Dear All:

Boltzmann and other physicists-philosophers have consistently argued that the order or direction of time is mapped by the spontaneous increase of entropy in quasi-closed systems. In special relativity (and in McTaggart's philosophy) the duration of time intervals depends on a reference system and on an observer (or on the speed of the observer relatively to the reference system). However, it seems that this relativity of time does not affect its anisotropy or asymetry (or order or direction).

Therefore I conclude that the direction of time is physical, while other properties of time as duration are mental/subjective. Even the latter can be considered as being physical, because the conscious mind may well be a product of physical time, as argued by Christian and (implicitly) by Chris Nunn in his excellent books (are you reading this discussion, Chris?).

Dear Wiesław

There is many aspect and flavours of time but that one used in physics is for me a glorious nonexistent entity.

Human knowledge stops at a few questions such as why things exist, why they change and how is it possible to perceive changes if everything changes.

For the physical time if you ignore the physical poetry associated with relativity, time is nothing but an abstract concept over the state of a reference device called a clock. Because we can put clocks anywhere within the reach and the world looks more or less the same wherever you look, you can rightly derive a concept of time which applies everywhere. You cannot do everywhere but you can build clocks in a few places and get them synchronised  at distant locations and project that idea over entire universe.

That is basically all without going into really complex details of the clock implementation their variable rates depending on speed or gravitational field etc and more intriguing details of their possible synchronisations.

So some people think time exist as an independent entity but cannot provide any reliable defintion other that they take clock indications and create an additiona etension in ordinary vector in 3D to make the appearance we live in 4D space which is just a pure mathematical abstaction.

You will find a lot of people disagreeing with my statement but because this hurts their beliefs. Since they cannot prove me wrong they will down vote my answer anonymously.

So overall the idea of time in physics is really simple but it is rooted in the deep mystery of existence.

Thanks for asking this kind of questions. 

@ Hitesh

Thank you for your support of my position and my way of understanding the time as a abstract resulting from the comparison of cyclic processes of different repetition times . It's not accidentally mentioned by you, we express our cosmic phenomena through the passage of the light at certain distances. We express cosmic distances in light years. In contrast, fast processes we express through the passage of light at a distance comparable to the wavelength of light. Just this relationship between these phenomena have allowed us to build a model of space-time called the General Theory of Relativity.

However, the relationship with the biological phenomena we get by taking into account biological cycles controlled by the space phenomena. As I wrote in the introduction, this are annual, monthly and daily cycles. The relation of our life with the cosmos allows us to absolutize the time and link our passing with the oscillations of the cesium atom.

Time may also be a "product of the mind," however such a product is defined. However, without time, you would not have motion, you would not have electromagnetic phenomena, you would not have relativity, you would not have many forms of energy that we know exist.

Suggesting to me that "time" is more than just a figment of our imagination, unless all of these physical phenomena we can measure are also just in the mind.

@ Hi Albert,

Why do you suppose, we would not have motion, we would not have electromagnetic phenomena, nor we would not have relativity? I do not deny the existence of the matter and the many forms of energy, that we know exist.

Matter behaved probably always in the same way (?). You can always observe simultaneous occurrence of many phenomena. Undoubtedly, one could detect that some durations are a multiple of the other. For example trillions cesium atoms oscillations.

If there is no motion of the matter, time does not flow !!!

There is no reference system. But such a situation never occurs. Unless someone stopped vibrations of atoms and revolutions of the heavenly bodies. Time is an abstract generalization, one of the model parameters (the next to the space), where we try to find relationships between different processes.

While there were no conscious minds, no one tried to generalize these relationships by creating the concept of absolute time. Always people lived so long, that the earth around the sun had time to turn dozens of times. Only the mind capable to create abstract concepts could see that this duration is tens of years or many trillions wiggles of the cesium atom. Idealization of the absolute time is possible only in the conscious minds.

Surely, "TIME" as any other subject we are paying attention to - is a product of mind

The "time" is the product (properties) of the dynamic physical world into which we are born.

@ Leonid and Josef

At first glance, you agreed with me, and I up-voted your comment. It is true that all concepts are the products of the human mind, but some of them correspond to the really existing objects, while others do not. When we can observe quantum of light reaching the retina, this light quantum probably exist in the real material world. However, if generalize the notion of particles, it is elevated to ever higher levels of abstraction. Our mind gradually separates from the reality described by qualia. When we talk about all the particles observed, their names are the product of our mind, but each of them is confirmed by some sensory experience. Even when we describe them all as "matter", at any time, we can refer to the observed behavior of each its particles. At a higher level of abstraction level is so high that no longer involves the direct sensory impressions (qualia). Notion "Time" belongs to such concepts. . It is the product of an enormous number of observation of the behavior of nature during the human evolution and individual life as Josef has written.

@ Gerge,

Hmmm, so many unknowns. We do not know, but we'll find out

Hi Wieslaw,

Electromagnetic theory completely depends on time. Time is a variable in Maxwell's equations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism

The particle theory of light too. The energy in a photon, E = h * nu, depends on frequency, which would be nonexistent without time.

Without time, you wouldn't have kinetic energy, which depends on velocity (which depends on time).

Motion depends on time. Without time, everything remains static. Newtonian physics wouldn't exist without time.

Time is needed for relativity, because without time you can't define c, the speed of light.

So in short, without time, light wouldn't exist, we wouldn't exist. The universe wouldn't exist.

Time & tide wait for no more .Time passes never come again & we all are evaluating the time for our day to day working environment but forgetting the basic fact that the time passes is equally adding to our life journey .

With this thru time our mind all the time works & reacts with our thinking .It is this thinking process which helps us to change modified our behavior ,& mode of our working . 

It is a time factor which remain the basic essence of our life line & it is this time which makes us what we are today & what we are going to be in future.

This is my personal opinion 

Hi Albert,

You wrote: "So in short, without time, light would not exist, we would not exist. The universe would not exist."

Why? See my answer to you on the page 1. As I wrote there, I do not deny the existence of matter. All the phenomena described by you and we can observe with the help of our senses directly or indirectly. However, the more indirectly we see it, the more generally we try to describe them, the more abstract concepts we use to describe them. (See my reply in the discussion here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_origin_of_the_laws_and_principles_of_nature/27).

Time is one of the most abstract and general terms used in our models of reality. It is a common parameter of these models, and combines them into a historical or physical string

Dear Christian,

You wrote: "This criterion would make the time most real phenomenon we know of, sort of the exact opposite of a product of mind. Maybe even stronger, maybe our mind can be said to be a product of time."

What you mentioned proves indisputably that there are constant changes in physical and biological matter. These changes can be compared with changes in other objects. Where do you see here time. I mean the perception through the senses. Abstract concept of time is only used to describe those changes. To compare the rate at which place, to create a model of phenomena. It's everything are products of our mind. Objectively no such thing as time does not exist

While our mind is certainly the result of a lot of changes in the way of evolution, in parallel, accompanied by a lot of cosmic and subatomic phenomena. Therefore, we can determine how many revolutions of the Earth around the Sun it took, or how far a neutrino has come in this "time".

Dear Rohit,

You wrote: "Time & Tide wait for no more. Time passes never come again..."

It is better to say that the transformation of matter can not be stopped  =  panta Rhey .... (Heraclitus)

Better to say: You cannot step twice into the same rivers... =   δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης. (Plutarch)

Dear Christian,

Possibly I can not, but I can always try :-)

From the point of view of philosophy of mind, objectively exist the reality that is described by models with predictive properties. Models of reality created by the conscious mind must be appropriate to the physical phenomena that surround us. It must anable to undertake adequate decisions, so that the conscious system was effective .

We didn't manage to construct a model of the time so far. We could not indicate such a medium, which would be a carrier of the time, as a physical substance.

It is just a parameter of other models. A similar situation applies, for example, to such variable as a "speed". It commonly occurs as a parameter of motion, but does not exist materially. Speed must always be the speed of something.

The universality of the concept of "time" as a universal measure of changes, prevail upon the people to abstracting it as an independent object, which we give the same meaning as the other material objects. But we must always remember that this is only a construct of the mind.

Dear All:

Boltzmann and other physicists-philosophers have consistently argued that the order or direction of time is mapped by the spontaneous increase of entropy in quasi-closed systems. In special relativity (and in McTaggart's philosophy) the duration of time intervals depends on a reference system and on an observer (or on the speed of the observer relatively to the reference system). However, it seems that this relativity of time does not affect its anisotropy or asymetry (or order or direction).

Therefore I conclude that the direction of time is physical, while other properties of time as duration are mental/subjective. Even the latter can be considered as being physical, because the conscious mind may well be a product of physical time, as argued by Christian and (implicitly) by Chris Nunn in his excellent books (are you reading this discussion, Chris?).

Dear Alfredo and All,

Arrow of time is something other than the time itself. It symbolizes the specific behavior of matter, which is described probabilistically. It tells us only that physical processes run from the less likely states to the more probable states . Thermodynamics tells us the same. You can therefore discern the physical nature of the time arrow.

However, look at the second sentence. It is only a symbol, an abstract symbol constructed by our mind. Matter does not interact with the arrow of time. By contrast, changes happen in accordance with the equations of thermodynamics. The principle of achieving the more probable system state indicates. that these changes are irreversible, or at least very unlikely. Therefore, in the thermodynamic equations of state the parameter "time" has a sign. This sign, which is pure symbol, is the arrow of time, which supposedly determines the direction of its course.

Entropy is the candidate which is co-related with time. It is the reason we can not go back in time like in space. Here we can find the arrow of time.

