Tag Archives: physics

Observing time

Leave a reply

Yesterday’s post, ‘Let’s Do the Time Warp Again’ is still messing with my head a bit. The idea of the Andromeda paradox suggests that if we are in motion compared to another bystander, our view of very distant events can be days apart.

I understood relativity with respect to travel, a twin in a spaceship travelling close to the speed of light goes to a distant galaxy. When he comes back to earth a few years later he would be younger than the twin left behind… demonstrating the relativity of time. But the idea that distant events can ‘happen’ at different times for people witnessing it from almost the same spot, simply because of their relative motion to each other is perplexing.

So then I suggested that we could re-witness an event by changing our motion such that we are moving quickly away from a very, very distant event, so that from that relative perspective the event hadn’t happened yet. I’m no physicist, the distances would have to be huge, and I don’t know what speeds would need to be achieved, but it seems pretty conceivable to me.

What’s messing with my head is that if this is possible, what does ‘now’ mean?

We have to wait 8 minutes for the sun’s light to reach us. When it reaches us, the sun is already 8 minutes older. We don’t see the sun now, we see its history. Our concept of now has a perpetual lag.

This then got me thinking about animals and their reaction times. Have you ever seen a video of a cat toying with a snake? A cat can avoid the bite of a snake, always reacting faster than we would be able to. How does a cat perceive ‘now’ differently than us?

How do birds fly in a murmuration? The flock changes direction in waves, so quickly that they can stay in formation despite hundreds of them having to coordinate with each other. How does a bird in a murmur perceive ‘now’ differently than us?

To a ten year old, 5 years is half a lifetime, to me it’s less than 1/11th of my life. Is it any wonder that as we get older, time seems to go by faster?

Like I said, these ideas are messing a bit with my head. They make me wonder what ‘now’ means and if in reality we share a ‘now’ with anyone? Is the mere act of observing ‘now’ just a relative glance of varying histories? And yet the only thing any of us ever experience beyond our memories and imagination… is now.

Let’s Do the Time Warp Again

1 Reply

“It’s just a jump to the left… it’s a jump to the ri-ight🎵”

…And that’s all it takes to witness two completely different views of what ‘right now’ means:

“The Andromeda paradox, proposed by physicist Roger Penrose, is a thought experiment in relativity that highlights how simultaneity depends on an observer’s motion. It imagines two people walking past each other on Earth: one toward the Andromeda galaxy and one away. Because of special relativity, the plane of simultaneity for each observer tilts slightly, meaning that the events they consider “happening right now” in Andromeda could differ by entire days. This illustrates that what is considered the present in distant regions of space is relative to an observer’s motion.” (ChatGPT)

Here is my thought experiment based on the Andromeda paradox:

If we were to witness a supernova of a star hundreds of light years away, could we send a rocket hurling at a high speed away from that event and capture the event happening again? Could we re-witness the supernova, a past event that happened many years ago, but from farther away? Would it be possible that from that perspective the event has not been witnessed yet, and so we can ‘get ahead of it’ focus our cameras on it, and wait for it to happen again, just for the first time from that relative perspective?

My head hurts a bit trying to make sense of this, but my hunch is that it would be possible. So instead of the Andromeda paradox, it’s more like the Andromeda mirror, bouncing back the same light but at a slightly later time than the present… which already is what a mirror does. 

Meaning in the Universe

Leave a reply

I love this quote by Brian Cox,

There’s only one interesting question in philosophy. The interesting question is, what does it mean to live a finite, fragile life in an infinite, eternal universe? I think the answer is, paradoxically, whilst we are definitely physically insignificant, I’ve just said that the Earth is one planet, around one star, amongst 400 billion stars, in one galaxy amongst two trillion galaxies, in a small patch of the universe, right?

So we’re definitely small, you can’t argue with that, we’re just specks of dust. But if you think about what we are, we’re just collections of atoms. Our bodies were made in stars, right? So it’s all cooked over billions of years. And we’re in this pattern that can think, you have a means by which the universe understands and explores itself, which is us. And that sounds unlikely when you put it like that, that you can have a few things that were cooked in the hearts of stars, you stick them together in a pattern and suddenly it has some ideas and starts writing music.

There aren’t any other worlds where this happened, certainly in our galaxy. So it could be that this planet, notwithstanding its physical insignificance, is the only place where anything thinks.

Think about it… think about consciousness and thinking… without thought the entire universe has no meaning. And so, while we live on an insignificant planet, in an insignificant solar system, in an insignificant galaxy, in an insignificant part of the universe… we might also be the only significant part of all existence, or at the very least, in our own, known part of the universe.

We are simultaneously insignificant and potentially the most significant thing in the universe. Without consciousness there is no meaning to the universe, and while there might be a lot of evidence of life beyond our solar system, there is no guarantee the these other life forms have achieved the level of consciousness of humans.

This makes me question my own assumptions about consciousness and free will. I’ve previously said in my post, ‘Consciousness and Free Will’:

1. I don’t think consciousness is fundamental.
And;
2. Consciousness comes from an excess of processing time.

But maybe my first premise doesn’t need to be true for my second one to be true. Maybe consciousness is fundamental, but we need excess processing time in order to tap into it?

Maybe consciousness is essential to the existence of the universe, because without it, why should the universe even exist? If that question doesn’t create at least a little existential angst, I’m not sure what would?

