30 replies to this topic

[Sophianic]

"Peter Lynds, a 27 year old broadcasting school tutor from Wellington, New Zealand, establishes that there is a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time, and in doing so, appears to throw age old assumptions about determined instantaneous physical magnitude and time on their heads. A number of other outstanding issues to do with time in physics are also addressed, including cosmology and an argument against the theory of Imaginary time by British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

A bold paper which has highly impressed some of the world's top physicists and been published in the August issue of Foundations of Physics Letters, seems set to change the way we think about the nature of time and its relationship to motion and classical and quantum mechanics. Much to the science world's astonishment, the work also appears to provide solutions to Zeno of Elea's famous motion paradoxes, almost 2500 years after they were originally conceived by the ancient Greek philosopher. In doing so, its unlikely author, who originally attended university for just 6 months, is drawing comparisons to Albert Einstein and beginning to field enquiries from some of the world's leading science media ..."

Press Release, from EurekAlert

Comment: some very interesting ideas here ... one can't help but wonder what the implications of this work will be for the prospect of immortality ...

"There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness." -- Peter Lynds

Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
Peter Lynds :: Original Paper (pdf version)

[MichaelAnissimov]

Very fascinating article.

[Sophianic]

Now.  Mathematically speaking, now is an infinite series, but intuitively, now is now.  We know this to be true.  Intuitively.  How easy it is for me to put off my life, my fulfillment, until a more auspicious time arrives from the future.  How easy it is for me to wait for opportunity to knock, to wait for some one (or some thing) to come to my rescue, to save me from certain death.  No.  I will live, and fulfill my life.  Now.

I had a chuckle when I recalled my essay Now and Forever (posted at ImmInst some time ago) and read the above excerpt from this essay, and realized how closely it echoes Mr. Lynd's quote above ...

[Lazarus Long]

Thanks for posting this Soph. I suspect we will be hearing more of this young man. I happen to agree with you about the importance of carpe diem.

Much I have written echos this as well in that it discusses the unfixed nature of past, present and future. Too many see carpe diem as a reason to ignore the past and the future in favor of an "eternal present" but it can also be perceived that the importance of carpe diem is to be reminded that the past and the future contribute to being a determinant of the limits for freedom in the present tense; The freedom of choice, (the will). The "eternal" aspect of the present is a quality of freedom, unlimited choice, not perhaps merely an infinite (eternal) moment in the linear application we impose because of our system of "measure" that attempts to assert physical paradigms to defining temporal qualities.

I think this author's view of time is correct about the subjective aspect of the measure and have also wondered at how this subjective quality of the present will enter and reorganize our discussion about determinism if were supported by a mathematical theorem that is confirmed to apply on a Universal scale.

We could also be seeing the next major building block to issues of Super Strings and faster than light (FTL) Physics. Very interesting work and worth following; again thanks for getting this to us.

[Mechanus]

I've read both his Foundations of Physics paper and his Philosophy of Science paper.

His basic claim seems to be that you can't talk of instants of time, only of intervals. When you speak only of intervals, you can say that since a flying arrow has an ill-defined position in each interval of time, it is moving "at all times", instead of standing still at each moment, so there is no arrow paradox.

According to what they call the "at-at theory", the arrow is also moving at all instants: even though its position has only one value at any instant, you can still talk about how it moves at that instant (by differentiating, using the values before and after). This also avoids the paradox, but Lynds argues that this isn't possible, because he seems to think the arrow would be "frozen static"; and because he thinks the notion of a continuum of instants following each other makes no sense (for example because he thinks that if one point has no duration, a set of them has no duration either, which is at least mathematically not true).

I might be misrepresenting him here. The paper was IMO very confusing and badly written, and I'm not sure I understand all his arguments. For example:

Rather than facilitating motion and physical continuity, this would perpetuate a constant precise static instant in time, and as is the very nature of this ethereal notion i.e. a physical process frozen static at an 'instant' as though stuck on pause or freeze frame on a motion screen, physical continuity is not possible if such a discontinuous chronological feature is an intrinsic property of a dynamical physical process, and as such, a meaningful (and actual physical) indicator of a time at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a certain physical magnitude is precisely determined as has historically been assumed.

Despite that his view of things is (as far as I can tell) mathematically equivalent to the normal one that involves instants, he continues on to make a few (IMO vague and confusing) comments about proposed theories (for example, that Hawking's theories can't be true).

So, IMAO, his papers are in some places wrong and in some places not even wrong. I wouldn't yet want to say that nothing useful could come from them, but I do feel confident in saying he's not the new Einstein. I don't see how this is going to shake the foundations of physics even if true (let alone be important to immortalism).

[Sophianic]

Thanks for posting this Soph. I suspect we will be hearing more of this young man.  I happen to agree with you about the importance of carpe diem.

I expect that as well. I especially look forward to his ideas on the relationship between time and consciousness.

Much I have written echos this as well in that it discusses the unfixed nature of past, present and future.  Too many see carpe diem as a reason to ignore the past and the future in favor of an "eternal present" but it can also be perceived that the importance of carpe diem is to be reminded that the past and the future contribute to being a determinant of the limits for freedom in the present tense;  The freedom of choice, (the will).

Yes, in "making the most of present opportunities," one is best kept informed by both past and future considerations, both to qualify and expand one's sense of freedom.

The "eternal" aspect of the present is a quality of freedom, unlimited choice, not perhaps merely an infinite (eternal) moment in the linear application we impose because of our system of "measure" that attempts to assert physical paradigms to defining temporal qualities.

The Zen Buddhist would agree with you about the present having an eternal aspect. Although not a Zen Buddhist, I can appreciate the distinction you're making here.

I think this author's view of time is correct about the subjective aspect of the measure and have also wondered at how this subjective quality of the present will enter and reorganize our discussion about determinism if were supported by a mathematical theorem that is confirmed to apply on a Universal scale.

I, too, tend to agree with Lynds' basic assertion that instanteity and the progression of time are not integral features of physical dynamical processes, either on the micro or the macroscopic levels. There are no instants of time, and as a consequence, there is no time flow, no progression of time with respect to the objects and events that we perceive in the world. Instants of time and time flow are products of conscious projection. For Lynds, what matters is the relative order of objects and events with respect to each other. He goes further, of course, and maintains that his most basic assumption invariably affects ALL measurements of physical magnitude (micro and macro) ~ i.e., all measures of physical magnitude are indeterminate with respect to time, in keeping with the inherent continuity of all physical dynamical processes. It will interesting to see how all of this affects the question of free will (if at all).

