Timeless Explanation: A New Kind of Causality, Julian Barbour
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- There are serious indications from attempts to create a quantum theory of gravity that time must disappear completely from the description of the quantum universe. This has been known since 1967, when DeWitt discovered the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. I shall argue that this forces us to conceive explanation and causality in an entirely new way. The present can no longer be understood as the consequence of the past. Instead, I shall suggest that one may have to distinguish possible presents on the basis of their intrinsic structure, not on the basis of an assumed temporal ordering. If correct, this could have far-reaching implications. Hitherto, because the present has always been interpreted as the lawful consequence of the past, science has made no attempt to answer 'Why' questions, only 'How' questions. But if there is no past in the traditional sense, we must consider things differently. Thus, if we eliminate time, we may even be able to start asking "Why" questions.
***
Specification of a point and tangent vector in conformal superspace (CS) determines a slab of spacetime in CMC foliation and unique curve in CS.
Almost perfect implementation of Mach's principle because local inertial frames, local proper distance and local proper time all emergent and determined by the universe's shape and shape velocity.
The Mystery: Shape velocity, as opposed to shape direction, is last vestige of Newton's absolute space and time. Responsible for expansion of the universe and perhaps perfect transformation theory in quantum theory of the universe.
This lecture was delivered on the 16th Kraków Methodological Conference "The Causal Universe", May 17-18, 2012.
More information:
causal-universe.philosophyinsc...
copernicuscenter.edu.pl
Photos:
www.adamwalanus.pl/2012/cc1205...
I'm not 8 minutes into this lecture and I'm blown away! Great speaker, knowledgeable, energetic, passionate. Just great!
Barbour is very enthusiastic, so the signs are that he may really be on to something. However, I think you need to be familiar with his work already to make much sense of this admittedly spirited and engaging presentation.
Like other thinkers, Julian makes liberal use of the term "distance" as though we are readily to understand what he means by this; but what is distance exactly, and how can we be sure that it is a genuinely primitive notion, as he seems to suppose? The term may simply refer to a commonsense fiction - expedient, of course, in our everyday lives, but otherwise fundamentally untrue. How might we explain the idea of distance (as a primitive) without recourse to circularity?
18:00...by the way, what time should I stop this talk? lol, wonderful!
As far as I know he is right on time.
So time and causality emerges from there being a lot (a LOT!) of nearly identical states, creating the appearance of evolving states?
Three particles-? Or three points-! Particles have size and attendent field waves, spacetime coordination 'contortion' and deBroglie mass-energy waves if they're moving where the speed of light is finite, etc....
When the speaker is explaining slides, we get to see him standing, with the slide in the background, unreadable. Full screen slides when they're being explained PLEASE.
Is it too high tech to tap into the PA system to bypass room reverb?
It seems a lot more like I'm in the room just as it is.
Hi there if it help, I think that Tjarda Boekholt team already solved 3 body problem in black holes, time irreversible. ....all the best.
The methodology of a speculative temporal philosophy
With the scientific development pointing into a certain direction across various disciplines, that time could only be an illusion, accompanied by a societal consensus vis-a-vis this conception, i decided to try and concept a new view on the philosphy of timelessness.
Asking yourself anything, being the main tool of all of philosphy, the questions that are being stated by a philosophy of timelessness are going to represent the core of this treatment. For some of them, first approaches are going to be delivered, which are to be executed at another point. This way, a first conception of this philosophy is to be proposed, and the foundation of the methodological framework for further considerations to be layed down.
The first obstacle to be overcome is the language. Besides others, the first ones to encounter some difficulties are the ones who try to define the nature of timelessness using a language which fundamental structure depends on the temporal order of being things.
Considering this, all expressions that are to be viewed on the background of timelessness, will be accompanied by a corresponding reference or a new term will be introduced.
The understanding of those terms, demands a high level of cognitive devotion to the following premise:
Time does only exist as a mental construct.
Regarding the previously stated warning, it is the language that creates a mental contradiction by speaking these words.
But since time cant be eliminated on a cognitive level, it is not yet necessary to predict an attack on the day to day semiotics.
But since we just eliminated time from a physical level, some of the rather intuitiv answers to simple questions seem not to be applicable anymore and other previously not even thought of questions seem to be pressing for an elegant solution.
Imagine a physical world without time, a consortium of from one another least possibly different nows, only connected through the laws of nature.
Every one of those nows would be equal in the face of timelessness and all of them would be happening simultaneously.
But there are nows, that include time, and it are those ones which include intelligent life itself.
Since intelligent life has to be made possible by selfawareness, and it itself needs a concept of a past and future self, u cant speak of single nows but rather a now complex.
Since there is no temporal Order of things, common physical equations have to be translated into the language of temporal philosophy as seen below:
A system moving at the speed v changes its state at a rate lower by a facotr of (1 − v2/c2)−1/2
than the system in the rest frame, meaning that every human life( if and as long as it has a concept of time )represents such a now complex, in which time is to be found, but only within the boundaries of the associated mind.
If the human consciousness moves in time, but the corresponding body itself does not, the conclusion is to be drawn, that at smaller mergers of nows within the human now complex, there are separate consciousnesses feeling the journey through time.
Therefore it has to be calculable how many of those conscious states a human now complex includes and therefore how often one appears in his own life.
The respective subject is then limited by time, constructed of almost innurable states of consciousness, all regarding themselves as the real present one, for eternity.
To put it in simpler terms: Your life is like a book, with the pages torn out and distributed on the floor. Every single page does exist equally next to the other, for ever.
