Philosophy Discussion Forums

Atreyu wrote:

Reactor wrote:There can be no space without objects. And there can be no objects without space.

Yes, this logical truth reflects the inherent dichotomy of the universe.

Your first two statements are obviously true. This is the same as saying that our cognition of matter and objects is intimately connected with our cognition of space. Our cognition of "stuff" is tied to our cognition of "here and there".

But this does not at all prove any "inherent dichotomy" of the Universe. What the Universe is is unknown, and always will be unknown. It merely proves an inherent dichotomy of our cognition, perception, and sensations. Space and time, matter and motion, is merely how we make sense of the world. This in no way implies that that is actually how the Universe is.....

Yes, but our perception and cognition is our only means . . . yet another facet of the inherent dichotomy that I see.

Reactor Wrote: Space and time are neither cause, nor effect.

As part of this topic I am suggesting that Space is the Present or now point in time and that an object or particle in space is in fact a weakness or type of hole in the present linking future to past time, so in a way Space and time are the same and time is the cause and effect acting on everything.

Reactor Wrote: Space is perceived and identified by the distance between the physical locations of objects.

I agree, Distance only exists because particles or objects made from those particles that exist in the now point in time (Space). Time itself has no physical dimension. Distance between points in space can perhaps only be imagined.

Reactor Wrote: There can be no space without objects.

Is that really true ?

Reactor Wrote: Time is perceived and identified by the duration between occurrences

This condition, the duration between occurrences, applies because as a living organism we can remember a past and imagine a future in an environment of particles and inert objects there is only now.

Present awareness Wrote:

And there can be no objects without space.

I agree.

Atryu Wrote:

What the Universe is is unknown, and always will be unknown

We are made from the stuff of the universe so in a way our DNA and molecular structure already know what the universe is, our intellect has just, been unable to interpret the way things are put together but with enough time and perhaps evolution it should be possible to fully understand how everything works.

Reactor Wrote:

Space and time, matter and motion, is merely how we make sense of the world. This in no way implies that that is actually how the Universe is.....

I agree and it is that fact that is currently holding back our understanding of how the Universe really exists, one of this topics aspirations is to explore and question how our perception of time and the reality of its existence are perhaps different.


Life interprets the passage of time in terms of, and to achieve, species survival.

The life that exists in any part of the universe has to exist alongside the physics of the place that it has to survive in. On this planet life has to fit with the conditions that exist for its survival to be possible, one of those very important conditions are the various annual and daily cycles of the planet represented by seasons and night and day. No life form needs to know why the cycles are there but must evolve to survive because they exist.

The human species is still in a position where its interpretation of the universe is being influenced by the history implicit in its primeval need for species survival inherent in the ancestral history of its and all other species.

Most of the replies to this topic see the issue of space and time as separate but in some way linked, and indeed the attempts of science to explain the existence life the world and everything is constrained by the problem of explaining the existence of everything in terms of our species life experience and evolutionary survival.

In this topic I have tried to describe a different vision of how the existence of everything is possible by explaining it in terms purely of time. The time I am trying to describe is the foundation that the universe and everything in it is based. Space in this model is just a version of time and is, the now point, the future and the past exist either side.

Space can be viewed, as just an empty void and the existence and the propagation and evolution of simple life forms would continue in the same way as if the earth were viewed as a flat disc. The role of our species within all the species, and of its intellect dictate that we strive to understand the way in which the physics of the universe works, so far we have perhaps been hampered, in that goal of that understanding by the evolutionary history that we share with all life forms. Seeing space and time in the way that we instinctively do is right for the advancement of life but probably inhibits our true understanding of how things really are. Physics and the answers that it can currently provide appears stuck and there now seem more questions needing to be answered than the ones so far solved and much doubt about many of the questions that have been solved.

In my previous post I have attempted to find and explain a solution to the particle double slit experiment, which so far as I understand no one has been able to explain with existing physics. A solution to this potentially appears possible with the arguments I am trying to advance in this topic. The problems arising from the double slit problem and others relating to the very existence of the Universe based on our current mathematical models should lead us to believe that there is more to time than those described by Stone Henge or an Atomic Clock and more to space than just a void.

If the vast infinite nothingness of empty space, is considered to be the " now point in time" then it is "now", everywhere in the universe. Being "now" everywhere, would mean that past and future are illusions. What we consider to be the past, is "now", in a different location in space. Everything that "was" and everything that "will be", already "is". The space that the Earth and Sun occupied 5 billion years ago, would still be "not there", and the space that the Earth and Sun will occupy in 5 billion years from now, is also "not there", waiting for our arrival.

My hypothesis is that time only affects matter and this exists now in a space for which time does not move.
Time for matter can move at a faster or slower speed relative to other matter and to space dependant on its
velocity and other factors but always exists now in the same presence as does all other matter in the universe.
The Atomic particles from which matter is made exist because time exists and moves relative to the present
but cannot pass around but must pass through the present, which we perceive as space.
The universe full of matter exists because time must pass through space from the future to the past.
There is no physical dimension to time therefore what we see as space appears infinite.

