Do Objects Have Independence?

[tman_ndsu08]

You can take X frames at any rate you want.

If you try to display X frames at X frames/second, however, you will have problems if X is bigger than 60 since after that our eyes simply can't process that much information that fast.

[MerlinsByte]

Please allow me to interject. The interesting debate (mostly) between T man and ringingsword is the kind of constructive debate that we should all aspire to. I have learned some new facts from this "discussion" and that is what I enjoy. (rather than expending energy hurling insults)

mb

[RingingSword]

If you try to display X frames at X frames/second, however, you will have problems if X is bigger than 60 since after that our eyes simply can't process that much information that fast.

This point refocuses our attention upon the primary goal of metaphysics: to gain knowledge of those dimensions of reality that lie beyond the reach of our senses.

In pursuit of this goal, this thread has addressed two important properties of materialism: 1) (objective) independence; 2) continuity (of objective independence).

By asking two simple questions about the overlapping boundaries of entangled objects, I have pointed to inconsistencies in the assumption that material objects are unconditionally independent.

By making reference to Cantor’s Continuum Hypothesis, which posits the now verified concept of orders of infinity, and by applying the concept to the process of sampling across discrete and finite time intervals in terms of a discontinuous hierarchy of orders of infinity, I have suggested the possibility that reality itself is a dimensional expansion that is discontinuous.

If the independence of material objects and the continuity of reality are stitched-together, dimensional intervals, then it seems possible that they are systematically manipulatable, perhaps even programmable. If a science of ontological programming can be developed, then it will move us beyond the axiomatic boundary limits of material independence and real continuity. A liberation of this type promises to expand the universe and its range of possibilities by an order of magnitude scarcely imaginable.

[RingingSword]

MerlinsByte,

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

[jeffl]

Quote by: RingingSword ...I have suggested the possibility that reality itself is a dimensional expansion that is discontinuous.

RingingSword; what, then, do you think of this link posted by Samildanach?

Quote by: Samildanach Besides which its a very real possibility that there may be no such thing as a moment in time to slice things up into. The universe is more like a state than a time series that we are more familiar with. The state of the universe for example is like a zero or a one or a two or pick a number from a number of infinite states. As soon as you look at the universe this way all states from beginning to end are predetermined so time is predetermined. You cannot slice up time because it all occurs in the same instantaneous moment as soon as the state is determined. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-gwi072703.php Also a link explaining how it relates to consciousness written in everyday language. http://cogprints.org/3125/

The first one looks pretty good; i get a feeling the continuity requirement affirms causality (maybe 'cause they said so:)) which seems to assert coherence. Whaddayathink?

The second one is a semantic minefield, i won't even go there.

[MerlinsByte]

by Tman_....At the fundamental level, all matter is exactly the same as all other matter, regardless of how it is grouped together. The only question is what is this fundamental level? It used to be thought that the atom was the smallest level of matter. Then electrons and the nucleous. Then protons and nutrons. Now quarks and gluons are standard with strings gaining popularity.

Merlin writes…yes I agree T man, I may I add a bit and say this Quantum swarm of strings super strings, etc., are directly affected by the observer (we by initiating the collapse of the wave function, etc.) who control the destiny of all matter. Without sentient observers I feel no matter/ forces or the universe as we know it, atoms, energy, space time, gravity, etc....would exist.


And you are welcome Ringing Sword. The above post may be a bit off topic but I think it may apply in some aspects of the space time issue.

mb

[RingingSword]

jeffl & Samildanach,

Firstly, I want to acknowledge my debt to jeffl for presenting Samildanach’s question to me a second time. When I read it the first time, I failed to recognize its importance. Secondly, I want to acknowledge my debt to Samildanach for bringing to my attention such an important theoretical paper by Peter Lynds.

Thus far I’ve read the report on the work of Lynds cited by Samildanach, "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity" and, additionally, the short extract cited by jeffl, “Subjective Perception of Time and a Progressive Present Moment: The Neurobiological Key to Unlocking Consciousness.” Clearly, Lynds has important things to say about time, motion and the continuity of events. The only proper approach to an evaluation of the positions of Lynds will be a thorough reading of his collected works to date. I haven’t come close to doing this, and thus my initial reactions herein are likely chock full of errors. Be that as it may, I’m plunging forth because I want to maintain my current momentum within this thread and besides, who knows, quick responses to complex subjects might sometimes be the best way to initiate subsequent, deeper meditations.

