Indefinite Causality

Thomas Ray

Thanks for the update on this important research. My own essay in the current competition also addresses the role of spacetime and the ordering of random information in a dynamic causal framework.

Tom

Zeeya Merali

By the way, well done for reaching the finals of the essay contest Tom!

Thomas Ray

Thanks, Zeeya! You're very kind.

Tom

Wilhelmus de Wilde

It is quite logical that when you are not "stuck" to the arrow of time that cause and event are no longer ordered in the known and accepted way.

The only thing I cannot understand is how gravaity should be explained in the quantum way, my perception is that is more an "emerging" force, like consciousness is emerging.

See "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" and "REALITIES OUT OF TOTAL SIMULTANEITY"

Wilhelmus

[deleted]

The arrow of time and causality are not the same thing. Ask yourself; Does yesterday cause today? Does one rung on a ladder cause the next? Causality is energy transfer, not sequence. The sun radiating on a rotating planet creates the effect called "days."

Time, the measure of units of change, is an effect, similar to temperature. As an analogy, time is to frequency, as temperature is to amplitude. Circumstances determine the amount of energy and the rate it accumulates and disperses.

The deep seated problem in physics is that after recognizing that time is an effect of change, physics obsesses over measuring such units of change, rather than the action which causes change. Two prominent examples of this tendency, in entries submitted to FQXi contests, are Julian Barbour's winning entry in the Nature of Time contest and because he is an FQXi awardee on the issue of time, I include Edward Anderson's entry in this recent contest. Both first ascribe to a Machian view of time, then focus on how to measure intervals.

The reason for this disconnect is because rationality is a serial effect, rather than a causal effect. We do not have a 360 degree perspective of cause, only the linear progression through a sequence of events. Change is not the present(our point of view) moving from one event to the next, but the configuration of the present changing, such that it is the events going from future potential to residual past. The earth doesn't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

Time dilation is simply due to processes developing at different rates in different situations. If time were really a vector from past to future, logically a faster clock rate would move into the future faster, but the opposite is true. It ages/burns faster, so it moves into the past faster. Consider in the twins paradox, the one in the faster frame has died by the time her slower frame twin returns. And with every passing day, her life recedes ever further into the past.

Duration is not external to the present, but is the state of the present between occurrences.

As for the cat, the problem is quantum theory does rely on that external clock and its infernal measure, so it tries to fit a probabilistic future into the confines of a determined past and concludes all probabilities must happen. Ha. Get rid of the clock and just let the events happen. Future probability collapses into present actuality and being replaced, recedes into past circumstance.

Then again, the social momentum behind current models will have to dissipate considerably before viable new ideas will rise above the froth. Until then it's multiworlds and multiverses and whatever thought bubbles the establishment dreams up.

Thomas Ray

John,

You wrote, "Causality is energy transfer, not sequence." Your statement would only make sense if we didn't know that the transfer of heat energy from hot to cold causes water to boil. That's a definite ordered sequence of events.

In any case, you're missing the authors' point. They're talking about the transfer -- not of energy -- rather, of information contained in a disordered state, to a measurement of ordered, i.e., computable, results. A pot of water with a fire under it can be measured (with a thermometer) for energy content, and we have perfect knowledge of the ordered, covariant and continuous relation between the energy input and measurement output. What we don't know, is how the discrete states of observers inside the pot relate to the computable function we observe outside the pot. If Alice, in one region of the pot, sends Bob, in another region of the pot, a message about how fast she's moving, by the time Bob gets the message, any correlation between that information and Bob's state of motion will have been destroyed. As made clear in the article, even if Alice and Bob conspire in advance to send each other a message only when a set speed is achieved, their results will correlate -- at most -- only 75% of the time. Random correlations are limited to 50%.

What the authors propose is that the indeterminate information in a superposition of states can somehow be exploited such that a quantum "thermometer" -- i.e., the measurement output as a computable function -- can reach higher levels of information reliability, as the authors say, " ... the idea of indefinite causal structure brings the phenomenon of superposition into a new realm, the realm of the ordering of computational operations."

