According to Kant it is just our mind that perceives time as directional. The world as it is in itself is like our mind unrolling a carpet, not a carpet being woven in front of us (not his analogy).

I agree with Kant on most things, but I suspect he got this one wrong.

The arrow of time is the result of an inequity in the probability of occurrence of certain systems of the basic units of reality (whatever they are). It is a phenomenon that responds to the probabilistic, not something that is there in reality itself, as concerns the relationship between two orders given at a defined time. While physical events at the microscopic level are mostly fully reversible, at the macroscopic level the opposite usually occurs, giving a time from which can be defined an arrow of time asymmetry. This asymmetry responds to the second law of thermodynamics, which speaks of macroscopic and probabilistic phenomena, not the reality of the basic units of reality. There are events in the reality that clearly respond to different probabilities; for example, the initial conditions to produce converging waves the source is much lower than the probability of producing radiating waves conditions are met. It would be to be analyzed whether this condition of increasing entropy in time and distance from the waves of its generating source, among others, would be responding to a logical derivative of the irreversibility of the collapse of the wave functions or if this collapse is only expression of this arrow of time. Similarly, we should review how the arrow of time is disernible consequence of the fact that there is an original cosmological event (call big bang) that led to a sense of time that tends to shy away from this event.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear De la Pena,

Thank you for getting us started on this question. You make several interesting points relating probability, "basic units of reality," and definitions of the arrow of time. But, I think it clearly the objective of the present question to try to determine whether the "becoming" of things is real, including, of course, its uni-directional character.  Are the only genuine realities those described by the temporally symmetric "primary" laws of fundamental physics? If a phenomenon is merely a matter of "probabilities" does this show it "subjective" and unreal? Price seems to think so, but Eddington in his classical discussion has his doubts. Yet Price speaks very positively of Eddington for posing this question of the reality of "becoming."

H.G. Callaway

Example of time dependent in the accumulation and depletion of charges

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.phy.duke.edu/research/cm/bg/paper/KeLYB10_timedep.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjf8Iqp6PPLAhUCA44KHUyeDjY4HhAWCC0wBA&usg=AFQjCNEY-CoGzgAmwJGZ5kZ0DAH1o01wJQ

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Arrow of time

The Arrow of Time, or Time's Arrow, is a concept developed in 1927 by the British astronomer Arthur Eddington involving the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time. This direction, according to Eddington, can be determined by studying the organization of atoms, molecules, and bodies, might be drawn upon a four-dimensional relativistic map of the world ("a solid block of paper").

Physical processes at the microscopic level are believed to be either entirely or mostly time-symmetric: if the direction of time were to reverse, the theoretical statements that describe them would remain true. Yet at the macroscopic level it often appears that this is not the case: there is an obvious direction (or flow) of time.

Eddington

In the 1928 book The Nature of the Physical World, which helped to popularize the concept, Eddington stated:

"Let us draw an arrow arbitrarily. If as we follow the arrow we find more and more of the random element in the state of the world, then the arrow is pointing towards the future; if the random element decreases the arrow points towards the past. That is the only distinction known to physics. This follows at once if our fundamental contention is admitted that the introduction of randomness is the only thing which cannot be undone. I shall use the phrase ‘time's arrow’ to express this one-way property of time which has no analogue in space."

Eddington then gives three points to note about this arrow:

According to Eddington the arrow indicates the direction of progressive increase of the random element. Following a lengthy argument upon the nature of thermodynamics he concludes that, so far as physics is concerned, time's arrow is a property of entropy alone."....

Please see the rest of the article for more information....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"The Arrow of Time

.....  Is the Arrow of Time an Illusion?

As we have seen in the section on Relativistic Time, according to the Theory of Relativity, the reality of the universe can be described by four-dimensional space-time, so that time does not actually “flow”, it just “is”. The perception of an arrow of time that we have in our everyday life therefore appears to be nothing more than an illusion of consciousness in this model of the universe, an emergent quality that we happen to experience due to our particular kind of existence at this particular point in the evolution of the universe.

Perhaps even more interesting and puzzling is the fact that, although events and processes at the macroscopic level – the behaviour of bulk materials that we experience in everyday life – are quite clearly time-asymmetric (i.e. natural processes DO have a natural temporal order, and there is an obvious forward direction of time), physical processes and laws at the microscopic level, whether classical, relativistic or quantum, are either entirely or mostly time-symmetric. If a physical process is physically possible, then generally speaking so is the same process run backwards, so that, if you were to hypothetically watch a movie of a physical process, you would not be able to tell if it is being played forwards or backwards, as both would be equally plausible."...

Please, see the link for detail....

http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/the-arrow-of-time/

Hello,

First, one needs to define the terms. What do we agree to mean by "time" and "subjective"? Difficulties arise -- the latter requires that we can isolate subjective from non-subjective, while the former, likewise, that we can isolate time from space and non-time. Who could isolate a suggestion in each case? 

Cheers, Ed Gerck 

I think so and agree with Ed Gerck's view.

 Everything is in a state of “becoming” in a spiral motion.  Time is may be an arrow, but it hasn’t got a linear motion. The time arrow moves along a tangent to a spiral curve; continually turning.  After circling 360 degrees it is one pitch up, not at the same point.

We can link entropy to becoming, where entropy is a concept studied in termodynamics, possibly using probabilities

We can link entropy to becoming, where entropy is a concept studied in termodynamics, possibly using probabilities

We can link entropy to becoming, where entropy is a concept studied in termodynamics, possibly using probabilities

I think the question is formulated in an unsufficiently clear way. There are many known time arrows:

1) The microscopic time arrow, linked to time reversal violation in particle physics;

2) the macroscopic time arrow, associated with the second law of thermodynamics;

3) the cognitive time arrow, related to the increasing amount of data memorized by an observer in consequence of his observational processes;

4) the cosmological time arrow, induced by big bang and successive space expansion;

5) the time arrow related to the absence of anticipated effects in field theory

6) the informational time arrow, expressed in growth of organizations and other complex systems.

(this list may be incomplete)

Probably a more correct question may be: are processes of type 3) "subjective" in their nature? Because it is evident the merely physical and "objective" nature of the others.

The answer is not easy. It is obvious that (at least in part) observation and memory are in themselves material and objective processes. If a subjective component is or not involved this depends on what is really a "subject".

I agree that in particular case of a human, conscious observer the "becoming" is, at thesame time, part of his subjective experience and an objective process to which his (her) physical body undergoes.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Time's arrow and Boltzmann's entropy, by Prof. Joel L. Lebowitz, Department of Mathematics and Physics, Rutgers University, NJ

The arrow of time expresses the fact that in the world about us the past is distinctly different from the future. Milk spills but doesn't unspill; eggs splatter but do not unsplatter; waves break but do not unbreak; we always grow older, never younger. These processes all move in one direction in time - they are called "time-irreversible" and define the arrow of time. It is therefore very surprising that the relevant fundamental laws of nature make no such distinction between the past and the future. This in turn leads to a great puzzle - if the laws of nature permit all processes to be run backwards in time, why don't we observe them doing so? Why does a video of an egg splattering run backwards look ridiculous? Put another way: how can time-reversible motions of atoms and molecules, the microscopic components of material systems, give rise to the observed time-irreversible behavior of our everyday world? The resolution of this apparent paradox is due to Maxwell, Thomson and (particularly) Boltzmann. These ideas also explain most other arrows of time - in particular; why do we remember the past but not the future?"...

Please, see the complete article for more detail....

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Time's_arrow_and_Boltzmann's_entropy

My PhD thesis was on this theme (link below; downloadable full text in Portuguese language). With a little help from Google Translator, interested readers can understand.

Thesis Tempo e irreversibilidade : uma critica da tradição Boltzmanniana

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Many thanks for the many thoughtful replies to this question to this point. I had hoped to see a bit of debate where there may be some differences on the nest of related issues. 

As a General matter I find the notion of a "flow of time" less compelling than the idea of "becoming," say, plants or animals growing to maturity, to take classical examples. "Flow of time" seems more keyed to consciousness, while growth to maturity of living things seems more objective. "Becoming" has had a great career ever since the decline of the influence of Parmenides among the ancient Greeks.

I'd prefer less controversial examples to more controversial examples. Of course, growth of living things does require an input of energy. It may be, as well, that we will not appeal to physical law in explaining such examples of becoming, though it is worth considering that the uni-directional growth or becoming of living things is, evidently not inconsistent with physical laws. 

Among many others, I particularly liked the following passage from Gruner:

Thus, all in all, it seems to be clear to me that the question concerning the reality of "flow of time" is closely related to the question whether the world allows us to experience genuine novelty. If there exists genuine novelty for us and genuine surprises which we are unable to predict in advance, then ---from a philosophical point of view--- our speaking of the "flow of time" seems to be fully justifiable and justified, as far as I can see.

---End quotation

This element of "surprise" is, I think, well suited to an empiricist philosophy, and I tend to suppose that no matter how much of regularity, order and law-like phenomena we may find (or create) in the world, it will always be capable of surprising us, or upsetting our expectations. The continual emergence of novelty would seem to be inconsistent with any overall determinism --and might appeal to a basic randomness in the world.  

H.G. Callaway

 Arrow of time is only meaningful when there is a 'witness' of some sort ... becoming, returning or approaching what Christians believed an imminent doom when time freezes and the last 'witnessing' subject is taken out by the Almighty timeless force, whatever that might be... 'Occidental Eschotology', the astonishing doctoral thesis of Jacob Taubes (1923 - 87) is the most exciting book I've read multiple times about the end of all things in Christianity's point of view.  I recommend to all for a careful reading with any of your favorite subject matters.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Laird,

You say "Arrow of time is only meaningful when there is a 'witness' of some sort..."

This strikes me as an astonishing claim! You make of it something "subjective" or depending on the subjective. Yet many have argued just the opposite. You reference nothing physical or scientific. You certainly seem very sure of yourself.

"The end of all things" --an amazing thesis.

H.G. Callaway

ah, 'purity of despair' might be a better wording there.  Arrow of time is definitely a man made construct. I count it as the most uninterested and unrealistic factor in all scientific equations.  And if that is your focus of inquiry, my apology.  My lately reading is about Heaven and Earth and unknown Universal forces,  Old Testament's God and New Testament's Resurrection of the Son,  Paul's Epistles to Romans to declare war on Roman Empire. Apostle Peter and John are still confined within Old Testament Jewish Laws but only Paul realized what happened and what need to be done. 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Laird,

Perhaps George Stoica will have an answer for you here.

H.G. Callaway

The theory of Special Relativity provides an unequivocal affirmative to the question of whether the arrow of time is subjective. To see how, consider observers in three distinct, appropriately related reference frames observing events A and B. According to Special Relativity it is possible for:

- an observer in the first reference frame to see A occur before B;

- an observer in the second reference frame to see B occur before A;

- and an observer in the third reference frame to see A and B occur simultaneously.

Even the slight difference in the rate of passage of time between reference frames displacing at non-zero, sub-relativistic speeds with respect to each (say an observer on the ground and one in an airplane), indicates a disagreement on the direction in which time is passing.

According to Kant it is just our mind that perceives time as directional. The world as it is in itself is like our mind unrolling a carpet, not a carpet being woven in front of us (not his analogy).

I agree with Kant on most things, but I suspect he got this one wrong.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gruner,

Many thanks for the link. I noticed that the thread you link to started in 2013, but has some more recent contributions. Thanks, too, for linking them back here. Maybe this will bring in some further contributions.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Harris,

Thanks for your argument, based on Special Relativity. You write:

The theory of Special Relativity provides an unequivocal affirmative to the question of whether the arrow of time is subjective. To see how, consider observers in three distinct, appropriately related reference frames observing events A and B. According to Special Relativity it is possible for:

- an observer in the first reference frame to see A occur before B;

- an observer in the second reference frame to see B occur before A;

- and an observer in the third reference frame to see A and B occur simultaneously.