Death can be defined as the first now of human now complex, from which on all following nows of that complex are not able to simulate the associated consciousness in relation to all other systems of the universe. This topic will be further discussed in the chapter devoted to the language analytics of the temporal Philosophy.
Going further into the book metaphor, you have a Universe consisting of several books, one them you, and the rate at which you read one book in relation to another is only determined by gravity and speed, the direction in which it is read by the laws of thermodynamics, the physical foundation will be specified at a given time. You should have a clearer pictures now, about the fundamental laws that determine this philosophy and to not stretch this introduction unnecessary i am now going to state the various forms of life that will be at the center of this philosophy.
It is defined by its relation to time and its perception and the practical part of this philosophy will be devoted to finding a series of demands u can set for interactions with the different kinds of life.
It will take some effort and will be discussed in different parts of this treatment but we will be able to split life into 4 categories:
unaware life
Aware life
Selfaware life
Selfaware life aware of timelessnes
Intuitivly less accessible and harder to visualize is going the be the approach to put a moral value on certain action, since the calculation will be determined by variable views on time, simply because life of every categories includes certain aspects of the previous categories and you will have to consider all possible angles on time before even trying on depicting a normative ethics of timelessness.
For the introduction into the temporal philosophy it will be enough to have a basic understanding of classical physics, thermodynamics and relativity. Quantummechanics will be introduced at a later stage to help us save the problem of the eternal return and derive the free will.
The speculative nature of this philosophy lays within the fact, that there is no scientific prove of its premise at the time this is being written and it therefore does not claim any sort of legitimation or applicability in the present moment.
I do think however, that a willing reader will have to accept the fact that a lot of things would have to change in human interaction if this premise is proven at a certain point and in the cultural evolution of every temporal philosophy it will be stated why a civilization is only able to conduct this thought process at a certain point of its development and even later will be able to accept its conclusions .
Aim of the methodology of the speculative temporal philosophy shall be: to present a perhaps purely biological distinction between the various layers of life made possible through a metaphysical framework in concurrence with and through current physical theories, along with the existing parameters respective to the aforementioned metaphysics study, as a basis for my chief work.
What courtroom is this?
Does JB believe there is direction and order in the universe or that it is random and chaotic?
"It's just like heaven, being here with you. You're like a genie, too good to be true. Cause after all Dear, I love you, I do. Angle-Baby, my Angle-Baby..."
Good point.
Waaaaaaaay over my head. I understood the first 20 minutes, and then he started mentioning "geodysics" and whatnot and my mind went blank.
+Matthew Doan Geodesics. A geodesic is basically the shortest distance between two points in curved space. For example, on Earth airplane pilots will usually follow particular curves called "great circles" to get from A to B. Those great circles are geodesics, so they can save fuel by following them.
In general relativity, you have something similar applied to spacetime. In fact, general relativity replaces Newton's 1st Law with a similar principle, that objects moving only under the influence of gravity follow geodesics in spacetime.
I believe Barbour was mostly talking about geodesics in a more abstract mathematical space, called shape space.
Ian MathWiz That's very interesting. Thanks!
+Matthew Doan Interesting maybe but it's still crap.
Lol.
Amazing for those who understand ^_^
Angles do not help me find the natural frequency of a spring-mass system or a capacitor and an inductor in parallel. Small delta lambda or small delta t, emergent or not, there seems to be other fundamental things alongside geometry that need to be measured and quantified. Nobody is arguing against the beauty in variational formulation; Whether a continuous or discrete formulation is a better fit is not the concern either. If Galileo was one of the listeners, he wouldn't have understood the Lie groups involved but I suspect he would have had a problem with the message in the lecture, not with the mathematical rigor.
Two identical clocks tick similarly. If we observe that they don't under certain conditions we need to observe the external conditions that cause this; the emphasis is on observation.
If your friend's watch falls back 5 minutes a day and you synchronize your watches and agree to meet tomorrow at the same time, he or she will be 5 minutes late. If you were to decide to meet the day after tomorrow instead, he or she will be 10 minutes late. We integrate over your "time" to reach this conclusion. We could have used the earth's rotation angle as the integration variable to arrive at the same conclusion if your watch keeps in synch with earths rotation. Time being an emergent quantity means nothing more that this.
If there was only the sun, the moon and the earth in the whole universe, our lives would pretty much be the same and with a definite answer of what an inertial reference frame is. This would have also meant that angular momentum of the universe would be non-zero; a concept hard to understand even in this simple universe. Three body system is difficult for humans to solve with the mathematical tools available to us; celestial bodies do not seem to have a problem following the trajectories prescribed by the solution. The difficulty in three-body-problem is a technical one and not related to existence or non-existence of inertial reference frames.
Skewing and dilation can naturally be added to represent a transformation. But my brain hurts thinking about whether we can construct elasticity tensors involved with deformations of such triangles and whether forces involved can also be superimposed similarly.
I enjoyed this lecture a great deal. For some reason or another people of geometry created number of taboos in the history of science and it makes me fidgety wondering if supremacy of geometry is being defended in lectures on such topics.
This is key even to perception of simple color.
A correlation between color substitutions, or a color that does not occupy a frequency on the visible spectrum, and any intentional perception experience, makes more sense, and is spatially irrespective, of a "causal" relation for the "normal" color illusion.
An "illusion of an illusion" must dispense with a temporal assumption in cause-effect chains, regardless of what the compromise process-object of the brain "presents" to consciousness.
You don't need the physics if the "red" only inheres in the local "clockwork" of the apple anyway.
