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

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

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

Ronald Green: on 3/22/20 at 9:10am UTC, wrote Dear Gene, Thank you for your comments. I note that we seem to have...

Gene Barbee: on 3/22/20 at 1:24am UTC, wrote Ronald, Wow! That is a lot to take in. If I understand part of what you...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 3/21/20 at 10:22am UTC, wrote Thank you Prof Ronald Green, You gave good explanation of Logical NOWs... ...

Ronald Green: on 3/20/20 at 9:02am UTC, wrote Dear Alan, Thank you for your comments and for the time you took in...

Alan Kadin: on 3/19/20 at 14:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Green, Your essay on time is very well written, but I think you...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/15/20 at 8:56am UTC, wrote You are welcome, thanks , I found your essey interesting also, we search...

Ronald Green: on 3/15/20 at 8:55am UTC, wrote Dear Dale, Thank you for your comments and for the links and suggested...

Ronald Green: on 3/15/20 at 8:47am UTC, wrote Dear Steve, Thank you for your comments, which I found interesting.


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Information about carrots, peppers, tweeting birds and roaring lions does..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "Carl, Instead of focusing on examples like carrots and peppers, we need to..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "To many, consciousness doesn’t make sense: why isn’t the world a zombie..." in Consciousness in the...

Lorraine Ford: "The thing about consciousness, as opposed to laws of nature, is that..." in Consciousness in the...

Janko Kokosar: "I propose a simple addition for more honest voting. These steps can help..." in Undecidability,...

Satyavarapu Gupta: "What should be the Foundational basis of an Alternative cosmological theory..." in Alternative Models of...

Catalina Curceanu: "I would like to inform you that next week, starting 30th March, we shall..." in INSPYRE 2020 -- Please...

Jochen Szangolies: "Hi there, I'm not sure it's such a good idea to make current votes visible..." in Undecidability,...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

The Quantum Agent
Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.


FQXi FORUM
April 5, 2020

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Objectivity and Time by Ronald Green [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 7.7; Public = 4.5


Author Ronald Green wrote on Mar. 12, 2020 @ 14:49 GMT
Essay Abstract

A number of seemingly intractable puzzles in science could be unraveled if the element of time were introduced. It seems strange, in fact, that time is missing at all, considering that it is perceptively ubiquitous. A re-examination of time is needed in order to show its functionality within science and philosophy, laying to rest the notion of objectivity and in so doing will disambiguate the notions of unverifiability, unexplainability, and unpredictability.

Author Bio

Ronald Green, a former lecturer in linguistics and philosophy at Tel Aviv and Oxford, is the author of Time To Tell: a look at how we tick (iff Books 2018) and Nothing Matters: a book about nothing (iff Books 2011), and 13 ESL books used worldwide. His articles on philosophy have appeared in a number of journals, while his short stories have been published in several literary journals. He is active in showing the connection of philosophy to science, and explaining it in terms that are popularly understood.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 08:02 GMT
Dear Prof Ronald Green,

Your Essay on "Time" is wonderful. Your words....

...............So prisoners we are. We cannot help looking back, just as we continue looking forward as part of our experiencing the proverbial flowing of time. An analogy with space, given by Bernardo Kastrup,5 is illuminating. Describing a road in the desert, where mountains are ahead of us and the valley from where we have come, it is claimed that we see it all simultaneously as a “snapshot of your conscious life.” But the images don’t hit us simultaneously. The further the places, the longer it takes for us to see them, all of which..........................

You are exactly correct here about time. I want to add an example that tells about time:.......... Think about your living room. Your there now. But you got a memory that you were not there in that room for month, came today only. Take the 3d space coordinates as the room. By the way of your memory, you know that you are not there yesterday. So the space coordinates are same, but the "memory" is another coordinate tell this fact, which is nothing but "time", what do you say???

By the way.....I just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the “ real open thinking” is supported. Have a look at my essay please.

“A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy”

=snp.gupta

By the way....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


H.H.J. Luediger wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 11:38 GMT
Hi Ronald,

reading your essay reminded me of Goethe: "Thus our relation to the past is one of the destruction of monuments: we dig up the graves of the past to be properly buried."

What this says is: TIME=PSYCHOLOGY. Would you agree?

However, as far as historical records go, stones keep on falling to the ground, not into the sky. In other words, what then is the dimension in which KNOWLEDGE exists?

Heinz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald Green replied on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Heinz,

Thank you for your comments.

That is an appropriate quote from Goethe. In the light of my essay, I do have a quibble with the word "properly". The point is that there is no (objective) "properly", and certainly not when it comes to putting memory to rest. Memory is never buried; it is a constantly moving phenomenon of a past that is always changing.

History is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Ronald Green wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 12:58 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

Thank you for your comments.

When you say that I am in my living room now, I would say - as I did in my essay - that I am never anywhere now. 'Now' is too brief to have any events taking place in that time called 'now'. Even as you read these words, 'now' has slipped to the past and replaced with other 'nows' that are also moving back.

You are correct that at the same time that I am in my living room I have memories of when I was there before. And those memories are added to other memories mentioned above, thus changing them. So our memories are continually and continuously changing within the fluidity of our past. In other words, our past is always changing, so that there is no objective, absolute past.

I would like to read your essay. Will I find it in this forum?

Best wishes,

Ronald

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 21, 2020 @ 10:22 GMT
Thank you Prof Ronald Green,

You gave good explanation of Logical NOWs...

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability are very much undesirable properties and out-comes of any theory. That theory might have developed by a very reputed person or by a group of well-educated and knowledgeable persons. There is no point of poring resources, money and highly educated man power into that theory when that theory is failing on above three points.

