Deepest Mystery

Nice post Chuck.

I think the validity of mechanistic closure (everything about reality can be given a complete mathematical description that fits into the whole) is what divides what we can loosely group as "materialists" from those we'd group as "immaterialists".

You see this with questions of time, qualia, creative ability, and so on. [Though as you say all this still remains at the level of forms.]

I think the problem with those critiques is that they try to take the illusion and somehow extrapolate it to the ontology. Like saying that because you had the sensation time is going backwards, that means time indeed, trully goes backwards. While I agree that time and consciousness are puzzling and currently their relation is unknown, I think it begs the question to ask that the illusion must be taken as ontologicaly significant without any sort of justification other than "it just feels like it".

But the claim, AFAICTell, is not that the sensation of becoming expresses the truth about time, but rather that this illusion of becoming is becoming within the context of subjective awareness:

"Take the supposed illusion of change. This must mean that something, X, appears to change when in fact it does not change at all. That may be true about X; but how could the illusion occur unless there were change somewhere? If there is no change in X, there must be a change in the deluded mind that contemplates X. The illusion of change is actually a changing illusion. Thus the illusion of change implies the reality of some change. Change, therefore, is invincible in its stubbornness; for no one can deny the appearance of change."
-Laird

It's a case where seeming is being. As such, regardless of whether the illusion is accurate to exceedingly small units of time (if division of time is even acceptable) is irrelevant. It's the illusion which changes, so something does change.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice post Chuck.

I think the validity of mechanistic closure (everything about reality can be given a complete mathematical description that fits into the whole) is what divides what we can loosely group as "materialists" from those we'd group as "immaterialists".

You see this with questions of time, qualia, creative ability, and so on.



But the claim, AFAICTell, is not that the sensation of becoming expresses the truth about time, but rather that this illusion of becoming is becoming within the context of subjective awareness:

"Take the supposed illusion of change. This must mean that something, X, appears to change when in fact it does not change at all. That may be true about X; but how could the illusion occur unless there were change somewhere? If there is no change in X, there must be a change in the deluded mind that contemplates X. The illusion of change is actually a changing illusion. Thus the illusion of change implies the reality of some change. Change, therefore, is invincible in its stubbornness; for no one can deny the appearance of change."
-Laird

It's a case where seeming is being. As such, regardless of whether the illusion is accurate to exceedingly small units of time (if division of time is even acceptable) is irrelevant. It's the illusion which changes, so something does change.

Right. As the very nature of the Tao is beyond quantification or qualification, perhaps we can see a time where there may be some kind of Einstein-like equation where the Tao is simply represented by a variable.
 
I think there is no direct connection between phenomenology and ontology, but there must be some connection, because the mere fact we feel anything, implies that something exists, ie, our feelling, and the ontology is about what exists, so if we feel the change, there is at least a change exists ontologically, which is fatal to a theory that posits that the change does not exist ontologically.

But again, B theory doesn't posit change doesn't exist in any sense. It just have a different approach to it. And I agree that there is a connecton between phenomenology and ontology, however I don't see very clear if this connection at all would destroy B theory of time. As I see it ( and based on what I posted above), I think it's the other way around: phenomenology destroys A theory of time.
 
But the claim, AFAICTell, is not that the sensation of becoming expresses the truth about time, but rather that this illusion of becoming is becoming within the context of subjective awareness:

"Take the supposed illusion of change. This must mean that something, X, appears to change when in fact it does not change at all. That may be true about X; but how could the illusion occur unless there were change somewhere? If there is no change in X, there must be a change in the deluded mind that contemplates X. The illusion of change is actually a changing illusion. Thus the illusion of change implies the reality of some change. Change, therefore, is invincible in its stubbornness; for no one can deny the appearance of change."
-Laird

I disagree that the illusion of change implies the reality of some change, the same way as the illusion of time reversal would imply at all the reality of any time reversal. Look, I'll copy/paste the same phrase but with some minor changes to express my view better:

"Take the supposed illusion of time reversal. This must mean that something, X, appears to reverse in time when in fact it does not reverse in time at all. That may be true about X; but how could the illusion occur unless there were a time reversal somewhere? If there is no time reversal in X, there must be a time reversal in the deluded mind that contemplates X. The illusion of time reversal is actually a time-reversing illusion. Thus the illusion of time reversal implies the reality of some time travel. Time travel backwards, therefore, is invincible in its stubbornness; for no one can deny the appearance of time travel."

