Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[watcher]

Nothing.

 

yes, but conversely with the objects, come time, space we called events.

[watcher]

Space-time is a fictional mental concept within which one is to display our physical laws in mathematical form. That is all it is and all it needs to be.

 

perhaps you feel that our theories and equations need no physical meaning or doesn't have the power to describe reality. perhaps the utility of our theories should be in its power to predict. although i can't argue with t hat, but you must realize that it is not a statement of fact but of an opinion.

 

if our theories do not point to realities, how come different theories like newtonian, relativity and quantum describe motion of objects in space in 3 different manner? so before you say they are fictional, lift your hand (you do consider your hand real , don't you) and wave it right to left, and asked your self how your hand moves in space from left to right. the 3 theories have different description to it. and guess what. the newtonian view is the naive one.

[jedaisoul]

yes, but conversely with the objects, come time, space we called events.

No. Events are things that happen to objects in time and space. Change. Time and space are not events.

[freeztar]

No. Events are things that happen to objects in time and space. Change. Time and space are not events.

 

I agree with jedaisoul. It gets to the heart of the ontological argument presented.

"Events" describe change. We may label such events, or change, as time. But, when we do so, it is important to realize that it is not "time" that is changing.

[arkain101]

perhaps you feel that our theories and equations need no physical meaning or doesn't have the power to describe reality. perhaps the utility of our theories should be in its power to predict. although i can't argue with t hat, but you must realize that it is not a statement of fact but of an opinion.

 

if our theories do not point to realities, how come different theories like newtonian, relativity and quantum describe motion of objects in space in 3 different manner? so before you say they are fictional, lift your hand (you do consider your hand real , don't you) and wave it right to left, and asked your self how your hand moves in space from left to right. the 3 theories have different description to it. and guess what. the newtonian view is the naive one.

 

I can't speak for DD, but you brought up a point here that I'd really like to respond to.

 

so before you say they are fictional, lift your hand (you do consider your hand real , don't you) and wave it right to left, and asked your self how your hand moves in space from left to right.

 

Would you agree that science today has advanced to a level that exposes and explores a series of levels of reality that is different from our "factual 3d material world?" (that world would be same world where you said move your real hand left to right -the macroscopic absolutely without doubt material level of reality-).

 

That is, these discovered levels of reality are different in the respects, we've exposed concepts of multi dimensions, particle wave duality, quantum entanglement, space-time curvatures, time dilations. These are things that do not agree with our common sense built on the "macroscopic absolutely without doubt material level of reality".

 

Now, what you (and many) call a real material thing like your hand, as just mentioned, when investigated, deep down into its very core is NOT a simple material thing like your hand.

 

So which ones are fictional? and by fictional, I mean relative to a specific scientific perspective. Which ones are factual, again, relative to a scientific perspective.

 

I think, that only when you comprehend and believe that any specific concept of material is a fact, you've formed a level of fiction.(but this is what we do all the time). But in this context fiction does not mean imagination. Fiction means, part of consciousness' ideal of certain reality, versus, consciousness' ideal of no reality. (fact). It is in this context where we acknowledge the unknown (what you might call fiction, watcher) is the source we formulate patterns of knowns (what you might call facts, watcher), that the unknown is fact, and the knows are fiction.

 

In this sense, it should be mentioned fiction does not dismiss the integrity or "realism" of that particular reality, nor does fact, have any superiority of realism. The only purpose of referring to either as fact or fiction is to make obvious the perspective of analysis. In other words, what all of this does is flip the coin -of what you think is real and what is not- in order to explain how we as creatures of consciousness formulate reality.

 

This flipping of the coin does not have to remain or even be considered as a permanent philosophical outlook on what you should consider reality. It is only a epistemological pathway to make it through certain barriers, to reach a fundamental equation, that involves both the universe and our part in it.

 

 

(I speak from my own understanding)

[watcher]

arkain, lemme see if i got it right.

 

there is this reality or existence and this is the world we lived in. upon the course of our accumulated knowledge about this world, we discovered that this reality is not what it seems to be. so going beyond ordinary perception, we tried to imagine this reality by using and relating arbitrary lines like inches, units like seconds minutes and dimensions so that which what we actually know as one reality was put in way with in a context of describing it.

