The Cosmological Expansion Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 107-8):

How, indeed, do we know that the Universe is expanding? The most direct evidence comes from examining the quality of light received from distant galaxies. It was found by Hubble and others that this light is systematically shifted from the blue towards the red end of the optical spectrum. This means that the light waves are stretched somewhat compared with light from similar sources (the same kinds of atoms) in laboratories on Earth. Such a 'red shift' is a familiar sign to physicists on Earth that the source of light is moving rapidly away from the observer, and this is how Hubble interpreted it. He concluded that the galaxies are rushing apart at great speed.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the General Theory of Relativity models the cosmological expansion as the relative expansion of space intervals and the relative contraction of time intervals. 

Also from this perspective, the wave-particle duality of Quantum Theory is the duality of potential and instance, such that wave probabilities are instantiated as the statistical properties of particles.

On this basis, the "stretching of light waves" (red shift) in the cosmological expansion is actually the relative expansion of the space intervals between the photons of a given frequency.

On the other hand, the "stretching of light waves" (red shift) due to the motion of a light source away from an observer is the resultant increased distance between photons created by the direction of motion, independent of any expansion of the space intervals by which the distance is measured.

That is, the expansion of space is independent of motion through space. The cosmological expansion is not the motion of galaxies through space. Some galaxies are moving away from each other, some are moving toward each other. Whatever the motion of galaxies, the cosmological expansion means that the space in which all galaxies are located is expanding.

Gravitational Waves Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 87-8):

The idea that space and time can be distorted by motion was extended to include the influence of gravity, so that the presence of matter in spacetime would also cause distortions, or warpings, of space and time. … And as gravitating objects move about, so the space and time warps that they produce must also change. It is even possible to set up ripples in spacetime, gravitational waves that travel with the speed of light.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the General Theory of Relativity models gravity as the relative contraction of space intervals and the relative expansion of time intervals. So as a gravitating body moves about, the contraction of space intervals and expansion of time intervals towards its centre of mass move about with it.

On this basis, gravitational waves are propagations of space interval contractions and time interval expansions through space-time.

The Curvature of Space-Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 84-5):

In a sense, the curvature of starbeams passing near the Sun can be regarded as a direct probe of the curvature of space. But it is important to appreciate that the curvature involves spacetime, not just space. The Earth follows a closed, elliptical orbit around the Sun, and on first acquaintance with general relativity it is natural to guess that this means the planet is following a path through curved space dictated by the gravitational field of the Sun. …

Viewed in spacetime, the Earth's orbit is not a closed ellipse, but a shape like a coiled spring, or helix. After each orbit of the Sun, the Earth returns to the same place, but to a different time, advancing one year along the time 'axis' for each orbit around the Sun. …

So the correct image of the Earth's orbit in terms of curved spacetime is a very shallow curve, weaving around the line that represents the path of the Sun through spacetime.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the General Theory of Relativity models gravity as the relative contraction of space intervals and the relative expansion of time intervals with increasing proximity to a centre of mass. Because of this contraction, the shortest distance between two points — the geodesic — near a centre of mass will be towards that centre of mass, which means that the trajectory of a body in the vicinity, unless acted upon by another force, will be curved towards that centre of mass. 

Accordingly, the curvature of starbeams passing near the Sun is indicative of contracted space intervals, not curved space, and it is the trajectory of the Earth around the Sun that is curved, not space.

By the same token, the helix in Figure 17 is not the curvature of space-time, but the curved trajectory of the Earth through space plotted against time. The non-curvature of space-time is represented by the non-curvature of the space and time axes in Figure 17.

The Curvature Of Space-Time Reconstrued Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 84):

Einstein realised that tidal forces cannot be transformed away by changing the reference frame — they represent a genuine effect of the gravitational field at work. He reasoned that if the effect of these forces is to stretch or distort the distances between freely falling objects, then the most satisfactory description of tidal gravitation is as a distortion or stretching of spacetime itself. That is, rather than regard gravity as a force, Einstein proposed that we regard it as a curvature or warping of spacetime.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, gravity is the relative contraction (not stretching) of space intervals due to the presence of matter. The tidal bulges on the Earth and the Moon are manifestations of the fact that the space intervals between the two bodies are relatively contracted. On the other hand, gravity is the relative expansion of time intervals — the time interval between each tick of a clock is expanded — such that processes unfold relatively more slowly.

So while it is true that gravity is, in this sense, a warping of spacetime, it is neither the stretching of space, nor the curvature of spacetime. What gravity curves is the geodesic trajectory of a body through space, not the three spatial dimensions through which it moves, nor the dimension of time along which the process unfolds.

