Explaining Time by John Brodix Merryman

This is from an article from NewScientist;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100-why-nature-is-not-the-sum-of-its-parts.html

Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws

ONE of the grand aims of science is to explain every aspect of nature in terms of simple, fundamental laws - but is this possible? A team of physicists claims to have found a hint that some things simply cannot be computed, and that nature could be more than the sum of its parts.

The idea of reductionism, a key tool in science for centuries, holds that everything in nature can ultimately be understood by gaining knowledge of its constituent parts. The laws of fluid flows, for example, can be derived from the deeper laws of atomic and molecular motion, which in turn follow from quantum physics.

In 1972, physicist Philip Anderson pointed out that there could be a problem with this approach. Anderson suggested that some systems may be more than the sum of their parts. He championed "emergence" - the notion that important kinds of organisation might emerge in systems of many interacting parts, but not follow in any way from the properties of those parts. If so, then even perfect knowledge of the physics at one level would be inadequate for understanding organisation at higher levels. This conjecture has been debated ever since.

Now Mile Gu at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues, claim that it may be possible to prove Anderson's idea. They studied a basic mathematical model called the Ising model, which is often used to study how magnetism arises in iron and other materials from the collective organisation of their atoms.

To picture the Ising model, imagine a 3D lattice of atoms. Each atom acts like a tiny magnet to those around it, and adopts a particular orientation depending on the forces between atoms. This mirrors what happens in real-world materials, where the atoms adopt different patterns of orientation depending on the atomic forces. In iron, for instance, the atoms will sometimes point in a similar direction - making the material magnetic overall - whereas in alloys the pattern is more complex.

Using the model, the team focused on whether the pattern that the atoms adopt under various scenarios, such as a state of lowest energy, could be calculated from knowledge of those forces. They found that in some scenarios, the pattern of atoms could not be calculated from knowledge of the forces - even given unlimited computing power. In mathematical terms, the system is considered "formally undecidable".

"We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions," says Gu. Even some really simple properties of the model, such as the fraction of atoms oriented in one direction, cannot be computed.

This result, says Gu, shows that some of the models scientists use to simulate physical systems may actually have properties that cannot be linked to the behaviour of their parts (www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151). This, in turn, may help explain why our description of nature operates at many levels, rather than working from just one. "A 'theory of everything' might not explain all natural phenomena," says Gu. "Real understanding may require further experiments and intuition at every level."

Some physicists think the work offers a promising scientific boost for the delicate issue of emergence, which tends to get swamped with philosophical arguments. John Barrow at the University of Cambridge calls the results "really interesting", but thinks one element of the proof needs further study. He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying an infinite system, rather than one of large but finite size, like most natural systems. "So it's not entirely clear what their results mean for actual finite systems," says Barrow.

Gu agrees, but points out that this was not the team's goal. He also argues that the idealised mathematical laws that scientists routinely use to describe the world often refer to infinite systems. "Our results suggest that some of these laws probably cannot be derived from first principles," he says.

From issue 2676 of New Scientist magazine, 06 October 2008, page 12

I post this to make a point that science projects outward in seeking a finite whole with which to define reality, but that method of reductionistic projection could well have inherent finite limits. Both our monotheistic belief systems and our scientific models assume there is some first cause, singularity, initial condition, etc. which if known, could lead to theoretically calculating everything, but what if there isn't? What if these processes have been going on for infinity? For one thing, there would be unimaginable levels of complexity that would have been mostly lost, but seeded the next cycle with enough evolved structure to make unraveling the puzzle infinitely impossible. Even establishment cosmologists who think the universe is based on a singularity have been forced to consider multiple universes to explain the arbitrary, yet functioning nature of our own. As I point out in my theory of time, what if time isn't a specific dimension leading from a specified beginning to a determined end, but is itself is simply a consequence of motion? Then it would be meaningless to discuss time as having a beginning and end. This perpetual motion could be due to equilibrium being unstable and resulting in continuous cycles of collapse and expansion.