I think you have to copy your post, delete in, then paste your previous chat back into a new Reply text box.
Edit before posting.
I've not seen an edit feature on YT.
This is fascinating and I feel like it just has to be onto something. Just some basic "musing" about how a one-object universe makes it seem completely clear that Mach was on the right track. Inertia, linear and angular, seem unavoidably tied to the global mass distribution. And as far as I know we just don't know how this works. We take inertial density just as a given for each material.
Causality is systemic and reflexive. State/syntax relations are assigned by the overall system (universe) according to the overall status of the system. Each quantum state updates the system, which in turn defines each state/syntax relation. This is proven in QM, where the difference between an observable wave pattern and an observable particle pattern is only dependent on the introduction or removal of novel information into the overall system, namely information related to trajectory.
Existence is timeless, change is impossible.
Parmenides
"And there you have it; time does not exist. By the way, what time should I stop this talk?"
I believe there would be an 11th dimension or real objects that would be the ratio matter to energy, but I agree on the premise of the 10 other dimensions.
Does he read the nvidia image processing via triangles? Yet dimensions are not just the number of Parametric numbers to describe something.
He must ask how a viscous aether can null viscosity by a curl at vacume void points of matter. Counterspace curl operates back and fore in time spacially and in phase, ask Feynman. You might think of it as convergent itteration about the "now".
Btw he thinks the world is not flat nor not moving. Oh such genius.
He is wrong about triangles,one side of each is the same in over lap.
Also one point of each can be set at that exact same place
So,you only have two points to examine
Jullian Barbour has elemenated time from the equation in order to try the round peg of Quantum theory into the square hole of relativity and gravitational theory. He considers change in positions that occur in the universe as event or in his words "Now" or series of "Nows. He feel that a series of "Nows" can replace time. However he forget that a series of event occuring in succesion is linear just like "time" linear. Is he taalking about symantics?
hahaha... that made my day a funny one :) thanx mate!
I was watching this and I feel asleep in no time at all
54:11 ...great
Defining an angle between opinions.
The angle between my opinion and his opinion is 175° (almost opposite direction)
Or let's say, my opinion is phase shifted to his opinion.
Of course, you can describe everything by angles, or spins, or whatever.
But why?
And why a space of shapes?
To explain causality, you only need an order of (timeless???) Events.
To understand the universe, you need an order, a direction of counting and german "Sauerkraut" of course :D
That's all!
I listened to this yesterday, found it fascinating, but utterly failed to grasp it. Last night I found this paper: www.researchgate.net/publication/225683033_The_Definition_of_Mach%27s_Principle, and I read it. Very good. I'm re-watching the video and now I can grok it.
An important part of what he's doing is breaking "change" down into categories: 1) changes that correspond to rigid body translation, 2) changes that correspond to rigid body rotation, and 3) change that corresponds to changes in shape. He argues that if you're working with the entire universe (as opposed to a subsystem), then categories 1 and 2 are meaningless, and category 3 is all that's "real." So category 3 represents horizontal shift in that 3D picture he showed earlier, while categories 1 and 2 represent vertical motion along the "fiber." Categories 1 and 2 are pure gauge transformation.
''The probability of causal inference and its quantum irregularities explained'' Is the title of my next book- the problem now is- what to put in it.
Elegant and simple explanation for causal inference and its quantum irregularities
"I've not seen an edit feature on YT. "
It is sure a big lack. Of course, a comment should be locked once there has been an answere to it, so things stay intelligible, but as long as there is none, I cannot see any reason why it could or should not be edited.
typo: *of* not or.
2:00 This is puzzeling me .. "Suppose we have n points fixed in 3 dimensional space ... We measure the distances between the n points...we get n^2 seperations .... it's percicly n into n-1 divided by 2...it's or order n^2."
Why would it be this result? From my point of view it should be (n into 2) which is a combination without counting same distances twice. For 3 points you get 3 distances using my formula. Using his you get 1.5?
Did someone spot my mistake because i would not expact this man to do such mistakes ^^
What is Time?
1. Assume the three dimensional Universe is inside a three dimensional photo Frame. Everything in this universe is dynamic and changing in relative to other things and itself. Entropy is changing also.
2. The whole Universe inside the frame marked as Now Moment is separated from previous Now Moment by shortest possible separator Plunk-time.
3. Last Now Moments are Record, History, Memory or Information. Next Now Moments are next changed states of the Universe inside Frame.
4. Only Now Moment Exist. Past and Future do not exist.
5. Conscious Mind can make predictions of next Moments from experience and can plan events for next Moments.
6. Every Plunk-Volume’s “Now” of the Universe including space and stuffs in it is always in the same Now Moment Frame of the Universe. Relative Clock ticking, fast or slow, at different points for different conditions does not shift anything to previous or next Moment Frames of the Universe. All points Now remain in the Now Moment Frame of the Universe. That is why twins of paradox can meet at any ones Now though relatively they are backward or forward in respect of amount of time elapsed. Time travel is not possible. Our invented Clocks and Calendars are misleading us about time
7. Moment is repeating at Plunk-Time separation, even if nothing is changing, something is changing or all things are changing in the Universe. Flow of Time forward or backward does not exist. No arrow of time. It is arrow of Change. Only Moment is ticking repeatedly at Plunk-Time interval with a 3D-Photo of the Universe. Many clocks are under one Universal clock. Some clocks ticking different than universal clock. Reference frames and Clocks are there at every Plunk-Volume’s.
Does anyone know if Schrödinger used a tomcat or a female?
And don't forget the 'future'. It arrived at the same time
as the past and present.