Present awareness wrote:If the vast infinite nothingness of empty space, is considered to be the " now point in time" then it is "now", everywhere in the universe. Being "now" everywhere, would mean that past and future are illusions. What we consider to be the past, is "now", in a different location in space. Everything that "was" and everything that "will be", already "is". The space that the Earth and Sun occupied 5 billion years ago, would still be "not there", and the space that the Earth and Sun will occupy in 5 billion years from now, is also "not there", waiting for our arrival.

Quite correct. Obviously you are one of those people who can properly visualize and understand the idea of higher dimensions of "space-time"....

My hypothesis is that time only affects matter and this exists now in a space for which time does not move.
Time for matter can move at a faster or slower speed relative to other matter and to space dependant on its
velocity and other factors but always exists now in the same presence as does all other matter in the universe.
The Atomic particles from which matter is made exist because time exists and moves relative to the present
but cannot pass around but must pass through the present, which we perceive as space.
The universe full of matter exists because time must pass through space from the future to the past.
There is no physical dimension to time therefore what we see as space appears infinite.

Quite nonsensical. Obviously you are one of those people who cannot....

I can hardly wait until Stephen Hawking goes away and takes his wacky ideas with him.

Most of these wacky ideas do not even qualify to be called hypotheses let alone theories.

We do not know what "space" is because we do not have powerful enough instruments to examine it.

And time certainly does not exist at all except in the minds of humans.

Gordon975:

As part of this topic I am suggesting that Space is the Present or now point in time

You appear to refer to "time" as if there is a universal absolute "now point" throughout all of space. Do you mean to do that, or am I misreading you? If you do mean to do that then you are in disagreement with fairly standard physics. The concept of time only makes sense with reference to the observations of a defined observer and is therefore specific to specific observers. This is why Einstein defined time as "what clocks measure" - emphasizing the role of the observer.

In my previous post I have attempted to find and explain a solution to the particle double slit experiment, which so far as I understand no one has been able to explain with existing physics.

What problems do you believe there to be in the double slit experiment? (I presume you're talking about the thought experiment that was most famously described in Feynman's Lectures on Physics in which bullets, water waves and electrons pass through two slits and the diffraction effects are considered.)

This old experiment is well described by Quantum Mechanics and by its successor, the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

-- Updated Sun May 29, 2016 1:17 pm to add the following --

Gordon975:

I just read your post #55. I'll give your simulation a try. Would you be willing to show any of the VB source code here out of interest?

The standard description of the movements of those electrons through those slits is in terms of the wave function of the electron. As you know, from considering the experiment, the distribution of the electron impacts on the screen is the same as the interference pattern that you get with classical waves and, in the case of the classical waves, is caused by alternating bands of constructive and destructive interference. In your simulation, are you proposing an alternative to this?

You may also be interested in this closely related topic that I started a while ago:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... us#p232485

Steve3007 Wrote

I just read your post #55. I'll give your simulation a try. Would you be willing to show any of the VB source code here out of interest?

Here is a link to the code :
homepage.ntlworld.com/gb.reynolds/Doubl ... nstall.exe

Gordon:

Thanks. That's the .exe file. You posted that earlier. I was interested in the source code.

Steve3007 Wrote

Thanks. That's the .exe file. You posted that earlier. I was interested in the source code.

Sorry for any confusion.
The link posted is to the DoubleSlitSimulationInstall.exe, running this will extract and unpack the source code plus setup
files into the folder of your choice.

-- Updated May 30th, 2016, 11:53 am to add the following --

Steve3007 Wrote

“You appear to refer to "time" as if there is a universal absolute "now point" throughout all of space. Do you mean to do that, or am I misreading you? If you do mean to do that then you are in disagreement with fairly standard physics. The concept of time only makes sense with reference to the observations of a defined observer and is therefore specific to specific observers. This is why Einstein Einstein defined time as "what clocks measure" - emphasizing the role of the observer.

A universal absolute "now point" throughout all of space is exactly what I am proposing. I am imagining the Now point as the same everywhere it is the particles in space for which time runs at different rates and it is their present time that runs at different speeds. Einstein’s observations and the resulting equations act on matter rather than the space within which that matter exists and in fact just acts on the atomic particles of which that matter is composed I am exploring the idea that the space between particles and everywhere else remains at a common now time everywhere.
Steve3007 Wrote

The standard description of the movements of those electrons through those slits is in terms of the wave function of the electron. As you know, from considering the experiment, the distribution of the electron impacts on the screen is the same as the interference pattern that you get with classical waves and, in the case of the classical waves, is caused by alternating bands of constructive and destructive interference. In your simulation, are you proposing an alternative to this?

