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.

The Semiotics Of Walker Percy Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 245):

[Walker] Percy was aware that generative or transformational grammar did not explain language and that it was merely a formal description of competence: No relationship is necessary between this collection of algorithms and what goes on in a person's head. He also understood that individual awareness is symbolic as well as intentional. Higher-order consciousness, as I have called it, is a "knowing with" (con-sciousness). Percy faulted both behaviouristic and semiotic approaches to language that do not pay attention to the intersubjective character of any linguistic act. He also faulted the philosophy of phenomenology for "leaving out the other guy." He insisted that all symbolic exchanges involving meaning show a tetradic relationship between symbol, object, and at least two humans. In a dense and resonant sentence, Percy put it thus: "The act of consciousness is the intending of the object as being what it is for both of us under the auspices of a symbol." He describes Helen Keller's rapture when she learned that water was "water" and her urgent desire to know then what other things "were." Language, as Percy put it creates a world, not just an environment. That world is loaded with intentionality, with projections, with feelings, with prejudice, and with affection.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'intersubjective character of any linguistic act' and 'the other guy' are modelled in terms of the interpersonal metafunction of language, through which interactants enact themselves and intersubjective relations as meaning.

'All symbolic exchanges' involve instances of expressions (symbols) of meaning construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain.  Helen Keller's rapture derived from her identification of perceptual meaning tokens with linguistic meaning values.

The world is meaning construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain by processes of consciousness, mental and verbal.

Language Acquisition Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 243-5):

As recounted by [Margaret] Donaldson [in Children's Minds], John Macnamara has proposed that children are able to learn language because they first make sense of situations involving human interactions. Children make sense of things first and, above all, they make sense of what people do. Donaldson's summary makes it clear that children can see things from another's point of view, not just their own. They reason deductively and carry out inference at age four or so, much more skilfully than had been previously supposed. It also seems that a child first makes sense of situations and of human intentions and then of what is said. This means that language is not independent of the rest of cognition. Therefore we need to account for language acquisition not only developmentally but also evolutionarily.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, in ontogenesis, language and the cultural context construed by language develop together.

Their evolution (phylogenesis) provides the semogenic context for their development in the individual (ontogenesis), which provides the semogenic context for their instantiation; and conversely, their instantiation provides the material for their ontogenesis, which provides the material for their evolution.

On this model, the cognitive processes that the child uses to make sense of situations are the mental processes that construe experience of the non-semiotic domain as the meanings of language.