Calling Time

[attofishpi]

Pretty sure the wave function collapse is an example of the "now" moment:-
\langle \psi|\psi \rangle = \sum_i |c_i|^2 = 1.


The concept of time is simple, now that conscious minds exist, time exists as a construct that man has developed pertaining to measurement correlated to events.

That's not quite true. Wave function collapse is merely a description of the deviation of our reality from what the wave equation predicts. The wave equation is fully deterministic, and unitary, but it generates this thing called a wave function. It is defined in a mathematical space or many dimensions, and has no observable counterpart. Max Born gave it a probabilistic interpretation, as you know, but it's not the only interpretation (e.g. WMI). Unfortunately, because we only ever measure one outcome then it was posited that the wave function must collapse -- either mathematically or physically (opinions differ) -- but there is no accepted mechanism and all attempts are "bolt ons" to standard QM.

Those who believe in it, rather than the slightly more logical alternative of QM being incomplete, suggest it happens instantly during a measurement, but cannot define what that means. Environmental decoherence has been shown to only account for fine-grained probabilities and not the superposed coarse-grained ones.

More importantly, though, there is still no special "now" singled our by any equation, and relativity precludes any such concept. My stance is that "now", and hence the associated temporal flow, are associated with consciousness only, which means there is no fundamental change in the universe. This "block universe" is a bold proposition, but here's the stinger: it violates no laws we know of, it solves many paradoxes and mysteries around time, no equation in mathematical physics is affected because they have no specific "now", and there is no measurement possible to prove or disprove the difference between this eternalistic model and our normal presentist view. As far as I can tell, its preference boils down to mathematicism.

Thanks for the reply.

I truly need to get back into mathematics and really delve into this fascinating area but am certain I will never understand QM via it.

So, alas I admit I am not certain of what you are stating there.

RE: 'now' ...are you stating there is no definite such thing since this moment as now is not a moment concurrent to all conscious observers?
Or, that there are simply too many events occurring at any moment?

If that is the case then I understand, if not...perhaps you could attempt to further my understanding!

[ACProctor]

That's right, I'm saying that there is no objective present moment, and it must only exist as part of our conscious awareness.

It's actually no secret in physics that there is no representation of it in its mathematics, and no mechanism explaining its passage. To all intents and purposes, it does not exist -- something that troubled Einstein. In fact, his relativity precludes any such moment being true for everyone, everywhere.

Of course, this doesn't stop us adding such semantics to the mathematics -- as my article explains -- and so it's common to hear about stuff "being pulled into a black hole", or that the "universe is expanding", despite the mathematics being ambivalent about any flow of time.

[attofishpi]

That's right, I'm saying that there is no objective present moment, and it must only exist as part of our conscious awareness.

It's actually no secret in physics that there is no representation of it in its mathematics, and no mechanism explaining its passage. To all intents and purposes, it does not exist -- something that troubled Einstein. In fact, his relativity precludes any such moment being true for everyone, everywhere.

Of course, this doesn't stop us adding such semantics to the mathematics -- as my article explains -- and so it's common to hear about stuff "being pulled into a black hole", or that the "universe is expanding", despite the mathematics being ambivalent about any flow of time.

Ah, nicely put, and thanks for jumping into the forum and explaining. I'll have another read of your article (when my is functioing better!).

[Age]

Pretty sure the wave function collapse is an example of the "now" moment:-
\langle \psi|\psi \rangle = \sum_i |c_i|^2 = 1.


The concept of time is simple, now that conscious minds exist, time exists as a construct that man has developed pertaining to measurement correlated to events.

That's not quite true. Wave function collapse is merely a description of the deviation of our reality from what the wave equation predicts. The wave equation is fully deterministic, and unitary, but it generates this thing called a wave function. It is defined in a mathematical space or many dimensions, and has no observable counterpart. Max Born gave it a probabilistic interpretation, as you know, but it's not the only interpretation (e.g. WMI). Unfortunately, because we only ever measure one outcome then it was posited that the wave function must collapse -- either mathematically or physically (opinions differ) -- but there is no accepted mechanism and all attempts are "bolt ons" to standard QM.

