, whatever lies behind that boundary, within that point, is completely inaccessible to the inquiring mind, because the method by which we approach it has made it impossible to get to it.

Quoting ucarr

Firstly, again I've lined through your statement because I believe it generally invalid, as I've explained in my previous post.

Secondly, for curiosity, I've bolded part of your statement because, as I understand you, you're saying all of the time is consumed in the transformation from T1 to T2. This transformation cannot happen without a catalyst; in this case its the collision of the two quarks.

I don't see why you say the statement is invalid. It is the logical conclusion from the described conditions.

Using the new example, there is a photon at PX T1, and a photon at PY T2. The photon cannot have a physical presence at any position between PX and PY due to the prescribed limitations. This implies that "the photon" cannot have a physical interaction with anything in that space between PX and PY, nor in that time between T1 and T2. Any assumed interaction must be nonphysical.

Quoting ucarr

Secondly, for curiosity, I've bolded part of your statement because, as I understand you, you're saying all of the time is consumed in the transformation from T1 to T2. This transformation cannot happen without a catalyst; in this case its the collision of the two quarks.

That's exactly the issue, the conditions do not allow for such a physical "catalyst". Nothing physical can happen between T1 and T2, by the prescribed conditions. You say such and such "cannot happen without a catalyst", but the stated conditions have ruled out the possibility of a physical catalyst. Therefore we must look for something nonphysical as the catalyst.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In the model of time I described, it is necessary to assume real points in time, real moments when the world materializes as time passes. These moments ought to be observable, and from these real moments, the principles for relating the non-physical activity can be established.

Do you believe time is immaterial?

Do you believe the passing of time causes the material world to exist?

Do you believe physics rides piggyback on passing time, the reality clock?

Do you believe the principles connecting immaterial cause with physics populate metaphysics?

Do you believe passing time is the fundamental reality, that it cannot be broken down into components?

With respect to passing time, the ultimate fundamental, logic, math and science cannot discover constituent inner workings?

Passing time, aside from itself, remains unresponsive to all other things?

Quoting ucarr

Probability stands as a necessary condition for a distribution of options, instead of for a single option.

Quoting ucarr

How is this an illusion of continuity?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.

Metaphysician Undercover:The issue is the lack of continuity between state A (quark), and state B (anti-quark). Without continuity we lose the principle of identity. At t-1 is state A, at t-2 is state B, and there is time between these two. In this time between, we cannot say whether there is state A, state B, neither, nor both. However, there must be something which links the two, because if we consider a succession of states prior to state A, state B can be successfully predicted. The prediction however is not one of necessity, but one of probability, as explained by Hume. Therefore, we have something in that duration of time, between t-1 and t-2, which produces the illusion of continuity, but since it provides a relation of probability between state A and state B, rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

I have bolded the part of your statement that appears to contradict your other statement above it. I need an explanation of your apparent self-contradiction.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The break in continuity is between past and future. So when we say that because the last ten minutes have occurred in a certain, determined way, the next minute will necessarily be in a determinable way, based on what already happened. That is the assumed necessity of the cause/effect relationship which supports determinism, such that we say that if X occurs, Y necessarily will occur, when Y is understood to be the necessary effect of X. That necessity implies a continuity between past and future, such that nothing could interfere, or come between X (past) and Y (future), at the present, to make something other than Y occur. Do you see how the assumed necessity of the relation between cause and effect is based in a presumed continuity, the premise of continuity supports the believed necessity of that relation?

I have bolded what I take to be your attack on the validity of what you call "past_future determinism." You're mixing apples with oranges. Logical relations are atemporal. [math]P??Q[/math] is a bi-conditional logical relation between P and Q. It says the two are bi-conditional - each is a necessary condition for the existence of the other - if and only if the two terms are equal. This is identity logic.

The succession of temporal events, by definition, stands as a temporal phenomenon. Everybody knows, "Life is what happens to you /While you're busy making other plans..." - John Lennon

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What is at issue, is that the photon does not, rigorously speaking, "cover the distance". What happens between T! and T2 is not a "physical change" because it cannot be empirically verified, observed.

Is this your argument for adding immaterial causation into the mix?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, by adhering to determinist causation, it is assumed that there is temporal continuity of the photon between T1 and T2, and by Newton's first law, nothing can have an effect on it in the meantime, because that is outside the limits of physical possibility.

Read Newton again. His first law says, "...an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it."

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...some physicists say that the photon must take every possible path between X and Y. Therefore, we cannot even conclude, from observable evidence, that the photon exists in the meantime.

Overall, this is an argument that supports my position: "...an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it." So, as I said, the photon covers the Planck length. If its path is altered by another photon, then, from start to finish, we're looking at the physical activity you're trying to deny. Likewise, this applies to a photon having several possible paths. You admit a probability distribution is not afflicted with the identity problem you have brought up. You talk of possibility pairing with realization. So QM probability confirms rather than denies physics. Your conclusion of "no physical change," as based upon lack of empirical verification, stands invalid. Read up on the work conducted at Cern. All of this QM activity refutes your denial of physics at the Planck length.

Quoting ucarr

The shortest length science can currently measure is one Planck length. This is a very different statement than the statement that says, “On Planck length is the shortest possible length in which physics can occur.”

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The issue is that "physics" is limited by the scientific method, which relies on empirical observation for verification. Therefore the science of physics is restricted by the natural limitations of observability. Remember, we agreed that what is "observed" is always in the past. However, we also agreed that there is some part of the future, which coexists with the past, at the present. This aspect of "the present" which is really "the future", in the same way that what is observed at the present is really "the past", is an unobservable part of the present. This is what can be called the nonphysical, due to its inability to be observed. And the nature of free will demonstrates to us that the nonphysical is active and causal at the present.

It's not precisely correct to say science is limited to empirical observation for verification. Math interpretation of evidence plays an important role.

I continue to claim humans experience the empirical present, with abstract thoughts about the relative past and relative future.

Being unobservable to the senses is not proof something is non-physical; the EM waves feeding your tv are unobservable.

Describe some details of non-physical activity. Your example of info transfer was presented without details exposing the transferral process.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What happens between T! and T2 is not a "physical change" because it cannot be empirically verified...

Since you think the spectral imaging of particles at Cern examples a lack of empirical verification, I think you should learn more about the scientific method before attempting to criticize it.

Quoting ucarr

Do you believe time is immaterial?

Do you believe the passing of time causes the material world to exist?

Do you believe physics rides piggyback on passing time, the reality clock?

Do you believe the principles connecting immaterial cause with physics populate metaphysics?

Do you believe passing time is the fundamental reality, that it cannot be broken down into components?

With respect to passing time, the ultimate fundamental, logic, math and science cannot discover constituent inner workings?

Passing time, aside from itself, remains unresponsive to all other things?

Pretty much "yes" to everything here, but some of the questions aren't really clear enough to answer with confidence.

Edit: I say that passing time is broken down into components, dimensions.

Quoting ucarr

I have bolded the part of your statement that appears to contradict your other statement above it. I need an explanation of your apparent self-contradiction.

I don't see the contradiction. I think you must be misunderstanding. There is an illusion of continuity between state A and state B so continuity is assumed based on that illusion. But there is not a real continuity as there is a gap between T1 and T2 which physics cannot explain. Instead of explaining the gap, continuity is assumed.

Quoting ucarr

I have bolded what I take to be your attack on the validity of what you call "past_future determinism." You're mixing apples with oranges. Logical relations are atemporal. P??Q

?
?

is a bi-conditional logical relation between P and Q. It says the two are bi-conditional - each is a necessary condition for the existence of the other - if and only if the two terms are equal. This is identity logic.

Sorry, I don't see your point. Determinism assumes a necessary, and bi-conditional, relation between cause and effect, as described by Newton's first law of motion. A force will change the motion of a body. If the motion of a body changes, it has been acted on by a force. How is that not bi-conditional?

Quoting ucarr

Read Newton again. His first law says, "...an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it."

Right, and in that time period, between T1 and T2, between when the photon is at PX and PY respectively, a physical force cannot act on that photon, because the time period is too short for a physical event to occur. Therefore if anything acts on that photon in this time, it must be nonphysical.

Quoting ucarr

So, as I said, the photon covers the Planck length. If its path is altered by another photon, then, from start to finish, we're looking at the physical activity you're trying to deny. Likewise, this applies to a photon having several possible paths.

Don't you see that it is impossible for that photon to be acted on by another photon, in that time period? The photon moving from PX to PY is the shortest possible period of time in which a physical event can take place. The photon being acted upon by another photon is another physical event. It is impossible that the photon can be acted upon in this time, because the event of moving from X to Y has already taken all that time, so there is no time to add another physical event within that duration.

The rest of your paragraph seems to just demonstrate that you still have not understood this.

Quoting ucarr

It's not precisely correct to say science is limited to empirical observation for verification. Math interpretation of evidence plays an important role.

Sure, but what is evidence but observational data? The math has to be applied to something.

Quoting ucarr

Being unobservable to the senses is not proof something is non-physical; the EM waves feeding your tv are unobservable.

