Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[Tuur]

Your missing the point. Its not that there is some space between things or that theres an interval between evens happening. Its that the measure for this is a human idea. It can be different according to the culture or the location you are in.

Different units of measure are, well, different, but each set of standards are consistent, or as consistent as humanly possible. That's been true as far back as humanity has kept records. Whether we measure the speed of light in meters per second or furlongs per fortnight, what does it matter? It's the same speed regardless.

Whether we measure time by the interval of the earth's rotation or return of a seasonal equinox, the interesting thing is that events consistently move in one direction. Sometimes I get a wild notion that what's called the arrow of time is nothing more than a function of entropy.

 

[stevevw]

Different units of measure are, well, different, but each set of standards are consistent, or as consistent as humanly possible. That's been true as far back as humanity has kept records. Whether we measure the speed of light in meters per second or furlongs per fortnight, what does it matter? It's the same speed regardless.

Whether we measure time by the interval of the earth's rotation or return of a seasonal equinox, the interesting thing is that events consistently move in one direction. Sometimes I get a wild notion that what's called the arrow of time is nothing more than a function of entropy.

Yes all those measures quantify time. Its a concept humans invent to help understand our conscious experience in the world. But that is different to other cultures who don't use quantified ideas of time like indigenous peoples or say Buddist Monks, the more transcedent ideas about time.

Or the idea of transcendental meditation where people can experience out of body consciousness which is non local as far as time and space is concerned breaching clasical physics.

Even classical physics tells us that time can bend and technically can move backwards and is relative to momentum and QM tells us that time may be non local being able to travel instantly or to travel into the past changing events and tunnel through space. So it seems maybe the natives and Monks are right that time is more fluid fundementally.

 

[Tuur]

Yes all those measures quantify time. Its a concept humans invent to help understand our conscious experience in the world. But that is different to other cultures who don't use quantified ideas of time like indigenous peoples or say Buddist Monks, the more transcedent ideas about time.

Even classical physics tells us that time can bend and technically can move backwards and is relative to momentum and QM tells us that time may be non local being able to travel instantly or to travel into the past changing events and tunnel through space. So it seems maybe the natives and Monks maybe right that time is more fluid fundementally.

Or the idea of transcendental meditation where people can experience out of body consciousness which is non local as far as time and space is concerned breaching clasical physics.

Umm..I don't think that's quite it. The arrow of time exists, entropy happens, the earth revolves, and none of this changes by how we interpret it. It exists regardless. Similarly, the mind blowing aspect of the speed of light being a constant in all frames of reference exists, along with all it's implications. Time itself isn't exactly fluid. It and space are linked together to where it's essentially the same "fabric." So if the "fabric" in one location changes, time changes along with it.

That's not evident at the slow speeds experienced by humans, and as such there was no reason to describe it. A culture that has no need to describe time in a certain way won't. That doesn't change the nature of of time one whit. Once you get into experiments and ways of quantifying it, then there can be a greater understanding of how things works and ways of describing it.

BTW, General Relativity isn't classical physics, BTW. Classical physics assumes space is fixed and time exists outside all frames of reference.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes all those measures quantify time. Its a concept humans invent to help understand our conscious experience in the world. But that is different to other cultures who don't use quantified ideas of time like indigenous peoples or say Buddist Monks, the more transcedent ideas about time.

Or the idea of transcendental meditation where people can experience out of body consciousness which is non local as far as time and space is concerned breaching clasical physics.

Even classical physics tells us that time can bend and technically can move backwards and is relative to momentum and QM tells us that time may be non local being able to travel instantly or to travel into the past changing events and tunnel through space. So it seems maybe the natives and Monks are right that time is more fluid fundementally.

Time persists and everyone can easily agree on that .. this is why it exists.

The distinction between light and dark is stark and everyone can easily agree on that .. this is why light and dark exists.

The speed of light is not obvious for everyone .. yet the constancy of the speed of light exists for scientific thinkers, who are focussed on describing nature in ways all scientific thinkers can agree upon.

The notion that time, light and its constancy, all exist independently of the minds obviously considering that proposition, exists as a commonly held pure belief.

 

[Kylie]

Like I said its based on our current theory of physics for 'our universe and not other universes' and what we observe today which predicts a multiverse. If our current theories of inflation and the CMB and QM are right then we also have to accept the logical predictions based on those ideas which includes a multiverse.

When we look out at the Universe today, it simultaneously tells us two stories about itself. One of those stories is written on the face of what the Universe looks like today, and includes the stars and galaxies we have, how they’re clustered and how they move, and what ingredients they’re made of. This is a relatively straightforward story, and one that we’ve learned simply by observing the Universe we see.

