Maartenn100 general theories of physics & philosophy - Part II

Maartenn100: It is a lie that the scientific method cannot "discover" consciousness

Maartenn100 said:
You are avoiding all the questions, Reality-Check.
Click to expand...
I am not answering your incoherent questions.
I am sometimes addressing your ignorance of the current state of science, e.g.
Scientists read dreams: Brain scans during sleep can decode visual content of dreams

7 April 2016 Maartenn100: It is a lie that the scientific method cannot "discover" consciousness in nature when there are scientific studies of consciousness.
For example, science has discovered that babies do not have consciousness (are not self aware) until they get older than ~18 months.
 
Scientists can see patterns of firing neurons in the brain (and that's what the scanner can scan and nothing more) while we are dreaming and they compare these patterns with patterns of firing neurons while we are watching photo's. Because these seems to be the same kind of patterns.

Scientists are using a 'comparing-paterns-tecnique'.

But the scanner can only scan a pattern of firing neurons. It cannot scan dream.

The more fundamental meaning of 'the other mind problem' is that a philosophical zombie, who doesn't know what it is to experience something, will never be able to discover 'consciousness' in reality.
 
Last edited:
Consciousness can only be discovered by our own subjective experience. Not by science.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100: How we study the contents of a dream using a brain scanner

Maartenn100 said:
But no, we can't read dreams.
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Maartenn100.
You asked how we are"going to study the content of a dream" with a with a "brainscanner" and Scientists read dreams: Brain scans during sleep can decode visual content of dreams is how we are studying the contents of a dream with a brain scanner :jaw-dropp.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: How we study the contents of a dream using a brain scanner.
 
Last edited:
Sensational title, Reality Check.
But the scanner can only scan firing neurons. It does not scan dreams.
The scientist, as a human being, knows that this needs to be decoded to a picture or a dream.
The scanner is actually a scanner and a decoder, based on the comparison of patterns of firing neurons.
It cannot 'scan dreams' (wow, sensational, Reality-Check)

A decoder means: there is code that needs to be translated to visual stimuli.
 
Maartenn100 said:
Scientists can see patterns of firing neurons in the brain (and that's what the scanner can scan and nothing more) while we are dreaming and they compare these patterns with patterns of firing neurons while we are watching photo's. Because these seems to be the same kind of patterns.
Click to expand...
And that is the answer to your question: 7 April 2016 Maartenn100: How we study the contents of a dream using a brain scanner.

This is not the insanity of thinking that scientists can actually read minds to study dreams :p!
 
Reality-Check said:
The problem of other minds is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
That's a subjective evaluation of a fact. To my theory the problem of (other) mind(s) is a very relevant fact of nature.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
The more fundamental meaning of 'the other mind problem' is that a philosophical zombie, who doesn't know what it is to experience something, will never be able to discover 'consciousness' in reality.
Click to expand...
The actual meaning of the 'other mind problem' is the problem of other minds
The problem of other minds has traditionally been regarded as an epistemological challenge raised by the skeptic. The challenge may be expressed as follows: given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds?[1] The thought behind the question is that no matter how sophisticated someone's behavior is, behavior on its own is not sufficient to guarantee the presence of mentality. It remains possible, for example, that other people are actually nothing more than automata made out of flesh (or "philosophical zombies" as the term for this example stands).
Click to expand...
The actual meaning of philosophical zombie is
A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] For example, a philosophical zombie could be poked with a sharp object, and not feel any pain sensation, but yet, behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or say that it is in intense pain).
Click to expand...
A philosophical zombie is fully capable of discovering anything in reality since they have every attribute of humans except as above. They have intelligence. They have bodies.
 
Maartenn100 said:
That's a subjective evaluation of a fact.
Click to expand...
Your question was an objective question about the real world answered with a fact about the real world.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: How we study the contents of a dream using a brain scanner.

Which of your words in the question "How exactly are you going to study the content of a dream of an organism (like an animal f.e.) with your brainscanner, Reality-Check?" do you not understand, Maartenn100?
What part of an experiment that uses a brain scanner to study the content of a dream is not an answer to this question?

