Essay Abstract

In discussing his proposal that everything is a conglomerate of answers to yes-no questions--that all of it derives from discrete bits--John Wheeler noted that the physical concept that puts up the greatest resistance to being relegated, in the final analysis, to a world of discrete informational bits, is time. But the concept of time in physics is a mess. This is discussed in detail, and a potential resolution is suggested which clarifies present issues. However, rather than leading to a realisation of Wheeler's dream, time's resistance is only strengthened by a clearer idea of its function in modern physics.

Author Bio

I'm a postdoctoral fellow with the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, where I live with my wife and two kids.

Download Essay PDF File

Daryl,

Welcome back my friend. I have to leave now but have printed out your essay and very much look forward to reading it. I'm excited that it appears to be an evolution of and elaboration on your last essay, tailored to this important topic.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Ed,

    Thanks for the warm welcome back. I haven't had an opportunity to read any of the essays here yet, but from what I see I think there are some great ones that I'm really looking forward to--yours among them of course.

    You're right that I've considered other aspects of the problem of the nature of time, along similar lines to what I wrote about in my last essay, but of course relating to the topic of this contest. In 25,000 characters, one can only discuss so much coherently, so there was a lot more that I could bring into this discussion, with different aspects of the problem to look at; but also, I learned a lot through the discussions we all had during the last contest, and was able to draw on what I think is a clearer picture.

    For that reason, I really want to thank everyone who discussed that problem during the last contest, acknowledging the influence it had on this essay, and encourage discussion on the nature of time here.

    Time is a notoriously difficult concept to parse, and I think it's also the most important one to clearly tackle before physics can truly move forward out of its current deadlock, since it's connected to every major problem we're currently facing--as this essay may illustrate, through Wheeler's own acknowledgement--so I think it's just so important to open a dialogue that allows us to develop our thoughts on time and use it to move past this problem that's been unresolved for far too long.

    I hope you enjoy the essay!

    Daryl

    Daryl

    "We're concerned here with what it may mean for something to exist--and specifically, with what it would mean for space-time to exist".

    It is not a matter of spacetime existing, but being a correct model of existence. Which it is not, because there is no time in existence (it also presumes a relationship between a unit of space and a unit of time, which is probably not correct either). There is difference, ie alteration, and the existence of these differences (ie realities) occurs at a rate. Time is concerned with the rate of change, ie a feature of the difference between realities, not a feature of them.

    Existence is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. Which is a simple statement of a very compex physical circumstance. Existence is only spatial.

    Paul

      Hi Paul,

      It's nice to hear from you again. However, I do wish you'd read through and try to understand the content of my essays, rather than (apparently) just sifting through, looking for something to take issue with.

      "It is not a matter of spacetime existing..." Isn't it? There's a pretty common conception that space-time exists, or that parts of it exist anyway, and I'm trying to speak to that. But do I agree with the idea of space-time as something that exists? Of course I don't, as I've written about in my essay.

      I think if you did try to understand the content of the essay, and not just look for something to disagree with, you'd find a lot of similarity in our views; e.g., you wrote that "Existence is only spatial." In fact, the argument I've tried to make in the essay is that a three-dimensional Universe exists, and our four-dimensional physics describes its history. It's a view known as presentism, and it's very unpopular; but part of arguing for an unpopular viewpoint is arguing against the popular one--i.e., you've got to address it, and not just say that the things people commonly think of are no matter because you feel you've got the right idea about things. So I said I was concerned with what it would mean for space-time to exist; "would" being the operative word.

      As I said, I think there's a lot that we would agree on. It's therefore always very puzzling to have you arguing against me while stating the things I've argued for.

      Daryl

      Doctor Janzen,

      I must say that this is one of the finest essays I have ever read, because this essay has confirmed my theory of the Universe that I charitably expressed in my essay BITTERS. One real Universe is eternally occurring, once.

      The proof of this theory was right there in your essay when you wrote: ...all of space-time must really be occurring"

      I contend that the absolute of time is now. You wrote: Time in the sense of an all-pervading "now" does not exist. Respectfully Doctor Jansen, unique now is occurring once. All-pervading is not unique; therefore all-pervading cannot be occurring.