It is your 'mind' that is the organizing factor.
Time is the 'needle' that strings the 'beads'
of existence.
Anybody who hasn't read, "The End of Time" twice ought to go read it again.
Read it -- sucked. I think he's completely on the wrong track.
Cosmic Landscape
and what about your opinion on Frank's opinion ?
Also, it's not so much that there is no distance, but more that the units we've chosen are by and large, arbitrary. That is, until we do want to pick a reference frame. For the sake of this thought, let's instead call the distance from the center of the earth to center of the sun the fundamental. Our time unit then could be one orbit. What if THAT was the fundamental (bass freq) of our reference frame of interest. All measurements would be ratio based, no? Perhaps we look for units of measure that are not arbitrary, but instead chosen to simplify as many of the harmonics as possible.
OK you're answering that last question as I'm typing. Perhaps we can't pick such a small starting point because everything bigger and smaller than it has an effect. Continuum was on to something with those harmonics though... For real. Not to be a hippie but vibes my man, vibes.
Looks like Windoze 3.1 on the projection screen -- LOL
To call something timeLESSness is like an opposite extreme standpoint of Newton's limited time idea. Even if there is clearly a dynamically interactive universe (like also relativity points to ,an order of coexisting facts) ,still this situation is pointless to describe as dynamical or interactive if one doesn't remember that we know that the universe expands. Again we perhaps see an example that mathematicians are usually confused about reality contexts.
+KibyNykraft Agreed. These days every physicist has to be a mathematician, but being a good mathematician does not necessarilly make a good physicist.
There are senses of 'timeless' with clear legitimacy, and others with less, or none. Expressing he position as 'timeless' is really unfortunate because
The elimination of time, seems bizarre. If you picture and analyze the idea of "absolute" motion ongoing within an "absolute" 4 dimensional Space-Time environment, you end up with Special Relativity and all of its equations, along with discovering that all objects are constantly on the move within Space-Time, and that the constant motion is of the same magnitude of motion as is the speed of light across the spatial vacuum. Taking this ongoing motion into account (motion vector c), velocity into account (motion vector v), and scalar lengths into account ( L, L', etc.), as shown in the following KPS Space-Time diagram, see www.outersecrets.com/real/image/picnequa.png , you quickly derive all of the SR equations( 2 examples given), and at the same time can see that the dimension of time is a necessity.
See goo.gl/fz4R0I for full analysis of "absolute" motion and equation derivations.
He keeps saying rate, evolution, future, and other words that mean time. Personally, I think he is confused.
The three levels of reality in Platonic Physics
Roger B Clough, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Retired)
(11-28-2014)
Abstract
Here we combine the top-down metaphysics of Plato and Leibniz with the inside-out categories of C S Peirce to enable us to view the world in a new, more useful light, simultaneously from two perspectives, and in more detail than Leibniz's pre-established harmony. The top down structuring from Plato and Leibniz allows us to view the world as it is: governed cybernetically by thought from the top singularity (the One, comparable to a computer processing unit), rather than from the ungoverned perspective of current science. This allows us not only to understand the world properly, but to structure the world cybernetically. with all creation, perception and control coming in the form of thought from the top down, but inside out using C S Peirce's three categories.
1. Introduction. While C S Peirce is well known to the philosophy of science, the worlds of Plato and his follower Leibniz have been less explored for such purposes. Plato was an Idealisti and Arthur Eddington spent much of his life adapting Plato to science, but his use of Mind in a world thoroughly established in materialism ihas largely blocked exploration of the use of Mind cybernetically, as a singular, mental control point, so that the current world of science is only governed, if at all, in fiefdoms. But more significantly, materialism and a lack of a single cybernetic control from top down has hindered the develepment of an understanding to consciousness, thought and the role and nature of the self. For example, Dennett in his explanation of consciences does not have a perceiver (or at best a fancifal and abstract invention of one). Moreover the perceiver, to obviate the homunculus with homunculus problem, must be on a higher ontological level, and which has to be a living singular entity, not an abstract reference. By application of Leibniz and Plato and common sense as well,, we see that the perceiver must be singular-- the One, the cybernetic Perceiver and control point, the central processing unit, to use a computer analogy.
The learning curve on Plato-Leibniz is a bit steep at first, foreign to most physical scientists because of their unfamiliar top down control, which is also done indirectly by thought rather than directly by physical interaction, but also because of Leibniz's unfamiliar spreadsheet style ontology, using not atoms but complete concepts called monads, which can be nested like sets. That would seem to render Leibniz more understandable to mathematicians and computer science, but his thinking in terms of substances and monads can be off-putting. Once these are understood (through his Monadology [ ]) and if one sticks to the elementary particles scale (the particles are both substance and monads) one can proceed fairly smoothly.
2. The three levels
Firstness -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin.
Secondness -- Mental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here."
According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz:
a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle).
b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect.
c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind.
The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming.
Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH.
This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions.
Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this.
Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion.
Thirdness - Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form.