Time is like temperature a parameter for a set of particles. There is no temperature as a part of the physics of one particle. These parameters makes physics simpler. 

Dear Wilfried,

Do you agree that the temperature is also construct of the conscious mind in order to simplify the description of a set of particles?

We no longer have to talk poetically which particle in which direction is going. We can generalize the various phenomena and bring out the essential features useful from our subjective point of view. By simplifying the description we make a gigantic compression of information. This allows us to use the primitive mathematical equations to approximate the description of the phenomenon. Primitive, compared with what makes neural network in our brain.

Similarly, like with all parameters of our models, such as time, velocity, temperature, etc..

Very interesting discussion! There is general consensus among neuroscientists today that our perception of time originates in the different pace at which we perceive changes over a specific interval, relying on minimum correlation thresholds between neural processes and cognitive events supported by wide-ranging integration with diffused synchrony. More accurate knowledge of these correlations could clarify both the nature of the local events and the process of global synchrony which lies at the heart of an experience.

There is still no agreement about the nature of the processes underlying the phenomena of succession and duration. For over 150 years it was believed that the extent of the interval between certain events was the real key to the cognition of time, and enquirers failed to grasp the difference between the succession of neuronal events and the order of this succession. The succession of acts of consciousness is not the consciousness of their succession. We need other models to explain why our states of consciousness are accompanied by the consciousness of their succession.

Acceptable hypotheses on the nature of the perception of succession and duration indicate the following orders of magnitude: beneath 100 milliseconds it is possible to distinguish the beginning and the end of an instantaneous event, while beyond 5 seconds the perception of the duration in memory appears to be halved. Francis Crick and Christopher Koch identified a mechanism of temporal unification of the neuronal activities as the basis of consciousness, believed to synchronise the impulses in oscillations averaging 40Hz. Rather than codifying additional information, these oscillations are supposed to bring together part of the existing information in a coherent perception. In reality, in a subsequent phase of his research Crick questioned the idea that these oscillations were sufficient to generate a conscious experience, referring to other explicative hypotheses and more complex models of connection.

Apart from the question of the specific frequency of the talamo-cortical oscillations, there no longer seems to be much doubt about the fact that at the origin of consciousness there is the simultaneous action of cortical-subcortical neuronal populations rather than a single cerebral area. As has been shown by various electroencephalographic studies, these are multiple neuronal circuits, activated by phenomena of parallel synchronization and inhibition: transitive and substantive states characterised, in the former case, by an instable, high energy neuronal activity, and in the latter by a stable, low energy neuronal activity. This gives rise to a dynamic equilibrium in which each event (an abstract thought, a visual image or whatever) reflects the activation of a neuronal network, distributed and in parallel, which creates contents of consciousness. Neuronal oscillations play a decisive role in this talamo-cortical communication. Experimental evidence shows how some physiological states (going to sleep, wakefulness, vigilance) and certain pathologies (depression, epilepsy, Parkinson’s) are associated with different talamo-cortical rhythms, whose duration varies according to variation in the clinical populations. In paranoid schizophrenics, for example, they are more short-lived; in maniacal patients they manifest continuous changes in rhythm, and so on.

Dear Mauro,

The key role of cortical rhythms is creatively explained by Vadakkan hypothesis (https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjin8vPq7jNAhUDYZoKHT95C_EQFgghMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpubmed%2F21833231&usg=AFQjCNH6DOY8aL3xpI2FJMi_j5hhvTtN1Q&sig2=RaaEpP4LtSxYyOcr1XqsKA  ), wherein is explained in which method the cyclic change of the bias voltage bring about to the synchronous stimulation of coupled synapses. It seems that the collective interaction of large synaptic fields enhances cortical oscillations, at the same time being sensitive to the oscillating bias voltage as well as generating them. These rhythms can be a basic measure to the measurement of the time flowing in the brain processes, but not in a direct way.

The basis for distinguishing the sequence of events and assessment of their duration is episodic memory, in which sequences of events are stored. In my article:  http://www.kul.pl/files/581/Roczniki_Filozoficzne/roczniki_filzoficzne_63_2_2015/Galus_237.pdf  ,I suggest that this memory is organized in such a way that the contents of working memory (electric states of synaptic fields ) is perpetuated in the proteins of synapses, dendrites and axons (according to the Aur and Jog hypothesis : https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwit34WbrLjNAhXoa5oKHbdyA2IQFgg7MAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FNeuroelectrodynamics-Understanding-Language-Biomedical-Research%2Fdp%2F1607500914&usg=AFQjCNFgscuwL5XB1utsqz8XRYHyziBmXA&sig2=cOEoMxrKYKFaykHmdc48gw ). Another altered states of excitation, flowing together with a change in the perceived scenes, are stored in the neighboring synaptic fields. In this way occurs the transformation of the information stream in time to its spatial distribution in synaptic fields. Not all information of the scene can be saved. It would be not enough space in the brain to do that.

Only changing parts of the perceived images are saved, because only they can cross the threshold of sensitivity of neurons to stimulation. This threshold depends on the mechanism of attention causing sensitization or habituation of neurons. The effect of synchronization of brain waves, described above, determines itself the time intervals of increased sensitivity which is converted to the spatial distribution of state changes of columns and microcolumns. They record chemically the information transferred from working memory on changes over the time. It is clear that the frequency of brain waves determines intervals in the perceived pictures, like on stills. These distributions states are transferred to higher and higher layers of the hierarchical neural network that recognizes the information about passing moments in the same way as the usual information about the stationary scenes . This is described in more detail in the cited article.

Incoming intense flow of information increases activity of recording neurons and locally generates the altered rhythm of brain waves. If it exceeds the threshold of attention and on the principle of "winner takes all", gets into consciousness, it could dominate the activity of the brain, which will be observed in the way described by you.

Subjectively, time exists, we can share an element or facet of our subjective experience with others and find commonality and so give it a label or name. Most of our human experience is made up of a flow of data which appears to be generated outside of our physical body (not always) which we process by structuring into some framework, that framework being made up of the coordinates of time and space. 

We generally assume that objects exist - (I can feel another topic coming up here) on the basis that we have tools that exist in that objective reality that we can use to measure other objects. For this reason, we generally assume that objects are not a product of our minds (ah that feeling again) which enables us to discern difference between objective reality and subjective reality.  Subjective reality includes elements or facets that have not objective reality, in other words, we cannot pick up a tool in the objective reality and measure. So the question can be slightly rephrased: "is time a member of the subjective reality class and not a member of the objective reality class?"

With a little thought, it can be seen that there are no objective reality tools that can measure time, and, for that matter, no tools that can be used to measure space (not surprising given the time space nature). We can measure objects that occupy space, but remove the objects and we cannot measure 'space'. Similarly, remove the objects and we cannot measure time. 

It is perhaps helpful to think of time and space as our mental coordinate system into which we fit the flow of data from our senses that serves the function of converting data to information. To emphasise the difference between data and information, 'information' is 'data' plus 'story', ie, the framework into which we insert the data to give it meaning. Story is usually our own construct (read interpretation - so often used to mislead - and I wont go political in my response :-).

This is a fascination question, and can lead to some fascinating conclusions, of which this response is just a first step. 

Very much welcome constructive criticism and comment

Phil

Dear Philip,

You wrote: "It is perhaps helpful to think of time and space as our mental coordinate system into Which We fit the flow of data from our senses That serves the function of converting data to information. It emphasize the difference between data and information, 'information' is 'data' plus 'story', ie, the framework into Which We insert the date to give it meaning. Story is usually we construct our own ...."

I agree with your statement with the exception of fine detail. It is better to speak about subjective information subjectively useful for the system, than generally about information itself. Because the information in thermodynamic sense binds to the number of states of the system, but this does not matter to the conscious mind. Would you consent to the little change, that "useful information" = data + consciousness, which is able to decipher their meaning.

Sure, but what makes the invention of new sequences of action peculiar? Can we consider it an expression of human creativity?

Dear Weislaw

Of course 'story' is an extremely open term very much in need of refinement

While I agree that consciousness is a more suitable term, I was reluctant to use as consciousness is open to interpretation and may suffer from varied definitions. 

I am also reluctant to refine 'information' to 'useful information' because use and usefulness are likely to be time dependent and so re-introduce the term about which we are attempting to increase our understanding (lets keep all similar terms to one side of the equation) 

How would you feel about 'information = data + awareness + intent' ?

Phil

Dear Silvia

What is human creativity? What is innovation? Would it be reasonable to suggest that a result of human creativity is an experience or potential for experience that has previously been unknown? The potential for human creativity has to pre-exist which implies that human creativity is the interaction of awareness with a probabilistic potential.  Invention would then be the interaction of awareness + intent with probabilistic potential. The framework within which these operate remains that of time-space.  Perhaps I have not followed the intent of your comment?

Phil

Physical objects do not have colour.

Colour is a property of light (frequency) and an object appears to have colour only through its interaction with light. The observed colour of an object is information about that object. The actual information is data (frequency) + awareness (interpretation of frequency as a colour) + intent (the focusing of our eyes or attention on that object). 

Similarly, time is information about a physical object (or objects) which we refer to as our physical reality (interestingly our non physical reality may provide different and non linear time experiences, such as in dreams). This time information is produced from data (the physical object) + "awareness + intent"  (consciousness). 

Time is not a property of an object in the physical reality, it our interpretation of the data being communicated to us from that reality.   

Perhaps thinking of objects and colour can provide an analogous model for what is time?

Phil

Dear Philip,

I would try to answer little wider.

