Natural selection, in this sense, is the process of environmental feedback acting on an individual and the individual's influence on the rest of the environment. — Harry Hindu

Hi Harry,
I am assuming that by Natural Selection you are referring to the Survival of the Fittest model.
The problem I can see with Natural Selection, defined by Survival of the Fittest, is that it is a culling operation. I am sure that there were times in Earth's history when an impossible leap was needed by life so that it either perished from existence completely or it survived. If we simply culled all life because no variant could make the leap, life would have died out many times in Earth's history. To make the impossible leap requires that life is not clinging on to survival with its bare teeth but has an excess capacity to throw out variants. That is, it must be have a creative potential beyond what is demanded by survival of the fittest models. The difference is subtle in its distinction but enormous in its ramifications. And we know that time after time, when the environment gets nasty, life bounces back. What did that guy say on Jurassic Park - Nature finds a way?

Creative evolution seems a better model.

Hi Apokrisis,
I quite agree that experiences throughout a lifetime must affect the germ line, although I think we both would be in the minority. For example, we may expect a animal to grow quite a thick coat of fur after living in a cold environment for a long time. It makes sense. That by random chance they start growing thick coats seems a bit far fetched, and we can trace human adaptation as it moved out of Africa and into the colder regions of Europe as case in point.

I just want you to clarify one thing for me. You say.

If the environment doesn't change, then neither will the species. — apokrisis

How does this account for divergent evolution? In Australia, for example, a marsupial found itself isolated from many predators and evolved into all sorts of weird creatures such as wombats and kangaroos and koalas. Are you arguing that the global constraint in this instance would be competition between the marsupials rather than the environment itself? How would you define 'environment'?

I've been turning the theory over all day long, and am quite surprised that I have not been met by a rush of contradictions - not a single one. Not yet anyway. I should feel a little skeptical about it all, but it has slotted straight in as a deeper truth. It has clipped in like a bar magnet to a fridge. It's quite bizarre how it's bypassed so many rows of mental filters that should be able to trip it up. Nothing has ever done that before. My basic stance is to believe nothing and work backwards from there.

And because I see the creativity in things as I look around, in the twisting of the tree limbs and the arrangement of the items on people's desks, I actually feel quite a strange sense of happiness, that I can't quite account for. That also should not be happening because of a theory. I think you have a convert, not that I was a great lover of survival of the fittest. As I look around I am seeing the creativity and can distinguish the difference between that and base survival.

I learnt once that a study of drug addicts found that even when hooked to the drug, they didn't take it because of a need to restore their baseline equilibrium (which of course they need to do), but because they were still chasing the high. I don't know how valid that experiment was, I think it was one of the 70's hippy experiments. I think this theory kind of fits in there.

Survival of the fittest is a baseline, getting dragged across the gravel on your back while gripping with all your might the rope that might allow you to continue to survive so long as you don't let go, kind of theory. Your creative theory, allows for the superfluous, which could very well be the true key in this whole equation. I'm going to run with it for a while and see if it truly fits in with my own ideas.

Just to change topic a bit: Rich, did you read my post in this thread on seeing sound? How does that fit in with your holographic model of the real world? Is the mind reconstructing the world as it is, or only those aspects it chooses to see? (much like the theme of this OP).

Also, why reconstruct the world when it's already right in front of you? Plus, what you see is loaded with information from lots of senses, including memory. Does the hologram model allow that?

I can see the attraction of the theory straight away. Let me turn it over for a while and get back to you.

And I think h. sapiens can do that. I think h. sapiens can arrive at an understanding of truth that is NOT species-specific, but that would be discovered by any other sentient being. And furthermore, if evolutionary conditioning is so all-powerful, how come Hoffman's philosophy is able to see through it? What makes his approach different to any other wisdom tradition? They're the kinds of questions that are occurring to me. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I know where you're coming from. Sometimes you have to sort through a lot of debris to find the gem. I think Hoffman made a good point with the zooming up on the icon of a computer screen as not revealing its inner workings but I think he has failed in his attempt to create a unifying explanation.

