Flowing with a Frozen River by Cristinel Stoica

Frame is done for Painting and not Painting for Frame.

Framework question drives to Method question: but old 'Adaequatio rei et intellectus' problem is not solved by the new 'Adaequatio intellecti et intellectus'.

(-In case I explained on your friend Gambini's forum why 'free will' is still 'Time in the Frame' or why your Framework is skipping the question of the Nature of Time.

-I intend to make a comment too as soon as possible about what you call the 'dicontinuous collapse in Quantum mechanics' that what still there in XVIIth Century trigonometry -another proof that the worm is in the apple or the frame from the very beginning of Differential Science.)

Dear F. Le Rouge,

"Frame is done for Painting and not Painting for Frame."

This is nice, and I totally agree with you. If you considered otherwise, then perhaps you assumed that I made claims that I haven't. Once, you said something about my irony. I don't think that I used irony, with you or anybody on this forum. I try to be clear, and if sometimes my words sound like irony, I regret, it is not at purpose.

I like your comments, and I appreciate your interest. They are difficult for me to grasp, because you are using metaphor, and I am accustomed to discuss with the premises on the table, but I try to keep up with you.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Dear Cristi,

your contribution is based on the assumption that spacetime is something real. You implicitly use several time-dependent concept, in particular when you try to say something about the arrow of time. I'm not sure you can define it without using time-related concept. I will appreciate if you can tell us, at the end of the day, what is time according to your contribution.

John

Dear John,

Thank you for your observations.

"your contribution is based on the assumption that spacetime is something real."

I don't know whether spacetime is real or not, and I haven't used this assumption. I am just trying to capture the relations between spacetime events, and these relations are mathematical. Spacetime may be reality or illusion, but from the viewpoint I presented, it doesn't matter, because the relations are still relations. Reality or illusion, it has a logic which we are trying to understand and to express mathematically.

"You implicitly use several time-dependent concept, in particular when you try to say something about the arrow of time."

Sure, when you tell a story, you may use verbs. Even if you describe a painting, no matter how static it may be, you may still use verbs. As long as we are concerned with the spacetime and matter only, the block spacetime view (in a broad meaning) is enough, and, in the mathematical description, there is no circularity about time. Only the verbal description is time-dependent, the mathematical description is not. If we want to discuss things above the material world, like the type of free-will from the final part of my essay, then the mathematical picture needs to be completed with something (I don't know what), and we remain with circular reference, I agree with that. In that case, I proposed an experiment to test this type of free-will. The experiment can give us back the free-will, or, if it disproves it, at least we are set free from the circular reference in the definition of time.

"I will appreciate if you can tell us, at the end of the day, what is time according to your contribution."

1. I don't know how the final theory will be (together with its version of time), I don't know yet the true nature of time, and I still want to discuss about time. To make these discussions more clear and precise, I propose a mathematical structure which can describe a large class of kinds of times, causal relations, and the relation of time with space and the physical law, in a way applicable to a wide class of physical theories.

2. I propose a version of a principle of causality, which may have implications about the beginning of time.

3. I propose an interpretation of the wavefunction collapse in Quantum Mechanics, which avoids the usual discontinuities, and have some implications on time. The world becomes a bunch, a sheaf of deterministic worlds, because of the to-be-determined initial conditions. Our choices (particularly, we choose the observable to be measured), and the outcome of the measurement, uses this freedom in the initial conditions, to choose them at the end. We choose the world, and our choice includes the past, as long as it does not contradict the precious choices. This feature is well known in QM, in my version is combined with a deterministic evolution. The only indeterminism occurs because we have not registered all the initial conditions.

4. I present a block view of time, and of the illusion of time flow, which is based on what is presently known. I do this to show that the free-will is not guaranteed by the indeterminism, and certainly not by the pure determinism. The free-will seems to have no place. Yet, I propose a place for the free-will, which employs the initial conditions freedom, or, alternatively, the freedom of indeterministic theories. This type of free-will, the only possible in a world that can be described mathematically, is based on something outside the spacetime. This is the feature with circular reference in explanation, and I agreed with that since the beginning. But this is the only type of free-will compatible with the world described there. The good news is that it can be tested experimentally.

On short, if we are not just algorithms frozen in the river of time, then this experiment should be able to show this.

I hope I answered to some of your questions, thanks for the opportunity to clarify some issues.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

"I don't know whether spacetime is real or not, and I haven't used this assumption. I am just trying to capture the relations between spacetime events, and these relations are mathematical. Spacetime may be reality or illusion, but from the viewpoint I presented, it doesn't matter, because the relations are still relations. "

John probably meant that you implicitly use spacetime as a whole. It becomes clear also in your 3. : the word "collapse" implies a time evolution, but which time? The time you are trying to speak about with the collapse itself? I don't have the anwser, like you also admit, but it sounds that the approach contains a loop and does not work.

Dear John,

Addendum: I don't know what is the nature of time. I don't know the nature of anything. What I study are only relations.