We could also be seeing the next major building block to issues of Super Strings and faster than light  (FTL) Physics.  Very interesting work and worth following; again thanks for getting this to us.

My pleasure. Very interesting work, indeed. Although I found his paper difficult to follow in some places (both because of his syntactical clumsiness and because of my own ignorance on some of the finer points), I think Lynds presented the implications of his basic idea well enough. Whether his basic idea will serve as the next major building block for other issues in Physics, I cannot say at this time. I suspect that it will do more to re-orient thinking on existing major issues rather than upset them.

[Sophianic]

I've read both his Foundations of Physics paper and his Philosophy of Science paper.

First, thank you for posting these links. Although I wasn't able to access the latter, I was able to read the former paper.

His basic claim seems to be that you can't talk of instants of time, only of intervals. When you speak only of intervals, you can say that since a flying arrow has an ill-defined position in each interval of time, it is moving "at all times," instead of standing still at each moment, so there is no arrow paradox.

Yes, that's a fair summation of his basic idea. Although instead of saying "ill-defined," I think Lynds would prefer to use the term "indeterminate."

According to what they call the "at-at theory", the arrow is also moving at all instants: even though its position has only one value at any instant, you can still talk about how it moves at that instant (by differentiating, using the values before and after). This also avoids the paradox, but Lynds argues that this isn't possible, because he seems to think the arrow would be "frozen static"; and because he thinks the notion of a continuum of instants following each other makes no sense (for example because he thinks that if one point has no duration, a set of them has no duration either, which is at least mathematically not true).

I'm not sure what you mean by "at least mathematically not true." If there is no instant in time that we can reference to measure relative position with precision without violating the principle of physical continuity, what does "at least mathematically not true" mean exactly?

I might be misrepresenting him here. The paper was IMO very confusing and badly written, and I'm not sure I understand all his arguments.

I don't think there's a problem with you misrepresenting his basic idea. You seem to understand it as well as it can be understood. I must also agree that the paper is poorly written in some sections (which is a shame because the implications of his basic idea are utterly fascinating). And because of my own ignorance in some of the matters he explores, I too am left feeling somewhat uncertain about my own understanding on some of the issues.

Despite that his view of things is (as far as I can tell) mathematically equivalent to the normal one that involves instants, he continues on to make a few (IMO vague and confusing) comments about proposed theories (for example, that Hawking's theories can't be true).

I would disagree with you that his view is mathematically equivalent to the "normal" one that involves instants. If that were the case, there would have been no point for him to write his paper in the first place. What you perceive as vague and confusing may be the result of insufficient understanding. Which is no fault on your part. It appears that he has a very deep grasp of the issues involved, but you can see that he struggles with the syntax of the language to make his points clear. Considering the complexity of the ideas he's grappling with, I think he can be forgiven for that (at least up to a point).

So, IMAO, his papers are in some places wrong and in some places not even wrong. I wouldn't yet want to say that nothing useful could come from them, but I do feel confident in saying he's not the new Einstein. I don't see how this is going to shake the foundations of physics even if true (let alone be important to immortalism).

IYO, of course. Opinions can change, however, with a fuller understanding of the subject matter. A lot is covered in a single paper (the main one). Whether he's the new Einstein or not, I think it would premature to say as much. I'm currently reading a treatise that challenges the foundation of everything Einstein stood for ~ to pave the way for the unification of the fundamental forces of nature. If true, Einstein will become another Ptolemy. And if true, I don't think you'd be doing Lynds (or anyone else) a favour by calling him the new Einstein.

Will Lynds' basic idea and the implications he draws from it shake the foundations of Physics? Perhaps a little, but I said in another post, it (and they) will likely re-orient thinking on some (all?) of the major issues in Physics. As for the applicability of his basic idea and the associated implications having anything to do with immortalism, I don't know yet. But I imagine that anything that radically affects our relationship with time will also affect our perception of immortality at least in relation to how we relate to the world.

[Mechanus]

I'm not sure what you mean by "at least mathematically not true."

By that, I mean that usually, in mathematics, sufficiently large collections of points have a "length" (in this case a temporal length, or "duration") even though the individual points don't. There's an area of mathematics called "measure theory" that deals with such things. Normally you define "length" in such a way that the length of a finite or countably infinite union of sets is at most as large as the sum of the lengths of the sets (any countable set of points still has zero length, since the points have zero length), but uncountably infinite unions of zero-length-sets -- such as a continuum of points -- can have larger than zero length. You can do this in a nicely self-consistent and well-defined way.

I would disagree with you that his view is mathematically equivalent to the "normal" one that involves instants.  If that were the case, there would have been no point for him to write his paper in the first place.

I think he's still looking at the same mathematical structure, the real line, but taking its sub-intervals as "fundamental" instead of the points. You can get the points back by looking at limits of smaller and smaller intervals, but they're no longer the "fundamental" thing you're looking at (maybe a "useful mathematical abstraction" from the "physical" intervals, though I'm not sure such distinctions can be usefully made), and apparently this makes him more comfortable with Zeno's paradox.

Unless he's actually thinking of some mathematical structure different from the real number line, any point in him writing this paper is philosophical, instead of physical. (It is published in a philosophy journal.) If it's another way to look at the same mathematical structure, it can never lead to differing predictions, only perhaps to a nicer philosophical picture (also, it could inspire new physics). What bothers me is that he starts out with metaphysical reasoning about whether instants or intervals are real and then claims to deduce physical consequences.

[Sophianic]

Lynds' begins his analysis with this postulate: "there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process" (incidentally, a postulate, by definition, "is often incapable of proof"). He then derives a set of implications to address and resolve a number of outstanding issues and paradoxes affected by this postulate. He elaborates on this postulate in the first paragraph of his introduction and then revisits this postulate in the section on motion and continuity. This appears to be the context for much of the current discussion.

