Classical Determinism vs Quantum Indeterminism Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 214-5):

In the early days of the quantum theory these strange results divided physicists into two camps. There were those, led by Niels Bohr, who fully accepted the implications of the theory, and insisted that the microworld is inherently indeterministic. And there were those, most notably Einstein, who maintained that quantum mechanics could not be regarded as a satisfactory theory if it made such nonsensical claims. As we have mentioned, Einstein hoped that behind the weird quantum world lay a hidden reality of concrete objects and forces moving in accordance with the more traditional notions of cause and effect. 

Einstein supposed that the fuzziness of quantum systems is somehow a result of observational inadequacy. Our instruments are simply not elaborate enough, he believed, to reveal the intricate details of the variables that determine the seemingly erratic behaviour of subatomic particles. 

Bohr's view was that there are no causes of this chaos, that the old Newtonian view of a clockwork Universe unfolding according to a predetermined pattern is forever discredited. Rather than rigid rules of cause and effect, claimed Bohr, matter is subject to the laws of chance. The processes of nature are not so much a game of pool as a game of roulette.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the indeterminism of the quantum physics of Bohr concerns the relation between potential and instance, whereas the determinism of the classical physics of Newton and Einstein concerns relations between instances.

Position x Momentum vs Wave-Particle Complementarity Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Davies & Gribbin (1992: 214):

The trade-off between position and momentum is another example of quantum complementarity at work. It turns out to bear a close relation to the wave-particle complementarity. The wave associated with an electron is, by its very nature, a spread-out thing, and does not have a definite position, although it does encode information about the electron's momentum. By contrast, the particle associated with an electron is, by its very nature, something with a well-defined position; but a wave collapsed to a point carries no information about the momentum of the electron. Measure the position of an electron, and you do not know (nor does the electron know) how it is moving; measure the momentum of an electron, and neither you nor the electron know where it is located.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the trade-off between position and momentum and wave-particle complementarity differ in an important way.

Wave-particle complementarity is a complementarity of perspective: the view of phenomena as potential (wave) or instance (particle).

The 'trade-off' between position and momentum, on the other hand, is an inversely proportional relation between instantiation probabilities: the more probable the construal of one, the less probable the construal of the other.

Uncertainty As An Intrinsic Quality Of Nature Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 213):

We have encountered the uncertainty principle in our discussion of quantum chaos, the nature of the vacuum and the origin of time. This is the same uncertainty that also affects energy and time, and tells us that virtual particles can pop briefly out of nothing at all, and vanish again. Such quantum uncertainty is not merely a result of human clumsiness. It is an intrinsic quality of nature. However accurate and powerful our instruments may be, we cannot beat the inherent fuzziness of quantum uncertainty.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the uncertainty that the authors describe as an intrinsic quality of nature is an intrinsic quality of construing experience as meaning. Moreover, it demonstrates that meaning involves both the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions, the latter in evidence through the inherent uncertainty (modalisation) in the instantiation of meaning.

The Uncertainty Of Position x Momentum Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 213):

Because of the wave-particle duality of entities such as electrons, it is impossible to attribute to them precisely certain properties, such as possessing a well-defined path through space, that we are used to thinking of in connection with macroscopic objects like a bullet or a planet in its orbit. Thus, when an electron goes from A to B, its trajectory is fuzzed out by quantum uncertainty, as described by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. 

In one form, this principle states that you cannot know, at any instant, both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle. Indeed, it goes deeper — it says that a quantum particle does not possess both a definite momentum and a definite position simultaneously. If you try to measure accurately the position, you lose information about the momentum, and vice versa. There is an irreducible trade-off between these two qualities. Either can be known as accurately as you like, but only at the expense of the other.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, an observer's uncertainty lies in the probabilistic nature of instantiation. If an electron is observed for the duration of its trajectory from A to B, then one well-defined path of its potential paths is instantiated. If the electron is only observed at A and B, then the path that the electron takes between them is not instantiated, and so remains probabilistic potential.

From the same perspective, the 'irreducible trade-off' between position and momentum demonstrates the interdependence of these two variables, in as much as the instantiation probabilities of position and momentum are inversely proportional: the more probable the construal of one, the less probable the construal of the other.

The Many-Universes (Or Alternative-Histories) Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 212-3):

Perhaps the most dramatic attempt to make sense of such quantum superpositions is the so-called many-universes (or alternative-histories) theory. In the context of the cat experiment, this states that the entire Universe splits into two coexisting, or parallel, realities, one with a live cat and the other with a dead cat. Although it may seem like science fiction, the many-universes theory is entirely consistent with the rules of quantum mechanics and is supported by several leading theoretical physicists.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, quantum superpositions are alternative potentials. The notion of the entire Universe splitting into two parallel universes simply mistakes alternative potential (either live cat or dead cat) for additive actual (both live cat and dead cat).

Resolutions Of 'Schrödinger's Cat' Type Paradoxes Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 212):

It is clear from scenarios such as this that the wave properties of matter applied to macroscopic objects — and especially to conscious observers — raise very deep issues about the nature of reality and the relationship between the observer and the physical world. The cat scenario is deliberately contrived to tease out the paradoxical nature of quantum weirdness in a dramatic way, but the same essential phenomenon occurs every time an alpha particle is emitted by a nucleus, and is busily at work in the radioactive paint on the hands of your luminous clock. 

There is still no general agreement on how to resolve paradoxes like that involving Schrödinger's cat. Some physicists believe that quantum mechanics will fail for systems as large and complex as cats. Another opinion is that quantum physics can tell us nothing about individual alpha particles or cats, but only about the statistics of collections of identical systems, so that we can say that if we were to perform the same experiment with a thousand cats in identical boxes then a certain fraction of the cats (as determined by the quantum rules) will be found alive and the rest dead. But that simply dodges the question of what happens to any individual cat.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the Schrödinger cat experiment supports the view of meaning as immanent (construed in semiotic stems) and invalidates the view of meaning as transcendent of semiotic systems. In the 'immanent' view, it is the construal — the meaning — that constitutes reality. Moreover, Quantum physics, in general, demonstrates the probabilistic nature of construing experience as instances of potential (such as instances of 'what happens to any individual cat').

The Schrödinger Cat Experiment Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 210-2):

Many physicists feel very uneasy about large systems having wave properties that play a part in the outcome of experiments. One reason for their concern is that it is possible to envisage arranging for two waveforms which represent very different macroscopic states to overlap and interfere with one another. The most famous example of this was dreamed up by Schrödinger. It consists of a cat incarcerated in a box containing a flask of cyanide and a hammer poised above the glass (Figure 36).

A small source of radioactivity is arranged so that if, after a certain period of time, an alpha particle is emitted, this is detected by a Geiger counter and triggers the fall of the hammer, which breaks the flask and kills the cat. The scenario provides a memorable demonstration of the paradoxical nature of quantum reality. 

One can imagine a situation in which, after the specified time, the alpha particle's wave lies partly within the nucleus and has partly tunnelled out. This might correspond, for example, to equal probability that the alpha particle had, or had not, been ejected by the nucleus. Now the rest of the stuff in the box — Geiger counter, hammer, poison and the cat itself — can also be treated as a quantum wave. One can therefore envisage two possibilities. 

