CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time by J. C. N. Smith
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 17:07 GMT
Essay AbstractThis essay challenges an assumption, far too commonly held within the scientific community, that the operational definition of time is the final word of science on the nature of time, an assumption ripe for rethinking. The essay proposes a view of time which complements the operational definition, and, in so doing, dispels a glaring disconnect between modern science and what generally is viewed as common sense.
Author BioJ. C. N. Smith is retired from the CIA's former Office of Scientific and Weapons Research. Reading, thinking, and occasionally writing about issues related to time have been his avocation and passion for more than 45 years, with specific aims being to gain a deeper understanding of the universe and its workings and to peel away misperceptions which may be impeding advances in modern physics. He has published several monographs on the nature of time.
Download Essay PDF File
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
J. C. N. Smith,
You are going to repudiate the block universe and "the notion that the distinctions between past, present, and future are illusory" but not "any of the many useful theories such as Einstein's theories of relativity". How about time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity, these breathtaking consequences of Einstein's 1905 light postulate? Is it true that the travelling twin will come back younger than his sedentary brother? In my view, problems involving time dilation and relativity of simultaneity have all to do with the block universe and "the notion that the distinctions between past, present, and future are illusory". If you are consistent, you will have to repudiate the miraculous consequences (time dilation, relativity of simultaneity) and in the end Einstein's 1905 light postulate as well. I think Lee Smolin is moving in that direction:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 12:38 GMT
Hi Pentcho,
Thanks for reading my essay and for your insightful comments. The points you're raised are very much on the mark in terms of the need to sort out the wheat from the chaff of things we ultimately choose to retain from among the artifacts stemming from relativity. I chose not to try addressing this in the limited space available in the essay. My inclination, however, is to see if we can sort out what to keep and what not to keep on the basis of utility. Relativity allows us to plug numbers into equations and crank out answers that we find helpful and "correct" regarding practical things we otherwise would not be able to accomplish, such as building and using our satellite-based Global Positioning System in which relativistic effects have a role, for example. That's useful! It's a tool we should retain and use. This should be our litmus test, in my view.
What isn't useful, in my view, is a mode of thinking about the nature of time which somehow prevents many of us from recognizing the real, objective flow of time which is going on all around us as the physical universe evolves. We need a different paradigm, as I've spelled out in reference 7 to my essay. Regarding whether time is real or not, it depends entirely on how we define the word "time." This also is discussed at some length in reference 7. If you have time, please check it out.
I'm hopeful and optimistic that Smolin will help us sort this all out correctly. In his book The Trouble With Physics he wrote, "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics." (p.256) I agree! Moreover, I've heard from a reliable source that Smolin plans to publish new books on the nature of time later this year. I'm looking forward eagerly to reading them!
jcns
Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 14:35 GMT
Hi J. C. N. Smith,
If absolute simultaneity is correct and the relativity of simultaneity wrong, as Lee Smolin, Julian Barbour, Craig Callender and perhaps all clever Einsteinians now know, then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false and any "confirmation" of Einstein's relativity will turn out to be either refutation or hoax on close inspection. Take the GPS "confirmation" for instance:
http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GP
S/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf
It relies on the interpretation of the frequency shift in terms of time dilation, but if the light postulate is false, the frequency shift will have to be interpreted in terms of shift in the speed of light - no place for time dilation in this interpretation.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
JCN: I have read with great interest your essay. The what you are calling "objective reality" isn't it in fact your Consciousness ? If you accept the idea of the "Block Universe" you can more easily understand simultaneity that is not dependant on objective experiences. For more see pls my earlier
essay " Realities out of Total Simultaneity".
Good luck with the contest.
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 17:19 GMT
Wilhelmus,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your good wishes.
"The what you are calling "objective reality" isn't it in fact your Consciousness ?"
That is not how I see it, Wilhelmus. No, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that an objective reality exists independent of my consciousness. As I wrote in my essay, I believe that there is a real universe. It is this real universe which I call objective reality. Relative to the whole, my consciousness and I are but one infinitesimally small portion of that real universe.
I did take a look at your earlier essay Realities Out of Total Simultaneity. In truth, however, I must admit that your thinking far exceeds my capability for comprehension. I tried but failed to understand what you mean when you wrote:
"So, once we reached this WALL of Planck, behind it we would experience the non causal dimensions of the origin of our own space-time and many other universes, which also means that after this Wall there is no separate past, no separate now and no separate future. It is the All in One, the Total Simultaneity (from now on to be called: T.S.) where all possible pasts, now's, futures and places of all thinkable and non-thinkable universes are simultaneously "present", comparable with our memory where all the events of the past have an equal place, only active thinking replaces this events in a linear causal sequence. This TS is what we will refer to as a fifth omnipresent dimension.
[...]
. . . Mankind "feels" however this infinite TS presence, not as a pure physical phenomenon but as a "spiritual" experience. Since the beginning Myths and Legends of other worlds accompany us, religion is one of the pillars to understand our universe, it is like the Theory of Everything that scientists are looking for. The human mind however "believes", and these beliefs emerge as the fourth reality the social reality."
I regret to say that my poor brain simply does not allow me to fathom the meaning underlying those words. This no doubt is my own failing. Your ideas clearly are exceedingly complex. Regardless, good luck with your program of study, and yes, let's do continue to admire the nightly sky. That much I can understand.
jcns
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
JCN: I feel honored that you took the time to read my essay and really analyse it. I think that the subjective reality is created by our consciousness. Our consciousness (in my view) has contact with TS (like an antenna) and so with its entangled counterpart (probability) in this "dimension". In TS there is no causality, no cause and event, each probability in TS is "reality" but not as amaterial entity but as ,I do not know to call it other as "probability", it is just the way of being a causal human mind cannot understand. However the fact that the entanglement of the consciousness and its counterpart does exist we have a "feeling" that there is something else, this feeling is in ancient times (and still now) expressed as "religion", the Faith in God(s). Imagine the counterpart of your consciousness in TS as a point on a infinite line (both ways), then always the point where your counterpart is has the same distance to both sides of infinity, so it IS everywhere in this non causal infinity. It is eternal because there is no longer a cause that is vanishing. In our causal universe however our consciousness is a limited entity, it has a beginning and an end. (birth and death). In TS the eternal point that formed a unit with the consciousness here is eternal. So your life there is eternal, but not in the causal way. This is my explanation of religions and mythes, that mankind always has cherished, just because of the fact that we have a "feeling" (the entanglement with TS) about something eternal.
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 16:38 GMT
After reading your absorbing essay, I still think that the contemplation of time is a religion that will only ever require some sort of human conditioned belief in its utility. Reality has no shape. The fact that the earth appears to be round when seen from a distance might be because we can only see it by looking at it through round eyeballs. We know from actually living on earth that the part of it we are standing on is indubitably flat, as are the oceans which comprise three fifths of the earth surface. Whereas time abstractions contain proliferations of identical states such as seconds, minutes, hours and light years, reality contains no such identical collections as every study of snowflake composition has revealed. Each star is comprised of a differing always changing size and structure and each star is set at an always differing intervening distance from every other star in the Universe. Each star is unique. It is all very well to think that time must have started when the Universe commenced providing the Universe actually began whether it was by the comprehensive detonation of nothing or by Godly request for illumination, it is quite another matter to think that one can measure a unique state by comparing it to a fixed common repeatable standard of measurement such as time. Every unique state has to have a unique duration. The only condition that could be truly unique is eternity. To assert as the scientists do that this galaxy is older than some other galaxy is simply incorrect. The actual Universe is eternal. Just as the Universe stays in one place because all of its integral parts are perpetually in motion, so too does the Universe maintain its eternal structure by allowing all of its integral parts to have apparently differing durations.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 17:41 GMT
Hi Joe,
"Reality has no shape."
Aren't you being just a bit too hard on reality here, Joe? How would you like it if somebody said you have no shape? (Just kidding!)
I can't tell for sure from your comments whether you've given up on trying to understand the universe or not. I'm still optimistic that we'll continue to chip away at it little by little until we get a lot closer than we are now. But we'll only get there if we persevere. Nobody ever said it would be easy. Hang in there, Joe!
jcns
Anonymous replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear J.C.,
I have to ruefully admit to my having a shape and it is not an impressive one by any means. Reality cannot and does not have a shape. What would the acceptable scientific ascertainment of reality shape be? How could shape be scientifically distinguished from shapeless? How could reality contain shape and shapeless constituencies? While it is true that seemingly separate realistic objects can temporarily be considered to have a definable shape, the totality of reality does not. I do not think that the Universe is understandable. I believe that opposite states attract, similar states abide, and states on the brink of becoming identical -after first exchanging propensities- then merge into a new state. The real Universe can attract abstract ideas about its inception and continuance because of the opposite containment of reality to abstraction. The reality of the Universe has to persist because all of its seeming substantive parts are really similar. Abstract ideas about the Universe have fluctuated over the years from Ptolemy to Newton to Einstein and many others. Essentially, I think all abstraction is unwholesome.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 14:46 GMT
Hi Joe,
"Abstract ideas about the Universe have fluctuated over the years from Ptolemy to Newton to Einstein and many others. Essentially, I think all abstraction is unwholesome."
Whether abstraction is "unwholesome" or not is, I think, in the mind of the beholder. Moreover, it strikes me that abstraction is virtually inevitable. How can thinking beings exist and *not* engage in abstraction? Were it not for abstraction wouldn't we all still be living in caves and hunting with sticks and stones and eating plants and raw meat whenever we were fortunate enough to acquire it? Or perhaps I'm missing your point about the nature of abstraction?
jcns
Anonymous replied on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear J.C.
As Oscar Wilde sagely opined: Everything in moderation, including moderation, I am somewhat appalled by the extent and absolute dominance of the amount of abstract ideas that are inflicted upon us every day. When did it become more important to us what we thought compared to that which we actually sensed? Why is not one Reality 101 class taught in any of our schools? Do you not think that it might be best to teach our children how to grow his and her own food, and how to cloth his and herself and how to find and maintain a suitable shelter, rather than inculcating them with the esoteric mysteries of algebra and calculus?
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 19:31 GMT
Hi Joe,
I hope there might be room in our school curricula for all the things you mentioned, practical as well as more abstract. Always good to keep at least one foot planted firmly on the ground while reaching for the stars. As David Deutsch pointed out in his book 'The Beginning of Infinity,' anything that is not specifically ruled out by the laws of nature is possible, given the right knowledge.
I can't blame you (or anyone) for being concerned that the growth of scientific knowledge (along with all the power which that entails) often appears to be far outstripping the growth of wisdom and common sense. We know how to nurture and foster the growth of science, but how do we nurture and foster the growth of wisdom and common sense? If you can solve that one there's sure to be a Nobel waiting for you.
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
and a nobel, one !
ahahah let's laugh in live JCN .wait I am going to create an algorythm for a pure selectivity of priorities......and the objectivity shows to the subjectivity that a water drop is like a star :)
The nature of abstraction, yes of course and what after a pure play about the determinism and the irrationalism, ....any sense ! in all irony of course.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 21:58 GMT
JCN Smith,
You are too cautious in dealing with the problem of simultaneity:
https://sites.google.com/site/smithjcnparadigm/
"It will not have escaped the attention of readers closely familiar with this topic that the word "simultaneity" has not appeared in the current essay until this sentence. Simultaneity clearly is a topic which has loomed large in writings on the philosophy and science of time. I believe that the concept of time proposed in this essay has strong implications for the notion of simultaneity, but I beg forgiveness for choosing not to address that topic in this essay, which already has grown far too long and unwieldy."
Julian Barbour is less cautious:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/earlyca
reer/events/time/programme/julian_barbour.pdf
Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/final_
version_of_bulletin_autumn_2011.pdf
"Julian reasoned that TIME SHOULD NOT BE FUSED WITH SPACE: it emerges from the timeless shape dynamics of space. Ratio is everything that is meaningful in physics, and the size of universe is far less fundamental than its shape. An instant of time is one configuration of the entire universe at one instant, he claimed, and ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY SHOULD BE RESTORED."
The danger comes from the fact that the relativity of simultaneity is a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 light postulate. Restoring absolute simultaneity is tantamount to declaring that the light postulate is false.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
Hi Pentcho,
Thank you for those references. Yes, Julian Barbour and I appear to see eye to eye on many aspects of time. He wrote, "The relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe do not occur at instants of time . . . they are the instants of time." I wrote, "A particular time is identically equivalent to, and is completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe." I can't speak for Mr. Barbour, of course, but I see these as being two only very slightly different ways of expressing exactly the same concept of time.
I believe that the significance of simultaneity, per se (as a separate issue), is vastly over-rated. Once we understand that any particular time is identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe, the notion of simultaneity becomes almost secondary. Any particular configuration of the universe (i.e., any particular time) is what it is. The universe has one, and only one, real history. Unfortunately, due to limitations of sensory data, the evolving configurations of the universe are intrinsically unknowable to individual observers, but that does not mean that particular real, albeit evolving, configurations do not exist.
As I explained in my essay Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time, "events" are merely local, transitory subsets of larger, evolving configurations of the universe. Hence, it is possible that various events indeed *may* be simultaneous. Unfortunately, our knowledge of such simultaneity is precluded by limitations of sensory data. Theoretically, simultaneity is not only *possible*, but is *inevitable* for some events. The full practical import of this fact, however, is still less than crystal clear to me.
Thank you again for your interesting and helpful comments.
jcns
Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 12:14 GMT
Sorry JCNS but the notion of simultaneity CANNOT be secondary. If the consequent is false, that is, if simultaneity is absolute and not relative, as leading theoreticians seem to believe, then we have to conclude that the antecedent, Einstein's 1905 light postulate, is false as well. But the falsehood of the light postulate implies an unprecedented catastrophe in science:
Albert Einstein (in a letter to Freundlich): "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C4_PP.HTM
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3
.pdf
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 15:47 GMT
Pentcho,
Once again, thank you for the excellent references. The Magueijo paper ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf ) especially raises a pertinent issue:
". . . The speed of light is a quantity with units (units of speed) and in a world without constants there is no a priori guarantee that the meter sticks are the same at all points and that clocks spread throughout the universe are identical. Clearly if a *dimensionless* constant is observed to vary . . . that fact is unambiguous." (pp. 5-6)
Now, perhaps somewhat ironically, one direct logical outgrowth of my view of the nature of time is that speed is *not* a quantity with units; it is a dimensionless quantity. This conclusion is developed in my essay, Time: Illusion and Reality ( https://sites.google.com/site/smithjcn/time ).
The reasoning runs as follows: 1.) a particular time is identically equivalent to, and is completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe; 2.) The configuration of the universe changes if, and only if, some portion of the universe is displaced relative to some other portion; 3.) In order to observe and measure a change in the configuration of the universe (and, hence, a change from one particular time to another) we must observe and measure a displacement of some portion of the universe relative to some other portion. But displacements are measured in units of (what else?) displacement! Time changes (i.e., changes from one particular time to another) equate to displacement changes. Thus, speed may be seen in this light as being a dimensionless quantity.
jcns
Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT
Hi JCNS,
Concerning the importance of the notion of simultaneity:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/lectures/Tsinghua
/Tsinghua.html
John Norton: "The second step is Einstein's discovery of the relativity of simultaneity. This is the breakthrough that showed Einstein how to reconcile his principle of relativity with the constancy of the speed of light."
Clearly by replacing the relativity of simultaneity with absolute simultaneity, a direction in which most of today's theoreticians secretly or openly move, one makes the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light irreconciliable again. Curiously, the principle of relativity then becomes reconciliable with the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light (c'=c+v). I am sure some of the rebel theoreticians know that.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 05:40 GMT
JCN
We have had this exchange previously.
There is only one form of simultaneity, which is in timing, and it is 'at any given point in time'. As at that point, which is a present in the proper sense of the word, though it has occrred, there is a definitive reality (ie physically existent states). Subsequent to that there is alteration. So there are different existent states, at another subsequent point in time. These alterations vary in the rate at which they occur. Comparison of these rates is timing. Time does not exist, as usually conceived. The rate at which any given change occurs, does.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 11:31 GMT
Hi Paul,
Yes, we have had at least a similar exchange previously.
"Time does not exist, as usually conceived. The rate at which any given change occurs, does."
I honestly think that I understand the point you're driving at with this statement, Paul. If so, it's why I made clear in my essay that I am not criticizing the operational definition of time, per se. It is the operational definition which provides a convenient way for us to accomplish the "timing" you refer to.
A "rate" is merely a way to compare changes. Whether a rate "exists" or not depends on what you mean by "exists," I suppose.
It strikes me that this is the reason our previous discussions have tended mostly to conclude in an impasse. We end up quibbling about definitions of terminology. Not a trivial issue, and not one that I intend to trivialize. Words are important. For some reason I've yet to fathom, however, our discussions tend not to converge, but rather to remain on separate, more or less parallel trajectories. It always reminds me of the saying that using words to express an idea is like using lumber to build a tree.
Moreover, Paul, I can't tell from your comments whether you agree with the point I've tried to make in my current FQXi essay or not. Are we in agreement on that or not? Or is it not possible to say, given our apparent terminological disconnects?
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 09:28 GMT
JCN
Specifically:
“A "rate" is merely a way to compare changes. Whether a rate "exists" or not depends on what you mean by "exists," I suppose”.
It is not that a rate is a way to compare changes. The point is that it is a rate at which something is physically occurring that is being compared, ie a rate is being compared with another rate. And it is the rate at which...
view entire post
JCN
Specifically:
“A "rate" is merely a way to compare changes. Whether a rate "exists" or not depends on what you mean by "exists," I suppose”.
It is not that a rate is a way to compare changes. The point is that it is a rate at which something is physically occurring that is being compared, ie a rate is being compared with another rate. And it is the rate at which alteration occurs (or more precisely, the speed at which one existent state supersedes another). Now, we can compare them directly, without any reference to timing, as such. Hence: X occurred whilst Y occurred. Or, we can introduce a common denominator (a defined rate of change-like crystal oscillation) and compare other rates of change against that. Alteration occurs. We are comparing the rate at which one alteration occurs against another.
