Moderator & Sausage Gawd
Originally Posted by Seiryuu
Seiryuu,...but I will no longer allow our arguments to continue any further beyond this point.
Please understand that you do not set the ground rules for partcipation in this thread. Do-it-yourself moderation is a violation of our rules. Do not do it again.
If you are unwilling or unable to discuss relevant objections to your theory, you may withdraw your claim in part or in whole. In the latter case, we can close this thread.
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►
Established Member
That's fair enough. People who have been following this thread will be able to confirm that I am not unwilling or unable to discuss relevant objections, be it that the objections themselves are based upon facts and not upon opinions who happen to disagree. Now I realise the futility of trying to defend my hypothesis against something that cannot be proven nor disproven. Not only is it pointless, it gives the impression to other readers that there are a whole bunch of objections to what I am presenting based upon nothing.
Therefore this warning is more than justified. Indeed I will not do it again.
Established Member
Alright, it appears I need to clarify something about this whole argument about perception being either subjective or objective.
The answer to the question: "do you have a way of knowing for sure that our perception is objective instead of subjective" is:
NO, I do not have a way of knowing for sure. That is why I established it as an axiom.
My counter argument to everything what primummobile threw at me was: since you don't have a way of knowing for sure that our perception is subjective either, why are you using this as an established fact against my hypothesis?
It wasn't about me being right or him being wrong. It was about the fact that he's using this so called 'established fact' as an argument to prove me wrong. THAT is what I have been trying to tell him over and over.
He wasn't challenging the hypothesis, he was challenging the axiom instead. My hypothesis isn't supposed to address all of these things in the first place.
But apparently most of you had the impression that I wasn't listening anyway and I suppose that most have already left this topic, so I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, this topic is ready to be closed.
Established Member
Actually, disregard that last sentence. There appears to be something more that I need to clarify:
To me objective means: physically real, not originating from the mind. However, since I'm working in an observer dependent universe, this implies that we all have different perceptions of the same events regardless. It does not mean we are perceiving everything the same! Of course not! That would be in contradiction with everything I have written. It merely means that we are all experiencing reality from a different frame of reference and hence we experience or 'perceive' things differently from eachother. Yet as it originates from reality, rather than from the mind, it also means that we are ALL experiencing the 'same' differences in the same way. That's why I am using the term objective and not the term subjective!
In contrast to me subjective means: interpreted by or originating from the mind. This happens when the mind is interpretating objective data which is collected by the senses. If something is subjective, it is impossible for other observers to have the same experience.
That's why I'm calling emotions for example, objective. Yes they are different for each of us, but we ALL feel the same emotions. Hence, the experience of emotions is real and not subjective.
That's why I'm calling colours as something objective as well. We may all see different colours, but we ALL see colours (provided our senses are intact of course).
That's why I'm calling our speed through time as something objective. We may all have a different rate through time, but we ALL experience time.
And so on...
So as you can see: although we are all independent of eachother and find ourselves to have unique subjective experiences, the way in which we perceive reality is the same in all of these examples. Our experiences are subjective, but how we are experiencing all of these things is not.
THAT is what I'm talking about.
Established Member
Maybe now you'll also understand why I asserted this for example:
As we grow older, we perceive time different from when we were younger. But, we all experience that we appear to perceive time differently with age in exactly the same way. Therefore, it cannot be subjective, for if it were, some people for example would be telling us that the perception of time happened to slow down during their lifetimes. This clearly is NOT the case!
We are all familiar with the 'time flying by or dragging on' phenomenon in the sense that we all experience time-flow differently, but we all share this phenomenon in exactly the same way. Therefore, it cannot be subjective, for if it were, some people on this forum would report that they have never experienced this effect before. This clearly is NOT the case!
Can I prove this? No, I cannot. There is no way for me to be sure of this 100%. But there is an overwhelming amount of observational evidence that indicates towards this.
Established Member
That clears up much, yes.
I'm not sure how I can object to this as a philosophical issue, but I'll look.
Established Member
Thanks for helping me sort this one out through PM.