3. Conclusions
This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
The problem is that once you conceptually eliminate time the only way to explain it is objectively and the only true objective language is math built around observations. It's impossible to explain in English the illusory nature of time. You can only talk around it. It turns into a sort of linguistic black hole that you can only detect by the warping and absence it creates. Best way to prove this is then to remove time from your mathematical model of the cosmos and then use that model to answer questions the previous model could not. Then by implication the superior model is correct and the one change you made that made it superior must also then be correct as well. Thing is, that's a catch 22, because to get people testing this really they'd have to already believe it and they aren't going to believe it until someone presents the results of the test.
basically, it means you don't know shit WHEN you THINK you DO, you're already too late, you're getting diffusions and not the true pure information at any given time at all, what you know or what you heard is the past and is not what is happening at all, in retrospect you are all living the past and use it effortlessly in the present which makes the future the past, what also comes into play is the collective observation of any given instant that defines the truest form of that observation. However, I believe if all were to see the same thing at the same time, that would be true reality. To put it simply, you see a light and 5 others see the same light, yet from each angle you see each light different, esp when 2 people have smokers on each side of them diffusing the light in different smoke forms, so there is no truth really, only the defined truth between the observers, smoke itself can not even be a variable, depending on the people who decide if it should be
Junkie.
This is an invitation to see a theory on the nature of time! In this theory we have an emergent uncertain future continuously coming into existence relative to the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy. Within such a process the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual! The future is unfolding with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment relative to the atoms of the periodic table and the wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. As part of a universal process of energy exchange that forms the ever changing world of our everyday life the ‘past’ has gone forever. At the smallest scale of this process the ‘past’ is represented by anti-matter annihilation with the symmetry between matter and anti-matter representing the symmetry between the future and the past as the future unfolds photon by photon. In such a theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ with the classical physics of Newton representing processes over a period of time, as in Newton’s differential equations. In my videos I explain how this process is relative to temperature and the phase changes of matter.
Dyslexic Artist Theory on the Physics of 'Time' - so basically compatiblism?
i wish i was smart enough to understand all this.
You are, you just don’t have enough motivation to waste your time learning it. That’s what we pay these scientists for. But you wouldn’t learn much from on Barbour compared to others.
I think i saw him in another lecture "fixing" the presenters laptop. So probably a technitian.
Re: THE PRESENT...as the lawful consequence of "THE PAST"
Logically, If we have no genuine reason to even SUSPECT a thing or place called ‘the Past’ is actually created or exists in any-way whatsoever,+ no scientific PROOF at all of it’s existence,
Then, we have no actual reason to also assume a thing called ‘Time’ exists, or creates, or flows into ‘the non-existent Past’,
And thus the requirement to show how ‘Time’ is involved, or, is not involved in CAUSALITY is moot.
Instead ...
(cont)
I'm convinced of Barbour's theories, that is because I know nothing of what Julian is talking about.
:-p i feel a bit the same, i kinda get it but i dont :-) it feels right somehow but i dont understand it but then i dont understand the math or even the physics, I am left with a question of 'if you draw a triangle on a piece of paper so you have a 2d triangle and then you scroll the paper up so its now in 3d, is it still a 2d triangle or is it a 3d triangle' :-) but from what i can work out and i can get of it and i really may be way off on it so id take it with a deserts worth of salt instead of a pinch is that 'you can never really exactly calculate co-ordinates of two things but you can get very close, and its all the co-ordinates of all the things and how they change shape that constitutes the makeup of the universe' but honestly i am gonna need a long time to think on this stuff, all i can say for certainty at this point is that Julian Barbours work and views are stunning, for the way he is considering our perception of things, for the way he is addressing un-addressed questions, for all his math and modeling, really hats off to the chap. Even as a lay man i do appreciate that and hope people far clever than myself do the same :-)
@@battonfive We have to remember that Julian Barbour has spent his long entire existence on this subject. One could hardly imagine you or I recently introduced to such metaphysical phenomenon could easily grasp this complex theory. Still, I'm interested in enquiring further. Good luck.
@@albertmcmullen2669 My thanks, and you, I feel the same way :-)
And neither does the speaker. That is obvious. Sad what childhood trauma, abuse, neglect and loss cause to the human mind.
Space is a negative phenomenon - contrived space is the space between positive material things. Non-contrived space is the mere absence of obstructive contact - its is that which the universe expands into. It is that which allows dimansional extension.
A top-down theory of mind and brain based on neuroscience, and double aspect theory
Cybernetics is the top-down control theory similar to the top-down metaphysics of Plato-Leibniz.
Neuroscience consists of studying the mental functions assigned to physical components of the brain, providing a double aspect theory of psychology. This dualism also permits drawing a systems theory or cybernetic map of the mind/brain in which all brain functions are created and controlled by Mind. This corrects what we consider to be the current erroneous theory of mind, in which mind is an emanatioon or emergence from the brain.
To apply this concept, from neuroscience. we can obtain a rough map of brain functions, an example of which is given below, taken from
www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Brain/Aboutbraintumours/Thebrain.aspx
According to the above link, there are five basic components of the brain, which provide the five mental functions:
Frontal lobe - This controls thought, memory, planning, problem solving and behaviour.
Parietal lobe - This is responsible for language, helping us form words and thoughts. It also deals with touch and how we recognise sensations, and helps us be aware of our body position.
Temporal lobe - This helps us understand and process what we hear. It’s also involved with how we learn and organise information.The temporal lobe is also responsible for emotions and emotional memory.
Occipital lobe -- This is where all visual information is processed, such as colour, shape and distance.
Cerebellum- This is the back part of the brain and is concerned with balance and coordination.
Assuming these to be the five major functions/components, we can assign Leibnizian monads to these and arrange them systematicaly according to the five phase cycle of traditional chinese medicine. To do so, we note that according to wuxing, or traditional chinese medicine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Xing
the major brain functions are associated with the five senses, in keeping with Locke and the British empiricists, in which all (current) knowledge from the outer world is obtained through the five senses.
Thus we can assign the five brain components (lobes) to the monads of the five mental components.
