Gravity, Time and Leibniz.

[Scott Mayers]

You perceive gravity as to Einstein's GR description in that the warping of space => gravity => a 'force' to derive cause for material change => time.

Specifically I'm saying that the "warping of space" is a metaphor for expressing the inconstant speed of time, which as everybody knows is gravity-dependent. Since the speed of light and the speed of time are one and the same thing the observer observes this slowing down of light in gravitatational lensing as bent light, exactly the same as the slowing down of light in water is observed by the observer as a bent stick. Therefore I'll go back to the original question which I posed in my OP.

Since this is a completely physical explanation for gravitational lensing which a child could understand why should it not be preferred over one involving spooky action at a distance which nobody in the world can understand and no two physicists can agree on, even after 100 years? Furthermore it is now also accepted almost universally that GR can only be an approximation to a deeper theory whose signature feature will be SIMPLICITY.

I accept your rationale as to the interpretation of the metaphor of warped space. Yet, this is just the reason why Relativity and QM find conflict. While the interpretation 'works', this suggests that we question these kind of interpretations since they are what partly contributes to the problem in bringing these divergent views into conflict.

I proposed instead to NOT interpret space as being 'warped' and provide another equally powerful justification without it. This certainly may ADD detail that lacks the 'simpler' explanation. But if this requires more depth, avoiding it based on the fact it complicates the investigation is not justified any different than those who might simply resolve to declare the theory, "God did it". This is even simpler than bothering with the whole issue of physics as a science altogether. But since the conflict within physics between QM and Relativity exists, we have to allow ourselves to also alter proposed internal theories even if they work on localized topic interests. The 'warped' space hypothesis has to be subject to question even if it is the simplest within Relativity theory because it conflicts with QM. Others within QM too may have to be questioned but we are uncertain where the actual assumptions by one, the other, or both reside.

That is why I opted to attack the difficulty by questioning the 'warped' space assumption. But it requires adding complexity, even if unwelcomed, in order to find an alternative that keeps both Relativity AND QM in sync. Then, we go into each new proposition and question the problems there and see if we can rationally find another set of problematic assumptions in that proposal. If each assumption there can also find an explanation that doesn't keep QM and Relativity in sync, we keep going back unless we prove all input assumptions of that proposed theory in conflict. Then we'd have to find again another interpretation that allows QM and Relativity to remain in sync, even if it requires another that might expand on the details away from simplicity. Simplicity shouldn't be argued as justification in its own right if reality requires more depth regardless.

I'll look at and respond to the next questions/responses later as I have to go out momentarily.

[petm1]

Planck unit of time is, say, a time size of elementary particles ...

Planck is relative to the present moment in which case the smallest slice of time would have to include all particles, Even if we count it as one particles motion, I would think.

[Scott Mayers]

to which spatial expansion itself gives rise to 'new' information being added to reality

Newtonian reductionist determinism cannot generate new information. Chaotic determinism, however, generates self-organising complexity simply because it cannot do otherwise ,as observed in the 2 -slit experiment, and the Casimir effect can be explained in a similar way.

Newton's only limitations regarded NOT addressing a spacial dimension for time or his understanding of the limit to the speed of light (and a maximum speed for all matter/energy.) I'm already presuming what he didn't know in his day. Note that Newton's contribution was not falsified, just added onto from further discoveries and understanding. We didn't abandon Newton's theories but only added to it.

Thus, so far, while we differ on our routes of interpretation, we agree that time is a resultant of space,

We absolutely DO NOT agree on this because you seem to be having difficulty taking me literally. I am quite literally saying that SPACE DOES NOT EXIST other than as a construct of the consciousness of the observer. What the observer does when he makes his observation is that he spatialises time, which is exactly what Minkowski did in SR. What I am quite literally saying is that SR forces reality to conform to the narrative of our observation by brute mathematical force. However this must inevitably produce a model which makes no sense because it is utterly impossible for the observer to observe the real world!!! The speed of light is finite and thus the observer can only observe a world which no longer exists.

