• Blog

  • A Mock Debate on Time with JULIAN BARBOUR AND TIM MAUDLIN

Julian Barbour and Tim Maudlin argue their opposite position on whether time is a fundamental reality or an illusion shaped by human perception and experience.

Explore more:

  • Timeless Explanation: A New Kind of Causality, Julian Barbour: 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.
  • "Dirty Secrets of Quantum Foundations by Matt Leifer": Despite its empirical success and wide recognition as one of the most robust physical theories, quantum mechanics still harbors many foundational questions that physicists often overlook. Join physicist Matt Leifer as he unveils some of the "dirty secrets" of quantum mechanics, including misconceptions about the Copenhagen interpretation.
  • "What is Time?"FQXi's Lorenzo Maccone delves into the one of the deepest question in philosophy and discusses what modern physics can tell us about the nature of time. This introductory lecture discusses relativity, time travel, and quantum gravity.

Keywords: Causality, Julian Barbour, Tim Maudlin, Time

6 months later

Traditionally, mathematics is modeled as a formal system (F, L), where F is a framework such as ZFC, and L is a logic such as classical. I propose extending this by adding the set of all scientific observations, denoted β, along with a formal definition of existence: [P(Z) ⇔ Z], where Z is an entity (such as an electron), and P(Z) is a property (such as charge). In this system, an entity exists if and only if it possesses a property.

Thus, the formal system for physics becomes (β, F, [P(Z) ⇔ Z], L). Using this structure, mathematics, physics, and all explanations for phenomena share a common logic, ensuring that our models remain consistent with all of the tools we have for analyzing reality. This approach therefore gives us the correct meaning of time. Since every physical entity has a property P(Z), we can apply the logic L to the relationship [P(Z) ⇔ Z] to infer how all phenomena must be interpreted to maintain logical consistency. This method does not impose human will on the universe; rather, it imposes the requirement that our understanding of the universe must conform to logical coherence.

When this approach is applied to physics, it naturally resolves ALL conflicts such as the EPR Paradox and allows for a relatively straightforward unification of physics. It can also be used to systematically identify and correct logical errors within current theories. This framework establishes that it is formal logic, not mathematics, that forms the foundation of everything.

This approach to physics is very different from anything ever developed so it will not be immediately obvious until the 2nd or 3rd read through.

Article: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14813498

Sincerely,
Russell Smith

    Russ
    Who or what created the system that we are a part of? Who or what created the thing that can be symbolically represented with man-made mathematical and logical symbols?

    Obviously, the standalone self-sufficient real-world system that we are a part of has necessarily created its own categories, mathematical relationships, and numbers.

    But the logical connective/ algorithmic symbols represent something about the inherent, uncreated, character of the world, where the inherent character of the world is creativity and consciousness of what has been created.

      Write a Reply...