In one case the atom decays, the hammer falls, and the cat is dead. In the other case, which has equal probability, none of this happens and the cat remains alive. The quantum wave must incorporate all possibilities, so the correct quantum description of the total contents of the box must consist of two overlapping and interfering waveforms, one corresponding to a live cat, the other to a dead cat. 

In this ghostly hybrid state, the cat cannot be regarded as definitely either dead or alive, but in some strange way both. Does this mean we can perform the experiment and create a live-dead cat? No! If the experimenter opens the box, the cat will be found to be either alive or dead. It is as if nature suspends judgment on the fate of the poor creature until somebody peeks. But this raises the obvious question: what is going on inside the box when nobody is looking?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'live cat' or 'dead cat' constitute the system of potential meanings to be construed. It is only when an observation is made that one meaning or the other is instantiated. Put simply, the cat is potentially alive or dead, not actually alive and dead. And, when nobody is looking inside the box, no goings-on are being construed.

The Collapse Of The Wave Function Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 210):

The oddity of this abrupt resculpturing of the wave — often called "the collapse of the wave function" — is that it seems to depend upon the activities of the observer. If nobody looks, then the wave never collapses. So the behaviour of a particle such as an electron appears to vary according to whether it is being watched or not. This is deeply troubling to physicists, but may not seem of any great concern to other people — who else really cares what an electron is doing when we are not looking at it? But the issue goes beyond electrons. If macroscopic objects also have associated waves, then in principle the independent reality of everything seems to go into the quantum melting pot.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the reason why 'the collapse of the wave function seems to depend on the activities of the observer' is that the collapse of the wave function is the instantiation of potential in the construal of experience as meaning. Thus the reason why 'the wave never collapses if nobody looks' is that the meaning is not construed if nobody looks.

In this view, it is not that the behaviour of a particle varies according to whether it is being watched or not, but that the behaviour of a particle is only construed if it is watched.

In this view, all reality, including macroscopic objects, is meaning construed of experience.

The Measurement Paradox Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 209-10):

The role of the observer is highlighted by what is known as the measurement paradox. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the wave corresponding to an electron is confined to a box and the particle is equally likely to be found anywhere inside the box. Then imagine that a partition is slid into the box, dividing it into two equal halves (Figure 35).

According to the quantum rules, the wave is still present in both halves of the box, reflecting the fact that when we look for the electron we are equally likely to find it on either side of the partition. Common sense, however, would dictate that the electron can be in only either one half of the box or the other. Suppose, now, that someone looks inside the box and finds the electron in one particular half. Clearly the probability wave must abruptly disappear from the other half of the box, because it is now known with certainty to be empty.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the wave models the potential locations of an electron in terms of probability. As potential, the wave is not in the box, partitioned or otherwise, because only the observed instance of that potential, the particle, is actual, and so actually in the box.

The measurement paradox only arises because physicists ignore Born's explanation of the wave as a wave of probability, or are unaware that probability measures potentiality, not actuality, and ignore the distinction between potential and its actual instances.

The Act Of Observation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 208-9):

Probably the most unsettling aspect of these studies is the way that the observer seems to play a central role in fixing the nature of reality at the quantum level. This has long worried both physicists and philosophers. In the pre-quantum era of physics, everyone assumed that the world "out there" existed in a well-defined state quite irrespective of whether, or how, it was observed. 

Admittedly the act of observation would intrude into that reality, for we cannot observe anything without interacting with it physically to some extent; yet it was always supposed that the interaction was purely incidental and could either be made arbitrarily small (at least in principle) or else be performed in a controlled way and so be taken precisely into account. 

But quantum physics presents a picture of reality in which observer and observed are inextricably interwoven in an intimate way. The effect of observation is absolutely fundamental to the reality that is revealed, and cannot be either reduced or simply compensated for. 

If, then, the act of observation is such a key element in creating the quantum reality, we are led to ask what actually happens when an observation of an electron or a photon is made.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the reason why 'the observer seems to play a central role in fixing the nature of reality at the quantum level' is that observation is the construing of experience as meaning, and reality is the meaning thus construed. The 'observed' is perceptual meaning reconstrued as the meaning of language, and theoretical models are reconstruals of those meanings.

The reason why 'this has long worried both physicists and philosophers' is that such physicists and philosophers, following Galileo, take a transcendent view of meaning, wherein meaning transcends semiotic systems, and experience is categorised independently of semiotic systems. The findings of Quantum physics have demonstrated that this view is untenable.

The 'effect of observation' is thus to construe reality, rather than reveal it, and 'what actually happens when an observation of an electron or a photon is made' is that experience is construed as meaning: as an instance of potential.

Wheeler's "Delayed-Choice" Experiment Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 207-8):

One might imagine a remote source of light, such as a quasar, emitting photons that pass around some intervening object and are focused at the Earth. The two paths around the object then play the role of the two slits. An experimenter on Earth could in principle bring the two light beams together in an interference experiment. If the delayed-choice facility were now deployed, the decision of the experimenter to expose either the wave or particle nature of the quasar light would affect the nature of that light — not just a few billionths of a second in the past, but several billion years ago! In other words, the quantum nature of reality involves nonlocal effects that could in principle reach right across the Universe and stretch back eons in time. …

Nevertheless, the delayed-choice experiment illustrates graphically that the quantum world possesses a kind of holism that transcends time, as well as space, almost as if the particle-waves seem to know ahead of time what decision the observer will make.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, waves of probability measure potential and particles are instances of that potential. In this view, light does not "decide" to be observed as particle or wave. All observations are of particles, since only particles are actual. Observations of the 'wave nature' of light are those where the probabilistic nature of instantiation cannot be ignored, as when the potential involves the overlap of one probability wave with another.

Wheeler's "Delayed-Choice" Experiment Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 206-7):

As if this were not bewildering enough, a further twist was added by John Wheeler, of the University of Texas at Austin. He pointed out that the holistic nature of reality extends not just through space but through time as well. Wheeler showed how a decision as to which of the two complementary aspects of reality — wave or particle — shall be revealed by the two different double-slit experiments can be left until after the photon (or electron) has already passed through the double-slit system. It is possible to "look back" from the position of the image screen to find out which slit any given particle has come through. Alternatively, one could choose not to look, and leave the interference pattern to develop as usual. The decision of the experimenter about whether or not to look back at the time the particles arrive at the screen determines whether or not the light was behaving in the manner of particles or waves at an earlier moment, at the time when it passed through the slit system in the first screen. Wheeler called his arrangement the "delayed-choice" experiment.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, light does not behave "in the manner of particles or waves". Instead, particles are instances of the potential that is quantified as a wave of probability. Thus, only particles pass through the slits. Experiments that are said to reveal the wave nature of light are typically those that involve the overlapping of probability waves, such that the distribution of particle trajectories instantiates those overlapping probabilities.

