Time as an innate scientific dimension? Really??

Okay, so earlier today, while replying to a jcs-online post by the always kindly Serge Patlavskiy, and while considering the belief/tenet that "time is an innate dimension", I stumbled onto  an odd set of facts that turn out to innovatively disrupt the theory of relativity and our waning dominant scientific paradigm.   Since that incident, to me, has a dream-like feel, even now, I am making this effort to scribble out and perhaps solidify, expand on or clarify  the basic notion.

----


Time as an innate scientific dimension?  Really??
Applied structured~duality: de-bunking space-time

Ralph Frost
July 12, 2012

The belief  or tenet that time is an innate dimension of physical reality  is part of the presently dominant  spatial-temporal scientific paradigm.

The corrective analysis is done within the alternative trial theory of an enfolding structural-energetic paradigm wherein reality is nested resonant structured~duality.

When we say things change as a function of time, we misunderstand. We actually are meaning changes occur as some function of the influences of the vibrations of everything else.

We acquire a belief in temporal causality through repeated use of this  misunderstanding either in the effort to operate on a simplification  or  as a implicit conceptual/linguistic error.

The error is hidden in that we can  and do isolate  many vibratory or oscillating systems and define and use them as a "clock" to measure "time".

The apparent truth of  the empirically validated temporal causality is facilitated due to the fact that "the influences of the vibrations of everything else" are universally present, in parallel to the oscillation of our favored "clock system". 

This conceptual and/or paradigmatic flaw is empirically validated  even up into many of the initial validations of general relativity.   

The scientific fact is that things vibrate and oscillate due to "the influences of the vibrations of everything else". Thus, other than as a conceptual and misleading artifact or simplification, there was and is not absolute time, and therefore also was and is not any remedial curved space-time.   Time is  a mental function and is NOT present within the ~physical system.  What is present are  "the influences of the vibrations of everything else".
Considering, say, curved space-time, though, and some of its empirical validations,  if we look carefully,  we observe that there are variations in the densities of "the influences of the vibrations of everything else" along various paths.   These nested variations in the "influences of the vibration of everything else" account for  apparent and measured  curvatures as well as variations in various expansions and contractions.  

There is an intuitive symmetry between the patterns and insights summarized here and  "the influences of the vibrations of everything else" locally selecting  patterns of 6^n structural coded  water molecules within respiration sites, in our process of constantly building an internal hydrogen-bonded representation  of our local surroundings.  [These connections or precursors were developed previously and are presented in earlier articles.] 

The conceptual temporal flaw revealed here and elsewhere by other researchers [Barbour] disrupts relativity and reveals that theory to be some type of simplification or approximation of a nested multiple-state approach to summing up the influences of vibrations of everything else.   The conceptual error does the theory in.

The so-called "unification" occurs  within the emerging, more robust nested structural-energetic scientific paradigms.


Further outside reading:
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour  particularly Timeless physics

De-bunking time and space-time

[In jcs-online  as "Time as a memory function: debunking space-time Re: Consciousness and the doubl"]


--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Serge Patlavskiy wrote:
>
>
> Ralph Frost on July 6, 2010 wrote:
> >I suggest your notion of time as a derivative of information
> > doesn't go far enough. Your i = st, to me is more like an
> >on-ramp to, or perhaps a small vehicle traveling on the six
> >lane, double level bridge between the spatial-temporal, and
> > the enfolding structural-energetic paradigms.
> >
> >Our flawed and convoluted notions of time "as a dimension"
> > miss all references to time as being memory functions.
> >Your i = st connection with "information" may be more like
> >a second or third derivative.
> .
> [S.P.] Suppose, there is a child, its father, and an uncle who lives in a different country. When the uncle comes to see his nephew once a five years, he cries: "Wow, how tall you are now (comparing with your height five years ago)!".

Image Processing (jcs-online)

Dear Mike Tinter,

Sort of like "the theater of the mind" being a popular resting place for many?

The thing with "explaining consciousness as the movie theater of consciousness as a 3-d movie theater which the self responds to with all its senses..." is  "the self" is already like yet another n-d feelie theater within the idealized 3-d movie theater,  held within a delicately balanced protein-folded and also hydrogen-bonded tension within the enfolding variable mass-density environment, etc., etc.

And, like "mind", I consider our term: "self" as a wildly ambiguous term.

The approach that I think is best, of course, is the trail I have experienced and followed. Roughly, the one I'm on starts our in an chaotic cauldron, and then passes  through "fields of study" of surveying and mapping, civil and structural engineering, chemical and biochemical properties, transactions, unit operations and systems, seasoned with a smattering of Buckminster Fuller's synergetics, and then punctuating that with some variety of religious experience wherein I get the impression I'm asked if I'd like to present a scientific discovery.

