The 'Mind Of God' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 175):

However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would know the mind of God.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, 'the mind of God' here is a reference to Einstein's 'God' — who he famously said 'does not play dice' — which can be understood as the universe itself. (Einstein believed in the pantheistic God of Spinoza, defined as a singular self-subsistent Substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.)

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the God of Spinoza and Einstein can be understood as the content of consciousness: the construal of experience as meaning.  The mind of God is thus the conscious process that construes experience as meaning. Knowing the mind of God is thus consciousness knowing itself.

The identification of God with (the medium of) conscious processes, rather than the contents of consciousness, can be seen in Hindu mythology, where the Universe is reconstrued as a mental projection (dream) of the God Vishnu, and in Abrahamic mythology, where Creation is reconstrued as a verbal projection of the Creator (God said "Let there be light. …").

The Interdependence Of Philosophy And Language Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 174-5):

However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, “The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.” What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, not only are science are philosophy realised in the meaning of language, but it is language that makes science and philosophy possible, since it is the meaning of language that is reconstrued by the processes of consciousness as the meaning of science and philosophy.

Moreover, because science and philosophy are realised in language, a theory of language can be used to analyse the language of theory. This blog is an attempt to demonstrate the potential value of using one theory of language, Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, to analyse the language of science and philosophy.

The Interdependence Of Science And Philosophy Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 174-5):

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'why' interrogates two distinct types of cause: reason-result versus purpose, which frequently become blurred when physicists engage in philosophy (e.g. the Anthropic Principle).

As this blog demonstrates, the failure of physicists to make sense of the implications of Quantum Theory results from ignorance of philosophy, specifically: ignorance of the epistemological assumptions that form the foundation of Galilean science, and the assumption that meaning is transcendent of semiotic systems ("out there" to be discovered), rather than construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain by the processes of consciousness.

'Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?' Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 174):

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, what we view as, think of, and call 'the universe' is a construal of experience of the non-semiotic domain as (first-order) meaning by the processes of consciousness.  Models that describe the universe are reconstruals of that meaning as the (second-order) meaning of theories.

The question of why the universe exists is a matter of second-order meaning, and it conflates two distinct types of cause: reason vs purpose.  Physical science is concerned with the why of reason (causes of effects).  If purpose is limited to conscious beings, then applying it to the entire universe constitutes a category error.  The notion of the universe bothering to exist makes this category error, since 'bothering' is a behavioural process, and as such, limited to conscious beings.

Gravity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 173):

In this book I have given special prominence to the laws that govern gravity, because it is gravity that shapes the large-scale structure of the universe, even though it is the weakest of the four categories of forces. The laws of gravity were incompatible with the view held until quite recently that the universe is unchanging in time: the fact that gravity is always attractive implies that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. According to the general theory of relativity, there must have been a state of infinite density in the past, the big bang, which would have been an effective beginning of time.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the laws of gravity (metaphenomena) don't govern gravity (phenomenon).  The laws of gravity are reconstruals of gravity as the General Theory of Relativity.

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, gravity is not a force, but a consequence of the geometry of space-time under the influence of matter. (It is because gravity is nevertheless construed as a force that physicists believe that it needs to be unified with the three forces that are modelled in terms of particle exchange.)

Although gravity is always attractive, gravity (local contraction of space) and the cosmological expansion of space can be understood as opposite polarities of one and the same phenomenon.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the beginning of time corresponds with the beginning of the unfolding of processes, of which time is the dimension of measurement.

The Uncertainty Principle Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Hawking (1988: 172-3):

We now know that Laplace’s hopes of determinism cannot be realised, at least in the terms he had in mind. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics implies that certain pairs of quantities, such as the position and velocity of a particle, cannot both be predicted with complete accuracy.

Quantum mechanics deals with this situation via a class of quantum theories in which particles don’t have well-defined positions and velocities but are represented by a wave. These quantum theories are deterministic in the sense that they give laws for the evolution of the wave with time. Thus if one knows the wave at one time, one can calculate it at any other time. The unpredictable, random element comes in only when we try to interpret the wave in terms of the positions and velocities of particles. But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the wave model represents the quantum system as potential, quantified as probabilities. The evolution of such a wave is thus the evolution of the system probabilities. Interpreting the wave in terms of positions and velocities of particles is construing instances of that probabilistic potential. The uncertainty is thus inherent in the system as potential, rather than in its instantiations as particle positions and velocities.

Laws That Determine The Evolution Of The Universe Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 172-3):

The success of these laws led Laplace at the beginning of the nineteenth century to postulate scientific determinism; that is, he suggested that there would be a set of laws that would determine the evolution of the universe precisely, given its configuration at one time.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this blurs the distinction between the construal of experience as first-order meaning (the evolution of the universe) and its reconstrual as second-order meaning (the laws of physics). Clearly, second-order meaning (laws of physics) does not determine first-order meaning (the evolution of the universe) any more than a map (second-order) determines a landscape (first-order).

Moreover, the abstract notion of 'determinism', like its frequent opposite, 'free will', can be understood as a desiderative projection (a hope or fear) rather than a cognitive projection (a thought).  Interpersonally, this dichotomy can be understood in terms of the complementary aspects of modulation: obligation (determinism) and inclination (free will).

Astronomical Regularities And Laws Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 172):

Gradually, however, it must have been noticed that there were certain regularities: the sun always rose in the east and set in the west, whether or not a sacrifice had been made to the sun god. Further, the sun, the moon, and the planets followed precise paths across the sky that could be predicted in advance with considerable accuracy. The sun and the moon might still be gods, but they were gods who obeyed strict laws, apparently without any exceptions, if one discounts stories like that of the sun stopping for Joshua.

At first, these regularities and laws were obvious only in astronomy and a few other situations. However, as civilisation developed, and particularly in the last 300 years, more and more regularities and laws were discovered.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, regularities are assessments in terms of modalisation: usuality/probability.  Descriptions of regularities are laws in the sense of general laws, not laws in the sense of requiring obedience, which are assessments in terms of modulation: obligation/inclination.

Moreover, phenomena (such as the trajectory of planets) do not obey their metaphenomenal reconstruals ("strict laws") any more than a landscape obeys a map of that landscape.

The Functions Of Mythology Vs Science Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 171-2):

The earliest theoretical attempts to describe and explain the universe involved the idea that events and natural phenomena were controlled by spirits with human emotions who acted in a very humanlike and unpredictable manner. These spirits inhabited natural objects, like rivers and mountains, including celestial bodies, like the sun and moon. They had to be placated and their favour sought in order to ensure the fertility of the soil and the rotation of the seasons.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, a theory is a reconstrual of meaning as higher-order meaning.  That is, experience of the non-semiotic domain is construed by consciousness as meaning, and meaning is reconstrued as 'meta-meaning' (meaning of meaning), such as those that realise mythological traditions and scientific theories.

What makes such reconstruals possible is the distinction between meaning and wording, the stratification of the content plane of language, which, according to Halliday (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 25), is what distinguishes the species Homo sapiens from its ancestors.  It is this distinction that makes metaphor possible, and it is metaphor that makes the reconstrual of meaning possible, beginning with lexical metaphor, as in mythic symbolism, with grammatical metaphor coming to the fore in the emergence of modern science.

According to comparative mythologist, Joseph Campbell, mythic symbolism is not concerned with explaining the universe, but with providing the means of fitting consciousness to both the (construed) physical and (enacted) social environments.

The Uncertainty Principle Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Hawking (1988: 168):

Even if we do discover a complete unified theory, it would not mean that we would be able to predict events in general, for two reasons. The first is the limitation that the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics sets on our powers of prediction. There is nothing we can do to get around that. In practice, however, this first limitation is less restrictive than the second one. It arises from the fact that we could not solve the equations of the theory exactly, except in very simple situations.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, as previously explained, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics entails that meaning potential construed of experience is itself probabilistic.

The Possibility Of An Ultimate Theory Of The Universe Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 165-7):

But can there really be such a unified theory? Or are we perhaps just chasing a mirage? There seem to be three possibilities:

1. There really is a complete unified theory (or a collection of overlapping formulations), which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.
2. There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.
3. There is no theory of the universe: events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner. … 

The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations, only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory, and to account for these we have had to develop a more advanced theory. …

What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? As was explained in Chapter 1, we could never be quite sure that we had indeed found the correct theory, since theories can’t be proved. But if the theory was mathematically consistent and always gave predictions that agreed with observations, we could be reasonably confident that it was the right one. It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of humanity’s intellectual struggle to understand the universe.

Blogger Comments:

The notion that there is an ultimate theory of the universe that may or may not be eventually discovered makes the epistemological assumption that meaning transcends semiotic systems — that meaning is 'out there' to be discovered.  This is the opposite of the epistemological assumption of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory: that meaning does not transcend semiotic systems.

From the latter perspective, meaning is construed, by consciousness, of experience of the non-semiotic domain, and it is this meaning that constitutes "reality". In this view, theorising is not the matching of meanings of theory with pre-existing meanings outside semiotic systems, but the reconstrual of the meanings of "reality" as the meanings of theory. On this basis, there is no end to theorising. Instead, theorising is an unceasing, open-ended evolution of meaning-making.

The Infinite Energy And Mass Of Virtual Particle-Antiparticle Pairs Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 156-7):

The main difficulty in finding a theory that unifies gravity with the other forces is that general relativity is a “classical” theory; that is, it does not incorporate the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. On the other hand, the other partial theories depend on quantum mechanics in an essential way. A necessary first step, therefore, is to combine general relativity with the uncertainty principle. … The trouble is, as explained in Chapter 7, that the uncertainty principle means that even “empty” space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and, therefore, by Einstein’s famous equation E = mc², they would have an infinite amount of mass. Their gravitational attraction would thus curve up the universe to infinitely small size.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the infinite amount of energy and mass of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs in "empty" space quantifies them as potential only.  Finite amounts of energy and mass, only, are actually instantiated, and only for the limited time before the particles and antiparticles annihilate.  It is because the infinities are potential only, that their gravitational attraction does not actually "curve up the universe to infinitely small size".

The Thermodynamic, Psychological And Cosmological Arrows Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Hawking (1988: 152):

To summarise, the laws of science do not distinguish between the forward and backward directions of time. However, there are at least three arrows of time that do distinguish the past from the future. They are the thermodynamic arrow, the direction of time in which disorder increases; the psychological arrow, the direction of time in which we remember the past and not the future; and the cosmological arrow, the direction of time in which the universe expands rather than contracts.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is only one direction of time, since time is the dimension along which processes unfold — whether the processes are material (e.g. thermodynamic), mental-verbal (e.g. psychological) or relational (e.g. cosmological).

The Psychological Arrow Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 147):

Our subjective sense of the direction of time, the psychological arrow of time, is therefore determined within our brain by the thermodynamic arrow of time. Just like a computer, we must remember things in the order in which entropy increases. This makes the second law of thermodynamics almost trivial. Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the psychological arrow of time is the direction of the unfolding of processes of consciousness, such as construing experience as meaning, and (re)construing meaning as the second law of thermodynamics.

Time measures the unfolding of processes, whether the processes result in increased overall disorder or increased local order (as in self-organising systems).

The Thermodynamic Arrow Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 145-6, 147-8):

The second law of thermodynamics results from the fact that there are always many more disordered states than there are ordered ones. … Suppose a system starts out in one of the small number of ordered states. As time goes by, the system will evolve according to the laws of science and its state will change. At a later time, it is more probable that the system will be in a disordered state than in an ordered one because there are more disordered states. Thus disorder will tend to increase with time if the system obeys an initial condition of high order. …

But why should the thermodynamic arrow of time exist at all? Or, in other words, why should the universe be in a state of high order at one end of time, the end that we call the past?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the change from a ordered state to a disordered state unfolds as a process, whereas time is the dimension along which the process unfolds. On this view, physicists routinely confuse the process (e.g. the ticking of a clock) with the temporal dimension (e.g. the interval between each tick, the duration of the ticking, etc.).

The Thermodynamic, Psychological And Cosmological Arrows Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Hawking (1988: 145):

The increase of disorder or entropy with time is one example of what is called an arrow of time, something that distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time. There are at least three different arrows of time. First, there is the thermodynamic arrow of time, the direction of time in which disorder or entropy increases. Then, there is the psychological arrow of time. This is the direction in which we feel time passes, the direction in which we remember the past but not the future. Finally, there is the cosmological arrow of time. This is the direction of time in which the universe is expanding rather than contracting.

