Causal Theories of Spacetime

This study presents a new type of foundational model unifying quantum theory, relativity theory and gravitational physics, with a novel cosmology. It proposes a six-dimensional geometric manifold as the foundational ontology for our universe. The theoretical unification is simple and powerful, and there are a number of novel empirical predictions and theoretical reductions that are strikingly accurate. It subsequently addresses a variety of current anomalies in physics. It shows how incomplete modern physics is by giving an example of a theory (...) that is genuinely unified. In doing this, it radically alters the metaphysical interpretation of the nature of time, space and matter currently interpreted from modern physics. It also profoundly challenges materialist expectations about a naturalistic account our own existence. I contend here that there is sufficient evidence to support this theory as a leading paradigm for a unified foundational theory. (shrink)

Here we discuss and hope to solve a problem rooted in the necessity of the study of historical science, the slow deviation of physics education over the past century, and how the loss of crucial contextual tool has debilitated discussion of a very important yet specialized physics sub-topic: the isotropy of the one-way speed of light. Most notably, the information that appears to be most commonly missing is not simply the knowledge of the historical fact that Poincare and Lorentz presented (...) a mathematically equivalent representation of relativity theory contemporary with Einstein’s publication, but the most deleterious outcome is a lack of understanding of how that theory worked within a mechanical wave system to give the same results in all known experiments via an instrumentation-based illusion. Unfortunately those well educated in relativity theory, often haven’t been granted the advantage of contrast this history of development of the theory gives and thus some of the most direct and critical implications of modern theory are often lost on even graduate students. Chief among the implications that should be trivial to a student of relativity is the incompatibility of a mechanical wave concept of light with the modern assumptions of relativity. However, one should also be able to expect a graduate student to also easily comprehend the mathematical necessity of conjoining space with time is only descended from the presumption of isotropic constancy specifically, and further that the mechanics are one and the same as the relativity of simultaneity. However, many published papers appear to lack this understanding. The result is that the modern consensus appears to have arrived at the conclusion that the one-way speed of light is intrinsically untestable and therefore the physics community has accidentally pushed Minkowski spacetime, and most directly, the relativity of simultaneity, into the domain of pseudoscience, leaving only the historical relativistic “ether” described by Mansouri-Sexl test theory (AKA Lorentz Ether Theory) as the only workable alternative. This situation must be re-examined at the lowest possible level to arrive at an appropriate experimental regime. (shrink)

Conspectus of part of John R. Smythies' Analysis of Perception (1956). It presents a summary of his ideas on phenomenal space – the space of one’s imagination, dreams, psychedelic experiences, somatic sensations, visions, hynagogia, etc. – and its relation to physical space.

Four initial postulates are presented (with two more added later), which state that construction of the physical universe proceeds from a sequence of discrete steps or "projections" --- a process that yields a sequence of discrete levels (labeled 0, 1, 2, 3, 4). At or above level 2 the model yields a (3+1)-dimensional structure, which is interpreted as ordinary space and time. As a result, time does not exist below level 2 of the system, and thus the quantum of action, (...) h, which depends on time (since its unit is time•energy), also does not exist below level 2. This implies that the quantum of action is not fundamental, and thus e.g. that the physical universe cannot have originated from a quantum fluctuation. When the gravitational interaction for the model is developed, it is seen that the basic ingredient for gravity is already operating at level 1 of the system, which implies that gravity, too, is not fundamentally quantum mechanical (since, as stated, h only kicks in at level 2) --- perhaps obviating the need for a quantum theory of gravity. Further arguments along this line lead to the conclusion that quantum fluctuations cannot be a source of gravity, and thus cannot contribute to the cosmological constant --- thereby averting the cosmological constant problem. Along the way, the model also provides explanations for dark energy, the beginning and ending of inflation, quark confinement, and more. Although the model dethrones the quantum, it nevertheless elevates an idea in physics that was engendered by quantum mechanics: the necessary role of "observers" in constructing the world. (shrink)

We develop a new version of the causal theory of spacetime. Whereas traditional versions of the theory seek to identify spatiotemporal relations with causal relations, the version we develop takes causal relations to be the grounds for spatiotemporal relations. Causation is thus distinct from, and more basic than, spacetime. We argue that this non-identity theory, suitably developed, avoids the challenges facing the traditional identity theory.