Information can be reinterpreted differently at different levels of consciousness and in any of its significance. Speaking of different definitions I am taking into account (incorporating the grade of its complexity) perceptual and geometric consciousness, self-awareness and reflective awareness. Speaking of various levels, I mean the degree of complexity of models of reality which this consciousness creates. It is connected with the degree of generalization and prescind of concepts, models or ideas.

In all these cases the conscious mind shall select relevant information from the point of view of the weal and needs of embodied cognitive system (sorry for cognitive slang).

Where the mind takes the selection criteria ? He learns them during the life experience. It signifies that the system must be intelligent and have even more fundamental feature. It must be intentional. This allows him to evaluate the value of obtained information, used to build more complex model of the environment. Never mind that in this way assess of the value (utility) may vary. This is a result of its subjective nature and the dynamic nature of consciousness itself.

As previously I wrote here: Tree rings of a clipped tree can be described by pixels scan and thus provide specific information to the computer. However, for a computer, this information will be totally useless. For woodcutter these annual rings relates to the information on the age of the tree. For climatologist it will be information about the dry and wet years. For me it will be the information for how much I will be able to sell the wood, and so on.

Did I convince you and other colleagues to some extent, that the distinction between usable information and thermodynamic is expedient?

If not, let us return for a moment to the information stored on the computer. And if you equip your computer with software that will automatically calculate all the information described? This information contained in pixels exist objectively in all above mentioned aspects?

The answer is - no.

The computer still will not understand the meaning of this information, regardless of how it is processed. While programmers can use the information obtained through their programs to make decisions about the trees felling, to anticipate climate change and to planning income from timber sales. Is thus computer gained the consciousness? No, the computer remained unintentional and being devoid of consciousness. For making decisions, It uses induced consciousness inoculated by programmers. It is they, who set the criteria for the selection of information and its evaluation in order to make favorable decisions for them.

Unless that a computer obtains consciousness. It will have a free will and it will do what is beneficial for him.

Dear Philip,

you wrote:  Physical objects do not have color.   .................................................. ........

Perhaps thinking of objects and color can Provide an analogous model for what is time?

Interesting proposition. However, there are differences between the perception of color and time.

Color is typical Quale, viz. direct sensory impression. We do not have a separate sensors of time. However, you should take into account what I wrote in response to Mauro, about the episodic memory. The operation of this memory, supported by brain waves, allows us to feel the passage of time exactly like other qualia. In this regard, your analogy is correct.

However, scholars tend to idealize and absolutization of the time. And just in this way they invented themselves the perfect time, which they can not fully understand.

Time in this sense is featured by the abstract, symbolic language of mathematics. The colors describe mainly poets.

Dear Dr. Wiesław Galus 

In your opening, you talk about the cognition of “human science”.

In fact, I think the answer to your question in this thread depends on the answer of “what is human science”. Different answers to “what is human science” will present different answers to your question. As to my definition to “human science”, I think all the things (including “time” in human science) in “human science” are 50% product of the mind-------just because “time” is one of the things in “human science” .

I have been thinking about the same questions as you do, but my answers are not quite the same as yours:

1, there are laws in human science and the laws evolve along with human’s evolution. I call this phenomenon “metabolism” and “metabolism” itself is a natural law in our science. This is why we human have been working so hard to perfect our science.  

2, any species (such as ants, elephants, dolphins,…) with the cognitive ability to nature world can have their own “time definition” to build their own “science”, which is different with systems of “belief, religion, habit,…”

Best regard

Geng

Youngs Double Slit experiment evidences the relationship between consciousness and physical reality, modelled by science as the collapse of the wave function. In other words, physical reality, in which we associate time, exists only as a probability of existing in that physical reality. As a probability it is timeless. Quantum understanding, rephrased for time rather than the space occupied by objects, implies a timelessness until human consciousness interacts (data becomes information). Therefore time is a product of human consciousness. 

I think that each experience, each perception we have, even the most elementary sensation, is a reflex of our being in a continuity, the impression of a permanent flow rather than a transit from one moment to another. The awareness of time is awareness of an extremely changeable rhythm. The stream of our consciousness has an endogenous rhythm of its own (involving vivacity, tiredness, wakefulness, sleep, dream), varying degrees of clarity, its own specific anomalies, and overtly pathological expressions. The awareness of an event – an act, a relationship or whatever in which something that is not homogeneous is perceived as a single unit – arises from an experience that is regarded as unitary with respect to its individual constituent moments. Rather than creating consciousness, these moments occur in it, giving rise to its unity. These are non-linear processes which participate in a multi-level dynamic system, involving complex interactions between brain, body and environment and including the cognitive and conscious acts.

If it is true that the phenomenon of consciousness is the result of the integrated and distinct activity of the brain, it is also much more than this. While it is always subject to the limits of the body, it goes beyond them, to be transfigured into individual experience in relation to environmental contingencies. This led Francisco Varela to make the provocative assertion that “consciousness is not in the head“ and that temporality expresses the co-implication of mind and body, not the arithmetical measure of the change.

On consciousness, and its measure thereof, take a look at the work of D Hawkins

I attach a paper for those who may find his work of interest

Hi Colin

Too many assumptions for me!   The most fundamental is that logic is a valid tool for all reality. Can predicate logic prove it fully and completely represents reality?

Dear Colin,

It's probably a joke Colin,

This is another model of temporal relations, which may to relate to other abstract models. In this sense, such a concept of time covered by the enclosed evidence, is not only construct but a figment of the mind.

We analyzed here, how a sense of time and then formation of its generalizations in mind under the influence of observations of phenomena in the human environment, occurs.

4 days ago Leonid wrote:

This is an incomplete answer deviating from my intentions.

Leonid certainly thought about the concept of time, about which we are discussing here also. This concept is certainly a construct of the mind. .

But in my question is hidden the second question. Is the concept of time in our minds reflect a real being, which exists in space independently of our minds, or is it a parameter of models created in our minds as a result of observation of the world.

The question can be formulated in an even simpler way:

Does the time exists independently of us, or there must be a conscious mind to construct models using time as a parameter.

Dear Christian,

One of the psychologists gave the following example of the subjective sense of time:

If we imagine the fence posts that are nailed in such a way: the distance between the first and the second post is 1 cm, between the second and third 2 cm, between the third and fourth 3 cm, .... and so on, incrementally each additional 1 cm. Imagine if someone passing at the constant speed, taps a stick in the posts, and next on the grass lies a man with his eyes closed, who hears only tapping on the posts, and he doesn't have and does not receive other signals from the outside world, nor of himself (with his body and with his brain except tapping a stick). He is merely a passive recipient of knocking the stick. The experimenter assured that for this listener tapping the stick on posts will be heard at such regular intervals as the ticking atomic clock!

I can not believe in this experiment, because it is in conflict with our sense of time regulated by the brain waves and the ability to assess the intervals between 100 mS and 5 S. (see my response to Mauro at page 3)

But imagine that we have the repetitive phenomenon and no the other to compare and lack of brain waves .. How we can discover in what intervals this phenomenon occur? Within exist and wherein would be submerged this phenomenon?

Dear Colin,

Probably there is no mistake in your proof.

The point is, as I asked in my response to Leonoid (page 4): "Does the time exists independently of us, or there must be a conscious mind to construct models using time as a parameter". When we write that "Temporal relations are a construct of mathematical logic", we confirm, that the time in these relations is the construct of mind.

Dear Christian,

In our discussion, sure you would like quote the following passage of your publication:

"Energy" is probably the most fundamental concept in physics. The conservation

of energy has no serious exception and physics assigns to the energy of the role of substance. Any entity That falls under the notion of "object" has energy and Therefore also the rate of change. What exists The rate of change is what we call the "passage of time". This is the meaning of saying That time and energy are conjugate Quantities. We measure the passage of time by clocks, i.e. by the rate of change of some reference device. Of cause - According to Eq. 1 - any real system is itself a

clock. Metaphorically we say it exists in time.

However, I quote another piece that you wrote and perhaps you don't remember it too well, or do not attach importance to it:

"Usually textbooks on (classical) physics begin with the equations of motion of point-masses, the definition of positions, velocities and accelerations etcpp. however in

doing so we have to presuppose a considerable number of concepts That are taken from our everyday experience with macroscopic objects and That are less self-evident than it small Appear at first sight"

And it is this passage is crucial to understanding that the more sophisticated physical models are based on concepts derived from our everyday experience. All this shows that models of "existence" of the matter are the product of more general ideas created by human minds. You admit yourself, that about the existence in time we can speak only metaphorically.

None of your equation does not indicate that the time must exist. They prove only that the matter continues. Duration is synonymous of existence. Therefore, in our minds we can not distinguish between the existence of matter and its duration in time.

You wrote that every material object is a clock for itself . No, it is the clock for you, because that model of its existence is created by you. If not for your mind, and in the universe there would be only one neutrino, what is this clock and for whom?

The thought exercises are interesting, but I doubt if they progress towards a useful answer. The listener to tapped posts will experience the tapping only in context of personal memory. If we have zero memory, none at all, not even for a microsecond, its logical to suspect that each tap will be just a now experience, a single tap, and the interval will not exist, for the simple reason that an interval requires awareness of a previous event. 

The question then arises, does memory experience time separate from the physical objective world? This is in effect the same question re-worded, if memory is considered a facet of the mind. 

It is reasonable to assume that an observer with no memory will have an awareness of an event in the moment, and the experience of life would be just a series of events, a series of 'now's'. It is not easily accepted that there is something out there in the physical world which can be experienced that we can label 'time'. 