I simply changed the word "change" for time reversal so you can see better why this approach is ill-conceived, if one follows the logic, and if the appearance of change from present to future implies actual change from past to future, then it's just as logical that the appareance of change from present to past would imply actual change from present to past (time travel) . By this logic, it would imply that minds can time travel. Time travel, BTW is compatible with B-theory of time, but it's incompatible with A theory of time ( because the past is ontologically non-existent).

So yeah, there might be change in the mind, however that doesn't need to get mixed with theories of time, since it might be completely irrelevant.

It's a case where seeming is being. As such, regardless of whether the illusion is accurate to exceedingly small units of time (if division of time is even acceptable) is irrelevant. It's the illusion which changes, so something does change.

The fact that phenomenological moments in time can only exist by the accumulation of many moments in the ontological sense already speaks against there existing a single "moment". I don't think that an illusion of change implies something fundamental about ontological time, for the same reasons that I don't think that the illusion of time reversal implies that time travel is possible at all.
 
Last edited:
I think the illusion of reversed time would show the same thing as the usual sense of forward moving time. That, within the context of the illusion, there is change. Thus there exists demarcation of change.

I'd agree that sensation of change doesn't prove anything definitive about time, but it still seems like a big problem for B-theory. I'll read up on it more and see if I can explain where I'm coming from better as I feel like I'm not explaining my issue with B-theory well...
 
I think the illusion of reversed time would show the same thing as the usual sense of forward moving time. That, within the context of the illusion, there is change. Thus there exists demarcation of change.

That seems to be a bit like fine-tunning the answer in an arbitrary way. Getting the change part, but omiting the time line due to it's unconvenient and counter conclusions (that it might prove B theory of time instead of A-theory of time). Seems to leave some parts out and some parts in of the issue without much reasoning behind.

I'd agree that sensation of change doesn't prove anything definitive about time, but it still seems like a big problem for B-theory. I'll read up on it more and see if I can explain where I'm coming from better as I feel like I'm not explaining my issue with B-theory well...

It might turn out to be a problem if we can relate the sensation of change with change in the ontological time. After all, B theory is a theory relating physical time, so it can only be countered by claiming the physical time doesn't work the way the B-theory says. However, to do such a thing we should need to grab the sensations and give them an ontological equivalent in reality with change, which (as I claimed in the "phenomenology-ontology-moments" issue and the time reversal example) can get to be very problematic, so I don't think the reasoning behind it is sound. On the other hand, it might be that I don't understand you fully.
 
Some people who have had NDE's, report a state of timelessness. It is damn hard to understand what such a thing can be like without another dimension of time in which to experience it. So for example, you could observe the B-universe as a whole and discover what happened on the Mary Celeste, but that in itself implies a before time when you didn't know what happened on the ship, and an after time when you did!

Since time enters both QM and SR multiplied by SQRT(-1), this might suggest that time is actually two-dimentional (imaginary quantities are a special case of complex quantities of the form A+SQRT(-1)B).

Whether this is the case or not, I think it is incredibly easy to forget that the block universe isn't quite as we tend to think of it, because the time dimension is multiplied by SQRT(-1)!!!

My guess is that at some point physics will undergo another upheaval, and these considerations will all seem naive!

David
 
Some people who have had NDE's, report a state of timelessness. It is damn hard to understand what such a thing can be like without another dimension of time in which to experience it. So for example, you could observe the B-universe as a whole and discover what happened on the Mary Celeste, but that in itself implies a before time when you didn't know what happened on the ship, and an after time when you did!

Since time enters both QM and SR multiplied by SQRT(-1), this might suggest that time is actually two-dimentional (imaginary quantities are a special case of complex quantities of the form A+SQRT(-1)B).

Whether this is the case or not, I think it is incredibly easy to forget that the block universe isn't quite as we tend to think of it, because the time dimension is multiplied by SQRT(-1)!!!

My guess is that at some point physics will undergo another upheaval, and these considerations will all seem naive!

