iSoul In the beginning is reality

Interesting universe

This post continues a series on history and science, see here and here.

The development of the comparative method in linguistics led to the genealogy of languages in the 19th century. This diachronic approach was largely abandoned in the 20th century with the rise of synchronic theories. In short, linguistics pivoted from history to science.

Modern science is basically synchronic, that is, spatially broad within a narrow time period. This arises most commonly with empirical methods, which can range throughout the earth and beyond but focus on contemporary observations. While it is possible to focus on a different time period, the common procedure is simply to assume that the past is like the present. We might call this the boring universe postulate: nothing significantly new ever happens.

Such an anachronistic method is anathema in the discipline of history, that is, diachrony. One cannot assume the past is like the present without evidence from past sources. Moreover, significant events are pivotal for history, unlike science. It is difference, not similarity, that drives history.

History is basically unpredictable, no matter how much minor predictions can be made. The empirical sciences extract what can be predicted from empirical sources but leave the unpredictable out, relegated to noise or chance. It would be better for the sciences to leave the unpredictable to history than to sideline it as if it were unimportant.

Historical science or scientific history are oxymorons. They seem to mean a science of history. The search for a theory of history was a focus of the 19th century with uniformitarianism and Darwinism (and Marxism for some) providing the top candidates. But the project is misguided: it would mean history in a boring universe, which would be history without meaningful history.

The history of the universe or nature or life are within the domain of history. Science is able to assist but it is presumption to substitute a boring universe for the real one. The universe, nature, and life are too interesting and meaningful for that.

From natures to nature

This post follows on a previous post here.

How did we get from natures to nature? In a word, nominalism. The many natures of pre-modern science have been transformed into one nature or Nature, reified if not personified as a thing or force or being.

Nominalism is the teaching that universals or qualities or natures do not exist. Only particulars or quantities or individuals exist. And the result is that only one universal or quality or nature is acknowledged to exist, the somewhat mystical universal quality or nature of everything that underlies all the particulars and quantities and individuals.

We can see nominalism in physics and chemistry, with the rise of the atomic model of nature as composed of one kind of atoms, with only different quantities and configurations to differentiate them. We can see nominalism in biology, with the rise of the evolution model of nature as composed of one kind of life, with only different lines of descent to differentiate individuals. We can see nominalism in politics and economics, with the rise of the equalized person interchangeable with any other person.

By why should this one universal or quality or nature exist at all? Why not go all the way and deny any universal or quality or nature? Nominalism has no defense against such a move. And so we are seeing nominalism end in nihilism, the denial of nature altogether.

We are also seeing the rise of an opposite extreme: that every individual is a unique kind of person and that every individual life is a species. If there are no permanent kinds or species, then individuals are the only kinds. Every person has a right to a unique identity, unique treatment, and unique pronouns.

Transforming 3D space into 3D time

There is a symmetry between space and time. As one can transform an observation by rectilinear motion (translation), or by rotation, or by a timeline change, so one can transform 3D space into an equivalent 3D time. This is not a continuous change so don’t expect a simple equation. There are four things that must be done to transform 3D space into 3D time, that is, 3+1 spacetime into 1+3 timespace:

(1) The ordering of events should be switched between a timeline (1D time order) and a placeline (1D space order). So a measurement of time, such as the duration from a reference event, should be switched with a measurement of place, such as the distance from a reference event.

(2) Scalars should be inverted: speed ⇒ pace, mass ⇒ 1/mass = vass, energy ⇒ 1/energy = invergy, work ⇒ 1/work = invork, etc.

(3) Vectors that are ratios of base units or products of base units should switch their numerators and denominators such that (a) the denominator becomes a magnitude of the former numerator and (b) the numerator becomes the vector with units of the former denominator: velocity ⇒ legerity, momentum ⇒ fulmentum, etc. This is similar to an inversion since s/t ⇒ t/s = (1/s)/(1/t).

(4) Other units should be derived from these, with new rates relative to the timeline for 3D space and the placeline for 3D time: acceleration ⇒ expedience, force ⇒ rush, power ⇒ exertion, etc.

There should be no time vectors in 3D space and no space vectors in 3D time. The distance from a reference place and duration from a reference event should be the same for both, apart from a change of reference points. The laws of physics should be the same for observation or transportation in each frame.

Equality and hierarchy

The state of nature was invented by Thomas Hobbes to support his idea of a social contract that was (or would have been) entered into by free individuals. In the natural state people would have been totally free but also lacking in security and other goods of society. So they voluntarily entered into a social contract that reduced their rights in exchange for social goods.

This placing of individual rights before social duties is what Harvey Mansfield called the beginning of liberalism. It is an egalitarian liberalism, since everyone is in an equal state of nature and has an equal right to make (or break) a social contract.

Read more →

Timelines and placelines

Events may be ordered in various ways (see here). Events ordered by time form a timeline, which is:

1. a linear representation of important events in the order in which they occurred.
2. a schedule; timetable.

