"One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation," says Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. "It is an issue that many theorists have puzzled about. It may be that the best way to think about quantum reality is to give up the notion of time"”that the fundamental description of the universe must be timeless." - Here
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
July 28th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Hi, Mike. I've long been saying "it all boils down to time," and it does. We do not have a very good handle on it.
That said, Einstein did establish a usable conception - time as an associated parameter with length, breadth and volume: dimensionality. And while I'm not all that fond of the Standard Model of physics (its 'Unitary Crisis' isn't going away any time soon), it may not be completely conceptually erroneous. Apart from where it attempts to quantify the classical realm by rules of the substrate (and visa versa), that is.
If, as your link doesn't quite explain (but does hint at), time is a non-abolute fundamental of the dimensional matrix, it is measured by movement through the matrix of matter/energy. That's why time is measured in length scales of distance 'traveled' by that which does not itself experience time at all (light).
This can be really confusing for most people, so I think there's a better way to think about time. It's not a distance traveled by a non-time experiencing bit of energy, but the sequential result of collapsed wavefunction. This of course isn't ever going to satisfy multiversers (for whom nothing is real), but it does make sense of the evidence we have.
It's called "irreversibility," and once the individual or collective wavefunction collapses into physical 'now' reality, it can't go back to what it was before - it can only go forward to what it will be as soon as its space-time coordinates make the next incremental quantum leap - perhaps no more than the distance between electron shells as matter moves in its relative way through the matrix of space and time.
Anyway, that's a way of thinking about the fact that time isn't a "thing" that exists, it's a parameter of the milieu. We, as "things" that DO exist, experience time. But only because we're always on the move, and forever moving on… §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2007 @ 10:59 am
July 28th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the link.
Fortunately, Joy got up before I did this morning and got her comment in so I don't have to feel too much the comment hog.
As an engineer, I am more comfortable with equations than most people so I will try to be gentile in this comment. When determining a length in three dimensional space you take the sum of the squares.
For two dimensions Pythagoras tells us….
∆L^2 = ∆X^2 + ∆Y^2
(A triangle's hypotenuse squared equals the sum of its sides squared)
∆X = "delta X" = "the distance traveled in the X direction.
∆Y = "delta Y" = "the distance traveled in the Y direction.
For three dimensions, we just add the ∆Z term.
∆L^2 = ∆X^2 + ∆Y^2 + ∆Z^2
Chapter 18 of Penrose's The Road to Reality explains "Minkowkian geometry" which is spacetime as a four dimensional entity (Hermann Minkowkian was one of Einstein's teachers). Here is the equation…
∆L^2 = -∆T^2 + ∆X^2 + ∆Y^2 + ∆Z^2
Note that time squared is SUBTRACTED instead of added. This happens because these are complex quantaties and the time dimension is orthogonal to the length dimensions. If length is considered to have a pure real component then time is considered to have a pure imaginary component. This means time is multiplied by the square-root of -1. Squaring it results in a negative number.
Note that the imaginary/real designation is arbitrary. It is easy to consider time real and length imaginary by taking the negative…
-∆L^2 = +∆T^2 - ∆X^2 - ∆Y^2 - ∆Z^2 = ∆S^2
…or…
∆S^2 = ∆T^2 - ∆X^2 - ∆Y^2 - ∆Z^2
In his book, Penrose explains ∆L is "distance like" and ∆S is "time like". ∆S is so time like that is can be thought of as a clock.
If you normalize the units for distance and time by measuring distance in light-seconds and time in seconds you can see the for everyday measurements ∆S = ∆T because we take so much time to go anywhere (we are very slow)..
In this entry on my blog I explain the implication of thinking about an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) that senses all four dimensions. It turns out that the watches on our wrists are IMUs measuring distance real universe spacetime.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 28, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
From the article:
I could not agree more with this. The granularity has changed over the milleniums, but movement has always been our only way of detecting time. Doubtless the movement of the sun was our first universal time standard.
I doubt that time will ever be directly observed. What I'm interested in is finding out a little more about how we move. Discretely or continuously? Do our particles flow along in a linear line, or do they incrementally leap to new states? I'm leaning toward the latter idea.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — July 28, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
From the article:
From another piece:
The second piece is The Confessions of Saint Augustine.
Comment by Pez — July 28, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
A very good book to read on this subject is The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics by Julian Barbour. He provides some very good geometrical explanations of the Universe assuming time doesn't exist.
