Dear colleague, if you excuse me my language : duuude.

Your question is ill formulated because seems you understand of physics is a little off. Let me explain. Physics started out as natural philosophy, the art of observe the nature and make inferences, based on reason, on the causes and characteristics of a phenomenon, comparison experimental data and reformulation of the model or theory.

You can see physics as an endless loop: experimental sciences -> statistical inferences -> theoretical models -> experimental sciences. For example, electromagnetism is based on six postulates only, six experimental results that can not be individually explained based on what is measured on the other five. 1-There are charges of 'opposite signals' only; 2- they attract each other through Coulomb law. 3- the superposition principle is observed, 4- two moving charges produces magnetic the Biot-Savart force upon each other, 5- the superposition principal is observed, 6- changing magnetic field produces electrical fields. All these results are experimental results that can not be explained based any of the others. They are taken as postulates to build all electromagnetism upon them and if we find another experimental result that cannot be explained based on these six (such as mediation of the fields through quantum particles) we have another physical theory that is different from electromagnetism (quantum electrodynamics in this case)

Therefore, there is no such a thing as nature without physics. The big picture is that what the physicist is trying to do is to find an experiment that will disprove a theory or consolidate the theory in the scope of the experiment. Adding a new postulate or establishing the validity of the approximation in the limits of the experiment. A moment in time and a point in space isolated does not exist because you can not measure that, even in a imaginary experiment.

When you see a discussion on a topic that involves dots in space and instants in time, do not take it as the reality as is always explained in the textbooks, this is just approximations that makes sense on the learning level and makes sense in the experimental limit level in many cases. If you don't like it you can imagine an continuous universe, time-wise and space-wise (which are also approximations), and say that a point is a small enough box in this universe and a punctual particle is one that fits inside this box in a small enough time-interval. As the massive and mass-less objects we have a maximum speed (the light speed), then this approximation makes sense regardless of the value of such speed. If you are unsatisfied with such approximation, then maybe you are trying to understand why things are the way they are, like why the electromagnetism postulates are like that or why we measure (fundamentally) distances and time intervals only. Those are not questions physics can or try to answer. Sometimes we formulate hypothesis about if there are a more profound rule beneath some set of postulates, but nothing like a reason for the things to be the way they are beyond manifestations of new postulates in such a theory. Fundamentally, explaining a given set of rules beyond our understanding of the game is not our role. I hope I could help a little bit.

Ricardo Simão Pereira Lopes , wow, what an answer. How are you therefore using pin-point precision to define reality with your own work? Can you give examples?

In my current work is harder to say because is related to a theoretical approach of coupling of binary variables, but I can in my previous works on traffic models. In traffic models one way to infer the flux of vehicles in given time instant is the use of the approximation J = pv where p and v are the average density and velocity of particles. To compare this with experimental results you must be able to measure the density of vehicles and their velocity right? Nowadays this is made with radar and cameras, but you can also do this placing two stripes of piezoelectric materials crossing the road at the minimum distance of the size of the biggest vehicle. For the purpose of comparison with the given approximation to the flux of vehicles, this length will suffice as a point. This does not mean that it really is, but for the sake of clarity, in the experiment it is not necessary to include more than the necessary to make the experiment. Comparing the experimental result with the formula, one will notice that the formula is wrong but approximates the experimental results in very simplified sets as very long, single-laned roads with 'well-behaved' drivers and upon a very big set of vehicles. You can search for or formulate new models for more complex situations, but always you will be answer questions such as what is the minimum characteristic length and minimum characteristic time-scale the analysis of this experiment makes sense. These you can consider as points and instants not because they are such things, but because your results do not make sense in scales inferior to them.

Are you relying on your approach alone, yet clearly the same approach of many others, or something new yet defined?

What do you mean my approach alone? There is no such a thing in science as 'my approach alone'. Let it be the inspiration to make some calculation or measure something, or directly expanding previous works, even pioneer works are not made alone. Not in science at least.