I'll go out for now on this:

Here's another example where he appears to be arguing both sides of the coin.

The sun you see is a momentary icon, constructed on the fly each
time you experience it. Your sun icon does not match or approximate
the objective reality that triggers you to construct a sun icon. It is a
species-specific adaptation, a quick and dirty guide, not an insight into
the objective nature of the world.

This suggests that if the sun is a representation of the truth, but only a dirty one, then it is pointing right through to the core of the computer. It is either an icon on a GUI that only has contextual meaning or it is the truth.

I find it easier when I read if I substitute GUI for mind and conscious agents for consciousness.

I haven't got to a lot of mathematical references except the QM ones which he wants to refute, but imagine that the mathematics is the key that unlocks the truth to those stuck in the MUI. It sounds a lot like the matrix doesn't it. Red pill, blue pill?

I'm just up to his definition of the objective world.

I think you're struggling not because the paper is difficult so much as disorganised and muddled. I am trying to untangle contradictions all over the place. Admittedly perhaps my lack of grounding in philosophy may be the cause of it. Maybe I don't have the correct definition of terms. Have a look for example at this paragraph I just pulled out, which is where I am up to now.


"Conscious realism asserts that the objective world,
i.e., the world whose existence does not depend on the perceptions of a
particular observer, consists entirely of conscious agents.
Conscious realism is a non-physicalist monism. What exists in the
objective world, independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious
agents, not a world of unconscious particles and fields. Those particles and
fields are icons in the MUIs of conscious agents, but are not themselves
fundamental denizens of the objective world. "

1. The Objective World consists entirely of conscious agents.
When I Google conscious agents I get: "The theory of conscious agents proposed by Hoffman and Prakash (2014) takes conscious agents, rather than physical objects and space-time, as fundamental. ... The conscious experience S(N) is the “now” of the conscious agent and the conscious experiences 510 Page 18 S(1)…S(N −1) are its “past”".

2. Conscious Realism is non-physicalist monism.
When I Google monism I get: "a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in a particular sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world."
- if there is no distinction between God and the World, or the computer and the world, shouldn't we be able to see it all?

3. "What exists in the objective world, independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious
agents," -- but hang on, Conscious agents are the conscious experience, so how can they be independent of the perceptions?

4. "Those particles and fields are icons in the MUIs of conscious agents" But the Objective World consists entirely of Conscious agents (Point 1).

5. "But are not themselves fundamental denizens of the Objective World" - and yet by definition they are.

I'm about halfway through the Paper, Wayfarer, and I have to say Hoffman seems a bit all over the map. I get the sense he is trying to turn a pretty big bus, not just one on perception but on the nature of reality and as such his ideas seem to lack a bit of focus - at least to me. I would have liked him to define Objective Reality for me.

A central problem with his thesis that I can see is that in this virtual MUI world while we cannot directly ascertain from observation how the folder opens, we would question it nonetheless and derive theorems to explain it. That the folder opens would be observable and would contradict the laws of nature as we were building them. We would seek the truth, and that would lead into the explanation I suggested earlier.

If we forgo any folders, recycle bins, word documents and just get caught in a virtual game, the game would constitute Objective Reality. How do we determine there is a background code by which we can begin our backward trace? The same way we've come out with this virtual world hypothesis that's been around for years. Mathematics.

I've heard it said that if Jesus or some other entity came floating down to earth on a cloud that would be the proof we need that this world is a computer simulation, so I guess we would be looking for code contradictions where the apparent truth is violated.

It is your Mind that is observing. It is peering out through your eyes. — Rich

Then what is the point of the hologram?

Wayfarer, I am about a third of the way through the paper and you are not going to believe this, but I used to espouse this point of view many years ago when discussing the visual system.

There was an example I used about vision. I wish I could remember the name of the book I got it from, but it was full of these great examples of abberations to visual processing. If anyone knows it please tell me, I would love to read it again.