Consistent with his postulate, he make this connection between physics and mathematics with an assumption expressed in the very first sentence of his paper: "time enters mechanics as a measure of interval, relative to the clock completing the measurement." He then expresses the converse: "in ALL cases, a time value indicates an interval of time, rather than a precise static instant in time at which the relative position of a body in relative motion (or a specific physical magnitude) would theoretically be precisely determined." Now, that's a mouthful, but look at what it says. In the context of a body in relative motion (e.g., a train speeding past me), any measurement I take of its position, at any time, relative to another position, indicates a time interval ~ and not a precise instant in time.

Later, he maintains: "it is exactly due to the train not having a precisely determined relative position to the track at any time, whether during a time interval, however small, or at a precise instant in time, that enables [the] train to be in motion. Moreover, this is not associated with the preciseness of the measurement, a question of re-normalizing infinitesimals, nor is it smeared away by quantum considerations. It simply does not have one." [emphasis added]

By that, I mean that usually, in mathematics, sufficiently large collections of points have a "length" (in this case a temporal length, or "duration") even though the individual points don't. There's an area of mathematics called "measure theory" that deals with such things. Normally you define "length" in such a way that the length of a finite or countably infinite union of sets is at most as large as the sum of the lengths of the sets (any countable set of points still has zero length, since the points have zero length), but uncountably infinite unions of zero-length-sets -- such as a continuum of points -- can have larger than zero length. You can do this in a nicely self-consistent and well-defined way.

A large collection of contiguous points, if strung together, form a solid line, and therefore has length. Even a large collection of proximate points, if strung together, form the semblance of a line, and therefore has length. Now let's suppose that a string of contiguous points represents a time interval and that a string of proximate points represents a series of instants. How do you apply these suppositions to a train in motion to measure its relative position at any given time in a way that remains consistent with Lynds' initial postulate? I think this is one of the questions we must answer.

I think he's still looking at the same mathematical structure, the real line, but taking its sub-intervals as "fundamental" instead of the points. You can get the points back by looking at limits of smaller and smaller intervals, but they're no longer the "fundamental" thing you're looking at (maybe a "useful mathematical abstraction" from the "physical" intervals, though I'm not sure such distinctions can be usefully made), and apparently this makes him more comfortable with Zeno's paradox.

I think Lynds' contention is that you can't get the points back by looking at the limits of smaller and smaller intervals (what I think he means by "re-normalizing infinitesimals") because you'd still ultimately be working with the same distinction between an instant in time (represented by a point or a series of proximate points) and a time interval (represented by a series of contiguous points). I don't think he's just working with "the real line"; I think he's also cognizant of the fact that points play a role here as well, and apparently he's not willing to blur the distinction between the point and the line ~ to keep his postulate intact. I get the feeling I'm being simplistic here, but I don't know how else to understand this.

Unless he's actually thinking of some mathematical structure different from the real number line, any point in him writing this paper is philosophical, instead of physical. (It is published in a philosophy journal.) If it's another way to look at the same mathematical structure, it can never lead to differing predictions, only perhaps to a nicer philosophical picture (also, it could inspire new physics). What bothers me is that he starts out with metaphysical reasoning about whether instants or intervals are real and then claims to deduce physical consequences.

Actually, his main paper was published in a Physics journal. And judging from the implications he draws from his postulate, I don't think he's so much interested in making new predictions as he is in setting the record straight about the nature of time by challenging the historical assumption that there can be a meaningful and actual physical indicator of a time at which the relative position of a body in motion can be precisely determined. Indeed, his postulate is a metaphysical one, but perhaps that is what is required for someone to address the relevant issues and resolve the paradoxes?

[Lazarus Long]

Roy Britt is either a member and reading this discussion, or he should be. )

Here is his recently published article on this exact subject and individual from Space.com. What is fascinating is that he addrsses exactly what we are.

http://story.news.ya...shallsofscience
New Theory of Time Rattles Halls of Science
Thu Aug 7,11:31 AM ET Science - Space.com

By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer, http://www.SPACE.com

A radical new theory of time and motion has some of the world's physicists doubting the claim while others laud the 27-year-old college dropout who came up with it, an unknown big thinker named Peter Lynds.

Lynds says he's no Einstein. In fact, he is not a fully trained theorist. He has no real academic credentials. But he does appear to have a new career, now that one other theorist compared his work to the groundbreaking ideas of Albert Einstein.

In a paper published in the August issue of Foundations of Physics Letters, Lynds claims to see time and motion with unprecedented theoretical clarity.

Lynds refutes an assumption dating back 2,500 years, that time can be thought of in physical, definable quantities. In essence, scientists have long assumed that motion can be considered in frozen moments, or instants, even as time flows on.

In an e-mail interview from New Zealand, Lynds told SPACE.com how he sees the physical world:

"There isn't a precise instant underlying an object's motion," he said. "And as its position is constantly changing over time -- and as such, never determined -- it also doesn't have a determined position at any time."

Nor does time flow, Lynds says. More on that later.

Importantly, Lynds claims his theory solves Zeno's paradoxes, which have frustrated creative brains for millennia.

Goals never reached

The most famous paradox invented by Zeno, the Greek philosopher, is called "Achilles and the tortoise." A tortoise gets a 10-meter head start in a race against Achilles. Zeno says the tortoise can never be passed. His logic: When Achilles has run 10 meters, the tortoise will have moved a meter; Achilles goes another meter, and the tortoise crawls 10 more centimeters. The race continues in this ever-more boring and incremental fashion.

A related paradox, called the dichotomy, argues that you can never reach a goal. First you'll have to travel half the distance, then half that distance, and so on. You might as well stay home.

Reality is different, of course -- goals are reached and tortoises often lose. But philosophers and physicists have not been able to explain the paradoxes away.

Lynds claims the paradoxes result from an incorrect physical assumption from long ago. From ancient times to the present, philosophers and physicists have assumed that objects in motion have determined positions at any instant in time. It's not true, Lynds says.

"I'm surprised this hasn't been realized before," Lynds said, calling many aspects of his theory very simple.

"I think much of the difficulty is the result of us actually consciously thinking in the context of an instant of time, and projecting this onto the world around us," he said. "I also just think that people haven't thought to question it and assumed it was settled and beyond reproach."

'I'm not the new Einstein'

Lynds' name and his new idea have barely reverberated through the halls of academia -- halls that Lynds has barely wandered. A recent posting on an online physics message board asks, simply, "Has anyone here heard of Peter Lynds from New Zealand? He does work on time and physics."