This article is the FIFTH of several excerpts from my book The Nondual Mind: Vedānta, Kashmiri Pratyabhijñā Shaivism, and Spinoza (the full book is posted on this site). “I liked James H. Cumming’s The Nondual Mind a lot. It is beautifully written, thoughtful, and very clear.” (Prof. Yitzhak Y. Melamed, Charlotte Bloomberg Professor of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University) “James H. Cumming’s scholarly interpretation of Spinoza’s works, persuasively showing how 17th century European ideas that ushered in the Enlightenment find a precursor (...) in 10th century Kashmir, is a masterpiece of reason and philosophy that will leave the reader with profound thoughts on the meaning of history, God, and life itself. As a senior staff attorney in my chambers for many years at the California Supreme Court and a top scholar of ethics and philosophy of law, Mr. Cumming never ceased to amaze me with his outstanding research and intellect. This scholarly book is a must read for all who want to know why Spinoza continues to influence contemporary philosophy and how his work is still relevant in today’s challenging, interconnected world.” (Hon. Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice (Retired), Supreme Court of California, 1996–2020). (shrink)

The article approaches the epistemological question on the concept of time from an anthropological psychology perspective. The differentiation between imminent perceptions and existence beyond imminent perception has been the earliest conceptualization of time found so far in the traces of human civilizations. The research differentiated psychological time from modern physics and astronomy as the basic hypothesis in the inquiries on the concept of time in physics and modern astronomy – is the physical unit of time an ontological existence of things (...) or an inter-subjective concept? The research adopts transcendental philosophy in the questioning of unconsciousness in the sociology of knowledge with a dissection between psychological time and physical units of time. With further questioning into the physics of time, and the nonphysical nature of time, I second with the primordial graviton background’s pragmatic approach, despite of the falsifiability of the Big Bang theory and inflation. (shrink)

Several different quantum gravity research programmes suggest, for various reasons, that spacetime is not part of the fundamental ontology of physics. This gives rise to the problem of empirical coherence: if fundamental physical entities do not occupy spacetime or instantiate spatiotemporal properties, how can fundamental theories concerning those entities be justified by observation of spatiotemporally located things like meters, pointers and dials? I frame the problem of empirical coherence in terms of entailment: how could a non-spatiotemporal fundamental theory entail spatiotemporal (...) evidence propositions? Solutions to this puzzle can be classified as realist or antirealist, depending on whether or not they posit a non-fundamental spacetime structure grounded in or caused by the fundamental structure. These approaches place different constraints on our everyday concepts of space and time. Applying lessons from the philosophy of mind, I argue that only realism is both conceptually plausible and suitable for addressing the problem at hand. I suggest a role functionalist version of realism, which is consistent with both grounding and causation, and according to which our everyday concepts reveal something of the true nature of emergent spacetime. (shrink)

What is simultaneous with an event is what can interact with it; events have duration; therefore, any given event has distant events simultaneous with it, even according to Special Relativity. Consequently, the extension of our pre-relativistic judgments of distant simultaneity are largely preserved.

I explore two views about the relationship between spatial experience and spatial reality: spatial functionalism and spatial presentationalism. Roughly, spatial functionalism claims that the instantiated spatial properties are those playing a certain causal role in producing spatial experience while spatial presentationalism claims that the instantiated spatial properties include those presented in spatial experience. I argue that each view, in its own way, leads to an ontologically inflationary form of primitivism: whereas spatial functionalism leads to primitivism about phenomenal representation, spatial presentationalism (...) leads to primitivism about spatial properties. I conclude by discussing how to adjudicate between spatial functionalism and spatial presentationalism. (shrink)

Four simple postulates are presented, from which we derive a (3+1)‑dimensional structure, interpreted as ordinary space and time. We then derive further properties of space: isotropy and homogeneity; a rapid expansion within the first instant of time (i.e. inflation); and a continual and uniform expansionary pressure, due to a continual influx of (non-zero-point) energy that is uniformly distributed (i.e. dark energy). In addition, the time dimension is shown to have an "arrow". These results suggest that the four postulates may be (...) fundamental to the construction of the physical universe. (shrink)

