Re: Painful but inevitable resignation

From: Andr? Michaud (srp_at_microtec.net)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: 23 Nov 2004 10:01:37 -0800

Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<41A22EB9.3080605@et.uni-magdeburg.de>...
> On 11/19/2004 7:06 PM, Andr? Michaud wrote:
> >>
> >> Considering time and flow as closely related to each other terms, I
> >> nonetheless dislike the expression time flow because people imagine it
> >> on the basis of traditional bilateral notion of time.
> >
> > I agree on this point. I, however, do not consider what I call "the
> > progression of the present moment" as being related to past and future.
> > I see it as the only moment of existence.
>
> No objection. This is perhaps the key the quoted experts were looking for.

So you think the idea has merit?

Unexpected and Interesting.
 
> > What we call the "past" can
> > then only be a subjective impression based on our recollection of
> > sequences of events that continuously unfolded as they were current,
> > or as sequences of events that we extrapolated to have occured from
> > the current state of decay of their current remains.
>
> In that I do not share you utterly subjectivistic point of view.

It certainly is a personal view, not shared by many.

To be more specific, I observe that each person builds a different
model of what the past is simply because each one pays attention to
different events, and for same events, often pay attention to different
aspects of these events. This is how the various models (one per
individual) can only be subjective, by definition.

All in all, each becomes aware of only a part of what is happening,
a part different for each depending on the personal set of interests
that each individual developped from birth onwards, specifically only
what draws his or her attention in the available set.

That's why all models are subjective in my view.

> In order to not loose your cooperation I would suggest focussing on
> what we perhaps agree on: Past is quite different from future in that
> it leaves traces on can identify now.

I find this conversation utterly interesting. So, I will let you
lead the debate and synthesize points of agreement and will willingly
avoid issues that might unnecessarily hasten its demise.

I am in no hurry.

> > As for the future, it is not written yet, in my view.
>
> Of course. Nobody will deny this. My basic idea goes a decisive step
> further. A text that is not yet written does not yet exist relative to
> the recipient. That's why I am suggesting to restrict the peraining
> measure to the existing elapsed time.

Fine with me.

> While abstract quantities can be described at will on the usually arbitrary
> time-scale. Reality fits to elapsed time.

Agreement.

Maybe we should also agree on terms. I suspect that we assign different
meaning to important terms like "reality", "objective", "model", etc.

> >> My different approach arose from a purely practical one. If we agree
> >> that future events do not belong to reality,
> >
> > We definitely agree on this.
> >
> >> then it makes sense to have an objective scale of elapsed time which is
> >> not based on the hypothetical bilateral time coordinate.
> >
> > Definitely. On my part, I have been studying what could be the "velocity"
> > of the objective and physical (in my view) progression of the "present
> > moment" that I refer to along a dimension orthogonal to what we see as
> > "space".
>
> Too much seeming agreement makes me wary. Indeed, I should make you
> aware of my sliding time-scale. On that scale, the zero is permanently
> at the front, at now.

I can live with this.

Can you live with the idea that this zero could be captive of a moving
"vehicle" (the progressing present moment) and always remain centered
on it?

> Nonetheless I see your question justified. The measure of elapsed time
> is perhaps something we have to take for granted as we have to just
> measure spatial distance.

Yes, I agree. We do need to measure elapsed time.

> Well freshmen tend to wonder if I am telling them that velocity of light
> as well as wave resistance of space depends on epsilon and my in a similar
> manner.

This is quite an interesting question. I have wondered if eps_0 was
really a property of space, as is generally assumed, or if vacuum turned
out to have no property at all, if epsilon could not maybe be a property
of free moving EM energy itself instead.
 
> >> The other way round, usual time is merely an abstracted, extended, and
> >> sliding copy of that unilateral objective scale.
> >
> > Yes. That is why I said that our "scientific" measurement of time flow
> > is subjective.
>
> More cheeky: That's why common sense grammar beats the scientific notion
> of time.
>
> >> If I am correct, and reality-bound time is a unilateral quantity, then
> >> this "correction" of the traditional believe is indeed a foremost
> >> fundamental one.
> >
> > This is my view also. I think that the progression of the present moment
> > (the only existing moment in my view) is directly linked to motion of the
> > fundamental particles.
>
> I did not yet see the most fundamental particles. If you are right, does
> it matter for me?

That would be for you to tell.

To me, the most fundamental particles are all physically scatterable
(demonstrably elementary) stable particles: electron, positron, quark up,
quark down, and photons (real EM energy, not QED virtual photons).