Re the second part of the sentence: change does not exist, as such. Existent states exist. There are differences between them. This has two aspects: 1) substance, ie what is different, 2) the rate at which the differences occur when comparing one with another (which may be disparate in substance ie movement and colour, or of the same attribute).
Generally:
While I sympathise with what you are saying, I am not sure that the “operational definition of time” (which is actually timing) is regarded as the “final word”. So your argument may be addressing a problem which does not exist. Though there certainly is a problem. A concept, referred to as time, has been reified into reality, ie it is seen as an attribute of any given reality. It is known to revolve around change. Then, additionally, events are timed. This supposed variable (time) within any given reality allegedly accounts for other variances. There is a degree of confusion as to whether these variances (or at least some of them) occur in reality, or the sensing (usually only seeing is referred to) ie quantification thereof.
Now, the point is that ‘time’ (misconceived or otherwise) does not occur in any given reality. Because it actually corresponds with the rate at which change occurs. That is, it is an attribute of the difference between physically existent states, not of them. Timing involves the comparison, and hence quantification, of these. For example, a quartz watch is comparing crystal oscillations (which is change) with a defined sequence of change (say movement). So, the whole concept of time is incorrect. There is no change occurring within any given physically existent reality, because if that was so, that would comprise more that one existent reality. And there can only be one existent state at a time. The present, incidentally, constitutes that which was existent as at any given point in time.
So it is not really a question of “adopting a broader, more comprehensive, view” and thereby establishing a definition which “complements”… Alteration occurs, that happens at a rate. Quantification of this rate is timing.
[Just to note: SR involves no form of these variables. There is only motion which is effectively ‘stillness’ (ie uniform rectilinear and non-rotary), and objects are fixed in shape].
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 12:25 GMT
Paul,
'There is no change occurring within any given physically existent reality, because if that was so, that would comprise more that one existent reality. And there can only be one existent state at a time."
This statement beautifully captures the crux of our differing views. It's still not clear to me, however, whether our failure to achieve a meeting of the minds is due to a disconnect over terminology or a disconnect over substance or perhaps some combination of the two.
I'll try one more time here to explain my view. A particular configuration (or "arrangement" or whatever term you'd prefer) of the physically existent reality that we refer to as the universe *defines* a particular time. The configuration of the universe *does* change (this is one of our most primitive empirical observations). Each separate manifestation of that changing configuration is, *by definition,* a separate time. So when you say that "there can only be one existent state at a time" you are really saying (from my perspective) that there can only be one time at a time. Yes, I'm in violent agreement with you, there can only be one time at a time.
The configuration of the universe changes. A previous configuration included dinosaurs roaming our planet. The current configuration does not. These are two different configurations and two different times. There is no risk of there ever being more than one time at a time.
Btw, I've heard rumors that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Mulberry Bushes has begun monitoring our exchanges, so we can't continue going round and round this same poor bush forever. On the other hand, I *would* like to see us achieve a meeting of the minds if such is possible, but I've about exhausted my explanatory arsenal. I don't know how better to explain my view.
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 06:30 GMT
JCN
“It's still not clear to me, however, whether our failure….”
No, it is unclear to me as well, but sod the Mulberry Bush and its supporters, you do, as I do, keep trying to reach a point of understood agreement about whether we disagree or not.
Now, in the second sentence second para, why say “defines” a particular time? It is the physically existent state which exists, time is a measurement system. And the definition of what did so can only be established as at any given point in time (a “particular time”). So, yes, we have particular time, particular existent state (incidentally, this is in respect of anything, could be the universe, or a ball, or you). The expression is sort of correct, but the ‘wrong’ way round. A point in time (ie a unit, as in timing) is, by definition, definable by the quickest at which any given alteration occurs. But, as it is a measuring system, any reference will suffice, just the more frequent and constant the change, the better.
I then worry about the phrase before that: “A particular configuration…of the physically existent reality”. There is no ‘of something’, there is only a physically existent state as at any given point in time. Nothing else. The previous state has been superseded. And if there is any form of change, then it must be a different physically existent state (that is what different is). There can only be one at a time, ie there is no change/alteration within any given reality (which is a shorter word for physically existent state). Our problem is that we are conceptualising reality from a higher level (never quite sure whether less detailed equals higher), so we latch on to certain superficial physical characteristics, and unless they alter, deem it as being the same thing, an ‘it’, albeit perhaps altering in some respects. This is incorrect. There is, in reality, a sequence of different ‘its’, they just have similar characteristics at a very superficial level. There is no ‘leaf’, as such. There is a particular physically existent state, then another, and another, and so on. A property of the ‘stuff’ (technical word!) which comprises any given state causes alteration. Now, during that sequence of change, ‘it’, after being a ‘bud’ resembles what is known as ‘leaf’. Eventually, as change continues to occur, having altered in colour, texture, shape, etc, it disconnects from the tree (or Mulberry Bush, even), but we still refer to the subsequent existent states as ‘leaf’. Finally it is no longer constituted in a way which gives it the characteristics of ‘leaf’. But in physical terms, there never was an ‘it’ (‘leaf’), there was just a sequence of different physically existent states.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 01:59 GMT
Hi Paul,
You'll find a reply to your post below. Perhaps I failed to do a "reply to this thread." Sorry.
jcns
hide replies
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT
Paul,
I may be hallucinating, but I sense that we're making progress.
"So, yes, we have particular time, particular existent state (incidentally, this is in respect of anything, could be the universe, or a ball, or you)."
We agree here, Paul, and this, for me, is the key to the whole concept. I simply choose to think in terms of the existent state of the most inclusive thing...
view entire post
Paul,
I may be hallucinating, but I sense that we're making progress.
"So, yes, we have particular time, particular existent state (incidentally, this is in respect of anything, could be the universe, or a ball, or you)."
We agree here, Paul, and this, for me, is the key to the whole concept. I simply choose to think in terms of the existent state of the most inclusive thing I can imagine, which is the universe, which of course includes balls and us and mulberry bushes and leaves, etc.
"The expression is sort of correct, but the "wrong" way round. A point in time (ie a unit, as in timing) is, by definition, definable by the quickest at which any given alteration occurs."
Curses! Foiled again! The dreaded "but" rears its ugly head. Here, Paul, is one place where our thinking diverges. What you call "a point in time" (which I believe is the same as what I call "a particular time," and what others commonly refer to as a "moment" or as a "moment in time" is not, according to my view, "a unit, as in timing," nor is it, "by definition, definable by the quickest at which any given alteration occurs."
Quickest relative to what, Paul? You've already built a clock into the universe with this statement. Forget clocks for now. Banish clocks from the universe. (A difficult feat, given that virtually any process may be viewed as a clock.) The "quickness" with which any one alteration occurs is only meaningful if we compare it with some other alteration. For convenience, we arbitrarily select one alteration and call it our clock. (A wise - - i.e., optimally useful - - selection of what to use as a clock clearly is not totally arbitrary, but I'm speaking purely theoretically.)
"There is a particular physically existent state, then another, and another, and so on. A property of the "stuff" (technical word!) which comprises any given state causes alteration."
Again, we are in total agreement here. The "property" which causes alteration in any given state is what we humans have, in our infinite wisdom, named the laws of physics or the laws of nature. Some of the best thinkers ever to have lived have taken it as their mission to understand and codify these laws.
"But in physical terms, there never was an "it" ("leaf"), there was just a sequence of different physically existent states."
Here we diverge again. I say that there was indeed a leaf. "Leaf" is the term we use to describe a particular configuration of "stuff." (I tend to use the technical term "bits and pieces" rather than "stuff," but I can live with your terminology.) The configuration of the ensemble of atoms (stuff) which had come together in the form of a leaf subsequently becomes altered (in compliance with the laws of physics) to become an ensemble of stuff we call "mulch." This subsequently will be scattered (again, in compliance with the laws of physics) and some will be taken up by plant roots and eventually become another leaf, which may be eaten by an animal, which is in turn eaten by another animal, and which eventually may become a part of you or me.
jcns
view post as summary
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 05:41 GMT
JCN
“…is not, according to my view, "a unit, as in timing," nor is it, "by definition, definable by the quickest at which any given alteration occurs."
Aha:
1 If it is not timing then what is it? Timing requires points which represent start and finish and the points in between are units of the measuring system (duration). Now, as in any measuring system, one can choose any common denominator (unit) as the reference, so long as it has the required attributes. It is just that some are better.
2 Since timing is the comparison of the rate at which any form of change occurs, then that which occurs quickest (whatever form of change it might be-probably movement of elementary particles(?)) when comparing any change one to another, constitutes the unit of timing. One could say this is the ‘tick’ rate of our reality. It takes that duration for any alteration to occur. Many forms of change take more than one of those ‘ticks’. This is why (above 1) any reference is OK in so far as the same ‘mistake’ is being made every time. And the only real problem is that some degree of differential which occurs is not being identified, but then we are usually conceptualising a sequence of change at a much higher level than that which actually occurs anyway. So, crystal oscillation is a considerably slower form of change compared to elementary particle occupying adjacent spatial position.
Another way of responding to your “Quickest relative to what”, is to point out that everything is a ‘clock’. Everything is changing. But the changes can be very slow and not consistent. So the snail crossing my garden does not provide a ‘good’ clock. There is change (in that physically existent states occur which when compared have differences). These changes can be in respect of all sorts of attributes. [It may well be that change, although manifest in many different ways, is the function of one, or very few, factors, but that is a different issue]. Timing is about comparing the rate at which these disparate alterations occur. Speed is about comparing only a particular form of change. So is colour, texture, noise, heat, etc, etc, etc. Therefore, it is all timing really, ie comparison to establish differences. It is just that timing compares anything and everything, irrespective of what form of change it is.
We agree on the last point. There is relentless reconfiguration, but for some number of these in a sequence, they have superficial characteristics which mean it can be identified as an ‘it’ (leaf). The important point to remember is that this is only so in respect of that conceptualisation. In reality, each configuration (physically existent state) was considerably different from the preceding ones.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 10:43 GMT
Paul,
"If it [a point in time] is not timing then what is it?"
What you call "a point in time" (which is, I believe, the same as what I call "a particular time") is identically equivalent to, and is completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe.
The configuration of the universe changes if, and only if, some portion of the universe is displaced relative to some other portion. In order to observe and measure a change in the configuration of the universe (and, hence, a change from one particular time to another) it is necessary to observe and measure a displacement of some portion of the universe relative to some other portion. But displacements are measured in units of (what else?) displacement; i.e., length. Speed, therefore, is a dimensionless quantity, being a measure of length per length (distance per distance).
"Now, as in any measuring system, one can choose any common denominator (unit) as the reference, so long as it has the required attributes. It is just that some are better."
We appear to agree here.
". . . everything is a "clock". Everything is changing. But the changes can be very slow and not consistent. So the snail crossing my garden does not provide a "good" clock."
Again, we appear to agree here. Moreover, I'm quite taken with the idea of your snail clock. It might be quite useful for timing the movement of things such as glaciers, or me prior to my first coffee of the day. I could boast of operating at blinding speed.
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 05:34 GMT
JCN
The physically existent state is not ‘defining’ a point in time. It is in one particular state at that point in time. But you choose the point, and then established what existed at it. So it is timing, as I said.
“The configuration of the universe changes if, and only if, some portion of the universe is displaced relative to some other portion”.
I do not know what causes alteration. But alteration can involve more than displacement (though you might be using the word displacement as an alternative to alteration, ie not just movement/spatial position?). You are aware of it because when comparing one existent state with another (which is all you have) differences are manifest. You can calibrate these differences by comparing them against each other, or against one chosen common denominator. Timing is just comparing any rate of any change against any other rate of any change. Sheep moves vis a vis bell tolls. Speed, etc is comparing similar types of those changes, ie the relative rates of change in spatial position.
Re snail clock. Often it is good discipline to pick a ludicrous, but logically correct, example, because it demonstrates what is really going on. Yep the whole world could be run in accord with snail time. Everybody would have a snail on their wrist/mantelpiece/wall, etc, etc. Instead we commonly have quartz oscillations. But this emphasises what timing really is, and what is being measured.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:18 GMT
Paul,
"The physically existent state is not "defining" a point in time. It is in one particular state at that point in time."
This is a key point upon which we hold differing views, and it is this specific difference, more than any other, which is preventing a better meeting of minds.
Let me offer a different wording of the idea I'm trying to convey; perhaps it will help. This wording is not mine; it is the wording of Julian Barbour (with whom I am in complete agreement on this point): "The relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe do not occur at instants of time . . . they are the instants of time."
Again, the relative configurations of the universe do not occur *at* instants of time . . . they *are* the instants of time. Does that wording help clarify the idea? It is *not* that a particular configuration *occurs simultaneously with* a particular time or that it "coincides with" a particular time. The particular configuration and the particular time are identically equivalent; they are one and the same thing. There is no "time" separate from configurations of the universe.
This also explains why there is no risk of there ever being more than one time at a time, which was an earlier concern you'd expressed (a concern which I believe was founded on a faulty grasp of the concept). As you correctly pointed out ". . . there can only be one existent state at a time." Yes, exactly, and the reason for this is that the existent state and the time are exactly the same thing. If it was a different existent state it would also be a different time.
Not only is it not necessary, but, moreover, it is positively confusing and misleading and unhelpful to add on a separate, imaginary "layer" to reality and to give that imaginary layer the name "time."
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 06:24 GMT
JCN
They occur. So they must do so at a point in time (as in timing). Otherwise, they could not be differentiated from other such occurrences, which did not happen concurrently. Indeed, you are not even able to define what did occur, unless you choose a particular point in time first. What Julian Barbour does not understand, and hence why he is expressing it this way, is time, not timing. Time is non-existent. There is no physically existent entity in reality which corresponds to this concept.
What exists is a physically existent state, then another, etc. Taking some in a sequence (the criterion for selection is irrelevant, say ‘ball’, ‘Andromeda Galaxy’, ‘squirrel’, etc) then comparison of those states reveals differences with reference to a number of physical attributes (eg colour, shape, texture, spatial position, etc). Comparison of the rate at which those changes occur, ie irrespective of what is involved, is timing. Hence, while Andromeda Galaxy spun X, squirrel eat a nut. There is only timing, which is a measuring system that enables the comparison of disparate rates of change. But change is not physically existent, and anyway, it is concerned with the difference between realities, not of them.
All this can boil down to, in the sense that you and Julian are saying, is that there is some rate of change which is the quickest, when compared to any other, and if we could identify it and utilise it in timing devices, then we would have a unit for our timing measuring system which enables complete differentiation. As it is, we use occurrences which are not as good (eg crystal oscillation) but still involve a high frequency and constancy. Or put the other way around, there are some rates of change which occur quicker than one oscillation. But, as with all measuring systems, it is only a reference, of itelf it is meaningless.
“This also explains why there is no risk of there ever being more than one time at a time”.
No it does not. This has nothing to do with timing. It is how existence must occur. It can only be in one physically existent state at a time. Any alteration to that state constitutes a different state.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
Paul,
"They [?] occur. So they [?] must do so at a point in time (as in timing). Otherwise, they could not be differentiated from other such occurrences [?], which did not happen concurrently. Indeed, you are not even able to define what did occur, unless you choose a particular point in time first."
I'm assuming that the "they" to which you're referring here are physically existent states (?), which, in my lexicon, are the same as particular times.
"Indeed, you are not even able to define what did occur, unless you choose a particular point in time first."
What you are saying here, Paul, in my lexicon, is that you cannot describe a particular configuration of the universe without first describing that particular configuration of the universe.
By way of specific example, let me sketch out, in minimalistic brush strokes, a rough configuration of one small portion of the universe: dinosaurs roaming the planet Earth. I was able to describe this existent state without needing first (as a separate, preliminary step) to "choose a particular point in time." The reason is that this existent state and this particular point in time are one and the same thing. By choosing one you've chosen both.
Now, what's the risk that one of these dinosaurs might have been injured by walking onto a railroad track and being struck by a steam locomotive? (Could steam locomotives have caused the extinction of dinosaurs?) Not much risk. Why not? Because steam locomotives and dinosaurs have not shared an existent reality (configuration of the universe). This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I believe you call "timing," but it has everything to do with particular times (particular configurations of the universe). There has never been a particular physically existent state, (i.e., a particular configuration of the universe; i.e., a particular time) which included both dinosaurs and steam locomotives.
"Any alteration to that state constitutes a different state."
Yes, and it also constitutes a different particular time.
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 07:14 GMT
JCN
I am not sure why you are putting a question mark after the word they, this refers to your quote from Barbour where they was: “relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe” . I did not bother to question what this might actually be, because Barbour said it, and such a question is irrelevant. Because what occurs, ie is physically existent, can only occur in one physical...
view entire post
JCN
I am not sure why you are putting a question mark after the word they, this refers to your quote from Barbour where they was: “relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe” . I did not bother to question what this might actually be, because Barbour said it, and such a question is irrelevant. Because what occurs, ie is physically existent, can only occur in one physical state at a time. By definition, this somewhat obvious truism applies to anything, ie a specific elementary particle, a cathedral, the universe, etc.
“"Indeed, you are not even able to define what did occur, unless you choose a particular point in time first." What you are saying here, Paul”
Simple, as above. We say, ‘there is a cathedral’, ‘the grass is green’, ‘there is a fly on the window’, etc, etc. Now, what is left off those statement, because life would be impossible, and we are probably incapable of knowing all the information necessary, is a precise moment in time when these alleged occurrences happened, and then a precise definition as to what actually physically constituted the concepts cathedral, grass, green, fly, on, window, as at that chosen point in time. Since at another point in time they were different.
As I keep on saying, sensory systems evolved to enable survival, not detect the nature of reality. We would need impossibly sized/complex sensory systems, unbelievable technology, and probably an entire lifetime of analysis just trying to establish what, as at any given point in time, constituted that which we labelled cathedral. We are operating at a much higher level of differentiation than that which actually must occur in reality. We are conceptualising it. Our entire way of thinking, our language, etc, etc, has this inbuilt. We do it automatically.
