[notime] No such thing as motion - Can you prove the past?

[Robert Vaessen]

All -

It’s been some time since I last posted to this mailing list - I’ve been a bit busy of late. 

As I mentioned in an early post to this list - I’m planning to re-post some of my previous ‘No Time’ conversations in the ‘Akinetochronism’ forum/mailing list.  Here’s one of the early discussions I engaged in with a correspondent. Please feel free to agree, disagree, or discuss these ‘No Time / No Motion’ ideas.

In this particular discussion/conversation Will B. offers some skepticism and questions regarding my example of shadows as a two dimensional object. Is he trying to argue against the co-existence of multi-dimensional objects within the same physical space? That’s one of the fundamental blocks in my belief in a universe with no time or motion. I argue that all things (in all possible matter configurations) co-exist simultaneously within a multi-dimensional universe, but we can only perceive select parts or sections of that multi-dimensional universe.

Note that some ‘redaction’ has been applied to protect Will's identity. In the case of email addresses or full names, I simply omitted the full email address or name.

- Robert



Initial post: 

> On Oct 9, 2003, at 17:02, Will B. wrote:
> 
> I've got a problem with an assumption you made early on.
> 
> 1. *Objects of differing dimensions can coexist in the same space.*
> You gave an example of shadows being casted.
> You're misidentifying things here.
> A shadow is only a *perceived* object (a perception we impose upon reality).
> A shadow is the absence of light reflecting off of an object.
> A shadow is created when a 3D object obstructs light (either from a lamp or the sun).
> Also note that a 2D object would have to exist within a single plane...
> 
> The fact is there are no true 2D objects that we can perceive.
> Even a piece of paper has a thickness - and that's about as close to 2D as I've ever seen.
> 
> So you might be correct (because I have no evidence to contradict the idea), but you have not proved the point that 2D and 3D objects can "coexist."
> 
> You also pointed out that you don't believe that time slows down as an object approaches the speed of light.  If you don't believe that time exists then how can you draw any conclusions concerning time?  The "universal" constant is that (in a vacuum) light travels at a constant velocity (186,000 mi/s or 300,000 km/s).  But if you don't believe in the passage of time or in motion then the "speed" of light has no meaning anyway.
> 
> I admire you for thinking outside the box.  Too many people are afraid to challenge what's been accepted.  As I said earlier, I'm not saying you're wrong - you just haven't convinced me that you're right.


My reply:

> On Oct 9, 2003, at 19:17, Robert L. Vaessen <robert at robsworld.org> wrote:
> 
> Will -
> 
> Thanks for visiting Rob's World!, and thanks for the email. I certainly appreciate your feedback. It's comments like yours that keep me thinking. Perhaps you'll stop by again to check out more crazy ideas at Rob's World!.
> 
> As for 2 and 3 dimensional objects. You are right about shadows only being perceived objects, however, all objects are perceived objects. If you do not perceive an object, it exists only as a mental construct, and cannot be proven to actually exist.
> 
> Even though a shadow is the absence of light reflecting off an object, it still satisfies the definition of a 2 dimensional object. Does it have length and width? Yes, does it have a thickness? No. That's a 2 dimensional object. Of course these definitions can only be verified through perception/measurement with the senses. Everything that actually exists is only real because we can observe/perceive it with our senses. If it cannot be measured/perceived through the senses it doesn't exist, at least not within the three dimensions that we humans are capable of sensing.

Recent comments from Robert:
I’m wondering about the statement that Will made: “A shadow is the absence of light reflecting off of an object.” - Can we perceive the ‘absence’ of anything? If something is absent, we can’t perceive it right?  Perhaps he meant that I/we are observing the ‘effect’ of an ‘absence’ of something.  For example, I can see the wall if the refrigerator in front of the wall is absent.

Given all the crazy things that ‘light’ does - The ways that it travels, propagates and defies our understanding in many ways. How can it be in two places at once? How can it be both a particle and a wave? - Given all the crazy things the ‘light’ does, how do we know how it influences or doesn't influence our perception of reality?  We rely on ‘light’ in order to ‘see’ the world around us, but the odd nature of light could be causing us to perceive things in an artificial way.

> The mathematical definition of 2 dimensional objects is well defined, and shadows are observed/perceived manifestations of that model. Any object that contains three dimensions, also inherently contains at least 2 dimensions. Three dimensional objects are composed of numerous one dimensional components (how many? Is it an infinite amount? Theoretically yes), as well as numerous 2 dimensional components. The one dimensional components are implied through observation with any of your senses. Visual observation allows you to perceive the 2 dimensional components. Your tactile sense allows you to perceive the 3 dimensional components.

Recent comments from Robert:
Do the words that I am seeing now (as I draft this email on my computer) constitute 2 dimensional ‘objects’? I cannot measure their ‘thickness’ or ‘depth' from the monitor. They appear to consist of two dimensions only.  What other objects do we sense that seem to have only 2 dimensions?

