KARL JASPERS FORUM
TA105 (Vimal&Davia)

 

Commentary 3

 

IN DEFENCE OF A NEW "MIND DEFINITION" USING REVERSE "CONVENTIONAL TIME."
by Peter Beamish
10 February 2008, posted16 February 2008

 

[R Vimal and C Davia]
Thanks for introducing our research work (TA102-104 for proto-experiences (PEs) and subjective experiences (SEs), and TA105 for phenomenal time located at www.kjf-ca <http://www.kjf-ca/>) to 'Time in Physics and Philosophy' yahoo-group. Comments are most welcome. I read your interesting article TA 92. I have the following comments/queries.

1. Are you attributing 'Conventional time (future ----> present ----> past)' that is related to phenomenal time (SE of time) to the 'relative time that is related to the Special Relativity Theory ? This is an interesting hypothesis. But please elaborate it with respect to TA105 -.

 

[PB]
It is indeed a pleasure to communicate with you about temporal concepts, following my 61 years of experience, & now as Director of CETA-Research.

Yes, "Conventional time, Ct" or t and "Rhythm Based (cyclical) Time, RT" are "related" to your "phenomenal (1st person experience) time" or (SE). We define "TIME" as "Ct + RT within a mind ('Essos')," and "TIME = Now." Thus "All Real TIME is Now TIME" ("TIME" beyond "conventional time" p22, with a complimentary copy of this book soon mailed to you and "Vision").

Therefore, science desperately needs a new concept for "future time," as such is a "scalar label" (ONLY), rather like a "pricetag," a "colourtag" or a "shapetag." We suggest a "timetag" of "Ct," OR, a "Timetag" of RT." Similarly "past times" are NOT "TIME" but real "timetags" OR "Timetags." For example your birthdate is a past "timetag" but your next birthday is a "Timetag" (& it will not be real "TIME," until it becomes "Now TIME"). For "TIME'S DUALITIES" see: <http://www.egroups.com/message/time/13984>.

Yes, "Conventional time Ct" is related to Special Relativity (SR) as per <http://www.egroups.com/message/time/14146>, and it is indeed "relative" but unfortunately it uses the units of: sec, min, hrs, years, msec, etc. which are absolute, & have been approximately so for the billions of yrs of our recorded history, & which are real "DURATIONS" & not "Real TIME." For "Duration Concepts" see <http://www.egroups.com/message/time/14051>.

 

[RV]
"In your example, traveling at speed of 0.8c for clock time of 10 years, the 'relative time' is 6 years. Do you mean my SE of time will be 6 years, rather than 10 years, i.e., phenomenal time is slowed by 4 years with respect to clock time?"

 

[PB]
No ! If the space ship is travelling away from the Earth observer, for 10 yrs one's Subjective Experience (SE) ON EARTH will be a "duraTion" of 10 yrs, as measured in a "RhythmicTime, RT/T" of the Earth's 10 Sun Cycles. By Special Relativity, and only because it takes longer & longer for the space ship, temporal "MVPs" to travel back to the Earth, it appears that observed ON EARTH the space ship "SE" is a "time t duration" of 6 years. Recall that durations & "duraTions" are "timetag & Timetag" differences.

 

[RV]
"2.
You have introduced 'Rhythm Based Time' (RBT) and related it to Earth-Sun Absolute based on Earth's rotations. Our circadian system is also rhythmic and is related to Earth's rotation via day-night cycle; our biological master clock is suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) that synchronizes our sleep-wake cycle to day-night cycle and is important in jet-lag. The linear time (future ----> present ----> past) is presumably processed in frontal cortex. Details are given in our fMRI SCN article located at: < http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/SCN-Vimal-et-al.pdf >."

 

[PB]
The first 2 sentences are correct, understood & in fact I have published such concepts at numerous earlier times (references on request). In your 3rd sentence: a) we recommend "(curva)linear" time t, as flying India to Boston is in "Conventional time t," & is a "curved path AND linear path" and b) a "cyclical" path in "RhythmicTime T" is also a line (and curve) ! Substantive differences are "t is unidirectional," "T is bidirectional," &, there needs to be a mathematical sign change for "T" at "pi" radians! These last 2 lines are now well beyond Einstein's 20th century physics!! We'll also send you the "RBC-2000" scientific paper on "T-descriptions."

[RV]
1) & 2) How is your RBT related to circadian system? Do you mean, our frontal cortex will record 6 years, whereas SCN will record 10 yrs, assuming Earth's rotation is still within the scope of our journey and effective for our SCN-activity in your example? 3) Will it not be a contradiction in our brain? 4) Do you like to reconsider your definitions, especially inferring the 'relative time' to 'phenomenal time'?

 

[PB]
Answers:
1) The "circadian system" is IN "Rhythm Based Time T" NOT in t.
2) Pre-frontal cortex records "future timetags & Timetags" which "scalar labels" will not become "real TIME" until they become "Now TIME" "MTPs." Any mind (left) on Earth records "MVPs" of "RhythmicTime RT/T" from both "astronomical observations" (e.g. sunrise), and biorhythms (e.g. "SCN"), which will arrive in absolute "duraTions" of "1 day/year in 1 day/year." Such mind will also record "MVPs" from the space ship in relativistic t.
3) There need be no contradiction as one's "CNS" can handle MANY "MVPs."
4) Let us define 'phenomenal time' as "TIME" = "Ct + RT" within "Essos."

 

[RV]
"3.
You wrote, "Moving clocks do NOT "run slowly," BUT, moving clocks can "read slowly," as long as this "reading" is performed from a differing inertial system." This is correct. Our SCN and frontal cortex are intact in brain, which is traveling in the same frame of reference. Therefore, both should record same duration, either 10 years or 6 years; is that right, and which one? More later.

 

[PB]
Answers: As above. 10 years for "RhythmicTime T," 6 years for "AE time," for the Twins Paradox (which is no longer a paradox!), but if travelling in the same frame of reference (as you say) then: Postulate 1 in Annalen der Physik 18: 639-643 by Einstein, A. (1905), as paraphrased by Dr. Leo Sartori (Understanding Relativity): "<THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE THE SAME IN ALL INERTIAL FRAMES>".

-----------------------------------------

Peter Beamish
e-mail <beamish (at) oceancontact.com>