David

David,

I think I may have mentioned this before, but SR doesn't have an "i" in it. You only get imaginary numbers outside the domain of validity of the theory where it is never used, i.e. when v >c.. The "i" in QM probably only arises because particles are modeled as a state vector in a complex space called Hilbert Space. The "i" doesn't have anything more to do with time in there then it does with position, momentum, etc. And, it may not have anything to do with reality, meaning it may just be a mathematical artifact from the way we're modeling things.
 
Last edited:
David,

I think I may have mentioned this before, but SR doesn't have an "i" in it. You only get imaginary numbers outside the domain of validity of the theory where it is never used, i.e. when v >c.. The "i" in QM probably only arises because particles are modeled as a state vector in a complex space called Hilbert Space. The "i" doesn't have anything more to do with time in there then it does with position, momentum, etc. And, it not have anything to do with reality, meaning it may just be a mathematical artifact from the way we're modeling things.
I don't understand what you mean, a point in the 4-D space of SR has coordinates {x,y,z,i t) (in units where c=1). The block in the block universe has one of its dimensions multiplied by SQRT(-1) (i.e. i ). You can conceal this by using a metric to define distances, but isn't that just obscuring the fact with maths?

As for QM, I prefer to think in terms of the more concrete Schroedinger equation, Hψ=i (curly d ψ/curly d t) where H is a differential operator. Modelling ψ as a vector in Hilbert space may be useful in some ways, but maybe it just obscures the fact that t appears multiplied by SQRT(-1).

I know we mentioned it before, but I guess it was just one of those lines of discussion that got dropped!

David
 
Last edited:
I don't understand what you mean, a point in the 4-D space of SR has coordinates {x,y,z,i t) (in units where c=1). The block in the block universe has one of its dimensions multiplied by SQRT(-1) (i.e. i ).

As for QM, I prefer to think in terms of the more concrete Schroedinger equation, Hψ=i (curly d ψ/curly d t).

David

The psi in Schrodinger Equation is a state vector in a complex Hilbert Space. It's a mathematical space that is not considered "real". By the way, there is another "i" hiding in there that was attached to the momentum operator in the Hamiltonian (H) on the left side. So, what does that mean if we're going to give these "i"'s extra meaning? Also, I could just multiply both sides of the Schrodinger Equation by "i", removing the "i" from the t and adding it on to the spatial terms. Same equation, same predictions, but now the "i" would appear to be associated with the spatial derivative and/or potential and not with time. What would that mean? I guess I'm trying to say, be careful about attaching too much meaning onto the "i"'s in these equations.

With SR, you're probably thinking of the signature of the metric, where t gets a minus sign, but not an "i", which you can see in the metric. ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2. But, that's just a common convention. One can just as easily apply the minus sign to space as long as they stay consistent. In certain regimes, the signs switch naturally, making time-like coordinates into space-like coordinates and vice-versa, like with Black Holes. But, there are no "i"'s involved in SR.

I don't know what you mean by "Block Universe" but it sounds like it is adding something additional to SR that is not in the original theory.
 
Last edited:
The psi in Schrodinger Equation is a state vector in a complex Hilbert Space. It's a mathematical space that is not considered "real". By the way, there is another "i" hiding in there that was attached to the momentum operator in the Hamiltonian (H) on the left side. So, what does that mean if we're going to give these "i"'s extra meaning? Also, I could just multiply both sides of the Schrodinger Equation by "i", removing the "i" from the t and adding it on to the spatial terms. Same equation, same predictions, but now the "i" would appear to be associated with the spatial derivative and/or potential and not with time. What would that mean?
Well that would have transformed the complication I am talking about, but not eliminated it.
I guess I'm trying to say, be careful about attaching to much meaning onto the "i"'s in these equations.
With SR, you're probably thinking of the signature of the metric, where t gets a minus sign, but not an "i", which you can see in the metric. ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2. But, that's just a common convention. One can just as easily apply the minus sign to space as long as they stay consistent. In certain regimes, the signs switch naturally, making time-like coordinates into space-like coordinates and vice-versa, like with Black Holes. But, there are no "i"'s involved in SR.

I don't know what you mean by "Block Universe" but it sounds like it is adding something additional to SR that is not in the original theory.

