TIME

TIME:

SEE: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0119.pdf
“We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higherdimensional universe. In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a world that extends beyond spacetime. Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase change.”
….
“An ongoing debate, in both philosophy and physics, has to do with the nature of time in its various applications. Especially: are the various usages of time in physics and everyday life consistent with a unique definition for it? Alternatively: while time occurs in many guises, what is the most useful way to view it at a conceptual level?”
….
“Eddington, the noted contemporary of Einstein, also appreciated the subjective nature of the situation just described, and went on to argue that much of what is called objective in physics is in fact subjective or invented.”
….
“From the Eddington viewpoint, one can argue that the decomposition of 4D Minkowski pacetime into separate 3D and 1D parts is a subjective act, so that in effect the photon has been invented as a consequence of separating space and time.”
….
“We will in this section examine briefly the three ways in which the direction of time’s ‘arrow’ is commonly connected with physical processes, and argue that they are all deficient.”
….
“Einstein (as reported by Hoffman): “For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a STUBBORN ONE.” ”
….
“In the foregoing, we saw that several deep thinkers have arrived independently at a somewhat intriguing view of time. To paraphrase them: time is a stubborn illusion (Einstein), connected with human sensory impressions (Eddington), so that all moments of time exist together (Hoyle), with the division between past and future merely a holdover from our primitive ancestors (Ballard). Perhaps the most trenchant opinion is that of Hoyle (1966), who summarizes the situation thus: “There’s one thing quite certain in this business. The idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we’re all victims of a confidence trick. If there’s one thing we can be sure about in physics, it is that all times exist with equal reality.” ”
….
“Thus the idea of time as a kind of subjective ordering device, by which we make sense of a simultaneous world, appears quite natural.”

RE: http://soundlearning.publicradio.org/subjects/science_health/einstein_and_god/illusion_of_time.shtml
My summary: Dyson simplifies on an interpretation of Einstein’s view as if everything is geometry (i.e., higher math, not actual physical things or time?).

RE: http://www.flipkart.com/stubbornly-persistent-illusion-stephen-hawking/0762430036-45w3f5adqb
I don’t have this book by Hawking. If memory serves, he believes there exists, not time itself, but merely some sort of “chronological protective mechanism.” My concern is: Is that mechanism “physically” existent, or is it a construct derivative of subjective consciousness?
My suspicion: I suspect that how we communicate any point of view about “reality” depends on the assumptions or models about a frame of reference from which we begin. Depending upon the purpose of one’s perspective of consciousness, one may model time AS IF it were illusion, geometry, granular, or continuous. But I am not confident that “time in itself” exists to be any of those things or aspects. IOW, I suspect time does have a fluxing reality, but one that is dependent upon a higher reality, i.e.: purposes of perspectives of a unifying consciousness, communicating in respect of variously assumed frames of reference.

ABOUT MODELS:

The PROBLEM WITH WORDS of laymen is that they are not rigorous; therefore, such words are ambiguous. Their meaning in any particular application must be subjectively derived, based on some sort of holistic intuition or feel for the context. Even animals do this, as when they “speak” with ears laid back and hair on edge.

The PROBLEM WITH MATH of empiricists is that it proceeds from a conceit that some “physical thing” (Higgs boson?) actually exists, objective in itself, which translates its relations in mathematical models, by which we can eventually map reality, perfectly. IOW, they ASSUME a model is available to mortals by which math may be adduced for providing us with an objective map of “physical” reality. IOW, they assume empirical “rigor” is possible. (I think a holistic algorithm may eventually be available to us, but not based on any notion that there actually exists any “physical thing or ultimate particle in itself.”)

MY TAKE: There is a holistic Source of rigor, but it is beyond the “perfect comprehension” or control of any particularized or “mortal-ized” perspective of such Source. As mortals, we would enjoy no “freedom” at all were there no such rigor. Were there no law, there would be terror, not freedom. Even so, we are availed with “fuzzy comprehension.” Depending upon how we limit our focus and purpose, we may achieve astounding relative rigor. That is: That which we consciously experience is precisely and measurably what we consciously experience.

However, while the focus of any sense (or senser) is diverted to a partial attraction, “other things” will be going on, at a level of complexity that we cannot holistically reduce. (Even though the Nobel twins, Al Gore and Obama, think they understand global warming.) We may eventually understand an algorithm by which such Source produces us, but we will not be able to control its essentially subjective nature.

In short, we will need to reconcile with a higher dimension of subjectivity, whose existence is superior, which is beyond measure, but which avails subordinate dimensions, which can be experienced as being measurable in relations among subordinate forms for expressing consciousness. We may reconcile, intuit, and even appreciate aspects of such higher dimension in each of us, but we mortals will not measure or control it, as Itself.