Comment by Stuart Harris — July 28, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Anaxagoras:
If we consider matter to *be* particulate, then movement must be incremental. This of course must also consider that reality is real (enough for gub'ment work, anyway!). Heck, we could even subdivide the universal wavefunction collective into its material pieces-parts, which would have us *be* sub-universal collective wavefunctions 'collapsing' in quantum leaps. Matti Pitkaanen's p-adic TGD formalizes in this way.
If universal and sub-universal collective wavefunctions never collapse - but instead proliferate into infinite alternate universes continuously, as multiversers would have it - then there is no such thing as time, and not really anything we could call movement either. Since fields are infinitely extended and all. It would be a pure matter of conscious awareness projecting a relatively sensible reality onto what is nothing but infinitely extended fields interacting.
Thus the issue of irreversibility is pertinent to whether or not we could consider time 'real', and if 'real', discrete and tied to movement. We can cast our minds back to yesterday with great ease, and all the way back to the beginning of time and space if we wish. Distance is not an issue any more than time. Minds are thus not time-bound. But in all our experience (that empirical stuff again), matter is most certainly time-bound. We don't know enough about parameters to really know if THEY are timebound (particularly if time is one of 'em), other than the empirical evidence that makes us suspect they have a beginning and end just like everything else.
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Yeah, I read an article about all this a couple of years ago in Discover magazine. If time doesn't exist, then it seems to me that what does exist are our minds or souls travelling through a timeless universe. As we make various decisions, we are re-routed through the universe. Time exists for us, the travellers, but not for the universe that we travel through. And unfortunately, we are only able to travel in one direction, toward what we call the future, and away from what we call the past. But to the universe, it's all the same thing.
Comment by Bilbo — July 28, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
TP wrote:
TP,
I think Jews and Gentiles are equally comfortable with equations.
Comment by keiths — July 28, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Joy wrote:
Joy,
You're confusing the mind's ability to imagine a particular time and place with an ability to actually experience a particular time and place. They are distinct abilities, and the latter ability is limited in a way that the former is not.
Minds certainly are bound by time.
Comment by keiths — July 28, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Hi Keiths,
You wrote…
Thank you for that gentle reminder that I am grammatically challenged. I consider it a side-effect of my chosen profession. I R a inginear.
Besides, it helps keep me from becoming too arrogant.
To Joy you wrote…
Are minds bound by time or do they create time?
From Hameroff's TIME, CONSCIOUSNESS AND QUANTUM EVENTS IN FUNDAMENTAL SPACETIME GEOMETRY…
"But what about time itself? Henri Bergson concluded that time is "grasped by, and belongs only to, inner consciousness". But what is consciousness? In the Orch OR model, with the equivalence of quantum superposition (e.g. of tubulin protein conformations) and spacetime separation, consciousness is a sequence of OR events which reconfigure spacetime geometry "non-computably", and hence non-algorithmically. Thus with each conscious moment a new organization of Planck scale geometry is selected irreversibly. For classical information there is no going back along that same non-algorithmic path. OR events "ratchet" forward in spacetime geometry (Figure 5). Unlike the aphorism "time marches on", it is consciousness as a sequence of OR events which marches through and rearranges fundamental spacetime geometry (Figure 6). The unidirectional, orderly flow of time is a function of our consciousness. Consciousness creates time."
Something to think about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 28, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Hi All,
Let me reiterate my appreciation to MikeGene for posting this thread. This is good stuff. Let's do science!
I agree with a lot of what Joy says. However, I think I there might be some minor terminology frustrations on my part.
There is the kind of "time" as what is indicated on a watch. The "time" is 1:30. This is the kind of time created by movement through spacetime.
There is also our senses of a forward flow of "time". This is the kind of time created by consciousness forcing movement through spacetime.
The controversy is the concept of consciousness being directly tied to reality at the quantum level. To me, this is the best of the three choices to explain quantum mechanics. The three choices are…
1. Ignore it (don't explain it)
2. Assume a metaphysical construct (e.g. Many World)
3. Orchestrated objective reductions (Orch OR) of the universal wavefunction
In case there is anyone left who isn't aware, I have been trying to explain the Third Choice.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 28, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
keiths:
No, I am suggesting that FAPP, they're the same thing. We can go farther in space and time if we've knowledge of the further shores of space and time. Not very long ago there were no galaxies other than ours. But those who experienced the wonder of it (knew of it) believed it enough. Not too long ago the universe and time itself were infinite. That was more than enough to keep anyone from conceptualizing too specifically.