Well the discussion above refers to B-theory, which seems to be the idea that the whole of space-time exists as a block in 4-D. I mean, yes, you can change the convention, but the fact is that 4-D space time isn't like 3-D with one extra dimension. For example, if you take away one spatial dimension from space-time, you don't end up with something resembling ordinary 3-D space because you have distinct points that have no distance between them.

Yes, SR can be formulated so as to get rid of the i, but it does so by introducing a metric with a negative component - which does the same job!

Call me old fashioned, but I guess I would rather the fundamental equations of physics could be formulated without introducing complex numbers! Complex numbers are enormously useful in so many ways in maths, but they remain imaginary (as it were).

Don't forget that I am only claiming that those i's are suggestive of two time dimensions - I don't remotely suggest it is a proof!

Do you think people experience genuine timelessness within NDE's, and if you do, how would you describe the Mary Celeste scenario that I discussed above?

David
 
Last edited:
Well the discussion above refers to B-theory, which seems to be the idea that the whole of space-time exists as a block in 4-D. I mean, yes, you can change the convention, but the fact is that 4-D space time isn't like 3-D with one extra dimension. For example, if you take away one spatial dimension from space-time, you don't end up with something resembling ordinary 3-D space because you have distinct points that have no distance between them.
David

There are different kinds of 4D spaces. 4D Euclidean spaces are just like 3D spaces with one extra dimension. 4D Lorentzian spacetimes on the other hand are not. These two different 4D "spaces" have two different underlying geometries, which are represented within their corresponding metrics. This is can all ultimately be put into terms of Group Theory which generalizes all this in an abstract, yet consistent, way.

I've never heard of B-Theory before. I would just caution, w/e it is, be careful it's not ascribing something additional to SR, because imaginary numbers are not required in SR.

However, the following sparked a memory. Must have responded to quick and missed it before you edited it in.

You can conceal this by using a metric to define distances, but isn't that just obscuring the fact with maths?

Anyhow, I think I might know what you're thinking of now. There was attempts to make the geometry in SR to look more like Euclidean Geometry, using a defined X_0 = ict coordinate. [In other words, an attempt to have "4-D space time that IS more like 3-D with one extra dimension", i.e. more like 4D Euclidean space, rather than a 4D Lorentzian space]. Your phrase above made me remember this, because it is actually the opposite. That term obscures the Lorentzian geometry inherent to SR. In addition, it isn't even compatible with general curved spacetime manifolds, which SR is a subset of. Also, one can just as easily add the "i" to spatial coordinates and get the opposite of your original idea and have "i" associated with space instead. Why one would want to do that, I don't know. Point is, you can do all sorts of weird stuff with "i"'s across all physics fields .... some useful, most not. There is a real similar trick in QFT called a Wick Rotation, where you intentionally make time imaginary, in order to make an integral easier to solve. It makes Lorentzian spacetime look like a 4D Euclidean space and kills off the minus sign (from the signature of the SR/Lorentzian metric), making the integral more manageable. But, that doesn't mean time really is imaginary. It's just a mathematical "trick". Again, gotta be careful reading too much into "i's.

I've got about 5 of the classic relativity texts. None of them use this term. One (Wheeler, Thorne) mentions it, but only in passing as a historical aside. On other hand, every space can consistently be assigned a metric and the corresponding rotations in SR form part of the Lorentz Group, maths that are consistent and compatible across all physics. No imaginary numbers are required here. This is how SR has traditionally always been used.

Having said all of this, I do always harken back to Roger Penrose's idea of Platonic Reality of math. Do imaginary numbers represent something about reality? They sure are a BIG part of math and modern day physics. One can't help but wonder. I certainly don't think we can rule it out right now. Hawking pursued with vigor some ideas on an "real" imaginary time axes, himself.
 
Last edited:
Yes, SR can be formulated so as to get rid of the i, but it does so by introducing a metric with a negative component - which does the same job!

Call me old fashioned, but I guess I would rather the fundamental equations of physics could be formulated without introducing complex numbers! Complex numbers are enormously useful in so many ways in maths, but they remain imaginary (as it were).

Boy, you snuck this in again, after I already responded, hehe.

SR isn't formulated to get rid of the "i"s, though. As I said above, its basic formulation doesn't even have an "i". It doesn't even have 4-vectors! It was Minkowski who later unified space and time. And, we know today, SR doesn't need "i"s at all. The term with the "i" was a later attempt to modify SR to look more Euclidean.