      I do hope you have better luck with Paul than I had.

        Dear Joe,

        Thanks very much for your gracious comment. I've only managed a cursory look through your essay, but I wanted to say that I like your use of "codswallop", and think your main argument that each and every event that ever occurs is unique, is a good one.

        I wanted to clarify a couple of points that you made in your comment. The first quotation was given in summary of the logical consequences of a view that I don't agree with. In any case, I think you've mistaken me there, because the eventual conclusion of the argument is that according to the view (as commonly acknowledged) time shouldn't actually pass, as we commonly think of it. I think it does, and I think relativity theory describes that very well, contrary to popular belief.

        The second quote you gave is actually something I quoted from Juergen Ehlers, and it's also something I disagree with. I think there very much is an all-pervading "now"--a three-dimensional Universe--that exists, by which I mean that time passes, with new events occurring throughout space at every instant.

        When people like Ehlers say things like "The four-dimensional world simply is, it doesn't evolve", I take them to be describing a 4D block reality--all the events that seem to occur throughout eternity--as existing, in the same sense as I think of the 3D Universe as existing, except that the 4D block isn't supposed to change as the 3D Universe I'm thinking of--the all-pervading "now"--does.

        Anyway, I think this one idea--the 3D Universe exists--is probably the same as what you mean when you say "One real Universe is eternally occurring, once", and that it's also what Paul means when he says "Existence is only spatial".

        Daryl

        Dear Hoang cao Hai,

        I have to admit that I think I don't understand the question. Sorry for that.

        I see from your essay that you must be a realist, since you're arguing for an absolute reality. I've done this as well. I think we probably share a similar viewpoint on a number of issues. I've examined relativistic effects in my essay, and argued that they are indeed consistent with these views that I think we share. I'm arguing against the view that reality is relative, not for it.

        I hope that starts to answer your questions.

        Best,

        Daryl

        Daryl

        "There's a pretty common conception that space-time exists..."

        No, there is a common conception that the concept of space and time, and their relationship, as exemplified in the model spacetime is a correct representation of the form physical existence takes. Which was my point, ie although it is an incorrect model, I am not aware of a common conception that it exists, ie this is not a basis for criticism of it.

        In a similar vein, the concept of it from bit does not imply there is no it, just that we can only have bit. Or alternativly, there would be no it if there was no bit. So arguing from the basis that the conception is that there is no it, is another false trail.

        This is a key sentence: "So we're charged with a need to describe time in a way that makes sense of existence".

        Now, there is no need to argue through spacetime, relativity, etc, etc to answer that question. Indeed, that is the wrong way round. The question should be answered from identifying what existence for us can be, and then how that must occur (albeit generically, it is the task of physicists to establish what manifests). Which then enables one to judge the underlying validity of any given theory which purports to represent reality.

        And the answer is very simple: for existence to both occur, and then occur differently, it must be sequence. And what is varying is the physically existent state. In other words, a reality (ie physical existence) is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. To exist, by definition, involves discreteness (ie only one state) and definitiveness (ie there is a state). Time is concerned with the rate of change (ie the turnover rate of realities, the crate at which states alter in some way). Which means that time is a feature of how realities differ (another feature being what differs). There is no time in reality, reality is purely spatial (incidentally there are more than 3 dimensions, this is just the conceptual minimum). From this basis, it is the easy to point out the fundamental flaws in relativity/QM/spacetime.

        Another problem you have by arguing through the theories to a conclusion is what precisely constitutes, say, relativity, anyway. I have posted on this many times, and there is a post on my essay blog which is the first 24 paras of another paper.

        I can, and did sense before, that there is an underlying view about time which at the very least is similar to mine, but it is not stated overtly, neither is it overtly explained why this is so.