In one of the examples the man's eyes and optic nerves were functioning fine, but the visual cortex had been damaged. As a result he was 'blind' but could see. He could not create a visual impression of the environment in his cortex, but he could dodge telegraph poles and garbage bins while walking down the street by 'sensing' they were there. Of course he could only move very slowly to do this. My contention at the time was that the difference was the difference between Windows and DOS operating systems. In a Windows based GUI you could see instantaneously and react appropriately without have to sought the code.

It also give a lot more surety about what you are perceiving. I used the example that there was a time when I was sleeping and I heard a noise - a bang. As I was in the netherworld between sleep and wakefulness my mind manifested the sound visually to me. I saw the sound expanding like a sphere. Several seconds later the bang was repeated. I saw it again. It expanded at exactly the same rate to exactly the same size and I woke up immediately and said "Double barrel shotgun." The visual representation of the image gave me certainty. I had no doubt what so ever that it was the same sound. I have no idea if that's what it was (I have been asked), but I am sure of what I saw...heard.

It also makes you wonder about other animals such as bats where the dominant sense is not vision. Do they actually visualise what they see, like I did with the sound? It might mean we need to redefine the idea of vision.

A bird that uses grass to make it's nest can not switch to mud, and visa versa. — Bitter Crank

I just want to add to this comment that they can. It's adaptation to the environment, best seen through consecutive generations.

I fully agree that the disparity between the masses and the elite has widened to such an extent that we are almost living back in aristocratic world.

As an example, the landlord put up my rent six months after I moved in here because the perceived value of the market had increased. My house is positively geared meaning that the landlords repayments are less than what I am paying in rent. The difference is a bit of extra cash in his pocket. The irony of course is that if I had had the initial capital to buy the house I would be paying less now than I am in rent. I argued my case with the landlord (through the agent - never direct - that's not allowed), that my income hadn't gone up in the previous six months and this new rent is not what I had agreed upon. I asked him to reconsider. The answer. No - because I was a commodity. It went up again six months later.

Ok, I guess I would call creativity, experimentation, but again potatoes, potartos. It's a fair enough point, throwing out change allows adaptation against a changing environmental backdrop.

I think I might be on the Dark Side. It's actually quite a bit of fun over here, bit I like to run around between both sides. One thing I need you to clear up for me though, Rich, is what you mean when you say "Just Observe" You've said it a few times now, so I know it has some significance for you beyond just the words, but it is not giving me any direction for my thoughts. Can you be more precise?

I'm not sure if you agree with my point or are against it. Your first paragraph seemed against it, the second seemed to confirm it.

It should be recognised I am not stating a moral position that beyond a certain level all people should be viewed as commodities, but rather that beyond a certain level they are commodities to society. We are the workers in the factories, Tom Cruise is the actor who can pull the most money at the box office.

You could define a commodity in this sense as one aspect of the whole person that is represented as the entirety of that person. Even Einstein is commoditised by society for his genius, nobody cares that he had he preferred lasagne to spag bol. unless they feel that by eating a lot of lasagne they too might become a genius.

Ha,ha, I knew you wouldn't like the decoder remark. I have no position on it at all to be honest, potato potarto, but I am starting to consider the whole thing in more detail. I'm reading this paper of Wayfarers at the moment. One of my concern's with Bergsun's assertion or conscious realism and the mind as a holograph creator, is much akin to the God question. So, the hologram is formed, but who views it?

The purpose of survival is to allow the mind to create. To create and learn it's the purpose of life. — Rich

I'm not so sure I can agree with you here, Rich. Life in this definition seems to have a very narrow application to humanity. But life is teeming all over the earth and probably all over the universe and I don't see how it fits. Is the assertion that creativity and learning is the purpose for all life, including moss?

It is true that a child will find immense joy and fascination in watching a stick float down the drain, and that once they understand this process thoroughly it no longer holds any interest, so too with playing with toys, but are these things (creativity and learning) not simply masks to enable learning that can be applied to survival via complex reasoning later on? Much like the sex drive is the mask for reproduction?

I'm a bit vague on how the term creativity is being used throughout this thread too. It seems to have some other meaning.