So the second part of that sentence: “…in my lexicon, is that you cannot describe a particular configuration of the universe without first describing that particular configuration of the universe” is incorrect (this is demonstrated in your dinosaur example). Reality is a sequence of static existent states. There are differences between these. We can quantify the rate at which these alterations occurred using a system known as timing, which involves comparison of the rates at which any given identifiable changes occurred (ie any given state was superseded by the next), irrespective as to what it involved.
In your dinosaur example, you have described many previously existent states over a considerable duration. You have not defined an actual physically existent state. And in order to do so you would have to select a precise moment n millions of years ago and then define what was physically in existence as at that chosen point in time. Not one in the same era, or more than one but not too many. Because, at any other point in time than the chosen one, there are differences to what is physically existent. So you would have to define something different.
You are using the concept of ‘particular time’ (as in timing) to delineate existence. Whereas reality exists in one specific physically existent state at a time, then alterations occur, and we can measure the rate at which this does so by comparing the turnover of various disparate alterations.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 13:43 GMT
Paul,
"Reality is a sequence of static existent states. There are differences between these."
I'm not sure what universe you're living in, Paul, but there's nothing static about the existent states in my universe. In my universe there is a sequence of existent states, and there are differences between them.
Your universe sounds like an old-fashioned film strip in which...
view entire post
Paul,
"Reality is a sequence of static existent states. There are differences between these."
I'm not sure what universe you're living in, Paul, but there's nothing static about the existent states in my universe. In my universe there is a sequence of existent states, and there are differences between them.
Your universe sounds like an old-fashioned film strip in which individual static frames are projected in rapid succession to give the appearance (illusion) of motion. And here we encounter the debate regarding whether reality is digital or analog, which I've assiduously avoided. Do the existent states in my universe flow smoothly from one to another or do they jump jerkily from one to another so rapidly that I'm unable to detect their jerky nature? I don't know the answer to that one, Paul. In the interest of making progress, however agonizingly slow and fitful, in the ongoing discussion we've been having here, however, I'm not sure it's essential that we definitively answer the analog vs. digital question. Do you see this question as being central to our discussion? If so, why?
"We can quantify the rate at which these alterations occurred using a system known as timing"
Agreed.
"You are using the concept of "particular time" . . . to delineate existence." [please dispense with (as in timing) for the moment.]
Yes, correct; I am using the concept of "particular time" to delineate the existence of a particular configuration of the universe, or, in your terminology, the existence of a particular existent state.
"Whereas reality exists in one specific physically existent state at a time, then alterations occur, and we can measure the rate at which this does so by comparing the turnover of various disparate alterations."
Believe it or not, Paul, (I hope you're sitting down) I agree with you on this. This is where clocks enter the picture. Unfortunately, it's also where trouble enters the picture.
The point I was trying to make (obviously unsuccessfully) in my previous post with the dinosaur and steam locomotive example is that "Time" is *more* than just the reading of a clock, and it is *more* than just timing. We have gotten ourselves into all manner of trouble and confusion because people have lost sight of this.
Which brings me back full circle to the point of my essay in the current FQXi competition. So far as science is concerned, "time is that which is measured by clocks" is the full story. I argue that it is *not* the full story. That way of thinking has led us to block time and to claims that the distinctions between past, present, and future are an illusion, however persistent that illusion may be, and to claims that there is no objective flow of time. Do you believe that those are accurate depictions of reality? I don't.
Clocks (and calendars) have taken on extremely important roles in our lives because they serve as a convenient shorthand notation for conveying information about configurations of the universe, as I explained in my essay
Time: Illusion and Reality. If I tell you that I am talking about the configuration of the universe 200 million years ago which included dinosaurs, I can safely assume that I will not need to explain to you that steam locomotives are not a part of that configuration, because you have some knowledge of history.
I argue that we need to complement, or augment, the operational definition of time with a broader view, as explained in my essay.
jcns
view post as summary
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 05:40 GMT
JCN
So what exists if it is not static, in the sense that for a certain period no form of change occurs? How do you define any given substance if it is in more than one physical state, because it then involves change, ie differences, ie more than one? Stuff can only be in one physically existent state at a time (ie static, I could not think of a better word, but have explained it many...
view entire post
JCN
So what exists if it is not static, in the sense that for a certain period no form of change occurs? How do you define any given substance if it is in more than one physical state, because it then involves change, ie differences, ie more than one? Stuff can only be in one physically existent state at a time (ie static, I could not think of a better word, but have explained it many times), or how can two such states in the same sequence both exist at the same time? Ultimately there must be non-divisibility. Your film analogy is correct, this just involves ultra high frequency in terms of duration and extreme minuteness in terms of what constitutes a change.
Making the same points again, with quotes from your second paragraph: “Do the existent states in my universe flow smoothly from one to another”. One to another what? If something “flows” (“smoothly” or otherwise), then there needs to be a definable (ie static) something, not two or more different states of the something. “Or do they jump jerkily from one to another so rapidly that I'm unable to detect their jerky nature”. Must do, but it is only “jerky” if there was some ability to sense the extremely minute alterations involved, occurring at extremely high frequencies.
“I'm not sure it's essential that we definitively answer the analog vs. digital question. Do you see this question as being central to our discussion? If so, why?”
I am not bothered about it being characterised as the ‘analog v digital question’. But this is the most important point, in a number of key points, about how reality must occur. And the answer is that there must ultimately be discreteness. Go back to my leaf. Bud, leaf grows in size, starts losing green colour, falls off, disintegrates. Now, how does that sequence physically occur if not in discrete existent states? There are not two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as the sequence progresses. There is only one, at any point in time (which constitutes the present). If not, where are the others? Answer: nowhere. By definition, they have been superseded by the new present (existent state), because alteration(s) to the previous one occurred which resulted in it, and the cessation of the previous present. Something cannot change, but then still be in existence. There can only be something. Not something, plus what it was before it became that, plus, even, what it might become when it changes.
“Believe it or not, Paul, (I hope you're sitting down) I agree with you on this”
Actually, I think you do. But this is directly contradictory to what you say above. And you then say: “This is where clocks enter the picture. Unfortunately, it's also where trouble enters the picture”. Clocks (timing) does not enter the picture. What does, is an alteration(s) to that physically existent state, so there is now a different one. There is only ever one, But it is different from the previous ones, and the rate at which these changes occurred can be compared with one another, ie irrespective of substance. And this is timing. What is “more than” (in your words) is change, which results in a different reality (existent state). Timing being a human devised duration measuring system.
Which brings me back to my original point(!), that this ‘operational time’ is not considered as the entirety of what constitutes ‘time’. The real problem is that ‘time’ as exemplified in terms of change, has been reified into reality, ie it is considered to be an attribute of reality. So now there is a logical problem resolving how when there are (effectively) more than one state in existence at a time, there appears to be only one. Which results in this nonsense about the nature of its existence being dependent on the sentient organism (in the code, observer frame of reference, waveform collapse). And as you say, a complete confusion over what can constitute the past, present, future.
“Do you believe that those are accurate depictions of reality? I don't”
No. And the irony is that they are incorrect because they are based on philosophy, ie a flawed presumption as to how reality occurs.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 20:31 GMT
Paul,
"There are not two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as the sequence progresses."
It sounds as though you're trying to convince me of the truth of this statement. If so, there's no need for you to do so. We're already in violent agreement about this. As I've tried to say numerous time, in numerous different ways, there *cannot* be two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as a sequence progresses. The reason is that if there are two or more physically existent states, then these two or more physically existent states equate (by definition) to two or more particular times! Can you accept "yes, I agree with you" as an answer on this point?
"There is only one [physically existent state], at any point in time (which constitutes the present)."
Yes, again we are in complete agreement about this.
"If not, where are the others? Answer: nowhere. By definition, they have been superseded by the new present (existent state), because alteration(s) to the previous one occurred which resulted in it, and the cessation of the previous present."
Yes, we agree here. By the way, the physically existent states which have been superseded by the present are what we refer to as the past.
"Something cannot change, but then still be in existence."
Here we disagree. I argue that the universe can change, but then still be in existence. The configuration of the universe evolves. The configuration of the universe today is not the same as the configuration of the universe yesterday or 200 million years ago. But the universe continues to exist.
"There can only be something. Not something, plus what it was before it became that, plus, even, what it might become when it changes."
Yes, we agree here (especially if the "something" to which you refer is the universe).
Unless I'm missing something, the points on which we agree appear to be outnumbering the points on which we disagree. Is such possible?
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 05:56 GMT
JCN
“Can you accept "yes, I agree with you" as an answer on this point?”
No!! Because it is not “the reason”. Timing is a human invention, it is not physically existent. Stuff is. And the very nature of ‘is’ or ‘in existence’ is that in any given sequence stuff only takes on one form at a time.
“Here we disagree”
Actually you don’t! Because you agreed with this above. The statement: “Something cannot change, but then still be in existence” is an alternative way of expressing: ‘there can only be one at a time’. What existed was caused to alter, so subsequently something different existed. This is not the same as: ‘there is something existing which has changed in some respects’. A difference is a difference is a difference.
Now, it might be (I do not know, because I do not know how all the existent variables interrelate) that while certain aspects of any given existent state have changed, others have not (this is in respect of real physical existence, not conceptualisation). That is, the ‘others’ alter at a less frequent rate. I would worry about this because I would suspect there is a fundamental feature (or very few) which alters (or if more than one alter concurrently because they are interrelated) and everything else is a consequence thereof.
But that is only opinion and I do not base my statement on that anyway. The point being that there is a physically existent state; alteration occurs. If not every aspect of that original physical state has altered in that duration, then there is just a different physically existent state, of which some aspects have not yet altered when compared to the one that has been superseded and therefore ceased. The key here is to get away from the ordinary way of seeing this, which implies some form of continuance, and the notion (often not realised) that more than one exists at a time.
“Unless I'm missing something…”
Yep. And I think the ‘last point’ of difference is encapsulated in that last paragraph. At the physical level, ie what is actually happening, ‘let go’ of the notion that there is more than one. There can only ever be one. Which is the same as saying there is no change within what exists, because change is about more than one.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 12:29 GMT
Paul,
"Timing is a human invention, it is not physically existent. Stuff is. And the very nature of "is" or "in existence" is that in any given sequence stuff only takes on one form at a time."
We are in total agreement about all of this, Paul. You may protest all you like and claim that we're not in agreement, but I must respectfully disagree; we *do* agree here. For some bizarre...
view entire post
Paul,
"Timing is a human invention, it is not physically existent. Stuff is. And the very nature of "is" or "in existence" is that in any given sequence stuff only takes on one form at a time."
We are in total agreement about all of this, Paul. You may protest all you like and claim that we're not in agreement, but I must respectfully disagree; we *do* agree here. For some bizarre reason which I've yet to fathom, however, you seem unwilling and/or unable to comprehend and/or accept the notion of *defining* particular times as being equivalent to particular configurations of the universe. Or, in Barbour's wording, "The relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe do not occur *at* instants of time . . . they *are* the instants of time." [my emphasis added.] Once you really "get" this way of thinking about time and internalize it everything comes together. Really. But if you don't get it, you don't get it. If you don't see it, you don't see it.
Inasmuch as I believe you are sincere in your arguments and are not being argumentative merely for the sake of being argumentative, I can only lay the blame for our failure to see eye to eye at my own failure to explain my position with sufficient clarity. "Getting" the point I'm trying to make requires a shift in the paradigm one uses for thinking about time. I suspect that you and I are looking at exactly the same physical reality and conceptualizing it differently. Are you familiar with
the Necker Cube illusion? It neatly illustrates the fact that we can look at exactly the same physical reality and interpret what we're seeing in two different ways. I'm beginning to surmise that this is what the two of us are doing and that this is why we continue to fail to achieve a meeting of minds.
Rather than beating this poor dead horse further here, I respectfully request that you go back and carefully read (or re-read) two of my earlier essays,
Time: Illusion and Reality, and
On the Impossibility of Time Travel. If you read those and take issue with the view of time presented there, let's resume our discussion later with a focus on specific points of disagreement from your reading of those essays.
". . . the irony is that they [the beliefs that distinctions between past, present, and future are an illusion and that there is no objective flow of time] are incorrect because they are based on philosophy, ie a flawed presumption as to how reality occurs."
As a final point of agreement, I agree with you on this observation. The paradigm for the nature of time (for the nature of objective reality) which underlies those ideas is faulty, in my opinion. The continued acceptance of that faulty paradigm is "enabled" by a failure or unwillingness to look beyond the operational definition of time (time is that which is measured by clocks) and see the objective reality which is staring us all squarely in the face. I fear that too many scientists (Smolin, Barbour, and some others notably *not* among them) may pride themselves on holding deep and sophisticated views which are contrary to the "common sense" views of ordinary humans. This is akin to religious zealots priding themselves on having "faith" in the most bizarre tenets of their religion. So rather than openly and objectively questioning the reasons for the glaring disconnect between science and common sense (and thereby risk being found to have held erroneous views) they double down on their beliefs. Never mind that we've failed to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics. Just keep on with the same old ways of thinking. Don't entertain any other possible ways of looking at reality.
But I would not lay the blame for this at the feet of philosophy. That's unfair to philosophy, in my opinion. No, scientists have managed to create this glaring disconnect between science and common sense quite on their own. And, having done so, they're loath to consider the possibility that it could be based on their own faulty view of reality.
jcns
view post as summary
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 19:01 GMT
Paul,
With apologies for back-to-back posts, I offer a couple of quotes which I believe are germane/apropos.
"Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don't conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best fit the facts. It urges on us a delicate balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything - - new ideas and established wisdom."
-- Carl Sagan, 'The Demon-Haunted World'
"The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth."
-- David Deutsch, 'The Beginning of Infinity'
jcns
Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 02:08 GMT
Hi J.C.N.Smith,
I really like the Carl Sagen and David Deutsch quotes that you posted. Thanks for posting them.
I have read your essay quickly. I will try to spend more time reading it carefully. It seems, from a quick reading, really clearly argued and well presented, as is your other writing on this subject.
Its dealing thoroughly with one, in my opinion -most important-, basic physical problem that needs addressing. I hope it gets its deserved interest- from lots of different people.
(Very different from my own essay. I am glad, as we will not be directly competing with the same idea.) Good luck.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 06:06 GMT
JCN
“For some bizarre reason which I've yet to fathom, however, you seem unwilling and/or unable to comprehend and/or accept the notion of *defining* particular times as being equivalent to particular configurations of the universe”
No I don’t. I have always been saying that ‘what physically exists can only be defined as at any given point in time, because it is constantly...
view entire post
JCN
“For some bizarre reason which I've yet to fathom, however, you seem unwilling and/or unable to comprehend and/or accept the notion of *defining* particular times as being equivalent to particular configurations of the universe”
No I don’t. I have always been saying that ‘what physically exists can only be defined as at any given point in time, because it is constantly being superseded by another existent state which is different’. Indeed, the fastest rate of change must define the real duration of a point in time. But that is not what you were saying.
You said in the previous post: “As I've tried to say numerous time, in numerous different ways, there *cannot* be two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as a sequence progresses. The reason is that if there are two or more physically existent states, then these two or more physically existent states equate (by definition) to two or more particular times! Can you accept "yes, I agree with you" as an answer on this point?” And then you repeat Barbour’s words in this post.
To which I say: No. Because the reason there cannot be two or more physically existent states in a sequence in existence at the same time, is because this is not physically possible. Existence can only occur with one physically existent state at a time in any given sequence. Each existent state being superseded by another, which is different, because something caused alteration(s) to the preceding one, which has now ceased to exist. And so on. The point is about the very nature of existence and how it must be, in order to occur, and then re-occur. And another way of expressing this is that therefore, there can be no form of change within any given physically existent state, because change involves more than one. It is an identified difference as the result of comparison, and comparison necessitates more than one.
The measuring system timing just reflects that fact, otherwise it would be useless. Although, because we probably could not achieve any practical system anyway, it does not differentiate down to a real point in time (as determined by physical reality). But if we could establish what that was, then when necessary, we could apply a conversion rate to whatever frequency was being used (eg crystal oscillation, some atomic event).
Anyway, the point is that the ‘one at a time’ rule is not determined by timing, it is a function of how physical existence must occur. It is that simple. Now, in the sense of using the notion that one ‘equates’ to the other, then we jointly arrive at the same point. And I have always agreed with a number of points you make. But, the problems arise when you have time/timing being the driving factor, and not existence. And I would certainly agree with your last point. Philosophers babbling in the background is irrelevant, those pursuing physics should have identified how reality occurs first. If one intends to do some woodwork, then it is best to know what wood is before starting, and not turn up with a pair of scissors and a nail file just because the latter are tools.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 10:55 GMT
Hi Georgina,
Thank you for your kind words on my current essay and other writings. As we've noted in the past, our thinking about the topic appears to be pretty much in synch.
I'll definitely give your essay a thorough read when it appears and offer such comments as I'm able.
I agree with your comment about not directly competing. So far, there's been an interesting variety of essay topics, and I suspect that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.
Good luck to you, too, Georgina!
Btw, this is as good an opportunity as any to add that I'm deeply grateful to FQXi for providing this forum in which relatively unknown people such as the two of us, for example, have an opportunity to air our ideas in a constructive, welcoming setting. It's analogous to an "open" tennis tournament in which anybody who owns a tennis racket can enter and play. Only those who've "got game" will win, of course, but I think it's healthy for the sport of tennis to ensure that the recognized top players must compete against all comers. Just as it's healthy for science to ensure that established experts and authorities must compete in the realm of ideas with all comers. Fortunately, there is no monopoly on good ideas, but lacking a forum such as this many good ideas might never see the light of day. Yes, there will be some "clunkers" among the essays (and my essay may be among them for all I know), but that's a relatively small price to pay for the counterbalancing benefits, in my view.
