Organic realism

[tama]

Whitehead proposed that organic realism replaces classical materialism:

Process and Reality is famous for its defense of theism, although Whitehead's God differs essentially from the revealed God of Abrahamic religions. Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism gave rise to process theology, thanks to Charles Hartshorne, John B. Cobb, Jr, and David Ray Griffin. Some Christians and Jews find process theology a fruitful way of understanding God and the universe. Just as the entire universe is in constant flow and change, God, as source of the universe, is viewed as growing and changing. Whitehead's rejection of mind-body dualism is similar to elements in traditions such as Buddhism.

The main tenets of Whitehead's metaphysics were summarized in his most accessible work, Adventures of Ideas (1933), where he also defines his conceptions of beauty, truth, art, adventure, and peace. He believed that "there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

Clearly the process theology is closely related to Heraclitus philosophy of change ("panta rhei, ouden menei&quot . In physics, Bohm's interpretation is based on and/or implicates the philosophical foundation of organic realism:

In his article of 1952, providing an alternative interpretation of quantum mechancs, Bohm already spoke of a “quantum-mechanical” potential.[60]

Basil and Hiley also called the quantum potential an information potential, given that it influences the form of processes and is itself shaped by the environment.[8] Bohm indicated “The ship or aeroplane (with its automatic Pilot) is a self-active system, i.e. it has its own energy. But the form of its activity is determined by the information content concerning its environment that is carried by the radar waves. This is independent of the intensity of the waves. We can similarly regard the quantum potential as containing active information. It is potentially active everywhere, but actually active only where and when there is a particle.” (italics in original).[61]

Hiley refers to the quantum potential as internal energy[23] and as “a new quality of energy only playing a role in quantum processes”.[62] He has emphasized that the quantum potential, for Bohm, was “a key element in gaining insights into what could underlie the quantum formalism. Bohm was convinced by his deeper analysis of this aspect of the approach that the theory could not be mechanical. Rather, it is organic in the sense of Whitehead. Namely, that it was the whole that determined the properties of the individual particles and their relationship, not the other way round.”[63] (See also: Bohm and Hiley's work on quantum potential and active information)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential

Also, as far as I understand, Bohm's interpretation and notion of quantum potential does not suffer from the basic problem of quantum physics, which Pitkänen states thusly:

Quantum measurement theory is the black sheep of physics and it is not tactful to talk about quantum measurement theory in the coffee table of physicists. The problem is simply that that the non-determinism of state function reduction - necessary for the interpretation of experiments in Copenhagen interpretation - is in conflict with the determinism of Schrödinger equation. The basic problem does not disappear for other interpretations. How it is possible that the world is both deterministic and deterministic at the same time? There seems to be two causalities: could they relate to two different notions of time? Could the times for Schrödiner equation and state function reduction be different?

More on Pitkänen's notions of times and causalities: http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2012/05/mystery-of-time-again.html#comments

Whitehead's "organic" theism is relativistic, analogically a multicellular organism like human being is the dynamically interactive "god" of individual cells. The situation in organic biology, where organic reality (holistic causation/information from wholes to parts) should be most clear and undeniable, seems particularly infested at the moment, where the methodology of materialistic reductionism taken as metaphysical world view is both insufficient to explain organic realism and extremely hostile towards discussing organic reality.

[longship]

1. Hmm, sounds like co-opting scientific terms to promote philosophical kookery

I'll read at the link more, but when I see quantum used philosophically, I cringe because it's a clear sign that the writer has either not studied quantum or is extending into philosophical realms where it doesn't belong. That's a huge red flag.

However, I will look deeper into this post and see just what this about.

[tama]

12. Philosophy and science

Of the names mentioned, Whitehead is philosopher, David Bohm is theoretical physicist and a philosopher who had extensive dialogue with Jiddu Krishnamurti, Matti Pitkänen is a theoretical physicist developing a TOE that includes a theory of consciousness.

