There is no "time itself" in physics, — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, duh! How could there be? That's like saying there are no cows in a book about cows.

Or maybe you're trying to say that there is no such thing as any thing. There'd be some merit in that. The chair, e.g., I'm sitting in is about 98% energy and 2% matter, atoms & etc. And it is only a chair in perception and use, and whether perception and being use-responsive is constitutive of thingness is debatable. Is that you? Is that your argument?

"space" is just a feature of the measurement system, the map. — Metaphysician Undercover

Seems pretty real to me when I have to go anywhere. And if it is just a feature of the measurement system, then what is he measurement system measuring?

but there is no part of the physical universe which corresponds with the coordinate system. — Metaphysician Undercover

Really? No part that corresponds? Then what is the coordinate system coordinating?

A radical idea! You could try making sense! You could start with your claims as I've listed in this post! That is, no time, no space, no physical universe. Don't worry, I'll breathe.

Seems pretty real to me when I have to go anywhere. And if it is just a feature of the measurement system, then what is he measurement system measuring? — tim wood

When you go places, do you think you move through space? You are actually moving through air, i think.

We measure different aspects of the world, the size of things, the distance between things, etc.. We do not measure space. The same is the case with time, but it is a more complex measurement involving a comparison of activities. There are conventions for such comparisons, and when we employ them, we get a determination of a duration of time.

Really? No part that corresponds? Then what is the coordinate system coordinating?

A radical idea! You could try making sense! You could start with your claims as I've listed in this post! That is, no time, no space, no physical universe. Don't worry, I'll breathe. — tim wood

I don't think it's a "radical idea", I think it's common understanding. So, I'll start with the statement above, and if you cannot grasp this, there's probably not much point to proceeding in this discussion.

Here's an example which might serve to facilitate discussion. Suppose I draw a sketch of the horizon from my perspective, and I mark on it various static objects of the landscape like hills, trees and buildings. All of those objects have something real in the world, independent of my sketch, which are referred to, and the sketch is a sort of map. Then I add a spot, a mark on the map, and designate it as the place where the sun comes up. Notice, that this mark does not refer to any real, independent object whatsoever, it refers to a place, a location. In what way would you agree, or disagree, that there is nothing real in the physical world which this mark on the map refers to?

Can we not regard our experiences of 'the real world' as something which is being filtered through our sensory system, which can be likened to a kind of 'headset', analogous to wearing a VR headset, and that what is truly going on 'behind the scenes' is far too complicated for us to understand? However we want to define the physical world, in the final analysis, it has come to represent something our evolutionary pass has equipped us to survive in. Logic, in this context, is just the label we assign to events and experiences that retain a consistent pattern over time and serves the needs of our survival and well-being.That's why, I think, when the quantum world was discovered, it was such a shock to many because it does not seem to fit our patterns of nature, which we are a part of.

:100:

wonderer1, exactly, so what we term 'reality' may only really be our subjective reality and bear no resemblance to the truth. What is the term? 'You can't handle the truth?' So, if there is no absolute reality, this may be why we get surprised when we delve into new areas of physics, such as the quantum world, where there have never been any preexisting 'rules of engagement' so to speak, and so it is how we set-up an experiment in order to gain new knowledge that sculptures this new landscape. My take on it is we can never totally divorce ourselves from any experiment, which means we are really performing an experiment not only what we think is the objective world, but on the system as a whole, including ourselves! For example, how else may entanglement be explained within our current framework of spacetime? It can't, which seems to indicate that spacetime and entanglement are merely human constructs that account for data collection. Presumably, this is how scientific progress proceeds - by observation of data and modification of existing scientific theories. This is what happened to Newtonian mechanics,which was a perfectly good description of the cosmos up to a point, but because it was incomplete, required a radical new approach, i.e.The Theory of Relativity! The data required it. I think people should remember that whatever scientific instruments are used in any measurement, the human 'biological measuring instrument' plays a crucial part since it forms part of a causal chain which yields the final result.

When you go places, do you think you move through space? You are actually moving through air, i think. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you suggesting that movement absent air is not possible?

We do not measure space. The same is the case with time, — Metaphysician Undercover

Time for you to define "space" and "time." If we only measure distance, what does distance refer to?