The need for revolution in modern physics is a well known and often broached subject, however, the precision and success of current models narrows the possible changes to such a great degree that there appears to be no major change possible. We provide herein, the first step toward a possible solution to this paradox via reinterpretation of the conceptual-theoretical framework while still preserving the modern art and tools in an unaltered form. This redivision of concepts and redistribution of the data (...) can revolutionize expectations of new experimental outcomes. This major change within finely tuned constraints is made possible by the fact that numerous mathematically equivalent theories were direct precursors to, and contemporaneous with, the modern interpretations. In this first of a series of papers, historical investigation of the conceptual lineage of modern theory reveals points of exacting overlap in physical theories which, while now considered cross discipline, originally split from a common source and can be reintegrated as a singular science again. This revival of an an older associative hierarchy, combined with modern insights, can open new avenues for investigation. This reintegration cross-disciplinary theories and tools is defined as the “Neoclassical Interpretation.” . (shrink)

I examine two claims that arise in Brown’s account of inertial motion. Brown claims there is something objectionable about the way in which the motions of free particles in Newtonian theory and special relativity are coordinated. Brown also claims that since a geodesic principle can be derived in Einsteinian gravitation, the objectionable feature is explained away. I argue that there is nothing objectionable about inertia and that while the theorems that motivate Brown’s second claim can be said to figure in (...) a deductive-nomological explanation, their main contribution lies in their explication rather than their explanation of inertial motion. (shrink)

Space-time intervals are the fundamental components of conscious experience, gravity, and a Theory of Everything. Space-time intervals are relationships that arise naturally between events. They have a general covariance (independence of coordinate systems, scale invariance), a physical constancy, that encompasses all frames of reference. There are three basic types of space-time intervals (light-like, time-like, space-like) which interact to create space-time and its properties. Human conscious experience is a four-dimensional space-time continuum created through the processing of space-time intervals by the brain; (...) space-time intervals are the source of conscious experience (observed physical reality). Human conscious experience is modeled by Einstein’s special theory of relativity, a theory designed specifically from the general covariance of space-time intervals (for inertial frames of reference). General relativity is our most accurate description of gravity. In general relativity, the general covariance of space-time intervals is extended to all frames of reference (inertial and non-inertial), including gravitational reference frames; space-time intervals are the source of gravity in general relativity. The general covariance of space-time intervals is further extended to quantum mechanics; space-time intervals are the source of quantum gravity. The general covariance of space-time intervals seamlessly merges general relativity with quantum field theory (the two grand theories of the universe). Space-time intervals consequently are the basis of a Theory of Everything (a single all-encompassing coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe). This theoretical framework encompasses our observed physical reality (conscious experience) as well; space-time intervals link observed physical reality to actual physical reality. This provides an accurate and reliable match between observed physical reality and the physical universe by which we can carry on our activity. The Minkowski metric, which defines generally covariant space-time intervals, may be considered an axiom (premise, postulate) for the Theory of Everything. (shrink)

AUTHOR: STAN GUDDER (John Evans Professor of Mathematical Physics, University of Denver, USA) -- -/- We consider a discrete scalar, quantum field theory based on a cubic 4-dimensional lattice. We mainly investigate a discrete scattering operator S(x0,r) where x0 and r are positive integers representing time and maximal total energy, respectively. The operator S(x0,r) is used to define transition amplitudes which are then employed to compute transition probabilities. These probabilities are conditioned on the time-energy (x0,r). In order to maintain total (...) unit probability, the transition probabilities need to be reconditioned at each (x0,r). This is roughly analogous to renormalization in standard quantum field theory, except no infinities or singularities are involved. We illustrate this theory with a simple scattering experiment involving a common interaction Hamiltonian. We briefly mention how discreteness of space-time might be tested astronomically. Moreover, these tests may explain the existence of dark energy and dark matter. (shrink)

The question of time travel stimulates the imagination and provides material for whimsical stories. A work on the topic of "time travel" forces us to deal with the concept of "time". The complexity and the antinomic character of this concept make it difficult to grasp "time" more precisely. We encounter time as a form of perception in its deeply subjective aspect, as a biological rhythm, as a social phenomenon in the sense of a collective determination of time, but also as (...) a physical quantity. Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized our ideas of space and time. His Special Theory of Relativity (1905) allows "travel into the future" through the effect of time dilation he predicted, and Einstein's theory of gravity allows for closed time lines as solutions to its equations (e.g., Gödel cosmos, anti-de Sitter cosmos). However, traveling in a time loop would immediately lead to a number of paradoxes (e.g., grandfather paradox, information paradox). Although, surprisingly, the basic laws of physics (apart from extremely rare and macroscopically non-appearing quantum mechanical effects) would not be violated in a time reversal, there seems to be a fundamental prohibition of traveling into the past in nature. (shrink)

