The Neural 4-Space [was Re: Consciousness]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Tue Dec 30 12:31:00 EST 2003


"Alex Green" <dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42c8441.0312300221.43cd604d at posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Alex Green" <dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:42c8441.0312230944.676e60ca at posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > The energy density at an instantaneous point
> > > > > > in 3D space is a weird thing, remember Heisenberg?
> > > > >
> > > > > Honestly, I just cannot see any "uncertainty".
> > > >
>
> [Alex]
> The uncertainty principle, in this context, suggests that if you have
> a very, very small particle (as near to zero grams as possible) whose
> position is measured to be at a point its next position is entirely
> uncertain. (You can get the same result by considering the de Broglie
> wavelength of an almost stationary particle, wavelength increases as
> velocity and mass decrease).

I understand the traditional perspective. It's
just that, in Tapered Harmony's approach, there
are no 'subatomic particles'. Everything exists as
continuous wave<->wave dynamics. So there
aren't any 'particles' with respect to which to
be "uncertain".

The following comments were by Peter F., not 'ken'.

> > > > It is a weird thing because instantaneous points
> > > > dont physically exist! Everything is moving or
> > > > changing (BTW, time IS correlations of changes
> > > > against a relatively regularly changing entropy
> > > > increasing gradient - as Ken might put it.
>
> [Alex]
> Whereabouts in the putative 3D universe are these correlations of
> changes? Why does time enter the Dirac Equation as a continuous
> variable?  Are you sure that the Wheeler-de Witt equation is so well
> founded that we should abandon all our measurements and intuitions
> about the relationship between time and space intervals?
>
> Incidently, how can everything be "moving or changing" without, as a
> minimum, a primitive, Galilean conception of time?

If your questions are directed to me, it's as I've
already explained. Yes, motion does, in fact
happen, but it derives 100% in energy gradients.

One can use a 'clock' as an ordering principle,
but doing soonly masks the energydynamics.

> [Ken]
> > >
> > > I can transform 3-D energydynamics to discuss them
> > > in terms of 'time', but doing so still doesn't impart
> > > physical existence to what's been referred to as "time".
>
> [Alex]
> But you describe correlations and changes as physical things, you are
> indeed giving time a physical basis. All you seem to be denying is
> that there is a Pythagorean relationship between time intervals and
> space intervals.

Nope - all I've done is reduce movement to
its underpinning energydynamics.

The movement happens as a result of
energy flowing in accord with WDB2T.

That is, if the universe were contracting, overall,
instead of expanding, overall, all movement would
occur in a way that's just the opposite of the way
that we observe it to happen within the physical
reality in which we presently exist - 'clocks' would
have to be 'unwound' before their works would
'keep time', and, as their works 'ran', their 'springs'
or batteries, or etc.] would gain energy, and what
we presently experience as "energy" would be
experienced as 'waste' :-]

'time' is irrelevant.

That 'time' has been treated as 'being relevant' is the
result of ancient, Erroneous, presumption with respect
to its 'existence' having been unquestioningly carried
forward.

Folks use 'time' in calculations 'becase' folks formerly
used 'time' in calculations.

'time' is used in calculations to 'spread' the dynamics
that are being calculated across this or that [Cartesian
or Reiminian] coordinate system.

But such is entirely irrelevant within the energydynamics
that are the subjects of calculation be-cause the energy-
dynamics always occur in Deterministic accord with
their local energy gradient within the universal energy-
gradient that is WDB2T.

As on an inclined-plane.

It's easy to see, for instance, that a ball on an inclined-
plane will move in accord with local "g" - no matter
how fast or slow a 'clock' inserted into the inclined-
plane's reference-fram 'ticks'.

So why treat the 'clock's 'ticks' as anything that's
'relevant' within calculation?

> Surely 'space' is just as shaky as time. You must be aware of the
> problems associated with differentiable manifolds, as Einstein put it:

Energy-density per unit space can vary.

It's no big-deal.

Just calculate action with respect to energy-density from
'point' to 'point' in 3-D space =or= describe 'space', itself,
in terms of energy-density, letting the coordinate system's
'units' vary with energy-density [so that every 'unit' of
3-space 'contains' the same quantity of energy.

Either way, one gets the same result for motion calcs,
because both ways reduce directly to energy-gradient.

'time' isn't in either approach.

> "That the requirement of general covariance, which takes away from
> space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity, is a natural
> one, will be seen from the following reflection. All our space-time
> verifications invariably amount to a determination of space-time
> coincidences.

See the non-existence of "simultaneity" in SR.

> If, for example, events consisted merely in the motion
> of material points, then ultimately nothing would be observable but
> the meetings of two or more of these points.

I do not comprehend what you're saying, here.

> Moreover, the results of
> our measurings are nothing but verifications of such meetings of the
> material points of our measuring instruments with other material
> points, coincidences between the hands of the a clock and points on
> the clock dial, and observed point-events happening at the same place
> at the same time. The introduction of a system of reference serves no
> other purpose than to facilitate the description of the totality of
> such coincidences". (Einstein 1916a).


See the non-existence of "simultaneity" in SR.

Nothing in Einstein's work can be construed as
'substantiating simultaneity' because everything
Einstein did followed from his postulating of
'constant c'.

That is, because c 'is constant [in Einstein's view],
events experienced as 'being simultaneous' are, in
actuality, separated in 'time' because the 'constancy'
of c imposes a limit upon the velocity at which inform-
ation can be communicated within physical reality.

But, when one looks, one sees that all that's actually
happening, here, is that what's been referred to as "c"
is actually 'just' the universal WDB2T-Determined
energy-gradient, which discloses that everything
within physical reality occurs in accord with energy-
gradient, independent of irrelevant [and non-physically-
real] 'time'.

Consider the "twins paradox", for instance.

One twin blasts-off for a near-speed-of-light journey,
while the other stays home. Their "existences" are
"simultaneous', but the traveling twin returns younger
than the stay-at-home twin.

Where is 'time' wthin such?

Nowhere.

All that's happened is that, at a WDB2T-Determined
energy-'consumption' expense [exacted by the accelerating
force that brings him close to "c"], the traveling twin has
existed within a locally-augmented energy-gradient, and
the biological proceses comprising his body have 'just'
proceded in accord with that augmented energy-gradient.
Be-cause the energy-gradient is relatively higher than the
energy-gradient in which the stay-at-home twin has
existed, the traveling twin's biological processes ex-
perience relative 'ease' with respect to WDB2T, and
his body literally ages more-slowly as a result of its
being emersed within the augmented energy-gradient.

Not a smidgeon of 'time' in-there.

>
> See: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz2b.htm
>
> 3D manifolds are no more absolute or intuitively obvious than 4D
> manifolds.

Forgive me, please, but without receiving data with
respect to what varies with respect to the 3 and 4 dimensions
of each, how can one reply?

ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list