And to quote Bohm about role of interpretations in physics:

An interpretation, such as the various interpretations of quantum theory, is in no sense a deduction from experimental facts or from the mathematics of a theory. Rather it is a proposal of what the theory might mean in a physical and intuively comprehensive sense. Thus every interpretation brings into the theory something which is not in the observations and equations themselves. This additional material comes from a very broead area which extends beyond what is normally taken to be science and includes philosophy and aestheic sensibilities. [...] Some, however, prefer to take what they believe is a totally pragmatic view and argue that quantum theory is no more than an algorithm fro predicting experiments and that to attempt to interpret such an algorith is a waste of everyone's time Yet these thinkers, too, have been strongly affected by considerations that lie outside science, such as the opinions of the positivists, operationalists, and empiricist philosophers who were fashionable in the early days of quantum theory.
In essence, all the available interpretations of the quantum thoery, and indeed of any other physical theory, depend fundamentally on implicit or explicit philosophical assumptions, as well as on assumptions that arise in countless other ways from beyond the field of physics.

(Science, Order and Creativity p. 101).

For me, the "huge red flag" is when these implicit or explicit assumptions are unconsciouss and/or dogmatic authoritarian beliefs not open to skepticism and dialogue. Anti-philosophical attitude (often belief in positivist philosophy disguided as anti-philosophy) does not help to solve the existing theoretical problems of physics (aka natural philosophy), such as the basic problem about determinism and non-determinism in quantum physics, which needs dialogue between various interpretations in order to science to proceed, and of course the role and meaning of science in larger society depends on dialogue between interpretations that are, hopefully, intuitively comprehensive also to those of us without extensive mathematical skills.

Organic realism (of Whitehead et alii) is IMHO preferable paradigm to naive materialism in many ways, as it can be both theistic and agnostic/atheistic position (but perhaps not antitheistic), and not least importantly, it has great potential to heal our self-destructive nature relation of technocratic materialism of consumerism and corporatocracy.

[longship]

14. But the test of science is whether it agrees with the data

and the ancillary theories. Whatever people think, whether they are philosophers, physicists, theologians, or just some guy on the street, is totally irrelevant.

The universe is what the universe is. Science makes measurements and constructs extremely accurate theories that predict future measurements also to extreme accuracy.

Now, what does quantum theory mean? I don't think anybody who makes a claim in this area is doing science, no matter what their CV says.

Quantum field theory is a model that predicts the behavior of the universe at some scales. There is a very strong argument that all the behaviors we see in the universe are emergent from these basic quantum behaviors we observe.

Are we sure? Fuck no. But it's the best we have right now. There are many people working on improving it. Indeed, they likely will.

I like what Feynman said: If you say you know quantum theory, you don't know quantum theory.

Myself, I am very comfortable with not knowing what it means. I find all these philosophical extensions to be not very parsimonious. They should make a prediction that can be tested or posit a theory which explains an existing anomaly and simultaneously makes predictions which are testable.

Wasn't it Pascal who wrote (using the modern vernacular), Oh physics, save me from meta-physics?

Regardless, this is an interesting discussion.

[tama]

19. QFT

is a group of interpretations with many unsolved problems left, including the basic problem mentioned earlier (Smolin's list of others: http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/fiveproblems.htm). There have been attempts - so far unsuccesfull - to axiomatize QFT, from wikipedia: "Finding the proper axioms for quantum field theory is still an open and difficult problem in mathematics. One of the Millennium Prize Problems—proving the existence of a mass gap in Yang-Mills theory—is linked to this issue."

It is fairly common and self-evident view among the scientists (from Smolin and Weinberg to Pitkänen etc. etc.) doing science - trying to solve the existing theoretical problems and to incorporate known empirical anomalies in theoretical framework that the problems are linked to the philosophical assumptions - or axioms - underlying the current theories. You can't remove philosophy from natural philosophy aka physics, or rather, any attempt to do so is self-deception that hinders scientific progress.

To my limited understanding, e.g. Pitkänen has allready made huge improvements, but that has not been possible without changing the philosophical approach of basic assumptions especially about the meaning and role of time, and hence also determinism and causality. That's the very point of philosophy in natural philosophy, you need to change the philosophical assumptions to posit theories that solve theoretical problems (that arise from mistaken or too limited philosophical assumptions), explain existing anomalies and make testable predictions.

"Universe is what the universe is" is interpretive language implying that universe is a "thing" rather than inclusive dynamic process ("Universe happens as happens&quot - at least epistemologically, and ontological statements are rather the realm of meta-physics.

[tama]

20. More on QFT

As for relation between science and philosophy, it seems obvious to me that the inability to formulate axiomatic mathematical base to QFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#Axiomatic_approaches) is linked to Gödel's proof, and/or that set theory is inadequate mathematical base for axiomatic formulation of QFT (Category theory - see e.g. Baez - and Pitkänen's Quantum Mathematics based on Hilbert spaces do not suffer from the limitations of set theory, so the situation is not hopeless.)