But the other story is how the Universe came to be the way it is today, and that’s a story that requires a little more work to uncover. Sure, we can look at objects at great distances, and that tells us what the Universe was like in the distant past: when the light that’s arriving today was first emitted. But we need to combine that with our theories of the Universe — the laws of physics within the framework of the Big Bang — to interpret what occurred in the past. When we do that, we see extraordinary evidence that our hot Big Bang was preceded and set up by a prior phase: cosmic inflation. But in order for inflation to give us a Universe consistent with what we observe, there’s an unsettling appendage that comes along for the ride: a multiverse. Here’s why physicists overwhelmingly claim that a multiverse must exist.

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?

If you want to get the Universe we see, a multiverse comes along for the ride.

www.forbes.com

So then you are just guessing at what other universes might be like.

Your guess is not good enough.

 

[Kylie]

I am not saying the experience of time or distance is not real.

Yeah, actually you are. You literally said time is not real. Back in post 400.

"But we know time is not physical, we can't put it in a test tube so its a created mental concept and not real."

Seems to me that all you are doing now is trying to weasel out of what you said earlier. I've got no time for this. Get your story straight and then maybe it will be worth my time to respond. But until then, seems to me that you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of being contrarian.

 

[stevevw]

So then you are just guessing at what other universes might be like.

Your guess is not good enough.

No theres no guessing as its based on the science.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, actually you are. You literally said time is not real. Back in post 400.

"But we know time is not physical, we can't put it in a test tube so its a created mental concept and not real."

Seems to me that all you are doing now is trying to weasel out of what you said earlier. I've got no time for this. Get your story straight and then maybe it will be worth my time to respond. But until then, seems to me that you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of being contrarian.

Yes I said that 'time' is not a real physical thing that we can put in a test tube. How is that wrong. You can't pick it up it has no substance so is not real in a physical sense. How humans understand time is by an abstract concept which is not a real thing in the world.

 

[sjastro]

Yes I said that 'time' is not a real physical thing that we can put in a test tube. How is that wrong. You can't pick it up it has no substance so is not real in a physical sense. How humans understand time is by an abstract concept which is not a real thing in the world.

Time is not a real thing?
Since this is a science forum with the emphasis on physics when it comes to time, the debate is whether it is fundamental or emergent not on its cultural interpretations or personal opinion.

In the 17th century the mathematician Fermat made the profound discovery light travels from point A to point B in the least amount of time, not the least amount of distance.
This is particularly evident when light undergoes refraction when it travels from one medium to another.
The equation for the path taken by light is based on simple geometry and the total time T is obtained by dividing the path length in the medium by its velocity in the medium and summing the result the for the two mediums as illustrated.

If y₁, y₂ and L are constants and x is the variable then the graph of the equation indicates a minimum value of T corresponding to the turning point of the graph.
Anyone familiar with basic calculus will understand the minimum of T occurs for the condition dT/dx =0 as illustrated.

Trigonometry can be used to simplify the equation and the end result is the recovery of Snell's law.
Snell’s law which was derived from experiments predated Fermat’s equation.

The point of all of this is to show if time is a human construction or interpretation, it is very difficult to explain why light should happen to always pick the minimum time to travel from point A to point B.

This leads to another subject brought up by @partinobodycular involving Feynman path integrals and illustrates the subtle connection between QM and classical physics and not your summary dismissal that QM breaks down classical physics.
Without going into the mathematical detail which requires a course in QM, according to the Schrödinger equation wavefunctions undergo a time evolution defined by the complex exponential factor exp(iθ)t.

The following illustration shows the application of path integrals to light being refracted.
This is simplified illustration as there are an infinite number of pathways that can be taken by light going from point A to B.
Each pathway taken by the light is defined by a wavefunction Ψ ~ exp(iθ)t which is the probability amplitude represented by a complex function.

The wavefunction can be represented as a vector which rotates according to the time it takes for light to travel from point A to point B.

When the direction of the vector is compared to the T(x) vs x graph for the Fermat equation, vectors near the turning point are nearly in the same direction and undergo vector addition which is constructive interference of the wavefunction , all other vectors are in roughly opposite directions and undergo vector subtraction or destructive interference of the wavefunction..

Once again the question arises how is this consistent with time being made up.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Once again the question arises how is this consistent with time being made up.

Thanks for the post there .. I sort of followed the gist which, (I think), is that there are apparently unrelated ways, or models (classical physics leading to the recovery of Snell's Law which was originally derived from experiments, which predated Fermat's eqn and QMs view), for investigating the proposition that light travels from point A to point B, perhaps, in the least amount of time (and not the least amount of distance).
They all demonstrate consistency with the Fermat's conclusion that light does take the path of least time .. and I'm cool with that.