QM/QFT on the other hand, is a different story.

Don't forget that I am only claiming that those i's are suggestive of two time dimensions - I don't remotely suggest it is a proof!

And, you might be right! My only main point was "i"s are tricky ;-)

Do you think people experience genuine timelessness within NDE's, and if you do, how would you describe the Mary Celeste scenario that I discussed above?
David

Yes, I think it is genuine timelessness. I do think THIS is suggested by SR, for sure. You can examine the equations of SR in the limit that v goes to c and they suggest time "stops". I suggested this 20 years ago and got scoffed at in school. I find it vindicating toady that it is generally accepted that massless particles do not sense the passage of time! Anyhow, seems to me we just gotta ask a photon what timelessness is like. ;-)

As far as psi, NDEs, etc. I don't think we need two time axes. Ideas like TSQM are starting to offer a richer view on time, with only one time axes, that all seems very conducive to psi. I think it's linear time that needs to go and it appears to be on its way out if theories like TSQM keep gaining popularity.
 
Last edited:
There are different kinds of 4D spaces. 4D Euclidean spaces are just like 3D spaces with one extra dimension. 4D Lorentzian spacetimes on the other hand are not. These two different 4D "spaces" have two different underlying geometries, which are represented within their corresponding metrics. This is can all ultimately be put into terms of Group Theory which generalizes all this in an abstract, yet consistent, way.

I've never heard of B-Theory before.
I think the term B-theory was just coined above to represent the idea that you can look on the whole time evolution of the universe as a block of stuff.

I guess that using your preferred terminology, I was cautioning that this thing doesn't exist in a Euclidean space!

I would just caution, w/e it is, be careful it's not ascribing something additional to SR, because imaginary numbers are not required in SR.

However, the following sparked a memory. Must have responded to quick and missed it before you edited it in.


Anyhow, I think I might know what you're thinking of now. There was attempts to make the geometry in SR to look more like Euclidean Geometry, using a defined X_0 = ict coordinate. [In other words, an attempt to have "4-D space time that IS more like 3-D with one extra dimension", i.e. more like 4D Euclidean space, rather than a 4D Lorentzian space]. You're phrase above made me remember this, because it is actually the opposite. That term obscures the Lorentzian geometry inherent to SR. In addition, it isn't even compatible with general curved spacetime manifolds, which SR is a subset of.
Yes! Now we are talking on the same wavelength! My SR is 40 years old!
Having said all of this, I do always harken back to Roger Penrose's idea of Platonic Reality of math. Do imaginary numbers represent something about reality? They sure are a BIG part of math and modern day physics. One can't help but wonder. I certainly don't think we can rule it out right now. Hawking pursued with vigor some ideas on an "real" imaginary time axes, himself.

My point is that a complex number can be thought of as a tuple of quantities, which might be interesting applied to time! I do remember Hawkins' "A brief history of time" ended with speculation that the big bang (or possibly the big crunch, I forget) might get smoothed out and replaced by a bowl shaped object with time becoming complex!

David
 
As far as psi, NDEs, etc. I don't think we need two time axes. Ideas like TSQM are starting to offer a richer view on time, with only one time axes, that all seems very conducive to psi. I think it's linear time that needs to go and it appears to be on its way out if theories like TSQM keep gaining popularity.

Well I know you like TSQM, but I still wonder how you would describe the situation (basically reported in some NDE's) of observing something within space-time. Observing surely implies a state of not knowing followed by a state of knowing!

PS I am off to bed now, so we shan't go on leapfrogging each other!

David
 
My point is that a complex number can be thought of as a tuple of quantities, which might be interesting applied to time! I do remember Hawkins' "A brief history of time" ended with speculation that the big bang (or possibly the big crunch, I forget) might get smoothed out and replaced by a bowl shaped object with time becoming complex!
David

You'd like hyper-complex numbers ;-)

This reminded me of of a guy a ways back who told me to study hyper-complex numbers as they're the key to everything. Never did get to finish the discussion with him, but maybe he had ideas on time too. I know he had ideas on the etheric - he was big time into Anthroposphy = Rudolph Steiner. But, he was a really smart guy, so I always wanted to read further some work he recommended, like Nick Thomas and ideas on Counterspace. On the to-do list still!