I've been following the debate around Krauss' new book and relation of philosophy and science, and David Albert brought up the Aharonov-Bohm effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect):
"Professor Kraus’ argument for the ‘reality’ of virtual particles, and for the instability of the quantum-mechanical vacuum, and for the larger and more imposing proposition that ‘nothing is something’, hinges on the claim that “the uncertainty in the measured energy of a system is inversely proportional to the length of time over which you observe it”. And it happens that we have known, for more than half a century now, from a beautiful and seminal and widely cited and justly famous paper by Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm, that this claim is false."
http://philocosmology.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/an-explanation-from-nothing/

So in terms of reductionism the physical fields can be derived from (non-local) potential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential#Magnetic_vector_potential) but not vice versa which was considered "just math" before the Aharonov-Bohm paper and thought experiment and it's empirical verification. This is deeply connected to Bohm's notion of active information:

"In 1979, Bohm and Hiley discussed the Aharonov-Bohm effect which had recently found experimental confirmation.[20] They called attention to the importance of the early work of Louis de Broglie on pilot waves, emphasizing his insight and physical intuition and stating that developments based on his ideas aimed at a better understanding than mathematical formalism alone.[21] They offered ways of understanding quantum non-locality and the measurement process,[22][23][24][25] the limit of classicality,[26] interference and quantum tunneling.[27]

They showed how in the Bohm model, introducing the concept of active information, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wave function, could be understood in terms of the quantum potential approach, and that this approach could be extended to relativistic quantum field theories.[25] They described the measurement process and the impossibility of measuring position and momentum simultaneously as follows: “The ѱ field itself changes since it must satisfy the Schrödinger equation, which now contains the interaction between the particle and apparatus, and it is this change that makes it impossible to measure position and momentum together”.[28]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Hiley#Quantum_potential_and_active_information

Just to show that physics does not save you from meta-physics, especially if by metaphysics we mean also the role and meaning of mathematics (e.g. as active information not dependent from strength and distance) and Platonic realism and Wigners classical question about the "unreasonable effectiveness". Platonic realism is not in conflict with organic realism of Whitehead, but it is in conflict with naive materialistic realism. Metaphysics derived directly from current scientific understanding falsifies naive materialistic realism and need for philosophical re-evaluation of the materialisic paradigm cannot be escaped in honest search for truth.

[longship]

23. Bohm's deterministic quantum theory is not relativistic

Wheras the QFTs of the standard model (QED, Electroweak, QCD) are. Also, the EPR experiment results ruled out crucial claims made by Bohm, that of local hidden variables.

[tama]

29. Corrections

Bohm's interpretation is called causal interpretation (for preserving ontology of classical mechanics(?)), but at least Bohm himself didn't consider it deterministic but leading also to holistic "causation" of active information. These questions get deeply philosophical.

Bohm never made claims against Bell's theorem but showed that it does not rule out theory of non-local hidden variables. EPR experiments have so far confirmed non-local events. But it should be noted that non-local refers to non-local in relation to 4D-timespace but not (necessarily) in relation to infinite-D Hilbert space or some n-dimensional embedding space.

QED, Electroweak and QCD are to my understanding not in conflict with special relativity (and hence can be called relativistic in limited sense) but the problem is with general relativity which is theory of non-euclidian gravitation. And according to latest comments I'm aware of, even Weinberg is getting disappointed in lack of progress of String/M approach and losing faith.

[longship]

31. Yes, that is my understanding, too.

You're apparently a bit more up to date than I am. I try to keep up to date, but as you know, a lot is going on. It's been too damned long since I studied this shit. Sigh!

I never warmed to strings too much. But it showed some interesting prospects. Of course, that was the basis of one of the famous Feynman/Gell-Mann battles.

[Thats my opinion]

27. The intersection of process relgious thought, science and philosophy

is a serious academic discipline in seminaries and universities all across the world. While Whitehead's "Process and Reality" is tough going, there are a plethora of interpretations which are readable. The best ones are by John Cobb--whom you mention. John is a colleague, neighbor and friend of mine. Among other things, he has established studies in process thought in 23 Chinese universities, and regularly has Chinese scholars in residence in Claremont.