This is a whole can of worms in itself. This electromagnetism cannot be called "waves" unless there is a substance, a medium within which the waves are active, the aether. That's what a "wave" is, an activity of a substance. But many physicists deny the ether. Therefore we have to conclude that it's not EM "waves" feeding the TV. The waves are not observable as waves, and they are not "physical", because they have no substantial existence, no medium. What is observable is photons, particles, and the photons are "physical". The so-called "waves" become pure mathematics as "wave function".

Quoting ucarr

Describe some details of non-physical activity.

What are you asking for, a physical description of the nonphysical? Haha, nice try.

Quoting ucarr

Since you think the spectral imaging of particles at Cern examples a lack of empirical verification

Why do you say this, that I think like that? That is obviously not what I've been saying.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting ucarr

Do you believe time is immaterial?

Do you believe the passing of time causes the material world to exist?

Do you believe physics rides piggyback on passing time, the reality clock?

Do you believe the principles connecting immaterial cause with physics populate metaphysics?

Do you believe passing time is the fundamental reality, that it cannot be broken down into components?

With respect to passing time, the ultimate fundamental, logic, math and science cannot discover constituent inner workings?

Passing time, aside from itself, remains unresponsive to all other things?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Pretty much "yes" to everything here, but some of the questions aren't really clear enough to answer with confidence.

This question and response shows our work so far has been good: a) You've done a good job of communicating your system of beliefs to me; b) I've done a good job of listening and learning about your understanding of metaphysics.

Here's the most important confirmation:

• Do you believe the principles connecting immaterial cause with physics populate metaphysics?

• Pretty much "yes" to everything here...

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Edit: I say that passing time is broken down into components, dimensions.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Edit: I say that passing time is broken down into components, dimensions.

Do these dimensions include line, area and cube?

Quoting ucarr

I have bolded the part of your statement that appears to contradict your other statement above it. I need an explanation of your apparent self-contradiction.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see the contradiction. I think you must be misunderstanding. There is an illusion of continuity between state A and state B so continuity is assumed based on that illusion. But there is not a real continuity as there is a gap between T1 and T2 which physics cannot explain. Instead of explaining the gap, continuity is assumed.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The prediction however is not one of necessity, but one of probability, as explained by Hume. Therefore, we have something in that duration of time, between t-1 and t-2, which produces the illusion of continuity, but since it provides a relation of probability between state A and state B, rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

Considering your two above quotes, as I understand you, in the first quote you absolve probability from responsibility for producing the illusion of continuity. In your second quote, you indict probability for producing the illusion of continuity.

Quoting ucarr

I have bolded what I take to be your attack on the validity of what you call "past_future determinism." You're mixing apples with oranges. Logical relations are atemporal. [math]P??Q[/math] is a bi-conditional logical relation between P and Q. It says the two are bi-conditional - each is a necessary condition for the existence of the other - if and only if the two terms are equal. This is identity logic.

Quoting ucarr

The succession of temporal events, by definition, stands as a temporal phenomenon. Everybody knows, "Life is what happens to you /While you're busy making other plans..." - John Lennon

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry, I don't see your point. Determinism assumes a necessary, and bi-conditional, relation between cause and effect, as described by Newton's first law of motion. A force will change the motion of a body. If the motion of a body changes, it has been acted on by a force. How is that not bi-conditional?

With my two above quotes, I establish that: a) causal relations exemplify bi-conditional logic; b) temporal sequences of events can be regarded as being causal, but interruptions in their continuity says nothing contradictory about the bi-conditional logic of causation.

Suppose we establish that: iron pipes, when dipped in liquid vinyl, don't rust. Logically, we can represent this relationship as: P=Non-rust state and Q=Vinyl-dipped iron pipe, so [math]P??Q[/math].
This is a logical relationship with the terms established: iron pipes don't rust when they're dipped in vinyl. This logical relationship inhabits the abstract mind, and it is atemporal.

In the real world, we have an iron pipe scheduled for vinyl dipping by a certain date. It's part of an outdoor support structure for the roof covering a veranda. On that date, the shipment of liquid vinyl to be used for the dipping fails to arrive due to bad weather interrupting and delaying shipping of the liquid vinyl. So, on that date, it rains and the iron pipe rusts.

From this event we don't declare that the bi-conditional logic is faulty because the pipe is rusty. Real life is temporal, and thus causal relationships are subject to interruptions. Logical relationships are atemporal, and the change of circumstances of life interrupting real and causal chains of events have no bearing upon the truth content of atemporal, logical relationships.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...in that time period, between T1 and T2, between when the photon is at PX and PY respectively, a physical force cannot act on that photon, because the time period is too short for a physical event to occur. Therefore if anything acts on that photon in this time, it must be nonphysical.

You're repeating your mistake of confusing: a) the Planck length is currently the shortest time interval science can measure with; b) the Planck length is the shortest time interval in which physics can happen.

Statement b), which your argument assumes, is false.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

[s]Don't you see that it is impossible for that photon to be acted on by another photon, in that time period? The photon moving from PX to PY is the shortest possible period of time in which a physical event can take place. The photon being acted upon by another photon is another physical event. It is impossible that the photon can be acted upon in this time, because the event of moving from X to Y has already taken all that time, so there is no time to add another physical event within that duration[/s].

[s]The rest of your paragraph seems to just demonstrate that you still have not understood this.

[/s]

I have lined through your above statements because they repeat an argument based upon a false premise. Again, the singularity assumes the persistence of physics all the way down to the infinitely small interval of time. Were this not the case, the Big Bang couldn't happen.

Quoting ucarr

It's not precisely correct to say science is limited to empirical observation for verification. Math interpretation of evidence plays an important role.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but what is evidence but observational data? The math has to be applied to something.

For example, at Cern the math is applied to the spectral imaging of particle behavior.

Quoting ucarr

Describe some details of non-physical activity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What are you asking for, a physical description of the nonphysical? Haha, nice try.

Your question reveals your belief the immaterial realm cannot be active, cannot do anything without converting into the material realm.

Quoting ucarr

Since you think the spectral imaging of particles at Cern examples a lack of empirical verification

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Why do you say this, that I think like that? That is obviously not what I've been saying.

Here's what you've been saying.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What happens between T! and T2 is not a "physical change" because it cannot be empirically verified...

You're falsely claiming the math interpretation of the ATLAS and CMS detection of particles at Cern is not empirical verification of physical phenomena. Can you present a math interpretation that contradicts the Cern math interpretation?

Note - From now on, lets post everything in this thread.

Reply to ucarr
To me, consciousness is the ability of the mind, the ability to experience. The mind however has another ability, namely the ability to cause as well. So, to summarize, the mind is an entity with the ability to experience and cause.

Quoting ucarr

Do these dimensions include line, area and cube?

No, I was describing the two dimensions of the present. Since future and past are distinct dimensions of time, and they overlap at the present, the present must be two dimensional.

Quoting ucarr

Considering your two above quotes, as I understand you, in the first quote you absolve probability from responsibility for producing the illusion of continuity. In your second quote, you indict probability for producing the illusion of continuity.

You misunderstand the second quote then. Notice in the first quote, the assumption of necessity goes hand in hand with the illusion of continuity. These two are related. In the second quote I am saying that the assumption of necessity is false, what is really the case is that predictions are based on probability rather than necessity. This supports the first quote, saying that continuity is an illusion, and implying that the assumption of necessity is a false assumption.

So it's not probability itself, which creates the illusion of continuity, it is the practise of treating what is probable as what is necessary, which creates that illusion. And the point is that it is an illusion, not real. The first quote indicates what are the consequences of treating the probable as necessary, and the second quote states the consequences of treating the probable as it truly is, probable. So in the first it is the assumption of necessity which is related to continuity, and in the second, it is stated that what is often assumed to be necessary (determinism), is really just probable, therefore the continuity associated with this assumed necessity is an illusion. The necessity is false.

Quoting ucarr

With my two above quotes, I establish that: a) causal relations exemplify bi-conditional logic; b) temporal sequences of events can be regarded as being causal, but interruptions in their continuity says nothing contradictory about the bi-conditional logic of causation.

Sure, but the causal relation is a relation of necessity and also a type of continuity. It's an epistemic continuity. We could call it a "continuity of information". This continuity, which in physics is expressed as a temporal continuity, supporting Newton's laws, and the conservation laws, is taken as necessary. However, in reality the continuity is false. As evidenced by the law of entropy, conservation is not absolute. And what breaks the continuity is the fact that the relation is not a relation of necessity, but one of probability.

Then I believe, the logic becomes modal, and the bi-conditional feature is not valid. That's the problem explained above. Causation is assumed to be necessary, this implies continuous and bi-conditional. But the assumption of necessity is false, and this breaks the continuity and bi-conditionality.

If you do not understand the role of continuity here, look at it this way. Consider A is the cause, and Z is the effect. A necessarily implies Z, and Z necessarily implies A. We might say that A and Z are not necessarily contiguous, as there may be a whole alphabet between them, but there is necessarily a continuity of information between them. An empty gap would leave a hole in the chain of information which is required to assert cause/effect, and this would produce a break in the causal chain (an unknown feature), leaving no necessary pathway from A to Z or the inverse. The cause/effect necessity is epistemic, requiring the criteria of information. Without the continuity of information between A and Z we cannot conclude A is the cause of Z, because it might be something from within that informational gap which causes Z, rather than A .