ETA: A spelling lesson for you: "mind" is not spelt "dream"! The problem of other minds is not "the problem of other dreams" :D!
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds. ..
Click to expand...

Well, it's not a fact of nature actually, other people's minds can be observed to function correctly, otherwise or incorrectly.
We can be quite certain about any of these whenever one of these apply.
 
When the block universe-hypothesis of spacetime of MIT professor Dr. Brad Skow and physicist Brian Greene is true, then the question is: why do we only experience the present? In the block universe, events in past, present and future are existing together.
The logical answer must be: that's a part of our experience as an observer of this world.
It's our 'consciousness' (whatever that be) or our mind, wich causes this experience of the world on a timescale.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
You are avoiding all the questions, Reality-Check.

You don't seem to be familiar with 'the other mind problem'.
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
Click to expand...

How do you think you know consciousness exists, in nature, outside of yourself?
 
I've been watching "Sixty Symbols" videos on YouTube and happened on one that seems apropos to this discussion. Dr. Phil Moriarty of Nottingham University expresses his frustration with quantum woo, in particular Robert Lanza and the supposed need for a conscious observer. Moriarty's exasperation interferes somewhat with his message but he's right on target IMO. I don't expect our resident nonsense peddler to be receptive, if he watches it at all, but others might find it interesting.

http://youtu.be/8DGgvE6hLAU


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Maartenn100: State the time in the Greene video where he supports a block universe

Maartenn100 said:
When the block universe-hypothesis of spacetime of MIT professor Dr. Brad Skow and physicist Brian Greene is true, ....
Click to expand...
Dr. Brad Skow has no "block universe-hypothesis of spacetime". Eternalism (philosophy of time) is a philosophical hypothesis about time (not the spacetime used in physics) that can be traced back to 1908 - it is not Skow's idea.

7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Spacetime is physics, block universe is philosophy.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: What makes all of the other philosophies of space and time from other (often prominent) philosophers incorrect?

You still have not supplied any evidence that Brian Greene supports the Eternalism (philosophy of time) that Skow has written about.
8 April 2016 Maartenn100: State the time in the Greene video that you cited where he supports a block universe.
Maartenn100 said:
Physicist Brian Greene also believes in this idea of spacetime as a block universe where past-present and future exist together.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM.
Click to expand...

Repeating a misrepresentation from ignorance after you have been told the definition of spacetime is becoming a lie:
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Ignorance of physics and what the block universe is has lead to a misrepresentation of what Brian Greene wrote.
 
Reality Check said:
Post title: "Maartenn100: State the time in the Greene video where he supports a block universe"
...
Click to expand...
Post title added to quote by Daylightstar
Once I asked him about a specific time in a video:
Daylightstar said:
I would like to learn about the exact time in that nearly 56 minute long video you posted where Greene says according to you that "The future is already there":


Thank you.
Click to expand...

Never got an answer. I wonder if he'll be decent to you.
 
The block universe concept appears to follow almost inevitably from the geometric understanding of relativity,
 
When spacetime (block universe concept) is a fact, then it's logically to conclude that 'the First existing Observer' establishes a first reference frame for space- and timecoördinates. Before that, there are no fixed coördinates for the objects in the universe.
 
Last edited:
We will have to wait for a new generation of philosophers and scientists who will put 'consciousness' into the equations and in their models of the universe. They will meet resistance at first. Because consciousness is 'woo' in it's nature. Consciousness can't be described in material terms.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
The block universe concept appears to follow almost inevitably from the geometric understanding of relativity,
Click to expand...

IIRC it is a way to conceptualize determinism in a branching multiverse that appears to include free will.

Maartenn100 said:
When spacetime (block universe concept) is a fact, then it's logically to conclude that 'the First existing Observer' establishes a first reference frame for space- and timecoördinates. Before that, there are no fixed coördinates for the objects in the universe.
Click to expand...

Not really, at least not according to any reading I've come across. But this sort of Platonic Big Bang is fun to think of. I do recall you admit this is a thought experiment, correct? Good to not lose sight of that.