Are we beings that became conscious so that we can add meaning to the entire universe, or is the universe somehow dependent on consciousness and we are simply living beings capable of tapping into this on some fuzzy frequency? A fuzzy frequency which also clouds our minds with a desire to seek beliefs that make sense of a consciousness far too great for us to truly understand?  Be it religion or physics, we are meaning seekers, and we might just be the most important meaning seekers in the entire universe.

 

The case for limited free will (Part 1)

1 Reply

Part 1

When I retire, and have more free time, I’m going to expand on this topic considerably. But for now I’m just sharing a 3-part premise.

There is a convincing argument against the idea of free will, and some very bright people argue that there is no such thing. I, on the other hand, believe we do have free will… but it is limited.

Go to the ‘free-will’ tag on my blog and you’ll see that I’ve shared this and other related idea before.

Right now I just want to put down a list of premises which, one day, I’ll defend, but for now, here they are:

  1. Consciousness is emergent. It is the product of excess processing time beyond what’s needed for survival.
  2. Free will is not fully free. Both the environment and more importantly our hardware affect our ability to think freely. Don’t believe me? Try to make a challenging decision when you have an agonizing tooth ache.
  3. Limited free will is also emergent and comes with consciousness. Despite the fact that there are constraints and limits to how free free will is, it’s still more free than no free will.

Consciousness is at the crux of the argument. Consciousness does not have a physical position in our physical world. You can’t point to a part of the brain and say, ‘there it is’. So arguing against free will based on physics falls apart.

Looking at an MRI or other brain scan after asking someone a question and being able to predict their answer before they say it is another argument against free will. However, that doesn’t tell us how our brain came to that decision, it only shows that our conscious mind doesn’t react or even necessarily fully understand our unconscious mind… but there is still an unconscious mind that made that decision. Deciding to discuss the conscious and unconscious mind as two separate things is a false division that is useful to talk about, but the reality is, we are of one mind… Even if we ourselves can’t fully grasp how our own consciousness works. 

Two things are happening in the MRI argument that are faulty when used in an argument against free will: First, there is a free will decision that happens, even if it’s before our conscious mind knows. Second, the fact that our hardware limits the decisions themselves and then also how we rationalize those decisions based on our (limited) decision-making, does not negate the fact that we still made the decision.

Well, there you have it, I said I wasn’t going to expand on these premises and I already started to. The thing to realize is that just because our free will has considerable limits, and constraints, doesn’t negate the fact that we are still making choices that are truly ours.

We have limited free will but still freer than not having free will at all.

A Tetraverse Response Video

This video probably has an ideal audience of less than a couple dozen people in the entire world. If you are reading this as a regular Daily-Ink reader, you might not spend much time thinking about 4D space and the structure of the universe… and you can just bypass this, or at least watch the second video I share as an introduction to what Joe Truss and I are talking about.

Here is:
A Dimensional Twist of the Tetraverse (A response video to Klee Irwin’s 20 Group Twist)

And hopefully more digestible, and more introductory in nature, here is:
We live in a Tetraverse

And if you want something a little more esoteric, try:
Secret Origins of the Enneagram

And finally, here is the first response video we made, to Neil deGrasse Tyson & Chuck Nice’s Startalk interview with Sarah Imari Walker:
A Short Take on Assembly Theory in the Tetraverse Model: A Geometric Representation

More videos to come in our Book of Codes series.

A Short Take on Assembly Theory in the Tetraverse Model

The full title of this video is a mouthful:

A Short Take on Assembly Theory in the Tetraverse Model: A Geometric Representation

Here is the description and related videos:

Joseph Truss and David Truss discuss the geometric model of a tetrahedral universe as it relates to Assembly Theory.
With video clips from Neil deGrasse Tyson & Chuck Nice’s Startalk interview with Sarah Imari Walker.

And clips also from our first Book of Codes video,  ‘We Live in a Tetraverse’.

I recognize this video is for a small audience, and I’m hoping to get some help. Joe and I are viewing the world as geometers, not physicists or mathematicians. If you know of someone smarter than us in these fields, we encourage dialogue and perspectives that challenge our thinking, please share.
Thank you!

We will never have time travel

I’m not a physicist and I don’t play one on the internet, but I believe that we will never have time travel. My premise is simple: if it was invented 50, 250, 500, or even 5,000 years from now, there is no way that the first time we’d ever discover someone from the future was 2022. Surely if it will ever be invented a time traveller would travel to somewhere in the past before us, and we don’t have evidence of that… so at no time in the future will a time machine be invented.

The only possibility that I see for a time machine to work is that we live in a multiverse and if a person did go back in time then they wouldn’t change our history, they would create another new history splitting the history we know and creating a new one that they know… and so in this case while I’d be wrong, you and I will never know.

In the future, if we don’t blow ourselves up and send the world back into the Stone Age, we’ll get closer and closer to traveling the speed of light. A very long time from now humans will visit other planets beyond our solar system. Those travellers will experience time differently than anyone who stays on earth. But while they will age less, they won’t be going back in time.

Time travel like H. G. Wells wrote about will never exist. It’s a fun thing to think about, but the reality is that if it ever was to be invented, we’d already know about it… we wouldn’t have to wait for some time in the future to learn about it.