 

so lets called this imagining a map/model and in the course of time we understood that our maps and the worldviews that sprang from them were either an approximation, a total misperception . but we do get it eventually and ever striving for an accurate description though.

 

so you can say the reality being modeled in our mind is a fiction if and only if it is compared to what we call ®eality is as the fact, here you and DD are justified. but within the context of the map it self, then a factual model will be different from a fictional mental concept. you see the difference. a mental concept is already a fiction in your view, but to say that a fiction is still a fiction is already confusing. so dd's post is rather confusing. as best is it an oxymoron and at worse, simple wrong. fiction by simple definition is an imagination with no basis in fact. mental concepts like spacetime had.

 

so the meaning of fiction here is not the unknown. you are thinking way to deeply beyond my response. i agree in a deeper level, that Reality is unknown in fact and the knowns as fiction, all im saying is within the known part , we also use as a comparative tool of understanding " fact and fiction" even most commonly actually.

 

in this sense, if the goal of consciousness is to perfectly ideate reality, then to say that the tested and tried basis of our worldview fictional mental concepts is a disservice to that consciousness. even if he has discovered a more accurate model, simple saying the old one is fictional in not justified. we don't say newton's laws are fictional. we say there are an approximation. and thank you for reminding me that the map is not the territory.

[watcher]

This flipping of the coin does not have to remain or even be considered as a permanent philosophical outlook on what you should consider reality

 

btw, if you don't consider your hand as reality, then you have fallen into a trap there is something else than what is actually here.

[arkain101]

btw, if you don't consider your hand as reality, then you have fallen into a trap there is something else than what is actually here.

 

Thank you for responding above. I wonder, is English Not your first language? I often have a difficult time reading your posts.

 

Of course I consider my hand as reality. Along with everything else attatched to me, and that can interact with me. For later refference we can just call this map life.

 

The only reason I would even attempt to momentarily flip the coin over as to what is real and what is not, is to see the opposite side of this scenario of reality. We can call this how the territory is formed into a map.

 

Please don't mistake "my view" as a permanent philosophy. By that I mean, I am not a stuborn elaphent that refuses to see the world any other way. I am flexible to open up for understanding.

 

The views I share here are only shared because they become an unavoidable byproduct that occurs when performing this kind of investigation. This investigation is, physics, just like any other physics. It takes into consideration Einsteins relativity theories and quantum theory, and bridges them with consciousness, that is, consciousness is the bridge.

 

An axiom of this theory is: If we were to list all that we know to exist, that means everything, everything that we have accumulated does not exist outside of consciousness or, without consciousness.

 

The same way I would not think of my hand as electricity, even though theory on electromagnetism is successful; I would also not consider my hand, not a part of reality, just because I am trying discover a way of viewing the universe that unites certain abnormalities and differences.

 

You don't have to take this view DD, Anssih, and I are sharing and be under the impression it is intended to change your view of reality and daily life. It is but a view to expose how daily life reality may formulate into existence.

 

So it does no good to say this view is wrong, any more than it does to say quantum reality is wrong.

 

This view only asks you one thing, acknowledge that ontological reality is real and also unknown, but at the same time can not be excluded in a valid way. If you acknowledge that, along side the acknowledgment that epistemological reality real and also known, you put two and two together (here is where physics and math comes in) and you arrive at the view, and working model to begin a form of fundamental physics.

 

However, I am beginning to step out further than I would like here. I am starting to move beyond what I know I can agree with on DD, and include some of my own theoretical conclusions. These are conclusions I do not know if DD or his work would agree with. So, let that be known.

 

I plan to not go much further than this without the participation or further study of Doctor D's math. I have yet to study his topic on his fundamental equation. What I share is only going on creativity science, based on information and emperical data. Althought it agree's with DD's work thus far, I am yet to see if it agrees further. Let this be known also.

[maddog]

I agree with jedaisoul. It gets to the heart of the ontological argument presented. "Events" describe change. We may label such events, or change, as time. But, when we do so, it is important to realize that it is not "time" that is changing.

I will align myself with exactly the way freezy stated it.

 

It is the same as well with the abstraction of time, or "keeping" time, "noting" time, etc.

 

By the ticks of a clock, we ascribe "1 o'clock" and with a some more ticks, we ascribe "2 o'clock".