It is true that there is a lot of hardwired skills in animals, like nest building. There's also plenty of evidence of animals understanding the application of tools and then applying them. The crow comes to mind. It's a pretty good problem solver too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAOEAeh9AGk

Figuring solutions to complex problems is humanities splinter skill though. Rather than changing to suit the environment, we change the environment to suit us. But just like the building of the dam is hardwired into the beaver, so too attempting to solve complex problems is hardwired into humanity and provides a few more degrees of freedom in the application.

You are right, we are not commodities at our local level. I should have started the heirachy with self, then family, friends, colleagues. But the system does tend to close off after this level. Once we begin to be viewed through the collective eyes of "society" we become very much commodified.

I'll check it out.

I totally agree that survival is a side effect without purpose. In a previous post on the arrow of time I equated it to falling sideways through a plaster wall out of the every churning pool of molecules.

I also take the points raised earlier on creativity, or in your point, of the scattered seeds. I think the scattering of the atoms or the subatomic particles across the very fabric of the universe itself set the conditions. The real intention behind it all may be to see how it turns out. I don't think it is being directed in its course. The steps on the path to becoming is of no importance (man rules the universe, dinosaurs do, galaxies interact with sentience toward each other) but that it will turn out a certain way may be what has a "God" very curious. Just like the rolling of the proverbial dice. An eventual Heat Death, as Apokrisis states, may just be the game over sign.

So Nature was full of technology before we even got here — 0af

I like this quote. Self assembling atoms that have taken the form of life and the lifeless.

For me the alienation is really about population. We are all (or most of us) more or less replaceable. — 0af

I agree on that too, to a certain extent. Back in 1905 when Einstein published his great theories there was only one of him and a world world population of around 1.5 billion. By today's standards with a world population of around 6 billion, there would be the equivalent of 4 Einsteins running around, and so it is harder to achieve the same level of fame for your ideas or deeds. So too with great writers etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

Nonetheless, I can't help feel that while I am replaceable, the world will go on, my thinking is just enough left of centre to make a contribution somewhere, somehow. I think most people in this forum and maybe everywhere probably feel a bit that way too.

Apokrisis will tell you that there are local degrees of freedom and global constraints everywhere, and it's not a bad deduction. In this instance the connectedness with the world really only happens locally. After families, friends, colleagues it closes out pretty fast. At the higher global levels of society we are really just numbers unless we do something to distinguish ourselves, but even then we are still very much just a commodity.

The point on animals and their creations is a good one. Man holds himself too much apart from other animals and it's just not the case. So much of what he thinks is intrinsic to himself is intrinsic to all animals. He has a splinter skill of extended reasoning, but all animals have a splinter skills, most of which we don't have. And they have the full gamut of emotions we have.

I didn't study philosophy at uni, so I can't be of much help in regard to your thinkers, but I have still been thinking of Hoffman today, and return to my previous statement regarding QM theory.

One way to look at what he is telling us is that the universe is front of us is filled with so much white noise that we need to filter it in order to understand a truth that promotes our survival. We can take the idea of a Superposition of all information of our world, and suggest that our mind Decoheres it in order to make sense of it (Rich won't like the idea of a decoder as the mind).

In this model of the world our mind has created visual buttons for us to understand the world around us, hiding the complex behind it. The snake, the train. In this instance closer inspection reveals the atoms and molecules.

I may have been too hasty in dismissing Hoffman's work as simply that though. In relation to the computer there is really only one thorough way to go about solving the problem, and that is a top-down, bottom-up, top-down, bottom-up approach, stepping systematically through observations and theory as we work backwards.

The problem as I understand it is that by understanding the Folder on the Desktop we only understand the code that created the folder, by understanding the word document we may only go so far as understanding the code that created that program. It gives no further information that we can trace back to the computer.

But it does. A Save file must be getting saved somewhere, an Open File must be getting opened from somewhere. We would need to begin to invoke the existence of abstract storage areas to get a full model. For the interface to run we can elucidate their is a background program and seek to determine what it is. Letter input's from keyboard's can likewise be accounted for and a list of all the possible keys drawn up, leaving spaces for those keys we suspect are out there but are yet to discover.