Notice, that this mark does not refer to any real, independent object whatsoever, it refers to a place, a location. In what way would you agree, or disagree, that there is nothing real in the physical world which this mark on the map refers to? — Metaphysician Undercover

This was an assignment in a science class, to mark the point of sunrise on the horizon from a fixed point across a few months, demonstrating that the location of the sun's mounting the horizon moves through the year quite a bit. Now, I find more than a few problems with your question, but we can start with this: how is a place/location not real? Is the mark not real? is the location it refers to not real? is the phenomenon demonstrated - and the way it is demonstrated - not real? Let's add "real" to the list of words you need to define.

so what we term 'reality' may only really be our subjective reality and bear no resemblance to the truth. What is the term? 'You can't handle the truth?' So, if there is no absolute reality, — Richard Townsend

??? Or a paraphrase? Because our reality may be subjective, there is no absolute reality? Really? Care to offer a proof?

For example, how else may entanglement be explained within our current framework of spacetime? It can't, — Richard Townsend

You appear to have forgotten the magic phrase, "I (we) don't know." Without it, you're in trouble. For example, "I cannot (do not know how to) drive that car," and, "That car cannot be driven." Big difference, and I assume you see the potential for trouble.

the human 'biological measuring instrument' plays a crucial part since it forms part of a causal chain which yields the final result. — Richard Townsend

Can, I suppose, but must? The enthusiasm of your ideas seems to have outdistanced your thinking.

tim wood, the problem is, any 'proof' will simply mean proof of what we have observed, ergo, a subjective kind of proof. One cannot step out of one's consciousness and observe in any independent sense. A radio cannot be a TV, although it does have the capacity to receive and convert sound waves, but not pictures. Similarly we cannot know anything outside of our consciousness although we do have the ability to receive things analogous to 'sounds waves', so to speak. This is a a priory kind of proof, not a scientific one. That is impossible.

Are you suggesting that movement absent air is not possible? — tim wood

No, I'm saying that movement through "space" (see below for definition) is not reality. Real movement, in the real physical world. is always through a medium, air, water, etc.; it is not through "space" unless space is conceived of as a real a medium, like the aether, which it is not in conventional physics.

Time for you to define "space" and "time." If we only measure distance, what does distance refer to? — tim wood

OK, let's start with "space", as I already provided a sort of definition of "time" in physics, from Wikipedia, but you either did not understand it, or disagreed with it (I haven't figured out which yet).

So, from my OED, the first definition of "space" reads like this: "a continuous unlimited area or expanse which may or may not contain objects etc.".

What I've been telling you, is that this does not refer to anything real, independent, in the world. It is an ideal which facilitates all sorts of human activities of conceptualizing, measuring, etc.. Take your example of movement now. Space is a concept which can be applied to help us model movement. However, if we produce a representation of an object moving through space, this is not a real (true) representation, because empirical evidence indicates that "space" as defined has no real existence, because an object is always moving through something. Therefore this sense of "space" is just an ideal which facilitates prediction and such things, but doesn't demonstrate reality..

This was an assignment in a science class, to mark the point of sunrise on the horizon from a fixed point across a few months, demonstrating that the location of the sun's mounting the horizon moves through the year quite a bit. Now, I find more than a few problems with your question, but we can start with this: how is a place/location not real? Is the mark not real? is the location it refers to not real? is the phenomenon demonstrated - and the way it is demonstrated - not real? Let's add "real" to the list of words you need to define. — tim wood

You appear to be conflating the map and the terrain. My example was a mark on the map, which signifies a location. Let's proceed without the conflation. The mark on the map is real, as a real mark on the map. What does the mark signify? I said a location, "the place where the sun comes up". You seem to agree with me, that there is no such place, no such real location, independent from the map. Is this correct? Do we have agreement here?