The Gravitational Curvature Of Light Reconstrued Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 81):

If the acceleration of a falling elevator, plunging downwards at an ever increasing speed,  can precisely cancel the force of gravity, thereby producing weightlessness, then the gravitational force and the inertial force produced by the acceleration are equivalent to one another. …

Imagine being in that falling elevator and watching the path of a light pulse crossing the elevator. In the reference frame of the falling observer the light travels in a straight line; but this means that from the point of view of an observer standing on the ground the light path must curve downwards [i.e. falling with the elevator]. The latter observer would attribute the curvature of the light beam to the effect of gravity, so Einstein made the prediction that gravity bends light.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, it is the geodesic that gravity curves: the shortest trajectory that light takes through space. Physicists routinely confuse this curvature with a curvature of space-time. The reason why the geodesic is curved is that spatial intervals are contracted in the direction of the centre of mass, relative to other directions, so the shortest distance between two points is towards that centre of mass.

Special Relativity On Past, Present And Future — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 77):

In one reference frame events B and A are simultaneous: event B occurs at 'the same moment' as event A. In another frame, it is [a later] event B' that is simultaneous with A.

If A is somebody's 'now', which event, B or B' can uniquely be described as happening 'now'? The answer is neither. There is a whole range of 'present moments' including B and B', and any definition of 'now' is entirely relative.

By changing one's state of motion, the choice of simultaneous events can be altered, perhaps by hundreds of years! Any attempt to argue that only 'present moments' are real therefore seem doomed: time must be stretched out, like space, so that past, present and future exist with equal status. 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'now' is the time of construing experience as meaning. If event A is somebody's 'now', and if event B' is later than event B, then event B happened in the observer's past, and event B' happened later in the observer's past (or in the observer's present). In this view, therefore, it is an error to claim that there is a whole range of 'present moments' including B and B'. Moreover, it is not the definition of 'now' that is relative, but the 'now' itself.

By changing one's state of motion, what is altered is the time interval between the time of observing and the time of the observed event. 'Present moments' are thus "real", but in the sense that they are the times of construing experience as meaning, as in the act of observing. Time is 'stretched out", but in the sense that it extends as a dimension: the dimension along which processes unfold. 

By the same token, past, present and future do not "exist" with equal status, since events in the past have happened (past in present), events in the present are happening (present in present), and events in the future are going to happen (future in present).

Special Relativity On Past, Present And Future — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 76-8):

To understand why this is so, you must first appreciate that your now and my now are not necessarily the same. This is because, as we have seen, the simultaneity of two spatially separated events is entirely relative. What one observer regards as happening at 'the same moment' but at another place, a second observer, located elsewhere, may regard as happening before, or after, that moment. … An event on a distant galaxy which we judge to be simultaneous with noon today in a laboratory on Earth can be shifted by centuries, from your point of view, if you happen to change your reference frame by boarding a train.

These ideas have a profound implication. If the 'present moment' elsewhere in the Universe depends on how you are moving, a whole span of 'presents' must exist, some of which will lie on what you regard as your past, some in your future, as seen by different observers. In other words, moments of time cannot be things which 'happen' everywhere at once, in which only the unique present is 'real'. Rather, time is extended in some way, like space; which particular event any given observer regards as happening in the mysterious moment of 'now' is purely relative.

So does the future, in some sense, already exist 'out there'? Might we be able to foresee events in our own future by changing our state of motion? … But it turns out that you cannot travel fast enough to see into your own future.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'present moment' is the time of construing experience as meaning. Because light takes time to travel, observers who see an event in a distant galaxy see, in their present, events that happened in their past — congruently expressed as 'past in present' tense ('has happened'). What varies for different observers moving at different velocities is the duration between the observation and the event in the distant galaxy.

To be clear, moments of time are not things that 'happen'. Time is the dimension along which processes unfold, and it is in this sense that time is 'extended'. Processes are not observable until they unfold.

Special Relativity On Past, Present And Future — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 76):

This unified four-dimensional spacetime description has proved highly successful in explaining many physical phenomena, and is now the accepted view of the physical world. Powerful though it is, it has removed from the picture any vestige of a personal 'now', or the division of time into past, present and future. 

Einstein once expressed this point in a letter to a friend regarding the subject of death. 'To us who are committed physicists,' he wrote, 'the past, present and future are only illusions, however persistent.'

The reason for this is that, according to relativity theory, time does not 'happen' bit by bit, moment by moment: it is stretched out, like space, in its entirety. Time is simply there.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, four-dimensional space-time does not conflict with the division of time into past, present and future, because the latter is concerned with construed temporal locations and extents relative to the 'now' of meaning-making: saying or sensing.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time does not 'happen bit by bit, moment by moment', processes 'happen bit by bit, moment by moment', and time is 'stretched out' and 'simply there' in the sense that it is the dimension along which processes unfold. The confusion of time with process pervades the discourse of physics.