In the simulation I am trying to explore what would happen if a force existed causing an electron fired through a slit to be effected by the path taken by a previous electron. If a force existed then there would potentially be acceleration in the direction of the previous path, the simulation tries to demonstrate that the resulting electron impacts form a wave pattern which corresponds closely to experimental results, hard to explain with conventional physics. The force that I have imagined originates from the idea that an atomic particle exists as a hole or weakness in the present or now point in time through which time passes. As a particle moves I am suggesting that the path of the particle may be imprinted either side of the present so changing time absorption in that direction for a new particle.

Steve3007 Wrote

Curious results from interferometer experiments

Your observations on the interferometer experiments are interesting here I have mainly been dealing with particles but will study your post re interferometer experiments with interest and do a bit of research.

Gordon:

Sorry for any confusion.
The link posted is to the DoubleSlitSimulationInstall.exe, running this will extract and unpack the source code plus setup
files into the folder of your choice.

Yes, sorry, my mistake. I thought it was the .exe for the program again. I'll unpack it and have a look. Thanks.

-- Updated Tue May 31, 2016 7:28 am to add the following --

Your observations on the interferometer experiments are interesting here I have mainly been dealing with particles but will study your post re interferometer experiments with interest and do a bit of research.

The interferometer experiment deals with particles too - photons. It's essentially the same kind of experiment but with a slightly different setup. In both cases, we are considering a particle with two possible paths in which the probability of taking either path is 0.5 and in which there is a sense in which the particle takes both paths.

'Now' is a 2D slice of 3D Universe.

<<< past OUT < )Now( < IN <<<< future

<<< past OUT < ) *|*( < IN <<<< future

r6

Rr6 wrote:'Now' is a 2D slice of 3D Universe.

<<< past OUT < )Now( < IN <<<< future

<<< past OUT < ) *|*( < IN <<<< future

r6

'Now', as we perceive it, is 3 dimensions of space.

So actually 'Now' is a 3-D slice of a (4 or more)-D Universe....

Rr6--'Now' is a 2D slice of 3D Universe.
<<< past OUT < )Now( < IN <<<< future
<<< past OUT < ) *|*( < IN <<<< future

Atreyu--'Now', as we perceive it, is 3 dimensions of space.
So actually 'Now' is a 3-D slice of a (4 or more)-D Universe....

4D Atreyu? You do not clarify what your 4th D is exactly. XYZ cartesian coordinates is 3D. 2^4 is cubing or triangulating and leads to 4 cubes or 4 tetrahedron i.e. XYZ is commonly accepted as the basis for defining specified volume of space.

When you can be specific as to what your 4th D is, then perhaps we can have a rational, logical common sense discussion.

Metaphysical-1 time is inherent/innate to metaphysical-1, XYZ cartesian coordinates i.e. each of those lines has a terminal set of 2 points, beginning and ending. A period of time has beginning and ending.

Observed time also has this period of time, and motion ergo a frequency determined by period of time and speed/motion and trajectory.

This means our lines are now vectors having motion ergo magnitude and direction ( a trajectory } ergo spin.

Think my previous past, now, future givens above as the an arrow-of-time and as that 1D linear concept like and axis, within a 3D volumetric Universe. We can conceptually say infinite set of axis but were only concerned with consideration of one arrow-of-time axis.

The next step in dimension from linear 1D is 2D ie, a 2D 'now' slice of 3D time i.e. time that is inherent/innate to 3D + t ( volumetric ), occupied space Universe, that is dynamically energetic ( observed time/reality/frequency/trajectories/spin etc }

First time I read something like this was Brian Greene Elegant Universe or something like that Forget exact author and book.

To clarify more, the conventional linear { axis } arrow-of-time goes opposite of my givens above at top. Here as follow is more conventional way;

>>>past> ) now ( > future >>>>
>>>past > ) *|* ( > future >>>>

| = 2D slice of time ergo 2D slice of Uni-Verse

r6

Rr6 wrote:4D Atreyu? You do not clarify what your 4th D is exactly. XYZ cartesian coordinates is 3D. 2^4 is cubing or triangulating and leads to 4 cubes or 4 tetrahedron i.e. XYZ is commonly accepted as the basis for defining specified volume of space.

When you can be specific as to what your 4th D is, then perhaps we can have a rational, logical common sense discussion.

You need to do your own work, and since you haven't, you have entered this discussion woefully unprepared. There is a lot of information out there concerning the idea of higher dimensions of space-time, and I'm not going to try and elaborate on all the basic parameters of such a complex and hard-to-understand theory in such a venue as this one.

Based on your statements, it's quite clear that you don't even the gist of the idea behind space-time, probably less than many high school students. Get up to speed, do your research, and then yes, we can have an intelligent and logical, if not 'common sense', discussion.

But, to at least answer your question, the fourth dimension is the dimension of space which we perceive as time. The first three dimensions of space we can easily cognize as space. Dimensions of space beyond three we normally cognize as time, even though we can learn to cognize them as space as well, although it's not easy. And I'll give you something to start with: the timeline. The timeline is representing time as a line, i.e. space.

Think about it, do your research, then come back....