See below for more on this.

As far as can be verified, all stable matter in the universe can be made
up of only these and their interactions.
 
> >> Tortuously speaking, the now of my left feet is not absolutely identical
> >> to the now of my right ear. In that respect I share the relativists
> >> point of view. The reason for me to think so is simple: If we accept
> >> observation as the only reasonable criterion of reality, then this
> >> relates to the observing unity, not to the physiology or psychology of
> >> observation.
> >
> > I see. Here we differ. To me, observation is not the criterion of reality,
> > because what our awareness (whatever that is) is observing is only the
> > stored memories of the patterns that our neocortex abstracted from the
> > data provided by our senses.
> >
> > To me, what is happening to all particles during the unique progressing
> > present moment is physical reality.
>
> The latter is a reasonable position. You are more close to Einstein's
> utterance than me in that. I will reconsider my position which arose
> from fundamental difference between past and future.

Interesting. Could it be that you have not yet made up your mind for good
un such a fundamental issues?

If so, I find this utterly fascinating since all knowledgeable people I have
met yet already had their minds set on all fundamental issues, which means
that no reconsideration was possible for them.
 
> >> I believe that there is an objective relationship underlying observation.
> >> You might call my belief a model.
> >
> > I believe that everyones' beliefs are subjective models, including mine.
> > External reality is something else, that we need to understand better if
> > our species is to survive.
>
> I did not refer to my subjective experience but perhaps to the same what
> you are calling external reality. Once again: My aim is to exclude any
> mere speculation from that model I am calling reality. As long as you
> only have a vague imagination of what you reality is, your model is just
> less precise. Calling the same thing reality, you are merely expressing
> your readiness to believe in something. Calling the same thing model I
> am trying to express suspicion and my effort to avoid speculation.
> In particular, I do not consider future time objective reality.

On my side, I do not see the future as part of my personal (subjective)
model. If you don't either, then we can safely speak or our respective
personal models as not referring to the future.

> >> This background behind observation is, of course, more than just
> >> observation itself.
> >
> > Yes. What you call "that background" is what I call objective reality,
> > if I understood you correctly.
>
> Yes.

If you agree, we could talk of each what we believe is reality as
being each our personal models, and of what you call "this background
behind observation" as being objective reality.

In my model, "this background behind observation" is what is happening to
all particles during what I perceive as being the unique progressing
present moment, and of course what happened as it progressed since the
beginning of the universe.
 
> >> Stop. You did not follow me. My message is quite clear: I cannot confirm
> >> any compelling reason to postulate something that has no chance ever to
> >> be of verifyable relevance,
> >
> > But we are verifying it. All those photons that hit our eyes have to be real
> > and all have been emitted by electrons de-exiting in atoms somewhere in
> > surrounding materials, etc. Don't you think that the step is easily taken
> > to conclude that these atoms really objectively exist, irrespective of
> > our observing or not?
>
> I did not use the term observation in a narrow sense. I rather meant the
> collective scientific work, and I highly appreciate that this work has
> created a largely unitarian result so far.

Ok I see. To me however, the whole collective scientific heirloom is a
huge collection of real data, bad or good, good conclusions, bad
conclusions, theories that address parts of the problem, and that were
considered satisfying when they were proposed (some generally accepted,
others not) based on the real or assumed real data available at the time,
some conflicting, others not conflicting.

I see this collective heirloom as a huge heystack in which I have been
looking for the real gold nuggets.

Having become aware of the present moment and its progression, I
realized that the only real data available in the pile regarding that
progression were the scattering events and their electromagnetic
interaction at our nerve endings that provide our brain with the only
knowledge we ever gathered about it.

I started looking for the identified scatterable particles. In the
lot, I found that all unstable particles ended up decaying into a
very small subset of stable particles, electron, positron, neutron,
proton (the latter two being made up of only scatterable quarks up
and down), and free moving energy (photons).

That smallest subset that I eventually ended up with is the set of the
only stable elementary particles the physical existence of which has been
established without question (from my point of view), because they can
be verifiably physically scattered against by other particles of the
same subset.

On that consistant (in my opinion) footing, plus the verified triply
orthogonal EM relation of Maxwell's theory, Kaufmann's verified discovery
of the insensitivity of kinetic energy to transverse interaction, de
Broglie's verified hypotheses about the internal structure of photons
that allows associating mutually cancelling charges to half-photons, and
the verified Coulomb law between charged particles, I reconstructed my
personal model to my satisfaction on strictly logical considerations.
 