Information and energy are two sides of the same coin, as information defines the energy which manifests it, so it would be impossible to have one without the other. This precludes the existence of laws of nature which are not manifest, as that would be information without energy. The reason such definition is frequently repetitive and thus seemingly independent of circumstance is that identical cause yields identical effect, as the expanding energy and collapsing structure of this energy/information relationship interacts. Therefore laws are only a description of complex interactions as they expand, before they become unstable and collapse to a more stable level, with some of that complexity still imbedded. Energy is the hand of the clock, while structure is the face of the clock. We are intellectual complexity imbedded in that elemental energy. It carries us forward while we live, then deposits us in the past when we die.

I didn't quite connect the argument made in the NewScientist article with my own point. What they are essentially saying is that emergent properties cannot be understood in terms of the components on which they rest. Yes, top down order isn't defined by the bottom up processes contained within it. That is because order is inherently reductionistc. It has been distilled from a larger context then what it still contains. The original input cannot reverse engineered. Information is lost.

Hi John,

slowly working my way through the essay entries here. i enjoyed reading yours (made a note about it to self: 'crisp and clean and no caffeine, like a shot of stoli).

ya, clearly our common conception of measurement of time is more a matter of motion compared with a cyclical motion of which we have some memory and can then be used as a standard of comparison.

yes. observed patterns have no data in them about from where they arise. we can look at and describe all the lovely patterns and how they all blend into one another all we want. lovely movie on a screen. we can't see the screen. can't see the projector. the patterns - it's all we get.

ya. limits to 'knowable'. started way back with Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle. its full implications are only just starting to make themselves 'known'.

we would appear to be thinking along very similar lines. you might enjoy reading my entry, some thoughts on time ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/272 ).

and thanks for the new scientist article; that interests me. i always liked Buckey Fuller. synergy... ya. you couldn't see what makes a car run just looking at all the parts; only in how they work together as a dynamic whole. very intuitive process. this has just brought back to my consciousness an invented word from an old novel, 'Stranger in a Strange Land', 'grock' - intuitive apprehension of the dynamic whole. yes. if we want any theory of the whole, we have to quit thinking in terms of 'bits and pieces'.

seems to be a 'reality by concensus' going on, derived largely from a subjectively pragmatic criteria. we appear to be fundamentally hardwired for this. that in itself, in that we are a product of this mystery, may suggest a 'best course of action'.

;-)

matt.

Matt,

Thanks for the feedback. It is short because I didn't what to really get into the larger physics discussion, as I'm not in full agreement with some assumptions being drawn and that tends to complicate the basic point, but I've been in various conversations with others where I have developed some ideas further. If you read through those discussions you'll see some of how I put nature together as a convective cycle of expanding energy and collapsing structure, powered by the instability of equilibrium. (As a form of structure, it stagnates, thus collapses.)

The two directions of time I discuss here are based on this dichotomy, with expanding energy going past to future, while the informational structure goes future to past.

John,

I posted a reply to your comments on my thread.

Thanks,

CJ

Hi John,

not to take up space on Chris' page,

re:

------------------------------------

There is the vacuum and there are fluctuations. Dimensions and volume describe the vacuum. Time and temperature describe the fluctuations.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html

---------------------------

thanks for that. interesting. out of a vacuum eh?

so the whole universe... i want to make a pun here but discretion...

i see from the comments that the notion is meeting with a little public resistance. if they don't like that, they're going to really hate finding out that gravity actually accelerates outward, in backward time.

from my vantage point, the report actually made sense to me.

that has me a little concerned.

good chatting with you again,

:-)

matt kolasinski

John,

My sense of humor gets a little crazy sometimes. But anyway, if you enjoy investigating the philosophical nature of time as much the physical nature, you may enjoy Krishnamurti. He has a few books out there that are discussions about time with David Bohm. I don't agree with all of it, and some of it is hard to follow, but there is some value there and it certainly provokes other interesting questions.

