Sean Carroll of Cosmic Variance, California Institute of Technology and David Albert-Columbia UniversityScience Saturday: Time’s Arrow
Some highlights at different spots of the exchange.
How a philosopher of science spends his time (08:34) David describes his run-in with the “What the Bleep!?” cultists (11:56) Is good science too disturbing to make good entertainment? (04:46) Sean and David take on John Horgan’s critique of string theory (10:54) String theory’s predictive power (or lack thereof) (06:04) Why is the past so different, in so many ways, from the future? (12:20)
I selected the title for a reason. I will have to go back and record the exact time of this comment as it arises. Time 53:48 David mentions the point about a memory forming out of a equilibrium which not only encompasses the future, but can also include the past.
The integration of a philosophy of science alongside of a person in theoretics seems like a good idea to me. There is something to be said about this language used even though used in the conceptual performance of this collaboration.
Now you must know, that I speak from a position of one that is of discovery about the nature of the mathematics, as I have come to understand it. Yes sure I may cloud the interpretation of the mathematical deduction with the idea of a regress to an ultimate position in mind, that we might compare such relations to what the cosmos is saying and what we are saying about the future and past.
I will not discount the very fabric such psychologies might go too, to develop concept maps themselves, to map the thinking being as to the regress of reason, and it’s ultimate fate resting in such a mathematical description.
When I point out the relation to WMAP and the idea of this mathematical relationship, one might see the underlying method with which Sean and David intermingle conceptually. To bring forward a clear and consistent description of what begins and ends in the universe, might mean in relation to the past and future. What it means in relation to the memory that arises
I am looking to define such a shape as well as to the very nature of this universe.
I link the previous blog entry above for consideration, in line with the topic of this post, so that the “continuance of this position” describes the other half of the talking heads, that Sean Carroll represents.
Sean Carroll has a interesting set of four entires about the backwardness of the arrow of time and how it would appear. This is an interesting exercise for me on how perception about the current direction of the universe could have represented “the Egg before the chicken” scenarios.
Incompatible Arrows, I: Martin Amis
Incompatible Arrows, II: Kurt Vonnegut
Incompatible Arrows, III: Lewis Carroll
Incompatible Arrows, IV: F. Scott Fitzgerald
Chicken or Egg
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth century
Reverse chronology — narrating a story, or parts of one, backwards in time — is a venerable technique in literature, going back at least as far as Virgil’s Aeneid. Much more interesting is a story with incompatible arrows of time: some characters live “backwards” while others experience life normally.
One should be aware that there are a series of bloggingheads up and coming that are being exchanged here.
This raises all sorts of questions, the most basic of which are: “What counts as `looking’ vs. `not looking’?” and “Do we really need a separate law of physics to describe the evolution of systems that are being looked at?”