There is no “Arrow of Time”

There is no arrow of time. In other words, the arrow of time is everywhere i.e. headed every direction. In case of our “single dimensional” temporal construct, this just means that the arrow of time is headed towards both the directions of the past and of the future. This also means it is headed neither.

If we consider three states which we would recognize as past state (say B), present state (say P), future state (say F), then it only matters what are the information content in these states. The difference or any idea and notion of past, present and future, and otherwise, is all due to the state information. Obviously, B has no information/clue about P, and P of F. But P has information regarding B or apparent B, and similarly F of P and B. And so on…

The information content is what’s it’s all about. And yes dynamics or dynamism or Physics is also about the, and due to, and is nothing but the information content in states.

Let’s say that we go back towards the past from state P to B. This is just the transformation from P to B. Since state B has no information regarding P, and no information that is/entails P to B transformation, the P to B transformation, and state P, or rather information “P”, doesn’t exist in/for B. Similarly for any P-F.

So even if one travelled to the past, one wouldn’t know, i.e. even if one travelled to the past, one wouldn’t travel to the past. Therefore, travelling to the past is not travelling to the past. This is why travelling to the past is impossible. This is why travelling to the past is impossible even though it’s possible.

Now the transformation from past to present or present to future state is possible because, any future state P or F does have the information about or corresponding to the so called “past/past-state”.

It all has to do with the information in state(s).

There is no “arrow of time”. There is “every arrow of time”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...
Read more

On the nature of Nature

Image
  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...
Read more