TP:
Why do you think consciousness "forces" movement through spacetime? What you just cited from Hameroff (and he has really a lot of good friends who are physicists) speaks of granularity for spacetime collapse at the Planck scale. Unless there's something 'more' than light to establish observables (and there might be), that's as small as it gets in these dimensions, conceptually. And it's much smaller than electron shells.
Consciousness collapse - "moments of consciousness" on their incremental level - take much, much longer than that. Sure, the sub-quantum substrate's working in the timeless zone, but moments for us, via our physical correlates of consciousness, are eons to electron states, and electron states are eons to Planck. If there's an absolute for time (per what we can conceive at this point), it's the Orch-OR level. Consciousness misses a whole lot of those goings-on, just as it misses a whole lot of the jumping from here to there at the level of shells.
In physical manifestation consciousness is along for the ride, so to speak. Even if its embodied perceptual abilities are slow, and if those abilities account for that which is experientially 'real' here in spacetime. To us, of course, since we're the ones wondering.
I consider time to be 'real', at least to Planck. And I consider irreversibility to occur well below our level of consciousness. We're a sub-universal wavefunction, with degrees of freedom of our own, slow as they may be (slowness being a limitation). Our minds plan ahead by a good measure, thus we are able to function well in our place. Size-wize, we fall pretty much right in the middle of everything that *is*, both in our size (and attendant slowness) and in the length of our lives. We're right at the center of spacetime.
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
.
And…
I am still struggling with these concepts (which is no surprise considering the caliber of people still working on a solution). However, it seems to me "absolute time" is logically inconsistent with the Twin paradox (Penrose called it the "clock paradox" in his book).
The Twin Paradox is a simple Minkowkian geometry problem by solving…
∆S^2 = ∆T^2 - ∆X^2 - ∆Y^2 - ∆Z^2
…for the two twins. In spacetime, the shortest distance between two points is NOT a straight line. The traveling twin took a shortcut, that is why he/she comes back younger.
And this gets back to your suggestion that there may be only one electron in the whole universe. Since it travels at the speed of light it can be everywhere and everywhen instantaneously.
Maybe this is to just my frustration with terminology but to me there is nothing absolute about either space or time. They are interrelated as part of the universal wavefunction. When time collapses to nothing, so does space and visa-versa. Am I missing something?
As far as what is real… I got over the shock that there is no such thing as matter a long time ago. Referring to protons, neutrons, electrons and photons as particles is just a quaint custom we humans have. And anything built up from these bits of nothingness is just as immaterial, IMO.
Lately I have found myself almost chuckling whenever I see the term "materialist".
However, I agree with Penrose's quest to develop a mechanistic model that is consistent with scientific observations no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel. If scientists are going to be true to their calling, then they need to go where the evidence leads. Quantum effects is a big part of the suite of evidence. So is General Relativity. Biologists may hold the key to making the case for Penrose's OR hypothesis (by making the case for the Orch OR hypothesis).
Excuse my wandering thoughts, but this is an interesting subject and I would like to hear your reaction to what I think are my inroads into understanding it. If you don't mind, could you make clear where you think I am misunderstanding Penrose-Hameroff versus where you disagree with Penrose-Hameroff?
Thanks,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 28, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Anybody here read Ilya Prigogine's ideas about time? He wrote a book called Order From Chaos or something like that, which I read a long time ago, and I seem to recall that he blamed the second law of thermodynamics for the directionality of time. Specifically, the fact that entropy increases gives time a direction, even though the basic equations of physics (such as Schrödinger's) have no preference one way or another. Technically speaking, entropy is a Lyapunov function. Now, I sort of like the idea that time (or at least the feeling that it has a direction) is an emerging macroscopic property. The 2LOT is also an emerging property, in the sense that it can be violated for systems with a small number of particles (as far as I'm concerned, the 2LOT is the law of large numbers in disguise), but is exceedingly unlikely to be violated as the number of particles in a system becomes large. In other words, at small scales the Lyapunov function collapses (not the wave function).
Comment by Raevmo — July 28, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I remember reading this particular article, one of a special series that appeared in the Los Angeles Times:
Earlier that year I had read Brian Greene's excellent book The Elegant Universe in which he explains that if gravitational quanta (gravitons) are what generate the spacetime fabric, and if such quanta are themselves composed of strings, then at the most fundamental level there simply is no such thing as space or time. At pages 378-380 he writes:
[Emphases in original]
Very interesting ideas. One question they raise in my view is this: if space and time are not truly fundamental, what becomes of the concepts of matter and material object?