> >> no matter whether it is called god or objective future time in the sense
> >> of something to discover.
> >
> > I fail to see a relation to god here, or to hypothetical future time. Could
> > you elaborate?
>
> I consider god and future time notions that cannot be confirmed by means
> of scientific evidence. Moreover, I see such notions related to the same
> desire to have something to imagine. It will be nearly equally different
> to dissuade people from both.

That's probably why I saw no relation, since I think that the future is
not written yet, and that the question of god or no god is irrelevant to
the issue of studying the fundamental laws and relations of the particles
making up the universe.

> >> > We are constantly following it, even when we are not paying any attention.
> >>
> >> I agree that attention does not matter at all. However, my point of view
> >> is different. I strictly distinguish between reality and imagination.
> >
> > I do too.
>
> Those wo imagine walking through space and time did not yet realize the
> impossibility to do so.

If you mean "time travel" to the past or future, I am convinced that it is
not possible.
 
> >
> >> In reality, I cannot move in time. So I cannot follow it. Elapsed time is
> >> my measure of the permanently growing temporal distance of real events.
> >> Forget any distracting psychology.
> >
> > It depends on what you mean by "moving in time". What I mean by following it
> > is simply the state of our relentlessly living in the "present moment", an
> > idea that you just agreed to.
>
> Correct. The present moment belongs to my scale of elapsed time that
> moves relative to the ordinary time.

Ok.
 
> > That's what I mean by "we are following it". In fact, it is dragging us
> > along, whether we like it or not.
>
> I understood: Dragging along the arbitrarily choose ordinary scale of time.

Yes.

And also, dragging us along the physical and constant change of state of
motion of existing particles that make up our bodies and matter of the
rest of the universe (the objective motion of the present moment).
 
> >> Relativity attributes the present moment to the observer and denies a
> >> ubiquitous universal time.
> >
> > I know. But if relativity was not based on a subjective notion of timeflow,
> > ubiquitous progression of the present moment could not be denied.
>
> What scale does timeflow refer to?

To me, it refers to the past-present-future timeflow that you seem to want
to chalenge.

Since SR and GR imply that time is not constant and may vary with gravitation
and/or velocity, there is a problem reconciling this assumed progression
from past to future of the present, with the physical progression of the
present moment in fundamental physics.

The "second", which is the unit used to "measure" time, is in fact a measure
of "duration" of processes, not a measure of "velocity" of the flow of time.
Although this may seem confusing, to really describe the flow of time with the
current definition of the "second", we would have to say that time flows at the
rate of 1 second per second (1 s/s), which looks more like a velocity, with s
being the standard second as measured at the surface of the Earth. It is that
physical "velocity" of the physical "present moment" that I have been studying
and trying to fit into the picture, despite the confusing definitions.

Special Relativity has considerably muddled the issue by defining time as
being variable and dependent on motion in a very special manner and General
Relativity making it dependant on gravitation. In SR, moving particles or
bodies having a local flow of time moving at the rate (s+Delta_s)/s, and in GR,
clocks marking time in diminished gravitation (in altitude) according to
another variation, that is (s-Delta_s)/s.

This is why, in my view, SR and GR are not reconcilable with he notion of
a universal "present moment" occuring at the same time everywhere in the
universe.

Having become certain of the existence of a universal progressing present
moment led me to hypothesize that real relativity related observed "dilations"
may possibly be caused by something else than postulated assumed time dilation,
if objective physical progression of a universal present moment turned out to
be reality.
 
> > What if the few so-called "proof" of time dilation that are on record could
> > all be explained otherwise?
>
> I did not yet deal with time dilation.

Exact. But I think we have to deal with this belief if we are to really
address the "present moment" issue.
 
> >> In general, we should not confuse the subjective "now" in the sense of
> >> momentuous awareness with the objective border of past.
> >
> > As I said, I do not associate the objective progession of the present
> > moment with the subjective notions of "past" or "future".
>
> So we seem to agree in that.

Yes. A major point.

> >> Awareness is physiologically based on reality in a manner that sets a
> >> temporal window immediately after the very border.
> >
> > Yes. We can think only about what we have already observed in the data
> > that our senses communicate to us of what is happening out there at
> > the particle level.
>
> Really? Prediction is important.

In my view, only predictions (or should we say, trustable constant behaviors)
of useful physical processes is important.
 