Maartenn100 said:
We will have to wait for a new generation of philosophers and scientists who will put 'consciousness' into the equations and in their models of the universe. They will meet resistance at first. Because consciousness is 'woo' in it's nature. Consciousness can't be described in material terms.
Click to expand...

OK, now you are just flying along in pure speculation. There is plenty of successful modeling going on wrt how the brain works and how cognition functions, but the lack of general familiarity makes consciousness seem like total mystery.

You may have a runaway default mode network. Perhaps this will help?
 
Maartenn100 said:
When spacetime (block universe concept) is a fact,
Click to expand...
Did you notice what Reality Check told you? Block Universe is a philosophical concept. It is practically guaranteed never to become a fact, and your conception of the marriage between Block Universe and spacetime has little to do with either.

then it's logically to conclude that 'the First existing Observer' establishes a first reference frame for space- and timecoördinates. Before that, there are no fixed coördinates for the objects in the universe.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that there are fixed coordinates for objects in the universe?
 
Since you claim that one can not know that 'other people have consciousness' and that 'the scientific method can not discover consciousness in nature AT ALL', how do you think you know consciousness exist?
Maartenn100 said:
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
Click to expand...


How do you think you know consciousness exists, Maartenn100?
 
Maartenn100 said:
We will have to wait for a new generation of philosophers and scientists who will put 'consciousness' into the equations and in their models of the universe. They will meet resistance at first. Because consciousness is 'woo' in it's nature. Consciousness can't be described in material terms.
Click to expand...

Why? We don't include chemical reactions in our laws of thermodynamics, we don't include meiosis in our formulas for chemical reactions, we don't include recipes for apple pie in our layout of an orchard...

Why would consciousness need to be included at the level of abstraction of physics? Instead of say, biology, behavioral science and systems theory?
 
Contrary to what our senses tell us (our consciousness) we do not live in a measurable 3D-space-world (what our observations and measurements tell us) but there is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world where time and space are combined in a manifold called 'spacetime'.

My hypothesis is that consciousness is giving us the experience of a 3D-world.
While, the world without conscious observers is a mathematical entity, a 4D-reality, spacetime.
It's a timeless none-local environement where events and objects are in some kind of undefined state.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
Contrary to what our senses tell us (our consciousness) we do not live in a measurable 3D-space-world (what our observations and measurements tell us) but there is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world where time and space are combined in a manifold called 'spacetime'.

My hypothesis is that consciousness is giving us the experience of a 3D-world.
While, the world without conscious observers is a mathematical entity, a 4D-reality, spacetime.
It's a timeless none-local environement where events and objects are in some kind of undefined state.
Click to expand...

What consciousness?:
Maartenn100 said:
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
Click to expand...
Hilites by Daylightstar
 
What I'm talking about here is been known as the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantummechanics.
The non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.
A measuring device is not different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. And these particles must be in a 'probability state' or 'superposition state' too before being observed by a conscious observer.
The final observer is the non-physical human conscious mind.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
Contrary to what our senses tell us (our consciousness) we do not live in a measurable 3D-space-world (what our observations and measurements tell us) but there is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world where time and space are combined in a manifold called 'spacetime'.
Click to expand...


Wait, what? "only a mathematical deducable"? So wouldn't that be something that your consciousness would have to tell you?

Maartenn100 said:
My hypothesis is that consciousness is giving us the experience of a 3D-world.
Click to expand...

Actually your assertion above is that our senses are "giving us the experience of a 3D-world" while our consciousness can discern "a mathematical deducable 4D-world "

Maartenn100 said:
While, the world without conscious observers is a mathematical entity, a 4D-reality, spacetime.
Click to expand...

Your first assertion above says it's not only the same with "conscious observers" but such consciousness is required as it is "only a mathematical deducable 4D-world".

Maartenn100 said:
It's a timeless none-local environement where events and objects are in some kind of undefined state.
Click to expand...

"timeless"? So it's "4D" but without the 4th, well, D? Your assertions are simply self-inconsistent.
 
The Man said:
Wait, what? "only a mathematical deducable"? So wouldn't that be something that your consciousness would have to tell you?
Click to expand...

