 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
The Singularity >
What is time, and what is the right language to describe change, in a closed system like the universe, which contains all of its observers?
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0392.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
What is time, and what is the right language to describe change, in a closed system like the universe, which contains all of its observers?
Since the observers are inside the universe itself, we must formulate a "background-independent" quantum theory of gravity and cosmology , as well as the notions of time and change, to apply to a system with no fixed background, which contains all its possible observers--perhaps even one in which the laws themselves evolve as the universe does. Lee Smolin responds to Edge publisher/editor John Brockman's request to futurists to pose "hard-edge" questions that "render visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefine who and what we are."
Originally published January 2002 at Edge. Published on KurzweilAI.net January 21, 2002. Read Ray Kurzweil's Edge question here.
This is, I believe, the key question on which the quantum theory of gravity and our understanding of cosmology, depends. We have made tremendous progress in the last years toward each goal, and we come to the point where we need a new answer to this question to proceed further. The basic reason for this problem is that most notions of time, change and dynamics which physics, and science more generally, have used are background dependent. This means that they define time and change in terms of fixed points of reference which are outside the system under study and do not themselves change or evolve. These external points of reference include usually the observer and clocks used to measure time. They constitute a fixed background against which time and change are defined. Other aspects of nature usually assumed to be part of the background are the properties of space, such as its dimensionality and geometry.
General relativity taught us that time and space are parts of the dynamical system of the world, that do themselves change and evolve in time. Furthermore, in cosmology we are interested in the study of a system that by definition contains everything that exists, including all possible observers. However, in quantum theory, observers seem to play a special role, which only makes sense if they are outside the system. Thus, to discover the right quantum theory of gravity and cosmology we must find a new way to formulate quantum theory, as well as the notions of time and change, to apply to a system with no fixed background, which contains all its possible observers. Such a theory is called background independent.
The transition from background dependent theories to background independent ones is a basic theme of contemporary science. Related to it is the change from describing things in terms of absolute properties intrinsic to a given elementary particle, to describing things in terms of relational properties, which define and describe any part of the universe only through its relationships to the rest.
In loop quantum gravity we have succeeded in constructing a background independent quantum theory of space and time. But we have not yet understood completely how to put the observer inside the universe. String theory, while it solves some problems, has not helped here, as it is so far a purely background dependent theory. Indeed string theory is unable to describe closed universes with a positive cosmological constant, such as observations now favor.
Among the ideas which are now in play which address this issue are Julian Barbour's proposal that time does not exist, Fotini Markopoulou's proposal to replace the single quantum theory relevant for observing a system from the outside with a whole family of quantum theories, each a description of what an observer might see from a particular event in the history of the universe and 't Hooft's and Susskind's holographic principle. This last idea says that physics cannot describe precisely what is happening inside a region of space, instead we can only talk about information passing through the boundary of the region. I believe these are relevant, but none go far enough and that we need a radical reformulation of our ideas of time and change.
As the philosopher Peirce said over a century ago, it is fundamentally irrational to believe in laws of nature that are absolute and unchanging, and have themselves no origin or explanation. This is an even more pressing issue now, because we have strong evidence that the universe, or at least the part in which we live, came into existence just a few billion years ago. Were the laws of nature waiting around eternally for a universe to be created to which they could apply? To resolve this problem we need an evolutionary notion of law itself, where the laws themselves evolve as the universe does. This was the motivation for the cosmological natural selection idea that Martin Rees is so kind to mention. That is, as Peirce understood, the notions of evolution and self-organization must apply not just to living things in the universe, but the structure of the universe and the laws themselves.
Copyright © 2002 by Edge Foundation, Inc.
www.edge.org
| | Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X! | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Re: What is time
|
|
 |
|
Actually , we humans and our mathematical calculations sometimes just are similar to religion.. they find some kinda interesting notion and begin to hinge and build all the subsequential researches and observations on that idea,paradigm,relative point of observation or paradigm or view that is not truly OBJECTIVE but SUBJECTIVE in some sense. because somebody bore that idea and did something to prove it and others trusted it since all kinda observations are not enough to prove this kinda enermous thing.. they can and may forward and inge their observations and mathematical calculations.. because as you know mathematics is sometimes paradoxical.. that 0 after heavy calculations comes to equal with 1 and that means that numbers can't always tell us the truth .. they just swirl around the IDEA , PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATION that sometime somebody suggested and made it like that ,that everybody trusted..
