Energy goes past to future. Information goes future to past. Think about the atoms vs. the event. Our brains, as material reality, are the energy going from past to future, while our minds, as the record of the events created, go from future potential to past circumstance. That’s why ‘We live life forward and see it backward.’

Agreed regarding ordering of events. And I do think that the nature (and direction) of time is tightly bound to information flow. How this may be quantified is quite interesting.

e.

The arrow of time goes from what comes first, to what comes second. As observers, we witness past events(cause) prior to succeeding events(effect), so the arrow of time for the observer is past to future. On the other hand, these events are first in the future, such as the 9th of January, 2008 is currently tomorrow. Then they are in the past, as tomorrow will be in two days. So the arrow of time for events is future to past.

To a certain extent, our understanding of time is a cultural artifact. There are native peoples in South America who view the past as in front of them and the future as behind them. The logic of this is that their point of reference, the hands of their mental clock, is the energy, not the observer. Since it records the observed event first, then transmits the information to the observer, their conceptual arrow of time is front to back, not forward.

Your descriptions are clever but to my mind misleading. I believe time goes from the past to the future only and that the flow in this direction is fundamental. Are there relative measures of the flow to be taken into account? Yes but the direction cannot be reversed. Just because a train going west at 100 mph passes another train going west at 80 mph does not mean the slower train is going east although it might appear so to an observer on the faster train.

Elliot

But which way?

If two atoms collide, it creates an event in time. While the atoms proceed through this event and on to others, the event goes the other way. First it is in the future, then in the past. To the hands of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise, just as the sun appears to go from east to west, when the reality is the earth rotates west to east.

So which is the real direction? If time is a fundamental dimension, then physical reality proceeds along it, from past events to future ones. On the other hand, if time is a consequence of motion, then physical reality is simply energy in space and the events created go from being future potential to past circumstance.

This isn’t presentism, because the only absolute time would be the absence of any motion, just as the only absolute temperature is absolute zero and every clock is effectively its own dimension of time.

yaw eno swolf ylno emit taht dna ytilasuac ni eveileb llist I

I still believe in causality and that time only flows one way.

e.

I certainly agree that order exists independent of the human mind and have no problem with different approaches yielding the same patterns. The point is whether the patterns are a consequence of process, or the reason process yields repeatable results.

The structure reveals a hidden truth, such as when the same result proves true both by two different methods as for example algebra and geometry. This mental process often reflects structure in nature, so much so that some think it is the ultimate physical reality, (which I don’t), and allows theorists to explore a reality of ‘the world out there’ scribbling “on the backs of old envelopes”.

It is this objective correlation with physical reality that gives me the deep impression that mathematical truth ‘exists’ in a Platonic way beyond the mental processes of the human mind.

Garth

It depends on whether it’s sets or quantities. If you actually add two sets together, you’ve got one larger set, so 1+1=1. Now from the perspective of the blob brain, it might view itself as a set, like a cell, so there isn’t .5 of a set, just a smaller set and when it divides, 1 becomes two.

It’s not that one is right and one is wrong, but that different perspectives can view the same situation from different perspectives and we are oriented toward a particular frame of reference that becomes self re-enforcing. Sort of like people need to speak the same language, or drive on the same side of the road for society to function.

An interesting article in this week’s NewScientist;

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19726373.300-is-there-a-language-problem-with-quantum-physics.html;jsessionid=HDLFPHEOAOKH

The American quantum theorist David Bohm embraced Bohr’s views on language, believing that at the root of Green’s problem is the structure of the languages we speak. European languages, he noted, perfectly mirror the classical world of Newtonian physics. When we say “the cat chases the mouse” we are dealing with well-defined objects (nouns), which are connected via verbs. Likewise, classical physics deals with objects that are well located in space and time, which interact via forces and fields. But if the world doesn’t work the way our language does, advances are inevitably hindered.

Bohm pointed out that quantum effects are much more process-based, so to describe them accurately requires a process-based language rich in verbs, and in which nouns play only a secondary role.