No, it's not because the concept of the mathematical object is deducable by a conscious mind that the matematical object cannot exist in itself as a platonic entity without the need for a conscious mind.

The Man said:
Actually your assertion above is that our senses are "giving us the experience of a 3D-world" while our consciousness can discern "a mathematical deducable 4D-world "
Click to expand...

We have only access to the experience of a measurable 3D-world through our experience of the actual moment (and nothing more).
The 4D-world includes the past, the present and the future together. We can conceptualize that object, but we have no access to this 4D-object. (which is the universe).

The Man said:
Your first assertion above says it's not only the same with "conscious observers" but such consciousness is required as it is "only a mathematical deducable 4D-world".
Click to expand...

Again: a mathematical entity can exist (in some Platonic world) without a conscious mind to conceptualize it.

The Man said:
"timeless"? So it's "4D" but without the 4th, well, D? Your assertions are simply self-inconsistent.
Click to expand...

We, observers, can only experience/measure a 3D-world because we only have access to the actual moment and to nothing more.
The 4D-world includes the whole timeline. We, as observers, have no access to the 4D-world (which is reality).
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
No, the matematical object can exist in itself as a platonic entity without the need for a conscious mind.
Click to expand...

Your claim wasn't about it's existence but just that it "is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world". Deduction requires consciousness.


Maartenn100 said:
We have only access to the experience of a measurable 3D-world through our experience of the actual moment (and nothing more).
Click to expand...

Nope, not only do we experience time we can recall past experiences and even apply them to "the actual moment" as well as future events.

Maartenn100 said:
The 4D-world includes the past, the present and the future together. We can conceptualize that, but have no access to this 4D-object. (which is the universe).
Click to expand...

Nonsense, throw something while standing on the Earth and watch the curved path it takes. You have just accessed a 4D manafold.


Maartenn100 said:
Again: a mathematical entity can exist (in some Platonic world) without a conscious mind to conceptualize it.
Click to expand...

Again, your assertion was not about existence but deduction.



Maartenn100 said:
We, observers, can only experience/measure a 3D-world because we only have access to the actual moment and nothing more.
Click to expand...

So you are claiming that you have no memory? Do objects in your "3D-world" carry information about past events? As information takes time to travel all we have direct access to is the past.

Maartenn100 said:
The 4D-world includes the whole timeline. We, as observers, have no access to the 4D-world (which is reality).
Click to expand...

Ah, so the future never becomes the past? Just because you can't access some particular point in time right now in no way means you "have no access to" it. That you do things in preparation for future events (like say preparing a meal) demonstrates not only the ability but the conscious expectation of accessing that point in time.
 
The Man said:
Your claim wasn't about it's existence but just that it "is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world". Deduction requires consciousness.
Click to expand...

It's not because of the fact that an existing world is deducable, that the existence of this world requires a mind which deduce it first.

Nope, not only do we experience time we can recall past experiences and even apply them to "the actual moment" as well as future events.
Click to expand...

No: we only have access to the present in our experience as observers. The past is gone, the future isn't there (yet).

The Man said:
Nonsense, throw something while standing on the Earth and watch the curved path it takes. You have just accessed a 4D manafold.
Click to expand...

No:, you only have access to one moment at the time. The curved path is a construction in your mind (memory). There is the illusion of motion. Like in an animation. You don't 'see' motion outthere.

The Man said:
Again, your assertion was not about existence but deduction.
Click to expand...

My assertion was about both: we only can deduce the existing 4D-world (which includes past, present and future together), but we have no access to it. We only experience the present.


The Man said:
So you are claiming that you have no memory?
Click to expand...

It's not because you have a memory, that you have access to the memorised past event. The event does not exist anymore in your measurable world.

The Man said:
Do objects in your "3D-world" carry information about past events? As information takes time to travel all we have direct access to is the past.
Click to expand...

That's true. But this information is only accessable to us in the present.

The Man said:
Ah, so the future never becomes the past?
Click to expand...
No, in my idea and the idea of MIT-professor Bradford Skow, future events exist together with past events. (Eternalism)
Only in the experience of conscious observers the future can become past.