From the same perspective, the time of observation is the time of construing experience as a particular instance of a probability wave. In this 'immanent' view, meanings such as particle and wave are construed in semiotic systems, and do not transcend them.

Experiments That "Destroy The Wave Aspect" Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 205-6):

Bohr expressed the situation clearly. Suppose we attempt to uncover the particle nature of photons by pinning down the location to the extent that we can tell through which slit each one passes. Then the result of this scrutiny is to smudge out the very interference pattern that is the hallmark of the wave aspect. 

Thus if we set up the experiment so that a counter sits at each of the two slits to record the passage of each photon through one slit or the other, the effect of making these observations is to introduce an additional uncertainty (via Heisenberg's principle) into the behaviour of the particles. The magnitude of this uncertainty is just such that it smears out the interference pattern, leaving instead two superimposed smudges of light, just as you would expect for particles going through either of the slits without interference. So in exposing the particle aspect of the wave-particle duality, we destroy the wave aspect. 

We must therefore contend with two different experiments, one revealing the wave aspect and the other the particle aspect. The results of the experiment depend on the nature of the whole experimental setup, apparatus plus light (or electrons), and not just on the nature of light itself. These ideas may seem to defy common sense — but remember, our common sense is based on experience of things much bigger than photons or atoms, and there is no reason why it should be a good guide to what goes on at the atomic level.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Quantum Physics, as articulated by Max Born, such waves are probability waves. Interference patterns between two waves are thus interference patterns between two waves of probability. The removal ("smudging out") of an interference pattern in an experiment is thus the removal of an interference between two waves of probability, and it is this that is achieved when particle detectors are placed at each of the two slits.

Such an experiment does not "destroy the wave aspect". Instead, it eliminates probability wave interference, which, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, changes the probabilities of the potential, and so changes the statistical behaviours of the particles that instantiate those probabilities.

The Metaphors Of Particles "Knowing" And "Deciding" Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 205):

So how can an individual particle, which can pass through only one of the slits, "know" of the existence of the other slit and adjust its behaviour accordingly? Could it be that a wave of something passes through the two slits, only to collapse into a particle when its position is "measured" by the screen? This is surely too conspiratorial, for the electrons or photons would have to know our intentions. And how does each individual particle "know" what the others will do so it can decide where it belongs in the interference pattern that builds up from the flow of thousands or millions of individual particles through the experiment? 

This is clear evidence for the holistic nature of quantum systems, with the behaviour of individual particles being shaped into a pattern by something that cannot be explained in terms of the Newtonian reductionist paradigm.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the behaviour of individual particles is 'shaped into a pattern' by the probabilities of the potential they instantiate. Instantiation requires no "knowledge" or "decisions" on the part of the instantiated.

In this view, it is particles — not waves — that pass through the slits, and each particle passes through either one slit or the other — not through both – in accordance with the probabilities of the potential.

The Double-Slit Experiment Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 203-5):

A classic example [of wave vs particle detection] is provided by a famous experiment first performed by Thomas Young in England in the early nineteenth century. Young carried out his experiment with light, but an exactly equivalent experiment has now been performed using electrons. In the original experiment, a point source of light illuminates two narrow adjacent slits in a screen, and the image of the light that passes through the slits is observed on a second screen (Figure 33).

You might guess that the image would consist of two overlapping patches of light; in fact, it is made up of a series of bright and dark stripes, known as interference fringes. 

The appearance of interference fringes in Young's experiment is a clear demonstration of the wave nature of light. Wave interference occurs in any wave system when two (or more) waves come together and overlap. Where the waves arrive in step they reinforce each other; where they are out of step they cancel each other. In Young's experiment the light wave from one slit intersects the light wave from the other slit to produce the bright and dark stripes, as the two waves alternately add together and cancel each other out. And it is important to appreciate that if either one of the slits is covered, the striped pattern disappears.

Paradoxical overtones emerge if one now regards the light as composed of particles — photons. It is possible to weaken the light source until only one photon at a time passes through the slit system, and to record the cumulative effect of many photons arriving one after the other at the second screen over a long period of time. Each photon arrives at the image screen and makes a spot on a photographic plate. In the equivalent electron experiment, single electrons are fired through a double-slit system, and the "image screen" is a sensitive surface like that of a television screen. The arrival of each electron makes a spot of light on the screen, and a video of the buildup of the spots of light shows how a pattern emerges as more and more electrons pass through the system.

Recall that one cannot know in advance, because of the inherent uncertainty of the system, precisely where any given photon or electron will end up. But the cumulative effect of many "throws of the quantum dice" will average out the distribution into a well-defined pattern. Moreover, this pattern shows the same series of interference bands as obtained with a strong source. The puzzle is this. Each particle, be it photon or electron, can clearly pass through one slit alone. And each particle, as the buildup of spots on the image screen indicates, behaves like a particle when it arrives, striking the screen in just one place. 

Blogger Comments:

As this description makes clear, it is particles (photons, electrons) that are fired through the double-slit system and it is particles that are detected on the screen as a pattern of dots. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the instantial frequency pattern that accumulates on the screen manifests the probabilities of the system potential. 

The interference pattern that appears is thus a manifestation of the overlap of two probability waves, since each slit provides its own range of probable trajectories. The most frequent detections occur where the probability waves reinforce each other, and the least frequent detections occur where the probability waves cancel each other out.

The reason why the interference pattern disappears when there is only one possible slit for the particle to pass through is that, in this instance, there is only one wave of probability, and so no overlap of different waves.

Detecting Waves vs Particles Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 203):

Bohr admonished those who would ask what an electron really is — wave or particle — by denouncing the question as meaningless. To observe an electron, one has to conduct some form of measurement on it, by carrying out an experiment ("tossing the coin"). Experiments designed to detect waves always measure the wave aspect of the electron; experiments designed to detect particles always measure the particle aspect. No experiment can ever measure both aspects simultaneously, and so we can never see a mixture of wave and particle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, all experiments involving electrons are concerned with particles, because particles are the actual instances of potential. Experiments 'designed to detect waves' are those that probe the probabilistic nature of particle instantiation.

From this perspective, 'reality' is the construal of experience as meaning, potential or instance, not the experience that is construed. Meanings, including categorisations of experience, constitute semiotic systems, and do not transcend them.

Intrinsic Uncertainty Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 202):

The fact that electron waves are waves of probability is a vital component of quantum mechanics and an important element in the quantum nature of reality. It implies that we cannot be certain what any given electron will do. Only the betting odds can be given. This fundamental limitation represents a breakdown of determinism in nature. It means that identical electrons in identical experiments may do different things. There is thus an intrinsic uncertainty in the subatomic world. This uncertainty is encapsulated in the uncertainty principle of Werner Heisenberg, which tells us that all observable quantities are subject to random fluctuations in their values, of a magnitude determined by Planck's constant.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the fact that electron waves are waves of probability demonstrates that they model the potential, not the actual, because probability is a grading of potentiality, not actuality. The 'breakdown of determinism in nature' thus refers to the relation between potential and actual, where the statistics of instances manifest the probabilities of potential.