We tend to think that a defining characteristic of material things, crucially separating them conceptually from immaterial things, is that they occupy space and time. But if spatiotemporality does not describe reality at its deepest level, then what should we say about materiality that differentiates it fundamentally from immateriality? If strings or zero-branes or some such building-block do not themselves occupy spacetime but rather construct it, then it seems that materiality reduces to an unobservable, theoretical property describable only with the most abstruse calculations and recondite inventions of mathematicians. And the worry for the materialist is that which is raised by philosophers from Ockham to Kant to Brouwer to van Fraassen to Dummett who doubt the meaningfulness of really existent mind-independent mathematical structures: do such mathematical abstractions describe the world as it really is in itself independently of any mind's thoughts about the way the world is, and indeed is there a way the world really is in itself independently of any mind's thoughts about the way the world is?
For example, Ockham did not believe in mathematical ("quantitative") entities of any kind (i.e. as entities existing over and above the mathematical thoughts of thinkers). And when we start getting into things like noncommutative, non-Abelian or some other arcane geometries and algebras, the question arises of whether such abstractions actually describe reality, or do they merely describe how we can think about reality relative to some purpose we might have at a given moment. In the latter case, 'material reality' would seem to be a mental construct based on conscious experiences, desires, and purposes. In other words, mere empirical adequacy is not a sufficient rational basis for materialism if materialism is understood in the realist sense of there being an objective, mind-independent, counterfactually definite material world out there underlying our spatial and temporal experiences. This is a central theme in Kant's philosophy:
Of course, Christian theists have long held that God is timeless or at leasts transcends time as we understand it, and that since God is the ens realissimum, God's eternity is more truly real than temporality. This can be seen as early as the 2nd Letter of Saint Peter:
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. [ibid, 3: 8]
And Saint Augustine's meditations on this subject are famous:
Comment by stunney — July 28, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
TP:
"Absolute" is probably the wrong word, but it's the zero point. From which space - thus time - extends. Conceptually, as of current theory (including all GUTs we've thus far considered). If time is a dimensional parameter like the spatial dimensions. Of course, gravity may be the operator for all of it, and it may extend through more than 4 dimensions.
Anyway, anything we measure relative to anything else in this universe per time (including radioactive decay) is… er, relative. Including us, which is how we happen to stand pretty precisely mid-stream. Whenever we master those "shortcuts in time" we might explore more than just our local neighborhood. Until then, we're still just Huck Finn rafting downriver.
It's not just electrons, you know. It's all electromagnetism, and electromagnetism is light. Some of it's just a whole lot slower than photons/electrons. Still moves in discrete jumps, IMU, and movement is time (as well as space).
Then you do know it. extrapolating from there leads to some mind-twisting conclusions.
The mechanistic model is necessary, just as biological PCCs [physical correlates of consciousness] are necessary. To our understanding of the world/universe FAPP. Those practical purposes related to control. This is the reality in which we live, now. This is the reality we must try to understand if we are to do anything practical with it.
Sometimes I think they're so close they'd see it if they'd just stop fogging it up with their breath. Then I get disgusted and think they'll never find their own asses. I can't control it anyway, so I just watch.
Oh, don't make me think that hard on a Saturday!!! I'd have to go looking for details I really don't want to dive into right now and everything. Let me think on things and get back to you, okay?
Meanwhile, I think you're understanding amazingly well so far, and I'd encourage you to spend the bucks to attend one of the conferences (usually linked at UA's dept site). It's wonderful to attend the lectures and presentations, but it's just immersing yourself in all those pick-able brains that's the most amazing experience. Very much worth it.
My primary disagreement with Penrose is his assignment of gravitons. I don't think I believe in 'em, because their energy level is way, way beyond the point where the SM-style GUTs that insist they must exist fail. Why, sans Wiggly Higgly it's just as likely that the shape of spacetime is an imposed-on-the-milieu pattern, and the conglomerations of matter that indicate its presence are mere effects of that. Including all those quantum particles no one really understands.