If we agree on that, I would say that any location marked on the map is the very same principle. A "location" marks something on the map which has no real existence independent of the map. So for example, if I put an X, and say that the treasure is buried at the X, on the map "X" means a location, but on the ground "X" means what ever is there, according to interpretation of the map. Whether it is a treasure which is there, or whatever, is to be determined, but whatever is there is not "a location", it is a real physical thing. So whatever it is on the ground, is something other than a "location", and the thing on the map, which is said to be "the location" is completely different from what is on the ground because "location" refers to something conceptual, a set of rules intended for finding something on the ground, or determining a thing's position relative to other things.

No, I'm saying that movement through "space" (see below for definition) is not reality. Real movement, in the real physical world. is always through a medium, air, water, etc.; it is not through "space" unless space is conceived of as a real a medium, like the aether, which it is not in conventional physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's air and water, possibly jello, all kinds of other media. And in as much as there is no such thing as space, in which these are, they must each itself be uniquely primordial. And how does that work? Whence cometh; where situated? And as to what is in physics, I advert back to the cow in the book, which isn't.

It appears that for you "space" is both adjectival and ideal/abstract. And I consider space a thing, and thus "space" a noun. As abstract, I agree, no such thing - abstract space, like seven, is just a (sometimes) useful idea. But that's a qualification you do not offer. Are you offering it now?

And movement isn't necessarily through; but it is "with respect to" or relative to. And to be sure, when an astronaut goes extravehicle, does he cease to move?

Space is a concept which can be applied to help us model movement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Movement granted, but the space for it not granted? And are you confusing "real" and "true?"

The mark on the map is real, as a real mark on the map. What does the mark signify? I said a location, "the place where the sun comes up". You seem to agree with me, that there is no such place, no such real location, independent from the map. Is this correct? Do we have agreement here? — Metaphysician Undercover

We do not. Sunrise is a well-understood phenomenon. And the location of sunrise equally well-understood, and can for given parameters be marked with a stone. Which, come to think of it, has been a world-wide practice since pre-history.

I can agree the is-ness of abstract/ideal space is problematic, because there is no thing in it that is, but that still leaves space itself. As to the rest, on the "location" of treasure, & etc., too incoherent for me.

But maybe relsolve it this way. Let's ask the scientists on TPF. Space, time, real? Existing? Or unreal, not existing?

There's air and water, possibly jello, all kinds of other media. And in as much as there is no such thing as space, in which these are, they must each itself be uniquely primordial. And how does that work? Whence cometh; where situated? And as to what is in physics, I advert back to the cow in the book, which isn't. — tim wood

I don't get it. Why do you think there must be something "primordial"? There's all these different substances, water, air, jello, etc., how does "primordial" enter the scene?

And movement isn't necessarily through; but it is "with respect to" or relative to. — tim wood

Sure, I agree with that, but you are the one who implied that movement was through space when you said: "Seems pretty real to me when I have to go anywhere.". So I was simply pointing out that if movement is through something, it isn't through space. Or what were you trying to say when you said that?

We do not. Sunrise is a well-understood phenomenon. And the location of sunrise equally well-understood, and can for given parameters be marked with a stone. Which, come to think of it, has been a world-wide practice since pre-history. — tim wood

I don't think the location of sunrise is well understood at all. It is completely subjective, dependent on perspective, and "perspective" is not very well understood.

So I really don't understand how you could mark the location of sunrise with a stone. Are you saying that if you put a stone on the ground, and I went and stood there, I would experience the sun rising through me? That's rhetorical, because I know you said "for given parameters". What do you think is added by giving parameters?

But maybe relsolve it this way. Let's ask the scientists on TPF. Space, time, real? Existing? Or unreal, not existing? — tim wood

Oh great idea, go ahead, start a thread, I'll read it.

But maybe resolve it this way. Let's ask the scientists on TPF. Space, time, real? Existing? Or unreal, not existing? — tim wood

Oh great idea, go ahead, start a thread, I'll read it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Me too. But I don't see a resolution on the horizon. :chin:

Could we postulate that as space and time are things we can measure, therefore, they exist? This is summed up in the idea "I think, therefore, I am.' Perhaps this could be re-phrased as 'I measure, therefore, I am!' This is important because unless we can establish our own existence how can we establish things we experience?

You appear to have forgotten the magic phrase, "I (we) don't know." Without it, you're in trouble. For example, "I cannot (do not know how to) drive that car," and, "That car cannot be driven." Big difference, and I assume you see the potential for trouble. — tim wood

tim, may I ask you what you mean by 'knowing?' I need some more clarification.