From there, basically, the discovery/creation of magnetic tetrahedra (http://magtet.com) syncs with

Create surface; apply labels. Spawn labels; generate surfaces.

Whether the precise term is "image" or something else, I suggest we do have nearly universal agreement that we're all running a system that generally, automatically forms an impressionistic surface or image and then adds (re-called, re-extracted) sets of associations and labels to the impressionistic surface.  That is, this process occurs during sensing or experiencing things within the surroundings.  And, once this process is acknowledged, then it is also clear that "imagination"  seems to sometimes be this process run in reverse where collections of labels or experiences spawn active internal imagery or surfaces.

In the nested resonant structural coding trial theory of consciousness I am advocating,  the "automatic"  structural coding process occurs within the formation of stacks and sheets of ordered water forged in respiration reaction sites -- within neurons -- in the process of harvesting electrons that will later resonate within synaptic processes.

Adding, or should I say, discovering the "automatic" image or surface formation  layer  within the synaptic/neural networking layer has advantages. The primary process generates "an image". The secondary process echoes or replies with worded, memorable associations giving the experience of either re-cognition, or else discovery of additional connections. Having a related, but two-process system accentuates the existence of resonant communication over period of experience.  Again,  the "temporal appearance", of course, is highly illusory and related to other of our sustained enzymatically catalyzed biochemical resonances.

Discovering the primary "image" formation process in respiration facilitates seeing the neural networking as a simple, secondary development.

For those who may be interested in developing physical intuition along and within  the loose tenets of this trial theory a global science education tool is available at http://magtet.com

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

Resonant nested structured~duality

Earlier this week, or perhaps last week, perhaps during a dream, I had the following set of thoughts stream through my head but then I apparently forgot about it. David Friend's recent post  (jcs-online) about speech/sound correlating with some brainwave patterns reminded me and, below, I take a stab at a  story that I feel has been percolating for a while.  You will perhaps pardon me for using my own private lingo, but, pretty much, I don't have any other option and apparently, so far, neither does anyone else.

Here's the quick and dirty.

When we scratch around to TRY to make a model of consciousness, basically, what we're talking about is coming up with some description that persists. Thus, we get directly to resonant nested structured~duality.

That is, if you have been following my antics for the last few years, basically what you have experienced and/or observed is  me first pulling the underlying principle of structured~duality rabbit out of the hat, and then building off the ultra-cool multiple-state analog math of magnetic tetrahedra, pointing out the 10^20 per second structural coding going on in the ordered water flux forming in the respiration sites, I guess we'd call it, INSIDE neurons and prior to, up-gradient from the neural networking/synaptic/dendritic transactions.

Despite the fearful moanings, and furtive cries of "foul, foul" from the peanut galleries,  there are some real advantages to the development I am advocating.  Staying out of the often-repeated details, the big plus in this storyline is we get a trial theory that has, let's call it, TWO  portions.  We have the on-going primary 6^n analog math in the respiration reaction sites/ordered water level of organization, and then we have the secondary  neuroscientific/neural networking focus.

Now, everyone with half a brain can instantly see that this is exactly the sort of thing that we are

Re: The Origin of Cognition

(A post to  jcs-online@yahoogroups.com  Apr 17, 2012)

Reflecting on some of the shiny surfaces of your query into Chris's budding structural coding project,  I'm in agreement regarding the organic soup and equilibrious bubble formation, but where you listed hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen in the soup but placed it in a volcanic container, my introductory geology memories kicked in and for my money, or out of fairness to the inorganic elements, the volcanic portion also spawns another list, mostly involving silicon, oxygen, aluminum, sodium, calcium, potassium, trace metals and sulfur, at least, to name a few.

Then we add in well-lit and shadowy places around the lake, plus the other light-dark and warmer-colder variations, and on one level we just have the rudiments of the carbon, water, nitrogen, sulfur

What it *feels* like. Solving the hard problem.

Consider hydrogen-bonding.  Imagine consciousness as an internal analog language forged during respiration in concert with experience.

Dialing out a few notches on the wording of David Chalmers' distinction termed "the Hard Problem  of consciousness", one way of paraphrasing the problem is: "Getting at what conscious experience *feels* like is difficult."  Or, as it's paraphrased in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

"The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences."

and the Wikipedia summary goes on to say:

"Several questions about consciousness must be resolved in order to acquire a full understanding of it. These questions include, but are not limited to, whether being conscious could be wholly described in physical terms, such as the aggregation of neural processes in the brain. It follows that if consciousness cannot be explained exclusively by physical events in the brain, it must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require an explanation of nonphysical means."

Paring the philosophical jargon and the "subjectivity of qualia" down, though, just down to the simple "What does it *feel* like...", first off what we can notice is the question is really an emotional one. That is, issues and questions about subjective impressions are basically questions about emotions.