The meaning of 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock are by agreement as being times of the day. These

are labels we use to represent a specific time as reference. This has no external reality

than what we consider it to be (a concept). :eek_big:

 

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

I agree with jedaisoul. It gets to the heart of the ontological argument presented.

"Events" describe change. We may label such events, or change, as time. But, when we do so, it is important to realize that it is not "time" that is changing.

 

Where do you stand on "time dilation?"

How 'bout space contraction/expansion?

 

What are "time and space anyway?" Or has this question already been answered beyond all shadow of a doubt?

(The thread remains closed at this posting, so maybe admin. considers the question resolved.)

Michael

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Doctordick :

Space-time is a fictional mental concept within which one is to display our physical laws in mathematical form. That is all it is and all it needs to be.

perhaps you feel that our theories and equations need no physical meaning or doesn't have the power to describe reality. perhaps the utility of our theories should be in its power to predict. ... if our theories do not point to realities, how come ...

Alfred Korzybski to the rescue!

 

In General Semantics, we disengage this dilemma by establishing TWO semantic objects, where only ONE was in use previously, but being used in TWO different ways.

 

"Space-time" shall be defined as the mathematical structure that humans have devised to represent and analyze "Space-time". This mathematical structure includes such concepts as "locations", "events" and "dimensions".

 

"Space-time" shall be defined as the name given to the associated properties or attributes of Reality that we experience as "distance", "area", "volume", "duration", "occurrence" and "simultaneity".

 

"Space-time" has no physical existence. It is merely a construct. But, it is extremely useful, because we humans have spent centuries crafting it to be useful.

 

"Space-time" is real; it is the Reality we live in, but it knows nothing about "locations", "events" and "dimensions".

 

However, if you want to solve problems in "Space-time", like predicting when something will occur, or where, then you must use "Space-time".

[maddog]

Alfred Korzybski to the rescue!

...

 

"Space-time" has no physical existence. It is merely a construct. But, it is extremely useful, because we humans have spent centuries crafting it to be useful. ...

Seem like an echo, or Deja' Vu or something... Didn't I say about 10 or times in the other

thread.

 

Great Job Pyrotex !!! I do hope this simplifies that... :)

 

maddog

[HydrogenBond]

If space-time is a construct, when gravity bends space-time, does than imply reality is not what is bending, but only the construct? If this was true, it would imply the mind gets bent, creating the impression reality is bending.

[Michael Mooney]

Alfred Korzybski to the rescue!

 

In General Semantics, we disengage this dilemma by establishing TWO semantic objects, where only ONE was in use previously, but being used in TWO different ways.

 

"Space-time" shall be defined as the mathematical structure that humans have devised to represent and analyze "Space-time". This mathematical structure includes such concepts as "locations", "events" and "dimensions".

 

"Space-time" shall be defined as the name given to the associated properties or attributes of Reality that we experience as "distance", "area", "volume", "duration", "occurrence" and "simultaneity".

 

"Space-time" has no physical existence. It is merely a construct. But, it is extremely useful, because we humans have spent centuries crafting it to be useful.

 

"Space-time" is real; it is the Reality we live in, but it knows nothing about "locations", "events" and "dimensions".

 

However, if you want to solve problems in "Space-time", like predicting when something will occur, or where, then you must use "Space-time".

 

Thank you Pyrotex. If anyone can find one of my statements in the "spacetime" thread which contradicts the above, please inform me and maybe we can still discuss the ontology of "spacetime" somehow somewhere, even with the appropriate thread remaining closed... and my last two posts there still under house arrest!

 

The last statement quoted above is a statement of the obvious: If you want to predict when something will occur , you must locate the event in time... without making "it" (time) some "thing"... , and if you want to designate an event/object's location you will need to specify "where" it is. Ontologically, of course, neither designation... of the when or the where makes time or space into a "thing"....

Which was the central point of my whole "spacetime" thread.

 

BTW... Your further commentaries on spacetime in this thread, Pyrotex, ... allowed as such is preferential treatment for you as a moderator, while I still am not allowed to have my last two posts in the locked thread posted. (To whom it may concern.)

 

Michael

[arkain101]

If space-time is a construct, when gravity bends space-time, does than imply reality is not what is bending, but only the construct? If this was true, it would imply the mind gets bent, creating the impression reality is bending.