Frontal Lobe =>-Metal => thought, skin, touch
Parietal Lobe =>- Water => ears, hearing and sound processing
Occipital Lobe =>- Wood => vision and visual processing
Temporal Lobe => Fire, speech, organizing information. passions
Cerebellum => Earth => balance, coordination'
The brain then works in a cyclic fashion, and in the generating cycle,
Metal neurons feed into Water neurons into Wood neurons into
Fire neurons into Earth neurons back into Metal neurons.
There is also a destructive cycle in wuxing, but at the moment it does not seem to apply to the brain.
These five monads are subset of the higher level o9f mind, The One or Mind (the Self), which
perceives all of the sensory signals coming from the monads of the five basic components
and adjusts each one in accordance with Leibniz's pre-established order, which tends
to operate by Aristotle's "final causation" so that the mind tends to act , as all life
does, purposefully.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
Semantics indeed...
So the word 'Universe' is true? Begin the Rhapsody!
I believe he can "taste" something and he "thinks" it is on the tip of his tongue , yet like most of us the more we look the more lost for that answer we become and start to Rambo hoping to stumble onto "the" answer thus becoming perhaps more lost in our own minds.
+Sussan beaverson Correct!
+Sussan beaverson But there IS an answer.
Perhaps then perhaps not. Maybe there is no answer and "if" this is correct then we have the answer. We can not "feel" infinity yet we know it "should" be, but then again is it? The deeper one digs the deeper the hole one finds oneself.
+Sussan beaverson Read "The Binary Universe". The answer's in there and it's nothing to do with triangles.
Here we go again, another person denying the existence of the very much needed cosmological clock... ! or in this case, time itself. Distance may be relative but that doesn't mean you can model everything as a graph where the graph lines can be any length. Geometry is real...
Liquid Crystal Space -- Bottom-Up Universe Thought Experiment.. A Fun Model
Constraints: 3D, minimal base rules + parts. No singularities with the infinite possible
Like charges repel, unlike attract. A -ve ether balances close-packed +ve lattice cells
Escape velocity = light speed (C) tied to the constant time light takes to move between cells
Tunneling: stretched, faster than light front, light speed or slower rear
Tunneling cells form in phase extrons+holons that often annihilate to regular='empty' lattice
Tunneling particles reform elsewhere and their original space 'heals' as regular empty lattice
Extron: extra cell compresses the lattice, pulls in ether that may repel as rays/fountains
A free extra cell attracts ether that pulls in 2x3 polar + 6 equatorial cells. Hardcore vibes
Cells pushed in front form 6 inertia-providing flows to the -ve emptying ethereal space behind
Lattice geometry may spin traveling extrons like a Rodin coil. Surrounding lattice 'blips'
Holon: lattice hole pulls in cells that repel and flow out as rays
The hole left behind's excess -ve ether pulls in, stretches and blips the +ve lattice
12 surrounding cells accelerate to escape velocity and repel (no singularity)
'Stabilises' as 6 equatorial and 2x3 polar flows. -ve if both poles flow in, +ve if out
Dipolon / Matter-Antimatter: Smallest time interval / phase difference = Planck Time
Close extron+holon pairs with equal phase annihilate, else they form a dipolon
A feeding black hole's core extrons+holons are forced in phase and annihilate. A universe grows
Mass / Gravity / Dark Energy: lattice charge balance, charge inflow, entanglement, universe shell
Mass is (the number of) out of place lattice cells. An object's extrons + holon charge flow
Mass pulls in ether that drags mass. Lattice cell repulsion is countered less elsewhere
Directional lattice cell 'blips' up to 1 cell radius and the speed of light effect matter
Outflows bounce in all directions, inflows lead to the centre. Outflows tend to join inflows
Universe grows, shell thins, ether evaporates, lattice expands. Shell gravity cancels internally
Charge / Current: -ve inward and +ve outward charge flows
Lattice - 1 cell volume of ether: -6, cell: +6. Pulls 6 opposites to light speed in 1 cell length
Holon - 1 wide or hexagonal, gravity-formed 3 cell wide or (linked) extron flows. Both poles + or -
Extron - Attracted ether sticks (permanently) or repels as outflows with both poles +ve or -ve
Close flows interact and regional gravity fields effect velocity and direction
Holon charge flow is one unit so changing spin/flow direction or cutting it effects it all at once
Photon / Light / Time: relatively quantum.. lattice compression-expansion blobs ripple holon flows
Lattice shock wave with compressed, +ve mass/charge front and stretched, -ve rear. Overall massless
Transverse waves in holon flows. No mass added but holon flows have mass and 2D adds effective area
Moves between cells in a constant time (+ universe expansion) as denser lattice takes more energy
Gravity shrinks and acceleration compresses the lattice so both absolutely slow light locally
Units shrink too and acceleration slows base processes so light speed in a vacuum measures C locally
Velocity stretches base processes in time (orbits, charge loops..) as they travel longer to complete
Black Hole Universes / Recursive Conformity: Big Bang = black holes colliding and merging
Feeding sends core shell extrons+holons to light speed, charge flow+vibes stop, they annihilate
Total energy and matter potential is conserved. No fine tuning, all universes follow the same rules
Level n +/- particle lattice fields or a cubic lattice of joined holons + free particles feasible
-------------------
Level 1 Particles: Extrons, Holons - pseudo-monopole dipoles with flat ins, fat outs or v.v.
