A reader asks:
Dear Dr. Borchardt:
In TSW, you make it clear that we live in a three-dimensional universe. In fact, it is the only possible way we can exist in a universe which is infinite.
However, it has been brought to my attention in an article at THE PHYSICS arXiv BLOG site, that "a group of theoretical astrobods at the University of Salamanca in Spain" believe we live in a 4-dimensional "Lorentzian universe" in which the "signature" of our universe includes a "time-like" dimension. And, now they believe that it is going to "flip" and become Euclidean (as the article says, "Our dimension of time is about turn space-like."
They attribute this "flip" to dark energy and say that their evidence is that the appearance of this flip would make the universe appear as if it were "expanding and accelerating away from us."
My opinion is hardly worth a grain of salt, but I have a friend who puts some credence in this assessment. But, it doesn't explain what is meant by a "time-like dimension."
I agree with TSW, that time is a measurement of moving objects.
As this concept of time seems so apparent, why would theoreticians ever consider a "time-dimension" to our universe? What are they missing?
Sincerely,
Frederic Frees
Frederic:
First of all, I don’t agree that your opinion is “hardly worth a grain of salt.” Everyone’s opinion counts in a completely deterministic world. Yours is especially important because you have demanded a more logical analysis of the universe than at least 99% of the people alive today. The group you are speaking about is assuming, like most modern physicists, that time is material. It is not. It is motion. It does not exist, it occurs. It is not a measurement, it is an action. It is not an object, it is what objects do. We measure time by measuring the locations of objects relative to one another. All of this is far from what the folks at Salamanca are doing. To be current, they have accepted the conventional assumption that time is a dimension and, bless their little hearts, are trying to return to sanity by flipping us back to Euclid and a 3-dimensional universe. They are far behind, however, in accepting the galactic redshift as evidence for universal expansion, which it is not. The “dark energy” idea is another trendy concept, but it is not especially “brilliant”—who ever said that all energy should be “light” and not “dark” anyway?
Why would theoreticians ever consider time to be a dimension? Simply because they do not believe in the Fourth Assumption of Science, INSEPARABILITY (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Its indeterministic opposite, separability, proposes that matter is one thing and that matterless motion is still another. We know from common experience that matter has three dimensions. These folks simply take matterless motion for another dimension. Most have much experience with math, which allows them to consider time in this way. I frequently plot time in my own analyses, but I haven’t jumped to the conclusion that time is a thing. Nonetheless, the very act of plotting time on a piece of paper is akin to objectifying it. Those imbued with the concept of matterless motion via religion or some other indeterministic philosophy are most likely to be highly satisfied with this. Because at least 85% of the global population probably believes in matterless motion (souls, ghosts, gods, etc.), one could ask instead: “Why would anyone ever consider time not to be a dimension?”
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20090328
20090305
Consciousness
Dr. Borchardt:
In TSW, you describe consciousness as matter in motion (i.e., what the brain does). This makes perfect sense as every thought results in a physiological reaction.
What perplexes me, however, is how a thought can be deliberately focused to achieve a particular result (for example, mentally telling yourself to calm down).
I am also wondering whether dreaming is the brain's way of continuing the same type of matter in motion while our body is at rest.
Is there a correlation to our evolved state? I know my dog has dreams. But, I don't suspect that he is capable of directing his conscious thoughts deliberately as I do.
Frederic Frees
Frederic:
Good question. This goes back to the basic deterministic assumption that there are causes for all effects. With the assumption of INFINITY, the regression goes back forever and the progression will go forward forever. Thus, there are causes for your focused thoughts, just as there are causes for your unfocused thoughts. Those who believe in free will generally tend to lose sight of the causes of focused thought, as if thoughts could pop into one’s brain without cause. Not only is this wrong, it is completely useless in “directing” one’s focus. Part of the “feeling of freedom” that we cherish is the ability to “control” our thoughts by changing our environment—a happy macrocosm produces happy thoughts; a sad macrocosm produces sad thoughts, etc. (This is why I try to act happy all the time; it makes the people around me easier to live with.) Focusing one’s thoughts may involve one neuron (the submicrocosm in this case) and knowledge stored in an adjacent neuron (the submacrocosm in this case). The electrical discharges between neurons are inevitable.
Like everything else in the universe, the submicrosms within the brain are continually in motion. Dreaming and worrying seem to be examples of the brain’s inability to stop its own motion at will. Some forms of meditation may get close to putting a stop to unwanted thoughts, etc., but complete success would mean no brain activity whatsoever, otherwise defined as death. Animals, having less complex brains, nevertheless have a rudimentary consciousness, along with the necessary continuation of brain activity exhibited as the dreaming you mentioned. The more advanced levels of thought require language and the written word, of course, but animals nevertheless can interpret the activities of the macrocosm with great success. As in our own case, the “feeling of deliberate direction of thought” probably is a necessary part of that success, but it would not be uncaused by what went before.