 

In a sense, yes, the bending is only realized by the scale of reality produced by 'the mind'; the scale of the macroscopic. This does not mean that gravity is in the mind, it only suggests that picture we produce in the macroscopic is in the mind, while the incredibly small is a much different picture.

 

The extent I can carry you into the world of the very, very small is limited, based on my knowledge. However, lets think for a moment of space,time, and the universe we are familiar with. There is a lot happening at the scale of the very, very small. It is a body of potential; and what I mean by this is that quite literally when we pick out any 'object' (which we can think of as material or momentum) the direction it moves, and the velocity it travels can have interpretations of [math]\infty[/math] "states", relative to other specific locations. Even on the macroscopic scale, what we think as persistent matter -take a sphere in space- can have as different directions of travel, length, and passage of time as their are differentiating observers of the object. Relativity treats an observers frame as non-special, and everything the observer observes, can never be more special than any other observers frame. This exemplifies the notion that what we observe is a potential to produce relative form.

 

 

Searching for an online source of information, I've come across this, which helps in some way.

 

Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale

 

Compared to a Euclidean sphere, a quantum sphere’s curvature and uncertainty make it a noncommutative space. When calculating the spectral dimension of the quantum sphere, Benedetti found that it closely resembles a standard sphere on large scales; however, as the scale decreases, the dimensions of the quantum sphere deviate and go down to zero. He describes this phenomenon as a signature of the fuzziness, or uncertainty, of the quantum sphere, and also as resulting from fractal behavior at small scales.

 

In the second kind of space, k-Minkowski spacetime, the dimensions also deviate from the constant behavior of classical Minkowski spacetime. While the latter always has four dimensions, independent of the scale, the number of dimensions in the quantum version decreases to three as a function of the scale. In both k-Minkowski spacetime and the quantum sphere, the dimensionality becomes non-integral, which is a typical signature of fractal geometry.........................................

 

The main problem with gravity is that apparently it cannot be quantized as other field theories; in jargon it is said to be non-renormalizable,” he said. “This problem is specific to four-dimensional spacetime. If spacetime had only two dimensions, then quantum gravity would be much simpler and treatable. The problem with a two-dimensional theory is that it is unphysical, as we see four dimensions at our scales. Things can be solved combining four and two dimensions at different scales. That is, if gravity itself provides a mechanism by which the dimension of spacetime depends on the scale at which we probe it (four at our and larger scales and two at very short scales), then we could have a physical theory (compatible with observations) that is free of quantum (short scale) troubles.”

 

 

Fractals aside, it talks about scale, and the different ways in which reality can be represented and/or though as.

 

There is only ONE place things travel slowly (by slowly I mean significantly less than C) and that is in the mind. For example, when our mind identifies an object like sphere in space, even those that object is 99.99% empty space, we treat it as one entity. However, if we were to perform the same methodology on the macroscopic would could consider that every body in out local solar system is one overall object. Every rock, gas cloud, dust particle, planet, moon, and chuck of ice, we could exclude their "individuality" and imagine the overall shape of all these objects as a squished sphere. If we were to treat ourselves as giants, and imagine that our solar system of objects all emitted a huge amount of photons, our Giant eyeball light years away, could in the same methodology -as we treat objects- , treat our solar system like one object.

 

What one can imagine to observe of "space-time" is dependent on the scale that we attempt to interpret reality. It is not possible to observe space-time in the same experience as we do in our macroscopic respect. For example, if we are to imagine hitching a ride with an electron; our macroscopic scale can not blend or make this kind of direction transition into the sub-atomic scale of reality, nor should we expect it to. We form our picture of solid state, persistent reality, through a hertz machine (our body). We take super high frequencies of meaningless information, and convert them. Our body, with all of its senses, takes time separated snap shots of this incredibly densely packed information of both light and matter and compiles an averaged assumption product out of it. For example; The strumming of a string on a guitar, our brain doesnt count the number of individual ocillations by means of a number, it summarizes those numbers into a average product we experience as a pitch; Our eyes essentially take snap shots of information in the range of 60hertz(to my knowledge), and our brain is adapted to only require that much data per second to produce a smooth coherent process and expectation of time. A complex process is involved for our vision, but we can see how this is true with our computer screens and films. Films can run as low as 15frames per second and our brain will make coherence of the information, and by doing so it will predict direction and velocity of objects and motion giving us a scene. Meanwhile, there is trillions of smaller values of 'packets' of information being entirely excluded in our production of a mental construct space-time universe.