This is why I proposed a digression into Platonic Forms, etc. The interpretation by you is fair when you deny spacial representation as being real. However, than you have to propose how something at point X, given some address in a purely referential space like (x,y,z) = (0,0,0) becomes (1,4,0), for instance, in a realistic way. How do you propose that something like this can occur without presuming such actual spaces exist between these two points? I think your error is akin to a programmer who uses a given programming language regarding contingent information of data without recognizing that the memory spaces being used for variables have to be based on a REAL architecture involving memory spaces. That is, the container that holds the contingent data as a 1 or a 0, necessarily requires a memory space that allows possibilities to occur. Without this understanding, you'd have to accept the contradiction that each memory space is always both 1 and 0 [1 and non-1 for binary options]. And from studying computer languages, I've noticed that how many struggle learning computer languages often revolve around not understanding how the architecture works in a very real way....like 'pointers' in the C language, for instance, used to refer to the address of a memory space, not its contents.


[quote="Obvious Leo]
This is the problem of the observer that has kept the entire science of physics in a conceptual cul-de-sac for a century and it is so breathtakingly obvious that I call it the elephant in the room of physics. Our models of physics are modelling a HOLOGRAM, not the real universe. [/quote]
I see you this way myself because you deny that space has any meaning as what I just said above. If spacial reference is NOT representative of anything real, you can't speak of anything involving it except by using another 'form'-ulation as like this:

If something exists at (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0) and moves to (1, 4, 0), you can do the following: (x + 1, y + 4, z + 0). Any formulation that explains this would have to be considered just as unreal and thus as meaningless than the space (memory) that you'd propose doesn't exist for it to reside in. It reduces to another formulation you presume is un-Real! Note that a computer CAN use this kind of formulation without actually requiring the memory addresses for these distinct 'places' to be '+1' to the x direction, '+ 4' to the y direction, and '+0' in the z within the computer. The last data can be placed ANYWHERE in memory, including the same memory space where the first data originated! You seem to believe that we can make a computer with only the functions (like adding) components but disregard the memory. This is precisely what prevented computers to actually be viable before creating real memory units. [They eventually recognized the need at the time but couldn't actually create the technology for creating sufficient real memory units physically.]

Note that Newton himself failed to think of a 'real' address space for the component of time in this similar way. But you not only accept a realism to time, you abandoned the 'spaces' needed previously (3-D space) to define it!

[Scott Mayers]

Note that SR only accepts an absolute of the dimension of time as a whole but does not imply in any way any minimal unit of any 'time interval'.

Agreed. SR cannot describe a quantised reality and neither can GR. This is irreducibly a function of Newton's classical mathematical tools of the calculus, so in a sense the problem of physics is as much meta-mathematical as it is metaphysical. Interestingly Einstein himself made this point not long before he died.

Thus, the math here fixed Zeno's paradox.

It did no such thing. The maths has merely put lipstick on a logical pig and no philosopher of mathematics would buy it for a moment. The Persians would have sold Newton into slavery for daring to suggest that such tools could model a real world, although to be fair to Newton he never actually claimed this. ( In fact Newton never accepted that the universe was real at all because he saw it merely as an artefact of the mind of god.) The calculus can only be used to describe the way a physical system TENDS and can make no meaningful statement about its initial or final state. Furthermore it can make only approximations to values of any intermediate states, as is now well known in the case of GR and the orbital motions of cosmological objects.

You don't seem to be familiar enough with calculus here. The "Limit" defined in calculus to describe numbers via an infinite process is itself finite and no less certain than how we define some numbers by default without! AND intermediate values of any continuous function really is resolved by this method to other finite truths. For instance, calculus can be used to describe irrational numbers to ANY degree of required accuracy in a finite formula! While again, attempting to express the number external to a calculus formula is contingently limited to expression, the formula itself IS a closed expression of the actual value. It is only when we use the calculus expression to translate it into the contingent decimal representation does it represent a problem. The actual decimal expression is NOT complete but the calculus expression IS.