It is said what aggregative properties are and also what emergent properties are, and examples are given each of kind of property. It is also explained why, even though all emergent properties are aggregative properties, not all aggregative properties are emergent properties. It is further made clear that, strictly speaking, emergence is a property of one's knowledge of a given kind of aggregate, and not of such aggregates themselves, this being why a property that is emergent at one time will, (...) when additional information becomes available, cease to be emergent. And it is explained why, for this very reason, the right answer to the question 'why does X exist?' is never 'because X is an emergent property.'. (shrink)

It is clearly stated what time-travel would be, were it possible, and it is thereby shown that the very concept of time-travel is incoherent.

This article is a summary of an expanded version of my previous publication Ref. [ 1 ]. In particular, in Ref. [1] using a new axiomatic matrix approach – which has been formulated on the basis of ring theory and Clifford algebra – by first quantization (followed by a basic procedure of minimal coupling to the space-time geometry) of a special relativistic algebraic matrix equation, a certain massive form of gravitational field equations – with new matrix formalism and also a (...) definite form of torsion which generates the gravitational field's invariant mass – is derived uniquely. It is shown that the massless case of these derived equations is equivalent to the Einstein field equations (including a cosmological constant). Moreover, it has been shown that the matrix formalism of derived gravitational field equations, is compatible with matrix representations of certain Clifford algebras. (shrink)

I reconstruct from Rietdijk and Putnam’s well-known papers an argument against the applicability of the concept of becoming in Special Relativity, which I think is unaffected by some of the objections found in the literature. I then consider a line of thought found in the discussion of the possible conventionality of simultaneity in Special Relativity, beginning with Reichenbach, and apply it to the debate over becoming. We see that it immediately renders Rietdijk and Putnam’s argument unsound. I end by comparing (...) my approach to others found in the literature, primarily Stein’s. (shrink)

Causal set theory and the theory of linear structures share some of their main motivations. In view of that, I raise and answer the question how these two theories are related to each other and to standard topology. I show that causal set theory can be embedded into Maudlin’s more general framework and I characterise what Maudlin’s topological concepts boil down to when applied to discrete linear structures that correspond to causal sets. Moreover, I show that all topological aspects of (...) causal sets that can be described in Maudlin’s theory can also be described in the framework of standard topology. Finally, I discuss why these results are relevant for evaluating Maudlin’s theory. The value of this theory depends crucially on whether it is true that its conceptual framework is as expressive as that of standard topology when it comes to describing well-known continuous as well as discrete models of spacetime and it is even more expressive or fruitful when it comes to analysing topological aspects of discrete structures that are intended as models of spacetime. On the one hand, my theorems support : the theory is rich enough to incorporate causal set theory and its definitions of topological notions yield a plausible outcome in the case of causal sets. On the other hand, the results undermine : standard topology, too, has the conceptual resources to capture those topological aspects of causal sets that are analysable within Maudlin’s framework. This fact poses a challenge for the proponents of Maudlin’s theory to prove it fruitful. (shrink)