---End quotation.

I agree with most of what you say here, but I think of it somewhat differently. Let's see if we can work out the differences. Quite definitely, SR tells us something of interest about time and its measurement. But it is not clear to me that it shows the direction of time to be "subjective." I prefer to say that it shows that measurements of time are made in relation to a frame of reference. In a somewhat similar way, measurements of time are made in relation to units of time, seconds, minuets, hours, or possibly other units. SR is in a significant degree a theory of measurement, and it tells us that we cannot assume there is one universal frame of reference from which to make measurements. What is important is that the measurements will differ, or must be specified in relation to a frame of reference; and the laws of physics must turn out the same for every frame of reference.

I don't see that it follows that because measurements of before and after differ in different frames that they are not perfectly objective in relation to the given frame. The phenomenon does suggests a certain fragmentation of time, as measured from differing frames. But likewise, there would be a certain fragmentation of measurements if we used differing units in different measurements. Measurements must be made from somewhere--we have to specify the origins of the axes, in effect.

Generally, I tend to object to the notion that if a given law-like phenomenon doesn't belong to "fundamental physics," then it must count as "subjective." Why so?

H.G. Callaway

Dear @H.G. Callaway, my dear friend @Galina has had a nice, very related thread to the previous one and this one of yours. 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/On_varying_speed_of_flow_of_time_over_our_life

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Jacić,

Many thanks for the link to the interesting discussion. The perspective on that lengthy thread is, of course, somewhat different than what we have been going at here. It is a question I have given some thought to on occasion: Why it should be that time seems to go more quickly as we get older.

I suppose it is basically because we are busier, and thinking more--more connections established, deeper interpretations to go into given some particular experience. This used to be called "wisdom." Why human beings even (typically) live past the peak reproductive years (What is the evolutionary advantage of that?)  is supposed to have to do with the experience older people may pass on to the younger. Its a qualitatively augmented experience, deepened by patterns of prior experience and interpretation. Still, people may prefer to make their own mistakes. I'm not unsympathetic to that.

H.G. Callaway

Is time's arrow subjective?

My answer is yes.

A bit off-topic. Arrow of time, flow of time, direction of time, life time -train... Visualization of the invisible in order to become available for our consciousness. 

When did metaphors tell the truth? (Personification is even in this simple question). Are they able? (The second personification). Conceptualization with a metaphor always contains an element of failure (3 metaphors more are in this short phrase). But this failure can be aesthetically beautiful and have a heuristic value: a metaphor illuminates some hidden invariants between two disjoint categories that our attention didn’t focus on before (I stop calculating the metaphors of different levels (one metaphor more) in this phrase)! What are beginning, becoming, middle, end, etc. themselves? Their existential status is found only in the language.

Any “measure of time” is only a metonymic result. So old good questions about time-space are still relevant: do we discuss the time in reality or in language? (Physically it’s a result of movement/changes of objects in space, Dobson was right.). Is wisdom a knowledge or a collection of beautiful metaphors, that give an aesthetic pleasure?

Thank you for your question, your comments and for the link "Huw Price on the UNIVERSE", dear Callaway.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Laguta,

I think there are "metaphors and metaphors," and the fact that metaphors are employed in scientific discourse tells us little. Metaphor has a positive relation to analogical thought which is of considerable use and value in exploring new theoretical alternatives. Of course, we don't (often) get an exact analogy, and that is responsible for the metaphorical character of analogical thinking. But, generally, an exact analogy would often be less useful. When things fail to match up exactly, then we wonder why, and that questioning can lead on to revisions or elaborations of theory.

The idea that the arrow of time, its directionality (which stands in contrast with the non-directionality of spatial dimensions), is merely subjective seems to me an unappealing position. This is not to say it doesn't have its defenders. But I don't think it plausible to defend the claim for the subjective on the basis of science's relation to metaphor. 

Consider, one important example, Faraday's use of the concept of a "field" in description of magnetic properties of the world. Basically, you put a magnet under a sheet of paper an then sprinkle iron fillings on the paper. The fillings will orient themselves to the lines of force in the magnet field.  So, we can "see" the magnetic field! That this use of "field" is not merely a metaphor shows itself in Maxwell's development of the theory of electromagnetism. From Faraday's original metaphor of the "magnetic field," one of the most basic concepts of modern physics arose, through Maxwell' equations, Einstein's conception of the gravitational field, and more recently, quantum field theory. The point is that far from showing subjectivity, the use of metaphor may lead on to the most profound scientific developments and results.

H.G. Callaway

The time's arrow is subjective to the normal citizen and may be interpreted by an expert in physics.

Dear Callaway, Harris and all,

Callaway wrote, 'Quite definitely, SR tells us something of interest about time and its measurement. But it is not clear to me that it shows the direction of time to be "subjective."'

Time is intersubjetive in SR, time is neither objective nor subjective. Time depends on the observer (as Harris says) but does not depend only on the observer and can be the same for different observers, both of which Callaway notes.

Time is an element of the "intersubjective" class -- meaning that an instance can yield different results for elements of the same class. Intersubjective – also called inter-entity; pertaining to more than one entity. For example, making a medical diagnosis is intersubjective because physicians of a same class (i.e., equivalent as observers) diagnosing patients with the same illness (i.e., equivalent as observables for medical purposes) may arrive at different results. The results depend on a patient-physician interaction. A medical diagnosis is thus not objective (i.e., the diagnosis is not the same for equivalent patients and equivalent physicians) and also not subjective (i.e., the diagnosis does not depend only on the physician). The same happens in other cases, most notably in risk assessment. 

It is interesting to note that an intersubjective concept is overly-variable in reference to a subjective concept, because it also depends on the particular instance of the class' object.

Such is time in SR, time is intersubjective because observers of a same class (i.e., in inertial frames of reference) measuring the same class of events (i.e., equivalently observable) may arrive at different results regarding their simultaneity. Time is thus not objective (i.e., the time separation is not the same for equivalent events and equivalent observers) and also not subjective (i.e., the time separation does not depend only on the observer).  

Reference search keywords: Gerck intersubjective.

Cheers, Ed Gerck 

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://mcwg.org/mcg-mirror/trustdef.htm&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwictpSJv4TMAhWFuoMKHRC8AKIQFggaMAc&usg=AFQjCNEG3KkCSHfOsKQ4r5cBIOqOslKb-A

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gerck,

Thanks for your comment.

It seems worth mentioning in reply that inter-subjective agreement is the usual criterion of claims for objectivity. The point seems particularly relevant to observations made by measurements or possible measurements. If we have well qualified observers making measurements, and those making measurements in relation to a particular frame of reference all agree in their results, then that is about the best evidence we could have of the accuracy of the measurements in relation to the particular frame of reference. 

The point is that measurements are the basis of empirical testing of theory, and, since in a significant sense, SR is a theory of measurement, telling us that there is no universal frame of reference, then the differing measurements made, in relation to differing frames of reference, when there is inter-subjective agreement, must be equally objective. At the least, I see no basis in what you say for distinguishing between objective measurement (the phrase strikes me as redundant) and inter-subjective agreement. Inter-subjective agreement in measurement makes a claim upon objectivity. Right?

H.G. Callaway 

Dear Callaway,

you gave a wonderful explanation for "seeing" the magnetic field, thank you! I can add computer metaphors, they stimulate the “human-computer” dialogue (Dörries M. (2002) Experimenting in tongues: Studies in science and language. Stanford: Stanford University Press).

Unfortunately, more often metaphor has no "a positive relation" to analogy, or a poetic analogy exists only in our naïve consciousness and language, not in reality (sunset and similar old metaphors), or relations are "isomorphic" only in one-two-three “points” (mechanical, gravitational, and other waves in physics) . I agree, “use of metaphor may lead on to the most profound scientific developments and results”, as you write, but also it may limit a research: future is perceived as something ahead, past – behind.

For some reasons, I understand better  a psychological arrow, although consciousness and language tear it into pieces. Human memory and language together are a sort of time machine, so more often we travel to the Past and to the Future (and think discretely, fragmentary, not in categories of "flow" or "movie") than stay in our Present. Many languages have less present tense forms than grammar relevant forms for past, future (or other types of irreality). 

Dear All,

what else can be used instead of this arrow metaphor? Is it a good image for your understanding? One of the Russian translation for it is ось времени 'axis of Time', but axis has no beginning, end, movement.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Laguta,

I am glad that you see some wisdom in the metaphor of "fields," as originating from work of Faraday. Basically, we only need one example to show that metaphor in science need not be a matter of being captured in false or misleading  images of thought.This is not to say, however, that metaphor may not sometimes be misleading. I take it that this is your point. I've suggested myself that focus on "becoming" may be a better approach to this topic than is the metaphor of the "flow" of time.

It is still possible to disagree about cases, then. However, I basically see nothing wrong with Eddington's talk of the "arrow of time." It seems a very vivid and compelling way of emphasizing the directionality of time, in contrast to spatial dimensions. We find ourselves able to move back and forth in space or even up and down, etc. But we see no way, generally, of moving back and forth in time. Time, then, has a directionality about it, which spatial dimensions lack. This is "the arrow of time," and it seems to be pointed in one direction toward the future and away from the past. 

 If we were to get lost walking through town, then it makes sense to say, "let's go back to where we were earlier and retrace our steps to find a better route." But we can't go back to the past to make changes. Though we can have some influence upon the future, we can't go back and change the past --ignoring speculations about time travel as chiefly beside the present point. Multi-directional travel in space is completely ordinary, while the prospect of time travel is great stuff for since fiction and remains in the outer realms of speculation.

H.G. Callaway

Yes ,you are right Dr.H.G. Callaway  ,If we were to get lost walking through town, then it makes sense to say, "let's go back to where we were earlier and retrace our steps to find a better route." But we can't go back to the past to make changes.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Elasrag,

Right. We can't make changes to the past. What we can do, of course, is become aware of the past and take lessons on how to improve the present and the future. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

Thank you for your answer. Directionality of time... So, is time for you only an immanent characteristics of space? Or smth that has independent status in reality?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Laguta,

In special relativity, SR, space and time are two aspects of a four-dimensional manifold --called "space-time," or sometimes, "spacetime." This concept is taken  to be needed to account for the fact that the measured speed of light is the same for all observers.  It doesn't matter whether a source of electromagnetic radiation is moving toward the observer or away, the measured speed of light turns out the same. This has profound consequences for any theory of measurement; and SR is in a significant sense a theory of measurement. Velocity or speed, recall, is a matter of distance covered in a given amount of time.

It is not, though, that time, on this account, becomes a "characteristic of space."  Time is a measurable aspect of the four-dimensional space-time manifold. But the point is often put by saying that there is no great "cosmic clock" ticking off time everywhere the same. The point may also be made by saying that Einstein does away with the concept of "absolute simultaneity."  Time is measured in relation to a frame of reference, and there is no universal frame of reference. Selecting differing frames of reference you may find that events simultaneous in one are not so in another.  But time is, according to Einstein "what clocks measure." It differs from spatial dimensions, as we normally say, by being directional.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway, 

No, not right that intersubjectivity implies objectivity.  As contrasted in my posting, a medical diagnosis is intersubjective but may not be objective. In SR, simultaneity of an event  is not the same for all observers, it can be intersubjetive but is not objective. 