Cheers!
jcns
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 11:30 GMT
Paul,
". . . the reason there cannot be two or more physically existent states in a sequence in existence at the same time, is because this is not physically possible. Existence can only occur with one physically existent state at a time in any given sequence. Each existent state being superseded by another, which is different, . . ."
Again, Paul, you appear to think that I disagree with you about this, but I *don't* disagree. This is what baffles me; I could have written that statement myself. And yet you seem to think that I disagree with it. Am I correct in thinking that you think I disagree with you on this? We're becoming more and more like a dog chasing its own tail here.
The configuration of the universe evolves. The configuration of the universe which we call "yesterday" was different from the configuration of the universe which we call "today." Do you agree with that, Paul? If not, we're hopelessly at odds.
"Each existent state being superseded by another, which is different, . . ."
Yes. But the *only* thing that's different from one existent state to another is the *arrangement* of the stuff, not the stuff itself! It's the same old stuff just being rearranged according to rules which we call the laws of physics. Each new arrangement of the same old stuff constitutes a new particular time, in my view. Perhaps this is where we don't see eye to eye?
For purists among us, I'm talking here about reality at the macroscopic level. Yes, there may be particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum level and atoms undergoing spontaneous disintegration, etc., but when our ancestors were formulating their thinking about the nature of time, which is the thinking we're still saddled with and still trying to sort out today, they were not thinking about events at the quantum level.
Your analogy about woodworking and tools is a good one, Paul, and certainly apropos the topic.
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 07:17 GMT
JCN
“Am I correct in thinking that you think I disagree with you on this?”
Not necessarily, ie the fact as such I think you do agree with. But you stated the reason was time, whereas I am stating that it is a truism of existence. That is physical existence, it must be how it occurs, ie one at a time in a sequence. Timing is irrelevant, that system must just reflect that fact.
“Yes. But the *only* thing that's different from one existent state to another is the *arrangement* of the stuff, not the stuff itself!”
Yes, obviously. Otherwise there would be no existence at all. Though I would hardly use the word “only”. We have to establish precisely what substance(s) are non divisible and the nature of them, ie what is stuff. And as I’ve said before, the word “configuration” has connotations of just movement/organisation, whether you intend that or not. Whereas I say physically existent state (which encompasses everything which can be physically defined about something as at a point in time). Or put the other way around, all that has remained the same is the fundamental substance, whatever that might be. By definition, if it has innate properties (ie generically they are part of the substance), these will have altered in their manifestation/value, and the substance may well be occupying a different relative spatial position. And yes it is a new “particular time”. But that is because it is different, ie a different physically existent state (albeit ultimately, by definition, of the same fundamental stuff). This must therefore be represented by a different point in time, if we are timing the sequence of change. How it affects timing is a consequence. The nature of physical existence determines how timing works. Keep focussing on the fact that all we have is something, and only something at a point in time, time, space, change, etc are conceptual derivatives of that.
“Yes, there may be particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum level and atoms undergoing spontaneous disintegration, etc”
Aha. Now, that cannot be ‘stuff’ that is doing that (assuming the observation is valid). Because, by definition, whatever constitutes ‘stuff’ endures over time. It is the foundational commodity of physical existence. And there has to be something of that nature, otherwise there cannot be physical existence. So these must be ‘effects’ not ‘things’, in simple language.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 12:56 GMT
Paul,
". . . the fact as such I think you do agree with. But you stated the reason was time, whereas I am stating that it is a truism of existence . . . Timing is irrelevant, that system must just reflect that fact."
Yes, I'm now convinced more than ever that we're in fundamental agreement about all of this. On those points where we appear to diverge, I now see it more as a matter...
view entire post
Paul,
". . . the fact as such I think you do agree with. But you stated the reason was time, whereas I am stating that it is a truism of existence . . . Timing is irrelevant, that system must just reflect that fact."
Yes, I'm now convinced more than ever that we're in fundamental agreement about all of this. On those points where we appear to diverge, I now see it more as a matter of our language and semantics than as a matter of substance. Language is a tricky, slippery tool for conveying ideas, which often are themselves more than a wee bit slippery.
A virtue of science is that it encourages us to nail down our ideas (and the language we use to describe them) more carefully than typically is our wont. One of the greatest sources of frustration for me has been the fact that science has been deeply remiss in acceding to this encouragement when it comes to the topic of time. As I wrote in
'Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time':
". . . choose at random virtually any book or essay on the nature of time and search in it for the author's definition of what he or she means by the word "time." Be forewarned, however; you would be well advised not to hold your breath until you find it. Countless books have been written about the nature of time, time travel, the philosophy of time, and the whole gamut of related topics, without any effort having been made by the author to define exactly what is meant by the word time.
"To be charitable, perhaps these authors simply assume, or hope, that everyone will already know what is meant by the word time without any need of further clarification, but this is exactly the problem; everyone does *not* know what time is. If they did, a great many of these works would not be needed."
It is the general failure of science (with notable exceptions such as Barbour and Smolin) to confront this issue head on which has driven me to write the series of essay's I've written in an effort to focus attention specifically and directly on the inadequacy of efforts by science heretofore to address this issue forthrightly. The operational definition of time is a wonderful and useful little tool, but it is *not* an explanation for the underlying nature of time or for the underlying nature of reality!
Why are many scientists loath to come to grips with this? Is it because the operational definition, in and of itself, has been so incredibly successful? If so, I can't blame them for that. But I suspect that another aspect is that scientists (perhaps not without some justification) will go to almost any lengths to avoid what might be considered the "taint" of dabbling in philosophy were they to look beyond the operational definition. I argue that it is indeed possible for scientists to think about and to talk about the reality underlying our concept of time without fear of being tarred by the dreaded brush of philosophy. And, moreover, it not only is *possible* for science to do so, but also *necessary* for science to do so in order to advance as rapidly as it might, in my view.
I relinquish my soapbox.
jcns
view post as summary
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 05:39 GMT
JCN
Language is indeed a very poor tool for achieving unequivocal meaning. But from the rest of your post, I am not sure what are “those points where we appear to diverge”.
Towards the end of the post you ask ‘why scientists do not get to grips with this?’ Yes they need to get to grips with what timing really is, but more importantly they need to understand how physical existence occurs, which proves that, apart from anything else, time (as conceptualised) does not exist. But it proves a whole lot of other things, which are disturbing. Note my comment, which I have posted many times before, about the urban myth as to what constitutes SR. You see, I am just a punk who with no previous baggage, read the material, as is, which is dangerous!!
You may have noticed that I am only on here early morning, that is because renovating my son’s new property takes precedence, including writing essays. However, I now have one, posting that will be even more dangerous!!!
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
Paul,
I'm not sure that there really still are points where we diverge on substance. We do use language differently to express what now appears to me to be the same concept of reality (in the context of thinking about the nature of time, at least).
But what is this talk of essays and urban myths and SR and dangerous ideas? Are you writing an essay for this competition? I hope so. Ideas can be dangerous; no doubt about that. Chap named Darwin had just such an idea. The thing got loose, and now look where we are. Relatives of apes and all. Bit of a come-down. So I hope your dangerous ideas won't push us any farther down the ladder in the grand scheme of things.
Regarding the renovation of your son's property, I seem to recall you writing in a blog post much earlier that we are not able to influence future configurations of the universe. How has that worked out? Is the configuration of your son's property any different now than it was when you wrote that post? If so, are you telling me that some of the changes in the configuration of that small portion of the universe are not due to your influence (and to your son's influence)? Just curious.
jcns
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
Paul,
I obviously should have written:
". . . are you telling me that *none* of the changes in the configuration of that small portion of the universe are due to your influence . . . ?"
Clearly, *some* of whatever changes have occurred would be due to influences other than yours. Careless wording.
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 06:09 GMT
JCNS
“But what is this talk of essays and urban myths and SR and dangerous ideas?”
Yes, I sent one in yesterday, I felt it has settled enough, though subsequently I noticed I’d screwed up the paragraph numbering! Also, I am going on holiday for 6 weeks soon (have a camper van) as I live near the Tower of London and the Olympics will cause relentless traffic jams (lanes have been designated Olympic officials only).
My reference to urban myth is the presumption that what was written in 1905 equals SR, which it does not. When Einstein introduced it, he clearly defined what it constituted. I do not make this point in the essay, only a glancing reference to the original idea behind relativity. In fact, if I may, I will post something here, though it is others that are talking about it. You can always delete it as inappropriate if you wish. Incidentally, time took up a 5 line paragraph.
“Is the configuration of your son's property any different now than it was when you wrote that post?”
Yes, at the atomic level. Not really at the level we are interested in, ie ceiling cracks have not got bigger, the kitchen has not disintegrated further, etc!! The problem here is secondary schools. This property is right next to a very good one, so having got the first of three daughters into it, they will then move again. Costing me a fortune, apart from effort, but I am from a generation that prospered with cast iron pensions and inflating property prices.
A more serious answer to your question is that our efforts have meant that a physically existent state which would have occurred, did not occur. It’s not influence in the sense that one has influenced something pre-existent. People tend to talk about the ‘future’ as if it is something ‘already out there’.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 09:57 GMT
Paul,
I'm glad to hear that you've submitted an essay, and I look forward to reading it.
". . . if I may, I will post something here, though it is others that are talking about it. You can always delete it as inappropriate if you wish."
You're welcome to post whatever suits you here, just so long as you post it under your own name rather than mine and don't imply that I'm an accomplice in your dangerous ideas. I can't be held accountable for the dangerous ideas of others.
Regarding your six-week holiday, will you be able to stay connected to the internet while you're away? Modern technology has made it relatively easy to do so. Your essay is likely to generate much heated debate.
From reports I've heard in the news, you could rent out your place in London for a king's ransom while you're away, were you so inclined.
"People tend to talk about the "future" as if it is something "already out there"."
Yes, exactly, and that causes all sorts of confusion, but you and I know better. As I wrote in another essay,
"Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this form of time travel [i.e., the form of "time travel" in which you're engaged as you read this post] is the notion that each of us can, by our own actions, have some influence, albeit limited, on future configurations of the universe. It would appear to be in our own enlightened self-interest, therefore, to use our individual and collective powers, limited though they may be, to influence the evolution of the universe in ways that will make subsequent configurations as habitable, pleasant, and rewarding as possible." (From
'On the Impossibility of Time Travel'.)
A major problem with that, of course, is that it's nearly impossible to foresee the longer-term consequences of our actions, regardless of how well intentioned. There always seem to be unintended consequences. That not withstanding, it seems we must soldier on and do our best to get it as right as possible. Lacking that, we simply surrender our future totally to the whims of fate.
Enjoy your holiday, and good luck in the essay competition!
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 12:16 GMT
JCNS
Technically yes, in so far as my partner has a Blackberry tablet she was given for her birthday. But no, in effect. Because I am not going to start typing or reading responses, assuming there are any. This is unfair on Linda who works, whereas as I am retired. So yes, this was a concern in taking part, but that is a function of having the competition over the summer break.
Within reason, reports are just that, reports. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against the Olympics per se, but they are sold to ordinary people on the basis of unsubstantiated hype. The traffic will be a nightmare. People are being encouraged, civil servants in particular, to stay at home and work, the cost is enormous, and you do not need the excuse of Olympics to regenerate an area, if you really want to.
I have written something this morning, makes a change from painting! I had a look at blogging, but could not understand it. Wind up mechanical toys were the new technology when I was young. So for now, I will ‘dump’ it on your blog. Thanks. Hopefully you will find it interesting, but I do appreciate it has nothing to do with your essay.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 13:00 GMT
Paul,
"So for now, I will "dump" it on your blog. Thanks. Hopefully you will find it interesting, but I do appreciate it has nothing to do with your essay."
Okay, but if the essay competition judges see your essay here and award it the $10K grand prize I'll expect a hefty cut as "rent" on the blog space. Or maybe I'd be awarded the whole prize. So in essence this doubles my odds of winning. Such a deal.
I've not yet read your essay, but will do so and comment on it as time permits.
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 05:16 GMT
JCNS
Tee hee. But it is not the essay.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sridattadev wrote on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear JCNS,
I have read your essay and come to understand your point of view in establishing the human experience of time as a valid representation of time and that there is a flow of time. Time like consciousness of a being is both relative and absolute in nature. When we deal with relative time by being in local consciousness of I am a human at this moment, yes then there difinitely is the flow of time from past to present to future. When our consciousness merges with universal conscience (when one attains singularity), then one stops to count the events one is experiencing and the time becomes absolute or infinite, this is when the phenomenon of all realities existing simultaneously at once happens and this is what some scientists are describing with their models. Both aspects of time are equally true, its just our choice to experience one over the other that determines the time at that moment. Duality is as real as singularity and relativity as true as the absolute. I "am" a relative being, i in me is the absolute.
Please see
Conscience is the cosmological constant.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 12:18 GMT
Eintein and an urban myth
It is commonly assumed that Special Relativity is that which was written in 1905, or at least most of it. This is not so. In propounding General Relativity, of which 1905 was effectively a ‘first draft’, Einstein had to resolve the significance of light. There are two key words in 1905. When stating the two postulates, he writes that they are: “only...
view entire post
Eintein and an urban myth
It is commonly assumed that Special Relativity is that which was written in 1905, or at least most of it. This is not so. In propounding General Relativity, of which 1905 was effectively a ‘first draft’, Einstein had to resolve the significance of light. There are two key words in 1905. When stating the two postulates, he writes that they are: “only apparently irreconcilable”. This is, of itself, a peculiar statement, because he is proposing a new theory which is based only on these (“These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies”). And both are understandable statements in their own right. Yet he is already aware of a potential conflict. That is, all the variables as stated in 1905 cannot co-exist in a cohesive theory.
The first postulate (the principle of relativity) is a logical truism, ie for physical laws to be valid they must hold whatever reference point is used. Another way of putting this is that physical existence is independent. Use of phrases such as ‘frame of reference’ have nothing to do with observation, per se, they are about referencing. That is, as there is no known absolute, everything has to be deemed in terms of its relativity, ie difference when compared to another. And in order then to ensure comparability, that reference must be used consistently, and logically (as opposed to practically) any potential reference could be chosen. But there must be one, otherwise a judgement cannot be made. Something is only X when compared to something else, and the calibration of X is dependent upon that reference. But the physically existent state which manifests X does not alter.
In respect of the second postulate about light, this is correct physically, as written. Light is created as the result of an atomic interaction (ie not a collision), and therefore always starts with the same physical speed. That is, the speed of that which was involved in the interaction is irrelevant. From the perspective of a sensory system, that resultant physical effect-light-is a representation of what was involved in the interaction, but of itself, it is a physical entity. And as such, it will continue to travel at that speed, just like any other physical entity, unless impeded in some way. Impediment does not occur in vacuo, by definition, a condition invoked in 1905.
It has to be remembered that the start point was concerns about light speed, earth movement and ether. This did not appear to be, or perhaps actually was not, borne out by the Michelson and Morley experiments. But to counterbalance that apparent result, and hence maintain the presumptions about light, the hypothesis was proposed that matter physically alters in dimension in the line of motion. That is, when forces acting thereon become imbalanced, the shape and momentum of the matter changes whilst that circumstance obtains. Equilibrium is subsequently restored, and matter regained its original shape and resumed its travel at a constant momentum. Whether this is physically correct or not is another issue. So, 1905 has a combination of alteration consequent upon alterations in force, with an ‘unaffected’ light. That is, it is in vacuo, but everything else is not. There must be one common condition.
The resolution of the ‘apparent irreconcilability’ was pursued by Einstein in section 7 of SR & GR 1916. The example used is incorrect, the ray of light and man walking are not equivalent (to be precise, the man is of the earth system, the ray of light is not). He has not considered light as a physically existent entity, and the application, as opposed to the principle, of relativity is flawed. So this has not proved his point from the previous section, that is, that the Theorem of the Addition of Velocities employed in classical mechanics, was no longer valid. And this cannot be so anyway, because in order to effect any judgement, a reference is necessary, and the calibration of the attribute will be a function of that reference. In simple terms, the variable of dimension alteration became subsumed by the supposed variability of time, but time does not vary and is not physically existent, there is only timing. Therefore, in essence, the problem was ‘resolved’, but for the wrong reason.
Because he then writes (para 5): “In view of this dilemna there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the principle of relativity.
That is, one of these variables cannot co-exist, assuming they are invoked properly and dimension alteration is a physical fact (leaving aside that the effect is being explained in terms of time variance).
And then he writes (para 6): At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space, it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibilitiy between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later. In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the special theory of relativity.
That is, a special theoretical circumstance is invoked. Where, because of the circumstance invoked, everything can, by definition, co-exist, as defined. It proves nothing, and is a tautology. Neither is it the circumstance of 1905. It is also ‘disconnected’ from GR, ie that is not developed from it. GR is really the only theory.
Einstein defines SR as:
Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 1:
“We call this postulate "The Special Relativity Principle." By the word special, it is signified that the principle is limited to the case, when K’ has uniform translatory motion with reference to K, but the equivalence of K and K' does not extend to the case of non-uniform motion of K' relative to K. The special theory of relativity does not depart from classical mechanics through the postulate of relativity, but through the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo.”
“According to the special relativity theory, the theorems of geometry are to be looked upon as the laws about any possible relative positions of solid bodies at rest.”
Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 3:
“the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation.”
Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 28:
“The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists.”
“In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity.”
Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 18:
“the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let us once more analyse its meaning carefully. It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must only be considered as a relative motion.”
“If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive statement called “the principle of relativity,””
“we started out from the assumption that there exists a reference-body K, whose condition of motion is such that the Galileian law holds with respect to it: A particle left to itself and sufficiently far removed from all other particles moves uniformly in a straight line.”
“provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion.”
So SR, as defined by Einstein, involves:
-no gravitation
-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary (which is in effect, stillness)
-fixed shape bodies at rest (no dimension alteration)
-light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed
When gravity is present, then the condition of in vacuo, which was invoked in 1905, is withdrawn. In other words, light and matter co-exist in the same condition, ie a real world where they are subjected to common forces. Light is therefore affected, as Einstein states. One example being:
Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 22:
“However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocity c. It can easily be shown that the path of the same ray of light is no longer a straight line when we consider it with reference to the accelerated chest (reference-body K’). From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields. In two respects this result is of great importance…… In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).”