Why do the fundamental forces of nature (i.e., the forces that appear to cause all the movements and interactions in the universe) manifest in the way, shape, and form that they do? This is one of the greatest ontological questions that science can investigate. In this article, we are going to consider this crucial question (and relevant issues) via a new axiomatic mathematical formalism. -/- In Part I (pp. 1-10) of this article we provide a general overview (and analysis) of (...) the basic properties of a number of current notable discontinuous approaches to fundamental physics. -/- In Part II (the main part, pp.11-99, Ref. [37]) of this article, as a new mathematical approach to origin of the laws of nature, using a new basic algebraic axiomatic (matrix) formalism based on the ring theory and Clifford algebras (presented in Sec.2), “it is shown that certain mathematical forms of fundamental laws of nature, including laws governing the fundamental forces of nature (represented by a set of two definite classes of general covariant massive field equations, with new matrix formalisms), are derived uniquely from only a very few axioms”; where in agreement with the rational Lorentz group, it is also basically assumed that the components of relativistic energy-momentum can only take rational values. In essence, the main scheme of this new mathematical axiomatic approach to fundamental laws of nature is as follows. First based on the assumption of rationality of D-momentum, by linearization (along with a parameterization procedure) of the Lorentz invariant energy-momentum quadratic relation, a unique set of Lorentz invariant systems of homogeneous linear equations (with matrix formalisms compatible with certain Clifford, and symmetric algebras) is derived. Then by first quantization (followed by a basic procedure of minimal coupling to space-time geometry) of these determined systems of linear equations, a set of two classes of general covariant massive (tensor) field equations (with matrix formalisms compatible with certain Clifford, and Weyl algebras) is derived uniquely as well. Each class of the derived general covariant field equations also includes a definite form of torsion field appeared as generator of the corresponding field’ invariant mass. In addition, it is shown that the (1+3)-dimensional cases of two classes of derived field equations represent a new general covariant massive formalism of bispinor fields of spin-2, and spin-1 particles, respectively. In fact, these uniquely determined bispinor fields represent a unique set of new generalized massive forms of the laws governing the fundamental forces of nature, including the Einstein (gravitational), Maxwell (electromagnetic) and Yang-Mills (nuclear) field equations. Moreover, it is also shown that the (1+2)-dimensional cases of two classes of these field equations represent (asymptotically) a new general covariant massive formalism of bispinor fields of spin-3/2 and spin-1/2 particles, corresponding to the Dirac and Rarita–Schwinger equations. -/- As a particular consequence, it is shown that a certain massive formalism of general relativity – with a definite form of torsion field appeared originally as the generator of gravitational field’s invariant mass – is obtained only by first quantization (followed by a basic procedure of minimal coupling to space-time geometry) of a certain set of special relativistic algebraic matrix equations. It has been also proved that Lagrangian densities specified for the originally derived new massive forms of the Maxwell, Yang-Mills and Dirac field equations, are also gauge invariant, where the invariant mass of each field is generated solely by the corresponding torsion field. In addition, in agreement with recent astronomical data, a new form of massive boson is identified (corresponding to U(1) gauge group) with invariant mass: m_γ ≈ 4.90571×10^-50 kg, generated by a coupled torsion field of the background space-time geometry. -/- Moreover, based on the definite mathematical formalism of this axiomatic approach, along with the C, P and T symmetries (represented basically by the corresponding quantum operators) of the fundamentally derived field equations, it has been concluded that the universe could be realized solely with the (1+2) and (1+3)-dimensional space-times (where this conclusion, in particular, is based on the T-symmetry of these equations). It is shown that CPT is the only combined form of C, P, and T symmetries of interacting fields. In addition, on the basis of these discrete symmetries of derived field equations, it has been also shown that only left-handed particle fields (along with their complementary right-handed fields) could be coupled to the corresponding (any) source currents. Furthermore, it has been shown that the metric of background space-time is diagonalized for the uniquely derived fermion field equations (defined and expressed solely in (1+2)-dimensional space-time), where this property generates a certain set of additional symmetries corresponding uniquely to the "SU(2)_L x U(2)_R" symmetry group for spin-1/2 fermion fields (representing “1+3” generations of four fermions, including a group of eight leptons and a group of eight quarks), and also the "SU(2)_L x U(2)_R" and "SU(3)" gauge symmetry groups for spin-1 boson fields coupled to the spin-1/2 fermionic source currents. Hence, along with the known elementary particles, eight new elementary particles, including four new charge-less right-handed spin-1/2 fermions (including two leptons and two quarks), a spin-3/2 fermion, and also three new spin-1 (massive) bosons are predicted uniquely by this axiomatic approach. As a particular result, based on the definite formulation of the derived Maxwell (and Yang-Mills) field equations, it has been also concluded that magnetic monopoles could not exist in nature. -/- Comments: 99 Pages. A summary of a submitted and accepted research project (On "Foundations of Physics"), Ramin Zahedi, Japan, 2012 - 2015. -/- Invited and Presented Research Article at: The 4th International Conference on New Frontiers in Physics ICNFP2015, Europe (CERN), (https://indico.cern.ch/e/icnfp2015); The 2016 SIAM International Conference on Mathematical Aspects of Materials Science, Philadelphia, USA, (https://www.siam.org/meetings/ms16/); The 17th International Conference on Quantum Foundations: Quantum and Beyond, International Centre for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, Engineering and Cognitive Sciences ( ICMM), Linnaeus University, Sweden, 2016, (https://lnu.se/en/qb/); The 2016 International Conference on Algebraic Geometry and Mathematical Physics (AGMP 2016), University of Tromsø, Norway, (https://site.uit.no/); International Conference on Noncommutative Geometry, Quantum Symmetries and Quantum Gravity (II), XXXVII Max Born International Symposium, Wroclaw University, Poland, 2016, (http://ift.uni.wroc.pl/~mborn37/); 2016 GRavitational-wave Astronomy International Conference (Meeting) in Paris, The Institute d’Astrophysique de Paris (IAP), The University of Paris VI - Sorbonne University, CNRS, LERU, EUA, France, 2016, (Supported by the European Union's Seventh Framework Program: FP7/PEOPLE-2011-CIG); The 22nd Internnational Australian Institute of Physics Congress (AIP), University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2016, (http://appc-aip2016.org.au/); The 21st International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Columbia University, New York, USA, 2016, (http://www.gr21.org/). -/- Acknowledgements: Special thanks are extended to Prof. and Academician Vitaly L. Ginzburg (Russia), Prof. and Academician Dmitry V. Shirkov (Russia), Prof. Leonid A . Shelepin (Russia), Prof. Vladimir Ya. Fainberg (Russia), Prof. Wolfgang Rindler (USA), Prof. Roman W. Jackiw (USA), Prof. Roger Penrose (UK), Prof. Steven Weinberg (USA), Prof. Ezra T. Newman (USA), Prof. Graham Jameson (UK), Prof. Sergey A. Reshetnjak (Russia), Prof. Sir Michael Atiyah (UK) (who, in particular, kindly encouraged me to continue this work as a new unorthodox (primary) mathematical approach to fundamental physics), and many others for their support and valuable guidance during my studies and research. -/- External URLs of the Article (Including updated versions): https://inspirehep.net/record/1387680/, https://indico.cern.ch/event/344173/session/22/contribution/422/attachments/1140145/1646101/R.a.Zahe di--OnDiscretePhysics-Jan.2015-signed.pdf, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1980381/, https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/TDS-MACS/hal-01476703 , http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2115/59279/. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PQGA9 . (shrink)

