unowat uwot.nonlocality is time without space

[jackles]

Yeah nonlocality is time without space . The spooky in spooky action at a distance is good old omni present time. Time is involve in all action and spooky action is no different. Spooky action is nonlocal time across any distance.or put anther way time as certainty across an uncertainty.

[uwot]

Yeah nonlocality is time without space .

You are free to use language anyway you like, jackles, but nonlocality just means two events that are connected, but you don't know how.
A good case can be made that time without space is meaningless: if there is nothing, there is nothing that could happen. If nothing happens, what does it mean that time passes?

spooky in spooky action at a distance is good old omni present time.

Same sort of thing: time is 'omni present' in that wherever there is something, something is happening, in a sequence that can (theoretically) be observed and counted and mark change and hence time.

is involve in all action and spooky action is no different.

Well, according to your definition time is 'spooky'. The thing with some 'nonlocal' events is precisely that time is not involved, quantum entanglement implies that two entangled particles could 'affect' each other instantaneously on opposite sides of the universe.

Spooky action is nonlocal time across any distance.or put anther way time as certainty across an uncertainty.

Blimey, jackles; don't bring Heisenberg into it.

[jackles]

The two events are connected and we do know how in the respect we know they are entangled.ok forget time no space for the moment and think in terms of space no time this will give a better idea of what im trying to show as nonlocal nondirectional time. Space and time are really the samething think of space no time and thats as near as your going to get.

[uwot]

The two events are connected and we do know how in the respect we know they are entangled.

Can you describe how entanglement works?
For the purposes of science, it doesn't matter if you can't. It's a bit like gravity; when Newton devised his laws he attributed it to a force, but he didn't try to explain the cause. We can do experiments in the lab that demonstrate 'entanglement', but we can't show the mechanism in action. Same with gravity, and in fact all the fundamental forces.

ok forget time no space for the moment and think in terms of space no time this will give a better idea of what im trying to show as nonlocal nondirectional time. Space and time are really the samething think of space no time and thats as near as your going to get.

Jackles, I'll let you into a little secret. Nobody knows how the universe works, but everything we see can be described relative to where and when we are: it's left or right a bit; in front or behind, up or down. Rene Descartes realised this and introduced the idea of spatial dimensions. If you want to pinpoint my writing this, it's not enough to just say where I did it, because all sorts of things have happened, or will do, in that place, you have to also say when. Empty space or time are immeasurable; how big is nothing? How long is never?

[jackles]

Ok if we are dealing in terms of nothing I think we can see spooky action as action across certainty. Where as normal action can be seen as action across uncertainty as timespace. So time in its pure form is nonlocal certainty. So that the certainty that existed before the big bang still keeps its pure nonlocal time status although some how co existing with normal spacetime action. Certainty still holds its origonal status in the midst of spacetime as its cause.

[uwot]

Ok if we are dealing in terms of nothing I think we can see spooky action as action across certainty.

jackles, me old plum duff, either we use 'nothing' to mean something different, or 'we' doesn't mean the same in our respective languages. To my mind, 'if we are dealing in terms of nothing', there isn't any action, not even spooky action, because there is 'nothing' for it to act on.
As for certainty, that is about what you know, not what there is. If there is no one there (wouldn't be nothing otherwise) there isn't anyone to be certain about it. Long story short, jackles, epistemology precedes ontology; as Descartes pointed out, we have to know that we are experiencing things, before we can start theorising about what it is we are experiencing. On that the rationalists and empiricists agree.

Where as normal action can be seen as action across uncertainty as timespace. So time in its pure form is nonlocal certainty.

I disagree; at least I think so. I don't think time has a pure form; if it did, you would be stuck with explaining how the 'material' world interacts with the 'time' world. On the other hand, if you argue that time is simply the sequence of events you are part of (in your own inertial frame to use the language of physics). Events happen in different inertial frames at different rates; it's something I have tried to demonstrate in my blog. I'm a bit crap at technology, but I think this will get you there: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html

So that the certainty that existed before the big bang still keeps its pure nonlocal time status although some how co existing with normal spacetime action. Certainty still holds its origonal status in the midst of spacetime as its cause.

For all I know, you could be on to something, but unless you can phrase it in ways that I am familiar with, I am powerless to be certain.

[jackles]

Ok uwot me old cock sparrow lets examine nothing to get some idea what nothing actually is. Lets go to the bigger scale of things and thats the universe and the way it is expands into nothing. For a start expandsion needs space for it the universe to expand into so I think we can agree at this point that nothing is the space bit of the spacetime continuum. And timeless space has to be certainty because there is then no time for uncertainty to exist in nothing which we have seen is the space that a moving expanding uncertain thing is moving into.

[Wyman]

unowat uwot

Haha, now I get it.

[jackles]

Yes but wyman what about the expanding universe thats moving into timeless space( nothing).

[Wyman]

I think it's an unknowable, insoluble problem. Ever heard this one:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

—Hawking, 1988[1]

[jackles]

Well thats a nice christmas story wyman. But by reason we have I think established that the universe is expanding one way or another into space of some description. And since time is space we have to conclude that nothing is a form of both. And its that both which cannot be called spacetime that is nonlocality and exists like timespace as a nonlocal omnipresents to all events.

[uwot]

Well thats a nice christmas story wyman. But by reason we have I think established that the universe is expanding one way or another into space of some description.

Well, there's different types of 'nothing', if that is what you mean by space. Reason is enough to tell you that, assuming the universe is expanding, then it is expanding in some form of nothing, but reason will not tell you which one.

And since time is space we have to conclude that nothing is a form of both.

Where does it say that time is space?

And its that both which cannot be called spacetime that is nonlocality and exists like timespace as a nonlocal omnipresents to all events.

Now you've lost me, jackles.

[jackles]

Yes uwot time and space are the same dimension holding action by elastic bands.ha

[Ginkgo]

Yes but wyman what about the expanding universe thats moving into timeless space( nothing).

The problem with this jackles is the implicit assumption the universe expanding into something. No one know if this is the case. More than likely the universe has no edge.

[uwot]

More than likely the universe has no edge.

You may be right. What makes you think so, Ginkgo?