Importantly from this perspective, the 'intrinsic uncertainty in the subatomic world' is uncertainty in what we can mean about the subatomic world. This means that, in reconstruing the phenomena of the subatomic world as theory, the propositions we enact on the instantiation of potential are modalised.

∞

It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is.

Physics concerns what we say about Nature.

— Niels Bohr

Waves As A Measure Of Probability Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 202):

It is important to resist the temptation to regard electron waves as waves of some material substance, like sound waves or water waves. The correct interpretation, proposed by Max Born in the 1920s, is that the waves are a measure of probability. One talks of electron waves in the same sense as crime waves. To say that a city suburb is hit by a crime wave means that there is a greater likelihood that a burglary, say, will occur in a particular district. Similarly, the best place to look for an electron is where the electron wave is strongest — there is the greatest probability of finding an electron in that location. But even so, the electron might be somewhere else.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, probability is an assessment of potential, and on this basis, the wave model of the electron is model of the particle as potential. That is, wave-particle duality is a duality of perspectives: potential and instance. The wave is a model of potential instances, and the particle is a model of an instance of that potential.

Complementarity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 201-2):

It is hard to see how something can be both a wave and a particle at the same time, and the discovery of the dual nature of both light and electrons caused a great deal of puzzlement at first. When physicists began to speak of wave-particle duality, they meant not that an electron was both wave and particle simultaneously, but that it could manifest either a wave or a particle aspect depending on circumstances.

Bohr extended the idea of wave-particle duality into something known as the principle of complementarity, which recognises that seemingly incompatible physical qualities might be complementary rather than contradictory. Thus the wave and particle nature of electrons can be regarded as complementary aspects of a single reality, like the two sides of a coin. An electron can behave sometimes as a wave and sometimes as a particle, but never as both together, just as a tossed coin may fall either heads or tails up, but not both at once.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, wave-particle duality is the duality of potential and instance, which together constitute complementary perspectives on the same phenomenon (like climate and weather). In this view, electrons are particles (instances) whose statistical behaviours instantiate the probabilities of waves (potential). In a sense, the wave is a theory of the particle (as climate is a theory of weather).

Matter Waves Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 196):

A French student, Louis de Broglie, came up with a bold idea. If light waves can behave like particles, perhaps electrons, which everyone then thought of as material particles, could also behave like waves? Developing this idea, de Broglie produced a simple formula showing how the wavelength of such a particle might be related to the momentum of the particle. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity; de Broglie suggested that converting momentum into wavelength involved, once again, Planck's constant. 

Although de Broglie did not provide a detailed theory of matter waves (that was achieved by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger), his idea provided a graphic model for the way that electrons might occupy only certain energy levels around the nucleus of an atom. If an electron is in some sense a wave, then in order to make the wave "fit'' into an orbit around the nucleus, the size of the orbit must correspond to a whole number of wavelengths, so that when the wave is wrapped around the nucleus it will join together smoothly. Only certain discrete energy levels are allowed because only at certain distances from the nucleus will the wave patterns join up consistently.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, wave-particle duality is the duality of potential and instance. The wave of an electron is, for example, a measure of the probable locations of electrons, and wavelength is the distance between equiprobable locations.

On this basis, the discrete energy levels at certain distances from the nucleus of an atom correspond to those orbits that accommodate a whole number of equiprobable locations of electrons.

Electromagnetic Radiation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 195):

The work of Planck and Einstein had established that heat radiation and light (and, indeed, all forms of electromagnetic radiation) could not simply be explained in terms of electromagnetic waves, but would also behave, under some circumstances, like a stream of particles, now called photons. Planck's constant defined the amount of energy carried by each photon associated with a particular wavelength of radiation. The photons are like little packets of energy — quanta, as they became known.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, electromagnetic waves are physical potential that is instantiated as a stream of particles, with the peaks of the waves measuring the most probable location of each photon in the stream. 

The particular wavelength of radiation is thus the most probable distance between photons in a particular stream, and the amount of energy is thus proportional to the frequency of photons in a stream, where energy is the ability of a process mediated by a particle to unfold.

Gravitational Waves Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 181-2):

A massive object like the Sun produces a warping of spacetime in its vicinity. As the Sun moves, the space warp and time warp move with it. In the depths of the Universe, other objects, some much more massive than the Sun, carry their own space and time warps. If two objects collide, their space and time warps are disrupted, and can release ripples into the surrounding Universe. These ripples are gravitational waves. …

It is not only the collision of objects that produces gravitational waves. In theory, most moving masses should emit some gravitational radiation. Common sources in the Universe might include exploding or collapsing stars, the orbital motion of binary stars or the wiggling of a cosmic string. The radiation that is released in such processes travels at the speed of light, and could in principle reach us from the edges of the observable Universe.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, gravitational waves are distortions in the curvature of space-time that propagate at the speed of light. 

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the curvature of space-time is the curvature of the geodesic trajectory of a body moving through space that is relatively contracted in the direction of matter. 

In this view, gravitational waves are the propagation of alternating relative contractions and expansions of space intervals, and conversely, of alternating relative expansions and contractions of time intervals.

The Notion Of The Universe Being Borrowed From The Vacuum Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 169):

The Universe has only been borrowed from the vacuum, after all; all that inflation has done is to delay the inevitable. In quantum physics, something can come out of nothing for a while, but eventually the debt has to be repaid.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Quantum Theory, viewed through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the Universe is the instantiation of potential rather than "borrowed from the vacuum", whereas a vacuum is a region of space with no instances of real particles. On this view, the authors here confuse the potential for matter with the absence of actual matter.

The Notion Of A Finite And Closed Universe Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 168, 169n):

The [cosmological] expansion rate, however, is inexorably slowing, and the burning question is whether it will eventually slow to a halt, and turn into a contraction. The issue is closely related to the geometry of space: if space is finite and closed, then the equations of general relativity predict that the Universe will collapse. It is impossible for us to tell by direct observation whether that is indeed the actual state of affairs, ¹

¹ Impossible in practice, that is; in principle, superbly accurate observations, the equivalent in three dimensions of drawing triangles on the surface of the Earth and measuring the sum of the angles, could measure the curvature of space and determine whether the Universe is open or closed.

 

Blogger Comments:

(To be clear, this was written before it was found that the Universe will continue to expand.)

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, viewed through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the curvature of space is actually the curvature of a geodesic trajectory through space that is relatively contracted in the presence of matter. The notion of a finite and closed universe thus describes a universe with curved geodesic trajectories at its greatest spatial extent.

This is borne out by the analogy of the curvature of the surface of the Earth, since the curvature is the geodesic trajectory of a body moving through space on that surface.

The Spatial Curvature Of The Universe Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 162-3):

The theory of relativity provides a connection between the rate of expansion and the average spatial curvature of the Universe. For the critical case of exactly balanced expansion the spatial curvature is zero — space is flat on the large scale. …

A helpful way to understand this result is to imagine an intelligent ant on the surface of a grape. Such a creature might easily determine that the surface of the grape is curved. But if the grape were swelled in size by 64 doublings the ant would never be able to detect the now tiny curvature of the surface it walked upon.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, any relative spatial curvature of the Universe provided by the General Theory is actually a relative curvature of the geodesic trajectory taken by a body through space, not a relative curvature of the three spatial dimensions.