I don't think Penrose, for all his nifty mathematical talents has yet stumbled upon a mathematics that would help to explain things past our limitations. That's why I like Matti's approach. His applications may be fairly standard when dealing with forces and extremals at the substrate level - but the numbers themselves are infinite. The infinite is all around us (and in us) all the time. What we know (perceive, experience and theorize about) is a tiny sub-set of that. Designed to be so, as the finite is necessary to the exercise of being.
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
TP:
Do electrons really travel at the speed of light? In accelerators their speed may approach c, but in general they seem to move slower don't they?
Comment by Raevmo — July 28, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Hi Raevmo,
You wrote…
This is in keeping with the concept that quantum effects are normal. It is the macro effects that are weird.
The English language just isn't built to deal with reality as a timeless wavefunction.
There is no "now", there is no "then", there is no "here" there is no "there".
Once this is realized, Penrose-Hameroff's Orch OR doesn't look very controversial at all. In fact, it is a logical implication of it.
The difficulty is in trying to convey the idea to people who are in the habit of believing Macro Weirdness is reality.
P.S. You asked…
I believe you may be right. I am too used to thinking in photons. Sorry,
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 28, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
TP:
Well, it seems to me that both Micro Weirdness and Macro Weirdness are part of our reality. Or are they mutually exclusive?
Comment by Raevmo — July 28, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Hi Stunney,
While you posted a lot of good stuff, I'm not sure where your position is.
I'm being convinced that Joy and Penrose are right in thinking that the String Theory is the last materialistic hold out. Science has been looking for fundamental "atoms" for so long they are willing to consider matter as consisting of multidemensional, vibrating strings because it sounds like matter is made of SOMETHING rather than nothing.
It's a better appeal to the masses and those control purse-strings.
IMO, gravity is all there is.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 28, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
That is more than ok. I didn't mean to ask in reference to everything, just this comment. However, I am more than interested in hearing you comments on anything I have made on the Orch OR hypothesis.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 28, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Hi Raevmo,
You asked…
Which brings us back to ID and Front Loading!
The Orch OR model suggests that quantum mechanics is so intrinsically intertwined with life of Earth and has been for so long that it is indistinguishable from being "front loaded".
DNA is a quantum computer. Quantum effects are timeless and interconnected with other quantum effects in both space and time.
Quantum effects in microtubules bring the appearance of consciousness to the simplest of living things including cilia and single-celled organisms.
There is no such thing a natural randomness, it is all interconnected quantum effects.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 28, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Raevmo:
Like photons, electrons travel at varying speeds in various media. In a conductor, electrons travel with application of current at 75% light speed. Electron beams [ion plasmas] are accelerated by electrical and/or electromagnetic fields to speeds so great they are only expressed in energy level [3.5 GeV, last I checked], not in percent light speed. Electrons have mass, so cannot travel at light speed that we know of. They can, however, travel backwards in time, if that is how you care to view the existence of positrons. §;o)
The 'one electron universe' was more about the total indistinguishability of electrons. See, one, you're seeing them all.
Diocotron Instability of an Intense Relativistic Electron Beam in an Accelerator
ELSA
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
P.S. If there is such a thing as mass, that is. This too may be just another illusion of relativities - that which we see around us.
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
TP:
Is it really? Let's tell the physicists who are trying to create quantum computers.
Who knows? It's an interesting idea. Made me think of some research of the guy in the lab next door which showed that different personality types ("fast" and "slow") in mice are correlated with properties of neuronal cytoskeleton (interestingly, more "rigid" cytoskeleton corresponding to more "rigid" personality). Can't think of a reference right now, but will look up if so desired.
Comment by Raevmo — July 28, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Joy:
According to Wikipedia, in Standford they accelerated them up to 51GeV, corresponding to 0.99999999995 c (using that famous sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) factor).
I suppose that is one way to view it. Didn't Feynman invent his famous diagrams to view it like that?
Comment by Raevmo — July 28, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Well, if they can get 'em that close, it's certainly good enough for me! Can you give me the Wiki link or search terms? I'd be interested to see what the mass increase is. I'd also be interested in your cytoskeleton reference. Thanks!
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 12:47 am
As several others (Stuunney and Pez) have already pointed out the concepts of time, timelessness and eternity are concepts that theologians have been pondering for centuries. It has long been recognized, at least since St Augustine, that when one considers time from the context of eternity and timelessness that it creates some concepts that are by their very nature paradoxical. Now modern physics (quantum physics and Einstein's theories of relativity) discovers some things about the world out there that create similar paradoxes it gets treated triumphantly as some kind of potential breakthrough. As a skeptic and agnostic I have to ask what does it really explain? Paradoxes are neither explanations or potential explanations but rather things that in themselves need to be explained.