That is why I used the example of how we express, "1 - 1/2 - 1/4 - 1/8 - ... - 1/∞" lacks a simple expression that calculus defines simpler as meaning 0 by the infinite process using calculus. The 'limit' to which this 'sum' (subtraction here) adds up to if we could actually get to infinity, becomes zero.

This is no different than how we use '1/3' to be equivalent to 1.33333333333.... in the same analogy within simpler maths.

This is the type of misunderstanding that I see with the Incompleteness Theorem of Gődel.

All Godel proved was that mathematics is an intrinsically tautologous form of symbolic logic which has nothing to with logic more generally. Although his diagonal arguments are very well structured all they prove is the bloody obvious.

Godel's theorem is true within the limits of the logic it uses that doesn't allow contradiction to represent an infinite process to resolve. In a sense, it is odd that you accept that 'processes' are real but not the objects within such processes. This theorem is initiated with the question of whether a set can be defined itself as a set within it. If the set is defined as, S = "all sets that do not contain itself", it resolves into an infinite regress because S is then just such a set that doesn't contain itself and so in included in S which proves it has one set that does contain itself! This is the crux of the Incompleteness Theorem and why it fails is because it doesn't accept infinite processes as a real 'closed' concept. We define the concept of infinity as a non-real number yet do understand this concept to be real with respect to reality even if we cannot ever get to it. But totality contains this as a truth even if we can not and why it is used to close a mathematical induction with closure (absolute certainty).

I don't agree with Hawking's on latter scientific philosophies on most things regarding Black Holes.

Neither do I and in fact I don't agree with Hawking on most things. However I'm happy enough to provisionally accept the general idea of a black hole as long as it has no singularity or event horizon, a position which Hawking is now willing to consider himself. In fact Hawking has become very coy about black holes of late, even daring to suggest that maybe there's no such things. I don't go that far but I wouldn't mourn their loss if they disappeared off the explanatory landscape. This is what I meant about the utility of the calculus. Because it can't deal with a quantised world it becomes progressively less precise as systems approach their limits. Black hole theory effectively takes Einstein's field equations literally all the way to infinity and it is now well understood from big bang cosmology that this cannot be done.

The Standard Model is a static representation used to explain the both static AND dynamic processes in a static way. The quantum mechanic methods in practice uses statistical occurrences to describe reality that should limit themselves to accept the limitations of measuring to determine what they have and NOT to infer anything based upon the uncertainty implicit upon the method itself. Just because the method is useful for inference, I think the only major problem with it is to assume that the apparent contradictions within attempting to create static models suggest that reality itself is as fallible as the method! Superposition is a good example. The statistical approach suggests that the properties of matter have 'optional' simultaneous versions. But this is assumed conflicting when it isn't. I don't think of QM as a justified subject of theory beyond its methods; it is a practice.

Nicely put, and agreed.

Heisenberg seemed to recognize this in part because even those transient at least settle down momentarily.

Interestingly the early pioneers of QM were far more aware of what their model could tell them about the sub-atomic world than most of those who came later. (With the exception of Feynman who knew it was crap all along but could use its tools better than any of them). What seems to have been forgotten over the years is that Erwin Schrodinger's thought experiment of the cat simultaneously dead and alive was intended as a piss-take at his own expense and a warning that QM MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED LITERALLY. Once again!! It's a fucking metaphor or else the cat can be simultaneously dead and alive, the moon does not exist unless somebody is observing it, effects can precede their causes, etc.

Pay attention, boys and girls. Quantum mechanics is not a true story and it was never intended to be a true story. It was designed as an ad hoc model which could be used to make very accurate predictions about the behaviour of matter and energy at the sub-atomic scale. It has been remarkably successful at this but it was always assumed that QM had no explanatory authority but instead was concealing a deeper theory which would emerge in due course. Unfortunately this deeper theory remains stubbornly elusive and will remain so for as long as the priesthood remains committed to its canonical doctrine of spacetime, which QM accepts as axiomatic. Wake up, geeks. TIME IS NOT A SPATIAL DIMENSION.