In this chapter I shall argue that the no boundary condition for the universe, together with the weak anthropic principle, can explain why all three arrows point in the same direction — and moreover, why a well-defined arrow of time should exist at all. I shall argue that the psychological arrow is determined by the thermodynamic arrow, and that these two arrows necessarily always point in the same direction. If one assumes the no boundary condition for the universe, we shall see that there must be well-defined thermodynamic and cosmological arrows of time, but they will not point in the same direction for the whole history of the universe. However, I shall argue that it is only when they do point in the same direction that conditions are suitable for the development of intelligent beings who can ask the question: why does disorder increase in the same direction of time as that in which the universe expands? 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the reason that time has a direction is simply because it is the dimension of the unfolding of processes. In this view, there is only one direction that the arrow of time can point. The thermodynamic arrow of time is the dimension of the unfolding of material processes that lead from order to disorder. The psychological arrow of time is the dimension of the unfolding of mental (and verbal) processes. The cosmological arrow of time is the dimension of the unfolding of the relational processes of spatial expansion.

The Strong Anthropic Principle Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 125):

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. We cannot, at the moment at least, predict the values of these numbers from theory — we have to find them by observation. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. … Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, most interpretations of the strong anthropic principle tend to mistake the causal relation of result for the causal relation of purpose; mistaking humans as the result of physical processes for humans as purpose of physical processes.

Since beauty is a construal of experience as meaning, the beauty of a universe depends on there being such a construal by processes of consciousness.

Big Bang And Black Hole Singularities Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Hawking (1988: 115):

Einstein’s general theory of relativity, on its own, predicted that space-time began at the big bang singularity and would come to an end either at the big crunch singularity (if the whole universe recollapsed), or at a singularity inside a black hole (if a local region, such as a star, were to collapse). Any matter that fell into the hole would be destroyed at the singularity, and only the gravitational effect of its mass would continue to be felt outside.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, a singularity is the geometrical point at which all spatial intervals equal zero (and time intervals equal infinity).  Because there is no space for matter-energy, and because there is no matter-energy, there are no processes to unfold, and because there are no processes, there is no time dimension to measure their unfolding.

The big bang is the relative expansion of space intervals (and contraction of time intervals) from such a singularity, whereas the collapse to a black hole is the relative contraction of space intervals (and expansion of time intervals) towards such a singularity.

Gravitational Waves Vs Light Waves Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 89-90):

General relativity predicts that heavy objects that are moving will cause the emission of gravitational waves, ripples in the curvature of space that travel at the speed of light. These are similar to light waves, which are ripples of the electromagnetic field, but they are much harder to detect. 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to General Relativity, gravitational waves are propagations of a disturbance, relatively contracted space intervals and expanded time intervals, caused by the acceleration of a massive body.

On the other hand, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to Quantum Mechanics, the wave model of light reconstrues light as potential — measured as probability — whereas the particle model of light reconstrues light as instance.  That is, the (crests of) ripples in the electromagnetic field represent peak probabilities of particle locations.

That is, whereas gravitational waves are instantial propagations of space-time variation, light waves quantify potential instantiations of matter-energy.

Big Bang And Black Hole Singularities Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Hawking (1988: 88-9):

The work that Roger Penrose and I did between 1965 and 1970 showed that, according to general relativity, there must be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature within a black hole. This is rather like the big bang at the beginning of time, only it would be an end of time for the collapsing body and the astronaut. At this singularity the laws of science and our ability to predict the future would break down.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to the General Theory of Relativity, a singularity is a geometric point at which intervals of the three spatial dimensions contract to 0 and time intervals expand to ∞ due to the presence of matter.  Curvature is a feature of particle trajectories through regions of contracted space intervals.

The singularity of a black hole and the singularity of the Big Bang differ significantly in the fact that the former is located in space and surrounded by matter-energy, whereas the latter is not, since it represents the space of the entire universe as a geometric point.

If time is the dimension measuring the unfolding of processes, the end of time is the end of all processes whose unfolding time measures.  At a singularity, there are no spatial dimensions for processes to unfold in, and no space for the quantum fields in which particles are probabilistically instantiated.

The Contraction Of Space In The Formation Of A Black Hole Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 88):

This scenario is not entirely realistic, however, because of the following problem. Gravity gets weaker the farther you are from the star, so the gravitational force on our intrepid astronaut’s feet would always be greater than the force on his head. This difference in the forces would stretch our astronaut out like spaghetti or tear him apart before the star had contracted to the critical radius at which the event horizon formed! However, we believe that there are much larger objects in the universe, like the central regions of galaxies, that can also undergo gravitational collapse to produce black holes; an astronaut on one of these would not be torn apart before the black hole formed. He would not, in fact, feel anything special as he reached the critical radius, and could pass the point of no return without noticing it. However, within just a few hours, as the region continued to collapse, the difference in the gravitational forces on his head and his feet would become so strong that again it would tear him apart.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to General Relativity, gravity is manifested as the relative contraction of space intervals with proximity to the centre of mass of a material body.  On this basis, in both of the above scenarios, the space intervals at the astronaut's feet are relatively more contracted than the space intervals at the astronaut's head.  This means that, in the gravitational collapse in the formation of a black hole, the astronaut in the region of collapse is relatively crushed from the feet up.

The Expansion Of Time In The Formation Of A Black Hole Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 87-8):

In order to understand what you would see if you were watching a star collapse to form a black hole, one has to remember that in the theory of relativity there is no absolute time. Each observer has his own measure of time. The time for someone on a star will be different from that for someone at a distance, because of the gravitational field of the star. Suppose an intrepid astronaut on the surface of the collapsing star, collapsing inward with it, sent a signal every second, according to his watch, to his spaceship orbiting about the star. At some time on his watch, say 11:00, the star would shrink below the critical radius at which the gravitational field becomes so strong nothing can escape, and his signals would no longer reach the spaceship. As 11:00 approached, his companions watching from the spaceship would find the intervals between successive signals from the astronaut getting longer and longer, but this effect would be very small before 10:59:59. They would have to wait only very slightly more than a second between the astronaut’s 10:59:58 signal and the one that he sent when his watch read 10:59:59, but they would have to wait forever for the 11:00 signal. The light waves emitted from the surface of the star between 10:59:59 and 11:00, by the astronaut’s watch, would be spread out over an infinite period of time, as seen from the spaceship. The time interval between the arrival of successive waves at the spaceship would get longer and longer, so the light from the star would appear redder and redder and fainter and fainter. Eventually, the star would be so dim that it could no longer be seen from the spaceship: all that would be left would be a black hole in space. The star would, however, continue to exert the same gravitational force on the spaceship, which would continue to orbit the black hole.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to General Relativity, gravity involves the relative expansion of time intervals, as between ticks of a clock — the closer to the centre of mass in a gravitational field, the more relatively expanded the time intervals. This is why the watch of an astronaut on the surface of a star ticks relatively ever more slowly as the spatial dimensions of a star contract under gravity, with the time intervals eventually expanding to ∞, relative to the time intervals at the orbiting spaceship.

The redshift of the light emitted from the collapsing star, on the other hand, is due to the relative expansion of space intervals between photons — reducing their relative frequency — as light moves from the relatively contracted space intervals near the event horizon to the relatively expanded space intervals where the orbiting spaceship is located.

The Event Horizon Of A Black Hole Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 85-7):

Eventually, when the star has shrunk to a certain critical radius, the gravitational field at the surface becomes so strong that the light cones are bent inward so much that light can no longer escape (Fig. 6.1). According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. Thus if light cannot escape, neither can anything else; everything is dragged back by the gravitational field. So one has a set of events, a region of space-time, from which it is not possible to escape to reach a distant observer. This region is what we now call a black hole. Its boundary is called the event horizon and it coincides with the paths of light rays that just fail to escape from the black hole. 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to General Relativity, the event horizon of a black hole is the distance from the gravitational singularity where the intervals of the three spatial dimensions have contracted to such an extent that the trajectory of light is curved to remain within the space between it and the singularity. 

Gravitational Redshift Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 85):

The gravitational field of the star changes the paths of light rays in space-time from what they would have been had the star not been present. The light cones, which indicate the paths followed in space and time by flashes of light emitted from their tips, are bent slightly inward near the surface of the star. This can be seen in the bending of light from distant stars observed during an eclipse of the sun. As the star contracts, the gravitational field at its surface gets stronger and the light cones get bent inward more. This makes it more difficult for light from the star to escape, and the light appears dimmer and redder to an observer at a distance.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to General Relativity, the gravitational field of a star is the relative contraction of space intervals around the centre of its mass.  It is this contraction of space intervals that accounts for the geodesic trajectory of light from distant stars curving towards the star it is passing.

The redshift of the light from distant stars passing through the star's gravitational field is due to the light's passage from the relatively contracted space intervals near the star to the relatively expanded space intervals further from the star.  The relative expansion of space intervals means relatively more space between photons of a given frequency, and so relatively longer wavelengths, and so a relative shift towards the red end of the visible spectrum.

The Formation Of White Dwarf Stars And Neutron Stars Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 84):

If a star’s mass is less than the Chandrasekhar limit, it can eventually stop contracting and settle down to a possible final state as a “white dwarf” with a radius of a few thousand miles and a density of hundreds of tons per cubic inch. A white dwarf is supported by the exclusion principle repulsion between the electrons in its matter. …

Landau pointed out that there was another possible final state for a star, also with a limiting mass of about one or two times the mass of the sun but much smaller even than a white dwarf. These stars would be supported by the exclusion principle repulsion between neutrons and protons, rather than between electrons. They were therefore called neutron stars. They would have a radius of only ten miles or so and a density of hundreds of millions of tons per cubic inch.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, a white dwarf star is the balance of the gravitational contraction of space-intervals and the expanded volume of matter-energy due to the repulsion of electrons, as described by the Pauli exclusion principle; whereas a neutron star is the balance of the gravitational contraction of space-intervals and the expanded volume of matter-energy due to the repulsion of nucleons (neutrons and protons), as described by the Pauli exclusion principle.

The Gravitational Collapse Of Stars Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 83-4):

Chandrasekhar worked out how big a star could be and still support itself against its own gravity after it had used up all its fuel. The idea was this: when the star becomes small, the matter particles get very near each other, and so according to the Pauli exclusion principle, they must have very different velocities. This makes them move away from each other and so tends to make the star expand. A star can therefore maintain itself at a constant radius by a balance between the attraction of gravity and the repulsion that arises from the exclusion principle, just as earlier in its life gravity was balanced by the heat. 

Chandrasekhar realised, however, that there is a limit to the repulsion that the exclusion principle can provide. The theory of relativity limits the maximum difference in the velocities of the matter particles in the star to the speed of light. This means that when the star got sufficiently dense, the repulsion caused by the exclusion principle would be less than the attraction of gravity. Chandrasekhar calculated that a cold star of more than about one and a half times the mass of the sun would not be able to support itself against its own gravity. (This mass is now known as the Chandrasekhar limit.)

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to General Relativity, the star "becoming small" under gravity is actually the contraction of the space occupied by the star, and it is this that brings the matter particles closer together. 

On the other hand, the expansion of the star due to the repulsion of particles, as described by the Pauli exclusion principle, is the expansion of the volume of the matter-energy occupying the space, not the expansion of space itself.

That is, the balance that is achieved is between the gravitational contraction of space intervals and the expansion of the volume of the matter-energy (the star itself). 

When the density of a star reduces the amount of particle repulsion, the volume of the star no longer counterbalances the gravitational contraction of the space it occupies, and the star is no longer 'able to support itself against its own gravity'.

Star Formation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 82-3):

A star is formed when a large amount of gas (mostly hydrogen) starts to collapse in on itself due to its gravitational attraction. As it contracts, the atoms of the gas collide with each other more and more frequently and at greater and greater speeds — the gas heats up. Eventually, the gas will be so hot that when the hydrogen atoms collide they no longer bounce off each other, but instead coalesce to form helium. The heat released in this reaction, which is like a controlled hydrogen bomb explosion, is what makes the star shine. This additional heat also increases the pressure of the gas until it is sufficient to balance the gravitational attraction, and the gas stops contracting. … When a star runs out of fuel, it starts to cool off and so to contract.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, according to General Relativity, the collapse of the hydrogen gas is actually the contraction of the space occupied by gas cloud. Because the contraction of space brings the atoms closer together, it increases the probability of them colliding and coalescing (via deuterium) to form helium atoms.