As we elucidate the background code there will be pointers in the code that suggest it is running on a BIOS, especially when we know there is a folder and other GUIs. So too BIOS when we begin to unpack it will reveal a deeper machine code or bits and bytes or whatever it is.

When we run unpack the machine code there will be pointers to information processing diodes, information storage magnetic disks, power sources etc.

Of course the other way to solve the problem is abstract mathematics where we start with the premise that there is an underlying computer and computer program running on it and work upward from there.

Darthbarracuda, you might enjoy this if you haven't seen it before, it's along the lines of your OP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

It is incredible to think that the very same atoms that make life can be milked in such ways to create our animated technological world. The fact that we can crudely arrange them to achieve our purposes this way really reinforces the idea of just how remarkable these little things are and how far we have to go in truly understanding them. To my mind, it points to a type sentience we don't fully understand.

Your welcome Wayfarer. It's not surprising he only mentions QM in passing, I think he might want to downplay the link. I don't think I'm the one mixing my scientific metaphors, I think he is. But you are right about QM, there's been no mention in my readings of monkeys that can do it.

Hi Wayfarer,
I watched the video and found it very interesting. It seems like what Hoffman is asserting is a simple derivation from Quantum Mechanics. That there is a superposition of all information and that the job of the brain is decohesion of that information. In fact the Copenhagen interpretation that when observed an object is force to take one state or another fits right in. There is, after all, something there that our senses are picking up on, or else I would be able to walk through walls if only I closed my eyes.

Based on the observation above that Particles at constant velocity behave like static fields, and seem to violate the observation that all fields move at the speed of light, and in fact seem prohibited from doing so, we can conclude: Particles can therefore be thought of as secondary fields trapped within primary fields.

An electron has its own electron field but is part of the electromagnetic field. [Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg]

I have tried to devise a thought experiment to try to understand why a particle can’t go faster than the speed of light, or faster than the field it is in (which is moving at the speed of light) and the experiment is suggesting it can, so I need some help.

Imagine a conveyor belt. When I turn on my machine the belt will be pulled in a circular fashion. This is our field. For convenience, now let’s make that rubber conveyor a piece of rope. At part of the rope I loop it around a pencil I am holding. I turn the machine back on and the rope runs over the pencil, creating a standing loop- a particle.

Now it is also true that I can run my pencil up and down along the string, moving the position of the loop. If I go backward along the rope the field takes on a faster value (which for a field would mean the particle is travelling faster than the speed of field, C)

However, if I move at the speed of the rotating string, the string will not flow over my loop. Both loop and string will be stationary with respect to each other. This would be the equivalent of going at the speed of light. If I do go faster than the speed of the string, the field/string does not break, but rather begins to flow backward relative to the loop.

The loop would experience a flow counter to the actual direction of the field that is creating it. But so what? I’m confused at this point. The loop should still hold its integrity but the rules suggest.
1. The loop can be a standing loop with no motion
2. The loop can move in the direction of the field but not at a speed greater than the overall speed of the field.
This is a very small range. Can we justify these rules with this analogy?
Is the argument that there is nothing to move the loop that fast or counter to the flow? If so, my counter would be, what is there to cause the loop to move at all? If we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, we should not be able to travel at all (V should = 0) :=0

Any takers?

I've been reading up on QM and fields and have found an article from which I have drawn some conclusions. Do you agree?

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-static-electric-field-conservative

"Any field that has no means of dissipating energy is conservative. This is stemming from the law of conservation of energy. To be non-conservative, there must be a mechanism to convert energy to another form, since even non-conservative fields must conserve energy as a whole, with dissipated energy included. Thus a non-static field can radiate away energy or dissipate is as heat in eddy current in conductors, while a static filed has no dissipation mechanism. The most common way of energy dissipation is a conversion to heat, usually by friction, eddy currents and magnetic cycle hysteresis." (me: we know particles are field eddies, we know there is heat in the universe)
"Being conservative relates to path independence or lack thereof. If you move a charge from point A to point B within an electric field, the energy gained or lost must be the same regardless of the specific path taken through space between these two points. If it's path independent, then the field is conservative." (me: velocity of an object)