Therefore, an "arrow of time" is not objective. A first difficulty is that it cannot be seen by all observers, there are other issues as well. An "arrow of time" is not subjective either.

Cheers, Ed Gerck 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gerck,

It strikes me that your distinction between the intersubjective and the objective claims of reported measurements in SR is something of a quibble. Inter-subjective agreement regarding measurements is about the best criterion of the objective that we have to work with. In an important sense, the case of diagnosis is quite different in any case. You wrote, in your prior note:

For example, making a medical diagnosis is intersubjective because physicians of a same class (i.e., equivalent as observers) diagnosing patients with the same illness (i.e., equivalent as observables for medical purposes) may arrive at different results. The results depend on a patient-physician interaction. A medical diagnosis is thus not objective (i.e., the diagnosis is not the same for equivalent patients and equivalent physicians) and also not subjective (i.e., the diagnosis does not depend only on the physician).

---End quotation

Diagnosis is a matter of forming a hypothesis regarding an illness on the basis of symptomatic evidence or tests. There need be no measurements involved at all, and if they do become involved, then they merely contribute to the constraints on hypothesis, or possibly the confirmation of the diagnostic hypothesis. Introducing a distinction between the intersubjective and the objective regarding diagnosis and hypothesis may be plausible in ways that are not plausible regarding measurement. But there are many ways of dealing with the frequent lack of agreement regarding explanatory hypotheses. I see nothing which compels your specific approach.

Coming back to SR and measurement, say of lengths and times, there is even less reason to introduce your proposal. SR gives us theoretical grounds for the supposition that all observers can make the same measurements in relation to the same frame of reference, and different measurements in relation to distinct frames of reference; and since there is no universal frame of reference, there is no reason to think this anything less than objectivity in possible measurements.

Just as it makes little sense to ask about "absolute" or "real" distances, say, independent of any particular units of measurement (miles, kilometers, or what have you), it makes no sense, according to SR to ask about "real" measurements independent of any particular frame of reference. In consequence, measurement in relation to particular frames of reference, with intersubjective agreement of observers, is objective as things get.

Reports on the sequence of events may differ from one frame of reference to another, and this was Harris' point, but this is no objection to the arrow of time, so long as there is always some particular directionality. Instead, what is suggested, as I said above, is a certain fragmentation of time in SR. That is part of the consequence of Einstein's rejecting absolute simultaneity. But the directionality of time doesn't require one large "cosmic clock," ticking off time everywhere the same. In spite of that, time is "what clocks measure."

H.G. Callaway   

Dear Callaway,

There are different criteria in the literature for something to be considered objective. You wrote, "Inter-subjective agreement regarding measurements is about the best criterion of the objective that we have to work with." I am interested in looking over your reference for what you wrote, especially on being "the best criterion" and in which sense it is the "best" as well as the discipline where this is defined. 

Beforehand, i share the opinion that intersubjective can become as close to objective as we may want, albeit in some cases, and certainly not always. A medical diagnosis is notorious for not being objectivily valid, even if based on "hard facts " such as lab exams and as many physician opinions as you may want. However, while not objective, a medical diagnosis is at least expected to be intersubjetive; if it is subjective it is more likely to be in error.

So, the difference between intersubjective and objective  is not a quibble but a real distinction, which ignorance (in the sense of ignorare) creates a gulf of meaning and leads to an incorrect description. For example, to use the work on dialectics by Augustin of Hippo, the sight of a single road on a clear day is objective (distinguished)  but the sight of a road on a foggy day can be intersubjective (ambiguous) as to whether it is single or not, or splits in two. In Nature, ambiguity cannot always be eliminated and some things are ambiguous by their very nature.

I see that in SR, time is essentially ambiguous in the same way that simultaneity is also essentially ambiguous in SR. Two or more observers can be objectively right in their respective frames of reference and yet the time difference they measure, in terms of simultaneity or not, can be ambiguous, essentially, with no continuity solution.

Cheers, Ed Gerck 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gerck,

As far as I can see, you have merely reiterated the prior argument you gave, while attempting to reverse the burden of proof. I don't agree that the fact of disagreement about hypotheses of diagnosis renders your proposed distinction between the objective and the intersubjective more plausible.

See my paper on the vagaries of hypothesis validation:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256410914_Abduction_Competing_Models_and_the_Virtues_of_Hypotheses

People often agree about measurements and in specific ways, and they can disagree, given differences in their frames of reference. But given that there is no universal frame of reference in SR, intersubjective agreement from within the various frames is as good as it gets. You have not answered this argument. In fact you admit that intersubjective agreement is sometimes good a criterion of objectivity as we can get, and you bring up cases which you think of as contrasting. As I say, there are many ways to treating differences over hypotheses, and I find your suggestion unsupported and little compelling.

It seems to me that you need the implicit assumption of a universal frame of reference and the "real" quantities it would provide, to render the intersubjective agreement possible something less than objective measurement. But, again, there is no universal frame of reference possible, according to SR, to make the wheels of your argument turn. 

That people often disagree on the most reasonable explanatory hypothesis in diagnosis is strictly irrelevant to the interpretation of measurement in SR.  

But lets see what others may say. For myself, I have no doubts.

H.G. Callaway

Chapter Abduction, Competing Models and the Virtues of Hypotheses.

13

Perhaps the idea that science can see anyone as an extended worm in space time implies a determinism that is at odds with advances in fields such as chaos theory that post-dated Eddington's lovely debating point. If science sees you at all, it is as a probability density function which vanishes into the background hiss all too quickly.

Rather than "I am getting better every day", I prefer to sum the experience up as "I didn't get to where I am today."

Dear Callaway,

Thank you for your paper. I searched for the words "intersubjetive", "objective", and "subjective" but could not find them. Please provide a reference for your statement in doubt.

By requesting a reference,  I  am not "reversing the burden of proof " on you, I am simply asking for one. And I  provided a direct contradiction to the statement you proposed, by citing the case of a medical diagnosis, and how it aplies mutatis mutandis to the SR case -- namely, that although there is no objective reference frame possible, differences between intersubjective observations can be ascertained. You have not replied to this statement, which can help. 

Regarding SR, the absence of an absolute reference frame does not deny the possibility that events simultaneous in one reference frame may not be simultaneous in another frame. When you reaffirm that  "there is no universal frame of reference possible, according to SR", you are not contradicting the argument above, you are just stating an irrelevant opposition in the case.

In searching for the gold of truth through public discussions,  we expect that the same rules of scientific research will hold true, that statements need to be referenced and supported by reason, that objections need to be answered likewise, with references and reason, and that arguments need to stay relevant to the case.

Cheers, Ed Gerck 

Dear Callaway,

Based on your usage of the terms, the difference between subjective, intersubjective and objective truth claims seems to be analogous to the difference between individual opinions, opinion polls, and the truth. Using human-caused climate change to illustrate my point, individual subjects have differing opinions on whether or not it is a real phenomenon in our world. Observing that over 97% of climate scientists intersubjectively agree that it is real, merely quantifies the degree of the scientific certainty of this position on the issue, not the likelihood that it is true. There is an objective truth about whether or not human-made climate change is occurring around us that we are (hopefully) approaching. While I agree with your implicit assertion that the scientific method embodies an intersubjective approach to finding the truth, we must be careful not to confuse its artifacts with the truth.

As a science-obsessed metaphysician, I have been exploring the philosophical implications of regarding each observer's reference frame as a distinct world in a many worlds interpretation. Among other things, my draft framework accommodates both the intuitive (eternalism) and scientific (growing block) views of time, by providing each unique observer self-identifying as having a past, with both subjective (internal) and objective (external) views of its temporal world.

Kevin Harris

Working Paper Rational Answers from Modal Idealism - Draft

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

I've been reading philosopher Hans Reichenbach's last book, devoted to The Direction of Time, Dover, 1956. The work is well worth considering here, and it includes a good deal of material devoted to disputing the idea that time and its directionality are "subjective" or "illusory."

I also want to recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on Reichenbach:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reichenbach/

Have a look. Reichenbach has been a very influential thinker on related themes. The arguments are often very detailed, but overall I find much of what he says very congenial. It is certainly highly relevant to the present question and thread of discussion.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

I see that a review of my Eddington book appeared in the March issue of the journal Isis:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/686217

Do any of the readers of this thread have access--and could send me a copy?

Thanks,

H.G. Callaway

HG1Callaway(at) gmail (.)com

Tug27905(at) Temple (.) edu

At the foundational level of time is a personal subjective moment that denotes ‘now’ in a healthy, conscious human. With the intersubjective social adoption of significant tools for counting and measuring, a concept of time and its measurement develops as a pragmatic means of imposing some order and arrangement of fundamentally chaotic experiences. The combination of the personal subjective moment and pragmatic intersubjective agreement on counts and measure explains much of our modern day view of time, but still with some unanswered questions. One question is time’s direction. In my work I have correlated the measurement habits of a society with a personal, subjective ‘life’s direction’. This ‘life’s direction’ is an asymmetric accumulation of human experiences that happens in every human life. A very basic form of memory (a form of habit, including instinctual behaviors) can be modeled as an asymmetric accumulation of experiences. This asymmetric accumulation gives every human life a subjective direction, which upon intersubjective agreements can be correlated with socially adopted time measurements. In summary, time’s direction is fundamentally subjective (as is time), but in physics it is also intersubjective due to agreements to correlate personal asymmetric accumulations of experiences with the counting of sunrises, moons, etc. For more explanation of this view, see the book: Questions About Time, by Richard A. Burbank, 2011. Added refinements since 2011 continue to be developed, but they are yet to be published.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Burbank,

Many thanks for your reflections. It strikes me that much of what you say comes under the heading of the often made point that "We can remember the past but not the future." I take it that this is true, and significant, though not perhaps the kind of consideration which gets a lot of attention in physics proper. More to the point, perhaps is that we have records of measurements of past and present events, but no measurements of future events. That is the sort of point which might be expected to enter into the physicists' theory of measurement.  

No doubt, we have some "subjective" sense of time and its passage, it seems to go more slowly, for instance, when we are bored. Again, there is no doubt a good deal of intersubjective agreement in the measurement of time. This no doubt has its uses and usefulness in every day life. Yet, in physics, and in other sciences there is also considerable intersubjective agreement in the measurement of time, and to claim this as "subjective," would be contentious in the present context of the discussion. It threatens to so widen the concept of the subjective as to make it practically useless. We can hardly argue that because time is measured and there is intersubjective agreement in the measurement, that it is therefore subjective.

Both personal and social processes of development, and of the accumulation of experience can also be a quite "non-subjective" matters. The improvement, over ages, in our ability to predict and control nature and natural processes for human purposes is a case in point.  Frankly, I could not easily imagine what it would mean to call this process of the growth of knowledge "subjective."

H.G. Callaway

Dear H. G. Callaway,

I also appreciate your interest and timely reply to my last note.

One way to understand the human condition is to assume everything is basically objective and then take subjectivity as a special case for study. This is typical of a realist’s world view. Another option (not the only one) is to consider the philosophical perspective of Kant that emphasizes that we, as humans, are limited to personal perceptions of our universe. I have developed models consistent with the Kant perspective and founded on the subjectivity of personal perceptions. Starting with a subjective point of view, objectivity now changes position and becomes the special case for study. The attractiveness of this ‘subjective first, objective follows’ approach is that certain non-real aspects of the realist’s world (i.e., numbers and time) are more directly explainable when starting from subjectivism. Starting from the objective side leads to numbers, time, etc. as exceptions to be studied and explained as unreal; starting from the subjective side yields explanations for numbers and time. Subsequently by starting with subjectivity, objectivity and strict reality perspectives are not exceptions but treatable as limited, special cases. Overall, starting from a subjective point of view seems less problematic by encompassing special cases rather than having to manage exceptions.

