A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:50 am
So I was thinking, pondering the other day what is the "nature" of time as we experience it. I found it a truly complex problem to solve, but in the end I found a staggeringly simple (or at least relatively simple) explanation for it.
Imagine 3 people keeping track of three different things. Each of these people, as the world flows by in their minds they will create "layers" of knowledge, which could be called instantaneous perspectives, or instantaneous Gestalts of Time. These would all contain a degree of "activeness", meaning that you remember something clearer that is now, than was 3 seconds ago because the activeness of the 3-seconds past has declined in the absence of the initial "ignition" creating what some one English epistemologist called "imprint". The sudden activity of neurons upon creating the image of knowing.
Each of these persons, checking each other; starts at same time, as a cause, each "imprint" in each person would say that "yes, that other person was instant, at the same instance, with me in initiating and tracking ones process" (alternatively but much less preferable some by-standers confirming instead. As we are investigating time being a human experience and clocks an artificial construction, clocks are invalid for use in this test). Then they have three different types of processes of things (like water dropping and landing until it's empty, or some similar natural object of simple counting, but one unique process for each person). As these people continue to keep track, and because the things are different in their process (at least that's what the test requires if the last part of it shall be completed), they will all experience a lack of uniform process-length, in that they will complete the processes at different layerings of the mind, there will be a different activity when the processes are all ended according to each of them.
All the processes, while we cannot confirm the exact difference of layering as in counting layers, we can say such things with certainty of mind that, x y and z, are either before or after each other in completing, in that each and every one of them are either completed in the last layering, in the former layering, or in the layering in-between those. The result we achieve here is that each of them has an ambiguous but relationally determined length, but also, we can state such things as that the "distance of layering between any two of the processes, the additional one layering functioning as a measure device", can be calculated as "one process being longer and shorter", and when this type of calculation is carried out in all 3 possible combinations (that all of the three processes are used once as a measure device to calculate the others) you will see, that process of value a (shortest), b (middle), c (longest), are in relation to each other having "different" values, because the measuring device gives different outcomes as itself changes. Example: M = process being measuring device, in this instance being b (middle), if b (middle) is measured against "c" (longest) and "a" (shortest), c = longest and a = shortest, however, if c (longest) = M, and b (middle) and a (shortest), then b = longest and a = shortest, in other words, it has changed which one is the longest! Right now this doesn't seem very surprising, but let us continue, a = M, c, b, and c = longest and b = shortest, now, which one of these has the smallest average length disparity? The reason why I'm asking this is because any process with the smallest length disparity compared to other processes will be the most accurate device of measurement in telling if other things occur in rhythm with that thing! Think of it, rhythm, if three different rhythms, let me give you them a lasting in a imagined value-system equalling a = 3, b = 5, and c = 10, then when 5 * a occurs, five times three seconds, you would have 5a/c = 1,5 c, and 5a/b = 3 b. When 5 * c occurs you will have 10 b and 18,66 a. If 5 * b then 2,5 c and 6,33 a.
Look now, if you want to have accuracy in length, you want a process which has the least disparity in comparison with other alternative measuring, because if there's great disparity then the value fluctuates wildly and you don't have the faintest idea which one to pick! So, if two "c" process occurs, you have 4b, if one "a" occurs you have 1b, that you have experienced, so which one of these gives the right value? With my imagined value-system, you could of course just say that "oh, it doesn't matter because arithmetics says I can just convert one to the other freely, as they are all based on the numbers in the imagined value-system", however, here comes the problem, this system doesn't exist, you don't KNOW the actual relation value of each one of them, to find this out you would first have to give authority to one of them (seconds is officially the count of some atom's decay, a process in other words just like the rest of these here, so it would be among one of the alternatives here and you would not be able to know it is a good measure, yet). So we want to find the least disparity so that regardless of which other process we measure against this least-disparity-of-length process, those would be as similar to this one process as possible in outcome of value when counting through the relationship how many... apples falls down from the tree for each rain-drop (rain-drop-falling being the measure here), and later how many oranges falls down from the tree for each rain-drop, and when you try shifting positions and calculating using apples or oranges as the measure in this trio of processes, you would get as much similar as possible a relational value as when counting from the rain-drops.
