Is There A Universal Now?

[origin]

• My beginning to write during one NOW, a past NOW, which as I continued to write, my writing passed though many past NOWs

• Your reading of my reply, began in one NOW, continued though many NOWs until you had completed reading my reply

Most people call that time.

 

[Write4U]

A legit, objective now would have to accommodate changes at the subatomic level, to the extent of being a yoctosecond in duration, if not a Planck-time unit. (And physicists in the past usually dissed the idea of reifying the latter, deeming it simply being the limit of meaningful measurement for disciplinary work and theories.)

As I understand CDT, yes the universe unfolds as Planck scale fractals, a 2D film, rolling out at the speed of light on the surface of the expanding universal "world-volume" .

But otherwise, I personally don't see the point in entertaining a global now to begin with unless one does indeed adhere to your "unfolding reality" conception, or one is a basic presentist who believes the universe is constantly replacing itself with a different state (they don't co-exist), or one is a buff of Julian Barbour's work[1], etc

Thank you for those excellent links.
I base my belief on David Bohm's (and deBroglie's) theory of

Wholeness and the Implicate Order, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=SpecialownloadAsPdf&page=Wikipedia%3AFile_Upload_Wizard&action=show-download-screen)

, and Loll's (et al) theory of

Causal Dynamical Triangulation, https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08669

However, some have argued that there is an ontological distinction between the past and the present. For instance, Forrest (2004) argues that although there exists a past, it is lifeless and inactive. Consciousness, as well as the flow of time, is not active within the past and can only occur at the boundary of the block universe in which the present exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

I would agree with that, except for conscious and unconscious access to memory, which is inherent in all physical objects in one form or another.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea on Panpsychism, which can start with brute chemical reactions based on chemical affinities, to more complex sensitivity to changing environment, to sensory awareness and responses, to self-aware consciousness of one's relationship to the environment.
I am not talking about "thinking" per se. All material things do have an objective "experiential" existence, no?

How do regular patterns emerge from chaos? How does H2O expresses itself in 3 distinct states dependent on temperature? How do plants learn to ignore non-harmful irritants? And even more curious, how does a brainless, neuronless Slime Mold acquire the ability for anticipating a regularly occurring future event (time)?

Doesn't each state experience a present state of NOW that was caused by a form of dynamic prior state of NOW?

Even human experience of NOW rests on information being passed on from the past. When we look back in time to an ancient galaxy that no longer exists, are we looking at Universal memory ?

 

[Michael 345]

Most people call that time.

So?

I have noticed in some more recent post that give references to some physicists who claim FUNDIMENTIAL TIME does not exist

To all those who claim FUNDIMENTIAL TIME does exist you all have the easiest of ways to confirm your stance

Show the physicists who claim FUNDIMENTIAL TIME does not exist, show those physicists, and give me a peek a portion of said TIME

 

[Michael 345]

Two hours since I asked for a peek at a portion of time

Two hours - nothing

Well considering no-one has ever seen TIME, or even detected TIME, it is a extremely long shot 8t will show up on this forum

 

[James R]

Write4U:

The time of subjective relative observation is irrelevant. It's the time of objective origination that counts.

There is no "time of objective origination". Time is relative. Specifying the time of an spacetime event requires that you first specify a frame of reference.

This statement is meaningless:

"The simultaneity of their NOW remains synchronized regardless of the distance the information travels between them."​

Are these guys assumed to be stationary with respect to one another (not to mention far away from any pesky gravitational fields)? If not, then their respective clocks will be running at different rates. Whatever you want to call their "NOW", it won't remain "synchronised".

By what standard are we judging the age of the entire universe?

From our position here on Earth. We actually deduce the age of the universe from measurements of the Hubble constant, which requires us to observe the recessional speeds of different objects. If we know how far away they are and how fast they are going, then we can backtrack and work out when they were all exactly where we are now. That time is when the big bang happened.

The edge of the universal world-volume?

The universe has no edge.