Regarding past and future, the subjective foundation of time is the personal, conscious ‘now’. The notions of past and future are artifacts of the way we (intersubjectively) choose to measure time using an indefinitely extended number scale. (See previously cited book.)

Regarding memory (of the past and other events in life), memory is an asymmetric accumulation of experiences and does not involve so-called future experiences.

Regarding the objective time of the physicist, there is pragmatic benefit to expand agreements among societies in a way that adopts a uniform concept of time and its measurement. Such agreements enable physicists and other scientists to treat time as a basic ‘given parameter’ and proceed with useful scientific modeling. But since social agreements are involved, I prefer to treat the development of time as we now know it as BOTH subjective and intersubjective in nature.

Science is free to adopt time as objective, but such an adoption does not usually satisfy philosophers. Perhaps a point where we may be disagreeing (if at all) is associated with a tendency to choose between subjective and objective when considering time. I prefer to accommodate BOTH subjective and objective in a consistent set of models; it turns out my current models accommodate BOTH by starting off with the subjective consistent with the philosophies of Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and others such as McTaggart.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Burbank,

Speaking from the perspective of philosophy myself, I would say that its all fine and good to develop a Kantian philosophy of the subjectivity of time, but it is pretty doubtful that this will convince the physicists or many in the philosophy of science. From the perspective of the present thread of discussion, I would think that there might be greater interest in arguments you might make, from your perspective against the physicists' objective treatment of time. Whether an "objective" conception of time will satisfy the philosophers seems to me to depend on which philosophers you might ask. This is to place the needed emphasis on evaluations and arguments as contrasted with sketching a position.

The argument is often made that large-scale physical development in the universe, since the "big bang" has depended on an initial condition of low entropy. While some may question this as a fundamental explanation of the directionality of time, it seems pretty clear, in comparison, that the early universe was characterized by low entropy. The point is clear, I think, that there is a physical, developmental process involving the directionality of time.

This, along with the physicists' re-conceptualization of space and time, by substitution of space-time, may be taken as grounds for rejecting any a prior or subjective conception of time as adequate for science.

I could not say that you won't find sympathizers, though. To avoid mere comparison of abstract philosophical sketches, it is best to keep as close as possible to the results of physics in making an argument.  You'll recall, that this was, more or less, what Kant did in relation to Newtonian physics. But erecting an a prior superstructure on the basis of established results simply did not work out. 

H.G. Callaway

"Frankly, I could not easily imagine what it would mean to call this process of the growth of knowledge "subjective." ... This statement seems to link your question to another question posed by Prof. Tucci :  " What would serve an "evolutionary effort", if life goes off on time scales much shorter than those of the future existence of inanimate matter? "

" Now, I wish to express some considerations on the fact that evolution was endowed in the last two centuries with a remarkable philosophical meaning, one that it lacked at the beginning. Such a meaning inherits the classical contents associated with the philosophical idea of "becoming" as opposed to being, taken as a philosophical perspective valid for reality as a whole,

From a philosophical point of view, the dialectics between being and becoming has been revived in modern times in terms of a comparison between creation and evolution, leading to new synthesis built either on theistic or materialistic basis.  " 

Also somewhere I read that the word 'revolution' was first conceived to describe heavenly bodies movement ... not at all pertaining to bloody chaos and dissolution that affect any human society's ruling order and regime change.   

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_serve_an_evolutionary_effort_if_life_goes_off_on_time_scales_much_shorter_than_those_of_the_future_existence_of_inanimate_matter

 Dear Collegues,

For a thing to have an arrow, the thing has to exist first.

Time arrow is a metaphore that captures observation that all processes progress in a particular direction rather than the opposite one. Some processes do reverse their progress such as pendulum and most them not.

Time can be in some ways similar to traffic as it only exists in a similar manner.

Does traffic has an arrow? Yes it does. But is that the property of traffic? or rather the organisation of human life making them move in a pattern?

All time reversibility/irreversibility science is a pseudo science.

Judging mechanics as reversible because you can substitute -t for t and have the same differential equation is just so naive. For me it means one thing you can make your clock counting down if you wish and the process you describe with this clock still goes wherever it goes and just the time axis arrow is reversed.

I would actually be surprised if Newton's dynamics equations gave different physical results with the change of the order of clock indications - the clock which has nothing to do with the process but only associated with it by observation.

So the final answer is:

Time arrow is neither objective nor subjective. There is no time arrow.

it belongs to physical poetry.

H.G. Callaway,

You finished your question with:

'' So we want to know if "becoming" in particular is merely "subjective," and whether this follows on the basis of fundamental physics. ''

the adjective ''merely'' prior to the word ''subjective'' seems to indicate that what is merely subjective is not very reliable, not as real as what is objective and what is expressed in fundamental physics.

We should not try to have a battle of reality between the subjective and the objective.  What is objective are certain type of concepts about reality.  What is subjective are not concept but life experiences.  

The time and space of physics are geometrical concepts used in certain models of physics.  This is their reality, a physical conceptual reality which is put to test in technological applications and scientific experiementations.

Our life experience is also pervaded by different time experiences.  SOme call this the subjective time but I think that it is misleading. Humans used languages for communication and for also thinking and they can do it because their experience tightly fit language narrative. Narrative, experiences are intrinsically are story, a capacity to space time traveling that is disentangled form the current NOW happening.  This is primary to our life experience.  The language of mathematics and science much later evolved and abstracted numbers and from these could built conceptual models of geometries and on these physical models could be conceptually build.  It recapture some primitive aspects of the our space time experience which are built-in in our body and not all of it such as the presence in the NOW which is not a narrative experience.  The NOW does not exist in physics but is central to our experience.  Physics is a type of narratives and narratives are told to make us live now as if we where somewhere else and at another time.  So physics is like narrative and cannot be NOW or even imagine NOW because NOW is the topic of any story, any model.  It is also why physics cannot include any agency, any will, any freedom.  None of this can be objectified and physics and science are by definition objective conceptual constructs.  They by definition cannot conceive anything that is not objective and so trying to objectively understand experience/subjectivity is trying to undo what the first step of objectifying is.  

The time of physics, either the time of quantum physics or the time of GR is a dimension in a geometrical space.  It is a concept and so is intrinsically frozen as anything into a conceptual space.   It is a conceptual physical concepts and a all such concept allow to do physics and device mechanisms of all sort.  It exists not as our sense of being present NOW, it exist into a conceptual domain that we objectively constructed. Mr. Bergson tried to explained that to Mr. Einstein  at the Philosophical Society of Paris in 1922.  Einstein did not understood nor most of the scientific community and the confusion of taking the time of physics as for the experience of change continues.  The confusion between Conceptual objective reality and living reality. 

all communications are like time-stamps... miss the mark,  just-in-time, or not even wrong ... time is indisputably flexible as far as its own concerns towards anything that occupies space. 

Louis,

"The NOW does not exist in physics but is central to our experience."

And the experience does not fail us in this case.

This  unfounded statement comes from Eddington:

[…] a difficulty has arisen because we have had to abolish Now. There is no absolute Now, but only the various relative Nows differing according to the reckoning of different observers[…],

[Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World: Gifford Lectures of 1927]

Thanks to H.G Callaway's book we can read this in the entire context.

Unfortunately Eddington's statement is a posture inconsistent with reality caused by not understanding the apparent nature of relative simultaneity.

All you need is one clock in each coordinate system.

1 Using clock A determine time you fire the laser towards Neptune

2. A partner clock B launched  well before that has known velocity that both have measured after B's departure and the schedule of the experiment is known for both..

3. In system A "Now"  is one instance of clock indication A and in B that of clock B

4. The state of a clock becomes "Now" when the observer correlates this state with its state through an observation event.

5. Since the departure and after stabilisation clocks continue to operate at regular rates. 

6 The laser beam reaches Neptune and creates a big flash which happens at time tN predicted by the equation of motion of light in A.

7. When the time on the clock A indicates tN  = "Now", then we can safely say that Neptune has been hit just now. To prove it, we expect the flash from Neptune to come back at Now+tN (assume it is at fixed distance)

8. After A and B separation prior to the experiment, for every instant of clock A tA there is exactly one instant of tB. as correlated by Lorentz transformation.

9. The trajectories of Neptune and the laser pulse have one-to-one correspondence in B as per Lorentz transformation.

10 Knowing those from the experiment schedule B can say that there is a "Now" when Neptune is going to be hit by the beam. The time of that "Now" can be predicted from collision of two trajectories known to B. This will be the same Now as that for B irrespective what the clocks running different rates show because the event is unique.  

10. B can predict confirmation of the returned flash according to equations of motions actual in his reference frame.

A single and absolutely unique event in space appears simultaneously in every inertial system at exactly one instance of their existence and it is called "Now",

It may take some time however to distribute confirmation of such event to all parts of each inertial system, but as shown above in the thought experiment, it can potentially be predicted in which "Now" it happens.

The apparent nonexistence of Now is yet another superficial unfounded claim derived from otherwise internally consistent Special Theory of Relativity.

It was suggested (H. G. Callaway) that I pose an argument against the objective nature of time that might better engage the thinking of physicists. This seems inappropriate from my perspective because the objectivity of time for a society of physicists is not ‘wrong’. However I can formulate the following argument using established analogies relevant to the subject.

Analog 1. In the recorded history of number theory, the first use of numbers was limited to whole numbers. Subsequently there was a generalization in their application to accommodate fractions—ratios of whole numbers. In the face of some problematic geometric applications and with a quest for more generality, number theory was revised to include irrational numbers. Later in the recorded history of mathematics, infinitesimals and the infinity of cardinals were introduced to place even more general notions into the theory. NOTE: today’s number theory does not claim that using whole numbers is wrong. Instead, whole numbers are a special limited case of number theory.

Analog 2. In the recorded history of modern physics, the classical Newtonian treatment of time and mass has been surpassed by the more general treatment of wave functions in relativistic space-time. NOTE: modern physics does not claim that using classical physics is wrong. Instead, classical physics forms a special limited case of modern physics.

The argument I pose by analogy is that neither subjective nor objective time is wrong. Instead we might profitably pursue a more general theory of time that encompasses both. Taking this argument to an interim conclusion, we can open up avenues of further study by (a) taking objective views as general in scope and then consider special subjective cases or (b) taking subjective views as general in scope and consider special objective cases. Of course there are always additional options of study that involve ‘both or neither’ whenever a problem is initially presented as a choice among two.

I do not argue against the objective treatment of time. Attempts at option (a) continue to be faced with exceptions and unresolved issues. So far in my studies it seems less problematic to investigate the above option (b) than it is with option (a).

Dear Callaway and all,

A problem in this thread, which is going utterly unnoticed but is causing a fault line in argumentation, is that philosophy and physics use the word "intersubjective" in a different sense.

To philosophers and lay physicists, as we can read in this and other threads elsewhere, intersubjective is most often understood as some sort of poll. Different subjects see things in different ways and the difference in their views is the intersubjectivity, in this sense. Average that out, and you can get as close to objectivity as you may get in some cases. As Callaway wrote, "Inter-subjective agreement regarding measurements is about the best criterion of the objective that we have to work with."  But in physics, and natural science, there's no relativization view, no voting among scientists to decide what works,  Nature is the decider. As Richard Feynman said, "You can't fool nature." 