The ensuing discussion considers his work both brilliant and ludicrous. The discussion is heated, even vicious, and Lynds responded with a post of his own:

"I obviously won't get a Nobel Prize for the work and I'm not the new Einstein," he wrote. "I'm just a young guy from New Zealand who had some ideas and thinks they're worth chasing through."

Other scientists agree with that last part.

The importance of Lynds' work "resembles Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity," said Andrei Khrennikov, a professor of applied mathematics at Vaxjo University in Sweden and a referee of the journal paper.

Not bad acclaim for a theorist who attended university for just six months. Lynds is currently a tutor at a broadcasting school.

"It has changed my life," Lynds said yesterday. "Actually, after the past few days, I don't think it will ever be the same again. It's a bit scary."

'Profound ignorance'

In a press release accompanying Lynds' work, John Wheeler, a Princeton physicist who actually worked with Einstein, is quoted as saying he admires Lynds' "boldness" and pointing out that young new thinkers often "had pushed the frontiers of physics forward in the past."

Another referee of Lynds' paper, also quoted in the press release, took a dim view.

"I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus," said the referee, who was not named.

The naysaying referee was overruled and the paper was published. The journal, however, is one that some researchers view as a publication for lesser papers that do not merit appearing in the most prestigious scientific journals.

Lynds clearly has a long road to acceptance. He has, in fact, faced negative reactions for years, including from impatient former professors. He originally wrote the paper three years ago and is only now realizing significant attention from its publication.

One of Lynds' former professors, now-retired Victoria University mathematical physicist Chris Grigson, recalls Lynds as determined when the two argued about time.

"I must say I thought the idea was hard to understand," Grigson said. "He is theorizing in an area that most people think is settled. Most people believe there are a succession of moments and that objects in motion have determined positions."

Lynds says now that he's grateful for the encouragement Grigson provided at a time when academia was "extremely frustrating" otherwise.

"I think quite a few physicists and philosophers have difficulty getting their heads around the topic of time properly," Lynds said. "I'm not a big fan of quite a few aspects of academia, but I'd like to think that what's happened with the work is a good example of perseverance and a few other things eventually winning through."

No flow of time

One implication of Lynds' work is a really hard to wrap a mind around. If he's right that there are no instants in time related to physical processes, then there is no such thing as a flow of time, because such a flow inherently requires progression through definite instants -- exactly what Lynds forbids.

So are we all frozen in time and space? Impossible, he says.

"If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time -- time would be a physical quantity." Again, you'll recall, Lynds does not allow this.

Perhaps you smell another paradox on the horizon.

However, Lynds reasons that the lack of instants is what allows Nature to have time that we can, in turn, watch go by on our clocks. Confused? You are not alone. It will likely be some time before Lynds' ideas are shaken out by his new, lofty peers and determined to be revolutionary, interesting or just plain wrongheaded.

Meanwhile, the tutor-turned-theorist has more papers written that he would now like to submit for publication.

"This includes a paper on cosmology and time, a paper relating time to consciousness, and also a philosophy paper on the foundations of assertion," he said.

While we await a verdict on the possible genius or hubris of Peter Lynds, perhaps the rest of us can get on with striving for our own goals armed with a new expectation of actually reaching them, even if we don't quite understand why.

[Gewis]

I don't know what halls of science he's rattling. Heh. We talk about instants of time, but mathematically speaking, Mechanus is right. If we were to take a time function, t, with respect to position of a given object, and break it up into slices of time, dt, dt is that little thing we commonly refer to as an instant in time. However, by its very nature, it really is an interval, just infinitely small (not quite zero).

And maybe it isn't /infinitely/ small. As far as human perception with un-aided faculties is concerned, it's not important, but it doesn't make sense to have quantized space-time with continuous time as a separate component. Of course, my understanding sometimes falls short and I haven't bothered to do the research in either the library or the laboratory concerning this yet. I'm still in a freshman physics course for a little bit (I'm working to remedy it ASAP).

[Sophianic]

Gewis,

A time differential (dt), no matter how small, doesn't resolve Zeno's Paradoxes. In Lynds' view, an infinitesimal of time is important, regardless of its relationship to human perception. Lynds resolves the paradox, examines varied implications for classical and quantum physics, and then derives some very interesting conclusions about the nature of time, all of which in turn affects our understanding and appreciation of the prospect of, and quest for, immortality. His work is worth investigating in more depth, especially with respect to the nature of time and consciousness.

[kevin]

I wonder if our conciousness of time/motion passing in intervals, and randomness is simply a product of the 'digitization' of an analogue phenomenon by our body/brain chemistry...

[Sophianic]

I wonder if our conciousness of time/motion passing in intervals, and randomness is simply a product of the 'digitization' of an analogue phenomenon by our body/brain chemistry...

Perceptually, an awareness of time and motion is an analog phenomenon in the sense that there are no perceptible breaks in either. I am reminded of lying under a tree on a warm summer day and letting my mind wander, and taking in the sights and sounds associated with motion, with no sense of time interval. I manufacture my perception of "the flow of time" with reference to these sights and sounds (rustling leaves, for example) and produce an arbitrary, conscious projection. When I focus intently on "now," that instant is self-consciously focused. Neither my perception of flow nor instanteity exist except as projections or assignments or impositions by my mind.

Conceptually, an understanding of time and motion is a digital phenomenon in the sense that we project, assign and impose values that correspond to intervals of time. For example, I have an appointment to see someone in one hour. That "one hour" represents a unit of time marked by the changes in position of objects, or by the changes in the sequences of myriad events, or by the changes observed in the activities of those around me in space. This interval of time is an arbitrary conscious assignment, a conscious projection onto something we call "the future." But the interval and "the future" don't really exist, except as useful products of our own minds for the purposes of orientation (events) and organization (activities).

Here's a letter I sent Peter Lynds a few days after I picked up on the news release. My letter raises a couple of issues relevant to our perception and understanding of immortality ...

"First, I want to say how much I enjoyed reading your paper "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity."  I picked up on it through a press release from EurekAlert a couple of days ago.

I am especially interested in your thoughts, in light of the paper mentioned above, on the relationship between time and consciousness ~ in particular, (1) the consequences of taking back our projections, assignments and impositions of instanteity and progression onto the objects and events of the world around us, and (2) the implications of your conclusion for our perception of immortality.

