Simultaneity is an illusion

The fundamental problem for us to understand is that simultaneity, and thus present, is impossible. Since distance in space also is a separation in time, simultaneity requires zero distance, meaning that simultaneity must be single. No two events can thus be simultaneous.

One can imagine a point in space between two “simultaneous” events where these events indeed are simultaneous, but since this point in space is separated from the two points in space, it is also separated from them in time (ie, is not simultaneous). No matter how close we place the two events, the point in space between them is separated from them in time until we fuse them.

Simultaneity (ie, present) is thus just an illusion. Instead, there are two aspects of simultaneity: over time and in time, whereof over time is relative to position in space.

This conclusion is totally consistent with every fact, including “the axiom of choice”. None-the-less, it is possible to assert that matters are the other way around, ie, that simultaneity (ie, present) is a fact, like realists as cladists and particle physicists do, but this assertion is inconsistent, actually paradoxically contradictory. The practical problem with it is to explain away the fact that time is relative to speed in space, because it is impossible to explain away facts.

Fact is thus simply that realists, like cladists and particle physicists, are wrong. Never will they thus find neither “the tree of life” nor “Higgs particle”. They may come very close, like “thinking that they have got it”, but will never find it. The reason is thus that their ideas are illusions created by a fundamental wrong-thinking.


2 responses to “Simultaneity is an illusion

  1. In completeness is the problem. As an example,…. The easy way to determine whether or not you understand Special Relativity, is whether or not you can see its entirety within your mind, as a single but complete image. This is possible only if your mind has wrapped around its entirety.

    Meanwhile, many folk say things such as, “Sure, this is all elementary school physics. Can we get on with it?”. But in actual fact they do not know of its entirety and thus see neither the cause behind it, nor do they see the absolute foundation of which it resides within. All they do fully know, is how to apply special relativity in practical situations.

    Others, when also exposed to Special Relativity, are simply stupefied, and thus they quickly come to a halt. These folk are usually attempting to acquire a complete understanding of Special Relativity rather than just learn how to put it to practical use.

    Thus, since Special Relativity is taught in schools in a manner that applies to you putting it to practical use only, its entirety is therefore not being exposed. Since this does not relate to an acquiring of a full understanding, these others encounter rapid confusion and thus assume that this is entirely due to a measure of complication.

    However, just about anyone can discover it independently, yet they are being told both directly and indirectly that this is not the case at all. All you have to do is think in simple steps, and think logically.

    I threw a video collection together to show just how easy it is to do. See ( 1hr 39min Total ).

    • I will look at your video collection as soon as possible. But my first reaction to your comment is: why do we always say “the problem is”, just as if we disagree about what the problem is rather than about what the solution is? Is it possibly because the problem formulation privilege logically determines the solution. (I assume you mean “incompleteness”, rather than “in completeness”).

      My second reaction is: can we really “wrap our mind around” Special Relativity? In this post, I’m just saying that cladists and particle physicists are fundamentally wrong in both believing and asserting that they can be right, particle physicists even asserting that they “think they have got” right (ie, verified that they’re right) empirically. I’m not asserting to have “wrapped my mind” around Special Relativity, but just explaining that cladists and particle physicists are wrong. I’m trying to explain that cladists and particle physicists can never become right, but that they instead are fundamentally wrong.

      As I see it, the problem we have with reality is that we use a representation system (ie, conceptualization) which is inherently paradoxically contradictory to understand it, AND that reality itself appears to be just as inherently paradoxically contradictory, although these two facts mean that reality is merely ambiguous to us, and thus that reality is at best ambiguous to us (ie, The Axiom of Choice). The problem I point at is that some people (in this case cladists and particle physicists) believe and assert that it is possible to understand reality. I simply try to explain that it isn’t. I try to explain that science can manipulate reality in many different ways, but that it can never understand it. (Sorry to say, but important to clarify).

      Offered to us is a play with a reality that we can never understand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s