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 01:42 GMT
Paul,
I've read through your essay quickly a couple of times now. Must admit, however, that I don't know exactly what to make of it. First, I claim no expertise on the subject of relativity, so won't even attempt to comment on the accuracy of details in your essay.
I gather, however, from your lead-in sentence and from the theme of this essay competition that the assumption you're questioning is a commonly held belief that special relativity arrived, "fully fledged" as it were, in Einstein's 1905 paper, 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.' Is that correct? If so, what would be your primary reason for "debunking" this belief, and what would be the practical consequence of doing so?
I tend to have trouble comprehending many aspects of discussions about the speed of light, at least partly because I believe speed should be thought of as a dimensionless quantity, effectively being a ratio of two displacements, as explained earlier in this blog and in my essay,
Time: Illusion and Reality.
jcns
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 05:25 GMT
JCNS
As said above, this is not the essay. Over the past year many people have spoken of SR, two I know of very recently. I always say X, where X is a reasonably short post, this is just X+. It could probably be expanded (and improved) a little further, but I got the 'urge' to get that down on paper yesterday. In answer to your question, then the presumption I'd be questioning is that 1905=SR, and SR = what Einstein said it did. But that is not a 'physical' assumption. Knowing what SR actually is, ie as opposed to GR, in accordance with what the author said, seens to me to be a good start point fro, which to then comment on them.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 23:58 GMT
Hi jcns,
Your enjoyable essay is easy to read and easy to agree with. You reject the simple logic of Greene, to the effect that "if all space is out there, then all time must be out there too." That's pretty simplistic. Instead, you seem to opt for an 'everywhere simultaneous' approach of a universal present, with messages from very far away places reaching us in the far future. Much more believable.
As you point out, there is nothing about the operational definitions of "time" or "clocks" that necessarily implies "block time" or an existing past, present, and future. You seem to conclude that there are real distinctions between past, present, and future. One perspective on this is that only the present is real; past and future are mental constructs --past based on records or memory and future based on logical projection from the past.
If your "wrong assumption" that you are rejecting is "block time", I agree with you, and one wonders how such an idea could have survived for a century.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 12:09 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your kind words.
Your comments are directly on the mark I'd say, with just one minor exception; block time, per se, is not the assumption I'm challenging. Rather, block time is just one of several "hard-to-swallow" conclusions which mainstream physic currently holds as stemming logically from the assumption I *am* challenging, which...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your kind words.
Your comments are directly on the mark I'd say, with just one minor exception; block time, per se, is not the assumption I'm challenging. Rather, block time is just one of several "hard-to-swallow" conclusions which mainstream physic currently holds as stemming logically from the assumption I *am* challenging, which is that the operational definition of time (i.e., time is that which is measured by clocks) is the final word of science on the nature of time. This assumption is largely unspoken, and although certainly not held by all scientists, it is sufficiently pervasive that I believe it constitutes a serious roadblock to the advancement of science (especially physics).
I honestly suspect that many scientists have never even given the topic much thought. The equations we've developed with the help of the operational definition work well and give us good answers which allow us to do useful things such as build the Global Positioning System, for example. Physicists, Einstein included, appear to have taken the attitude that if we're forced to believe some seemingly odd and counterintuitive but "harmless" notions such as block time as part of the bargain, then so be it; it's probably worth the candle. I argue that we can keep the useful tools developed from the operational definition but jettison the unhelpful baggage such as block time.
My argument is not based simply on the fact that block time appears to fly in the face of "common sense." As we've learned the hard way over the course of history, so-called common sense can and has misled us badly on many occasions. It certainly was "common sense" to hold that the sun revolves around the earth. No, my real argument is that the operational definition is not a complete explanation for the nature of time or for the nature of our underlying reality. I believe that in order for physics to break through the sort of conceptual logjam typified by the failure of efforts to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics we need a new paradigm for the nature of time, one which will *complement* the operational definition. Should you be interested, I've amplified this theme in another paper,
'Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time'.
In defense of Brian Greene, by the way, his ideas certainly are not as simplistic as might appear to be the case from my necessarily sketchy portrayal of them. As I wrote in a footnote to my essay, I'm actually an admirer of Greene's thinking and writing. (I fear that I may have done him an injustice by quoting him so liberally. If so, I apologize and recommend that readers of my essay look at Greene's original writings for the full context of what he has to say on the topic. With admirers like me, who needs enemies?) I believe that one of the snippets of his writing which I quoted is Greene's version of what is known elsewhere as the Andromeda Paradox, which was advanced by Roger Penrose. Georgina Parry alluded to this briefly in her essay.
But as usual, I've rambled on far too long. Thank you again for your kind words and thoughts.
jcns
view post as summary
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear jcns,
I would direct your attention to Daryl Janzen's
essay. It is a fantastic essay and also provides a link to his recent PhD dissertation which is, believe it or not, a very exciting read. He arrives, I think it's safe to say, at much the same conclusion that you and I do, but in a much more scientific and professional manner. Perhaps the most important essay yet published in this contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 21:05 GMT
Dear JCN:
I enjoyed reading your paper, especially as the nature of time described in the paper is described in quantitative detail based on the Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) described in my posted paper, From Absurd to Elegant Universe, and my book, The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, cosmology, and Universal Reality.
My paper describes the classical time as that experienced in the Newtonian frame (V=0) and no-time or fully dilated time in the relativistic frame of a light photon (V=C)In between these two states, there are infinite number of intermediate clocks and times.
Sincerely,
Avtar Singh
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear JCN Smith
I enjoyed reading your well-written essay - it addresses an important and timely question (no pun intended). You have reconciled the world of physics with that of human beings swept on the wave of continuous mutability. I found however that there is one related topic you have not addressed (unless I read your essay too quickly!): Einstein's treatment of time in SR as a dimension that can expand when measured from another inertial frame. This notion that time *itself* dilates, clever as it is, is really bizarre but has come to be accepted as a reasonable notion by modern man. Rather, following Lorentz it is clocks that slow down, not time itself, (and measuring sticks contract not space itself contract) in those situations.
In any case both in my FQXI essay and my 2005
Beautiful Universe Theory I concluded that time as a dimension is unnecessary to formulate a working theory of physics. But that still leaves my heart beating, more or less in synchronicity with the watch ticking on my wrist!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 06:15 GMT
Vladamir
“Einstein's treatment of time in SR as a dimension that can expand when measured from another inertial frame….”
Clocks do not slow down, as in timing is affected. They are just objects, like those measuring sticks. The hypothesis was that dimension altered under certain circumstances. This may, or may not be correct. The explanation of it was incorrect from the outset. But an incorrect explanation of a hypothesis does not mean the hypothesis is incorrect. The fault lay in their understanding of time (simultaneity by Poincare), and then substituting light speed for distance in an equation with the fault inbuilt.
SR, as defined by Einstein, involves:
-no gravitational forces
-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary (which is in effect, stillness)
-fixed shape bodies at rest (no dimension alteration)
-light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed (no curvature)
Please read my posts in my blog, 11/7 19.33 & 13/7 11.24
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Paul,
you may well be right, but my understanding of relativity is just enough to cling to a few notions. I need to study the matter more deeply and mathematically before I can respond to your statements. My problem is lacking the stamina for and interest in the sort of extended discussion of historical positions that you have! Perhaps we are saying the same thing in different ways, who knows? No hard feelings I hope.
Cheers
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 00:26 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments.
"I found however that there is one related topic you have not addressed (unless I read your essay too quickly!): Einstein's treatment of time in SR as a dimension that can expand when measured from another inertial frame."
Not addressed explicitly in my essay is the idea that what we single out and refer to as "inertial frames" are simply portions of, or subsets of, one, all-inclusive, evolving universe. Particular times are identically equivalent to particular configurations of the entire universe, including the configurations of any and all inertial frames. What we perceive as the flow of time is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of this physical universe, an evolution governed by rules which we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics. The only "clock" which really matters in this context is the universe itself.
I'll take a look at your Beautiful Universe Theory. If you ever have both the time and inclination to read more about my view of time I'd recommend my essay
Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time.
Paul Reed replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 06:23 GMT
JCN
Please note the above response to Vladimir. Although the first draft of what is now 13/7 11.24 appeared here on your blog (5/7 12.18).
The significance of an inertial frame of reference is that it is (according to them) not undergoing dimension alteration. If a reference is, then calculations can be done, but they are more tricky, and you need to be aware first that this is taking place.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 11:12 GMT
(Paul, please see my reply above to explain why I respectfully do not want to go into this tack further).
JCN,
I touched on Einstein's notion of flexible space and time in Q3 of my essay: it is one of his three assumptions that I do not agree with. The others being the point photon and that gravity warps spacetime. In the accompanying figure I drew a box labelled One Absolute Universal Frame so I pretty much agree with your position. In my other comments and writings I theorize that the Universe is absolute and that it is possible to assign a Universal Time to local events as they evolve. It will take too long to explain this further and clearly, even if I could.
I skimmed through your Towards a Helpful Paradigm but of course it deserves closer reading...when I have more...TIME :)
Cheers
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
JCN,
I've been thinking about why I haven't commented on your clear and entirely correct essay. Basically it is because you don't go into the point I seem to obsess over, that our perception of time as the present moving from past to future is only a reflection of the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past. Not wanting to appear churlish, egotistical or petulant, but not being able to avoid the observation, I refrained from commenting. From my perspective, trying to understand the issue of time as effect of motion, not eternal flow, or geometric foundation, without referring to this, is like trying to refute epicycles and a geocentric cosmology without mentioning the earth is spinning west to east, rather than the heavens moving east to west. Yet it seems no one else finds this important, even those whom I otherwise agree with. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 19:12 GMT
Hi John,
Not to worry; we all know you're not churlish, egotistical, or petulant. Thanks for your comments, with which I agree. In the excitement of all the give and take in these various blogs, you may by now have forgotten a brief exchange we had over on the blog for your own fine essay. It went as follows:
________________________
JM: "It is not the present moving from the past to future, but action turning future into past."
jcns: On this point, I would suggest a somewhat different formulation. For what it's worth, I believe it would be a more accurate description of reality to say "it is not the present moving from the past to future, but action turning present into different present."
JM: I read your comment earlier on my phone and it set some wheels turning. You are correct that it is a series of presents, or rather the changing configuration of what is present, but the gist of my essay was not so much just a description of time as effect, but why we understand it the way we do and how what seems so evidently obvious, isn't so clear on further reflection. . . . So my efforts are to counteract this presumption of linear progression from past to future as fundamental and to do that means to emphasize the nature of the events as particular configurations that are being created and replaced. Many people do spend much of their present fixated on events other than the present, to the extent the real present can be quite nebulous. In order to deconstruct that mindset, I have to use the tools in the toolbox.
_______________________
It's my sense, John, that we're in pretty good agreement about all this. In the unlikely event that you ever find any spare time (didn't I read something about you working multiple jobs?) you just might enjoy taking a look at another, longer essay I've written,
Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time.
Thanks again for the comments.
jcns
John Merryman replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 20:16 GMT
JCN,
I know we are in agreement, that's why I'm running this situation by you, to see what you think. For me, it is a point that stands out like a sore thumb, but it just seems inconsequential to others and I'm trying to figure out if I'm making more of it than necessary, or if I am just far enough ahead of the curve that it's over the conceptual horizon to others.
Physics, with its focus on measurement, only re-enforces the sequential vector. One only has to listen to
Julian Barbour and his version of block time to see just how far down the rabbit hole this assumption is carried. Yet viewing it from the perspective of future becoming past, it is just dynamic physical reality and so many of the pieces fall into place; why clock rates are variable, multi-worlds not being destiny, but probability, etc. It's not like there is much debate over the nature of temperature, yet both are effects of action and both underlay our conscious understanding of reality. The only difference with time is our confusion over which is the scale and which is the needle. By treating the physical present as the needle, we lose sight of the fact it encompasses all of reality, not just a dimensionless point on some larger scale.
Just picking your brains in what I see as a cooperative effort.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 20:16 GMT
John,
that alternative viewpoint of passage of time has been very helpful to me. I thanked you, I think particularly for our discussions on time, in my previous essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 20:56 GMT
John, Georgina,
Thank you very much, John, for your timely "heads up" on Julian Barbour's new time blog! I'm embarrassed to say that I was totally unaware of it until you called it to my attention. So much to read and so little time! I see that there is already a lively discussion going on there, including comments by Georgina and others. I'd prefer not to comment further until I've had an opportunity to take a close look at the videos and to digest the comments already posted on the blog.
Regarding picking my brains, I trust you've heard the phrase "mighty slim pickin's"? That said, it's certainly a topic near and dear to my heart, so I suspect it will be virtually impossible for me to resist the urge to jump into the fray at some point. Will get back to you here later, and also may jump in directly at the Barbour blog. Thanks again for the heads up; I owe you one!
jcns
John Merryman replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 03:37 GMT
Georgina,
I thank you for the appreciation and recognition and mostly that you do see sense in my ramblings. I know you understand the logic of this point and I suspect part of the reason you don't give it more attention is because you don't want to poach anyone else's ideas anymore than can seamlessly fit in your own framework. Consider though, that all those professional physicists out...
view entire post
Georgina,
I thank you for the appreciation and recognition and mostly that you do see sense in my ramblings. I know you understand the logic of this point and I suspect part of the reason you don't give it more attention is because you don't want to poach anyone else's ideas anymore than can seamlessly fit in your own framework. Consider though, that all those professional physicists out there are not idiots. In fact a significant reason why this idea is so foreign to such disciplined minds is because the sequential order of time is not simply a foundational component of human knowledge, but the foundational component. It is the basis of history and cause and effect logic. It is the navigational and narrative linearity on which our minds and very sense of self rests. Our emotions and circulatory systems might be more networked and thermal based, but our minds function by choosing one path over the others. To distinguish and decide.
So this is not just physics that would be impacted if this idea were to be given serious consideration, but would reverberate throughout many of our religious, social and political assumptions. I know some of the participants on these boards reject the idea on principle that something so basic couldn't be a real factor, but I find in more philosophic setting, some people don't like it for far deeper reasons. It really does force you to look off the edge of the abyss and outside the box of what is supposed to be "real." Reality is no longer ones own narrative, or the narrative of one's preferred group, but more a sea and tapestry where connections and walls rearrange themselves. One's demons and angels have to be re-ordered. Basically the sub-conscious is no longer quite so isolated. It forces you to live much more in the present. So while I may have turned you off the idea even more, I want to set the gears in your much more organized mind than I and see if there are connections you may want to further consider.
JCN,
I avoided that conversation since it seemed Barbour was looking for more of a rapt audience than he was getting and I tend to disagree with his theories. Sometimes in long form, they are more nuanced, but when he goes to those short form interviews, it seems like blatant block time.
Here are my critiques of his winning essay in the
nature of time contest:
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 9, 2009 @ 18:07 GMT
Can I please be a little nitpicky here?
In Julian's paper he does a very nice job of establishing there is no fixed unit of duration, then at the end, turns around and tries to provide one with the principle of least action. I agree time is a consequence of motion and not the basis for it, so that yes, units of time are no more precise than the methods used to define and measure them and Dr. Barbour clearly understands this, but it just seems that at the last moment, he has a failure of nerve and seeks to grasp something solid. If he has truly established that the principle of least action provides an irreducible unit of time between two configuration points of the universe, doesn't this prove time is a fundamental dimension between any two configurations of the universe, as opposed to saying two configurations of the universe cannot co-exist, therefore the difference is a process where one is becoming, as the other is departing, not an established unit between two specific configurations, because if time is simply a consequence of motion, how can there be dimensionless points of configuration from which to measure, without stopping the very motion that created time in the first place?
Think about this in physical terms. If you freeze framed quantum activity, would it just be a still life of reality as we see it, or would the picture simply vanish like a non-fluctuating vacuum?
Hopefully someone is willing to set me straight in terms I can understand.
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 10, 2009 @ 21:11 GMT
Elliot, Georgina,
There is an interesting object lesson here.
Consider that any potential judges, be they fqxi members or not, are professionally invested in either a version of block time, or a method for doing away with time as fundamental. Yes, I'm sure they are very busy people, but it is safe to say that judging an issue that is fundamental to their profession and that has been discussed for longer than any of them have been alive, is probably not at the top of anyone's to do list.
Why does this make Julian the best pick? Not only is he the leading public name in time theory and his essay was exactly what was called for, a clear concise, beautifully written piece, with just a touch of mathematics, that would make the perfect SciAm article, but it smoothly and effortlessly came down on both sides of the issue. It starts out as a clear presentation for why time is based entirely on motion, then describes how these non-existent units are irreducibly determined.
So Julian understood what the situation of the contest and the judging was and, whether consciously or subconsciously, responded with what was required to win.
The life lesson here is that if you are going by the written rules, you are not a real player, but just one of the pieces on the board, because the real game is being the first to figure out what the rules really are. This is what emergence is. The world is entering a period of real chaos and complaining that no one is playing by the old rules anymore will do you no good.
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 15, 2009 @ 16:12 GMT
Lawrence,
The question I raised earlier was that he presented a very cogent argument for why time is based on motion and not the other way around, then he goes on to describe how the coordinates for time are irreducibly fixed by the principle of least action. My point was that while it seems reasonable to assume there are fixed coordinates for time, if you believe time is the basis of motion, but if you believe it is a consequence of motion, than fixed coordinates are only as meaningful as the method of measurement.
To quote Barbour, "You choose in U two points – two configurations of the universe. These are to remain fixed."
If time is a consequence of motion, than fixed points in time are nonsense.
To quote my posting further up the thread, "Think about this in physical terms. If you freeze framed quantum activity, would it just be a still life of reality as we see it, or would the picture simply vanish like a non-fluctuating vacuum?"
To quote Barbour again, "The key thing is that no time is assumed in advance. A time worthy of the name does not exist on any of the non-extremal curves. Time emerges only on the extremal curves."
