Gregg R Thomas

To continue with the Block Universe idea: Time may not be a fundamental ingredient of reality, but rather an emergent feature arising from the relational structure of physical interactions and information. The quantum world suggests reality is made of relations, not objects whose measurable properties are defined only in relation to other systems.…[Read more]

Have a  great week!!

Authorities are enforcing new rules that require religious leaders to hold accredited theology degrees in order to lead worship and register their institutions.

I wonder what qualifications are needed to decide what the objective standards are for the curriculum of a theology degree.

“The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, i…[Read more]

What sort of laugh is silent?”

I think Mr. Munch painted a few expressions of them on a bridge 🙂

“Lol is another mindless utterance. What sort of laugh is silent?”

Priceless comment, Jake!

My point is not that the human experience of time is wrong. The experience is real, but it may be an interface rather than a fundamental feature of reality. Our brains are optimized for local 3D survival, not for grasping global spacetime structure.

Because everyone shares the sensation of temporal flow, we naturally assume it must be objective.…[Read more]

FYI – This is not debate in the usual sense. I am stress-testing a model of reality in public. I think it has a lot of merit. It is not intuitive because it goes against our evolved sense of time flow. But this is only useful on Earth, locally. Relativity strongly suggests a 4D spacetime structure that looks block-like. I’m trying to break it. I…[Read more]

If they called in the middle of the night I would ask them, “What time do you call this??”  They would probably reply “Relative to what frame?”

Then, after a few introductory nanu nanu’s, I would realize that their framework does not privilege clock labels as they have evolved to think purely in relational or structural terms. I would think to m…[Read more]

Yes, indeed our timekeeping systems must correspond to real physical behaviour. Otherwise, they would be useless. Sundials, mechanical clocks, atomic clocks, radioactive decay all work because the universe contains stable and repeatable processes. But what they only do is to track regular physical change.

But moving from “clocks correspond to p…[Read more]

I think that Carrie Prejean Boller and Candace Owens have a secret deal going…

I can’t think of a reply or a witty retort.  I can only hear the words “Diet of Worms” (sic) echoing in my head and I am visualizing a sleuth of bears chanting “I’m a Bear and Bears love to embrace Catholics”  as they wander into the forest.

I am not claiming that by treating time as non-fundamental explains daily life better. It doesn’t need to. We have evolved to quantify change as time passing. Cause and effect, before and later, and of course aging. This timekeeping ledger system of quantifying change serves us well.

But the problem arises from within physics itself. General R…[Read more]

Yes, I see it this way.  But what connects my subjective experience to my “now”?

Yes Simon, your subjective experience of “now” is real. I am not denying that. But the mistake is when interpret that experience as a objective property of the Universe. The experience of “time flow” and therefore the experience of a “now” is real but the interpre…[Read more]

I’m still waiting for the killer app that comes from the notion that time is not fundamental. If there isn’t one, then this is all just parlor entertainment, not science.

That’s a fair challenge.  Physics doesn’t need a “killer app” before a concept is scientific. It needs explanatory power, consistency, and testable consequences. Back in 1905…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Do you see “now” as a real moving present sweeping along the line or a a point of access within a fixed structure.

I understand it to mean “now” is local to you. But that doesn’t mean it moves. It just means your current brain state only has access to one region of your worldline. “Now” is real as perspective b…

[Read more]

“Now is where I am now, in my timeline.”

Great…that is compatible with relativity. There is a subtle distinction to be made. Do you think “now” is a physical feature of reality….or is it a local perspective feature made by an observer within reality?

Yes, “now” is always local to an observer. You are local to “here” in your “now”. That is how…[Read more]

TheEncogitationer wrote:
In all fairness, any prediction could be considered true if the prognosticator talks nebulously enough, moves the goalposts, and, above all, talks a lot. Astrologers, psychics, and self-proclaimed “prophets” do it all the time.

They could, and they do, but this was different.  She went around telling people their futu…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
“Now” is not a universal property spread across space. The universe doesn’t care where the time zone line is drawn. Only humans do. Our segmentation of our experience of time flow is just a convention. The feeling that clock time reflects a moving reality is mistaken.

OK, true, the clock isn’t evidence of anyth…[Read more]

@Strega – next “time” someone says that, you should reply that “A clock is not a time detector; it is a controlled physical process used to compare spacetime intervals”. That you get you a free lunch 🙂

@Reg reminds me of a bloke I had lunch with, who claimed he could tell me the exact time any place anywhere, so I asked him what time it was on the moon.  It seemed to perturb him.