If all of reality is described by 'laws of physics'

This is where a very careful use of language is necessary. I completely refute the idea of a reality being determined by physical law but I'm willing to accept that it's convenient to describe it in this way. However the laws are only the property of the physicist who chooses to model the observed patterns of order in nature in this way. My universe is self-organising according to only the single meta-law of cause and effect so what I claim is that reality is making the "laws of physics" rather than the "laws of physics" that is making reality. This is only a slight shift of conceptual emphasis but it makes the world of difference because it means our universe is sufficient to its own existence, which Plato's is not and thus neither is Newton's.[/quote]
We seem to both agree and disagree at the same time! Thus maybe cats too can both exist and not exist simultaneously prior to observation!!

I think your conclusion that time is Not a spacial dimension is merely a confusion. Certainly, even each 'dimension' of regular space is also NOT a part of any given previous 'dimension'. It is the contradiction of anything that could be realized within one given dimension which gives rise to another. To state that Time is not a 'spacial' dimension only means that you create a distinct 'place' where time exists apart from the regular Cartesian space. But while you prefer not to think of time to be connected to the "spacial" dimensions, "time" to you still reduces to being a 'dimension' by the understanding of how even the Cartesian 3-dimensions came about. There is no reason why we have to place all three dimensions in a co-ordinated picture. we can define and picture each of the 3-dimensions as belonging to their own 'picture' by segregating them.

Note that we can easily use paper to draw two of the three dimensions only because we are limited to a two-dimensional means to draw it. The third dimension actually is NOT a function of drawing. It would also require an stack of papers like a cubical block to actually represent the third dimension akin to how time is. Obviously you can also imagine that if we reduce all 3-dimensions on paper, then this same block would represent time. You can extend this analogy further by imagining a piece of paper to represent all four of these 'dimensions' and have 'times of times' representing Possibilities and so on. I'm not sure why you can't see that even time here can be simply an unreal thing in this way. Time, though, is dependent upon descriptions of things in the three dimensions that require at least two separate pages to define any moment. This IS modeled by things like video or motion picture. But you cannot take in the whole 4-D picture without watching it in time itself. But would you deny the particular pictures or video frames as being meaningful?

You also mentioned still that you default to a rule or law of unquestioned reality. You call this a meta-law regarding cause and effect. Yet you only induce this based on experience which itself cannot be proven 'real' if you require closure to be certain of anything. Why cannot reality consist of both consistent truths as well as inconsistent ones. We can simply refer to those inconsistent realities as those that we cannot access from our perspective. And at least, by doing this, we actually provide closure!

[Scott Mayers]

Thinking about the apple falling to the ground from the tree gives the impression that gravity is attractive but when you turn it around and think of the Earth dilating out to the apple you see that the force of gravity is repulsive. I see space as the present moment we all share as we ride this gravity wave outward into the future while attracting the past into our present. The co-moving frame is dilation you see it all the time when moving around in time, why do you think that everything gets larger the closer you get to them, this motion does not stop when you do you just see it as static because it is relative to your consciousnesses motion in the present.

This is a good example of how we can come to another alternative interpretation that has equal validity (until we find trouble with it.) But your theory here, while equally as powerful as Einstein's, is still in conflict with QM for similar reasons. Your expression is still in the same 'dimension' of Einstein's. It is like simply reversing our convention to speaking of positive numbers going towards the right and negative numbers going to the left. You just describe you theory akin to negative numbers being expressed to the right and positive ones to the left.

[Scott Mayers]

....
But you asserted before that you believe in an absolute minimal time quantity you referred to as the Planck Interval. This, I've proven to you, is NOT an absolute minimal time quantity. It is only a created standard unit that they can base comparisons on a quantum level without having to use a macro-sized measure, like the meter, because it gets too confusing to follow or use without. It is like how we simply define "п" (pie), to refer to "3.141692..." The Planck interval is just an assigned unit to make time describable in terms of the Planck constant, h, and the speed of light, c.