With respect to the first, the basic units of time (second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade, century and millennium) ultimately serve to organize events and coordinate activity in many useful ways (past, present and future).  In reality, we impose these units of time on a wide range of successive events and activities to keep ourselves organized and oriented with respect to others and the world at large.

Beyond a certain point in the future, however, our predictive powers to shape the future break down.  Indeed, it is thought that a current exponential growth in knowledge and technology will reach a time horizon called the Singularity within the next 50 years, beyond which no useful predictions or speculations about the future will be possible.  Perhaps the arrival of this time horizon will force us to take back our projections of time progression.

With respect to my second point, in the absence of instanteity and the "flow" of time, our perception of immortality becomes radically altered, especially in light of taking back our projections of instanteity and progression through time.  Perhaps the endless fulfillment of conscious potential with respect to existence, i.e., with respect to the relative order and arrangement of objects, persons, events and activities in the world is a worthy substitute? And that the satiation of desire marks the "end of time?"

I look forward to your thoughts on the relationship between time and consciousness.  The press release indicated you would be exploring this relationship at some time in the future."

It appears that ... immortality has no future. Think about that, and think about what would happen if we took back our projections of the "past, present and future."

[kevin]

Perceptually, an awareness of time and motion is an analog phenomenon in the sense that there are no perceptible breaks in either.

Conceptually, an understanding of time and motion is a digital phenomenon in the sense that we project, assign and impose values that correspond to intervals of time.

The above I agree with. One thing I think about however, is the that underlying our analog perception is a brain that can only interpet and process as fast as neurons can fire. Unless the quantum computer model of consciousness using microtubule proteins can be show to be correct, and even if it is, our perceptions of the continuity of time are bounded by the speed of from the input of our senses and our body chemistry. In this sense I was inferring that perception of time was 'digital'. From what I understand, which may be flawed, we can only experience time in discrete chunks.

This may form the basis for our 'logical' assumption that time can be broken up at all.

Now bearing in mind I haven't read a physics text in about 15 years...

When Lynds says that we can't talk about position at a specific time as there is no such thing as 'specific time' and therefore no 'specific position', it reminds me of the uncertainty principle for subatomic particles...

The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.

, but applying on the macro scale as well as the subatomic.

When I first learnt (and have since forgotten much of ) quantum mechanics, I could see how probability could give rise to macromolecular events, but I couldn't understand why the 'uncertainty principle' wouldn't have a parallel at that level as well. Could this be it? Could our perception of the forward motion of time, and of time itself, just be a perception of the collapsing of probabilistic waveforms? With quantum mechanics reliance on 'instantaneity' can these waveforms, using Peter Lynds proposal, even be said to collapse?

If time begins to be just a construct which our consciousness conveniently creates to organize the interactions it perceives, immortality will definitely take on a different light as will the idea of consciousness and the 'power of the mind' to influence reality. Perhaps, collectively, we are creating our own reality as we go... I could certainly use a reality where I'd bothered to stay in University..

[chubtoad]

Zeno's paradox was a problem, because he didn't understand that an infinite sum of distances could add up to a finite number. This may be counter intuitive but ill give you a simple example to illistrate.
Two trains 60km apart, are coming towards each other each with a speed of 30km/h. A bird who can fly at 60km/h starts at one train, flies to the other train, then flies back to the first train and so on untill the trains crash. The question how far does the bird fly? and how many complete trips does it make? If you haven't seen this question before and want to think about it stop reading.... Answer- The trains are coming togather at 60km/h and are 60 km apart so it takes them 1h to colide. The bird is traveling at 60km/h for a total of 1h before the trains collide so it travels 60km. As for how many trips the bird maks the answer is infinity. Since each of these trips is a finite distance you have the sum of infinite distances adding up to the finite number 60km. Now you could have arrived at the first answer of 60km a different way, by taking the sum of this infinite geometric series. This doesent actually require knoledge of calculus you can simply use this formula S=a/(1-r) where "a" is the first number in the sequence and r is the number you multiply one term in the sequence by to get the next.(note absolute value of r must be <1 but that wouldn't matter in the bird problem)
As for the idea that quantities in physics involving intervals of time they do already, velocity at an instant is defined by v=dx/dt=lim(length of time interval >> 0) displacement/length of time interval. In physics an interval of time is given by delta t where delta means change in. For example if you won some money your worth might change from $500 to $1500, the change in your worth(labeled delta worth) would be $1500-$500 or $1000. Likewise, by its definition in physics a time interval is a change in time, so when you take the limit as the time interval goes to 0 you are finding a quantity on the smallest possible change in time (keyword is change, it didn't become static its changing). As Sophianic said Lynds begins his analysis with a postulate(assumption), he adds this postulate(assumption) to a system that doesen't need it. In science postulates without evidence are just unprovable conjectures which may or may not be consistant with the rest of science, it really doesen't matter.
I agree with kevin on the idea that our perception of time is comes directly from our brain and actually changes from time to time. For example in a car accident everything seems to slow down because of adrenelene. I watched a show about this and it talked about how the humming bird whoes heart beats 250 times/min(it was something like that) will measure on their biological clock a few minutes during the time we would measure a minute on ours.

[Mind]

Chubtoad: I have to agree with your analysis at this point. Lynd's take on time is interesting but I don't see how it invalidates our understanding of physics. The idea that there is no time, just different arrangements of matter is not a new idea either. I read about it a couple years ago on Kurzweil's site.

Objects move, they do not exist at all places at all times, nor do they move instantaneously from point to point. Whether you want to say "it takes time for an object to move from point to point" or "the position of objects in relationship to each other has change with no time passing" it seems the same to me.

[Sophianic]

underlying our analog perception is a brain that can only interpet and process as fast as neurons can fire.  Unless the quantum computer model of consciousness using microtubule proteins can be show to be correct, and even if it is, our perceptions of the continuity of time are bounded by the speed of from the input of our senses and our body chemistry.    In this sense I was inferring that perception of time was 'digital'.    From what I understand, which may be flawed, we can only experience time in discrete chunks.