So, this is what the concept of "probability" does, it recognizes the gap, the lack of informational continuity between A and Z. By removing necessity, the gap is acknowledged. Now there is no continuity (continuous causal chain) between A and Z as separate events, because the occurrence of Z, after A, is not necessary, but probable. Something may interfere during that time which constitutes the gap.

The problem which arises can be exemplified in this way. Every time we see the occurrence of Z, we observe A as the cause, and we are inclined to say that if Z occurs, it is necessary that A occurred. However, when we acknowledge the reality of probability, and the lack of bi-conditionality, we cannot say that A will necessarily cause Z, because there may have been a lot of other instances of A which did not cause Z. The conclusion of causation was produced from observance of "all Z", not from the observance of "all A". Without focusing observational attention on A it cannot be said that all A causes Z.

Quoting ucarr

Suppose we establish that: iron pipes, when dipped in liquid vinyl, don't rust. Logically, we can represent this relationship as: P=Non-rust state and Q=Vinyl-dipped iron pipe, so P??Q

?
?

.
This is a logical relationship with the terms established: iron pipes don't rust when they're dipped in vinyl. This logical relationship inhabits the abstract mind, and it is atemporal.

We can readily see that this is seriously flawed. Just because "vinyl-dipped" produces the necessity of "non-rust", we cannot conclude that all non-rusted pipes are vinyl dipped. This is how the assumption of bi-conditionality may mislead.

Quoting ucarr

From this event we don't declare that the bi-conditional logic is faulty because the pipe is rusty. Real life is temporal, and thus causal relationships are subject to interruptions. Logical relationships are atemporal, and the change of circumstances of life interrupting real and causal chains of events have no bearing upon the truth content of atemporal, logical relationships.

I hope what I said above helps you to see how this is not a proper representation of the continuity I am talking about. The continuity I referred to is epistemic, it is a continuity of information. The continuity of information is a requirement for the judgement of causation because a lack of information allows for other unknown factors, and the judgement could be false.

So the problem here is that you have two incompatible premises which you try to unite. You say "logical relationships are atemporal". And you also have "real life is temporal". Because of this incompatibility the "logic" you are talking about cannot be applied to "real life". But then you attempt to apply this type of "atemporal" logic to "temporal" real life, through the concept of causation, and you produce a seriously flawed example. The obvious problem is that causation refers to "real life" temporal events, so the application of atemporal logic is faulty. Therefore modal logic has been developed for this purpose.

Quoting ucarr

You're repeating your mistake of confusing: a) the Planck length is currently the shortest time interval science can measure with; b) the Planck length is the shortest time interval in which physics can happen.

Statement b), which your argument assumes, is false.

As I've explained, this is not relevant. The fact is that physics is restricted by the limitations of observation. The use of "Planck time" is just an example of such a restriction. So it doesn't matter if Planck time is replaced by some other temporal length, as the shortest time period, there will always be a shortest time period due to the limitations of observational capacity. And physical theories are verified through observation, so this is a restriction to "physics".

The further principle which I've tried to impress on you, is that this restriction necessitates an "informational gap". There will always be a shorter period of time, shorter than what observational capacity allows for, and physics will not be able to tell us what happens during this time period due to that restriction. Therefore something nonphysical could happen during this time period which could have a causal influence.

Consider entropy for example. As time passes entropy increases, and this is a violation of the law of conservation of energy within a system. Energy is lost to the system, and its loss cannot be accounted for. So in principle the law of entropy indicates a violation to the conservation law. Now, even during the shortest period of time, some energy must be lost, and we can ask what is the cause of this loss. Clearly, the activities of "physics" do not account for the increase in entropy, so the cause of it is nonphysical. "Entropy", commonly represented as "uncertainty" signifies the informational gap which I referred to, where something nonphysical has causal influence during the passing of time.

Quoting ucarr

Again, the singularity assumes the persistence of physics all the way down to the infinitely small interval of time.

You are not listening to me. Physics persists all the way down to the smallest observable interval of time. This is not an "infinitely small interval of time", it is an infinitesimal interval of time. Within that infinitesimal interval of time is a period of time during which physics is not applicable. Application of the "infinite series" mathematics represents this period as infinitely small. But application of the scientific method in physics, renders what is represented as "infinitely small" in numerical theory, as an infinitesimal period of time in the experimental practise of physics. This constitutes a misrepresentation. In numerical theory, the infinitely small is equivalent to "nothing". But in the practise of physics this is actually an infinitesimal "something". The numerical representation of nothing produces the illusion of continuity, and necessity in act, but what this really does is veil and obscure the "something", which is an informational gap within the assumed continuity.

Quoting ucarr

For example, at Cern the math is applied to the spectral imaging of particle behavior.

Observational data.

Quoting ucarr

Your question reveals your belief the immaterial realm cannot be active, cannot do anything without converting into the material realm.

That's a misunderstanding. My belief is that there is nonphysical activity which occurs during the period of time when observation is impossible. As discussed, as time passes at the present, what is known as "the present" consists of both past and future. Observational data is always information about the past, because it requires a duration of time to make an observation. This leaves the part of the present which is future, as unobservable. And, just like we observe activity to be occurring in the past part of the future, we can conclude that there is probably unobservable (nonphysical) activity occurring in the future part of the present. This is evidenced by the law of entropy, as explained above.

Furthermore, as I explained above, we must be very careful with our application of bi-conditional logic. We observe how the immaterial (nonphysical) influences the material (physical) through principles like freewill and entropy. These are the observed effects of the immaterial activity. From this, we cannot conclude that the immaterial "cannot do anything without converting into the material realm".

We can only say that the immaterial cannot do anything observable without converting that activity into material activity. But this does not mean that the immaterial is not highly active within its own realm, with most acts not having any effect on the material. This is evident from Aristotle's representation of contemplation, a thinking, which is thinking about thinking. In its pure form, this contemplation is an immaterial act which has no effect in the material world, and it is sometimes represented by the material image of an eternal circular motion. But Aristotle cautioned against this mode of representing the immaterial with material images. It is misleading. So the pure, immaterial activities (contemplation being a better representation), could be ongoing indefinitely, without having any influence in the material world. The more pure it is, the less it influences the material world.

Quoting ucarr

You're falsely claiming the math interpretation of the ATLAS and CMS detection of particles at Cern is not empirical verification of physical phenomena. Can you present a math interpretation that contradicts the Cern math interpretation?

As explained above, the mathematical representation is a false representation. The mathematical theories represent an infinitely small point, which is interpreted as "nothing", no time. However, in practise, what is represented as infinitely small is really infinitesimal, therefore "some time". It is within this "some time", being mathematically represented as "no time", which is where the informational gap known as "uncertainty" exists.

Consider the "uncertainty principle" in general, commonly represented as an inability to accurately state both a particle's position and its momentum. "Position" implies a fixed location. "Momentum" implies movement, therefore no fixed location. The two are fundamentally incompatible, because "position" of a moving particle implies a fixed point which is not consistent with movement. Further, measurement requires a duration of time. If that measurement is used to indicate "position", the particle must not be moving in that duration, to have a position, but if it is used to indicate momentum, it must be moving in that duration. These two are incompatible. So, the mathematics just fudges the incompatibility, and represents the duration of the measurement, as a point in time, rather than as a period of time, falsely implying that there could be momentum at a point in time when movement could not actually be happening. This fudging is very evident in the concept of "instantaneous velocity".

The uncertainty principle is a display of the way that mathematics falsely represents a duration of time as a point in time. Duration as points in time, would allow us to assemble a serious of contiguous points, conglomerating a complete "duration", thereby assuming a continuity of information, and epistemic necessity. However, what is represented as a point in time, is really an infinitesimal duration of time, and within this duration there is an informational gap known as uncertainty, Therefore any assumptions of continuity, or epistemic necessity, derived from the representation of these infinitesimals as infinitely small, are false assumptions.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

what is often assumed to be necessary (determinism), is really just probable, therefore the continuity associated with this assumed necessity is an illusion. The necessity is false.

Perhaps I am speaking to my experience/reading but this struck me as a really profound treatment of determinism. Thank you for that. Much thinking to do..

Reply to MoK

Quoting MoK

To me, consciousness is the ability of the mind, the ability to experience. The mind however has another ability, namely the ability to cause as well. So, to summarize, the mind is an entity with the ability to experience and cause.

I think ability to experience = enduring, personal point of view featuring impressions and judgments about them.

I think ability to cause = formulating a plan followed by execution of a logical sequence of steps to achieve the plan's goal.

What do you think?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Since future and past are distinct dimensions of time, and they overlap at the present, the present must be two dimensional.

Does a person experience future and past empirically?

Quoting ucarr

Considering your two above quotes, as I understand you, in the first quote you absolve probability from responsibility for producing the illusion of continuity. In your second quote, you indict probability for producing the illusion of continuity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You misunderstand the second quote then. Notice in the first quote, the assumption of necessity goes hand in hand with the illusion of continuity. These two are related. In the second quote I am saying that the assumption of necessity is false, what is really the case is that predictions are based on probability rather than necessity. This supports the first quote, saying that continuity is an illusion, and implying that the assumption of necessity is a false assumption.

Directly below are your two quotes.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.