Planck unit of time is, say, a time size of elementary particles ...

Sort of; But, more precisely, it is a relative unit intended to be used to discuss those elements on that scale. Otherwise it would be like instead of beginning with inches, feet, and yards (or millimeters, centimeters, or meters) we based our unit as the size of the Earth's diameter to describe how tall we were.

For instance, I am 0.0000001276 Earth Diameters tall!

And, I'm 0.046 Millenniums old.

[Cerveny]

Sorry, but I believe there is certain physical limit in real time scale. Causal time is grained...
Nobody has yet noticed half of elementary particle ... and hard to believe that it can be created in the zero time ...
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7545

[Scott Mayers]

Sorry, but I believe there is certain physical limit in real time scale. Causal time is grained...
Nobody has yet noticed half the elementary particle ... and hard to believe that it was created in the zero moment ...
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7545

Both are true. Nature has both discrete and continuous reality. I mentioned that if time had such, we couldn't possibly have a means to make sense of that without some other smaller measure than that absolute 'size' in order to determine it. But as soon as we could, we'd be certain that some other measure exists that is less than that absolute.

If I said that some object is 2m long and there is no such thing as any smaller 'measure', this begs one to ask how this was measured using the scale of a meter. Thus, this would imply that another smaller unit, namely, the meter exists! Inversely, imagine that the meter is the smallest absolute measure. We can't create a measure, like 1/2 m, without questioning how this is even possible because we already defined the smallest size to be a meter. If you can find some ruler to be certain that the smallest size is 1/2 m, this suggests that the tool (the ruler) itself can recognize measures smaller than the meter and thus the ruler would have to be the next smallest size.

If time is quantized in some absolute measure, therefore, each frame of existence would jump from one frame to the next and we'd have no way to state that any half-way point exists between each frame. Thus, even though this is possible, we'd have no way to define it as anything other that doesn't distinguish itself as being either as having a size or no size.

The Planck measure of is only an arbitrary absolute used for practical purposes to relate things on an atomic scale. It doesn't imply that there is nothing smaller than that.

[petm1]

Thinking about the apple falling to the ground from the tree gives the impression that gravity is attractive but when you turn it around and think of the Earth dilating out to the apple you see that the force of gravity is repulsive. I see space as the present moment we all share as we ride this gravity wave outward into the future while attracting the past into our present. The co-moving frame is dilation you see it all the time when moving around in time, why do you think that everything gets larger the closer you get to them, this motion does not stop when you do you just see it as static because it is relative to your consciousnesses motion in the present.

This is a good example of how we can come to another alternative interpretation that has equal validity (until we find trouble with it.) But your theory here, while equally as powerful as Einstein's, is still in conflict with QM for similar reasons. Your expression is still in the same 'dimension' of Einstein's. It is like simply reversing our convention to speaking of positive numbers going towards the right and negative numbers going to the left. You just describe you theory akin to negative numbers being expressed to the right and positive ones to the left.

I think of it more as seeing the co-moving frame that we are all a part of, like thinking of mass as the dilating momentum of matter anchored in the past. If you think of big bang as a white hole with all energy traveling in one direction, outward from a point, then you may see that it is the same direction that energy still travels today, one direction in time that we see as different directions in space. Think of the center connection we all measure as mass as being tied to one hot dense point in space/time, while looking out we see signs of this point as an inside view we call the CMBR and at the same time we can view matter as an outside point of view leading back to this same hot dense point. A twist in time showing space that Minkowski used by changing signs and I view as a focal point.