Is my world-line within that 13.7 world-volume?

You're here, in the universe.

Is my NOW in the past or in the future?

Define "my NOW". What, exactly, do you mean by that?

The common-sense answer, I would have thought, is that your "NOW" is in your present, not your past or your future. Of course, in a technical sense, whenever somebody else goes walking past you, their notion of the set of all events that are happening simultaneously with your "NOW" is different from yours. This is why it is meaningless to talk about a "universal NOW".

Is my NOW a false NOW?

I'm sure it's fine for you.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:

There is no "time of objective origination". Time is relative. Specifying the time of an spacetime event requires that you first specify a frame of reference.

Time is relative? To what? To Time? To the universe?

This statement is meaningless:

"The simultaneity of their NOW remains synchronized regardless of the distance the information travels between them."​

I think you're missing the part that speaks about simultaneity of NOWS

Are these guys assumed to be stationary with respect to one another (not to mention far away from any pesky gravitational fields)? If not, then their respective clocks will be running at different rates. Whatever you want to call their "NOW", it won't remain "synchronised".

Do individual clocks supersede a Universal clock?
You keep insisting on speaking about subjective observation. I am not arguing that.

From our position here on Earth. We actually deduce the age of the universe from measurements of the Hubble constant, which requires us to observe the recessional speeds of different objects. If we know how far away they are and how fast they are going, then we can backtrack and work out when they were all exactly where we are now. That time is when the big bang happened.

An event where everything happened all at once?
I call that simultaneity. Are you calling it relativity? Relative to what? Itself?

The universe has no edge.

If it had a beginning and is expanding it cannot be infinite. Only Nothing is infinite, a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition.

You're here, in the universe.

Exactly, I am not outside the universe. I am a product of the universe. My energy is as old as the universe.

Define "my NOW". What, exactly, do you mean by that?

My NOW is "exactly" the same NOW as the universal NOW.

The common-sense answer, I would have thought, is that your "NOW" is in your present, not your past or your future. Of course, in a technical sense, whenever somebody else goes walking past you, their notion of the set of all events that are happening simultaneously with your "NOW" is different from yours. This is why it is meaningless to talk about a "universal NOW".

No, that is why it is the same NOW as the universal NOW which is also in my present, not in my past or future. I am also in the universal present NOW and not in its past or future.

I'm sure it's fine for you.

It seems to be just fine for everything within the universe.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

Time is relative? To what? To Time? To the universe?

I would ask "Is simultaneity AT A DISTANCE relative?" And "Relative to WHAT?"

And I would answer those questions this way: "Yes, simultaneity at a distance is relative" and "Relative to the observer whose conclusion you desire." I.e., "simultaneity at a distance", i.e., "NOW at a distance", is different depending on which observer you are addressing the question to.

A better way to phrase the question is "How old is that particular distant person "right now"? The answers will generally be different, depending on to whom you are directing your question. The best group of people to direct that question to, is a group of people who are momentarily co-located with you at that instant.

 

[Michael 345]

Clock reading 2 am Sunday

About 12½ hours since I asked for a peek at a bit of time

Repeat, wth a minor spelling mistake corrected and a tiny bit more information

Well considering no-one has ever seen TIME, or even detected TIME, it is a extremely long shot it will show up in this blended forum (Is There A Universal Now? with Does TIME exist?)

This post is Number 448

Will post 449 show the bit of time asked for?

 

[Write4U]

A better way to phrase the question is "How old is that particular distant person "right now"? The answers will generally be different, depending on to whom you are directing your question. The best group of people to direct that question to, is a group of people who are momentarily co-located with you at that instant.

And what about if there is no observer to ask. Is that distant person any older or younger because there is no observer?

It is the introduction of an observer that introduces relativity. Remove the observer and all there is, is a single universal NOW.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

Well considering no-one has ever seen TIME

You see time whenever you glance at a clock. And if you glance twice at the same clock, you observe the progression of time.