Relative Velocity And Space-Time

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 74):

To take a specific example, at 90 per cent of the speed of light lengths are shrunk by more than half, and clocks run at less than half speed. These effects are, however, entirely relative to the observers concerned. A 'superwitch' travelling with the broom handle at such a speed relative to the ground would notice nothing unusual about either its length or the rate of passage of time. For such an observer it would be the objects that are fixed to the ground that are contracted, with clocks on the ground seeming to run slow compared with a clock attached to the flying broomstick. Thus when observers are in relative motion each sees the other's length contracted and the other's clock running slow.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, travelling at 90 per cent of the clocks run at less than half speed relative to the clocks on the ground. For the fast-moving observer, the clock appears to run normally, but it is the clock on the ground that appears to run faster by comparison. This is why the twin travelling at high speed ages more slowly than the twin on the ground; see the twin paradox.

In other words, in this thought experiment, the fast-moving observer sees the other's clock running fast — not slow — and it is only the observer on the ground who sees the other's clock running slow. And, a faster clock here means contracted time intervals, whereas a slower clock means expanded time intervals (between each 'tick').

By the same token, the fast-moving observer sees the other's length expanded — not contracted — and it is only the observer on the ground who sees the other's length contracted.

Relative Time And Space Intervals

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 70, 71, 73-4):

In other words, the simultaneity of events that are separated in space is relative. Different observers in different states of motion measure different durations between the same pair of events. In a similar fashion, it turns out that different observers in different states of motion will measure different distances between the same pair of events. …

When an observer changes his or her state of motion, the relationship between space and time is altered, so that distances and durations are perceived differently. …

To achieve a noticeable effect, the motion must be at a sizeable fraction of the speed of light. The effect is once again to alter the apparent length of the broom handle, making it appear shorter in the direction of motion. This is simply the length-contraction effect we mentioned earlier. Conversely, time intervals are stretched, or dilated by the motion. In a sense, an interval of space is traded for an interval of time. 

So how much space is each unit of time worth? Since the conversion factor is the speed of light, one second is worth the distance light travels in one second — about 300,000 km, or one light-second.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is Special Relativity. Compared with a slower moving body, for a faster moving body, time intervals are relatively expanded and space intervals in the direction of motion are relatively contracted. This means that, for the faster moving body, processes unfold relatively more slowly — the interval between each tick of a clock is longer — and the body traverses more space intervals per unit of time in the direction of motion.

This is the same effect as gravity in General Relativity. Time intervals are relatively more expanded, and space intervals are relatively more contracted with proximity to the centre of mass. A falling body traverses increasingly more intervals of space per unit of time as it falls — i.e. accelerates — but the process itself unfolds increasingly more slowly — i.e. time units 'stretch' — as the body approaches the centre of mass.

To be clear, it is not so much that time and space intervals are "traded", but that the relative extent of time intervals and space intervals is inversely proportional.

The Notion Of The Universe 'Knowing', 'Predicting' And 'Computing' Its Own Behaviour Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 35, 36):

We stress that this [the unpredictability of chaotic systems] is not just a human limitation. The Universe itself cannot 'know' its own workings with absolute precision, and therefore cannot 'predict' what will happen next, in every detail. Some things really are random. … deterministic chaos seems random because we are necessarily ignorant of the ultra-fine detail of just a few degrees of freedom, and so is the Universe itself. …

Those systems that are chaotic have severely limited predictability, and even one such system would rapidly exhaust the capacity of the entire Universe to compute its behaviour. It seems, then, that the Universe is incapable of computing the future behaviour of even a small part of itself, let alone all of itself. Expressed more dramatically, the Universe is its own fastest simulator.

This is surely a profound conclusion. It means that, even accepting a strictly deterministic account of nature, the future states of the Universe are in some sense 'open'. Some people have seized on this openness to argue for the reality of human free will. Others claim that it bestows upon nature an element of creativity, an ability to bring forth that which is genuinely new, something not already implicit in earlier states of the Universe.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the notion that the Universe 'knows', 'predicts' and 'computes' its own behaviour, independently of the semiosis of humans, is a metaphor derived from the transcendent view of meaning: that meaning transcends semiotic systems and the aim of science is to match that meaning with theory. This view is invalidated by the finding of Quantum Physics that, in Wheeler's words, a phenomenon is not a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon; that is, that meaning is immanent: a property of semiotic systems only.

The proposition that the future is 'open' is distinct from the proposal of free will. The proposition involves modalisation (probability and usuality), whereas the proposal involves modulation (inclination and obligation).

The Randomness And Determinism Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 26-7):

At the heart of quantum mechanics lies Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that everything we can measure is subject to truly random fluctuations. … the essential point is that quantum fluctuations are not the result of human limitations or hidden levels of mechanistic clockwork; they are inherent in the workings of nature on an atomic scale. For example, the exact moment of decay of a particular radioactive nucleus is intrinsically uncertain. An element of genuine unpredictability is thus an integral part of nature.

In spite of this uncertainty, there remains a sense in which quantum mechanics is still a deterministic theory. Although the outcome of a particular quantum process might be undetermined, the relative probabilities of different outcomes evolve in a deterministic manner. What this means is that although you cannot know in a particular case what will be the outcome of the 'throw of the quantum dice', you can know completely accurately how the betting odds vary from moment to moment. As a statistical theory, quantum mechanics remains deterministic.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'quantum fluctuations' are instantiations of quantum potential, whose random statistical properties are instantiations of the calculable probabilities of quantum potential.