[Obvious Leo]

I think of it more as seeing the co-moving frame that we are all a part of,

You're sort of on the right track if you see the co-moving frame as a fractal time dimension, since such dimensions are uni-directional. The simplest way to visualise this is to simply say that the universe is that which is continuously coming into existence and that it can therefore be said to truly exist only in its own moment now. This is an ontological commitment which restores the metaphysical distinction between past, present and future which the Minkowski modelling invalidates by representing time as a spatial dimension. Essentially the spacetime paradigm is making the oldest mistake in philosophy by mistaking the map for the territory. If we see the world solely in terms of events occurring in time then our perception of these events as objects moving in space is reduced to a feature of our own consciousness. Neither the objects nor the space are physically real.

To a physicist this is a proposition of the most extreme heresy but to every major school of philosophy this is a simple statement of the bloody obvious. Since physics has made no sense for the past 400 years any philosopher is free to conclude that the spacetime paradigm is bullshit and common sense must be made to prevail. The bald truth is that Newton was wrong and Leibniz was right. The Cartesian space is a mathematical object and not a physical one. Not only does this explain such paradoxical phenomena in cosmology as the "expanding" universe it also reduces the various absurdities in the spacetime interpretation of the sub-atomic world to a small suite of common sense propositions. The so-called "quantum weirdness" simply vanishes.

[petm1]

I think of it more as seeing the co-moving frame that we are all a part of,

You're sort of on the right track if you see the co-moving frame as a fractal time dimension, since such dimensions are uni-directional. The simplest way to visualise this is to simply say that the universe is that which is continuously coming into existence and that it can therefore be said to truly exist only in its own moment now. This is an ontological commitment which restores the metaphysical distinction between past, present and future which the Minkowski modelling invalidates by representing time as a spatial dimension. Essentially the spacetime paradigm is making the oldest mistake in philosophy by mistaking the map for the territory. If we see the world solely in terms of events occurring in time then our perception of these events as objects moving in space is reduced to a feature of our own consciousness. Neither the objects nor the space are physically real.

To a physicist this is a proposition of the most extreme heresy but to every major school of philosophy this is a simple statement of the bloody obvious. Since physics has made no sense for the past 400 years any philosopher is free to conclude that the spacetime paradigm is bullshit and common sense must be made to prevail. The bald truth is that Newton was wrong and Leibniz was right. The Cartesian space is a mathematical object and not a physical one. Not only does this explain such paradoxical phenomena in cosmology as the "expanding" universe it also reduces the various absurdities in the spacetime interpretation of the sub-atomic world to a small suite of common sense propositions. The so-called "quantum weirdness" simply vanishes.

We do not exist, in the moment only or now. It is you consciousness constant motion, centered in the present anchored in the past by your center of mass, that makes you see the world as static. Time is how we describe dilation even when we do not see it.

[Obvious Leo]

We do not exist, in the moment only or now. It is you consciousness constant motion, centered in the present anchored in the past by your center of mass, that makes you see the world as static.

Only our current models of physics see the world as static because they define the passage of time as illusory. That's what's bloody wrong with them!!

[petm1]

We do not exist, in the moment only or now. It is you consciousness constant motion, centered in the present anchored in the past by your center of mass, that makes you see the world as static.

Only our current models of physics see the world as static because they define the passage of time as illusory. That's what's bloody wrong with them!!

Time is not an illusion in science it is imaginary, ict, but even they are beginning to realise that all of reality is imaginary.

[Obvious Leo]

Time is not an illusion in science it is imaginary,

The distinction escapes me I'm afraid. The Minkowski block model merely makes no metaphysical distinction between past, present and future which means that the passage of time cannot be treated as a physically real phenomenon in the 4D manifold. Unfortunately this means that gravity must also be illusory because GR clearly shows that time and gravity are two different expressions of the same thing. No wonder physics makes no sense.

all of reality is imaginary.

Philosophy depends on precision of language and language such as this can be very misleading. To say that reality is imaginary is absurd but to say that the way we interpret reality is entirely a construct of our own consciousness is bloody obvious.

[petm1]

il·lu·sion is a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses while
im·ag·i·nar·y is existing only in the imagination.