## Raymond Tallis

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Objects in the current state are the same objects at past states. This means that past states have no objects. The objects are all at the current state. State refers to position and condition and no object can have two states at once.

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Are states abstract or real? We can see they are real because objects exist and move. Without states objects would be frozen. To move without states an object at location a would also need to be at location b. This is impossible so movement without states is impossible. States are necessary for movement.

Time is not an explanation of states because, in this context, time is just a measurement. Time comes from movement. States don’t come from time. On the other hand states cannot just arise from nothing but needs to be a function of something. Previously I suggested a possibility but I don’t actually know. However, thinking about states arising from a function is the proper way to think (I contend).

Impenitent
Posts: 1689
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

jayjacobus wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:51 pm
... Without states objects would be frozen...

-Imp

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Impenitent wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:16 am

-Imp
No states mean frozen but frozen doesn't necessarily mean no states unless the whole universe is frozen. Even then the universe might go from one frozen state to another. It would be impossible to tell if the observer is frozen.

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

A movie creates the appearance of motion but is not actually motion because the represented objects have no mass or energy. The same is true in the brain. The images appear to be moving but only the representations of the objects are moving. The actual movement of the referents are portrayed by changes in the film or changes in the brain’s neurons. Mass and energy are mass and energy of the film or the neurons which are different than the mass and energy of the actual moving objects.

In the fourth dimension “theory”, mass and energy seem to be a representation. Mass is claimed to exist in the fourth dimension and then in three dimensions but energy exists in (only?) three dimension. Without movement in the fourth dimension, energy does not exist in the fourth dimension. But if there is movement in the fourth dimension, then there must be states and states lead to time, dimensions don’t.

If you ask a physicist to explain time (I did) he will repeat space time over and over and never explain actual time.

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

A snail is in the same state as a light wave and they are each in the same stretch of states. But they are traveling at different speeds through each state. Relativity says that objects traveling very fast change slower than objects traveling slower but they are always in the same states. This means that astronauts can change slower than their earth bound counterparts, not that they travel in time. There is only one state for the whole universe and the astronaut cannot be in different states. This also means that there is only one active time.

Thinking of the past is remembering past states that are no longer active. Remembering is a crucial function of the brain in order to negotiate the present and plan for the future.

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

States cause absolute time. This is because states are not relational to movement. States have a pulse but without a counter. So every pulse is the same as the last pulse. Relational time has a movement. A clock has a counter which is set to time of day and it is the movement of the clock hands that show relational time.

It is easy to illustrate absolute time. Simply remove the face and hands from the clock and what is left is a pulse. That pulse is a surrogate for absolute time. This is true whether states cause absolute time (they do) or absolute time comes from some other operation. But absolute time must come from an operation of some sort.

Obviously an absolute time representation would have no value so it isn’t ever used. If you are thinking that a pulse is movement, you are right but it must exist without relational time.

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

A clock has a movement but it is a very specific movement. This is not time per se but a movement that is regular, progressive and repetitive. The hands of the clock move forward but states don’t actually move forward. States change and the movement of the clock determines the direction of the hands.

It is physics, as utilized by the clock, that move the hands forward not time. And to “reverse time” one would need to change physics, not time.

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Just in case some people are not convinced:

If the pulse of time is on-off, on-off, on-off ……. and somehow changes to off-on, off-on, off-on, the series are the same except for the one hiccup when the pulse changes. So that state, state, state becomes state, state, state, hiccup, state, state, state and events advance as always.

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Perhaps the topic of time is completely covered:

Indicative rather than causative,
Frame of reference rather than events,
States rather than dimensions,
Repetitive in the absolute but progressive in the relational,
Idealists as well as realists.

What’s left? Time travel?
There is one and only one set of events that leads to today’s events and that is the previous day’s events. This holds for every pair of events.

jayjacobus
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: Raymond Tallis

Perhaps I should confess that I am a dualist. The universe is different between here and there but the subjects are the same. Here is mental and nonmaterial. There is physical and material. But each person has two comparable universes no matter what you call it.

With regard to now and then there is only one then and that is the mental, non-material then. No matter how hard you reason you can’t get from the mental, non-material then to a physical, material then. If you do you are rationalizing the existence of then. The rationalization is “There is a physical, material there, so there must be a physical, material then.” That logic is wrong (even if the conclusion should prove to be right).

This explanation may clarify some of my thinking.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests