The Nature of Time

Dear Edwin,

In order to check whether the Lorentz gamma is actually a time transformation, I looked into en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations and found confirmed that not Einstein but Lorentz dealt with Fitzeau and aberration:

"In order to explain the aberration of light and the result of the Fizeau experiment in accordance with Maxwell's equations, Lorentz in 1892 developed a model ("Lorentz ether theory")."

"Similar transformations were introduced ... by Lorentz (1892, 1895) who analyzed Maxwell's equations, they were completed by Larmor (1897, 1900) and Lorentz (1899, 1904), and brought into their modern form by Poincaré (1905) who gave the transformation the name of Lorentz.[13]".

My best regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Information is not objective [1]. Information is the only possible knowledge that components of the universe can carry i.e. incomplete subjective knowledge of their context within the system.

This contextual information is not about relationships between the components of the system; and obviously, information has nothing to do with binary digits, which have no inherent context, and which can only ever symbolically represent information.

Contextual information is about relationships between categories of knowledge, where "lower-level" categories of knowledge are e.g. mass, position, velocity (speed and direction) etc.

But seemingly, time is a primitive "higher-level" category of knowledge, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of "lower-level" information. Living things acquire sophisticated "higher-level" knowledge about their context, which is necessarily built upon analysis and synthesis of "lower-level" information. But one must ask: what is the use of this "higher-level" information if the information is not associated with "higher-level" outcomes i.e. outcomes that can't be provided by law of nature relationships?

1. The Quantum Question of an Objective Reality, by Gabriella Skoff, 21st March 2019: "The researcher's findings suggest ... that in quantum physics there is no objective reality; that reality itself is observer-dependent... this conclusion ...calls the concept of objective fact--the very pursuit of science itself--into question." https://projectqsydney.com/2019/03/21/the-quantum-question-of-an-objective-reality

More correctly, time is a "higher-level" category of information, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of "lower-level" categories of information, where the quantities/numbers applying to these categories have changed. The sense of time is due to the sense of change.

Some people would claim that this number change needs no explanation: that (what we would represent as) number change is just what the universe does, end of story. But this type of defeatist attitude is contrary to the spirit of physics. And in fact when looked at closely, number change is quantum: there is no smooth number change in the universe. This raises the question: should the numerical outcomes of quantum events be seen as "higher-level" outcomes, as opposed to the "lower-level" numerical outcomes that are due to law of nature relationships?

Eric Aspling,

Re "Understanding the Irreversibility of Time":

Algorithmic information IS one-way information.

Dear Lorraine,

Your answer is incomplete. Algorithm is sequence of operations in time. There is other way: analog computing. In this case information is distributed in space and one gets result simultaneously.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

It is good to see so many thoughts about time here. I have been fascinated by the puzzles in physics and started to think they might all be related to the nature of time. For example, to make sense of wave-particle duality, we can assume that time itself has duality. If time is a complex axis which includes two stages (continuous and discrete), then particle and wave are two natural phenomena we can observe as outcome. And it also answers some ancient paradox about motions, e.g. Achilles and the tortoise, flying arrow etc.

I will explain in details if anyone interested and if it fits to this topic.

Ilgaitis,

Re Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 16:25 GMT:

We represent law of nature relationships (which represent categories like mass, time and position) with equations, symbols and numbers. A law of nature relationship that is written using symbols on a piece of paper, or symbolically represented within a computer, is a "dead" thing with no power over the universe. In comparison, real law of nature relationships are "living" relationships which have real power and effect in the universe.

Laws of nature don't operate "in" time. Law of nature relationships connect natural categories like time, energy, mass and position: in the "living" laws of nature, time is just another category of information. So, laws of nature "sit above" time.

We, and computers, take time to work out the results of equations which are meant to represent "living" laws of nature. To calculate the position of a particle in "the next step in time", will take us, or a computer, many "steps in time" to do the calculation. But "living" law of nature relationships are not performing calculations, they don't operate "in" time, i.e. they don't operate in time steps.

(continued from above)

To symbolically represent time steps in the universe you need to use algorithms, and you need to know what the algorithms are meant to represent. As above, these algorithms represent something "living" that has real power and effect in the universe; and these algorithms represent something that "sits above" time, because time is just another category of information in these algorithms. In addition, these algorithms don't necessarily represent something that is "set-in-stone" like the law of nature relationships are seemingly "set-in-stone".

Lorraine

Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically, and does this relate to the question of Time?

1. Statements like the following represent the type of information that law of nature categories and their associated numbers provide:

Relative speed = 23 (in some system of units)

2. Statements like the following represent higher-level information (this is information about information, where comparisons have been made, and questions asked about more fundamental-level information):

Relative speed > 17 is true

Relative speed = 23 is true

Relative speed has changed

The delta symbol in physics' equations (that represent laws of nature) represents higher-level information.

3. Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically? These algorithms would necessarily couple higher-level information with "higher-level outcomes" i.e. outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone, because laws of nature are not affected by higher-level True/False information. Clearly, higher-level information can have no function, or reason to exist, in the universe unless it is coupled with higher-level outcomes.