As I read your above quote, I get: The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The prediction however is not one of necessity, but one of probability, as explained by Hume. Therefore, we have something in that duration of time, between t-1 and t-2, which produces the illusion of continuity, but since it provides a relation of probability between state A and state B, rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

As I read your above quote, I get: The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

Compare, side-by-side, my two readings, which boil down your words to the gist of their meaning:

The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So it's not probability itself, which creates the illusion of continuity, it is the practise of treating what is probable as what is necessary, which creates that illusion.

This is not what you say in your original quotes.

And the point is that it is an illusion, not real. The first quote indicates what are the consequences of treating the probable as necessary, and the second quote states the consequences of treating the probable as it truly is, probable. So in the first it is the assumption of necessity which is related to continuity, and in the second, it is stated that what is often assumed to be necessary (determinism), is really just probable, therefore the continuity associated with this assumed necessity is an illusion. The necessity is false.[/quote]

As I read you, you're charging QM physics with trying to pass off probability as necessity. The prominence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle contradicts this wholesale mis-characterization of QM physics.

As the Schrördinger equation calculates the multiplicity of possible trajectories of a particle, there is no continuity issue for the individual possible trajectories, and therefore there is no continuity issue with the set of these possible trajectories.

Probability and continuity run on separate tracks here.

Regarding probability: There's a probability cloud of possible locations of the particle

Regarding continuity: Whether it's the same particle at the start and end of its journey across an interval of time is not necessarily in question. It's possible two different states express: a) two different positions of the same particle; b) the decay of, say, a proton, into a neutron.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Without focusing observational attention on A it cannot be said that all A causes Z.

I've never denied causal chains can be broken.

Suppose we establish that: iron pipes, when dipped in liquid vinyl, don't rust. Logically, we can represent this relationship as: P=Non-rust state and Q=Vinyl-dipped iron pipe, so [math]P??Q[/math]. This is a logical relationship with the terms established: iron pipes don't rust when they're dipped in vinyl. This logical relationship inhabits the abstract mind, and it is atemporal.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We can readily see that this is seriously flawed. Just because "vinyl-dipped" produces the necessity of "non-rust", we cannot conclude that all non-rusted pipes are vinyl dipped. This is how the assumption of bi-conditionality may mislead.

Your analysis is irrelevant because my statement never claims its logic establishes: we can conditionally conclude that all non-rusted pipes are vinyl dipped.

P=Non-rust state and Q=Vinyl-dipped iron pipe, so [math]P??Q[/math].

Vinyl-dipped iron pipes imply non-rusted iron pipes, but non-rusted iron pipes don't imply vinyl-dipped iron pipes. The two statements are not commutative. One does not allow us to assume the other.

By inserting the bi-conditional: non-rusted iron pipes imply vinyl-dipped iron pipes if and only if vinyl-dipped iron pipes imply non-rusted iron pipes, the two statements are equalized by definition, and thus they become commutative.

With P and Q equalized bi-conditionally, one allows us to assume the other.

The statement: "vinyl-dipped iron pipes imply non-rusted iron pipes," is an analytic truth, but it is not the way the world is. This shows us that sound logic does not always faithfully represent the world.

This distinction remains useful to my purpose because I want to show how the soundness of logic
is not necessarily refuted by contrary events. See below.

Quoting ucarr

...I establish that: a) causal relations exemplify bi-conditional logic; b) temporal sequences of events can be regarded as being causal, but interruptions in their continuity says nothing contradictory about the bi-conditional logic of causation.

Quoting ucarr

It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.

Third party here - no, they don't.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I hope what I said above helps you to see how this is not a proper representation of the continuity I am talking about. The continuity I referred to is epistemic, it is a continuity of information.

There's no clear distinction here. Logic and knowledge are both epistemic.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So the problem here is that you have two incompatible premises which you try to unite. You say "logical relationships are atemporal". And you also have "real life is temporal". Because of this incompatibility the "logic" you are talking about cannot be applied to "real life". But then you attempt to apply this type of "atemporal" logic to "temporal" real life, through the concept of causation, and you produce a seriously flawed example. The obvious problem is that causation refers to "real life" temporal events, so the application of atemporal logic is faulty. Therefore modal logic has been developed for this purpose.

I'm not uniting logic and events; I'm stressing their distinction: one atemporal, the other temporal. If your house is on fire, and it's logically true dousing it with water will extinguish the fire, but you're unable to get to water and the house burns down, this calamity blocking the link between real burning house and real water to save it has zero impact on the logical truth connecting water with extinguishing fire.

Furthermore, this stresses that causation is a logical concept of the abstract mind, and thus it too is atemporal. If it's true A causes B, then A in the role of cause and B in the role of effect are contemporaries. If B is not an effect of A simultaneous with A being a cause of B, then A is just A, it's not an effect. This is why we understand causation is an abstract thought, not an event.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...in that time period, between T1 and T2, between when the photon is at PX and PY respectively, a physical force cannot act on that photon, because the time period is too short for a physical event to occur. Therefore if anything acts on that photon in this time, it must be nonphysical.

Quoting ucarr

You're repeating your mistake of confusing: a) the Planck length is currently the shortest time interval science can measure with; b) the Planck length is the shortest time interval in which physics can happen.

Statement b), which your argument assumes, is false.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I've explained, this is not relevant. The fact is that physics is restricted by the limitations of observation. The use of "Planck time" is just an example of such a restriction. So it doesn't matter if Planck time is replaced by some other temporal length, as the shortest time period, there will always be a shortest time period due to the limitations of observational capacity. And physical theories are verified through observation, so this is a restriction to "physics".

If what I wrote is now irrelevant, it's because you've shifted from denying physics below Planck scale to asserting physics has measurement limitations, an assertion nobody disputes. The difference between what you say now and what you said directly below is obvious.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...in that time period, between T1 and T2, between when the photon is at PX and PY respectively, a physical force cannot act on that photon, because the time period is too short for a physical event to occur. Therefore if anything acts on that photon in this time, it must be nonphysical.

The further principle which I've tried to impress on you, is that this restriction necessitates an "informational gap". There will always be a shorter period of time, shorter than what observational capacity allows for, and physics will not be able to tell us what happens during this time period due to that restriction. Therefore something nonphysical could happen during this time period which could have a causal influence.[/quote]

Since your "observations" of immaterialism are restricted by the observational limitations of physics, your suppositions about immaterial info and causation are really just speculations made possible by the work of physicists. Your dependency on physics doesn't make a strong case for believing immaterialism has logical and existential priority over materialism.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Consider entropy for example. As time passes entropy increases, and this is a violation of the law of conservation of energy within a system. Energy is lost to the system, and its loss cannot be accounted for. So in principle the law of entropy indicates a violation to the conservation law. Now, even during the shortest period of time, some energy must be lost, and we can ask what is the cause of this loss. Clearly, the activities of "physics" do not account for the increase in entropy, so the cause of it is nonphysical. "Entropy", commonly represented as "uncertainty" signifies the informational gap which I referred to, where something nonphysical has causal influence during the passing of time.

The first law of thermo-dynamics says the total energy of a system remains constant, even if it is converted from work into heat energy.

Entropy is the loss of a system's available energy to do work. There is no violation of the first law.

You acknowledge that, "As time passes entropy increases..." This statement has you acknowledging passing time and increase of entropy are moving in the same direction. Since increase of entropy is experienced by humans as getting old and dying, how do you deny our getting born infantile, and then growing through childhood, adolescence, first adulthood, and middle age all come before old age, given your contention the future, which for the child is old age, comes before the past, which for the old person, is childhood?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We can only say that the immaterial cannot do anything observable without converting that activity into material activity

To me this looks like an acknowledgement, by implication, that immaterialism, i.e., abstract thought, is an emergent property of physic.

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

Quoting ucarr

It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.

Quoting AmadeusD

Third party here - no, they don't.

This is your declaration. Where is your supporting argument?

Reply to ucarr You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument. But for clarity:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

probability distribution

is not

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

of probability

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

a relation of probability

Quoting ucarr

Does a person experience future and past empirically?

I think we already went through this. If by "empirically" you mean through sense observation, then "no", because everything observed through sensation is in the past by the time it is observed. However, the word "experience" is nuanced with a number of different meanings. In one sense we say that if we are in any way affected by something we experience it. And in this way we "experience" the future by way of emotions like desire and anticipation.

Quoting ucarr

The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

Correct, the illusion of continuity is in relation to the assumption of necessity.

Quoting ucarr

The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

It is when the prediction of probability is taken as a prediction of necessity, which creates the illusion of continuity.

So, we have a prediction based on probability, and this does not on its own lead to a conclusion of continuity, because "probability" implies a lack of information required to complete the continuity. However, when we assume the cause/effect relation to be one of necessity, and we assume therefore that the prediction is one of necessity rather than one of probability, this creates the illusion of continuity.

Therefore, the illusion of continuity is not in relation to the probability distribution itself, it is related to the assumption (belief) that the prediction which is based in probability is a prediction of necessity.

Where is the contradiction here?

Quoting ucarr

It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.

I really don't see how you apprehend contradiction here. The prediction is based in a relation of probability, not in a relation of necessity. However, when this relation (the cause effect relation) is taken to be a relation of necessity, the illusion of continuity is created.