On this basis, the balance that is achieved is between the gravitational contraction of space intervals and the expansion of the volume of matter-energy (the star itself). When a star runs out of fuel, it no longer expands to counterbalance the gravitational contraction of the space it occupies.

The Notion Of Time Running Backwards (Or Forwards) Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 77-8):

Up to 1956 it was believed that the laws of physics obeyed each of three separate symmetries called C, P, and T. …The symmetry T means that if you reverse the direction of motion of all particles and antiparticles, the system should go back to what it was at earlier times; in other words, the laws are the same in the forward and backward directions of time. … 

There is a mathematical theorem that says that any theory that obeys quantum mechanics and relativity must always obey the combined symmetry CPT. In other words, the universe would have to behave the same if one replaced particles by antiparticles, took the mirror image, and also reversed the direction of time. But Cronin and Fitch showed that if one replaces particles by antiparticles and takes the mirror image, but does not reverse the direction of time, then the universe does not behave the same. The laws of physics, therefore, must change if one reverses the direction of time— they do not obey the symmetry T. Certainly the early universe does not obey the symmetry T: as time runs forward the universe expands — if it ran backward, the universe would be contracting.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the universe does not obey physical models of it, just as a landscape does not obey a map.  Like a landscape, the universe is a construal of experience as meaning, and, like a map of a landscape, a physical model of the universe is a reconstrual of meaning.

Importantly, (conceptually) reversing the direction of motion of particles through space does not reverse the direction of time.  This is because time is the dimension of the unfolding of processes, and this is independent of the direction of motion through space.  The locomotion of particles only occurs along spatial dimensions, not through time; time is a measurement of location and extent of the unfolding of the process of locomotion. A process extends from one location on the time dimension to another.

Moreover, the mistaken notion of time "running" forward or backward arises from confusing the circumstantial dimension (time) with the process that is used as the standard of measurement (the ticking of a clock).

In this interpretation, time does not run either forward or backward, whether the spatial intervals of the universe are expanding or contracting.

Quantum Gravity And Gravitational Waves Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 70):

In the quantum mechanical way of looking at the gravitational field, the force between two matter particles is pictured as being carried by a particle of spin 2 called the graviton. This has no mass of its own, so the force that it carries is long range. The gravitational force between the sun and the earth is ascribed to the exchange of gravitons between the particles that make up these two bodies. Although the exchanged particles are virtual, they certainly do produce a measurable effect — they make the earth orbit the sun! Real gravitons make up what classical physicists would call gravitational waves, which are very weak—and so difficult to detect that they have not yet been observed.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the attempt to model gravity in terms of quantum mechanics is an attempt to model a relation between matter and space-time as interactions between matter particles.  Gravitons are still undetected and remain "hypothetical".

Gravitational waves, on the other hand, are propagations of relative space interval contractions and time interval expansions through space; that is, the spatial propagation of the effects of matter on space-time.  Gravitational waves have been detected and are no longer "hypothetical".

Comparing Gravity To The Other Physical Forces Using Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 70):

The first category is the gravitational force. This force is universal, that is, every particle feels the force of gravity, according to its mass or energy. Gravity is the weakest of the four forces by a long way; it is so weak that we would not notice it at all were it not for two special properties that it has: it can act over large distances, and it is always attractive. This means that the very weak gravitational forces between the individual particles in two large bodies, such as the earth and the sun, can all add up to produce a significant force. The other three forces are either short range, or are sometimes attractive and sometimes repulsive, so they tend to cancel out.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, gravity and the cosmological expansion are the attractive and repulsive aspects of the same phenomenon.  In gravity, intervals of space are relatively contracted, and intervals of time are relatively expanded, whereas, in the cosmological expansion, intervals of space are relatively expanded, and intervals of time are relatively contracted.  Taken together, they resemble the other forces in this respect.

On the other hand, this unity differs from the other forces, in as much as gravity and the cosmological expansion are concerned with the interaction of matter-energy and space-time, whereas the other forces — the electromagnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear forces — are concerned with interactions of matter-energy only.

The Quantum Mechanics Of A Singularity Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 60-1):

Einstein’s general theory of relativity seems to govern the large-scale structure of the universe. It is what is called a classical theory; that is, it does not take account of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, as it should for consistency with other theories. The reason that this does not lead to any discrepancy with observation is that all the gravitational fields that we normally experience are very weak. However, the singularity theorems discussed earlier indicate that the gravitational field should get very strong in at least two situations, black holes and the big bang. In such strong fields the effects of quantum mechanics should be important.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, general relativity is concerned with the relation between space-time and matter-energy, and construes it geometrically: in terms of contracted and expanded space-time dimensions and curved trajectories of matter-energy along those dimensions.  A gravitational field demarcates the extent of space-time altered by the presence of matter-energy: the contraction of space-intervals, inversely proportional to the expansion of time intervals.

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is concerned with the instantiation of matter-energy properties, with quantum fields demarcating the extent of space-time in which quantum instantiations potentially occur.

On this basis, the strong gravitational field around a black hole contracts the spatial intervals of a quantum field, thereby reducing the relative spatial extent of potential instantiations of matter-energy, while expanding its time intervals, such that quantum processes unfold relatively more slowly along spatial dimensions.

At the singularity itself, then, where spatial intervals contract to 0, the field of potential quantum instantiations contracts to 0.  As a consequence, there are no processes to unfold, and so: there are no processes by which to measure time, and so: there is no time dimension (time intervals expand to ∞).