Science is falsifiable unlike religion so it means that scientific paradigms and notions , laws could change and deviate when they are replaced by the modern and new ideas..actually everybody now accepts that the universe is really a huge place where EVERYTHING IS NEARLY POSSIBLE amd there could be no law that it could ever obey.. it behaves itself the way that we never could imagine.. it could change it's size , form, shape, colour, state, it could evolve, it could appear stuffs from nothingness and reversely dissappear things back to nothingness.. and not even mathematical , physical , chemical calculations or formulas could ever explain why it happens--
So there's nothing , no kinda restriction, no law, no notion that we could imagine the universe as.. it is beyond our conception and there's something true was said that we humans, the conscious observers could never observe and begin to learn about the true nature of the universe until we get out of the system and look it from the outside.. since we can't do this now maybe never.. we totally can't have any imagionation or the slightest objective idea of how this thing looks like.. so we just speculate..speculate and speculate..
and the paradigm about the universe bing bang.. big crunch.. big freeze and big cool.. bog fart.. anyway are truly insane ideas.. false ideas that are just nothing but speculations.. and microwaves making the zjjjj sound could be the sounds that stars could makie or any kinda Dark matter.. Dark energy which constitute the 96% of the known universe and these things remain totally unknown to us.. and I wonder why we humans like to speculate and call the big bang science..
anything could be.. could have happened and mere observations couldn't be the evidence.. we even do not understand why we yawn..and we try to solve the most distant things.. the reason is our minds.. they are evolutionally maximalist..wanna hit the roof every time..
just imagine now.. did you ever think that there could be trillionth of civilizations down in the subatomic levels? that we never could see and observe?
interesting isn't it? |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: What is time, and what is the right language to describe change, in a closed system like the universe, which contains all of its observers?
|
|
|
|
Time has not substance, however time can cause many things. For example time marks the entropy of all events occurring in the physical body
Time does not 'mark' anything, as it has no substance. It is the events caused by the interactions of matter and energy that provide the 'clocks' and so mark the time.
= all atoms are spatially separated by micro times. All the physical atomic interactions between molecules are affected and influenced by every local position of every atom.The intrinsic atomic interconnection provokes the wear and decline of the system, unless any modification is intentionally applied into the system to induce either the acceleration or the deceleration of this process (shorten or extent the life of a system). between these 2 options (shorten or extent) the latest one is quite more difficult to achieve'
There is no 'wear' as we tend to think of it (mutual rubbing of parts in contact) because there is a physical space with a perfect vacuum between separate atoms or molecules. The decay of atoms (as in the radioactive nuclides emitting alphas, betas, protons and neutrons) is caused by so-far-unknown internal processes. We know they occur to achieve nuclear stability and have charted their half-lives, but we do not know the precise mechanism. Other changes in atoms can be caused by the addition or removal of betas (electrons), or by the bombardment of neutrons (fission), protons, alphas or even other nuclides (fusion). The extra-nuclear electrons can be shared, as well, forming all the molecules from atoms, usually initiated by chemical reaction such as oxidation (combustion) reduction (electrolysis) or by ionizing radiation (such as cosmic rays).
In every case, there is a process, an interaction of matter or energy from some internal or external source. It is these processes that take various *times* (they each do not occur instantaneously or all at once) and so provide 'clocks' for us.
It is not time that causes events, but rather causative processes and visible or detectable events that mark duration and which we perceive as time. Time is simply the duration between events.
The occurrence, duration, and sequence of events are determined solely by the interactions of objects (matter and energy) that generate them.
CharlieM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What is time, and what is the right language to describe change, in a closed system like the universe, which contains all of its observers?
|
|
|
|
Again, I am suggesting that the "right language" involves giving primacy to substance.
A totally different manner of thinking is required to say (what I propose): "Space and time are qulities of experience BY substance-thinking."
The confusion stems from not having a primacy to anything; therefore, everything gets juggled on there being no one agreed-upon primal basis to describe human experience.
EXAMPLES OF CONFUSION:
Time exists, it doesn't have any substance and can't cause anything. It is the duration between events. --- Charlie M.
