So why do i think Pete Lynd is wrong?

Many people on the net are arguing right now about Peter Lynd. I actually knew about his work long before there was even a wiki page article describing it. Ironically, Lynd seems to have been playing on words according to some, stating that his theories are effectively nothing new.

Peter Lynd shot to fame after he provided a paper for scientific publication which was on the Zeno Paradox, and he showed how verbally time could not exist because precise positions did not exist when motion is involved. In a sense, this is related to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. But it doesn't seem astonishingly new, as we see here;


Note what Peter Lynd states:

"there isn't an instant in time underlying the body's motion (if there were, it couldn't be in motion), and as its position is constantly changing no matter how small the time interval, and as such, is at no time determined, it simply doesn't have a determined position."

Some have found out that his conclusions are based directly on the following:

The contradiction of motion

Motion is a contradiction within itself, since if an object would at a precise moment be at a precise location, it could never move. The very concept of motion necessitates to accept the existence of contradiction in nature. One of the first philosphers to raise the paradox of motion was Zeno of Elea. The following excerpt explains the viewpoint of Dialectical Materialism on this issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Motion and Change

Those philosophers who reject the dialectical approach also reject the claim that the concept of contradiction is necessary to the understanding of motion. Hegel distinguishes two kinds of change, quantitative and qualitative; and he maintains that dialectic is required to describe both. The main philosophical discussion has centred around the understanding of quantitative change; and I shall focus on this form of change here.
Quantitative change is change of place, mechanical motion. The understanding of it has posed problems since the very beginnings of Western philosophy. In the 5th Century B.C., the Greek philosopher Zeno presented a celebrated series of paradoxes designed to show that the very concept of motion involves contradictions and is therefore impossible. His arguments have remained controversial throughout the history of western philosophy. Hegel, in effect, accepts Zeno's argument that there are contradictions in the very nature of motion, but instead of concluding that motion is impossible he maintains that `motion is existent contradiction' (Hegel 1969, 440). Engels and other dialectical materialists has followed him in this.
Many analytical philosophers, however, reject the view that the description of motion requires the use of contradictions. Russell's (1922) arguments have been particularly influential. He maintains that a coherent and non-contradictory account of the motion of any object can be given by saying that at one instant it is in one place, while at another instant it is at another place.
This account of movement is quite correct as far as it goes. However, defenders of dialectic argue that it does not go far enough to answer the philosophical problems raised by Zeno's arguments or by dialectic. For to say only that motion consists in being in different places at different times is not to describe motion itself, but merely the effects of motion. To say of a moving body only that it is at a particular place at a particular instant, is not to describe it as in motion there. In order to get movement into the picture, according to dialectic, we must recognize both that the body is at that place and that, in the same instant it is ceasing to be so. For the description needs to capture the fact not only that the body is where it is, but also that it is moving ─ hence in a process of change and becoming. For this contradiction is essential (Priest 1985). As Hegel says, `something moves not because at one moment it is here and at another there, but because at one and the same moment it is here and not here' (Hegel 1969, 440).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(An excerpt from 'Dialectic in Western Marxism')


So there is quite a bit of controversy over his supposed ''findings''. But i don't personally want to start blaming him for any possible ''archaic ideas''. Instead, i want to tackle why conceptually we are allowed to have a static moment in time, and this all comes to down to how we model time. We have two types of time physics, the geometrical time and the fundamental time. Fundamental time is related to high energy physics whilst geometrical relates to low energy physics. Now, there is one more concept we need to know about, and that is the predictions of the Wheeler de-Witt equation; that it mathematically-shows how time does not change on a cosmological order.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html

Peter Lynd, who shot to fame with his theory on time in the link previously given says,

"If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time -- time would be a physical quantity."

I want to argue that his point is flawed on the basis of biasm contained within which mathematical theory one decides to use to model the two different shifts in the universe, the geometric time and the fundamental time. Both exist, so one cannot be biased as to say time must be a physical quantity and therefore a static time dimension is impossible to have, because it would imply a static instant of physical time... however, if one admits to the existence of time in more than one form, then time may be considered as being geometric and fundemental, not to
mention static and non-static. As i said before, you can't ignore the laws of the universe, nor can one correctly describe the universe without a model of flow to time relative in respect to our experience of it, so something must give, even in Lynd's groundbreaking conclusions on physical instances.