If you are still having difficulty, try this. Assume a continuous causal chain of cause/effect, from the past until now. Also, assume that what happens from now onward will be a continuation of this cause/effect chain, determined by the past, onward into the future. The determinist continuation in this model is produced from the assumption of necessity in the cause/effect relation. The cause/effect chain cannot be otherwise, it is necessary. and therefore a continuity between past and future is declared.

Now, in comparison, allow that any prediction of the future, is based on probability rather than necessity. If this is the case, then anything which happens is not necessary, but contingent, and there is no continuity from the past into the future, through the present.

I take as fact, that the cause/effect relation is a relation of probability. So what is at issue is how we relate to the cause/effect relation, what we believe about it. If we (wrongly) believe that it is a relation of necessity, in the determinist way, this is consistent with the illusion of continuity. But if we (correctly) believe that it is a relation of probability, then there is no illusion of continuity.

Quoting ucarr

As I read you, you're charging QM physics with trying to pass off probability as necessity.

I'm doing no such thing. I never mention QM physics in this context. What I said was that the determinist perspective, which treats the cause/effect relation as a relation of necessity rather than a relation of probability (with reference to Hume), results in the passing off of probability as necessity.

Quoting ucarr

Probability and continuity run on separate tracks here.

Exactly, continuity is associated with the determinist necessity of cause/effect. So, how continuity enters the track is through conservation laws.

Quoting ucarr

Suppose we establish that: iron pipes, when dipped in liquid vinyl, don't rust. Logically, we can represent this relationship as: P=Non-rust state and Q=Vinyl-dipped iron pipe, so P??Q

?
?

. This is a logical relationship with the terms established: iron pipes don't rust when they're dipped in vinyl. This logical relationship inhabits the abstract mind, and it is atemporal.

Did you not even read what I wrote? The relation between "dipped in liquid vinyl", and "non rusted" is not biconditional. This is obvious, because other things can cause "non-rusted". I explained this problem to you thoroughly, but you've completely ignored it, and continue to represent this as if people would actually believe it to be biconditional.

Quoting ucarr

Furthermore, this stresses that causation is a logical concept of the abstract mind, and thus it too is atemporal.

You continue to misrepresent "causation", as if it is a necessary, and biconditional concept. That is the determinist falsity. A true understanding of causation would not represent it in this way. If you look at the way logicians actually do treat causation, it is through modal logic.

Your attempt to distinguish between atemporal and temporal only has you confusing categories. How can you even validate this category of "atemporal" which you are proposing?

Quoting ucarr

If what I wrote is now irrelevant, it's because you've shifted from denying physics below Planck scale to asserting physics has measurement limitations, an assertion nobody disputes. The difference between what you say now and what you said directly below is obvious.

From the outset of the use of this example, I defined "physics" as being restricted to the observable. This is not a shift.

Quoting ucarr

Since your "observations" of immaterialism are restricted by the observational limitations of physics, your suppositions about immaterial info and causation are really just speculations made possible by the work of physicists. Your dependency on physics doesn't make a strong case for believing immaterialism has logical and existential priority over materialism.

Yes, metaphysics is by its very nature, speculative. But as I explained, it is the deficiencies of physics which supports the possibility of the nonphysical, as more than just possible, but highly probable as well. You can deny this all you want, but that's what I mean about the physicalist attitude interfering with honest inquiry, making discussions like these with physicalists impossible.

Quoting ucarr

The first law of thermo-dynamics says the total energy of a system remains constant, even if it is converted from work into heat energy.

Entropy is the loss of a system's available energy to do work. There is no violation of the first law.

It is veiled contradiction. Look, energy is defined as "the capacity to do work". As time passes, the energy of a system remains constant. However, some of that energy becomes not available to do work, as "entropy". Do you not see the contradiction between "the capacity to do work", and "not available to do work"? In reality, energy is lost, in violation of the conservation law. However, instead of admitting this violation people just say that this lost energy is converted to a different form of energy, which contradicts the definition of "energy".

Quoting ucarr

This statement has you acknowledging passing time and increase of entropy are moving in the same direction.

Right, this is the common representation which I argue is faulty.. It's faulty because it leads to the contradiction outlined above. And the desire to maintain the necessary continuity of the conservation law inclines you to say that time is not really passing, but you are passing through time. All this indicates that this common representation is faulty.

Quoting ucarr

To me this looks like an acknowledgement, by implication, that immaterialism, i.e., abstract thought, is an emergent property of physic.

Sorry, I don't see that.

Quoting ucarr

Consciousness, in its role as boundary administrator, acts like a juggler suspending in air three juggling pins: time, space, spacetime.

Quoting ucarr

Is consciousness only reactive?

Wow, I love this. What an interesting question! Has me thinking...


What does consciousness do? My immediate answer I draw attention towards privately in my mind as I am thinking these thoughts sitting on my back porch, in front of a screen, staring into the back yard my focus is all mental....my back hurts and my eyes strained but my thinking thoughts have now consumed me in this moment, as i lose track of time in this position, I still have my self but the attention is drawn to certain words in particular...

My simple answer to the question [see thread title] is: "participates"

I believe consciousness is nothing without humans...it has limiting control, power or perhaps none at all when with and without the heart, mind, and soul of the human it is attached to. We move day to day living our lives, caused by the time passing [according to MU's "force" causing motion=time passing], chances to be took, we can change our minds as updated intel comes in, and we have choices, and options. We made it through another day, ahhhh I can relax in that for a slightttttt moment then remember another one awaits, [off topic slightly now im wondering now about the sun and the moon.... day time vs night time, motion or caused it but in motion themselves displaying light vs dark without a number or clock, just life to see, and live in it, nature aka earth--ill get back to this another time, i ought to at least...trust i will but don't hold your breath] :death:

:eyes: :monkey: :naughty: :halo:

As I was trying to say--- we make these choices, decisions for whatever reason[not important now] but whatever that reason is, IS NOW known to our consciousness, which I think may participate with us during these life experiences or events, moments. Its learning, becoming itself? We become conscious perhaps not from unconscious states but with awareness of it.

It is NOT always there or present with us for just those times. It may come and go, not emerging but dipping in and out as it ought to, with pleasure of us to be in such presence. If it's along with us both growing, evolving, learning, reminding, does that mean its of the living???? Has lived? Alive? :flower:

It seems to be emerging, we can use that term if you will/must... but I dont think that's good enough....it seems to be but maybe its actually just growing with us, our beings. When we were born it began its journey too, we both start out small [it is not there yet to us because our baby brain is not aware yet but it was there just not present as it was gaining its power through us? thats why it seems to emerge from no where but what if its there from our start just finding its way to get there, through our minds, to our awareness) We then grow old (it grows too...wisdom and in size/power), I'd like to think...but humans die, does that mean for my ideas here to make sense that so does consciousness? Is it alive? Or linked to it..."it" being a living being....which circles back to my first line of the paragraph above....."I believe consciousness is nothing without humans...it has limiting control, power or perhaps none at all when with and without the heart, mind, and soul of the human it is attached to."

I don't particularly care for the term "supervenience," but I do think consciousness matures with human experiences over one's life not emerges from no where... Awareness, on the other hand, varies for each person—it's the random component in this equation. We're like future word problems, solvable by others before we even realize it.

How well do you know yourself, how little do you trust yourself? Can you notice? Can you spot your habits and how does this affect ones self image or worth? How poor or well do you PARTAKE in self loving actions? When you do, or plan to, are you just going through the motions or are you mindful, do you believe yourself when you say you really mean it, you know when you really mean something..Do you say what you really mean, do you think about it? What is the difference? Perhaps the mindfulness/attention/focus while doing it.

I guess thats like intentionality....but they matter. They meaning, "intentions". They matter when they can be character based...but for me its hard not to bring up time talk....Timing is wild to me. Does chance, luck, freak accidents have any value to account for...this would be interesting to determine or give slack for its unknown potential? Of what? Anyways, intentions are interesting and how they link to behavior...and the will. I think both behaviors and will is/are known/knowable by the consciousness...that is intel, that is reflected and/or displayed back for us to use...or ignore. You will do what was going to happen. Trust it. Trust consciousness, listen to it. It is nothing without you....a beautiful character.

I believe consciousness participates in human experiences at a personal level. That is my answer to the question of, what it DOES but what WILL it do? What CAN it do? Another story....
It gestures, to the lengths it ought of the power from the person. The person with the power to not USE the consciousness but become acquainted with it. See yourself in another.

Reply to ucarr
I think you are talking about the attributes of an intelligent agent. Animals also experience and cause for example.

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting AmadeusD

You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument.

You've also made a claim. In rational discourse, propositions need the support of logical arguments. Why do you think you're exempt from this requirement?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

probability distribution

Quoting AmadeusD

is not

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

of probability

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

a relation of probability

Why are the calculated probabilities of possible values of a variable not part of a relation of probability of possible outcomes?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...everything observed through sensation is in the past by the time it is observed.

So your answer is, "No, we directly experience neither the future nor the present. Only the past is observed directly."

Since sensory processing by the brain at light speed is time-lagged only nanoseconds behind sensory stimulus, and thus it is negligible, you, like me, always wake up in the empirical present, it being noted you call it the past.