If we agree on that, I would say that any location marked on the map is the very same principle. A "location" marks something on the map which has no real existence independent of the map. So for example, if I put an X, and say that the treasure is buried at the X, on the map "X" means a location, but on the ground "X" means what ever is there, according to interpretation of the map. Whether it is a treasure which is there, or whatever, is to be determined, but whatever is there is not "a location", it is a real physical thing. So whatever it is on the ground, is something other than a "location", and the thing on the map, which is said to be "the location" is completely different from what is on the ground because "location" refers to something conceptual, a set of rules intended for finding something on the ground, or determining a thing's position relative to other things. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, i.e., a representation of the physical world in the same way as mathematics is. But mathematics is NOT the physical world. We have to use ciphers in order to organize our experiences.

Could we postulate that as space and time are things we can measure, therefore, they exist? — Richard Townsend

Space is not something which we measure. We measure attributes like size, volume, and various relations (distance for example) between things. And by the conventions of modern physics we do not measure time either. Time is the measurement, and it is a product of the act of relating movements, or actions, one to another. When Newtonian "absolute time" was replaced with Einsteinian "relative time", time was no longer conceptualized as something measured, and then became only the measurement. The duration of time is completely dependent on the frame of reference, which is artificial.

Space is not something which we measure. We measure attributes like size, volume, and various relations (distance for example) between things. And by the conventions of modern physics we do not measure time either. Time is the measurement, and it is a product of the act of relating movements, or actions, one to another. When Newtonian "absolute time" was replaced with Einsteinian "relative time", time was no longer conceptualized as something measured, and then became only the measurement. The duration of time is completely dependent on the frame of reference, which is artificial. — Metaphysician Undercover

If space and time cannot be measured then why do they exist? Or are you saying they don't really exist?

If space and time cannot be measured then why do they exist? Or are you saying they don't really exist? — Richard Townsend

Space and time exist as concepts produced for the purpose of facilitating measurement, and representation of what is measured, just like a coordinate system, which I mentioned above.

tim, may I ask you what you mean by 'knowing?' I need some more clarification. — Richard Townsend

An excellent TPF best kind of question! Nothing complicated or difficult. Let's try a short-cut: if in consideration of my actions, you aver that I have knowledge, then I have knowledge, and I know about what I have knowledge of. And of course we may both be wrong. But I invoke knowing in this context to distinguish between them what knows and them that don't. And those who do not know will often argue in an expanded and concealed way that because they don't know, they know. E.g., it isn't X therefore it must be Y. And it can get pretty twisted, as with out interlocutor in this thread, viz.,

Space and time exist as concepts produced for the purpose of facilitating measurement, and representation of what is measured, just like a coordinate system, which I mentioned above. — Metaphysician Undercover

He seems to believe he has answered any question about space and time, and to be sure, he has answered some very narrow questions about them - but those not the questions in question. In his quote he refers to "facilitating measurement, and representation of what is measured." (My italics.)
So, what is measured?

And this same wind blows through his other arguments. There is no space, but there are all sorts of media through which things move. So if there is not space, what is the account for media - I'd say "presence of" but even that can't be, absent space. And so it goes.

I just came across one of Victor Toth's commentaries on Quora regarding Bell's results. It's the clearest I've ever read.

What are considered hidden variables in physics? Would dark matter be considered as a hidden variable?