If something EXISTS, then what does this mean if not that something has substance? So,... how can time both exist yet not have any substance or cause? How can it measure duration, without there being a necessary SUBSTANCE on which to base the interval of duration? Time, thus, is both substance and cause, from this perspective, because it cannot be invoked as a concept without a concept of substance upon which to ground it.
Example: absolute time zero ("before" big bang) --- mystic7
Here the word BEFORE invokes time consciousness to describe its abscence. That's an internal contradiction, because you have to aknlowledge time, in order to say "before", in order to claim its abscence. CONFUSION. ABSURDITY.
I agree with maryfran here.
Robert K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What is time, and what is the right language to describe change, in a closed system like the universe, which contains all of its observers?
|
|
|
|
R.K. wrote:
If something EXISTS, then what does this mean if not that something has substance? So,... how can time both exist yet not have any substance or cause?
A person's mental image picture has no outward substance, but it exists. A concept such as 'love' has no substance, yet it exists, even though it means something different to each entity. The MIP or concept can't cause anything, it is only someone's interpretation of those intangibles that may, or may not, induce him/her to action.
How can it measure duration, without there being a necessary SUBSTANCE on which to base the interval of duration? Time, thus, is both substance and cause, from this perspective, because it cannot be invoked as a concept without a concept of substance upon which to ground it.
Time does not 'measure' anything. We measure the duration between events by counting other events that occur naturally, or at our hands. We can measure temporal intervals in days (number of suns, or times the earth has rotated). We can measure how long a standard clock's second is in terms of the number of state-transitions of an atomic clock. (Wicipedia: Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation which corresponds to the transition between two energy levels of the ground state of the Caesium-133 atom.) This measurement is not able to be sensed or performed directly by humans, but we build instruments that can do that for us.
It all boils down to events caused by the interactions of matter and energy, and the temporal intervals, or duration, between them.
Example: absolute time zero ("before" big bang)
--- mystic7
Here the word BEFORE invokes time consciousness to describe its abscence. That's an internal contradiction, because you have to aknlowledge time, in order to say "before", in order to claim its abscence. CONFUSION. ABSURDITY.
Anyone may put words (or concepts) together in a nonsensical way, and any others may object to the practice. But both sense and nonsense, like beauty, depend upon the eye of the beholder.
'Before big bang' is a concept that has meaning for me. Even if there wasn't time before the big bang, it means (to me) 'at a point prior to the beginning of this universe.' If you subscribe to the concept that the universe was created in the big bang, there must have been a point prior at which there was nothing'or at the least, less.
I lead a much richer life because I can entertain concepts such as these.
Try it. You might like it.
CharlieM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What is time, and what is the right language to describe change, in a closed system like the universe, which contains all of its observers?
|
|
|
|
Now that I seem to have stired up a hornet's nest with time, let's move on to another subject---space.
I'm sorry folks, there ain't no such thing.
For an example, let's go back to our old friend the big bang.
QUESTION: If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
ANSWER: NOTHING
note: In the above question the term "into" implies volumn rather than space.
If you assume the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, and the resulting energy field has been expanding out in all directions at the speed of light, you would have a sphere with a radius of 13B. Now what exist in the exterior of that sphere? Wait a minute-- there is no exterior is there.
p.s. I think you all knew exactly what I meant by "before the big bang". If you didn't, shame on you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What is time, and what is the right language to describe change, in a closed system like the universe, which contains all of its observers?
|
|
|
|
CharlieM wrote:
Space is the distance between objects.
maryfran wrote:
This is a very general description that does not help to decipher which factors are behind the measurement.
It is prior, and primary, to measurement. It is the first principle upon which any distance measurement can be attempted, and yes, it is perhaps the simplest explanation of what space really is. It is true at any scale. It is elemental, fundamental, and basic. No frills, and not much else to explain, either. No translations into other dimensions or languages, no alternate interpretations necessary, no viewpoints from far-off places, just the guts of what space actually is: the distance between objects.
If we want complications and equations, then mass, distance and time are changed (in a relative way: with respect to a stationary observer) with increasing velocity, as formulated by Einstein. Even with such apparent changes, space still turns out to be the distance between objects.
CharlieM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What is time, and what is the right language to describe change, in a closed system like the universe, which contains all of its observers?
|
|
|
|
***Time does not 'mark' anything, as it has no substance. It is the events caused by the interactions of matter and energy that provide the 'clocks' and so mark the time.***
But we make predictions, we create algorithms to calculate for example astronomical events: 'astronomer Halley was quite curious about the orbits of the planets. Using Newton's Principia, Halley calculated orbits for the comets of 1531, 1607, and 1682 and discovered that they must be successive returns of the same object. He correctly predicted that the comet would return in 1758 and it has been known as Halley's Comet ever since.'