However if we can agree on my last post that we al experience these things in the 'same' way, as in 'we all observe differences in time rate', it has very important consequences. Because I'm using these examples as support for my hypothesis. And if we can both agree that the amount of observations that support this are no less than overwhelming, then I would like to ask if you can also agree with me that this changes everything? For although I still wouldn't be able to prove it, I would have a very solid base and support to back up my assertions which are based upon this 'observational evidence', instead of having mere 'subjective' notions.
It would in effect be the step that enables me to take this to the 'next level'. Because this is what I meant from the start and why I see my writings as a work of science instead of mere philosophy.
Last edited by Seiryuu; 2012-Jul-27 at 04:41 PM. Reason: spelling and typos
Established Member
I'm not really sure how you would go about applying it as science... I agree completely that the observations are there, but I really don't know how to turn that into something concrete.
But, I think an important point is to be made for you characterizing it as mere philosophy. Centuries of philosophical thought form the foundation for modern science, and philosophy is still a formidable discipline in its own right.
Established Member
Thank you, for this is the first time that I hear you stating this. NOW, for the first time, I feel that we are in agreement.
That one phrase, that I have put into bold, is what I've been trying to show you and everyone else in this thread all along. That one phrase of acknowledgement was my primary purpose why I posted my ideas on this forum and not on forum of philosophy. Now you are beginning to see that my ideas aren't based on thoughts alone, but that they are also based on real world observations, as I have asserted from the beginning.
I do not want to dismiss philosophy as an inferior discipline or anything, but as you have stated yourself: as long as it's not based upon real world observations that can be measured, it is not science. And what I am presenting here is very much based upon real world observations that can be measured. That is why I am presenting this as a work of science in the first place. As you can see, it took a lot of time and effort for me to get to this point at which I am now able to show you this.
Established Member
In that case, allow me to refer once more to my observational reference list. Now that you know how my logic relates to the observations, you may regard it differently from before. Because now you should be able to see, how all of this is supporting my hypothesis and now you should also be able to see how the psychological effects in perception that we are observing in our daily lives are the same as the effects that we are observing in space. Only here on Earth we are calling it 'differences in time-perception' while in space we have SR to describe what we know as 'time-dilation'.
Perhaps now you will also be able to believe my assertion that what I have written here is in effect an extension of relativity. I know that this is a bold claim that many have said before and that most of them were proven wrong one after another, but I wouldn't be making it if I really didn't believe it myself. You don't need to take my word for it, but give it some time to let it sink in and then judge this claim based upon everything that I have presented and displayed in this topic so far.
Now you also know why I have been so emotional about all of this as well. For I really do believe in the scientific value of what I have written. The fact that no one seemed to notice how my ideas were based upon real world observations, despite all my examples and assertions has puzzled me from the start. For me it was self-evident that it was, because I thought that it was self-evident that all of these observations were objective rather than subjective arguments. I guess that last clarification about what I really meant with that was the 'missing link' for anyone else to see it that way too.
Now I understand why you all felt that what I am presenting here wasn't enough to be seen as anything more than 'interesting'. And perhaps now you willl understand why I felt the opposite: that I was presenting everything that people have asked for and more (well, apart from the math) and that I addressed all challenges promptly and adequately. It seemed to me that no matter how much evidence I gathered, it was never enough for anyone to accept my hypothesis as an actual theory. And then it turns out that all of this was caused simply because we had a different understanding of what it meant for something to be either 'objective' or 'subjective'.
If only I had known sooner...
Established Member
Your 3+2 vision of space-time includes a view of time that is closer to phase-space.
It is possible to express dynamics using phase-space rather that space-time. This turns our time coordinate into a complex number.
For linear systems we can plot the roots and poles of the dynamics on a root-locus plot. This corresponds to resonance frequencies of the dynamics. In particular, the real part corresponds to the exponential decay/growth of the signal while the imaginary part represents an oscillation of the system.
This might be another avenue worth looking into to develop your idea of time.
The problem I would then have is that the spatial coordinates could then also be represented as such, with the real component representing a change in magnitude in the given direction and the imaginary component representing a change in wave number in the given direction. Essentially we could have a 3+1 over the complex numbers rather than over the real numbers.
Or maybe a 6+2, since complex numbers can be treated as two real numbers.