 

[Michael 345]

You see time whenever you glance at a clock. And if you glance twice at the same clock, you observe the progression of time.

Ummmmm if that was correct it would imply that clocks have been around since the Big Bang

Would that be your position?

TIME as in the FUNDAMENTAL version has never been seen and I would contend even your version (the version invented by humans) you are not seeing time

Humans created a regularity system where a agreed upon measurement ie the second

One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (or 9.192631770 x 109 in decimal form) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium-133 atom.

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/second-s-or-sec?amp=1

would be used to allow activities to be matched for the convenience of humans

ie Gentleman set your watches to 6 minutes past 5 pm .... NOW. We meet again in 32 minutes

Of course for larger regulation for larger activities America has

Official and highly precise timekeeping services (clocks) are provided by two federal agencies: the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (an agency of the Department of Commerce); and the United States Naval Observatory (USNO)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim...e timekeeping,States Naval Observatory (USNO).

The clocks run by these services are kept synchronized with each other as well as with those of other international timekeeping organizations.

Dispite all this high level regulation even human time does not have any physicality or properties or detectability (required if wanted to be considered as existing)

 

[C C]

[...] The more I think about it the more I like the idea on Panpsychism, which can start with brute chemical reactions based on chemical affinities, to more complex sensitivity to changing environment, to sensory awareness and responses, to self-aware consciousness of one's relationship to the environment.
I am not talking about "thinking" per se. All material things do have an objective "experiential" existence, no?

How do regular patterns emerge from chaos? How does H2O expresses itself in 3 distinct states dependent on temperature? How do plants learn to ignore non-harmful irritants? And even more curious, how does a brainless, neuronless Slime Mold acquire the ability for anticipating a regularly occurring future event (time)?

Doesn't each state experience a present state of NOW that was caused by a form of dynamic prior state of NOW?

Even human experience of NOW rests on information being passed on from the past. When we look back in time to an ancient galaxy that no longer exists, are we looking at Universal memory ?

Sure, the only way its non-existent past is applicable at all in presentism is if each of its ridiculously short-lived Nows retains information about the last one that was expunged. Otherwise, they don't share the same identity at all -- and they're arguably still the equivalent of slightly modified parallel universes replacing each other.

But figuratively, changes don't have to be like the ephemeral scenes on a movie theater screen, in which one change seemingly pops-out of nowhere and annihilates the former one, to replace it. The scenes or configuration states of that abbreviated "movie world" can co-exist as differences distributed along a reel of film or information stored on a disk, flashdrive, etc. With the initial apprehension of "what's going on" (corresponding to our cognition's representational take on the move-screen situation) either being a mistaken inference or just one of multiple ways of ontologically conceptualizing received information.

But those spread out over two dimensions depictions of differences (change) on a filmstrip or optic disk can disrupt the integration or idea of common identity, too. For instance, the book quote at the top of this former post strays away from a continuum of brain/body unity by switching from the opening block metaphor to a cinematic filmstrip one. A flipbook would have been a better analogy, in the sense of retaining the semblance of a stacked block. Albeit both the filmstrip and the flip-book are compromised with respect to attributing an objective "flow" to spacetime rather than that being an illusion of a brain's discrimination of its own consciousness into a procession of increments from the dawn of fetal awareness to death.

The brain's Now experiences are solipsistic from the standpoint that each one regards only itself as existing, with the others demoted to memory status (the data storage of a putative extinct past). That's due to the underlying chunk-sequence of different neural states that correlate to a distinct Now experience being limited to the "live" or "in play" information that they are processing. They can only be about that specific information that they are devoted to, not what prior chunk-sequences are about or what future chunk-sequences of brain changes/differences are about.

The other, co-existing Now experiences are not recognized as manifesting with the specious current Now, they're islands cut-off from each other, as far as those superficial appearances go. (But are still ontologically united components in terms of the worldline of the brain/body or the brain/body's 4D-worm manner of subsisting which the sliced, 3D approach to consciousness doesn't capture or represent).