3D polar flows are more concentrated than flat equatorial flows so effect particles more
Particles make lattice and holon flow waves that can interfere and alter a particle path
Strong gravity may force (some) particle outflows to repel back to its inflows in various patterns
Level 2 Particles: Dipolons: extron + holon.. Diextron: +ve + -ve extron.. Diholon: +ve + -ve holon
Extrons merge with or ride holon charge flows or get stuck to holon poles or (orbit) the equator
Outflows bond and/or entangle with other inflows in circuits. Everything is connected
The Standard Model: the possibilities are numerous
Many collider scatterings may be holes and chunks of lattice too large to stabilise 'healing' to in phase extrons+holons and/then empty regular space.
Try telling your taxi driver there is no such thing as distance when he asks for his fare. This lecture is another example of clever maths being used to make an unsound premise fit the equations. Dynamics does not belong in geometry no matter how tricks of maths are used to try and steal its clothes.
Yes, it is called the 'Myth of Physical Geometry', confusing the 'order of approach' with the 'order of reality'.
Now replace those triangles with circles and explain it once again. ^^
i bet ya this guy gets a nobel prize
+Reese Archer I'll take you on. He's up a blind alley.
+Ken Hughes how do you mean? ... and you're not just a troll right? you actually have a valid counterargument?
+Reese Archer Read answers under my name if you are interested in my understanding.
i have. that's why i asked if you were a troll lol
Reese … note that he doesn’t suggest any experimental consequences … and he doesn’t account for quantum uncertainty in his “angles”, and he doesn’t suggest any principles governing dynamics in his “principal bundle”, he keeps saying “my theory is the same General Relativity”, makes reference to “phase space” which implies time - as do other words he uses like: rate, future, Euclidean Spacetime; he doesn’t show Lorentzian invariance in his theory… we could go on.
lol WRONG^^ in this case, Remove (after highlighting), paste back in and edit x i still don't understand your posting, but i'm no frizzisist
Whose the handsome devil in the back lol
Agency 8
Yes! The relativity of simultaneity destroys itself. You show me the math and I'll show you the experiment. No, really, there's an experiment.
Definitely on to something with the soap bubbles there... Especially the energy-conserving configurations of their joining. - L
Content was interesting....but your audio was terrible.
Are you saying that space exists only as a relation between objects?? I disagree! I would change your terminology to points in space in place if “objects!” In your first definition space would not exist without objects populating it!!
With virtual particles and quantum fields. There is no space we know of that isnt occupied by something.
I am a philosopher poet and percussionist
For me time and space and even rxistence is but a dream and thence unreal.
There is no such thing as time nor space.
We are solipsistic monads without any window to pierce out of our very monads.
Hence captives in our matrixcages in such manner as rilkes panther is.period.
I suppose it's just as well that we don't approach problems of reality, such as cancer, from the point of the view of the 'philosopher poet.' You may feel existence is unreal, unfortunately our experience of pain is nonetheless potent, whether a dream or not. Wallowing in existentialism achieves nothing - science seeks answers and solutions, modern philosophy seems content to ask endless questions.
I guess we can either navel gaze, or continue to do the plodding work of empiricism.
If it were left to the "philosopher/poet/percussionists" I imagine we'd wouldn't be chit-chatting on the interwebs, but rather having to entertain ourselves with offbeat, Ginsberg wannabes.
that's easy for you to say
Isla Arundel ''philosophers have only sought to define the world, the point is however, to change it.'' karl Marx
Unlike science, in which seemingly inapplicable avenues are pursued and then later shown to be practically fruitful, philosophy - by it's very nature - is dangerously limiting.
For any "-ism" to which you tie yourself off, will inevitably form a noose. It has to. It's constraining by it's very nature as an "ism".
Time is a really useful idea, but it isn't..... a thing.
We have one thing happening at a relative pace to another.
Rotations of the Earth...to...Rotations around the Sun
Oscillations of quartz crystals ...to...the tic of a watch's second hand
Processes of consciousness...to....events outside of consciousness
+Thou Art That , Time is,.........an objective phenomenon within the void. Time is,......Energy, otherwise, how could we trade time for speed in Special Relativity? i.e. we take time energy from the input to the universe and tranfer it into kinetic energy. When you get to "c" you've used it all up and there's no more time energy left to go any faster. Incidentally, time stops at "c" BECAUSE you've used it all up. Time runs at the finite rate of 1.855 x 10(43) Planck times per second of universal time (ikn a remote vacuum). Universal time is the time rate at infinite distance from all mass. (Yes I know, but you get the idea). Time slows down near mass because of all the spin energy within the atomic structure of the matter which uses up some of the local time energy. So near a mass, the invariant amount of time energy is the sum of the kinetic energy within the matter and the remainder which is used to move the region through time.. Read "The Binary Universe". It's all in there. If only you knew.
Ken Hughes
lol bit of a stretch for me... from time doesn't exist ..to ...time is everything.
My unconsidered [sic] view is that since we use cycles to measure time and everything moves in cycles ...it's quite natural that your book can come up with a theory of everything using the abstraction of time. :)
For me likely all of our current tools of understanding are abstractions. The future beckons.
+Thou Art That , Now where did I say time doesn't exist?
The basic principles of Platonic physics as of 9-10-2014
Roger Clough
1. All of the principles of Leibniz's Idealism, especially those of his Monadology, apply, in addition to the
principles stated here. If you do not completely understand the Monadology, you may misinterpret
what is said here.
2. The universe consists of two completely corresponding, entangled realms, the mental, which is alive, subjective and causative,
and the physical, which is dead, or essentially so, objective and passive.
3. The physical world is the world of spacetime and consists completely of bodies of matter (the physical)
so that space does not exist other than as perceptions in memory of the relative positions of all of the
other monads in the universe.