This is related to the contravariant vs. covariant concept I related before. Measuring space-time using the real part of the phase-space, changes in magnitude, is contravariant; while measuring using the imaginary part of the phase space, wave number and frequency, are covariant.
Established Member
As for our perception of time,
I have seen nothing in your presentation that challenges the idea that we have a corner of our brain that records time passing by the number of times it is excited, and that we have a limited number of neurons that can be excited at a given time.
Essentially, our perception of time may be the number of cycles our idle process gets. Much like how the idle process on my computer gets more CPU time when I am away from my computer eating dinner, we perceive more time passing when we are idle.
Thus when we are busy, or preoccupied, the time keeper neurons get less signals per time than when we are idle, causing less sensation of time for the same duration of time.
The fact that time flies by when we are older is then attributable to the idea that we have more responsibilities and preoccupations as we age.
Established Member
Very interesting. I didn't even know this existed in science. I will have to look into it further to confirm, but what you are describing matches with my intuition. If my idea of space time is correct, then yes it would imply that phasing is possible. In effect, the part of space that we are able to perceive, would depend on the range of frequencies we are capable of detecting. In this kind of view, past and future would be merely different 'phases' of space.
Correct. 3+2 spacetime can be expressed as 3+1 spacetime with complex numbers. There is no difference, apart from the math formulas that are being used to describe said spacetime. It's merely a matter of preference. So why use 3+2 spacetime then, you ask? The answer is simple: it makes the formulas more transparant, so that we are better able to see and understand the implications that come from them.
I don't know how you'd get to 6+2, but you are in effect correct that complex numbers can be treated as two real numbers. Which is why they are two-dimensional in the first place. One number describes one dimension, the other describes another. That is also why there is no difference between 3+2 spacetime without complex numbers and 3+1 spacetime with complex numbers. You are just hiding the extra dimension in the complex number instead of using two real numbers.
My apologies. These concepts are new for me, and therefore I didn't understand them well enough to see this. I also wasn't able to find much info about them that was accessible without me having to understand all the math first.
Btw, if you are still having problems with the fact that 3+2 spacetime is the same as 3+1 spacetime with complex numbers, are you aware of the fact that even our 3+1 spacetime can be expressed in a one-dimensional coördinate system? In 2D terms: by using a spiral instead of axises, starting from an arbitrary centre point, you can give each point next to it an independent coördinate, while only using one dimension. In 3D terms we wouldn't be using a spiral, but rather a helix or a vortex. And you can extend this to any number of dimensions. So in effect, while we are viewing spacetime as being multidimensional, we don't actually need all of those extra dimensions. Every point in the universe can just as well be expressed in a one-dimensional coördinate system.
This phenomenon is being very well explained in the article on the following link: http://news.softpedia.com/news/What-...ns-16390.shtml
It also matches with my understanding of what spatial dimensions are. Should you wish to know more about this, let me know, as it may help me motivate to post my visions about what they really are on this forum as well. I would have to finish my reworked version first though, as I've been slacking a bit on that part.
Established Member
Magnificent! You are quite right and I cannot challenge this at all. I don't have to, for doing so would in fact be in contradiction with what I have written.
As you state correctly "the fact that time flies by when we are older is then attributable to the idea that we have more responsabilities and preoccupations," is essentially the same thing as what I'm asserting with "mental activity has an effect on time-perception" or in other words: when our focus shifts to the mental activity, our rate of moving through time slows down, in effect causing the environment relative to us to appear to speed up.
It's not just similar to a cpu unit, it's in effect exactly the same thing. When our brain is idle, we are able to perceive all the processes that are going on around us and time appears to slow down. We are putting our focus on the environment. When our brain is busy, our focus shifts to that and we aren't able to perceive all the processes around us anymore due to the fact that we have to divide our attention between both. The time of the environment appears to speed up because of this.
In computer terms: all processes of the environment are being put on hold, untill we have finished our mental tasks first. Once we have finished those, the processes of the environment are being resumed as if no time had passed between them.