Time flow is a subjective experience. We project this experience onto processes, qualitative changes and objects in motion as if they themselves contained it. Whether the perception of time is analog ('common sense' tells us this is the case) or digital (a deeper understanding may tell us that this is also the case), Lynds' postulate is really not affected if we assume (along with Lynds) the primacy of existence in relation to consciousness. If consciousness has primacy (i.e., causal efficacy in relation to what exists), then there might a basis for questioning whether the postulate holds true everywhere for all time. But then again, maybe not. For then we could conceivably talk about the principle of continuity not being violated by a frozen static instant in time with respect to conscious processes.

When Lynds says that we can't talk about position at a specific time as there is no such thing as 'specific time' and therefore no 'specific position', it reminds me of the uncertainty principle for subatomic particles... but applying on the macro scale as well as the subatomic.

For Lynds, the postulate applies equally to both the macroscopic and microscopic realms within the bounds set by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. He also maintains that it is not the case that the postulate is a consequence of this principle for the macroscopic world, but applies independently to it.

I could see how probability could give rise to macromolecular events, but I couldn't understand why the 'uncertainty principle' wouldn't have a parallel at that level as well.  Could this be it?

Not according to Lynds. The uncertainty created by his postulate applies to both macro and micro molecular events within the bounds set by HUP.

Could our perception of the forward motion of time, and of time itself, just be a perception of the collapsing of probabilistic waveforms?

A perception that reflects the collapse of probabilistic waveforms wherein the observer determines the observed? Even if true, the collapse might still require a material substrate for consciousness to operate on, a material substrate where the principle of continuity continues to hold.

With quantum mechanics reliance on 'instantaneity' can these waveforms, using Peter Lynds proposal, even be said to collapse?

By 'instantaneity', I think you're referring to the simultaneity of events that arises from quantum entanglement. If so, then this is a very good question. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer.

If time begins to be just a construct which our consciousness conveniently creates to organize the interactions it perceives, immortality will definitely take on a different light as will the idea of consciousness and the 'power of the mind' to influence reality.

Certainly, immortality takes on a different light in the absence of time being an inherent property of objects in motion, processes and qualitative changes. We can still project a future consciously and indefinitely, but talking about a 'flow in time' or an 'end of time' independent of consciousness no longer makes any sense.

Perhaps, collectively, we are creating our own reality as we go...  I could certainly use a reality where I'd bothered to stay in University..

I read the interview with Amit Goswami. I don't think we can create our own reality in the sense that we are causally efficacious in every way possible. A princess still cannot kiss a frog and turn it into a prince. But we can set our own intentions and manifest them if we keep them firm. But, alas, that takes ... time.

[Lazarus Long]

Underlying much of the debate are the principal elements defined by the concept of a "Unified Field for Space/Time." I understand Lynd to be saying that it is inaccurate to extrapolate the Quantum Mechanical principle to time and then treat the concept of instanteity as a "point" or essentially a "particle" moving along a temporal waveform defined by gravitational relativity.

That we do this exactly is both demonstrated and predicated by the rationalization of the "perception" of time is obvious, if from no less a memetically powerful instrument as grammar itself. This prejudice to "local space/time" that we have "experienced" is also based in its turn on this as an "a priori application" of a linguistic definition that has "colored our thinking" even as it in turn retains at least an inherent element of "truth" as derived from sensory experience. We are subjective to a tautology of reason with perception that appears to be inhibiting resolution even of the mathematical relationships. We have elegant formula that simple don't meet the test of reality such as Planck's elegant constant that isn't quite so constant on the vastness of the Universal Scale.

We evolved as a consequence of the evolution of an intelligence that was "dependent" on adaptation to conditions as experienced, not on conditions that are vastly more complex and "Universalized" than Earth's surface reality. The distinction between a "Common Sense" perception and that of the "Universal Reality of Time" could bear a relationship to the broader relationships of time that is at least as paradoxical as what we experience when attempting to reconcile Special & General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

In this instance the idea that Time may never actually be a point (particle) except arbitrarily determined locally as a consequence of Gravity's Metric and or an application of "psychology" is no mere conundrum as we treat the "Universal Present" as one single point and this is where is begins to be absurd, and Einstein ran smack into the idea that it is impossible to establish two widely distinct points in space as coincident in time "simultaneously" and Quantum Mechanics established a valid alternative for some behavioral aspects of matter but some is not all.

It was for this very reason that Einstein was the first to admit the limitations of his theories and pushed all his life to resolve the conflict through a developing a Unified Field Theory. In this respect it is no small dispute that we insist on making Time=Space rather than as qualitatively distinct from the first three dimensions and we have no evidence to support this claim.

I don't personally "like" this latter "Relativistic Aspect" of time but my liking this has nothing to do with its veracity on a Universal Scale. The only question will be if it plugs into the mathematical relationships of the physics such that it reconciles logical paradox as we now encounter it.

Saying the universe is comprised of Space/Time is not equivalent to saying Time and Space are the same, yet we are generally treating Time as a "quantity" that is definable as a "Space' without matter or volume yet contains within it all mass/energy and volume as if the entire universe is in constant motion from a point "A" in the past to a point "B" in the future with a continuously variable present defined as {(A + x) + (B-y) = total time} (finite) where x is any given passage of our applied measure of time since A and y is an unknown amount of time from the present to reach B. A and B are being treated as end points of a finite line segment.

What is interesting to me is that this looks a little like Zeno's paradox when we "psychologically" treat ourselves as always somewhere in the "middle" and conceptually at a logically created "halfway point".

I realize that an open ended infinite time would have a different formulaic relationship but my point is to address why this idea that we shouldn't be treating the present as either a moving "finite point" or a "quantity" definable as a physical dimension has a dramatic impact on how we are forced to re-examine the basic model.

I also realize that as we currently model time it "begins" with a big bang and the end is still being debated with ourselves at a "point" measured in local Earth Time relative to what we see in the Universal Expanse but this is not a clearly resolved "point".

That this may be experienced in Space as well as Time could explain why we apparently never find true quantum particle behavior for gravity and have to date been fruitless in our search for "Negative Gravity".

Now by the same token one idea is not dependent on the other and I was only attempting an analogy of the two for illustration but there does appear to be a significant overlap even of the General Physics at the level of a "Unified Field Theory".

Please bear with me as I am treating this in a very simple manner rather than as a formal physics problem but it is to address his basic "logic" and to try and grasp why this effects the underlying and very current analysis of advanced physics for both cosmology and nuclear science.