The relativization view occurs again in Callaway's  statement regarding "the physicists' re-conceptualization of space and time, by substitution of space-time." However, in physics, no such "re-conceptualization", relativization, or substitution  occurred!  Rather, a profound misconception was corrected, in that time and space can no longer be said to exist on their own -- the physical reality is space-time, intertwined, interchangeable according to specific rules. Time simply does not exist as an isolated coordinate in the Universe. In psychology, time may be entirely subjective; however,  in phylogenetic, biological, geological, physical, and natural science terms, it is not.

In physics, intersubjectivity is in the very fabric of the Universe, but not in the philosophers' sense, such as given by Callaway in his quote above. In physics, measuremental agreement has nothing to do with "intersubjective agreement", or relativization of error,  or anything intersubjective. Averaging different measurements is a process in physics that goes beyond statistics or voting as well, and could lead to nonsense if done otherwise. The justification for measurements in physics do not come from low variance or a 5-sigma distinction, or from "who said it", but from a  sound model that is supported by previous measurements and correctly forecasts new measuments.

Yes, in physics there should be no intersubjectivity in the philosophers' sense, as resulting from differently limited observation powers, of a polling of results, a difference in opinions, or even in the use of terms,  which differences  are not essential (i.e., can be eliminated).

The intersubjectivity sense used in physics is  of another  kind and is essential as, for example, present in a change of reference frame, where an observer may see a magnetic field that cannot be eliminated and yet simply does not exist for another observer (not just that it cannot be measured), and both subjects (observers) are scientifically correct in their respective frames. One cannot average it out, or ask more observers to do a poll; it is not a matter of limited observation or opinion, or bad physics.

Rather, we see intersubjectivity in physics but in a sense intrinsic to Nature and that has nothing to with different opinions. For other examples, see the uncertainty principle and in quantum entanglement, as well as in SR and GR. I can explain more at length, if needed.

Best regards,  Ed Gerck 

Ed Gerck,

In physics there is no intersubjectivity, neither in science becaue these are objective constructs. We subjectively construct them.  Objectivity is a subset of subjectivity, the set of objective constructs.  We cannot find any traces of subjectivity into these objective constructs, i.e. references to any subjective words, by definition of what is the scientific method which exclude de facto any such references.  Trying to re-construct in objective terms in the world of objective constructs subjective aspects of the world is impossible by the definition of what is science.  

Because we communicate and understand each other through subjective language which refer to our senses and body then we interact into inter-subjective world of languages and arts. But when we communicate through science we limit by method our communication to the domain of the objective constructs.  

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gereck,

You seem to me to conflate the "intersubjective" with "intersubjective agreement." Regarding intersubjective agreement in measurement, in particular, this is a requirement of testing and confirmation in the sciences. Its basically not a matter of "averaging things out." If measured results cannot be replicated by other workers in the field, then the reported result falls into doubt.  There are few things more basic in empirical science.

"Re-conceptualization" fits very well the shift from Newtonian "space" and "time" to Einstein on "space-time." (Note, I am talking about the concepts.) We see this most clearly in the falling away of absolute simultaneity. This was an expectation of the Newtonian conception of time (the great cosmic clock, ticking away the same everywhere), which does not hold up in SR. The results confirming SR argue against the more traditional conception of time, and so it was dispensed with. But notice that it was the concepts which were dispensed with, or reconfigure, and not that which the concepts were intended to denote or refer to. 

You say, "In physics, intersubjectivity is in the very fabric of the Universe, but not in the philosophers' sense." But I think that this depends on which philosophers you may ask--and the context of their discussion. Better to relate your philosophers to some specific result in the sciences, if anyone is to take something substantial from your suggestion.

H.G. Callaway

Hello,

To avoid fragmentation and repetition, I edited my original posting above to expand the points touched by Brassard and Callaway. If you are reading this now, please reload the page to make sure you have the last version of the posting above.

Best, Ed Gerck 

“…I pose by analogy is that neither subjective nor objective time is wrong. Instead we might profitably pursue a more general theory of time that encompasses both. ...”

- the time (and the space, Matter, etc. as well, though)  is objective principally and so a “subjective time” can be only something that can be used in some, say, psychological/medical studies. In physics a “subjective time”, i.e. physical definition/understanding what is the time in the reality, can be only in one sense  “subjective” - because of it is a product of the “subjective” consciousness. In all other senses the definition/understanding of the notion/phenomenon “time” must be adequate to the “objective” time.

 “….Time simply does not exist as an isolated coordinate in the Universe….”

- the time is, of course,  an isolated coordinate in the Universe. Moreover, in Matter two “times” act – “true time” and “coordinate time”. With “isolated” 3D space they constitute Matter’s “absolute” (i.e. that is independent on its content) [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, where  Matter is placed.

 “…We see this most clearly in the falling away of absolute simultaneity. This was an expectation of the Newtonian conception of time (the great cosmic clock, ticking away the same everywhere), …”

- in the reality that isn’t totally so. All material objects are always simultaneously in one “true time” moment, though “corresponding cosmic clock, ticking away the same everywhere” "ticks" in 5-th (true time) coordinate of Matter’s empty container. At that material objects – particles, bodies, systems of particles/bodies always and uninterruptedly move in the 4D Euclidian sub-container with the different 4D speeds that have identical by the absolute value (=c) speeds. The particles/bodies that have “rest masses” move simultaneously in 3D space and 1D [coordinate] time. So, as that Pythagoras prescribed, if a particle moves in space with  a 3D spatial speed V, then it has the lesser temporal speed if  larger its spatial speed is.

Since now any material body consists  (mostly) of particles that had different speeds in their histories from Beginning, the bodies, including, say, observers’ bodies are composed of atoms which, in turn, consist of particles that are in quite different coordinate time (which is the “time what clocks show”) points i.e. are quite “non-simultaneous”. Including, for example, now one can see photons that were created practically near ten billions years ago, at  that, since photons don’t move in  the coordinate time, the “non-simultaneity” is near ten billions years; but, because of all in Matter, including photons, are simultaneously in  one “true time”  moment observations of such photons are possible.

 “…[Newtonian conception of time (the great cosmic clock, ticking away the same everywhere)] which does not hold up in SR….”

- yeah, that’s so. But that doesn’t mean that the conception of space/time/spacetime in SR is adequate to the reality; moreover, the SR, when touches just these fundamental problems, is simply and rather evidently (see, for example the Dingle problem in the SR) wrong, for example claiming that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime; claiming that real Matter’s spacetime is Minkowski (pseudo Riemannian in GR) space with imaginary (!?) either temporal or spatial coordinates, etc…

More – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers.

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Ed Gerck,

''intersubjective is most often understood as some sort of poll. Different subjects see things in different ways and the difference in their views is the intersubjectivity, in this sense. Average that out, and you can get as close to objectivity as you may get in some cases.''

Wikipedia provides a good introduction to this concept of : intersubjectivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

The word ''subjective'' refers to the perception of a ''subject'' and it is contrasted to what is really there , the ''object'' and its scientific description, ''the objective''.  This is pure Cartesian philosophy.   The sharp separation of a subject from its world, the sharp separation of the subjective from the objective.  This concept of intersubjectivity has been introduced by those trying to remove this sharp separation and that tries to explain the objective from a subset of the subjective, the part that are unambiguously  the same for all subjects.  Science is possible because human created an objective language: mathematics. Without number and mathematical models, there is no science.  A scientific model is a conceptual mathematical mechanism to which we ascribed a part of nature through measurements.  Ascribing to as aspect of Nature such conceptual mathematical mechanism is what objectivisation is.  By definition it has nothing subjective into this language.  

The entropy is growing in closed systems and I cannot see any such system, at least not the world in that we live as humans. OK, we accumulate organic errors, we get older and we die. This can be seen metaphorically as a growth of entropy.  It is also possible that we live in a determinist world and so, if we consider ourselves as 4-dimensional graphs (BUT ONLY THEN!), we are less free as we believe. But I think that there is time and becoming, and that time is a really a different kind of dimension as the spatial dimensions. Even in the relativist vision, which is guilty for this 4-dimensional mess, length contraction is seen as reversible (when you stop, you get your old length) while time dilation not (when you stop, you remain younger than your twin brother, who did not move). I don't discuss here if this is really true or false, but I just wanted to emphasize that even for the most convinced supporters of mixing up time with spatial dimensions, time remains something very different. Also, the special form of the Lorentz transformation for time differs a lot from the expressions assigned to the spatial components. Even more fundamental: v = d/t, so speed is linear in the space variable but hyperbolic in the time variable. This simple fact is very often overseen in philosophy.

Mihai,

We can move to different space location.  There is no privilege position and we can return to any location that we visited before.  We can never go back to a previous time and we are always moving to another time and never staying any span of time at a given time.  So we keep sliding and different person slide in time differently depending on their speeds.  Yes this time dimension is very strange. On my part, I have the impression that there is no time dimension but simply a single NOW with change in it and some of these changes are permanent and so the past is reflected in the permanent structure of the NOW.  There is no time dimension but only change. And clocks are based on the existence of certain quantity that change into a cycle. The time dimension is a construction that do not exist in reality but as a usefull method for doing physics for expressing changes.  In reality there is only change NOW and it is not strange with this picture that we cannot return to a previous time because we cannot uncount a cycle and that many change are not cyclic and cumulate transformations and we cannot unmemorize, memory is cumulative.

Louis: You say that "There is no privilege position and we can return to any location that we visited before." Given that every object is moving through an expanding spacetime we do not ever really "return to any location" any more than we return to a prior time. Moreover, the so-called knife-edge of "now" is problematic because any given moment is integrally composed of a "specious past, present and future". Finally, consider the view of spacetime substantivalism which views objects and spacetime as a "super fluid". Would this give us a more accurate concept of spacetime and the passage of time?

Ramon,

 As you said, there is no location in the universe that has any special status as a privilege reference frame and so notion of an absolute space does not mean anything and so it is not true what you said that:  ''

''Given that every object is moving through an expanding spacetime we do not ever really "return to any location" any more than we return to a prior time.''

The very notion of moving throughh an expanding spacetime is not true.  Yes space is expanding but it is not true that every point is moving.   Every point is moving relative to far away galaxie or relative to other point but all that are relative movement and not absolute movement.  So if I plant a coordinate 

 By arbitrarily defining one position as an origin and setting 3D coordinate frame at this point, we can displace ourself with respect with this coordinate frame and return to any position relative to it. It does not matter that other points are moving relative to that frame; it does not matter that spacetime is expanding. 

''spacetime substantivalism which views objects and spacetime as a "super fluid". Would this give us a more accurate concept of spacetime and the passage of time?''

In physics, space and time or spacetime are at the mathematical foundation of the theories: the geometrical framework of the theory.  Every other aspect of the theory are expressed within the geometrical framework.  Two attitudes can be adopted regarding this mathematical geometrical framework:

- a Kantian instrumentalist  attitude: it is a usefull mathematical abstraction that is projected onto the reality and is chosen in such a way that regularities in reality appear in simpler mathematical form in this specific geometry.  If it is not arbitrary then it means that it capture some aspect of reality so it is a fiction that has some resemblance.

- a realist attitude: this geometry, i.e. spacetime as defined in this geometry IS integral to reality. 

I favor the Kantian instrumentalist attitude and do not believe that spacetime IS real but that it captures some specific aspect of reality but remain totally a mathematical reality and not THE REALITY.  

''Moreover, the so-called knife-edge of "now" is problematic because any given moment is integrally composed of a "specious past, present and future".