Whilst i disagree with his absolution on his theory based on the previous statement he made concerning no static dimension of time, you can actually solve this problem by inviting a second time dimension, one that is static and lives alonside the imaginary timelike dimension of space we more commonly expect to call a non-static dimension of time. It would require mathematically an extra dimension of space too. But despite this, not only has he shot to fame, but his theories on time and consciousness are gaining more and more attention, and have themselves important implications if correct, here is some of his work:

http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/plcs.pdf

http://necsi.org/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf

and here is his website:

http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/

So in a sense, the solution i provided closely relates this to the Two-Time Dimensional physics by Doctor Bars with Lynd's conclusions which i believe can be solved by simply allowing the required dimensions without the unecessery paradoxes he attempts to solve, but i feel, erreneously. Even though his arguement is based on the specifics of not actually having an object possess a momenta if time where in a frozen featureless state, also meaning it would not have a position is actually very correct based on the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics, but only touches on the theory of instantaneous fleeting flashes of existence in time theory only very timidly. Truth is some very important factors are required to argue that every single statistical average in the universe past and future do exist simultaneously as present frames of time when the mathematics of quantizing space and time are taken into consideration. If space and time have frames which can be mathematically and statically modelled as though to exist side-by-side (as predicted by relativity showing how the past and future cannot exist but only the present time), then the motion of ''now'' and each passing second is in direct influence with the presence of consciousness... a prediction he also made, but i have the honor myself of stating that theory long before reading his work, and so had someone else independantly before, a medium believe it or not.

The static dimension of time would resemble all present frames of time; without the need of motion. It would be like looking at the past of some history and finding them all stuck in amber. The notion of change then must be appropriately modelled in conscious experience and nothing else.

And for those who have never heard of Doctor Bars:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/3309999/Are-we-missing-a-dimension-of-time.html

Added to this idea, is that for there to motion in physics, there needs to be an arrow of time. His work wholey depends on a physical arrow of time existing and it seems there is no such a thing, as i will explain.

.................................................. .................................................. ....

A Verbal Proof of No Time Directionality

To have a direction specifically we require a point, and from that point their needs to be a defined geometry. In space, we have such a point called the big bang - or the initial point in which space and time emerged. Normally, one might calculate that this must mean there is a defined point (a center to the universe at large) - but this appears to be faulty concerning how the universe expands. Rather in saying there is a centre to the universe, the centre exists everywhere and all at once! This means the big bang
happened everywhere [1] so that no singular centre to the universe is allowed.

But since big bang we have believed there is a ''directionality to time.'' I argue that there cannot be any directionality at all. In the essays provided, I
shown that physicists now agree that geometry of time does not really exist, there is no flow, but there are instances in which time can be seen as starts and stops. You can think of the mind binding such instantaneous changes due to some unknown factor as of yet.

Now, there simply cannot be a direction in time. When you quantize space, remove our intellectual capacity to record events as though they are unfolding linearly, we find that the geomtric time is not real at all, but can only exist within the fundemental description. Now what we have is one instant, an all-time period, it is possible to show how the future and the past cannot be destinguishable from each other, other than saying that the past (or the beginning) is mathematically identical to that of the future (most associated here as the end). I explained in somethign seperate to this:

''The implications of a cosmological application would imply that the beginning of the universe and the end of the universe will be indiscernible too.
In fact, modern physics already agrees with this kind of approach, since the common agreement between scientists is that the end will happen in much the same way the beginning occurred - through the presence of some singularity''

Taking this really seriously, we must remind ourselves that there is no such thing as a past or a future time; the only time which ever manages to exist is
within strictly present time itself. This means that the past and future are really present times, or maybe better worded, have their own present times. Under these premises, we could argue that if the past and the future are the same thing, the beginning and the end being identical, then what direction is there really?

In everyday experience, on the geometric classical scale, we observe things that seem to move in a particular direction. But what would it matter really? If the world is cut down to the fundamental time model, and with the knowledge that big bang happened everywhere at once, then there seems to be no true direction to the evolution of the universe. On earth, the best example of a direction is perhaps the up, down, left and right coordinates given from a geometrical sense. But here is the rub; there is no such a direction in space.