The Order Of The Physical World Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 24):

All science is founded on the assumption that the physical world is ordered. The most powerful expression of this order is found in the laws of physics. Nobody knows where these laws come from, nor why they apparently operate universally and unfailingly; 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the order of the physical world is a construal of experience as meaning. The ability to construe experience as ordered has conferred an adaptive advantage on the organisms that do so.

The laws of physics, on the other hand, are reconstruals of perceptual and linguistic meanings as the meanings of theoretical physics, and 'come from' the semogenesis, meaning-making, of physicists. The writers here confuse phenomenal data (the construed physical world) with metaphenomenal theory (the reconstrued laws of physics), which is analogous to confusing a territory with a map of that territory.

The reason why the laws apparently apply universally and unfailingly is that they are selected by the scientific community for their ability to do so. But note that these laws break down at the singularities of black holes and the Big Bang, and that General Relativity cannot be made consistent with Quantum Theory on the present assumptions of physicists.

Bohr And Heisenberg On Quantum Physics — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 20-1):

The founders of quantum mechanics, notably Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, argued that when we talk of atoms, electrons, and so on, we must not fall into the trap of imagining them as little things, existing independently in their own right. …

Heisenberg's own words are revealing in this context:

'In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But the atoms or the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.'

Bohr expressed it thus:

'Physics is not about how the world is, it is about what we can say about the world.'

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Heisenberg's distinction between 'things' and 'real phenomena', on the one hand, and 'potentialities or possibilities', on the other, is the distinction between instance and potential. It is not so much that elementary particles are any less real than 'any phenomena of daily life', but that the duality of potential and actual (instance) cannot be ignored at quantum scales.

Bohr, however, is concerned here with a different matter. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this is the view that the science of physics is a semiotic system realised in language ('what we can say'). This is consistent with the immanent view of meaning: that meaning is a property of semiotic systems and does not transcend them.

In short, Heisenberg is concerned with the potential viewpoint in the potential-instance distinction, in physics, whereas Bohr is concerned with the immanence viewpoint in the immanence-transcendence distinction, in epistemology.

The Limitations Of Scientific Truth Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 19-20, 22):

The difficulties concerning the relationship between abstract models and reality do not, however, undermine the claim that science deals with truth. Clearly, scientific theories — even in the most abstract form — capture some element of reality. But one may certainly question whether science can deliver the whole truth. …

It may be wondered whether science will always be limited in this respect. Is it possible to imagine that future developments will enable science to answer the ultimate questions and to deal with total reality? The answer would seem to be 'no'; for, remarkably, science contains within itself a description of its own limitations. …

Quantum mechanics seems to impose an inherent limitation on what science can tell us about the world, and it reduces to mere models entities that we used to regard as real in their own right.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the relationship between reality and abstract models is the relationship between data, meanings construed of experience, and the reconstrual of those meanings as scientific theory. The "truth" of a scientific theory is its validity in terms of scientific criteria.

The notion of a 'whole truth' that science can deliver takes a transcendent view of meaning, such that meaning also lies outside semiotic systems, and science is a matter of identifying those meanings truthfully. However, the findings of Quantum mechanics invalidate the transcendent view of meaning, since they demonstrate that phenomena are not 'real' until they are observed as instances of potential.

Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, on the other hand, takes an immanent view of meaning, such that meaning is restricted to semiotic systems, and science is a matter of reconstruing the meanings of semiotic systems. In this view, there is no 'whole truth' or 'ultimate questions', since there is no meaning outside semiotic systems to eventually identify truthfully. Instead, the march of science is an ongoing evolution of meaning-making.

Light As A Wavelike Disturbance In An Independently Existing Electromagnetic Field — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 18-9):

By supposing that space and time are elastic, and change from one reference frame to another, Einstein was able to demonstrate that his theory of relativity rendered the æther superfluous. Instead, light was treated as a wavelike disturbance in an independently existing electromagnetic field.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, on the quantum physics model, light is not a wavelike disturbance in an electromagnetic field, and an electromagnetic field does not exist independently of light.  Instead, an electromagnetic field is a region of spacetime under the influence of light as instantiations (particles) of potential (wave).

The Kuhnian Notion Of A Scientific Paradigm

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 17):

The philosopher Thomas Kuhn believes that scientists adopt certain distinct paradigms that are tenaciously retained, and are abandoned only in the face of glaring absurdities. These paradigms help to shape scientific theories, and exercise a powerful influence over the methodology of science and the conclusions drawn from experiments.

Blogger Comments:

This notion of a scientific paradigm can be understood as an ontology that is construed on the basis of specific epistemological assumptions. A paradigm shift can thus be just an ontological shift or an entire epistemological shift.  