If you start to represent reality of change within space time then all time are defacto by the mathematical representation of time as a coordinate are equivalent and there is no privilege NOW.   This is an abstraction that has eliminate the NOW.  You cannot find it in this representation because very process of representing data and equation in space time eliminate the NOW.  You will find it nowhere in this mathematical world although it is all that exist in reality.  SImply trace your path and you will realize that when you plot the position of a body in space in time that the plot is done after the whole trajectory has been completed.  The plot is a trace in the now of what happen before and there is no change anymore. It is a trace like the trace of a sound wave in the groove of a vynil record.  You can play the song by recreating the pressure wave from the fixed groove and then you recreate a similar NOW.  This memory capacity allow us to virtually time travel but it is only a virtual time travel and the physical notion of time is a virtual time travel not a real one.  There is a very long story how we manage to create this fiction of time and gradually forgot that it is a fiction.  Those adopting a so-called mathematical realistic position in fact believe in the reality of the fiction they created.  It is a usefull fiction but this fiction hide the reality of change in the NOW.  It is why Einstein and many physicist since think that nothing change and change is a fiction of an observer.  I think that change is real and time is a frozening of past changes of the past in the NOW and believing that reality is like this frozen past.  But reality is NOW and most of it is not even order or knowable by science and so what is frozen and knowable is not the whole but only a tiny fraction of what is going on.  But since science is focus to know the frozen than it can arbitrarily proclaim the whole reality to be fronzen because in fact it is the only reality it will know.

I had a musician friend and who began studies in mathematics.  We were often meeting in bar and discussing music and mathematic and science.  I will never forget what he told me after his first year in mathematics:  ''It is strange, there is no time in the mathematical world''.  Since the language of physics is mathematics , we should not be surprised of not finding change in physics but only a spatialized frozen time in the form of a variable ''t''.

To the notion “reality”, and, of course, so to the “reality of becoming”:

In the last E-mail distribution of scientific news of the journal New Scientist it is claimed that “Everything is made of information...”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030730-200-demon-no-more-physics-most-elusive-entity-gives-up-its-secret/

and even a special issue of the journal appeared

https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/reality/?cmpid=EMP|NSNS|2016-1505-GLOBAL-maywk3|Reality&utm_medium=EMP&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=MayWk3&utm_content=Reality&cmpid

- where the claim above is “proven”, though without any references on the “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute  

http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf  DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34958

, where the fact that “Everything is made of information...” and a number of other things, including – what is this “Everything”, was indeed rigorously proven/ explained  yet  in 2007;

when the paper in the link above was rejected by near a ten of mainstream-philosophical journals…

Cheers

Article the Information as Absolute

Mainz, Germany

Dear Shevchenko,

Thanks for your contribution here. Its an interesting thesis, but I am not sure that it is really very specific to the question under discussion in this thread. Presumably, if all is information, and information is "absolute" then this implies that nothing is quite subjective? If that is the answer you are suggesting, then it seems a bit too short.

I notice that you employ a set-theoretic conception of information. That's an additional complication. On general grounds, I think that any theory can be reformulated as a set-theoretic model, and doing this can be useful in exploring the logical implications of the theory of interest. But if this suggests the idea that everything we talk about is really some set or set-theoretic object, then this seems a misuse of the method.

It would seem to "prove" too much --more than we are willing to reasonably accept. What is perhaps of greater interest for the present thread is the question of the physical significance of information, and the question of whether there can be information loss in physical systems--as in the dispersal of radiation. That is also a quite daunting question, I think, and one much discussed. But is is often involved in the motivation of informational approaches to problems in physical theory, and is, I believe, more directly relevant to the present thread.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway

“…Presumably, if all is information, and information is "absolute" then this implies that nothing is quite subjective?…”

- that is not, in certain sense, so. “In certain sense” here means that in depth – because of that all what exists is/are some informational patterns/systems and because of any information cannot be annihilated and so always – or “in absolutely long time” – exists, all/ everything is fundamentally objectively real; and so the notion “subjective” relates only to the particular case of relations “some consciousness/ the external ”. The word “subjective” appears only in cases when a subject appears.

Though these cases indeed are important for humans, since relate to the relations above, when from the relevance of to what extent an information perceived subjectively by a human is adequate to its real objective content follows – how safe/convenient/useful, etc. this information will be used by this human.

“…It would seem to "prove" too much --more than we are willing to reasonably accept.”

- the principle that “everything is information” is indeed rigorously proven, i.e. for this principle all necessary points are proven – the existence, the truth, the self-consistence, the completeness (though it is impossible to prove the uniqueness) – and that is possible just because of the absolute fundamentality of this principle. For the proof in this case it is sufficient to have a few (even only one) experiments where an information as some data is observed, further all is rather simple and evident; though sometimes it is desirable additionally to be capable to think non-standardly.

In this point the “The Information as Absolute” conception principally differs from any other conception, theory, etc. in mainstream philosophy and other mainstream sciences, where all conceptions, theories, etc. (besides, in certain sense and in some cases mathematics that is mostly abstract science) necessarily are based on postulates, axioms, “Nature laws”, etc. that are introduced in the conceptions, theories, etc. without proofs – by definition and, again, quite necessarily because in such [non-absolutely fundamental] cases the proofs are impossible.

Cheers

Mainz, Germany

Dear Shevchenko,

If you will forgive my initial skepticism, the position you sketch strikes me as Platonic and deterministic metaphysics dressed up in mathematical clothes.

In any case, then, how do you answer the question? Is the arrow of time subjective or not? You seem to equivocate. Or am I just not reading your reply adequately?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

“…In any case, then, how do you answer the question? Is the arrow of time subjective or not? You seem to equivocate..”

-?

I thought that I wrote clear enough relating to the thread’s question in this and possibly more concretely on 7-th page:

- to talk about the time is necessary before to define/understand this notion – and detailed explanations “what is the time at all and what is the time in Matter” see the attached papers in the SS posts on 7 and 8 pages;

- from the explanations follow, including,  that, because of one of features of the notion/phenomenon “Time” is that the rule “Time” establishes that between two sequential states of a changing object always must be some non-zero “time interval” and because of all/every material objects uninterruptedly change their internal states and/or spatial position, i.e. Matter uninterruptedly evolves,

-  the Matter’s evolution indeed always and objectively is accompanied by some always increasing time interval. [the picture is more complex since in Matter two times act, but in a rough approximation that’s enough]

But this interval by any means isn’t something substantive and active, the time doesn’t, of course, “substantively flow to somewhere” and doesn’t carry something to somewhere.

As well as so there is no in the reality substantive “time arrows” – Matter simply always evolve in more probable direction. And Sir Eddington’s  “entropy case” changes in that   nothing, the entropy here doesn’t principally differ from any deterministic process – simply in the last case the probability of next states is equal to the unity.

Besides – “Platonic and deterministic metaphysics”, etc., have rather small relations to the informational conception – that are some purely phenomenological constructions/doctrines (as all the rest mainstream philosophy, though) that contain some reasonable suggestions, but no more. So they relate to the conception as, e.g., the phlogiston theory to the recent kinetic theory of the heat…

Cheers

Dear Callaway and all,

I am rejoining the conversation with a reconnection to the Leibniz-Einstein world view, which may be timely.

Although we find becoming and change everywhere, it is only from our perspective that things appear to change or become, said Leibniz,

"We have said that the notion of an individual substance includes once and for all everything that can ever happen to it and that, by considering this notion, one can see there everything that can truly be said of it, just as we can see in the nature of a circle all the properties that can be deduced from it." [1]

Leibniz is claiming that everything that exists, already includes all of the qualities and properties that can ever occur to it. Note that other interpreters use will instead of can, which I reject as being prima facie deterministic and, therefore,  against Leibniz body of work.

In other words, the moment a bacteria (a substance, in Leibniz words) is created it contains all of the predicates it can ever have, past, present, and future, at the very moment of its creation. Even if later on the bacteria is hit by a random cosmic ray and mutates, that mutation is within all of the predicates it can ever have, past, present, and future.

Like Leibniz, Einstein views time and space not as autonomous or independent entities but as relations of order, i.e. succession and simultaneity, among phenomena and qualities. Both also view mass not simply as extension but as extension and energy (called force in Leibniz time). Einstein sided with Leibniz in other fundamental scientific ideas as well [2].

Back to the "arrow of time" question posed by Callaway, it seems clear that if we agree with the Leibniz-Einstein world view, in contrast to Newton's, we must also agree, when considering different space-time perspectives with a lead or lag time caused by relative motion or gravity, that one space-time perspective is no more "becoming"  or "change" than another space-time perspective. Therefore, although we find becoming and change everywhere, it is only from our perspective that things appear to change or become. 

The perspective is qualitatively different, however, when we contrast this result for philosophy and science. These disciplines of enquiry seem to offer two very different ontologies (theories about what is out there) and epistemologies (ways to figure out what is out there). 

According to scientific epistemology, things (e.g., weight, force, color, sound, mind, consciousness, alternate realities, visions of the future, deja vu, reincarnation, sudden cures, heaven, sdruffs) do not exist just because they are reported (or even experienced) by a single person -- i.e., scientific ontology is objective, at least as a goal. Philosophical epistemology is subjective from the start, in that things exist ontologically when purportedly experienced or reported by a single person. Each one, philosophy and science, can also use any number of different methodologies.

Centuries of work have not reduced these ‘conflicts’.  This motivates the conjecture that such a solution is not possible, as different subjective views cannot be directly harmonized among themselves, nor  an objective view can be directly harmonized with different individual views.

Elsewhere (my RG home page, the mind question) I have raised this 'impossibility' conjecture in order to motivate a new approach, to provide a solution by pursuing an abstract unifying theory (UT) capable of producing objective and subjective as well as intersubjective views as instances from a same abstract object.

With the UT approach, time's arrow is subjective from Callaway's philosopher epistemology viewpoint but certainly not from Eddington's epistemology, a physicist who needs to follow nature as a universal reality, the nature that we see in the objective stance.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

[1] Leibniz, §13 of the Discourse on Metaphysics.  

[2] Einstein's Foreword, Max Jammer Concepts of Space, Harvard University Press, 1954  

Mainz, Germany

Dear Gerck,

Thanks for your further thoughts and amendments. I would say, basically, that you have some peculiar or very distinctive ideas about philosophy. I have no doubt that you might well find some philosophers who agree with you, but I'm not one of them.

I am thinking of what you say here, in particular:

With the UT approach, time's arrow is subjective from Callaway's philosopher epistemology viewpoint but certainly not from Eddington's epistemology, a physicist who needs to follow nature as a universal reality, the nature that we see in the objective stance.

---End quotation

Generally, there is a certain affinity between Einstein and Leibniz' "relational" view of space and time. Among other people in theoretical physics, Carlo Rovelli has emphasized this affinity--in contrast to a more "substantial" or "container" conception of space and time.

However, I would definitely say that the related views of Leibniz, on which you call, belong to a more metaphysical approach, not unrelated to the the concept of divine omniscience, and a "God's eye view" of the world. According to Leibniz' metaphysics, in his Theodicy (1716) and in the Monadology, in particular, as I recall, even interaction of one thing with another is a "well founded" illusion of sorts, and the succession of states in anything (any "substance") is determined by a kind of internal "program" to unwind just as it might, with apparent correlations of one thing with another depending on a "pre-established harmony." Given divine omniscience, and benevolence, he could select among all possible worlds that which is best and arrange for the appearance of interaction (including mind-body interaction), by means of the "pre-established harmony" between one soul and another. In Leibniz, the basic metaphysical units, "the monads" as one says, "have no windows."