        Paul

        Paul,

        You must surely be aware that people say things called "black holes" exist? Beyond the event horizon of a black hole, there is one timelike and three spacelike coordinates that are all supposed to exist. Objects are supposed to be able to be dropped into a black hole, one after the other, and move through an existing timelike direction, one after the other. This illustrates the common conception that space-time exists and objects move around in it.

        Another example that illustrates the idea that all of space-time exists is time travel. You must be aware that time travel theory poses a problem that has been discussed a lot in both physics and philosophy literature. The "grandfather paradox" and variants are seriously considered to be real problems. A time traveller couldn't go back to the past if the past didn't really exist.

        The idea that the past, present, and future all exist is known as eternalism (as opposed to presentism, which is your view and mine), and it's commonly acknowledged as the philosophical view that's most objectively supported by relativity, so your claim that relativity isn't important in the debate on existence is wrong, since it's been the central physical theory in that debate for a century.

        Then you said "...arguing from the basis that the conception is that there is no it, is another false trail." I've done nothing of the sort. I argued that there could be no bits if there wasn't first it--that bits come to be in it--as opposed to all the bits coming together to form it.

        But it's clear that you still didn't read past the introduction, because much of what you're saying I should have done is what I did do in my essay. I didn't just dwell on relativity, but attempted a consistent description of what existence can be for us, and I've attempted to connect the generic view with relativity, as the physical theory that describes what manifests.

        I agree with you that the answer is simple, and I think you've got the right idea about time and existence; but you're parsing it all wrong, and you're not acknowledging all the arguments that have been made against it that are generally accepted as sound, while your stance is commonly regarded at best as probably untenable. I am trying to argue against all that here.

        Daryl

        Daryl,

        I find myself in agreement with most of what you have stated in your objective approach to understanding existence in relation to time. Well done!

        I hope you take the time to review my essay which also touched upon some of the topics in your essay as well. The findings as presented in my essay have led me to how causality unifies gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministc force, see:

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

        Best wishes,

        Manuel

          Paul,

          ""There's a pretty common conception that space-time exists..."

          No..."

          Perhaps consider this, from Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos, p. 138:

          ""So: if you buy the notion that reality consists of the things in your freeze-frame mental image of right now, and if you agree that your now is no more valid than the now of someone located far away in space who can move freely, then reality encompasses all of the events of spacetime. The total loaf exists [he's been chopping up space-time like a loaf of bread]. Just as we envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing, we should also envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing, too. Past, present, and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." The only thing that's real is the whole of spacetime.

          In this way of thinking, events, regardless of when they happen from any particular perspective, just are. They all exist. They eternally occupy their particular point in spacetime. There is no flow. If you were having a great time at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve, 1999, you still are, since that is just one immutable location in spacetime. It is tough to accept this description, since our worldview so forcefuly distinguishes between past, present, and future. But if we stare intently at this familiar temporal scheme and confront it with the cold hard facts of modern physics, its only place of refuge seems to lie within the human mind."

          Daryl

          Dear Manuel,

          Thanks very much for reading my essay, and for your gracious comment. I will read your essay and comment. And I'll give it a fair rating. But please allow me some time to get to it, as I've got a number of others I have to get to before then.

          Best wishes,

          Daryl

          Hello, Daryl!

          I read your essay with great interest. It is right that in this contest you update problem of the nature of time. How to get out of the vicious circle: «Explain time? Not without explaining existence. Explain existence? Not without explaining time.».... In my essay, I built a "home" for the time of the absolute form of existence of matter (absolute state). Time has calmed down in this "house" and then it became clear that "time" is a multivalent phenomenon ontological (structural) memory, which is manifested in the "arrow of time" - "vertical" world of generation of new structures. Time and information are one source - the ontological (structural) memory. Matter - is that from which everything is born (Plato), the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - this is the fact that all generates. Best regards and wishes, Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir,

            Thank you very much for your comments! I'm so glad that you read and appreciated my essay. It's great that you see the relevance of the topic to this particular contest, and I'm glad you've agreed with the argument as well, as you say it's true that time is the denominator of existence.