There are fundamental differences between a top down, form/noun based view and a bottom up process/function/verb based view. While processes are repeatable, it doesn’t follow that this gives them a meta-form. Process is inherently dynamic, while form is inherently static, so when we are saying the results of dynamism are predictable and therefore ultimately static, it’s a flawed projection. They are repeatable because same causes yield similar results, not because there is some grand pattern or path they are hewing to. Since it starts simple, the basic patterns repeat, while ensuing complex patterns become less predictable and can only be computed by allowing the process to evolve.
Suffice to say, it is an assumption that is pervasive in physics. I’ve been making a point about time that doesn’t draw much favorable attention, but it does go to the heart of the matter, so I’ll restate it;

Is time a dimension, or process? Consider; If two atoms collide, it creates an event in time. While the atoms proceed through this event and on to others, the event goes the other way. First it is in the future, then in the past. To the hands of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise.
So which is the real direction? If time is a fundamental dimension, then physical reality proceeds along it, from past events to future ones. On the other hand, if time is a consequence of motion, then physical reality is simply energy in space and the events created go from being in the future to being in the past. Just as the sun appears to go from east to west, when the reality is the earth rotates west to east.

Time as a dimension says that all events are equally real and the dynamic passage of time is an illusion, while time as process says that only the physical is real and it is a constant process by which future potential coalesces into past circumstance. This physical form is a momentary snapshot of dynamic processes. This isn’t presentism because time isn’t the basis. Physical reality, however it’s measured, is. The only absolute time would be the same as the absolute temperature of zero. This complete absence of motion is the only static absolute. From this, reality rises through process, creating form.

In that world, if you separated out part of the blob, you’d have two separate blobs, so 1-1=2

As opposed to 1/(1/2) = 2, which is both a better representation of the system and actually true?

Try explaining to this blob brain why 1-1=2 isn’t a universal truth.

It is - in Modulo 2 arithmetic.

Garth

That logic could be extended to infinity. I could say that chairs are a logical device for sitting on, even if there were no chairs, or even people to sit in them. As an equation for preventing two legged creatures from falling on the ground, should they decide to rest, chairs are the most efficient method of keeping one’s butt suspended and back rested.

I think the question isn’t whether or not there are universal forms, but do they follow function, or does function follow form. Say your consciousness exists in a liquid, or fluid reality, where there is no set form and the very notion of individual objects is meaningless, since if you put any amount of such matter together, it would coalesce into one big blob. So if you added anything together, it would always equal one. In that world, if you separated out part of the blob, you’d have two separate blobs, so 1-1=2. Try explaining to this blob brain why 1-1=2 isn’t a universal truth.

We haven’t really had a big conceptual revolution in at least the sciences that I’m familiar enough with recently, though.

I guess you could say that 10 years ago I changed my mind about the existence of a cosmological constant…. But I hadn’t really been committed one way or the other before the data came in and showed that it was positive. Does that really count as a change of mind? I don’t think so.

The answers I would give to this question are more political and personal than they are scientific, and are documented here: http://www.sonic.net/~rknop/blog/?p=24

I still believe that 2 + 2 = 4, even if there are no objects to count and even when there are no minds around to think so. The relationships between mathematical objects are true in an atemporal way and not fleeting.

Garth

We think of math as being ordered, because it is a study of patterns, but there is still a lot of essential randomness that is repeating, but not predictable, like pi, or certain cellular automation equations. It is, just like evolution, potentially infinite, in that you start out with various simple concepts and they interact in increasingly complex fashion. Presumably an equation can be written to explain anything that exists, within statistical parameters, as it gets increasingly complex.

Notice I didn’t say ‘Identical cause yields identical effect, because there is a level of dynamic, quantum unpredicability, but for the simple stuff, by and large, the shortest distance between any two points tends to be a line. An equi-distant radius around a point is a circle. Any box with equal sides and equal angles is a square. Of course when you start factoring motion and have to add relativity, it starts getting exponentially complicated, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it gets illogical, or even non intuitive. For an example, it would seem that the uncertainty principle is a statement of the old adage that ‘You can’t have your cake and eat it too.’ The more the process of motion/creation and consumption, the less determined the object in question. Noun vs. verb. I think the idea also applies to mathematics itself. The more we understand the process, the less real and more fleeting the presumed structure is.