Feynman's 'Sum Over Histories' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 59-60):

A nice way of visualising the wave/particle duality is the so-called sum over histories introduced by the American scientist Richard Feynman. In this approach the particle is not supposed to have a single history or path in space-time, as it would in a classical, non-quantum theory. Instead it is supposed to go from A to B by every possible path. With each path there are associated a couple of numbers: one represents the size of a wave and the other represents the position in the cycle (i.e., whether it is at a crest or a trough). The probability of going from A to B is found by adding up the waves for all the paths.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, Feynman's 'sum over histories' approach — taking into account of every possible trajectory — is the reconstrual of experience as quantum system potential, which is quantified as probability.  The actual paths taken by particles are instances of that potential, whose different frequencies instantiate the different system probabilities.

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [19]

Hawking (1988: 58-9):

Interference can also occur for particles, because of the duality introduced by quantum mechanics. A famous example is the so-called two-slit experiment (Fig. 4.2). Consider a partition with two narrow parallel slits in it. On one side of the partition one places a source of light of a particular colour (that is, of a particular wavelength). Most of the light will hit the partition, but a small amount will go through the slits. Now suppose one places a screen on the far side of the partition from the light. Any point on the screen will receive waves from the two slits. However, in general, the distance the light has to travel from the source to the screen via the two slits will be different. This will mean that the waves from the slits will not be in phase with each other when they arrive at the screen: in some places the waves will cancel each other out, and in others they will reinforce each other. The result is a characteristic pattern of light and dark fringes.

 

The remarkable thing is that one gets exactly the same kind of fringes if one replaces the source of light by a source of particles such as electrons with a definite speed (this means that the corresponding waves have a definite length). It seems the more peculiar because if one only has one slit, one does not get any fringes, just a uniform distribution of electrons across the screen. One might therefore think that opening another slit would just increase the number of electrons hitting each point of the screen, but, because of interference, it actually decreases it in some places. If electrons are sent through the slits one at a time, one would expect each to pass through one slit or the other, and so behave just as if the slit it passed through were the only one there—giving a uniform distribution on the screen. In reality, however, even when the electrons are sent one at a time, the fringes still appear. Each electron, therefore, must be passing through both slits at the same time!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, wave-particle duality is the complementarity of potential and instance.  On this view, it is particles, not waves, that pass through the slits.

Importantly, if only one particle is emitted in the double-slit experiment, there is no interference pattern recorded on the detector screen. The interference patterns only begin to appear as more and more particles are detected. This means that the interference cannot be a property of each single instance. And this means that each detected particle only goes through one slit or the other, not both.

Instead, the "interference" is a property of the quantum system as potential, as described by the wave function, with the different frequencies of particle impacts instantiating the different probabilities of the quantum system potential.

Wave-Particle Duality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [9]

Hawking (1988: 56):

Although light is made up of waves, Planck’s quantum hypothesis tells us that in some ways it behaves as if it were composed of particles: it can be emitted or absorbed only in packets, or quanta. Equally, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle implies that particles behave in some respects like waves: they do not have a definite position but are “smeared out” with a certain probability distribution. The theory of quantum mechanics is based on an entirely new type of mathematics that no longer describes the real world in terms of particles and waves; it is only the observations of the world that may be described in those terms.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, particles do have a definite position, as demonstrated when an observation is made.  They are not "smeared out" because the probability distribution quantifies their potential positions, not their actual (instantial) positions.

The mathematics of quantum mechanics does describe the "real world" in terms of particles and waves, but with the following qualifications:

1. the "real world" is the identity relation of perceptual and linguistic meaning, construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain;
2. the mathematics of waves quantifies quantum systems as potential; and
3. the mathematics of particles quantifies instances of quantum potential.

The "Unpredictability Or Randomness" Of Quantum Mechanics Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 55-6):

In general, quantum mechanics does not predict a single definite result for an observation. Instead, it predicts a number of different possible outcomes and tells us how likely each of these is. That is to say, if one made the same measurement on a large number of similar systems, each of which started off in the same way, one would find that the result of the measurement would be A in a certain number of cases, B in a different number, and so on. One could predict the approximate number of times that the result would be A or B, but one could not predict the specific result of an individual measurement. Quantum mechanics therefore introduces an unavoidable element of unpredictability or randomness into science.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the possible outcomes predicted by (the wave function of) quantum mechanics constitute the potential meanings of a given system that can be construed of experience, and the likelihood of each outcome constitutes the quantification of such potential as probability.  The specific results of individual measurements are instances of that potential, whose frequencies are in line with the probabilities of the system potential.

What this actually demonstrates is that the construal experience of the non-semiotic domain as meaning, by consciousness, is itself probabilistic.

The Beginning Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 46):

As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is construed in physics as the dimension along which processes unfold.  As such, it is not time that begins with the Big Bang, but the processes used to measure time.

Einstein's Gravity And "Anti-Gravity" Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 40):

Yet so strong was the belief in a static universe that it persisted into the early twentieth century. Even Einstein, when he formulated the general theory of relativity in 1915, was so sure that the universe had to be static that he modified his theory to make this possible, introducing a so-called cosmological constant into his equations. Einstein introduced a new “antigravity” force, which, unlike other forces, did not come from any particular source but was built into the very fabric of space-time. He claimed that space-time had an inbuilt tendency to expand, and this could be made to balance exactly the attraction of all the matter in the universe, so that a static universe would result.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, gravity corresponds to the contraction of space intervals due to the presence of matter, and so "antigravity" corresponds to the expansion of space intervals due to the absence of matter.  On this basis, the expansion of the universe confirms that space does have "an inbuilt tendency to expand", just as Einstein claimed.

However, contrariwise, gravity corresponds to the expansion of time intervals due to the presence of matter — the time between clock ticks expands — and so "antigravity" corresponds to the contraction of time intervals due to the absence of matter.  On this basis, the expansion of the universe confirms that time has "an inbuilt tendency to contract", which corresponds to processes having a tendency to to unfold more quickly.

The Curvature Of Space-Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Hawking (1988: 33):

Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena in which events took place, but which was not affected by what happened in it. This was true even of the special theory of relativity. Bodies moved, forces attracted and repelled, but time and space simply continued, unaffected. It was natural to think that space and time went on forever. 

The situation, however, is quite different in the general theory of relativity. Space and time are now dynamic quantities: when a body moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time — and in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act. Space and time not only affect but also are affected by everything that happens in the universe. Just as one cannot talk about events in the universe without the notions of space and time, so in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time outside the limits of the universe.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, as previously argued, the curvature of space-time is the curvature of the geodesic trajectory of a body through space whose intervals have been relatively contracted — during which, time intervals are relatively expanded — by the presence of another body.

