∆ Einstein's The Meaning of Relativity.

Einstein's own book for public consumption 'The meaning of relativity' starts with the following statements



So this introduction suggests that Einstein assumed time existed, and the assumption was directly related to things we 'remember' and order (in our minds) in terms of 'earlier' and 'later'.

And it is suggested this cannot be 'analysed further'. If this can be analysed further, and it can be shown that 'ordered', physical contents of our own minds - existing now- do not prove time and a 'temporal order' really 'exist', then work that builds on the idea that relativity proves time, will have to actually demonstrate its own proof of the existence of time.

So we consider Einsteins suggestion in "the meaning of Relativity"...

"...events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criterion of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analysed further."

Being familiar with the whole book , I have to strongly disagree, i think the contents of our minds, and their meaning can scientifically be analysed further, and shown not to prove that an actual order of events, or a past, exist.

i think there is a key possibility, that none seems to have even considered, and which needs to be eliminated if one is to assume that a thing called time must exist. this is...

"if everything in the universe JUST exists moves changes and interacts, would this MISLEAD us into thinking a 'past', a 'future' and thus a thing called time must exist?"

consider,

- all the matter that makes up the stuff of all 'events', always seems to exist, move, change, and be doing something.

-and, we do not seem to see anything come out of a 'future', or disappear into a 'past'.

also- the matter that makes up our minds, all, just, exists. as we walk around, me may reorganise parts of the matter, ions, electrons etc in our minds. and we may link changing patterns in a specific physical order.

but this does not prove there is also a 'record of all events' created and stored, in an 'order' by the universe, in a place, or thing called 'the past'.

the above, seems, without scientific proof , to be only an idea...which itself just exists as a formation of matter in our minds 'here'.

imo, it is critical to be extremely clear...

-either an actual ordered “temporal past record” of all events EXISTS, in the universe somewhere in “another dimension”...or
 
-we incorrectly analyse some of the contents of our minds, and mistakenly think “therefore there must be an “ordered temporal past that actually exists”.
 
In simple terms you need to be clear “either ‘the past’ exists, or ‘the past’ is just an idea”.
 
Re Einstein’s quote...
 
"...events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criterion of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analysed further."

Consider , you and are discussing the sequence of goals in a football match. We say we agree, “team A scored twice, then team B scored”.
 
According to Einstein we are remembering events ... “ordered according to the criterion of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analysed further."
 
But this can be analysed further,  what you and I are ACTUALLY doing is looking at patterns of matter in=formation in our minds, and talking about them as if there ARE a thing or place called “the past”.
But all of my mental impressions of the game just constantly exist, like yours, and all that the contents of our minds actually prove,( whether we are watching a game and reorganising some of them, or just talking about some of them) , is that formations of matter exist and can be being reorganised, or being viewed and discussed.
 
i.e. nothing that is observed proves anything other than that everything seems to be here now, moving changing and interacting.
 
It seems to me, that if even a fundamental and widely accepted statement by Einstein can be significantly reinterpreted just by considering that there may be no time, but instead everything  just exists an interact giving us the false impression there  is time, and an order to ‘events’, then this is a possibility worth considering. (I’ve left some links)


(if I am wrong and time does exist, this should be very easy for any scientist to do - if I am right and time does not exist, then it will lead to a lot of drawn out and circular, 'self referring', arguments.).



(also see >> 'No temporal order'  The crazy camera experiment.)
Comments