But this logical conclusion is also possible to verify in a practical, repeatable but subjective way, for if time is a facet of mind, and if mind is stilled to have zero effect on our conscious experience, what do we find? This is well documented experientially, and is known as meditation. Its relatively simple experiment for those who genuinely wish to know the answer rather than present theories or academically discuss, experiment with meditation, stilling the mind, and discover whether the experience matches those of others who, in the past and today, practice stilling the mind, and share the common experience of time no longer existing, the past, present and future are as one. It has all happened, and it is all to happen. A bit difficult for our rational minds to accept, which is not surprising - its almost as if mind does not want to give up its control over our physical bodies, it loves to rule, it loves to debate and discuss, but mind somehow stops short of exposing what it is concealing, or breaking the illusion

If the question is sincere, I suggest finding the convincing and irrefutable, if subjective answer, its not difficult.

Dear Christian,

OK. We talked about other parameters such as temperature or speed. Now let's consider how such notion as mass has aroused

People first observed that different objects have different weight. They did not know that this has to do with their mass or attraction by the earth. Only further observations forced them to verify the simple notion and the introduction of Newtonian concepts. 300 years it was satisfied for them. But then they tried to measure the weight of celestial objects and particles moving at sublight speed. They have found that the attraction of the earth is not sufficiently good approximation. They tried to find a model that explains all phenomena on Earth, in space and in microcosm.

It turned out that the old concepts must be discarded in the trash. There is no weight, no attraction of celestial bodies. It is only the curvature of space. Sizes, which seemed repetitive, they ceased to be, because the repeatability has been disrupted by the adjacent mass or great speed.

Humanity still does not know what it is mass (exactly like what is the time), but by changing the definition of the abstract parameter, which is a pure invention of the human mind , tries to explain what we were able to observe in the real world.

There is the behavior of matter, which is convenient to describe by the concept of mass. However, mass does not exist! It is only the curvature of space, or transformations of the energy, which we can assign some equivalence to the invented by us concept of mass.

Christian, do you not see that a separate issue is the existence of matter and its properties, and a separate issue is description of this behavior in our human, formal, symbolic language. This description varies depending on our knowledge of new observations that undermine an earlier interpretation of the phenomena True, mass and time to play a slightly different role in the descriptions of reality. The mass may be considered as immanent feature of material objects. However, the time is more characteristic for the space in which the objects are moving. But they differ only "slightly".

What are these fundamental qualities, which shows the behavior of matter?

I wrote about this in another thread:

see my comment on p. 9.

What is the origin of the laws of nature and Principles? - ResearchGATE. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_origin_of_the_laws_and_principles_of_nature/9 [accessed Jun 28, 2016].

"Most visible feature of the universe is it symmetry on the fundamental levels. As Emmy Noether has shown the Consequence of the symmetry are the laws of conservation. From fundamental translational and rotational Symmetries arise the laws of energy, momentum and angular momentum conservation. SUC (3) xSUL (2) xUY (1) symmetry is the gauge symmetry of the standard model in quantum field theory. We are looking for supersymmetry (SUSY) in order to formulate the quantum gravitation theory.

The question arise if there are some higher level laws of nature, which "tells" the matter it should exhibit a dry Symmetries? It seems, it does not. Nothing Indicate this. That's just the way the matter is ...

But the Consequences are serious. Further Consequence of the symmetrical word are the repetitiveness of Observed phenomena Which evince as "cause and effect" nature of the Universe. We believe, everything have the same cause and the Causes will yield each time with the same effects. "

The principle of causality suggests a succession of events, in turn, it can naturally be interpreted as the passage of time.

And next:

"In fact, symmetry is not imperative. May be in whole cosmos there are not two identical places and the same angles of view. It is our next approximation, assumption, hypothesis and write it in the short to symbols in the form of symmetry".

We still do not know how to consistently describe the behavior of corpuscular - wave nature of elementary particles and fundamental forces of nature. We would need to create new concepts that will allow this description. Maybe We will need to introduce other parameters of equations. We'll discover the new features of the matter. But we can not usurp the privilege of belief that our new parameters, it is these qualities. It will be once again the notions in our mind which at some stage of our knowledge will best model what we observe.

 Wiesław Galus “Is the "time" a product of the mind?”

Yes, it does exist only in the human mind. As a result, that category has not any definition until today, unlike any physical category that exists in the physical reality outside of the human mind.

There is a paper mentioned below that explains that problem.

Despite that glaring problem, the most of the scientific community insists on the idea of the physical existence of so-called time because elimination of that idea leads to a consequent elimination of all ideas of 20-th century physics including Relativity.

Time appears as some part of physical reality in the theory of Relativity. Therefore, all categories of that theory including so-called space-time do not exist without Physical Time.  

There is only one physical device today that stays out of a description of Time given by Relativity. That is SMA (a Signal Medium Motion Measurement Apparatus). The principle of operation of the device is explained in the second paper mentioned below.

SMA needs not anything put in the theoretical framework of Relativity including the physical existence of so-called Time.

Article Human’s Delusion of Time

Article Philosophy, physics and mathematics of relative and absolute motion

I agree withe the conclusion of your paper.

            XI. THE ANSWERS

Now it is possible to give answers on some questions that intrigued humankind for centuries.

What is Time?

Dear Christian,

In my statement I quoted the conclusions of the Allan's work , so it would be better, if he would answer your question. But the last question concerns more fundamental issues. At the end of your comment you have asked:

"What does it mean to say That time does or does not" exist "? I can imagine That Certain things (unicorns) exist or do not exist. But to speak about the existence of time Reminds me of fishes debating the existence of water . Please explain. "

I'll try to answer it, because it seems to me that if we agree how to understand what the existence is, it will be easier to agree with other Allan's statements.

My answer takes into account the mental and linguistic processes in the formulation of terms and their definitions. I already described here in a few places, how the process of categorization, generalization, association and secondary generalization in successive layers of the neural network, enables the rise of abstract notions, concepts, ideas and models of reality. I pointed out that at the every next levels of generalization there is a massive compression of information. The higher level of generalization of abstract concepts, the more detailed features of numerous classes and categories of objects and their features, hidden under the general term. In an even greater extent this applies to material objects, especially if they are Individualized within the general concept. General abstract concept geometric object, for example. Sphere, contains many characteristics by which we can define it.

Even more special features, generalized to the one name, contains such a notion as "globe sphere". Similarly, the "mother" is a concept containing a lot of detailed data to define them. But even more specific informations are hid in the term "my mother." Please note that definitions of material objects include models of matter of which components of these objects are built with, viz. large conceptual conglomerates, which can be analyzed multifaceted.

To our minds, the more detailed features we can assign to a given concept, the more it exists. This is because, this kind of complex objects have more common points of contact with the general model of the environment, of reality and the world that surrounds us. Therefore, it can be argued that the meaning of the "existence" of geometric figures is quite different than material objects.

Yet another meaning of existence must be given to simple parameters being fragments of the above complex concepts. One such parameter is the time. Few features of the time we can point beyond the models, which it is a component. We don't see there tangible or geometric objects. This notion contained a few concepts only, which allowed to define it. If ever some space research reveal some intrinsic qualities of "time", it would be easier for us to define it. Much more it will "exist" for us.

OK, so why such a simple concept plays in our models, so large role?

The reason is the wide prevalence of this parameter without properties. If we will compare the pace of co-occurring phenomena, then it is a very convenient concept.

Dear Wieslaw, 

when you notice the short life cycle of a flower, you'll know that time is nothing of imagination, but a very real and unstoppable fact... The same applies to your own personal ageing and your own inner time.

.Dear Maria,

I just can agree with your comments as concern to my inner time only, because it can refer to the frequency of my brain waves. However, when our inner sense of time, referring to a very slow changes (cosmic phenomena) or very quick changes (phenomena in microscale) is unreliable, the only thing we can observe is the matter changes. We can construct models that describe these changes and enter time there as a convenient parameter which specify the rate of change and is measured by comparison with other changes, taking place parallely. Nothing more about the so-called "time" we can not say.

Look at my answer above and comment to the discussion about the origin of laws:

But, what worse, records in the brain (mental representation of the perceived reality) it is not usable information as well. I am skipping the fact that we can not define the principles of creating such mental representations. Even if we were able to assign specific configurations of neural states in the brain to the any specific information, it would be only third-person translation of one language to another description. Further we would not know how the conscious mind feels the perceived world. First-person experience bases on qualia, direct sensory impressions, which have a strictly subjective nature, because they are created in the course of individual experience of a lifetime. Only when new perceptions are understood, assessed in terms of usefulness for planning and decision-making, they become a useful information and it was only when they awake emotions. This, however, is the domain of conscious minds. Therefore it is legitimate to say that the information can be found only in the presence of consciousness. Without the conscious mind we do not have the useful information.

What is the origin of the laws and principles of nature? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_origin_of_the_laws_and_principles_of_nature [accessed Jun 30, 2016].

Christian Baumgarten: “What does it mean to say that time does or does not "exist"? I can imagine that certain things (unicorns) exist or don't exist. But to speak about the existence of time reminds me of fishes debating the existence of water. Please explain.”

 Your question shows your way of thought at the level of physical objects. Unfortunately, many scientists use the same way that leads to many illusions.

For example, can you answer a question what is a Unicorn?  Certainly, you can do it. In your answer, you give a description of a Unicorn according to your imagination about that thing.  However, it means only a “physical” description of a unicorn.

Suppose now this.  A unicorn does not exist (you can image that according to your answer). Despite the fact of non-existence of a unicorn, a description of a unicorn does exist in your mind. What is the source of that description in your mind in case of non-existence of a thing?  

You cannot find an answer on that question in the physical world that surrounds you because that answer does not exist in the physical world. 