 The universe is a non-conservative field – meaning there is a mechanism to convert energy from one form to another form.
 Particles created in non-conservative fields display conservative field properties, except in the case of acceleration. They are path independent at a constant velocity through space (the same amount of energy is used to get from A to B regardless of the path taken) with no way to dissipate their energy.
 When a particle is accelerated, it behaves like a non-conservative field and begins to convert energy so it now interacts with space and time fields.
 Acceleration of a particle occurs when it is affected by another field (eg gravity)
 Rather than dissipating energy though, the particle gains energy as it accelerates.
 The universe is nothing but fields and so a particle must constantly be in a state of flux between being a conservative and non-conservative field.
 We would expect to see many high velocity objects (approaching C) in our universe relative to each other because of a net gain of velocity through acceleration: assuming that for at least half of all particles the net sum of acceleration is positive.
 Particles at constant velocity behave like static fields, and seem to violate the observation that all fields move at the speed of light.
 The idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light could really be reworded as, everything is travelling at the speed of light except particles, which will never reach it.

Thanks guys, time to hit the books for a while.

Hi guys, by potency and act, is the shorthand for potential (energy) and kinetic/actualised (energy)?
If so, it would seem that chaos and order would possess the same spectrum of both with the degree depending on the system.

I will certainly check out those references. I am building quite a long list of things to check out, thanks to these discussions.

I had a quick look at Noether's theorem on YouTube, and I don't think my ideas violate any conservation rules. And I realise that mass increase is relative to the observer, but everyone is the observer, which means it mass increased, period.

I as of yet can't see why my logic doesn't hold.

These terms describe properties of the moving object. They don't explain the object itself.

https://futurism.com/why-do-objects-increase-in-mass-as-they-get-faster-2/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-energy-and-force.7356/

Fair enough. You could say it is holding momentum, kinetic energy, a Jedi Forcefield. I don't care. What is it? Can you point inside the atoms and say, other there is the kinetic energy?

After reading “Relativity in a Nutshell – Abridged Version” I came away with some ideas that for years I have let ruminate, only giving expression to them in this forum now. That there are actually other people who are into this stuff is awesome.
Now, I’m no maths wiz, but have let reason and logic beat out a path through the years, that is probably filled with holes and contradictions or obvious and well known conclusions. But, hey, it helped kill time while waiting at the bus stop. So here goes the chain of logic, or part thereof. I’d appreciate it if you jumped in where you can and showed me why the logic doesn’t hold.

We know that when energy acts directionally on mass it causes acceleration. We know that when we release the energy input, constant velocity results (unless in some other interference field). The magnitude of this constant velocity is dependent on the point of release during the acceleration. The more acceleration it acquired the higher the release velocity. Thus as it continues on ad infinitum at this higher velocity relative to its buddy that didn’t get accelerated, it must be now be holding something inside it that makes it different to its buddy. We know its mass has increased because of the acceleration, so what happened?
There’s not much to play with for a non-quantum mechanist such as myself. We have mass and we have energy. We gave energy, the object acquired mass. Somewhere along the line the energy we gave was swapped for mass.

We know acceleration is a vector. The object doesn’t accelerate in all directions. The energy we gave it was directional. We acted on the atoms. We acted on the energy fields, directionally.
Is it not reasonable to suggest therefore that by adding energy and direction to the field of an atom we should be able to create an acceleration of the atom? Or that after releasing our own energy input, the energy field should restore and acceleration should stop? How about that restoration of the energy field stops the acceleration?
The object thereafter travels at constant velocity. Velocity isn’t affected by the removal of the energy input - it doesn’t dwindle down.