The Man said:
Just because you can't access some particular point in time right now in no way means you "have no access to" it. That you do things in preparation for future events (like say preparing a meal) demonstrates not only the ability but the conscious expectation of accessing that point in time.
Click to expand...

There is the 'moving spotlight theory of time'. The theory implies eternalism, the concept that past, present, and future times all exist The NOW of a conscious observer moves along the series of times from earlier times to later times.
 
Last edited:
We experience moment to moment.

There is only the illusion of motion like in an animation. But there is no motion outthere.
There is only a 4D-manifold 'outthere'. A kind of (unobservable and undetectable) block universe. (eternalism)
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
What I'm talking about here is been known as the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantummechanics.
The non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.
A measuring device is not different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. And these particles must be in a 'probability state' or 'superposition state' too before being observed by a conscious observer.
The final observer is the non-physical human conscious mind.
Click to expand...

Maartenn100,:
Maartenn100 said:
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
Click to expand...
Hilites by Daylightstar
How do you think you know that consciousness exists outside of you?
 
Daylightstar said:
How do you think you know that consciousness exists outside of you?
Click to expand...

I experience, therefore I am. Cogito, ergo sum.
That we, observers (consciousness), exist, is the only thing we can be certain of.
When you experience the world, you exist. (your observations and experiences can be illusions, but you can be certain of your existence)
And we can also be certain about the existence of the undetectable 4D-manifold outthere.

And of course, there is the problem of other minds. We can't be certain of the existence of other minds.
But we assume that other people and animals have minds.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
It's not because of the fact that an existing world is deducable, that the existence of this world requires a mind which deduce it first.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just can't seem to parse this, could you please rephrase it.


Maartenn100 said:
No: we only have access to the present in our experience as observers. The past is gone, the future isn't there (yet).
Click to expand...

See your "That's true." assertion below. Some of the past hasn't even gotten to you yet, access to it is still in your future.


Maartenn100 said:
No:, you only have access to one moment at the time. The curved path is a construction in your mind (memory). There is the illusion of motion. Like in an animation. You don't 'see' motion outthere.
Click to expand...

Incorrect you see changes in position with changes in time (motion). There are numerous ways to record such data. In fact elements of our own and other animals visual systems have evolved to detect such changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_perception#First-order_motion_perception


Maartenn100 said:
My assertion was about both: we only can deduce the existing 4D-world (which includes past, present and future together), but we have no access to it. We only experience the present.
Click to expand...

We do have access to it, again that you make a post expecting someone to read it later and then perhaps reply demonstrates this. Your only compliant seems to be that you can't access it all at once. Well, guess what, you can't access all the locations just on a 2D map of a 1 mile radius around you all at once either even though that map has everyone of those locations "together".



Maartenn100 said:
It's not because you have a memory, that you have access to the memorised past event. The event does not exist anymore in your measurable world.
Click to expand...

Again incorrect see your "That's true." assertion below. Some of the past hasn't even gotten to you yet, measurable access to it is still in your future.



Maartenn100 said:
That's true. But this information is only accessable to us in the present.
Click to expand...

Nope, we have the ability to retain information any number of ways. As information comes from the past and reactions can only take place in the future what is least accessible to us is the "present". Now these temporal offsets can be minuscule and for many everyday applications negligible but they exist none the less.

Maartenn100 said:
No, in my idea and the idea of MIT-professor Bradford Skow, future events exist together with past events. (Eternalism)
Only in the experience of conscious observers the future can become past.
Click to expand...

Don't try to blame your assertions on others. Future and Past are just different directions in time like forwards and backwards are in space.


Maartenn100 said:
There is the 'moving spotlight theory of time'. The theory implies eternalism, the concept that past, present, and future times all exist The NOW of a conscious observer moves along the series of times from earlier times to later times.
Click to expand...

Great so even you and perhaps "MIT-professor Bradford Skow" assert that you do have access to those other points in time by moving in time just as you have access to other locations in space (like on that just 2D spacial map) by, well, moving in space. Of course the significant difference is that we can only seem to move forward in time.

