Timeless Explanation: A New Kind of Causality, Julian Barbour

Forum Moderator

There are serious indications from attempts to create a quantum theory of gravity that time must disappear completely from the description of the quantum universe. This has been known since 1967, when DeWitt discovered the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. I shall argue that this forces us to conceive explanation and causality in an entirely new way. The present can no longer be understood as the consequence of the past. Instead, I shall suggest that one may have to distinguish possible presents on the basis of their intrinsic structure, not on the basis of an assumed temporal ordering. If correct, this could have far-reaching implications. Hitherto, because the present has always been interpreted as the lawful consequence of the past, science has made no attempt to answer 'Why' questions, only 'How' questions. But if there is no past in the traditional sense, we must consider things differently. Thus, if we eliminate time, we may even be able to start asking "Why" questions. *** Specification of a point and tangent vector in conformal superspace (CS) determines a slab of spacetime in CMC foliation and unique curve in CS. Almost perfect implementation of Mach's principle because local inertial frames, local proper distance and local proper time all emergent and determined by the universe's shape and shape velocity. The Mystery: Shape velocity, as opposed to shape direction, is last vestige of Newton's absolute space and time. Responsible for expansion of the universe and perhaps perfect transformation theory in quantum theory of the universe.

Keywords: Timeless, Causality, Julian Barbour

Lorraine Ford

Forum Moderator
Re Causality and Dynamics etc.:
It is all very well devising and performing scientific experiments. But progress in understanding the nature of the world comes from how the results are symbolically represented and interpreted. Inevitably, this interpretation will lead to many nonsensical views about the nature of the world (e.g. multiverses, Platonism) for every (what turns out to be) more realistic view of how the world operates as a system.

Physicists made a bad start with the experimentally-found quantum randomness. Instead of considering that quantum randomness might represent a necessary aspect of how the world operates as a dynamic system, physicists tried to bowdlerise and emasculate the random outcomes and turn them into yet more equations. But unlike conventional “law-of-nature” equations, which represent experimentally found relationships between existing known measurable categories, the emasculating equations are not grounded in existing known measurable categories.

The unpalatable aspect of the random outcomes seems to be that it conflicts with physicists’ views that the law-of-nature equations represent not only relationships between categories, but the equations also represent something dynamic, i.e. the thing that is powering the world as a system.

But the random outcomes show that the equations are not the only thing that is powering the world, i.e. the equations are not the only thing that is moving the numbers that apply to the categories. In fact, more likely, the random number jumps (that apply to the categories) might be the ONLY thing that is driving number movement (which is further propagated via law-of-nature relationship) in the entire world-system.

The problem with physicists’ beliefs about dynamics is that, in fact, their dynamics is just a lot of dusty old equations, and there is absolutely nothing dynamic about equations. The equations sit there, dead as a dodo, waiting for some random number jumps to occur. These random number jumps are the only truly dynamic aspect of the whole system; the random number jumps are what is driving the entire system, not the equations.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
There is absolutely nothing dynamic about equations: the dynamics are provided by the people that are conscious of the symbols, and that move the symbols physically, or mentally move the symbols in their consciousness. It is a 3-part system: symbolic equations, people’s consciousness, and people’s agency.

However, this 3-part system has apparently never given physicists or mathematicians pause for thought, because they continue to believe that one part of the system, i.e. equations alone, represents something that somehow possess an inherent consciousness of numbers and categories, and somehow possesses an inherent dynamic power to move numbers and categories.

It is time that physicists and mathematicians looked more closely at the parts THEY themselves play in a system of representation. Clearly, the actual dynamics of a system reside in higher-level, and lower-level, consciousness and agency.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
By definition, the world is fully self-contained. But those that hold the actual world in contempt look for out-of-this-world explanations like Platonic realms, almighty Gods, or computer programs that control the world.

The world necessarily knows and moves itself. The world necessarily created its own relationships (represented by equations): the relationships did not create the world; the relationships do not know the numbers and categories; the relationships do not jump the numbers that apply to the categories. The world, or small parts of the world, knows and jumps its own numbers and categories.

The actual causality and dynamics of the world do not reside in the aspect of the world that is represented by symbolic equations. The actual causality and dynamics of the world can only be represented with logical connective symbols like IF, AND , OR, IS TRUE and THEN.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
What exactly is a real-world number, and why do real-world numbers change? Understanding the nature of the world seemingly depends on understanding the nature of real-world numbers.

Clearly, real-world numbers can only be special types of relationship where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, leaving things that have no category.

The above-described numbers, and the law-of-nature relationships that are represented with equations, are essentially the same type of thing. But, having no category, numbers have a special utility.

Real-world “number jumps” are symbolically represented as the on-the-spot equating of new numbers to existing categories. So, if number jumps occur, then these new numbers seemingly automatically affect the numbers, that apply in the network of law-of-nature relationships, without any “work” on the part of the network of relationships. Because real-world numbers are just relationships anyway.

What is driving the system is the number jumps. The idea that a set of (law of nature) equations could ever represent causality or dynamics, i.e. what is driving a system, is quite clearly wrong.

As opposed to what physicists might think, no systems person would ever try to claim that a set of equations could represent what is driving a system.