> >> > Our model of reality is what we think reality is.
> >>
> >> While I agree that the term reality denotes a model, I nonetheless
> >> consider this model like nothing else than what we are calling the
> >> objective reality because it has proven successful in any case so far
> >> and will perhaps continue to do so.
> >
> > We do differ here. Because, it seems to me a fact that we have not
> > completely understood all of what is out there.
>
> Your objective reality differs from my model in that it lets more room
> for the unknown. In principle, such flexibility is to be regarded as
> something valuabe.

Presently, my view of objective reality leaves room for all that we
still have not understood about it.

> 'Objective reality' sounds more mystical, almost like god.

As I said, we only need to agree on common definitions of terms, even
if it were only for the present discussion.

I use objective (what really is out there for all to observe) simply as
opposed to subjective (each individual's interpretation of what really
is out there for all to observe).

> 'Model' can be mistaken as deterministic, almost manmade for good. No
> my intention is merely to exclude speculation that cannot be falsified
> for logical reasons.

Ok, would you agree to a definition of "model" as covering what an individual
(you or me) think objective reality is, excluding the future and god?

> > I do not understand the relation with god. Understanding how the universe
> > functions is different in my view from theorizing on what could have
> > caused it to exist.
>
> This ultimate question is definitely out of our scope.

Agreement.

> When Einstein said "For us believing physicists, the division into past
> present and future has merely the meaning of an albeit obstinate illusion",
> then you should ask why he referred to his belief.
>
> >
> >> Sorry, you did not yet aware of your own inconsequent thinking. You are at
> >> risk to regard all of these elements of objective reality like given or
> >> more drastically speaking godgiven.
> >
> > I don't think I am at any risk of that nature.
>
> People are at risk to mystify the objective reality and include in this
> notion absolutely speculative components, in particular future time.

It would seem so, but on my part, I have done away with such notions a long
time ago.

> >> There would not be any problem with such believe if people would be more
> >> suspicious. Does given really include "given" forever? That is the point.
> >
> > I do not understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
>
> It is always the same: Predicted future events are not yet real.

Ok. But as I said, I do not thread onto that path.
 
> > Yes I do. As I said, we seem to differ on the point of identity of our
> > subjective models and external objective reality.
>
> Paradoxically, your notion of objectice reality seems to be more
> subjective than mine of the pertaining model.

If we can agree on what is objective and what is subjective then this
problem will disappear.

What about "objective" refer to what is, irrespective of observation, and
"subjective" refers to what an individual "think" is.

It would become clearer then that we each may have a different perception of
what is, while what is exists independently from what we think about it and
would continue to exist with the same characteristics that we may or may not
have understood correctly even if we stopped believing that it exists.
 
> >> > You assume here that Einstein was correct on this point. What if he
> >> > was not?
> >>
> >> Emmy Noethers theorem provides convincing evidence for this symmetry.
> >
> > That certainly makes sense when applied to the theories. But in my view of
> > things, the theories are subjective models. I think that we still have not
> > completely put in focus what is objectively out there. This means that
> > our theories (our models) will have to evolve again to come into better
> > focus with what is out there (even if only to deal coherently with the
> > Pioneer so-called "anomaly").
>
> I found out that typical flaws in theory, e.g. alleged superluminality,
> result from avoidable trouble do to inclusion of future time.

Logical. But when I said that our theories will have to evolve again. I do
not exclude that some of them may need to be simply replaced by more precise
theories grounded on different premisses. Just like GR became an unrelated
more precise replacement of Newton's gravitational theory.
 
> >> >> I conclude: The only reasonable attribution can be made to
> >> >> a measure of time itself after we accepted that the usual notion of time
> >> >> cannot do this job. There is not even necessary to invent something new.
> >> >> The pertaining measure is called elapsed time.
> >> >
> >> > Yes. a subjective measurement.
> >>
> >> No, the only really measurable time, i.e. the only objectively existing
> >> one.
> >
> > In a sense yes, since flow of time is somehow subjective, contrary to (in my
> > view, of course) the progression of the present moment.
>
> I do not understand why you are hesitating to accept that objectively
> elapsed time is THE adequate measure for description of any real
> physical process.

Well, not knowing your opinion on time dilation causes me to be cautious
on this issue.

I could agree that it is objective (which means "universally valid") if time
dilation was taken out of the picture.

In a SR and GR view of things, objective elapsed time seems impossible to me,
because time is relative to other factors by definition in these theories.

> Forget the flow of time, subjectivity and all other
> distraction.

If I go by a premisse of objective universal physical progression of the present
moment, then yes, I agree that our measuring of elapsed time is objective, even
though the length of our unit (the second) is arbitrary.