Note that the very verbs of common language reflect its inherent bias for the presentism view of time, so there is no way to pristinely describe eternalism without using them, when speaking/writing in common language. It would require a specialized nomenclature to avoid the inherent metaphysical prejudices of common language.

Turning to panpsychism...

The building blocks of intelligence are simply the extrinsic (detectable) characteristics of elemental matter and its ability to interact with itself and relationally constitute both unruly patterns and highly regulated arrangements. So in that sense, intelligence has precursors which it arises from, and they are universal. IOW, pan-proto-sapience is the case, but we don't call it that because matter also assembles into things which are not intelligent -- 99.9999... percent of affairs in the cosmos are not intelligent. We don't call atoms "proto-humans" or "proto-brains".

But with regard to the phenomenal properties of consciousness (those manifestations of vision, hearing, feeling, etc), there seems to be nothing else they can usefully create other than the complex experiences associated with brains. So employment of the term "panpsychism" seems justified in that regard, except that it creates erroneous impressions serving as strawmen for opponents. Because the word-unit "psych" etymologically implies all the capacities of mind, not just the manifestations. I prefer instead proto-phenomenalism, to reduce conflation with memory-based cognition, intelligence, subjectivity, etc. Leaving off "pan" because it's too long to begin with. Etymologically, the ancient root meaning of "phenomen-" is just "show, showing, appearance, etc". It at least has less baggage.

Our two representational approaches to matter are both invented: One is what biological evolution has produced over eons (our perceptions of matter existing as outer appearances of objects in space); and the other is fully artificial: The symbol-based abstractions or technical descriptions in physics.

This thus leaves the question of how matter exists to itself independent of those two modes of human-dependent representation. One idea is that the intrinsic, ontological properties of matter are just primitive manifestations. This kills two birds with one stone by hypothesizing that the brain recruits those elemental "presentations" to construct its complex, psychological experiences of perception and thought. But those primitive manifestations should not be categorized as mental, subjective, and perhaps even "experiences" until orchestrated into such at that higher level of neural manipulation.

 

[Write4U]

Sure, the only way its non-existent past is applicable at all in presentism is if each of its ridiculously short-lived Nows retains information about the last one that was expunged. Otherwise, they don't share the same identity at all -- and they're arguably still the equivalent of slightly modified parallel universes replacing each other.

Here is where I am intrigued by David Bohm's concept of "Implicate and Explicate orders", where each instant of NOW of many enfolded potentials forms an implication of what is to become explicated (unfolded) in reality in the next NOW.

Implicate and explicate order

Implicate order and explicate order are ontological concepts for quantum theory coined by theoretical physicist David Bohm during the early 1980s. They are used to describe two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality. In particular, the concepts were developed in order to explain the bizarre behaviors of subatomic particles which quantum physics describes and predicts with elegant precision but struggles to explain. [1]

In Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order, he used these notions to describe how the appearance of such phenomena might appear differently, or might be characterized by, varying principal factors, depending on contexts such as scales.[2]

The implicate (also referred to as the "enfolded") order is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or "unfolded" order includes the abstractions that humans normally perceive.

As he wrote:

"In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order#

 

[Michael 345]

Sure, the only way its non-existent past is applicable at all in presentism is if each of its ridiculously short-lived Nows retains information about the last one that was expunged.

I understand what you are saying and agree yes it is puzzling

I think if you view NOWs as independent from each other that would indicate a sort of tick tock / stop start passage of FUNDIMENTIAL TIME

The alternative would be a graded passage as in this colour graded chat, which also has problems



Need coffee



Edit to add

It could be that the Planck's length is so short it is indistinguishable from a extremely fractional grade

Need sleep

 

[James R]

Time is relative? To what? To Time? To the universe?

When we say something is relative, we mean it is an observer-dependent thing. Observers in different frames of reference will measure different values for the same quantity.