The flaw here is that as a consequence of motion, time would be equally relevant to the non-extremal curves, as it is to the extremal curves. It would simply be relative to the system being described.
The point of Barbour's essay is self contradictory. It starts as a denunciation of absolute time, then sets about determining it through the principle of least action.
"Regarding picking my brains, I trust you've heard the phrase "mighty slim pickin's"?"
Don't worry. My brains are invariably scattered all over the place. Between the motorcycle and the horses, one day they might be for real, but then my bubble would be popped and the inside and outside would be the same, as I'm smeared across the universe for real.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 18:29 GMT
Hi John,
Apologies for being slow getting back to you. More than anything, I wanted to comment on something you wrote to Georgina, as follows:
"So this is not just physics that would be impacted if this idea [i.e., JBM's viewpoint on the passage of time] were to be given serious consideration, but would reverberate throughout many of our religious, social and political assumptions. I know some of the participants on these boards reject the idea on principle that something so basic couldn't be a real factor, but I find in more philosophic setting, some people don't like it for far deeper reasons. It really does force you to look off the edge of the abyss and outside the box of what is supposed to be "real." Reality is no longer ones own narrative, or the narrative of one's preferred group, but more a sea and tapestry where connections and walls rearrange themselves. One's demons and angels have to be re-ordered. Basically the sub-conscious is no longer quite so isolated. It forces you to live much more in the present."
This is yet another excellent example of your knack for the poetic, John. Well said. I'm convinced that part of the trouble we've had in getting our view of time accepted is that it is too simple. People are looking for something complicated. The reality underlying the passage of time (the flow of time) is not complicated at all. That said, describing the flow of time (i.e., the evolving configurations of the universe) mathematically may be *incredibly* complicated and difficult.
Absolutely crucial, however, in my view, is that we not lose sight of what is the map and what is the terrain. I'm afraid this is what has happened with those who have declared that the distinctions between past, present, and future are illusory, and that there is no objective flow of time. When we look and look and look and still are not able to establish a correlation between the map and the terrain, which should we ultimately believe? I'll go with the terrain every time. Otherwise, that precipice not shown on the map could be a problem.
I'll not even try to address all your other points here, John. This mode of communication is simply too cumbersome. We all need a good face-to-face with a chalk board or a white board and some suitable libations if we ever hope to get to the bottom of all this.
Cheers!
jcns
John Merryman replied on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 19:26 GMT
JCN,
Here is an
essay I wrote, trying to explain how current civilization arose out of primary physical processes.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 22:50 GMT
John,
Thank you for sharing the link to your essay. I'm concurrently reading the essay in another window and making comments here as I read.
"That timeline of past to future is our subjective perception of the changing configuration of what exists, turning future into past. Probabilities collapse into actualities."
As we've already discussed on your blog (and I believe we agreed on it there) I'd amend that to read "our subjective perception of the changing configuration of what exists, turning present into different present. Probabilities collapse into actualities." (Admittedly this formulation may not be intuitively obvious to people not already in synch with our thinking.) Here, I think we both agree with Paul Reed that "the future" is not ontologically real. And I'd argue that "the past" also is not ontologically real. So it's pointless to talk about turning one ontological unreality (the future) into another (the past).
"What is bad for the chicken is good for the fox . . . ." Really? In the near-term perhaps, but I suspect not in the long-term. If all the "chickens" (i.e., prey) are killed (or die off of other causes) will that be good for the foxes (i.e., predators)? Just asking.
"Civilization is ultimately bottom up. We can exalt its achievements, but we risk all when we neglect its foundations." Sounds right to me.
An enjoyable read, John, but I'll admit quite frankly that my eyes glazed over at the point where you dived into politics/government and economics. Physics and the nature of time are child's play compared to politics and economics, neither of which I pretend to understand. Moreover, I'm automatically deeply suspicious of anybody who does pretend to understand them. That said, they're crucial to our happiness and well being, so my chapeau is off to those who labor to make sense of them for us.
Regardless, thanks again for sharing.
jcns
John Merryman replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 01:51 GMT
JCN, (Hope this doesn't double post. The weather is messing with my satellite connection.)
It isn't that past and future events physically exist, but the conceptual reality of the sequence is the foundation of our mind. Consider two objects hitting each other, which is an event. The physical objects continue to other events, but the particular event recedes into the "past." Our brain is physically real. It goes from prior to succeeding events. Our mind, on the other hand, is the recording and processing of these events, as they form and recede. so think of it as emergent ability to conceptualize change.
As I argued, I would call it a different configuration of THE present. When you focus on the events, rather than the state of existence, it is sequential states, rather than dynamic process. Both exist, but which is emergent from the other? Paul and I have gone through this many times and he keeps tripping over the need for a mechanism of change, without recognizing it as fundamental. As I keep describing it, does the earth exist/move along some fourth dimension of sequential states, from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates? In the first you have an enormous mystery of "How?" With the second, you have a very simple cause and effect.
As for the chicken and fox, you are projecting out linearly, but in reality there are endless, infinite feedback loops. What if there were no foxes and the chickens simply reproduced to infinity?
I had to laugh when you said your eyes glazed over at the mention of politics and economics, considering your profession. Now you know how those professional physicists feel when amateurs opine about physics. I suspect you have spent your career analyzing many of the more dangerous aspects of political and economic ramifications, the sharp end of the spear, so to speak and naturally view any simplistic solutions as dangerous crackpottery. It's safe to say any situation always appears far more simple when you view it from the extremes or from a great distance, than it does up close and personal. Keep in mind though, that no matter how complex the structure, when it becomes unstable, gravity is simple.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 06:12 GMT
Dear J C N Smith
I like this essay and in essence agree with it. A lot of the problems with time come from not realising that in relativity theory, time is defined along worldlines rather than by surfaces.
George Ellis
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 10:47 GMT
George,
If I may just add a thought to that, what if we were to go the full three dimensions and consider time as volume? Would it be a form of temperature, ie, the higher the levels of activity, the faster the rate of change and vice versa? Would that explain variable clock rates, that at the speed of light, there is no internal atomic activity, thus no change and no time?
Isn't C2 essentially an expression of volume, that when we release the energy in mass, we get that exponential increase in volume, ie, an explosion? If so, than wouldn't gravity be the opposite; M=e/c2, a contraction of volume as energy condenses into mass? Possibly such that the missing mass on the perimeter of galaxies is actually due to the
excess of cosmic rays actually discovered there and how they might be coalescing into interstellar gases?
The arrows of time then pointing both inward to ever denser mass and ordered structure, but also outward, as energy is released, expanding out to take up other forms and structures, thus a cycle of generation and regeneration, as the energy of the present moves onto other forms and events, while the resulting structures of these forms and events recedes into the past....
Sorry to interrupt.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear George Ellis,
Thank you for reading and commenting favorably on my essay. Having read your April 2010 article in FQXi on 'The Crystallizing Universe,' and other papers you've written, I know you are among those who have given this topic a great deal of thought, thus making your opinion of even greater importance to me.
Rather than go into specific details here, I would ask you for one huge favor: if you could add yet one more item to your undoubtedly already daunting reading queue, I would be deeply grateful if you could eventually find or make time to read my somewhat longer essay
Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time, which spells out my thinking in a broader perspective.
Suffice it to say here that I believe physics has reached what Thomas S. Kuhn called a "crisis," and it is only through a thorough and candid reexamination of fundamentals that real and meaningful progress will be made.
Best Regards,
jcns
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 16:33 GMT
John,
I hope you will forgive me if I don't comment at length here on specific details of your long post from earlier today and directly above. I'm trying to digest too much information too quickly. Not being a speed reader, this becomes problematical.
Thanks to your helpful "heads up," yesterday evening I viewed Julian Barbour's 81-minute lecture on shape dynamics at the Perimeter Institute. Very interesting! I love the quotation from Mach which he cited: "It is utterly impossible to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction we arrive at from the changes of things." Yes, exactly! Clearly, the thinking of Mach and Poincare are as fresh and timely as ever! I'm currently reading Poincare's 'The Value of Science.' Brilliant. Highly recommend it. Agree that much is lost or distorted in efforts to condense Barbour's ideas into 5-minute sound bites. More later.
jcns
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 17:11 GMT
Joy is from the perimeter also,they become crazy with my theory. ahahah JCN they are just copycats with a strategy. They need funds probably.ahahah parallelizations and an ocean of superimposed spheres, and what after ?
I suggest that the perimeter institute and FQXi sort several members, because they are simply not real searchers. After that I will respect these systems, and you shall respect me. Sort these pseudo scientists and we shall revolutionate this planet withs ciences and conscience. Sort dear universal responsibles !!! all will be easier without these persons without faithj and law.Sort these stealers, these frustrated ! I am integre me !!! I cannot work with persons who are not in the universal integrity. I forgive always ...
Regards
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 02:37 GMT
JCN,
No problem. We are all playing the long game here. I try to keep that in mind, but occasionally pop some fuses.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 11:40 GMT
JCNS,
Nice job. You're not wrong that the agreement of a world class relativist is highly significant, and I think that your view does largely conform to George Ellis' notion of evolving block time. In your words, "The arrangements of things relative to one another are subject to change; the configuration of the observable universe is subject to change. I maintain that it is these changes in the configuration of the universe which we perceive as the flow of time."
There's more than one way to substitute a physical defnition for an operational definition of time, however, and get the same result. My own attempt (NECSI ICCS 2006) was to define time as "n-dimension infinitely orientable metric on random self-avoiding walk." This meets George's objection that in relativity, "time is defined along worldlines rather than by surfaces," in promoting a topological definition (the language of surfaces) that preserves all the large scale features of relativity without losing the possibility of including the small scale features that would hopefully lead to quantum gravity. After being introduced to Joy Christian's framework, I became convinced that orientiability alone is sufficient to ensure dynamical flow of time in curved spacetime -- without ever having to even mention time! I find that remarkable.
Thanks for a nice essay! I hope you get a chance to visit my site, too. Best wishes in the competition.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 12:17 GMT
Tom,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your kind words and constructive observations.
Actually, I did read your essay early on, and I remember being very favorably impressed by it, but I could not at that moment think of anything even remotely intelligent to say by way of comment, so opted not to comment at all. I'll go back and read it again.
I'm quite hopeful that we're all on the cusp of some worthwhile breakthroughs in our thinking about the universe and how it works. As I've written elsewhere
(Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time) I think we'll need to agree to a new paradigm for our thinking about the nature of time.
As David Deutsch has said, the way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth. I believe we're gradually inching along in that direction, but progress has been hard won of late.
jcns
hide replies
Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 23:59 GMT
Hi JCNS,
I really enjoyed your post. It is one of the most lucid treatment of the problem of defining time that I have read. The exposition was clear and the reasoning easy to follow.
The only shortcoming that I can see is that, though you explain that time corresponds to the sequential rearrangement of the components of reality, in essence, that the accepted notion of time is an...
view entire post
Hi JCNS,
I really enjoyed your post. It is one of the most lucid treatment of the problem of defining time that I have read. The exposition was clear and the reasoning easy to follow.
The only shortcoming that I can see is that, though you explain that time corresponds to the sequential rearrangement of the components of reality, in essence, that the accepted notion of time is an illusion, you insist that we can still retain the operational notion of time and theories such as special relativity.
Special relativity needs time to be a physical aspect of reality. If it is not, then time cannot be unified with space. And space-time, doesn't not exist. You can't unify a concept, which corresponds to no physical aspect of reality with space, which is an aspect of physical reality. Special relativity can't exist without time being physical. Physical time is required for the effect of time dilatation to exist. Without time dilatation, there is no special relativity. Without time, there is no time dilatation.
I think the essay contrives its conclusion into agreeing with accepted theories. But you can't have it both ways. If time is not physical, then you must reevaluate, even reject many of the dominant theories.
That said I agree with you as far as how time is defined in terms of rearrangements or, in my terms, according to the principle of strict causality.
In regards to time, you might find my answer to the FQXi article titled "Killing Time"
"note: This is from a article I posted on my blog in 2010, which, coincidentally, is also titled "Killing Time."
The greatest problem with current physics theories is that they consider time as if it were a property of physical reality.
Time is a relational concept which is made to allow us to compare events with periodic and cyclic systems; in other words, clocks. But time has no more effect on reality than the clocks that are used to measure it? The fact, when you think of it, clocks don't really measure time.
Take an event consisting of the fall of an object from a point to "a" to a point "b". When we say we measured the time it took for that event to happen, what we actually did is count the number of cycles (seconds, or fraction of seconds for instance) from when the object was dropped from "a" and stopped the count when it reaches point "b". So we don't actually measure time. What we do is simply count the number of cycles the clock's mechanisms go through over the course of the event.
There is no reason why time should be anything more than a relational concept, a useful relational concept I admit, but only a concept. Yet time, physicists will argue, is necessary to the study of nature.
Every process, every event, transformation or phenomenon appears to happen in time. Without time, it is believed, the Universe would be static. Worse, there would be no Universe at all. What we fail to understand is that affirming the necessity of time is like saying that the atoms in the Universe could not exists without the number systems we use to count them. The argument is akin to the solipsistic argument that reality cannot exist without an observer (which is something many quantum-physicists actually try convince us of).
So let's make things clear for a start. Planet Earth, the solar system, our galaxy, our Universe existed before there were people to observe them and before the concept of time, which is a construct of the observers, was invented.
So what does it mean that time is really a relational concept? What it essentially means is that there are no physical interaction between a phenomenon and the number of cycles of the periodic system we may compare it to.
You'll notice that I didn't say there is no interaction between the phenomenon and the periodic mechanism. What I said is that there is no interaction between the phenomenon and the abstraction that is a number. That said, there is a very simple test to determine if a notion is a property of physical reality or if it's merely a concept. The test is one of necessity.
For the sake of argumentation, let's assume that time is a fundamental property of physical reality. If time is a fundamental physical property of reality, then the existence of time must be an axiom essential to any theory of physical reality. What this implies is that it should be impossible to describe any physical phenomenon without the use of time. Impossible! Are you sure?
A principle of strict causality which describes physical phenomena as sequences of events related through causality doesn't require the concept of time. Even concepts such as motion and speed can be described without ever using concept of time.
In fact, the only indication that time may be physical is the effect of time dilation. Time dilation is the inevitable consequence of two axioms: the constancy of the speed of light and the continuity of space. But it can be shown that if space is discrete,then there is no need to resort to the concept of time dilation to explain the constancy of the speed of light.
Then, if time is not an essential axiom, it follows that time is not a fundamental property of physical reality. As a consequence, time is nothing more than a relational concept.
In my opinion, we need to make a distinction between reality and representations of reality by models or concepts. I think we're confusing the two when it comes to time."
On that, congratulations on what, in my opinion, is a well written and lucid exposition of the problems relevant to the definition of time.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 00:55 GMT
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your favorable comments. Glad you liked it.
You wrote, "In my opinion, we need to make a distinction between reality and representations of reality by models or concepts. I think we're confusing the two when it comes to time."
I couldn't agree more. It's basically the old problem of the map not agreeing with the terrain. If we look and look and look and still can't arrive at a correlation between the map and the actual terrain, then which do we finally believe? It seems that modern science has chosen to believe the map. Physics has disavowed the reality of a distinction between past, present, and future, and it has disavowed the reality of an objective flow of time. If this isn't choosing the map over the terrain, then I don't know what is. Yes, of course we must be wary of falling into yet another trap analogous to believing that the sun revolves around the Earth, but what further proof of the true nature of reality (the terrain) do we need before physics finally agrees to -- at a minimum -- reevaluate the map?
Earlier in your post you wrote, "I think the essay contrives its conclusion into agreeing with accepted theories. But you can't have it both ways. If time is not physical, then you must reevaluate, even reject many of the dominant theories."
I take your comment to heart. I've struggled with this, too. This is a bit of a sticky issue. The fact of the matter, however, in my view, is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the operational definition of time. It is an extremely useful tool. I doubt that physics would be possible without it. But we must guard against extending the notion beyond its rightful range of applicability. Lacking Einstein's theories, we would be hard pressed to do some extremely useful things such as build our satellite-based Global Positioning System, for example. Relativity works! It gives us useful equations. We can plug numbers into the equations and get numbers out which allow us to do useful things and which agree with reality. Somehow, utility should be a part of any litmus test for what to retain and what not to retain of existing theories. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water!
If you can find time in your busy life, I'd like to recommend that you take a look at three other essays I've written on the topic:
Time: Illusion and Reality ,
On the Impossibility of Time Travel, and
Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time. These flesh out some of the ideas which were only touched on in this current essay.
Thanks again for your comments. I will make it a point to read your essay soon and provide whatever comments I can. So much to read, so little time!
jcns
Daniel L Burnstein replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 02:16 GMT
Concerning relativity and GPS, it is a myth that the latter wouldn't be possible without the former. See
here.
Similar myths link quantum-mechanics and solid state electrics. Both GPS and electronics are feats of engineering and classical physics.
That a theory works is a good thing, but refusal to question a theory that works prevents from considering that it may also be only an approximation of reality.
It is possible to do physics without what you define as the operational definition of time. See my essay or
book.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 15:31 GMT
Daniel,
*If* what you are saying is correct, (I'm certainly in no position to weigh in authoritatively on the validity of your assertions, pro or con here) then these are indeed extremely serious matters to be taken into consideration in deliberations about the fundamental underpinnings of relativity and quantum phenomena.
I have looked only very briefly at your 'Introduction to Quantum-Geomety Dynamics.' It clearly deserves a more careful examination and critique, not only by me, but by others more deeply immersed in the field than myself. My quick look at your chapter on time shows much to like. I certainly concur with your observation that "Changing an aspect of reality affects its representation, but changing a representation does not inversely affect the aspect of reality it represents."
I can, and will, say, without equivocation, that science, especially physics, has long been laboring under a serious misperception about the fundamental nature of time, and the toll of this misperception has been far heavier than is generally recognized. People are only now finally waking up to a suspicion of this fact and actively seeking alternate, better ways of thinking about the nature of time.