Explanations in the natural sciences are generally from the bottom up. In theology and philosophy they are from the top down. Someone explain to me what exactly it is that the idea of a timeless universe explains either scientifically from the bottom up, or philosophically/theologically from the top down?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 29, 2007 @ 12:47 am
July 29th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Hi Joy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... :
Hi TP,
I've been trying to follow your model as much as I can. . . that is to say, I have no clue. I, however, have run across some information that you may find of some use:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/... (I don't have access to this, and wouldn't understand it if I did. . . but you guys may have more luck):
This may be old-hat for you guys but I've found it useful wrt undertsanding decoherence, so thought I'd pass it along:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...
Also, while trying to follow along, I've come across Qubits - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q... - and saw some relevance.
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — July 29, 2007 @ 1:51 am
July 29th, 2007 at 5:56 am
Thought Provoker wrote:
Near the Pacific Ocean in the early part of the 21st century, as near as I can tell.
Penrose is biased. He has a different dog in that race.
Then again, Joy is a free spirit. So there's that to consider.
It's made of energy.
The difficulty is in saying what energy is made of. That's where gravity comes in. It has always struck me as weird that anything should gravitate a) at all, and b) so uniformly.
Plus, most folks think they know a fair bit about string.
I'm not sure it's all there is. You should maybe read Simone Weil's book, Gravity and Grace.
Comment by stunney — July 29, 2007 @ 5:56 am
July 29th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Hi Raevmo,
I wrote… "DNA is a quantum computer."
To which, you responded with…
Ok let's tell them.
Here is Dr. Hameroff's overview titled Quantum Computing in DNA…
"Squids have a superconductive ring with one segment of lower conductance; current through the ring is highly sensitive to dipoles. DNA loops may serve as quantum antenna, with nonlocal communication with other DNA, and perhaps cell machinery.
We can then consider DNA as a chain of qubits (with helical twist).
Output of quantum computation would be manifest as the net electron interference pattern in the quantum state of the pi stack, regulating gene expression and other functions locally and nonlocally by radiation or entanglement."
Here is something from the Technical Proceedings of the 2005 NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show, Volume 1 titled Fabrication of Photonic Transfer DNA-Quantum Dot Nanostructures
The primary objective of our research work is to develop nanofabrication technology which will allow functionalized nanostructures to be hierarchically self-assembled into higher-order 2D and 3D nanophotonic and nanoelectronic structures and devices. Our work involves developing nanofabrication techniques to carry out the selective functionalization of nanocomponents (quantum dots) with DNA.
From an IEEE article presented at the First International Conference on Quantum, Nano, and Micro Technologies (ICQNM'07) titled DNA and quantum theory…
In this paper we consider the DNA molecules as a quantum system. We discussed about the relation between the heredity, biology and DNA and quantum systems.
Hmm, it looks like they may already know.
To the idea of quantum effects in microtubules, you offered…
I would be interested in any information you are willing to share on this. Click on my name for access to my blog.
When I get the energy, I will be soon posting a case for considering quantum effects as a front loaded attribute of life on Earth. Maybe MikeGene would be interested in reposting it here.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote…
Scientific hypotheses are inherently incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate. It is a given that science can never "exactly" explain anything as a Truth (capital "T"). Truth is the magisterium (ala Gould) that philosophy/theology operates within. An omnisient, omnipotent God creating everything is an absolute Truth even if it lacks detail.
Science postulates the concept of timelessness in order to create a detailed, mechanistic model that is consistant with experimental data from various fields like quantum mechanics, General Relativaty and biology. The model will undoubtably be incomplete, but it should provide details from its bottom up analysis.
Philosophy/theology postulates the concept of timelessness in order to reconcile large top down conflicts when discussing things like what God did before time existed.
Will the top down philosophy/theology ever completely connect with the bottom up science? I don't think so. I think we will be forever teased with having them come closer and closer but forever alluding capture (until, of course, the events fortold in the Book of Revolution happen making everything moot).
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Hi Rob R,
You wrote…
Did I forget to mention this stuff is HARD?
I have had a little college training in Einsteinian physics it gave me a headache then and gives me a headache whenever I revisit it. You need to be a little masochistic to plow your way through this stuff. (Joy has been a big help).