CJ

Hello John,

I'm always interested in paradigm shifts - and I appreciate your consideration of my essay.

[It is accepted that physical reality travels from past events to future ones.]

That is the common conception, yes.

[proposal: view time as consequence of motion, temp a consequence of motion.]

I see no internal inconsistencies with that view.

[time cannot be represented as a point, unless the motion has stopped]

True, but I'd like to be sure we clearly distinguish instantaneous time-point snapshots from a moving system. Also, what would you say about an instantaneous measure of position or a rate of change in motion...are they meaningless?

[We might argue temperature is another parameter of volume, since the temperature of a given amount of energy

can be proportionally affected by changing its volume.]

This appears possible - although highly speculative since the underlying mechanisms for our perception of a given volume, distance, and time is unknown. Could it be that for us to perceive "volume" requires a particular energy level, frequency, and movement (via that energy fluctuation) component? I don't think this has been answered. In my essay, I argue that in order to avoid investing piles of money and lifetimes of effort in repairing broken paradigms, it is absolutely critical to acknowledge observations for what they are, distinguish them from rules, relationships and/or transformations, and document our assumptions. This is of primary concern to managers, policymakers, and administrators, but it is vitally important for researchers and experimentalists to gain understanding basic assessment criteria, which comes from unambiguous definition and communication of a (preferably practical) goal.

For that reason, until there's sufficient justification to consider them real, I consider my best contribution will be developing model assessment systems to improve the quality of information available within the research enterprise, focusing on the qualitative attributes of proposed models based on criteria for revolutionary models.

Your essay has a nice lyrical ending on the circle of life that was enjoyable also.

Thanks again!

Buck,

Mostly copied from your thread;

"True, but I'd like to be sure we clearly distinguish instantaneous time-point snapshots from a moving system. Also, what would you say about an instantaneous measure of position or a rate of change in motion...are they meaningless?"

How far down into the system do you freeze those snapshots. A nice Nikon can produce an amazingly clear picture of a person in motion, but what if you go to the sub-atomic level, where everything is mostly empty space, with various energetic fields and point particles that seem composed of further layers of motion? How do you measure it, other than stopping or slowing the momentum? In that case, you've measured its energy content in relation to the measuring device. It's not that they are meaningless, but they are relational. If all the motion ceased and positive and negative energies matched up, there would be nothing. Non-fluctuating vacuum. (The problem with the concept of "meaning" is that it is inherently static and reductionistic. What is left when you distilled away all that is "meaningless." Reality, on the other hand, is dynamic and wholistic. Everything is tied together and in motion.)

"although highly speculative since the underlying mechanisms for our perception of a given volume, distance, and time is unknown. Could it be that for us to perceive "volume" requires a particular energy level, frequency, and movement (via that energy fluctuation) combination? I don't think this has been answered."

All these concepts are relative. They make no sense, except as to how they relate to one another. What would the vacuum be, without fluctuation? What would fluctuation be without a vacuum? How could you have volume without distance? Dimensions without volume? Units of motion(time), without average motion(temperature)?

"In my essay, I argue (plead?) that we avoid investing piles of money and lifetimes of effort in repairing broken paradigms, and therfore it is absolutely critical to acknowledge observations for what they are, distinguish them from rules, relationships and/or transformations, and document our assumptions. This stuff is of primary concern to managers, policymakers, and administrators, but it is vitally important for researchers and experimentalists to gain understanding basic assessment criteria, which comes from unambiguous definition and communication of a shared, (preferably practical), goal."