 

This is why I stress, that we should expect reality on smaller scales to display incredible inconsistencies with our mind has come to assume the nature of reality. Due to this, we shouldnt doubt inconsistencies, or close our view of what other interpretations can tell us about the nature of, well, nature.

 

All of this being said, I can summarize a response;

 

when gravity bends space-time, does that imply reality is not what is bending, but only the construct?

 

Our construct model of our typical impression of space-time imagines a way in which it is bent (space-time), but the ways we can imagine it is bent or bending, is not limited to our typical impression and can be expressed in a number of ways.

 

I tried to avoid speculation, but if I were to speculate for a moment, I would suggest to you to think of the universe as shrinking and bending and expanding and dilating millions of times per second, and with so much noise of this change and dynamic perspective of reality, our macroscopic sense of reality simply can't be imagined at the same time, it fades out of meaning. With so much dynamic states at the small scale, anything persistent (akin to the macroscopic) can be relatively thought of as meaningless, because in this small scale no state lasts for even a brief moment... in the same kind of way we picture quantum weirdness the very small as somewhat ghostly and beyond, because it just does not blend with our mental model of reality.

 

We use tools to observe reality. Our minds are one of these tools, and it produces specific kinds of results. Other tools are high accuracy technology that produces entirely different results. We then produce theories based on what tools can tell us, but we should recognize which tool we are using when talking about a result.

[Pyrotex]

If space-time is a construct, when gravity bends space-time, does than imply reality is not what is bending, but only the construct? If this was true, it would imply the mind gets bent, creating the impression reality is bending.

Well, making sure we keep our semantic objects straight, gravity appears to have an observable affect on nearby objects and their behavior. So, we can say, that gravity affects Space-Time.

 

To understand how gravity affects Space-Time, we discover that we must "bend" Space-Time -- for only in this way can our mathematical construct give the observed behaviors and make correct predictions.

 

Gravity definately does something to Space-Time. We "bend" Space-Time so that the construct accurately models the Reality.

 

Therefore, we are justified in saying that Gravity "bends" Space-Time.

[Michael Mooney]

Pyrotex:

]Well, making sure we keep our semantic objects straight, gravity appears to have an observable affect on nearby objects and their behavior. So, we can say, that gravity affects Space-Time.

Well... if space is empty volume (note the "if" as a philosophical/ontological premise)_ then it is not an entity and therefore can not be effected by mass's gravity.

*if* that is true (and it may well be in spite of your belief to the contrary) then masses pull on on all other masses inversely with the square of the distance between them and directly with their massiveness. (Just like we learned in high school.)

In this case, space is still no "thing" (not something effected by gravity)

 

 

 

To understand how gravity affects Space-Time, we discover that we must "bend" Space-Time -- for only in this way can our mathematical construct give the observed behaviors and make correct predictions.

 

You are a True Believer in the mythical fabric "spacetime," and you are here proselytizing that mainstream *dogma* of that invention by none other than the *revered* Einstein and his mentor in this invention, Minkowski.

 

Gravity definately does something to Space-Time. We "bend" Space-Time so that the construct accurately models the Reality.

 

Gravity definitely is the cosmic force of attraction among all masses. Spacetime remains a mythical fabric. I counsel everyone here to refrain from from accepting Pyrotex's statements above as establisshed facts!

 

All observable gravitational phenomena can better be understood by disregarding the assumption that 'spacetime" is a malleable entity and realizing that "action at a distance" happens without a fabricated... well... fabric... as a medium between masses.

 

Therefore, we are justified in saying that Gravity "bends" Space-Time.

You have just completed an argument based on either false or debatable assumptions (reifying spacetime) and called that "justified."

Have you even grasped after all those "spacetime" pages what an ontological inquiry *is?* It does not assume that your above premise is correct.

I'll send you my notes from a graduate student class on "Logic and the Scientific Method" if you need remedial reading on the subject.

 

Michael