Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Cristi Stoica: on 12/30/08 at 6:21am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Dantas, I find very interesting the idea of Nature abhorring...

Dr. E (The Real McCoy): on 11/23/08 at 21:56pm UTC, wrote Hello Christine! Nice paper! "Why does Nature abhor deadlocks?" Because...

F. Le Rouge: on 11/21/08 at 10:46am UTC, wrote Turning to Mathematics or arithmetics to get comprehensibility is exactly...

Christine C. Dantas: on 11/20/08 at 18:53pm UTC, wrote T H Ray: thank you for the kind words.

T H Ray: on 11/20/08 at 0:04am UTC, wrote An interesting and fun to read paper. I am reminded of another...

Anonymous: on 11/19/08 at 13:51pm UTC, wrote F. Le Rouge: I do not have, nor intend to have opponents.

Christine C. Dantas: on 11/19/08 at 13:50pm UTC, wrote F. Le Rouge: I respect your interpretation. However, it does not reflect...

F. Le Rouge: on 11/19/08 at 12:41pm UTC, wrote 'Duration': it is in the word that you try to strengthen the subtle Time....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, Human beings can graphically represent algorithmic..." in Agency in the Physical...

Georgina Woodward: "Having looked up some definitions of "algorithm" I see how DNA and mRNA..." in Agency in the Physical...

Joe Fisher: "The sad fact is that no physicist has ever studied actual visible physical..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

My Emilly: "Nice post,i like your article,great way of explanation.Looking for more..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Chris Roger: "Hi, thanks for your nice article. It's really detailed and helpful gmail..." in What Is Fundamental? –...

Chris Roger: "Superb Information, I really appreciated with it, This is fine to read and..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

Philip Chester: "Good post. I find out something new and challenging on articles I..." in New Online Course:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear FQXi.org Members, Reality am fundamental. Reality am not..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.


FQXi FORUM
July 20, 2018

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008) [back]
TOPIC: On the Nature of Time - Or Why Does Nature Abhor Deadlocks? by Christine Cordula Dantas [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Christine Cordula Dantas wrote on Nov. 13, 2008 @ 08:59 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay aims at introducing a novel point of view on the nature of time, inspired by a synthesis of three seemingly unrelated concepts: Bergson's notion of duration, Dijkstra's notion of concurrency, and Mach's notion of inertia.

Author Bio

Christine Cordula Dantas has an undergraduate degree in Data Processing Technology (PUC, Brazil), a BS degree in Astronomy (UFRJ, Brazil), a MSc degree in Astrophysics (INPE, Brazil) and a PhD in Astrophysics (INPE, Brazil). She works at the Materials Division of the General-Command of Aerospace Technology (AMR/IAE/CTA, Brazil). Her main interests are foundational questions in theoretical physics (quantum gravity and cosmology), as well as philosophy of science. Her blog can be accessed at egregium.wordpress.com.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Christine C. Dantas wrote on Nov. 13, 2008 @ 17:46 GMT
I would like to report a missing reference in my essay:

Wolfram, S. “Undecidability and Intractability in Theoretical Physica”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 735 (1985).

Thank you.

Bookmark and Share



matthew kolasinski wrote on Nov. 15, 2008 @ 22:17 GMT
Dear Dr. Dantas,

while i couldn't argue either pro or con re. the applicability of the notion of deadlock avoiding being an intrinsic property of the universe, i do admire the creativity in the approach you have taken here and the intuitive impression that there just may happen to be something about the dynamics of the universe that we've been missing. i couldn't agree more; suspecting the tools we have had to work with may have significantly and inappropriately limited results in spite of the extent of their effectiveness in what they have thus far been applied to. simply because we don't have a tool to describe a certain characteristic doesn't mean that characteristic doesn't exist (sort of like a map maker good at drawing roads with considerable precision which infallibly guides travelers to their destinations but he doesn't have a way of drawing mountains, so he leaves them out of the map as 'irrelevant' failing to recognize that this feature can add significant distance and energy requirements to a journey [i actually have an old road atlas that is like that - the mileage marked on the map through mountains is significantly short of what it is to physically travel]. he can't represent motion on a flat drawing, so he leaves the rivers out also. the only thing important to him is the 2D course of the road between point "A" and point "B" and limited notations about "scenic", "business" or "bypass").

the word choice of 'concurrency' to me didn't seem as fitting a choice as could have been for the dynamics described - with 'concurrency', i get the picture of two books sitting side by side on a shelf not going anywhere.

