Somehow this brings to mind Minkowski's space time. All in all it consitutes gobbledygook to me.
It's probably gobbledygook because you're attempting to let a philosopher (who apparently can't even manage simple calculations with complex numbers) explain it. Gobbledygook In, Gobbledygook Out.
But in Minkowski space-time with real time the plane of simultaneity is entirely space-like separated from the observation point. If real time is accepted it would appear that we cannot have the space of phenomenal experience.
Nonsense. If "time is what keeps everything from happening at once", then the plane of simultaneity is behaving exactly as one would expect. Stuff that happens "at the same time" takes a while to find out about, and the further away it is, the longer it takes. How is this counterintuitive?
If one has already observed an event, it's definitely in the past. (and our past light-cone intersects its future light-cone) If another event observes our present, it's definitely in the future. (and our future light-cone intersects its past light-cone) If neither of these cases is true, the event isn't in the past or in the future, so it could be happening "at the same time" (and for some observers*, will be)
-Dave * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
Foogilly bargilly / Albert the physicist's Mollusc of reference / Gives us our "space" Laws of dynamics hold / Relativisticly Such a constraint then yields / Gravity's face