Cristi Stoica

Dear anonymous,

Thank you for pointing out this expression I used, and for providing the opportunity to clarify it. The collapse is part of the quantum description of the world, which is temporal. Also you may find the expression "time evolution". You can view the same world in two ways: 4-dimensional, and 3+1-dimensional. In the 4-d view, the time is included in the geometry, and the "collapse" or "time evolution" can be recovered by decomposing back the spacetime into space and time.

I will provide you an example. Imagine a classical charged particle, which doesn't change its position in space, and that there is nothing else in this space. This is a static world, so we will use only 3 dimensions. If I say "as you go closer to the particle, the electric potential increases", this description is temporal, but applies to a static world. There is no need to be somebody who goes closer to the particle, and the potential doesn't change in time, but vary with the distance only. But this is a way to describe the variation of the potential with the distance. It implies the use of verbs, but it does not describe time by appealing to a meta-time. Similarly, in a 4-d spacetime, we can speak about "time evolution" or "collapse" as a dependence of the fourth dimension, but this does not mean that we appeal to a meta-time. In the geometric view there is no circular reference, it is only the language that employs verbs to express the dependence of one variable on the fourth coordinate. Ideally, for avoiding such misunderstanding, the physicists may develop alternative words and expressions, and a dictionary to translate between 3+1-d language to 4-d language and back. I am not aware of such development, and I think that I will not employ it, because it will complicate the things. The physicists could survive without it simply because, once they understand the geometric picture, they can go back and forth between the two models, and overcome this vagueness of the language.

Thank you for the remark,

Cristi Stoica

Dear anonymous, Dear John,

Dear John, if you agree with the comment made by anonymous, please read.

I will explain below the block spacetime paradigm (or the frozen time), assuming that the reader doesn't know it. I haven't explained it in my essay, because for physicists is well known, and there are many good explanations in both popular and advanced texts.

Once the block spacetime paradigm is understood, it becomes clear that there is no circular reference in it. Yet, after understanding it, several problems can be raised, and I mention here a part of them. In my essay I assumed it well known, and I proposed a broader version, as well as some observations about the related problems.

1. How the irreversible changes can be explained within the block spacetime paradigm?

2. How can this view account for the flowing time, which is so vivid for humans? How can a block universe contain minds like ours, experiencing the flow time?

3. Is there a place for the free-will in the block spacetime?

For the reader who understands the mathematical background of relativity and quantum mechanics, I recommend my essay, and other essays presented here. For the reader who wants a simple explanation of the block spacetime paradigm, I propose the next post.

Cristi Stoica

The block spacetime

This idea is natural if you understand how the physical phenomena are expressed by mathematical equations of evolution in time. But I will try to explain it without appealing to mathematics.

Imagine a movie, made by frames. Each frame is a static 2d image, a snapshot, and running them fast enough creates the illusion of motion. If we cut the film and arrange the frames in a deck, like a deck of cards, we obtain a 3d object, made of many 2d frames. All the motion is contained in this deck. The movie can be recovered unambiguously from this deck.

A mistake that we can do now when we try to recover the movie from this deck is to imagine that at any instant, one of the frames in the deck is highlighted. We can do this to understand that the deck contains the motion, but then we have to remember that highlighting each frame at a time makes reference to a meta-time. Here occurs the circular reference in the definition of time.

To avoid it, we have to assume that the snapshots contain also the minds states of the characters in the movie. For example, if John is one of the characters, we will have many Johns: John1, John2, ..., for each frame one version of John. Each of these John have different ages. John perceives himself as experiencing the time flow. In fact, at any instant there is another John, whose mind state contains the think "I am John at the instant n, and I remember things about me at the instant n-1". John_n identifies himself with all the previous Johns, but in fact they are different, occupying different places in the deck of frames. John_n will not be able to experience any change, because his mind is in one frozen state. He will not be able to experience that he is static, because this experience is temporal. He will just contain the state of mind which thinks "I am John at the time n, remembering things about John at n-1, and n-2,...

If you play in your mind with this kind of stuff, you may be able to understand it. Yet, if you do this, several problems will arise, and I listed some of them in the previous post. At request, I will detail them.

On the other hand, if the reader still can't accept this paradigm, maybe he/she will formulate the possible problems.

I think that there is no circular reference about time in this view, but I am willing to listen to arguments. I am not aware about a result proving such circularity. This discussion may have to outcomes: either the reader understands it, or the reader brings new arguments into discussion, which may open new directions of research.

I want to mention that this is the basic block spacetime paradigm. In my essay I introduce a broader class. Maybe some of the reader's questions, together with the problems I raised in the previous post, can find their answer in this class.

Cristi Stoica

i am an experimentalist with limited awareness of intricacies of mathematics being increasingly involved in solving the unsolved physical aspects. Quantum gravity found necessary to explain the black holes introduced such considerations that were not earlier associated with Gravity, the oldest force/field that came out of the 'Unified field' that lasted till very very early moments of the Universe. Then, followed the strong nuclear to synthesize nuclei. The atomic and molecular structures required electromagnetic to separate it from electro-weak. All this follows the original logic behind the Creation of the Universe, that we don't know in entirety as we continue to unravel the mysteries of the Universe( may be you read my little contribution in this competition). The implications about the non-constancy of the Physical Constants (like 'c') can affect the concept of 'time' we have thus far accepted. Similarly, the varying relative strengths of the four force/fields appears o be needed in order to understand the first billion years of the universe. Unfortunately, cosmological data is currently confined to 12 billion years back, eevn confirming that value of 'c' was a small fraction higher than our currently accepted value. How do you perceive such eventualities, a per your approach in this essay!