To get back to physics, and the sciences, there is a certain strong plausibility of more relational views of space and time (or space-time) given Einstein and GR --and possible developments therefrom. Thinking of space-time as a field, though, and subjecting it to quantumization, the expectation is that it has certain properties related to quantum indeterminacy, and responsible for the spontaneous creation of pairs of particles and anti-particles and their subsequent mutual annihilation. The idea here is that space-time is not completely continuous, as in GR, but is instead subject to quantum fluctuations at very small scales. It is even sometimes thought that this kind of phenomenon is involved in or explains "dark energy" and the apparent expansion or contemporary accelerated expansion of the universe--though no one has got the numbers to work out, as I understand the matter. Theories of quantum gravity are all somewhat speculative, but this is one way that people seek to go beyond GR or integrate GR and Quantum field theory.

As I think I've indicated in earlier contributions to this thread, I tend to regard the notion that time's arrow is subjective as implausible. This would seem to require that we regard all the results of the special sciences, say the biological theory of evolution, which testify to uni-directional developments as also subjective. More basically, if we hold, with Eddington, say, that violation of temporally symmetric laws are impossible, though violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is merely (extremely) unlikely, then we still have to ask why such instances are extremely unlikely. If all physical laws are temporally symmetric and the phenomena fully reversible,  then we need to ask why it is that we do not see, e.g., older people becoming younger by the day and eventually disappearing by being "unborn;" and why we do not see trees, e.g., shrinking down into the ground and becoming seeds once again.  The point is that however these things are to be explained and understood,  we do observe many uni-directional developments. The mere prevalence of temporally reversible laws in physics does not convince me that these uni-directional developments are "subjective" in any significant sense. 

H.G. Callaway

I don’t know the ultimate answer, I think this is an eternal problem, the arrow of time only make sense in cosmology, whereas, if entropy is considered as the arrow of time, there will be no simultaneity of events for different  parts of universe, because the different rates of the entropy productions, and then, “before” and “after” become meaningless, I think  J.A. Wheeler’s ideas are very interesting:

“Time is no time”

Tang,

“Time is no time”

- that is rather senseless, though “artisticall” a little, “definition” of the “Time” notion; there are a lot of similar “ideas”, for example -  Roveli’s “End of time”.

When the time is one of utmost fundamental Rules/possibilities that govern implicitly everything in our Universe and outside; besides this notion is Meta-physical and Meta-mainstream philosophical, so cannot be properly defined in framework of these theories – that is possible in the “The Information as Absolute” conception only – see corresponding link in the first SS post on 8-th page.

Outside the conception seems utmost relevant “definition” of Time was made by a writer Rag Cummings  : “…time is what prevents everything from happening at once..”

Cheers

Mainz, Germany

Dear Shevchenko,

I like Einstein's answer: "Time is what clocks measure."

I think that's really pretty good, all complications considered.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway and all,

Thank you for your comments. I wish more philosophers would join the scientific discussions, bringing an autonomous view to the mix and help stir up things.

By citing Leibniz I did not mean to enter the metaphysics realm. I just meant to show that Leibniz can be understood and be useful solely in terms of physics, although some untraining is required. Einstein's statement that Leibniz opposition to Newton's view of space was “actually justified" was  justified in terms of physics alone.

There is no arrow of time in post-Einstein physics, and adding it would break many things, including space-time Lorentz transformations, eletrodynamics, and the First Law of thermodynamics -- conservation of energy. Entropy dynamics and the Second Law of thermodynamics do not necessarily imply an arrow of time, as you know.

However, there are several studies in social psychology  (e.g., Ellen Langer of Harvard) in scientific confirmation that time can be subjective, not just perceived to be subjective, including age reversal.

Time seems to be multifaceted and possible to experience in different ways according to the setting. Perhaps there is an additional, yet unknown dimension involved, which would then mathematically allow the observation of broken paths in 4D reality while the path is continuous in the higher dimension space (this is a result from topology). We have no  physics theory for this, yet. But I think it is a matter of time...

Cheers, Ed Gerck 

Mainz, Germany

Dear Gereck,

You wrote:

There is no arrow of time in post-Einstein physics, and adding it would break many things, including space-time Lorentz transformations, electrodynamics, and the First Law of thermodynamics -- conservation of energy. Entropy dynamics and the Second Law of thermodynamics do not necessarily imply an arrow of time, as you know.

---End quotation

Generally, I would say that this begs many a question, though I am sure there will be some who agree with you--captured in the 4-dimensional block universe. I think you may owe us a few arguments and some due attention to alternative positions.

It is one hing to say that there is no absolute, universal simultaneity, post Einstein, it is quite another thing to say that there is no arrow of time. If there is no absolute or universal simultaneity, then this implies some fragmentation of time. Given that point, there is no objection to an arrow of time based on the Lorentz transformations and special relativity. So, it my impression, you seem to be conflating various conceptions of time in making your claims above. 

The idea, or proposal, that the arrow of time would somehow be inconsistent with the first law of thermodynamics is at best a conflation of the assertion of an arrow of time with various possible developments of the idea. You need much stronger assumptions to make any sort of cogent argument.

Contrary to your suggestion, entropy and the 2nd law are the chief and standard grounds given in favor of an arrow of time. (There are many other arrows of time, as well.) Overall, your brief note seems little more than a matter of taking a contrary position to views expressed above, while lacking for any detailed arguments.

Perhaps you'd like to say more to support your claims?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway and all,

I am happy to provide the support to the claims I cited. For economy of time, I am also happy you chose which claims need clarification. I can expand on any item that may seem too terse.

You wrote, (in quotes):

"It is one hing to say that there is no absolute, universal simultaneity, post Einstein, it is quite another thing to say that there is no arrow of time."

In the same way that there is no absolute space and no "arrow of space",  time is not different.

"If there is no absolute or universal simultaneity, then this implies some fragmentation of time."

There is no fragmentation in space, time is not different. 

"Given that point, there is no objection to an arrow of time based on the Lorentz transformations and special relativity. So, it my impression, you seem to be conflating various conceptions of time in making your claims above."

The point is not given (see above). The objection is that Lorentz transformations must work in both directions of time, e,g. as needed to be consistent with conservation laws -- see my next answer.

"The idea, or proposal, that the arrow of time would somehow be inconsistent with the first law of thermodynamics is at best a conflation of the assertion of an arrow of time with various possible developments of the idea. You need much stronger assumptions to make any sort of cogent argument."

The argument and mathematical proofs were provided by Noether. Symmetries are related with conserved quantities (see also Mechanics by Landau and Lifshitz). Conservation of energy is related with time translational invariance (no arrow of time). Conservation of momentum is related to space translational invariance, conservation of angular momentum is related to space rotational invariance. Negating the symmetry negates the corresponding conserved quantity. 

"Contrary to your suggestion, entropy and the 2nd law are the chief and standard grounds given in favor of an arrow of time."

Not preemptively. They may go one way in our universe in the same manner that our universe got to be made out of matter and not antimatter although the early universe had both (the antimatter problem), and protein amino acids got to be left-handed while sugars got to be right-handed (the chirality problem), by chance or some mechanism post or even pre Big Bang.  Other universes may have different orientations in these cases.. While a coin may fall with heads on  top, it may also fall with heads at the bottom. Also, as we go to higher and higher energies in particle collisions, we are tapping into realms of reality -- our fundamentals --where entropy and the 2nd law may not even make sense.

Cheers,  Ed Gerck 

Mainz, Germany

Dear Gereck,

As it happens, I still see at best a sketch of arguments that would be needed to reach your proposed conclusion.

You write:

In the same way that there is no absolute space and no "arrow of space", time is not different.

---End quotation

This strikes me as no argument, but instead an more complicated way of stating the conclusion you apparently want to support. (That is what is called "begging the question.") That there is no "absolute space" and no "arrow of space," no one will doubt on grounds of SR. "Time is not different," you say.

But you don't give a reason. Prima facie, time is different than space--precisely in having an intrinsic directionality. That there is no "absolute time" ticking away the same everywhere, with an intrinsic directionality, is not the same as saying that there is no directional character of time. You seem to conflate two distinct points.

Let me stop there, and see how you reply. Or perhaps someone else will help us along with your note? 

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway and all,

Spacetime is not 3D + T, spacetime is 4D. That seems to be the conceptual gap that needs to be crossed in order to follow what I  wrote.  In other words, rather than the three autonomous dimensions of space and a totally separate, autonomous time dimension of Descartes, space and time are merged inextricably into four-dimensional spacetime. They are no longer two autonomous sets, where one can make T follow some direction and orientation (an arrow of time) as one pleases and also make 3D do whatever one pleases.

Their 4D relationship is not overly-variable for a simple reason. The objective, invariable and absolute speed of light c must be accommodated in any 4D trajectory, requiring both space and time to be flexible and relative to accommodate this. Time cannot impose an arrow of time in the same way that space cannot impose an arrow of space. Lord c -- invariable and universally absolute -- will not allow it.

And this is not just about SR and GR. Quantum field theory (QFT) is symmetric with respect to the reversal of time (inversion of charges and parity must also accompany the reversal of time). Our most successful theory has no arrow of time.

Cheers, Ed Gerck 

Mainz, Germany

Dear Gereck,

Perhaps you are getting somewhat closer to an argument. But I still see gaps. You wrote:

Spacetime is not 3D + T, spacetime is 4D. That seems to be the conceptual gap that needs to be crossed in order to follow what I wrote. In other words, rather than the three autonomous dimensions of space and a totally separate, autonomous time dimension of Descartes, space and time are merged inextricably into four-dimensional spacetime.

---pause

So, far, I basically see nothing to dispute in what you say, or little in any case. Given differing frames of reference lengths and duration, will be measured differently. Measurements of length are made using some sort of yard-stick or standard of length, and measurements of time are made using some sort of clock. That, of course, is already an indication of a persisting difference between space and time; and though measurements of spatial and temporal relations may differ, in relation to differing frames of reference, still, as it seems to me, the time measured in any given case, will still have its directionality, from the past, through the present and toward the future. This is often presented in terms of the familiar device of "light cones."

In consequence, when you immediately go on to say the following:

They are no longer two autonomous sets, where one can make T follow some direction and orientation (an arrow of time) as one pleases and also make 3D do whatever one pleases.

---End quotation

I am once again left wondering how you get to this conclusion. Moreover, the idea that understanding the arrow of time should depend upon the supposition of being able to "make T follow some arbitrary direction and orientation" strikes me as a simple mistake--as a description or characterization of anyone's conception of the arrow of time. Where is this idea coming from?

Let me stop here, once again, and see how you may want to change or supplement your argument. Your argument so far seems weak and very doubtful. I notice that you go on to some further arguments, but doing one at a time seems to be the pressing need here. 

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear Umachandran,

Your comment seems basically sympathetic, I think. You apparently have some impression of what is going on in the current exchanges? 

On the other hand, it strikes me that you are off topic. Would you like to say something about Eddington and the idea that the arrow of time is subjective?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

“Time is what clocks measure”

 – this “definition” of the notion “Time” at all and of the time notion in the system “Matter” particularly has very small relation to the reality.

A next time – the Rule/possibility “Time” is an element of the set of utmost fundamental Rules/possibilities [let - “Logos”] that are necessary to create something understandable,  i.e. – some information; including – material objects that are some informational patterns in the informational system [something like a huge set of automata that are united in a computer “Matter” by the gravity] “Matter”;

which as the Rule establishes only that between different states of a changing object must be non-zero “time interval”. As the possibility, including in Matter, Time “makes be possible” any changes of material objects and systems of objects. At that there can be two main types of the changes – the changes of internal states of the objects and (for systems) – the changes of spatial positions of the objects.

With another utmost fundamental Rule/possibility “Space”  the possibility “Time” are realized in Matter as [5]4D absolute Euclidian “empty container” – or [5]4D absolute Euclidian “spacetime”, where the system "Matter" is placed and changes/evolves.