The book revives the neutral monism of Mach, James, and Russell and applies the updated view to the problem of redefining physicalism, explaining the origins of sensation, and the problem of deriving extended physical objects and systems from an ontology of events.

The central motivating idea behind the development of this work is the concept of prespace, a hypothetical structure that is postulated by some physicists to underlie the fabric of space or space-time. I consider how such a structure could relate to space and space-time, and the rest of reality as we know it, and the implications of the existence of this structure for quantum theory. Understanding how this structure could relate to space and to the rest of reality requires, I (...) believe, that we consider how space itself relates to reality, and how other so-called "spaces" used in physics relate to reality. In chapter 2, I compare space and space-time to other spaces used in physics, such as configuration space, phase space and Hilbert space. I support what is known as the "property view" of space, opposing both the traditional views of space and space-time, substantivalism and relationism. I argue that all these spaces are property spaces. After examining the relationships of these spaces to causality, I argue that configuration space has, due to its role in quantum mechanics, a special status in the microscopic world similar to the status of position space in the macroscopic world. In chapter 3, prespace itself is considered. One way of approaching this structure is through the comparison of the prespace structure with a computational system, in particular to a cellular automaton, in which space or space-time and all other physical quantities are broken down into discrete units. I suggest that one way open for a prespace metaphysics can be found if physics is made fully discrete in this way. I suggest as a heuristic principle that the physical laws of our world are such that the computational cost of implementing those laws on an arbitrary computational system is minimized, adapting a heuristic principle of this type proposed by Feynman. In chapter 4, some of the ideas of the previous chapters are applied in an examination of the physics and metaphysics of quantum theory. I first discuss the "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics: this problem and its proposed solution are the primary subjects of chapter 4. It turns out that considering how quantum theory could be made fully discrete leads naturally to a suggestion of how standard linear quantum mechanics could be modified to give rise to a solution to the measurement problem. The computational heuristic principle reinforces the same solution. I call the modified quantum mechanics Critical Complexity Quantum Mechanics (CCQM). I compare CCQM with some of the other proposed solutions to the measurement problem, in particular the spontaneous localization model of Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber. Finally, in chapters 5 and 6, I argue that the measure of complexity of quantum mechanical states I introduce in CCQM also provides a new definition of entropy for quantum mechanics, and suggests a solution to the problem of providing an objective foundation for statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, and the arrow of time. (shrink)