This may be generalized to the following definition:

A timeline is an ordering of events by time or duration.

For example, below is a timeline of a Project Mercury flight:

Read more →

From 3D space to 3D time

We observe the sun and the moon traversing the sky. We know that the moon is objectively orbiting the earth but the sun is not. Where then is the sun that is observed traversing the sky in daily and annual cycles? It is not in 3D space. It is in 3D time.

Binary stars orbit their common barycenter. If the sun and earth were the only celestial bodies, it might not be clear as to which was orbiting which. But since there are other planets orbiting the sun, the only objective view is that all the planets are orbiting the sun (more precisely, the barycenter of the solar system, which is in or near the sun).

Compare sun-centered (heliocentric) and earth-centered (geocentric) frames of reference (click to enlarge):

Source

Read more →

Direction for expedience and rush

Expedience is the change in legerity per unit of length. Average expedience is (u2u1)/Δs. If the second legerity is faster than the first, the time interval is shorter and the legerity is lower in value, which makes the expedience negative. Since increased motion is the default for expedience (as it is for acceleration), the default direction for expedience is in the direction opposite the motion. Negative expedience, or inexpedience, is in the direction of motion.

Rush, which is vass times expedience, is also in the direction opposite the motion. So the rush of levity is in the opposite direction as well. That is why cyclic motion in 3D time has a centrifugal rush. And that is why there is levity, not gravity, in 3D time although the motion is the same.

Newton’s 3rd law shows that forces (and rushes) come in direction pairs. So it is a matter of convention which direction is the primary one. The force toward the spatial center is primary in 3D space. The rush from the temporal center is primary in 3D time. Both directions are valid but one is primary.

Ordering events

There are many ways to order events. One way is by time. Events happening at the same time are put in an equivalence class, which is then ordered from the earliest time to the latest time. History is usually ordered this way. With the advent of mechanical clocks and watches, modern people typically experience events as ordered by time.

Note: Events ordered by time make up a chronology. In a chronology time is employed to order events. But a chronology should not be confused with time itself. Chronology is an application of time.

Another way to order events is by distance from a particular location, such as a city center. Events happening at the same distance from the city center are put in an equivalence class, which is then ordered from the shortest distance to the longest distance (or vice versa). Commuting events might be ordered this way. Ancient literature such as the Bible exemplifies the place of events being as much or more significant than their time.

Another way to order events is by their importance. One might start with their wedding, then order other events by their significance: having children, remodeling a house, going on a special vacation, etc. Minor events would come last in this scheme. That could be a way of organizing an album of photographs.

The order of events is the sequence of events as they occur in a story. Storytellers – authors, playwrights, screenwriters, speakers, etc. – have many ways to order events. For example:

In J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Two Towers, the narrative switches regularly from events occurring in one location (Gondor) to events occurring almost simultaneously in another (Rohan). Because to offer a play-by-play juxtaposition of events in these two locations with chronological integrity would demand inscrutable dialogue volleying, Tolkien orders these two narrative segments by alternating chapter. Narrative Wiki

Flashbacks fill in the audience with the backstory. Some stories begin with the end and then recount the events leading up to it. Or a story can be retold by different authors in a sequence of stories, as with the four gospel stories in the Bible.

The order of events is not the same as time, although time is often used to order events.

3D time video series

I’ve posted a video series on 3D time online on Youtube. See the playlist 3D Time here:

It’s also on Vimeo here.

3D Time: From Transportation to Physics

Presentations:

Introduction

Part 1: Show Me

Part 2: Objections

Part 3: Kinematics I

Part 4: Kinematics II

Part 5: Dynamics

Part 6: Orbits

Part 7: Relativity

Part 8: 6D spacetime

Objections to multidimensional time

Multidimensional time is held to be impossible or the stuff of science fiction. Despite this there is an extensive literature on multidimensional time. However, with few exceptions multidimensional time is held to be merely a formalism or undetectable. If multidimensional time is considered to exist, it is something very different from time as is commonly known.

On this website we have shown that multidimensional time is readily understood through elementary transportation and physics. In what follows we present short counter-arguments to some objections to multidimensional time.

Objection #1. Time is measured by clocks, which measure only one dimension.

We can just as well say space is measured by rods or rulers, which measure only one dimension. Both clocks and rods measure one dimension with each use but may be employed to measure multiple dimensions separately – or with three instruments. Three dimensions of time are measured from one-dimensional measurements, as are three dimensions of space.

Objection #2: Direction is a property of space, not of time.

First, this is begging the question. The question is whether temporal direction exists. Second, the association of direction with space it just that: an association. One can just as well associate direction with time. That is, direction can be defined temporally as well as spatially. Third, entities in motion have both spatial and temporal properties that arise together. The difference is in how they are measured.

Read more →