            I haven't managed to read many of the essays here yet, but I thought I'd mention that a point I've tried to make, that there should be some sort of existence to begin with, so that events can occur and information can come to be, is, I think, similarly made in some other essays as well, which you might be interested to read if you haven't yet. For instance, Lawrence Crowell commented on his own essay, that "The core issue is that It From Bit is undecidable, for any schema of that nature is based on an incomplete axiomatic system". Also, Cristi Stoica discusses Wheeler's "law without law" in his essay.

            And the first point I discussed in the essay, that space-time shouldn't be thought to exist anyway---which is just a wrong way of thinking about it---is noted as well in the introduction to Edwin Eugene Klingman's excellent essay.

            Your essay too sounds very interesting to me, and I very much look forward to reading it!

            Thanks again, and best of luck!

            Daryl

            Daryl,

            I was unaware that Wheeler identified time as most resistant to reformulation as information, but it makes sense. I agree that "the concept of time in physics is a mess." That is why I found your last essay so enlightening. Your last essay was far more complex than this one, which, I believe, is written at just the right level for the contest. (Your current score is ridiculous, and I will do what I can to remedy it.)

            Your statement that "It from Bit" represents a universe in which "everything we may think of as a fundamental aspect of reality could... be because of the correlation of randomly occurring bits" clearly shows the problem time presents to his view. And your following analysis shows that 'block time' is erroneous and a 3-D universe existing 'now' is the reality. The key to reality is energy (often instantiated as local mass). When local mass structures are "informed" by packets of energy crossing a threshold, the received packets create stored information, which remains available as a 'memory' of the threshold crossing.

            I like Stein's argument that asserting the reality of any single event in the 'elsewhere' beyond one's own here and now brings the whole ball of wax into existence. No thanks!

            As you note, Einstein's analysis of relative velocities in such a framework "comes with the fantastic notion that 'what exists for me' is different from 'what exists for you' because I'm now out for a walk and you're sitting somewhere reading this."

            Capek: "if time has no genuine reality, why does it appear so real?" As I noted in my essay, I'm aware of time passing. And it makes no sense to me to interpret this consciousness as based on random bits of information.

            You explain well that Wheeler's conjectures are based on the 4D space-time which you have recently debunked. This "gross misunderstanding of the meaning of relativity" apparently still holds sway. Your treatment of "space that exists in time" is superb, and much easier to understand than last year's more technical essay. I'm glad to see you moving beyond dissertation-level explanations to more popular exposition. Even so I had to read your essay twice to gain its full import.

            I hope you find time to read my essay enough to make sense. I think it's very compatible with your view.

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Daryl,

              Great essay, again. Important subject, and well handled. I think it should add a lot to understanding, if it were ever published!

              However, the ending, where I'd hoped to find the logical tying up of all the unravelled nonsense of past theory, seemed to fall just short. I've read it now 5 times, and think I know what you are saying, but find it incomplete. Not rigorously identifying the apparent last quote, and the Einstein/Newton/New cases didn't help, particularly as the Newtonian description is not quite as I understand it. i.e. I don't think he proposed that light travels at infinite speed from distant events.

              There seems some slight underparametrization which leaves matters a little open. This also emerges in the description that Einstein; "retains the assumption that simultaneous events are synchronous in the frame of every observer," Did he really 'say' that? which is quite different to the postulate. Am I so long thinking in an apparently more consistent way that I'm forgetting what happened in the Wonderland of relativistic interpretation?

              First I of course agree absolute reality, but not a single absolute 'ether' background. I also agree local propagation speed c (or c/n) and in fact the postulates themselves, if not as interpreted. but let me ask you a question;

              In your proposed schema, Let's take THREE clocks C1, C2 and C3 all at the front of the train, C1 inside the train, C2 outside but hanging on a bracket beside the car, and C3 also outside but on a fixed post in the track frame. All three (co-ordinated with his own clock when at rest) send a flash at the same instant.

              Will he see the flashes at different times, and if so which first/last? and why.

              And will wavelengths be the same?

              To aid (or confuse!?) you I have a derivation which suggests there will be differences.

              Peter