For that matter, what is money? It's a medium of exchange, currently based on the tax potential of the issuing governments, but historically based on a supply of a given commodity. Which makes it an article of faith in the larger economy that can only be saved by lending to someone else. Since we desire to save more than can be prudently loaned, we either create credit bubbles, or spend it on things of nominal value, large houses, fancy cars, bloated militaries, surplus academia, etc. It is mostly a bubble in the first place, so a little waste in scientific theorizing isn't such a big deal. Of course we could spend it wisely and intelligently, but that's just wishful thinking. The problem with objectivity is that it doesn't exist. The God's eye view of objective perspective is an oxymoron. From the outside, we can see the whole, but not all the connections. From the inside, we can see the complexity of particular detail, but not the whole.

"For that reason, until there's sufficient justification to consider currently "fundamental units" real, I consider my best contribution will be developing model assessment systems to improve the quality of information available within the research enterprise, focusing on controllable attributes of proposed models and approaches based on criteria for revolutionary models."

That is why I like your essay. It does apply lessons learned to the current context. The problem is that the field is dominated by experts, to the exclusion of generalists, so there is little ability and less incentive to really stand back and put the situation in that broader context to which you appeal. As I pointed out, much complex thinking is being put into understanding how to explain a dimension of time that goes from past to future, whether it's Newton's absolute dimension, or Einstein's relative dimension. Those of us on the outside can look at the situation and see classic examples of bubble type thinking, where assumptions are taken to be correct and then projected to absurdity, with little to no effort to step back and see if the initial assumptions are correct. When your paycheck is dependent on running with the bulls, stopping only gets you run over. So everyone runs off the cliff. If I was to graph this against the recent economic bubble, I'd say it's about late 2006, early 2007. The real momentum is past, but only those at the top recognize the system is starting to spin its wheels, while the late comers trying to pile on are keeping it going, to the advantage of those at the top, thus creating a feedback loop. Of course one of the main reasons Ptolomy's epi-cycles lasted 1500 years was because scientific progress went into hibernation for 1000 of them. With all the economic, political, environmental, resource and population issues piling up, I don't think anyone really knows how far down before we bottom out and start back up, so the current physics model might survive out of a lack of critical examination, rather then genuine progress.

I know I sound presumptuous, but think about it; Does reality travel along a meta-dimension from past to future, or does the rotation of the earth turn tomorrow into yesterday? One is theory, the other is observation. Are these people with all the PhD's questioning my logic, or just ignoring it? You are a very logical person, what does that say to you?

Actually I think they are just not reading it. It doesn't make it past their subconscious spam blockers.

Hello John,

Thanks for your reply.

[How do we measure the sub-atomic level?]

This is a good question. You answer this by pointing out we measure energy content in relation to the measuring device. I'm unclear on the argument that "meaning is inherently static" - Most of my paper is devoted to changes in meaning, at least for observations and measurements.

You make a good point that meaning is relational - and the relational nature of cognitive frameworks should be better emphasized in my future work - certainly my main source for such frameworks comes from "The Cognitive Structures of Scientific Revolutions", and they do a better job than I did in this essay.

[From the inside, we can see the complexity of particular detail, but not the whole.] This is a real problem! I think we can simply keep making our best guesses at "fundamental" relationships and throw out the less useful one by one.

[Those of us on the outside can look at the situation and see little no effort to step back and see if the initial assumptions are correct.]

True, although we share this weakness.

[Does reality travel along a meta-dimension from past to future, or does the rotation of the earth turn tomorrow into yesterday?] As you say: One is theory, the other is observation; I would say that depending on one's point of view, both could be correct. For me, a more useful question is: what are we trying to accomplish with a theory of a flat/round earth? Stable or roatating? Meta-dimensional/dimensional/illusory time?

[Are these people with all the PhD's questioning my logic, or just ignoring it?] I have to admit: I'm pleasantly surprised whenever anyone reads my material & finds it interesting. I would guess that it is a question of time and priorities - I've got one huge paper to complete and another small one due in less than 2 weeks...so I barely get to read these essays & comments!

Thanks again for your feedback.

