Originally posted by twhitehead
You are so used to the illusion of time that you are hanging on to it too tight. The present does not change, nor move through time. It just is. There are possible pasts and possible futures, but neither 'exist'.
When viewed from the present, on the macro scale there is often only one possible past. However there are almost invariably multiple possible f ...[text shortened]... time.
However, when viewed at a much smaller scale, the possible pasts are less well defined.

With my second post I wanted to show you that in my opinion your thesis does not hold. I still believe that time is an illusion: the past, the present and the future do not exist substantially since they are unfixed and are mutually established, and since they change constantly whilst they are not self-established. Since time lacks of inherent being, the “past”, the “present” and the “future” are merely discriminations.

In fact I perceive the time as an invention of the human mind and the experienced reality as an ever-changing condition, as I explained you earlier -but you replied that you were not following me entirely
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am suggesting that past and future should be viewed in the same way. If you can assert that a received photon traveled all possible paths to its current location, then can I equally assert that an emitted photon will travel all possible paths from its current location.

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. Have you read any Feynman? His interpretation of quantum mechanics is similar and fits well with his diagrams.

Originally posted by black beetle
In fact I perceive the time as an invention of the human mind and the experienced reality as an ever-changing condition, as I explained you earlier -but you replied that you were not following me entirely
😵

I do not follow how the past present and future can change at all. Over what dimension are they changing? Are you inventing an extra time dimension?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, that's one way of looking at it. Have you read any Feynman? His interpretation of quantum mechanics is similar and fits well with his diagrams.

I think I have read one his books many years ago. Which of his books would you most recommend? I haven't read much on physics recently.

Edit: I remember now, it was "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I have read one his books many years ago. Which of his books would you most recommend? I haven't read much on physics recently.

Edit: I remember now, it was "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"

He wrote a small book on QED called "QED", where he talks about possible paths a particle might take, etc.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
He wrote a small book on QED called "QED", where he talks about possible paths a particle might take, etc.

Thanks. I see I can buy it locally. I'll consider getting it next year.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not follow how the past present and future can change at all. Over what dimension are they changing? Are you inventing an extra time dimension?

The time does not change at all, because the time does not exist, it is a concept we are using for our convenience. What is changing constantly is all the observers herenow. The observers are changing constantly regarding themselves and their environment
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Black beetle asked me to try and put my views in writing. Here goes:

Try to imagine the current point in time as a static state. From here, there is the past and the future. Based on the state of the present, we can calculate using the laws of physics both the past and the future.
Many of the laws of physics are rather ambiguous as to the arrow of tim ...[text shortened]... the other way. It does go both ways, but the bias is so strong that it seems to only go one way.

Mmm... I don't think this is entirely correct. Information never flows "the other way". You can decrease uncertainty about the past using information available today but in an information theory sense no new information flows to the past.

Originally posted by black beetle
The time does not change at all, because the time does not exist, it is a concept we are using for our convenience. What is changing constantly is all the observers herenow. The observers are changing constantly regarding themselves and their environment
😵

I still don't get it. How can the observers be changing, unless you mean within the illusion of a directional time?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still don't get it. How can the observers be changing, unless you mean within the illusion of a directional time?

The observers change on their own because this is their nature: the constant change. The observer "sun" is changing constantly in relation to itself and in relation to its environment; I change constantly in relation to myself and to my environment, etc etc (all you need in order to understand it, is to see each observer as a causal field in constant interaction with all the other observers: in fact, this huge net of causal fields is the observer universe).
This change is perceived by us in the context of our convention (known as directional time), however it takes place in the context of the phenomena-in-flux that we conceive them for our convenience as flux-in-phenomena (time)
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The observers change on their own because this is their nature: the constant change.

But by 'change' you are essentially saying 'difference over time'?
I am suggesting that we throw away the illusion of time and look at the universe from a single static present.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But by 'change' you are essentially saying 'difference over time'?
I am suggesting that we throw away the illusion of time and look at the universe from a single static present.

This is the view of Parmenides.

Heraclitus asked: So what about movement?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But by 'change' you are essentially saying 'difference over time'?
I am suggesting that we throw away the illusion of time and look at the universe from a single static present.

The single static perspective is non-existent somewhere out of your own mind due to the fact that the phenomena-in-flux are existent
😵

Originally posted by Palynka
Mmm... I don't think this is entirely correct. Information never flows "the other way". You can decrease uncertainty about the past using information available today but in an information theory sense no new information flows to the past.

Tap, tap, tap...is this thing on?

Originally posted by Palynka
Tap, tap, tap...is this thing on?

Sometimes, Palynka, no response means your point is so sound, what could be interpreted as defeated silence follows. At least it could be acknowledged, eh? 🙂