I just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the “ real open thinking” is supported. Have a look at my essay with title......

“A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy”

=snp.gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 21:29 GMT
Hello, very relevant philosophical analyse of this time. Congratulations. I work personally about my theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum coded 3D spheres and cosmological spheres and a gravitational aether sent from the central sphere. I consider the philosophy essential for our physics like the maths, the philosophy permits to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 21:36 GMT
How this time must be understood philosphically speaking in fact ? like the infinity , the infinities and the finiet series if I can say. Because if we have this eternal infinite consciousness beyond this physicality and that this time does not exist there and that we have a pure eternity, we have the same paradoxal problem that with the infinity and infinities and finite series inside the physicality, like you have seen I don t consider that this God if I can say oscillate the energy infinite and eternal to create our reality and its topologies, geometries, matters and enmergent space time, I consider this gravitational aether and particles instead of Waves, so I don t consider these strings and a 1D main field or points and a geometrodynamics. I prefer particles coded in a superfluid aether, the space and vacuum so become relevant to analyse deeper. And about the infinity, and the time so we have interesting philosophical questions to analyse. ps sorry for my post, I write too quickly without rereading and I don t correct so sometimes they are errors, and my English is not perfect I am french speaking, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald Green replied on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 08:47 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for your comments, which I found interesting.

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 08:56 GMT
You are welcome, thanks , I found your essey interesting also, we search answers after all to this universal puzzle and its main unknowns

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dale Carl Gillman wrote on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 02:17 GMT
Hello Professor Green,

I think that you do a wonderful job constructing a historical philosophical narrative. I thought that your essay was very interesting. Many of the essays that I have read lately are not dissimilar to mine. Have you read Daniel Kolak’s I am You. Please let me know if you would be interested and I will send you a link to the pdf of the book. Kolak provides a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald Green replied on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 08:55 GMT
Dear Dale,

Thank you for your comments and for the links and suggested readings, many of which I am, of course, familiar with.

Regarding your comments in E, my essay points out briefly why there cannot be an objective existence of time, and that time 'exists' only relatively to other points at which time is said to exist. This, as well as aspects of causality, is greatly expanded in my book "Time To Tell: a look at how we tick (iff Books 2018).

Best wishes,

Ronald

Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 19, 2020 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Dr. Green,

Your essay on time is very well written, but I think you completely ignore the main issue:

Time is all about causality. “A implies B” is not the same as “B implies A”.

Time is not reversible in the real world. A dropped glass will break into a hundred small pieces, but the pieces will not spontaneously recombine.

I make several key points about time in my own essay, The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing.

First, time and space are obviously different, and an abstract mathematical spacetime is not needed to explain relativity. Time is relative because the atomic clocks that calibrate its passage are variable.

Second, microscopic determinism is fully compatible with macroscopic uncertainty. I question the presence of fundamental quantum indeterminacy at any level, yet our ability to predict the future in complex systems is rather limited.

Third, consciousness is based on temporal pattern recognition of agency and the self, and creation of a simplified narrative in time involving the self, which connects past and future. This can be emulated using artificial neural networks.

Finally, let me comment on the conclusion of your essay: “we must question the deep-seated belief that the past is intrinsically different from the future …”

No, it is a fact that past and future are different, not a belief.

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald Green replied on Mar. 20, 2020 @ 09:02 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thank you for your comments and for the time you took in examining my ideas. I am pleased to have the opportunity of addressing some of your issues.

I must disagree that "[t]ime is all about causality." Time is all about change, in which causality is a feature.

I agree, of course, that time is irreversible and it is linear, as I state "...the immutable linear...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Gene H Barbee wrote on Mar. 22, 2020 @ 01:24 GMT
Ronald,

Wow! That is a lot to take in. If I understand part of what you say, we live in a memory centric existence. It seems to be dependent, not on time, but perception that moves forward based only on our past. As I read you essay it reminded me of one perception one person. I was struck by your reminder that Einstein said that time can’t be the same everywhere because there is distance between things. I had just concluded that there has to be a fundamental time to underlie protons that are everywhere the same. They are energy based and energy is E=h(1/time). This is consistent if everything is coincident and based on probability and perception. This would be extremely subjective.

I am aware that communication is difficult because we live in our own worlds. My view, I think, is similar to yours. I believe in an information based universe and believe that wave-function collapse is the basis of my (yours since we all have our own) perception. The perception, according to the Schrodinger equation is probability 1. But I think there is a huge amount of information in probability 1. It is information about nature and it is based on probabilities 1*1*1*1. Each 1 is the combination of probabilities that contain information fundamental to our perception of the proton in nature. It contains the laws of nature. Information processes separate (create) energy with equal and opposite halves in a creative process that we become part of. It might be one perception one person but we are part of a process that is apparently billions of years old. Bohm’s concept of an implicate order is appropriate. Billions of similar organisms have unfolded each with an apparent perception. I agree with a subjective view but have been working toward understanding the underlying structure that supports it.

I like your concepts.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ronald Green wrote on Mar. 22, 2020 @ 09:10 GMT
Dear Gene,

Thank you for your comments. I note that we seem to have similar views about the perception of 'reality'.

The connection between time and perception is an important point I make. With time as change, perception changes and it does so continuously for each of us as individuals. So, yes, it is - and can only be - subjective.

Your comments about information are interesting. Particularly interesting is your last sentence regarding the search for an underling structure. It is interesting in the sense that I don't believe that there is an underlying structure; there can't be if all is in constant change. An underlying structure would be objective (and untestable) and somewhat akin to Kant's 'thing in itself'.

Thank you again. Keep up the good work.

Best wishes,

Ronald

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.