James,
That is quite a stream of consciousness to unpack. I’ll try doing it some justice.
I think I originally posted this essay, but I’m not sure you have referenced it, so may have missed it;
One thing to keep in mind about form is that as it is emergent from energy, it is both the limits of the energy and the interaction of energy. Which does make it all too real, even if its only physicality is the energy. Think immovable object, versus irresistable force.
We think of time as that narrative string, because we are mobile, intentional creatures, so the fact we perceive our reality as a sequence of perceptions goes to the need to navigate our situation. Plants don’t have a central nervous system, because they don’t move, so effects like temperature and pressure are more important signals, as they express and relate to form.
Another way to think about it is as a funnel, of all the input/energy into the focal point of our place in space and time. So the present is where all this energy, in its various forms, is interacting and computing what actually results. So the future cannot be determined, because that calculation can only occur as the present. We can make the assumption that if the location and momentum of everything at one moment can be known, than all future events could effectively be calculated and so the future must be determined. Yet that calculation still has to occur, even if by a supreme mind, otherwise you still have the two sets of one, not the one set of two. Since only the present is the dynamic, the issue does seem to fall apart.
Though the notion of free will is equally suspect, since a will free of cause would be equally free of effect and the premise of will is to affect. We are part of nature’s process of selection.
Now flys do have a much faster reaction time, than we do, because our minds are far more cluttered with multitudes of input and computations, aka, imagination.
My sense of my own mind is that it is effectively far closer to a dream state, than an actual, objective sense of reality. The mind is always creating images of what might happen, such as being splattered by that passing truck, if we step off the curb too soon, or the possibilities and fears of introducing ourselves to that interesting other. Yet, when we are awake, there are constant interruptions, from outside elements, so we are constantly resetting our thought process/imagination to deal with this new input and forgetting those prior daydreams.
Though when we are asleep, there is much less outside input and so our minds starting following our imagination off into these alternative scenarios.
What occurs to me is that for very powerful people, they are much more able to control their surroundings, so they actually live in more of a dream state, because they don’t have to push the reset button on their imagination, but can will the outside world to their inner reality. Until such times as something far beyond their ability to control comes along……
I do have issues with aspects of current theoretical physics, but that is a whole debate in itself. Though if you are interested;
The problem I have with treating time as a dimension is that while it can be effectively modeled as such, the physical explanations and requirements have created a logical monstrosity. For example, current theory cannot explain why it is asymmetric, goes only one way, short of entropy. Yet what is measured, action, is inertial. The earth only turns one direction. It is when they assume a measure of time, duration, is similar to a measure of one spatial dimension, distance, that it seems confusing. A foot is a foot, whichever way you measure it, so presumably a second is a second, whichever way you measure it. Yet what is being measured is not space, but action, thus change. London and New York can physically co-exist, so it’s the same distance either way, but London of 1920 can’t co-exist with London of 2020. It is a situation where the map is assumed to be more fundamental than the dynamics of the territory.
Consider that epicycles were brilliant math, as a model of our view of the cosmos and much more accurate than early heliocentric models, because we can’t see from the sun’s point of view. So it is a valid map of what we see. Frankly each of us is our center of the entire universe and this, with sufficient computing ability, could be calculated, with everything in the entire universe moving around, relative to us, because we live it every day.
Yet the crystalline spheres, as physical explanation for this model, were lousy physics. Similarly, I would argue, General Relativity is brilliant math, but spacetime, as a physical explanation, is lousy physics.
That we are mobile organisms, with a sequential process of perception, might make it seem that space and time are interchangeable, but try to imagine temperature, or pressure, as separate from space. Ideal gas laws correlate them, but we don’t call temperature and pressure the 5th and 6th dimensions of space, even though they are as foundational to our emotions, bodily functions and environment, as time is to our thoughts.
Another issue is that different clocks can run at different rates simply because they are separate actions, no space travel required. I suspect the problem goes to the fact that much of civilization has been a function of getting everyone playing by the same rules, following the same narratives, using the same measures, etc, that we think there should be some absolute, Newtonian time, so the observation of different clock rates might seem counter-intuitive.
Another point is that time as a dimension is called, “block time.” That all events exist out on that time dimension and one of the original arguments was that since different observers will see events in different order, from different locations, this is proof that everything exists out on that time dimension. Yet it is no more consequential than seeing the moon as it was a moment ago, simultaneous with seeing stars as they were years ago. It’s the energy that is conserved, not the information/form.
I could go on, but it’s wall I’ve beat my head on far too much and few people are willing to question the authority of the theoretical physics community, even if they talk multi-worlds and multi-universes, string theory and all the other mathematical unicorns.
Here is an interview with someone with more authority than I;
I better leave it at that for the moment.
Regards,
John