That's why the motion through time is a motion of the consciousness. If our consciousness is being aware of mental activity, it is merely going slower from point A to point B so that it has the time to notice all of this activity on the way. Due to its slower motion, it has no time anymore to look around once it has arrived on its destination. In contrast, if all our attention goes to the motion from point A to point B, we are moving faster so that we get there sooner and have more time to look around at the environment surrounding point B.
The events experienced in both cases will also be different. Imagine that observer X spends time thinking and observer Y isn't. While observer X is moving from point A to point B, he or she will notice event C, D and E along the way. These events are corresponding with thoughts. In contrast, as observer Y went on ahead to point B, he or she will not have noticed these events, but instead will notice event F, G, H that are happening after he has reached point B. These events are corresponding with 'looking around at the environment'.
Despite the events being different however, the duration will be the same for both observers when you look at them from the third and external perspective of the environment. Both will have experienced for example one hour. In that hour observer X experienced event ACDEB in that order and observer Y experienced event ABFGH in that order. From the perspective of the environment, both may also have experienced the same event, for example: lunch.
It's a bit of a bad example in the sense that it may confuse you which one is actually moving faster and slower through time. That's true and it must be so, because even this part is being relative and depending on which viewpoint you use. If you switch the events and let CDE correspond with 'looking at the environment' while being on the way from point A to B and you let FGH correspond with the 'mental thoughts', then you get the same thing in reverse. Both are equally valid and the laws of SR are being preserved.
As you can see, I've put one of your lines in bold. That statement: "our perception of time is the number of cycles our idle process gets" can be rephrased as "our focus determines the rate or speed at which we are moving through time", with focus = idle process and number of cycles = speed through time.
Last edited by Seiryuu; 2012-Jul-31 at 08:44 AM. Reason: expanded the original answer
Established Member
But why not treat space as a complex number as well? That is where the 6 comes from.
If we are using state space methods the real question is how many independent values does our system depend on. Once that is determined, it does not really matter whether we express the dynamics as a collection of independent parameters, or simply derivatives of a single parameter. We can find a mapping between representations.
If we express our physics of 3+1 space-time using one dimension, three orders of derivatives would be required. This is my understanding of the Holographic Principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_space_representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
I should have linked to phase spaces in my previous response. Apparently my memory failed me in the name, as what I was describing is called the frequency domain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-domain
Established Member
Okay, I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but you are seeing space as 3-dimensional then, am I right? In that case, you'd be able to get 6, but this already assumes that space is in fact three-dimensional in the first place. I don't think it is.
Using a spiral coördinate system, only two independent values are needed. One to form the helix outwards and one to form the helix inwards to the centre of what you are measuring.
I don't know if you're familiar with Russelian science, but this is also what Walter Russel was describing in his works. It is also how relativity works by having no preferred frame of reference: all its measurements are done by comparing two frames of reference to eachother.
Aye, and in essence space is one-dimensional. But that is the paradox. If there is only one independent parameter, you don't have anything to measure that parameter with. So you need in effect two dimensions in order to exist as an independent observer from space. Then you can compare yourself to space and vice versa.
As for the number of derivations that can be made, I went up to 5 now in order to express the dual nature of time, but in reality I believe you're able to derive further dimensions ad infinitum.
Thanks for these links. The article about frequency domain clears up a lot, because in effect the time-domain seems to correspond with my durational time and the frequency-domain seems to correspond with my chronological time. Or vice versa. Even these are interchangeable as the time-domain is also based upon an arbitrary frequency itself.
Established Member
Since this is the last day and the 30 days are almost over, I probably won't be able to respond anymore.
So I would like to close this thread with one final thanks to everyone who has read and posted here. I have a feeling as if I have reached at least the level of acceptance I was asking for. Even if no one else shares this feeling or if nothing further were to come from all of this, for me this was more than worth it.
I also hope that it may inspire others some day, instead of finding out that most of you still believe it to be crap, but didn't have the heart to tell or confront me with that notion. I guess that's ok too. It doesn't matter anymore, since it seems that what I've been describing already exists in science in one form or another. This is just an alternative take on how to view it all and that is all there is to it. No more need for validation or defending it, you all believe what you want and think of my ideas what you want. That is all I have to say.
Thanks for reading and goodbye! Maybe untill next time, who knows!
Kris
Posting Permissions