Kinda just makes me think again how careful you gotta be though too. I use quaternions fairly regularly at work - they're a computationally efficient way to perform rotations without encountering "singularities" like with Euler Angles. They are a hyper-complex number of rank 4 - they have one real part and three imaginary parts with i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1 (A 4-tuple!) But despite the extra fancy looks of what I am doing, it's still just a way to perform the same basic rotation I could have done another way. There isn't anything to read into it, other than that. Just another way introducing complex numbers can make solving a problem easier.
 
Last edited:
Well I know you like TSQM, but I still wonder how you would describe the situation (basically reported in some NDE's) of observing something within space-time. Observing surely implies a state of not knowing followed by a state of knowing!

David

Well, none of our physics can fully describe NDEs, psi so there is only so much you can say. The question is do we have developments that are becoming more, or less, conducive to psi. TSQM is becoming more conducive to psi in a way that doesn't need two time axes to make an appeal to things like presentiment, retro causality, etc

I think QFT is another place to look. Fields are spread out across spacetime, "non-local" if you will. If consciousness is field-like, it already has access to all spacetime as far as "knowing". It's just a matter of whether, or not, it makes it through the egoic "filter" and into our little whirlpool, ala Idealism. NDEs would just open the filter. You don't need two time axes, because you're transcending time itself via the "non-local" nature of consciousness. Just like regular quantum fields "transcend" spacetime to allow the phenomenon of entanglement, whether its entanglement in space OR time, because it's the same thing in the end ala SR's unified spacetime. (I put "transcend" in quotes because QFT is defined within spacetime, so doesn't imply something extra-dimensional necessarily)

I am speculating here, but physics is heading in a direction that is looking conducive to psi, with only one time axes. Just my opinion! ;-)

EDIT: I'm going backpacking tomorrow, so I may not respond again myself until Monday at the earliest.
 
Last edited:
You'd like hyper-complex numbers ;-)

This reminded me of of a guy a ways back who told me to study hyper-complex numbers as they're the key to everything. Never did get to finish the discussion with him, but maybe he had ideas on time too. I know he had ideas on the etheric - he was big time into Anthroposphy = Rudolph Steiner. But, he was a really smart guy, so I always wanted to read further some work he recommended, like Nick Thomas and ideas on Counterspace. On the to-do list still!

Kinda just makes me think again how careful you gotta be though too. I use quaternions fairly regularly at work - they're a computationally efficient way to perform rotations without encountering "singularities" like with Euler Angles. They are a hyper-complex number of rank 4 - they have one real part and three imaginary parts with i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1 (A 4-tuple!) But despite the extra fancy looks of what I am doing, it's still just a way to perform the same basic rotation I could have done another way. There isn't anything to read into it, other than that. Just another way introducing complex numbers can make solving a problem easier.

I have come across quaternions, but only in passing. The interesting thing is that people were looking for analogs of complex numbers to represent triples of numbers (ordinary 3-D vectors) or other higher dimensional things. Quaternions aren't 'as good' as complex numbers because they don't commute, and octernions are even worse. Good old complex numbers really do have a unique place in maths (of course). Even so, I do feel basic physical laws should be formulated without their use.

One thing that interests me, is the way science and maths take over ordinary concepts and twist them - leading to all sorts of misconceptions. Lorentzian space is really a very peculiar concept - nothing like the common conception of a space (Euclidian space), this gives rise to the misconception that space-time is just like ordinary space, but with an extra dimension representing time.

Counterspace sounds interesting, but I fear I will drown in the algebra - I am not as stronger swimmer as you :)

David
 
Are the only options linear time & timelessness?

It's as impossible for me to comprehend two or more axes of time as it is for me to comprehend timelessness...
 
Are the only options linear time & timelessness?

It's as impossible for me to comprehend two or more axes of time as it is for me to comprehend timelessness...
Well I suppose you have to imagine normal time as frozen, and you are sitting,viewing all of ordinary time from within time-2.0!

I agree that timelessness seems particularly hard to comprehend - I mean, everything we do or think is rooted in time.

David
 
Last edited:
Back
Top