This is borne out by the example of an ant on the surface of a grape. The curvature is not of space, but of its potential trajectories across the surface of the grape.

Bubbles Of Virtual Space-Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 157-8):

At the Planck scale, spacetime itself can come into being spontaneously and uncaused, through quantum fluctuations. Each such region of spacetime is only about 10⁻³³ cm across, and it generally survives for a mere 10⁻⁴³ sec. More accurately, the concept of time during its fleeting existence is smeared out: there is really no such thing as a shorter time interval than this. Like those virtual particles, the quantum bubbles of virtual spacetime disappear again almost as soon as they are born.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, because this quantum theory of gravity construes space-time as if it were a thing, these dimensions of measurement (space-time) are themselves construed as things to be measured in terms of space-time. That is, on this model, a "bubble" of virtual space-time is instantiated within the spatial interval of 1 Planck length, and the unfolding of its instantiation within the temporal interval of 1 Planck time.

On this basis, it is not that the concept of time is "smeared out", but that the unfolding of the instantiation process cannot be temporally segmented.

Bubbles Of Virtual Space-Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 157):

One of the difficulties [for a quantum theory of gravity] concerns the scale of quantum gravitational processes. Because it is such a weak force — by far the weakest of the four forces of nature — gravity does not manifest its quantum nature on the scale of an atom or even an atomic nucleus, where quantum properties of the other forces are dramatically apparent, but only on a scale some twenty powers of ten below this, across distances of less than 10⁻³³ cm. This tiny distance is known as the Planck length, after Max Planck, the originator of the quantum theory. The associated time-scale, which can be regarded as the fundamental quantum unit of time, is the time it would take light to cross such a tiny distance: 10⁻⁴³ sec, the Planck time. 

Some physicists believe that at the Planck length spacetime breaks up and takes on features more akin to those of a foam than a smooth continuum. In particular, "bubbles" of "virtual" spacetime will form and vanish again in much the same way that virtual particles come and go in the vacuum.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Newtonian mechanics, gravity is a force of attraction between particles of matter, but from the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, gravity is a relation between matter and space-time. In the latter view, the effect of one body on another is not mediated by a force, but by the relative effects of the bodies on the space in which they extend, and on the time in which the processes they mediate unfold.

If gravity is not a force, then the attempt to unify gravity with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces, using quantum theory, or any other, is a futile exercise.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, a quantum theory of gravity extends the notion of the instantiation from particles to the dimensions by which particles, and the processes they mediate, are measured.

So, on this model, just as virtual particles that mediate processes are momentarily instantiated in (real) space-time, virtual space-time is momentarily instantiated in (real) space-time, as "bubbles" within the smallest intervals of space-time: the Planck length and the Planck time.

The Spontaneous Appearance of Space-Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 156-7):

The key question then becomes: how did space (strictly speaking, spacetime) come into existence. Many physicists, even today, balk at the puzzle, and are content to leave the matter to the theologians. But others argue that we must expect gravity, and hence spacetime, to be as much subject to the quantum factor as anything else in nature. In that case, if the spontaneous appearance of particles as a result of quantum effects no longer engenders surprise, why can we not entertain the prospect of the spontaneous appearance of spacetime? Developing a satisfactory description of this process at work would require a proper mathematical theory of quantum gravity, which is not yet available.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the spontaneous appearance of particles "as a result of quantum effects" is the instantiation of potential. The four dimensions of space-time constitute the measurable extent of such instances, with time being the dimension of the unfolding of a process mediated by a particle.

The Notion That Space-Time Created Matter Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 156):

We have seen how the energy needed to create matter can ultimately be traced to the gravitational field of the Universe. But why stop there? Many people would quibble that the creation of matter by gravity is not an example of uncaused genesis; it merely shifts the responsibility on to the gravitational field. We still have to explain where that came from. But this question confronts us with a curious twist. Unlike the other forces of nature, gravity is not a field existing within spacetime; it is spacetime. The general theory of relativity treats the gravitational field as pure geometry: warps in spacetime. So if gravity created matter, we must say that spacetime itself created matter. The key question then becomes: how did space (strictly speaking, spacetime) come into existence.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, gravity is a relation between matter and space-time. Because a relation cannot logically pre-exist the phenomena in the relation, gravity cannot have created matter.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'uncaused genesis' of matter lies in Quantum Theory: the probabilistic instantiation of potential as actual.

To be clear, a physical field is a region of space-time under the influence of some agency. In the case of a gravitational field, it is a region of space-time under the influence of matter.

On the basis of the above, gravity is not space-time, and neither gravity nor space-time created matter.

The Origin Of Matter Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 148):

The fact that particle-antiparticle pairs can be created from energy (it does not even have to be electromagnetic energy) opens the way to an explanation of where the material of the Universe has come from. As we have seen, the big bang triggered processes capable of generating huge quantities of energy, and some of this energy would have gone into creating matter. It is therefore no longer necessary to postulate ad hoc that matter was simply present at the outset. Its existence can now be attributed to physical processes occurring in the primeval phase of the cosmos.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Quantum Theory, interpreted through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the (self-engendered) origin of the Universe can be understood as an initial instantiation of potential, including the potential for processes to unfold (energy), and the potential for the media through which processes unfold (particles).

The Equation E = mc² Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 143):

… when Einstein presented his special theory of relativity to the world in 1905, the entire concept of mass was transformed. With his famous equation E = mc², Einstein demonstrated that mass (m) is a form of energy (E); a particle such an electron can be viewed as a lump of concentrated energy.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Einstein's equation identifies the amount of unfolding potential of a process by reference to the amount of mass of the medium through which a process unfolds.

In this view, a particle such as an electron is an instance of quantum potential that mediates a process whose potential to unfold is proportional to the mass of the instance.

That is, the concentrated energy of an electron is the 'unfold potential' of a process it can mediate.

The Distortion Of Space-Time Around Black Holes Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 142):

The smaller a black hole is, the more strongly spacetime is distorted in its immediate vicinity (in effect, spacetime has to be wrapped more tightly to surround a smaller black hole). Distorting spacetime strongly implies the presence of strong gravitational fields, and Stephen Hawking has shown that the fierce gravity near such a hole would excite the quantum vacuum to produce real particles, paid for by the gravitational energy of the hole. Particles would boil off from the hole into the outside world, while the hole itself would lose mass and eventually evaporate completely away in a burst of subatomic debris.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, viewed through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, gravity is the relative contraction of space intervals, and relative expansion of time intervals, with increasing proximity to the centre of mass.

What the authors here describe as the tight wrapping of space-time actually describes the geodesic trajectories of bodies orbiting a black hole, with 'tighter' orbits — the tracing of smaller circles — around smaller black holes than around larger ones.

The reason why geodesics — the shortest path between two points — are curved towards the centre of mass is because space intervals are contracted in that direction. 