A lot of time in the world may have been lost to us if this is just something I found out now and not something known to time-specialists beforehand, because if not known beforehand that means the such called "seconds" we have on our time-counting-systems may have treated different processes (objects-in-time etc.) with unacceptable disparity of accuracy resulting in a distortion of synchronization of the world at large, and a false understanding of time. For the somewhat complexness of this I've written above, or the rather unintuitive nature of it, this might very well have been the case I think.
But! I'm skipping part the calculations! Let me go through them: so a (shortest), b (middle) and c (longest). If a = M then b = shortest and c = longest. If b = M then a equals shortest and c = longest. If c = M then a = shortest and b = longest. So, a is twice shortest, b is once shortest and once longest, c is twice longest. The number equivalent here is a = 1, b = 1.5, and c = 2, as 1 is always shortest, therefore "a" = 1/1 = 1; 2 always longer than 1, therefore "c" = 2/2 = 1; while "b" therefore 1/2. The result we come up with is that "a" has disparity-average 1 , "b" has disparity-average 0.5, and "c" has disparity-average 1. This is easily proven in a more simplistic way by stating that as a is shortest, it is a = 1, c, being always longest also longer than b, is c = 3, and b being always in-between, b = 2. Here the "difference" between "c" and "a", "a" and "c", is 2 from both sides! While the difference between b (2) and a (1) and b (2) and c (3) is always 1, half of both a and c.
With such small numbers and just three logical types this might seem unimpressive, but as you start escalating with greater number of things you get more sophisticated sums. What with 4 processes? 10 processes? what if we compare 1000 processes? It's just a thought experiment, as I guess three processes is the closest thing you can get to anytime conduct this test, this experiment, in the real world, there is a saying that 2 is a couple, 3 is a group, 4 is a crowd. Crowds are hard to eye, not so with a rather small group.
Imagine 3 people keeping track of three different things. Each of these people, as the world flows by in their minds they will create "layers" of knowledge, which could be called instantaneous perspectives, or instantaneous Gestalts of Time. These would all contain a degree of "activeness", meaning that you remember something clearer that is now, than was 3 seconds ago because the activeness of the 3-seconds past has declined in the absence of the initial "ignition" creating what some one English epistemologist called "imprint". The sudden activity of neurons upon creating the image of knowing.
Each of these persons, checking each other; starts at same time, as a cause, each "imprint" in each person would say that "yes, that other person was instant, at the same instance, with me in initiating and tracking ones process" (alternatively but much less preferable some by-standers confirming instead. As we are investigating time being a human experience and clocks an artificial construction, clocks are invalid for use in this test). Then they have three different types of processes of things (like water dropping and landing until it's empty, or some similar natural object of simple counting, but one unique process for each person). As these people continue to keep track, and because the things are different in their process (at least that's what the test requires if the last part of it shall be completed), they will all experience a lack of uniform process-length, in that they will complete the processes at different layerings of the mind, there will be a different activity when the processes are all ended according to each of them.