Thus neither “time” nor “space” can be measured – the emptiness hasn’t a measure. Again - all what is defined in this case is that between two sequential states of a changing  object and/or between two sequential positions of a moving  object must be non-zero temporal/spatial intervals.

But if there are more then one changing object it appears a possibility to compare relative intervals; and, since Matter contains a huge number of objects, at that, besides, all changes in Matter’s lowest fundamental level – of internal states of material objects and of fundamental spatial steps – are highly  standardized, for observers it appears the possibility to compare – again principally relative – temporal and spatial intervals in material systems.

Returning to the “time arrow” problem – again, every change of something in Matter is always only accompanied by some temporal interval – at that for objects that have rest masses there are two accompanied intervals: in “true time” dimension and in “coordinate time” dimension; since photons doesn’t move in the coordinate time dimension, their spatial motion is accompanied by true time intervals only.

Clocks usually are made from particles having rest masses, and so they measure coordinate time intervals only; though if a clock’s absolute speed is measured, then this clock can be calibrated to measure the true time intervals. At that the measurement of absolute speed of material objects is possible – see http://viXra.org/abs/1311.0190  2013 , DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34960

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

Because of every material objects and Matter as a whole are uninterruptedly changing their states, corresponding true time and coordinate time intervals uninterruptedly increase – if this process somebody calls “the time arrow”, then this arrow indeed objectively exists.

But, again – this arrow by no means is something substantive and/or active.

Time, including in the commonplace sense, when somebody conflates notions “time” and “time interval”, when changing by no means carry something to somewhere, etc…

More – see the links above and in other SS posts here.

Cheers

Article Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

Mainz, Germany

Dear Shevchenko,

Thank you for your interesting comments. I do not see the idea that "time is what clocks measure" as anywhere near as problematic as you suggest. Its not, perhaps a definition, I suppose. But I think it worth hanging on to, lacking consensus concerning other characterizations and as a matter of common sense. As you remark, there are still time-like intervals in physics post-Einstein. The notion that the arrow of time is somehow, itself, driving things on is alien to my conception of it. But time does contrast with spatial dimensions in having directionality. I have no doubt that time can be measured. It is not at all clear to me that either space or time (or curving spacetime) can be correctly considered to be a mere "emptiness."  In consequence, I am not much inclined to think that the arrow of time is somehow an illusion.

You wrote:

Because of every material objects and Matter as a whole are uninterruptedly changing their states, corresponding true time and coordinate time intervals uninterruptedly increase – if this process somebody calls “the time arrow”, then this arrow indeed objectively exists.

---End quotation

I think it also worth remarking that the directionality of time is closely related to the directionality of causality. Diagrams of light cones are standardly used to illustrate which cone of events could effect the present and which cone of events could be causally influenced by present events. The matter of causal influence, and the related skepticism about "action at a distance" remains orthodox in contemporary physics,  even where it is insisted that backward calculations and determinations are possible. I see little inclination in physics to regard causality as an illusion, though causality carries a temporal asymmetry. 

Much more could be said, I am sure; and there are many working proposals for going beyond presently accepted physics which are not unrelated to our question. However, I think it beyond the scope of the present thread to try to evaluate all such proposals. At best we may make some progress in understanding them. My impression is that the work you are emphasizing in your recent postings concerns a proposal for new physics. Right? 

H.G. Callaway 

Dear Callaway,

“…Its not, perhaps a definition… But I think it worth hanging on to, lacking consensus concerning other characterizations and as a matter of common sense…”

- “Time is what clocks measure” isn’t a definition of the notion “Time” since it relates to only two “second level” properties of the utmost fundamental Rule/possibility “Time”: clocks measure (i) – time intervals, and (ii) - since every material object and Matter as a whole uninterruptedly change, the coordinates of clocks on 4-th [“coordinate time”] axis of the absolute [5]4D Matter’s spacetime;

but, at that, since there cannot be principally any inherent to the time unity , including an inherent unity of “time interval”,  clocks measure only relative time intervals when more then one objects change their states, and, correspondingly, measure some relative positions of objects on 4-th axis. Correspondingly if there are, say, two moving relatively clocks, then reciprocally measured intervals and positions are “symmetrically different” – when in the absolute spacetime, i.e. in the reality, this difference is unique.

The relations between the intervals and the positions sometimes can be correctly depicted by using Lorentz transformations, but sometimes the result of the transformations application isn’t correct – again, the correct intervals and positions can be measured only if every observer knows her/his (and so clock’s) absolute speed.

“…lacking consensus concerning other characterizations…” – in the science the term “consensus” should not be applied principally. Notions, definitions, etc. in any science, including philosophy and physics, should be objectively adequate to the humans’ external, in physics – first of all to Matter and processes in Matter. And, since the notions/phenomena “Time”, “Space”, “Matter” [and “Consciousness”]  are Meta-mainstream-philosophical and Meta-mainstream- physical notions, corresponding definitions can be obtained only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception – and they are obtained on a fairly acceptable level – see the links in the SS post earlier.

“…I think it also worth remarking that the directionality of time is closely related to the directionality of causality….”

-  the “directionality of time” has  at least a couple of senses.

 (i) – that is direction of the 4-th and 5-th axes in Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime; this direction – as, e.g. directions of X,Y,Z axes is formally a matter of convention. Though, because of Matter contains practically “matter” only (the antimatter content is negligible), and at that, very large part of material particles/atoms…/ galaxies have the rest masses, and so always move (though with different speeds) in one temporal direction, this direction is choused in sciences as the positive temporal direction; besides – analogously this direction is prescribed to the 5-th, i.e. “true time” axis. But at that photons don’t move along 4-th axis at all, antiparticles move in negative 4-th, i.e. “coordinate time” direction.

 (ii) – that is “direction” of the time intervals that are elapsed when uninterruptedly changing Matter evolves from given state to more probable state, including deterministically.

But, again, the time itself – as the possibility -  has no directions. For Time as the Rule it is possible, in certain sense, to introduce the notion “direction”, as some realization of the phenomenon “causality” – an effect logically is after the cause – or “later”. But seems as rather reasonable here to define the causality as other utmost fundamental Rule from the “Logos” set, when,  of course, at “forming [a concrete] information” all Rules/possibilities of this set don’t act as some isolated items, always there is some “intersection of functions”.

 “…My impression is that the work you are emphasizing in your recent postings concerns a proposal for new physics. Right? ”  

- the “The Information as Absolute” conception means first of all the new philosophy. The informational model in physics is only some application, where, after proper definition of Meta-physical, but widely used in physics, notions  “Space” ,“Time” “spacetime”, “Matter”,

it becomes be possible to correct corresponding flaws in physics, first of all – wrong introduction in the relativity theories of main “relativistic effects” , i.e. – real, according to the SR and the GR spacetime transformations dependently on evidently subjective “reference frames”. Besides application of the conception makes more clear a number of basic physical notions, laws, etc. – see links in SS posts on 7-th, 8-th, and 9-th pages.

Cheers

Mainz, Germany

Dear Shevchenko,

Thanks for your further comments. Your objective seems quite ambitious. 

Let's see if others will pick up on them.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

“…Let's see if others will pick up on them….”

- yes, there can and will be some problems, but these problems will be mostly subjective.  The “The Information as Absolute” conception principally differs from any other doctrine in philosophy. Again – outside the conception, i.e. in mainstream-philosophy – and as in any other science as well – any doctrine is some development of a set of initial statements [postulates, Nature laws, etc. in nature sciences] that principally cannot be proven – and so cannot be disproved and so can be only interpreted in some, again non-provable, ways.

Just therefore mainstream-philosophy exists as a rather big set of philosophical doctrines, which are often different, but, since for no of them it is possible to prove a doctrine’s truth or false, all the doctrines equally “lawfully” exist. And by this reason majority of philosophical papers, books, etc. contain mostly some interpretations and/or allegedly – because of the principal absence of rigorous criteria  - checking/comparing “what is more true” of the doctrines mainly by/with listing / quoting of founders, most known philosophical classics, etc.

This informational conception is unique exclusion; just because of absolute fundamentality of the notion “Information” its basic principles and properties can be rigorously proven (see, e.g. SS post on 8-th page).

Thus for understanding [for “pick up on”] of the conception there is no principal objective objections – all what is necessary is a capability to think logically – and, sometimes, nonstandardly, though.

Though at “picking up” on just the existent version of the conception some subjective problems occur, because of the authors don’t belong to existent “philosophical community” – and similar “physical community”, though.  I wrote here already that the main paper “The Information as Absolute” was rejected by near ten mainstream philosophical journals, though the paper is evidently printable, when in the philosophical journals one can meet seems anything.

Besides, since authors are practically unknown in these communities, when the conception indeed is very interesting and important; thus there appears a probability of that somebody[ies] could to think that such situation is rather strange and the authors must be some other people, when, at that the real authors become be evidently redundant in this World.

Regrettably this probability is in this case equal to the unity and I have serious corresponding problems, when after 2013 Ukrainian police and security service practically don’t help citizens in such situations. The unique way to make these problems lesser remains for me – to write about the problems on forums in the Net, and this way worked in certain extent. So till now I didn’t write about the problems in the RG, but seems now the way above becomes be non-effective and I’m forced to do so here; including, if SS posts will be absentee more then a couple of weeks in the RG, that with probability near the unity will mean that some people obtained the planned result…

 Cheers

Dear Sergey,

I have belatedly read some of your material on absolute Information. I find my independent studies to be in close analogy. The terminology is different, but many of the ideas are compatible with my efforts.

One area in your work that I did not expect is treating 'True' and 'False' as a mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive pair. (Also, 0 and 1 bits and the flipping between mutually exclusive states.) It seems your concept of capital-I Information includes a fundamental interconnectivity. 'True' and 'False' can also be interconnected?

As an alternative option, one need not place ‘True’ and ‘False’ as mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive elements of a subset of ‘exact information’. They can remain more generally interconnected and still be discrete BUT NOT jointly exhaustive.

Since further development and articulation of your perspective will likely involve reasoning of some variety, a logic system with explicitly-listed assumptions (rules) is likely to be useful in many applications. I have wrestled with this issue in the context of interconnectedness, and developed a unique logic system that does not presume ‘true and false’ as a mutually exclusive pair.

Dear Richard,

it seems  the notions “true” and “false” possibly can be uncertain in a some degree in some concrete cases. But mostly they are essentially different and “are interconnected” only as some opposites – a true isn’t a false and on the contrary. Including, for example, in most cases there exist a few true/acceptable/optimal… solutions/inferences… and an infinite number of false solutions/inferences…

Though I didn’t think about  this problem specially and possibly your approach could have some essential sense – all what exist is/are some informational patterns that are elements of the “Information” Set, when this Set is absolutely infinite and has so rather paradoxical – and non-researched now properties. The same is true for the notion “Information” also, though.

Cheers

makes me think of Timaeus' opening question “What is that which always is and never becomes…?”

@Colin James III, regarding G-d (demiurges) and like Laplace i have no use for the hypothesis. that time is and never becomes rings like a bygone Euclidean container. 'bivalence' of time as in time reversal is not a problem on short/small scale but this is not becoming. we're back to the original question 

Recent contributors suggest ways of considering time with a not-so-obvious commonality: time is not a 'given' in the universe---it is not a parameter unavailable for further investigation. Searching out diverse models for time, formulated from a variety of perspectives, seems to be a potentially useful endeavor. I encourage others to continue searching. My own development efforts (time, from a subjective point of view that can explain the more usual objective assumptions) will continue.    

Asher,

time is the product of our (or universal) Mind.