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

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/15/08 at 5:49am UTC, wrote Dear mathematician Vertigan, While physicists are ready to write...

Cristi Stoica: on 12/9/08 at 14:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor Vertigan, Interesting viewpoint, which, possible, may lead...

T H Ray: on 12/5/08 at 14:50pm UTC, wrote Hi Dirk, You deserve credit for getting to the point. I agree with your...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/3/08 at 23:05pm UTC, wrote Hello Peter Morgan, I refer to your comment of Dec.3, 16:42 GMT where you...

Ryan Westafer: on 12/3/08 at 19:31pm UTC, wrote Interesting, I will certainly read your paper- because you have me "hooked"...

Peter Morgan: on 12/3/08 at 16:42pm UTC, wrote Sorry you're late enough to the party that it looks as if you've rushed...

Dirk Vertigan: on 12/3/08 at 10:04am UTC, wrote Essay Abstract We argue that in order to avoid the timelessness of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Potential Realists, Yesterday’s Closer to Truth Facebook page..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Andrea White: "Canon is a leading optical product and imaging product company.They have..." in Sounding the Drums to...

Avneesh panwar: "If you are delete our bing search history to visit this platform delete..." in The Quantum Thermodynamic...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Loyal Reality Followers, The September 14, 2018 Closer to Truth..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Contact Laptop Number UK: "Dial @ 0800-014-8456 toll free in UK for instant HP Laptop Contact Number..." in Usurping Quantum Theory

Contact Printer UK: "Find an instant technical support for HP, Epson, and Canon Printers in UK...." in Constructing a Theory of...

Steve Agnew: "Singh has a really good approach for resolving the measurement issues by..." in Space-time from Collapse...

josef smith: "I would like to thank for the efforts you have Hostgator Promo Codes made..." in Superhuman: Book Review...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

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.


FQXi FORUM
September 19, 2018

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008) [back]
TOPIC: The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics in Capturing the Nature of Time. by Dirk Vertigan [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Dirk Vertigan wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 10:04 GMT
Essay Abstract

We argue that in order to avoid the timelessness of block universe models, that are manifestly inconsistent with our conscious perception of the flow of time, we should try to formulate models in which all times (all now's) cannot consistently be unified into a single well defined mathematical object incorporating all time. In other words, theorists should intentionally try to build a certain kind mathematical inconsistency into their models, in order to thwart the possibility of `blockification'.

Author Bio

The author is a mathematician, currently a professor at LSU.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Peter Morgan wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 16:42 GMT
Sorry you're late enough to the party that it looks as if you've rushed your essay. There are semi-group approaches that try to capture the direction of time in QM, for example, but I think not successfully so far.

I suggest that something of the distinction between past and future can be captured, however, merely by distinguishing between raw data and statistics of that raw data, all of which is in the past, and models which generate probability densities, expected values, correlations, etc., which legitimately try to model both the past (which must be in some sort of conformity with the statistics we have) and the future (which gives predictions of what statistics will be). Thus, ideal probability models may be as if of a block world, while the less theoretical raw data and statistics are only of the past.

Another observation is that by not explicitly including in a model the environment with which an experiment interacts, even if only marginally, one immediately fails to predict the future (or past) evolution of the system perfectly. Hence however much a model may be a block-world, the real world is not the same. Maps and territory and all that.

I guess this is only to question the normativeness of your call for us to formulate high-theory models in a time-directed way. If someone can construct a model that captures the direction of time as a fundamental principle, I would be very interested to see how it works, but it does not seem to me to be an absolute need. Some of my current approach to this can be found implicitly in my essay, posted here October 27th, where I construct an algebra of observables to be invariant under time-reversal, expecting that a direction of time will be /contingently/ expressed by states over the algebra, if such a distinction is called for when modeling a particular experiment. However I suspect that my essay is tangential to my comment here.

You almost cry out that you wish "to thwart the possibility of `blockification'". If we make limited claims for the efficacy and beauty of our models, with a proper humility, not absolute claims that our models are precisely the way the world is, a blockworld structure of our current best theories does not have to be something from which great ethical or moral principles can be derived. But perhaps I have misread your commitment to the quotation above because of my own reaction to your strong wording?

Of course I think this is an interesting issue! I have tried to formulate the above POV in response to exchanges with other essayists. Thank you.

Bookmark and Share



Ryan Westafer wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 19:31 GMT
Interesting, I will certainly read your paper- because you have me "hooked" by proposing the necessity of an inconsistency!

In my paper, I propose a solution based upon an inconsistency which has existed all along, but simply in our interpretation of complex functions, such as the complex exponential present in all signals: this includes all of Fourier analysis and the quantum mechanical wave function.

This essay contest will surely reveal *much* about reality.

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 23:05 GMT
Hello Peter Morgan,

I refer to your comment of Dec.3, 16:42 GMT where you wrote

"There are semi-group approaches that try to capture the direction of time in QM, for example, but I think not successfully so far."

Did you read fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369

Let's benefit from special mathematics for elapsed time?

If so, do you have tenable objections?

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share



T H Ray wrote on Dec. 5, 2008 @ 14:50 GMT
Hi Dirk,

You deserve credit for getting to the point.

I agree with your strategy. In the context of order that time demands, big-O + epsilon is the zeroth term in a well ordered set, if physical momentum is to be introduced. I employed such a strategy in my essay ("Time counts"). Deriving the epsilon term, rather than inserting by hand, is the mathematically interesting part.

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 9, 2008 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Professor Vertigan,

Interesting viewpoint, which, possible, may lead to an impossibility theorem.

Maybe the flow of time is just Nature’s tendency to solve its logical inconsistencies? We can view the change not only as a search for equilibrium, but for consistency. Congratulations!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Flowing with a Frozen River

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 15, 2008 @ 05:49 GMT
Dear mathematician Vertigan,

While physicists are ready to write themselves drunk by fabricating tortuous remedies for their weird theories and they do not even shy back from denying time, you prefer to parsimoniously indicate that they might be doomed to fail for very fundamental reasons.



This reminds me a bit of Einstein's thesis which was also very concise, just 10 pages.

However, I do not appreciate you using the notion perception. A single person relates on his subjective perception. Science is based on experience and reproducible experiments of many persons. When David Hilbert denied the objective "arrow" of time, he was therefore wrong.

Was Hilbert correct in mathematics? I consider this question justified with respect to our topic.

Could you please reveal you view concerning Hilbert's rescue of Cantor's naive set theory, the "mathematical" notion of infinity, and v. Neumann's confession in 1935: "I do not absolutely believe in Hilbert space any more"?

Curious,

Eckard Blumschein

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.