For example, the shift from the absolute space and time of Newton to the relative space-time of Einstein was an ontological shift within the epistemological assumptions of Galilean science. 

Quantum physics, on the other hand, is inconsistent with such assumptions, and requires an epistemological shift that accommodates its finding that, as John Wheeler puts it, 'no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon'. This includes the epistemological shift from 'meaning as transcendent' to 'meaning as immanent'.

A Mere Model vs A Faithful Description — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 14, 15):

Generally, the more science moves away from common sense, the harder it is to decide what constitutes a mere model and what is supposed to be a faithful description of the real world. …

If history is anything to go by, nature has a nasty habit of deceiving us about what is real and what is invented by human beings. The apparent motion of the stars, reflecting the real motion of the Earth, is only one of a long list of examples in which scientists have been led astray by taking nature too much at face value.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the distinction between a 'mere model' and a 'faithful description' is a matter of interpersonal assessment in terms of validity.  For example, the Ptolemaic astronomical model of epicycles was assessed as valid in terms of predicting planetary motion, but came to be assessed as invalid in terms of its construal of the Earth as the centre of the universe.

From this perspective, the distinction is not between 'what is real' and 'what is invented by humans' but between meanings that are assessed as valid and meanings that are assessed as invalid on the basis of scientific criteria.

The 'Real Existence' Of Virtual Particles Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Davies & Gribbin (1992: 14):

The situation is even worse in the new physics, where the distinction between the model and reality sometimes becomes hopelessly blurred. In quantum field theory, for instance, theorists often refer to abstract entities called 'virtual' particles. These ephemeral objects come into existence out of nothing, and almost immediately fade away again. Although a faint trace of their fleeting passage can appear in ordinary matter, the virtual particles themselves can never be directly observed. 

So to what extent can they be said really to exist? Might virtual particles be merely a convenient aid to the theorist's intuition — a simple way to describe processes that are otherwise unimaginable in terms of familiar concepts — rather than real objects? Or might they be, like epicycles, an essential part of a model that will turn out to be wrong, and which will be replaced by a model in which they have no place?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, virtual particles are second-order meaning (scientific model), and 'a faint trace of their fleeting passage' is first-order meaning that is assessed as indirect support for the model. 

In this view, the "coming into existence out of nothing" of virtual particles is the process of instantiating quantum potential, and the actual duration of each particle is an instance of the probable duration as quantum potential.

From this perspective, the question of whether or not virtual particles "really exist" is actually a question of whether or not the model is valid according to the criteria used to assess it. As the history of science demonstrates, what is "real" continually changes as the semiotic systems that construe experience evolve.

The Distinction Between The Reality And The Model — Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 14):

But in certain branches of physics it is not always so easy [to distinguish between the reality and the model]. The concept of energy, for example, is a familiar one today, yet it was originally introduced as a purely theoretical quantity in order to simplify the physicists' description of mechanical and thermodynamical processes. We cannot see or touch energy, yet we accept that it really exists because are so used to discussing it.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the distinction between 'the reality' and the model is the distinction between the first-order meanings (of everyday language) and the second-order meanings that are the reconstruals of first-order meanings in scientific theories. In the case of the notion of energy, this is the distinction between a general concept such as power, and such scientific reconstruals as potential and kinetic energy. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, energy is the ability of a process to unfold and the instantiation of that potential.

From this perspective, however, 'reality' is the meaning construed of experience, and so actually includes both first-order meanings and the second-order meanings construed of them in scientific theories. The question then is whether or not the second-order meaning (the model) is assessed as valid.

The Relationship Between Scientific Models And Reality — Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 12, 13, 14):

The relationship between a scientific model and the real system it purports to represent raises some deep issues. … How is one to know when a scientific model is merely a computational device, and when it describes reality? … Scientific theories are supposed to be descriptions of reality; they do not constitute that reality. … However certain we are that our present picture describes how the universe actually is, we cannot rule out the possibility that some new and better way of looking at things, utterly unimaginable to us now, will be discovered in the future.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the view expressed above frames a scientific model as a representation (token) of meaning outside language (value), i.e. reality, the universe, with the model either representing the universe 'as it actually is' or not. And even though, in this view, scientific theories do not constitute that reality, physicists commonly confuse the two, with statements along the lines of 'the universe was made by the laws of physics'.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, on the other hand, what scientific theories model is meaning construed of experience. That is, scientific theories make meaning of meaning: they are second-order meanings with respect to the first-order meanings that they model.

In this view, 'new and better ways of looking at things' emerge because scientific theories are evolving semiotic systems that adapt to the environments in which they function, as the history of science has demonstrated.

Scientific Truth Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 12):

The case for the scientific world view rests on the claim that science deals with truth. However elegant a scientific theory may be, and no matter how distinguished its originator, if it does not accord with experiment and observation it must be rejected.

This image of science as a pure and objective distillation of real world experience is, of course, an idealisation. In practice, the nature of scientific truth is often much more subtle and contentious.