In the interest of clarity, I will follow this introductory post with extracts from some of Lynds’ important assertions, as cited in the Samildanach link. Along with these extracts I include some of my own observations. My hope is that readers of this thread will get an impression of what Lynds has to say about time, motion and continuity. In a third post following this one, I will share my thoughts to date on the significance of Lynds’ work.

[RingingSword]

Professor Andrei Krenikov provides us with a good capsule description of the paper’s import by saying, “I think that the author of the paper did a very important investigation of the role of continuity of time in the standard physical models of dynamical processes."

What Lynds’ theory opposes is the common sense belief expressed as follows by Professor Grigson, “Most people believe there is a succession of moments and that objects in motion have determined positions.”

"There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."

"With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the time interval, or how slowly an object moves during that interval, it is still in motion and it's position is constantly changing, so it can't have a determined relative position at any time, whether during a interval, however small, or at an instant. Indeed, if it did, it couldn't be in motion."

"Naturally the parameter and boundary of their respective position and magnitude are naturally determinable up to the limits of possible measurement as stated by the general quantum hypothesis and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but this indeterminacy in precise value is not a consequence of quantum uncertainty. What this illustrates is that in relation to indeterminacy in precise physical magnitude, the micro and macroscopic are inextricably linked, both being a part of the same parcel, rather than just a case of the former underlying and contributing to the latter (emphasis mine)."

Addressing the age old question of the reality of time, Lynds says the absence of an instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process also illustrates that there is no such thing as a physical (emphasis mine) progression or flow of time, as without a continuous progression through definite instants over an extended interval, there can be no progression.

Paraphrase – Time, motion and the continuity of physical processes are possible because there is no physical time.

Observation – The common, cognitive error, with respect to the perception of time, seems to be reification, i.e. treating an abstract concept as if it’s a physical entity.

Intuition also seems to suggest that if there were not a physical progression of time, the entire universe would be frozen motionless at an instant, as though stuck on pause on a motion screen. But Lynds points out, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time - time would be a physical quantity." Consequently Lynds says that it's due to nature’s very exclusion of a time as a fundamental physical quantity, that time as it is measured in physics, or relative interval, and as such, motion and physical continuity, are possible in the first instance.

Observation – the argument says that the physicalization of time freezes the universe into a motionless tableau and thus, by exclusion of said physicalization of time, the universe supports the dynamical processes of motion and physical continuity.

[RingingSword]

"Naturally the parameter and boundary of their respective position and magnitude are naturally determinable up to the limits of possible measurement as stated by the general quantum hypothesis and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but this indeterminacy in precise value is not a consequence of quantum uncertainty (emphasis mine). What this illustrates is that in relation to indeterminacy in precise physical magnitude, the micro and macroscopic are inextricably linked, both being a part of the same parcel, rather than just a case of the former underlying and contributing to the latter (emphasis mine)."

The above quote provides us with a clear overview of Lynds’ general perspective within the paper. Via his perspective, Lynds quantumizes counting (and therefore measurement and analysis) within the macroscopic world of practical human experience. This is a bold assertion indeed because it states, without equivocation, what science has been pondering since dawn of the twentieth century: the question of consistency between the quantum and macro universes. What follow are my suppositions about necessary components of Lynds’ quantum-mechanical, macro universe.

1) Practically (and numerically) speaking, there are no precisely specifiable “here” and “now.”

2) All specified points within time and space are theoretical limits which can only forever be approached asymptotically.

3) Every practical event is an irreducible distribution across a temporal interval, and thus there are no precisely discrete boundaries and no precisely discrete, independent material objects (herein lies corroboration of my denial of unconditional material independence.).

4) Every apparently discrete material object possesses an unspecifiable dimension of being; said dimension of being can be labeled “non-locality.” This is a way of saying that every material object is distributively situated out there, although there’s no precisely specifiable there there.

5) The illusion of discrete relative position (and of relative positional values), which Lynds ascribes to the imposition of human consciousness upon the practical world is actually an assessment of the disjunction between rational measurement and analysis, on the one hand, and the curvilinear universe they measure on the other hand.