Ricardo Simão Pereira Lopes , indeed, your approach is the approach of many:

Physics is a game of looking at physical phenomena, analyzing how physical phenomena changes with a hypothetical and yet mathematical arrow of time in 3D space, namely by plotting that physical phenomena with a mathematical grid model (typically cartesian based) assuming that physical phenomena can be plotted with points, and then arriving at a theory describing that physical phenomenon and phenomena under examination. The success of those physical models (mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena) is predicting new phenomena by taking that mathematics and predicting how the math of one phenomenon can link with the math of another phenomenon without any prior research experience with that connection yet based on the presumption of the initial mathematical model of physical phenomena being undertaken.

My question is if you see a problem there and if so why and if not why not.

The question I am asking is not why so many people do the same thing, thats another discussion, yet why in this instance with the formulation of physics theories people appear to trust 1d time and 3d space and a point-plotting system with mass (and waves).

I am very sorry to have misunderstood your question. Everything is wrong with the text. Maybe source of difficulties is the fact that the presentation of results and visual aids are neither physics, nor claim to be physics.

In a controlled experiment, typically one varies a (or a few) physical attribute of the system (like increasing the temperature turning a knob for example) and measure another physical attribute (the variable). Scatter plots and line plots are tools to communicate the relationship between the two. Nothing more. In serious articles, the correlation of those relationships measured on these experiments are compared to what is predicted by the theory. If all physical attributes that can influence the variable are rule out and the experiment results are within the theoretical prediction, then one jumps from a correlational relationship to a causal relationship. This last part, where we have a cycle between theoretical formulation of models and experimental verification is physics. Plotting graphs is not, and to be fair, I have never seen any scientist say it is. For example, you can use gas kinetic theory equations to explain why heating the gas inside a balloon makes it float, but it is much easier (and not wrong) to explain this based on a graph of the variation of buoyancy force acting upon a mass-less sphere of radius 1 inside a fluid (air) in function of the variation of the density inside this sphere. Is just a problem of communication of experimental details and results, not with physics.

Ricardo Simão Pereira Lopes , ok, thank you for sharing your idea of the philosophy of physics, yet can a mass/particle or wave construct (based on the analysis of physical data) be related with points plotted mathematically though, and how so as you understand it? I am not saying it is not possible, as it's a great start for getting math involved with physical reality, yet do you see limitations there in that process?

Well, I did not share philosophy of physics, but the scientific method. "can a mass/particle or wave construct (based on the analysis of physical data) be related with points plotted mathematically". The problem is not graphical representation of articles then? I still don't understand your question "plotted mathematically" where? Is the equations of motion the problem?

Ricardo Simão Pereira Lopes shall we expand this topic of conversation here: Preprint The zero-dimensional physical theory (III): graphing time and space

What are your thoughts there as an expanded answer to your above question?

All this to promote a preprint? Boy how I feel silly. Dude, if you are the author you should be able to explain without sending me to a paper. "can a mass/particle or wave construct (based on the analysis of physical data) be related with points plotted mathematically". Plotted where? Is it points on paper? Are you questioning reality? Well, I'm going to sleep.

Ricardo Simão Pereira Lopes , italicizing your previous comment as follows: "All this to promote a preprint? Boy how I feel silly. Dude, if you are the author you should be able to explain without sending me to a paper. "can a mass/particle or wave construct (based on the analysis of physical data) be related with points plotted mathematically". Plotted where? Is it points on paper? Are you questioning reality? Well, I'm going to sleep.."

What's a preprint?

Data is just being shared here on a basic and efficient level.

Of course, the preprint concept is being respected and upheld, yet have you yet to read articles you can critique properly? Could that be a game-changer for you, having that ability to critique a preprint?

Have a nice sleep otherwise.