The Notion Of Time "Running Slower" Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [Amended]

Hawking (1988: 32-3):

Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to run slower near a massive body like the earth. This is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its frequency (that is, the number of waves of light per second): the greater the energy, the higher the frequency. As light travels upward in the earth’s gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wave crest and the next goes up.) To someone high up, it would appear that everything down below was taking longer to happen. This prediction was tested in 1962, using a pair of very accurate clocks mounted at the top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was nearer the earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with general relativity.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is not time that runs slower, but the ticking of a clock that measures intervals of time.  A longer time interval between ticks constitutes an expansion of time intervals.  This means that the presence of matter causes a relative contraction of space intervals but a corresponding relative expansion of time intervals.

As light travels upward in the earth's gravitational field, it is moving from relatively contracted space intervals to relatively expanded space intervals. This means that the spatial interval between wave crests of light is gradually lengthened, with a corresponding lowering of frequency (which is inversely proportional to wavelength).*

By the same token, as light travels upward in the earth's gravitational field, it is moving from relatively expanded time intervals to relatively contracted time intervals.  This means that the light is travelling from where processes unfold relatively more slowly to where processes unfold relatively more quickly.

* Because instances of light are particles, and waves are measures of their probability, the wavelength of light is the distance between equiprobable locations of photons.

The Curvature Of Space-Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Hawking (1988: 29):

Einstein made the revolutionary suggestion that gravity is not a force like other forces, but is a consequence of the fact that space-time is not flat, as had been previously assumed: it is curved, or “warped,” by the distribution of mass and energy in it. Bodies like the earth are not made to move on curved orbits by a force called gravity; instead, they follow the nearest thing to a straight path in a curved space, which is called a geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest (or longest) path between two nearby points.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the presence of matter and energy contracts the intervals of the spatial dimensions — relative to their intervals in the absence of matter and energy — and it is the geodesic trajectory of a body moving through relatively contracted space intervals that is curved. Time, on the other hand, is the measure of the unfolding of the process, and, like space, its intervals are either expanded or contracted. (As will be seen in the next post, the presence of matter and energy expands the intervals of time.)

Paths Through Space-Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 24-5):

For example, in Fig. 2.2 time is measured upward in years and the distance along the line from the sun to Alpha Centauri is measured horizontally in miles. The paths of the sun and of Alpha Centauri through space-time are shown as the vertical lines on the left and right of the diagram. A ray of light from the sun follows the diagonal line, and takes four years to get from the sun to Alpha Centauri.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the horizontal axis measures spatial distance, whereas the vertical axis measures the duration of processes. Thus the horizontal extent of the diagonal line represents the spatial distance travelled by photons, whereas the vertical extent of the diagonal line represents the duration of the process of travelling. The notion of a 'path' through time misrepresents the duration of a process as the movement of particles.

Einstein's Relative Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 21):

An equally remarkable consequence of relativity is the way it has revolutionised our ideas of space and time. In Newton’s theory, if a pulse of light is sent from one place to another, different observers would agree on the time that the journey took (since time is absolute), but will not always agree on how far the light travelled (since space is not absolute). Since the speed of the light is just the distance it has travelled divided by the time it has taken, different observers would measure different speeds for the light. 

In relativity, on the other hand, all observers must agree on how fast light travels. They still, however, do not agree on the distance the light has travelled, so they must therefore now also disagree over the time it has taken. (The time taken is the distance the light has travelled – which the observers do not agree on – divided by the light’s speed – which they do agree on.) In other words, the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time! It appeared that each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is a construal of experience of the non-semiotic domain as meaning: a circumstance of the unfolding of processes.  The reconstrual of time as a dimension, in physics, means that it is the dimension along which the unfolding of processes is measured.

Relatively different measures of time arise from relatively different intervals of time between each tick of a clock. That is, a relatively slower clock has a relatively longer interval between each tick, and thus measures a relative expansion of the intervals of the time dimension, whereas a relatively faster clock has a relatively shorter interval between each tick, and thus measures a relative contraction of the intervals of the time dimension.

Berkeley's Subjective/Empirical Idealism Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 18):

Newton was very worried by this lack of absolute position, or absolute space, as it was called, because it did not accord with his idea of an absolute God. In fact, he refused to accept lack of absolute space, even though it was implied by his laws. He was severely criticised for this irrational belief by many people, most notably by Bishop Berkeley, a philosopher who believed that all material objects and space and time are an illusion. When the famous Dr. Johnson was told of Berkeley’s opinion, he cried, “I refute it thus!” and stubbed his toe on a large stone.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, George Berkeley did not believe that "material objects and space and time are an illusion", but that material objects only exist as ideas in the minds of perceivers, and this does not logically entail that they are illusions.  Moreover, Samuel Johnson's stubbing of his toe on a large stone was no refutation of Berkeley's claim, since seeing and feeling the stone are both perceptions in Berkeley's terms. 

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, material objects are construals of experience of the non-semiotic domain as the material-relational domain of meaning by the processes of the mental-verbal domain of meaning (consciousness).  Such meanings entail a relation of identity between perceptual and linguistic systems such that perceptual tokens realise linguistic values.

(Misinterpretations Of) The Wave Function Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Quantum mechanics is the basic framework of modern subatomic physics. It has successfully withstood almost a century of tests, including French physicist Alain Aspect’s experiments confirming entanglement, or action at a distance between certain types of quantum phenomena. In quantum mechanics, the world unfolds through a combination of two basic ingredients. One is a smooth, fully deterministic wave function: a mathematical expression that conveys information about a particle in the form of numerous possibilities for its location and characteristics. The second is something that realises one of those possibilities and eliminates all the others. Opinions differ about how that happens, but it might be caused by observation of the wave function or by the wave function encountering some part of the classical world. 

Many physicists accept this picture at face value in a conceptual kludge known as the Copenhagen interpretation, authored by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s. But the Copenhagen approach is difficult to swallow for several reasons. Among them is the fact that the wave function is unobservable, the predictions are probabilistic and what makes the function collapse is mysterious. 