In fact, as I have explained in my essay
Time: Illusion and Reality (which I recommend adding to your reading queue), the fundamental role and purpose of clocks is to provide a convenient shorthand notation for conveying information about configurations of the universe. Somewhere along the line, too many have lost sight of this fact. In that essay, I have argued, on the basis of this understanding of the proper role of clocks, that even the equivalence of mass and energy can be derived without resort to relativity.
It is incredibly heartening to see some some of our most highly regarded and prominent scientists taking an active leadership role in the quest for a better explanation for the nature of time. For example, I have heard from a reliable source that Lee Smolin will be publishing new books on the topic of time later this year.
As David Deutsch has said, "The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth." (From 'The Beginning of Infinity,' p. 257.) With so many smart people eagerly and objectively seeking the truth, how could we fail to converge upon it eventually?
jcns
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 16:22 GMT
When a deductive theory is considered, "seeking the truth" can only mean "questioning the truthfulness of the postulates or the validity of the arguments". If you believe the postulates are true and the arguments valid, "seeking the truth" is pointless - you should simply accept that all the conclusions of the theory are true and leave it at that.
Nowadays the implications of special relativity are criticised by many smart people but a strict taboo is imposed on questioning the two postulates. George Orwell calls this "crimestop":
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 18:24 GMT
Pentcho,
It's like that
everywhere.
The only time it changes is after the system crashes and for a few brief moments we look around for new directions. Eventually though the new ways stabilize, then they start to stagnate and even the voices of caution argue as to what should be done, while the system promotes its devotees and demotes its skeptics.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 18:31 GMT
Hi Pentcho,
Only by virtue of the fact that I'm acutely attuned to the subtlest of clues regarding human emotions and written expressions thereof was I able to detect what some might describe as a hint of cynicism in your comments?
Unfortunately, you have raise what I regret to say is a valid concern. It is hard to dispute that some non-zero fraction of scientists have in essence staked their careers and reputations on the status quo and the maintenance thereof. These are the folks who appear to be of the opinion that if any idea which differs from orthodoxy were any good they already would have thought of it long ago.
The good news, however, is that there is a growing number of scientists who do not fall into that category. If this trend continues (and how can it fail to continue with physics in its current state of crisis?), these will form a critical mass dedicated to an objective reevaluation of fundamentals, as witnessed by the current FQXi competition.
My own spirits in terms of a positive outlook on the possibility that physics will reevaluate its position regarding the nature of time were raised by orders of magnitude when I read the following words of Lee Smolin: 'More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics.' (From 'The Trouble With Physics,' p. 256) When first-tier scientists go on record, in writing, as holding views such as this, then there is good reason to hope that we will get to the bottom of things. My own essay in this competition and those I've published elsewhere were written with the specific aim of throwing gasoline on this cognitive spark.
Hang in there, Pentcho, I'm optimistic that things will only get better!
jcns
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 10:10 GMT
Hi JCNS,
Don't rely so much on Lee Smolin and other heroes of today's science. They have always known that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false and were quite ready to abandon it 10 years ago but then, for unknown reasons, decided to save special relativity:
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it."
http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Scie
nce/dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp
/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03
E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
"Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 11:58 GMT
Ten years ago the Great Revolution in Science was just around the corner:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/waseinstei
nwrong/
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
http://www.rense.com/general13/ein.htm
Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Must Be Rewritten, Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, The Sunday Times - London: "A group of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."
http://roychristopher.com/joao-magueijo-frontier-cosmology
"Likewise, Joao Magueijo has radical ideas, but his ideas intend to turn that Einsteinian dogma on its head. Magueijo is trying to pick apart one of Einstein's most impenetrable tenets, the constancy of the speed of light. This idea of a constant speed (about 3×106 meters/second) is familiar to anyone who is remotely acquainted with modern physics. It is known as the universal speed limit. Nothing can, has, or ever will travel faster than light. Magueijo doesn't buy it. His VSL (Varying Speed of Light) presupposes a speed of light that can be energy or time-space dependent. Before you declare that he's out of his mind, understand that this man received his doctorate from Cambridge, has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently a professor at Imperial College, London."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 07:55 GMT
Dear J. C. N. Smith,
Congratulations on your essay, which clearly presents our common world-view involving true temporal passage. As you know, I believe you have the right idea about what's basically wrong with the relativistic description of the nature of time, that leads to the logical conclusion of a block universe. I hope you won't mind my adding two comments as per our previous...
view entire post
Dear J. C. N. Smith,
Congratulations on your essay, which clearly presents our common world-view involving true temporal passage. As you know, I believe you have the right idea about what's basically wrong with the relativistic description of the nature of time, that leads to the logical conclusion of a block universe. I hope you won't mind my adding two comments as per our previous exchange.
First of all, I want to think of a modern day Galilean thought-experiment in which two atomic clocks at either end of the cabin of a ship have been calibrated so that they display the exact same time. Therefore, by standing in the centre of the cabin one should see the same time displayed on each of these clocks---the signal from each being transmitted by photons that travel equal space-time intervals at a constant speed. Therefore, as the discussion usually goes, because the same reading should be displayed on each clock at any particular time, two such events may be said to have truly occurred simultaneously. Then, this description of simultaneity can be continuously extended to the rest of the universe, and one has the common-sense description of a three-dimensional universe full of re-arranging things, in which different configurations correspond to different "particular times" in a universe that presently evolves.
Now, imagine that another such ship is constructed, and that the two head towards one another from opposite directions. According to relativity theory, which provides a continuous mathematical description of events, such as the times displayed on clocks, the notions of the presently evolving universe that are held by the two crews will differ; e.g., if one ship is heading towards the Andromeda galaxy while the other moves away from it, at the moment when the two ships cross paths, at that one space-time event, the notion held by the crew on the latter ship, of what's happening on Andromeda, will already be yesterday's news according to the former ship's crew.
I'm sure you know all this; but what I'm not sure of is that you know that the two crews also will not agree on what happens at any particular time locally as well. Because when Brian Greene and others describe a discrepancy between the freeze-frame images of the universe held by two relatively moving observers, they use large distances only as a tool to illustrate the relative discrepancy in intervals of time that are meaningful to us. However, even someone who walks through the cabin of their ship, after taking into account the changing distance between themself and the two clocks, if they postulate the constancy of the speed of light in all directions of all frames, will necessarily conclude that the two clocks are out of sync, and that different sets of events constitute the freeze-frame image of how the entire universe is arranged at any particular time. There's a relevant passage in Tom Ray's very interesting essay:
'One recalls that prior to Descartes, all geometry was done with compass and straightedge---all "here" and no "there." Only with the development of analytical geometry were we able to identify relations between numerically distant points and a local coordinate system.'
Therefore, I see your attack on the argument from the relativity of simultaneity as potentially being directed more towards the relevance of using coordinate systems, than towards the ultimate relevance of the operational definition of time. So, I think the best way of attacking the problem of reconciling relativity theory with a presentist view in which all that ever exists is the Universe at any particular time, is to deny the operational definition of simultaneity. Thus, although someone standing in the centre of either ship's cabin will perceive that the two clocks always display the same time, and may interpret that as being so because the ticks of both clocks are simultaneous, in reality that can't be so if the ship is actually moving through the Universe; i.e., two events perceived to be synchronous by an intertial observer who moves through the Universe shouldn't truly have occurred simultaneously. For this reason, it's very useful that the Universe does provide us with a clear representation of its rest-frame, and that the relative velocities of celestial bodies do not appear as if drawn from a uniform distribution on [0,c)---for if the latter were true, we would have to admit reasonable scientific evidence for a Block Universe.
The other point, which I mentioned before, is that I think the passage of time has to take place prior to the rearrangement of things in the Universe; e.g., as Augustine realised, a day would pass in half the time if the Sun made its round twice as quickly as usual. Therefore, I prefer a more Heraclitean description whereby one should say "while changing it rests", thus expressing the priority of change even in a thing that rests.
All my best!
Daryl
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Daryl,
"I hope you won't mind my adding two comments as per our previous exchange."
On the contrary, I welcome and appreciate your always thoughtful and insightful comments. There is much worthy of pondering in what you've written. I'll try to begin addressing a few of your specific points here. Before going there, however, I'd like to step back and look again at some basics....
view entire post
Dear Daryl,
"I hope you won't mind my adding two comments as per our previous exchange."
On the contrary, I welcome and appreciate your always thoughtful and insightful comments. There is much worthy of pondering in what you've written. I'll try to begin addressing a few of your specific points here. Before going there, however, I'd like to step back and look again at some basics. It's my view that much of what is troublesome in physics today can be traced back to a general misperception about the proper role and purpose of clocks. My view on this, as explained in my essay
Time: Illusion and Reality, is that the fundamental, underlying purpose, role, and value of clocks is to provide a concise shorthand notation for communicating information about configurations of the universe. As I wrote there,
"Despite being relative newcomers on the historical scene, calendars and clocks rapidly have assumed an extremely important role in our lives, and this is true precisely because they serve the powerful and useful function of providing a concise shorthand for communicating information about configurations of the universe."
This point is beautifully illustrated in Dava Sobel's marvelous book 'Longitude' in which she tells the story of how the development of precision timepieces by John Harrison and others was motivated by the need of mariners to determine accurately their longitude on the high seas, a feat which required a fine correlation between the reading of a clock and a configuration of the universe, i.e., the ship's location relative to the Earth.
It's my perception that many of our current problems in physics began and then multiplied when we lost sight of this fundamental role of clocks, which perform the same fundamental role as calendars, but only on a much finer scale. The reading of a clock (or a calendar) has absolutely no value, in and of itself, other than as it can be correlated with a particular, specific configuration of the universe. This fact presented no practical problems in the case of mariners using chronometers to help navigate the high seas. Some reasonable amount of error ("slop") in the correlation between the ship's position as determined on the basis of the reading of a chronometer and the actual position of the ship was acceptable and even expected.
In modern physics, however, correlations between readings of atomic clocks and specific configurations of the universe are far more problematical. Just for openers, every observer of the universe will necessarily have a slightly different perception of its configuration. Moreover, due to practical limitations imposed by sensory data, our perceptions about configurations of the universe can be, at best, little more than "best approximations" of actual configurations, with those best approximations becoming less reliable as distance from the observer increases.
It is crucial to recognize that the true configuration of the universe is intrinsically unknowable. So-called freeze-frame mental images of its configuration are useful in hypothetical discussions, but are not even remotely possible in practice. Having made these observations, however, there is still much more that needs to be said about how they relate to the issues of relativity and simultaneity.
"The other point, which I mentioned before, is that I think the passage of time has to take place prior to the rearrangement of things in the Universe; e.g., as Augustine realised, a day would pass in half the time if the Sun made its round twice as quickly as usual."
Here we clearly are not in synch, Daryl, because it's my view that the passage of time and the rearrangement of things are precisely one and the same. They are identical. These are just two ways of saying the same thing. One cannot precede the other. This is a fundamental point. If we are not in synch on this, then we probably are not in synch on much more, I suspect. But perhaps enough on that for now.
Cheers!
jcns
view post as summary
Bob Reichman wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:46 GMT
Thank you, Mr. Smith. Prior to reading this essay, I'd limited my thoughts on parallax to the displacement it creates when viewing objects from different locations in space. Now I see that both an observer's place AND time skew event perspective.
Before I'd read Dava Sobel's 'Longitude,' before I'd heard of Einstein or took a big-boy swig of relativity, before I'd even been able to correctly parse a sentence - I was vexed and awed by the endlessness of time. One can argue about what bookends the universe. There's no consensus about form or features that existed prior to the big bang. Most have little clue how it will all end; the Big Crunch theory has few remaining supporters. Despite the fact that thinking about it has kept me awake at night, there's a reassurance in time's constancy. The same can't be said for space, atoms or even gravity.
Perhaps it's so elemental that it shouldn't be epiphanous to me, but thank you, too, Mr. Smith, for crystallizing in my mind that "now" is the precise location of everything in this moment - the sum of all where's. By convention, we create an artificial date simply for the convenience of reference and abbreviation. Does now also include where/when every shadow is hitting every surface, every thought and motivation firing along every neuron, the mirage of every rainbow or reflection that really isn't there? Thinking of those things that challenge quantification must drive physicists mad.
My brain's 'check engine' light just came on.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 22:06 GMT
Hi Bob,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your kind comments. Glad to see you leaving a footprint in the sand, so to speak, here at FQXi, perhaps just the first of many, with any luck (for the rest of us here). I know you have much to say that would be of interest to many here.
And please don't feel like the Lone Ranger; my brain has been running with the 'check engine' light on for so long that even the 'check engine' light itself is on the verge of giving up the ghost. But we muddle on as best we can. It's too much fun to imagine giving up or quitting. Like those addicted to a soap opera, we want to know how it will all turn out in the end. In that regard, I'm thrilled to see what looks like some worthwhile progress being made in getting our arms around some of the knottier problems of physics/cosmology. Or at least in refining some of the questions, which in itself represents worthwhile progress.
Cheers!
jcns
Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 20:28 GMT
JCN
I applaud your realistic view of the nature of time, as well as your caution "please donʼt confuse what are mathematical descriptions of reality with the underlying objective reality itself". Well said! Eddington said he same beautifully in his book The Nature of the Physical Universe.
George Ellis
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear F. R. Ellis
I am waiting long time for discussion with Julian Barbour,but he keep silence
and now representing for you my counter-thesis
The special theory of relativity understood by Einstein as a four-dimensional space-time continuum implies a kind of superdeterrninisrn with the future completely determined down to the smallest detail. This was the reason why Einstein...
view entire post
Dear F. R. Ellis
I am waiting long time for discussion with Julian Barbour,but he keep silence
and now representing for you my counter-thesis
The special theory of relativity understood by Einstein as a four-dimensional space-time continuum implies a kind of superdeterrninisrn with the future completely determined down to the smallest detail. This was the reason why Einstein believed time is an illusion and why Karl Popper told Einstein "You are Parmenides," the Greek philosopher (515-445) who believed that being is not becoming and time (becoming) an illusion. With everything exactly predetermined there can be no free will, not even a hypothetical God, and a God without free will is an ontological impossibility.
One therefore can say: If Einstein is right, then there can be no God. The opposite though, is not true; true rather is if God exists then Einstein must be wrong."
If the Universe is a sequence of identical cycles, according to Penrose, that is, time is a circle, how do you identify past from future and vice versa?
The Past is the a Future. The Future is the Past.
I will try to show concrete difference between the 2 approaches:
Parmenides and Heraclitus.
Suppose two options with the same content:
1. The written Text by Nature
2. The Audio-recording of the same Text.(We live and listeniing audio-recording regime)
Written is Parmenides.
Audio-recording is Heraclites.
At first sight two approaches, Parmenides(book) and Heraclitus(audio-book) in a one picture seems as a schizophrenia. As Niels Bohr said:
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true."
The Complementarity is also applicable here as well.
It seems to me Julian's approach look like Parmenides.
I continue my attempts to understand the country just named Platonia.
Let's look at the dilemma Parmenides vs Heraclites on the other side, namely, deterministic and probabilistic approach.
Here, the first relates to determinism, the second to the randomness and free will.
As one wise man told “Randomness is lack of our Knowledge."
Advantage of Parmenides is knowledge of whole book.
Advantage of Heraclites is hearing of sounds of audio-book in concrete moment and free will.
Aharonov's fair view, he says, "is somewhat Talmudic: everything you're going to do is already known to God, but you still have the choice."
Just in case."Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle.(Dyson)
Only posible reconcilation between Parmenides and Heraclites is the Cyclic Universe in modern Penrose version or oldest Heraclitus version.
Diogenes Laertius gives this summary of Heraclitus' doctrine of cyclical conflagration: "And it [the cosmos] is alternately born from fire and again resolved into fire in fixed cycles to all eternity, and this is determined by destiny" (Lives, 9. 8).
IMHO all is flow in one cycle,but all cycles repeat itch other,despite the violation of laws of thermodynamics.We don't now duration of one cycle and whether it makes sense asked this question.Does the Universe is hologram?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
Dear Yuri Danoyan,
[I originally posted this in Julian Barbour's blog 'From Time to Space,' where you had asked why I was ignoring your posts.]
Please accept my apologies for appearing to ignore your posts addressed to me. It was not my intention to be rude. A big reason I've not replied is that I don't know exactly *how* to reply.
You wrote in my blog "Only posible reconcilation between Parmenides and Heraclites is the Cyclic Universe in modern Penrose version or oldest Heraclitus version."
I regret to say that I have not yet studied Penrose's latest thinking on cycles of time (I intend to do so as soon as time permits!), but barring the unforeseen I must count myself among the disciples of Heraclitus as an unapologetic presentist.
I hope this helps. I'll post this again where your comments appear in my blog as well.
jcns
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear Jennifer
First of all i would like introduced to you my essay in the last context
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946
If it interesting for you we can return to problem of time.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 23:06 GMT
George,
Thank you very much for your supportive comments; they are much appreciated. A dear friend once said to me, "you have a firm grasp on the obvious." I took his remark in a much more favorable light than I believe he had intended. It is surprising that what seems "obvious" to some is not at all "obvious" to others. This has much to do with our paradigm for reality, I suspect.
The point about not confusing mathematical descriptions of reality with the underlying objective reality itself is an example of the need to avoid confusing the map with the terrain. If, after we have looked and looked and looked, we still fail to see a correlation between the map and the terrain we ultimately must decide which to believe. While remaining acutely wary of falling victim to "sun revolving around the Earth" misinterpretations of our empirical observations, I finally tend always toward a belief in the terrain rather than the map. Otherwise, the precipice not shown on the map could become a real-world problem.
It's my perception that those who deny the reality of distinctions between past, present, and future are favoring the map over the terrain. Objective reality about the nature of time is all around us, staring us squarely in the face. Particular times are identically equivalent to particular configurations of the universe, and what we perceive as the flow of time is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe, in my view.
I've added Eddington's book to my reading list, and have already ordered a copy. (What would we do without the internet?) Thank you for the recommendation.