a friend of mine once described a notion of a dynamic interrelationship he had termed 'co-evolution' - something from a childhood experience of his, watching a small stream flow over a sandy bottom into the ocean. he noticed that the ripples in the stream changed the ripples in the sandy stream bed, changed the ripples in the stream, changed the ripples in the sand...

while i have no idea if the idea of concurrency has a viable place in physics, the concept of deadlock, what leads to it and what avoids that would seem to have some highly beneficial cross-discipline applications in sociology/social psychology, where the 'deadlock avoidance' mechanism does not seem to be an innate feature in the landscape.

an interesting read.

thank you,

:-)

matt kolasinski

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Nov. 18, 2008 @ 16:38 GMT
First of all I would tell you that Dr C. Rovelli’s essay is one of the most subjective in this forum. His answer that ‘the arrow of Time is just an arrow of Time’ is a very specific choice.

‘Quanta physics’, Einstein’s theories, ‘String theory’ are therefore coming from Galileo, Newton, Huygens, Kepler, a.s.o., Scientists who all had specific ideas on the Nature of Time and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Christine C. Dantas wrote on Nov. 19, 2008 @ 10:39 GMT
Matthew Kolasinski: thank you for your comment.

F. Le Rouge: thank you for your comment. However, you have misunderstood my essay.

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Nov. 19, 2008 @ 12:41 GMT
'Duration': it is in the word that you try to strengthen the subtle Time. And that is what H. Bergson wanted to do himself against his 'opponent' R. Descartes, because Bergson was aware of the link between mechanics and empty space idea that does not satisfy his biological idea.

('Misunderstanding' is a classical argument against opponents that Plato was still suggesting.)

Bookmark and Share



Christine C. Dantas wrote on Nov. 19, 2008 @ 13:50 GMT
F. Le Rouge: I respect your interpretation. However, it does not reflect the contents of my essay. This is what I mean by 'misunderstanding'. On the other hand, it may reflect a poor writing of my part.

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Nov. 19, 2008 @ 13:51 GMT
F. Le Rouge: I do not have, nor intend to have opponents.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Nov. 20, 2008 @ 00:04 GMT
An interesting and fun to read paper. I am reminded of another philosopher, Daniel Buridan, and the problem of "Buridan's Ass." It really does appear to us that where we want to imagine conditions under which events should cease, such conditions are incomprehensible. If we want comprehensibility, we turn to mathematics and if we want a constructive mathematical argument, we fundamentally invoke what Brouwer called "a move in time."

Thanks, Christine, for placing a well thought out humanistic frame around the big picture.

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Christine C. Dantas wrote on Nov. 20, 2008 @ 18:53 GMT
T H Ray: thank you for the kind words.

Bookmark and Share



F. Le Rouge wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 10:46 GMT
Turning to Mathematics or arithmetics to get comprehensibility is exactly the XVIIth century's Revolution in France and England Kingdoms, especially R. Descartes and Dutch C. Huygens in France.

No doubt that Bergson is fighting against this method and that the idea of 'opponent' is important in Bergson's Mind.

Why is this 'opposition' important to keep here? Because Bergson does not think he is speaking on a more metaphysical level. He does not think he is COMPLETING Descartes method but he wants to replace his Science by a better one (and he is in fact very sarcastic with Descartes).

Even if I do not agree with the idea of 'duration' (similar idea is Clinton Kyle Miller's idea of 'Here and now' on this forum), I do agree contrarily with Bergson that one must choose between Algebraic method of Descartes and Bergson's Science (under Anglo-saxon influence of Spencer) that cannot be added up.

Neutral idea of Science that Descartes' algebraic method does suggest is not only wrong in my opinion but dangerous. Nothing is more dangerous in fact to think that everybody has the same idea -on Time for example-, and to dicover at the end that everybody think different and that the general agreement was just an illusion.

Bookmark and Share



Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 21:56 GMT
Hello Christine!

Nice paper!

"Why does Nature abhor deadlocks?" Because change is woven into the fundamantal fabric of spacetime with dx4/dt=ic.

You write, "It is a most interesting fact that correlations of physical properties between two entangled particles, as so far tested experimentally, cannot be explained under local realism."

Entanglement arises because the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 30, 2008 @ 06:21 GMT
Dear Dr. Dantas,

I find very interesting the idea of Nature abhorring deadlocks, and the way you combine the three notions. Congratulations for your beautiful essay!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.