4. The mental world consists completely of Leibniz's monads as defined in his monadology,
except for the the highest or most dominant element, Plato's One or Mind, which has the universe as its monad..
5. The monads are quantum waves.
6.. All causation is mental and top-down and obeys Leibniz's pre-established harmony, which ensures
the best possible or least conflict among moving objects.otion .
7. Since the highest mental element is Plato's One or Mind. all causation and perception ,
directly and indirectly, is by the One.
8. The One is mental and timeless and contains, as part of its permanent memory, all of what Leibniz called necessary ;logic.
9. The physical correspondent of the mental is the world of spacetime and obeys the usual physical laws of
science including, to a certain exgtent, Newton's laws, and Einstein's laws of relativity.
10. The preestablished harmony has as its output the harmonic motions of objects in the everyday spacetime world of physics.
11. The physical world is the physical, spacetime world of science and experimentation, but is perceived by individuals as phenomenol,
meaning from only one point of view.
12. Since the physical world of spacetime is completely made of matter and force is not matter, force,
including the four principal forces, is a mental component of causation.
13. Thermodynamics, as well as all physical laws, are the mental rules of conduct of material bodies.
14. The universe is cybernetic, in which the One is the singular point of perception and control of the Many
physical bodies in the universe, just as a monarch controls his kingdom..
15. As such, there can and must be only one of the One.
16. Perception is the conversion of the physical, by the One through its monads, into experience and memory
by the One.
17. The physical world of spacetime and its physical objects, was made by the explosive creation of
physical objects from Plato's Mind into spacetime.
18. Life was also created at this time.
19. Intelligence is ability to freely make choices.
19. The One has the free will, within the constraints of the pre-established harmony,
and the intelligence and Mind, such that it is identical to Life.
20. Thus the universe exploded out of Life.
21. The basic characteristics of monads are given in Leibniz's Monadology. They are
sets, I surmise, in the mathematical sense of complete concepts, are alive, and are
nested to an infinitesimal degree. Much more is said of them in the Monadology.
If you do not completely understand the Monadology, you may misinterpret
what is said here.
22. Each human being is a complete concept and so is a monad containing other
monads, the principal one of which is the small m mind and its neurons.
24. The brain is a passive object completely controlled by Mind.
25. Each neuron is a monad.
26. Human perception occurs as input sensory nerve singles in the brain
are transformed by Mind into quanta of experience.
27 The awareness or apperception (to use Leibniz's term) of these experiences is called consciousness.
28. Since Mind is time-invariant, consciousness consists of changes in Mind, of a ordered
set of perceptions similar to the sequence of frames of a movie. But the brain
actually perceives such sequences as it would a movie.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
Too many unproven assertions - doesn’t include spatial curvature in his bundle - doesn’t include forces - talks about rates but says time doesn’t exist - no measurement probabilities from QM (he can’t even know where the points are at due to uncertainty - no dynamics to govern his movement within the bundle - in short Barbour’s physics isn’t going anywhere. 😥
Jak wynika z eksperymentu z podwójna szczelina, świadomie wpływamy tylko na przeszłość która zmienia przyszłość. Tak jest tez z pamięcią Boga, który nie pamięta grzechów (przyszłość) jeśli świadomie (szczerze) powracamy na Jego drogę (teraźniejszość) co wymazuje nasze grzechy nawet jeśli są jak szkarłat (przeszłość).
Tim samym przyczyna jest zawsze w teraźniejszości ale skutek tylko taki który powstał w przeszłości wobec teraźniejszości, która go wywołała. Innymi słowy nie można osiągnąć przyszłości nie zmieniając przeszłości.
Voynavich
..."the key concept that explains everyting ultimately derives from shapes". Plato scores one more point.
Read "The BINARY UNIVERSE" and all will be revealed.
Serious academics don't post youtube comments like this. But you've got it all figured out, don't you?
Well, I'm an Engineer (retired) conversant with math' including GR. I am well versed in physcs witha grasp of most fields except QM but even there I understand what I read more or less. I believe I am entitled to have an opinion on these matters and I see a fundamental error in the philosophy of relativity, thus the book. It's amazing even to me what comes ot of it. Yes, I do beleive I have figured it out so to speak.
Ken Hughes Well I have to inform you in that case that the method in which you've chose to communicate this is ineffective. Not that it's your fault, but because I see a lot of crazy new-age types advertising books the same way.
Ken Hughes Have you gotten any physicists to review your work?
Well, I am not permitted access to write a scientific paper as I am not a professional physicist. That's why I was forced to put it all down in a book. I have sent complimentary copies to many well known and not o well known physicists but have never received any response. They probably just threw them in the bin. Although the one I sent to the Perimeter Institute may have struck home. I published in Sept 2014 and sent copies out. By Xmas of that year, Perimeter claimed to have established a binary aspect to our world and published a paper which they claimed was written just before my book was published. They then proceeded to say that this binary component must have somehow separated and was not evident today, but it is there for all to see if only they open thier minds.
learn to edit
"when the egyptians discovered pytogoras' theorem" hahahaha orientalism anyone? ;-)
This is the sort of twisted smarmy logic and rhetoric one must construct if one wants to make subjective goals seem objective. Sad how the human mind breaks. No quantity of high British and scholarly charades will ever make existential bias into a causally coherent model.
You ok?
Not one scientists has a damn clue as to the nature of time and it pains me to read all this rubbish, dissmissing it so carelessly. It's about time (excuse the pun) that we put time in its proper place and grasped its fundamental nature.