Quote:
|
Time, as Pyro has described, is an inconvertible aspect of our universe. So, we are indeed forced to deal with it. Arkain makes a good point too. Is non-simultaenity a product of our perception or is it a fact of life? (correct me if I've misinterpreted you, arkain)
|
The core of my point was that everything is a product of our perception.
Look at it this way, the only thing we CAN see and, thus CAN imagine is our macroscopic world tied to our brain.
We don't see light. (we create information from it, and the patterns it produces as meaningless data (data substance of nothing, not yet organized into reality))
We don't see matter, we see the light eminated from the matter. (read above to follow light again.)
The macroscopic world tied to our brain, does not exist outside of our brain. So you can forget the idea of proving what the onotological outside world is like. Instead, you can admit you are an incredible organic machine that has an amazing ability to transform unknowable data into meaningful art, you are the artist the universe lacks. However, the flaw I want to expose is to make sure you don't forget you are that artist, and start thinking you are observing a mechanical world outside of yourself.
Our macroscopic world has a sense of scale, and tied to this sense of scale comes a perspective of time. Here is an example, consider the fact our eyes have a specific zoom ratio. Naturally, we don't consider the universe zoomed in or out, we have simply just adapted to the zoom we have, and if we were to put on goggles that offered us a different zoom ratio we would say, everything looks "different/ zoomed in/zoomed out/ unatural". Where as factually, all we have done is experienced a different specific perspective which we could learn to adapt to.
But hold on, bare with me, don't assume I am ignoring the conception of time in physics.
I am about to swing it right back around.
When we consider a relativistic thought experiment like the twins paradox. In this sort of experiment we use clocks, not our physiological sense of time. We use mechanical instruments.
What we are comparing in this sort of experiment is what each observer experiences individually, and we theorize that each observers experience will be mutually exclusive when their velocities are significantly different relative to specific observed events(locations). That is, each observer with the use of a mechanical clock will be expected (via calculations of physics supported empircal evidence etc etc..) to record conflicting data on those specific events.
So for example. Consider Event 1 at location A. (the exact details can be excluded for this example and not compromise our conclusions).
Relative to Event 1 at location A: Observer X is at rest, while Observer Y is moving at relativistic speeds. Each observer records the event differently.
Now lets add 9998 more observers, each one traveling at a unique & specific % of C relative to Event 1 at location A. When each observer returns back (home) to the location of Observer X, where X is at rest, they compare their data and find that there is 10,000 different records of Event 1 at location A.
They agree on the following: "Considering how much conflicting data we have, it appears likely to conclude that none of our data is more or less superior or "special" than anyone other observers data". Furthermore, they agree, none of them can offer an empirical, cosmic answer as to what really happened at event 1 location A and when. So they can conclude that, beyond each of their individual macroscopic perspective, event 1 location A has no boundaries as to how it can be observed, it is unlimited perspectives.
Declaring that something has no boundaries as to how it can be observed, and is unlimited in perspectives, seems to us like the lack of a conclusion. That is, it can't be boxed in and made a part of our macroscopic perspective. So this unmeasurable and non-constrainable aspect of reality is excluded, and not because someone intends it to be, but because it does not exist inside reason. It is a potential, not a static form of data. We can choose to exclude it from our analysis, or include it.
Finally, we can say, when we include it in our analysis (and I am sure you have heard this conclusion somewhere else before), beyond our macroscopic perspective: event 1 location A, is both "X" and "Y", or just "X" and not "Y", or "Y" and not "X" or neither "X" nor "Y". (where x and y are just unknown values. These values represent a random observers data).
If we want something to classify/analyze/investigate/measure, we have to allow it to (if I can use this term) "event". And by event I mean, we have to allow it to actualize through a conception of time in order to be realized. If it lacks the ability to event, it does not become realized, and then naturally, we say it is nothing. When we classify something as nothing, we neglect its existence. Why? Let me paraphrase form above:
"You have come to think you are observing a mechanical world outside of yourself"
Which was taken from here:
Quote:
|
Instead, you can admit you are an incredible organic machine that has an amazing ability to transform unknowable data into meaningful art, you are the artist the universe lacks. However, the flaw I want to expose is to make sure you don't forget you are that artist, and start thinking you are observing a mechanical world outside of yourself.
|
With that all said, now I should be able to offer a simple answer. Although we can agree on our (macroscopic, internal) perspectives on the universe,and our measurments on Time. It does not qualify us to say the universe is built in ANY way on simultaneity. Or does it qualify us to conclude the universe exists the way we've come comprehend it and agree on our comprehensions even if life (and its unique perspectives) were taken out of the analysis.
If we ignore we are 'cosmic organic artists' (omg scary non science term
, almost as scary as the phrase spooky action at a distance ), we end up with that endless mystery of how to describe the creation of anything, we go on and on and on, continually using more and more material ideals stack upon more material ideals of continuing complexity, and we can continue doing this untill we are blue in the face, if we ignore where things are being created, the artist will just keep on creating.