I am also intentionally confusing the issue by introducing the "Psychology of Time" because I am suggesting that we are allowing the subjectivity of experience and its evolutionary and empirically derived definition to cloud our understanding of larger issues.

[Gewis]

Gewis,

A time differential (dt), no matter how small, doesn't resolve Zeno's Paradoxes.  In Lynds' view, an infinitesimal of time is important, regardless of its relationship to human perception.  Lynds resolves the paradox, examines varied implications for classical and quantum physics, and then derives some very interesting conclusions about the nature of time, all of which in turn affects our understanding and appreciation of the prospect of, and quest for, immortality.  His work is worth investigating in more depth, especially with respect to the nature of time and consciousness.

Of course an infinitesimal of time is important. Those are the little intervals of time that add up to a perceptible-by-human-faculties interval of time. The size of the intervals has nothing to do with their importance, as long as they add up to a finite and perceivable amount of time. We treat them like instants in time because effectively they are infinitesimals of time (which still isn't truly an instant) because it's useful in calculations. However, time is not seperate from space, and only exists in any reference frame as a result of particles interacting with each other via photons, bosons, etc., the rate of which interaction is governed by general relativity, providing for an observer at rest with respect to cosmic background radiation and in a null-g environ to see us in our 390 km/s velocity through space and in a gravitational field to have time some non-quantum value slower than his. However, these particle interactions are completely quantized, consequently spacetime is as well. These quanta of time provide the basis for having true instants of time in a local reference frame.

On the mathematical side, simple algebra resolves Zeno's Paradox. Achilles travels by a path given by f(x) = t and the tortoise by g(x) = .1t + 10, setting the two functions equal to each other gives us the time when Achilles passes the tortoise. t = 11.11 seconds if Achilles really does travel a meter per second. Of course, all Zeno gave was that g(x) = .1f(x) + 10 where x is measured in meters, so however fast Achilles travels it's ten times faster than the tortoise.

[Mechanus]

The problem with Zeno's paradox isn't that the infinitely many steps add up to an infinite number (they don't), but that there are an infinite number of steps to be taken (perhaps even with no first step). See for example supertasks.

Also, what's an infinitesimal interval?

[Thomas]

I see the problem with supertasks. Mix the set of all naturals! What average do you see, on the first 1000 places? 10000000? That has been and passed at the very beginning of the supertask. That's true for all possible finite averages.

[Lazarus Long]

Gewis rather than prove anything you have said correct, or what Sophianic, Lynd, or I have said as wrong all you have done is prove what I said about how our common understanding is to treat the Present as a "Universal Singular Point" true.

This doesn't make it true, and perception is the same in this context as empirical evidence that at best is clearly limited to a subjective set of conditions. I fully acknowledge that you have accurately conveyed the common understanding, the problem is that it simply doesn't resolve the paradoxes that you are asserting it does.

It appears you are trying to even circumvent Special Relativity by this argument of Time being equivalent to Space and creating a conceptual "Temporal Singularity" such that all Time in the "Present" throughout the entire Universe may be mathematically "quantized" into one single point moving on a wave from past to future.

However, time is not separate from space, and only exists in any reference frame as a result of particles interacting with each other via photons, bosons, etc., the rate of which interaction is governed by general relativity, providing for an observer at rest with respect to cosmic background radiation and in a null-g environ to see us in our 390 km/s velocity through space and in a gravitational field to have time some non-quantum value slower than his. However, these particle interactions are completely quantized, consequently spacetime is as well. These quanta of time provide the basis for having true instants of time in a local reference frame.

I suggest that you need better evidence to support this claim when a substantial amount of evidence suggests it is invalid. Time does demonstrate Relativistic behavior with respect to velocity and gravity (mathematically related values) and this in itself precludes what you are assuming to be a given, and the reason why Special Relativity suggests that it is as yet impossible to prove a simultaneous occurrence.

When you are asserting that Time is not separate from Space you then go on to apply this as the two may be "treated" the same way "behaviorally". Even you acknowledge the importance of a "local reference frame". Perhaps you are confusing the "quality" of these two distinct "quanta"? Please define a "quanta" of Time distinct from the velocity of Light?

Please try to define Velocity without a measure of Time distinct from Distance?

Now try to define Time without a reference to velocity?

Do you see how this relates?

Distance does not require a temporal reference for its measure. Can this be true also of Time, such that perhaps it does not require a reference with respect to the first three dimensions?

Our problem is as yet we do not understand the answer to this conundrum and Lynd to his credit has phrased the issue so that many can understand the dilemma better.

I have not drawn out an opinion of my own yet. I first wanted to understand better Lynd's position, and I will add that I was establishing its contrast to prevalent thought and in your disagreement with it you nobly demonstrate what I think is a major difference. This neither proves him correct, or false, but it does clarify a major difference and why the issue is important. It also hasn't proved what you are asserting to be fact either.

Planck is also coming under scrutiny lately as his "constant" doesn't appear so constant on a Universal scale and in fact something else appears to influence the behavior of Light over vast distances. This is evidenced by recent observations that images from Hubble are not obeying predictions consistent with Planck's constant when we are able to see them without what would be presumed interference from quantum mechanical effects.

I suggest that there is more at work here than is yet grasped and we should all please try to keep an open mind while we gather more evidence, seek better models, and attempt a better reconciliation of what only "appears" as paradox, because we do not yet have sufficiently adequate models that do more than offer limited explanations.

Perhaps you could start by attempting to prove your assertion that Time is not separate from Space and why this allows an extension of Quantum Mechanical Principle that grants them qualitative equivalence?

A little evidence would go a long way, just what do you propose as evidence, and how aside from looking elegant on paper does it fit what is understood by modern physics?

If Time was equal to Space then we could rewrite a lot of laws of Physics in a far simpler form but I suggest that you are using the mathematical concept of dimension and falling victim to what I was talking about with the psychology of time and then thinking that a "Fourth Dimension" is no different than some kind of spatial quantity & quality not separate from the first three.

Most physicists would not agree with that and it is why we use the concept of Space/Time to discuss "reality" because we have two interdependent qualities that appear inextricable related. This is why when some very serious mathematicians I've talked with discuss these ideas they actually get queasy just thinking about the subject because it can give the mind a form of vertigo and is not approached well by making too many a priori assumptions.