This means that before matter and energy interact each other, there is an independent 'algorithmic time' that enables such **interaction**. Then we can use this independent-algorithmic-time in order to anticipate and predict cosmological events or any other kind of predictions. we even can change the **relative present** to avoid a predicted catastrophe that will occur in x-time.
***There is no 'wear' as we tend to think of it (mutual rubbing of parts in contact) because there is a physical space with a perfect vacuum between separate atoms or molecules. The decay of atoms (as in the radioactive nuclides emitting alphas, betas, protons and neutrons) is caused by so-far-unknown internal processes. We know they occur to achieve nuclear stability and have charted their half-lives, but we do not know the precise mechanism. Other changes in atoms can be caused by the addition or removal of betas (electrons), or by the bombardment of neutrons (fission), protons, alphas or even other nuclides (fusion). The extra-nuclear electrons can be shared, as well, forming all the molecules from atoms, usually initiated by chemical reaction such as oxidation (combustion) reduction (electrolysis) or by ionizing radiation (such as cosmic rays).***
This **wear** is not related exactly to physical parts in contact, but to the general entropy of the system (individual parts fully interconnected) that causes the final collapse of such system. Furtheremore, a **wear** does not necessary occur when physical parts are in contact, also it happens with another kind of interactions based in non-physicality (mental, cognitive, ' etc): example a hard discussion being held via internet'.
When you say **there is a physical space with a perfect vacuum between separate atoms or molecules** it could be that such separation indeed exists thanks to the time-algorithm.
***In every case, there is a process, an interaction of matter or energy from some internal or external source. It is these processes that take various *times* (they each do not occur instantaneously or all at once) and so provide 'clocks' for us.***
I think that you are detecting here some kind of **independent-algorithmic-time** that induces every atom to enjoy its own timing. All these micro-molecules-times functioning within a system are properly synchronized by our conscious mind that is able to experience these 'clocks' as a continuum movie.
***It is not time that causes events, but rather causative processes and visible or detectable events that mark duration and which we perceive as time. Time is simply the duration between events.***
I do not know the original root-causes of the events, so causative processes could involve many 'factors', one of these factors could be 'algorithmic-time'' CREATED/IMPOSED BEFORE BIG-BANG, THIS MEANS THAT @@TIME@@ IS EMBRACING ALL EXISTENCE...
The duration between events could mean many things, for example the gestation process of a human duration = 9 months. Result = one person.
***The occurrence, duration, and sequence of events are determined solely by the interactions of objects (matter and energy) that generate them.***
In the mind all memories are stored in sequence of events, however the conscious mind uses a **timing** which is not precisely based on physical interaction of objects'
mf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What is time, and what is the right language to describe change, in a closed system like the universe, which contains all of its observers?
|
|
|
|
MF wrote:
But we make predictions, we create algorithms to calculate for example astronomical events: 'astronomer Halley was quite curious about the orbits of the planets. Using Newton's Principia, Halley calculated orbits for the comets of 1531, 1607, and 1682 and discovered that they must be successive returns of the same object. He correctly predicted that the comet would return in 1758 and it has been known as Halley's Comet ever since.'
Which proves my point: We can't predict the recurrence of something that has not already occurred one or more times (and which we have noted the characteristics of the attendant events). Halley had three recorded sightings and using a little celestial mechanics, deduced they were the same object returning each time. The period was between 75 and 76 years, so the prediction wasn't too difficult once the concept of a periodic retracement of the path was understood.
There is no universal algorithmic time. Events occur or not independently according to the interactions of the matter and energy that created those events. A repetition of events (Halley's Comet) is just another case in which, as I've said, "The occurrence, duration, and sequence of events are determined solely by the interactions of objects (matter and energy) that generate them."
The comet knows nothing of time. It does what it does because perhaps some collision set it in motion. Time does not create the events. Events and their durational separation create the sightings, the clock-ticks, that we understand as time. If people had not been on earth to record the sightings, there would have been no change in the orbit. The prediction, however, couldn't have been made without the prior sightings.
CharlieM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