Take two events A and B in spacetime. Two observers who are in relative motion to one another will assign different space and time coordinates to those same two events. Therefore, we say that the space and time coordinates are "relative".

"Relativity" is, in my opinion, not a very good name for Einstein's theory, by the way, because the most important things in the Theory of Relativity are the things that stay the same - the things that are NOT observer-dependent - the things that all observers can agree on. The time interval between two events is NOT one of those "invariants". Nor is the set of events that occur simultaneously.

I think you're missing the part that speaks about simultaneity of NOWS

I haven't missed anything.

Do individual clocks supersede a Universal clock?

There is no universal clock.

An event where everything happened all at once?

?? The big bang is the point in spacetime where everything was momentarily at the same place at the same time.

If [the universe] had a beginning and is expanding it cannot be infinite.

You're very confident about that, are you? Just based on "common sense", this idea of yours, is it?

Maybe, if you want to sound like you're talking knowledgably about the big bang, it might be time to study up on it just a bit. Don't assume that your common sense will get it right.

Only Nothing is infinite, a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition.

"Nothing" is not a thing. "Nothing" has no properties.

You and have previously had this discussion, have we not? What did you learn the last time we had the discussion? Why do we need to have it again? Did you forget?

Exactly, I am not outside the universe. I am a product of the universe. My energy is as old as the universe.

Your energy? What is that?

My NOW is "exactly" the same NOW as the universal NOW.

There is no universal NOW.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Write4U has been warned for proselytising for his faith. Talk of Bohm's theories of "implicate order" is off-topic for this thread - at least unless some legitimate connection can be made to the thread topic. But this is just preaching the Word.

 

[Michael 345]

Here is a puzzle in a couple of physics statements

Nothing happens instantly. OK take that as a given

When a photon is created how long does it take to get up to light speed?

Oh that happens instantly

***

Time does not exist for a photon A given?

Because

what is it doing for the approximately 8 minutes after it left the sun before it arrived on Earth?



***

Edit to add

It is said due to the expansion of the Universe there will come a time when galaxies and stars will be so far away we won't be able to see them

Think I got this one

Lights will still be coming from them towards us but with the extra distance will come extra obstacles for the light to overcome

Interstellar dust to absorb the photons and, not sure about this, the (visible) light frequencies will stretch out and become a electromagnetic radiation frequency outside of visible detection

11 pm coffee calling

 

[origin]

When a photon is created how long does it take to get up to light speed?

Photons don't "get up to light speed".

Time does not exist for a photon A given?

Not true.

what is it doing for the approximately 8 minutes after it left the sun before it arrived on Earth?

Moving at approximately 300,000 km/sec.

Your confusion does not invalidate physics it just means you are confused.

 

[Michael 345]

Photons don't "get up to light speed".

Was told that years ago by a physicist who was on a radio program where you phoned in with your question

But this is joined to the other part

Nothing happens instantly. OK take that as a given

And since

Photons don't "get up to light speed".

It would appear to contradict

Nothing happens instantly.

Not true.

OK a statement but not helpful as a explanation

Time does not exist for a photon So why is it frequently heard? And published

Photons do not experience time.

https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.amp

Moving at approximately 300,000 km/sec.

Your confusion does not invalidate physics

A given and stating the obvious, as in (Moving at approximately 300,000 km/sec.)

it just means you are confused.

is not helpful in disposing of my confusion

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

When we say something is relative, we mean it is an observer-dependent thing. Observers in different frames of reference will measure different values for the same quantity.

Take two events A and B in spacetime. Two observers who are in relative motion to one another will assign different space and time coordinates to those same two events. Therefore, we say that the space and time coordinates are "relative".

Any EVENT has a unique time associated with it, and every observer everywhere will agree about that. Where there IS disagreement among different observers in relative motion is with "simultaneity", i.e., "NOW-at-a-distance". The best way to phrase it is for an observer to ask himself "How old is that particular distant person, RIGHT NOW? Different observers who are moving relative to one another will disagree about the answer to that question.