There are few weeks when there are not groups of clergy and academics meeting in seminars to work through the theological implications of this way of looking at God, religion and the way the world works.


Thanks to all those in this forum willing to explore this exciting venture.

[tama]

32. Good to hear

I was expecting more interest in this topic from theists, so thanks for commenting. Chinese philosophical traditions of Taoism should have ho problems with Whitehead's approach, and I'm inclined to agree with those who consider evolution of Greek philosophy after Heraclitus just downhill.

Bohm and Peat refer specifically to Whithead in "Science, Order and Creativity", which I can heartily recommend as very readable for also us mathematically handicapped. And as for math, Pitkänen's development of Quantum Mathematics (Hilbert spaces at each point of a Hilbert space) has been affected by reference to Brahman-Atman identity of Indian philosophy (cf. holography metaphor by Bohm etc.) and I've noted that Quantum Mathematics is the number theoretical equivalent of Indra's net (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net).

Worlds of forms are never beyond the power of expression of mathematical and natural languages and hence no mysteries, Only mystery "Wovonn Mann nich sprechen kann" is silence.

[RobertEarl]

2. What is this about time?

"There seems to be two causalities: could they relate to two different notions of time? "

I am interested in the exploration of what time is.

One question that bugs me is if time is universal and pervasive then why doesn't my dog recognize time? Could it be that time is merely a dream concocted by humans alone and has no organic reality?

[longship]

3. Einstein might have had something about that

In particular, time is a very specific part of the universe, woven into the fabric. This article seems to be what Murray Gell-Mann calls quantum flapdoodle.

[RobertEarl]

4. Time is woven in the fabric?

What's the rest of the fabric woven with?

I contend time is a myth. We have and can feel space and matter, but we can't feel time. Time is nothing but a religion. Just an idea.

[eqfan592]

5. Perhaps you would be better served studying the works of those...

...who have investigated this field of study in great detail, and holding off on your own contentions until after.

[RobertEarl]

7. Perhaps

But there you sit and read and I am more interested in what you think.
Of course, if you don't think, that's cool.

[eqfan592]

9. Do I think time is a fantasy? No.

And you can see Longships post for a good breakdown on why. But can I also completely explain it? No.

[RobertEarl]

10. Time is what we make of it

In a sense I see it as a vapor. Put under pressure, forced to our bidding, and used as we see fit, time can take on many shapes and forms. Unlike matter and space which is pretty much what it is, time can be easily changed. Even made to appear solid.

[longship]

6. Well, time is something!

We can measure it, quite precisely. To say it doesn't exist is basically falsified. It acts like a dimension of the universe but it is qualitatively different than the spatial dimensions, and is treated differently in the mathematics.

The important thing to realize is that equations do not make any sense without time. In our experiences, too, we measure time. There would be no cause and effect otherwise. So time is something, although we might not be able to describe it.

It sounds like you're making the logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. Because nobody knows what time is, I know what it is (it doesn't exist).

Thanks for your response.

[RobertEarl]

8. well

You show that you too are ignorant about time, so we are in the same boat, just paddling differently.

Time: does it matter to a dog? Seems time matters only to humans. So like buildings, and spaceships, time is merely a human construction.

[longship]

11. Time is decidedly not a human construction

It may be a human abstraction, but NOT a construction. There is something about the universe which undeniably exists that we call time. Our abstraction is mathematical, and it works to extreme accuracies in predicting events in the universe, which themselves are exemplars of cause and effect. Now if somebody claims causation doesn't exist, I don't know what to say. That would strike me as a bit kooky.

I find the dog analogy to be a non sequitur. How can anybody answer what a dog experiences or doesn't experience? They cannot. I know the pet psychic claims she can, but we also know what that is, cold reading.

Time exists because the universe wouldn't work without it. That doesn't mean we know precisely what it is. In spite of that fact, we can describe it to extreme precision and make predictions.

[RobertEarl]

13. Cause and effect exists

We can see it happen. But only because we use time to see from A to B.

If time is as important to a dog as it is to us, then why don't they wear watches? I say that because time as we know it does not appear to be important to dogs, yet dogs do exist - they take up matter and space just as we do, yet time appears to not matter to dogs.

Is it because dogs can't think of time, like we do? Of course they don't.

But yet their universe works. Dogs do make mathematical decisions. We know they do. But are those decisions based on time? I don't see how.