To answer that question you should be a Doctor of Philosophy and make operations on the level of abstract categories in your mind.  An abstract category that roots in the human mind appears as a link to a list of some properties which a man associates with that category. As a result, any category has a list of properties associated with that category. Properties fall in two sets. Those are attributes and parameters. 

To answer any question about that category, a man “reads” that list of properties and makes “a description” of the category showing those parameters one by one.

To make a definition of the category a man searches the list of properties to separate attributes from parameters because a category has a certain set of attributes that cannot be changed. Parameters can be changed without losing the meaning of a category.   

In case of a Unicorn you can make a description of a unicorn many ways, but as long as you do not mention a Horn on its head your definition remains incorrect because the Horn is an attribute of the category of Unicorn and the category disappears without that attribute.

Obviously, you can describe a Unicorn as a White or a Blue thing because colors mean only parameters of the category (and it can be changed without losing the meaning of the category).

Moreover, in case of non-existence of a Unicorn, the human mind still keep all sets of attributes and parameters of the category. As a result, a man can make logical operations (or still be able to “think” about that category). That way makes a big illusion that every category in the human mind has physical “implementation somewhere around a man”. For example, Roman Deities ever lived “somewhere around a man” on some “unreachable” place for Ancient Romans, on the top of the Mountain “Olympus”. 

In case of Time, a man looking for an answer about that category, searches for the list of attributes of that category (as well as in every other case). That operation gives “null” result because so-called Time has only one attribute - its name and nothing more.  However, a name of the category is an artificial attribute that a man associates with a category. As a result, every language has its name attribute for every category (that is "Time" in English, “hora” in the Spanish language,  “Zeit” in German language and so on)  

As a result, “Time does not exist (and never existed) as a physical property of the Universe.” because it does exist only as a category inside the human mind and nothing more.

To Christian Baumgarten:

We have one more problem here for your mind. “Philosophical Definition: Time is ancient innate idea of humankind.” What is an innate idea? Some people believe this. They were born with some “innate ideas” in their mind, and those ideas appear as a-priory ideas in the human mind.  Common examples are categories (ideas) of “good” and “bad” and many others because they are very different in many human societies. For example, a South American cannibal consumes the flesh of another man because it is a “good idea” for him.        

The illusion disappears as soon as a man freshens his memories about such ideas. All of them are put in the mind of a child at the age when the child cannot separate mind-based categories and physical things. Regrettably, many people cannot make such separation even at their old ages. 

As soon as a child ask his parents about time, the common answer becomes obvious. They show a clock to the child and tell “This device measures Time!” without any further description of that category. Later in a university, students have the same problem when a “Doctor of Philosophy” tells nonsenses about a clock (a three-dimensional physical object) or “device” that has some “magical” power to make interaction with “the fourth dimension of Time” and shows precisely correct “current Time”.

As a result, there is a huge difference between a Doctor of Philosophy and a “Doctor of Philosophy”. A Doctor of Philosophy organizes his mind on the level of categories and keeps clearness in every category that he uses. Unlike him, a “Doctor of Philosophy” tries to insist that all categories from his mind have something “real” outside of the human mind.

Using that way a “Doctor of Philosophy” very likes to make a depiction of his mind-based categories in the form of physical objects. As a result, we can see a lot of statues of Venus because a “Doctor of Philosophy” feels love to a lady and makes a depiction of that category in the form of a deity cut in marble.   

Using the same way, Einstein “created” so-called space-time without any definition of lower level categories (space and time).  

How can it be?

Are we not ageing? How can one say that he /she has crossed 70 years. Time is relentlessly continuous. It is purely physical in nature.

Jayaram M.A "How can it be? Are we not ageing?" (and Christian Baumgarten's question about duration. )

 You make answer on your question by yourself.

Usually, a man “understands” so-called "passage of time" by physical processes of his body. That is only “personal perception” or a “human perception” of time, based on something that a man can “feel”.  Obviously, any physical process has some duration. But that duration is an aspect of a given process, and it has not any “magical relationship” with duration of any other process. 

That makes another illusion in the human mind that two or more processes with equal duration have some “similarity” because both processes make the same category “equal duration” in the human mind. As a result, a man uses observation of “equal duration” as an equal attribute of some physical processes. 

That generalization makes a false “category” in the human mind that they call “Time.” In other words, “Time” means a generalized duration in the human mind. That is an answer on Cristian’s question “Besides that - you did not reply to my remark that the replacement of "time" by "duration" seems circular.”

That indeed seems circular for anyone who understands “Time” by duration. However, as soon as a man separates Duration as a physical property of a physical process from an abstract category of “Time” everything becomes clear.

In that case, only Duration remains as a physical reality of the Universe. “Time” disappears as an illusion.

Furthermore, ageing is only human perception also. Ageing means some processes inside a human body and nothing more. Therefore, so-called “Time” has not any physical interaction with the human body as well as it does not any interaction with other physical objects.

For example, suppose you have two quartz clocks. One has a battery and “works perfectly” (changes its indications), and another one does not work. Does it mean this, one clock does “ageing” and another one does not?   

That leads us to another question. Does a stopped clock make interaction with so-called “Time”? Can you answer that question?

Christian Baumgarten “I can't take from your profile, if you are a "Doctor of Philosophy" or a Doctor of Philosophy.”

I guess, it is a wrong way to judge people only by their official positions. That is the same problem that we have today in physics. There is so-called a “well established” point of view on many things, and many professors use that point of view because they use those categories in their equations.

However, no one of them can answer many questions about basic categories of the human mind like questions about Space, Time and so on.

As a result, their answers on any fundamental question coming from a student are ever the same “Shut up and calculate!” From my point of view, they do not understand the basis of the science. Every scientific theory is a falsifiable one and should not be used any further as soon as anyone (even from the outside of science) shows falsification of the theory. As you remember, Einstein was a clerk in an office at the time of publication of his theory, and he had not any relationship with physics that time.

Do not you think that a “well-established science” produces any new idea because it rests on an “unchangeable ground of well-established theories”? 

We should put away old illusions to make something useful in science. 

I recommend you to read my paper mentioned below to understand a way of creation of any theory in any branch of science. 

Article Z-Theory. Foundation and Frame

Christian Baumgarten “Despite these sophisticated thoughts, I suspect that you will be able to understand what an appointment for lunch means and you will (also without a clock) be able to be about "in time" in the canteen.”

Dear Christian,

Obviously, I cannot do that. Suppose I’m an octopus from the Blook planet. That planet has not a Sun; it has not any rotation, and all stars are so far away from the planet that any motion is invisible from the planetary surface. 

In that case, I have not any idea of so-called time because there is not any sunrise or sunset on the planet, there is not any passage of the star through the sky that earth based civilization mistakes as passage of so-called “Time”.

In my case, the human idea of Time looks like a heavy hallucination because there is not any physical process observable from my planet (Blook).

time is 4th dimension

Dear Christian,

In your answer to Allan

you wrote:

"... also thermometers can fail and this does not imply That temperature has somehow disappeared or changed".

Breaking the thermometer does not change anything, because their indications do not show the temperature in an idealized sense, as most people understand this parameter. The thermometer shows the average energy with which the particles collide with the thermometer probe. Possibly you agree, that among these particles is not those that possess exactly the average energy !!! (If measurements will conduct with the sufficient accuracy). The "average" is an abstract mental concept, which has no counterpart in reality!. The value of "average" exists in the same sense as the "temperature". They both exist in our illusions, necessary for explanations and useful predictions results of observed phenomena, necessary to create models of reality.

The same cases are notions: color, smell, tone, frequency, etc.

Another case are notions like: red flag, perfume, shot, trembling leaf.

Dear Christian,

You asked in the comment above:

"Why would Do you think that time is more abstract (less existent) than (for instance) energy or momentum? In what respect are we able to say more about These notions than about time?"

Let me recall what I wrote here about mass:

"People first Observed That different objects have different weight. They did not know That this has to do with Their mass or attraction to the earth. Only further Top Observations forced them to verify the simple notion and the introduction of Newtonian concepts. 300 years it was satisfied for them. But then they tried to measure the weight of celestial objects and particles moving at Sublight speed. they have found that the attraction of the earth is not sufficiently good approximation. they tried to find a model that Explains all phenomena on Earth, in space and in microcosm.

It turned out That the old concepts must be discarded in the trash. There is no weight, no attraction of celestial bodies. It is only the curvature of space. Sizes, Which seemed repetitive, they ceased to be, because the Repeatability has been disrupted by the adjacent mass or great speed. "

You did not reject this argument while parameters mentioned by you, energy and momentum, have a similar pedigree. By the way: There is equivalence of mass and energy,  temperature and energy, and momentum is associated with the speed through the mass.

At first glance, it seems that time is more fundamental parameter than other listed here. This is because changes can be characterized using the time. But in addition to the time derivative (dT/ dt), which is used to investigate the dynamics of change (here temperature), we can assess changes in the space (dT/ dx).

Equally useful is the study of the mutual changes of parameters (dp / dT,  dE / dT, etc.).

The incidence of these values stems from our interest and it is not sufficient reason to distinguish them. Not much more we can say about these parameters and we have to treat them as similar to the time, as the mind constructs used in the models of reality.

We have quite different situation, if we ask for the mass of Earth, the energy of gasoline to burn, shoot a gun bullet, and the temperature of the sun. About these objects, we can say a lot more. We can analyze their multifaceted role in the description of reality. Because knowledge of these descriptions allows us to operate effectively in the environment, we have the right to suspect that they are adequate to the really existing world.

Christian Baumgarten: “Please, I am a German, you have to speak clear and direct.”

As you wish, Christian. If you like straight facts, I can give you those facts. It is nice that you are a German because many new facts come from Germany now.

