[time 740] Re: [time 735] Which was first: clock or time?

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Fri, 10 Sep 1999 23:52:27 +0900

Dear Matti, Lance, Stephen et al.,

To me three kinds of time of Matti look like a taxonomy of phenomena. Matti,
do you have any relations between these three times?

Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote:

Subject: [time 735] Which was first: clock or time?

> Dear Matti, Stephen, Hitoshi, et al.:
> Because I am too busy with practical affairs to follow this discussion
> closely, much less to participate actively, I apologize if the following
> comment is inappropriate, but I could not let the following pass without
> some comment:
> Somebody (I think Stephen) wrote:
> > I see LS's as fundamental clocks, and thus it
> > should be possible to consider an "ensemble of clocks" as given by a
> > ensemble of LSs. But, I am very sketchy in my thinking of this. :-(
> To which Matti replied:
> >
> > [MP] I cannot say. One should need a quantative model for clock.
> > Clock as oscillator is a nice model but based on the existence of
> > time! You want to derive time from the existence of clocks, I
> > am happy in deriving the existence of clocks from the existence
> > of time!
> My comment is this: Matti's reply does indeed identify the core issue.
> The only problem I have with Matti's comment is that it seems rather
> casual, so it doesn't alert the reader to how fundamental the disagreement
> here is.

> This was casual comment. I have talked a lot about TGD based
> time concept in earlier discussions and I did not bother to repeat
> all that. In any case, the disagreement is fundamental.
> It is not that I would believe that geometric time is enough: the point
> is that there are *three times*.
> a) Subjective time "measured" as a number of quantum jumps occurred.

You seem to think/assume that quantum jumps exist. You often identifies them
with our waking up in the morning. I have another view to the so-called
quantum jumps from the point of view of observer: They just look like existing
but do not occur as far as they are observable. The jump is a jump from one
eigenstate to another, but if this jump could be observable, the observed
system that jumped must be in scattering state (that is orthogonal to
eigenstates), hence this is not a jump.

> b) Geometric time, this is the good old Einsteinian time and combines
> with space to form spacetime.

Geometrical time appears only in observation and this time is the observer's
time that observes the geometry of other systems. Thus geometrical time is a
time of a local system when it is in a state of observation of others.

> c) And also the time *parameter* t of unitary time
> evolution operator U: this parameter is purely group theoretical and has
> absolutely nothing to do with our psychological time. t runs from -inty to
> infty during each quantum jump Psi_i--> UPsi_i-->Psi_f.
> U defines S-matrix and predictions of quantum physics. Already Heisenberg
> realized that the time evolution associated with S-matrix has nothing to
> do with time evolution as we experience it. All calculations assume
> that t runs from -inty to infty but take this as 'technical' assumption:
> therefore TGD predicts precisely same general form of S-matrix
> as standard physics. Interpretation is only different.

Unitary time is the proper time of a local system, existing as a
clocking/living of itself. This time is the fundamental one, from which the
geometrical time arises in the act of observation. Quantum jumps is an
illusion of the present physicists. Thus my formulation combines these three
kinds of time of yours.

> In standard physics all these times are identified as single time: it is
> easy to understand what a mess results!

I do not see your theory cleans up the mess.

> *************

> In Hitoshi's first statements on the subject of Local Times one of the
> things that attracted my attention (as a philosopher) was his comment that
> the problem of time in contemporary physics is essentially a philosophical
> problem, not a physical or mathematical problem. Matti's comment here
> perfectly illustrates the validity of Hitoshi's assertion about the nature
> of the problem of time. What is at issue is really how we understand the
> fundamental nature of time. In our joint article in Apeiron, Hitoshi and
> I were completely explicit about the fact that our position was in
> opposition to the conventional understanding. Here is what we wrote:
> "...the proper clock is the local system itself,
> and it is a necessary manifestation of that local system.
> In this sense, “clockingEis the natural activity of any
> local system. It follows from this that to be an existing
> thing in the world necessarily involves clocking, without
> which there is no interaction. In these respects, our position
> is in complete opposition to the conventional understanding
> of time measurement, where time is given a
> priori and the measurement of time by clocks is viewed as
> an incidental activity of intelligent observers. Contrary to
> the conventional understanding, our view is that all beings
> are engaged in measuring and observing, and the activities
> of measuring and observing are not incidental, but
> pertain to the essence of all interactions. If we are permitted
> to express it somewhat boldly, we have turned things
> completely around: It is not that things exist and their
> duration is incidentally expressed by clocks. According to
> our formulation, clocks exist and their operation is necessarily
> expressed by duration."
> (to which we might have added, Time, as measured or counted duration, is
> what results when certain local systems or certain sets of interactions
> are chosen as the standard in terms of which other durations are
> described, much as monetary value comes into existence when one commodity
> is chosen as the unit in terms of which the exchange relations of other
> commodities are expressed.)

> Thank your for a nice phrasing of your viewpoint.
> I agree in many aspects with what you say. I have however
> 'neuropsychology' oriented starting point. LS as self, if it experiences
> time must have subself waking up periodically. We have a lot of
> them, typically mental images representing mental images, recur
> periodically. After images are a good example. Self can
> however be in state of whole body consciousness and have no subselves:
> in this case it has no clock: hence explanation for the reports about 'no
> time' experiences by meditators.
> I could paraphrase you comment about turning things completely around.
> Selves exists as heaps of cs experiences associated
> with quantum jumps and give rise to experience of *subjective time*.
> Each self waking up periodically is clock of some larger self.
> One could also say that quantum jump is basic tick of subjective
> time (not directly experienced as such however) and subjective time
> is created by the syncronized ticking of all the subjective clocks of
> this infinite universe. But as I said, I assume also the existence of
> geometric time and formal time parameter t associated with the unitary
> evolution operator U. I believe that only this 'holy trinity' makes

I notice that you have been sticking to "the holy trinity" from the beginning
of your discussion. This sounds like you have a kind of religious starting
point as Kepler, et al.

> it possible to resolve all the paradoxes related to the concept
> of time.
> ********

> Now, to come back to Matti's comment: It is entirely in order to
> challenge Hitoshi and me to flesh out our claims -- to show that we can
> offer an intelligible and serviceable, quantitative model of a clock --
> and it is particularly apt for Matti to demand that we show that our model
> is not an instance of circular definition. However, I am less comfortable
> when Matti says, "I am happy in deriving the existence of clocks from
> the existence of time!" The reason I am uncomfortable with that is that
> it seems to me that it simply begs the question. I am not saying he is
> wrong. I am simply saying that we need to acknowledge that this is what is
> in dispute. From our point of view, Matti's claim looks just as doubtful
> as ours looks to him.

> OK. My statement was casual already because I have
> all these three times instead of only one (as if single time would
> not produce enough head aches(;-)) and was meant only to
> pinpoint the difference in views.

I feel this is not a difference but a lack of unifying view point. Three kinds
of time do not seem to help us to understand the universe.

> Best,
> MP

Best wishes,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:40 JST