If this is true, as I judge it, based upon your words, then I see your temporal direction, like mine, is a passage through a never-ending, nanoseconds time-lagged sequence of pasts.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Correct, the illusion of continuity is in relation to the assumption of necessity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is when the prediction of probability is taken as a prediction of necessity, which creates the illusion of continuity.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, we have a prediction based on probability, and this does not on its own lead to a conclusion of continuity, because "probability" implies a lack of information required to complete the continuity.

Multiplicity of possibilities isn't always born of incomplete info. Heisenberg's uncertainty equation knows both axes for the trajectory vector of a particle: position and momentum. However, due to an existential limitation on measurement within QM, only one or the other axis can be known to a useful degree of accuracy.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, we have a prediction based on probability, and this does not on its own lead to a conclusion of continuity, because "probability" implies a lack of information required to complete the continuity. However, when we assume the cause/effect relation to be one of necessity, and we assume therefore that the prediction is one of necessity rather than one of probability, this creates the illusion of continuity.

Therefore, the illusion of continuity is not in relation to the probability distribution itself, it is related to the assumption (belief) that the prediction which is based in probability is a prediction of necessity.

Where is the contradiction here?

Firstly, your language here is clear. Had it been your original language, I would'nt've called out a contradiction.

Secondly, we know particles cover distances across durations of time. This is the issue you raised in your Planck time thought experiment: Can a particle traverse one Planck length? Yes.

Next you posited a theoretical half Planck length. Claiming no physics can occur at sub-Planck length, you speculated about info exchange at sub-Planck length independent of physics. You concluded immaterial info can do something causal independent of physics.

If we examine a particle with multiple possible trajectories across a distance, Planck scale or otherwise,
we know that one of the trajectories will cover a distance traveled by the particle. The calculation of the probability of the particle taking a particular trajectory has nothing to do with the continuity of each of the calculated possible trajectories. During its journey, a particle might change, or be destroyed, but not without an intervening force causing it.

Inside the LHC two protons collide and the Higgs particle emerges. Researchers had predicted the emergence of the Higgs particle on the basis of one Higgs particle emergence for every 30 billion proton-to-proton collisions. Since the researchers, using statistical analysis, detected the Higgs particle, we see no continuity issue attached to a probability calculation of the Higgs particle emergence.

Quoting ucarr

It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I really don't see how you apprehend contradiction here. The prediction is based in a relation of probability, not in a relation of necessity. However, when this relation (the cause effect relation) is taken to be a relation of necessity, the illusion of continuity is created.

This isn't what you wrote originally:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

The illusion of continuity [math]?[/math]... the probability distribution...

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

The prediction [math]=[/math] prediction of probability [math]=[/math] therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity...

Quoting ucarr

You've also made a claim.

No. I've rejected your claim. It does seem, unfortunately, that you misunderstand basic tenets of exchange, reason and relation. It is making things difficult. We ran into this last year, and it seems MU is getting it now. Perhaps reflect on some of these criticisms with an open mind. It seems your entire mode is to simply push-back even when things you say aren't relevant.

Quoting ucarr

Why are the calculated probabilities of possible values of a variable not part of a relation of probability of possible outcomes?

a probability distribution is not a relation of probability. MU is trying to point out that the actual probability isn't relevant to his main thrust. The thrush is that your conception of continuity is nothing but close-nit probability giving hte illusion of same. Your comments in terms of the probability issue don't seem to actually address this. They appear to claim that, despite MU talking about two aspects separately, having different consequences to the argument, that they are contradictory. I told you they are not, as did MU.

I'm not sure more can be done.

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

Quoting ucarr

It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.

Quoting AmadeusD

Third party here - no, they don't.

Your claim is a refutation of my claim. It makes a declaration about the truth content of my claim, finding it to be zero.

Why do you think your refutation of my claim's truth content is not another claim that needs to be supported by a logical argument?

In a court of law, as you know, when one side says the other has made a contradictory statement, and then the side accused of making a contradictory statement says, "I did not make a contradictory statement." the judge then requires the side making the denial to prove their denial. In summary, we see that a claim of making a contradictory statement has been leveled against the other side, and then the other side denies it. The judge, hearing the denial, knows the denial is another claim, and thus demands the denier present an argument supporting the denial.

Quoting AmadeusD

It does seem, unfortunately, that you misunderstand basic tenets of exchange, reason and relation. It is making things difficult. We ran into this last year, and it seems MU is getting it now. Perhaps reflect on some of these criticisms with an open mind. It seems your entire mode is to simply push-back even when things you say aren't relevant.

Consider: As you see at the top of this post, I reposted MUs statements I find contradictory. I've edited out the extraneous details to clarify the parts of his statements I'm addressing.

This is evidence I present to support my claim of contradiction; I attempt to show, in MU's own words, the contradiction I believe him to have made. The point I'm making now isn't concerned with the correctness of my interpretation of MU's statements. I'm attempting to show I follow proper procedure when I participate in rational discourse. When I push-back on someone's claim because I believe it false, I always provide either evidence - as in this case - or a logical argument, or both.

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting AmadeusD

You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument. But for clarity:

Quoting AmadeusD

a probability distribution is not a relation of probability.

Consider: Two basketball players. Each player tries to hit the same jump shot from the same free throw line. A statistical analyst watches each player shoot the same shot twenty-five times. He calculates a probability distribution based on the twenty-five shots taken by each player. His conclusion says Player A has a fifty per cent chance of making shot #26, and Player B has a twenty-five per cent chance of making shot #26. Now we see Player A's chance of making the shot is twice that of Player B's chance of making the shot, according to the probability distribution.

Why do you think this probability distribution is not a relation of probability?

Quoting ucarr

In a court of law, as you know, when one side says the other has made a contradictory statement, and then the side accused of making a contradictory statement says, "I did not make a contradictory statement." the judge then requires the side making the denial to prove their denial.

Absolutely not. BUt if this is how you feel things go, then I am not surprised. Denial is a full response in court. The claim must be proved, not the denial. That is, in fact, how all debates go. In court, particularly important. Judges remind juries constantly that a defendant not providing any testimony or evidence does not indicate anything whatsoever. The entire point is that the prosecution prove their case, either on probability, or beyond reasonable doubt. At no stage, ever, does a judge require proof of denial. You're talking about disputed facts.

Quoting ucarr

As you see at the top of this post, I reposted MUs statements I find contradictory.

They clearly are not. I cannot say more.

Quoting ucarr

Why do you think this probability distribution is not a relation of probability?

You're not asking close to the correct question to address the issue. The distribution and the relation are separate properties/elements. Obviously. So, yeah. Not much else to say

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting ucarr

In a court of law, as you know, when one side says the other has made a contradictory statement, and then the side accused of making a contradictory statement says, "I did not make a contradictory statement." the judge then requires the side making the denial to prove their denial.

Don't be mislead by the fact the prosecution must prove its case against the defendant, and not the other way around. Both the prosecution and the defense make claims of fact they must prove. So if a claim of innocence is based upon the defendant not being at the scene of the crime, in order to persuade a jury in their favor, they must prove their absence from the scene of the crime over and above the prosecution's proof they were present at the scene of the crime. Simple denial won't do. You can be confident this is correct because a prosecutor won't initiate a case lacking solid evidence proving the guilt of the defendant. Without being able to plausibly meet the burden of proof, the prosecution would be thwarted by simple denial.

If the defense could win their cases with simple denial, who would ever need a defense attorney?

Quoting AmadeusD

Absolutely not. BUt if this is how you feel things go, then I am not surprised. Denial is a full response in court. The claim must be proved, not the denial. That is, in fact, how all debates go. In court, particularly important. Judges remind juries constantly that a defendant not providing any testimony or evidence does not indicate anything whatsoever. The entire point is that the prosecution prove their case, either on probability, or beyond reasonable doubt. At no stage, ever, does a judge require proof of denial. You're talking about disputed facts.

Your purist argument is true, but I don't believe one person in ten thousand would enter a courtroom as a mute defendant without a defense attorney. Moreover, with indigent defendants, the court assigns a public defender free of charge. No one but a purist thinks a mute defense is sound.

Regarding how all of this relates to your naysaying my claim of contradiction by MU, am I to suppose that in a debate, you'd make a denial without supporting it, and then stand mute while your opponent advances a cogent argument against it?

Quoting ucarr

Why do you think this probability distribution is not a relation of probability?

Quoting AmadeusD

You're not asking close to the correct question to address the issue. The distribution and the relation are separate properties/elements.

Why do you think a distribution of differential probabilities is not interrelated? One of the points of the distribution is to compare levels of probability.

Why do you think a distribution of plotted trajectories has anything to do with the internal consistency and coherence of each trajectory? MU wants to argue probability means the individual trajectories are incoherent and thus their beginning state and ending state are discontinuous. If he can establish this dis-continuity, then he can insert by conjecture possible non-physical agents of change and causation independent of physics.

MU wants to ride piggyback atop the dynamism of physics, then, at the critical moment of his conjectured dis-continuity of the trajectory of the particle, insert his immaterial agents, i.e., immaterial information doing an immaterial info exchange at the last lap of the trajectory, thus proving both the independence and causal power of immaterial info.