Please treat me as rather poor in understanding mathematics involved!

Congratulation to Stoica, which collected more than all the other competitors summed toghether in only three days, as you can see from the attached table.

I believe that self-voting is not a good practice.

I'd like to know the ratio between downloads and votes, and whether multiple votes came from the same IP. I'd also like to know if multiple submission came from a single IP, so a dummy alterego could vote the main contribution as a participant, since self voting is not allowed for restricted votes. I'd also like to know if members of FQXi are allowed to vote twice, as participants and as members.Attachment #1: FXQivotesdays.JPG

"Congratulation to Stoica, which collected more than all the other competitors summed toghether in only three days"

I highly doubt that you've read all the essays posted here.

:)

Answer to the two previous anonymous posts.

First post.

I am very happy about the restricted votes, and I wish to thank to the contestants who generously offered them. Although you may be surprised, I haven't used the practice of self voting. Please make an inquiry to the foundation and take all the data you want, and please post it here. As far as I know, one contestant cannot vote twice the same contestant, and is not allowed to self-vote. I don't know personally any of the contestants. I am, like you, also a little surprised about the public votes, but being subjective, I tend to believe that they were people who were attracted to read the essay by the title, which I consider inspired, and who liked what I wrote. I am sharing my ideas from years to my friends and colleagues, and perhaps some of them also voted me, when I presented them the essay. I also explain partially my success on the conjuncture that I submitted few days before the deadline, and right before the high wave of postings in the last few days. As I remember, there were two-three days right before closing when my essay was the newest, and perhaps the "older" contestants had the time to read my submission.

Second post.

Unfortunately, I was only able to read forty-fifty essays from other contestants. My intention was to read all of them before 15, and to post to everyone to whom I have something to say. I took several days off to finish them, when they were only about 70. Considering the large number of last-minute submissions, I hardly doubt that I will be able to read them, at least with the same attention, before December 15. I sincerely regret this, because I found so far very interesting essays. At least I may hope to read them after the closure, and if I will not be able to do this, I will definitely read the winning essays.

To "anonymously written on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 16:27 GMT"

A friend suggested me that your message may not be addressed to me, but a response to the previous post. I am sorry if I made a confusion, but I am happy to have the opportunity to express my regret for not reading all the essays in the competition.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Dear Dr. Narendra,

I read a lot of theoretical physics, mostly Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and QFT, and much mathematics, which is inevitable for understanding these subjects. I have the tendency to think a lot about the fundamental problems. Unfortunately, this, and my day job, left me with little time for other areas of Physics. I consider that I neglected an important and fundamental part, concerning the beginnings of the Universe. In fact, this gap in my research can be seen from my essay, in which I propose just one contribution to the beginnings, in the section III. B. Therefore, with all my good willing to discuss with you about the beginnings, I have serious limits here. The only thing that occurred to my mind was that we can locally rescale the time, such that 'c' remains constant. I don't exclude at all the possibility to be wrong about this. Moreover, my rescaling proposal will not explain other values that were considered constant, and appear not to be.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

hello Chris,

in your post, 12-02, you wrote:

"I don't know whether spacetime is real or not, and I haven't used this assumption."

my compliments on your honesty.

we're all in the same boat there.

warm regards,

:-)

matt kolasinski

Cristi

Your essay does not show how the change is possible in the frozen block universe. You just assume it.

S

hello again Cristi,

ach, i should at least get your name right.

my appologies, so many papers, getting to be a bit of a blur.

matt k.

Once again the problem is that you are justifying here 'Empiricism' by 'Empiricism', C. Stoica, that is to say a method which consists in including Time in the framework of Physics from the beginning. And why? For ballistic reasons that have nothing to do with Physics.

Triumph of algebraic Geometry in the XVIIth century is mostly due to ballistic experiences.

What I am saying on my own essay -not against C. Stoica, C. Rovelli or Gambini but against Empiricism- is that A. Einstein or M. Planck cannot be taken as serious Scientists because they do not event look out the Empiricism reference as if Science could not exist out their own idea of Science. It is something like 'Absolute Science' although my opinion is that there must be a choice in Science or Art. If you do not choose, you are a slave, and worst than a slave: something who does not even know he is chained.

Skepticism but one cannot doubt about Descartes method. Relativity but Einstein is absolute.

About metaphysics one must add that if Anglo-Saxon Science doez not tolerate that one let the Time on one side, it is because Light is behind Time and God behind Light. One must add it for scientific reasons: because today Metaphysics is incorporated in Physics. Einstein's Theories are as much 'religious' than they are 'scientific'.