I think you are on the right track. The Wikipedia link on Qubit is a good one.
One of the hard parts for me was equating theory to actual experimental data. While the dual slit and Aspect experiments make the connection, they still didn't make it obvious to me because they relied on probabilities. That is why I liked the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ state) experiment. While it still has probabilities the answers are more concrete.
For three similar type measurements the qubit bra-ket notation is…
|Ψ> = (|100> + |010> + |001> + |111>) / √4
For three mixed type measurements the qubit bra-ket notation is…
|Ф> = (|011> + |101> + |110> + |000>) / √4
This is the "measurement problem".
The measurements occur after the entangled particles are separated yet they force certain answers to be realised based on the types of measurements made.
The possible explanations…
1. Instantaneous effects at a distance (superluminal)
2. Retrocausual effects back to the time of entanglement
3. An explanation involving wavefunction collapse
4. Measurement forcing a choice of one of Many Worlds
If General Relativity is accepted as real, superluminal effects ARE retrocausual. Therefore #1 and #2 are the same thing for all practical purposes.
If you are going to appeal to metaphysical constructs then why limit it? Say "God works in mysterious ways" and be done with it. This is why I discard the Many Worlds interpretation as being scientific. It may be the Truth just like God's existance may be the Truth, but that is a phylosophical question not a scientific one, IMO.
The Third Choice involves the idea that all matter is really a wavefunction or multiple wavefunctions. Penrose-Hameroff's Orch OR model makes the logical (albeit uncomfortable) extension of a wavefunction by suggesting an inherent connection of all quantum effects both in space and time. They're other physicists who embrace a generalized wavefunction collapse without digging too deeply in the implications. This is generally known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I hope this has been helpful.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
TP wrote:
So what am I? Who or what are you? If gravity is all there is, then things, people and other sentient beings that populate our universe are only illusions, aren't they? But then, how can an illusion be aware of itself? But then, on the other hand, maybe you mean that gravity is the cause of everything. Okay then, explain how: How did gravity cause the universe and everything in it, including some highly specified complex things, to come into existence? Were you trying to explain something, or is this simply a baseless assertion?
BTW, what exactly is gravity? Can you define it for us?
Did gravity cause these DNA quantum computers to come into existence? How can gravity cause something as complex as a computer
So that sums up everything that theologians do? They just get together have a cup of tea and declare, "God did it." Can you name any modern theologians? Can you name any current theologian who said, "God did it?" Have you ever read anything written by a contemporary theologian? Or, do you think that they are all ignorant and hostile toward science?
The problem as I see it, is that while you may think that you are avoiding metaphysics, you are in fact smuggling your own metaphysical POV in through the back door. For example, WT Jones, in the glossary of his, History of Western Philosophy, says that metaphysics is: "The study of the ultimate nature of reality"¦" When you say, "gravity is all there is" aren't you making a claim about reality? How can you make such a claim without having a global conception of reality and Truth? (Which, IMO, you would have to spell with a capital "˜T'.)
Finally, don't you mean, The Book of Revelation?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 29, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Hi John A Designer,
Starting from the end and working our way to the beginning of your comment.
Yes.
Yes, the idea that "gravity is all there is" is one of many metaphysical Truths I believe. It is my opinion. That is why I started the sentence with "IMO".
I boldly (arrogantly?) bring it through the front door. That is why there have been many NOMA/OMA discussions I have participated in. (here is my guest post on TT for example). I even directly address it as part of the Third Choice.
To my explanation of religious treatment to timelessness you asked me…
Historically, many theologians tried to understand God by focusing on the nature and trusting in the scientific method. In other words, doing a bottom up analysis. I suggest there are religious people still doing that today. Ken Miller believes that is what he is doing.
From a different comment and context I said "DNA is a quantum computer". You responded with…
Science is inherently incomplete. As you indicated, it uses a bottom up approach. It looks like DNA is a quantum computer. You might have to accept that this scientific observation doesn't answer all your philosophical questions. Newton's F=ma doesn't either.
No, if I could it would probably get me a Nobel Prize.
Gravity's role in our material world is a scientific hypothesis based on repeatable quantum mechanical experiments and Penrose's logic and math skills.
Good questions. I think the answers are non-deterministic because of the unknowable interconnected reality of our universe. Of course, I believe this is because I boldly embrace NOMA. Call it my "faith" if it makes you happy.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2007 @ 9:16 pm