I'm not clear however, on where the distinction is between the idea of time being 'made up', or 'not being made up', in all of that though?
(I think I may have lost track of that theme in the details of the analysis?) For sure it shows that time isn't just some arbitrary, ad hoc notion introduced to give the right answers in order to to fit the observations, or something dreamed up out of the blue by some guru meditating his navel on some mountain top someplace.

Hmm .. perhaps I just hit on the point you've raised there after all, eh?
Cheers

 

[stevevw]

Time is not a real thing?
Since this is a science forum with the emphasis on physics when it comes to time, the debate is whether it is fundamental or emergent not on its cultural interpretations or personal opinion.

In the 17th century the mathematician Fermat made the profound discovery light travels from point A to point B in the least amount of time, not the least amount of distance.
This is particularly evident when light undergoes refraction when it travels from one medium to another.
The equation for the path taken by light is based on simple geometry and the total time T is obtained by dividing the path length in the medium by its velocity in the medium and summing the result the for the two mediums as illustrated.

View attachment 341910​

If y₁, y₂ and L are constants and x is the variable then the graph of the equation indicates a minimum value of T corresponding to the turning point of the graph.
Anyone familiar with basic calculus will understand the minimum of T occurs for the condition dT/dx =0 as illustrated.

View attachment 341912​

Trigonometry can be used to simplify the equation and the end result is the recovery of Snell's law.
Snell’s law which was derived from experiments predated Fermat’s equation.

View attachment 341913​

The point of all of this is to show if time is a human construction or interpretation, it is very difficult to explain why light should happen to always pick the minimum time to travel from point A to point B.

This leads to another subject brought up by @partinobodycular involving Feynman path integrals and illustrates the subtle connection between QM and classical physics and not your summary dismissal that QM breaks down classical physics.
Without going into the mathematical detail which requires a course in QM, according to the Schrödinger equation wavefunctions undergo a time evolution defined by the complex exponential factor exp(iθ)t.

The following illustration shows the application of path integrals to light being refracted.
This is simplified illustration as there are an infinite number of pathways that can be taken by light going from point A to B.
Each pathway taken by the light is defined by a wavefunction Ψ ~ exp(iθ)t which is the probability amplitude represented by a complex function.

The wavefunction can be represented as a vector which rotates according to the time it takes for light to travel from point A to point B.

View attachment 341914​

When the direction of the vector is compared to the T(x) vs x graph for the Fermat equation, vectors near the turning point are nearly in the same direction and undergo vector addition which is constructive interference of the wavefunction , all other vectors are in roughly opposite directions and undergo vector subtraction or destructive interference of the wavefunction..

View attachment 341915​

Once again the question arises how is this consistent with time being made up.

I guess the same question can be asked like with the OP and Math, how does Math map so well onto reality well beyond what the human mind could know. It seems this points to a mind behind the Math and that its not completely created by humans but is reflected in the universe, in reality and is in fact the fundemental reality.

I think the Math and calculations are still attempting to quantify 'time' and this does not explain the fundemental nature of time. WE also know time acts in non local ways so it cannot be completely quantified with objective reality. Just like QM and this points to a more fundemental reality that transcends the objective and logical world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I guess the same question can be asked like with the OP and Math, how does Math map so well onto reality well beyond what the human mind could know. It seems this points to a mind behind the Math and that its not completely created by humans but is reflected in the universe, in reality and is in fact the fundemental reality.

Ummmm... because when we need a way to describe a physical system that isn't covered by math -- we invent new math to do it.

I think the Math and calculations are still attempting to quantify 'time' and this does not explain the fundemental nature of time. WE also know time acts in non local ways so it cannot be completely quantified with objective reality. Just like QM and this points to a more fundemental reality that transcends the objective and logical world.

You're not going to reach those straws you are grasping for...

 

[SelfSim]

Ummmm... because when we need a way to describe a physical system that isn't covered by math -- we invent new math to do it.

Thanks for that!
Clarifies @sjastro's post even more for me .. with mega efficiency. Cheers

 

[sjastro]

Thanks for the post there .. I sort of followed the gist which, (I think), is that there are apparently unrelated ways, or models (classical physics leading to the recovery of Snell's Law which was originally derived from experiments, which predated Fermat's eqn and QMs view), for investigating the proposition that light travels from point A to point B, perhaps, in the least amount of time (and not the least amount of distance).
They all demonstrate consistency with the Fermat's conclusion that light does take the path of least time .. and I'm cool with that.

I'm not clear however, on where the distinction is between the idea of time being 'made up', or 'not being made up', in all of that though?
(I think I may have lost track of that theme in the details of the analysis?) For sure it shows that time isn't just some arbitrary, ad hoc notion introduced to give the right answers in order to to fit the observations, or something dreamed up out of the blue by some guru meditating his navel on some mountain top someplace.