I approached the problem from a different perspective in my ICCS 2007 paper . Instead of superposition, I proposed applying the topological property of simple connectedness, and the complex systems property of self similarity: "3.7 The independence of time metrics in an n-dimensional system where time flows on a self avoiding random walk satisfies the multi-scale variety requirement. What we mean, is that the connectedness of the network is preserved in self-similar components that perform cooperative functions independent of the observed state of the system. Subsystems are self delimiting. Thereby, an analytically continuous complex system is tractable to analysis using the tools of discrete functions. This is an obvious crucial requirement for computability."

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

I don't doubt we will continue to develop ever more effective methods of measuring and relating measurements on non-linear systems. Mine was a more general rant on the focus of measurement and not what is being measured, as in the two examples I gave, where both Barbour and Anderson clearly argue for a Machian, emergent view of time, then switch to describing it in terms of how best to measure intervals of time. That emphasizes sequence over causality. Obviously causality can be sequential, such as the little desk ornaments of steel balls, where swinging one on the end causes the one on the other end to bounce. That's because there is a direct transfer of energy. On the other hand, treating a sequence of events like days as causal is much more problematic, because these events and the sequence they form, are effects of a larger dynamic. My point is that sequence is an effect of causality, not synonymous with it. Time is sequence. As Mach, Barbour and Anderson point out, time is not fundamental. As I point out, therefore measures of such sequence are not foundational either. So while spacetime does a very interesting effort to correlate measures of distance and duration, using the velocity of light, it is not foundational cause. There is no more a "fabric of spacetime" anymore than there are giant cosmic gearwheels causing epicycles. One could just as easily use ideal gas laws to propose "temperaturevolume" and say the decrease in the temperature of the background radiation is what causes the universe to expand, just as it is said "spacetime" tells matter and energy what to do.

Now this might have some effect on how we model quantum behavior, if time is not an external, but emergent parameter, since it means particles and their actions cannot be fully differentiated and reality is more likely waves with particle like characteristics, rather than particles with wave-like characteristics and that might affect how well we can use quantum behavior to build digital computation functions, but that is another argument.

Thomas Ray

John, I don't know anyone who treats " ... a sequence of events like days as causal ..." I don't even understand what that could mean. Julian Barbour's view simply rests on what Einstein coined as "Mach's principle," meaning that every particle in the universe moves relative to every other particle. The critical difference between Mach's principle and general relativity is that GR disallows any causal connection between bodies that propagates faster than the speed of light ("All physics is local."). Local causality isn't a feature of pure relativity; i.e., Mach's mechanics.

"There is no more a 'fabric of spacetime' anymore than there are giant cosmic gearwheels causing epicycles."

Epicycles are caused by mathematics, not by anything physical. Spacetime is demonstrably physical. Be scandalized by the facts, if you must. However, if one speaks of changes in relations among mass points, one speaks of changes in relative points of spacetime. "Matter tells space how to bend; space tells matter how to move" (~ Wheeler). That doesn't settle the question of whether time is fundamental or whether space is fundamental -- it does, however, settle the question of whether spacetime geometry is fundamental. It is. And it does settle the question of whether information is fundamental. It is.

The remaining question is how continuous spacetime geometry relates to discrete quantum information.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

You and I have bumped heads over this for years and physics has bumped heads over how to connect GR and QM for longer than we have been alive, all without a meeting of the minds, so we may as well not get on that merry go round again.

I would have ask though, if every particle is moving relative to every other particle, how is the information of prior configurations of these particles being preserved? Isn't such information essentially being written over, as one would rewrite a computer memory? Which goes to the nature of time; Is blocktime physically real, or is time a measure of real change?

So we have the determinism of spacetime and the indeterminacy of quantum functions. Multiworlds must be real.

Thomas Ray

We're not bumping heads, John. We're talking about different things. I'm talking about the physics we know -- you're asking why physics doesn't answer all the questions you want to ask in the order you want to ask them. That's the difference between objective science and personal belief.