There is no direction to time in a geometrical sense, because if it where space would also have a directionality. But since the concepts ''up'', ''down''
and ''left'' or ''right'' are non-existent in space, then time does not have a specific directionality, or at least, not the kind we have been led to believe;
one which involves a high energy physics at some past distant event. So, if it's the fundamental truths which are primal and important, but not the geometry of macroscopic objects, then the direction from the big bang (the one which we call forward) seems proposterous. In fact, there is no physical passing of time in the frozen state of pure gravity solutions.

So the directionality of entropy cannot be a real case. This is why the psychological arrow comes into play. We certainly observe some kind of passing of events but it may become to be widely accepted that there may actually be no direction at all. Let's just restate the facts of why:

1) In the frozen time model, nothing changes. So directionality of time becomes obsolete.

2) If logically-speaking the past and the future don't exist and only the present time, then time cannot change from a past state to a future state.

3) If the universe can be indescernible towards its treatment of the beginning and some end to the universe, then the beginning and the end are the same, and therefore cannot have ultimately any directionality because it really ''hasn't gone anywhere.'' It's beginning is also simultaneously its end - we just seem to drag through this as an illusion.

4) And finally, if big bang happened everywhere, then directionality becomes harder to define because now every point on the spacetime map is just as equal as each other. There is essentially, no specific region from which we can draw a line and call it the direction from the birth of the universe.

The only conclusion i can draw forth from here, is that directionality of the universe is not a real physical direction. Any concept of directionality must
reduce itself to being an abstraction - one that is only psychological. From these invariant relationships, any theory which entertains a physical directionality must be thrown out the window. Strong words, i know. But i feel quite confident that only arrows can be known intuitively by the mind, or the psychology behind the mind itself.

The age old question of why entropy was so low now becomes not so important. By removing the concept of a physical directionality, it really doesn't require any specialized reason why the universe had/has such a low entropy in the past. More like the question now being, why does the universe appear to have a low entropy when relative to the psychological aspects, rather than the physical.

[1] - In fact, the big bang is still happening. It's an often misconception that the big bang was some event which ended. The big bang continues today.

.................................................. .................................................. ....

You are going to feel funny when I say that this is all covered in Wanderer's metaphysics in his new essay. I have discussed these very issues with him.

I shall write some notes up, and post them a bit later. thanks, should be a good topic.

I would appreciate that Ozziemate, thank you.

I think you need to remember also, the potential to change is not actually a real change at all... it's only the sum of possible changes. I assume the people you spoke to consider t=0 to be the potential state of the universe, rather than an actual state, since according to relativity at t=0, the vectors x, y and z must also equal 0.

Let's get techical.

''[ the singulaity of course is absolute zero.] ''

But on all scales, singulairities are actually entities of infinity. The components of spacetime which make a singular region, actually has infinite amount of negative energy including time and space!

may the elegance of the premise and the translations of duality be for an absolute good to anyone according to immediate needs!

zwischenruf!

ozzie: thank you.

the more i read (although being a grossly inadequate reader) the more interested i get in bridging the gaps of "inadequacy" as it seems a "given": to equal competence in all fields..

please continue.....

I am going to pretend this thread is about Peter Lynds. It certainly seems like it is. A 'referee' I believe, is a person who reads an article during the process of peer review.

some article about Peter Lynds wrote:

"I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus," said the referee, who was not named.

I both agree and disagree with this referee. It is more-or-less true that Zeno's paradoxes haunted intellectuals and mathematicians up until calculus was invented in the last part of the 17th century. I believe also that it is through a deep contemplation of motion, that one arrives at the branch of math called calculus.

On the other hand, I do not think that Lynds has a so-called "profound" misunderstanding at all. In fact, I would say that 99% of all college graduates have no understanding of the foundations of calculus. The key word here is, of course, foundations. Depending on the college, many math majors get their degree without ever really covering these issues.

Why academia does not teach the theoretical, axiomatic foundations of calculus, I do not know. (I refer loosely to the epsilon-and-delta stuff.) As far as AP calc in high school goes, they simply tell the students to integrate and plug in numbers. You can imagine why noone in their right mind would try to teach the intellectual foundations of calculus to high school students. High schools and academic institutions are (for whatever reason) not obligated to teach foundations of certain branches of mathematics.

It's harsh words, but from what i have seen of his work, he challenges Hawking as being presumptious. He also challenges the use of imaginary quantities which are a well-understoof concept in physics.

Harsh words, but true.