Hmm .. perhaps I just hit on the point you've raised there after all, eh?
Cheers

You have two options to consider time is a physical parameter or made up.
Fermat’s Principle of Least Time is ultimately explained by Feynman’s path integral method where the exp(iθ)t term in the wavefunction for a light path is a phase factor.
There is no ambiguity about time being a real parameter as it contributes to the constructive and destructive interference of the light paths which is a real effect.

 

[sjastro]

I guess the same question can be asked like with the OP and Math, how does Math map so well onto reality well beyond what the human mind could know. It seems this points to a mind behind the Math and that its not completely created by humans but is reflected in the universe, in reality and is in fact the fundemental reality.

I think the Math and calculations are still attempting to quantify 'time' and this does not explain the fundemental nature of time. WE also know time acts in non local ways so it cannot be completely quantified with objective reality. Just like QM and this points to a more fundemental reality that transcends the objective and logical world.

Not only you are avoiding the question but contradicting yourself in the process.
On one hand you state time is made up, now it’s the case of not being able to explain the fundamental nature of time.
If time is made up then there nothing to explain as time is not fundamental.

I don’t think you understand what non local means when it involves time, are you aware non locality requires correlation to avoid faster than light communication of information and thus avoid the paradoxes involving causality?
To use a non quantum mechanics example for non locality, if we were both given a shoe box containing either a left shoe or right shoe and then separated by distance then non locality applies.
If either one of us opens the shoebox, we know immediately what is in the other shoebox, this is correlation and does not involve the instantaneous communication (Δt = 0) of the information.

Quantum mechanical entanglement is somewhat more complicated to explain but is also based on the principle of correlation where communicating the spin state of one separated entangled particle to the other is not even possible.
This is the no-communication theorem at work.

 

[SelfSim]

You have two options to consider time is a physical parameter or made up.
Fermat’s Principle of Least Time is ultimately explained by Feynman’s path integral method where the exp(iθ)t term in the wavefunction for a light path is a phase factor.
There is no ambiguity about time being a real parameter as it contributes to the constructive and destructive interference of the light paths which is a real effect.

Thanks! Got it now! Cheers

 

[Kylie]

No theres no guessing as its based on the science.

You have yet to produce any science which shows how we can determine the laws that exist in a universe entirely separate to our own.

Please, show me the study.

 

[Kylie]

Yes I said that 'time' is not a real physical thing that we can put in a test tube. How is that wrong. You can't pick it up it has no substance so is not real in a physical sense. How humans understand time is by an abstract concept which is not a real thing in the world.

No, you said time is not physical, and then said that since it is not physical it is not real.

There are plenty of things that are real that are not physical.

Your attempts to backpedal and claim you didn't say what you said are not going to work.

 

[stevevw]

You have yet to produce any science which shows how we can determine the laws that exist in a universe entirely separate to our own.

Please, show me the study.

That is what a multiverse is, there are many universes with different physical parameters. If Inflation predicts multiverses then there are different universe to our own with different physical constants. They are not just repeats of our own universe.

So if we accept Inflation we have to accept a multiverse and if we accept a multiverse we have to accept that there are other universes with different physical makeups.

 

[stevevw]

No, you said time is not physical, and then said that since it is not physical it is not real.

Yes not real in the physical sense, according to objective reality. How is that not the case. You can't pick up time and put it in a test tube. But that doesn't mean I said that the idea of there being an experience of what the west calls time such as 'tense' doesn't exist. Its just that not everyone thinks of this as what science calls time as in qunatified time segments.

If you really want to quote me then include all that I said instead of quotng me out of context. I made it clear that I was speaking about physical reality only and not in the overall scheme of what is real or not.

I said several times that time is fluid and that other cultures think of time as being more transcendent. That quantified time or physical time is just a human made concept to help understand tense, past, present and future tense. That other cultures have come up with their own understanding which is more spiritual and beyond the Westernized quantified time which divides time in quantified segments.

So that is not saying time has no realness but only that the realness western science attaches is not real in any physical sense and that 'time' as we understand it may exist in some other form of realness that is more transcendent to the physical.

There are plenty of things that are real that are not physical.

When I say not physical or quantified I mean like objective reality which will include forces and fields which are not physical but are part of how the physical world works. For example you have particles but they exist within fields and are subject to forces. You can't have particles without fields and forces.

But the non physical or material aspects I am talking about are more spiritual. Natives may view time as a spiritual dimension where time is more fluid and has no physical aspects or quantities such as dividied into segments. But has no restraints, time schedules but rather is dictated by spirituality or some transcendent realm.

Your attempts to backpedal and claim you didn't say what you said are not going to work.

Theres no backpeddling as your creating strawmen by attributing things to me I never said. You first need to read what I said and understand it before injecting what you think I said.