[Lazarus Long]

In addition please reassess the position you are staking out treating Time as an infinitely small "infinitesimal" instant that "constitutes" the quanta because in fact the applied "common logic" actually assumes that the PRESENT is an almost infinitely LARGE point meaning that it is essentially "constantly equivalent" to the entire expanding Universe at any given "moment in time".

So do you still want to try and stick with purely physical qualitative models for time?

Is that a Green Door at the back of the Wardrobe?

Just how does Alice slip from one story into another mixed metaphor of a Mad Hatter's realm?

Is she infinitely small or like Guliver, exploding onto the scene simply bigger than all life?

[havelszky]

If Peter will allow me to "add" to his theory. Matter is confined in an equation parameter. The point where matter is not limited to time it becomes invisible in time at all times, It no longer is "instantly frozen. It becomes something simular to but not exactly eternal. As a unit of mass approaches the speed of light it exchanges mass for time. Energy is equal to mass by speed of light squared. So as mass speeds up it is -one converted to energy or -two it exits time. With this theory we can propose that a significant amount of power can produce mass and if not mass it can exit time and very possibly enter time else where. Also the very thought of measuring instant time is equal to the thought of measureing the sharpness of a corner of a triangle. The great thing about theory is that it is just theory. Theory stirs the brain and causes people to think. With this just said, the above can be used to explain why the sun burns for so "long" <pun intended!
Adam Havelszky

[DJS]

Here is something of interest regarding "Peter Lynds". I just came across this info earlier tonight.

museumofhoaxes - The Peter Lynds Affair

Summary? I think he's a very bright 17 yr old radio student, who's written some genuine philosophical speculations on time, then fancies having a go at spreading it around, the response being more than he could have imagined. He is also Brooke Jones. To pad out his story, he's using another 'Peter Lynds' from Wellington, the insurance broker, as a cover.
It's a kind of a hoax, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about time...

[Lazarus Long]

It appears he is testing out a theory of simultaneity. )

[DJS]

I was thinking the same thing. The fact that someone posted to this thread after almost four years and that I also had this topic on my mind earlier tonight is really quite weird.

I also find it very impressive that a 17 year old could write a paper like this. (I suppose he hid his age so people would take him seriously)

[havelszky]

I have been thinking alot today about what I posted above. In grade 7, I was taught that the sun produces light by fission and fusion. I was told that helium fission made hydrogen and hydrogen fusion made helium. I am starting to speculate that when a hydrogen atom fuses under pressure it shares the same space with another hydrogen atom. In order to do this one atom jumps halfway out of time. (giving up half of it's (time energy)) and sits like a cork in a bottle. When helium is split back to hydrogen the atom that is corked in the bottle gets pushed in . When it is pushed out of time it disappears allowing the other hydrogen molecule to float back up to the surface of the sun to repeat the process again. The molecule left out of time is invisible and has no density. Yet is is there. Just like carbon dioxide dissolved in soda. When the bottle is shaken it reappears. I question the bottle theory because if the atom in the bottle has no density, how does it get drawn back into time. Perhaps without time the atom begins to change in shape because of the lack of time and explodes back into time as cosmic light? As it does this it could start the fusion of hydrogen at the surface of the sun all over again. Again these are just questions and theories.
Adam Havelszky

[Francesco]

Tanto se ha discutido e investigado acerca de la falsa nocion del tiempo que como seres humanos hemos aprendido. La fisica esta intimamente unida con todo aquello que afecta a la materia. El tiempo no existe, el tiempo nos confunde, es solamente una referencia mental que se ha creado el ser humano para poder tener parametros de referencia de sucesos ocurridos. En realidad vivimos en una constante ETERNIDAD, donde la percepcion del tiempo lo generan los cambios generados por el MOVIMIENTO. El dia y la noche, la primavera, el invIerno, el verano y el otoño, son causados por el movimiento de los astros, no son absolutos, tan es asi que no es regla general y cambian de acuerdo a la posicion con respecto al MOVIMIENTO. EL MOVIMIENTO es el causante de la aceleracion de las particulas de la materia, sea cual sea esta. El comportamiento de la materia esta DETERMINADA POR EL MOVIMIENTO, dos elementos iguales tendran comportamientos y cambios diferentes si estan sometidos bajo condiciones diferentes de MOVIMIENTO. Nuestra vida misma y nuestra actual temporalidad mortal, es causada por EL MOVIMIENTO. La muerte fisica es un fallo causal dependiente del desajuste actual en el MOVIMIENTO del entorno en que vivimos. Nuestro planeta esta desajustado en cuanto al equilibrio normal del MOVIMIENTO en el Universo. Esto lleva millones de años sucediendo y nos ha convertido en seres mortales en un Universo Eterno. En los proximos años nuestro planeta se convulsionara como parte del proceso que esta culminando para conseguir nuevamente el estado de Paz, (sinonimo de tranquilidad, suavidad, quietud, tranquilidad en el MOVIMIENTO). Y al fin nuevamente recobraremos nuestros atributos como seres de luz en Paz, pero en el proceso no todos los seres humanos alcanzaremos este nuevo comienzo. (Un ejemplo un poco burdo puede ayudar a entender el efecto que tiene el MOVIMIENTO en nuestras vidas; imagina que todo el tiempo te mantuvieras corriendo sin parar y tuvieras que realizar todas tus actividades en una constante agitacion y aceleracion, imagina que tienes un vehiculo que todo el tiempo lo mantienes acelerado al maximo MOVIMIENTO, no es dificil comprender el desenlace que esta accion sobre tu cuerpo o sobre el vehiculo tendrá.) Ahora el Movimiento que actualmente esta prevaleciendo en nuestro entorno, no lo alcanzamos a dimensionar como dañino y como fuera de lo normal, porque no tenemos el conocimiento previo de lo que realmente deberia de ser correcto y de acuerdo a la perfeccion del Universo, no tenemos parametros de referencia que nos permitan identificar que estamos sumergidos en un medio que nos esta perjudicando con su desequilibrado MOVIMIENTO.

Somos esclavos subyugados por el MOVIMIENTO, hasta que este disminuya y el planeta se equilibre tanto en posicion como en velocidad y esta se estabilice por abajo de los limites que nos permitan regenerar nuestros cuerpos de manera constante, entonces seremos la creacion perfecta y eterna de DIOS.

Dios bendiga a las futuras generaciones que colonizaran el Universo.

Sorry, for not write English