You ask, " ... if every particle is moving relative to every other particle, how is the information of prior configurations of these particles being preserved?"

Those are two mutually dependent (covariant) events. The discrete measurement of relative motion, and the continuous geometric record. Yes, the information of prior states is preserved in the geometry. Understand this, and you'll get closer to understanding Julian Barbour's program of shape dynamics, rather than just flailing against it without actually knowing what it is.

"Isn't such information essentially being written over, as one would rewrite a computer memory?"

What's meant by "writing over" is different from "erasing." Writing over means to randomize information, not rub it out. The information isn't gone, just difficult to recover, like a shredded document.

"Which goes to the nature of time; Is blocktime physically real, or is time a measure of real change?"

And then you introduce this nonsequitur. The nature of time -- whatever it is -- does not have a covariant relation to information, because time and space are not independent of each other in a relativistic theory. For all that we don't know about time, we know at least that much -- that is, physically real information and physically real spacetime are interactive, like any quantity that can be called physical " ... independent in its properties, having a physical effect but not influenced by physical conditions." (~ Einstein) George Ellis' theory of evolving blocktime exploits the interaction of information and spacetime by framing it in a complex system dynamic.

So your question -- "Is blocktime physically real, or is time a measure of real change?" -- is not even a true question, with an either-or alternative. It follows that if blocktime is physically real, time intervals are a measure real change, *and* vice versa.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

Truer words were never spoken; We are mostly talking past one another. A meeting of the heads maybe, but definitely not a meeting of the minds.

One of the points I've made here often, which you may not have noticed, is that information is inherently subjective. There is no God's eye, or Tegmark's bird's eye view. Without a particular frame, perspective, point of view, reductionist model, etc. ordered information doesn't exist. It's the old problem of everything equals nothing, in that it all cancels out. You might come up with some very basic piece of logic and say it is objective because it applies to all circumstances, but being reductionist it only applies to what is applicable and only describes a limited bit of information.GR and QM are good examples. They are limited models of reality which describe different contexts, that are not exactly compatible. You yourself have said that without the model, we have nothing. Ideals are not absolutes.

Thomas Ray

John, most of your statements are already falsified. That "... information is inherently subjective" is simply and demonstrably untrue. And you keep repeating the same error of nonsequitur -- that there may be no God's-eye or bird's-eye view does not imply that information is inherently subjective. That there is no privileged reference frame implies a fully relativistic universe, not a subjective one.

Your claim that ordered information doesn't exist "Without a particular frame, perspective, point of view, reductionist model, etc." which implies the primacy of consciousness, *may* be true, yet is irrelevant to generalized information theory. Self organized nature is also self limiting and self referential. Demonstrably so.

" ... the old problem of everything equals nothing," is not only not an old problem, it's actually a solution rather than a problem. That a linear equation sums to zero is what makes it algebraic.

Yes, we know that GR and QM are completely different things. *That's* a true problem -- of how or if the theories smoothly correspond. And yes, such correspondence could only be demonstrated in a mathematical model accompanied by a potentially falsifying experiment.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

Whether you call it relativistic or subjective doesn't make information permanent. Consider a rainbow; It exists because light traveling through the edge of a cloud is bent. If it were permanent, than the light would have to freeze, yet if the light stopped, there would be no rainbow. Given that the reality we experience is such energy in motion, it follows that without motion, nothing would exist, but with motion, nothing exists forever. Now you say it exists somewhere in that blocktime geometry and has been proven, yet nothing of the sort has been proven, other than the paths of light and mass curve relative to the presence of other masses. There is no physical geometric record, because the energy to manifest it in the first place is also the very same energy that alters it. No time travel, no wormholes etc. have ever been discovered. All we can really observe about black holes is that they do radiate prodigious amounts of energy, likely as much as they consume.

It's not about consciousness. A radio tuned to a particular signal will receive a far more clear and nuanced amount of information than one simply responding to all frequencies and amplitudes. Similarly a camera set at a particular aperture and speed will take a far more clear and detailed picture than one with a fully open aperture and long speed. There is no theoretical method, other than an all-knowing god and spacetime geometry, to record all past and future information. It quickly goes to white noise.