> When you say that 'a shadow is created when a 3D object obstructs light'; I would ask you to imagine what would be created if a 4 dimensional object obstructs some imagine form of energy/radiation that we are incapable of detecting. Perhaps 3 dimensional objects are actually shadows of 4 dimensional objects? If two dimensional shadows are in fact the result of energy interference patterns, perhaps 3 dimensional objects are the result of interference patterns caused by an as yet undetected type of energy (4 dimensional energy?).
> 
> Noting that 2 dimensional objects would have to exist within a single plane makes perfect sense to me. 3 dimensional objects are composed of numerous intersecting planes. A plane is not restricted to any specific 3 dimensional coordinates, it can have any orientation within the 3rd dimension. Aside from 2 dimensional objects (shadows) created as a result of energy interference patterns, the existence of 2 dimensional objects in implied/inherent in the intersection of 2 dimensional planes. Again, interference patterns. 2 dimensional planes that intersect each other, creating interference with each other, resulting in the creation of 3 dimensional objects.
> 
> Three books about two, three, and four dimensional objects. Flat Land by Edwin A. Abbott (Originally published in 1880), Sphereland by Dionys Burger (originally published in 1960), and my favorite; The Planiverse by A.K. Dewdney (Published 1984). If you've got the time/motivation. I would highly recommend these books. The Planiverse is avery entertaing tale of computer contact with a two-dimensional world.

Recent comments from Robert:
To this day, I consider the ‘Flat Land’ books to be instrumental in my understanding of our ‘multi-dimensional’ universe.

> Regarding the speed of light, and it being a universal constant. I am currently reading a book called 'About Time' by Paul Davies. One of the chapters talks about Quantum Physics and experiments in 'Quantum Tunneling'. Numerous experiments have shown apparent results which indicate that photons can actually move faster than the speed of light in some circumstances. Quantum physics deals a deadly blow to any theories of a universal time standard, or the speed of light being a 'universal standard'.
> 
> Your right about me not believing in time, but it's difficult to convince others that time and motion don't exist, when all their senses seem to tell them otherwise. It's difficult to argue against time without speaking in terms of time. I try to, but I've been conditioned (just like everyone else), to believe in the input my senses provide.
> 	Imagine how hard it was to convince people that radio waves existed. How can someone communicate nearly instantaneously over thousands of miles? No runner can move that quickly, no ones voice is that loud, and surely some terrestrial features would block any line of sight signaling?

Recent comments from Robert:
This is a good example of something that exists which we cannot sense directly. We can only observe its effects on other objects/in other applications. We can see the effects of RF energy when it is tuned to the Microwave range. Just put a bag of popcorn in a microwave, hit ‘Pop’, and observe the effect of RF energy directed at the kernels. Just because we can’t directly sense something, it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

> 	Some people still can't come to grips with the fact that they are constantly bathed in radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, radiation of a full spectrum, all day long. They're the same people that think that a cell phone can give you brain cancer. If cell phones could give you cancer, mankind would have all died from radiation poisoning several millenia ago. It's a damn good thing our planet has a thick atmosphere to absorb and dissipate all those high energy particles. Standing next to a an ordinary idling car for 30 minutes exposes you to more radiation (by-products generated by the alternator) than you could get from a cell phone in ten years. Anything that creates electricity (DC or AC current), also creates large amounts of radio waves. If the vehicle/alternator isn't properly shielded, these radio waves can interfere with the reception of intentionally modulated radio waves (Radio stations). The energy level of the 'radiation' emitted by your typical cell-phone is small compared to that output (as a by-product) by your standard refrigerator, air conditioner, blender, etc...  The sun emits a lot of radiation! Now there's something you can get cancer from.
> 
> Another excellent book. Robert Heinlein's Sixth Column. A science fiction alternate history novel. Mankind escapes the tyranny of an invader, after six scientists discover a previously undetected form of energy/radiation. The scientists use this scientific discovery in order to found a new religion!
> 
> Back to the speed of light, universal constants (the lack thereof), and quantum physics. It's becoming increasingly obvious to the scientific community that the world around is more of a mystery now than it was in the days of Newton and Galileo. Given the discrepencies, loop holes, and contradictions revealed by studies into quantum physics, taking time out of the equation looks more and more like a way to balance things out. As science looks further and further away from earth, it begins to see that the soul is closer to the answer than the perception of our universe.
> 
> For me, this subject (non-existence of time and motion) always ends up pointing back towards religious and self awareness threads.
> 
> I should sign off now, I've taken up enough of your 'Time'.
> 
> - Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://robsworld.org/pipermail/akinetochronism_robsworld.org/attachments/20151031/d6af1b33/attachment-0002.html>