All the processes, while we cannot confirm the exact difference of layering as in counting layers, we can say such things with certainty of mind that, x y and z, are either before or after each other in completing, in that each and every one of them are either completed in the last layering, in the former layering, or in the layering in-between those. The result we achieve here is that each of them has an ambiguous but relationally determined length, but also, we can state such things as that the "distance of layering between any two of the processes, the additional one layering functioning as a measure device", can be calculated as "one process being longer and shorter", and when this type of calculation is carried out in all 3 possible combinations (that all of the three processes are used once as a measure device to calculate the others) you will see, that process of value a (shortest), b (middle), c (longest), are in relation to each other having "different" values, because the measuring device gives different outcomes as itself changes. Example: M = process being measuring device, in this instance being b (middle), if b (middle) is measured against "c" (longest) and "a" (shortest), c = longest and a = shortest, however, if c (longest) = M, and b (middle) and a (shortest), then b = longest and a = shortest, in other words, it has changed which one is the longest! Right now this doesn't seem very surprising, but let us continue, a = M, c, b, and c = longest and b = shortest, now, which one of these has the smallest average length disparity? The reason why I'm asking this is because any process with the smallest length disparity compared to other processes will be the most accurate device of measurement in telling if other things occur in rhythm with that thing! Think of it, rhythm, if three different rhythms, let me give you them a lasting in a imagined value-system equalling a = 3, b = 5, and c = 10, then when 5 * a occurs, five times three seconds, you would have 5a/c = 1,5 c, and 5a/b = 3 b. When 5 * c occurs you will have 10 b and 18,66 a. If 5 * b then 2,5 c and 6,33 a.
Look now, if you want to have accuracy in length, you want a process which has the least disparity in comparison with other alternative measuring, because if there's great disparity then the value fluctuates wildly and you don't have the faintest idea which one to pick! So, if two "c" process occurs, you have 4b, if one "a" occurs you have 1b, that you have experienced, so which one of these gives the right value? With my imagined value-system, you could of course just say that "oh, it doesn't matter because arithmetics says I can just convert one to the other freely, as they are all based on the numbers in the imagined value-system", however, here comes the problem, this system doesn't exist, you don't KNOW the actual relation value of each one of them, to find this out you would first have to give authority to one of them (seconds is officially the count of some atom's decay, a process in other words just like the rest of these here, so it would be among one of the alternatives here and you would not be able to know it is a good measure, yet). So we want to find the least disparity so that regardless of which other process we measure against this least-disparity-of-length process, those would be as similar to this one process as possible in outcome of value when counting through the relationship how many... apples falls down from the tree for each rain-drop (rain-drop-falling being the measure here), and later how many oranges falls down from the tree for each rain-drop, and when you try shifting positions and calculating using apples or oranges as the measure in this trio of processes, you would get as much similar as possible a relational value as when counting from the rain-drops.
A lot of time in the world may have been lost to us if this is just something I found out now and not something known to time-specialists beforehand, because if not known beforehand that means the such called "seconds" we have on our time-counting-systems may have treated different processes (objects-in-time etc.) with unacceptable disparity of accuracy resulting in a distortion of synchronization of the world at large, and a false understanding of time. For the somewhat complexness of this I've written above, or the rather unintuitive nature of it, this might very well have been the case I think.
But! I'm skipping part the calculations! Let me go through them: so a (shortest), b (middle) and c (longest). If a = M then b = shortest and c = longest. If b = M then a equals shortest and c = longest. If c = M then a = shortest and b = longest. So, a is twice shortest, b is once shortest and once longest, c is twice longest. The number equivalent here is a = 1, b = 1.5, and c = 2, as 1 is always shortest, therefore "a" = 1/1 = 1; 2 always longer than 1, therefore "c" = 2/2 = 1; while "b" therefore 1/2. The result we come up with is that "a" has disparity-average 1 , "b" has disparity-average 0.5, and "c" has disparity-average 1. This is easily proven in a more simplistic way by stating that as a is shortest, it is a = 1, c, being always longest also longer than b, is c = 3, and b being always in-between, b = 2. Here the "difference" between "c" and "a", "a" and "c", is 2 from both sides! While the difference between b (2) and a (1) and b (2) and c (3) is always 1, half of both a and c.
With such small numbers and just three logical types this might seem unimpressive, but as you start escalating with greater number of things you get more sophisticated sums. What with 4 processes? 10 processes? what if we compare 1000 processes? It's just a thought experiment, as I guess three processes is the closest thing you can get to anytime conduct this test, this experiment, in the real world, there is a saying that 2 is a couple, 3 is a group, 4 is a crowd. Crowds are hard to eye, not so with a rather small group.
