Posted on 06/22/2025 6:24:38 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Time, not space plus time, might be the single fundamental property in which all physical phenomena occur, according to a new theory by a University of Alaska Fairbanks scientist.
The theory also argues that time comes in three dimensions rather than just the single one we experience as continual forward progression. Space emerges as a secondary manifestation.
"These three time dimensions are the primary fabric of everything, like the canvas of a painting," said associate research professor Gunther Kletetschka at the UAF Geophysical Institute. "Space still exists with its three dimensions, but it's more like the paint on the canvas rather than the canvas itself."
Those thoughts are a marked difference from generally accepted physics, which holds that a single dimension of time plus the three dimensions of space constitute reality. This is known as spacetime, the concept developed more than a century ago that views time and space as one entity.
Kletetschka's mathematical formula of six total dimensions—of time and space combined—could bring scientists closer to finding the single unifying explanation of the universe.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
You see the way most people drive? Most people out there apparently struggle handling with two dimensions behind the wheel, so you are doing better than most.
As Time Goes By--Rudy Vallee & His Connecticut Yankees (1931)
This day and age we're living in
Gives cause for apprehension,
With speed and new invention,
And things like third dimension.
Yet we get a trifle weary
With Mr. Einstein's theory.
So, we must get down to earth at times;
Relax, relieve the tension.
And no matter what the progress
Or what may yet be proved,
The simple facts of life are such
They cannot be removed.You must remember this:
A kiss is still a kiss,
A sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.
And when two lovers woo,
They still say, "I love you,"
On that, you can rely.
No matter what the future brings,
As time goes by.Moonlight and love songs
Never out of date.
Hearts full of passion,
Jealousy and hate.
A woman needs man,
And man must have his mate.
That no one can deny.WIt's still the same old story,
A fight for love and glory,
A case of do or die.
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by
Reading the headline and first sentences reminded me of the movie, Airport, with Dean Martin explaining away the route change. I’m also reminded of Red Dwarf, Cat, and distraction by shiny things. LOL. A little sick, but also a little fun, watching the blind leading the blind.
I have t9 laugh.
Time is an illusion.
It is completely relative, dependent on the periodic measurement of discrete linear events , like a clock ticking 1 second.
Take away that discreet measurement by positing eternal life, then time has no existence. All events happen at once.
That’s just the way it is.
Time is an illusion , no matter how many dimensions are found and its relationship to space. Live forever, the time problem in physics just disappears.
*has song stuck in head, now
😄
I have long believed that we exist half way in time (spacetime) as a dimension.
Our Spirit given to us from God is not bound by this human Earthly limitation and this is how we sometimes receive help with glimpses of the future seeing around the corner so to speak.
He must be confusing spacetime with "Alaska Time."
-PJ
Any new theory of physics must account for the hard problem of science: Consciousness. More precisely, this is described as the difficulty of explaining why and how physical processes relate to subjective, phenomenal experiences, often referred to as “qualia”.
We know that the physical universe is not locally real. (The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics proved non-local realism.) This probably indicates that consciousness is not an emergent property of physical objects, like the brain. Or, at least, physical objects and processes cannot entirely account for consciousness.
Several theories seek to establish the relationship between consciousness and physics:
1. Chris Langan—the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU).
2. Donald Hoffman—Conscious Realism/Conscious Agents Theory (CAT)
3. Andre Dupke—Scale-Time Dynamics (STD)
A lot of our understanding of the role of consciousness in relation to the physical universe begins with the reality that, at the quantum level, nothing physical exists until it is observed. Observation requires consciousness, at least at some level.
A brief (around 100 pages) book from Dupke for $3 on Amazon Kindle provides a good explanation for how this works. It’s a bit math-heavy, but it is comprehensible even without the mathematical arguments.
👍 Me, too.
Yes but the answer is STILL 42
Just like when I search for my wedding ring all over when it’s on my hand.
Yes, I’ve done that.
The problem is that nothing has really been “proved” in this area.
It is full of theories, speculation and assumptions.
It may be correct but the science behind it is very iffy.
It is totally possible that the C they did not include in the experiment was the actual cause of B.
“The problem is that nothing has really been ‘proved’ in this area... It is full of theories, speculation and assumptions.”
Science doesn’t prove theories. It supports them. It proves things such as observational data and mathematical theorems that are frequently the basis for scientific theories.
Scientific theories are useful because they form the basis of useful predictions and are often applied in inventing and utilizing new technologies.
I think the issues you are bringing up are more about the philosophy of science than science itself. Einstein spent a considerable amount of time explaining his philosophical presuppositions alongside his scientific theories. He considered contemplating them to be essential to scientific innovation. We don’t hear so much of this from modern science.
The problematic assumptions of scientific theories are in the realm of philosophy. For example, Conscious Agent Theory, as proposed by Donald Hoffman, presupposes idealism rather than naturalism.
Naturalism is a philosophical viewpoint asserting that everything arises from natural processes, rejecting the supernatural. In philosophy of mind, it means that all mental phenomena are explained within the framework of natural science. Idealism, on the other hand, proposes that reality is fundamentally mental or consciousness-based.
Hoffman specifically describes his philosophy of science as “Conscious Realism” which is a subcategory of Idealism.
A philosophy of science can be logically debated, but it cannot be proven using the scientific method or by scientific experimentation. Science has its limits.
“A philosophy of science can be logically debated, but it cannot be proven using the scientific method or by scientific experimentation.”
That is where we disagree.
We may have limited tools to prove some form of idealism at this point—but that does not mean we will never have those tools.
If idealism is correct (and I lean towards thinking it is) we just need to get very clever in designing proper experiments to establish it.
One highly debated example is the “hundred monkey” issue.
That argues that if monkeys in one location learn something other monkeys in faraway places will learn it as well.
I have no clue whether it is valid or not—but presumably a series of rigorous controlled experiments could resolve the issue one way or the other.
I’ve moved on to contemplate those enigmatic doors and mirrors in Astronomy.
😄
bah i was never good at math
I’ve never heard of any proposed scientific experiment seeking to support any particular philosophy of science. I’d be curious to see such a proposal. Even the scientific method is rooted in philosophy and cannot be (as far as I know) proven with an empirical method. I think attempting to empirically prove the scientific method would be a form of circular reasoning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.