Those who believe in it, rather than the slightly more logical alternative of QM being incomplete, suggest it happens instantly during a measurement, but cannot define what that means. Environmental decoherence has been shown to only account for fine-grained probabilities and not the superposed coarse-grained ones.

More importantly, though, there is still no special "now" singled our by any equation, and relativity precludes any such concept.

Well, considering the Fact that the general conception of 'relativity' is a False, Wrong, Incorrect, or Incomplete one, 'relativity', therefore, does NOT preclude the concept of 'now' being eternal.

In fact the very SIMPLE 'equation' that the NOW is singled out by is NOW IS (or, equals) 'eternity'.

The NOW is in a constant, continual state.

My stance is that "now", and hence the associated temporal flow, are associated with consciousness only, which means there is no fundamental change in the universe.

1. Well, OBVIOUSLY, ANY 'concept', like, for example, a 'now' is associated with 'consciousness', and this is just because of the SIMPLE Fact that EVERY 'concept' is associated WITH 'consciousness', itself. In fact it would be rather ABSURD to consider that ANY 'concept' could or would be associated with a 'thing', which has NO 'consciousness' AT ALL.

2. WHY would a 'now', and/or a 'temporal flow', which are just 'concepts' associated with 'consciousness', ONLY, then, somehow, automatically MEANS that there is NO 'fundamental' CHANGE, in the Universe? I do NOT see how NOR why this, somehow, would 'logically', follow. Will you ELABORATE on 'this'?

3. Considering that you have a 'stance' here, does this imply that this 'stance' is MORE true than ANY other view is?

This "block universe" is a bold proposition, but here's the stinger: it violates no laws we know of, it solves many paradoxes and mysteries around time, no equation in mathematical physics is affected because they have no specific "now", and there is no measurement possible to prove or disprove the difference between this eternalistic model and our normal presentist view. As far as I can tell, its preference boils down to mathematicism.

What are the so-called 'paradoxes' and 'mysteries' that you refer to here in relation to the 'time' word?

To 'me', there are NO 'mysteries' AT ALL in relation to 'time', itself. But, then again, I do view Everything, together, from One Unified Perspective, from which there are NO 'inconsistencies' NOR 'contradictions'.

There are, however, 'paradoxes'. But, then again, even the word 'paradox' I USE with a DIFFERENT definition than most of 'you' do, and with one that ACTUALLY WORKS, I will add.

By the way, what does the word 'mathematicism' mean or refer to, to you?

[Age]

Pretty sure the wave function collapse is an example of the "now" moment:-
\langle \psi|\psi \rangle = \sum_i |c_i|^2 = 1.


The concept of time is simple, now that conscious minds exist, time exists as a construct that man has developed pertaining to measurement correlated to events.

That's not quite true. Wave function collapse is merely a description of the deviation of our reality from what the wave equation predicts. The wave equation is fully deterministic, and unitary, but it generates this thing called a wave function. It is defined in a mathematical space or many dimensions, and has no observable counterpart. Max Born gave it a probabilistic interpretation, as you know, but it's not the only interpretation (e.g. WMI). Unfortunately, because we only ever measure one outcome then it was posited that the wave function must collapse -- either mathematically or physically (opinions differ) -- but there is no accepted mechanism and all attempts are "bolt ons" to standard QM.

Those who believe in it, rather than the slightly more logical alternative of QM being incomplete, suggest it happens instantly during a measurement, but cannot define what that means. Environmental decoherence has been shown to only account for fine-grained probabilities and not the superposed coarse-grained ones.

More importantly, though, there is still no special "now" singled our by any equation, and relativity precludes any such concept. My stance is that "now", and hence the associated temporal flow, are associated with consciousness only, which means there is no fundamental change in the universe. This "block universe" is a bold proposition, but here's the stinger: it violates no laws we know of, it solves many paradoxes and mysteries around time, no equation in mathematical physics is affected because they have no specific "now", and there is no measurement possible to prove or disprove the difference between this eternalistic model and our normal presentist view. As far as I can tell, its preference boils down to mathematicism.

Thanks for the reply.

I truly need to get back into mathematics and really delve into this fascinating area but am certain I will never understand QM via it.