Buck,

Meaning can be relative. We can distill out some basic function out of any situation, but that very process of distillation means it can't be absolute, as what might be meaningless and distilled from one perspective isn't meaningless from other perspectives, or it couldn't exist. This inherent tension of reality is what we are constantly trying to solve, yet it's the very basis of reality. The opposites balancing. The instability that keeps reality from flatlining.

That's why I'm taking the time to make what is a very basic point, as opposed to a dense and complex exposition with the masters of dense and complex exposition, since all perspective has some thread of logic to those who have followed it.

As the physicists would put it though, you have to view it in terms of probabilities. Occam's razor. What makes the most sense. Oh I forgot. Physics doesn't make sense, just the equations have to work.

If you don't have logic, then you have faith. In the math.

Do you think physicists develop consistent mathematics for some reason other than to make sense of reality?

No. Everyone is trying to make sense of reality, not just scientists. It's a matter of examining the preconceptions you start with. It is our intuitive nature to think of time as some dimension going from past to future. It's the narrative description of life. So we have many brilliant people trying to explain this "dimension" of time. As an abstraction and consequence of motion, it is that series of events going from future to past which is all time really is.

John,

I read and enjoyed Buck's essay and see that you have been communicating with him. Since you and I share such a similar view, can you recommend any other "newer" essays? I am a little behind in my reading and want to make sure I don't miss any good ones before the deadline.

Thanks,

CJ

Chris,

Hmm. There are a variety of interesting ideas presented. One I would recommend is James Stanfield;

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/366

Hello John, I apologize for the delay in responding, I've been swamped. Your claim that standard model assumptions have not been adequately analyzed is well-supported. A problem I have understanding "motion giving rise to time" is how that occurs without time in which changes of relative position can occur. In other words, I seem trapped in the block time paradigm. As you recognize, a vague hand wave of "modern physics isn't intuitive" is a fallacious defense unless the criticism it addresses is equally vague. As you point out, a (the?) major fallacy with that hand wave is the lack of consistency in asserting this to defend the intuitive block time model. If we have a scientific hypothesis to replace the block time model, its value remains unrecognized for the time being. Imposition of strong scientific assessment criteria for proposed models and methods rules out some well-accepted, foundational principles in physics, such as superposition.

As for your question of "which is more logical?" I think the motion option needs a better description, like "change of macroscopic material spatial relationships" to be more precise and more easily generalized than the more lyrical "earth roatates" example.

What observational or theoretical changes would we expect if time were merely an abstraction rather than a dimension?

Buck,

Since I'm being somewhat repetitive, I'll go all the way and simply repost this reply to a response from Ken Wharton, who is a strong proponent of block time;

Ken,

Humor me for a moment and reconsider a reality in which change and motion are acceptable. The arrow of time goes from what comes first, to what comes second. For the observer, past events proceed future ones, so we observe time as going from the past to future. On the other hand, these events are first in the future, then in the past, so their arrow goes the opposite direction. Throughout history, in fact the very description of the narrative construct we call history, the understanding of time is of the first arrow. That events proceed along this universal path, whether Newton's absolute time, or Einstein's relative time, from past to future.

Yet the only reality ever experienced is of the present. So lets examine the consequence of viewing reality as a fixed present consisting of energy in motion, thus causing change and as each arrangement described by this energy is replaced by the next, these events go from future potential to past circumstance. Therefore past and future do not physically exist because the energy to manifest all such events is only manifesting one moment at a time.

So rather than a fundamental dimension, time becomes an emergent description and consequence of motion, similar to temperature. Temperature, as a scalar average of motion, doesn't exist if we only consider singular motion, but only emerges when measuring a mass of activity. So time, as a sequencing of units of motion, doesn't effectively exist if we cannot define a progression. It is just quantum fuzziness. The present can't be a dimensionless point either, since it is a description of motion and would only be dimensionless if all motion has stopped, so, like temperature, the measurement becomes fuzzy when examined closely.