So far he doesn't answer the question why none of his independent, immaterial things can't do anything observable without the grounding of physics.

I want to point out, this is now quite off topic. It will become clear I see no reason to continue this, so take these responses and understand I wont be coming back to this. It's clogging the thread, and is a serious bore.

Quoting ucarr

Your purist argument is true, but I don't believe one person in ten thousand would enter a courtroom as a mute defendant without a defense attorney.

Then you do not know a whole lot about court cases.
Quoting ucarr

If the defense could win their cases with simple denial, who would ever need a defense attorney?

This is so disingenuous It's really hard to give you the time of day. I did not intimate this was the case. I did not intimate this was 'common'. I did not intimate that this was even relevant.

The answer to this clearly irrelevant question though is thus:
In almost any case that might eventually require a trial is preceded by several hearings. Probable cause, disputed facts, standing etc.. etc... all need sorting.
The Judge actually has to decide whether or not the prosecution even has a case, given the evidence they want to present at trial. If the evidence isn't good enough (depending on the type of charge, the burden of guilt (probable, reasonable doubt) etc.. etc..) the judge will simply throw out the case. A plain denial is a full response, and a vindication in those cases.
In a situation where it's somewhat marginal (i.e several circumstantial pieces of evidence) it is not entirely unusual for a defendant to simply allow the Jury to see the prosecution evidence, confident it doesn't prove the charge, and twiddle their thumbs while the prosecution makes their case. What you've asserted is that I must think that there are no cases in which the prosecution has a good case. That is not the case. I did not intimate that.

I would urge you, as I did several times last year, to carefully read posts prior to replying. You often say things that aren't easy to reply to, because they aren't sensible in the context.

Quoting ucarr

Both the prosecution and the defense make claims of fact they must prove

No. The defence will only do this if they feel the need to offer an 'alternative theory' to the prosecutions theory that they committed the crime. If there's decent evidence to support the prosecution theory, defense needs to get into gear. Otherwise, why bother? No jury would convict. A single judge might have thought the evidence was compelling. A jury may not.

Quoting ucarr

they must prove their absence from the scene of the crime over and above the prosecution's proof they were present at the scene of the crime.

This is a clear example of you misunderstanding the basic tenets I pointed out. No, They do not need to 'prove their absence'. If the prosecution has no evidence they were there, the prosecution has no case. End of. Defense need do nothing. It's in cases, such as above, where there is circumstantial evidence they may have been there that the defense will bother with an alibi. Even in those cases, It's entirely possible for the defendant to rely on "beyond reasonable doubt" and present nothing. Risky as fuck though, to be sure. Most attorneys/solicitors would not want to do this.

Quoting ucarr

You can be confident this is correct because a prosecutor won't initiate a case lacking solid evidence proving the guilt of the defendant

False. Cases are often thrown out because of this, or at least don't make it to trial. I would add, the types of cases you're talking about are almost always private prosecution. Those lawyers love money. That isn't the State v XXX its XX v YY. In those situations, its usually a he-said she-said. Your position would amount to every single prosecution being successful, prior to trial. Which is as ridiculous as the notion that no defense case requires evidence. Neither of us are actually pretending we think that, I'm sure.

Quoting ucarr

Without being able to plausibly meet the burden of proof, the prosecution would be thwarted by simple denial.

This is how you lose a case, as a prosecutor. Are you under the impression that all cases come with overwhelming evidence? Or that evidence of presence could somehow be rebutted once produced at trial? Neither of these things make sense, my friend. Cases require the prosecution to meet the burden of proof. Defense does not hold this burden as they are responding to a claim. They need prove nothing. While this is obviously not relevent the USA which may be where you're basing your claims, the quote from this link is telling:

"As a defendant, you are not required to present evidence (see section 25(d) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). You are not required to prove that you are innocent; it is the prosecutor’s role to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of committing the offence(s) you have been charged with."

Quoting ucarr

No one but a purist thinks a mute defense is sound.

False. You are pretending I have made a claim about all cases. Not so. And I wont take too seriously a bare assertion to the contrary. Go read some case law (this is rhetorical - you probably don't have data base access). As I said above, and you seem to have missed, Judges regularly instruct juries to make nothing of the defense producing no evidence or not testifying. This is not uncommon. This literally happens weekly, possibly daily, across various courts. Lawyers often instruct their clients not to testify because they risk saying something dumb, or revealing some secondary crime, or at the very least hurting their own credibility. If you simply don't believe me, that's fine, but you're wrong here.

Quoting ucarr

Regarding how all of this relates to your naysaying my claim of contradiction by MU, am I to suppose that in a debate, you'd make a denial without supporting it, and then stand mute while your opponent advances a cogent argument against it?

This is just as disingenuous as the previous part of your reply which was just so.

No. If you've made that of what i've said, that is a misinterpretation. One that seems, I am sorry to say, purposeful.
You made a claim. I denied it. That's the end of that, unless you want to provide support for your claim.
You failed to provide any support for your claim(on my view, to be sure). I am free to walk away denying it.
That's how it works. I am not required to answer to a claim which has not been supported. That is also how courts work, to the point that what's called "summary judgment" has been invented to cover this common circumstance. This is different to our situation though, which would be called a 'disputed facts hearing'. In this case, we would both provide evidence of hte 'facts'. The judge decides which is more likely, and from there it would perhaps be possibly to apply for a summary judgement if all facts fall on one side of the dispute. IN this case, all I need do is provide MU's statements and right-thinking person would clearly note there is no contradiction without interpolating. This is something you do with almost every post, so I am not particularly concerned there.

In this case, there is no judge. In my view, you failed to support your assertion. Therefore it was dismissed. Hitchens Razor.

These are all standard concepts. Your position is counter to them. Therefore, I am confident in leaving it here.

Quoting ucarr

Why do you think a distribution of differential probabilities is not interrelated? One of the points of the distribution is to compare levels of probability.

Once again asking the wrong question. This has nothing to do with what was disputed. THe dispute has to do with your erroneous claim of contradiction. It was erroneous. I do not need to clothe the Emperor.

Quoting ucarr

MU wants to argue probability means the individual trajectories are incoherent and thus their beginning state and ending state are discontinuous.

No. That is not hte case, from any reading I can make (including several fairly pain-staked clarifications on MU's part. I fail to see how you are not understanding those). He is saying that probability (not a distribution there of) gives an illusion of continuity between T1 and T2 where in fact, there is a gap. There was no contradiction.

Your final two paragraphs are, in this context, incoherent to me. I leave htem be. Thanks for you time.

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting ucarr

...they must prove their absence from the scene of the crime over and above the prosecution's proof they were present at the scene of the crime.

Quoting AmadeusD

This is a clear example of you misunderstanding the basic tenets I pointed out. No, They do not need to 'prove their absence'. If the prosecution has no evidence they were there, the prosecution has no case.

You'll notice I've bolded the part of my statement that says an active defense is needed when the prosecution does have proof - I should've said "evidence" - since it might be interpreted as damning. Moreover, as you've needlessly pointed out, it's assumed that a case that goes to trial includes potent evidence against the defendant. Technically speaking, however, you're right, it's still true that the defendant need not speak nor engage council for a defense.

Quoting ucarr

You can be confident this is correct because a prosecutor won't initiate a case lacking solid evidence proving the guilt of the defendant

Quoting AmadeusD

False. Cases are often thrown out because of this, or at least don't make it to trial.

It's my understanding that the District Attorney is interested in viable cases, considering that his/her record impacts the outcome of the next election.

Quoting ucarr

Without being able to plausibly meet the burden of proof, the prosecution would be thwarted by simple denial.

Quoting AmadeusD

Are you under the impression that all cases come with overwhelming evidence? Or that evidence of presence could somehow be rebutted once produced at trial?

As I've been saying for some time now, both the prosecution and the defense need to exercise skillful judgment regarding the viability of a case. Even though it's a separate issue from the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the two issues are closely related within a complex relationship.

Quoting ucarr

Don't be misled by the fact the prosecution must prove its case against the defendant, and not the other way around. Both the prosecution and the defense [are liable to] make claims of fact they must prove [in their own interest].

You note how defendants oftentimes refuse to testify. Usually this is because their defense attorney is presenting cogent rebuttals to the accusations. I don't suppose you're trying to suggest the defense has an advantage over the prosecution. Therefore, I think it reasonable to say, regarding any possible difference for the two sides going in, it's akin to the white pieces moving first in the game of chess.

Quoting ucarr

No one but a purist thinks a mute defense is sound.

Quoting AmadeusD

As I said above, and you seem to have missed, Judges regularly instruct juries to make nothing of the defense producing no evidence or not testifying. This is not uncommon. This literally happens weekly, possibly daily, across various courts. Lawyers often instruct their clients not to testify...

Yes, I see now that a mute witness and a mute defense are two different things. The presence of the defense attorney sets them widely apart.

Quoting ucarr

Regarding how all of this relates to your naysaying my claim of contradiction by MU, am I to suppose that in a debate, you'd make a denial without supporting it, and then stand mute while your opponent advances a cogent argument against it?

Quoting AmadeusD

This is just as disingenuous as the previous part of your reply which was just so.