A point in space is given always by two points:

- coordinates of the point

- coordinates of origin of coordinates

Between those two points there is a "length" (physical dimension) with a physical Unit (Meters)

I agree with Trosak that time only exists as an artifact of our mental processes. The present is the only moment of reality, and that present is never a static thing that “moves” from one present to another. The present is ESSENTIALLY dynamic. One might say it is the integral of the past and the derivative of the future, but dissolved into one. Time is an illusion, albeit inescapable in the context of our consciousness which is tied to the persistence of memory through space. I would venture to say that the dawn of consciousness (in space) is coincident with the invention of time. Those are so intermingled that it is well nigh impossible to escape the illusion of time.

Berry Ives , if that were true, could that make the idea of consciousness a type of dictator of time in an advanced consideration of consciousness in time being a mere artifact of consciousness?

For anyone interested, I've posted a new paper relevant to this subject and welcome any discussion there:

Preprint The zero-dimensional physical theory (VII): charting infinit...

It may come across as a bit highbrow, yet the dialogue is kept as understandable as possible.

Stephen, I am thinking that the dawn of consciousness and the invention of time are like two sides of the same coin, rather than consciousness being the dominant side of a loaded coin. I am also interested in how this idea might be integrated with Julian Jaynes’ “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.” But I haven’t kept up with the literature relating to Jaynes’ theory. This line of enquiry may seem to go beyond this physics forum, but maybe not so much.

Berry Ives , that's interesting. I wrote a paper titled "The Conception of Time" back in 2019. It took a look at how it was possible to structure the writings of three key philosophers with the idea of a structured system of time-domains for time (time-before, time-now, and time-after) of Descartes (who we all know well with his work into philosophy), Heidegger (who wrote "Being and Time") and Satre (who wrote "Being and Nothingness"). This is the paper analyzing those works: Preprint The Conception of Time

Should not anyone think that "the dawn of consciousness and the invention of time" is a crafty use of words as being the same coin? How soon was it after consciousness was dawned (or just dawned) that time was invented, for instance?

If anyone has read Heidegger, they would know there's no grey areas there, just ontological events of subject and object, cause and effect, consciousness and how all that is timed. Have you put your mind into that mix-master? Its dicey, but if you're patient it makes sense, not perhaps the coin-sense you're referring to as "dawning" and "invention", yet close enough.

Stephen Jarvis, thanks for the link to your paper. I will try to take a look at it, although I don’t have a strong background in academic philosophy. When I tried that Sartre work, a gave up on it early on. I did read a bit of Heidegger long ago, but don’t recall what I read.

Berry Ives , I sympathize. I had to spend a good 6 months doing the proper research there not including the writing and editing of the paper. It was tough, especially with Heidegger's strong flow of ideas. Long story short there with that paper is the utility of breaking time into domains of time-before, time-now, and time-after to explain ontological subject-object temporal role-playing central to what is understood of consciousness according to the greatest philosophers. Could it be better explained as an abstract linear murkiness in the name of the flip of a coin, of chance? That's what this recent paper addresses: Preprint The zero-dimensional physical theory (VII): charting infinit...

Berry Ives , I didn't fully answer your question it seems in retrospect.

For instance, you asked, "Is the dimension of space, such as a point in space, a physical thing? Is the dimension of time, such as a moment in time, a physical thing? Can a moment in time and a point of space exist as dimensions in the absence of what is perceived as being physical?"

When I asked the question, "Can a moment in time and a point of space exist as dimensions in the absence of physicality?", I was essentially making the statement that anyone who doesn’t define a moment in time and point in space clearly seems to think that physicality can be defined in the absence of defining a moment in time and point in space and that relationship, right?

R. R. Poznanski

Preprint Zero Quantum Gravity

R. R. Poznanski

Preprint Zero Quantum Gravity

One must ask themselves what spacetime is to them. Is it curved, or is it flat, and of course why? One must really ask what processes and associated instruments of physical examination have led to the ideas of "spacetime". Such is described in the document.

Stephen Jarvis i come back to your argument about Points in Space and Points in Time an the idea of creating single moments in time and space.

I summarized the topic here:

Preprint What is Space Time? A clear solution to Einsteins puzzle.