Through his denial of any physical progression or flow of time, Lynds provokes the following question: “Are time and history cognitive illusions?” The tenor of his statements overall suggests his belief in the realities of time and history, albeit as non-physical, cognitive abstractions. Along this path I believe Lynds faces a bumpy road forward because his cited statements beg the thorny question of the ontological status of non-physical, cognitive abstractions. Lynds’ holism of physical indeterminacy with respect to time lends itself to charges of skepticism, a position presently seen by many as untenable.

At this point let me say I agree with a significant portion of Lynds’ two most essential points: 1) There are no instants in time or present moments in nature; 2) A moving object can’t have a determined relative position within time and space. (Another problem here is the fact that Lynds’ statements beg the question of the possibility of material objects inhabiting a state of absolute rest.)

I do amend these statements to some degree, however: Regarding present moments and determined relative positions of moving objects, I say they are not precisely specifiable and isolatable within time and space. Via these amendments, humans are acknowledged as being conditionally limited to forever approaching discrete boundaries of time and material. This amended language stops short of denying the possibility of discrete boundaries of time and material.

I have three additional major points which I will elaborate in my fourth post.

[jeffl]

To be clear, both links were provided by Samildanach.

Quote by: RingingSword Observation – The common, cognitive error, with respect to the perception of time, seems to be reification, i.e. treating an abstract concept as if it’s a physical entity.

It does seem we can measure time objectively. We should be careful about 'real,' 'abstract,' and 'physical.'

5) The illusion of discrete relative position (and of relative positional values), which Lynds ascribes to the imposition of human consciousness upon the practical world is actually an assessment of the disjunction between rational measurement and analysis, on the one hand, and the curvilinear universe they measure on the other hand. Through his denial of any physical progression or flow of time, Lynds provokes the following question: “Are time and history cognitive illusions?” The tenor of his statements overall suggests his belief in the realities of time and history, albeit as non-physical, cognitive abstractions. Along this path I believe Lynds faces a bumpy road forward because his cited statements beg the thorny question of the ontological status of non-physical, cognitive abstractions.

But this bumpy road is the only road worth traveling. It's the disjunction you refer to that is illusory, perhaps; conscious perception naturally quantizes sensory inputs. The quantization of the physical, objective metric is a different phenomenon, i think; perhaps of the same ilk, but separated by atleast 'a level.' This dichotomy is maybe related to the distinction i make in the consciousness thread, between the experiential aspect of being and conscious awareness.

[RingingSword]

jeffl,

It does seem we can measure time objectively.

Given the above, I wonder if you disagree with the heart of Lynds' thesis, which is to the effect that there is no physical time, and no flowing succession of physical moments, but rather, that these are effects of cognition?

[MerlinsByte]

There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."

merlin writes...This is a very interesting debate. I think that the above (in the quote brackets) is the most logical and fits within the framework of my veiw of reality.

However along with time I think everything in our universe is literately dependent on we sentient observers, i.e. without observers the universe would physically cease to exist. So it shouldn’t come as a shock... carry on guys.

[tman_ndsu08]

So what of the first few billion years where there were no humans in existance?

[jeffl]

Quote by: RingingSword jeffl,-"It does seem we can measure time objectively." Given the above, I wonder if you disagree with the heart of Lynds' thesis, which is to the effect that there is no physical time, and no flowing succession of physical moments, but rather, that these are effects of cognition?

I don't disagree with the idea of a universe where time is just another dimension; the equity of dimensions. At the same time, to suggest that time is an effect of cognition is abit strong; especially when you consider that there are objective measures of a temporal metric, such as atomic clocks or even "one-onethousand, two-onethousand, etc."

I think it's safe to say that the appearence of time is an effect of 'something,' and that that something likely has something to do with entropy, the surface area of black holes, and the human mind perhaps? It's not clear.

[MerlinsByte]

So what of the first few billion years where there were no humans in existance?

In my opinion, I think there have always been aware observers and the intelligent designer was the first, Alpha and Omega. This being created space-time. We created the first personal universe with the first self-aware human or entity. Each of us has a universe. Unlike the infinite universe theory which is well known I feel the number of possible universes are equal to the number of humans (and other self aware entity’s, including ET(s) or terrestrial animals or plants or inanimate objects if any).

mb

[RingingSword]

Although I agree with Lynds’ denial of a specifiable present moment and its partner, a determined relative position, there are important points upon which we differ.

1) Lynds – there is no physical flow of time

RingingSword – there is only the physical flow of time (no material thing inhabits the state of absolute rest; consciousness, an indelible part of the material universe, exemplifies a type of motion)

2) Lynds – time cannot be a physical object

RingingSword – time is a physical object, albeit from the perspective of the second tier of motion or, the “motion-of-motion.”