No, dark matter has nothing to do with it.
Hidden variables arise in the context of quantum physics, in particular the famous Bell’s Theorem according to which quantum physics is nonlocal.
This is best illustrated by an example from Bell’s book, an example involving socks. Suppose you take a trip somewhere. Upon arrival in your hotel room, you notice that you have only half a pair of your favorite gray socks in your suitcase. From this you instantly infer that the other half must be left behind at home in your socks drawer. The variable representing half a pair of your gray socks was there all along, but it was “hidden” from you for whatever reason.
Now take the analogy to the quantum realm. You have a pair of correlated particles isolated from the environment, say, a pair of electrons. You measure the spin of one of the electrons and you immediately infer the outcome of a spin measurement that might be carried out on that other electron. Could it be that the spin value of the electron, just like the information about your socks, was there all along, as a “hidden variable”?
The answer is a no, for reasons that are mildly technical, but I think I can explain the essence. A spin measurement involves orienting the instrument with respect to which the spin is measured. This orientation need not be known in advance. Yet the spins of the two electrons will be correlated nonetheless. There is no classical physics analogue for this phenomenon. The point is, information in the form of “local hidden variables” that the electrons carried with themselves is not sufficient to account for the correlation between the two electrons under arbitrary orientations of the instruments used to measure them. Additional, “non-local” information is required to account for the observed correlation. Quantum physics is thus manifestly non-local, cannot be explained using hidden variables. (What is absolutely fascinating that despite this nonlocality, quantum field theory is demonstrably and strictly causal, i.e., contrary to some fictionalized accounts or even some misguided popular science explanations, quantum entanglement cannot be used to circumvent the relativistic speed limit or create a time machine. It just does not work that way, which, incidentally, is actually a Good Thing, as an acausal universe would be chaotic and unpredictable, quite possibly unstable).

And this same wind blows through his other arguments. There is no space, but there are all sorts of media through which things move. So if there is not space, what is the account for media - I'd say "presence of" but even that can't be, absent space. And so it goes. — tim wood

I don't understand. The medium through which a body moves is what it is, whether it be air. water, aether, or whatever. Why do you require "space" to account for the media? It seems to me, like you're just setting the conditions for infinite regress. The moving body evidently exists in something, the medium. But then you insist that the medium must exist in something, "space". If we follow your logic, we'll see that space must exist in something further, and on and on, ad infinitum. You can nip it in the bud by apprehending that space is not required to account for the media.

What is absolutely fascinating that despite this nonlocality, quantum field theory is demonstrably and strictly causal, i.e., contrary to some fictionalized accounts or even some misguided popular science explanations, quantum entanglement cannot be used to circumvent the relativistic speed limit or create a time machine ~ Victor Toth.

Although, interestingly, entanglement IS being mooted for creating secure transaction systems that would be theoretically impenetrable even to quantum computers, should one ever be built. This is the basis of 'quantum key distribution'. QKD enables two parties to generate a shared, secret random key. The fundamental principle of QKD is that it's impossible to measure a quantum system without disturbing it. Therefore, any eavesdropper trying to intercept the key will necessarily introduce detectable anomalies. If the key is intercepted, it will be known, and the key can be discarded. Thus, even a quantum computer, which poses threats to traditional encryption methods, can't crack a quantum key if the QKD process is implemented correctly. China's Mucius satellite test was used to establish a secure quantum communication link between China and Austria, spanning a distance of 7,600 kilometers, in 2017 (see story).

how else may entanglement be explained within our current framework of spacetime? It can't, which seems to indicate that spacetime and entanglement are merely human constructs that account for data collection. — Richard Townsend

I agree with the gist, I think, except for the qualification 'merely' - what's the Feynman quote, 'nothing is "mere"'? But overall I agree that there is an inextricably subjective element in the observations. This conforms with QBism (Quantum Baynsianism) as I understand it.

Q: Treating quantum mechanics as a single-user theory resolves a lot of the paradoxes, like spooky action at a distance.

A: Yes, but in a way that a lot of people find troubling. The usual story of Bell’s theorem is that it tells us the world must be nonlocal. That there really is spooky action at a distance. So they solved one mystery by adding a pretty damn big mystery! What is this non-locality? Give me a full theory of it. My fellow QBists and I instead think that what Bell’s theorem really indicates is that the outcomes of measurements are experiences, not revelations of something that’s already there. Of course others think that we gave up on science as a discipline, because we talk about subjective degrees of belief. But we think it solves all of the foundational conundrums. — Chris Fuchs, Quanta Magazine Interview

Why do you require "space" to account for the media? — Metaphysician Undercover

Your position is, then, that air, water, jello, whatever, as media, simply exist, but not anywhere because there is not any where for them to be? But you mentioned measurement, as the representation of what was measured. If my desk is four feet from my bookcase, that is four feet of what? Air? And the air being withdrawn, which is possible, or replaced with water, which is possible, does that alter the distance between desk and case?