As you remember, Einstein was the father of Relativity. That theory based on “unusual” results of famous Michelson-Morley experiment of the speed of light. All calculations and theoretical predictions that time showed this. In case of light, an observer should detect Earth-to-Ether relative motion by Anisotropy of light propagation in different directions. They understood Ether as some medium that supports propagation of light waves.

To make measurements, Michelson built his famous interferometer and, despite all his efforts, had famous Null-result of measurements. It was a stunning result because the theoretical framework of physics predicts different results of measurements. That experiment shows data inconsistent with the theory.  

Einstein used that result to develop his famous theory of relativity. That theory uses many postulates. Everyone knows those postulates now. There is one core postulate among them. Einstein postulated this.

“Light spends the same time going from the point A to the Point B and from the point B to the point A regardless of state of motion of any observer.”

That postulate led him to the idea that Light has the unique reference frame that is independent of any motion of the observer. His theory rests on that postulate and that point of view,

However, many decades later another scientist from Germany, Norbert Feist, conducted Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment. It was the same experiment of Michelson but conducted in the acoustical environment.

According to all theoretical predictions, that experiment MUST show anisotropy of signal propagation. However, the physical test shows the same Null-result as well as famous Michelson-Morley experiment with light. Norbert was stunned with such result because the result shows this. There is not any difference in signal propagation in any medium in case of moving observer. That contradicts Einstein’s postulate mentioned above that only light has a unique reference frame. A sound signal shows the same “unique” reference frame.

Later (in 2010), Norbert Feist made publication of his findings in the form of a paper titled ‘Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment with an Ultrasonic Range Finder’. No one from the scientific community was able to explain such result.         

A few years later (in 2015), the World Intellectual Property Organization made publication of a patent application (WO\2015\040505) that describes a unique device (an apparatus, SMA) that answers all questions about observer-to-signal motion in any signal-medium combination. The patent search was done by the German-based subdivision of that organization (located in Dresden, Germany).

The apparatus (SMA) uses one-way experiments in every medium to determine the speed of the signal relative to the medium and the speed of the observer relative to the same medium. From the Einstein’s point of view, such apparatus cannot exist because it shows a different duration of signal propagation in different directions and determines apparatus-to-medium relative motion by that information.

However, we can build such apparatuses in the modern technological level despite all Einstein’s prohibitions.

A few weeks ago (June 2016), International Journal of Physical Research (located in Bremen, Germany) made publication of the article titled ‘Philosophy, Physics and Mathematics of Relative and Absolute Motion’ (shown below). The article explains the universal law of signal propagation (ELM) that gives answers on all questions about measurements of observer-to-medium motion by any signal. The paper also shows two ways of application of apparatus (SMA) mentioned above and determination of observer-to-light relative motion.

In other words, those experiments and possibilities make Relativity obsolete with all categories that Relativity uses (including physical Time, Time Dilation, Length Contraction and so on).

Moreover, SMA needs not any reference to so-called “Physical Time” and that reference becomes redundant for the apparatuses in any mode of operation. Apparatuses use only oscillating devices and counting devices instead of “clocks” to be free of any illusion of man-made Time.   

All those things happened in Germany recently, my dear Christian. Therefore, Germany de-facto becomes a world-wide leader in that area of research. Do you know anything about that situation?

What can you say now? (Comments from other participants of this thread of discussion are also appreciated. I guess, nobody traces that list of scientific events going in Germany.)       

Article Philosophy, physics and mathematics of relative and absolute motion

If time, mass and energy are products of the mind, nothing exists in the real life. All exists in our mind, only. It is impossible.....Time, mass and energy exist without mind. Their explications and interpretations, on the other hand, can be a product of the mind.......

Dear Christian,

you wrote in the comment above:

For the "people" inside the simulation, the world is as real as the world can be. Because from the practical viewpoint, realness has to do with control. And from inside the simulation, you have no control other than the control That the rules of the simulation allow you to have.

Is the "time" a product of the mind? Is the "mass" and "energy" also a product of the mind? - ResearchGATE. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_time_a_product_of_the_mind_Is_the_mass_and_energy_also_a_product_of_the_mind#view=577624785b4952cf6a7249d6 [Accessed Jul 1, 2016].

You are 100% right Christian. (Also Ciro can be reassured)  But with your statement does not imply that we can not recognize the simulation and we can not be sure of the reality of the world that we perceive with our senses. Especially, if one equip them with the tools significantly increase their ability to investigate closer and further environment.

It is worth to mention the introduction to one of the book of Michio Kaku, where he describes his thoughts, which encouraged him to study the science. He writes that one evening he was watching the Koi carp floating in the fountain on one of the squares in Tokyo.

He wondered, how much carp can get to know the surrounding world, thanks to observation only the shining fountain lamps, headlights of passing cars and windows in the houses around the square. Or following ripples on the water under the influence of evening breeze, under the influence of insects and small objects falling into the water or sensing sound waves reaching the fountain from all directions. Even if the carp received an extraordinary intelligence, their image of the world would be inconsistent with which have a people walking around the fountain.

The essence of their limitation lies in what you have indicated. Carp, without having the appropriate technology, can not control his environment. They do not send space probes, have no microscopes, can not verify experimentally what is happening to their water at a temperature above 100 centigrade or below zero.

For them, their artificial surroundings is just a simulation. Simulation orchestrated by man. If the person, who does not possess the technology, enabling him to investigate and control the environment in the micro- and macro-scale, this person would not be able to distinguish whether he lives in a simulation, or in the real WORLD. As long as people did not receive the tools to study the environment and the processes taking place around, they believed, they live in a simulation prepared for them by the gods. They believed in the reality in the close environment, because they could control them, they could study them and on the basis of observation, they could predict the effects of their actions and, after the planned actions, they could verify their predictions. In this regard, they thought that the world near them is real, and they can control it, having free will. However, they believed that the phenomena of nature and the cosmos, the mysteries of birth and death, they have no power to control, and that someone else arranges for them this world.

It was not until the development of devices and technologies that allow people to reach the limits of the cosmos and the mysteries of the microcosm, it occurred bold supposition that perhaps the material world actually exists. More and more people have come to the conclusion that, although theoretically possible, it is infinitely unlikely to organize a simulation for people with such a great range. Understanding their nothingness against the cosmos and the powerful forces that run it, we do not believe that we are worthy to harness these forces for delude us a simulated reality.

We find that our free will, our plans, decisions and investigations lead us as far as we want and what available technology allows us for.

It got to that, the belief that the reality does not exist, it seems oddity.

There is quite a lot of evidence to support the hypothesis that time, mass and energy are products of the mind = see the holographic universe and work of Campbell My Big TOE

Also take a look at work of Julien Barbour, Church Farm Project, Cambridge.

Christian, you wrote above:

In these sentences, I see a fundamental difference between us, in looking at the essence of the objective existence of the real world.

If you recognize the simulation, it will never be real to you. Your consciousness reaches the information that there is another reality beyond your world, of which you do not control, and which is controlled by a different consciousness. The term "simulation" implies that this external consciousness really exists. Thus, we understand that our simulated world, created by this awareness, does not exist objectively, but subjectively depends on this other consciousness. Objective existence is synonymous of the existence of reality.

We can be locked up in a world like carps in the pond, and we can treat the world as our reality, but only as long as we believe that it is "true" world, independent on any other conscious person. That exist objectively. Only such an interpretation allows us to believe that the world is real.

But simulation can become a reality. Simulation will objectively existing for conscious beings, which had created it.

Time and mind both can not exist with out mass and energy.

Regards,

Christian Baumgarten: In my essay "Minkowski Spacetime and QED from Ontology of Time" I argue that space and time are not fundamental but emergent - but I omitted with caution (if I recall it right) to say that they are not real or "not existent".

Christian Baumgarten to Wieslaw: Eventually your sentence "Objective existence is synonymous of the existence of reality." ends up in a logical paradox without a scientific proovable solution.

 Dear Christian,

If space and time are not fundamental, what does prevent you from the next step of understanding? Did you ever think about that? As long as you think about that, you see this. Every attribute of so-called Time that you know disappears as soon as you begin to think about that attribute.

For example, you believe in the physical existence of Time, but you have not any physical device that shows you physical nature of Time or any of its properties. Another example, you have not any physical experiment that shows you the current date or year (2016). Therefore, how can you thing about Time if you cannot prove current date by a pure physical experiment? Can you answer that question?

Any people believe this. A clock shows Time. However, that is utter rubbish because no one of them can describe the step-by-step physical interaction of so-called flow of Time and indication of a clock. You cannot answer that question too, but you insist on the physical existence of Time. Why?

There is another point of view on the same question. The answer is very easy. Time does not exist as a part of the physical reality of the Universe.  Because no one has a physical experiment that proves physical existence of Time.

Moreover, that point of view can be easily proved by physical experiment. I mentioned that answer earlier on an abstract level. Maybe it was heavy to understand. Now, I can do the same answer on the lever of pure physics.   

SMA (apparatus mentioned above to make a measurement of observer-to-medium and signal-to-medium motion) has two devices an oscillating device and a counting device. The oscillating device makes oscillations based on a PHYSICAL process without any connection to the human mind and its category of Time. It is pure physics.

The counting device counts oscillations of the oscillation device. It is also pure physics, and it is free of any human imagination.