In the discourse of physics, space is routinely confused with the trajectories of bodies through space, and time is routinely confused with the processes that unfold through time.

Virtual Particles Viewed Though Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 136, 139, 140):

One of the more bizarre consequences of quantum uncertainty is that matter can appear out of nowhere. In classical physics, energy is a conserved quantity; that is, it can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed from one form into another. Quantum mechanics permits energy to appear spontaneously from nothing, so long as it disappears again rapidly. Since matter is a form of energy, this provides … for the possibility of particles appearing briefly out of nothing. Such phenomena lead to a profound modification of what we mean by 'empty' space.

Imagine a box from which all particles of matter have been removed. We might think of it as a perfect vacuum — empty space. In fact, the fluctuating quantum energy of the vacuum causes the temporary creation of all manner of 'virtual' particles — particles which exist only fleetingly before fading away again. The apparently inert vacuum is actually a sea of restless activity, full of ghostly particles which appear, interact and vanish. And this applies whether or not the box is emptied of all 'permanent' matter — the same restless vacuum activity goes on all around us, including in the space between atoms in ordinary matter. …

 The only thing that prevents the virtual particles taking on a real, permanent life is lack of energy. The inherent uncertainty of the quantum world allows them to appear for a short time, without the Universe budgeting for the discrepancy. But the fluctuation cannot be sustained indefinitely, and on longer time-scales the energy books must be kept in balance. Real particles can be created in a similar fashion only by supplying a large enough source of energy. … Virtual particles from the vacuum could be directly promoted into permanent reality if enough energy were available.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'restless activity' of brief spontaneous appearances of energy or matter ('ghostly particles') 'from nothing' 'out of nowhere' is the instantiation of potential.

From the same perspective, a particle is the medium through which a process unfolds, and as previously explained, energy is the ability of a process to unfold.

The duration of a process, mediated by a particle, virtual or real, thus varies with the ability of the process to unfold, and this ability varies according to the probabilities of the potential that each process instantiates.

The Distinction Between Classical And Quantum Physics Though Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 135-6):

For our present purposes, the central feature of the quantum theory is indeterminism. The old physics linked all events in a tight chain-mesh of cause and effect. But on the atomic scale the linkage turns out to be loose and imprecise. Events occur without well-defined causes. Matter and motion become fuzzy and indistinct. Particles do not follow well-defined paths and forces do not produce dependable actions. The precision clockwork of Newtonian mechanics gives way to a ghostly mêlée of half-forms. It is out of this submicroscopic ferment that the essential quantum uncertainty emerges. What happens from moment to moment cannot be predicted with definiteness — only the betting odds can be given. Spontaneous random fluctuations in the structure of matter, and even of spacetime, inevitably occur.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the main distinction between classical physics and quantum physics is that quantum physics introduced the distinction between potential and instance, whereas classical physics is only concerned with instances.

The 'precision clockwork' of Newtonian mechanics is only concerned with the quantification of instances. Quantum mechanics, however, is concerned with the quantification of both potential and instance, where potential is quantified in terms of probabilities (uncertainty, 'betting odds'), and instances are quantified in terms of frequencies that manifest those probabilities.

It is the probabilistic nature of potential that the authors describe in terms of instances that are 'fuzzy and indistinct' and a 'ghostly mêlée of half-forms'.

The Beginning Of Space-Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 135):

The big bang implies the appearance not merely of matter and energy, but of space and time as well. The bonds of gravity marry spacetime to matter; where one goes the other must follow. The big bang is the past extremity of the entire physical Universe, and marks the beginning of time; there was no "before". This perplexing concept was long ago anticipated by St Augustine, who maintained that the world was created 'with time, not in time'. 

Generations of philosophers and theologians have argued about the meaningfulness of a creation 'with time'. Such an event must be without prior cause, for causation is itself a temporal concept. … But modern physics, specifically the quantum theory, has thrown new light on the relation between cause and effect, cutting across the old paradox of what caused a big bang for which there is no "before".

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, space and time are the dimensions of the Universe: the four axes of space-time along which the location and extent of phenomena can be measured. What 'begins' are the phenomena that afford such measurement.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, processes may be self-engendered or other-engendered. However, the beginning of the Universe can only be self-engendered because, by definition, the Universe is all inclusive.

Quantum Theory, as interpreted through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, provides the means of understanding this self-engendered process as the process of instantiation, whereby potential becomes actual. In this view, the beginning of the Universe is an instantiation of potential.

The Planck Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics And General Relativity

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 134):

… it is now widely accepted that there is a fundamental unit of time, the 'Planck time', beyond which intervals cannot be subdivided. This quantum property of spacetime implies that time 'began' in a sense, when the Universe was 10⁻⁴³ of a second 'old'. The singularity can never be probed. What had previously been treated as a singularity at the origin of time is smeared out by quantum effects.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the Planck time is the time a photon takes to travel the Planck length (1.62 × 10⁻³⁵ m). That is, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the Planck time is the duration of the unfolding of the fastest process over the shortest space interval.

To be clear, the notion that time (i.e. processes) began when the Universe was 10⁻⁴³ of a second 'old' is self-contradictory since, logically, this is the end of the first time interval, not the beginning. However, the resolution of this contradiction is provided by Quantum Theory, as interpreted by Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory. From this perspective, the first Planck time interval is the duration of the first instantiation of potential as actual. In this view, it is the Universe as actual that begins at the end of the first Planck time interval.

Moreover, from the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, interpreted in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the cosmological expansion entails the relative expansion of the Planck space interval and the relative contraction of the Planck time interval, whereas gravity, conversely, entails the relative contraction of the Planck space interval and the relative expansion of the Planck time interval.

Observation Converting The Potential Into The Actual — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 132-3):

Another strand of research … involves quantum theory, which tells us that there is an inherent uncertainty in the outcome of events at the subatomic level. In quantum mechanics, many possible future patterns all exist, in some sense, until observation converts the potential into the actual. This crucial transformation might just in some way be connected with the woolly concept of the flow of time.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, quantum potential is a probabilistic ('inherently uncertain') system, and a system is instantiated in accordance with its probabilities. Importantly, the 'many possible future patterns" only have potential existence. The reason why observation converts the potential into the actual — instantiates the system — is that this process of sensing is the act of construing experience as (an instance of) meaning.

The act of observation defines the present as a point of reference on the time axis. This is distinct from the change of this reference point on the time axis (the 'flow of time').

Understanding Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 132, 133):

Although the great weight of scientific and philosophical argument is on the B-theorists, and against the objective reality of a moving present, it seems impossible to shrug the matter aside. Surely there must be some aspect of time that we do not yet understand, and which surfaces in a muddled and incomplete way in our perception of a moving present moment? …

Unsatisfactory though it may be, we have to admit defeat in our attempt to decide what time is, and to make do with our everyday images of the flow of time in trying to describe the origin and ultimate fate of the Universe. This very admission of defeat is, however, in itself one more indication of the need for a post-Newtonian paradigm, a sign that there is more to the Universe than our established scientific theories can yet encompass.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the notion of an 'objective reality' beyond semiotic systems is invalidated by the experiments of quantum physics which demonstrate that 'reality' is meaning construed of experience, as in the act of observing. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, reality is not 'objective', but intersubjectively construed.