What are we to make of that collapsing wave? The equations work, but what the wave function ‘is’ is the key source of contention in interpreting quantum mechanics.

One option, the ‘hidden variables’ approach championed by Albert Einstein and David Bohm, among others, basically states that the wave function is just a temporary fix and that physicists will eventually replace it. Another tack, named quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, by Christopher Fuchs, regards the wave function as essentially subjective. Thus it is merely a guide to what we should believe about the outcome of measurements, rather than a name for a real feature of the subatomic world. Late in his life, Heisenberg proposed that we have to change our notion of reality itself. Reaching back to a concept developed by Aristotle — ‘potency’, as in an acorn’s potential to become an oak tree, given the right context — he suggested that the wave function represents an “intermediate” level of reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory:

1. quantum entanglement is not "action at a distance" but the construal, by consciousness, of the non-semiotic domain as meaning; specifically as mutually dependent instances of the same system of quantum potential.  See previous posts here.
2. the notion that the "world unfolds through a combination of two ingredients" confuses the territory (world) with the map of the territory (Quantum Theory).  The world is a construal of experience as meaning (phenomena); Quantum Theory is a reconstrual of (first-order) meaning as (second-order) theoretical meaning (metaphenomena).
3. the wave function represents a quantum system as meaning potential, and the "elimination of all but one possibility" is an instantiation of that potential, which happens when, through observation, consciousness construes experience of the non-semiotic domain as meaning.
4. the notion that wave function can be observed confuses the map (the wave function) with the territory (observable phenomena); see 2.
5. the notion that wave function can encounter "some part of the classical world" confuses the map (the wave function and a classical description of the world) with the territory (observable phenomena); see 2.
6. the unobservability of theoretical meaning potential (the wave function) is thus not an argument against the Copenhagen Interpretation, nor is the fact that such potential, like all potential, is probabilistic.
7. the "mysteriousness" of the collapse of the wave function is thus not an argument against the Copenhagen Interpretation, since it only arises from an epistemological error, namely the realism embodied in the Galilean notion of 'primary qualities', as previously explained on this blog.
8. the wave function is not a temporary fix, since it continually withstands all tests to disconfirm it.  What needs fixing is epistemological basis on which it is understood.
9. the notion that the wave function is "essentially subjective" comes close to acknowledging that it is meaning construed of experience by consciousness.
10. the subatomic world, like all 'reality' is a construal of experience of the non-semiotic domain as the material-relational domain of meaning by processes of the mental-verbal domain (consciousness).  In terms of scientific validity, the 'real' features of the sub-atomic world are second-order (theoretical) meanings that are demonstrated to be consistent with the construal of experience as first-order meaning.
11. Heisenberg's notion that the wave function represents 'potency' recognises it as potential, though not explicitly as meaning potential.

A Misrepresentation Of Heisenberg's Epistemology Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Carlo Ravelli, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics (2014: 15):

Heisenberg imagined that electrons do not always exist. They only exist when someone or something watches them, or better, when they are interacting with something else. They materialise in a place, with calculable probability, when colliding with something else. The 'quantum leaps' from one orbit to another are the only means they have of being 'real'; an electron is a set of jumps from one interaction to another. When nothing disturbs it, it is not in any precise place. It is not in a 'place' at all. ...

In quantum mechanics no object has a definite position, except when colliding headlong with something else. In order to describe it in mid-flight, between one interaction and another, we use an abstract mathematical formula which has no existence in real space, only in abstract mathematical space. ...

It is not possible to predict where an electron will reappear, but only to calculate the probability that it will pop up here or there. The question of probability goes to the heart of physics...

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, electrons only 'exist' when they are construed of experience as an instance of meaning by consciousness. It is not sufficient for some thing to detect them; some one must observe what some thing detected, as Heisenberg himself would maintain. Moreover, for Heisenberg, the interaction is between ourselves and Nature, as the following quotes make clear:

Natural science, does not simply describe and explain nature;
it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves.

What we observe is not nature itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning.

The interaction of electrons with "something else" is the means of detecting them, as when a photon is bounced off an electron to identify the position of the electron.

The materialisation of an electron in a given place is the construal of experience by consciousness as an instance of meaning: the location of an electron. The "calculable probability" is the quantification of the electron as potential, whereas the measurement of the location of an electron is the quantification of an electron as instance.

To be clear, quantum leaps are not the only means of electrons being 'real' (construed as an instance of meaning) because not all electrons are trapped within atoms, as exemplified by the flow of electrons in electricity and beta radiation.

It is when there is no conscious construal of experience as meaning that there is no electron in no place.

In Quantum mechanics an object has a definite position whenever its position (meaning) is construed of experience by consciousness. To paraphrase Richard Feynman: to say what an object is doing when you are not looking at it is to produce an error.

The mathematical equation (wave function) quantifies the electron as potential.

Whereas "real" space is a construal of experience as meaning, abstract mathematical space is a reconstrual of meaning as meta-meaning (meaning of meaning).

The probability of where an electron will appear is a quantification of it as potential. Measurements of where it actually appears are quantifications of it as instance.

Lakoff's Cognitive Semantics And Edelman's Conceptual Systems Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 247):

With this background, Lakoff attempts to mount a structure for cognitive semantics. Notice first that meaning is already based in embodiment by means of image schemas, kinæsthetic schemas, metonyms, and the categorical relations that underlie metaphor. But this is not enough: Language is supposed to be characterised by symbolic models. These are models that pair linguistic information with the cognitive models that themselves make up a preexisting conceptual system. In as much as preexisting conceptual models are already embodied through their link to bodily and social experience, this link is not an arbitrary one. In contrast, the attribution of such a linkage to generative grammar in terms of mental representations is arbitrary; it is made from on high by the grammarian.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Lakoff's cognitive models are meanings of language construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain by processes of consciousness.  Edelman's 'pre-existing conceptual system', on the other hand, is the organisation of perceptual meanings — construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain — into systems.  The relation between perceptual meanings and linguistic meanings is one of identity, whereby linguistic values are encoded by reference to perceptual tokens, and perceptual tokens are decoded by reference to linguistic values.

On the cognitive semantics model, human cognition ("intelligence") made human language possible, whereas on the SFL model, human language made human cognition ("intelligence") possible.