Some Philosophical Prehistory of General Relativity As history, my remarks will form rather a medley. If they can claim any sort of unity (apart from a ...

The final work of a distinguished physicist, this remarkable volume examines the emotive significance of time, the time order of mechanics, the time direction of thermodynamics and microstatistics, the time direction of macrostatistics, and the time of quantum physics. Coherent discussions include accounts of analytic methods of scientific philosophy in the investigation of probability, quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, and causality. "[Reichenbach’s] best by a good deal."—Physics Today. 1971 ed.

In spacetime physics any set C of events—a causal set—is taken to be partially ordered by the relation ≤ of possible causation: for p, q ∈ C, p ≤ q means that q is in p’s future light cone. In her groundbreaking paper The internal description of a causal set: What the universe looks like from the inside, Fotini Markopoulou proposes that the causal structure of spacetime itself be represented by “sets evolving over C” —that is, in essence, by the (...) topos SetC of presheaves on Cop. To enable what she has done to be the more easily expressed within the framework presented here, I will reverse the causal ordering, that is, C will be replaced by Cop, and the latter written as P—which will, moreover, be required to be no more than a preordered set. Specifically, then: P is a set of events preordered by the relation ≤, where p ≤ q is intended to mean that p is in q’s future light cone—that q could be the cause of p, or, equally, that p could be an effect of q. In that case, for each event p, the set p↓ = {q: q ≤ p} may be identified as the causal future of p, or the set of potential effects of p. In requiring that ≤ be no more than a preordering—in dropping, that is, the antisymmetry of ≤—I am, in physical terms, allowing for the possibility that the universe is of Gödelian type, containing closed timelike lines. (shrink)

Self-identification strategy is presented so that a being identify itself wherein a subject is not an outer observer. A being is able to observe as a subject and be observed as an object. Thus, self-identification could be realized because a being acts to observe and be observed. A being is supposed to consist of spatio and temporal identities. They are considered to provide a basis of respective a spatio object to be observed and a temporal subject to observe. Two thought (...) experiments are presented for self-identification. In the first place, self-identification is explained by using the Out-of-Boddy experiences in no time flows. Secondly, a dream in a dream is provided to reveal a self-identification strategy in time flows. For this, dream is described by bi-directional movements in time flows. A teleological philosophy from the Aristotelian paradigm insists that the future decides the past which is thought to be the source of potentiality. Accordingly, the Aristotelian paradigm is modified to include the concept of a dream between the future and the past so that the reason why versatile a priori being such as Schrödinger's cat is created is explained and how they are distinguished among ontological potentiality by a teleological causation. (shrink)

Extending on an earlier paper [Found. Phys. Ltt., 16(4) 343–355, (2003)], it is argued that instants of time and the instantaneous (including instantaneous relative position) do not actually exist. This conclusion, one which is also argued to represent the correct solution to Zeno’s motion paradoxes, has several implications for modern physics and for our philosophical view of time, including that time and space cannot be quantized; that contrary to common interpretation, motion and change are compatible with the “block” universe and (...) relativity; and that time, space, and space-time too, cannot exist. Instead, motion and change become the major players. (shrink)

We give a very curious curiosity about Newtonian gravity.

We give a very curious curiosity about Newtonian Gravity.

A synthesis of trending topics in pancomputationalism. I introduce the notion that "strange loops" engender the most atomic levels of physical reality, and introduce a mechanism for global non-locality. Writen in a simple and accesssible style, it seeks to draw research in fundamental physics back to realism, and have a bit of fun in the process.