As previously explained, the meaning of 'time' can be clarified by viewing it through the lens of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory. This perspective provides a clear distinction between time and process, which are confused in the discourse of physics, and identifies the present moment as a point of reference on the time axis defined by the location in time of a process of making meaning.

As previously explained, the post-Newtonian paradigm is the immanent view of meaning provided and validated by quantum physics. In this view, scientific theories are open-ended evolving semiotic systems. The notion of scientific theories 'encompassing' the Universe, on the other hand, takes the transcendent view of meaning, assuming that the domain outside semiotic systems is pre-categorised, independent of semiotic systems.

Distinguishing The Cosmological Expansion From Arrows Of Time Using Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 131-2):

The ultimate clock is the Universe itself, which through its progressive expansion in size defines a "cosmic time." It seems as if there may be some deep significance in this — both the thermodynamic arrow of time and the philosophers' arrow of time seem to have their roots in the expansion of the Universe, in the cosmological arrow of time. …

The gravitational equations that govern the motion of the cosmos impose a restriction (known technically as a constraint) which has the effect of eliminating the time coordinate. As a result all change must be gauged by correlations. Ultimately, everything must be correlated with the size of the Universe. Any vestige of a moving present has faded completely, exactly as the B-theorists have always claimed.

Blogger Comments:

This confuses time as the dimension of the Universe along which processes unfold with the unfolding of processes from start to finish ("the arrow of time").

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, interpreted in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the expansion of the Universe is the relative expansion of space intervals, and the relative contraction of time intervals (as between ticks of a clock). 

An arrow of time (the unfolding of a process), therefore, does not "have its root" in the expansion of the Universe. Instead, the expansion of the Universe entails the contraction of the intervals of the dimension along which processes unfold.

By the same token, a process of change is distinct from the time dimension along which it unfolds. The dimension itself involves taking the unfolding of one process as a standard, such as one revolution of the Earth around the Sun, and correlating the temporal duration of that process with the durations of other processes. The size (spatial extent) of the Universe is thus largely irrelevant to such correlations.

And none of this has any bearing on a 'moving present', since the present is just a reference point on the time axis, corresponding to the time of sensing or saying (of construing experience as meaning or wording).

The Notion That Time Cannot Be Measured Directly — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 131):

Indeed, the B-theorist can go beyond this, by pointing out that we never measure time directly. What we actually measure is something physical, like the position of a hand on a clock, or the position of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. When we say that something was broken at four o'clock, what we are really saying is that intact states correlate with the little hand of the clock being above the number 4, and broken states correlate with the little hand being below the number 4. In this way, it is actually possible to eliminate all reference to time in describing the world.

The A-theorist might counter that the notion of the changing position of the clock hand itself requires a reference to time, unless it too is correlated with something, such as the rotation of the Earth. But then one can wonder about the motion of the Earth, and so on. What lies at the end of this regress?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, interpreted in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is the dimension along which processes unfold, so processes provide the criteria for determining time intervals or units.

For example, the process of the Earth orbiting the Sun once provides the time interval 'year', and the process of the Earth rotating on its axis once provides the time interval 'day'. The time interval 'hour' derives from arbitrarily dividing the duration of one Earth rotation into 24 equal intervals.

So we don't "measure the position of a hand on a clock". Instead, the hand on a clock indicates the time at a spatial location in terms of the Earth's rotation.

And, in this regard, we don't exactly "measure the position of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun". Instead, the duration of the orbiting process provides time intervals that serve as units for measuring the extent and location of processes in general.

So when we say that a coffee mug was broken at 4 o'clock, we are temporally locating the mug's process of breaking relative to the Earth's process of orbiting for a given spatial location. The qualities 'intact' and 'broken' describe the medium of the breaking process, the mug, before the inception of the process and after its completion.

On this basis, it is not time that the authors have attempted to remove from their description, but process. The description depends on the reference to the time of four o'clock, but it removes the process of breaking.

The B-Theorist Model Of Change Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 130-1):

At this point, the sceptical reader may well protest … 'Whatever the physicists and philosophers may say, of course things happen. There is change; I experience it directly. For example, today I smashed a coffee mug: this event occurred at 4 o'clock … . My coffee mug is now broken, and it wasn't this morning.'

The B-theorist, however, will retort that there is only an illusion of change. 'All you are really saying is that before 4 o'clock the coffee mug is intact, after 4 o'clock it is broken, and at four it is in a transitional state.' This neutral mode of description — the physicist's B-series — conveys precisely the same information about the coffee mug events, but makes no reference to the passage of time. There is no need to talk of the coffee mug changing into a broken state, or to say that this happened at 4 o'clock. There are simply dates, and states of the coffee mug; that is all. No more need be said.'

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, B-theorists do not believe that change is an illusion, but that all change can be described in 'before-after' terms, without recourse to tense distinctions. Clearly, in these terms, a smashed coffee mug has undergone a change of state from intact (before) to broken (after).

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the authors are here confusing process with time, misconstruing the unfolding of a process (smash) as the passage of time. From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, time is one axis of four-dimensional space-time, and dimensions do not "pass".

Clearly, what the authors present as the physicist's B-series mode of description is not neutral, since it is epistemologically motivated. Moreover, it does not convey precisely the same information about the coffee mug events, since it reconstrues a material process ('smash') as a temporal relation between qualities ('intact' and 'broken').

The Forward Movement Of The Present In Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 130):

A further difficulty, they [B-theorists] point out, concerns the question of how fast the present moves forward in time — how fast time flows. The answer can only be one second per second (or twenty-four hours per day), which tells us nothing at all; it is a mere tautology. The concept of flux or change refers to something that has different values at different times. But what sense can one attach to the notion of time changing with time?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, time is a dimension: one of the four axes of space-time. The notion of any dimension flowing is inconsistent with both the theory and the notion of a dimension.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the present is the time of making meaning, a senser sensing or a sayer saying, and this time serves as a reference point for labelling temporal locations as past or future. The "movement of the present in time" is the change of the location of this reference point on the time axis.

The A-Series vs B-Series Theories Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Davies & Gribbin (1992: 129-30):

Philosophers have long debated the thorny issue of whether the present moment is objectively real, or just a psychological invention. Those, such as Hans Riechenbach and G. J. Whitrow, who have argued for the reality of the present are known as 'A-theorists', while their opponents, among whom are some distinguished figures such as A. J. Ayer, J. J. C. Smart are called 'B-theorists'.

The terminology A and B reflects the existence of two quite distinct modes of speech. The first, the so-called A-series, uses the concepts of past, present and future, and the rich vocabulary of tenses that permeates human language. 

The second system of discussing temporal sequences, the B-series, uses a system of dates. Events are labelled by the date on which they happen: Columbus sets sail, 1492; first man on the Moon, 1969. This serves to place events in order unambiguously, and is the system that physicists use. The dates are simply coordinates, exactly analogous to the use of latitude and longitude for defining spatial positions on the surface of the Earth, and as far as the physicist is concerned that is all that is needed to give a complete account of the world.