A suggestion, try thinking of the 'here' of a conscious observer as well as the "now" of a conscious observer. Being here now I can perhaps observe over there then. In fact, due to the speed of information, it has to then that I can observe from there. So events are always linked in both space and time, that's space-time. As you note yourself that you may have to do some deduction to realize that in no way detracts from the fact that it appears to be a integral part of the existence of the universe.
 
Maartenn100 said:
I experience, therefore I am. Cogito, ergo sum.
That we, observers (consciousness), exist, is the only thing we can be certain of.
When you experience the world, you exist. (your observations and experiences can be illusions, but you can be certain of your existence)
And we can also be certain about the existence of the undetectable 4D-manifold outthere.

And of course, there is the problem of other minds. We can't be certain of the existence of other minds.
But we assume that other people and animals have minds.
Click to expand...

That still does not answer the question.
How do you know that consciousness exists outside of you when according to you it is a fact of nature that you can never be certain that other people have minds and the scientific method can not discover it:
Maartenn100 said:
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
Click to expand...

So, Maartenn100, how do you think you know that consciousness exists outside of you?
 
The Man said:
Sorry, I just can't seem to parse this, could you please rephrase it.
Click to expand...

See mathematical realism. It explains what I want to tell you about this 4D-universe.
See also The mathematical universe hypothesis.


The Man said:
See your "That's true." assertion below. Some of the past hasn't even gotten to you yet, access to it is still in your future.
Click to expand...

I agree, but you can only have access to information in a present moment.
In our 3D-experience, there is only the present. And there is nothing else.
(see presentism)

The Man said:
Incorrect you see changes in position with changes in time (motion). There are numerous ways to record such data. In fact elements of our own and other animals visual systems have evolved to detect such changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_perception#First-order_motion_perception
Click to expand...

You have the illusion of motion in your mind. The information where the object was a fraction of a second ago is not accessible anymore for you, and the object is not yet arrived somewhere else. You only see one 'now-slice'. (terminology of Brian Greene).

It's like music. Do you think there is a song outthere, The Man? No, you only hear one puls. That's it. And when you hear the next puls, the previous puls 'doesn't exist anymore' and the next puls isn't there yet.
Your mind creates the experience of a beautiful song, but actually, your conscious mind has only access to one puls.


The Man said:
Your only compliant seems to be that you can't access it all at once.
Click to expand...

Indeed: accessibility to our consciousness is the crucial element here.
Consciousness is our accessibility to a measurable reality. It's a crucial factor.

Consciousness makes the difference between measurable and undetectable.


The Man said:
Well, guess what, you can't access all the locations just on a 2D map of a 1 mile radius around you all at once either even though that map has everyone of those locations "together".
Click to expand...

In 'reality', not only all the locations are 'together', but all past and future locations of objects are on that map too...

Some of the past hasn't even gotten to you yet, measurable access to it is still in your future.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this does not contradict anything of what I said here before. You only have access to this information in one moment: the present.

Nope, we have the ability to retain information any number of ways. As information comes from the past and reactions can only take place in the future what is least accessible to us is the "present". Now these temporal offsets can be minuscule and for many everyday applications negligible but they exist none the less.
Click to expand...

The information you got from the past can only be accessed in the present. As far as you know: only the present exists. (presentism)

Great so even you and perhaps "MIT-professor Bradford Skow" assert that you do have access to those other points in time by moving in time just as you have access to other locations in space (like on that just 2D spacial map) by, well, moving in space. Of course the significant difference is that we can only seem to move forward in time.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true. We only seem to be able to move forward in time.

A suggestion, try thinking of the 'here' of a conscious observer as well as the "now" of a conscious observer. Being here now I can perhaps observe over there then. In fact, due to the speed of information, it has to then that I can observe from there. So events are always linked in both space and time, that's space-time. As you note yourself that you may have to do some deduction to realize that in no way detracts from the fact that it appears to be a integral part of the existence of the universe.
Click to expand...

Of course, I was only talking about our position in time. Not in space. We also have access to one position/moment. There is motion through spacetime. See the moving spotlight theory.

the 4D-manifold is not only all possible moments together, but also all possible positions of objects in the past, the present and the future together. But it is undetectable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom