The Laws Of Dynamics That Shape The Universe Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 686):

What sorts of laws shape the universe with all its contents? The answer provided by practically all successful physical theories, from the time of Galileo onwards, would be given in the form of a dynamics — that is, a specification of how a physical system will develop with time, given the physical state of the system at one particular time. These theories do not tell us what the world is like; they say, instead: ‘if the world was like such-and-such at one time, then it will be like so-and-so at some later time’. Such a theory will not tell us how the world is shaped unless we tell it how the world was shaped.

 Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, laws don't shape the universe, just as a map doesn't shape the terrain it models. Instead, the physical universe is the construal of experience as first-order (phenomenal) meanings, and the laws of physics are reconstruals of first-order meanings as second-order (metaphenomenal) meanings that realise theory.

Importantly, the laws reconstrue the Universe in terms of modalisation (probability), not modulation (obligation).

The "Deeper ‘Platonic’ Meaning" In The Path-Integral Approach Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 670-1):

Indeed, the path-integral approach is, it seems, almost wholly dependent upon a faith that the wildly divergent expressions that we are presented with (like the divergent series above) actually have a deeper ‘Platonic’ meaning that we may not yet properly perceive. We appear to be forced to admit that something of this nature must be the case because, on the physical side, we are not infrequently presented with answers of uncanny physical accuracy when (if I may be permitted to conjure up an improbable-sounding metaphor) we bulldoze our way through the mathematics with great sensitivity and precision!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the "deeper ‘Platonic’ meaning" of wildly divergent expressions in the path-integral approach is that the meaning they construe is potential.

An Illustration Of A Path Integral Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 668):

The most accessible illustration of a path integral is the case of a single point particle moving in some field of force (so the configuration space is now space itself). Here, we consider all the various histories, starting at some spacetime point a and finishing at some other spacetime point b as in Fig. 26.3a. These histories are taken to be continuous spacetime paths winding their way from a to b. We do not require that the path be a ‘legal’ one, according to the rules of special relativity (i.e. that it be constrained to lie within the light cones, as required by classical relativity), nor do we even require that the path proceed entirely into the future. The ‘history’ can wiggle up and down in time if it wants to (Fig. 26.3b)!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'all the various histories' constitute the potential of the quantum system. And from this perspective, there is no travelling in time. Time is dimension of the unfolding of processes, such as travelling. A process, and so a particle mediating the process, extends from one location in time to another. Travelling from 1pm to 2pm is extending from 1pm to 2pm, so duration, not motion.

Feynman 'Path Integrals' Or 'Sum Over Histories' Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 666-7):

The basic idea is a different perspective on the fundamental quantum-mechanical principle of complex linear superposition that we encountered earlier. Here, we think of that principle as applied, not just to specific quantum states, but to entire spacetime histories. We tend to think of these histories as ‘possible alternative classical trajectories’ (in configuration space). The idea is that in the quantum world, instead of there being just one classical ‘reality’, represented by one such trajectory (one history), there is a great complex superposition of all these ‘alternative realities’ (superposed alternative histories).

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, a great complex superposition of all these 'alternative realities' represented as ‘possible alternative classical trajectories’ constitutes the potential of the quantum system, whereas the one classical 'reality' represented by one trajectory is one instance of that quantum potential.

Travelling In Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 639):

Assuming CPT, we can regard C — the interchange of particles with their antiparticles — as equivalent to PT, so we can regard the antiparticle of some particle as being the ‘space–time reflection’ (PT) of that particle. Ignoring the space-reflection aspect of this, we obtain the interpretation of an antiparticle as being the particle travelling backwards in time. This, indeed, is the way that Richard Feynman liked to interpret anti-particles. It provides a very convenient and consistent way of treating antiparticles within the context of Feynman graphs.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no travelling in time. Time is dimension of the unfolding of processes, such as travelling. A process, and so a particle mediating the process, extends from one location in time to another. Travelling from 1pm to 2pm is extending from 1pm to 2pm, so duration, not motion.

The Reality Of Mathematical Descriptions Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 631-2):

Bearing this in mind, let us raise the question as to whether these zig and zag particles are ‘real’. Or are they perhaps artefacts of the particular mathematical formalism that I have been adopting here for the description of the Dirac equation for the electron? This raises a more general question: what is the physical justification in allowing oneself to be carried along by the elegance of some mathematical description and then trying to regard that description as describing a ‘reality’? … 

So are these zigs and zags real? For my own part, I would say so; they are as real as the ‘Dirac electron’ is itself real — as a highly appropriate idealised mathematical description of one of the most fundamental ingredients of the universe. But is this real ‘reality’?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'reality' is meaning construed of experience: the phenomena construed by language and their reconstrual as metaphenomena, the meanings of meanings that realise theory. In this view, the 'zig and zag' particles are real, as metaphenomena, but whether they are interpersonally assessed as valid is a separate matter.

The Actual Perceived Motion Of An Electron Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 631):

Accordingly, my above description of the electron’s motion as consisting of this jiggling back and forth, where a zig is continually being converted into a zag and back again, must be taken appropriately in this spirit. The actual motion is composed of a vast number of such individual processes (in fact infinitely many of them) all superposed, and we may think of the electron’s perceived motion as being some sort of ‘average’ (though strictly a quantum superposition) of these. Even this describes merely the free electron. An actual electron will be continually undergoing interactions with other particles (such as photons, the quanta of the electromagnetic field). All such interaction processes should also be included in the overall superposition.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the actual perceived motion of an electron is an instantiation of its system of quantum potential: the superposition of all potential individual or interaction processes.

The Quantum Interpretation Of Feynman Graphs Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 631):

There is a word of warning that I must give, however, about how we are to interpret Feyman-graph diagrams. We can legitimately think of the process that is being depicted as a spacetime description of what is going on; but at the quantum level of things, we must take the view that, even for a single particle, there are a great many such processes going on simultaneously. Each individual one of these processes is to be viewed as taking part in some enormous quantum superposition of vast numbers of different processes. The actual quantum state of the system consists of the entire superposition. An individual Feynman graph represents merely one component of it.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the entire superposition of simultaneous processes is potential, not actual, and an individual Feynman graph represents one instantiation, not component, of that potential.

A Spacetime Diagram Of An EPR Situation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 606, 607):

What is the quanglement perspective on these matters? On this picture, it is not correct to think of either measurement (mine or my colleague’s) as effecting the reduction and the other (my colleague’s or mine) as measuring the reduced state. The two measurement events are on an equal footing with one another, and we think of the quanglement as providing a connection between these events which correlates the two. It makes no difference which event is viewed as being to the past of the other, for quanglement can equally be thought of as propagating into the past as propagating into the future. Not being capable directly of carrying information, quanglement does not respect the normal restrictions of relativistic causality. It merely effects constraints on the joint probabilities of the results of different measurements.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, entanglement refers to the interdependency of instantiation probabilities in the system of quantum potential. This means that the instantiation of one state, through observation, affects the instantiation probabilities of other potential states, but importantly, the instantiation of the affected state only occurs when an observation is made. In the thought experiment, this occurs only at B on Titan and at A on Earth. 

Accordingly, B' is the time on Earth at which the first state is observed on Titan (B), and A' is the time on Titan at which the second state is observed on Earth (A).

B" and A" are a different matter, since they are concerned with information flow between Titan and Earth. B" is earliest time on Earth that news of B on Titan can arrive. A" is the latest time on Titan that information can arrive on Earth at the time of A.

Because entanglement is a feature of quantum potential, there is no actual propagation of entanglement, since it is instances that propagate, not potential.

The Flitting Back And Forth In Time Of Quanglement Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 604, 605):

One of the most direct uses of the idea of quanglement is in certain experiments where a pair of entangled photons is produced according to the process referred to as parametric down-conversion (see Fig. 23.8). …

In one particularly striking experiment, one of the photons (photon A) passes through hole of a particular shape as it speeds towards its detector DA. The other photon (photon B) passes through a lens that is positioned so as to focus it, appropriately, at its detector DB. The position of detector DB is moved around slightly as each photon pair is emitted. The situation is illustrated schematically in Fig. 23.9a.

Whenever DA registers reception of photon A and DB also registers reception of B, the position of DB is noted. This is repeated many times, and gradually an image is built up by the detector DB, where only the positions of B are counted when simultaneously DA registers. The shape of the hole that A encounters is gradually built up at DB, even though photon B never directly encounters the hole at all! It is as though DB ‘sees’ the shape of the hole by looking backwards in time to the emission point C at the crystal, and then forwards in time in the guise of photon A. It can do this because the ‘seeing’ process in this situation is achieved by quanglement. This flitting back and forth in time is precisely the kind of thing that quanglement is allowed to do.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no flitting back and forward in time in this experiment, and it is only the experimenter that 'sees'. The correlations of observations at the detectors DA  and DB is due to probability dependencies in the instantiation quantum potential, not to interactions between the detections of instances (photons).

Zig-zagging Backwards And Forwards In Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 603):

At least in this book, I shall refer to what is commonly called ‘quantum information’ as quanglement. The term suggests ‘quantum mechanics’ and it suggests ‘entanglement’. This is very appropriate. This is what quanglement is all about. Quanglement also does have something very much to do with information, but it is not information. There is no way to send an ordinary signal by means of quanglement alone. This much is made clear from the fact that past-directed channels of quanglement can be used just as well as future-directed channels. If quanglement were transmittable information, then it would be possible to send messages into the past, which it isn’t. … 

As far as I can make out, quanglement links are always constrained by the light cones, just as are ordinary information links, but quanglement links have the novel feature that they can zig-zag backwards and forwards in time, so as to achieve an effective ‘spacelike propagation’. Since quanglement is not information, this does not allow actual signals to be sent faster than light.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is the dimension along which processes unfold. In this view, processes extend in time, maximally from initial to final temporal locations. That is, time is endured, not moved through, whether backwards or forwards.

Faster Than Light Signalling Between Entangled Particles Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 598):

Most particularly, we recall the seeming conflict with special relativity: that the ‘communication’ between EPR pairs seems to pay no respect to Einstein’s own requirements that signalling faster than light should not be allowed.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no signalling between entangled particles (EPR pairs) because their properties are instances of interdependent quantum potential. That is, it is the instantiation of potential as the properties of one particle that selects the instantiated properties of the other. The relation is between potential and instance, not between instance and instance.

Relativity And The Simultaneity Of Entanglement Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 593):

I have not yet finished with the other puzzles presented to us by entanglement. Some of these have to do with the way that the measurement of an entangled system sits extremely uncomfortably with the requirements of relativity, since a measurement of one part of an entangled pair would seem to have to affect the other simultaneously which, as we have seen, is not a notion that we ought to countenance if we are to remain true to relativistic principles.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no inconsistency between the measurement of an entangled system and the requirements of relativity. This is because the measurement of an entangled system is the construal of simultaneous instances of the same interdependent quantum potential, and so concerns the relation between instance and potential, not the simultaneous effect of instance on instance, whereas relativity concerns the relation between instances and their spatiotemporal dimensions, not the relation between instance and potential.

The 'Conventional' View Of Entanglements Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 593):

But how is the matter dealt with in ‘conventional’ quantum mechanics? It seems that ‘in practice’ physicists always assume that these supposed entanglements with the outside world can be ignored. Otherwise neither classical mechanics nor conventional quantum mechanics could ever be trusted. The view seems to be that all the entanglements will somehow ‘average out’ so that they do not need to be considered in practice, in any actual situation. Yet I am unaware of any remotely convincing demonstration that this is likely to be the case. Rather than averaging out, it would appear to be the case that everything just gets less and less like the universe we know, with individual objects not even having approximately defined locations that are not conditional on vastly many other occurrences elsewhere in the universe. I do not see any way out of this conundrum …

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, entanglements are not with the outside world but within quantum potential. The way out of this conundrum is to apply the distinction between potential and instance to Quantum Theory, with interdependent probabilities as the quantification of potential, and to not confuse potential with instance.

Quantum Measurement Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 593):

It seems to me that something of the nature of a ‘measurement’ is always an essential part of the setting up of a quantum experiment, to ensure that the state is uncontaminated by swarms of these unwanted entanglements. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that the experimenter deliberately sets up a ‘measurement’ to achieve this. It is my own view that Nature herself is continually enacting R-process effects, without any deliberate intentions on the part of an experimenter or any intervention by a ‘conscious observer’.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'measurement' by a conscious observer is essential because it is only in the observation in a quantum experiment that experience is construed as meaning: as a particle that is an instance of 'entangled' quantum potential. It is only through the intervention of a conscious observer that experience is construed as meaning.