B-theorists argue that these two schemes of discussing the same set of events cannot be compatible. Because the present moment is always moving ahead in time, events which start out being in the future sooner or later become the present, and then the past. But a single event cannot be labelled by all three descriptions — it cannot be in the past, the present and the future.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the A-series theorists take the tense system of the verbal group as the basis of a model of time, whereas the B-series theorists, as they are presented here, take the circumstantiation system of the clause as the basis for a model of time.

Actually, what the A-series theorists assert is that the present is somehow 'metaphysically privileged' over the past and future, and the B-series theorists deny this. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'metaphysical privilege' of the present is simply the fact that it alone is the time of making meaning (sensing or saying).

Importantly, the present is a reference point on the dimension of time, and so it is this reference point that varies in its location along the time dimension. The mistaken notion of a 'flow' of time, which the A-series theorists insist upon, derives from not recognising the present as a reference point on the time axis.

Once the present is understood as a reference point, the two schemes, the A-series and the B-series, can indeed be seen as compatible, since the same set of events can be labelled as past, present or future, depending on their location in time relative to a reference point.

'Objectively Real' vs 'Psychological Invention' Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 129-30):

Philosophers have long debated the thorny issue of whether the present moment is objectively real, or just a psychological invention. Those, such as Hans Riechenbach and G. J. Whitrow, who have argued for the reality of the present are known as 'A-theorists', while their opponents, among whom are some distinguished figures such as A. J. Ayer, J. J. C. Smart are called 'B-theorists'.

 

Blogger Comments:

On the one hand, the opposition between 'objectively real' and 'just a psychological invention' derives from the Galilean distinction between primary qualities (e.g. the position and motion of bodies) and secondary qualities (e.g. odours and sounds), with primary qualities being the only valid domain of scientific study. See, for example, the earlier posts:

The Thoughts Of Galileo Vs Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman On Galileo Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

On the other hand, the notion of 'objectively real' takes a 'transcendent' view of meaning, such that meaning transcends semiotic systems like language. In this view, experience is pre-categorised, independent of semiotic systems, and the task of science is to identify those categories and their relations.

However, this 'transcendent' view of meaning is invalidated by the experiments of quantum physics, which demonstrate that, in the words of John Wheeler, 'no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon'; that is, that 'reality' is the meaning that we (intersubjectively) construe of experience. This is the 'immanent' view of meaning: that meaning is created as semiotic systems. In this view, the task of science is to make meanings of meanings, primarily of the meanings of language construed of the meanings of perceptual systems.

'Past-Future' vs 'Earlier-Later' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 128-9):

But confusion also arises as a result of a linguistic muddle over the use of the terms 'past' and 'future'. The concepts of past and future do have a place in physics, provided that one is careful to use these words in the correct way grammatically. The notion of the past or the future is not allowed. Nevertheless, one can still talk of one event being in the past of another event. There is no doubt that events are ordered in time, just as the pages of this book are ordered in space, in a definite sequence; furthermore, this order … has a direction associated with it, even though nothing actually 'flows' at all. After all, the very idea of causality demands that some sort of earlier–later relationship applies to events.

But when we refer to an 'arrow' of time, we should not think of the arrow flying though the void from past to future; rather, we should think of the arrow as like the compass needle, pointing the way to the future, even though it is not moving into the future. 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the terms 'past' and 'future' signify locations in time relative to the time of making meaning: the present. In a sense, these meaning distinctions are 'internal' to the sensing or saying event.

From the same perspective, the terms 'earlier' and 'later' signify locations in time that do not take the time of making meaning as the point of reference. In a sense, these meaning distinctions are 'external' to the sensing or saying event.

By the same token, the 'arrow' of time is the 'direction' of the unfolding of a process, from its inception (at an earlier time) to its completion (at a later time). The unfolding of a process is distinct from the circumstantial dimension of time in which it is located, and along which it extends.

The 'Arrow' And 'Flow' Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 128):

Many people confuse the existence of an arrow of time with the psychological impression that time is flowing or moving in one direction. This is due in part to the ambiguous symbolism attached to the idea of an arrow, which can be used to denote either motion in the direction of the arrow, or simply a spatial asymmetry, as when the arrow on a compass needle distinguishes north from south. When a compass needle points north, it does not mean that you are moving north.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, time is one dimension of space-time. The notion of an arrow of time construes this dimension as a vector, that is: with direction as well as magnitude. 

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is a feature of processes, and applied to physics, it is the dimension along which processes unfold. In this view, the arrow is the direction of the unfolding, as from the start of a process to its conclusion.

Where time is construed as a dimension, the notion that the dimension itself flows or moves is just as nonsensical as construing a dimension of space as flowing or moving. Objects move in space, and the process unfolds in time.

The Notion That Time Is 'Stretched Out' Like Space Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 127-8):

… the concept of a unified spacetime 'continuum' implies that time is 'stretched out' in its entirety, like space. No absolute and universal meaning can be attached to the notion of 'the' present. Furthermore, the idea that time 'flows', or that the present moment somehow moves from the past to the future in time, has no place in the physicist's description of the world. This state of affairs was neatly summed up by the German physicist Hermann Weyl, who declared that 'The world does not happen, it simply is.'

Blogger Comments:

Taking the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory on the General Theory of Relativity, time is the dimension of the unfolding of processes. On this basis, time is not 'stretched out in its entirety like space' because there is no time dimension for processes that have not yet unfolded.

From the same perspective, the present time is the time of the unfolding of the process of making meaning, sensing or saying. As such, the present is a point of reference defined by the process of making meaning.

In this view, the idea that time 'flows' — which is voiced by physicists continually — confuses the unfolding of processes (flow) with the dimension along which the unfolding is measured (time).

Given the above, the world does 'happen' — just as Weyl's declaration 'happened' — and since motions are happenings, physical models of the motions of bodies, such as quantum mechanics, are models of happenings.

The notion that all is 'being' is a perspective that naturally arises from viewing phenomena through the lens of mathematics, since the mathematical equation is a construal of experience as being: an identity relation between phenomena.

The 'Arrows Of Time' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 127):

To summarise the story so far, there seem to be at least three different arrows of time in the Universe: thermodynamic, cosmological and gravitational. Almost certainly they are linked in some way. … Whatever the resolution of the puzzle of the origin of time's arrow, there is no denying that there is an arrow, and that this provides a distinction between past and future.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time specifies the location and extent of processes. Applied to physics, time is the dimension along which the unfolding of processes is measured, in terms of their location and duration.

The arrow of time, from this perspective, is simply the direction of the unfolding of a process along this axis, and the different types of 'arrows' are the different types of processes that unfold. That is, the notion of an 'arrow of time' confuses the unfolding of processes with the temporal dimension by which processes are measured.

To be clear, past and future are distinguished as the time, location and extent, before and after the time of a process of making meaning, sensing or saying.