Statements like the following represent higher-level information coupled with higher-level outcomes (outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone):

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN make relative position = 41 (in some system of units)

(continued from above)

4. The above statement represents a genuine change of number for the relative position category. Something new has been added to the system: a genuine change of number, as opposed to a change of number that can be fully accounted for by the law of nature relationship structure, without adding any new numbers to the system. So, the above statement, in the context of the laws of nature, contains a higher-level category of information that could potentially be acquired:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND change is true

This can seemingly also be represented as something like the following:

IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND time = time 1

5. So, Time is a higher-level category of information: it represents whether it is true or not that genuine change of number has occurred in other, lower-level, categories of information.

the attachmentAttachment #1: 1_To_make_sense_of_wave-particle_duality.pdf

Re Lee Smolin's public lecture webcast "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution", 17 April 2019 [1]:

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin seems to link people who don't believe in rationality and evidence (is he perhaps referring to climate-change deniers, or Donald Trump?) with physicists he calls "anti-realists":

The theory [Quantum Mechanics] these anti-realists [Bohr and Heisenberg] made was not consistent with realism... Now, does this matter?...among the things that we are concerned about...there seem to be a lot of people out there in the world who are gaining or interested in gaining power who don't believe in rationality, in evidence and so forth... "A simple criterion for science to qualify as postmodern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth". Let that sink in (Smolin and audience members laugh)... "By this criterion...the...interpretation of quantum physics due to Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen school is seen as postmodernist."

(continued from above)

Lee Smolin represents a very large group of "realist" physicists and philosophers. They have no physics that can account for a situation in which we (and other living things) can intervene and change the world. So their views logically imply that, because we have never, and can never, intervene and change the world, it is the pure and unaided unfolding of laws of nature that caused plastics to litter the planet, damaging wildlife and ecosystems.

Lee Smolin, and all of us, have acquired "higher-level" [2] knowledge of the world, and yet there is no physics that can account for higher-level knowledge; and there is no physics that can link this acquired higher-level knowledge to outcomes in the world - according to physics the only possible outcomes are those determined by laws of nature. So, according to Smolin's view of the world, we can't intervene and make genuine changes to reality (e.g. to avert climate change, and clean up plastic pollution), we just have to hope that the laws of nature, which are based on "lower-level" information, and have no connection to higher-level knowledge of the situation, will somehow fix the problem.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zri9gS1w5ok , quote starting at approximately 19 minutes in.

2. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3255#post_150459

P.S.

Re Time:

I'm contending (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3255#post_150460) that Time IS a type of higher-level knowledge.

Re Lee Smolin's public lecture webcast "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution", 17 April 2019 [1]:

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin says that a theory (e.g. quantum mechanics) that is complete shouldn't depend on our intervention. But he is assuming that he already knows what the world should be like: he is assuming that the world is such that elements (e.g. living things) can't and don't "intervene" and change the world. I.e. he wrongly assumes that the world is such that, when looked at closely, it is nothing but the unfolding of laws of nature that caused plastics to litter the planet.

Smolin also implies that quantum mechanics must be wrong because the people who formulated the theory had "anti-realist" beliefs. But who would think, for example, that a universe with laws of nature and massy-mass that you could kick would appear out nothing and nowhere? Whatever way you look at it, the foundational aspects of the universe are necessarily "anti-realist".

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zri9gS1w5ok

I'm arguing that information doesn't float in some hypothetical ether. I'm arguing that it is things like particles, atoms and living things that carry/ experience information, including Time information. So, this is the information that particles carry:

1) Categories of information, in the form of law of nature information relationships, which we represent with equations.

2) Quantity/ intensity information, which we represent with numbers that apply to the categories.

3) "Quantum mechanical" information. I'm contending that this comprises higher-level information coupled with outcomes, which can be represented as an algorithmic statement:

3.1) Higher-level true/false conditions and number-change (Time) information

is coupled with

3.2) Higher-level number-change outcomes involving "quantum jumps" of number.

The above post was from me.

Time is like a measure of number jumps. Time is a category devoted to number-jump change in the numbers that apply to other categories of information. While other numbers may go "forward" or "backward", Time merely records that change has occurred, so it always goes "forward".

The time category, like the mass and position categories, is an information relationship which we can represent mathematically (or algorithmically in the case of time); and relative masses, positions and times, can be represented by specific numbers. The imaginary set of all possible position numbers is known as "space", and the imaginary set of all possible time numbers is known as "time".

So, you have time as an information category (i.e. a relationship), time as a specific number, and time as an imaginary set of possible numbers.

The question is: does a law of nature relationship (like the mass, position and time categories) exist "in" the time that is the imaginary set of possible numbers? Clearly, it doesn't: the time category is not a number, so it doesn't exist in the set of possible numbers representing time. But specific time numbers, applying to specific things like particles or people, can be imagined as existing in an imaginary set of possible time numbers.

(The above post is a clarification of the posts "Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:14 GMT" and "Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 14, 2019 @ 00:15 GMT".)