> > I was referring to (I quote you here): "The other way round, usual time is
> > merely an abstracted, extended, and sliding copy of that unilateral objective
> > scale."
>
> So it was perhaps just a mistake.
>
> >> I am just suggesting to abandon the admittedly deeply rooted believe
> >> that time is something godgiven extending without any limit even over
> >> not yet existing reality.
> >
> > I fully agree on this,
>
> Having accepted your caveat. I will reconsider the reality of the past.
> Just traces of the past are remaining real for a while. So reality
> looks like that:
> now
> /|
> -/ |
> --/ |
> -past--/ |-----future
>

This looks appropriate.

> > since for me, the progression of the present moment
> > is something physical, that I link to the motion of particles and not
> > to subjective past-present-future usual view ot the "flow of time".
>
> Einstein is frequently quoted saying: Time is what the clock shows.
> He is definitely correct. Clocks always show in principle elapsed time.

Then I disagree with Einstein on this. For me, time is the rate at which
the whole collection of existing scatterable particles change state as the
present moment progresses. Even before there were clocks, that progression
had to exist.

By Einstein's definition, time could not exist before clocks were invented.
Also, clocks can run late or early. Also, atomic clocks do show different
"elapsed" time in altitude and at ground level.

So, to me this is putting such measures in the category of the subjective,
not of the objective. It means accepting that time is not constant, which I
am unable to reconcile with the physical progression of the present moment.

> > What has already occured cannot be changed and the future is not written
> > yet. That's what I believe.
>
> I too.

Then we agree on this other major point.
 
> >>
> >> Science is obviously at odds with common sense in this respect because
> >> ordinary people do not consequently obey the tenet of godgiven time.
> >> Even the most fanatic believers intuitively act more reasonably.
> >
> > I see no connection between flow of time (subjective) or even the progression
> > of the present moment, and god.
>
> Perhaps you did not often attend a service. "... in eternity amen".
> The physical belief I am struggeling with might be even older. I refer
> to the belief in a pre-existing future time, just to be revealed.

I assure you that this will not be a problem with me, since I don't believe
in a predetermined future.
 
> > I don' think that any of this is godgiven.
> > To me it is just part of the fundamental mechanics of the universe, irrespective
> > of what could originally have caused it to come into being.
>
> If belief did always restrict to the question what could originally have
> caused things to come into being, then the world would be different.

Very possibly.
 
> > Just like the latice structure of a diamond has nothing to do with whether
> > it formed naturally in the depth of the Earth or was artificially produced
> > in a pressure oven.
>
> The question is: Do we have to anticipate a time structure ranging into
> all future? I suggest to not generally assume such lattice.

In this metaphor, what I assimilate to the lattice structure of diamond
simply is the physical existence of the present moment and its progression.
No relation implied to past or future.

> >> >> I argue that the tacit assumption of pre-existing time is to blame for
> >> >> this contradiction.
>
> > Einstein and Weizsaeker were causalists. I think that their resignation
> > related to the impossibility of reconciling time dilation with objective
> > reality, given that their belief in time dilation as a physical reality
> > makes such reconciling impossible.
>
> In the quoted sentences, Einstein did not refer to time dilatation while
> v. Weizsaecker definitely not dealt with it when he thoroughly and
> repeatedly depicted the problem. Their resignation was based on their
> lacking readiness to ascribe causality to influences exclusively from
> the past and declare future time just not yet existing.

Since time dilation has underlied physics all through the 20th
century, it seems to me difficult to imagine that they would have had
it as a background uncircumventable premisse all the same, with the
constraints that I tried to put in perspective earlier in this post.

But what other influences did they have in mind? Did they elaborate?

> >> >> Extrapolation of the
> >> >> measurable past time to the imaginary future is also some sort of
> >> >> believe. In that sense, there might not yet be many antideterminists
> >> >> alias causalists outing themselves like me.
> >> >
> >> > I think that only causalists can really address this question with
> >> > any chance of solving the problem. Non-causalists simply don't care,
> >> > or think it is impossible.
> >>
> >> Any description of future is deterministic rather than causal.
> >
> > I think that no description of future is involved. Causality need involve
> > only the certainty that events cannot occur without a cause.
>
> I dealt with causality and summarised several joint features of it.
>
> > Besides, I deeply respect you for knowingly bringing up an issue that few
> > dare pilot in serious publicil discussion for fear of peer opinion.
>
> The reason for me to address the matter relates to downright practical
> consequences. See http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/M277.html
> for an example.

Interesting material, although in a domain not very familiar. But I see
your point.

André Michaud

Quantcast