3) Lynds – continuity is distributed across all axes of dimensional expansion

RingingSword – continuity is specific to the horizontal dimensional expansion of a discrete tier of motion.

The illusion of discrete relative position (and of relative positional values), which Lynds ascribes to the imposition of human consciousness upon the practical world is actually an assessment of the disjunction between rational measurement and analysis, on the one hand, and the curvilinear universe they measure on the other hand.

In stating the above, I assert the inability of analysis to completely analogize the curvilinear universe. At all times and from all perspectives, the universe is an open, bounded infinity; number systems can approach but never reach this infinity of dimensional expansions; numbers can always only sample the curvilinear universe via models.

The analytic/curvilinear disjunction makes reference to the asymptotic relationship of irrational numbers and what they measure as, for example, calculus approximates, but never equals, the volume under a curve.

In order to deny the disjunction, one must be prepared to show that: a) pi is invalid; b) calculations that produce irrational numbers for answers are misconceived; c) calculus is misconceived.

Physical time flow and discrete relative positions are sampling approximations of an uncontainably moving universe; the gap between the approximation and the thing approximated does not render the approximation unreal, however, just incomplete.

Regarding continuity, the apparent difference between our respective positions, which prompted Samildanach’s citation of Lynds’ work, dissolves away after closer inspection. When I assert that reality itself is discontinuous, I’m not denying the incompleteness (he calls it unreality) and the distortions of number-based physical time flow and discrete relative positions cited by Lynds’. Instead, I’m referring to an internally consistent model of reality that is nonetheless segmented into discontinuous “tiers-or-motion.”

From our common perspective on moving objects, the continuity of action is indivisible, just as Lynds says. Let us say this common perspective is the first tier of motion. My main thesis herein says there’s at least one more tier of motion, the second tier of motion. From the perspective of the second tier of motion, physical time is as discrete as a slab of concrete.

Let me picture the second tier of motion with the following metaphor: consider a two-hour movie contained on one, big, twenty-one-inch reel. There are two super-beings who inhabit the realm of complex time. Super-being One picks up the twenty-one-inch reel and tosses it to Super-being Two, who tosses it back, as the two super-beings play a game of catch. Understand that, herein, the reel symbolizes simple time congealed into a material object. In order to understand this solidification of simple time, imagine in place of the reel the experience of sitting and watching the two-hour movie at the local cinema; by imagining the entire, two-hour experience of the unfolding motion of the movie as a unitary chunk, and by imagining that the two super-beings are tossing the two-hour experience of the unfolding motion of the movies as a chunk in place of the reel, you picture the solidification and movement as a solid of simple time within the more expansive context of the complex time of the super-beings.

Via the metaphor above, we see that simple time becomes a material solid at the second tier of motion, and thus the indivisibility of continuity is confined to one, specific tier of motion, but does not jump across multiple tiers of motion. We know this to be the case because, at the level of the first tier of motion, the solidification of time cannot occur; this is what Lynds is asserting. At the second tier of motion, however, the solidification of simple, first-tier-of-motion time is a commonplace. Since solidified simple time is specific to the second tier of motion, this second tier is discontinuous with the first tier with respect to solidified time.

In conclusion, we see that Lynds’ assertion of indivisible continuity, when situated within the more inclusive perspective of my multiple discontinuous tiers of motion, harmonizes therewith perfectly.

[jeffl]

Quote by: RingingSword 1) Lynds – there is no physical flow of time RingingSword – there is only the physical flow of time (no material thing inhabits the state of absolute rest; consciousness, an indelible part of the material universe, exemplifies a type of motion)

As you say, an important point of disagreement. I wonder how you mean 'only' in 'there is only the physical flow of time.' And when you say, 'consciousness exemplifies a type of motion,' what type of motion are you talking about?

2) Lynds – time cannot be a physical object RingingSword – time is a physical object, albeit from the perspective of the second tier of motion or, the “motion-of-motion.”

I've got the 'motion of motion' as acceleration.

3) Lynds – continuity is distributed across all axes of dimensional expansion RingingSword – continuity is specific to the horizontal dimensional expansion of a discrete tier of motion.

So you're imagining planes or realms of existence as 'spheres of motion?'