WHY were you UNDER the ASSUMPTION and/or ILLUSION that 'mathematics' would help you understand quantum mechanics, one day?

So, alas I admit I am not certain of what you are stating there.

RE: 'now' ...are you stating there is no definite such thing since this moment as now is not a moment concurrent to all conscious observers?
Or, that there are simply too many events occurring at any moment?

If that is the case then I understand, if not...perhaps you could attempt to further my understanding!

[Age]

That's right, I'm saying that there is no objective present moment, and it must only exist as part of our conscious awareness.

What happens if the 'our' and Its 'conscious awareness' exists FAR LONGER than you have YET IMAGINED?

Also, can you NOT YET see the CONTRADICTION in what you wrote here?

It's actually no secret in physics that there is no representation of it in its mathematics,

Who cares?

If one WANTS a representation of the 'Eternal constantly-changing present moment of NOW', in mathematics, then here is one:
∞ = lδ For starters.

and no mechanism explaining its passage.

But the mechanism for explaining the passage of the constantly-changing NOW is just the IMPOSSIBILITY to NOT be CHANGING, expressed through a sound and valid argument.

To all intents and purposes, it does not exist -- something that troubled Einstein. In fact, his relativity precludes any such moment being true for everyone, everywhere.

But that interpretation/concept of 'relativity' does NOT WORK, and thus is NOT UNIFIED, with EVERY thing else.

Of course, this doesn't stop us adding such semantics to the mathematics -- as my article explains -- and so it's common to hear about stuff "being pulled into a black hole", or that the "universe is expanding", despite the mathematics being ambivalent about any flow of time.

But just hearing about the 'Universe is expanding' does NOT mean that 'It' is, AT ALL.

Also, and by the way, there is NO ACTUAL 'flow' of 'time', and this is just because of what the word 'time' means and refers to, which WORKS WITHIN the GUTOE.

[Belinda]

Sequential time is a concept that , like the concepts of space and force, is inextricably linked to the concept of change.

Sequential time has no objective existence and we are aware if it only because of our habit of naming and measuring . However time as one-directional change seems to exist objectively. I wonder if there are any cultures of belief, perhaps among some obscure tribes, in which time as direction on a spectrum of events, is not envisaged or conceptualised.

It's very doubtful that animals other than the human have any feeling of past and future, but actually are concerned only with immediate needs.

[Age]

Sequential time is a concept that , like the concepts of space and force, is inextricably linked to the concept of change.

Sequential time has no objective existence and we are aware if it only because of our habit of naming and measuring . However time as one-directional change seems to exist objectively.

What is the DIFFERENCE between 'time' and 'sequential time'?

I wonder if there are any cultures of belief, perhaps among some obscure tribes, in which time as direction on a spectrum of events, is not envisaged or conceptualised.

Besides the 'direction' of the so-called and misnomer 'time' here, ALL 'tribes', once, had NO vision NOR conceptualization of what 'you' PERCEIVE is 'time'.

It's very doubtful that animals other than the human have any feeling of past and future, but actually are concerned only with immediate needs.

ALL animals, including the human animal, had NO 'feeling' of past and future, and actually were only concerned with, relatively, 'immediate' needs.

[Belinda]

Sequential time is a concept that , like the concepts of space and force, is inextricably linked to the concept of change.

Sequential time has no objective existence and we are aware if it only because of our habit of naming and measuring . However time as one-directional change seems to exist objectively.

What is the DIFFERENCE between 'time' and 'sequential time'?

I wonder if there are any cultures of belief, perhaps among some obscure tribes, in which time as direction on a spectrum of events, is not envisaged or conceptualised.

Besides the 'direction' of the so-called and misnomer 'time' here, ALL 'tribes', once, had NO vision NOR conceptualization of what 'you' PERCEIVE is 'time'.

It's very doubtful that animals other than the human have any feeling of past and future, but actually are concerned only with immediate needs.

ALL animals, including the human animal, had NO 'feeling' of past and future, and actually were only concerned with, relatively, 'immediate' needs.

Sequential time is a different concept from time as progress in one direction, 'time's arrow', as sequences can go in different directions, whereas time's arrow is one-directional.

We usually presume other animals, and plants, have no concept of time which is a blessing for them psychologically.