Consider just the camera speed; The interval it is left open is the time vector and the longer it's open, the more the motion of what is being recorded blurs, because information requires energy to manifest and energy is dynamic, while information is static, so it gets disrupted and over-written by the recording mechanism. So how does this time vector store information?

A good example, consciousness based, is this conversation. Each of us is coming at the question of the nature of reality from different perspectives and we are effectively speaking different languages. As I see it, your criteria is what is accepted by the established physics community, while mine is simply a coherent understanding of the reality I inhabit. So you see me as having a personal bias, while I see you as having an institutional bias. To the extent we meet on this forum, I suppose I have a bottom up view, while you have a top down view. You see me as having a very limited field of knowledge, while I see you as being completely dependent on a structure where the plaster and paint are covering more cracks than anyone within cares to admit. I'm certainly willing to admit I do have a very limited amount of information to go on, though I don't see that as a complete weakness, since "too much information" does create chaos and the aforementioned white noise. Are you willing to admit the current physics establishment should consider a deep examination of its foundations, as the recent contest proposes?

Thomas Ray

John,

I'm afraid that what you mean by "existence" and "permanent" have no physical meanings. Physical information is real -- that's why it's called physical information. It exists " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions." If one doesn't understand what that means, one has not stepped on, much less crossed, the threshold of physical science. "Permanent" is also not a concern of physics, unless one denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And your statements regarding curved spacetime and black holes completely misunderstand and contradict the known physics. I can't see any profit in continuing the dialogue.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

We have reached the usual impasse.

"Physical information is real -- that's why it's called physical information. It exists " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions."

This does step off the edge for me. To me, information is an effect of physical conditions. If there are no physical conditions, there is no information. The existence of information requires physical manifestation, so the term "physical information" is redundant. There is no platonic realm. Principles arise with the actions and effects they describe. If some effect is repetitive, it isn't because there is some law governing it, but because the underlaying process has been repeated.

Possibly you are referring to something similar to Ellis' top down effects. The reality there is that top down and bottom up are complimentary. To the extent you have one, the other exists as well, like opposite sides of the same coin. Energy manifests information. Information defines energy.

The "known physics" is currently exploring multiverses.

Steve Dufourny

Hello thinkers,

The second law, I love it! The thermodynamics and heat are so essential with the finite groups!!!

John and Tom, a little beer from Belgium and hop you are friends...

Ps the information is physical and this information is bosonic or fermionic, it is so the energy, so the light.The entropy is relevant in its general fractalization. You can ask to Kelvin and Planck ;) they agree.

Regards

[deleted]

Let's rather question "well-defined spacetime in which we live" and "pre-existing time". A time scale that can be bent stretched and even flipped is obviously an abstraction from reality.

I see it not justified to ask whether space, time and causal order are truly fundamental as long as the chance is obviously high to reveal mistakes in theories and in the interpretation of experiments. I maintain all five Figs. of my last essay.

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Eckard : Your "well defined space-time in which we live" is also the past, the pre-existing time in our memories.

The most little time scale is untill now the "Planck-time", that is the indication of the frequency of our reality.

This frequency is not percepible to our senses, so we are aware of a smooth time (in our memories).

Wilhelmus

[deleted]

Wilhelmus,

Fig. 1 of my essay illustrates why I am questioning "well defined space-time in which we live" and "pre-existing" (prior to the very moment in advance existing up to positive eternity) time.

Why did you mention Planck time, etc.? Do you consider me someone who has something to learn?

Eckard

Steve Dufourny

Hello Eckard,Wilhelmus,

You know Eckard, we learn all days :) how is it possible to understand and to discover all the entire secrets of our Universal Sphere, it seems so far of us this immensity. This 3D sphere. The quantum scale also is in the same logic. The singularities are far of us.

The universal sphere is fascinating in fact.

Regards