The particular equations in a system are, to some extent, arbitrary. What is necessary is what drives a system, and what drives a system can only be represented with logical connective symbols like IF, AND , OR, IS TRUE and THEN.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
When the world moves, it is only the numbers that move. It’s only the real-world numbers that apply to the categories (like position or energy) that change into other real-world numbers, while the categories don’t change into other categories, and the (law of nature) relationships between the categories don’t change into other relationships between categories.

But if a real-world number is a Platonic lump-like entity, how can it morph into another Platonic lump-like entity? In fact, a Platonic lump-like entity can’t even “plug into” or connect into a system that relies on relationships between categories. The only type of number that can “plug into” or connect into a system that relies on relationships between categories is a number that is itself a relationship between categories (i.e. a special type of relationship, where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out).

But, just like the “Platonic lump-like entities” can’t morph, a number that is a special type of relationship between categories also can’t morph into another special type of relationship between categories.

So, the only way that such a system can move, is if new number relationships are continually being created. I.e. the only way that such a system can move is if some of the numbers, that apply to the categories, are continually “jumped”, and where the law of nature relationships between the categories then extend the reach of these number jumps.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
A real-world number can only be, or be a down-the-track consequence of, a special type of relationship, where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out.

So, as opposed to the mass or position categories which CAN be measured giving a real-world number, a real-world number itself CAN’T be measured because it doesn’t have a category. But this lack of a category is an advantage: the only reason the whole mathematical-like world can potentially move and interact is because of these real-world numbers, i.e. things that don’t have categories.

But I get the impression that at least some physicists somehow conflate a real-world number with the category that applies to the real-world number.

And I get the impression that other physicists seem to think that there exists an out-of-this-world Platonic realm where numbers and other supposedly “abstract objects” live. But it is all a bit too convenient for physicists to conclude that explanations for the world (e.g. almighty Gods, Platonic realms, computer programs that control the world) lie outside of the world.

When will physicists get real about real-world numbers? When the world moves, it is only the numbers that move. If physicists want to discuss the causality and dynamics of the world, then they need to try to explain what real-world numbers are.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
When the world moves, it is only the numbers that appear to move, change and/ or jump. The categories (like relative position or mass), and the (law of nature) relationships between the categories, are not the things that are moving.

So, if physicists want to discuss the causality and dynamics of the world, then they need to try to explain what real-world numbers are.

Clearly, real-world numbers can only be “built” out of the types of pre-existing categories and relationships that are already known to physics.

Numbers cannot be built out things like sets or cuts to Dedekind lines, (or the associated Monoids, Groups, Rings or Fields) because:

Sets and Dedekind lines etc. are things that require an advanced human-level overview of things, an advanced conceptual overview that cannot exist at a primitive level.
Sets and Dedekind lines etc. require bringing in new elements to a system that already has 2 primitive, necessary elements, i.e. categories, and relationships between the categories.
Sets and Dedekind lines etc are conceptual objects that don’t combine harmoniously with the experimentally derived categories and relationships of physics.

In any case:

Real-world numbers are not standalone things; real-world numbers apply to categories or are assigned to, or equated to, categories.
Unlike categories and relationships which are primitive things, real-world numbers are not primitive things; real-world numbers are clearly built out of other things.
No matter how numbers are in fact built, numbers are not the type of things that can smoothly morph into other numbers; the numbers that apply to categories can only “jump”, whereby other numbers that apply to related categories must also “jump” due to (law of nature) relationships between categories.
Numbers are not self-sufficient entities that can jump themselves; but also, the (law of nature) relationships between the categories are not the aspect of the world that can do the initial “jumping”.

So, if physicists want to discuss the causality and dynamics of the world, then they need to try to explain what type of (currently-unspecified) internal aspect of the world could be doing the “number jumping”.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
There is seemingly no theory of numbers in which numbers are a type of thing that smoothly changes. Instead, numbers are always a type of construction that can only “jump” to another number, i.e. another similar type of construction.

With real-world numbers, the law of nature relationships are therefore a type of thing that extends the reach of these number jumps, with the real-world outcomes depending on how many co-ordinated number jumps are simultaneously occurring.

So, contrary to the view of the world promulgated by physicists and philosophers, it’s the numbers that rule, NOT the equations. More pointedly, contrary to the view of the world promulgated by physicists and philosophers, the current events and brutal wars in the world were NOT determined since the beginning of time.

Regarding the causality and dynamics of the world, the only real issue is: what internal-to-the-world entities are jumping the numbers? Obviously, living things are jumping their own numbers; and before the advent of living things, it must have been particles, atoms and molecules that were jumping their own numbers.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
While petrol powers cars, and electricity powers computers, seemingly what is powering the world is innumerable, continual number jumps, whereby any law of nature relationship structure merely propagates these number jumps through the system; the law of nature relationships are not actually powering the system.

What is powering the world is the small intrinsic parts of the world (like living things, atoms and molecules) that are jumping their own numbers, where these number jumps can seemingly only be a response to a subjective viewpoint on the numerical situations that these entities are encountering.

And while the number jumps are the original source of all dynamics and causality in the world, it is usually only the large number of simultaneous and coordinated numbers jumps made possible by the advent of living things that can make an appreciable difference.

The “mechanics” of how a viable world-system could possibly work should be the focus when it comes to considering dynamics and causality in the world. However, these “mechanical” aspects of a system can only be symbolically represented with logical connective symbols, just like they are in computer programs.