Modern mankind lives in the greatest illusion ever invented; her own. We literally invented and named everything around us; Tables, chairs and even time. Apples fall from trees, that’s a fact, and probably have been doing so long before mankind picked and ate them. Before that those fallen apples rotted away on their own pace, a pace not designated anything and certainly not time.

Time is but the art of reflection in mankind. the ability to remember and measure one’s own evolution. The evolution of a day, a week, a month or a thousand years.
Or the decay of a single apple.

But in doing so, do we not merely remember the invention of time?

In the meantime I’ll leave by saying I totally agree with your view “that the current fashion for citing consciousness as an emergent property of matter” is totally devoid of scientific evidence and merely a belief.

There is nothing in science as we know it that can explain consciousness. One could present anything at all from the world of science, any theory, equation or table of results, but none of it is even remotely like the “feel” of conscious experience. This is the problem of qualia. Furthermore it can be argued that consciousness is non-computable, so how could it ever have arisen from out of a materialistic universe? As Raymond Tallis puts it, “…why should different forms of physical (or chemical) energy be associated with different kinds of sensations, particularly given that the qualities we sense are not inherent in those forms of energy, or indeed in the material world at all.” So the view we are criticising is only a belief and dodgy given that consciousness is the only self-evident “thing” there is – the particles and forces of science are by comparison very abstract, conceptual and contiguous . One can invent a robot that eats a lemon competently, but our entire collective scientific knowledge base offers nothing about the “suchness” of the vivid yellow colour and sour taste. It’s inconvenient for a purely materialistic explanation of the universe, but it’s there.

1. I don’t see the universe as deterministic in the sense of a wound-up clock working its way through a pre-programmed sequence. I would of course view it that way were it not for the potential intervention of consciousness; it’s my personal view (based on what I see as logical and reasonable/reasoned) that physical reality is in fact mediated & moderated by consciousness (of ‘consciousness’ I concur with Schrödinger that “there is only one mind” – i.e. all manifestations of consciousness, however apparently discrete, are in fact elements of the same universal consciousness). I don’t go into this at all in this post, but in my latest book (referenced in this post) I consider in some detail the clear possibility that such consciousness could contribute to the universal background field and so influence outcomes without in any way contravening the laws of physics (i.e. this would be an element of the ‘unknown’ decisive factors determining quantum outcomes). In this way considerations such as freewill and conscious evolution of the cosmos are totally compatible with the current understanding of quantum mechanics (given that quantum outcomes are as yet not at all understood as to their ‘variability’). In my book I look at one (possibly one of many) mechanism by which ‘individual consciousness’ may interact with this universal field – based on a well-accredited peer-reviewed finding by a research group in the field of chemical engineering. [In passing I'd observe also that the current fashion for citing consciousness as an emergent property of matter is in my view totally devoid of scientific evidence, a statement of faith by those who claim 100% scientific objectivity.]

2. Bell’s Theorem has effectively dismissed all notions of ‘local hidden variables’. However (again as in my book) it’s my understanding that physical reality itself is at root alocal (a term coined by Bohm, I believe) – so any reasoning based on ‘localisation’ of phenomena is doomed to failure when considering underlying causes. I actually find this quite exciting, since it strongly suggests that (self-imposed) limitations based on speed-of-light considerations etc may well be surmountable if we take seriously this intrinsic alocal quality of the building bricks of our physical experience. Before this can be seriously grasped, though, science will have to shake off the notion of Special Relativity as an objective reality rather than an observer effect (coupled with the objective truths of speed-related dilation of time-experience and speed-related physical contraction). To get back to your question: there seems to me to be no obstacle to ‘nonlocal interaction’ once the interacting entities themselves are recognised as being nonlocal. This is reinforced by clear evidence that gravitational effects (not to be confused with gravitational waves) are propagated at speeds many times in excess of the speed of light – an observation that fits well with my take on gravitation, awhich you already know about.

In short: there is most definitely everything to play for!

1. Does the view you describe mean that, even if the next event is unknowable in a practical sense, you think the universe is totally deterministic?

2. How does Bell’s theorem, which has dismissed Bohm’s attempt at retaining a classical picture of physics, relate to your view?

Best wishes, Heather

It seems to me that the concept of ‘iteration’ was introduced by you, not me. I’ve shown initially that what we regard as ‘time’ is actually a transition from a more ordered to less ordered state; that transition doesn’t need to be objectively based on time, my point about comparisons of distances in photon paths shows that there’s no concrete reason to believe it is.

If we consider a piece of rope that at one end is well braided together whilst at the other end is totally frayed (with the rope between showing the transition from one state to the other), we have in concrete form a clear illustration of a transition from order to disorder. There’s nothing preventing those two states (and every state in between) existing simultaneously, nor is there anything preventing us from experiencing that steady transition from one state to the other in one visual snapshot. Most importantly, there’s nothing iterative, in terms of a time-sequence, between one end of that rope and the other.

If you wish to introduce a time parameter into consideration of such a scenario, that’s fine – but I’m happy for you NOT to attribute to me a construct that you yourself have chosen to add into the mix.

However, the iteration count is a time parameter, which you hid (probably without realizing it) in the structure of your argument.