At the heart of the scientific method is the construction of theories. Scientific theories are essentially models of the real world (or parts thereof), and a lot of the vocabulary of science concerns the models rather than the reality. For example, scientists often use the word 'discovery' to refer to some purely theoretical advance.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the notion that science deals with truth, in sense above, assumes that meanings transcend semiotic systems and are either theorised truthfully or not. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, however, meaning is a property of semiotic systems only, and science is concerned with reconstruing meanings — already construed of experience in language — as theoretical meanings that are realised in language and other attendant semiotic systems made possible by language.

In this view, the accordance of theory with experiment and observation is not objective truth, but what is intersubjectively assessed as valid within the most systematic and self-consistent approach to meaning-making.

Accordingly, science is not a "distillation of real world experience", but a reconstrual of meanings already construed of experience. So scientific theories do model the real world, but in the strict sense that the real world is meaning already construed of experience.

Truth And Reality Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 11):

In breaking with Newtonian materialism we must accept that the objects of our theoretical models and the real entities of the external world bear a much more subtle relationship to each other than was assumed hitherto. Indeed, the very notion of what we mean by truth and reality must go into the melting pot.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, "real entities of the external world" are meanings construed of experience as being "the external world". In the case of humans, this involves non-meaning being construed as perceptual meanings, and perceptual meanings being reconstrued as the first-order language meanings (phenomena).

On the other hand, "objects of our theoretical models" are reconstruals of the first-order language meanings (phenomena) as the second-order language meanings (metaphenomena) that realise theories.

From this perspective of meaning as immanent, rather than transcendent, reality is meaning construed of experience, rather than something that transcends semiotic systems.

By the same token, truth is what is interpersonally assessed as valid within a given system of meaning-making.

Relativity Theory, Quantum Theory, Quantum Field Theory, & Superstring Theory Characterised By Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 8):

First came the theory of relativity, which demolished Newton's assumptions about space and time — assumptions which still hold sway in our everyday 'common sense' view of the world. The very arena in which the clockwork universe acted out its drama was now exposed as subject to shifting and warping.

Then came the quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply a scaled-down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton's deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance rather than the rigid rules of causality.

An extension of the quantum theory, known as quantum field theory, goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. In this theory, little distinction remains between material substance and apparently empty space, which itself seethes with ephemeral quantum activity.

The culmination of these ideas is the so-called superstring theory, which seeks to unite space, time and matter, and to build all of them from the vibrations of sub-microscopic loops of invisible string inhabiting a ten-dimensional imaginary universe.

Blogger Comments:

The General Theory of Relativity models space and time as dimensions that are affected by the presence of matter. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, intervals of space are relatively more contracted with increasing proximity to a centre of mass, whereas intervals of time are relatively more expanded.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the wave-particle duality of Quantum Theory is the duality of potential and instance, with probability ("the laws of chance") being the quantification of that potential, such that the instantiations of potential are the instantiations of probabilities.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, a quantum field is a spatio-temporal domain of quantum instantiations, and excitations of the field (ephemeral quantum activity) are instantiations of quantum potential, whose durations instantiate the probabilities of the potential.

Superstring Theory, on the other hand, is an exploration of the mathematical possibilities of theoretical physics.

Quantum Theory On Physical Reality — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Robinson (2005: 120):

The picture of physical reality that quantum theory gives us is, however, far from easy to grasp and full of mysteries — beginning with the very concept of wave-particle duality that unavoidably implicates the observer in the question of what is measured: a wave or a particle. In quantum theory physical reality is dependent on the observer and hence on human consciousness. Einstein's lifelong adherence to a physical reality independent of human beings is the one that most of us instinctively feel to be true. For science, this view of reality has been immensely productive from the Ancient Greeks up to the present day.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, however, the picture of physical reality that quantum theory gives us is relatively easy to grasp, whether or not it is deemed to be full of mysteries.

Wave-particle duality is explained as potential-instance duality, and the reason why physical reality is dependent on the consciousness of the observer is that physical reality is meaning construed of experience by language (the semogenic processes of human consciousness).

The notion of 'a physical reality independent of human beings' derives from the notion that meaning is transcendent of semiotic systems, and explains why many physicists believe that they will one day find 'a final theory of everything', since the meaning is 'out there', waiting to be discovered.

However, quantum theory demonstrates that this view is untenable. Meaning is a property of semiotic systems (immanent). The perceived universe is a creation of perceptual systems, which in humans, is further interpreted in terms of language — and other semiotic systems that language makes possible — and reinterpreted in terms of theories construed by language. From this perspective, scientific theorising is an unending evolution of semogenesis (meaning-making).

Quantum Entanglement Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Robinson (2005: 120):

In terms of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Einstein was saying that if one were to use a precise measurement of one particle's momentum to determine the precise momentum of the other, then this must increase the uncertainty in the position of the second particle. If, conversely, one were to determine the first particle's position precisely, this must increase the uncertainty in the momentum of the second particle. And these changes must take place instantaneously, through some kind of faster-than-light signalling.