Quoting AmadeusD

No. If you've made that of what i've said, that is a misinterpretation. One that seems, I am sorry to say, purposeful. You made a claim. I denied it. That's the end of that, unless you want to provide support for your claim. You failed to provide any support for your claim (on my view, to be sure). I am free to walk away denying it. That's how it works. I am not required to answer to a claim which has not been supported. That is also how courts work, to the point that what's called "summary judgment" has been invented to cover this common circumstance.

Quoting AmadeusD

In this case, there is no judge. In my view, you failed to support your assertion. Therefore it was dismissed. Hitchens Razor.

These are all standard concepts. Your position is counter to them. Therefore, I am confident in leaving it here.

In the long sequence below, I present MUs statement, provide my argument for deeming it contradictory, and then you make your denial of my argument. Since you quote me when I charge MU with being contradictory, the evidence suggests you've read my argument. Are you attempting to lie your way out of acknowledging you've read my argument?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.

Quoting ucarr

As I read your above quote, I get: The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

Compare, side-by-side, my two readings, which boil down your words to the gist of their meaning:

The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.

Quoting AmadeusD

Third party here - no, they don't.

Haven't you been making an astute defense of the right to deny and then remain silent? The evidence is before us: you weighed in on a debate with a simple denial, and then defended your subsequent silence:

Quoting ucarr

It's clear from your words [Metaphysician Undercover] that your two statements contradict each other.

Quoting AmadeusD

Third party here - no, they don't.

Quoting AmadeusD

Denial is a full response in court. The claim must be proved, not the denial. That is, in fact, how all debates go.

You did provide a supporting argument:

Quoting AmadeusD

You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument. But for clarity:

Quoting AmadeusD

...a probability distribution is not a relation of probability.

But I had to request it, and your tone in providing it suggested to me you felt you were doing me a favor.

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting ucarr

Why do you think a distribution of differential probabilities is not interrelated? One of the points of the distribution is to compare levels of probability.

Quoting AmadeusD

Once again asking the wrong question. This has nothing to do with what was disputed. THe dispute has to do with your erroneous claim of contradiction. It was erroneous. I do not need to clothe the Emperor.

My question above is directly related to your argument supporting your denial of my charge of contradiction. I repost it below:

Quoting AmadeusD

You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument. But for clarity:

Quoting AmadeusD

...a probability distribution is not a relation of probability.

A clarifying example that helps the reader to understand my question, which I already posted to you yesterday, is reposted below.

Quoting ucarr

Consider: Two basketball players. Each player tries to hit the same jump shot from the same free throw line. A statistical analyst watches each player shoot the same shot twenty-five times. He calculates a probability distribution based on the twenty-five shots taken by each player. His conclusion says Player A has a fifty per cent chance of making shot #26, and Player B has a twenty-five per cent chance of making shot #26. Now we see Player A's chance of making the shot is twice that of Player B's chance of making the shot, according to the probability distribution.

Why do you think this probability distribution is not a relation of probability?

You're ignoring my clarification. Why should I not think you're hiding behind your claim my question is irrelevant? Why should I not think you're hiding behind it because you cannot think of a sound refutation?

Quoting ucarr

So your answer is, "No, we directly experience neither the future nor the present. Only the past is observed directly."

Since sensory processing by the brain at light speed is time-lagged only nanoseconds behind sensory stimulus, and thus it is negligible, you, like me, always wake up in the empirical present, it being noted you call it the past.

If this is true, as I judge it, based upon your words, then I see your temporal direction, like mine, is a passage through a never-ending, nanoseconds time-lagged sequence of pasts.

This is not true. I also recognized, and have explained, why we "wake up" in the non-empirical present, just as much as we "wake up" in the empirical present. The empirical present consists of observations of the past, as you explain here, but the non-empirical present consists of desires and anticipations of the future. That is not a matter to be debated. We are just as much in the future as we are in the past.

The question of which of these two, the past or the future, has a greater effect on us, and therefore ought to be handed priority is a matter to be debated. I would argue that the future ought to be assigned priority, as we notice that a person's intention directs one's attention. And in general we apply our experience of the past toward getting what we want. So are guided by what we want and desire, therefore the future has a greater effect on us than the past.

Quoting ucarr

Multiplicity of possibilities isn't always born of incomplete info. Heisenberg's uncertainty equation knows both axes for the trajectory vector of a particle: position and momentum. However, due to an existential limitation on measurement within QM, only one or the other axis can be known to a useful degree of accuracy.

Again, this is not true, uncertainty does indicate incomplete information. "Uncertainty" refers to the attitude of the knower, as a feature of the knowledge. When you say uncertainty is "...due to an existential limitation on measurement..." you are referring to the cause of this incomplete information, when you say "due to".

You may insist that this "uncertainty" is the result of an "existential limitation on measurement", and that is what I called the limitations of observability, but this is not a complete explanation. It does not explain how these limitations cause the knowledge which ought to consist only of certainties, to get contaminated with uncertainties.

I explained to you already how this uncertainty is due to a lack of correspondence between the mathematical principles and the reality of the observable physical world. The "infinite series" of calculus, treats the limit as infinitely small, zero. The limitations of the observable world result in a boundary, or limit, which is non-zero, infinitesimal (as exemplified by Planck length). The uncertainty of the uncertainty principle is due to this lack of correspondence, which is an epistemic problem. This failure of correspondence between the mathematical principles and the reality of the observable physical world, allows that the unknown, (which could be excluded from physics, and left as the non-physical part of reality which physics cannot explain), gets incorporated into the expression, the representation of the physical world, as the uncertainty of that representation.

Quoting ucarr

Firstly, your language here is clear. Had it been your original language, I would'nt've called out a contradiction.

OK, so my language was unclear, and you thought there was contradiction where there was not.

Quoting ucarr

Can a particle traverse one Planck length? Yes.

No it does not. That is the issue, with the uncertainty of the particle's location. We cannot say that the particle traverses that length because it's location in that extremely short duration of time when it is assumed to be moving, cannot be known. That is why physicists say that it takes every possible path from A to B. There is a discontinuity of information, such that we cannot really say that a particle even exists during this time. That's why its better to defer to the non-physical at this point, the circumstances are such that the principles of physics do not apply.

Quoting ucarr

If we examine a particle with multiple possible trajectories across a distance, Planck scale or otherwise,
we know that one of the trajectories will cover a distance traveled by the particle. The calculation of the probability of the particle taking a particular trajectory has nothing to do with the continuity of each of the calculated possible trajectories. During its journey, a particle might change, or be destroyed, but not without an intervening force causing it.

This is utterly misleading. We cannot say that the supposed "particle" takes any "particular trajectory". Therefore we cannot say that it has "a trajectory", "a journey", or even that it exists in the meantime. There is a very clear lack of continuity of the supposed "particle", in this time period, Therefore we cannot talk about changes to the particle in this duration.

Quoting ucarr

This isn't what you wrote originally:

Of course it is not what I wrote earlier, I had to clarify what I had said, because you (wrongly) interpreted what I was saying as contradictory.

Quoting ucarr

I attempt to show, in MU's own words, the contradiction I believe him to have made.

This makes no sense. If I could see contradiction in my own words, I would not have said them. You need to explain to me in your words, why you think what I have said is contradictory. But you haven't. Each time you tried, you simply demonstrated that you misunderstood. Now you just take snippets of what I said, without any context, and wrongly claim that these snippets constitute contradiction.

Quoting ucarr

MU wants to argue probability means the individual trajectories are incoherent and thus their beginning state and ending state are discontinuous

You continue to misunderstand. I've insisted that the discontinuity is a discontinuity of information. If we could say that possible trajectory #642 is necessarily the actual trajectory, then we have complete information, no discontinuity of information. If we cannot say necessarily, which trajectory is the actual trajectory, this implies a lack (gap) of information. Further, I argue that in the case of quantum "particles", the lack of information is due to a real, ontological, gap of existence of the physical "particle". This is an ontological discontinuity of the physical "particle" between t1 and t2. This ontological discontinuity is the cause of the lack of information, which produces the need to express the "particle's" location in terms of "probability" rather than expressing where the particle necessarily is.

Quoting ucarr

MU wants to ride piggyback atop the dynamism of physics, then, at the critical moment of his conjectured dis-continuity of the trajectory of the particle, insert his immaterial agents, i.e., immaterial information doing an immaterial info exchange at the last lap of the trajectory, thus proving both the independence and causal power of immaterial info.

This is a misrepresentation. There is a very real discontinuity of the "particle" as demonstrated by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is an expression of the obvious, common sense principle, that "the particle" cannot be moving and have a specific location at the same time. That's obvious to you, right? Zeno brought this to our attention. If a particle has momentum (movement), it cannot have a location ( a position), and if it has a position it cannot have movement (momentum). So we've assigned this sort of dichotomous scenario, either the particle has this or it has that. Simply put, either it has movement (momentum), or it has rest (location).

But this invites a fully valid philosophical question. If a particle goes from having a location (rest) to having momentum (motion), what happens in between? What constitutes this change? This is the problem of acceleration. If something goes from being at rest, zero velocity, to being in motion, having some velocity, then there must be a duration of time when the rate of acceleration is infinite. So a philosopher might ask, what is happening, what type of change is this, when a thing's rate of acceleration is infinite.