Cheers,
jcns
Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear JCN:
I agree with your conclusive statement:
“They would, however, require us to abandon an unspoken assumption that the operational definition is the final word of science on the nature of time. Adopting such a new and innovative way of thinking about the nature of time, based on a paradigm which I believe more accurately reflects the underlying objective nature of reality, could only have long-term beneficial effects on science.”
My posted paper – “
From Absurd to Elegant Universe” and my book – “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, cosmology, and Universal Reality” not only vindicate this statement, but actually demonstrate that the operational worldly definition of time can reveal only 4% of the material reality and unable to explain the majority 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universal reality. My paper describes the classical time as that experienced in the Newtonian frame (V much smaller than C) and no-time or fully dilated time in the relativistic frame of a light photon (V=C). In between these two states, there are infinite number of intermediate clocks and times (V between 0 and C).
Numerous successes of the widely accepted theories – quantum mechanics and general relativity, against experiments limited to the worldly and solar system have blinded us to misapply or impose operational time on cosmic scale that leads to the current paradoxes of physics leading to an absurd universe. My paper shows that the observations of the universe and galactic expansion can be predicted without an absolute cosmic time. The fundamental assumption of an absolute Cosmic Time or clock is WRONG since it does not support the universe observations and leads to unexplainable paradoxes and inconsistencies. The current operational (Newtonian) definition of an absolute time and space is only good enough for the worldly and solar system related physical phenomena and not valid at the universe scale.
Sincerely,
Avtar Singh
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Avtar,
I apologize for not reading your very interesting essay and commenting on it much sooner. I have been too easily overwhelmed by an embarrassment of riches in terms of having so many interesting essays to read and attempt to understand, insofar as possible.
You wrote, "Science today is at the crossroads searching for resolutions to some serious paradoxes and puzzles paralyzing its leading theories. The mission of science to achieve a unified theory is founded on the basic premise that there exists a single universe and one set of universal laws that the theory would reveal to explain the observed universe. This mission is marred by the uncertainty and confusion of the multiverse that presumes parallel universes with their own varying sets of laws."
For whatever it is worth, I could not be in more complete agreement with you on these points. There is abundant evidence that physics and cosmology have reached a point which Thomas S. Kuhn described as a "crisis." This FQXi essay competition is an excellent example and illustration of exactly this point.
With regard to parallel universes with their own varying sets of laws, is this not simply a re-defining, for the sake of convenience, of the term "universe"? If these hypothetical parallel universes are things we can contemplate, then they certainly are part of our one, comprehensive intellectual universe.
Regarding detailed comments on the specific technical details of your essay, Avtar, I regret to say that I am not sufficiently well versed in the technical nuances and subtleties of these topics to comment meaningfully. Far better for both of us if I leave such comments on technical specifics to those whose expertise far exceeds my own, of whom there are many.
Regardless, good luck in the your future work and good luck in the essay competition. [Also posted on the blog associated with your essay.]
jcns
Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 22:43 GMT
Dear JCNS:
Thanks for reading and commenting on my paper.
You have asked - "With regard to parallel universes with their own varying sets of laws, is this not simply a re-defining, for the sake of convenience, of the term "universe"?"
Parallel universes are brainchildren of quantum mechanics and they represent standalone and un-connected universes separate from our universe. This is simply an unverifiable and entirely theoretical postulate that offers a last-resort explanation for many observed weird quantum phenomena.
In my paper, I offer an explanation for the parallel universes that represent simply various different relativistic states of the mass-energy-space-time continuum of one universe.
Regards
Avtar
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 03:03 GMT
Dear JCNS
I would like reminding you one quote: “If we are going to restore causality, we shall have to pay for it and now we can only guess what idea must be sacrificed.”(P.A.M. Dirac, Directions in Physics, 1978) Lectures delivered during a visit to Australia and New Zealand August/September 1975
My concept of time (see my reply to Ellis in the your essay)can explain, why some time we must forget about time.To my opinion i guess what supposed to be Dirac. Name of sacrifice is Time.
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 19:05 GMT
Along with Present there is the Eternal, which Julian calls Platonia.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 19:17 GMT
Dear Yuri Danoyan,
[I originally posted this in Julian Barbour's blog 'From Time to Space,' where you had asked why I was ignoring your posts.]
Please accept my apologies for appearing to ignore your posts addressed to me. It was not my intention to be rude. A big reason I've not replied is that I don't know exactly *how* to reply.
You wrote in my blog "Only posible reconcilation between Parmenides and Heraclites is the Cyclic Universe in modern Penrose version or oldest Heraclitus version."
I regret to say that I have not yet studied Penrose's latest thinking on cycles of time (I intend to do so as soon as time permits!), but barring the unforeseen I must count myself among the disciples of Heraclitus as an unapologetic presentist.
We all have too many interesting things to read and try to keep up with these days.
jcns
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT
Dear j.c.n.
Roger Penrose conception about the Second Law
of thermodynamics and Big Bang.
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/THESP
A01.PDF
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 12:09 GMT
Dear Yuri,
Thank you for the helpful link to the Penrose presentation. Not surprisingly, Penrose appears to be expanding the frontiers of our thinking with these ideas. Not having followed discussions of conformal cyclic cosmology closely in the past, I'm curious about how these ideas are being received by the wider community of cosmologists and physicists. I have Penrose's book 'Cycles of Time' in my stack of reading material, but have not yet gotten to it.
Not being expert in the area of cosmology, I could not even begin to comment meaningfully on what clearly is an extremely complex theory. I was surprised, however, by one statement in the paper which you or someone else might help clarify for me. Penrose wrote, ". . . the greater the temperature, the more irrelevant the rest masses of the particles involved will become, so these particles are effectively massless near the Big Bang." I would have thought that at higher temperatures particles would have greater velocity and greater energy and hence greater mass. Penrose appears to be saying that the opposite is true. I'm eager to be educated on this point.
Fortunately, Penrose stated that the theory makes clear-cut predictions which should be observable, thereby helping establish its credibility or lack thereof.
So what is your take on all this?
jcns
Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 20:31 GMT
jcns
See my essay,specially posts about mechanism of the Universe.
All the best
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 15:34 GMT
In the admittedly doubtful event that anyone ever reads through this blog all the way down this far, I'd like to add a couple of paragraphs by way of "fleshing out" Section 6 of my essay, "The Meaning of Past, Present, and Future and the Flow of Time." Had I thought of it in time, I'd have added the following two paragraphs to the essay before submitting it to the competition.
The terms 'past' and 'future' refer to configurations of the universe which we can visualize in our imaginations and about which we can speculate and hypothesize, but which have no objective reality for those of us who are living in the present. Our empirical observations lead us to conclude that the 'past' consists of those configurations of the universe which once had an objective reality, i.e., which once actually existed. These past configurations subsequently have evolved, through physical displacements of the various bits and pieces relative to one another, into the 'present' configuration, some portions of which we can perceive with our senses. And we infer that this configuration will evolve into yet others which we imagine as the 'future.'
We can only engage in educated speculation about what sorts of things will or will not be included in future configurations of the universe. By understanding the laws of physics, we can predict, or extrapolate, more or less accurately, the likely future configurations of at least some gross, observable features of the universe, up to a point, but we observe no empirical evidence of the objective reality of these predicted configurations. We find no 'fossilized remains' of the future as we do of the past, the reason being that the future, unlike the past, has never existed.
These two paragraphs are drawn from my earlier essay,
On the Impossibility of Time Travel and are germane to the current essay as well.
jcns
Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 15:48 GMT
Dear jcns
I do love you no nonsense style and no bullsh*t viewpoint. Physics needs more of this approach, not closed minded by any means, but eminently sensible.
Yes.. at least 'rethink and repudiate' some assumptions only apparently logical. I deal with this in depth in my own essay, and argue that the 'imaginary' time, and thus imaginary speed (c+v), of special relativity is purely apparent time and speed in the same way that the cars on the opposite freeway lane to you are only doing 'apparent' 140mph. It only becomes REAL 140 when you meet and interact via an acceleration (or rapid deceleration in that case!)
I also applaud your "don't confuse mathematical description..with reality."
Your score is languishing too low and I'm happy to pledge my troth to its elevation.
I do hope you read and manage to penetrate mine. It came out a bit densely layered.
Best of luck
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thank you for taking the time to read my essay and for your favorable comments, which are much appreciated. Glad you like my somewhat "down to earth," "reduced BS" or perhaps "BS lite" style, for lack of better descriptors. I do try to keep things simple, but hopefully not too simple.
Apologies for not having gotten over to read your essay yet. I'll move it up nearer the top of my "to do" list! So much to read, so little time!
Cheers,
jcns
T H Ray wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
Hi jcns,
Read and responded to your time essays in my forum.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
re castel wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT
jcns,
I was hoping for your more solid proposition that agrees with my ideas. You left me hanging though...
I think what is needed is simply a bias in the corporeal occurrences in order to preserve the "distinctions between the past, present, and future".
The bias will establish that the transformations of the clock called the universe simply occurs in unison with time's duration process.
I might have just that bias intimated in my work.
I like your work.
castel
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:24 GMT
Dear re castel,
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.
"The bias will establish that the transformations of the clock called the universe simply occurs in unison with time's duration process."
It's my view that the transformations of the clock called the universe *are* time's duration process. If the configuration of the universe did not change (i.e., if there were no "transformations" to use your term) there would be no flow of time. The evolution of the physical universe is what we perceive as the flow of time.
jcns
re castel wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT
jcns,
my idea is that duration is totally 'abstract' while the motion is corporeal (altho we also have abstractions of the motion). motion and duration occur in unison. corporeal motion is fundamental and abstract duration is also fundamental.
even if motion transformation is not apparent, the fundamental motion occurs, hence the fundamental duration occurs.
the idea of an unchanging "configuration of the universe" does not ring true to me, since I see the universe as a motion construct - i.e., because motion is the fundamental essence of mass, energy, light, gravity, electromagnetism, and every part of the universe that is contained in space.
the physical universe, in all its evolutions or transformations, is the overall motion that we perceive. because the universe is inherent motion, the bias is inherent. and duration is inherent.
motion is characterized as velocity which is distance per unit time. with v the velocity, d the distance and t the time, v=d/t indicates that t=d/v, such that t=t, which signifies that t, as an occurrence, is independent, while v depends somewhat on t by the definition v=d/t. (here, d represents static space, which is not an occurrence, not a current or flow.) v and t signify inherent flows.
so, I draw distinction between the two ideas. "evolution", the motion, is not the "flow of time", not duration - motion and duration are related but they are not the same occurrence.
but I think we agree about the idea of a hierarchy in the cosmos for a rational conception of time...
my apologies for the bothersome comments; I was simply intrigued by your essay.
thanks.
castel
report post as inappropriate
re castel replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 14:17 GMT
correction:
by "every part of the universe that is contained in space" I mean the kinetic definitions, not the space-occupant that receives the kinetic definitions.
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear re castel,
First, your comments definitely are not "bothersome"! I hope I didn't come across in my reply as thinking or implying that they are. And I'm pleased that you were intrigued by the essay. No apology is called for. That's what these blogs are all about: discussing our ideas. If we all agreed on everything 100% of the time, there'd be no need for FQXi.
> "the...
view entire post
Dear re castel,
First, your comments definitely are not "bothersome"! I hope I didn't come across in my reply as thinking or implying that they are. And I'm pleased that you were intrigued by the essay. No apology is called for. That's what these blogs are all about: discussing our ideas. If we all agreed on everything 100% of the time, there'd be no need for FQXi.
> "the idea of an unchanging 'configuration of the universe' does not ring true to me, since I see the universe as a motion construct . . . ."
We agree on this. I did not ever intend to suggest that there is such a thing as an unchanging configuration of the universe. My point was that *if* the configuration of the universe did not change there would be no flow of time. And there *is* a perceived flow of time. Therefore, the universe is, as you say, a motion construct.
> "I draw distinction between the two ideas. "evolution", the motion, is not the 'flow of time', not duration - motion and duration are related but they are not the same occurrence."
Here we seem to have what I suspect is a semantic difference. It's my view that what we *perceive* as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe, an evolution governed by rules which we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics.
The concept of "duration" is fraught with potential for misinterpretation and miscommunication. It's my view that "things" endure, but configurations of things (i.e., the configuration of the universe writ large) do not endure. Sentient beings create the illusion of "durations" of configurations and "times" because we are wired to store and process information about perceived configurations of the universe in our internal data banks. I find myself living in an evolving 3-dimensional universe.
If you find these views intriguing, you might enjoy reading my essay
Time: Illusion and Reality.
Cheers,
jcns
view post as summary
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 15:19 GMT
Hi JCN
In my opinion the concept of time is no more mysterious than say the concept of length. Nature links the two by the fundamental constant c that is the speed of light. Any changed perception of time immediately implies a similar changed perception of length.
Remember, if time did not exist then movement is not possible. Time is fundamental physical entity. We never have philosophical discussions on say length, as we can visualise one metre, one second you cannot visualise but can only experience it; this makes time mysterious.
Regards
Anton @ ( /topic/1458 )
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 19:16 GMT
Dear Anton,
Thank you for your comments.
> "Remember, if time did not exist then movement is not possible. Time is fundamental physical entity."
I prefer to think of it somewhat differently: if movement did not exist, then time is not possible. What we *perceive* as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe.
I agree with you that time should not be thought of as mysterious. We have made time *seem* mysterious by virtue of muddled thinking about its true nature. I have written about this in my essay
Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time.
Cheers,
jcns
Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear JCN Smith,
I read your essay and found it very interesting and well written. I highly appreciate and agree with your viewpoint.
All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.
As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.
Kindly read my essay titled,"
Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".
Best Wishes
G S Sandhu
report post as inappropriate
Donatello Dolce wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
Hi J. C. N. Smith,
Galileo has taught us that time can only be defined by counting the number of cycles of a phenomenon which is supposed to be periodic. For instance we suppose that the characteristic periodicity of an atomic clock is always the same in order to guarantee that the unit of time does not vary in past, in the present or in the future. The importance of the assumption of intrinsic periodicity is also present in Einstein definition of relativistic clock which is "a phenomenon passing periodically through identical phases ...". As I argue in my essay
Elementary Time Cycles the notion of time requires the introduction in physics of a principle of intrinsic periodicity for elementary isolated system. If we do so quantum mechanics with all its axioms can be mathematically derived and its paradoxes have elegant explanations. For instance consider the wave-particle duality where to the energy there is associated a recurrence in time through the Planck constant, this means the every elementary particle is a reference clock.
I hope you will enjoy my essay as I did with yours,
Best regards,
Donatello
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 20:29 GMT
Dear J. C. N. Smith,
I enjoyed your essay. Like you, I don't agree with the concept of the block universe. I prefer to think of time as a way of talking about cause and effect; where causes precede effects.
I think the block universe is a symptom of taking the abstract geometric notion of spacetime too seriously. Einstein generally thought in terms of obviously physical concepts, such as causes and effects, observers, relationships among events, etc. However, for centuries scientists had thought of "space" and "time" in geometric terms, and it was inevitable that within a few years relativity would be expressed in these terms as well, albeit with a different type of geometry.
If one believes that the universe really "is" an abstract manifold that is just "there," then it's easy to fall into the block-universe way of thinking. However, if one believes that mathematical concepts like these are just idealized ways of talking about what actually happens, no such problem arises.
I wish you the best of luck with the contest! Take care,
Ben Dribus
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 21:23 GMT
Hi JCN Smith,
You wrote in your essay: "In taking a closer look at the operational definition, which simply defines time as being that which is measured by clocks, we see that it appears to be a perfectly fine and reasonable definition. It establishes a relationship between the word "time" and measurements produced by physical devices called clocks. Beyond establishing this relationship, however, the definition does not have anything more to say about the underlying nature of reality. Perhaps it is at least slightly surprising, therefore, that reasoning which is based on this definition leads to a theory - - special relativity - - which in turn leads to reasoning which purports to reveal some extremely deep insights into the underlying nature of reality. Specifically, such reasoning purports to reveal that perceived distinctions between past, present, and future are illusory."
Here you implicitly ask an important question: What happens in the transition from the operational definition to the "deep insights" of special relativity that makes those "deep insights" so unacceptable? Your wording makes the answer almost obvious (although you don't take that direction): some additional assumption, e.g. Einstein's 1905 light postulate, must be false.
You get maximum rating from me.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 09:52 GMT
Dear uncle J.C.N.Smith
A proposal of the vision wide and deep!
Would be worth more if uncle bravely give a definition (as the draft) to starting do.
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:32 GMT
Dear JCN Smith
Hope this finds you well.
Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.
This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:
Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.
A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.
An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.
Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity
Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.
Thank you and good luck.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 03:20 GMT
Dear J.C.N. Smith,
I stand by my comments on the clarity of your writing and the importance of the subject material. Its good that your essay will remain here for future reference.I can see from your essay thread that you have had a lot of very positive response to it. Including from member George Ellis.
Your tennis match analogy is very fitting. Quote"....Top players must compete against comers." It is a good way to think about the opportunity that is provided by this competition and to keep the individual endeavours in perspective. You are a good sport and have done a fine job responding to the many replies you have received. I have really appreciated your enthusiasm for my essay and your having 'listened' to me rambling on. Thank you. Best regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author J. C. N. Smith replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 12:54 GMT
Hi Georgina,
Congratulations for having moved on to the final phase of competition . . . very well deserved! I'll be looking for you among the ultimate winners.
Thanks for your kind words over on my blog. Much appreciated. At the risk of repeating something I may have mentioned to you in an earlier post, I hope you'll add Sir Arthur Eddington's book 'The Nature of the Physical World' to your list of "must read" books, in case you've not already done so. Written in 1928, it is a wonderful look into many of the topics near and dear to our hearts, and offers a bit of a "time capsule" of thinking from that era. The book is available from Amazon, among other sources. George Ellis recommended it to me, for which I owe him a debt of gratitude.
Best of luck to you for the future, here and elsewhere!
jcns
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.