Which is exactly what Bohr argued to be true. Bohr believed in non-local reality: the two particles really do 'co-operate' in a sort of conspiracy forced on them by the nature of physical reality. Schrödinger promptly dubbed the new notion 'entanglement'.

It was completely unacceptable to Einstein. He believed in local reality … . In a private letter to Born he said he simply could not credit the existence of "spooky actions at a distance".

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, uncertainty (probability) is a measure of potential, not of instances. So the interdependent ('entangled') probabilities of momentum and position are a feature of the potential, not of the instances, and the measurements of instances of that potential, the momentum and position of particles, actualise those interdependent probabilities.

So, there is no faster-than-light signalling or "spooky actions at a distance" because these notions mistake the instantiation of interdependent potential for an instantaneous information exchange between instances.

Einstein vs Bohr Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Robinson (2005: 100):

For quantum theory maintains that reality is dependent on the observer. In science, said Einstein, "we ought to be concerned solely with what nature does." Bohr, however, insisted that it was "wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, quantum theory maintains that reality is the meaning construed of experience, rather than the experience that is construed as meaning. That is, quantum theory supports the 'immanent' approach to meaning, rather than the 'transcendent' approach.

From this perspective, "how nature is", and Einstein's "what natures does", are construals of experience as meaning, whereas Bohr's "what we can say about nature" is a construal of experience as wording that realises meaning.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Robinson (2005: 92-3):

In 1924 de Broglie proposed that all matter has a wave associated with it, and this was quickly confirmed for electrons by diffraction experiments. In 1926 Schrödinger, in his classic wave equation — aided importantly by Born — replaced the picture of an electron as a particle having a precise position and momentum as it orbits a nucleus with a wave function that predicted stationary waves of electron probability around the nucleus. Schrödinger's equation enables physicists to calculate not the location of an electron at any given moment but its probability of being at any particular point in space. … the electron becomes a probability wave in the Schrödinger/Born model.

Then in 1927 Heisenberg, in his far-reaching uncertainty principle, proved that the position and momentum of any elementary particle such as an electron can never be measured simultaneously with unlimited accuracy. The more an experimenter tries to pin down the position in space, the greater will be the uncertainty in momentum, and vice versa, because the very act of observing the particle (say by firing a photon at it) will inevitably disturb its position and momentum. 

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the uncertainty in the position multiplied by the uncertainty in momentum will always exceed a constant based on Planck's constant h. Other kinds of uncertainty principle may also be derived, such as one which relates the uncertainty in the energy of a particle to the time interval in which one measures the energy.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the wave of a particle is its potential, measured in terms of probability, and the particle is the instantiation of that potential, measured in terms of frequency.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the probability measure of the meaning being construed viewed from the perspective of the observer who is doing the construing.

Quantum Theory On Reality — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Robinson (2005: 92):

In answer to Einstein's well-known poser "Does the moon really exist only when you look at it?" a current physicist, David Peat, answers: "Einstein's moon really exists. It is linked to us through non-local correlations but does not depend upon us for its actual being in the world. On the other hand, what we call the moon's reality, or the electron's existence, depends to some extent upon the contexts we create in thought, theories, language and experiments." In quantum theory, an electron (or a photon) has no independent reality 'out there', wholly independent of the human world. It can be both a wave and a particle, depending on how it is measured and observed.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Quantum Theory demonstrates that reality is the meaning that is construed of experience by consciousness. The reason why an electron or photon has "no independent reality 'out there' " is that it is construed as being 'out there' by consciousness in the act of observing. Consciousness creates meaning out of meaninglessness. 

Importantly, the sense in which "it can be both a wave and a particle" is that the wave constitutes the particle's potential, whereas a particle is an instance of that potential.

So it is not a case of whether or not the moon really exists, but that to observe or think or talk about the moon is construe experience as meaning.

The Common Visualisation Of General Relativity

Robinson (2005: 75, 77):

Gravity would no longer be an interaction of bodies through a law of forces; it would be a field effect that emerged from the way in which mass curved space. When a marble is propelled across a flat, smooth trampoline on which sits a large and heavy ball, the marble follows a curved path around the depression caused by the ball (see Fig. 5).

In the Newtonian view a gravitational force emanates from the ball and somehow compels the marble to move in a curve. But according to general relativity it is the curvature of space — or rather space-time — that is responsible; there is no mysterious force. Matter tells space how to curve; space tells matter how to move — this is a grossly simplified summary of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Blogger Comments:

If, according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity is the relative contraction of space intervals and expansion of time intervals, with increasing proximity to a centre of mass, then this very common representation of gravity is inconsistent with the theory, and thus a source of confusion. 