I think it is also reasonable to argue that the increased mass may have occurred in an attempt by the atom to restore the energy field by converting the excess energy to mass. The idea of Relativity is that acceleration is resisted.
The first little branch I want to snap off from this observation if you’ve made it this far with me is that: We have all these objects whizzing about in space at constant velocity relative to each other in different directions. Imagine the scenario that they are identical objects moving away from each other - by comparing the mass of two identical objects (arrows or balls), it should be possible to determine which object has the highest velocity relative to the other, which one is moving away the fastest.
If this is possible, it should be also be possible to create a hierarchy of energy states for identical objects and perhaps even come out with a baseline energy configuration (lowest mass), therefore grounding relativity at reference point (Uh oh, points again).

The second little branch would be that by observing the internal energy state of an object it should be possible to determine the magnitude and direction of acceleration of an object without actually calculating it over a distance. We don’t need observed motion.

The next part of this I want to discuss is Time and motion.
I also find it interesting that Time does not interact with objects of constant velocity (except maybe to age them). The bending of space, the creation of mass, all has to do with Time and acceleration, and it acts to shut the acceleration down.

Time treats constant velocity object and stationary objects the same. It leaves them alone. To Time, both are moving through Time at the same speed. You could argue that to Time, both could be either moving or not moving and it wouldn’t know the difference. It can’t differentiate. If this is the case, then Time can’t sense the traversal of Space (spacing). We could therefore surmise that all non-accelerating objects may exist in the same location relative to Time (a point).

It is not until you disturb the energy field of an object that Time sees it move. Perhaps to Time, a constant acceleration is akin to a constant velocity (this is a similar situation to that which occurs when we differentiate or integrate an x out of the equation).
Another way to look at it is: We know that to an accelerating object Time slows, so to Time, an accelerating object must move.

This different action of Time on identical objects (accelerating v non-accelerating), suggests that Time has more than one dimension. We (you and me) are receiving the watered down version of it that allows us to age as our systems break down, but the real action of Time is on acceleration.
Because it seems we can reach this state by supposing some differential or integration has occurred, it makes me wonder what else would appear or disappear if we did the same thing again at either one of these levels?

If acceleration is seen by Time as velocity, then what would be the equivalent of acceleration? If Time is a watered down version for us, then what is it if we water it down further? What disappears?


Just a short note on our previous discussion of time and its divisibility:

I've tried to think of infinitely sharp razors cutting the infinitely divisible time and it's got me nowhere, so like Rich suggested, I've jettisoned the idea for now.

But Time is continuous not like a flowing river, but like a piece of string. The stationary arrow or the shot arrow both move along the string at the same speed relative to Time (except when the arrow was accelerating). If I can swap out the stationary arrow, why can’t I swap out the moving arrow?

Didn't know there was an AI arms race. If it's true I imagine it will greatly accelerate development. — praxis

And to think this site is one of the biggest philosophical sites on the net, if I was trying to get an edge or new insight I'd be reading your posts very carefully. :)

Hi Jake, this topic is going to in a lot of directions, including the nature of velocity, but I just want to get a baseline of agreement to build on. There's no point in building a house on a weak foundation.

Hi Jake, the field only represents the velocity in that at its zero displacement from centre, it has zero velocity. The field represents acceleration.

Let me change tact here to try and get rid of some clutter I've been introducing.
Imagine a magnet in an electromagnetic field. We control the strength of the electromagnet causing the magnet to accelerate toward it.
Would you agree it is logically sound to suggest that perhaps there is an assymetry in the magnetic field of the magnet that is causing the magnetic block it to move toward the electromagnet?

I want to get to that Jake, for the time being though, I can't see how its prohibitive to the thought experiment. We can still imagine an asymmetry in the field creating an acceleration right?

Thanks Rich, that clears it up a fair bit actually - and adds a bit more confusion. :0

Fair point, we would need a time value on our input boxes, say 20000 joules over 5 seconds. It would be leaping into acceleration. Once the energy was used, the energy symmetry of the atom would restore and constant velocity would result.
The basic premise is that the asymmetry of the energy of the atom creates the acceleration. This asymmetry would be resisted by the atom, which wants a relatively more steady state, causing it to restore the field around itself evenly resulting thereafter in a constant velocity.
You could even argue that the inputted energy was converted to the Einsteinian mass in order to restore equilibrium, but lets see if we can get past the first step first.