Your position is, then, that air, water, jello, whatever, as media, simply exist, but not anywhere because there is not any where for them to be? — tim wood

Location is relative, so where each thing exists is relative to other things. "Space" is a complex concept which human beings use to describe and measure these relations, it is not where these things exist, unless the premise is that "things" are purely conceptual.

But you mentioned measurement, as the representation of what was measured. If my desk is four feet from my bookcase, that is four feet of what? Air? And the air being withdrawn, which is possible, or replaced with water, which is possible, does that alter the distance between desk and case? — tim wood

I don't see how replacing four feet of air with four feet of water would alter the distance, unless it affected the measuring technique. The question of withdrawing the air to create a vacuum is a more complex issue. And this is the same question as the issue of all the supposed "void space" which is inside a solid substance: it's supposedly inside molecules, and inside atoms, between the parts of these things. But this is not really "void space", as there is things like electromagnetism and gravity there. So this reality serves to help demonstrate the need for an "aether" which was discussed earlier in this thread, as the medium within which these things are active.

Space and time exist as concepts produced for the purpose of facilitating measurement, and representation of what is measured, just like a coordinate system, which I mentioned above. — Metaphysician Undercover

Surely, if space and time exist as concepts, they exist!

An excellent TPF best kind of question! Nothing complicated or difficult. Let's try a short-cut: if in consideration of my actions, you aver that I have knowledge, then I have knowledge, and I know about what I have knowledge of. And of course we may both be wrong. But I invoke knowing in this context to distinguish between them what knows and them that don't. And those who do not know will often argue in an expanded and concealed way that because they don't know, they know. E.g., it isn't X therefore it must be Y. And it can get pretty twisted, as with out interlocutor in this thread, viz., — tim wood

This statement does not seem to have any consistency. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I agree with the gist, I think, except for the qualification 'merely' - what's the Feynman quote, 'nothing is "mere"'? But overall I agree that there is an inextricably subjective element in the observations. This conforms with QBism (Quantum Baynsianism) as I understand it. — Wayfarer

I was using the word 'merely' to denote that it seems there exists no pre-existing 'grand scheme' external to our perceptions so, that it is we who have a participatory role in the formation of reality That's not to downplay our role but to point out it is a matter of what is right in front of us. This goes back to what I was saying earlier about us not being able to be directly be aware of the true complexity of nature but may only construct a kind of 'subject' workspace within which to operate. To claim there may be some kind of grand scheme in place is meaningless, I contend, since a 'scheme' implies design.

Your position is, then, that air, water, jello, whatever, as media, simply exist, but not anywhere because there is not any where for them to be? But you mentioned measurement, as the representation of what was measured. If my desk is four feet from my bookcase, that is four feet of what? Air? And the air being withdrawn, which is possible, or replaced with water, which is possible, does that alter the distance between desk and case? — tim wood

Yet, without measurement, nothing may exist. Even thinking is measurement, I would argue, or put more simply, 'noticing things', which is what we are all doing right now, is it not? Without this pre-existing condtion, no discussion would be possible.

Without this pre-existing condition, no discussion would be possible. — Richard Townsend

You shall have to decide what your ground is and where it is. For me the ground is what I can work with and within, with consistency. If I'm furnishing rooms, then I work with furniture, and take it as existing. If I'm a termite, maybe that nice wooden chair is no chair to me, being beyond my comprehension, but is instead lunch . Or a scientist of the very small, in which case it's just atoms and smaller things and force fields. No one disqualifying the other, but each its own application, however narrow, and not to be carelessly mixed. I submit, then, that you need good working definitions and understandings of "nothing" and "existence," and any other term that in use itself leads you into aporia. An example here:

I don't see how replacing four feet of air with four feet of water would alter the distance, — Metaphysician Undercover

We have to acknowledge that MU is narrowly correct in that for lots of calculations, space itself need not be considered. But he would deny space per se. If what separates my desk and bed is four feet of air, and there is no space, then removing the air is removing the medium in/of which the measurement is made, and thus my bed and desk then touching, Yes?