Specifically, the expansion of time intervals is not addressed, and space intervals are not shown as contracting with proximity to the ball, but rather as slightly expanding, as two dimensions of space are curved in a way to cause the curved trajectory of the marble.

The curved trajectory of the marble, however, actually corresponds to the geodesic that arises from space intervals being contracted in the direction of the ball.

Special Relativity On Space-Time — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Robinson (2005: 62):

Thus the time of a person chasing the light wave and the time of the wave itself are not the same. Time flows for the person at a rate different from that of the wave. The faster the person goes, the slower his time flows, and therefore the less distance he covers (since distance travelled equals speed multiplied by duration of travel). As he approaches the speed of light, his watch gets slower and slower until it almost stops. …

For space there is a difference, too, between the person and the light wave. The faster the person goes, the more his space contracts, and therefore the less distance he covers. As he approaches the speed of light, he shrinks to almost nothing.

Depending on how close the person's speed is to the speed of light, he experiences a mixture of time slowing and space contracting, according to Einstein's equations of relativity.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is the dimension of the unfolding of processes, and it is construed in terms of location and extent. According to the the Special Theory of Relativity, as the velocity of a body increases 

• its time intervals expand, so processes — like the ticking of a clock — unfold more slowly, and
• its space intervals contract in the direction of motion. 

Contrary to the above, the contraction of space intervals, as velocity of a body increases, actually means that the body covers more distance (space intervals) per time interval, not less. It is the space occupied by the body that 'shrinks' in the direction of motion.

This is equivalent to the gravitational contraction of space intervals towards the centre of mass, described by General Relativity, in which case a falling body covers increasingly more space intervals per time interval — accelerates — as it falls.

General Relativity On Black Holes — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (2005: 49):

Penrose and I showed that general relativity predicted that time would come to an end inside a black hole, both for the star and for any unfortunate astronaut who happened to fall into it.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional linguistic Theory, the notion of time coming to an end corresponds to the relative expansion of time intervals to ∞ at the singularity of a black hole, where space intervals are relatively contracted to 0.

(Interestingly, both singularities (general relativity) and travelling at the speed of light (special relativity) have exactly the same effect on time and space intervals.)

But between the singularity and the event horizon, time intervals are less than ∞, so time has not quite come to an end, and space intervals are more than 0, suggesting that any matter–energy there is crushed into that space.

General Relativity On Space-Time — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Hawking (2005: 46, 48):

But on his return to Zurich in 1912 Einstein had the brain wave of realising that the equivalence [of acceleration and gravity] would work if the geometry of space-time was curved and not flat, as had been assumed hitherto. His idea was that mass and energy would warp space-time in some manner yet to be determined. Objects such as apples or planets would try to move in straight lines through space-time, but their paths would appear to be bent by a gravitational field because space-time is curved. …

The new theory of curved space-time was called general relativity to distinguish it from the original theory without gravity, which was now known as special relativity. 

Blogger Comments:

SFL Theory construes space and time in terms of location and extent, the latter including the notion of interval. Physics construes space-time as four dimensions, and General Relativity construes intervals of time as relatively expanded in the direction of the centre of mass — a clock ticks more slowly — and intervals of space as relatively contracted in the direction of the centre of mass.

On this basis, bodies do not move in straight lines through curved space-time. Instead, bodies move in curved trajectories through space that is contracted in the direction of the centre of mass. That is, it is the geodesic — the shortest trajectory between two points in space — that is curved, not space-time.

Special Relativity On Space-Time — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Hawking (2005: 43-4):

Based on the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Irish physicist George FitzGerald and the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz suggested that bodies moving through the ether would contract and that clocks would slow down. This contraction and the slowing down of clocks would be such that all people would measure the same speed for light, no matter how they were moving with respect to the ether. … 

However, in a paper written in 1905, Einstein pointed out that if one could not detect whether or not one was moving through space, the notion of an ether was redundant. Instead, he started from the postulate that the laws of science should appear the same to all freely moving observers. In particular, they should all measure the same speed of light, no matter how fast they were moving. The speed of light is independent of their motion and is the same in all directions.

This required abandoning the idea that there is a universal quantity called time that all clocks would measure. Instead, everyone would have his or her own personal time. The times of two people would agree if the people were at rest with respect to each other, but not if they were moving. …

Einstein's postulate that the laws of nature should appear the same to all freely moving observers was the foundation of the theory of relativity, so called because it implied that only relative motion was important.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is the dimension of the unfolding of processes. The relative slowing down of the ticking of a clock, for a body moving more quickly through space, corresponds to a relative expansion of the time interval between each tick of the clock. That is, the Special Theory of Relativity holds that the dimension of time expands for a moving body as its velocity increases. At the speed of light, the time expands to infinity.

There is also a suggestion here, though not taken up by Hawking, that as a body moves more quickly, space relatively contracts along the dimension of motion. At the speed of light, this space dimension contracts to zero. This would suggest that a photon moving through a vacuum has relatively no extension along the dimension of motion.

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.