Whether time proceeds along some dimension from past to future, or is caused by the progression of events from future to past, might seem semantic, yet consider the consequences; If time is that dimension moving toward the future, we need to explain how it deals with potentialities. Either we go with multi-worlds, in which all potentials are taken, or block time, where the potentials are illusionary and it is fundamentally deterministic. Now if we view it from the other direction, where time is the events moving from future potential to past circumstance, the collapsing wave of probabilities makes sense, since it is only energy in motion and time is simply an emergent description of the process, not some fundamental dimension.

What is primitive is the narrative assumption that time is a linear projection from the past into the future.

John,

I just posted this on Buck's thread:

Hi Buck (and John),

The best way I can convey how my view of time compares to other theories is to show you what I recently wrote to Carlo Rovelli on his thread:

-----------------

You argue that the origin of time variable features are not mechanical, rather - emergent at the thermodynamical level. Do you have any thoughts as to how velocity or gravity affect the time dilation of these thermodynamical activities? It seems to me that despite all of the essays, with so many different opinions of time's true nature - we have only two possible fundamental starting points:

1) That the thermodynamical activity, or motion (or what I refer to as fundamental behaviors in my essay) is used as a measurement of "time" but plays a more passive role because these behaviors exist "in" time and their behaviors are just a visible symptom of what "time" they existed in due to their local environment.

Or

2) What we perceive as time is a macro effect of the most fundamental behaviors among particles, forces and fields. These behaviors define time and in fact are time. Now, if the most fundamental behaviors can all be accurately described as motion, then - okay. But if some behaviors on the quantum level no longer make sense to be described as motion, then it is safer to refer to the fundamental activities as "behaviors."

For those who commit to the first possible starting point, they would not appear to be in conflict with special relativity - namely Galileo's principle. The existence of time would be part of the metric that particles and forces exist "in." There would exist Einstein's inseparable connection between time and light signal velocity. There would be no "mechanism" - instead, the relative nature of time would just be a co effect of velocity and/or changing gravitational position. Time would exist as a mysterious entity (or co entity) and more questions would certainly need to be asked as to how we could get closer to determining its true nature.

For those who commit to the 2nd possible starting point (which is the one I am committed to) that motions or behaviors define time and in fact are time: Let's take a system with all of its fundamental behaviors and increase its velocity. These behaviors slow down. If the behaviors themselves "are" time and then become altered as a consequence of their increased velocity- then we need to revisit special relativity. Something is happening on the physical level that we currently don't have a description for.

----------------

I know it is difficult for many people to imagine not having a "time" somewhere in the mysterious background that particles, forces and fields are expressing their behaviors "in." I am just the opposite. I say: imagine taking away all of the particles, forces and fields along with the behaviors they engage in and tell me what is left to be considered a flow of time. If there is absolutely nothing, then there is nothing to express time.

Also, I posed this question to Julian Barbour (who has written a great essay)in response to a statement he made in his essay:

--------------------

If the universe can tell perfect time and could be considered the perfect clock, how would that assumption be affected if it is determined that there is no absolute age of the universe? If I am living on a far away galaxy accelerating at a much faster velocity than ours - then (assuming I take enough vitamins to live through the whole process) how old do I think the universe is from my perspective? Or, how old is the universe to me if I am near a black hole or better yet - If a very long time ago I watched the big bang from a safe distance (where my gravity and velocity would be very different compared to being "inside" the universe) how old would I think the universe is right now? Who would be correct?

-----------------------

In my opinion, we should try to narrow to the most likely possibilitles that describe the nature of time and build from there.

CJ

Hi John,

Thanks for the repetition, I think reading the reply to Ken was helpful to helping lift the fog a bit and making it easier for me to conceptually grasp your model.

I'm still curious about the observational consequences we might expect from the "Emergent Description Model".

Does your model/view have a proper name I should use?