[longship]

15. Well, we seem to be agreeing, mostly...

But your dog wristwatch thing is a bit lame, so I won't comment further on it.

My understanding of science -- I studied physics -- is that a theory predicts, but may or may not describe what and probably cannot describe why.

I am comfortable at letting philosophers and followers to do the chair throwing to defend their positions on these questions.

However, I still take a position that when somebody is making scientific claims, they should be required to back them up using science.

That's the gist of my argument here.

[RobertEarl]

16. The subject is a tough subject

The basis of this 'reality of time' is, science tells me, something that humans are the only beings that are so tied up with. The rest are seemingly not concerned with time. So, to me, it follows that time is something we humans solely manipulate.

I see some people who are wholly consumed with time and I see others to whom time matters very little.

So what are our limits? How manipulative of time can we be? How far can we take it? It is something to think about, eh?

[longship]

17. Well, what do we actually know about time?

We know that it is part of the universe. All of our successful theories include time, and would not work without it.

We know time is relative to relative velocity, and to the strength of the gravitational field in the vacinity of a measurement. So there is no absolute time in the universe.

I find your animal argument to be weird, and a likely non sequitur, since there is no way anybody can credibly make the claim that time doesn't exist for animals. Clearly we observe animals acting in time, regardless of whether they are intelligent enough to know about it. I just don't buy your argument.

Again, we have every reason to believe that time is a real part of the universe. If a person has a counter argument, they have a very steep mountain to climb, due to the crushingly overwhelming evidence that time is a real thing.

Now, is time a bit weird? You bet. Do we know what it is? Not too much. But whatever it is, it exists throughout a universe whether or not that universe had humans in it. Now this may seem to be a stretch, but I don't adhere to strong anthropic arguments, which is another argument which I'll not go on about here.

Thanks, again.

[RobertEarl]

18. Thank you, longship

Its been an enjoyable conversation.

As it is, I am just sitting here killing time on a rainy Sunday.

[tama]

21. Well

Time of Quantum physics is the absolute time derived from Newtonian mechanics - simultaneity is possible and meaningfull in terms of quantum physics - but in Einstein's relativistic time-space simultaneity of events is non-sensical concept.

It could be said that in terms of quantum physics, universe is part of time, and in terms or relativity, time is causal part of 4D spacetime. Unification of these - and other - notions of time is what GUTs and TOEs are about.

[longship]

22. Quantum physics is also relativistic

QED, Electrweak, and QCD incorporate relativity, so there is no simultaneity in quantum either.

[tama]

28. Yup

Those are partial unifications of Quantum physics and relativity, as well as relativistic QFT. At least according to Smolin, main problems of quantum gravity is the different notions of time in quantum physics (time dependent Schrödinger equation) and relativity.

[longship]

30. Indeed, plus the relative scale of gravity

Gravity is so-o-o weak. I don't see much hope for the String Model, although they are apparently finding interesting stuff.

I'm hoping that the LHC will find the Higgs, but if they can rule it out that would be the first major break of the Standard Model. Either way, it would be awesome.

There are some far out ideas in this very interesting thread. I tend towards a hard science interpretation, but find some of the possibilities very interesting.

[tama]

35. Weak and distant... :)

But the notion active information is not dependent from strength and distance

"Quantum computers hold great promise for solving interesting computational problems, but it remains a challenge to find efficient quantum circuits that can perform these complicated tasks. Here we show that finding optimal quantum circuits is essentially equivalent to finding the shortest path between two points in a certain curved geometry. By recasting the problem of finding quantum circuits as a geometric problem, we open up the possibility of using the mathematical techniques of Riemannian geometry to suggest new quantum algorithms or to prove limitations on the power of quantum computers."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5764/1133.abstract

Could this suggest quantum computation powered by relativistic space-time fabric alone?

[longship]

36. Or, "Open a subspace frequency to StarFleet Lt. Uhura"

[tama]

38. If only

Getting classical signals from non-local quantum computation is AFAIK still purely subluminal and millenium prize for proving Quantum Yang-Mills in 4D is still uncollected.