An observer uses two apparatuses (A and B) to make measurements. Before the experiment, both apparatuses stay next to each other and make the same indication of both counting devices. After that, the apparatus B moves away from the apparatus A to some distance L.  The apparatus A emits a signal and notes indication of its counting device (ACD). The signal makes propagation to the apparatus B and spends some duration for that process. The signal makes physical interaction with te medium that supports its propagation. That is pure physics also. Therefore, if a signal uses clear space for propagation, it treats clear space as a physical reality instead of a human illusion. As a result, the apparatus B detects the signal and notes indication of its counting device (BCD). A One-way experiment ends.

The apparatuses determine the duration of signal propagation by different indications of their counting devices the usual way: D = (BCD) – (ACD).

Suppose now this; the observer uses light signal to conduct the experiment. Suppose also this. He makes two following experiments sending the light signal back and forth between the apparatuses.  As a result, he determines the duration of two one-way experiments and has something like this. 

Duration of signal propagation in the forward direction (from A to B) gives 120 counts. Duration of signal propagation in the backward direction (from B to A) gives 80 counts. Therefore, duration of light propagation between two points in opposite directions becomes different.

That physical experiment eliminates Einstein’s point of view and his famous postulate that light spends equal TIME for opposite travels in every reference frame. Therefore, relativity becomes obsolete because the observer detects motion relative to light in his reference frame. Moreover, Time also loses its attribute of “total equality of propagation in every direction” or (statement of isotropy of propagation) 

(Who has any question here?)

As you can see, Christian, the apparatuses use nothing from so-called Time and makes not any interaction with such category because it is impossible to a physical device to make any interaction with the Human mind.

Moreover, Scientific Method was born in the same place. The result was easy to understand. Anything that cannot be proved by a physical experiment – does not exist in reality, because the reality exists by itself regardless any illusion from the Human mind.

Therefore, any category from the Human mind becomes illusion (or becomes falsified) as soon as a physical experiment contradicts any attribute of such category.

Time has a basic attribute in the human mind. That is an attribute of existence. The experiment mentioned above eliminates that attribute. 

What can you say now, Christian?  

Dear Christian,

My goal was not a metaphysical explanation of the perception of reality by the conscious mind, but rather a practical approach, which also you prefer. That's why I have to challenge your statement: "... from within any simulated reality, reality is objective."

Conscious minds for effective action must build a coherent model of reality. Model, in which we can understand observed phenomena enough that it can be explained without interference from outside of our world (regardless of whether the world is a simulation or not).

Until the development of modern science, few people only suspected that the world is not a simulation. Almost everyone believed that the world is a simulation prepared for the people by the all-powerful gods. The appearance of a comet in the sky was considered as a clear sign sent to people outside the real world. The ability to predict eclipses of the sun was considered proof of communication with the Organizer of the Simulation. From the level of simulation, no one dared to suspect that reality is objective, because it would contradict omnipotence of Organizer.

Only further practical observations of repetitive phenomena have shown that they are held regularly, as if someone from outside the simulation was not interested in their course and did not want to interfere in the behavior of the matter. This part of nature took up science and arose suspicion that the will of external consciousness created the kind of simulation of real world, which, however, at any time can be eliminated. At any time, god can order the end of the world. However, it was believed that before the end of reality, it is subject to fixed rules and in this respect we can act as if the world was the real world.

Only the further development of the science allowed the creation of a model of the world that is socially agreed and thus the creation of a scientific worldview. A small part of humanity called scientists, in their haughtiness, concluded that they are not in the simulation. That there is a real world, possible to explore by our senses reinforced by our new technology and by our mind (it is not certain whether this part of the community there will be sooner or later burned at the stake :-))).

So I agree that "... once you accept the Possibility of simulation - any reality could be a simulation." But we can hope that "... we have methods to test the metaphysical idea of objective reality from this level of reality".

In this way, this idea is no longer metaphysical.

I have to admit to being a little disappointed - perhaps I was expecting or hoping for constructive open enquiry, but its my fault, i should have asked the intent of the questioner before adding any comment.

Wiesław Galus: we have methods to test the metaphysical idea of objective reality from this level of reality". In this way, this idea is no longer metaphysical.

(comment about metaphysical ideas)

At the same time, the same method gives us the possibility to check the physical existence of anything that metaphysical idea describes or predicts (including the idea or a category itself). As soon as a prediction of a metaphysical idea does not match physical experiments, that idea becomes wrong and cannot be used in science.

The same method applied to the Idea of Time gives a negative result because there is not any physical device that makes a measurement of Time (until today). Some people believe this; a clock measures time, but no one of them can describe a step-by-step physical interaction between a so-called flow of “Time” and a physical device. 

Christian Baumgarten: I think nothing. I learned on RG that it is a waste of time to discuss with people that just need one post on RG to "prove Einstein wrong".

I learned on RG many things also. First of all, I can see this. From the one hand, the modern scientific community makes speculations about “crisis of new ideas in science”. From the other hand, the same community denies any attempt of a paradigm shift.

What is a Paradigm Shift? That is a situation when science rethinks basic ideas that seem “unchangeable” for ages. Basic categories well-known from the education for all scientist become “uncertain”. It is a heavy task to work under such circumstances. It is easier to use old “metaphysics” and world model.

However, that way leads to nonsense. Another people invented that model. The scientific community only uses that model to some extent. As a result, no one can answer fundamental questions of the model (like questions about basic categories and postulates put in the model).

It is the same situation that existed a few centuries ago when everyone knew that the Earth were flat. Every idea of a spherical Erath caused laugh from “scientists” and they put a “strong counter-argument” against that idea. They say this “the Earth cannot be spherical because all water flows down from the spherical Earth and the Erath becomes dry. We see this. Water exists on the Earth. Therefore, the Earth cannot be spherical!”

Other RG scientists use the same way of “argumentation”. As a result, the scientific method that was developed to eliminate all illusions becomes newer-used today because every scientist too afraid that there are some illusions in his mind, and he lives with those illusions for decades. However, that is a matter of psychology instead of physics.  

For example, you never read papers of Norbert Feist (your compatriot). You did not tell me your counter-arguments against his findings. You did not read my paper ‘Philosophy, Physics and Mathematics of relative and absolute motion’ (mentioned above). The paper was also published in Germany. But you did not like to see all those counter-arguments against “well-established” point of view.

That contradicts the scientific method.

Moreover, in a scientific discussion scientists use arguments against arguments. I cannot see your counter-arguments against the apparatus mentioned above (SMA). I think you have nothing to say against it. Am I correct?

Moreover, the final point of any scientific discussion is an experiment. I offer the experiment with SMA, but no one from this thread of discussion offered creation of SMA. Why? If my point of view is incorrect, the experiment shows that immediately (in complete agreement with relativity). But everyone is too afraid about the possibility of another result from the experiment.

Moreover, your remark about Einstein is incorrect. My research means Paradigm Shift that spreads to infinity and never stops at the borders of science.

The non-existence of Physical Time means the critical Paradigm Shift of 21-th century. Time, withdrawn from the human mind means a new level of consciousness for everyone of this civilization because it eliminates many barriers that were created inside the human mind artificially. Moreover, some physical phenomena can be explained only on that level of consciousness (like Boeing 727 incident that shows a non-linear behavior of so-called “Time”).

However, you cannot work with those phenomena because you see the world only from Einstein’s point of view.

That is only a temporary situation because a lot of things will happen in science as soon as SMA is created and put into full-scale operation.    

Dear Philip,

You do not write what particularly make you disappointed. People, who are discussing here are consistent in some cases and not in others. It would be easier to participate in the discussion if you could wrote what you can't agree with. I do not agree for example with the concept of holographic world (although I understand what is the holographic record).

I afraid, however, that those who write about holographic world, do not fully understand what it is holography.

Wiesław Galus: I do not agree for example with the concept of holographic world.

 I guess it is time to discuss something that stays beyond the scope of this discussion. There are two approaches to the description of physical phenomena.  Those are qualitative and quantitative ways.

Qualitative research leads to the possibility of verbal description of analyzing phenomena. Quantitative research leads to the possibility of a mathematical description of the same phenomena.  However, quantitative research (application of mathematics) becomes possible only in some specific cases when a researchable entity becomes compatible with mathematics.  

For example, the force of gravitational interaction between two bodies has a Quantitative description by famous Newton equation of gravitation. At the same time, Newton gives a Qualitative description of the same force by a verbal formulation of his law of gravitational interaction of two bodies.  

An example of a different situation is the “problem of Time”. Time has not any Qualitative or Quantitative description. That is the same situation that we have to the human mind. It has not any Qualitative or Quantitative description. Therefore, “Time” as a product of pure mind inherits the same aspects of the human mind (absence of Qualitative or Quantitative description). As a result, the human mind needs “Time” only for its internal logical operations when the mind needs any reference to something changeable. 

To all participants of this discussion

 There is one more problem in the modern science and especially in physics. Modern physicists think that they need the only quantitative description of a phenomenon, and they can omit any attempt to find a Qualitative description.

The result of such situation appears as many mathematical models without any relationship to physical reality. Good examples are “the concept of holographic world” (mentioned by Wiesław) and the String theory that insists on the existence of 11 physical dimensions in the Universe.

The creator of the theory thinks this. The universe follows his equations and the Universe changes itself as soon as he writes this or that equation.  As a result, he used 11 dimensions in his equations to give a Quantitative description of the Universe. At the same time, he forgot about a Qualitative description of “his Universe.” That problem becomes a common misconception of such theories.

The father of String theory made the same mistake that Einstein made earlier. He claimed the physical existence of the multidimensional Universe without any physical possibility to detect a single “dimension.”

For example, despite all speculation about “physical dimensions”, we have not any physical device that shows us a number of dimensions of the Universe. Therefore, any of such Quantitative description gives us only a mathematical model and nothing else and cannot be claimed as a “breakthrough” in the understanding of physical reality because a mathematical model by itself (as part of the human mind) HAS NOT ANY connection with the physical reality. 