The illusion of discrete relative position (and of relative positional values), which Lynds ascribes to the imposition of human consciousness upon the practical world is actually an assessment of the disjunction between rational measurement and analysis, on the one hand, and the curvilinear universe they measure on the other hand.

It seems to me that you're talking about the same thing. The allegory of 'reflection' generally in the spiritual record seems to represent this aspect of Being.

In stating the above, I assert the inability of analysis to completely analogize the curvilinear universe. At all times and from all perspectives, the universe is an open, bounded infinity; number systems can approach but never reach this infinity of dimensional expansions; numbers can always only sample the curvilinear universe via models.

I agree with this assertion. I do think this also is represented in the ancient knowledge; in the hebrew, the guff is covered by a colored screen. I suppose it's the nature of iconic representation generally.

The analytic/curvilinear disjunction makes reference to the asymptotic relationship of irrational numbers and what they measure as, for example, calculus approximates, but never equals, the volume under a curve.

And this speaks directly to the issue of continuity, doesn't it? If Lynds is right, then maybe things are alittle more deterministic.

In order to deny the disjunction, one must be prepared to show that: a) pi is invalid; b) calculations that produce irrational numbers for answers are misconceived; c) calculus is misconceived.

Maybe pi as a physical quantity is invalid, or atleast imaginary and understandable as a necessary discontinuity introduced by a numerical system of iconic representation? In curved space-time, it might be that pi is never really pi.

Physical time flow and discrete relative positions are sampling approximations of an uncontainably moving universe; the gap between the approximation and the thing approximated does not render the approximation unreal, however, just incomplete.

This, i think, is the issue. The approximation is real as an approximation; and the question must be asked, an approximation to what end? The approximation can be real only in context; a conscious entity requires humility if it is to respect context.

Instead, I’m referring to an internally consistent model of reality that is nonetheless segmented into discontinuous “tiers-or-motion.”

Internally consistent, but necessarily incomplete? I think this speaks directly to the ideas of 'truth' and 'reality.'

From our common perspective on moving objects, the continuity of action is indivisible, just as Lynds says. Let us say this common perspective is the first tier of motion. My main thesis herein says there’s at least one more tier of motion, the second tier of motion. From the perspective of the second tier of motion, physical time is as discrete as a slab of concrete.... ...We know this to be the case because, at the level of the first tier of motion, the solidification of time cannot occur; this is what Lynds is asserting. At the second tier of motion, however, the solidification of simple, first-tier-of-motion time is a commonplace. Since solidified simple time is specific to the second tier of motion, this second tier is discontinuous with the first tier with respect to solidified time.

I think Lynds is asserting the point you make that i've made bold, but where he says 'real' you say 'commonplace;' 'commonplace' is alittle strong, i think, a tad too familiar. It doesn't make sense to me to talk about 'motion' in the second tier before considering the nature of 'time' and 'space' in the 'second tier.'

In conclusion, we see that Lynds’ assertion of indivisible continuity, when situated within the more inclusive perspective of my multiple discontinuous tiers of motion, harmonizes therewith perfectly.

I agree; and i must say that your notion of 'second teir' time appears to be much like my notion of 'pleromatic time.' Although, you might have a more formally grounded motivation for your construct.

[jeffl]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Unlike the infinite universe theory which is well known I feel the number of possible universes are equal to the number of humans (and other self aware entity’s, including ET(s) or terrestrial animals or plants or inanimate objects if any). mb

You could go the other way; communities, ecosystems, etc..

[MerlinsByte]

You could go the other way; communities, ecosystems, etc..

Thanks for your response Jeffel. Yes its possible if you are saying that these are systems and thus a has a universe. I feel that if in inanimate (inorganic) objects could have a “personal universe” that could be visulised as bubbles in a foam of bubbles. (similar to the foam and M theory(1), which employs string and super string theory). Each universe has a different energy level or frequency and the more similar this universe is the more connected we are to it and the more we should be able to interact in it.BTW whom will be the first to write code for the first self aware A.I. program you, or Ringing Sword... ; } >

mb
note

(1)....In the M (membrane i.e. brane) theory the membrane could be envisioned as the film of the "bubble)

[RingingSword]

jeffl,

I think Lynds is asserting the point you make that i've made bold...

Lynds describes a frozen scenario of physical time in order to make the point that physical time is non-existent. This position is very different from mine.

Can you elaborate some details describing your pleromatic time?