[LTX]

26. You seem to be re-defining time to suit a rather murky proposition.

You say that "time appears not to matter to dogs." That's not much to go on, but it appears to be a suggestion that inside the dog-brain brand of computer, time is a non-existent function. But time is a relational measurement, relative to position and velocity, and as such it is used extensively by dogs (and cats, and spiders, and bacteria). Think of an upper-order predator's strike as a relatively accessible example. Distance, angle, speed, and altitude of both predator and prey are correlated (or computed, if you wish) with durational measurements, i.e., relative time factors. You seem to be mistaking the increased "recollection of field" and "projection of field" capacities of the human brain for the underlying (t) factor itself.

[tama]

33. In terms of psychological time

it's often said that dogs live in the now (and humans don't), but of course also dogs make projections into future (of getting fed, getting out etc.) and carry on experiences from the past. So its just a relative statement, dogs worry much less about past and future than we do and are more flexible and present in the now. A good example of main difference between men and dogs is if you seclude dog in another room, when you open the door and let it rejoin the pack it wags its tail merrily, happy to be with loved ones again. Humans are much more likely to come out grumpy, accusative and holding a grudge and planning a revenge against the jailer-liberator.

[LTX]

39. Effectively, there is no "now."

I suppose you could say that "now" is 1/10¹⁵ second (approximately the frequency of oscillation of one ion of mercury at optical wavelengths, the currently fastest "tick" in atomic clocks), but that would discount faster sub-atomic oscillations.

"Now" is just a euphemism for the positioning in space that humans (and dogs, birds, earthworms, bacteria, etc.) employ to navigate, which itself is the product of "recollections of field" (memory) and "projections of field" (predictions of future external actions). Humans have a quantitative computing advantage that has manifested qualitative differences in memory and predictive power, but there is little to suggest that the underlying navigational mechanism is fundamentally different between humans and any other animate mechanism with sensory capacity.

[tama]

40. Notice

the word "psychological" time? If you have fully figured out the relation between psychological time experiences and theory dependent geometric times, good for you.

[Silent3]

24. Certainly time matters to a dog

Last edited Tue May 15, 2012, 01:42 PM - Edit history (3)

A dog might not measure time in hours and minutes, it might not count the days until a special event, but it obviously has a circadian rhythm, it anticipates future events (even if on a shorter time span than humans) like the the walk that comes after you show it that you've taken out the leash, having a desire to move from a present moment inside the house to a near future moment outside the house.

Time is as real as width, depth, and height. In fact, spacial dimensions and the time dimension are partly interchangeable -- that's what Einstein's Special Relativity is all about. If you want to call time an illusion, you have to call distance an illusion too -- which takes stretching the word "illusion" to the breaking point.

Just because something like time isn't fully understood, or just because there could be other perspectives that might severely challenge the way we think about time, doesn't make it an "illusion".

[Jim__]

41. At least one physicist questions the reality of time.

I stumbled across this and it reminded me of this thread. I'm not sure what he'll actually say in his lecture, but according to the advertising, he questions whether or not time is real. An excerpt:

...

On Wednesday, June 6, as part of Perimeter Institute's Public Lecture Series presented by Sun Life Financial, Dr. Julian Barbour, author and Visiting Professor at the University of Oxford, will explore modern indications that time and motion may be well founded illusions. In this talk, Barbour will examine how the Wheeler-DeWitt equation of quantum gravity suggests the fundamentally timeless nature of the quantum universe.

Barbour will also raise unresolved mysteries of our conscious experiences, and why these might provide insight into how a fundamentally timeless universe may be perceived as intensely temporal. A key result of his proposal could be an explanation of the asymmetry between the past and the future.

Julian Barbour is a theoretical physicist, who obtained his PhD on the foundations of Einstein's general theory of relativity at the University of Cologne in 1968. He has worked independently on foundational issues in physics for 45 years, specializing in the study of time and inertia. He has authored many research papers and several books, including "Absolute or Relative Motion?" (1989), "The End of Time" (1999), and "The Discovery of Dynamics" (2001).

Julian Barbour's lecture, entitled "Does Time Exist?", will be held Wednesday, June 6 at 7:00 PM (ET) in Waterloo, Ontario. Tickets will be available starting Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 9:00am (ET).

[Silent3]

25. As long as it's free-range organic realism

I refuse to live in a reality that hasn't been raised in humane conditions.

[rrneck]

37. Thanks, I needed that.

[AlbertCat]

34. How it is possible that the world is both deterministic and deterministic at the same time?

Being both deterministic and deterministic at the same time doesn't seem too hard to me