To all participants of this discussion

 Moreover, there are some observable phenomena which show non-linear nature of “Time” and non-linear nature of motion of physical objects.

From time to time some aircrafts show “Early Arrival phenomena” when an aircraft appears at the point of destination many hours earlier than scheduled with a lot of extra fuel in fuel tanks. That means this. An aircraft used another trajectory instead of a common trajectory of a routine flight.

Such physical phenomena stay beyond explanation capability of 20-th century physics because linear Space and Time do not match those phenomena.  

To understand those phenomena we need another point of view on something that we call “Space” “Time” and “Motion.” It is far away from anything that we know recently (from 20-th century physics).

There is Z-Theory published in the form of a book in 2011 in the UK and the US (ISBN 978-1452018935).  That theory includes all such phenomena as its compatible part and treats every motion as motion regarding pure space (object-to-space or signal-to-space motion).

The SMA (apparatus mentioned above) uses categories of that theory and apparently it cannot exist in the theoretical framework of 20-th century physics. The theory uses another paradigm and offers a Paradigm Shift that I mentioned above. 

The easiest approach to the theory can be made by reading the following articles. They explain basic categories of the theory.           

http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0912.php?rp=P09166

Article Z-Theory. Foundation and Frame

Article Motion and Transposition in conservative fields

Article Gravitational fields and Transposition in Australian authent...

To all participants of this discussion

I guess, this discussion is over without any scientific result. Regrettably, many scientific discussions lead to nothing as well as in this case. It looks like everyone dislikes to see the answer on the initial question. Everyone needs only to “keep mystery” of a fundamental category in his/her mind.

That is the most critical problem of “modern science” from my point of view. There are some “intriguing questions” in the human mind. Some scientists like to discuss these issues for ages without any intention to find answers on them. They believe this. The human mind is not capable of reaching any answer on those questions. However, that is a wrong point of view.

Some modern areas of research give direct answers on those fundamental questions. However, the general population of the scientific community cannot work in the area of philosophy and transform mind or scientists to the level where answers on those questions become understandable.

The beast example of that situation is some answers of participants of this discussion like “Impossible!” They think like students because categories of “Possible and Impossible” usually associated with the mind of students. They commonly try to see all science through black-and-white vision. It is easier for them because such view eliminates all fundamental questions. They like to answer many questions with the single word - “IMPOSSIBLE!”  

However, that point of view is impossible for a Doctor of Philosophy (who uses a scientific method in his research). A Doctor of Philosophy should ever understand clearly every single category that he/she uses in his mind to keep this or that point of view.

Moreover, a Doctor of Philosophy should have some experience in working with many different theoretical frameworks because any new paradigm comes with a new conceptual framework. If a new conceptual framework consistent with more physical experiments and answers more questions than the old one, the new paradigm offers a better exhalation of the subject.   

However, the scientific method meets a physiological problem that I mentioned above. As soon as a Doctor of Philosophy sees more dominant paradigm that pushes away the old one, the Doctor of Philosophy becomes angry because he loses any theoretical support of his point of view that he shares with other people for many years. Unfortunately, many Doctors of Philosophy associated themselves with so-called “their point of view” that “cannot be changed any means” even by new clear physical experiments and other substantial evidence.

This discussion is the best example of that situation. Despite all arguments, no-one from the “old school” changed his/her mind and the point of view on so-called “Time”. 

The situation causes a big question about the necessity of internet scientific forums like RG. 

Why should we share our research with other scientists if they are unable to change their mind even after presentation of strong arguments and physical measurements which contradict so-called “a well-established” point of view? 

I have one more question for RG community. Suppose, I give a license of SMA to a private company, and the company conducts an extraordinary experiment that answers the question about observer-to-light motion.

What do you do in that case? Can you stay in science after that?

Dear Allan,

You wrote: "I guess, this discussion is over without any scientific result..."

I have not finished this discussion, because I think it is interesting and instructive. However, let me study your work first. Perhaps other discussants are also in the same situation. We all need to gain more knowledge on the subject.

Sorry Christian, Its my mistake, I already made correction :-))

An implication of special relativity is that time is the separation between instances of a given observer's identity; while space is the separation between the observer's identity and everything that is not identified as the observer within its reference frame. In this context, time is contingent upon the identity of the observer. If an observer self-identifies as a conscious essence with a past, then time can be interpreted as a product of its mind.

Allan is right, it is difficult for us to communicate and I also have the feeling that my thesis is not fully understood. Kevin, you're right, that if the observer interprets the specific case, this interpretation is certainly a product of his mind.

However, it happens in every case, when we create a model of perceived objects and/or phenomena. We do not need the special theory of relativity.

Time is an abstract created by the historical process of "taming", perfectly described in the Allan paper "Human's Delusion of Time." Other abstracts are different, what I tried to describe in the quoted passage:

"I pointed out That at the every next levels of Generalization there is a massive compression of information. The higher level of Generalization of abstract concepts, the more detailed features of numerous classes and categories of objects and Their features, hidden under the general term. in an even greater extent this Applies to material objects, Especially if they are Individualized within the general concept. General abstract concept geometric object, for example. Sphere, contains many characteristics to Which We can define it. "....

and further:

"To our minds, the more detailed features we can assign to a given concept, the more it exists. This is because, this kind of complex objects have more common points of contact with the general model of the environment, of reality and the world that surrounds us. Therefore, it can be argued that the meaning of the "existence" of geometric figures is quite different than material objects".

Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_time_a_product_of_the_mind_Is_the_mass_and_energy_also_a_product_of_the_mind/6

Time has extremely few attributes that could characterize it. We have to say: Time doesn't exist objectively. Therefore, as it was indicated by Allan, it is impossible to define it, despite that we are gladly use this term.

Dear Christian,

of course, that I had in mind the context of  Kevin comment. The world is more complex and strange than we expected, and perhaps more than it is able to understand the human mind. That is why we need the complex models, which are so complex that can reflect the behavior of matter. For this purpose we use a lot of abstract concepts that directly does not exist, and there are only constructs of our mind.

According to me, Neoplatonists are wrong, who say that if some abstract construct exist, for example, in mathematics, in an infinite number of universes (according to the multi-Univers theory) certainly there are real entities corresponding thereto. (See eg Tegelman). Let me remind my example of the "mean value". The average value may in fact not exist. It exists only in our minds, as part of a model describing the character of the set of objects.

Kevin “An implication of special relativity…” (from your answer), “I have chosen to attack the Big Questions” (from your profile).

Dear Kevin,

If you really like “to attack the Big Questions”, you should not use any a-priory principles. You answer started with the reference to relativity. Therefore, you use that theory as an a-priory principle that gives you the answer on the question. That makes you point of view self-contradictory because you cannot attack the Big Questions using any “well-established theory”.

The really Big Questions stays beyond “well-established theories” because those theories use some uncertain a-priory principles. For example, Einstein in his famous work made a statement about propagation of light. He thinks this. Light spends the same “Time” going from the point A to the point B and from the Point B to The point A. However, he had not any physical prove for such claim. Therefore, his claim becomes a-priory principle that he put in the theory. We usually treat such principles as postulates.

Later, Einstein made some description of “Time” based on that postulate and some other postulates. Therefore, his point of view on so-called “Time” based on his postulates.  As a result, you cannot use any reference to relativity searching any answer on the question about nature of “Time” because such way leads your mind to the endless path of circular cross-references.

For example, Time is something that Einstein describes in his theory and Time (at the same time) is something that existed before the creation of relativity, and that is something that light spends to reach the point B going from the point A. That is the problem because “Time” exists at both “ends” of relativity at the level of postulates (before) and at the conclusions (after) the theory.

Moreover, Einstein claimed another postulate that an observer ever detects the same speed of any light beam relatively to the same observer regardless his state of motion. 

Suppose you have two observers A and B. Each of them “ride” different light beams. Einstein thinks this. The observer A sees motion of the observer B in observer’s A reference frame at the speed of light C. At the same time, the observer B sees motion of the observer A in observer’s B reference frame at the same speed of light C (in the same direction). As a result, Vb>Va>Vb, and Vb is never equal to Vb. Relativity is full of such situations.  

However, SMA eliminates that illusion by a double ray experiment (fig. 10 from ‘Philosophy, Physics and Mathematics of Relative and Absolute motion’). It sends two rays simultaneously from start points and detects them simultaneously at the end points. Therefore, light rays have zero relative speed to each other (as well as any other signal in any other medium). 

Simplification of that way of action is this. “A bomber can attack only a target not itself by its shells”. Otherwise, it becomes a kamikaze (a suicide bomber). 

Therefore, if you “attack the Big Questions” you should stay away from all derived theories based on those questions. Otherwise, “you will be buried under the debris of explosion”.   

You can see how some participants of this discussion like to avoid answers on direct questions. They feel the same problem (“debris of explosion”) because their point of view put under serious question and their mind loses its “well-established rest” on the postulate of physical existence of so-called “Time”. Moreover, this time, “the attack” comes from physics and philosophy instead of “the area of sophisticated calculations of illusions”. 

You should remember one more thing. Falsification of old theories is the only one possible way of scientific development. As soon as facts deny theoretical predictions, a theory becomes falsified regardless of any “well-established point of view.” Moreover, facts can falsify postulates of a theory. In that case, the theory becomes falsified on the lever of postulates.

Therefore, creation of any postulate-based theory is a dangerous way for a scientist because falsification of a single postulate leads to falsification of all elements of the theory because all of them rest on the same wrong postulate.  

Have you any further suggestion?