Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Temporal Symmetry in TFP

 

Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Temporal Symmetry in TFP

In my model of Temporal Flow Physics (TFP), I approach the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity from a foundational stance: I believe objective reality is the only thing that truly exists. What people call “subjective” is not a separate domain of existence, but rather a reflection of asymmetry in information—a partial view of the whole system.

Incompleteness and Asymmetry

Subjectivity arises due to incomplete knowledge. If a system is not fully known or observed, its apparent behavior may seem unpredictable or even contradictory. But this is not due to fundamental randomness—it’s simply because the observer doesn’t have all the relevant information. I interpret these gaps in knowledge as asymmetries in the temporal flow structure. If these flows were completely understood, the asymmetries would dissolve into fully objective knowledge.

This reflects a key idea: asymmetry is not intrinsic to the universe—it’s contextual, a local limitation. Once I scale my temporal viewpoint or expand the bounds of the system being studied, what once appeared asymmetric often resolves into deeper symmetry.

Temporal Flows and Distributed Objectivity

In TFP, time is fundamental and space emerges from the comparison of temporal flows. Each flow is a directional value in time, and multiple flows form dimensionality and structure. Every observation is, in essence, a comparison of flows. But the flows themselves adhere to consistent underlying rules. So, even if a single observer doesn’t access the whole picture, the entire system operates with internal coherence.

This leads to the idea of “distributed objectivity.” Each part of the system, while limited in its observational reach, still conforms to the same temporal rules. Over time—or through correct symmetry-aligned interaction—I can resolve more of the system, approaching full objectivity. The subjective fades away as information accumulates.

Context and Measurement

Context is critical. How long does it take to resolve a system? Is it 10 years? A lifetime? 1,000 years? Depending on the complexity and scale of the flows involved, a system may appear subjective over short intervals but become fully knowable over longer ones. Measurement is just flow comparison, so it depends on the scale, fidelity, and the observer’s alignment with the system's symmetries.

From my point of view, this connects closely to the idea of entropy as segmented flows. What we interpret as disorder or uncertainty is simply the result of limited flow resolution in a system. Entropy is not a mystery—it’s a measurement artifact due to segmentation and comparative limitations.

In Response to Common Critiques

Some critics argue that if subjectivity exists at all, it challenges the notion of objectivity. But in my model, subjectivity is a feature of incomplete systems, not an inherent state of nature. As Claude Shannon put it, information is the resolution of uncertainty. Similarly, I view objectivity as the resolution of segmented flows, which may initially appear asymmetric.

A critique might say: “But we can never know the whole system.” To that I reply—perhaps not immediately, but nothing prevents it in principle. And over long enough timescales, and with proper flow alignment, systems can be fully resolved. This is not an act of faith—it’s a structural truth built into the foundations of TFP.

I discussed these concepts with ChatGPT, which helped formalize and reflect back these points. But all of this stems from my original insights and philosophical orientation toward flow-based physics.

Closing Thought

There is no subjectivity “out there” in the world. There are only asymmetries within systems—reflections of incomplete comparisons. The more of the temporal landscape I see, the more symmetry I uncover. And in that symmetry lies objectivity.