Write4U:
Chronologically stacked 2D temporal planes.
I think I see the problem: you're not understanding what that picture represents. It is showing a particular 2D slice through our three dimensional space at several different times. The space is drawn as 2D slices because we can't draw a four-dimensional diagram but we're used to interpreting 2D diagrams, like this one, as representations of 3 dimensions - in this case two spatial dimensions and one time dimension. The third spatial dimension has been left out of the diagram, because it's impossible to include all four dimensions on a diagram.
Those are not "2D temporal planes". They are 2D
spatial planes: 2D slices of a 3D space.
It's possible that you understand this and you are just muddling the language up. I can't be sure.
No I didn't. If anything I said "temporal planes" and the chronology of universal NOW is measured in 2D slices (planes) of time.
Those aren't 2D slices of time. They are 2D slices of space. Time is one-dimensional. It is the vertical axis on your picture.
If those slices show space at several particular moments of time, they are not "universal", but observer dependent. A different observer in relative motion would have his or her simultaneous slices of space at some angle to the ones shown in the diagram. There is no "universal NOW".
You introduced the "thought experiment" of placing "observers" (alarm clocks) in relative positions on the horizontal spatial plane, no?
Did I?
I agree that we could place clocks at various spatial locations. In 3D space, we could, for example, place them on a 3D grid.
The present consists of a single horizontal slice of spatial (physical) existence on the vertically stacked slices of NOWs
Only for one particular observer, though. An observe in relative motion to that observer would have a different set of events comprising his or her "NOW", which again means that your "NOW" is not in any sense "universal".
Because the "present" is not a 3D object.
If "the present" is defined as the collection of all events everywhere in space that happen at a particular moment of time, then we get a set of events in a 3D space.
There is no temporal "past present" except when you introduce a spatial observer.
I don't know what a "past present" is.
That is your argument, not mine.
Sorry? What? It's my argument about what, exactly? Got a link to where I put the argument you're referring to? Post number, perhaps?
But the doppler effect is a good way to illustrate it.
======================(train travelling -->)===================
Observer A<_ _ _ _ _ _ _ [------- Sound source -------] .............> Observer B
Both observers get a subjectively false experience of the true pitch of the sound. And so it is with time.
What's the "true pitch" of a sound? Would that be the pitch you would hear if you happen to be moving with the source of the sound, perhaps? What makes that "truer" than the pitch heard by somebody watching the source fly past him?
Aren't you just preferencing a particular frame of reference, for no good reason?
IOW time has an objective NOW. Observers experience a subjective relative NOW depending on their POV.
Experimentally, how would we go about determining the frame of reference in which the "objective NOW" you mention exists? Is that a special, privileged frame of reference? Why? How can you tell?
That is all you have been talking about.
I do not believe I have used the term "differential synchronisation of clocks" in any post, other than where I have been quoting something you wrote. I have no idea what the term "differential synchronisation of clocks" might mean.
Compensate for the relativity introduced with the POV of an individual observer (each clock is adjusted to compensate for time lag SOL over long distances of observation).
It sounds like you believe there is a preferred or "true" reference frame of some sort. Which frame is it? How can we identify it? What makes it the one special frame? How can you tell if you're in that frame or not, as an observer?
Objectively there is no time lag over the entirety of the present spatial plane.
The "present spatial plane" is presumably defined as some set of simultaneous events. If that's your definition, of course there's no "time lag". There can be no time lag between simultaneous events. If there was, they wouldn't be simultaneous, by definition.
You're talking in circles.
I am glad you admitted to the introduction of physical observers in the analysis of a temporal dimension, which introduces a differential equation.
Do you know what a "differential equation" is?
Which differential equation are you referring to? Can you post the maths, please?
The thing is that your description admits there is no such thing as Time at all, but is merely a subjective experience of observational phenomena.
Where are you getting this from? Can you find anything I've written that supports the notion that "there is no such thing as time at all"? I challenge you to quote a single post of mine where I made any such statement.
I think you must have badly misunderstood something I wrote, somewhere.
I do not deny that time exists. Perhaps you're confusing me with michael 345, or someone. I think the idea that there's no such thing as time is ridiculuous.
Actually I agree with that.
Why am I not surprised that you would think that time doesn't exist?
I believe time is an emergent property of duration of a chronological event in a timeless permittive nothingness.
How can it not exist and yet also be an emergent property? You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. They are logically mutually exclusive.
What is a "timeless permittive nothingness"? Where could I find one of those?
So you can assign a time frame (timeline) to everything that has an observable duration.
Observing a duration is necessarily concerned with "assigning a timeline". You're spinning in circles again.
Question: does time exist without an observer? Can the Universe be its own observer and experience its own NOW?
That's two questions.
My answers are:
1. I have no idea. I only know about a universe that has observers. I have no experience of observerless universes.
2. I think you need to define what you mean by "observer" before you can answer the question of whether the universe qualifies as one. Same for "experience". Is the universe the sort of thing that can experience things? You need to define your terms clearly. That's a major problem I continually encounter in trying to discuss just about anything with you. You use technical-sounding terms in what seems to be an entirely idiosyncratic way. But when I ask you directly what you mean, you can never seem to explain yourself.
Chronologically stacked 2D temporal planes.
